theglobaljournal.net: Latest activities of group Global Minds

Ukrainian Maidan And Nation-Building: Between A Nation-State And A Corporation-State

2014-02-26T13:11:11Z

The recent struggle of the Ukrainian people against president Yanukovych's rule, originally named as the Euromaidan, is a vivid illustration of the emerging brave new world. While the political crisis in Ukraine is still not completely resolved, several important observations can be made already. I would like to put forward three main theses here. First, Maidan is a manifestation of the battle between a nation-state and a corporation-state. Second, Maidan is a form of nation-building and reinforcement of the nation-state. And third, Maidan is a new and effective form of civil resistance in the post-modern world. I will first provide a background for each argument, then make a connection with the Ukrainian case, and finally demonstrate implications for the rest of the world.

Ukrainian state-building: nation-state vs. corporation-state

It has been claimed that globalization as a political and economic phenomenon of the later capitalism has weakened the national dimension of nation-states. The majority of scholars agree that nation-states are undergoing transformations. Yet the question is what these transformations will result in. Some speak about the world government, others advocate for civilizations, while still others highlight regional economies. Yet another opinion is that we are witnessing the birth of the corporation-state, a candidate for replacing the 'outdated' nation-state that reached its peak of development in the period of 1850-1970's. Corporation-state is an entity of a primarily economic character (vs. political in a nation-state) aimed at minimizing costs and expenses. Once economic competitiveness is declared to be the main objective of a state, its social and national components recede into background. The state starts acting as a corporation ruled by the economic effectiveness of the “survival of the fittest”.

Corporation-state must not be confused with the corporative (social) states like Italy in the 1920-1930's or Germany in the period of 1933-1945. The main features of corporation-state are desocialization, denationalization and deterritorization. While the 'social face' of the nation-state is a welfare state, corporation-state excludes 'extra' population since the market is regarded more important than social sphere, freedom than equality and justice, and police than army. This process has been conceptualized already in sociology by the '20:80' theory, meaning 20 per cent of the rich versus 80 per cent of the poor with no middle class which will be used as 'raw material' by the newly emerging corporation-states.

The process of constructing corporation-states is taking place all over the world. It is slower where there are civil societies, strong religious, historic and cultural traditions (especially non-Western ones) or national identities, or where the states are big in their territories. Where is nothing to confront with, the process is sweeping and even violent. The post-Soviet states, and Ukraine in particular, have been a vivid manifestation of the process.

In this regard, Maidan has been the struggle against such corporation-state built up by Viktor Yanukovych at the Ukrainian territory. In fact, similar systems are emerging in Russia, US, Europe, and even China with its strong influence of tradition and culture onto statecraft. However, it is Yanukovych who created the system of the criminal corporatocracy that other countries are yet to witness. In this system the state literally does not exist, with state authorities transforming into criminal structures aimed at serving corporate oligarch business at the expense of the middle class.

Why did this struggle became so fierce in Ukraine, and not any other place? Perhaps because the crisis of capitalism first starts from its peripheries, and only then moving to the core. It cannot be denied, however, that Maidan – as the battlefield of the nation-state against corporation-state – has made a tremendous contribution to the global justice movement, starting from anti-globalist protests and up until most recent “Occupy Wall-Street” movement and its affiliates.

As a preliminary conclusion, the case of Ukrainian Maidan demonstrates that only a renaissance of nation-state, and welfare-state as part of it, with individuals united for a common cause may be a viable alternative to “book a place” in the brave new world. It is this alternative that, optimistically, will make the world politically more stable and acceptable. This is a winding a road through thorns yet to the stars. As we all know, there is no victory without a battle.

Ukrainian nation-building: the “third way”

To restate one of the points above, the world of nation-states is irrevocably changing. This means not only the states as political entities, but the nations themselves are transforming too. Again, I assert that it is ultimately the struggle of the nation-state against corporation-state that will shape the future of nations. In this regard, Ukrainian Maidan gives room for interesting observations. Before looking into this however, let me recap definitions of some of the terms to be used.

A nation can be understood as either as a community of people with a common ethnicity, language and culture, or a political community of citizens of a sovereign state. The two approaches can be even combined by viewing a nation as a transformed ethnic group that acquired its sovereignty and statehood. The most important, however, is that a nation consists of individuals; it cannot be formed from tribes, clans, castes or other communities. These collective forms embrace individuals and prevent nation-building. It is not by chance that nations began to appear in Western Europe in the 17th - 19th centuries with the decomposition of communities of a pre-modern (traditional, or agrarian) society. While ethnic groups have existed throughout the world history, nations appear only in the modern (industrial) society.

We are now witnessing signs of the end of the Modern epoch that has lasted for about five hundred years. During this phase of historical development nations have been an important part of social classification and identification, in contrast to ethnic, religious, tribal and other forms of self-identification in the Pre-modern epoch. Moreover, emergence and rise of nations brought about nation-states that became the main form of political organization and proved to be effective in uniting populations of respective countries. Two important questions arise here. First, considering ethnic groups organize people in the traditional society, while nations do so in the modern one, what will the next development be in the Post-modern epoch? And second, if nations transform into something else (like ethnic groups did into nations), what type of identification will appear to replace the national identities?

Several possible scenarios can be drawn based on the existing empirical as well deducted data. These can be named the post-modern scenario, the counter-modern one and finally, the alternative way. Thus, in the first scenario the community of nations is to be replaced by a global non-ethnic post-modern society. On the practical policy level, the attempt to achieve this has been made in the European Union, for example, via the policy of multiculturalism. This strive for a global non-ethnic post-modern society, however, has been unsuccessful so far. The policy of multiculturalism has actually failed, with nationalism rising throughout the EU, and the political leaders of Great Britain, Germany and France advocating publicly for strengthening their nations.

However, it is the counter-modern scenario that has been pushed forward most of all. This is manifested in the already discussed emergence of corporation-states as opposed to nation-states, which inevitably leads to open conflicts like the one revealed by the Ukrainian Maidan. It is a counter-modern process as it re-invites the features of a pre-modern, or traditional society. For example, corporation-states keep the same characteristics of community (vs. individual in nation-states) and hierarchy, with the difference that now corporations act as communities. Also, compared to all other state forms, corporation-state is an exclusive, not inclusive entity with neo-patrimonial, neo-communal features. Finally, while a community is basic social element of a traditional society (forming ethnic groups), and an individual is the basic element in a modern society (forming nations), it is a clan that is an essential element of the corporation-state in the new world. Thus, counter-modern is a type of society similar to pre-modern, but artificially implanted in the Modern and Post-modern epochs.

To make a connection with the Ukrainian Maidan, it is worth asking why the world leaders were so slow and reluctant to impose the long-awaited sanctions against the Ukrainian governmental officials and oligarchs. This happened because the world ruling class received an excellent testing area for experimenting with the conflicts between representatives of the old national identity and the new criminal and corporate one.

There is yet an alternative way that may define the shape of nations in the new world. As already mentioned, European states are actually seeking to solidify nations in view of the ongoing crisis which is financial and economic on the top, but rather deep and structural in essence. In this regard, promoting nationalism as a way to strengthen a nation may become a necessity in the post-modern society. However, the idea of nation in this case will need to be re-determined. While in the Pre-Modern epoch people are organized via collective forms (communities), and in the Modern epoch communities decompose into social atoms (individuals) to create nations, in the Post-Modern epoch individuals must re-unite in collective forms in order to cope with the challenges posed. There is a major difference here though. In the traditional society man exists only as a community member, and does not see himself outside of it (if he leaves, then he leaves for another community). He cannot have interests other that those of the community (like a leg cannot strive to get away from a body). In the alternative scenario proposed, collectivism means uniting efforts of individuals in order to achieve a common goal; it implies having an individual who may have both common goals with the others as well his own ones. Collectivism is therefore a dialectic, and not an absolute opposite of individualism.

