YouTube Diplomacy and Iran

In Iran, a religious revolution in decline is confronting a technological revolution in ascendancy.

It is no secret that the Islamic Revolution of 1979 has progressively lost its direction since Iran's retreat from the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. Journalistic portraits of Iran often reflect a populace with a collective and public sense of defeat and disillusionment, who privately engage in and celebrate Western traditions and values.

In the 21st century, Western values have become much more than the freedoms of wearing makeup or consuming alcohol behind closed doors. They are also the manifold and evolving freedoms created by the Internet, and more specifically, Web 2.0.

The ascendant technological revolution which we are witnessing is fueled by a younger generation using Facebook, Twitter, SMS, MMS, YouTube, Demotix, and other Web 2.0 tools and services. They are communicating with each other and with strangers, collaborating on organizing protests, and sharing information worldwide. A multitude of unemployed and unhappy voices, once passive, are now active, animated, and eager for change.

The Obama Administration both finds itself in the heart of, and on the sidelines of, this confrontation. Consequently, the Obama Administration has opted to tread carefully on the basis that it would "seem counterproductive to be seen as meddling." While the Iranian people "should be heard and respected," any official suggestion of US interference would be counterproductive at this time.

At the same time, the Obama Administration's use and encouragement of Web 2.0 tools is more illustrative of their true intentions: they are decidedly on the side of this technological revolution, as this NYT article indicates. In the past three months, the Administration has begun to pursue "YouTube Diplomacy" and has appeared to lay down three cornerstones to commit its policy here.

The first cornerstone was the launch of YouTube Diplomacy with the President's message on the Feast of Nawroz. The video stood in stark contrast to the Iranian leadership's labels of President Obama pursuing "imperialist business as usual." Because it was posted on YouTube, it became viral -- anyone, anywhere with access to the Web could view the video on YouTube, or any other site or blog where the video was embedded. Anyone could rate and comment on it, and they could actively share it via email or instant messenger. Additionally, because the video was downloadable, Iranians and citizens of other countries without access to the Internet were able to view the video via CD-ROM, Flash drive, or even videotape.

The second cornerstone was the President's speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University last month. Once again, the speech may be found on YouTube, and with quotes like "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government," or the implicit description of Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust as "baseless, ignorant, and hateful," it seemed tailor-made to be cut into soundbites that could be recorded, shared, and discussed online in Iran.

The third cornerstone is the encouragement of Web 2.0 communications between Iran and the West. The State Department's recent request to Twitter to postpone maintenance for the purpose of continuing communications with Iran, and other outreach by the State to Facebook and YouTube, have been additional, clear indications of where the Obama Administration's preferences lie.

These three cornerstones are the foundation of a foreign policy built to surf the technological revolution that is occurring worldwide as it expands, using the language of XML across phones, laptops, and hand-held devices as its foundation.

There are at least four important lessons which we already have learned from YouTube Diplomacy:

1. Millions of connections can beat one message: President Ahmadinejad's narrow message of an evil West bent on destroying Iran is now being drowned out by millions of connections and correspondences between Iranians and the West.
2. The Emperor Has No Clothes - The Iran vs. The World dichotomy seems to be dying, if not only the distorted, tightly-held view of a few. Growing rumors of the regime bussing in Hezbollah fighters to combat hundreds of thousands of Iranians protesting in a non-violent manner raises the question: which Iranians will answer President Ahmadinejad's call to fight for Iran against a West that seeks to help them?
3. The Ayatollah is basically powerless against this technology: Block the Internet, cut out the computer, and a YouTube video will still circulate amongst citizens in other formats. Cut mobile telephone services, and a user will find a way to communicate via Twitter online. Block Internet access and users will find foreign-hosted proxy servers communicated via Twitter
4. And more generally, technology adapts faster than a poor regime: Iran has an interesting cross-section of the highest Internet adoption in the Middle East, and one of the worst managed economies in the region. This technology is cheap and accessible, and its ease of use, adaptability, and variability allow it to spread quickly. The Iranian government simply does not have the resources to combat this technology as it evolves, or to defend itself against the thousands of individual hackers attacking its Internet from across the globe.

