globalcommunication – IPDGC Smart Power

TriNet: Nailing Jello to the Wall

April 10, 2023May 11, 2023China, Europe, Global Communication, North America5 Comments

By Dominique A. Piñeiro, MA Media and Strategic Communication ’23

An A.I.- generated photograph capturing the surreal and symbolic
concept of the “TriNet,” representing a narrative contest among the
U.S., the European Union (E.U.), and China. Each international player
seeks to promote its approach to Internet governance and digital
policies on the world stage. The image portrays three distinct data
streams flowing through an ethereal cyberspace landscape filled with
vibrant neon colors and intricate geometric patterns. (Dominique A.
Piñeiro via MidJourney)

The Internet is evolving into a “TriNet” model, with three distinct approaches: China’s strict government control, the E.U.’s focus on data protection and privacy, and the U.S.’s market-driven approach emphasizing profit and competition. This shift alters the Internet’s original principles of openness and accessibility, raising concerns for human rights, democracy, and the free flow of information.

The “TriNet” model represents a narrative contest among the U.S., the European Union (E.U.), and China. Each player seeks to promote its approach to Internet governance and digital policies on the world stage. This narrative contest involves asserting the superiority of their respective models, with the opportunity to shape international norms and influence other countries’ adoption of similar frameworks.

The U.S. promotes a free and open web, believing global Internet access would spread rights, freedom, and democracy. However, the U.S. model is primarily driven by private businesses, leading to the rise of tech giants like Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft. These companies accumulate profits and power without sufficient regulations to protect users, potentially undermining American democracy and other countries.

A striking example is Meta’s (formerly Facebook) role in the 2017 Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, where its platform was used to incite violence and discrimination. Although not intentionally designed for this purpose, Meta’s focus on engagement and data collection contributed to spreading harmful content. In the Myanmar example, the U.S. effectiveness in influencing global Internet policies might be hindered by the issues arising from the largely unregulated tech industry and increasing calls for data privacy and antitrust regulations, which the E.U. is happy to lead.

The E.U.’s alternative also seeks to spread rights, freedom, and democracy. Still, it emphasizes data privacy, with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) harmonizing data privacy laws across member states and offering individuals greater control over personal data. While not explicitly addressing human rights, GDPR provisions can prevent the misuse of data that leads to situations like Myanmar’s crisis. The GDPR sets a worldwide data privacy standard, contrasting with the U.S.’s fragmented approach, which includes sector-specific regulations like HIPAA and COPPA.

While the E.U. model and GDPR significantly improve data protection and privacy, there are also potential disadvantages. A specific example would be how GDPR imposes compliance requirements on businesses, which can be interpreted differently by E.U. member states, and is an expensive process, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.

China’s approach contrasts sharply with the U.S. and E.U. In a 2000 speech, President Bill Clinton questioned China’s ability to control the Internet effectively:

“Now, there’s no question China has been trying to crack down on the Internet – good luck. That’s sort of like trying to nail jello to the wall. But I would argue that their effort to do that proves how real these advances are and how much they threaten the established order of things, especially the government’s tight information control.”

His remarks were meant to convey that the Internet’s decentralized nature makes it difficult for governments to control or censor information effectively. Ironically, his statement foreshadowed what was possible. The Great Firewall of China, or Golden Shield Project, demonstrates a sophisticated censorship and control system. China emphasizes sovereignty and states’ rights in information and communication, enacting policies to realize its vision.

China exports its internet censorship and surveillance technology to other countries, promoting its regulated Internet model worldwide. Since the 2021 coup d’état, Myanmar has been increasingly cutting off its population from the Internet, causing concern that the regime could become a model for other authoritarian governments if not economically crippled.

China’s strict government-controlled Internet model could be framed as a solution to promoting a harmonious society. The government would control information dissemination significantly, limiting public knowledge of ongoing events and potentially suppressing information. This type of control could appeal to illiberal democracies and autocrats alike. It’s also important to note that a highly controlled internet can monitor and target specific ethnic or religious groups by a government to identify, suppress, or persecute vulnerable populations, potentially leading to or worsening a genocide.

The U.S. and E.U. value free speech and human rights and view China’s controlled and regulated Internet model negatively. However, China’s economic and technological prowess could attract some nations seeking to emulate its success or strengthen political control over their populations. China’s influence may grow in authoritarian countries or those seeking alternative models to Western Internet governance.

