[governance] Rousseff UN speech vrs India CIRP proposal - WAS - OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Oct 17 14:22:02 EDT 2013
On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as
> offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when
> states commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the
> best track record when it comes to making itself accountable before
> international human rights institutions for its domestic policies
> (neither incidentally has the US). One must bear in mind that domestic
> surveillance systems are being built in India and that there has been
> quite a lot of resistance to government transparency when it comes to
> blocking or interception (it is in this context that the US activities
> are sometimes offered as justification for domestic policy). I do not
> therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as President
> Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states to be
> accountable to individuals.
Now that is an important point to come to. In fact, I see no real
difference between what Rousseff said in her UN speech and what India
proposed in the CIRP proposal, other than the obvious fact that the
former dealt more with higher level principles and the CIRP proposal
with specifics. (There is this relatively minor thing about 'oversight
role' of CIRP, a position India was always open about and it its recent
WGEC submission does seek to separate oversight part from general public
policy issues). I read Rousseff's UN statement again - the principal
operational part of it is
"The United Nations must play a leading role in the effort to regulate
the conduct of States with regard to these technologies".
I am happy to hear arguments to the contrary. On the other hand, one of
the proposed seven specific tasks of the CIRP was
"Promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political,
social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development".
This is similar to Russeff making numerous references to human rights in
her speech while the main thrust was /*the need for a new UN mechanism
to regulate state conduc//t/*. So, I really think that Rousseff's speech
isnt much different from India's CIRP proposal. Maybe, the actual
difference is that Brazil has shown guts to make it clear that it means
business and is not going to be cowed down by pressure - most strongly
shown by the cancellation of US trip which was really really big.... On
the other hand, India has clearly been weak kneed, and very vulnerable
to all kinds of pressure. External pressure - chiefly from the US, and
of a very intense kind. And internal pressure- from the industry,
largely ochestrated by US companies, (the chief actor being a US telecom
that is quite a villain even within US civil society sector), and
unfortunately, also many civil society actors within India who in my
view have taken a rather one-sided view about this issue.
Now, if you think I being uncharitable to the involved Indian actors
here, I am happy to be convinced that Rousseff's UN speech and India's
CIRP proposal are really so different for one to be welcomed and
celebrated by civil society, and the other, largely, to be considered
worthy of nothing but contempt.
For me, they are not so different. The only difference is - one, of the
timing (but then, India's proposal was active, and Rousseff's speech
reactive - and there is something to said in favour of foresight and
active approach, and coming up with specific details ) . Second, Brazil
clearly looks like it means business, while India, at least some
quarters of the establishment, allowed themselves to be browbeaten. In
the process, it handed over a crucial geo-political leadership advantage
to Brazil... I dont mind much, as long as it it leads to greater global
justice - but within India, there would at some time be some analysis if
this was not a major lost opportunity.
Regards, parminder
>
> I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to
> surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a
> surveillance order if you never find out about it.
>
> Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables
> individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the
> International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does
> not really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a
> system in which it is accountable to individuals in an international
> human rights forum.
>
> See you at the IGF :)
> Chinmayi
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote:
>>
>> We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of
>> the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia,
>> which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom
>> House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has
>> suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite
>> debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in
>> opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet
>> governance taken by the FOC states.
>>
>>
>> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not
>> really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These
>> Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of
>> telecommunications”) in the end.
>>
>> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN
>> oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that
>> her concern seems to be that there should be some accountability
>> with respect to human rights, I sympathise. The Indian government
>> seems to be in I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite
>> correctly that while everybody else was being told off for human
>> rights violations, the countries telling them off were also
>> committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to
>> the idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow
>> justify another's (I still would not support the resolution that
>> India presented to the UN last year),
>
> Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human
> rights violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference
> between US violating rights of people in a situation where it
> admits of no avenues of recourse, even at a theoretical -political
> level, and when such things happen within a political system which
> has its dynamics that can be engaged to avoid or reduce such
> violation. CIRP like global governance proposals are about having
> a global political regime within which then efforts can be made to
> fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political
> system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights
> violation against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative
> different kind, from the very important issue of domestic
> surveillances that we all struggle against.
>
>> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing
>> as the best model.
>
> Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what
> 'should be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a
> thing.
>
> Best , parminder
>>
>> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely
>> in terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the
>> ITRs debates - that many were stepping away from the actual text
>> and merely pointing out who was signing as an argument for not
>> signing. Isn't it better to just discuss the specifics of
>> treaties and organisations and determine on that basis whether it
>> is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them?
>>
>> Best,
>> Chinmayi
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm
>> <jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote:
>>>
>>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online
>>> Coalition <http://www.freedomonline.tn/Fr/home_46_4>, a
>>> group of governments committed to advance Internet
>>> freedom, it would send a positive message to the
>>> international community. Countries that join the coalition
>>> endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people
>>> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From
>>> Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the
>>> coalition. On the other hand, other countries that are not
>>> members of the coalition, such as Russia, China and India,
>>> have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in the
>>> past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN
>>> General assembly, which would have put in risk Internet
>>> governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition
>>> would be a turning point and a step in the opposite
>>> direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from
>>> its partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia,
>>> India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa).
>>>
>>
>> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the
>> perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United
>> States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not
>> to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower
>> than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the
>> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from
>> the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the
>> "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist
>> position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Policy Officer
>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
>> consumers*
>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000
>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>> knowledge hub |
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
>> print this email unless necessary.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are
>> strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at
>> your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131017/15ee1341/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list