At the same time, YouTube Diplomacy has volatile implications which should be of the highest concern to us. It has as much potential to do harm as it does to do good:

1. We have no idea what will happen when YouTube diplomacy fails. Perhaps it will be like one diplomatic channel failing. On the other hand, the Cairo speech has been viewed over 500,000 times on YouTube. Arguably, that's 500,000 diplomatic channels - we have to wonder whether the failure of YouTube Diplomacy in one instance will have exponential ramifications.
2. Similarly, we have no idea what happens when Web 2.0 confronts military power. It is still unclear, at this point in time, how the people empowered by the tools of Web 2.0 fare against the real-world threats of brute force, violence and death.
3. People who use YouTube and Twitter are self-selecting. These Iranians are educated and web savvy. Ahmedinejad's supporters, for the most part, are not. That means that all the content we get on Twitter and in the photos coming out of Tehran have a particular viewpoint. We risk underestimating Ahmedinejad's support because we receive a very particular point of view.
4. Adoption of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other Web 2.0 is evolving and growing: We still do not have an adequate contextual understanding of images, Tweets, videos, or communications via Facebook, or their implications.
5. The reliability of information relayed via Web 2.0 is suspect: The anonymity that proxy servers provide are as problematic for confirming the reliability of photos, videos, and text as they are reliable for expediting these communications. We also cannot confirm always "what" these images, videos, and emails have described to have occurred.
6. This technology revolution does not present a political alternative to the Vileyat-al-Faqih. Mousavi is an alternative to Ahmadinejad. He has not positioned himself as an alternative to Khameini. If the technology revolution in ascendancy wins out, can the US or the region handle a wide swath of instability cutting across an unstable Iraq, an unstable Iran, an unstable Afghanistan, and an unstable Pakistan?

The Obama Administration continues to publicly suggest that it is gingerly toeing the developments in Iran, and seeks to offend no one. But it has demonstrated decidedly its belief in the transformative power of the Internet and the tools of Web 2.0, and sees an opportunity in Iran to put these tools to work.

This is a risky bet: Twitter is less than 3 years old, YouTube is over 4 years old. Facebook is over 5 years old. These tools are new, are evolving rapidly, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. There are many legitimate questions as to whether the Administration should be attempting outside the US to duplicate the success it has had with Web 2.0 within the US, particularly in the most volatile region in the world. We should restrain our optimism for "change" as we watch, and participate, as these technologies confront the past in Iran.

Andrew A. Rosen is the Principal and Founder of AAgave LLC, a strategic consultancy in digital media, and a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has worked in digital media at MTV Networks, on the foreign policy staffs for Senators Edward M. Kennedy and Robert Torricelli, and at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, a New York-based think tank.

Comments

[Ozarks]

I disagree with your statement: "The anonymity that proxy servers provide are as problematic for confirming the reliability of photos, "- How can you fake the miles long silent march of hundreds of thousand people?

[Andrew Rosen - Huffpost Blogger]

Ozarks,

thanks. photos of marches are indeed proof of marches. But those aren't the only types of photos coming out of Iran. A bloody hand may be just that, a bloody hand, without anything else to support that a protestor or student was beaten.

[Ozarks]

Pretty thin rebuttal given that the miles long marchers are wearing black to mourn the death of at least 15-32? people.

[BannedNBoston]

The real problem is Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan 80 predator drones kill people including women and children. These evil robots are no better than smart bombs at targeting terrorists.
Thats why Muslims hate the US.

21 CZARS
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=408

[BillChattin]

The move by the Obama State Department to coordinate with Twitter was right on the ball. But, is the President himself doing enough?

http://www.obamapundit.com/?p=293

[livesimply]

It will be interesting to see what effect this will have on society as a whole. Our brains are wired to seek a certain level of intimacy within a community which is why people tend to be drawn to dividing themselves into groups. Of course, this can have negative; as well as, positive results. The internet provides a false sense of intimacy without eye contact, body language and touch. It will be interesting to see how it all evolves.