Maidan has been an excellent embodiment of the above principle. It has become an important element of nation-building, gave birth to new heroes, reinforced and expanded the boundaries of the community known as the Ukrainian nation. It is impossible to foresee which of the three scenarios discussed will take place in which parts of the world. Nor is it possible to tell whether national identities will be strengthened, or will fade away together with nation-states to give place to global and corporate identities. Still, the case of Ukraine may serve as an example that nation-building – ideally both from the bottom (by people) and top (by political elites) – is crucial in order to cope with the challenges of the newly emerging world order.

Ukrainian civil protest: from territorial to network communities

Maidan has also demonstrated the power of social networks in a civil protest. Network is the most effective communications system that can compete effectively with the state and corporate media. In this regard, social networks have proved indispensable in the conflict nation-state vs. corporation-state. By 'social network' here I mean not only any physical Internet networks like Facebook or Twitter that helped disclose the truth despite numerous manipulations in mass media. This is also a network of citizens that provide mutual trust, respect and cooperation. Yet most importantly, this is a principle of self-organization of the previously 'territorial' local communities. These communities managed to organize themselves into trusted connections and stand up against the system of criminal corporatocracy. Ukraine has survived so many times against the will of the state, that its civil society has now little or no affiliation with the state structures.

Maidan demonstrates that the network principle increases dramatically the capacity for survival in the conflict between the nation-state and the corporation-state. No state and corporate means can suppress an entity that can quickly and efficiently re-appear in any other place. Geography is no longer important for the networks of mutual supportiveness and donation. No criminal system can exist for a long time against the people's morale transformed into network communities.

Perhaps Maidan is a prototype of the alternative world. Its separate elements of the territorial, professional, and interest communities, as well political structures (such as the Council of Maidan) are able to give a viable response to the challenges of the system of criminal corporatocracy. Maidan as a phenomenon is a new reality of communities that make a nation rise against the corporation-state appearing all over the world. This is the reason why even the biggest political players, like US, Europe, Russia and China, are afraid of Maidan.

As a conclusion, Ukrainian Maidan is ultimately a reaction and a vector of resistance to the construction of the corporation-state. It is also is a dramatic example that there is a need for reinforcement of the nation-state (and the welfare-state as economic dimension of the nation-state) in order to cope with the challenges of the newly emerging world order. Finally, it shows that the concept of nation in the post-modern world needs to be redefined as a community of individuals united within the borders of a nation-state under the principles of collectivism and solidarity. Only a 'refined' nation-state with individuals united for a common cause may be a viable alternative to a corporation-state. The current situation, even if not on the brink of disaster yet, will become so by the middle of the 21st century or even earlier. This will be the moment of truth for the leaders and peoples, the moment of final choice between a nation-state and a corporation-state, between existence and non-being.

Is The Guardian Aiding Terrorism By Publishing Snowden's Revelations

2013-12-04T08:54:22Z

The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, appeared before the House of Commons home affairs select committee on December 2, to answer questions about his newspaper's publication of intelligence files leaked by Edward Snowden. Unlike the directors of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, who gave evidence recently before the intelligence and security committee, Rusbridger will not be provided with a list of questions in advance.

There are at least five legal and political issues arising out of Snowden's revelations on which reasonable opinion is divided. These include whether Snowden should enjoy the legal protection accorded a whistleblower who reveals wrongdoing; whether his revelations have weakened the counter-terrorism apparatus of the US or the UK; whether, conversely, they show the need for an overhaul of surveillance powers on both sides of the Atlantic (and even an international agreement to protect partners like Germany); whether parliament has been misled by the services about the extent of intrusive surveillance; and whether the current system for parliamentary oversight of the intelligence and security services is sufficiently robust to meet theinternational standards laid down by my predecessor at the UN, Martin Scheinin.

These questions are too important for the UN to ignore, and so on Tuesday I am launching an investigation that will culminate in a series of recommendations to the UN general assembly next autumn. As in the case of Chelsea Manning, there are also serious questions about sensitive information being freely available to so many people. The information Snowden had access to, which included top-secret UK intelligence documents, was available to more than 850,000 people, including Snowden – a contractor not even employed by the US government.

There is, however, one issue on which I do not think reasonable people can differ, and that is the importance of the role of responsible media in exposing questions of public interest. I have studied all the published stories that explain how new technology is leading to the mass collection and analysis of phone, email, social media and text message data; how the relationship between intelligence services and technology and telecoms companies is open to abuse; and how technological capabilities have moved ahead of the law. These issues are at the apex of public interest concerns. They are even more important – dare I say it – than whether Hugh Grant's mobile was hacked by a tabloid.

The astonishing suggestion that this sort of journalism can be equated with aiding and abetting terrorism needs to be scotched decisively. Attacking the Guardian is an attempt to do the bidding of the services themselves, by distracting attention from the real issues. It is the role of a free press to hold governments to account, and yet there have even been outrageous suggestions from some Conservative MPs that theGuardian should face a criminal investigation.

It is disheartening to see some tabloids give prominence to this nonsense. When the Mail on Sunday took the decision to publish the revelations of the former MI5 officer David Shayler, no one suggested that the paper should face prosecution. Indeed, when the police later tried to seize the Guardian's notes of its own interviews with Shayler, Lord Judge, the former lord chief justice, refused to allow it to happen – saying, rightly, that it would interfere with the vital role played by the media to expose public wrongdoing.

When it comes to damaging national security, comparisons between the two cases are telling. The Guardian has revealed that there is an extensive programme of mass surveillance that potentially affects every one of us, while being assiduous in avoiding the revelation of any name or detail that could put sources at risk. Rusbridger himself has made most of these decisions, as befits their importance. The Mail on Sunday, on the other hand, published material that was of less obvious public interest.

An even closer example is Katharine Gunn, the GCHQ whistleblowerwho revealed in 2003 that the US and UK were spying on the missions of Mexico and five other countries at the UN, in order to manipulate a vote in the security council in favour of military intervention in Iraq. Like Snowden, her defence was that she was acting to prevent a greater wrong – the attempt to twist the security council to the bellicose will of the US and UK. She was charged under the Official Secrets Act, but the case was dropped because the director of public prosecutions and attorney general rightly concluded that no jury would convict Gunn.

There can be no doubt that the Guardian's revelations concern matters of international public interest. There is already an intense debate that has drawn interventions from some of the UK's most senior political figures. Wholesale reviews have been mooted by President Obama, Chancellor Merkel and Nick Clegg, Britain's deputy prime minister. Current and former privy councillors and at least one former law officer have weighed in.

In the US, a number of the revelations have already resulted in legislation. Senior members of Congress have informed the Guardian that they consider the legislation to have been misused, and the chair of the US Senate intelligence committee has said that as a result of the revelations it is now "abundantly clear that a total review of all intelligence programmes is necessary".

In Europe, and particularly in Germany (which has a long and unhappy history of abusive state surveillance) the political class is incandescant. In November the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly endorsedthe Tshwane International Principles on National Security and the Right to Information, which provide the strongest protection for public interest journalism deriving from whistleblowers. Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in the UK, took part in the drafting of the principles and has endorsed them as an international template for resolving issues such as the present one. Many states have registered serious objections at the UN about spying, and there are diplomatic moves towards an international agreement to restrict surveillance activity. In direct response to the Guardian's revelations, Frank La Rue, the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, has brought forward new guidelines on internet privacy, which were adopted last week by the UN general assembly.

