In the United Nations today, the United States is expected to stand virtually alone in voting against a treaty, sponsored by Canada and France, aimed at protecting “cultural diversity.” In a preliminary poll on the pact, 151 countries voted yes, two countries abstained, and the U.S. and Israel voted no. The U.S. opposes the treaty because it sees it as being not about culture but about trade. Other countries, it fears, will use “cultural diversity” as a shield to block imports of U.S. movies, magazines, TV shows and other such products. As the U.S. ambassador to UNESCO told the Financial Times, “The main proponents of this convention seem more interested in control over international trade flows and the lives of their citizens than in promoting freedom and cultural diversity.”
Without question, the U.S. has a point here. It’s hard to look at these kinds of measures (particularly if you’re an American) and not see them as cynical ploys to put up barriers to U.S. goods. But the American view is also flawed. The reason that so many nations reject the U.S. position can’t be dismissed as purely mercantile. Many countries genuinely fear that the brute force of the marketplace, and America’s dominant role in it, will destroy their local cultures and even their national identities. Trade and culture are, in other words, closely related. For America to ignore the connection is to misread, and mischaracterize, the motives of its opponents, many of whom are also its allies. In the end, such blindness simply weakens the American position.
Which brings me to the Internet. A few days ago, I wrote about the growing geopolitical divide over Internet governance. More and more countries, including, now, the members of the European Union, want to shift toward a more international governance structure, perhaps under the auspices of the United Nations. At the center of the controversy is Icann, the Internet rule-making body that, among other things, doles out top-level domain names. (For useful background, see this article by Andy Oram.) Though it has an international board, Icann operates under the auspices of the U.S. government (and under the laws of California). Other countries want greater international oversight of the functions carried out by Icann.
The U.S. is dead-set against any change. It sees “internationalization” as a way to give authoritarian regimes, which traditionally have been the strongest critics of the status quo, the means to put further restrictions on the Internet. And it points out that the U.S. government, despite its ostensible control over Icann, has largely stayed out of the body’s decision making. A different governance structure would inevitably lead to the politicization, and then the balkanization, of the Internet.
As with the “cultural diversity” debate, there’s much to be said for the American position. The U.S. government does deserve credit for letting Icann operate at arm’s length, and, whatever Icann’s flaws, it’s hard to imagine a rule-making structure that would have worked better. But, again, the U.S. position too easily dismisses the concerns of other nations. This debate isn’t just about authoritarian states shutting down the free flow of information. It’s about fears of American hegemony. The fact that the U.S. hasn’t meddled with the Internet in the past does not, after all, guarantee that it won’t start meddling in the future. Under the current structure, other countries fear, there would be little control of such meddling.
It’s not hard to see why other nations might be antsy about American control over what’s becoming the world’s commercial and communications nervous system. Recently, for instance. the Bush administration lobbied Icann to postpone the scheduled introduction of the .xxx domain for pornography. Other countries also objected to setting up a virtual red-light district, but it was the announcement of U.S. opposition that seemed to push Icann to back off its plans. It doesn’t seem strange that countries might ask, What’s to stop such pressure from being exerted, publicly or privately, in the future?
Consider as well the resolution opposing any change in Internet governance now before the U.S. Senate. In introducing the resolution three days ago, sponsor Norm Coleman, of Minnesota, said, “Many aspects of running the Internet have profound implications for competition and trade, democratization, and free expression. We cannot stand idly by as some governments seek to make the Internet an instrument of censorship and political suppression. We must stand fast against all attempts to alter the Internet’s nature as a free and open global system.” There’s little to object to here. Most people would agree that the politicization of the Internet is something to be resisted. But then Coleman went on to use the issue to attack the United Nations: “It is irresponsible to expand the U.N.’s portfolio before it undertakes sweeping, overdue reform. If the U.N. was unable to properly administer the Oil-for-Food Program, I am afraid what the Internet would look like under U.N. control.” Coleman, in other words, is politicizing the Internet even as he argues against the politicization of the Internet.
