Public Diplomacy 2.0: Diplomacy Meets Social Media

The term "Public diplomacy 2.0" was first used by US Assistant Secretary of State John Glassman (2008), thus marking a new approach to public diplomacy, involving the use of social networks, blogs, mobile gaming applications in the implementation of foreign policy tasks of the USA (first of all in the fight against terrorism).

However, the most significant content is revealed by the work of the famous American researcher N. Cull (2011) who proposed to divide all foreign policy activities of the USA on the Internet (digital diplomacy) into "public diplomacy 1.0" and "public diplomacy 2.0 "based on technologies used in its implementation (Web 1.0 or Web 2.0).

A characteristic feature common in the 90's 20th century Web 1.0 was the lack of interactivity (Aghaei, Nematbakhsh, Farsani 2012). Users of Internet sites that time could only view the information laid out on them, not being able to express their attitude to the contents of the content. To some extent, the Internet was for diplomats another tool (along with traditional media) for posting press releases. Activities in the field of "public diplomacy 1.0" rather closely resembled propaganda work through television and radio broadcasting during the Cold War, as it was also built on a monologue form of information transfer (excluding feedback from the foreign audience).

Since 2004, a new era in the development of ICT has begun, connected with the invention of Web 2.0 technologies. For the first time, the user of the Network has the opportunity not only to read the information posted on the sites, but also to express their attitude to its content (for example, as comments or using special buttons like "I like" or "recommend"). In addition, ordinary citizens could now create and post information on the Internet, which in the era of Web 1.0 was the prerogative of professionals. Since that time, social networks, blogs, photo and videohostings,

part of public diplomacy in the US.

It should be noted that often in the modern socio-political discourse, terms such as "digital diplomacy", "e-diplomacy", "Internet-diplomacy" are used to describe the mechanism of influencing public opinion abroad with the help of social media (Tsvetkova, 2011). Such terms are applied at the governmental level by the majority of states working in this area of public diplomacy (the USA, Great Britain, the Russian Federation, etc.), and also meet in the works of many specialists in the field of international relations. Meanwhile, the term "digital diplomacy" itself began to be used in science even before the emergence of social media such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

So, the American researcher W. Dizard (2001) wrote a whole book about this phenomenon, understanding under the digital diplomacy the foreign policy activity of the American government in the Internet space. A new impetus to the use of this term was given by the development of a document in the US Department of State in 2010 entitled "Strategic plan for the development of information technologies in 2011-2013: digital diplomacy," where digital diplomacy was understood primarily as the use of social media in diplomatic practice (IT Strategic Plan, 2011- 2013). Despite the breadth of the terms "digital diplomacy", "e-diplomacy", "Internet diplomacy"

(Hanson, 2012), they still have a broader meaning than the term "public diplomacy 2.0", as they imply not just the foreign policy activity of the state through Web 2.0 technologies, and the use of all possible resources of the World Wide Web (as well as new ICTs) in diplomatic practice. In other words, any foreign policy activity on the Internet will be "digital diplomacy", but not everyone can be called "public diplomacy 2.0" (but the only one that is connected with the use of Web 2.0 technologies).

From my point of view, the American researcher N. Cull made a serious contribution to

and capacious term than "digital diplomacy". Unlike the latter, the term "public diplomacy 2.0"

most accurately identifies the means by which foreign policy activities are carried out (exclusively Web 2.0 programs), indicates the interactivity of communication (using Web 2.0 programs implies feedback).

Investigating "public diplomacy 2.0", N. Cull (2011, p.125) highlights several inherent features of it. First, it is built on the ability of ICTs to facilitate the establishment of relationships within social networks and Internet communities. Secondly, it is dependent on user-generated content (from comments on social networks and blogs to uploaded videos and mashup applications). And finally, the third feature of "public diplomacy 2.0" is its functioning within the horizontal networks built on the exchange of information, rather than the transfer of information messages from the top down, as is typical for vertical networks in the era of traditional public diplomacy.

In the structure of "diplomacy 2.0" a number of key components are identified that can be found in traditional public diplomacy (Cull, 2011). First, it is the counting of public opinion (listening), which manifests itself in monitoring the feedback reaction of the audience to the information transmitted (the number of comments, tweets, likes, retweets, etc.) is tracked.

Secondly, these are information campaigns to form a positive opinion in foreign countries (advocacy). (This component is actively used by virtually every state involved in this type of activity in order to justify its actions in the international arena.) The third important component is cultural diplomacy, which uses social media to convey information about cultural heritage of particular nation. For example, it is the activity of the Russian branch of the British Council in Facebook, which introduces the domestic audience not only to the specifics of learning English, but also to the cultural originality of British painting, literature, cinema, etc.

For modern politics, the fact that foreign ministries of different countries create their own accounts in social networks, microblogging services, in photo and video hosting has become the norm. Not only states seeking to play an important role in the international arena, but also countries with a rather modest economic and military potential, now resort to such a step. For example, Foreign Ministry of Ethiopia, Mongolia, Afghanistan have their own accounts in "Facebook". The number of subscribers to an account of a foreign ministry is also not always the same as their position in the existing system of international relations. For example, in the Facebook network, the audience of the Israeli Foreign Ministry account (437 thousand people) exceeds the amount of followers of official page of French Foreign Ministry (360 thousand people). As for the participation of individuals in the programs of "public diplomacy 2.0.", the most visible, as a rule, is the activity of representatives of the highest political leadership of various states. As a rule, they manage to collect a fairly large number of users in their accounts.

One of the most important subjects of "public diplomacy 2.0" (and in some countries, the key one) is mass media oriented to foreign audiences: TV channels, broadcasting companies, news agencies, print media, having accounts in social networks, microblogs, video hosting. Their work is especially noticeable during times of aggravation of the international situation, when they represent not only a tool for articulating the position of the state on a number of issues on the current agenda, but also the main means in "ideological" confrontation with competitors.

Analysis of the foreign policy efforts of different countries in the implementation of the programs of "public diplomacy 2.0" allows us to distinguish conventionally in this area of activity three areas: the placement of content on various hosting services (photohostings "Flickr",

"Instagram", videohosting "YouTube", slideshosting "Slideshare" and Etc.); use of microblogging services ("Twitter", "Tumblr", "Sina Weibo"); placing information in social networks (Facebook,

Google+, Odnoklassniki, VKontakte, Tuenti, Second Life). Undoubtedly, among them the most popular foreign policy instruments are created in the US "YouTube", "Twitter" and "Facebook".

Nevertheless, a number of countries are also trying to use other Web 2.0 programs to influence foreign audiences.

From the point of view of the American scientist D. Nye (2014), non-state actors, often possessing a higher level of confidence from the foreign audience, make an important contribution to the formation of the "soft power" of a country. This is because government-funded organizations are generally dependent on them politically and financially, which gives reason to doubt their impartiality to certain political events. Unfortunately, many countries underestimate the ability of non-governmental organizations to implement "public diplomacy 2.0" programs; still relying on the state's capabilities in this type of activity.

It should be noted that "public diplomacy 2.0" is a very promising direction within the framework of public diplomacy, whose significance in the foreign policy activity of states will only grow with time. The development of ICT and the growing popularity in the world of social media have actualized the need to use Web 2.0 technologies in diplomatic practice.