TechCamp Bucharest was all about showcasing some brilliant new technologies. It brought together and focused on NGOs trying to improve their governments but a lot of the tools have applications for businesses, students and individuals. Here are some of my favourites:

• Frontline SMS are enabling some seriously amazing things with mobile phones.
• Meet Up offers a great way to mobilise and coordinate local community groups.
• Civic commons and Open Plans are doing some interesting work in opening up governments.
• Maps! Didn't think anything new could be done with them? Check out the amazing work at Development Seed and Crisis Mappers.
• And if you want to build them yourself, MapBox allows you to do some incredible things, with great mobile functionality. Crowdmap is also brilliant.
• Want to build an amazing website in 20 minutes with virtually no computing skill? It is possible.
• Crowdflower: the world's largest enterprise crowdsourcing platform.
• Crisis Commons is harnessing tech power in emergencies and spreading globally. A group of friends and I are attempting something similar with The Shapers. If you want to help us build it let me know!

What do you get when you throw technologists, NGOs and the private sector into organised chaos for two days in Bucharest? Technically, a US State Department TechCamp.

For the NGOs, a smorgasbord of opportunity to harness the power of new digital technologies and the chance to pick up funding to help them on their way. For governments, the chance to have civil society strengthened and maybe to be more effectively critiqued and pressured by it.

Hillary Clinton's video message to the Bucharest TechCamp. (Photo by the author.)

The camps, which only started in late 2010, roam the globe and their themes vary. But in the words of an Americagov tweet: 'TechCamp pairs experts with people trying to improve their governments.'.

The Romanian Government seemed to take this in a suitably liberal spirit. The Communications Minister who opened the event appeared to say (via simultaneous translation) words to the effect that, although he had to admit not knowing a great deal about TechCamp, he was sure it must be a good initiative if his American partners were involved.

Ediplomacy is going to have a big impact on foreign ministries, but one of the areas it will affect most is consular operations. So it was great to see the launch last week of Smartraveller III, which began the roll-out of a few ediplomacy innovations.

DFAT runs a brilliant consular service for which it receives very little credit. But as the Lowy Institute has reported several times, this VIP service is sapping shrinking foreign ministry resources. This makes it ripe for harnessing some ediplomacy efficiency gains.

The big gain from the launch is a saner registration process. As anyone who previously tried to register with Smartraveller knows, the process was anything but smart. 'Laborious' and 'onerous' were better descriptors and it was no wonder only a fraction of departing Australians made the effort. The new process is easy and manageable for a time-pressed person.

The new website is also impressive (although it's a shame the same effort isn't applied to the federal government's worst websites: those of DFAT's overseas posts). There is also a new mobile-optimised version of the website and an app is in the pipeline. Another good initiative is a partnership with travel agents.

Ediplomacy is ushering in a new era in consular affairs that will likely mean an even more ambitious goal: to create direct communications channels with all citizens traveling overseas. There is clearly a lot more in store, but the new efforts are a pretty good start.

Photo courtesy of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I hope my boss reads this post, because while I am residing in DC at the moment, I spent the weekend working at a State Department-run retreat gaming out the implications of new technologies on diplomacy. It was another innovative idea from the Office of eDiplomacy that brought together senior diplomats through the American Academy of Diplomacy, technologists from Silicon Valley and some of the up-and-coming generation of new diplomats.  

During two beautiful fall days in the Virginian countryside, these groups were locked in intense debate about the consequences of new technologies. The main exercises took major historical events such as the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the Philippines and the Rwandan genocide, and considered how they might have played out differently in a world with today's technology.

Perhaps the strongest message was that modern technology would have had a substantial impact on these events and in some cases even altered major decisions and possibly the course of history. Technology had the power to dramatically speed up the pace of events (reducing decision timeframes), had a tendency to decentralise leadership and often strengthened the hand of non-state actors.  

Another message was that technology has gotten ahead of our ability to make sense of what's happening. For example, understanding the overwhelming volume of social media messages during a crisis is still very difficult to do, even with the array of new analytic tools coming onto the market.   

And while technology has changed the rules of the game, the diplomatic process has yet to adapt (through, for example, the adoption of ediplomacy tools). This was, of course, a little ironic coming from the foreign service with the world's most advanced ediplomacy effort, but there you have it. 

Finally, it was eye opening to see the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs thinking through these issues alongside their ediplomacy counterparts. There were dozens of tools mentioned for helping the diplomatic process confront this new reality, but where there were gaps in the diplomatic toolkit, there was an impressive enthusiasm for finding a digital solution and an optimism that one could be found.  

Photo by Flickr user mindfieldz.

You could be fooled for thinking it is a sign of the times. Are the American declinists actually right? A breadline in Georgetown? Every week since I've been in DC I've passed by the line, which without fail is snaking its way around the block. It's not a breadline though, or queue for food stamps, but a line for cupcakes!

Washingtonians appear to have a pretty acute fetish for the things and an uncharacteristic patience for waiting in line for them. Within a few blocks in Georgetown you can find Georgetown Cupcake (pictured and now with its own reality TV show, so maybe the declinists are right after all), Baked and Wired, Sprinkles Cupcakes and BonaFide Cupcakes.

