Women’s empowerment has moved to the top of many governments’ and international organisations’ agendas. Several governments have implemented feminist foreign policies and others have sought to focus their efforts on levelling the playing field internally, to position themselves as leaders in women’s empowerment.
Historically, diplomacy has long been considered a ‘masculine’ world, that not only overlooked the participation and contributions of women, but also ignored the complexity of gendered issues.
At the same time, digital diplomacy has also etched itself into the forefront of politicians’ and diplomats’ international strategies. This is unsurprising – the internet has changed the way in which we lead our lives, so it has inevitably changed the ways in which we are governed. Although not a diplomat, Donald Trump is the most notable figures in digital diplomacy, announcing stances on foreign affairs over Twitter to the millions of people who follow him. Rather than reading a newspaper for foreign affairs, one can simply open up Twitter and get it in a few lines.
However, it’s hard to conceptualise digital diplomacy – even when governments are keen to stress its importance, few have definitions that align with one another. In the numerous interpretations, most still focus on the use of public diplomacy that involves the use of digital technologies and social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. This can either be by states to enter into communication with a foreign public, or by a public with foreign states.
But as these two seemingly unconnected areas move forward in the international sphere, it is important to examine if digital diplomacy can empower women, or whether it can make the relationship between diplomacy and women more complicated.
Source: Steven Su
#FreeNazanin
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is in prison for a crime she never committed. In April 2016, whilst travelling with her six-month daughter, Zaghari-Ratcliffe was arrested and later sentenced to five years in prison in Iran for spying – an accusation she vehemently denied throughout her ordeal.
Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s imprisonment is part of a wider trend. Iran has often been criticised for discrimination against women. Since the 1979 revolution, the entirely male establishment has used legalised gender discrimination, fear tactics and violence to ensure women’s rights are not advanced. More recently, this has included the imprisonment of women’s rights activists and women who are outspoken against the government. At the same time, there have been a number of notable imprisonments of dual-nationals and holidaymakers visiting Iran.
The last few years of Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s life makes agonising reading. She has suffered under gruelling conditions at the notorious Evin Prison, but her fate has constantly been in public interest. Partially, this is due to the unwavering support of her husband, Richard Ratcliffe. He has campaigned to keep the story in the public eye, joining her in hunger strikes outside the Iranian embassy and publicly criticising Boris Johnson. But in part, this is also due to her gender.
Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as a woman, appealed to the British public – the charity worker was a new mother, with a loving husband. This should have been the happiest time in their lives and the media often focussed on her role as a mother or emphasized how she had been building strong female bonds with other prisoners. Many of the most recognisable photos of Zaghari-Ratcliffe are those of her with her daughter. Gender undoubtedly played a role in keeping her in the public consciousness.
The public wanted to see this woman freed and inevitably, started signing online petitions and sharing the latest stories. Sharing these stories are an act of digital diplomacy, even when directed by the public to a foreign state.
But since Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been jailed, she has become a part of a wider story. Other British nationals and dual nationals have been detained and some released. But, there was an enormous amount of coverage dedicated to Zaghari-Ratcliffe. One side of this coverage still focused on her gender, imprisonment, and the effect on her family – her gender becoming her detriment.
The other side focused on the lack of diplomatic skills demonstrated by Boris Johnson, when he was Foreign Secretary. In November 2017, Johnson faced heavy criticism over Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case after clumsily suggesting, that she had been in Iran teaching journalism. She and her family have always maintained she was on holiday visiting her family. Johnson later corrected his error, but it was cited as evidence against her.
An enormous amount of criticism about his handling of the case has followed him into his premiership. Knowing this story was a thorn in Johnson’s side, this has ultimately given Iran leverage and they have subsequently asked the British government to hand over £400m for Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release. This money, they claim, is owed by the UK government to Iran from a decades-old British tank sale, but is also undoubtedly for Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s freedom.
Onwards
Cynthia Enloe coined the phrase ‘the personal is international.’ This simple notion articulates how power relations determine aspects of our lives that we imagine to be private. Even with the rise of digital diplomacy and the additional focus on women’s empowerment, this is still the case. Whether you are making decisions about your personal life, for example where to holiday, or sharing an article with your hundred followers, these actions affect international relations.
Digital diplomacy can be a transformative force with the power to empower women’s social and economic empowerment. We often frame digital diplomacy as politicians and diplomats broadcasting their views on to Twitter, but it has also enabled countless women’s movements to be form and galvanise. These movements can then cut through the smoke and connect to these figures directly – telling them what they want and lifting women’s voices with ease.
But on the other hand, women and women’s rights activists are at the receiving end of a huge amount of abuse. This is why the relationship between digital diplomacy and women’s rights is often a complicated one.
The case of Zaghari-Ratcliffe highlights how digital diplomacy, as a tool, can have limits. She remains imprisoned, despite the public support for her online, and the decisions made surrounding her imprisonment have been opaque.
Like many tools, digital diplomacy has to be used carefully to be effective. The Zaghari-Ratcliffe case illustrates that we are very dependent on the same diplomatic skills that we have been for decades. Solving complex diplomatic issues require thorough research, prepared and briefed diplomats, and willing players.
The execution of diplomacy requires not only focus, but also discipline. Although many still hold diplomacy as a masculine sphere, to advance women’s empowerment we also need to build on those same skills.
onsundays.tech.blog 