Description
The 21st-century has seen the emergence of an interconnected and multipolar world. Processes such as globalization complicate diplomatic crises and increase their frequency as regional conflicts have global ramifications and global events lead to regional confrontations. Amid this climate of perpetual and complex crises, diplomats will increasingly be called upon to practice crisis management. This study aimed to explore whether the recent adoption of social media by ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) can inform strategies for the management of crises between states. The study postulated that during a crisis, MFAs will create frames through which digital publics can make sense of a crisis. The study further postulated that by evaluating the difference between two MFAs’ frames, or two MFAs’ interpretations of events, one can measure the scope of relative disagreement between two governments and the likelihood of crisis escalation. To test these hypotheses, the study built on the works of Erving Goffman and developed a 'frame distance' model that monitors the progression of a crisis in near-real time and identifies crisis pressure points at which diplomatic mediation may be most warranted or effective. The model was tested on a recent case study- the use of Twitter by the US State Department and the Russian MFA during the 2014 Crimean Crisis. An analysis of 1,000 tweets demonstrated that MFAs do in fact use Twitter to create real time frames through which a crisis may be understood. Moreover, the analysis demonstrated that by measuring the difference between two MFAs’ frames, one can identify crisis pressure points where diplomatic mediation may be most effective. Thus, the advent of online diplomacy enables diplomats to tailor diplomatic interventions to the unique offline progression of a given crisis, increasing the efficacy of diplomatic crisis management. Within the context of the Crimean Crisis, the study also identifies multiple instances in which third party diplomats may have been successful at resolving the Crisis by identifying areas of agreement between the Russian and US governments. The study’s qualitative analysis of MFAs’ tweets also identifies the core interests of both Russia and the US thus identifying a host of solutions that may have garnered support from both governments. As such, this study’s results sheds light on how future crises opposite Russia may be resolved through diplomatic action, as opposed to military force.