When it comes to assessing the balance that must be struck between maintaining secrecy and exposing information in the public interest there are often borderline cases. This isn't one. It's a no-brainer. The Guardian's revelations are precisely the sort of information that a free press is supposed to reveal.

The claims made that the Guardian has threatened national security need to be subjected to penetrating scrutiny. I will be seeking a far more detailed explanation than the security chiefs gave the intelligence committee. If they wish to pursue an agenda of unqualified secrecy, then they are swimming against the international tide. They must justify some of the claims they have made in public, because, as matters stand, I have seen nothing in the Guardian articles that could be a risk to national security. In this instance the balance of public interest is clear.

This Op-Ed was first published in The Guardian on December 2, 2013

The End of Globalization and Renaissance of The Welfare State

2013-12-04T08:07:39Z

Globalization and its influence on state sovereignty has been undoubtedly a topic of broad discussions and hot debates among academics, experts and policy makers. A popular idea developed recently is “the end of the welfare state” concept echoing that of The End of The History articulated by Francis Fukuyama. The end-of-the-welfare-state advocates usually claim the increasing economic globalization is limiting a number of policy options available to states, which entails a retrenchment of the welfare-state in developed nations. Yet, however clear the standpoint is, no comprehensive and profound explanation is provided on the roots of the phenomenon. Likewise, no policy implications are given based on the analysis of the changing nature of state sovereignty.

The proposed response to the article aims to fill in this gap. I would like to first pick up on the strong elements of the above-mentioned argument. I will then challenge this standpoint by claiming new trends are rising in the world that are anti-globalist in nature. My ultimate argument will be that globalization is in fact coming to a end. The world is entering a new era of post-globalization which could entail renaissance of the welfare-state.

The proponents of “the end of the welfare state” concept assert that capitalism has been changing the nature of state sovereignty. Namely, increasing globalization has undermined the sovereignty of nation-states to enact their own policies. Such limitations come from three main channels – trade and economic integration, financial markets and competition for employment. Furthermore, the neo-liberal ideology has asserted the primacy of the market over everything else, which is manifested via serious cutbacks to the welfare- state. All in all, the state's capacity to fulfil the 'welfare contract' has been undermined in the name of 'competitiveness and economic efficiency'.

The followers of the idea outlined are persuasive about the thesis of globalization-welfare state interrelation in the developed nations. As a rule, there is also an attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of the concept of sovereignty. However, a number of important factors are omitted from such analysis, and several terminological confusions are created. All this, in my opinion, decreases the validity of the argument articulated.

As far as terminology is concerned, several remarks can be made. First of all, the concept of globalization is confined to the economic dimension only. There are talks about trade and economic integration, currency devaluation, international competition etc., while other important aspects of globalization are skipped, such as political, national, and cultural. In this regard, such phenomena as supranational entities (EU), transformation of national identities ('global citizenship'), and multiculturalism could be analysed in view of their influence onto the welfare-state. Secondly, the general assertion is the changing nature of sovereignty has led to understanding a nation-state as a 'welfare state'. However, few scholars specify that a welfare-state is a phenomenon of the more developed Western society. In other words, not all nation-states are welfare-states. Such disambiguation is critical in analyzing the ways globalization is affecting the capacity of welfare-states to conduct their policies. Finally, not all definitions are articulated in these discussions, e.g. 'capitalism', 'neo-liberal', 'developed democracies'.

It is the conceptual side of the argument, however, that needs most elaboration in my opinion. Let me explain in detail what can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. I will then conclude my analysis with a counter-argument for the author's thesis, and will reveal the subsequent implications from my argument.

To begin with, the concepts of 'sovereignty' and 'nation-state' need to be analyzed in more detail. The end-of-the-welfare-state advocates tend to demonstrate the shift from 'sovereignty over a state' to 'sovereignty over people'. In both cases it is a state that exercises sovereignty, i.e. we talk about a 'sovereign state'. However, quite a lot in the academic and expert circles are talking rather about the sovereignty of the market, including such scholars as Colin Crouch, Saskia Sassen and Zygmunt Bauman. Thus, Crouch’s main contention is that the key institution of the post-democratic world is the global firm; Saskia Sassen explores economic and corporate citizenship under the hegemony of the world market; Zygmunt Bauman stipulates the sovereignty of a state and nation is being replaced by the sovereignty of the market. Indeed, the traditional national-democratic and social-democratic political model is based on the idea of a state or national sovereignty. Today, in contrast, we can witness the sovereignty of the world market which influences the structure of power, its responsibilities and the state-citizen relationship in every nation-state that ceases to be 'national' and is 'fading away'.

Furthermore, the changing nature of the sovereignty triggers transformation of the nation-state itself. Globalization has weakened the 'national dimension' of nation-states. Today a new type of a state is being constructed all around the globe. This is corporation-state, a candidate for replacing the 'outdated' nation-state that reached its peak of development in the period of 1850-1970's. Corporation-state is an entity of a primarily economic character (vs. political in a nation-state) aimed at minimizing costs and expenses. This is a state that acts as a corporation ruled by the economic effectiveness of the 'survival of the fittest'. The process of constructing such a state is taking place all over the world. It is slower where there is a civil society, a deep religious tradition (especially non-Western one), strong national identity, or where a states has big territory. Where is nothing to confront with, the process is sweeping and even violent.

My second claim to the-end-of-the-welfare-state argumentation is declaring 'a global economic foundation' a root cause for the changing nature of sovereignty and welfare-state. I agree globalization has diminished the sovereign capacity of nation-states for the last thirty years. In my view, however, the main reason for this shift is a deliberate act of the Western elites to dismantle the welfare-state, a process intensified by the end of the Cold War. On the factual side, the decline of 'The Glorious Thirty' (1945-1975) started with abandoning the Bretton Woods system by the US and the 1973 oil crisis. Two years later 'The Crisis of Democracy' report was written by Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki at the request of the Trilateral Commission. This report clearly challenged the social achievements of the working class during 'The Glorious Thirty' period. It stated that further industrial development would entail a rapid growth of the working and middle classes, which could in turn bring about unwanted political forces. Thus, the shift from the policy of welfare-state to the policy of market fundamentalism (or neo-liberalism) was first initiated by Margaret Thatcher in Great in 1979 and Ronald Reagan in the US in 1981. This was accompanied by a decreasing technological progress, growing deindustrialization, and promoting fantasy to replace science fiction with for the mass culture. In other words, an attempt was made to create the 'New Middle Ages'.

Finally, while many talk about "decreasing the size and scope of the welfare state", perhaps the most important outcome of the process is omitted – social inequality. Increase in social inequality has been an alarming world trend lately affecting the US, the EU and the less prosperous countries. A serious structural social change is taking place with the middle class fading away. The social gap is increasing, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Today the growth of GDP and national economies is no longer connected with the growth of well-being of nations, bur rather means increase in revenue of corporations and their top managers. In this regard, 'The New York Times' – a newspaper unlikely to be claimed 'socialist' – declared in one of the recent articles inequality undermines democracy, reporting it 'breeds resentment and political instability, eroding the legitimacy of democratic institutions'.

With all the considerations mentioned above, a question remains open: what happens to globalization? It has been claimed we are witnessing the crisis of the neoliberal model and the US hegemony. Combined with the current global economic crisis, the chances are very likely that globalization will turn drastically into ‘deglobalization’ and ‘regionalization’. And more and more signs are there to indicate the shift is taking place. The current crisis is exceptionally deep and structural, and cannot be resolved without a state interference into economy. In contrast, neo-liberalism hinders the capacity of states to conduct independent policies, and must therefore be reconsidered. The new world economic order will therefore mean decline of neo-liberalism in order to overcome the ongoing crisis. This will inevitably imply re-constructing the welfare-state as healthy, educated and socially-secured population is indispensable for the economic growth.

