Is there any chance that the Internet will be better than it is now with the United Nations in control?
In a recent meeting of the Working Group on Internet Governance in Geneva harsh words were exchanged between representatives of the US government and representatives of the UK and other European countries over the issue of who controls or should control the internet.…
Article comments
26 - Temple Stark
And you directly accuse others - frequently, loudly and unpleasantly - of making a silk purse out of a pig's ear?
Can't beat 'em join 'em - or stop telling others they are doing just what you're doing here - bending the facts towards your slanted POV. Others do it with more honesty.
"Say Goodbye To Internet Freedom?" Psh. Sad.
Are you for a global economy or not? Both if I read your words, here and elsewhere (which I should really stop doing as I get a case of the hubris everytime). Is Europe likely to be more wide open than the US or not? Both if I read your words.
My kingdom for a logical conclusion.
27 - Dave Nalle
Come on, Temp. We need our catchy titles.
Do I think the UN is evil? Of course not.
Do I think they're the right group to manage the internet? Probably not.
>>Are you for a global economy or not? Both if I read your words, here and elsewhere (which I should really stop doing as I get a case of the hubris everytime). Is Europe likely to be more wide open than the US or not? Both if I read your words.<<
I'm so chimerical, it's scary. I'm for a global economy. I'm not for global government or anything which erodes national sovereignty. From what I've seen Europe and the UN are more likely to be incompetent than the US, but also more inclined to meddle and micromanage. That's a bad combination when it comes to the internet.
>>My kingdom for a logical conclusion.<<
There is no conclusion to the article because I have no final perfect answer on this issue. I'm just concerned and think that others should be as well.
Dave
28 - melchior
Temple,
Your profile says you're a journalist. Answer me some questions please: Who runs the American press?
Do you understand that bureaucrats from nations with state-controlled media have a fundamentally different worldview?
Suppose the UN got together to hold a meeting on international press management, and asked for technical help only from broadcast journalists. How would the print guys react?
Now can you draw some logical conclusions? Who do you think really runs the internet? And how is it really managed?
Where's the conflict in this story? Is it tragedy or farce?
29 - Shark
Speaking of the internet...
Congratulations to BLOGCRITICS for the world's largest, most obnoxious banner ad!
Nice way to make the Guinness Book!
And nothing enhances the online reading experience like a gigantic, flashing banner full of young mindless motards starin' back at ya.
This is the kind of thing that runs people AWAY from a web site. Great marketing, guys!
"The universe is over-designed and under-edited." -- SHARK
30 - troll
the napster flash in the main frame has about done me in - unfriendly to dial-up trolls...have to remember to set its quality to 'low' on each page load
even firefox has trouble with it at 48 kbps
troll
31 - Alienboy
I fail to understand why so many political people in the USA seem to feel this enormous hostility towards the United Nations, a body it helped create in the aftermath of the 2nd World War.
Is it because, being a worldwide organization, it carries a louder, more democratic, voice than the USA itself?
32 - Matthew T. Sussman
You guys are all evading the pressing question:
Did the Internet evolve, or was it created by God?
33 - troll
many thanks to the management
xxxooo
troll
34 - Alienboy
re 32: maybe the Internet was created by intelligent design?
35 - Mark Saleski
y'mean bill gates didn't create the internet?
dang.
36 - Matthew T. Sussman
Alienboy: "maybe the Internet was created by intelligent design?"
I have no proof, but I think you're right.
37 - James
Don't you guys remember? The Internet was created by Al Gore!
38 - Matthew T. Sussman
James, a six-year-younger version of myself is laughing its ass off.
39 - tibetibet
say goodbye to Internet freedom in Tunisia: the host of the WSIS has blocked access to a website that criticises the president: www.yezzi.org
Tunisia blocks many other sites that don't toe the government's line. See http://campaigns.ifex.org/tmg
40 - Dave Nalle
>>I fail to understand why so many political people in the USA seem to feel this enormous hostility towards the United Nations, a body it helped create in the aftermath of the 2nd World War.
Is it because, being a worldwide organization, it carries a louder, more democratic, voice than the USA itself?<<
Try replacing democratic with a combination of bureaucratic, indifferent and socialist and you might be on the right track.
