I mentioned a while ago on BITSBLOG an attempt by the UN to gain control of the Internet. The Blog note, which linked a FOXNEWS article just barely scratched the surface of the topic. The story suggests that the stated goal of such control would be to tie ’emerging’ nations (read that, “the poor”) more directly to the net, at the expense of the rest of us.
One other problem of turning control of the ‘net over to the UN is that it will make the internet less effective. The obvious example is the way that body has managed to show complete irrelevancy in the recent Iraq conflict. Iraq is hardly the only example of the UN’s impotency, merely the most recent.
Perhaps it should be no shock to anyone that the biggest backer of the proposal is China. You remember them; they’re the ones who have been placing more controls on their own people’s internet access than any other country on the planet, as an active political action, and who stands to gain more than any other besides perhaps Cuba, by some socialist leaning body maintaining a grip on the internet access of the rest of us, to say nothing of our free expression thereon.
I think most people would find it hard to fathom that China could be backing proposals whose stated goals run so directly afoul of their own past behavior.
And yes, it should be noted that exact definitions at this stage are hard to come by. But I submit this is part of the design. It’s the same trick the left uses here in the States; be sufficiently vague about your goals and use high-sounding phrases so as to gather support. Once that particular snowball is rolling damn few will be able to stop it.
And, let’s also say that in truth here is much in the way of clues as to what all this is about. Consider their own press release, which states in part:
“Freedom of the press entails responsibilities. As new technologies allow unprecedented freedom to the “new media” on the Internet, these should not be used to foster intolerance and hatred. Instead, the values of tolerance, dialogue and respect for diversity must be the foundations of a truly inclusive global information society. The information society should bring the world together instead of adding new divisions, creating a more just and harmonious global environment.”
Ah, yes… High sounding words. So very open and inclusive… and condescending. Let’s remember what Canada did under the guise of such words… Hate Speech laws, under which, for example, passages from the Bible regarding homosexual behavior is ‘hate speech’. Funny how that little “HATE BUSH” party out in LA a few weeks ago, isn’t regarded in international leftist circles as ‘Hate Speech”, huh? Remember also that the United Nations has recently determined that some forms of “hate speech” can actually be war crimes. Starting to get the picture?
In case you were unaware, the US is the birthplace of the internet, and always has been, even if you believe the claim of Al Gore that he invented the thing. The internet is very much American in that it’s free speech on all channels all the time. The Internet is in the final read, exporting Americanism. This proposal would put a stop to all of that. How? Simple.
Just read Article 29 Section 3 of the proposal:
“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
The translation is that your freedom of speech, your freedom of expression, and your free exchange of information and opinion cannot be exercised if such runs afoul of the “purposes and principles of the United Nations”.
As to what that purpose is, let’s be real, here. The UN has only one purpose… blanket opposition to anything the US does. No wonder the Chinese are the biggest backers of this proposal… no wonder the UN as a whole is pushing this; They won’t be able to deal with the freedom. Can you imagine, for example China, or Cuba, dealing with free speech? Why, they might even have people that are critical of the communist governments there. Can’t have that!
Need I remind anyone that among the first thing the recently freed Iraqi people wanted to do was to involve themselves in the internet, to access US sites?
They also go on to suggest they are about solving the pressing issues intellectual property protection and of Internet crime. They do though manage to get the usual code words in, though, about utilizing new technologies to overcome poverty and find ways to make Internet access “affordable to all”.
Meaning, the US is, under this plan going to have to find some way to pay for this grandiose plan of theirs. But it gets worse than this.
Consider; What would places like China, India, and many African nations, gain by such central control? A look at Taiwan is a good start toward your answer; it’s the best way I can think of to leap over copyright laws to gain a financial foothold. Think your neighbor’s MP3 collection’s an issue? Wait till this nonsense gets placed into international law.. and music won’t even be on the list of financial problem areas regards the net and piracy!
The internet is an invention designed around freedom; the UN, both in the specific proposal regards the internet, and as a whole, runs counter to that stated purpose. Turning control of it over to them is foolish at best, and in truth self-destructive for America, and the world.