This shot is only a Friday line, so not quite as epic as Saturday or Sunday, which would defy being captured in a single frame. Readers will note it was taken from the middle of the road, probably voiding my insurance and showing the lengths Interpreter reporters will go to to deliver to our readers.

The lady at the front of the line happily told me she had only been waiting twenty minutes. 

I got to meet this week with Zvikomborero Zimunya, one of the impressive activists behind PupuraFakazaZim, a new crowd-sourcing platform that has just launched in Zimbabwe. The idea is simple enough: people can text in reports of service delivery failures (eg. electricity outages, uncollected garbage), and the incidents are uploaded onto a Google map with a view to identifying which areas are suffering most. People can also receive feedback on what has been done by city officials in solving service delivery complaints.

The campaign seeks to collect reports which will be used in evidence-based advocacy targeting local government officials, with the broader aim of encouraging citizen participation in development processes.

The pilot campaign is targeting the capital, Harare, which over the years has faced challenges with water supply, garbage collection, sewer management and the like. Due to low internet penetration, the campaign is supported by traditional advertising through radio, press and other advocacy material. Radio ads have been running for a few days now and have produced a good initial response (although there have been some delays uploading text messages, owing to a moderation function). 

While PupuraFakazaZim has relatively modest ambitions, it is not hard to envision how this type of platform might be used for other purposes. It is also a reminder of how useful new digital platforms are becoming in difficult environments, and that mobile phone technology has become instrumental in promoting citizen journalism, especially in developing communities with limited access to the internet.

It was nice to read that the latest Australian parliamentary inquiry includes, as one of its four terms of reference, the examination of 'the affect (sic) of e-diplomacy...on the activities of diplomatic posts'. Given DFAT doesn't even have an ediplomacy office, you have to suspect that point is designed to give the department another nudge towards adopting at least some of the most useful new digital tools on offer.

I was lucky enough to spend last week at the Office of eDiplomacy at the US State Department. The experience reinforced at least two points for me. First, how entrenched ediplomacy is becoming at State. Whereas DFAT is still debating whether it needs ediplomacy, that debate seems more settled in the US. The Office of eDiplomacy now has 80 people, about half of whom are dedicated exclusively to ediplomacy-related activities, and there are a staggering number of other ediplomacy nodes throughout the department, many with impressive staff sizes and budgets.

Second, the cutting edge work was a reminder not just of how much further advanced State's thinking is on ediplomacy, but also the creative culture of innovation it has managed to entrench in what is a very traditional bureaucratic institution. The Office of eDiplomacy is the bureaucratic equivalent of the Googleplex.

The dynamo head doesn't have an office and instead sits, Intel CEO Andy Groves-like, at a cubicle. Junior staff lead major new projects while their seniors sit relaxed through their presentations. New ideas and tweaks to platforms are tossed about in corridor conversation. People excitedly tell you about the 'passion projects' they are developing in addition to their regular duties and senior leaders talk about 'tolerating ambiguity'.

I have a few nicknames, but one of my more irregular ones, used by some Lowy colleagues, is 'totally pointless and unacceptable'. I can thank a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman for that. Qin Gang used the expression to describe a paper I wrote on China's aid program (a paper which has since become an annual report and the only regional study I'm aware of that uses government figures to produce a summary of China's pledged aid activities).

But now WikiLeaks has shown that China was merely being polite.

In a meeting with the US embassy in Suva in July 2008, PRC Deputy Chief of Mission Fei Mingxing told US embassy officials that I am 'either incompetent or stupid'. I'll now probably have to answer to both at Lowy, but I'm going to have to give a big shout-out to the US Embassy for taking the trouble to at least defend the claim of incompetence:

Comment:  Fei's criticism of the Lowy report is misleading and probably unfair.  In his FY 2008 budget speech, delivered last November, Interim Finance Minister Chaudhry thanked the PRC for "offering a concessional loan facility of around FJ 242 million" (about USD 160 million). "Negotiations are currently underway on the details of this loan with Exim Bank-China," he said,  It may be that Chaudhry was jumping the gun, but his statement certainly appears authoritative. End comment.

The same cable also had a few interesting details. In a discussion with the Taiwanese Trade Mission in Suva, Senior Advisor Victor Chin speculated about China's military ambitions in Fiji. 

Chin expects that the PRC will ask Fiji for more than a reaffirmation of the One-China policy in return for aid. Chin noted the great increase in the number of Chinese satellite tracking ships that have visited Suva in the last year. He wondered if a satellite tracking station, like the one the PRC operated in Kiribati until that country switched recognition to Taiwan, might be next. Chin said he has mentioned his concern about such a possible development to Fiji officials, but has never received a clear, unequivocal response.

The cable finishes with this conclusion:

Aid flows are likely to increase sharply beginning next year, however, assuming Fiji commits to an RMB loan package relatively soon. PRC officials will also try to keep security and defense contacts with Fiji well below the radar, as opposed to a more open approach elsewhere in the Pacific...

It's hard not to be impressed by the diplomatic entrepreneurship of some Pacific Islands countries. Just when the China-Taiwan diplomatic truce appeared to be closing off one income stream, the region has become a hotbed of competition over the recognition of Russian-backed breakaway states. 

