http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/delivering-us-from-surveillance/article5197660.ece?homepage=true
(The cartoon is of the the Indian Prime Minister and Obama in an
embrace, and while in embrace, the Indian PM cutting the wire of Obama's
surveillance equipment. )
Delivering us from surveillance
The Hindu
* by Arun Mohan Sukumar
* Oct. 3, 2013
* original
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/delivering-us-from-surveillance/article5197660.ece?homepage=true>
Illustration: Satwik Gade
New Delhi can pursue a series of small, simple measures to help
check NSA’s snooping without seriously affecting India-U.S. ties
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reluctance to raise the slightest murmur
of protest against the U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) spying
excesses during his American trip leaves us with one question: will NSA
surveillance continue unabated? India has displayed a stunning lack of
political will to even broach the issue with Washington D.C. Perhaps,
this was inevitable: a Prime Minister humiliated at home by his own
party can hardly be expected to sour the one foreign policy achievement
that defines his legacy. Dr. Singh was busy ensuring the India-U.S.
nuclear deal is operationalised before he demits office to worry about
concerns that actually affect the lives and businesses of Indians.
*Consensus*
This is unfortunate because NSA surveillance is an area where rare
consensus has emerged among the BRICS countries. At the U.N. General
Assembly session in New York last week, BRICS Foreign Ministers
“expressed concern” at the “unauthorised interception of communication
and data,” without calling out the NSA in specific. But there exist no
international regulations to protect civilians from such surveillance
because the U.S., the United Kingdom and Israel in particular are
opposed to any cybersecurity treaty. In 2010, Russia — backed by Brazil
and China — tabled a draft convention on cybercrimes at the U.N., only
to be shot down by the West. The Russian proposal specifically targeted
intrusive technology and cyber attacks — the sort of stuff the NSA is
adept at. But the U.S. successfully spun the narrative around to suggest
autocratic countries like Russia and China wanted to clamp down on the
Internet. A year later, /The New York Times /would reveal the U.S. and
Israel had used precisely this technology to infect nuclear reactors in
Iran with the Stuxnet virus.
The U.S. used the same pretext last December in Dubai when the U.N.
deliberated an international communications treaty under the auspices of
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The Obama
administration, however, refused to sign the International Telecom
Regulations and asserted that cybersecurity be kept out of the treaty’s
mandate. It insisted the Internet be unregulated to leave it “free and
open.” Months later, leaked NSA documents courtesy Edward Snowden would
reveal how the U.S. arm-twisted telecom companies and Internet service
providers for confidential user data. Had the U.S. signed on to the
ITRs, the NSA’s PRISM programme would have amounted to a gross breach of
its treaty obligations.
At the ITU negotiations, India chose regrettably to side with the U.S.
This July, /The Hindu /disclosed how India’s Central Monitoring System
(CMS) intercepts private communication in the same vein as the NSA.
Given that India and the U.S. signed a Memorandum of Understanding in
2011 to share “cybersecurity information and expertise,” it would not be
surprising to learn that much of the CMS’ capabilities stem from our
cooperation with the U.S.
*Holding back*
There are then three plausible reasons behind India’s refusal to take up
the NSA revelations with the U.S. One, Prime Minister Singh does not
wish to sully the piece de resistance in his foreign policy tab. Two,
New Delhi worries about a potential blowback in ties especially on
technology transfer, private investment and defence cooperation. Third,
the government needs to sustain its own monitoring and intercepting of
communication, for which it needs U.S. assistance.
The moral basis for these justifications is shaky. Yet, with all its
reservations about publicly airing grievances with the U.S., India still
has a good opportunity to help rein in the NSA’s mandate. Diplomacy
offers enough avenues to do so without substantially affecting
India-U.S. ties.
*Three steps*
For starters, India could revive an IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa)
proposal from 2011 to set up a U.N. Committee for Internet- Related
Policies (CIRP), and submit it again to the U.N. General Assembly. CIRP
would comprise a rotating group of 50 countries serving in an advisory
capacity on Internet governance policies. This committee would be
positioned ideally to highlight egregious surveillance schemes of the
U.S. and other countries. First tabled at the 66th UNGA session, this
idea met with opposition from the West and advocates of Internet
freedom. But in light of new circumstances, and great resentment against
the U.S. and NSA’s practices, mooting CIRP is sure to generate much
discussion at the U.N. The IBSA proposal should be coupled with a draft
resolution for the General Assembly to adopt: one that strongly
denounces practices of global surveillance and use of interceptive
technologies against governments.
Second, when Parliament convenes for the winter session, the Congress
party — or any party or independent legislator, for that matter — could
table amendments to the National Security Act and the Official Secrets
Act. Broadly, the amendments would stipulate it is a punishable offence
for Indian or India-based Internet and telecom companies to share
confidential information about Indian citizens, public-sector
institutions, and officials with foreign governments. The enforcement of
these provisions, if enacted, would be supervised by a parliamentary
committee. The chances these amendments are passed by Parliament are
frankly slim. But the parliamentary debate that would ensue will surely
include sharp and critical comments on U.S. surveillance programmes, all
of which go on the record as the opinion of India’s sovereign body.
Third, India could help formulate a BRICS Charter for Internet
Governance, given that there is substantial agreement among member
states. Among the provisions in the draft charter could be an idea
adapted, ironically, from the George W. Bush administration — the
Proliferation Security Initiative. The PSI was a mechanism set up by the
U.S. and endorsed by “volunteer” countries to target the shipment of
arms to Iran and North Korea. The simple idea behind PSI was this: while
the West could do little to influence policy in Tehran and Pyongyang, it
held all the economic cards to ensure these policies were not
implemented. BRICS countries retain a trump card when it comes to
Internet governance: their massive consumer base. To be sure, the
charter should not punish or sanction Internet companies that
collaborate with the U.S. government for surveillance. BRICS members
would circulate an annual “name and shame” list of such companies to
multilateral avenues and civil society forums across the world. The
negative publicity would do more than its fair share to make IT
companies rethink their surreptitious collaboration with the U.S.
These are modest, but not conclusive, proposals that India could
articulate to help check the NSA’s surveillance programmes.
They are not aimed at setting back India-U.S. ties — in fact, pursuing
such policies would only boost India’s reputation as a pursuer of
independent foreign policy.
/arun.sukumar at thehindu.co.in/ <mailto:arun.sukumar at thehindu.co.in>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131004/bfe17553/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TH_04_Oped_new_jpg_1606138e.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 35252 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131004/bfe17553/attachment.jpg>
-------------- 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