The UN is dominated by bureaucrats who are responsible to no one except a body of representatives of nations of dubious character and polititical inclination, and seeks to reshape the world on a model of socialistic imposed equality which discourages enterprise and capitalism.
That kind of runs counter to what the US is all about.
Dave
41 - troll
sort of an world bathist basterdized socialism thing - ?
next thing you know they'll be internationalizing the oil along with the internet - !
troll
42 - Alienboy
Dave, that's what you think, but it isn't actually true, it's just some weird pervasive mind pollution that has many people, apparently including yourself, completely bamboozled.
If you'd bothered to follow the link, rather than your prejudice, you would be reminded that
"The idea for the United Nations was elaborated in declarations signed at the wartime Allied conferences in Moscow, Cairo, and Tehran in 1943.
"From August to October 1944, representatives of France, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the USSR met to elaborate the plans at the Dumbarton Oaks Estate in Washington, D.C.
"Those and later talks produced proposals outlining the purposes of the organization, its membership and organs, as well as arrangements to maintain international peace and security and international economic and social cooperation. These proposals were discussed and debated by governments and private citizens worldwide."Wikipedia.
I hope this odd strand of anti UN sentiment has nothing to do with Republican hostility towards what is in some way seen as a Democratic organization, in that FDR first conceived the idea, or the fact that the USA is hundreds of millions of dollars in arrears on its contributions, so attacking the UN simply becomes another negotiating tactic.
43 - Dave Nalle
The origins of the UN have nothing to do with the institution as it exists today, and whether it was supported by FDR or not, the practices and nature of the organization today are what it has to be judged by.
The fact is that it has become increasingly dominated by an alliance of politically radical governments and entrenched bureaucrats who find them easier to work with than more prosporous and more democratic nations.
Opposition to the UN has little to do with US domestic politics. Opposition is as strong on the left as it is on the right. It has much more to do with the undemocratic character of the UN, the fact that it is increasingly not answerable to its constituents, and its promotion of globalist policies which work against the best interests of the people of developed nations who are members.
As for witholding funding, that's symptomatic of the problem. When given the choice of paying graft to support the UN and its abuses and using that same money for the benefit of the United States, legislators inevitably decide to come down on the side of American citizens. Can't fault them for that.
Dave
44 - Alienboy
Dave, the UN is a democratic organization. The USA is the most strident defender of democracy. Are you now saying that you only want democracy when it works in favour of your beliefs?
As for witholding your required membership fees, it is the height of stupidity to force the UN to be underfunded and then complain about the UN's lack of effectiveness. The funding of the UN is an international agreement, not an option to be played with at governmental whim.
If there is an organizational problem, why doesn't the USA, (which by the way is not immune from large scale corruption itself, so you might want to dial back that moral superiority thing) get more involved and shine its wisdom and light more widely there?
45 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, the UN is a democratic organization. The USA is the most strident defender of democracy. Are you now saying that you only want democracy when it works in favour of your beliefs?<<
Absolutely. I believe in freedom and opportunity and basic rights. Democracy is not necessarily compatible with protecting these things. The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. It protects my rights in ways a Democracy cannot.
In addition, the structure of the UN is pretty undemocratic. Representation is on a one vote per country basis, with the Marianas Islands and China having the same level of representation. Unless representation is restructured to represent a combination of national GNP and population I can't see it being any kind of fair representative body.
>>As for witholding your required membership fees, it is the height of stupidity to force the UN to be underfunded and then complain about the UN's lack of effectiveness. The funding of the UN is an international agreement, not an option to be played with at governmental whim.<<
I didn't force it to be unfunded. Talk to the Senate about that one.
>>If there is an organizational problem, why doesn't the USA, (which by the way is not immune from large scale corruption itself, so you might want to dial back that moral superiority thing) get more involved and shine its wisdom and light more widely there?<<
Because those currently controlling the UN are actively hostile to the US and its interests. Which might explain why some are reluctant to keep feeding them money.
Dave
46 - Alienboy
Democracy doesn't come with a sidebar that allows rich people or countries to have more votes than poor ones.
Why is it that Dubya goes on all the time, in his latest false justification for the invasion of Iraq, about championing democracy, rather than a constitutional republic?
