[governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist

[parminder]

On Thursday 14 March 2013 11:42 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 13 March 2013 08:31 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi P
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:57 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> You've made clear that you have an issue with industrialized 
>> countries, especially the US, engaging in bilateral, regional, and 
>> plurilateral agreements.  Although I've never been clear whether the 
>> fact that developing countries also do this bothers you as well…India 
>> for example is in lots of exclusionary FTAs, and not with the great 
>> satan.
>
> Bill
>
> All 'agreements' where unequal power is leveraged to obtain unequal 
> gains bother me. Later in the email you speak of India-Bangladesh 
> example... Of course there is the 'big brother' problem vis a vis 
> India in the sub continent. When I was last in Bangaldesh I was 
> shocked to see the local TV mostly full of Indian soap opera. To me 
> the extent of domination of these programs appeared too culturally 
> invasive. I later heard similar things about Sri Lanka. I would 
> support any steps these countries would like to take to limit cultural 
> imports from India to safe guard their respective cultures (btw, very 
> penitently,

of course 'pertinently', and not 'penitently '

> now there is a UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of 
> the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which shows the value of 
> multilaterlism in such situations). And I would resist if India seeks 
> to use its market size and such allurements to browbeat these 
> countries through FTA kind of agreements to act in ways that, what 
> these countires otherwise feel, are really harmful to their national 
> public interest...
>
> parminder
>
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> While I favor multilateral to small-n solutions for problems that are 
>> truly global in scope,
>
> Internet is truly global in scope, and so must ne its governance..
>
>
>> I don't think it's empirically supportable to claim that broad ML 
>> processes are inherently more consistent with the procedural norms 
>> you favor because there are more actors or some greater fealty to 
>> principled behavior.  Compare say the UN vs the Europe or the 
>> Americas machinery.
>>
>>> It is also a basic democratic principle; more people/ actors are 
>>> involved in decision making more the decisions serve all actors 
>>> equally. Bilaterals between a powerful country like the US and a 
>>> developing country has strong elements of take it or leave it, and 
>>> the competitive fear among the weaker partners of what if other 
>>> similarly placed countries enter into similar agreements with the US.
>>
>> Same goes for bilaterals between say India and Bangledesh?
>>
>>> Rich country plurilaterals are of course based on commonness of 
>>> interests of richer economies with certain structural 
>>> characteristics, and their outputs can hardly ever benefit 
>>> non-participant developing countries in an equitable manner.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the extent multilateral agreements do have a greater chance of 
>>>> being based on higher norms and principles, that is often because 
>>>> those higher norms and principles are more squishy and easier to 
>>>> arrive at given more complexly divided interests.
>>>
>>> Dont know whether you consider human rights instruments as just 
>>> squishy, but I think they have been and continue to be very useful.
>>
>> I think international human rights are important, yes
>>
>>>>  The TA offers a good case in point.  Had that been a plurilateral, 
>>>> we might even know what enhanced cooperation means :-)
>>>
>>> Similarly, WSIS outcome documents contain so many normative 
>>> references (see the declaration of principles for instance) that 
>>> continue to be useful for progressive causes. You seem to be too 
>>> dismissive about such stuff.
>>
>> I'm not dismissive of the WSIS, please don't start with the putting 
>> words in other people's mouths thing yet again
>>>
>>>> More higher norms and principles is not necessarily a good outcome, 
>>>> it depends.
>>>
>>> They are always a good outcomes. However *only* norms and principles 
>>> without work towards their translation into concrete outcomes is not 
>>> good.
>>>
>>> Anyway, in times of such stalemates like the present one in global 
>>> IG, there seems to be a great degree of consensus, articulated at 
>>> IGFs, mentioned by EU group that met CS reps at Baku, and so on, for 
>>> developing principles on which IG could be based..... So, at least 
>>> if we focus on the current context higher norms and principles are 
>>> certainly not only good outcomes, but very much needed outcomes.
>>
>> I have supported discussion of principles….
>>
>> All this seems pretty far from the statements to which I was 
>> responding, though...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Narrower interests and relative power by no means disappear in 
>>>> large-n collaborations.  Most multilateral deals are in fact 
>>>> clusters of bilateral and plurilateral deals among the most 
>>>> powerful and/or motivated by sharply defined interests.  Outsiders 
>>>> then get pushed to conform with what these inner circle types have 