The latest development in this new Pacific venture is the visit by Georgia's Foreign Minister to Fiji (Fiji was the fifth country in the Asia Pacific to recognise Georgia in 2010). The Fiji government press release announcing the visit was a little light on the usual fluff about discussing the closeness of relations between the two counties etc, but did offer a useful primer as to where Georgia is on the map and what it produces: 'Georgia's (sic) is located on the north of Turkey bounded by Russia, Armenia Azerbaijan and is well – known for its hydropower energy prowess.'

But things haven't all been going Georgia's way. In September, Tuvalu announced it was going to do the right thing and recognise its longtime ally and partner Abkhazia (above, the Abkhazian national flag). Questions of financial motivation were clearly spurious as Georgia had offered (a rather paltry) $US12,000 in aid just a year before.

Tuvalu was, of course, only following in the footsteps of the region's vanguard entrepreneurial state, Nauru, which in 2009 became only the fourth country in the world to recognise Abkhazia. In that case, various reports had the nerve to question the motives of such a principled move, given allegations Nauruan officials had also requested $US50 million in aid. 

My colleague Jenny Hayward-Jones has rightly called out Australia's Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Richard Marles, over his attempt to discredit an opinion poll we conducted in Fiji. But, for a different reason, I am glad he made the comments, because they highlight the fact polling in other countries is very rarely used by Australian foreign-policy-makers. By contrast, the US, Japan and others are longtime and clever users of these polls. 

As Jenny points out, it is a bit disingenuous of Marles to question our polling methodology. It is hard to believe that, as a politician, Marles is unable to tell a quality poll from a rubbish poll, and the methodology for the Fiji poll was independently reviewed by one of Australia's leading pollsters.

It is also, as Jenny points out, strange to claim polling cannot be undertaken in non-democratic states. Marles would no doubt be aware of the extensive and frequent polling conducted by a wide range of highly respected polling organisations in far more autocratic states than Fiji. 

So why question the poll? The obvious answer is politics. A few of the poll findings grate with current Australian policy towards Fiji, so why not try and undermine the credibility of the data that is calling it into question? It would certainly not be the first time attempts have been made to discredit a Lowy Poll with inconvenient findings.

For me, that strategy is a bit short sighted. Is Marles forgetting the poll was conducted completely independently of the Fiji government and that the findings represent the views of the very people he hopes will rise up, throw the Bainimarama dictatorship out and be the principal participants in any future democracy?

For the next few months I'm fortunate enough to be based in Washington, DC. Like most foreigners who come here, I'm endlessly surprised by the place. Here are three things from the last few days that struck me.

First, for those who believe in the separation of church and state, Sunday morning was a curious day. It marked Red Mass, where the Supreme Court justices attend a special mass often with either the president or the vice-president (Obama is actually yet to attend). Now in its 57th year (although the tradition dates back to 13th century Europe), Washington Archbishop Donald W Wuerl said, 'Your presence here is witness to the importance our nation places on the rule of law.'

Second is the very comprehensive security afforded to the president. The last few weeks have seen a few nearby presidential fundraisers that bring with them a sense of shock and awe. Police cars and secret service agents are stationed on every corner for blocks and blocks, hours in advance. On the street where the event is taking place, tow trucks line up to haul away every car in sight, and when POTUS arrives, streets are completely blocked off to cars and even residents walking home, while helicopters hang out overhead. Some ingrates complain.  

Third, I am seriously impressed by the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian. One thing that has always struck me about Australia is that even though international polling shows people around the world identify Australia closely with its indigenous culture and heritage, we have never had the vision to establish a dedicated Aboriginal Museum. In fact, the closest thing is actually located in The Netherlands.

The Americans, by contrast, have done a very impressive job of telling a holistic story that isn't caught in the past or fixated on a single area like art or artifacts. There's even a café that serves American Indian food. The buffalo is pretty good. 

Photo by Flickr user SnoShuu.

Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, has just left the Lowy Institute after presenting an alternative climate change policy. It was more than a 'this tax is bad' speech; you can read it here, and there will be an accompanying 5000-word paper on our website tomorrow.

The Shadow Minister began by defining the parameters of the current climate change debate. He said it wasn't about the existence of global warming — there was broad agreement about that across the parties. It also wasn't about targets. Instead the debate is about the mechanism that should be used.

Looking internationally, he argued other global mechanisms to reduce emissions were largely ineffective or illusory. Emissions in China were rising dramatically. In the US, there was no hope of a national carbon tax and state-based mechanisms were falling apart, while in the EU the tax was minuscule in comparison to the one proposed for Australia and was having little impact. There was no serious effort in India and Canada, Japan and Korea were unlikely to act without others doing so first. 

At home, he pointed to at least two major problems with the Government's proposed approach. First, it was essentially a tax on electricity, and this would have little impact on demand (as this was largely fixed) or supply (as the price would be passed on to consumers).

Second, he argued the tax would result in two forms of leakage: it would force some companies to move the polluting parts of their operations offshore where they could cause greater pollution than if they were carried out in Australia, and there would be $3.7 billion per annum in transfer payments to other countries to help reduce their emissions.

