[Governance] India

[parminder]

On 13/12/21 10:13 pm, Murali Shanmugavelan wrote:
> "India has a non aligned background..."?!?!?

India was a major force in building the nonalignment movement -- that is
what 'background' means...

As for the current status, my email amply lays is out, See "... the deep
embeddedness that India has in the US centric techno-sphere...".

Although it still does -- even if just bec it is a big country and needs
enough independence,-- try 'some degree' of maintaining independence,
or, in other words, a 'diversity of dependences',  like the S 400
missile story tell us...

parminder


>
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 at 14:16, parminder via Governance
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> wrote:
>
>     Dear Wolfgang,
>
>     Thanks for the quotes about the Putin -- Modi meeting. Indeed in
>     most mainstream coverage in India the ICT side hardly got
>     mentioned. They were the less important part of the summit.
>
>     I am not sure what kind of comments you are looking for from me.
>
>     India has a non aligned background and it is normal for such a
>     large country like India to hedge its bets and not get caught in
>     one geo-techno-enclosure or the other, in the old cold war like
>     sense, but now with digital tech dependencies which are even
>     deeper, stronger and largely irreversible. It therefore makes
>     complete sense that India is exploring ICT relationships with
>     Russia, to/inter alia/ diversify from the deep embeddedness that
>     India has in the US centric techno-sphere. Do you disapprove of
>     it?  See my article of a few years back India should aim for
>     digital non alignment
>     <https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/india-should-aim-for-a-digital-non-alignment/story-ViT3PTiuo5j6dKUvt94YpO.html>
>
>     BTW, one of the key current issues in India-Russia relationship
>     (also highlighted around the summit)  is that India is buying S
>     400 missiles from Russia, despite strong warnings from the US that
>     this may lead to India being excluded from US military supplies.
>
>     Perhaps that would put in good perspective Russia-India techno
>     relationships that seem to so rent your mind.
>
>     From your quoted text, you seem to have issues or questions about
>     Russia and India deciding to work together on the proposed UN
>     cyber crime treaty...
>
>     Do you think there should NOT be any such UN treaty?
>
>     Does that mean countries should rather sign on Europe's Budapest
>     Convention on Cybercrime, or wait for new ones to come from OECD's
>     CDEP (committee on digital economy policy) or from the CoE? You
>     know why India and other countries refuse to sign on the Budapest
>     Convention -- actually they find nothing wrong with its substance,
>     but they refuse to be governed by rules that they were not a part
>     of developing... Makes any democratic sense to you?
>
>     If not Budapest Convention,  what is the option .. The world stay
>     without a cyber crime framework? Why should not all countries sit
>     together to make a cyber crime convention? Happy to hear your
>     reasons either way.
>
>     About multistakeholder participation in such a UN cyber crime
>     convention, which seems to be one major concern of yours:
>
>     I have been arguing long for a horizontal UN digital policy body,
>     with the SAME multistakeholder participation model as OECD's CDEP
>     (and of CoE where the Budapest Convention was made)  ... If we had
>     that UN body , we could have employed its structure for MS
>     participation for developing the proposed UN convention on cyber
>     crime ... But, THE PROBLEM IS, you have consistently opposed it,
>     including as part of the UN WG on enhanced cooperation which had
>     the precise mandate to develop institutional structures for UN
>     based digital policy making. We both were members of that WG and
>     we know what went on there, right. How developing countries
>     proposed the exact same OECD model for UN level digital policy
>     making -- along with all its MS components/ characteristics -- AND
>     YOU ALL TURNED IT DOWN. Am I making any mis-statement here? Happy
>     to be corrected in that case.
>
>     So, perhaps now it is your turn to answer some questions:
>
>     1. Do you think that there should be no UN cyber crime convention,
>     and all non Europeans too should simply sign Europe's Budapest
>     Convention, and further wait for more cyber governance frameworks
>     from OECD's CDEP, or CoE's digital policy mechanisms?
>
>     2. Why and how you call OECD's CDEP and CoE's digital policy
>     making processes as multistakeholder, and those are acceptable to
>     you, but the EXACT SAME model at the UN becomes multi-lateral and
>     NOT multistakeholder - -and, apparently for that reason, not
>     acceptable to you ?
>
>     thanks and look forward to your responses
>
>     parminder
>
>     PS: You raise concerns about India-Russia parleys and digital
>     rights issues (internet shutdowns). Last year India signed this
>     with US led five eyes against eend-to-end encryption
>     https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/international-statement-end-end-encryption-and-public-safety
>     <https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/international-statement-end-end-encryption-and-public-safety>  
>     .. Just seeking a better balance of geo-political concerns from you.
>
>
>
>     On 08/12/21 4:46 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>>     Wolfgang:
>>     Is the Putin/Modi Summit related to the Indian Internet Shutdowns?
>>
>>     Parminder:
>>
>>     I have seen and heard of no connection of that kind. In any case,
>>     nations nowadays need no external assistance to control their
>>     respective Internets. As for foreign alliances, if anything India
>>     is certainly bending much more towards US led alliances, that
>>     claim some western values of democracy, HR, etc ( all of which is
>>     of course a lot of BS, and simply good old-fashioned geopolitics
>>     and geo- economics under new garbs -- one significant
>>     manifestation and result of which kind of geo-politics/
>>     geoeconomics is neo-colonisation) ..
>>
>>
>>     Wolfgang:
>>     As I can see, Internet Governance (cybersecurity and digital
>>     economny) was part of the discussions.
>>
>>     This is from the Putin-Modi Meeting: "The Sides appreciated close
>>     cooperation in the field of security in the use of Information
>>     and Communication Technologies (ICT) through inter-agency
>>     cooperation under bilateral mechanisms and at multilateral
>>     platforms. They highlighted the leading role of the United
>>     Nations in the decision-making process on security in the use of
>>     ICTs. The Sides also recognized the need for further work on
>>     rules, norms and principles of responsible behavior of State
>>     aimed at preventing conflicts and promoting peaceful use of ICTs.
>>     The Sides reaffirmed the importance of international cooperation
>>     against criminal use of ICTs and in this regard they welcome the
>>     establishment of an open- ended Ad hoc intergovernmental
>>     committee of experts to elaborate a comprehensive international
>>     convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes as
>>     stipulated in the UN GA resolutions 74/247 and 75/282." ... "The
>>     Sides intend to focus particularly on increasing the
>>     effectiveness of countering terrorism, extremism, drug
>>     trafficking, cross-border organized crime, and information
>>     security threats,"  ... "The Sides agreed that safeguarding of
>>     global commons including our oceans, outer space and information
>>     space should be based on the principles of transparency,
>>     accessibility and upholding international law."
>>
>>     And they discussed also digital economy: " The Sides also agreed
>>     to facilitate collaboration between government and private sector
>>     organizations to find ways of joint development of software
>>     products, platforms and services as well as in the area of
>>     electronics manufacturing. The Sides confirmed their interest in
>>     further developing cooperation in the sphere of digital
>>     technologies, including those related to information protection,
>>     security of critical infrastructure and law enforcement."
>>
>>     Any comment? BTW, no references to civil society or a
>>     multistakeholder approach.
>>
>>     see: http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5745
>>     <http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5745>
>>
>     -- 
>     Governance mailing list
>     Governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:Governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>     <https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20211214/bf9cdf8e/attachment.htm>