[Andrew Rosen - Huffpost Blogger]

Agreed. Though I'm currently torn on whether Web 2.0 connections create a "false sense of intimacy" or a "new" sense of intimacy. We're learning an entirely new way of communicating, collaborating and sharing.

[BillChattin]

It's a brave new world.

[mergina]

Technology and youth WILL CHANGE THE FACE OF THE NATIONS OF ISLAM. Iran is showing us that perhaps, with a little luck and a WHOLE LOTTA LOVE worldwide, their world can change for the better.

[Dredd]

Hands off Iran. They are our best advertisement at this time. Ahmadinejad is to Iran what Bush II was to the U.S. ... he will destroy their reputation in the world.

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/neocons-of-iran.html

[mergina]

He has already done that. He will destroy FAR TOO MUCH INNOCENT IRANIAN LIFE if he is allowed to succeed in his wretchedness. Liberty starts as a whisper and always arrives with a BANG. Iran will succeed, and perhaps just might become a model for change throughout the Muslim World.

FREEEEEEEE­EEEEEEDDOO­MMMMMMMMMM­MMMM!

[Saled]

Very thought-provoking, but I think you have overestimated Mr. Obama's choice in the matter. Just as the Iranian government cannot ultimately control (or ignore) the flow of information through technology, as you have accurately described in your article, nor can Mr. Obama. While some of the particular sites referenced in your article are fairly new, and admittedly transofrmative, the Internet has been disseeminating real-time information worldwide for much longer. Imagine the notion of a presidential administration deciding not to harness television in the 1960's! Fortunately this administration seems to understand history.

[Andrew Rosen - Huffpost Blogger]

Saled,

Fair point. but you're assuming that the Internet is an informatio­n-dissemin­ation mechanism only. It isn't - someone sending a video or photo now replaces someone writing "a protest just happened in Tehran" and taking their word for it. We now can communicate with that person and learn more in real-time. So it's communication and informatio­n-dissemin­ation, hand in hand.

In a two way stream of information exchange, many more variables at play. For instance, how someone chooses to edit a video or photo now affects a conversation between people as they discuss it in real time. People can lie, or make the truth more evident, with photo editing tools. They don't just need to type or Skype in order to explain the photo.

[tdamico]

Excellent post, Andrew.

The State Dept asking Twitter to postpone maintenance was the perfect way to meddle by not meddling. Finally, one benefit to Twitter going down all the time.

[dsws]

"This technology revolution does not present a political alternative to the Vayelat-al-Faqih. "

The what? Google returns this post, but otherwise draws a blank. According to wikipedia, faqih means jurist, expert in Islamic law. But there's nothing for vayalat.

[dsws]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardianship_of_the_jurists_(doctrine)
Also transliterated Vilayat-e Faqih and Velayat-e-Faqih.

[ndem]

Remember that iran is not just made up of educated people from the cities but also has a huge rural population...they get to vote too...and it is for more of the same.

[Andrew Rosen - Huffpost Blogger]

agreed. and oftentimes they're not online.

[dsws]

Just how big is the rural population?

[EastAsia]

Support the Iranians

Print out an iconic set of Iran protest photos and use them as signs at your protest.

Send photos of your protest to the Iranian protesters.

Make it clear from the photo what city your protest is in. Stand in front of the Capitol or Parliament or something.

Imagine Iranians seeing support demonstrations with people all over the world holding up pictures of Iranian protesters. Imagine people in Tiananmen Square holding up pictures of the Iranians...

[1observer]

Think about what this author is saying: The Obama administration is consciously and deliberately abdicating international diplomacy to Facebook, Twitter, SMS, MMS, YouTube, Demotix, and other Web 2.0 tools and services.

That is an accusation of empty-suit shallowness , not a compliment.

But maybe it explains why the President is more forceful in his attacks on Fox News than he is on theocratic despotism?