His alternative solution was directed at two levels. Internationally, he proposed pursuing an international agreement among major emitters via the G20 with a focus on sectoral approaches. Domestically, he proposed a market-based direct action approach, similar to the water buy-back scheme, where the Government buys back water rights from users selling them for the lowest price. He argued the same reductions in emissions could be achieved at a fraction of the cost and would be entirely funded through savings.

Photo by Flickr user rpeschetz.

The annual Lowy Poll, released yesterday, highlights the growing difficulties the Gillard Government faces as it grapples with three of the most important international issues on its agenda: climate change, Afghanistan and Indonesia.

Climate change

With the Government already facing an uphill battle to introduce a carbon tax, the poll shows that support for aggressive action to reduce carbon emissions has fallen to a new low. Just 41% of Australians say global warming is a serious and pressing problem and that we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs. That's down 5 points from last year and 27 points since 2006.

Over the same period, support for the intermediate proposition – that global warming should be addressed, but its effects will be gradual, requiring steps that are low in cost — has nearly doubled. Support for the most sceptical position — that we should not take any steps that would have economic costs — has nearly tripled. To compound the problem, Australians' willingness to pay to help solve climate change has also substantially eroded. Thirty-nine per cent of Australians say they aren't prepared to pay anything extra on their electricity bill to help solve climate change, nearly double the proportion in 2008. 

The glimmer of hope for the Government is that 81% of Australians believe, at a minimum, that the problem of global warming should be addressed. That large majority is just divided over its effects and the scale of the response needed. The trick, then, would appear to be the message. Arguing the problem is catastrophic and thus justifying drastic measures will likely alienate the 40% of Australians who believe its effects will be only gradual, requiring steps that are low in cost.

Afghanistan

In the 10th year of the war in Afghanistan and as President Obama announces a drawdown in US forces, support for  the coalition operation has continued to erode, with a record majority (59%) of Australians now opposed to Australia's continued military involvement. That is a problem for Ms Gillard, who faces an increase in Australian casualties and as recently as November last year told parliament, 'Australia will not abandon Afghanistan'.

The seventh annual Lowy Poll was released today with findings covering everything from the intervention in Libya and WikiLeaks to threat perceptions about terrorism and nuclear power.  

But this year we also tried to drill a bit deeper into a few issues. One of these was the war in Afghanistan. At a big-picture level, opposition to the war has hit a record high, with 59% of adult Australians now opposed to our continued military involvement (the poll was taken before the string of recent deaths). 

Since 2008, a majority of Australians have opposed the war, so not surprisingly, a number of politicians have given speeches trying to make the case for it. Three major speeches over this period include one by then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd immediately after the 2008 Lowy Poll results came out, one by then-Defence Minister John Faulkner at the Lowy Institute and one by Prime Minister Julia Gillard last November to Parliament. We tested the main arguments used in these speeches, as well as some others to see how persuasive Australians found them.

It turns out the main arguments used to justify the war don't convince most Australians. For example, in her November speech the Prime Minister said 'Australia has two vital interests in Afghanistan': ensuring it doesn't become a safe haven for terrorists who will then use it to launch attacks against Australians and to stand by the US. But the Lowy Poll found a majority of Australians disagree with both of these reasons for staying. 

Interestingly, there was one argument that convinced a majority of Australians and even a majority of opponents of the war that we need to stay: 'If Australia and its allies withdrew from Afghanistan, Afghan women might have their rights seriously violated by an extremist government'. This human rights argument has barely rated a mention by Australian politicians, so far.

Also on the security front, one of the most interesting results from the 2011 Lowy Poll was the finding on US military bases in Australia.

Last November at the 25th Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN), both sides agreed to set up a Force Posture Working Group to look at 'options for enhanced joint defence cooperation on Australian soil'. These reportedly included 'more US force training on Australian soil, more port visits, disaster relief co-operation and a greater US regional naval presence', although US Defence Secretary Robert Gates was reported as saying new bases were unlikely because the US had no wish to create 'political difficulties' in Australia.

However, the politicians appear to have misread public opinion on this. The Lowy Poll found 55% of adult Australians are in favour of allowing the US to base US military forces in Australia.

That's a fairly remarkable finding and could well reflect rising concern about the broader implications of China's rise (this year, some 44% of Australians say it is likely that Australia's largest trading partner, China, will become a military threat to Australia in the next 20 years).

While there is not going to be any formal document stemming from the Force Posture Review, this finding should help create the political space for consideration of a more ambitious range of options as discussions on this issue continue. 

The full 2011 Lowy Poll can be downloaded from the Lowy Institute website. You can follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson.

India is famous for its IT industry and, not surprisingly, its foreign ministry sees a bright future for e-diplomacy. Navideep Suri is Joint Secretary for Public Diplomacy in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and oversees its new e-diplomacy push. He was kind enough to do an email interview on India's recent initiative in this space. 

Q: India has been active in the e-diplomacy space. What are some of the initiatives you’ve been working on and what platforms have you found most effective so far and for what purposes?

