So, Gordon Brown gave a talk at TED Global that argues that “foreign policy can never be the same again” because instantaneous digital communication makes it necessary that the masses are heeded. It’s nice to see someone in his position aware and passionate about technology’s ability to change the world for the better, but I think he falls prey to the over-optimism that too often shapes these discussions.
Take a look at some of his examples in the above video:
- #IranElection Twitter activity and #Neda [yet, Ahmadinejad was just sworn in]
- The Saffron Revolution in Burma [yet, the Junta remains in power]
- The Ethiopian and Sudanese children dying during famine [yet, poverty remains rampant in the African horn]
- Tienanmen Square tank man [yet, China is now even more powerful and far from democratic]
Now, to be fair, PM Brown’s real call was for a truly global society built on solid institutions, but his focus on media and technology distracts from the real power structures that are far more resilient than, say, the voting of American Idol, where text messaging actually does matter.
Remember, the two Current.tv journalists weren’t released because of Twitter activity. It took some high-power diplomacy.
View Comments
Leave a Reply
ABOUT
Tech Policy, Development and World Affairs
Your last point is the best. Quite a zinger.
Without watching the video (TED talks are short, I know; my attention span is shorter), it seems Brown is correct about the overarching effect of new technologies: Foreign policy can never be the same again. But his named cause — instantaneous digital communication makes it necessary that the masses are heeded — is off the mark, as you point out. Tech only changes foreign policy by adding just a little more time and political pressure to situations.
Consider this: If a US senator complained on Twitter that we weren't doing enough talking with Russia, it would be news for a half-day. If that same senator held a traditional press conference (or met with leaders in private), s/he would have a lot more impact. And that's the same US senator. People like us, even en masse, don't have the power to pressure like a few powerful people do.
Your last point is the best. Quite a zinger.
Without watching the video (TED talks are short, I know; my attention span is shorter), it seems Brown is correct about the overarching effect of new technologies: Foreign policy can never be the same again. But his named cause — instantaneous digital communication makes it necessary that the masses are heeded — is off the mark, as you point out. Tech only changes foreign policy by adding just a little more time and political pressure to situations.
Consider this: If a US senator complained on Twitter that we weren't doing enough talking with Russia, it would be news for a half-day. If that same senator held a traditional press conference (or met with leaders in private), s/he would have a lot more impact. And that's the same US senator. People like us, even en masse, don't have the power to pressure like a few powerful people do.
[...] of digitally mediated actions isn’t just due to the skeptics who rightly point out that traditional power structures still matter. The digital activism adherents also place too much emphasis on the case studies like the recent [...]