So unfolded the abhorrent events on the Boston Police Twitter feed today. The feed – with its updates, instructions and attempts to crowd source — went out to the Police Department's 110,000 followers. Through Twitter's network effect, many, many more were able to see the Boston PD's messages (the tweet calling for video was re-tweeted over 3000 times).

Social media was used by a range of other services too, such as the Emergency and Medical Services, the City of Boston, and the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, reflecting the way social media has increasingly become integrated into government communication.

As has become typical for tragedies nowadays, non-government groups also quickly stepped in to help online, Google's Person Finder being but one example.

I've spent the past week in Yangon, Myanmar. It's a country where you can almost see the change happening.

Take the headlines from The New Light of Myanmar ('The most reliable newspaper around you') on Monday 5 November: 'Denmark Opens Embassy in Yangon'; 'Norway Embassy established in Yangon'; 'President U Thein Sein holds talks with Finnish PM in Vientiane'; 'Myanmar, Luxembourg keen on economic cooperation'.

In other areas, too, change is evident. The cost of mobile phones is steadily falling from completely unaffordable for the average person to increasingly accessible (I bought a temporary SIM for about $20, while a permanent one costs around $250, down from over $3000). Business leaders talked of fatigue from meeting all the incoming foreign business delegations. In meetings with government, officials are impressively frank about all that still needs to be done. There are pictures of Aung San Suu Kyi everywhere, from taxis to cafés.

In the past year restrictions on importing new cars have been lifted, with predictable consequence for traffic. The Monday paper carried an article that made traffic sound like it is still a novelty: 'Traffic Rules Adherence in Yangon Questioned'. The article offered a range of speculative explanations, from speed to corruption.

Unsurprisingly, the changes are winning the Government praise abroad and at home. On the home front, there may also be a tendency towards overly favourable coverage of the Government*. Thursday's paper carried just two articles on the front page. The lead was 'President U Thein Sein Arrives Back in Nay Pyi Taw'. Nearly an entire column of the story was devoted to a list of all who had farewelled the President at Laos airport. The minor article, below the fold, was 'Obama Wins Re-election as US President'.

Photo by Flickr user avlxyz.

* This sentence added later for clarity.

Stop procrastinating and throw away the typewriters. That's the message from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into Australia's overseas representation, which has just recommended DFAT establish an office of ediplomacy, modeled on that of the US State Department.

Having looked at DFAT's use of ediplomacy several times over the years, this time the Committee showed a little more frustration with the pace of modernisation.

After noting the Lowy Institute comment that DFAT's websites are 'among the worst websites hosted by any arm of the Federal government', the Committee went on to observe: 'DFAT agreed that some of the Lowy Institute's criticisms of their websites were justified.'

It went on to state:

The Committee notes DFAT’s advice that in the current budgetary situation improving its websites was less of a priority than increasing on-the-ground diplomatic representation. The Committee responds that it is not a competition between e-diplomacy and increasing on-the-ground representation.

It went on to recommend DFAT 'immediately refurbish Australian embassy websites'.

Fergus Hanson is a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution.

As with many new things, a lot of foreign ministries were initially skeptical of ediplomacy. What did 140 character messages and social media have to do with serious diplomacy?

There have now been more than enough social media infused international crises to silence those critics. When the tweets of an angry pastor in Florida can catalyse deadly riots around the world, a Weibo message by an assaulted Chinese student in Australia can threaten a massive export industry and an obscure NGO can reshape the global narrative on Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army, foreign services need to adapt.

The diplomatic operating environment has changed. And one foreign ministry in particular is taking up the challenge with some intriguing innovations in ediplomacy: the US Department of State. In 2011-12, I was lucky enough to spend nine months in the US researching ediplomacy at Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution. That included time embedded in the Office of eDiplomacy at the US State Department where I conducted interviews with nearly 100 State Department officials. Today, Brookings has published the culmination of that research.

Shannon Smith's post on Australian ediplomacy raises some excellent and often overlooked points on social media. There are also a few that I take a slightly different view on.

Most strikingly, his post points to the modernisation of Australia's government generally. Shannon provides a whole list of great digital initiatives from different arms of the Australian Government operating overseas. The notable absence (with the exception of the new Facebook page) was DFAT, although even that is changing and clearly the embassy in Jakarta gets it. AusAID could also have been added to the list. It has been working hard on the technology transition.

Shannon's last point is also critical: 'With only 22% of Indonesians accessing the internet, e-diplomacy is no solution in itself to the decline of Australia's broader public diplomacy capabilities — it is simply a necessary supplement.'

There seems to be a perception in some areas that social media is a replacement for public diplomacy, and a related view that just having a Facebook page or Twitter feed means you're all done and dusted, no strategy or work needed. Anyone who holds those views is likely to be very disappointed. Murrow's emphasis on the 'last three feet' is as relevant today as it was back in the pre-social media world. But I am afraid I don't share Shannon’s analysis of the US Embassy Facebook strategy or its utility.