A: We entered the e-diplomacy space last July when we started our Twitter account. We followed it up with a Facebook page and a YouTube channel and also started using online publishing sites like Scribd and Issuu for some of our publications. We also started our Public Diplomacy website which, curiously, was the first in our government to be based on a Web 2.0 platform.

When we started our journey on the e-diplomacy path, our own systems and regulations were loaded against our initiatives and so we were, in a sense, the first in our government to start using social media. 

But despite the initial hurdles, I have to say that our experience has been very positive. The fact that the public diplomacy division has won two awards for most innovative use of social media in government has also helped us underscore the larger context in which our efforts are situated.

As we gain experience with social media, we are starting to recognise the importance of each individual platform on its own merits. 

Jimmy Leach is Head of Digital Diplomacy at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where he leads one of the world's most dynamic e-diplomacy teams. He was good enough to do an email interview as part of this series on e-diplomacy. You can follow him on Twitter here, or on his blog.   

Q: The FCO has been one of the leaders in e-diplomacy. Now that you've had some time to experiment with the different platforms, which ones do you think have been most successful and useful for the FCO?

A: It's not really about the platform, it's about the message — and the aim is to get messages which carry well across a variety of platforms and media. But I realise that's dodging the question. But to dodge it even more —  it depends on getting the message and the platform right. We have our platform, of course, which is the right place for corporate-style communications, but for the distribution of messages, we need to tailor messages and platform to audience. Established social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook are handy (and cheap) but real breakthroughs can sometimes come with proper segmentation.

One small example of that is the work done by diplomats in Beijing for the Royal Wedding (a classic soft power opportunity). They teamed up with Chinese media organisation Sina for wedding coverage, and produced some fantastic results. Their activities not only got us great visibility with some extremely impressive stats (including, notably, 23,886 views of the See Britain Through My Eyes, 1.5 million visits to their Wishes page and 90,000 new followers on Sina Weibo, the Chinese Twitter equivalent) but also some excellent comments that show receipt of our key messages, for example, 'This video (See Britain) is absolutely right. [UK is] decent, confident, respectful, open-minded, dynamic and creative.'

Koreans are legendary for their embrace of technology. Not surprisingly, the State Department, via e-diplomat Ambassador Kathleen Stephens and her team, has had a lot of success with digital initiatives in Korea. One particularly interesting example is Café USA.

To look at this platform in detail, I conducted this email interview with Aaron Tarver, Press Attaché at the US Embassy in Korea. 

Q: For our non-Korean readers, could you explain what Café USA is about and how the concept originated?

A: Café USA is the Mission's official online community created in October 2004 to facilitate direct communication between the Embassy and Korea's internet-savvy general public. The café is hosted on DAUM, one of the two major internet portals in Korea. Currently, Café USA boasts over 11,000 registered members and has around 500 daily visits, with messages posted each day on various boards. The members not only read and post messages on web-boards regularly, but also participate in web chats to share their views on bilateral relations.  

Q: What sorts of issues get raised in Café USA and how does Café USA contribute towards the work of the US Embassy in Korea?

A: One of the popular features of Café USA is the consular/visa Q&A section. Whenever there is a question on consular matters, the Consular Office answers the questions under the Consul General’s name and gets them posted on Café USA. Members also ask the Ambassador various questions, especially about her blog entries. The Ambassador answers them as time and circumstances permit. Café USA acts as a venue for dialogue and communication between Koreans and the Mission.

One of the most successful examples of the government use of social media has been the US Embassy in Jakarta's Facebook page, which we have profiled several times.

In this email interview, Philip Roskamp, who runs the page (and is Assistant Press Attaché at the Embassy), gives a detailed and candid look behind the page as well as offering some great insights for any foreign ministry or corporation that uses, or is looking to use, social media.

Q. Your Facebook page is legendary, now with over 310,000 fans. Can you outline some of the history of the page – why it was set up, decisions you took on style and language, and why you think its following has grown so dramatically? 

A: The page began a few years ago with my predecessor and the Embassy Jakarta Public Affairs Section staff. At that time, US Embassies and Consulates were starting to get involved with social media as a way to better connect with host country audiences, particularly youth. 

We have made the decision to post as much content in Bahasa Indonesian as possible. While we put out some English content via Twitter as part of a weekly English program, we figure the best way to connect with Indonesians is through their language — Bahasa Indonesian.   

I think we have enjoyed success for a few key reasons: availability of hardware, popularity of software platforms, President Obama's close ties to Indonesia, and a focus on generating user-relevant content.

Indonesia has around 15% Internet penetration according to most survey data, and like most countries connectivity drops outside major cities. However, Indonesia has one of the most robust mobile markets in the world, and we have heard from local contacts possibly as many as half of Indonesian internet users access through mobile phones. A local mobile media company estimates 80% of mobile phones in use are 'WAP-enabled,' or can view graphics. Over time, costs for WAP-enabled phones, smart phones, and data plans have dropped, making the internet more affordable and accessible for millions of people.

Writing about e-diplomacy is one thing, practicing it well is another. To shed some light on the latter, below is the first of a series of email interviews with a few of the most interesting practioners in this field.

