The Impact and Response to Misinformation, Disinformation, Malinformation and Hate Speech in the Digital Era Executive Summary
Over the past decades, the use of misinformation, malinformation, disinformation and hate speech (MDMH) has contributed to the escalation of violence in environments where the United Nations deployed Peacekeeping Operations (UN PKO). The widespread utilisation of modern technology in UN PKO environments raises the magnitude of the MDMH threat. In some settings, MDMH places communities and peacekeepers at risk of harm, but more broadly, MDMH places UN PKOs in ever more challenging situations which they are often incapable of responding to. The spread of information by actors as part of hearts and minds campaigns and other information strategies to bring populations on the ground on their side is nothing new. Simultaneously, the diffusion of rumours and false information can contribute to the escalation of tensions between and within groups and communities and result in widespread violence. All of these can support and contribute to the intensification and acceleration of MDMH, impacting not only the conflict dynamics but also the use of indiscriminate violence. The online uptake of MDMH may further aggravate these dynamics. It can undermine the stability of mission environments, local conflicts, indiscriminate use of violence by non-state and state actors, impact detrimentally on human rights, and jeopardise overall processes of achieving and sustaining peace and supporting its processes. The report draws on four UN PKOs as case studies and hinges further analysis on two UN PKOs to provide and understand context specific examples of the rising challenges that UN PKO face with MDMH. This report by the Effectiveness of Peace Operations Network (EPON) in collaboration with Norwegian Capacity (NORCAP) and Training for Peace sets out to explore some of these key developments and challenges questioning, what is the impact of MDMH on UN PKO’s and their ability to effectively implement their mandates? What efforts have the selected UN PKO’s taken to respond to MDMH? What are the lessons identified and recommendations for UNPKOs to address MDMH?
The Impact and Response to Misinformation, Disinformation, Malinformation and Hate Speech in the Digital Era
Over the past decades, the use of misinformation, malinformation, disinformation and hate speech (MDMH) has contributed to the escalation of violence in environments where the United Nations deployed Peacekeeping Operations (UN PKO). The widespread utilisation of modern technology in UN PKO environments raises the magnitude of the MDMH threat. In some settings, MDMH places communities and peacekeepers at risk of harm, but more broadly, MDMH places UN PKOs in ever more challenging situations which they are often incapable of responding to. The spread of information by actors as part of hearts and minds campaigns and other information strategies to bring populations on the ground on their side is nothing new. Simultaneously, the diffusion of rumours and false information can contribute to the escalation of tensions between and within groups and communities and result in widespread violence. All of these can support and contribute to the intensification and acceleration of MDMH, impacting not only the conflict dynamics but also the use of indiscriminate violence. The online uptake of MDMH may further aggravate these dynamics. It can undermine the stability of mission environments, local conflicts, indiscriminate use of violence by non-state and state actors, impact detrimentally on human rights, and jeopardise overall processes of achieving and sustaining peace and supporting its processes. The report draws on four UN PKOs as case studies and hinges further analysis on two UN PKOs to provide and understand context specific examples of the rising challenges that UN PKO face with MDMH. This report by the Effectiveness of Peace Operations Network (EPON) in collaboration with Norwegian Capacity (NORCAP) and Training for Peace sets out to explore some of these key developments and challenges questioning, what is the impact of MDMH on UN PKO’s and their ability to effectively implement their mandates? What efforts have the selected UN PKO’s taken to respond to MDMH? What are the lessons identified and recommendations for UNPKOs to address MDMH?
Nagelhus Schia appointed Research Professor
How Hungary’s Democratic Decline Challenges Europe: A Civil Society Perspective
Which lessons can be learned from the situation in Hungary?
The Russian model of Federalism: Are Centre-Region dynamics changing in Wartime?
How has Russia’s war against Ukraine affected centre-regions relations in Russia?
Dealing with the challenge of Russian political warfare in the High North and in the Black Sea Region
How has Russia used other instruments of power than military ones in the context of the war in Ukraine?
Gine Rønne Bolling
Gine R. Bolling is a junior research fellow in the Research group on security and defence. She graduated with an MSc in Politics of Conflict, Rig...
The Impact of the Ukraine Conflict on Norwegian Energy Dynamics
The critical role of human rights in UN peace operations
Public–Private Development Cooperation: Interface and Conflicting Logics in the Formation of a Strategic Partnership
Public–private development partnership constitutes the core of a deepening normative agenda that places private actors as active development agents and as means through which other development objectives are pursued in partnership with publicly funded aid actors. This normative agenda may challenge international development. This article goes beyond the official policy level to explore the formation of public– private development cooperation in practice, not just on paper. It zooms into the partnership between a Norwegian NGO and a multinational company and their joint project to renovate an old vocational college in Ethiopia to serve the private actor’s need for qualified workers. The article shows how a publicly funded development project becomes a proxy for private interests, but argues that the diversion of public aid is not due to bad intentions or conflicting interests. Rather, it is the result of interface situations created by the public–private partnership agenda and its intentional merger of actors with distinct institutional logics, accountabilities and rationales. The article demonstrates how actors put together as part of the public–private partnership agenda end up undermining the agenda itself because of the interface situations created in the nexus of public and private actors.