Re: [CRIS Info] WPFC attack

[Meryem Marzouki <marzouki@ras.eu.org>]

Hi Lisa and all,

Those who have appreciated the World Press Freedom Committee statement 
will love the postface of new Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters 
without borders) report entitled "The Internet under surveillance".
(www.rsf.org). I'm reproducing it hereafter, it's written by Claude 
Moisy.
His biography says: "Claude Moisy, former chairman and general manager 
of Agence France-Presse (AFP), former chair of UNESCO´s advisory 
committee on press freedom, member of the board of directors of 
Reporters Sans Frontières, and executive committee member of the World 
Press Freedom Committee."

Some quotes from Claude Moisy, on a panel discussion broadcasted by 
Radio Netherlands on Friday 21 February. The panel was on press freedom 
and the role of the media:

"It's a question of relativity. Concentration of media ownership 
ownership in developed countries is not a serious issue compared to the 
challenges facing journalists in some other countries."

"I was in Chile in Pinochet's time. Foreign journalists could report 
freely, though maybe it was not the same for local journalists, 
particularly for opposition papers. However, in a lot of countries even 
foreign journalists can´t operate freely - in the Middle East, in 
Africa, in some Asian countries, in China."

The preface of the report is written by Vint Cerf (still under the 
trauma of having been a technical expert in the Yahoo case), who have 
found only two relevant quotes : one from Soros, the other from the 
risk capital world. Should his biography be recalled here ?

However, between the preface and the postface, the list of threats all 
around the world is a useful job.

It's definitely hard to find a way allowing at the same time a strong 
defense of human rights and the fight against the neoliberal doctrine 
of the free flow of information and its consequences... I hope the HR 
caucus will succeed in that, or at least try to :-)

Meryem

INTERNET REPORT 2003 / 141
BY CLAUDE MOISY
TRUSTEE, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS
Can it be that the United Nations, guardian of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, is giving a hand to the enemies
of freedom of expression and the free flow of information?
The World Summit on the Information Society, jointly organised
in Geneva this December by the UN, will officially aim to narrow
the “digital divide” between rich and poor nations. But during
the past two years of preparations, many countries that crack
down on freedom of expression have been taking advantage of
this goal to suggest rules that would allow them to curb the free
flow of information on the Internet.
Some of their proposals hark back to the “New World
Information and Communication Order” that nearly destroyed
UNESCO about 20 years ago. It is not unfair to say that the idea
behind the new elitist approach is that freedom of information is
not so much an individual right as a collective one best exercised
by governments.
The grave danger today is that the chaotic way the Internet has
expanded gives governments sometimes legitimate excuses to
try to restore some order to it. For some, that means preventing
it being used by terrorists, organised crime, money-laundering
and paedophiles. Others do not want commercial and personal
copyright to be rendered meaningless by the free exchange of
original material the new technology makes possible. And some
want to ensure growth of the Internet does not increase the
domination of one language and culture.
Democracies may be inclined to adopt Internet surveillance
systems that respect basic individual rights and the free flow of
information. But we know only too well how consistently
authoritarian regimes abuse legitimate measures so as to gain
complete control of news and free expression. The recent
annual reports of Reporters Without Borders and other such
organisations show that regimes that refuse to allow the traditional
media to be independent are the first to try to block free
access to the Internet.
Preparatory intergovernmental conferences for the Geneva
summit have revealed some alarming attitudes in the shape of
proposals about freedom of information for the Declaration of
Principles and the Action Plan the summit is due to adopt. Some
call for recognition that the Internet can be used for ends that
are incompatible with international stability and security and
that can harm a country’s unity, infrastructure and economy.
This is perhaps not entirely false, but it can be used to justify all
kinds of censorship by paranoid regimes. Just like at the time of
the New World Information Order, people are again talking
about readjusting the balance of news and respecting national
sovereignty in putting out stories.
Just as worrying is a proposal about supposed new ways of
looking at human rights, basic freedoms, economic progress and
social justice. This is like the old chestnut of China’s demand for
local conditions to be taken into account where human rights
are concerned. In other words, every government should be
allowed to decide what is good for the people.
National and international media, especially those online, have
every reason to distrust another new attitude, likewise being
presented as an advance in human rights. This is the “right to
communicate,” as a basic human right that cannot be restricted
to media organisations. At first sight, it seems to support freedom
of expression. But what it actually means is that media outlets
will violate human rights if they refuse to allow anyone to
express their views in a newspaper, on radio or TV or on a website,
even if those rights have not been challenged. Giving “a
right of reply” already involve technical problems. Recognising
such a “right to communicate” would make it impossible to
operate the media.
Many press freedom groups, including Reporters Without
Borders, have given the organisers of the Geneva summit a set
of demands they intend to press strongly.They state the principle
that new technology provides a means of communication
that, like others, does not need to have special laws passed
about it. The groups say the media should have the same rights
and freedoms on the Internet and on international satellite
networks as the traditional media have. They demand that the
summit’s Declaration of Principles stresses that, where freedom
of information is concerned,Article 19 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights is paramount and applies to all the new technology
as it does to the old.
Several more preparatory meetings are to be held before the
December summit. But the governments that are harshest
towards the media have so far shown they are not interested in
discussing such matters with “civil society,” even though
UNESCO, which is part of the summit, has shown sympathy for
the position of the press freedom organisations.
These groups are well aware that their concerns are only one
aspect of the summit, whose main aim is to put new information
technology at the service of the most undeveloped parts of the
world so people there can have a chance of a better life. But
they object to this laudable goal being exploited by the enemies
of press freedom to get the United Nations to rubber-stamp new
obstacles to independent news.
The fears of those who defend freedom have been revived by
the spectacle in recent times of the UN Commission on Human
Rights (some of whose members are among the world’s worst
rights abusers) which refuses to condemn the situation in countries
such as China and Cuba. Also, the second session of the
Information Society Summit is to be held in 2005 in Tunisia,
whose president has long been on the Reporters Without
Borders worldwide list of predators of press freedom and has
already staged trials of Internet users and thrown them in prison.
CLAUDE MOISY
TRUSTEE, REPORTERSWITHOUT BORDERS

=======
Le jeudi, 5 juin 2003, à 20:41 Europe/Paris, mclauglm@po.muohio.edu a 
écrit :

> Hi everyone,
>
> Just in case you're wondering what the World Press Freedom Committee 
> really thinks of the WSIS and CRIS's participation in the summit, see:
>
> http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/20101.htm