This discussion via email is with the UK's Ambassador for Multilateral Arms Control and Disarmament and Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament, John S Duncan, who has harnessed e-diplomacy tools to draw together an influential audience in his key area of responsibility.  

Q: Ambassador Duncan, some people have questioned whether blogs can really play a useful role in the hands of government officials who are constrained by what they can say. What is your view about diplomats blogging and what role do you think blogs should play as a diplomatic tool? You are also an active tweeter: what role do you see Twitter playing in your field? 

A: This is a valid point. For the UK we have a concept called 'Assumed Competence' where ambassadors are given a fair degree of latitude to express what are clearly labelled as their personal views in their blogs. In general this has worked well. Over the past four years UK Ambassadors have done something like 4000 blog posts, of which only three have caused problems. Personally I think it is important for the diplomatic community to be part of and engage with the Government 2.0 exercise, ie. the development of communication via internet based social media; not only because of the widespread use of these tools during the Arab Spring, but for wider public diplomacy reasons.

While it is generally assumed that foreign policy is only rarely a domestic vote winner, it is still important that government explain to the taxpayer what they are doing and why in foreign affairs. The 21st century world is interdependent and interconnected in a way that we have never seen before. Events overseas do impact on all of us, eg. an earthquake in Japan means you can't get spare parts for your car or HiFi. So for both reasons public diplomacy needs to be facing both ways — outwards to foreign governments and societies and inwards to our own citizens.

The technological changes that Gov2.0 bring will also inevitably entail a far greater degree of accountability. The time when the occasional OpEd would suffice to communicate the government view is rapidly becoming something of the past.

This Canberra Times article on AusAID scholarships has a tone of scandal about it. The opening sentence reads:

The Australian Government spends millions of its overseas aid dollars on scholarships, some of which were handed to foreign politicians' children while others funded courses in design and photography.

I don't see any problem with that. AusAID's explicit mandate is 'to assist developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia's national interest' (my emphasis).

Given AusAID's aim is to advance Australia's national interest, surely it would be mad to ignore the children of politicians as potential scholarship recipients, given they are more likely to be future elites in many countries.

In fact, a large leadership study a colleague and I conducted in Samoa (funded by a consortium that included AusAID), revealed Australia and New Zealand have been pretty successful at identifying and then educating what has become the political elite there. It also highlighted how entrenched leadership can be among key families.  

As for design and photography, why not let talent and merit be a guide rather than setting a prescriptive list of courses for future poverty breakers to study? There are more than a few global dynamos who took unorthodox pathways. 

Follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson

As Prime Minister Gillard commemorates ANZAC Day today, her Korean hosts might be pleased to know that in the event North Korea provoked a full-scale war with South Korea a majority (52%) of Australians are in favour of joining other allies like the United States in sending military forces to defend South Korea against North Korea, according to a Lowy Poll released today. 

And if China — Australia's largest trading partner — intervened to support North Korea against South Korea, even more (56%) were in favour of sending Australian forces to help the South.

The nationally representative opinion survey also included a number of findings on China. The results reflect some of the complexity of the Australia-China relationship.

On the one hand, for example, three-quarters of Australians (75%) say China's growth has been good for Australia. On the other hand, almost half (44%) say it is likely China will become a military threat to Australia in the next 20 years (with both results similar to those we recorded last year). 

The results also continue to show most Australians (57%) believe the government is allowing too much investment from China. 

There was also some modest improvement in sentiment towards China in some areas. A slightly smaller majority of Australians (58%) disagreed that Australia is doing enough to pressure China to improve human rights (down from 66% in 2010) and this year 50% of Australians agreed Australia should join with other countries to limit China's influence (down from 55% last year). 

The poll of 1,002 adult Australians was conducted by telephone between 30 March and 14 April 2011. 

For future poll updates follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson

Cross-posted from our sister-site Interpreting the aid review.

While writing on e-diplomacy one thing I've noticed is how many innovations in this field touch on development and security issues as well.

For some time AusAID has been experimenting with social media but there are a range of other ways it could be using new IT platforms to achieve development objectives.

Here are a few examples I've come across, but I'd be interested in any others readers might be aware of.

In Afghanistan, the US State Department has experimented with the payment of Afghan police officers via mobile phone. This bid to circumvent graft has taken advantage of a technology (mobile phones) that has spread rapidly throughout the developing world. In Mexico, where thousands have been killed in recent drug wars, State harnessed the same technology by developing a free short code to allow people to report crime anonymously to get around their fear of reprisals from drug gangs.  

Ushahidi, a non-profit tech company, has developed several promising development-related tools. read more

I was lucky enough to be in Wellington yesterday for a China symposium. The New Zealand Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, gave the opening address in which he made a few points on China's engagement in the Pacific, emphasising some of the themes and recommendations in the Lowy Institute Policy Brief I launched with Mary Fifita earlier in the week: 'China in the Pacific: The new banker in town'. 

In particular he noted:

I do want to take the opportunity to express the hope that China as a major donor to the region, will in the period immediately ahead become more closely engaged with other donors in the spirit of the Cairns Compact.

I have already conveyed to senior Chinese figures my own ambition to see New Zealand, as the first developed country to enjoy a free trade agreement with China, also become the first nation to partner China in development projects in the Pacific region.