By reflexively dismissing other countries’ concerns about Internet governance, the U.S. will only amplify those concerns. The best way to resolve this debate is not to try to close it down, but to engage in it.
I’m still slightly confused about the argument that making Icann an international body would lead to the potential for censorship by other nations.
Can someone explain to me how it would be possible for a nation to censor the internet, using a body that only apparently has control over top-level domains?
Okay, two possible scenarios:
1)Country or group of countries put into place the .xxx TLD. All offensive purveyors move over to the new domain. To get rid of “smut”, all that now needs to be done is to eliminate the .xxx domain.
2)A nation, say, France invades Belgium. In the furor, someone proposes disconnecting all access to the .fr domain, potentially causing economic collapse of some French industries.
If I’ve got the technology wrong, please tell me.
Giles,
Iran brought up the argument that the U.S. influence over ICANN could be used to drop .ir out of the root zone. Considering that the U.S. didn’t drop Tehran out of 3-space when they took our diplomats hostage, I don’t really understand their beef. Nevertheless, our politicians are playing along at their level—turning their argument around to explain why we don’t think that a nation with Iran’s history of support for Islamo-terrorism should have any kind of say at all in anything.
Right, so it is just about who gets the right to turn off parts of the Internet. But I don’t understand how it being an international body *increases* the likelihood of that happening? Surely that way decreases the likelihood of it happening, since any sensibly written rules would require a consensus for any blocking to happen? Whereas at the moment it could be achieved unilaterally, should the US decide that it needs to cripple a country’s economic/communications infrastructure as one of its tools of war.
I also don’t follow how the .xxx scenario would get rid of smut. You’d have to have laws about only putting smut on .xxx which is a whole different matter, surely? If you stopped the .xxx everyone would just go back to .com.
“…The fact that the U.S. hasn’t meddled with the Internet in the past does not, after all, guarantee that it won’t start meddling in the future…”
Who cares ?
There is more root server outside the USA than inside the USA !
http://root-servers.org/
Giles,
The UN doesn’t consider Taiwan a country. China has a veto in the UN. If the root zone gets turned over the UN, then what happens to the .tw ccTLD?
An article from a site in the .tw ccTLD “Taiwan Deserves a Place in the United Nations”
Would the PRC demand that this article be published at a site in the .tw.cn domain? Or would they prefer to just shoot the author?
A humorous take on this matter:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1005/lileks.php3
“Without question, the U.S. has a point here. It’s hard to look at these kinds of measures (particularly if you’re an American) and not see them as cynical ploys to put up barriers to U.S. goods.”
And why wouldn’t we want to put them up?
With opinions like those, why wouldn’t we want to stop you?
Our small cultures have a right to live too.
Even if it means commercially limiting the options of global (American) corps pushing their americanized crap all over the world.
You are not liked, because you are the bully in the play yard.
Learn to live with it.
Or do something about it (like become something better).
The facts are that the Internet as originally conceived, has now overgrown its original vision, as first developed by the American Military at DARPA.
Today, activities of people on the Internet brings with it, “questions of law”, and the first question in Court is always “who has jurisdiction?”.
That is the stark question to all these other Internet questions. For all countries outside the United States (with the exception of America’s client state in the Middle East) there is a single answer, and that is “not the United States!”
There are issues of privacy, identity theft, credit card fraud, advertising and spam, and a host of other issues that local authorities and national authorities simply cannot ignore. Given the current American position of thumbing its nose at the efforts of the International Community at the United Nations, rather than moving toward genuine reform, it seems sensible that Internet Law Reform should become part and parcel of United Nations Reforms.
I can think of some UN reforms that are needed in this area to augment the UN efforts with Human Rights, where Louise Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court Justice now sits; as being in order. A person’s “hard drive” should have a universal exclusion from search and seizure in my view, because files in it are part and parcel of a person’s thoughts and thought processes and these in turn are inseparable from a person’s mind.
Quite obviously, the Internet itself requires fresh attention to many issues of Law, such as Intellectual Property, Language Rights, and a host of other legal questions that are not part of the American Landscape.
