Cuba, Iran seek global Internet censorship rules (U.N. strikes again)

Miami Herald ^ | July 13, 2003 | Andres Oppenheimer, Oppenheimer Report

[Cincinatus' Wife]

If you are outraged by the fact that Libya has been elected president of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, get this: Cuba and Iran -- among the world's worst dictatorships -- are playing a major role in drafting new U.N.-backed rules on the worldwide use of the Internet.

Not surprisingly, these repressive regimes are proposing rules that, if adopted by an upcoming U.N. Summit on the Information Society, would not only allow but encourage widespread censorship of the Internet, as well as growing state controls of TV and radio stations.

The World Summit on the Information Society, scheduled for December in Geneva, is organized by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the International Telecommunication Union, another U.N. affiliate.

WRITTEN BY CUBA?

UNESCO, you may remember, is the organization whose campaign for a ''New World Information Order'' -- with greater state controls -- led the United States to withdraw from that group 18 years ago. The U.S. government is scheduled to rejoin the organization this year.

When I heard about the proposals to regulate the Internet, I went into the summit's website, www.itu.int/wsis/, and read key portions of the draft declaration that is scheduled to be adopted in December. It contains alarming proposals.

The most terrifying paragraphs are being proposed by Cuba, the country that earlier this year arrested 75 peaceful dissidents -- including 26 independent journalists -- and sentenced them to up to 28 years in prison for ''crimes'' such as possessing a tape recorder, having an unauthorized copying machine, or publishing articles in foreign media.

Cuba's crackdown on journalists led the French human rights group Reporters Without Borders to declare the island as ``the world's biggest prison for members of the press.''

SOME HIGHLIGHTS

Among the Cuban proposals contained in the summit's draft documents, which also include some milder recommendations by Iran:

o That the summit's Declaration of Principles paragraph calling for universal and affordable access to the Internet include the words ''in conformity with domestic legislation of each country.'' In other words, Cuba wants the U.N. document to give an official blessing to its policy of deciding who gets access to the Internet.

o That the document's paragraph about Internet domain names and other oversight rules, which establishes that Internet governance must be ''multilateral, democratic and transparent,'' be changed to include the word ''intergovernmental.'' In other words, that all major decisions on Internet traffic be subject to governments' approval.

o That the summit's action plan include a paragraph stating, ''legal and administrative measures should be taken to prohibit undue concentration of private ownership and control of the media.'' Fine, but who is to judge what constitutes ''undue concentration''? Countries like Cuba, which have total concentration of the media in government hands?

o That another paragraph be added to the action plan, stating that accountability by the global media ''should be enhanced through targeted measures of screening by governments.'' Great! We would have governments that jail journalists for their writings ''screening'' our stories!

U.S. officials and international freedom-of-the-press groups are worried about the December summit. They say there is a real chance that some of this language may actually be adopted.

`REASON FOR CONCERN'

The key issue at the conference will be whether the international community condemns or endorses the ''fire walls'' that many dictatorships are erecting to block access to Internet websites that they consider politically inconvenient, they say.

''Cuba is proposing language that would favor state control of the media,'' U.S. assistant secretary of state for international organizations Kim R. Holmes said in an interview. ``There is reason to be concerned.''

Asked whether the Bush administration is reconsidering the U.S. decision to rejoin UNESCO on Oct. 1, Holmes said that ''it's not something what we are consciously considering at this time.'' Other officials note that, to his credit, UNESCO Director Koishiro Matsuura has criticized Cuba's recent crackdown on independent journalists.

My conclusion: If dictatorships prevail in getting the December summit to approve a greater ''screening by governments'' of the new century's most rapidly growing communication medium, I would see UNESCO as a dangerous advocate of global censorship.

Perhaps what's needed is just the opposite effort: an international alliance of democracies to fight censorship on the Internet. Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., has proposed a bill calling on the U.S. government to ''direct substantial international broadcasting resources to a global effort to defeat Internet jamming and censorship.'' Technically, it can be done, congressional sources say.

I agree. Rather than debating proposals to impose global censorship, the December summit should expose regimes that are still trying to deny their citizens their basic rights to read whatever they want.

[MEG33]

I hope this never gets past a trash can.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Knowing the U.N., it's on the top of the pile.

[Support Free Republic]

The former President disembarks from his airplane after a trip back to Arkansas. Although the hoopla is less now that he is out of office, Clinton still occasionally finds himself greeted by military personnel. This is one such occasion.

He climbs down the stairs, carrying two huge pigs, one under each arm. He gets to the bottom, and nods his head in return to the soldier's salute. "Son, what do you think about these?" he says. "Nice pigs, SIR!" comes the reply. Clinton gets mildly miffed and lectures, "I'll have you know these aren't just pigs but the finest of Arkansas Razorbacks. Top notch. I got one for Hillary, and one for Chelsea. What do you think about that?"

"Nice trade, SIR!

Free Republic

Your donations keep us laughing at liberals

[OpusatFR]

It certainly is a pile, isn't it?

[MEG33]

A malodorous pile.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the post. What else would one expect from a collection of collectivists. Kim R. Holmes and Congressman Cox have it right. Hooray for them.

[RippleFire]

bump

[secretagent]

New contracts for Yahoo! in censoring!

[Former Proud Canadian]

Another reason for every freedom loving English speaking nation to pull out of the UN for good.

[Dutch Boy]

Defund the UN. Defund the left. End this rot that is destroying the work. It's becoming too hard to control information when the internet is so fast and reaches so many people.

[Archimedes2000]

As terrifying as this is, you may want to know that censorship of the Internet has already been proposed here in America; by the ADL an extremely powerful lobby group. And they have had some success.

I agree with the last poster; defend the UN, and the Left.

[coydog]

'defend' the UN...

(snicker)

[Tailgunner Joe]

bump