The evolving “TriNet” model’s distinct approaches—China’s stringent control, the E.U.’s emphasis on data protection and privacy, and the U.S.’s profit-driven strategy—raise concerns over human rights, democracy, and information flow. The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar exemplifies how American tech giants’ practices and China’s internet control technology can have devastating consequences for vulnerable populations. While the U.S. approach to the Internet has flaws, it’s vital to contemplate the ramifications of a world where China sets the standards for digital governance. A free and open internet enables individuals to express their opinions, share ideas, and access diverse perspectives without fear of censorship or persecution.

The full report is available.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

In addition, the opinions and characterizations in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Government.

Narrative Misalignment on the Ireland/UK border

April 16, 2022May 10, 2022Europe6 Comments

By Julie Harrington, MA Media and Strategic Communications ’23

The border dividing the Ireland from the UK is an international border that has become fiercely important in terms of the EU and Brexit negotiations. Since 2005, the border has been almost nonexistent as the security and checkpoints were removed due to the Good Friday Agreement signed in 1998. The lack of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is vitally important for the peace of both countries and the greater UK. Throughout what has been dubbed “the troubles”, or the series of conflicts in Northern Ireland from 1960s – 1990s, bridges and roads were closed and patrolled by police with comprehensive security checks that disrupted daily life and restricted those who lived close to the border. Most bombings, shootings, and violent acts took place near the border and a policing culture shaped the area for nearly 30 years. A soft border has ensured peace among all parties.

Policy debate regarding the border has risen recently. There are several narratives that are being contested in the media by the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Great Britain, which are all examined below. Each country is promoting their own desire regarding the border, with deep histories underlaying their messages.

The Irish Narrative

The Republic of Ireland believes that the UK has always involved itself in Irish affairs when it is not welcome, and there is a long history of abuse that leaves most Irish people believing that UK involvement is never welcome. The President of Ireland cites British imperialism frequently, as it is a vital component of their past and therefore current relationship.

Great Britain Counter Narrative

The British Parliament and non-state actors have publicly said several times that the UK does not intend on installing a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and they want to maximize trade among the three countries. Nobody outside of Britain seems to believe this is true, thinking that Britain will take any loophole it can to somehow hinder the relationship between Northern Ireland and Ireland by disrupting the lack of border and the Good Friday agreement.

Northern Ireland Narrative

Northern Ireland projects the fear of a hard border the loudest in the media; they claim the border is a highly volatile place for the trade and security purposes, and both Ireland and the UK have means and intention to exploit Northern Ireland and the on-going policy debate for personal gains. Political party representatives are extremely vocal in the media, with rallying cries in the papers as well as protests happening in cities and on border lines.

Aspect of Narrative Contestation	Irish Narrative	GB Counter-Narrative	Northern Irish Narrative
Formation/Content	The UK has always meddled in Irish politics and trade and should leave Ireland alone	The UK does not intend on installing a hard border, and wants to maximize trade with Ireland/Northern Ireland	The border is a highly volatile place for the island of Ireland. Both GB and Ireland could try to exploit it for their personal gains.
Projection	Irish politicians such as the President speaking about this only when asked	Non-state actors such as professors, business leaders, etc. publicly speaking upon this narrative	Political party representatives (ie, unionists, democrats) putting forth rallying cries in the news and protests.
Reception	The Northern Irish are weary of Ireland’s messages, thinking that Ireland is trying to secretly advocate for a United Ireland	Most people believe that the UK will not try to disrupt the Good Friday agreement	Their message is received broadly as the UK and Ireland pushing NI out of the way for trade purposes

In sum, it is a complicated clash of narratives for a few countries with dark, complex histories. Where there really should only be two narratives (The UK and Ireland), there are three, due to Northern Ireland’s own history as part of the UK. The intricacies in messaging around this policy issue are sensitive, and state agents need to navigate this conflict carefully to not evoke a hostile war of words.

