Annotation of
The Two Faces of Twitter: Revolution in a Digital Age. By Darrell West. The Huffington Post. July 30, 2009.
~ The Editors
New technologies are gaining a more significant role in aiding the understanding of human rights by making people more aware of local struggles and by benefiting social movements through the rapid dissemination of information to better respond to human rights violations, organize political resistance, and gain international support for their cause.
The positive impact of technology on human rights, as presented by Darrell West’s article, was evident in the Iranian protests after the presidential election in June. “The role of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in recent Iranian street demonstrations shows the power of digital technologies. Because of their decentralized nature, these tools empower grass-roots activists and help them bypass government authorities.”
New technologies, however, are not a magic wand to prevent human rights abuses. In some cases, they can even become a powerful source to help abusive governments to continue with their repressive strategies. “What authoritarian governments need more than anything else in a crackdown is lists of people sympathetic to opposition leaders…New technologies create the option for governments to engage in digital propaganda of their own. There have been news reports of government officials hijacking Moussavi's Facebook page and sending inaccurate information to his followers in an attempt to confuse the opposition.”
In sum, the use of technologies in political struggles can have two and often contradictory impacts: to foster freedom and political resistance to human rights violations and simultaneously facilitate political repression. Furthermore, as this month’s centerpiece and our panelists have underscored in this Roundtable, it is fundamental to keep in mind that technologies on their own are not going to bring about a world free of authoritarianism and where human rights are fully protected. “To generate fundamental change, it still takes strong leadership, powerful ideas, and people willing to risk arrest and imprisonment."
These issues and others are considered in this month’s Roundtable.
Friday, August 7, 2009
August 2009: Iran's Uprising and New Technologies
Annotation of
The Two Faces of Twitter: Revolution in a Digital Age. By Darrell West. The Huffington Post. July 30, 2009.
~ The Editors
Twitter and YouTube: Positive Developments for Human Rights Protection?
by Nicola Colbran, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights
“Instant messaging and social network services can communicate human rights violations as they unfold in a succinct manner to a wide audience, both domestic and international. An example is the information sent via Twitter and YouTube indicating violence, arbitrary detentions and killings following the elections in Iran.”
A number of statements have been made regarding the benefit to human rights protection of advances in technology. However, can these advances also have a negative impact?
Focusing on instant messaging and social network services such as Twitter and YouTube, the positives are quickly apparent. They can draw immediate attention to human rights violations that may otherwise go unnoticed, allow interested parties to stay abreast of developments in the protection of human rights, and create strength and courage in numbers for action that may not be anticipated by the perpetrator. These services also enable human rights activists to tweet their movements to family and friends confirming that they are alive and well.
Instant messaging and social network services can communicate human rights violations as they unfold in a succinct manner to a wide audience, both domestic and international. An example is the information sent via Twitter and YouTube indicating violence, arbitrary detentions and killings following the elections in Iran. This function is particularly important where traditional media is unable to, or fails to, report on the violations. CNN’s lack of coverage of the demonstrations in Iran was heavily criticized with blogs headlining such as “Dear CNN, Please Check Twitter for News About Iran.”
The use of instant messaging and social network services to communicate human rights violations is also a strong indication of a lack of freedom of expression and association in the relevant country. Communication via Twitter and YouTube becomes necessary because of the censoring of news, the arrest of journalists, the shutting down of satellite transmissions, and the prohibition of television coverage of rallies.
The function of allowing interested parties to stay abreast of developments in the protection of human rights plays an equally important role. An example of this is the recent announcement by the Human Rights Campaign, America’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, of the #FightHateNow hashtag for Twitter users to contribute to and stay abreast of developments in relation to the federal hate crimes bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA).
However in his article, Darrell West also raises the question of whether instant messaging and social network services may present problems for human rights protection and promotion. West’s article refers to the ability of authoritarian governments to collect lists of dissidents through Internet cookies and other tracking devices in order to identify and track them down. He continues “what authoritarian governments need more than anything else in a crackdown is lists of people sympathetic to opposition leaders.”