Let me draw a conclusion at this stage. Unlike the advocates of “the end of the welfare state” concept, who leave an open question on what or who will provide the economic and social rights to citizens, I strongly assert it is crucial to reinforce the welfare-state in order to cope with the challenges of the newly emerging world order. Only a renaissance of the social welfare-state may be a viable alternative to a corporation-state. It is this trend that, optimistically, will make the world economically more stable and politically acceptable.

The Long Arm of the National Security-Communications Industry Complex

2013-11-25T16:47:29Z

This is a story about more than just the national security implications of government surveillance, but it begins there.

The New York Times reported in a front page story earlier this month that the Central Intelligence Agency is paying AT&T in excess of $10 million annually for information from the company’s telephone records, including the international calls of U.S. citizens. The article pointed out that this work "is conducted under a voluntary contract, not under subpoenas or court orders compelling the company to participate, according to officials." The story adds yet another chapter to the still-unfolding revelations about National Security Agency surveillance. Every week seems to bring new reports about the close and almost seamless ties that bind the several intelligence agencies to the huge telecom and broadband companies that bestride our nation’s communications infrastructure.

When I became a Member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2001, I assumed I would be privy to at least a credible amount of information about what the companies under FCC oversight were doing behind the scenes. My expectations went unfulfilled.

Did I expect the nation’s most sensitive intelligence information to be shared with me? No, I did not. But would it have been helpful for me to know more about how the industry executives who visited me on a whole range of non-national security communications industry issues were at the same time working hand-in-glove with the White House and these secretive agencies on a far more intimate and confidential basis than I was? Yes, absolutely.

Warnings about various special interest-government complexes hearken back to President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech wherein he warned of the dangers that the military-industrial complex held for democratic government. Historians consider Ike’s admonition as a high-point of his Presidency. Since that speech almost 53 years ago, the influence of special interests and corporate power has only grown -- at the White House, in Congress, and among the federal agencies.

Maybe I’m a slow learner, or maybe I just wasn’t supposed to know, but it finally dawned on me that the CEOs and top management who came calling on me at the FCC were far better informed and connected than I was -- because their companies were the ones running these sensitive monitoring and surveillance operations in behalf of the national security agencies. It was, very often, their workers and their technologies that drove the process. Meanwhile, industry leaders themselves served on such influential but hush-hush boards as The President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee.

As I began to grasp the power of these huge companies to leverage their influence on non-national security matters, I also began to understand that my influence as a Commissioner at an independent federal agency was more limited than I had thought. In a lengthy July 25, 2013 article in the National Journal, Chief Correspondent Michael Hirsh traced in considerable detail how our nation’s leading telecom and tech companies supported -- and even helped create -- the “surveillance state.” It is, of course, a story going back long before Iraq and Afghanistan to the days of World War II, and it’s the stuff of a thriller novel -- except it’s not that entertaining.

Hirsh tells how the NSA became an influential voice in the evolution of our communications systems, becoming a “major presence” in such seemingly non-defense decisions as industry mergers and consolidations. But these transactions weren’t “non-defense” to the intelligence agencies. On the contrary, it was easier and more efficient for the agencies to deal with huge industry players where the number of decision-makers was narrowed and where the sheer power of size helped get the national security job done.

It wasn’t news to me that these huge companies wielded far-reaching power all across Washington. I just didn’t realize how much power until I had been there a while. Then I began to think: what difference does it make if one or two Commissioners at the FCC don’t approve of a pending merger between telecom giants? (And, goodness knows, there are plenty of such transactions!) I conjured up images of a national security agency meeting at the White House and someone saying, “This guy Copps down at the FCC is opposed to this merger.” And I could envision a White House or national security type saying, “So what? These companies are working with us on all kinds of secret projects, and that takes precedence over any Commissioner’s worries about diminishing competition in communications or about consumer protection.”

And so the consolidation bazaar rolls on, companies continue to merge, and we find ourselves in a world wherein a few dominant players drive the last spikes into the coffin of competition. I am not arguing that national security concerns alone brought us to this point; there are plenty of other reasons that Big Telecom wants to grow even bigger. I am saying that both parties to this national security-communications industry complex derived great benefits (in their eyes) from this partnership. I am saying the tentacles of this cooperative enterprise reach widely and deeply into many aspects of our national life. And I am saying the American people need to know more -- much more -- about this.

We can argue the pros and cons of national security surveillance, and it is a debate worth having. But this debate needs to be informed by facts. Maybe we can’t have all the facts in all their detail, but certainly we need more than we presently possess. There is a point where national security depends upon secrecy. There is also a point where national security depends upon sunlight. The balance is sadly out-of-whack right now, and we are paying the price in the loss of government credibility both at home and abroad.

Finally, we need to conduct this discussion in a broader context because it is part of even larger issues. Every day brings non-national security revelations about companies developing and deploying new ways to invade our personal space, capture every available fact about our daily lives and habits, and share them for purely commercial benefit. This is not an issue separate from what I have been discussing in this piece. And, as deeply troubling as the privacy and consumer issues are, the implications for democracy are just as severe. Open communications are a prerequisite of self-government. Any short-circuiting of this openness diminishes the ability of free people to chart their own democratic future.

[The Benton Foundation publishes articles penned by Commissioner Copps each month for our Digital Beat Blog.]

Haiyan Is A Call To Action: Risk Must Be The Heart of Development

2013-11-22T16:49:43Z

Once more a disaster is centre-stage and slowly, as before, attention shifts from the challenge of response to the failure to prevent.

The destruction wrought by typhoon Haiyan has yet to be fully understood, and the total cost, in terms of shattered lives and financial loss, can still only be imagined. What we know is that Haiyan, one of the strongest storms on record, and the storm surge created by the funnelling of water in Leyte Gulf, has created a level of devastating impact usually reserved for tsunamis. Before and after photographs are similar to those we saw in Aceh after the 2004 Indian-Ocean tsunami, villages wiped from the landscape, cargo ships piled up along the coastline.

That this has happened in the Philippines is somewhat perverse. Disaster risk is built into the country’s development planning, and considered as a threat to national security. Politicians better have disaster prominence in their manifesto if they want to be elected. The government is investing heavily in risk reduction, close to $1 billion a year. And, perhaps more important, disaster risk has entered civil consciousness; prevention and preparing for the regular impact of typhoons, landslides, flooding and earthquakes is of central importance across society.

What does it mean for the international community when a country with arguably one of the most advanced risk management legislative frameworks, a committed government, significant national investment, and often deemed a success story, is unable to both prevent a disaster of this magnitude and to comprehensively prepare? And what does this mean for other contexts?

Of finance, equity and mind-set changes

While the Philippines provides a rare example of a country with proactive investment into preparedness and risk reduction, in other countries wherein risk is not a core part of their development approach, the state of preparedness is far less evident.

Part of the challenge lies in the financing architecture, with overseas development assistance for emergency preparedness largely deriving from humanitarian financing mechanisms that are released only in the aftermath of a crisis. While this reflects a long history of calls by humanitarians to seek ways to stop the cyclical nature of response – and be better prepared for that response - it does little for the communities or states at risk.

