Year 2021, Volume , Issue 6, Pages 107 - 138 2021-01-31

Kamu Diplomasisinde İnsani Diplomasi Temelli Diyalog: Uluslararası İnsani Diplomasi Aktörlerinin Twitter Hesapları Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz
Humanitarian Diplomacy Based Dialogue in Public Diplomacy: A Comparative Analysis on Twitter Accounts of International Humanitarian Diplomacy Actors
La diplomatie humanitaire basée sur le dialogue dans la diplomatie publique: une analyse comparative sur les comptes twitter des acteurs de la diplomatie humanitaire internationale

Yaşar ŞEKERCİ [1]


Diyalog kurma ve ilişki inşa etmenin ana belirleyici olduğu yeni dünya düzeninde, aktörler mevcut ve potansiyel yumuşak güç kaynaklarına yönelerek stratejik iletişim faaliyetlerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu bakımdan devletler ve devlet dışı aktörler bir iletişim süreci olan kamu diplomasisi faaliyetleri ile uluslararası kamuoyunu ve yabancı halkları kendi amaç, hedef ve stratejilerine göre ikna etmeye çalışmaktadır. 21. yüzyıl küresel siyasetindeki bu iletişim temelli zorunlu dönüşüm ise uluslararası toplumdaki sorunlara karşın “insan odaklı” olma vurgusunu giderek zorunlu kılmıştır. Küresel sistem içerisinde dünyayı, özellikle de insanları derinden etkileyen birçok küresel sorun ve kriz giderek yoğunlaşmaktadır. Sorunların küresel düzeyde artması, kamu diplomasisinin bir uygulama alanı olan insani diplomasi faaliyetlerinin önemini arttırmış, bu durum krizlerin tarafları, paydaşları ve gönüllüleriyle diyalog kurulması ve ilişki inşa edilmesi için insani diplomasi aktörlerinin yeni iletişim teknolojilerini de etkili kullanmalarını zorunlu kılmıştır. Bu çalışmada dünyada en çok yardım yapan ve uluslararası insani diplomasinin ana aktörleri olan Türk Kızılay, Amerikan Kızılhaçı, İngiliz Kızılhaçı, Alman Kızılhaçı ve Kanada Kızılhaçı’nın sosyal ağları insani diplomasi açısından hangi düzeyde kullandıklarının ve kullanıcılarla diyalog temelli etkileşime girip girmediklerinin ortaya konulması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada öncelikle yeni kamu diplomasisi ve insani diplomasi kavramlarının çerçevesi çizilmiş, insani krizlerin çözümünde temel belirleyici olan bu kurumların İngilizce Twitter hesaplarındaki içerikler, sosyal ağları insani diplomasi açısından hangi düzeyde kullandıkları, diyalog temelli etkileşime girip girmediklerine yönelik hipotezler niceliksel içerik çözümlemesi yöntemiyle sınanmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda insani diplomasi faaliyetlerinde kurumların büyük bir kısmının Twitter’ı diyalog temelli kullanmadığı ve paylaşılan içeriklerde etkileşime girme oranının ise düşük olduğu saptanmıştır.
In the new world order where dialogue and relationship building are the main determinants, actors focus on strategic communication activities by turning to potential soft power resources. In this respect, states and non-state actors attempt to convince the international public and foreign peoples according to their own goals, objectives, and strategies through public diplomacy activities. Despite the complexities of the international community, the communication-based transformation that is mandatory in the 21st-century world order has increasingly emphasized being “people-centered”. In the global system, many global issues and crises that affect the world, especially people, are increasing. The global increase in problems has raised the value of humanitarian diplomacy operations, which are part of public diplomacy. Accordingly, it has prompted humanitarian diplomacy players to make strategic use of emerging connectivity tools to participate in dialog and establish partnerships with crisis groups, stakeholders, and volunteers. This study aims to reveal at what level the Turkish Red Crescent, the American Red Cross, the British Red Cross, the German Red Cross, and the Canadian Red Cross, which are the main actors in humanitarian diplomacy international and who provide the most aid to the world, use social networks in matters of humanitarian diplomacy and if they interact with users based on dialogue. In this context, the study first outlined the new concepts of public diplomacy and humanitarian diplomacy. Then, using the quantitative content analysis method, the contents of the English Twitter accounts of these organizations, which are the key determinants of the resolution of humanitarian crises, the extent of social networks they use in terms of humanitarian diplomacy, and the dialog-based interaction hypotheses, were evaluated. As a result of the study, it was shown that most organizations do not use Twitter based on dialogue in humanitarian diplomacy activities and that there is a low degree of interaction with shared content.
