Keep the U.N. away from the Internet
By Marni Soupcoff
If the United Nations had its way, it would have a multilingual bureaucratic finger in every pie--especially the American apple ones. And the truth is, praising multilateralism and carping about hegemony have become such popular Western pastimes, that even many Americans are only too happy to embrace a greater role for the corrupt international body in their lives. But, when the U.N. starts talking about taking over regulation of the Internet, as it has begun to under the guise of ensuring the medium's security, even the Kofi groupies among us had better be prepared to draw the line.
Last week, a collection of diplomats, activists, and tech company representatives met at the U.N. to talk about Internet governance. According to participants in the talks, the rationale for having the U.N. assume power over the Internet would be to police spam and other invasions of privacy. But make no mistake. The real motivation in most internationalists' minds is to wrest control of the world's most powerful freedom-educator and equalizer from Americans and Westerners.
By exposing anyone with a computer to massive amounts of information and global connections to like-minded people, the Internet has empowered individuals everywhere to assume control of their destinies, understand the freedoms and rights available to Westerners, and join together en masse to fight for greater liberties. In a sense, the Internet has served the unifying and justice-seeking role that the U.N. claims for itself, but never fulfills, being too busy coddling diplomats and manufacturing red tape.
It would be a huge mistake to surrender such a beneficial democratizing tool to a body that includes the likes of thought-policing countries like China and North Korea.
Here are some powerful reminders of the authoritarian ways members of the U.N. deal with the Internet:
1. China (joined the U.N. October 24, 1945)--The Chinese government heavily censors what its citizens can access via the Internet, probably more so than any other country in the world. It blocks thousands of websites that displease it, including news and human rights sites, and also blocks proxy servers to prevent getting around the censorship.
With the help of special Internet police, the Chinese have shut thousands of Internet cafes for not installing surveillance software and, according to Amnesty International, have jailed at least 54 people for posting or forwarding pro-democracy information. (An unknown number of people are being detained for using the Internet to disperse information about the spread of SARS.)
Individual Chinese email accounts and bulletin boards are monitored. Electronic sites and bulletin boards that are critical of the Chinese government are shut down.
2. Malaysia (joined the U.N. September 17, 1957)--Malaysia has talked the talk of Internet freedom, pledging not to censor, but authorities have failed to walk the free electronic speech walk.
In 2003, the Malaysian government used its repressive Sedition Act as authority to raid and investigate the country's only independent news source, a website called "Malaysiakini." The reason? "Malaysiakini" had posted a letter criticizing the Malaysian government's affirmative action policies for ethnic Malays.
3. Saudi Arabia (joined the U.N. October 24, 1945)--Saudi Arabia practices extensive Internet censorship and has a single government-controlled gateway to the net.
The country uses a web censoring system that blocks sites dealing with "objectionable" topics such as women's rights, homosexuality, and non-Muslim religions. Sites that show Judaism or Israel in a good light are also out of the question.
4. Iran (joined the U.N. October 24, 1945)--Iran makes frequent use of Internet censorship to block hundreds of sites, including those belonging to political reformists. It has also blocked sites belonging to radio stations that broadcast in Farsi and detained a journalist over his political blog. Essentially, criticism of the Islamic Republic is out of bounds.
5. Singapore (joined the U.N. September 21, 1965)--Singapore requires sites that provide political and religious content to register with the government. The country blacklists and blocks access to sites it thinks "may undermine morals, political stability and religious harmony."
This is just the tip of the iceberg, of course, but should serve as a little aide memoire for the reasons we should oppose turning governance of the Internet--which is many dissidents' and freedom fighters' only connection to supporters and the outside world--over to the U.N. Too many of the bloated organization's member countries have shown us exactly what they would do to stifle electronic expression if given the chance.
Marni Soupcoff's column appears on Monday at TAEmag.com.
