<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div id="article-block">
<div class="article-text">
<div class="articleLead">
<h2>The NSA snooping revelations have underlined the urgent
need for multilateral governance of the world wide web</h2>
<p><br>
The Hindu<br>
</p>
<p> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece</a></p>
</div>
<p class="body"> As per tradition, the opening address of the
68th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was given by
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. She was followed by
President Barack Obama, who, as one wag put it, had read her
speech the day before. Although the previous week’s
cancellation of the Brazilian presidential visit to the United
States, something unheard of in recent memory, had already
sent a strong signal about Brazil’s displeasure with the NSA’s
snooping revelations (including the President’s own e-mails
and phone calls), Ms Rousseff didn’t mince words in her UNGA
speech either, delivering a second rebuke to Mr. Obama and his
administration. </p>
<p class="body"> <b>Latin American ties</b> </p>
<p class="body"> How significant is this spat between the two
largest powers in the Western Hemisphere? Is it just another
piece of diplomatic posturing, soon to be forgotten and swept
under the rug, or is there more to it than meets the eye? What
does it tell us about the state of U.S.-Latin American
relations, on a downhill spiral since 2009? Brazil is often
described as a swing state, in the South, but from the West, a
democracy traditionally friendly to the U.S., that fought on
the side of the Allies in World War Two, but with an
independent foreign policy. </p>
<p class="body"> One standard response is that the spat only
hurts Brazil. The U.S. President has enough on his plate these
days to worry about Latin America. Moreover, Brazil’s recent
economic slump would seem to indicate the South American
country needs more U.S. trade and investment. Not taking part
in this year’s only White House state dinner would thus
represent a missed opportunity for Brazil. Yet, Washington
can’t have it both ways. Either Brazil is considered a
strategic partner or it is not, in which case one wonders
about the criteria that inform such a category, which would
exclude the world’s seventh largest economy. If the former,
having these differences aired in public, let alone in such a
high-visibility platform as the UNGA’s opening address, cannot
be a good thing. </p>
<p class="body"> To be fair, Brasilia gave Washington plenty of
time to come up with a satisfying response, including at a
bilateral meeting between both Presidents at the G20 summit in
St. Petersburg earlier last month, and a special visit by
Foreign Minister Luiz Alberto Figueiredo to Washington to meet
with U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Yet, both the
White House and the State Department dithered and allowed the
visit, the first by a Brazilian President since 1995, to
unravel. Given what is at stake in the multilayered
U.S.-Brazilian agenda, this is surprising. </p>
<p class="body"> <b>Oil stakes</b> </p>
<p class="body"> What takes the NSA’s Brazilian spying
allegations beyond the tired and trite argument that
“everybody does it” (to which the Brazilian response is,
“well, we don’t”) is the targets involved. President
Rousseff’s own e-mails and phone calls merited particular
attention from Washington. Moreover, according to the
revelations of the <i>O Globo </i>newspaper from the files
provided by Edward Snowden, another top target was Petrobras,
the Brazilian state oil company. </p>
<p class="body"> Petrobras, the fourth largest oil company in
the world, with an annual turnover of $90 billion, can hardly
be considered a security risk or potential funder of
terrorism. What Petrobras does have, is some of the most
sophisticated technology for deep-sea oil drilling, something
U.S. oil companies are keen to get their hands on. Petrobras
also plays a leading role in the bidding process for the Libra
subsalt oilfields in the Santos Basin, off Brazil’s southern
coast — coming up in October — in which U.S. oil giant Chevron
takes part. These are rich pickings, totalling some 12 billion
barrels of recoverable oil, out of 80 to 100 billion of
barrels of oil in that area. Petrobras says the security of
the auction is not compromised, and that the bid will go on as
planned. Yet, who can be absolutely sure about that? If
Chevron walks off with some prize oil blocks, can anybody
guarantee it was not because of privileged information,
courtesy of the NSA? </p>
<p class="body"> <b>Defence contracts</b> </p>
<p class="body"> Another significant issue on the bilateral
agenda is defence contracts. The Brazilian Air Force needs to
upgrade its fleet of fighter jets, and U.S. company Boeing is
competing with France’s Dassault and Sweden’s Saab for a
lucrative contract valued at $4 to 5 billion. Brazil is
undertaking a major upgrade of its military platforms, and the
last thing the U.S. wants is to be excluded from some of the
juiciest defence hardware purchases around. </p>
<p class="body"> Beyond these rather narrow U.S. concerns, there
are larger issues at stake for two of the world’s largest
democracies. Perhaps none is as salient as that of Internet
governance. </p>
<p class="body"> <b>Controlling the net</b> </p>
<p class="body"> The United States has for long portrayed itself
as the foremost champion of internet freedom. Efforts by a
number of countries in the South to establish a multilateral
framework for internet governance have been rejected by
Washington and its allies as misguided efforts by government
to interfere in a self-regulating system that has thrived
because it is managed by (mostly U.S.) business. </p>
<p class="body"> Under this guise of internet freedom, however,
Big Brother is watching all of us, and leading U.S. internet
companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook have provided
whatever information the NSA and the U.S. government request.
Suddenly, the cause of internet freedom has morphed into the
cause of finding out what we are all writing and telling each
other — all for our own good, of course. </p>
<p class="body"> With 80 per cent of global internet traffic
going through U.S. servers, there is a problem. Brazil, with
44 per cent internet penetration and a population that
includes some of the highest numbers of users on Facebook,
Twitter and YouTube, would like to see this changed. Brazil
would also like to upgrade its ineffectual cybersecurity
systems. Fibre-optic submarine cables that link up Brazil
directly with western Europe (thus bypassing the U.S.), bills
that would mandate the storing of digital data on Brazilians
in Brazil, and other such measures are on the table. Some of
these measures may work, some may not. In turn, this might
lead other countries to create their own “national Internet,”
defeating the very purpose of the world wide web. </p>
<p class="body"> Thus, the danger of a Balkanisation of the
Internet is real and rings especially for countries like
India, whose IT and IT-enabled services sector depend so
heavily on it. It is in everybody’s interest that the
U.S.-Brazil spat be resolved amicably. For those who believe
that the knowledge society is here to stay, and that worldwide
connectivity is its handmaiden, this should include a step
back from the abyss of breaking up the internet. One way
forward is through multilateral governance of the web and
stronger penalties for violating our privacy. </p>
<p class="body"> <i>(Jorge Heine is CIGI professor of global
governance at the Balsillie School of International Affairs,
Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario. He tweets
at </i>@jorgeheinel<i>)</i> </p>
<div id="articleKeywords">
<p>Keywords: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece?homepage=true&css=print#">Brazil</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece?homepage=true&css=print#">USA</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece?homepage=true&css=print#">Brazil-US
relations</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece?homepage=true&css=print#">Brazil-US
spat</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece?homepage=true&css=print#">68th
United Nations General Assembly</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece?homepage=true&css=print#">Balkanisation</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece?homepage=true&css=print#">cyber
security measures</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece?homepage=true&css=print#">Dilma
Rousseff</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece?homepage=true&css=print#">Barack
Obama</a></p>
</div>
<div><span style="float:right"><span id="count5186893a"></span></span></div>
<div id="keywordline"> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="printfooter">
<p> Printable version | Oct 1, 2013 11:00:50 AM | <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece</a></p>
<p class="copyright"> © The Hindu </p>
</div>
</body>
</html>