There has long been the call for a fundamental mind-set change, and with this transformation of the financing architecture; a move that would take developing countries closer towards the Philippines model and see stronger commitment to preparedness and risk reduction. We need to apply the same logic as the donor governments do in their own constituents: to invest in early warning systems, search and rescue, build capacity for response, devise contingency plans and train personnel to cope with the range of likely risks to be faced. In some regards this is a matter of equity – to support action that we would warrant as necessary of our own constituents. In other regards, this is a matter of economics; it is more cost effective and cost efficient to invest in preparedness as opposed to response only. And yet international funds devoted to disaster prevention and preparedness are a small fraction of what is spent in reconstruction and response. Latest research shows that if you combine the financing of 12 of the poorest countries, for every $1 on disaster 'risk reduction', $160,000 has been spent on disaster 'response'.

A matter of humanitarian aid or development?

What does this mean in practice? While the response to typhoon Haiyan calls heavily upon the international community in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, the impacts have undermined development progress and will continue to set back progress in the future. Understanding risk, being ready for crises and establishing systems of preparedness for emergency response are therefore the responsibility of all: nations, humanitarians and development actors.

As we have seen in the Philippines, emergency response requires near term preparedness activities (e.g. stockpiling of food and non-food items); it also requires a history of investment to enable longer term preparedness to be established, and to be effective and efficient in a crisis (e.g. legislation and budgetary measures to resource these activities). The activities required across the ‘preparedness continuum’ therefore span the humanitarian and development divide.

Challenges ahead

Without more effective and scaled up pre-disaster preparedness measures, vulnerabilities will persist and humanitarian needs will continue to overwhelm the limited resources and recovery capacities of local, national and international actors. However, choosing to deploy or prioritise resources to reduce risks and prepare for disasters presents significant challenges for policy makers. Limited resources and heightened donor expectations provide a difficult context in which to make the case for a new approach. Notwithstanding, a new approach is what is required.

First, a paradigm shift to foreground emergency preparedness in the current response-dominated approach is paramount and a more holistic appreciation of the role of preparedness in humanitarian initiatives is necessary. The way funding is currently structured impedes that holistic approach. However, to separate out preparedness activities to fit existing bifurcated aid structures would simply reinforce an unhelpful humanitarian response/development divide that accentuates short-term, disjointed planning. To bring together preparedness activities as a discrete set of issues risks creating (yet) another silo. Moreover, humanitarian aid budgets are finite and will be more likely under acute pressure in years to come.

It is therefore safe to say that the solutions lie in making more efficient use of existing mechanisms, humanitarian and development, and creating incentives to prioritise preparedness action. Of course, as the Philippines exemplify, the head start given by preparedness does not remove the obligation or imperative for donors or agencies to respond to emergency needs in these countries. It does mean, however, that any such response will be able to meet needs in a more timely, appropriate, and effective manner; in contrast to no preparedness having taken place.

Secondly, a more integrated operational response needs to be found that works to support cost effective pre-emptive action. As noted by the World Bank President, the humanitarian landscape calls for a new approach to ‘shift from being crises fighters to proactive and systematic risk managers.’ Investment in preparedness should be based on a global, regional, national and subnational assessment of risk, related to vulnerability and capacity in country. Such an assessment would allow for better prioritisation of resources where the need is greatest. In high-risk countries, humanitarian and development actors need to work together to develop and support coordinated multi-year and multi-stakeholder systems that integrate preparedness, based on a collaborative and coordinated understanding of risk.

As our thoughts and action return to the immense task at-hand to restore some degree of normality to those affected in the Philippines, experts warn that the ‘one off events’ could well become the norm. While attribution to climate change is extremely complex, we can know that the complicating impact of climate change on disaster extremes in the Philippines poses difficult questions for the humanitarian and development communities going forward.

What is clear is that system change is needed: we need wait no longer to realise that fact.

By Katie Peters (Research Fellow, ODI), Jan Kellett (Senior Research Advisor, ODI), and Sandra Aviles (Officer-in-Charge, FAO Office in Geneva, and IASC TT Chair for Funding Preparedness).

A new report launched on 9th December 2013 by the Overseas Development Institute will set out a new way forward for the current state of financing of emergency preparedness.

The Digital Wake-up Call Europe and Asia Cannot Ignore

2013-11-06T08:07:05Z

After Europe, the « Snowden » revelations virus is now spreading to Asia. Like their European counterparts, Asian governments are discovering the extent of the digital surveillance put in place by the American NSA. When they meet in New Delhi on November 11, European and Asian foreign ministers cannot ignore Washington’s digital wake-up call.

For once, the incoming annual Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) ministerial conference can make a difference. Expected to convene in New Delhi, India, on November 11 and 12, foreign ministers of the 51 Asian and European countries involved in this forum created in 1996 may have a shared outrage to debate.

The subject of this diplomatic anger is the extensive digital spying network put in place by the United States and revealed by the now Moscow-based NSA leaker Edward Snowden. On October 24-25 in Brussels, the documents he released, proving that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's electronic communications were intercepted, dominated discussions at the European Union (EU) leaders’ summit. And now, it is Asia's turn to experience such a digital storm: China and South East Asian countries have loudly protested after new revelations about Washington's secret electronic data collection program in their part of the world.

When they meet in New Delhi, ASEM foreign ministers will have a choice. Either they remain officially silent on this common issue, to avoid reopening a delicate rift on privacy, security, and citizen's electronic rights between Asia and Europe, or they face the music and admit the blunt reality: in today's digital world, in the shadow of American Internet giant corporations, time has come to address, at both a bilateral and a multilateral level, the strategic question of Internet governance and data protection.

Interestingly, part of the preparatory work to such a crucial discussion has already been done. This subject of extensive US data interceptions and the current impossibility for countries to protect their digital sovereignty by and large dominated the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held in Bali, Indonesia, 21-25 October. This coincidence is telling in itself: while European leaders in Brussels were feeling somewhat betrayed by the extent of the Obama administration’s spying apparatus, digital experts and stakeholders from around the globe were gathered in Indonesia's most famous resort island to exchange ideas on the best way to achieve a correct balance between digital freedom, digital sovereignty, and cyber security.

The IGF was never supposed to make decisions or to draft formal conclusions. But what came up out of dozens of panels in Bali was telling. Asia and Europe are now bumping into the very same digital wall. With immense quantities of Asian data being stored on US servers, and with hundreds of millions of Asian consumers hooked on Google, Apple, Yahoo !, or Microsoft, the East is equally threatened by the over-arching American digital empire. Most Asian « dragons » and « tigers » have no means of protecting the digital assets of their citizens and institutions; they shall take this diplomatic and economic digital wake-up call seriously. Data is not only a public and an individual asset to be protected; it is the oil of the digital business and the key to future profitability for thousands of companies and start-ups all over the East. No single country can be left to control it alone.

The similarities end there. If the ASEM meeting has the courage to address this issue, cultural differences will certainly surface. In Asia, the group often remains above the individual, and Asian states are still reluctant to modify their internal security acts. In addition, some countries may not want to reopen this freedom vs. security debate, especially at a time when wars on terrorism and religious fundamentalism continue to rage throughout South-East Asia.

Another difference is that Europeans and Asians have diverging commercial interests in this digital economy. In Asia, American Internet giants are either welcomed or kept at bay by openly protectionist legislation. The debate in this part of the world is not to replace or to emasculate Silicon Valley’s offspring, but to protect the huge regional digital market, and eventually to make lucrative commercial transpacific deals with the US mastodons. With thriving digital economies, countries like Singapore and Korea are already positioning themselves as competitive and safe destinations for data storage. Business comes first. Digital security breaches may be seen as acceptable collateral damage.

Soon after the ASEM ministerial conference in New Delhi, the International Telecommunication Union’s Telecom World Conference will take place on November 20-23 in Bangkok, Thailand. Thousands of experts and key players in the digital world and regulating bodies (from governments to UN organizations) will again debate this global digital deadlock, even if very few stakeholders are in favor of seeing the ITU play a bigger role.