The narrative within Great Britain must be one that holds empathy for the very recent political trauma that plagues both Northern Ireland and Ireland. The people who experienced the political warfare and terrorism at the border are still alive today, and the “UK as an interventionist” narrative has not yet ceased. The same narrative advice can be applied to Ireland; they must speak with caution, understanding that Northern Ireland is still slightly volatile due to modern history. The most encouraging narratives to these countries will be narratives that promote collaboration, allyship, and free-trade; narratives that paint all countries as winners and none as losers will promote peace and prosperity in this tumultuous policy discussion.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Turkey’s Use of Narratives to Counter Anti-European Union Membership Narratives

April 14, 2022May 10, 2022Europe6 Comments

By Alexis Searfoss, MPA, MA Media and Strategic Communications ’23

The Republic of Turkey has been waiting decades to be moved from candidate for membership in the European Union to full member. As of 2016, accession talks were put on hold by the European Council but it still remains a top priority for Turkey. A member of NATO and prior iterations of European organizations, Turkey sees its future as a strategic partner for Europe, but, as it has shown in recent years, it is not willing to give up its sovereign rights to get there. If anything, Turkey is positioning itself to strengthen the reason why it should be granted membership.

The EU’s predominate narratives against Turkey gaining membership center around human rights, rule of law, media freedom, and accusations of democratic-backsliding due to a presidential system that has become more powerful in response to an attempted coup in 2016. These narratives target very real issues that have taken place including the treatment of Syrian refugees, jailing of Turkish nationals who speak out against the government, and the targeting of journalist alongside the pro-government takeover of media outlets.

To counter these narratives, Turkey is using its own to push back on the EU to emphasize its position as a country that the EU needs. Turkey has long highlighted its role as a bridge between Europe and Asia, messaging rooted in its former role as the once-powerful Ottoman Empire which was eventually forced, by Europe, to give away territory. Turkey is using its status as a majority Muslim country and willingness to work with countries that do not have strong relationships with the West as an invaluable benefit that it would bring to the EU and to entities looking for access to the West. These relationships could benefit European counties by expanding trade partners and, for Turkey, this showcases it as a powerbroker – a nod to its past as the Ottoman Empire.

A depiction of the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire and its dependencies in 1739.
Source: Wikipedia

Map of the Treaty of Sèvres on the day of its signing (August 10, 1920)
Source: Wikipedia

As a majority Muslim country constitutionally established as secular, Turkey can appeal to countries in the EU looking to better relations with their own Muslim populations. Anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe has been growing in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S. and discovery of terrorist cells in Europe. Anti-Muslim sentiment has also come from European leaders who are cautious of Turkey’s admittance because of their “different way of life.” In response to this sentiment, Turkey has called out efforts by European governments to legitimize anti-Islamic practices to highlight EU member states discriminating against Muslim populations within their own countries. Turkey continues to highlight its role as host to the largest refugee population in the world with over 3.6 million Syrian refugees in cities across Turkey. These issue narratives are used by Turkey to highlight the EU’s hypocrisy and counter the negative narrative of human rights. Turkey projects a frame that if granted admission into the EU, it would show that the EU is not Islamophobic and wants to work with its Muslim populations.

Turkey has also been leaning on its narrative as a world power and tapping into its past as the Ottoman Empire, particularly since the 2016 coup attempt, to emphasize that it will not be belittled. Turkey speaks about controlling both the land and the sea through its “Blue Motherland” vision. In its ongoing dispute over maritime borders with Greece and Cyprus, Turkey is focused on emphasizing agreements that are favorable to it. Turkey is using a rule of law narrative to fit within their desired narrative: Turkey is a maritime power and a larger world power because of it.

Turkey has been working to strengthen its argument as a necessary strategic partner. It broke with NATO allies in acquiring a Russian S-400 missile defense system that Turkey said would allow it to better protect itself. Many NATO members states spoke out against this deal and resulted in the US removing Turkey as a partner from the F-35 program. In Turkey working to normalize relations with Russia, those in the EU called for Turkey to no longer be eligible for EU membership. Turkey has leaned on the narrative that it’s a sovereign nation and world power and, therefore, able to work with any country it wants to in order to protect itself. This also allows Turkey to position itself as a much needed interlocutor with Russia, a role that they have most recently highlighted as the meeting ground for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Turkey’s ability to reframe some of the narratives being used against it shows a shift in thinking about its future. Turkey strongly believes that EU membership is valuable, but it has shifted the frame from one where it seemed like Turkey needed the EU to survive to one where the EU needs Turkey.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.