But are the risks of using instant messaging and social network services any greater than using more traditional methods of communication? Tracking down opponents and dissidents is not a new phenomenon. For example, in Indonesia in 1965, it has been widely reported that the US government played a significant role in one of the worst massacres of the twentieth century by supplying the names of thousands of Communist Party leaders to the Indonesian army, which hunted them down and killed them. The US government has acknowledged that in 1965 it systematically compiled comprehensive lists of Communist operatives, provided them to the Indonesian army, and later checked off the names of those who had been killed or captured. “No one cared, as long as they were Communists, that they were being butchered.” An interesting question is whether the existence of instant messaging and social network services would have made any difference. Would they, for example, have drawn attention to the massacres that even today many people are unaware of? Or would they in fact have facilitated the massacre, making the compilation of leaders, followers and sympathizers even easier?
Either way, as developments in technology continue, the advantages offered by instant messaging and social network services to the human rights movement should be acknowledged. Many risks do exist, including the detection of authors and followers, the interception of messages and the misuse of technology to further violate human rights. Authors and followers also need to put context and meaning to the flood of data that can ensue from the use of such services. Ultimately however, “we can complain because the rose bush has thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
Nicola Colbran is the legal advisor to the Indonesia Programme at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights. In this capacity she coordinates and conducts human rights trainings in cooperation with Indonesian partners (government, NGOs and academia), and also researches and writes widely on human rights and Indonesia.
Protest, Iranian Style: A Two-Way Conversation?
by Shareen Hertel, University of Connecticut
"The West underplays the importance of social networking for cracking the monolith of Iran—and the implications for human rights of the unfolding dialogue in words and images."
Darrell West gets it right when he argues that despite their promise, digital technologies alone “cannot produce revolutions. To generate fundamental change, it still takes strong leadership, powerful ideas, and people willing to risk detention and imprisonment.” West is writing about Iran—and the critical role that social networking has played in fostering social protest in the wake of a disputed election in that country. He also warns that oppressive regimes may turn the very same tool of protest against those fighting for freedom, by using digital technology to track protesters. Yet West underplays the importance of social networking for cracking the monolith of Iran—and the implications for human rights of the unfolding dialogue in words and images.
The world has witnessed the protests in Iran thanks to average people’s ability to capture images and share them via social networking sites, Twitter, and other technologies. Using cutting edge information technology is not new in the world of contentious politics in the late twentieth century. Protesters at Tiananmen Square used faxes—considered the latest technology in 1989—to avoid government censorship and alert the world to repression of protests in Beijing. Several years after, the Zapatista social movement for indigenous rights in Mexico mobilized followers globally through strategic use of Internet websites for conveying the messages of its masked leader “Sub-Comandante Marcos,” and for marshalling international financial and political support.
Yet the Iranian use of technology has an added effect over and above that of previous protests. The varied images transmitted amidst the protests have helped crack the façade of what has often been regarded by outsiders as a monolithic society. These images illustrate not only the widespread opposition to the election process and results, but also show the supporters of the regime. They demonstrate that many people in the Middle East yearn for democracy—including those in Iran—and that it is not incompatible with the very civil and political rights that the current Iranian regime has dismissed as “Western” and alien.
This view into the protests in Iran has had multiple effects on human rights. First, it has provided fodder for the traditional “shame and blame” game that human rights activists are expert at playing —this time, in the interest of shaming the Iranian regime into reform. Second, the bird’s eye view of the protests has helped humanize the protesters themselves in the eyes of those observing the protests (most famously, in the case of slain bystander Neda Soltani) while at the same time revealing the complexities of protests driven by internal divisions. This complexity should lead to caution: if outside allies want to “help” Iranians in their struggle for democracy, they will need to take their cues from Iranians themselves, who want to be heard but aren’t yet clamoring for reform in a united voice.