As the NSA ball continues to roll, ASEM countries have an opportunity to make their voices heard. The confrontational path taken initially by Brazil vis à vis the United States - though it advocated a more conciliatory approach during the IGF in Bali - demonstrates that a lot is at stake. For a forum too often in search of a meaning, the choice to remain silent would be a very wrong signal addressed to digital enterprises and citizens from Asia and Europe. END

An international correspondent for the Swiss daily Le Temps, Richard Werly is an associate fellow of the EU Centre in Singapore and DiploFoundation in Geneva.

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

The Future of Nanotechnology in Warfare

2013-07-04T16:08:57Z

In April this year, the US Navy announced the deployment of a laser weapon on the USS Ponce. The YouTube image they posted at the same time demonstrates how effective it is to damage an unmanned aerial vehicle. The image might have excited some sci-fi movie fans around the world, envisioning the arrival of futuristic weapons, like 'phasers' familiar to 'Trekkies'. It is expected that these laser weapons will be more widely deployed with the aim to strengthen defence capabilities against missiles, artillery and mortars.

The revelation of a laser weapon was not unexpected. Indeed, the history of the pursuit of laser weapons is as old as the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. The idea of laser weapons was already hinted as a potential counter-strike onto a nuclear ballistic missile. Although the technical details of the laser weapon announced for deployment is kept secret, there is little doubt that the rapid development of nanotechnologies over the last decade has enabled significant improvement of different components of the solid state laser system that makes it deployable as a weapon.

A greater excitement may be forthcoming with the prospect of further fine-tuning of the laser technology to provide a wider range of tactical options - like a weapon that can be set for 'stun' up to 'kill'. Even the existing laser weapon the US Navy announced for deployment has the ability of limiting the damage to the targeted aircraft, rather than destroying it like with a missile. Ethicists may envision the arrival of a more humane warfare in the near future where a less lethal force will always be used prior to lethal means.

The law currently does not require such gradual application of force. However, it could well be adopted as government policy for a specific operation from political or ethical considerations. Interestingly, though, the law may oblige soldiers not to use such less lethal means if there is a chance of civilian casualties, for example, as a result of disabling an aircraft that then clashes into a town.

The laser weapon is not the only armory that benefits from the rapid development of nanotechnology. There are scientists who are working to create Harry Potter's invisibility cloak, which undoubtedly attracts obvious military interests, or what is called 'nano air vehicles' - the prototype 'Hummingbird' developed by the US DARPA could be further miniaturized into a small insect-like combat vehicle. The use of nanotechnology thus enables existing weapon technologies - such as stealth, precision-guided munitions and UAVs - to evolve into their ultimate form. It will provide soldiers with the ultimate protection of invisibility during combat operations or intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities. Commanders will be able to assassinate the target anytime, from anywhere, with mechanical precision without a margin of error.

Using those 'smart weapons' will certainly help reduce, or even completely avoid, civilian casualties. In that sense, future warfare may well be expected to become more humane. But at the same time, the ability to kill someone without facing that individual and without giving him or her any chance of survival may test where our human conscience stands. Already, the US targeted killing policy has caused controversies over its legal, political and ethical implications, and on 31 May this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, recommended a moratorium on lethal autonomous robotics.

The greater protection of force - by using UAVs, cyber or invisibility cloak - means also that the political costs traditionally associated with the resort to force in foreign territories will be significantly reduced. The use of these new technologies enable disguised forms of attacks, which make it difficult for victim states, particularly the technologically inferior, to identify where the attacks originate from with certainty. The implicated allegations recently made by the US against Chinese authorities for their involvement in cyber attacks are testimony to this technical challenge. A consequence is that the technologically advanced will find it attractive to choose discreet means to deploy military forces in order to achieve their political objectives without risking warfare.

However, the widespread introduction of nanotechnology into weaponry may not end with this familiar, simplistic picture of military asymmetry between the technologically advanced and the less advanced. Nanotechnology is not a difficult technology to acquire. Indeed, many less developed states and emerging economies such as Mexico, Thailand, India and Iran are investing heavily on nanotechnology industries. China is also one of the leading states in nanotechnological developments.

There is no clear indication as to the extent these investments are poured into weapons development. The challenge for them would rather be acquisition of the existing weapons technologies, like stealth, laser and robotic technologies, with which applications of nanotechnology need to be combined. But at the same time, these countries are not bound by the same resource constraints as the major weapons producers, such as large-scale infrastructure and manufacturing contracts. In that sense, emerging economies could take advantage of a greater flexibility in developing entirely new armament manufacturing capabilities that effectively incorporate latest nanotechnological innovations and developments.

Nanotechnology may thus serve as a potential 'game changer' in the military landscape. One of the major factors that are currently hindering military applications of nanotechnology is the pre-existing military mindset. Weapons development is driven, in large part, by the current operational needs, rather than future operational possibilities. Nanotechnology is like a transistor - it in itself does not do any good nor harm, but the application of nanotechnology and their integration into a larger system produce novel functions and effects.

It is expected that nanotechnology will soon be found in many consumer products, which will accelerate the pace of military applications of nanotechnology in both technologically advanced and less advanced states. Utilizing nanotechnology to advance military capabilities to ultimate forms - in precision strikes or cloaking technology - may prompt us to reconsider how warfare should be defined or should be fought. The 'United Federation of Planets' in the world of Star Trek made a conscious decision not to develop or use cloaking technology, perhaps a reflection of Gene Roddenberry's philosophy of what the future space warfare should look like. It may be that we are only standing at the verge of this philosophical debate to reconsider the fundamental meaning of warfare and the need for a modern version of the chivalric code.

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

Photo: reserved

The Pain Of Lost Innocence

2013-06-27T17:41:56Z

Today more than half of Indian children face child abuse at least once in their lifetime. The New Delhi rape of ‘Gudiya’ showed that child abuse is rampant across the country. The use of cyberspace and Internet-information systems has further aggravated the issue - children are not just abused, but even subjected to child pornography.

In January 2013, a brutal child rape in New Delhi reignited the critical issue of child abuse that we as Indians have conspicuously shied away from for several years. Five years-old, Gudiya was raped and brutalized by two men, Manoj (19) and Pradeep (21) living in the same building. They not only abused her, but even slashed her throat and left her unconscious in a pool of blood. Recently, an incident in Gurgaon was reported where a 45 year-old father raped his daughter for three years. In a privately run shelter home in Haryana, children and young women were beaten, sent out for sex work, trafficked and abused in horrible ways. Three years ago, we had the Nithari case, where an influential businessman and his servant were involved in child abuse and murdered 11 children, burying them in their courtyard.

Where our society is heading is hard to say and even fathom. I am deeply disturbed and shocked to read countless stories of young girls subjected to abuse by their nearest ones. Despite ubiquitous protests following these incidents, every day we discover even stranger cases of child abuse. We are also yet to discuss the root of this issue. Instead, we discuss violence against women in terms of rape as a property dispute. Even on news channels I hear patriarchal views during debates, where many blame the dressing style of women for ‘encouraging’ rapists to rape them. The Gudiya incident was a straight slap in the face to this chauvinist mindset and made us swallow harsh realities that we have until now knowingly evaded.

Today 53.4 percent of our children face child abuse at least once in their lifetime. These incidents have gone unnoticed for too long due to our negligence. More often than not, these abuses are perpetrated by a family member, a family friend or an uncle. They are kept private and not revealed as it becomes a ‘prestige’ issue for the family of the victim. I am sometimes appalled and ashamed by such hypocrisy. What about punishing the culprit? Why aren’t we bringing them to justice? According to the National Crime Records Bureau, between 2001 and 2011 there was a three-fold jump in registered child rape cases - from 2,113 in 2001 to 7,112 instances 10 years later. The majority of these incidents are not even recorded in police files.

