We define DDD as the domestically oriented use of digital platforms by governments in support of their foreign policy. It is distinct from communication campaigns organised by state authorities in support of domestic policies for example, education, public health, etc. Firstly, DDD is conducted by institutions with foreign policy responsibilities, such as ministries of foreign affairs MFAs.
Secondly, it has a clear foreign policy focus as these institutions seek to advance the foreign policy agenda of the government among the domestic population. And finally, it harnesses the power of digital technologies to reach its objectives. Our study focused on the digital strategies employed by the White House. Specifically, we examined three activities which comprise the practice of digital diplomacy. Our study explored these three categories of activity during three week-long periods in Our analysis suggests that the Obama administration employed several arguments to build domestic support for its foreign policy.
The third argument stated that the agreement had already gained wide support in both liberal and conservative circles while the fourth suggested that it was based on verification not trust. This final argument acknowledged that Iran could not be trusted and therefore claimed that the agreement was instead based on hard science. Throughout the period of study, we found multiple instances of theIranDeal channel countering arguments made by US Senators, Congressmen, journalists and pundits.
When examining differences between the first and second time period, we found that the White House omitted several of its arguments. In 5 of 6 cases, the omitted arguments were those that received the lowest numbers of retweets and likes.
As such, these results suggest that the Obama White House listened to follower feedback and tailored its arguments to the audiences it was attempting to engage with.
Similar results were obtained when examining differences between the second and third time periods. Thus, the White House used Twitter mainly as a one-way tool for public broadcasting. This study aimed to understand how the Obama administration used digital platforms to manage the interplay between the international and domestic levels of international negotiations.
The results demonstrate that governments can increase their chances of ratification through three social media activities of DDD. As digitalisation has dramatically increased the ability of online actors to counter government communication, we expect the issue of DDD to become more prominent in the coming years. Collect oral histories from older town residents. After reading the article Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games, I found it quite interesting and could give me a deeper understanding of the interaction between policies of the two levels, national and domestic.
As long as countries stay in the global stage, central decision makers have to balance the interest of the two levels. At the national level, domestic groups pursue their interests by pressuring the government to adopt favorable policies, and politicians seek power by constructing coalitions among those groups.
Domestic policies are thus mostly beneficial to local citizens. On the other hand, at the international level, not only would national governments seek to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures, they would also try to minimize the adverse consequences of foreign developments. However, these foreign policies in general favor the growth of the world as a whole. This two level game is indeed very complex and that moves that are rational at the international level may be impolitic at the national level and vice versa, therefore it depends on the central decision makers to make the best decisions.
It is undeniable that both domestic policies and international relations are very important to a country. However, I think that whether domestic or international level is more important to a country depends on the stage of the development of that country. All-purpose support for international agreements is probably greater in smaller, more dependent countries with more open economies, as compared to more self-sufficient countries, like the United States, where American citizens find the costs of no agreement are generally lower.
As a result, they could drive harder bargains in those agreements that they do make. And when there is conflict between international policies and domestic policies, domestic interest would usually rank higher than international interest. As for the Hong Kong case, I agree with the above students that Hong Kong has three levels to manage rather than two levels. As Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, we have one more level to consider.
These three levels are interdependent which makes our status more complicated. However, we are actually quite independent in the international level as although we are part of China, we do have the right to participate as an entity in various international organizations. I believe that we are actually doing quite well in all three levels now.
However, if we are to maintain our current competitive position, it is inevitable that we have to build up new edges.
The concept of three-level game is very suitable for Hong Kong. Ideally, being a special administrative region of the mainland, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy in domestic affairs while its diplomatic and military affairs are handled by the Central Government.
On top of that, Hong Kong is playing an important role in the international stage as a global city, providing extensive financial services to the whole world. However, this three-level structure is not clear-cut sometimes. The influence of the Central Government tends to reach beyond diplomatic and military affairs. For instance, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong was elected by an Election Committee with members, of which a large proportion was closely related to mainland authorities.
Therefore, even though there was an election, the Chief Executive was similar to being nominated instead. We can see that the political structure of Hong Kong is very complicated. In a bid to better understand political issues, it is essential for us to study the role of each of the three levels and also the interaction between them to get the whole picture.
You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Hong Kong and the World. Skip to content. Home Our Class. Share this: Twitter Facebook.
Like this: Like Loading This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Mari Ostradt October 11, at pm Reply. Zhang Jinglu, Kitty October 17, at am Reply. Sebastian Lindstrom October 18, at pm Reply. The state last went for Democrats in What can you do to get Obama elected? WOW; I love this list — What to do: things you can do to build social capital! Lau Hiu Ying October 19, at pm Reply. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:.
Email required Address never made public. Name required.
0コメント