Incidentally, both Wikipedia and the CIA World Factbook describe the usa as a "federal republic", of which there are currently 17 in the world, again according to the federal republic article on wikipedia.
Got to disagree on your view that "those currently controlling the UN are actively hostile to the US and its interests". That just sounds like paranoid nonsense frankly, just like all those wackoes who fear "the feds"!
On the other hand, I'm flabbergasted and a little pleased that we agree that democracy has its limits; I've long thought it was the best system we had, rather than the best system.
47 - Dave Nalle
>>Democracy doesn't come with a sidebar that allows rich people or countries to have more votes than poor ones.<<
One of the reasons why it's a problem. But in the case of the UN it's also not even one person one vote. Small countries are enormously overrepresented.
>>Why is it that Dubya goes on all the time, in his latest false justification for the invasion of Iraq, about championing democracy, rather than a constitutional republic?<<
Because he's dumbing it down for the masses as he does all too often. In fact, if you read Iraq's constitution it's a constitutional federal republic just like the US - assuming it passes at the end of this week.
>>Incidentally, both Wikipedia and the CIA World Factbook describe the usa as a "federal republic", of which there are currently 17 in the world, again according to the federal republic article on wikipedia.<<
It's also a constitutional republic, because we go by the rule of law rather than by plebescite. The federal aspect is actually sort of less important than the rule of law aspect.
>>Got to disagree on your view that "those currently controlling the UN are actively hostile to the US and its interests". That just sounds like paranoid nonsense frankly, just like all those wackoes who fear "the feds"!<<
You should take a look at who's on the security council, the human rights commission and other major committees then.
>>On the other hand, I'm flabbergasted and a little pleased that we agree that democracy has its limits; I've long thought it was the best system we had, rather than the best system.<<
Democracy is great as part of a complete system of government. The old Soviet Union was a democracy, but there was only one candidate for each office. You've got to have both Democracy and a mechanism like our constitution which protects the minority from the arbitrary rule of the majority. The UN has neither a real constitution nor is it in fact a representative democracy.
Dave
48 - alienboy
Then it would seem ripe for an overhaul perhaps, but that certainly doesn't justify the USA's arrogant attitude towards the organization.
People like you should be looking to improve the functionality, not threatening to sulk off every time a decision is made that you don't like, like in the current internet regulation dispute...
49 - Dave Nalle
But the entrenched interests in the UN won't accept a total overhaul because it takes away their power base. The UN needs to be scrapped and replaced with an entirely new organization just as was done with the League of Nations when it ceased to function effectively.
Dave
50 - alienboy
I guess that's one way to go, it just seems odd that the majority of members, including the USA's traditional allies, seem to find agreement and the US is in the minority.
That seems suggestive of a different analysis of the situation than your proposal...
The entrenched interests you speak of are simply country voting blocs that have formed through political negotiation. The USA is presumably capable of the international political game, no?
I still feel that current American attitudes to the UN are coloured by the novelty of having to negotiate rather than bully and the current US Government's high-handed attitude to the UN.
51 - Dave Nalle
>>I guess that's one way to go, it just seems odd that the majority of members, including the USA's traditional allies, seem to find agreement and the US is in the minority.<<
At the time of the Ameircan Revolution the majority of the people in America - about 2/3 - either actively opposed or were indifferent to the efforts of the revolutionaries to split off from Britain. Does that means we'd have been better off staying under British rule or that our founding fathers were in the wrong?
>>The entrenched interests you speak of are simply country voting blocs that have formed through political negotiation. The USA is presumably capable of the international political game, no?<<
Actually, probably not. Because of our unique status it has become increasingly difficult for us to just be 'one of the guys' among other nations and form that kind of coalition.
>>I still feel that current American attitudes to the UN are coloured by the novelty of having to negotiate rather than bully and the current US Government's high-handed attitude to the UN.<<
A lot of people in America have this quaint notion of right and wrong, and this weird reverence for individual liberty rather than embracing the 'greatest good for the greatest number' philosophy which the UN holds dear. We're horribly anachronistic and behind the times. We're unenlightened, positively barbaric, out of fashion, crude, simplistic and unfashionable. But unlike the UN, we're right.