Child rape incidents have increased by 336 percent since 2001 in India according to a study conducted by the Asian Centre for Human Rights. Our country finds it difficult to talk about sex, let alone sexual abuse. While our movies are full of thigh-slapping oafs dishing out double-entendres, our society’s redress of abuse victims, not to mention police insensitivity, is a travesty. Child sex abuse is a particularly taboo topic - it is not just brushed under the carpet, it is locked away in teak closets and swept under expensive sheets of more homes that you can even imagine. It is this silence that is frighteningly empowering to the culprits.

Recovering and Healing from Incest (RAHI), an NGO that was started by Anuja Gupta - herself a victim of child abuse - carries out extensive research in this field. The following are just a few startling observations:

64 percent of victims are abused between the age of 10-18 years
32 percent of victims are abused between the age of 2-10 years
87 percent of victims are repeatedly abused
19 percent of the abused are currently living with at least one of their abusers

Most of these abused children have their mothers at home. The study was even more shocking, as it showed that this rate does not depreciate according to the strata of the society - in fact, it even appreciates. More than 70 percent of the children from upper class families suffer abuse from family members and people whom they trusted.

The solution in my view lies in the fact that we need to advise and educate our children about their sexuality and about how someone can exploit them. Whether it is the dogmatic society structure or the conservative mindset here in India, we generally do not even talk about the necessary details of what type of touching is wrong and where it crosses line with our children. This makes them even more vulnerable as they do not realize when they are being subjected to abuse. Most are so scared they do not even report these incidents to their parents - many out of fear of being outcast for reporting incidents against influential members of their family. On one hand, they are pressured by the abuser and on the other hand, we disbelieve them so much that they plunge into the darkness of depression.

We should not be paranoid and deprive children of the joy of childhood, but we need to make sure we give them the confidence that they have our full faith when they report such incidents. We need to trust them and instill faith and confidence. These are incidents that haunt the victim for a very long time and can shatter their self-confidence. Let us hope that with time , the society changes and we can stand by our children both compassionately and vigilantly in this hour of crisis.

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

And Now The Second Battle Of The Internet

2013-06-13T17:28:14Z

The Verizon or PRISM or Snowden affair, revealed by The Guardian, marks a turning point in the history – a very young history – of the Internet and its governance within the international landscape. With the facts as overwhelming as they are frightening, they show above all the mighty power of the United States (US) over the Internet and its users. This issue not only concerns the information of American citizens, but also all ‘foreigners’ who have a Google account and other Internet industry heavyweights. We are talking about the very core of Internet governance currently under American domination.

The rules in question, such as respect of personal information, net neutrality or digital public policies whether national, regional or international, are at the heart of an ongoing 15-year battle. During the last two years, this fight has taken a more aggressive turn, with the US government, American companies and their close allies pitted against those who demand more international and multilateral governance. The US government is clinging to its power via a so-called “multi-stakeholder” model, lumped together with the believers in an autonomously-ruled Internet, the so-called digital freedom fighters who reject all governmental regulation, the masked anonymous vigilantes who act as law enforcement, the kings of spam or porn, the Internet money makers, the rebel hackers or former hackers, now intelligence officers.

Not a week goes by without an enlightened mind cursing governments or recounting the story of the Internet as a pure product of 1960s counterculture, born from LSD or the desire to live in a commune. According to such individuals, the founding fathers of the Internet offered the world this new space beyond the control of national powers. The reality of the Internet is actually more pragmatic, industrial and economic. And to be honest, the Internet has now become a very political field of battle.

As opposed to a phenomenon linked to a form of counterculture, the Verizon affair has shed new light on the reality of Internet control. Worldwide, every state plays, whether chosen or not, a role within its own borders, fortified by traditions, law and industrial heavyweights. One country in particular has the power to not only impose its Internet laws on its citizens, but also on ‘foreign citizens’ – that is, the US. This is exactly what the Verizon affair has demonstrated. Indeed, it is further evidence there is a need to redevelop and rebalance Internet governance. And this is the very thing US officials and large US digital corporations have refused to discuss in Dubai, Geneva or elsewhere.

The computer scientist inventors of interconnected networks belonged to an academic elite from MIT, Berkeley, Stanford and USC. As early as the 1960s, they enjoyed a significant amount of financing provided by the Pentagon, NASA and other governmental agencies. These pioneers not only drove scientific and technological development but also Internet ‘policies’ – at least until 1998. Until this time, the roots of the Internet were in the hands of academic pioneers. They had a humanist, pragmatic, neutral and open vision.

One such founding father was Dr Jonathan Postel, himself a computer scientist and editor of the famous Request For Comments (RFCs) that served as a model for open discussion and improvement of Internet rules and processes. With John Lennon glasses and long hair, Postel was nevertheless celebrated as “Colonel Postel” upon his arrival at the Pentagon – quite impressive since this free man was considered by pioneers as responsible for Internet rules being defined outside the governmental sphere. Somewhat more worrying for Postel himself was the Clinton administration’s desire, led by Al Gore and his emissary Ira Magaziner, to take control of the Internet. Postel understood this from very early on, back in 1997. Of the 13 servers that today still constitute the backbone of the Internet, Postel attempted to unlink the 8 “civilian” ones from the reach of the government. The mathematician pointed them toward a 14th server, a new master he set for the purpose, in January 1998. A vigorous phone call from the White House put this digital insurgency to an end.

By the end of January 1998, the Internet and its governance fell completely into the hands of the US government and those who accepted this forced move. In a thwarted attempt, Postel sought without success to entrust Internet governance to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Not to panic Internet stakeholders, the US government decided to delegate the authority given to universities to an association incorporated in California three weeks after the death of Postel on an operation table in Los Angeles in October 1998. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was inaugurated at his grave, with future board members reuniting for the first time at the cemetery in memory of the scientist who fiercely protected the development of the Internet.

Since its creation, ICANN has been a controversial organization characterized by abuse, non-transparency, lack of representation and conflicting interests. The greatest concern remains its guardianship – ICANN is under contract with the Department of Commerce and a change in 2009 meant a renewable three-year agreement became indefinite. This is contrary to a guarantee of independence. Like other organizations instrumental to Internet governance, ICANN cannot be considered a neutral international body. Its new president Fahi Chehadé aims to improve this perception – a delicate task even for this specialist in multi-stakeholder governance recalling that the Department of Commerce recently contradicted a decision by ICANN. Who has total authority over the management of the Internet backbone? The Californian association or its guardianship authority?

From the very beginning, the famous 13 servers forming the Internet’s backbone (the DNS Root Servers) have been in American hands, or in the hands of close allies. The two not located in American territory are in London (LINX/RIPE) and Stockholm (NORDU). That is, the two capitals most vocal alongside Washington in favor of the status quo. The strongly anti-United Nations campaign that followed the Dubai conference in December 2012 worried many who saw there a resurgence of the Cold War. Not quite so, I would say. The PRISM affair demonstrates the problem was not so much the danger represented by China or Russia in regards to our exchanges, accounts and personal information, but the fact of having a state and some of its digital juggernauts enjoying control of the Internet.

Yes, the economic issues are major, especially in terms of high-speed broadband, critical to accelerating the economic development of entire countries. Who should pay for this significant investment? Each single user whatever means they have? Public or private national operators? The Internet Service Provider that benefits from the connection of these networks? The Internet robber barons such as Google and others? What are the two thirds of the world population to do who have no access to the Internet? For two years, Americans have pushed to defend the status quo, even inventing ‘digital’ human rights.