Dans le nouvel ordre mondial où le dialogue et l'établissement de relations sont les principaux déterminants, les acteurs se concentrent sur les activités de communication stratégique en se tournant vers les ressources de soft power existantes et potentielles. À cet égard, les États et les acteurs non étatiques tentent de convaincre le public international et les peuples étrangers en fonction de leurs propres buts, objectifs et stratégies à travers des activités de diplomatie publique, qui sont un processus de communication. Cette transformation obligatoire basée sur la communication dans l'ordre mondial du XXIe siècle a de plus en plus mis l'accent sur le fait d'être « axé sur les personnes » malgré les problèmes de la communauté internationale. Dans le système mondial, de nombreux problèmes et crises mondiaux qui affectent profondément le monde, en particulier les gens, se multiplient. L'augmentation mondiale des problèmes a accru l'importance des activités de diplomatie humanitaire, qui est un champ d'application de la diplomatie publique, et cette situation a obligé les acteurs de la diplomatie humanitaire à utiliser efficacement les nouvelles technologies de la communication afin d'établir un dialogue et de nouer des relations avec les parties à la crise, les parties prenantes et les volontaires. Dans cette étude, il vise à révéler à quel niveau le Croissant-Rouge turc, la Croix-Rouge américaine, la Croix-Rouge britannique, la Croix-Rouge allemande et la Croix-Rouge canadienne, qui sont les principaux acteurs de la diplomatie humanitaire internationale et qui fournissent le plus d'aide au monde, utilisent les réseaux sociaux en matière de diplomatie humanitaire et s'ils interagissent avec les utilisateurs basés sur le dialogue. Dans ce contexte, l'étude a d'abord esquissé les nouveaux concepts de diplomatie publique et de diplomatie humanitaire, et le contenu des comptes Twitter anglais de ces institutions, qui sont les principaux déterminants de la résolution des crises humanitaires, le niveau des réseaux sociaux qu'elles utilisent en termes de diplomatie humanitaire, et les hypothèses d'interaction basée sur le dialogue. Il a été testé par la méthode d'analyse quantitative du contenu. À la suite de l'étude, il a été déterminé que la plupart des institutions n'utilisent pas Twitter sur la base du dialogue dans les activités de diplomatie humanitaire et le taux d'interaction avec les contenus partagés est faible.
  • İnsamer (2019). Ayse Aktaş, İnsani Diplomasi Kavramına Genel Bir Giriş Denemesi (III), Erişim 12 Kasım 2019, https://insamer.com/tr/insani-diplomasi-kavramina-genel-bir-giris-denemesi-iii_46.html
  • Binark, M. (2014). Yeni Medya Çalışmalarında Araştırma Yöntem ve Teknikleri. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Boomsocial. (2020). Erişim 12 Kasım 2020, https://www.boomsocial.com/
  • Boomsocial. (2020). Social Brands. Erişim 12 Kasım 2020, https://www.boomsocial.com/social-brands
  • Chirumalla, K., Oghazi, P., & Parida, V. (2018). Social Media Engagement Strategy: Investigation of Marketing And R&D Interfaces in Manufacturing Industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 74, 138-149.
  • Contentcal. (2020). What is a Good Social Media Engagement Rate?. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://www.contentcal.io/blog/what-is-a-good-social-media-engagement-rate/
  • Çınarlı, İ. (2009). Stratejik İletişim Yönetimi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım.
  • Faruk, S. (2012). Uluslararası Politika ve Dış Politika Analizi. İstanbul: Der Yayınları.
  • Foreign Affairs. (2019). What Putin Really Wants in Syria. Erişim 11 Kasım 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/01/what-putin-really-wants-in-syria-russia-assad-strategy-kremlin/
  • Foreign Affairs. (2020). Time to Recommit to Syria. Erişim 11 Kasım 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/01/what-putin-really-wants-in-syria-russia-assad-strategy-kremlin/
  • Global Humanitarian Assistance Report. (2020). Erişim 10 Ekim 2020, https://devinit.org/resources/global-humanitarian-assistance-report-2020/#downloads
  • Global Humanitarian Assistance Report. (2019). Erişim 10 Eylül 2019, http://devinit.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GHA-report-2019.pdf
  • Heywood, A. (2013). Küresel Siyaset. (N. Uslu ve H. Özdemir, Çev.). İstanbul: Adres Yayınları.
  • Huntington, S. P. (2000). The clash of civilizations?. Culture and politics içinde (99-118). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
  • IFRC. (2009). Humanitarian Diplomacy Policy. Erişim 3 Kasım 2020, https://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/humanitarian-diplomacy/humanitarian-diplomacy-policy/#:~:text=Humanitarian%20diplomacy%20is%20persuading%20decision,respect%20for%20fundamental%20humanitarian%20principles
  • IFRC. (2020). Complex/Manmade Hazards: Complex Emergencies, Erişim 2 Eylül 2020, https://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-disasters/definition-of-hazard/complex-emergencies/
  • Baudrillard, J. (1988). The hyper-realism of simulation. Jean Baudrillard: selected writings, 143-147.
  • Kaplan, M. A. (1957). Balance of power, bipolarity and other models of international systems. The American Political Science Review, 51(3), 684-695.
  • Melissen, J. (2005a). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In The new public diplomacy (pp. 3-27). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
  • Melissen, J. (2005b). Wielding soft power: the new public diplomacy (p. 4). Netherlands: Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael.