>>>> worked out.  The problem in trade has been that the identities and 
>>>> mixed interest of the inner circles have diversified, and the 
>>>> outsiders have found fewer reasons to budge.
>>>
>>> agree
>>>>
>>>> Small-N collaborations may devote less time to higher norms and 
>>>> principles because they are "nested" agreements.
>>>
>>> I am speaking of such ones that are not nested agreements, but are 
>>> attempts to bypass normally accepted norms and principles at global 
>>> level, like TPP and SOPA trying to get away from such higher norms 
>>> through small group and closed door agreements.
>>
>> Will we ever stop hearing SOPA discussed as if it were established 
>> policy?  It was proposed by some congress critters under pressure 
>> from some lobbyists and was defeated.  By others with "a Northern 
>> perspective." The TPP I agree is problematic, but that's got a lot to 
>> do with the fact that multilateralism in the WTO has broken down very 
>> substantially.  There's a big push here in Europe for a free trade 
>> deal with the US on the same grounds.
>>
>>>
>>>>  For example, FTAs at least nominally have to be compatible with 
>>>> the WTO instruments (some disagreement about the consistency of 
>>>> practice) and so the higher norms and principles spelled out in the 
>>>> latter are absent presences in the former.  It's like reading a 
>>>> piece of legislation that modifies another piece of legislation 
>>>> that is not fully incorporated into the text, you have read the 
>>>> docs back and forth to get the full picture.
>>>
>>> Yes, but they can  go beyond WTO instruments as long as they do not 
>>> violate thmn, which in a way itself can be considered  a negation of 
>>> a higher order normative agreement reached in negotiating WTO 
>>> instruments.
>>
>> They can go beyond them in depth of liberalization affected through 
>> the schedules of commitments, but they have to comport with the 
>> fundamental principles of the trade system, e.g. MFN, national 
>> treatment, etc. Of course, many trade mavens argue that while this is 
>> nominally true, there are incentives there to cheat, and so each such 
>> agreement gets looked at closely for exclusionary impact even if 
>> there's a lack of declared intent.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Accordingly, while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil 
>>>>> society has to make its considered value based choice whether it 
>>>>> prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones 
>>>>> when the issue is clearly of a global import, like Internet 
>>>>> governance is, perhaps like no other issue. In all other areas of 
>>>>> global governance, I see a distinct preference in civil society 
>>>>> for global agreements in preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on 
>>>>> issues ranging from trade and IP to climate. 
>>>>
>>>> I know where you're coming from, but I don't think this necessarily 
>>>> follows, or that it's entirely fair to characterize it as a values 
>>>> choice (which I guess would mean those focusing on non-multilateral 
>>>> are making inferior choices, from a values perspective?).
>>>
>>> This kind of extreme characterisation can always be used to make the 
>>> opposite argument look bad.
>>
>> It's neither 'extreme' or trying to make your argument look bad.  You 
>> said CS has to make its considered value based choice whether it 
>> prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones.  So 
>> you're saying one should prefer one to the other and its' a matter of 
>> values.  And I was simply saying I disagree in that having certain 
>> values doesn't necessarily require such a choice, especially when 
>> non-ML agreements may have a greater impact on values we care about 
>> in some cases...
>>
>>> I am asking just that the same actors should note resist 
>>> multilateralism who merrily go about doing plurilateralism exactly 
>>> on the same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism). This is a 
>>> values issue and an inferior choice from that standpoint.
>>>
>>>
>>>>  In many case, national and small-n frameworks may have greater on 
>>>> the ground impact on the people and values CS is trying to defend, 
>>>> so as much as I wish they'd engage more in the multilateral stuff 
>>>> (since that's where I live) I'm not prepared to say that they're 
>>>> committing a grievous moral or strategic error.
>>>
>>> Well, they are committing a grievous democratic error, nay mischief, 
>>> if (and ony if) 'they' resist mutlilateralism - and I repeat the 
>>> above phrase - while merrily doing plurilateralism exactly on the 
>>> same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism).
>>
>> But that's not extreme.
>>
>> Ok, well I was interested in understanding your original statement
>>
>>> It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater 
>>> chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are 
>>> bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower 
>>> interests (pl refer to the literature on FTAs).  Also, almost 
>>> always, bilateral and plurilateral agreements based on 'relative 
>>> power' results in greater gains for those who are more powerful, 
>>> something which follows from the preceding statement. 
>>
>> And I think I've got it now.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130314/5618f265/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t