I also hope that this might lead on to other partnerships involving third party donors.

New Zealand’s hosting of the 40th Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Auckland in September of this year, and role as chair for the subsequent twelve months, provides an opportunity to pursue this objective.

There is also one concern I wish to voice today, not aimed at China, but which I hope that China as a major donor and other donors will take into account.

While the sums involved are to larger countries not that significant, we have seen an accumulation of debt on the balance sheets of some Pacific nations.

Loans have been made available for a variety of purposes to the extent that some Pacific countries being assessed by ratings agencies, the IMF or other international institutions are now the subject of adverse comment as a result of their overall indebtedness.

There have also been cases where the ready availability of finance has diminished the incentives for sound budgetary practice and good fiscal management.

All of these are reasons why I hope that we will see the donor community, China included, move towards greater coordination, improved cooperation and increased transparency. 

Follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson.

The Lowy Institute today launched the fourth in a series of reports on China's secretive aid program in the Pacific. China still refuses to report the details of its aid program, so we went to Pacific governments who provided us with the figures. The reports now cover the five year period from 2005 to 2009 and, absent official Chinese figures, provide the most detailed picture available of China's aid program.

Over this five year period some trends and patterns have emerged.

First, China is now one of the Pacific's largest aid donors, a position it has gained in a very short timeframe. However, it is still a considerable way behind the region's largest donor, Australia. 

Second, China has now become a major lender to the region and probably needs to start giving greater consideration to the sustainability of the loans it is making to Pacific countries. Over the five years covered by these reports, China has pledged more than $US600 million in concessional loans to the Pacific. In the case of Tonga, loans from China are worth the equivalent of one third of its GDP.

There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with loaning money to Pacific countries, provided they go towards productive uses that will improve a country's capacity to repay them. But sometimes loans are used for less worthy projects. The Cook Islands took out a loan from China to build sporting facilities for the Mini Games only to have Standard and Poor's downgrade its credit rating, reportedly in part because of these loans.

Third, China appears to be somewhat responsive to requests to tweak its approach. China seems to be allowing Pacific workers to participate in building a few Chinese sponsored infrastructure projects and there were modest indications China is looking to improve the transparency of its aid (although a lot more needs to be done).

Fourth, diplomatic competition with Taiwan has been the primary driver of Chinese engagement in the region. With the election of President Ma in Taiwan and the ensuing (unofficial) diplomatic truce, the destabilising 'dollar diplomacy' that used to be the hallmark of both China and Taiwan's aid has eased. Concern about a return to diplomatic competition still looms large, but the truce has allowed China to pull back from its overblown support for the regime in Fiji and perhaps even begin to consider a broader approach in the Pacific.  

The full report, co-authored with Mary Fifita, is available from the Lowy Institute website.

Follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson and Mary @MaryFifita

Photo by Flickr user Fab o lens.

He may have been around 150 days late, but the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, finally got around to answering some tricky questions on war crimes from the Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam.

Reading the questions and response, it's easy to see why it took so long. Among other things the answers revealed:

• Since July 1999, at least 38 people had their protection visa applications refused on the basis of Article 1F(a) of the Refugees Convention, which excludes people where there are serious reasons for considering that the applicant has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity. As the Minister notes in his reply, this is likely an underestimate as the 38 cases represent only those who appealed the decision and 'who have been convicted of such crimes or have admitted to such crimes, or whose particular circumstances gave the decision maker serious reasons for considering that the applicant committed such crimes'. 
• Of the 38 cases, 22 were upheld, but only 17 of the individuals have left Australia. Of the five remaining, one 'had their immigration status resolved through the grant of a substantive visa issued in 2007 following intervention by the then Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews'. The other four have been living here for between five and eight years, for reasons including 'the time taken by the individuals in pursuing review and Ministerial intervention'. One of the four, upon review was excluded because they allegedly 'committed a serious non-political crime' (Article 1F(b), not war crimes). 
• We know from a previous question from Mr Ludlam, that staffing levels in the War Crimes Screening Unit were halved between February 2008 and December 2009, to five staff. The number of cases referred to the unit also more than halved, but were still a substantial 369 in 2009-10, or around 1.5 cases to screen per working day. By contrast, the Canada Border Services Agency has around 55 staff working on war crimes cases and the Netherlands Immigration and Naturalisation Service has 25. 
• The Minister also noted, Australia had received extradition requests for three individuals accused of war crimes offences (one of whom has subsequently died). He also noted 'Australia has not ever extradited a person to face prosecution in a foreign country for alleged war crimes offences'.

read more

We've looked at Google's Person Finder before, but its utility has again been demonstrated in the horrendous Japan earthquake. At the time of writing, it had over 127,000 records entered for Japan, including one for Australian Jason Briffa, who was profiled in some of today's newspapers as missing.  

Beside being so immediate and accessible, Person Finder also gets around all the red-tape privacy issues DFAT has to wrestle with, and which give it a bad name. A profile of Jason in The Australian from today's paper has this comment:

The family of Melbourne man Jason Briffa, 25, an English teacher in Sendai, said they were frustrated by DFAT's refusal to release the list of survivors. "They say so many people have been found that are Australians and they've been put on a list - well, where is that list?" Mr Briffa's aunt, Carmen Bonello, told the ABC yesterday. "Why can't the parents get access to that list, because at least you are relieved. I mean, this has been happening since Friday." 