The 8th annual Lowy Institute Poll was released this morning. As usual, it covers a large number of foreign policy issues, but one fascinating set of findings dealt with the perennially controversial issue of migration.

There's been a stink over the granting of some 1700 skilled migrant visas for Gina Rinehart's Roy Hill iron ore project, but the Lowy Poll found that most Australians (62%) are in favour of the Government allowing in extra workers from foreign countries when there are shortages of workers in Australia and companies in Australia cannot find enough skilled workers.

The White Australia Policy is all but a distant memory. Presented with six hypothetical criteria for determining which migrants should be allowed to come to Australia to live, practical preferences prevailed. Work skills is the criterion most (65%) say is very important, followed by English language skills (60%), having similar values to Australians (57%) and education (47%). Just 15% say religion is very important and only 10% nominate race.

There are some intriguing generational differences. Australians 60 years or older are three times more likely than Australians 18 to 29 years old to say race is a very important criterion (15% compared with 5%). They are also twice as likely to say having similar values is a very important criterion (72% compared with 36%).

There are too many results to cover here, but here are a few of the most interesting:

I visited Hangzhou recently for a summit about ediplomacy, and got to experience China's high-speed rail system first-hand.

I'm no train geek, but you couldn't help but be impressed. The photo below is of the ticket counter in Hangzhou – I walked in and my heart sank. There were 30 lines and each was at least 20-deep (yes, I counted). Six hundred people in line before me – how long would this take? From a long and tortured experience of train travel in Australia, I was anticipating a very, very long time.

Well, as it happens, I timed it. Exactly six minutes. And for the pleasure of travelling at 300km/h in 45 minutes to Shanghai on a train that kept Swiss-time, it cost $11.65.

For anyone who has done the Sydney to Canberra commute (or, here in the US, the Washington-New York route), it's enough to make you cry.

There's been a lot of scoffing at Invisible Children's Kony 2012 campaign. It contains factual errors. It simplifies things. The group doesn't give enough of its funds in direct aid. Its filmmaker dances in the street naked.

I have never heard such accusations leveled at filmmakers or aid groups before (perhaps with the exception of naked street dancing). But ultimately, those criticisms are irrelevant, because the vast reach Invisible Children has achieved has done more to shape perceptions about an obscure, decades-old conflict than any government or NGO, ever.

Whether or not you agree with the group's portrayal of the conflict and its prescription for addressing it, this small NGO has become a major shaper of debate on this conflict. So much so that, just the other day, President Obama announced during a speech at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum that 'our advisers will continue their efforts to bring this madman (Joseph Kony) to justice and to save lives.'

Social Media wizard Clay Shirky laid a bet on Twitter on 20 March: 'I'm just going to put this here, so it's time-stamped: I bet they catch Kony in the next three months. Will follow up either way.'

This is not the first time the internet has been harnessed to give NGOs an outsized voice in foreign policy. The Ottawa Convention banning landmines is often held up as an example of web-based mobilisation of activists. Another NGO-led feat is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Kony 2012 campaign is in this spirit, but also differs. This seems to be the first example I can think of that a single NGO, and a pretty obscure one at that, has come to so completely dominate discussion of a foreign policy issue.

Does this mean we should stand by for an explosion of global discussion about the plight of the Transnistrians or life in Dahala Khagrabari, the world's only international counter-counterenclave? Probably not. Invisible Children had a pretty decent network before the Kony video came out, which no doubt helped it get the word out initially. It would probably also be harder for other NGOs to capture so much attention by just copying Invisible Children's approach.

It's not going to be possible for just any NGO to sweep in and drive its agenda on every foreign policy issue imaginable. But Kony 2012 does open up a whole new scale of campaigning potential and demonstrates the consequent emerging empowerment of individuals and small groups facilitated by the internet. For foreign ministries, it's another reminder of how dramatically new connection technologies are altering the diplomatic space. So far, most have been slow to realise this new reality.

Photo by Flickr user Chun Lam.

Bob Carr delivered his first major address in Washington today at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

As someone who used to spend his university lunch breaks watching NSW parliamentary question time just so I could see the man's debating skills in practice, it was a bit disappointing to not see the same Carr on display.

It was a solid speech, but did not harness the Carr potential. He exuded an obvious interest in US, Australian and Chinese history. The speech ticked off all the required US alliance bullet points: solidarity on Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, the EAS and non-proliferation. But for someone as knowledgeable on the US as Carr, it was a missed opportunity. His speech seemed like it was drafted by committee; a bit disjointed with odd bits tossed in at random and a few abrupt segues. 

