The Kind of Global Public Sphere

The concept of the global public sphere is an interesting one. In some ways it is almost a forum where everyone comes together to decide whether something is acceptable or not. On a global level and at the person to person tier such a forum doesn't exist. I, for example, do not have a way of sharing my thoughts with a man in Bangladesh on gun violence in the US, nor he with me. More formally, however, I believe that such a sphere does exist.

Take an organization like the UN, where one could reasonably say things are decided as "okay" or "not okay" by representatives of states. The argument could be made that states represent their respective publics, thereby ensuring that those "publics" all come together whenever the UN meets. It may sound like a stretch, but honestly I do not find any reason to discount it. Is every viewpoint held by every member of each public represented? No, but as the representatives of those publics, the ambassadors to the UN nonetheless are advocating on their behalf.

Following that line of thought we can see how the global public sphere has influenced our development as a planet over the past 50 years. In the United Nations we created an organization thats purpose is to prevent conflict, specifically great power conflict, but to a lesser degree conflict in general. That's a result of people coming together in an unprecedented way after WWII and declaring that conflict was "not okay." The UN also helped put together some of the most resilient and lasting international agreements on human rights and helping make the term "human rights" accepted vernacular. Representatives of publics came together and decided what was and wasn't a human right. The examples do not end. I focus on the UN because it is an easy target as it is one of the principle forum people think of when they think of formalized international forums, but other international organizations reflect the public sphere as well. At a more localized level, the EU is a perfect example of a public, with different states and peoples coming together because of coming to together and deciding, together, what is and isn't right.

So in summation a global public sphere exists in more formalized spaces like institutions, but a true commons where people from all over the world can come together and solve the world's problems isn't exactly there yet. The internet and communication technology have created the mechanisms for such a sphere to flourish, but as yet it has not.

The Risks of Celebrity Diplomacy

The role of celebrity diplomats is increasingly important in the international sphere. They can use their high profile to gain access to different regions of the world, as well as busy government officials. However, the increase in celebrity diplomats can lead to issues for the cause in which they are trying to support. Celebrities are not often trained in diplomacy and foreign affairs, like many typical ambassadors. With celebrities, every aspect of their life is under constant surveillance, which can lead to a problem if they make even one small mistake or misjudgment in their personal or professional life. Typical diplomats however, are not under the same kind of pressure with paparazzi watching their every move, and are usually better trained to know what situations and people to avoid, as to not cause an issue.

I believe one solution to this would be for celebrities that are interested in becoming global diplomats or advocates, to take part in some kind of training by their state or by the organization they want to represent. This would ensure that they know how to behave and how to interact with individuals they will come across in their time. Another benefit to this training is that it would quiet some of the voices that claim celebrities have no business advocating on the global stage because they do not have the relevant experience. This may not appease every critic, but it is nonetheless a good argument to use when defending celebrity diplomat's legitimacy.

I believe that celebrities can greatly benefit a cause because of the large amounts of publicity and access that they bring. However, those who wish to follow this path must be careful in their language, actions, and daily lives even outside of supporting their cause. Any misstep can make the public turn of them and can essentially ruin all of the good they have already achieved.


https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-risks-of-celebrity-diplomacy.html

Week 12 Pre-class

States have created of international norms in regards to nuclear arms proliferation, human rights violations, and the use of chemical weapons among others, but should there be a new global discussion on cyber norms? And would that discussion be able to bear any teeth internationally? This type of discussion is essential in the modern era where cyber warfare provides nations capabilities to target installations of critical infrastructure of both public and military facilities.

States now have the capability to wage covert cyber warfare with potentially deadly consequences. In December 2015 a Ukrainian power station became the victim of a complex cyber attack which was believed to have been perpetrated by Russian military intelligence. The attack resulted in massive power outages in the region of Kievskii Oblast, which is near the capital city of Kiev, in the dead of winter. This type of attack is easily replicable and can be easily carried out with relative ease across the globe by any state with a strong ICT infrastructure and talent-pool. Furthermore, there have been known instances of cyber espionage which have targeted nuclear energy facilities, which if attacked could cause potentially catastrophic damage.

There are significant questions which remain in terms of enforcement however, which raises the question of how governance in the public sphere operates in the realm of cyberspace. This due to the relative anonymity states enjoy when utilizing cyber tactics, the lines between what is a state sponsored attack and what is an independent attack are not well defined. Often states hire criminal hackers to bolster their own cyber security infrastructure, and may employ these hackers for other contract work which may not always be directly linked to the state. This leaves states the option of launching a cyber attack on a target internationally, and if compromised rely on plausible deniability to shield them from any significant blame.

As a result of the potential damages which could be caused by cyber means, some sort of cyber norms need to be established. One important area which should be examined it finding a common definition of what critical infrastructure is and ensuring that it does not become the target of some kind of cyber attack. Despite the importance of creating and establishing these norms however, the issue of enforcement becomes difficult if not impossible.

The White Helmets in the Global Public Sphere

This week's readings on the global public sphere, advocacy organizations, and the power of celebrities in the global public sphere often made me think of the recent news of the White Helmets working in Syria. The Syrian Civil Defense, now known commonly by their white helmets, have become the face of heroism in the Syrian war. In the last few years we have seen their image rise in the global public sphere and we are now seeing a governmental reaction to them from Syria and Russia. I have found this to potentially be a current example of the boomerang pattern mentioned in the Risse and Sikkink  article.

The White Helmets currently operate as a rescue force, rescuing Syrian citizens after air strikes. Photos taken during their rescue missions have become iconic of the disaster that has settled on Syrian citizens and have served as a call to action to citizens of Western states. The White Helmets have been very successful in reaching out to western governments t receive donations from the public and from foreign governments. In 2016 and 2017 they were front runners as nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize and in 2017 a short documentary about the the rescuers won an Oscar. The White Helmets are exemplary of the effect a presence in front of the global public can have for an organization working in the face of human rights violations and disaster. They have successfully reached beyond the boarders of Syria for aid from the public of other states and from from the states themselves.

Now, as Syrian forces are bearing down upon them and rescuers fear persecution, Israeli forces have been evacuating White Helmets out of Syria and into Jordan. As they leave, the Syrian an Russian governments are taking aim at the morality of their actions, attributing their work to terrorist organizations and as agents of "western powers." Of course, there is more to the story than can fit in a single blog post but it seems that the Syrian government has found the opportunity to try to defame this group, who, according to BBC,  has rescued more than 100,000 during the civil war, by associating them with terrorist groups and trying to invalidate their work. At this point, Western countries are still willing to welcome the White Helmets within their boarders as those who are able will head to Canada, Britain and Germany.

Wright, Robin "The White Helmets - Syria's Noble Rescuers - Have to be Rescued by Israel", The New Yorker, July 23, 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-white-helmets-syrias-noble-rescuers-have-to-be-rescued-by-israel.

Thomas Risse and Kathryn Sikkink, “The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices: Introduction,” in The Power of Human Rights International Norms and Domestic Change, ed. Risse, Sikkink, and Ropp (Cambridge, 1999).