Person Finder was developed in conjunction with the US State Department, and must now be the world's best consular tool. But I wonder if DFAT is working on promoting it, or talking with Google about ways to help integrate it with their systems and needs?

Follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade announced a new review. The review itself is into DFAT's annual reports, but the Chair, Michael Danby, also took the opportunity to foreshadow his intention to investigate DFAT's uptake of e-diplomacy, with this comment:

How well is DFAT using various new media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to communicate with Australians living and travelling overseas?

The answer, one would have to assume, is not going to be great for DFAT. But while these tools would certainly be helpful for communicating with Australians overseas, more specialised platforms are also worth a look.

Google's Person Finder is a good example. It offers a simple way for people to track down friends and family after natural disasters, that also conveniently bypasses all the privacy red tape that an organisation like DFAT needs to comply with. It was developed for the Haiti disaster and has some 11,500 entries for the Christchurch earthquake. 

Person Finder is also a good example of the way foreign ministries need to broaden their range of partnerships. It was developed by Google in conjunction with the State Department. 

Follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson. Photo by Flickr user alexkess. 

There is a fascinating cable out from the US Embassy in Jakarta detailing its Facebook strategy in Indonesia. We've featured their Facebook page several times on this blog, and it's certainly one of the leading examples of a government successfully engaging foreign populations through social media.

But how did they do it?

At the time the cable was sent in February 2010, the Embassy had an impressive 50,000 Facebook fans, but the cable requests $US100,000 to help fund a major outreach effort to grow the number of followers to one million within 30 days in the lead-up to Obama's planned visit. We don't know if they got the funding to do it, but the Embassy's Facebook now has just under 310,000 fans. 

Whether it went ahead in whole, part or not at all, the strategy wasn't bad. Most of the funds ($US60,000) were to be spent on advertising, which at the time of writing was a modest $US25 a day. The plan was to increase this tenfold but:

The funds would also be used to promote the visit and our fan page as the place to learn more by extensively advertising on Indonesian online portals, banner ads, YouTube, Twitter, and other promotional efforts, including embedding bloggers, contests and giveaways, and using SMS technology. With over 100 million mobile phone users in Indonesia, texting is a powerful way to include a huge audience. Partnering with a major telecom provider, we can encourage Indonesians to sign up for real-time updates via their cell phone -- a great way to reach those not yet online about the visit.

The cable suggests a pretty impressive understanding of how to reach Indonesians in the digital age. It's no surprise the State Department is leading the world in e-diplomacy.

Follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson. 

With the Middle East continuing to reshape itself and so much focus on youth-led uprisings and their use of social media as an organising tool, I was curious to see what the networked Middle East looks like. The chart below uses US Census Bureau stats from 2010, mobile stats from the International Telecommunications Union and internet rates from internetworldstats.

All ten countries except Bahrain have more than 50% of their population under 30 years of age (Bahrain, with 48%, isn't far behind). The two countries that have had successful uprisings, Egypt and Tunisia, have slightly differing profiles. Of the ten countries included in this chart, Egypt has the equal third largest youth bulge (61 per cent), while Tunisia has the second smallest (51 per cent). Egypt also has the second lowest mobile penetration rate (although it's still high at 67 per 100 inhabitants). This compares with Tunisia's rate of 95 per 100. 

When it comes to mobile and internet connectivity, Bahrain is the most wired of the countries, while Yemen is the least. While Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Kuwait have the highest mobile penetration rates — with all four having more than one phone per inhabitant — you have to wonder what difference this extra connectivity would make when it comes to organising an uprising, especially when phones are probably already concentrated among younger people.  

From a connectivity perspective, Yemen would appear to be the trickiest place in which to organise a revolution. 

Follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson.

For fans of digital diplomacy, it's been a great few weeks. For those like Malcolm Gladwell that rubbished the power of social media as recently as October, it must have been a little frustrating to watch protests erupt in Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Iran and elsewhere. As the satirical news organisation, The Onion, put it (h/t The Dish):

Panicked Malcolm Gladwell Realizes Latest Theory Foretells End Of His Popularity

Here are a few of the articles I liked reading:

• Andrew Sullivan pulls off the gloves and rubbishes Malcolm Gladwell's rubbishing of social media. My version in ISN comes out later this month. Zeynep Tufekci offers another critique here. 
• Two interesting attempts to map Twitter during the Egyptian revolution (see video below). 
• How the Egyptian Government turned off the internet and how Google side-stepped it. 
• The State Department, which already has a cadre of staff who have embraced Twitter, started an Arabic and Farsi feed, adding to its existing team of full-time Arabic, Farsi and Urdu bloggers. 
• Revolting in style — for Che t-shirt wearers, time to update your wardrobe. 
• Closer to home, I couldn't help noticing that Australia's aid agency, AusAID, has one-upped its Foreign Ministry counterparts by putting social media front and centre of its website.

Follow Fergus on Twitter @FergusHanson.