A more pragmatic and responsible approach can be seen right by the southern border of the US. Mexican President Peña Nieto is among those advocating for greater equality, working to enshrine a right to broadband access in his country’s constitution. He turned this into reality on 10 June, when he signed the Constitutional Reform Regarding Telecommunications and Economic Competition. In the same breath, his initiative will break the monopolies that controlled Mexico for years. The fortune of the current owner of the New York Times, Carlos Slim, comes from this previous state of things. So it goes in the US with ATT, Verizon and Comcast, which shared the market under unconcerned eyes – indeed, an approving government. Some voices are speaking out, such as former White House official Susan Crawford, who advocates for more competition and more public policy, not just regulation obscured by a market. Interviewed last April, Alec Ross, the former Special Digital Advisor for the State Department declared to me: “digital human rights do not exist in legal terms, but it is a unifying theme that pleases users.”

Months before the WCIT was held in December in Dubai, American lobbying groups attacked the ITU and its proposals for internationalized Internet governance incessantly, with unconditional support from Google. What plot were they denouncing? What crime was the ITU guilty of? Simply, asking for an international treaty update that all signatories would be bound to endorse and respect. One of the driving forces behind the hysteria was the idea that diplomatic negotiations occurred behind closed doors, away from civil society and industrial stakeholders. Critics invoked the specter of a takeover hatched by Russia and China and, in a general manner, by governments.

Yet the so-called ‘closed’ Dubai doors were largely wide open. Each ITU member state was free to establish its delegation without limits to numbers or quality, and especially to inform whomever they wished without restraint, before, during or after the conference. The American delegation alone included almost 120 delegates selected from the elite of the US Internet industry, civil society and government. Two watchwords were given to this multitude: “the word Internet shall not be included in the new treaty” and “do not talk to journalists without authorization.” All this in the name of web freedom.

More surprising was the European position in Dubai. No mandate was given for the delegation to vote or engage the signature of the European Union (EU). Cyprus, occupying the rotating presidency of the EU, monopolized the microphone, with other member states far less vocal, including France and Germany. In contrast, the Swedish and British representatives were working in full swing. Were the compromises negotiated following WCIT so dangerous for Europe? No. Tellingly, the absence of conditions preventing EU agreement was confirmed in a confidential internal memo (DS 1335/13) from the EU Council on 24 February. “At this stage, there is or remains no obvious reason justifying a conflict between the new Treaty (proposed in Dubai) and the benefits.” It was already known as such before Dubai.

The argument put forward by the EU to not support the Dubai update of the International Telecommunications Regulations was linked to the proposal to use in the new treaty the expression “all operators” rather than “recognized operating agencies.” The reason for this – non-authorized extension of the treaty. Seeking to maintain good diplomatic relations, it was possible to sign the treaty while imposing a “reservation” on the point of disagreement. Its radical strategy led the American delegation to totally reject this proposal, while signing instead some of the treaty proposals that its own delegation approved during the session.

This May in Geneva, hostilities continued. In more limited terms but still very clearly, the US opposed any involvement by the ITU and its committee of member states in the system of Internet governance. Such a perspective would allow for the definition of universal principles akin to those already in operation for telephony and satellites. Accepting this logic would shift some of the Internet power away from Washington’s authority. With any such international law ratified by the US, the request from the CIA to transfer all user information from private operators like Verizon, Google and others to intelligence services would be made more difficult. However, the US has never embraced multilateralism and remains amongst those counties ranked lowest globally in regards to the number of treaties or conventions ratified.

A few days ago, during a WTPF session – an intergovernmental forum under the aegis of the ITU – Brazil submitted an opinion for endorsement, which was met with consensus. “Governments worldwide should discuss Internet governance in the framework of the ITU, as a crucial element in the multi-stakeholder system.” The American response, supported by Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany was, in essence, “come see us in Washington, we will see what we can do for you.” The committee remained calmed, but was clearly outraged by this arrogance. What place do governments have in connection to the Internet under international law? The US and its digital industry dominate in every respect. The Verizon affair becomes ever more important because it is this same US administration opposed to a dialogue between states to settle universal rules and principles.

The worldwide digital space is in danger. We, the citizens of the world, are equally in danger. We need a better and truly democratic multi-stakeholder model and governments to be bound by robust international law when most needed – to start with, the US government and its industrial champions.

Photo © DR

The Role Of Governments In Internet Governance

2013-06-12T16:48:34Z

Ivo Ivanovski is the Republic of Macedonia's Minister of Information Society and Administration, and was appointed as Chairman of the Fifth World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum that took place in Geneva from 14-16 May. In an exclusive interview with The Global Journal, Ivanovski explained the importance of the role of governments in the multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance.

You chaired the last edition of the WTPF in Geneva. What were the major outcomes?

The major outcome of the latest WTPF edition is that all six draft opinions were unanimously adopted. They were revised and endorsed by the working groups and proposed in front of the member states and sector members before the start of the forum.

In Dubai, it was almost impossible to discuss anything related to the Internet, so some progress has been made since then. During the WTPF, the role of governments in the multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance was recognized by most delegates, even from the Netherlands, Sweden, France and Germany. Yet, there is still a major divide on the role of governments within this model – should the ITU or ICANN committee have authority?

The role of government in the multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance continues to be a hot topic. We were able to hear from the CEO of ICANN, Fadi Chehade, and ITU Secretary-General, Hamadoun Toure, that both institutions are open to further discussions and suggestions to find an appropriate role for governments. None of them are trying to extend their roles in Internet governance. These statements gave confidence to the members that no one institution is trying to monopolize the Internet and that there is a place for all stakeholders.

The Brazilian proposal, which received quite broad support, sought to have the role of governments debated within the WTPF. Some countries suggested the ITU was not the appropriate venue and the US invited Brazil to engage in a bilateral discussion on the improvement of Internet governance practices. Do you feel this approach is the right way to reach a better understanding?

The term bilateral means that only two sides are involved. Multi-stakeholder means multiple parties are involved. Bilateral meetings are always welcome, especially when two parties cannot agree on a particular issue so that other parties are not restricted. The role of the government is not only to have one-to-one discussions. It is a good start, but the discussion should occur in multiple forums, conferences and meetings that include multiple parties and not just a select few. That is why most of the members during the WTPF 13 suggested appropriate venues so that this question could be discussed openly. But the list was not finalized, since everybody should be talking about this.

The Council of the European Union (EU) recognized the treaty changes proposed in Dubai in December were not contrary to European interests. Even though the EU issued no mandate to negotiate or vote during WCIT-12, member states nonetheless argued the changes were not acceptable. Could you elaborate and does this concern you?

This issue was not raised during the WTPF and I cannot comment on it.

Over the next 12 months, what significant progress do you anticipate in the sphere of Internet governance?

I think in 12 months we will see continuous increases in broadband connectivity around the world, especially by utilizing 3G and 4G technologies. The Broadband Commission for Digital Development has set new goals, regarding affordability and accessibility of broadband for countries in order to accelerate the progress of the Millennium Development Goals. These goals will materialize if there is fair play in the market place.

Another impact that can have positive results in European countries is the initiative of the European Commission regarding flat rate roaming charges for all countries in Europe. This will increase mobile usage when people travel abroad. Currently these charges are very high. That is why the Republic of Macedonia has proposed an initiative before the EU regarding roaming charges together with the Republic of Serbia and Republic of Montenegro.

I also think that in the next 12 months we will see more consolidation of telecom operators in the EU. This can produce stronger telecom operators, which will foster innovation and aid the European economy.

Click here to view other related articles on Internet governance.