Third, the new technologies harnessed by Iranians in defense of their own human rights are but one of many important resources that are essential to realizing rights. As Darrell West astutely points out, powerful ideas matter to the success of revolutions: Iranians need access to information about human rights along with creative ideas about how to reconcile these ideas with their own cultural values and institutions. The information exchange needs to be a two-way street: just as Iranians are resorting to extraordinarily creative measures to get their images of rebellion out for the world to see, we on the “outside” must be creative in sharing information with them. Getting past the censors is only the first step. Sustaining the conversation is the critical second one. Listening (and looking) for cues from Iranian civil society is the greatest challenges the international human rights movement faces at the moment.
Shareen Hertel is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut, jointly appointed with the University of Connecticut Human Rights Institute. She has also served as a consultant to foundations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and United Nations agencies in the United States, Latin America and South Asia. She is the author of Unexpected Power: Conflict and Change Among Transnational Activists (Cornell 2006) and co-editor, with Lanse P. Minkler, of Economic Rights: Conceptual, Measurement, and Policy Issues (Cambridge, 2007).
Who is Quicker – the Hacker or the Twitter?
by Anja Mihr, Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (SIM), University of Utrecht, Netherlands
"For a moment we believed that we had entered into a new era of democratic movement. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Google—chat have given proof that regardless where people live, what background they have, what system they adhere to or what religion they practice: they want to share the injustice and violence that happens to them with the world."
For a moment we believed that we had entered into a new era of democratic movement. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Google—chat have given proof that regardless where people live, what background they have, what system they adhere to or what religion they practice: they want to share the injustice and violence that happens to them with the world. They seek awareness, help and support and moreover they look for an end to the unfair and violent treatment. So have thousands of people in Iran—and still they do. They use what is the most widely available, quickest and the cheapest way to communicate in order to bypass censorship and propaganda and to transport their messages through digital technologies. Fifty years ago they would have used radio, and two hundred years ago they used print media, as described by Darrell West in his article.
It would have been foolish to believe that the regime would not react and restrict these forms of communication. It would have also been foolish to believe that “freedom of information and expression” has found the ultimate way to bypass suppressive regimes. As long as there are authoritarian regimes in this world, freedom and rights will be oppressed by any means. But instead of pure propaganda battles between opposition leaders and Mahmood Ahmedinejad via radio or handbills, we are witnessing a “digital racing” between the rebellious youth and the Secret Service. Both sides know very well how to use these technologies and how to manipulate them. They use the same means and knowledge. Neither side has any technical advantage—the only difference is the speed. Who is quicker in submitting information and how fast can it be cracked or deleted, how fast can passwords be manipulated and chat rooms closed before they reopen again somewhere else in the cyberspace world. Thus, who is quicker – the hacker or the twitter?
Sadly enough we are not even shocked anymore about the propaganda and the terrible ill-treatment, the killings, the torture and the imprisonments of thousand of citizens by their own government. Iran’s prisons are currently overcrowded and thousand of people have disappeared in police custody. Somehow we did not expect differently. But what is rather new to us is the fact that we have become part of peoples’ destinies and lives in Iran. At any time of the day, online, in our living rooms we have been with them over the past weeks. Never before have millions of people all over the world been so close and in due time sharing and witnessing peoples pain and fears. Does this change our perception and support for their fight for justice and transparency? It may not appear so at the moment but it might do so in the long run. We have become more emphatic and share their vulnerability. Maybe it was the strange feeling that came over us, when we suddenly felt with Neda when she died—and while we were watching it online. That was awkward and we felt as though we were in the streets of Tehran too. Within hours there was an overwhelming virtual outcry for her. We had not experienced anything like it before, and millions of people felt deeply the death of a woman whom they had not known hours before.
And when the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon urged the Iranian government to respect fundamental rights, the freedom of assembly and to end arrest, he was accused of meddling in internal affairs regardless of UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nevertheless, his appeal and the compassion by people around the world have changed the quality of “meddling.” Neither the United Nations, nor human rights organizations or people throughout the world would tell the Iranian people whom they should vote for or what they ought to do differently. They simply ask to respect everybody’s freedom of expression, the right to assemble, to vote for whomever they like and to respect their physical integrity. They don’t ask for more than to respect Iranian values, their own constitution or international commitments.
