Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest

1. The Armenian and the UK governments agreed in 2004 to use a different language to treat the Turkish genocide (my words) in milder terms; this was not widely reported, however the Armenian diaspora got hold of the information spread by some organizations and inundated with e-mails the FCO’s Permanent Under-Secretary’s inbox.
2. The negotiations between the EU-ACP for a new economic partnership agreement (EPA) for compliance with the WTO rules are being more complicated by the fact that “it is a hot issue in the blogosphere” and ACP countries are taking as their own position the perspective of the NGOs, which is a more principled stand to these issues. (A very interesting point for my thesis.)
3. Al-Qaeda’s Abu Mu’sab Suri (real name: Mustafa Setmariam Nasar) has used intensively the web to propagate his ideas and written works. This represents an ideological and political challenge to governments combating jihaddist movements. (more info on Wikipedia)

The Internet has multiplied and diversify the actors in international relations. It has created new forms of collaboration and alliance, but also it is a factor of polarisation , for people and organizations are more and more seeking their information and allies among those that share their views. So Internet makes collaborating and polarising easier and faster.These transformations mean that diplomacy must adapt towards what Dr. Westcott calls Digital Diplomacy. This has implications in three areas:a) Ideas: ideas are very important in foreign policy. The Internet is where ideas are exchanged fast and intensively, therefore diplomacy must be present in virtual spaces to gather information about others’ ideas and to influence with its own ideas.b) Networks: We live in a networked world. The Internet is the network of networks. Diplomacy must find and make use of the already existing networks. It must also create its own networks to gather ideas, information and interact with other actors.c) Information: Although the Internet is increasing the dissemination of information, there is no sign that this brings better informed participants into the debate or that participants are getting better information. For there is still the question of trust, that is, the Internet does not guarantee the communication of trustable information, in other words, it expands quantitatively the information available, but not qualitatively. Dr. Westcott is, thus, surprised that until today there has not been a serious development of mechanisms to transmit trusted information on the Net. This is extremely relevant for diplomacy and international relations in general, where information changes fast, is scarce and comes from many sources. There is still a great need, therefore, of filtering and analysis of information done mainly by diplomats.In brief, the development of digital diplomacy means that “diplomats need to become masters of the Internet”.