The Internet has come into focus in Tunis amid controversy over state repression of information and expression, writes Ayman El-Amir* Freedom of expression had a narrow escape at the recently concluded United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, 16-18 November. By the end of the meeting, the fundamental right of free communication was temporarily rescued from the grip of governmental regulation. After three years of negotiations over the governance of the Internet -- which has thus far been maintained by the US -- confrontation was averted and a vaguely defined course of action charted. However, this was but sideshow to the central issue of oversight. The underlying debate focussed on state control of new information and communication technologies. As the argument goes, if states have national jurisdiction over everything within their internationally recognised borders -- including, for example, airspace -- why can't they have sovereignty over their portion of cyberspace? The battleground has been clearly defined: it is the individual's right to communicate vis-à- vis the state's right to regulate. Naturally, there are strong postulations on both sides, but the basic question is: regulation or free communication to what end? When the first phase of the WSIS was held in Geneva two years ago, a consensus was reached to develop a common vision of the so-called "information society". Assembled nations then expressed a commitment to build a people- centred, inclusive and development-oriented society where the potential of information and communication technology (ICT) is used to promote sustainable development and improve the quality of life. But then a new challenge emerged. In the words of Yoshio Utsumi, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union, the lead UN agency for the summit, "nowhere are the challenges to the conventional sovereign state greater than in the realm of cyberspace. And Internet governance has dominated our discussion since the conclusion of the Geneva phase." Since 1996, when the Internet became a freewheeling cyberspace for individuals and businesses alike, the US controlled the technical and administrative infrastructure that makes it possible for a web logger in South Africa to communicate with another in Alaska. Two years later, this role was accorded to the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). With the exponential growth of the Internet, wariness over single-country control of the root-base of the technology became an issue. Some countries argued: What if the US used this exclusive control for political reasons, to discriminate against countries it regards as foes? The US retorted: What if oppressive regimes used regulatory powers to deny its citizenry free access to information and communication -- a fundamental human right? The European Union, which has reservations about exclusive US control, wanted a more participatory administrative system in which they can play a decisive role. However, the US warned that split-governance, where the national state regulated Internet access in the same way it regulates telecommunication services, would mean the end of free, seamless global interconnectivity as the world knows it today through the world wide web. Some countries then suggested an international policy-making body affiliated to the United Nations be formed. As is the case with UN forums, the issue was referred to a two-tier multilateral system for further negotiation. First, there would be an open-ended process, under the auspices of the UN secretary-general, towards "enhanced cooperation by relevant international organisations" on oversight and public policy issues. The second tier provides for the creation of an Internet governing forum that would also include industry and the civil society, to discuss common problems such as cyber crime, computer viruses and spam. For the time being, at least the principle, if not the practice, of international free flow of information and communications has been assured. At issue, now and in the future, is not how strong a role government should play in controlling the Internet but what protection should the individual have against government censorship. In intergovernmental forums like the United Nations, political coalitions can form to defend the interests of any number of governments that are often among the worst violators of human rights and are sworn enemies of the freedom of expression. The fact is that not all state members are truly representative of their nations; not all governments come to power through the door of free, fair and democratic elections. There is more to fear from government interference with free access to the Internet than from individual abuse of the medium. The most tyrannical of dictatorships always claimed to act in the name of protecting the public interest, social mores and traditional values. It will be remembered that communist regimes of the 20th century enforced state control over the media to protect the masses against the contaminating values of liberal democracy which masked imperialist designs. Today, in the Arab world and in parts of Africa and Asia, moral values and indigenous culture are pitted against the value system of Western democracy on the premise that it potentially encodes corrupt practices. Absent from debate is the individual's right to receive and communicate ideas, to independent thought and to free expression. The state has taken over the rights of individuals to ensure the survival of political regimes. The freedom of expression issue was brought into sharp focus during the conference as a number of Tunisian human rights activists ended a two-week hunger strike, declaring to the world that they had brought the message home. United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan himself brought to the attention of President Bin Ali of Tunisia, host of the conference, complaints of harassment suffered by journalists who came to cover the event, including the beating and stabbing of Christopher Boltanski of the French daily Libération. It was a national embarrassment for a country that claimed to be a champion of the information society but acted as a gatekeeper against freedom of information. When public access to the Internet became possible less than 10 years ago, it was celebrated as an act of liberation. It not only freed individuals from the tyranny of state-controlled media in most developing countries, but also from institutional media in countries labelled as liberal democracies. Like an endangered species, the Internet acquired a life of its own and, when faced with the encroachment of commercial media, quickly mutated, producing weblogs and now podcasts as well as countless user discussion forums. As the Internet emerges from its infancy, the battle for regulation versus free access will intensify. It will be all the more ferocious as television programming begins to spread over broadband Internet connections. The stakes will be high for both state regulators and a global constituency of consumers. If the future of the media depends on expanding broadband, a balanced, independent international regime will have to be developed that will provide regulatory standards without compromising the fundamental right of freedom of expression and communication. This will require tough negotiations that should involve civil society and the media industry as equal partners in the development of the global information society. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