1observer

[GrainOSand]

Perhaps he should abdicate it to the stone tablet, the mallet, and the chisel. I see nothing wrong with utilizing the tools of the time to amplify message/expression, and to extend reach. If he were not technologically sophisticated (or at least aware) that would be cause for concern. Your message is loud and clear though. You think the president’s approach to Iran (and perhaps all things) is a failure. What would you have him do?

1response

[bccmeteorites]

I don't think -1observer- has a legitimate complaint. A closed society produces a very special type of ruling class whose operational parameters are built on censorship. Censorship in Iran is designed to convey and amplify just one message in order to restrain "power" within a particular class and narrow framework. Complete communication between the ordinary populace and University professors has produced some problems for the ruling class; becoming such a threat look how they responded. The response is usually proportional to the threat. Very grave in this case. Technology is cracking the thick armor in Iran, just as it exposed the previous fraudulent administration here.

[dsws]

That's like saying that previous leaders abdicated diplomacy to parchment, printing, telegraph, and telephone. New media are just that, media. When Obama puts out a message on YouTube, that's no more or less of an abdication than when a medieval cleric posts a statement on a church door.

[GrainOSand]

Technological advancement is beneficial. Hats off to the players and the innovators behind the push ahead. That said, the megaphone is preeminent, the voicebox is prehistoric, and the will to express spirit predates all interfaces allowing such expression, perhaps even the body itself. The old dissent is like the new dissent in that -- it is going to happen. The old need to express joy is like the new need -- it is bound to transpire. The Web has ushered in a new interface/­environmen­t with which we as individuals are afforded more effective and instantaneous interaction with the world in which we live. This achievement is wonderful, it benefits society. The underlying is never eclipsed by the interface. The underlying story in Iran is the will of the people manifest against the powers that be, who (potentially) manipulate election outcomes. That is not a lead story concerning technological advancement, it is an age old epic enhanced by technology.

Hats off to the brothers and the sisters of old who used to stand on cold street corners week after week and speak their mind through the megaphone. I heard you as I passed by and wondered why grownups thought it important to stand on street corners and engage in rhetorical (and sometimes musical) protest. Now, I witness the rise of the megaphone of this time, and I pay homage to the spirit of the town crier, the historical knave (everyman/­everywoman­) in the town square having something to say.

[Andrew Rosen - Huffpost Blogger]

Interesting perspective. I do see the similarity between the soapbox and the blog.

Public speaking was not a new development at the time of the Revolution, much less with the megaphone in the 1960s. Communication using photos and video in real-time is an entirely new means of human interaction that is still evolving, and whose ramification we're just starting to see play out. This is quickly and often forgotten.

[GrainOSand]

I am very appreciative of the advancements but I sometimes rail against the idea that what underlies the advancement (communication, connection, access, and productivity) is somehow a new concept (not that you were making that point). You only need look at the comments section of any blog site to see that the ugliness and the beauty that exists outside the box exists within it. The box allows me to put a picture or live video to ugliness or beauty. I appreciate the technology at the binary level. It is still amazing to me the changes that have transpired over the last thirty years. Very smart, dedicated and hard working people have worked to create new possibilities in a evolving world. No, I am not anti-technology, but I remain staunchly -- pro human. The technology, at its best, allows for heightened expression of the best in this human experience. At its worst, it allows for heightened expression of the dark side of this human experience. There is no one-sided coin.

Thanks for responding and may all be towards fulfillment

[laserbob]

We don't have to look too far back to see a similar application of "new" technology to
fight the entrenched old guard. I was lucky enough to be working in Prague during
those days when "mystery men" were showing up with suitcases of old, donated
1200baud modems that were handed out to any student willing to put it to work,
and we've all seen how well they did with so little. And against a much larger and
more brutal secret police, military, etc. I think this use of the web, etc. will work out
just fine. It's only when these tools fall into the hands of the unethical do we have
to worry.. Somehow it's always the technophobes that are on the wrong side of
the issue!

lb