The notable points were repeated emphasis that Australia was not withdrawing from Afghanistan but merely 'transitioning', perhaps suggesting a bit of concern about the meaning behind Prime Minister Gillard's recent announcement. Another was Carr's focus on ocean management, which he made a decent effort of pushing onto the agenda. 

The speech was also a sign of just how much detail a foreign minister needs to get on top of to master their portfolio, no matter how experienced a politician they are. When asked a question on Fiji, Carr had to resort to reading from some clumsily written talking points.

Hopefully, next time Washington will get to see one of Australia's greatest orators in action.

Secretary Clinton's Senior Adviser for Innovation, Alec Ross, was kind enough to launch my latest ediplomacy paper today, appropriately enough via Twitter.

While social media is certainly an aspect of ediplomacy, what I hope this report will highlight is that it is much, much more. In fact, after spending four months in Washington, DC researching ediplomacy, I counted and met with 25 separate ediplomacy nodes at State Department headquarters, which collectively employed over 150 people. Overseas, more than 900 use ediplomacy to some extent.

Far from focusing only on social media, I found eight broad uses ediplomacy is being put to. Public diplomacy (a big user of social media) is a major employer of ediplomacy personnel and also a remarkable user of social media: State now operates 600 Facebook, Twitter and YouTube platforms reaching over eight million people (when you include other social media platforms, this number is even higher). Pages like eJournal USA and Global Conversations: Climate Challenge reach over one million people each.

But other areas are equally prominent in the ediplomacy space. Knowledge Management is a big employer (over 50 staff) and Internet Freedom has been well funded, having been allocated over $US70 million since 2008, with much of this work outsourced.

How, specifically, is State using these new technologies?

Today the Lowy Institute launches what I think is one of the most compelling and challenging polls we've ever conducted. It was a survey carried out across Indonesia following up on a poll we did there in 2006. The changes the poll records are remarkable, and responses to a series of new questions challenge some entrenched stereotypes about Indonesia.

But first, consider just how bad relations are with our most important neighbour. At a political level, there has been a spectacular failure to capitalise on Indonesia's remarkably smooth democratic transition and its pro-Australian President.

Instead, the relationship with Indonesia has been repeatedly trashed for temporary domestic political advantage. Whether it is asylum seekers, cows or Australian drug smugglers, Indonesia is treated like a miscreant Pacific atoll, not a country fundamental to Australia's future prosperity and stability with a population ten times our size and a larger economy in purchasing power terms. When the Government panicked and cut all live cattle exports to Indonesia, Indonesian officials weren't even consulted. Likewise when the Coalition announced it was going to turn back boats.

The tone of the relationship is often completely back to front, with a focus on how many threats Indonesia poses and how much aid we give it. Take this line from the introduction to the relationship on the DFAT website: 'Australia and Indonesia cooperate in practical ways on a wide range of international issues, including counter-terrorism, illegal fishing, people smuggling, avian influenza, climate change and interfaith dialogue.'

Or, my personal favourite, this speech from 2008 titled 'Australia-Indonesia Relations: A New Partnership for a New Era' by then Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, which characterised this approach under three headings: security cooperation, regional disaster response and Indonesia's development challenges. And that was delivered to an Indonesian audience.

Whatever you might think of Kevin Rudd, he was certainly active internationally, both as Foreign Minister and as Prime Minister. But what were his achievements and what will his legacy be?

This post is intended to kick-start a discussion of what Rudd achieved in foreign affairs and begins with his China policy. We want to hear from you too, so please write in: blogeditor@lowyinistitute.org .

A major aspect of the Rudd years was China. At the time of the Chinese Olympic torch protests in Australia, I received an unusual call to come to the Lodge on an unrelated matter, and remember waiting for some time as Rudd dealt with the shenanigans the Chinese were pulling. When eventually we sat down to talk, it was not hard to discern that the Chinese were clearly (and seemingly pointlessly) rubbing the new PM the wrong way.

But almost from the get-go the media got Rudd wrong on China. Far from being the Manchurian Candidate, WikiLeaks cables revealed him to be as clear-headed about China and Chinese negotiating strategies as he was in private during that meeting at the Lodge.

According to officials, Rudd led serious Cabinet-level contemplation of Australia's approach to its single largest trading partner, and although it has not been made public until today, produced the first ever (and still secret) Cabinet-approved strategy mapping out our approach to China.

Under his watch, Australia also produced a highly ambitious Defence White Paper, setting up what is essentially a Marine Expeditionary Force designed to be plugged directly into any major US operation in the Pacific (read defence against China). And although it was his successor as PM who ultimately oversaw the delivery, Rudd must be credited with laying some of the groundwork that has seen the US establish what is basically a permanent military base in Australia. 

But Rudd was not all muscle and no diplomacy. His Peking University speech was an attempt to engage the Chinese Government in a new style of dialogue. And he allocated $100 million to establish a China Centre at the ANU that should aspire to be the world's leading research centre on the subject.

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.