Dave
52 - alienboy
Dave, your American Revolution question is a fascinating hypothetical but not a response to my question.
Your claim that the USA has a unique status is staggering. Which countries status is not unique? However, if you mean to say that because the USA is currently the most powerful country in the world, international diplomacy is a bit more difficult, then, er, so what? Nobody said the job was easy.
As to your "quaint notion", I don't know if the UN's philosophy, which the USA largely shaped, can be described that way, but I find it disappointing that you have once again resorted to that oddly unconvincing US drumbeating mentality of yours.
The USA has it's own unique blend of social, political and financial problems and does not really present an attractive prospect as "class role model" but is more often thought of as "class jock", you know, the one who thinks they're the man, but really they're not.
To go on repeatedly, as you do, that the USA is right and everyone else wrong, is merely symptomatic of the larger attitude problem facing the current US political posture.
53 - Dave Nalle
Alienboy, you don't understand the US if you can say the kinds of things that you do. The US is indeed unique, and has qualities which only a few other countries share or even attempt to emulate. I'm not drumbeating here, I'm just stating obvious facts.
The European powers and most of the rest of the world do not have governments which are based on a written constitution and do not have the traditions of free speech and individual rights which the US has. As a group their belief is that most of what we think of as basic rights are essentially priveleges granted by government. They have not enshrined natural law as the cornerstone of their societies as we have. As a result they are much more willing to tolerate corruption, bureaucratic abuses and government exceess than the US is.
>>The USA has it's own unique blend of social, political and financial problems and does not really present an attractive prospect as "class role model" but is more often thought of as "class jock", you know, the one who thinks they're the man, but really they're not.<<
You seem to have gotten this one exactly backwards. Despite the problems that the US has, it remains unique as a country built on basic freedoms which other countries don't entirely accept. It's not a matter of thinking that we are better than other countries, but of being a nation based on objective standards of limited government and freedom which most other countries and the UN do not necessarily live up to or even recognize. Of course, our government doesn't always live up to those standards either, but we do at least have a tradition which recognizes what good government should be and we do try to maintain that standard even when we get sidetracked.
The countries which presume to judge the behavior of the US do so because we are the most powerful nation, and do so despite the fact that almost all of them commit greater offenses on a daily basis which they are not called to task for. It is much easier for their leaders to attack the US than to address the problems which they themselves are ignoring in their own policies.
>>To go on repeatedly, as you do, that the USA is right and everyone else wrong, is merely symptomatic of the larger attitude problem facing the current US political posture.<<
It's not that the US is right and everyone else it wrong, it's that we at least try to do right and they have no idea what right is most of the time.
Dave
54 - NCH
Thank you Dave Nalle for bringing out the issue of www.yezzi.org
We need every one to help us spread the world with our message.
Indeed Internet is our unique window of freedom and it must never be under the control of dictaorships. Help us keep it FREE
55 - Dave Nalle
>>Don't you guys remember? The Internet was created by Al Gore!<<
Actually, while Al Gore may take credit for it, I was working at the CCF at the time and it was the work of my colleagues and myself which created the internet for him. Or more precisely, we organized the conferences on his behalf at which ideas which developed into the internet were showcased.
Dave
56 - noanchorbabies
Only Heloise has gone directly to the heart of the matter: "The U.N. wants to control opposition to itself on a global scale."
Annan starts out by saying that does not want to interfere with freedom of expression on the internet, but then qualifies this with one important exception - that no criticism of United Nations policies or programs will be tolerated.
The hallmark of tyranny is that it disallows any criticism of itself. With control of the root file they will have the power to shut down any website that suggests, for example, that the United States should withdraw from the UN.
In particular Ron Paul and other Congressmen who advocate such a withdrawal would be subject to having their website "privileges" revoked. In fact the entire www.house.gov website could be shut down if Congress refused to force Mr. Paul to stop posting anti-UN statements. Among other things, Mr. Paul has introduced Bills that would provide for the US leaving the United Nations, as well as stripping all UN personnel of diplomatic immunity privileges. Therefore any website mentioning this legislation approvingly would be subject to having its domain name cancelled.
In fact blogcritics.org would have to implement a policy of censoring any anti-UN commentary in order to be allowed to stay in business.
57 - Hamza
lol