  • Melissen, J. (2011). Beyond the new public diplomacy. Hollanda: Netherlands Institute of International Relations' Clingendael'.
  • Nonprofit Tech for Good. (2019). Global NGOs Technology Report. Erişim 17 Kasım 2020 https://funraise.org/techreport OCHA. (2020). Global Humanitarian Overview. Erişim 3 Mart 2020, https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/GHO-2020_v9.1.pdf
  • Oberlo. (2020). 10 Twitter Statistics Every Marketer Should Know In 2020. Erişim 9 Kasım 2020, https://www.oberlo.com/blog/twitterstatistics#:~:text=Here's%20a%20summary%20of%20the,are%20between%2035%20and%2065
  • Pamment, J. (2013). New public diplomacy in the 21st century: A Comparative Study of Policy and Practice. Routledge.
  • Potter, E. (2003). Canada and the new public diplomacy. International Journal, 58(1), 43-64.
  • Rival IQ. (2018). 2018 Social Media Industry Benchmark Report. Erişim 02 Nisan 2020 https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/2018-social-media-industry-benchmark-report/
  • Rival IQ. (2019). 2019 Social Media Industry Benchmark Report. https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/2019-social-media-benchmark-report/ , Erişim Tarihi: 02.04.2020.
  • Rival IQ. (2020). 2020 Social Media Industry Benchmark Report. Erişim 02 Nisan 2020 https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/
  • Sancar, G. A. (2012). Kamu Diplomasisi ve Uluslararası Halkla İlişkiler. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları
  • Smith, H. A., & Minear, L. (2007). Humanitarian Diplomacy: Practitioners and their craft. United Nations University Press.
  • Statisca. (2020). Most popular social networks worldwide as of October 2020, ranked by number of active users, https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/, Erişim Tarihi: 9.11.2020.
  • Szondi, G. (2008). Central and Eastern European public diplomacy: A transitional perspective on national reputation management. In Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (pp. 312-333). Routledge.
  • Smith, B. G., & Gallicano, T. D. (2015). Terms of engagement: Analyzing public engagement with organizations through social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 82-90.
  • Sociality. 2020. Social Media Management Platform. Erişim 12 Kasım 2020, https://sociality.io/
  • Tuch, H. N. (1990). Communicating with the world: US public diplomacy overseas. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  • The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2019). Humanitarian diplomacy policy. Erişim 3 Ocak 2020, http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/humanitarian-diplomacy/humanitarian-diplomacy-policy/
  • Twitter. (2020). Hakkında. Erişim 9 Kasım 2020, https://about.twitter.com/tr.html
  • Twitter. (2020). MFA Russia. Erişim 10 Nisan 2020, https://twitter.com/mfa_russia?lang=tr
  • Twitter. (2020). IFRC Twitter Account. https://twitter.com/ifrc/status/1265986211409276935
  • Twitter. (2020). GET statuses/user_timeline. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/tweets/timelines/api-reference/get-statuses-user_timeline
  • Twitter. (2020). Twitter'daki Sohbetler Hakkında. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020. https://help.twitter.com/tr/using-twitter/twitter-conversations
  • Twitonomy. (2020). Home. Erişim 12 Kasım 2020, https://www.twitonomy.com/auth.php
  • Twitter. (2020). Hakkında. Erişim 15 Ekim 2020, https://about.twitter.com/tr.html
  • Twitter. 2020. Yanıtlar ve Bahsedenler Hakkında, Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://help.twitter.com/tr/using-twitter/mentions-and-replies
  • We Are Social. (2020). Digital 2020 October Global Statshot Report. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://wearesocial.com/blog/2020/10/social-media-users-pass-the-4-billion-mark-as-global-adoption-soars
  • We Are Social. (2020). Digital 2020 USA. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-united-states-of-america
  • We Are Social. (2020). Digital 2020 UK. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2020/02/digital-2020-the-uk-what-you-need-to-know
  • We Are Social. (2020). Digital 2020 Germany. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-germany
  • We Are Social. (2020). Digital 2020 Turkey. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-turkey
  • We Are Social. (2020). Digital 2020 Palestine. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-palestine
  • We Are Social. (2020). Digital 2020 Iraq. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-iraq
  • We Are Social. (2020). Digital 2020 Turkey. Erişim 13 Kasım 2020, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-turkey
Primary Language tr
Subjects Social
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0002-2574-7843
Author: Yaşar ŞEKERCİ (Primary Author)
Institution: Galatasaray Üniversitesi
Country: Turkey


Dates

Publication Date : January 31, 2021

APA Şekerci, Y . (2021). Kamu Diplomasisinde İnsani Diplomasi Temelli Diyalog: Uluslararası İnsani Diplomasi Aktörlerinin Twitter Hesapları Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz . Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi , İleti-ş-im Özel Sayı: 6 , 107-138 . DOI: 10.16878/gsuilet.868268