Finally there is the entire question of “Nation States” their lawful membership in the United Nations, and the questions of “failed states” and “criminal governments”. The UN Charter was a proper vision and it continues to be a proper vehicle to suppress war and replace it with the “rule of law”. Diplomats have crafted in the UN a vehicle for generating localized reforms within Nation States, that are globally co-ordinated. These are called “Conventions” or “Treaties” and they are “binding” under international law.
Communism and Globalization are incompatible with that view. When you boil it all down, the Internet is nothing more than a packet switching system with an agreed upon protocol for the generation and transmission of packet data.
American multinational companies that have been pushing for “globalized trade” have simply applied their hegemonic power to push asside sovereign nation states, thereby creating the kind of Internet Anarchy that we see today. The Communist Chinese have the same basic agenda, except that they are the ones that wish to control it.
The UN and the placement of the Internet as well as Telecommunications under its mandate, is the only possible way forward if you believe in the United Nations and the moral foundations of its sovereign “member states”.
I do. Ambassador Bolton and the Bush Administration does not. The Communist Chinese agree with the hegemony inherent in the American position, but quarrel with the fact that it is they, not the Americans that should control it.
My answer is that neither China nor America are going to control it. It should continue to evolve, under the aspices of the United Nations, specifically the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) which should also be merged with the Post Office Union around the globe, and that these should work toward “open and common standards”, much like ICAO has for civil aviation.
And if a sovereign country decides that there will be no more smut on the Internet inside its jurisdiction, then that is what shall happen. No different than if a country decides that it will ban alcohol within its borders. Other sovereign countries, while perhaps disagreeing with such “social policy” are never the less compelled to respect the “sovereignty” of the people who created such national laws.
One last point. Your article mentions Taiwan, which is widely seen as an “autonomous region” of China. The same can be said of Crimea in Ukraine, or Tibet that has been annexed by China. For that matter, the same can be said of the Falkland Islands that have been annexed by the United Kingdom, or Granada that has been annexed by the United States (one of a long list). All of these should have access and status at the United Nations to full “membership” in the organization, separate and apart from the “host country”. In Canada, as “asymetric federalism” develops develops further in the Province of Quebec, then it too may find itself with such a status.
In the context of Taiwan, that would leave it with its “tw” ID, and I might add, that the Internet would work much better if it adopted instead the three letter codes for cities used by the Airlines. Thus “.LAX” should be Los Angeles and surrounding areas for Internet Purposes. In that regard, the current “country code” and “area codes” used in telephones world wide, should also key into the “city codes” so as to rationalize the current popurri of conventions. Certain codes should be unique to International organizations, such as .un for example. Another would be “.rc” which stands for “Red Cross” and also “Red Crescent”.
One last comment. The “rule of law” is man’s ONLY alternative to “war”.
American hegemony, and American anarchy is not the same as the “rule of law”. Nor is that any better or worse from Chinese hegemony or Chinese anarchy.
Giles asked:
“I’m still slightly confused about the argument that making Icann an international body would lead to the potential for censorship by other nations.
Can someone explain to me how it would be possible for a nation to censor the internet, using a body that only apparently has control over top-level domains?”
The answer is easy. The “Internet” enters and leaves a country physically at fixed access points using fibre optical links (most likely) or some other form of data communication circuit.
Shutting off these links, is exactly the same thing as shutting off all international telephone lines, thereby isolating a country from the world. All modern countries have the technical ability to do so, or to close down a portion of a telecommunication circuit. The same should be possible at least in principle, for Internet Traffic.
Such a “Customs Agent” on the Internet would be most welcome in most countries as a primary means of suppressing unwanted spam and unsolicited advertising. Other policies such as language enforcement could be another, so that Web Pages of foreign languages could be stopped at the border.
Just because you technically can “connect to the world” does not mean that you should do so. Most people will say that there needs to be some “common sense”, by which they mean, that their local customs, values, and laws should govern what is taking place in their own country and on their own facilities.
And just because you can transmit data across international borders for processing, does not mean that you should do so.
What is missing, is the historic American regard and respect for the democratic sovereignty of other countries, and the need to achieve common international objectives through co-operation.