In the long run, international appeals combined with a constant—however hindered—digital interaction could lead to change. Interestingly enough, Mahmood Ahmedinejad and the Guardian Council of the Constitution felt they had to react to the digital outcry by justifying their repression when they argued that it was in the interest of the democratic order and Iranian people. This reminds me of the propagandistic talks by the communist regimes in Eastern Europe just before they had to resign. When suppressive governments start to justify their oppressive policies, they concede their weakness and sooner or later capitulate. Digital communication technologies might accelerate a similar process in Iran. Thus, the question is not if the regime will fall, but rather when and how many more young lives it will take?
Anja Mihr is appointed Associate Professor at the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (SIM), University of Utrecht, Netherlands. In her latest research she is focusing on Transitional Justice, Reconciliation, Human Rights and Democratization. She was Visiting Professor for Human Rights at Peking University Law School in China and worked for the Raoul Wallenberg Research Institute on Human Rights, Lund University. From 2006-2008 she was the European Program Director for the European Master Degree in Human Rights and Democratization at the European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights in Venice, Italy. She has been a researcher and lecturer at universities in Germany, USA, Spain, Finland and Armenia and published widely on the international human rights regime, human rights education, democratization and reconciliation: http://www.anjamihr.com/.
Stop the Revolution, Michael Jackson is Dead!
by William Paul Simmons, Arizona State University
“Real change will take leaders willing to tackle the messy job of coalition building. It will take leaders willing to see beyond self-interest and be ready to risk their lives for the good of the country and its people."
We won’t soon forget the rapid fire pace of “tweets” and Facebook posts direct from the streets of Tehran. The haunting images of Neda Agha Soltan shocked the consciences of hundreds of thousands around the globe as it went “viral.”
Once again, a new technology promises to give power to the people; to bring down dictators, and restore human rights. Twitter and its fellow traveler Facebook now join a long litany of information sources—newspapers, pamphlets, television, cell phones, the Internet—that have promised to change the world. Each was believed to be the ideal technology for sowing the seeds of democracy in every nook and cranny around the globe. And certainly each has played a role and should be in the arsenal of every social movement. But those who herald new technologies as game changers under-estimate how adept the hegemonic system is at co-opting technologies for its own purposes. At the end of the day the old rules still apply. The politics of improving human rights remains a long, hard struggle with many risks.
Attention-grabbing technologies like Twitter and Facebook appeal best to consumers with attention deficits. The green revolution in Tehran ended for all intents and purposes when the deaths of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson sucked the air out of the media window. The consumer’s attention shifted to the latest cause célèbre. After all the fury, what do most viewers remember of the green revolution? Do they better understand the Iranian people, their culture, their needs? Do they better comprehend the geo-political complexities of the region? Clearly, these new technologies, especially those limited to 140 characters, lack context and follow through.
More tweets will not release those rounded up for sending tweets. More Facebook posts will not release those imprisoned for having Facebook “cookies” on their hard drives. It will take old-fashioned politics and social movements, and not just snippets of information and images. More street protests are needed. And these need to be supplemented by the firm use of diplomacy and behind the scenes power brokering.
But each of these is also fraught with danger.
Real change will take leaders willing to tackle the messy job of coalition building. It will take leaders willing to see beyond self-interest and be ready to risk their lives for the good of the country and its people. If successful it will someday make a wonderful story on YouTube.
We won’t soon forget the rapid fire pace of Internet images direct from the streets of Rangoon. The haunting images of attacks on peaceful Buddhist monks shocked the consciences of hundreds of thousands around the globe as it went “viral.” And yet the Burmese ruling Junta remains firmly in power.
William Paul Simmons is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Masters program in Social Justice and Human Rights at Arizona State University. His work has appeared in such journals as Philosophy and Social Criticism, Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, The Journal of International Human Rights, and Social Sciences Quarterly. A forthcoming book examines the potential for reinvigorating human rights law from the perspectives of marginalized peoples. He has served as a consultant on human rights and social justice issues in The Gambia (West Africa), China, and the United States.
Posts
