Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age

More documents

Recommendations

Info

J U N E 2 0 1 1Internet FreedomA Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age10 |notion of free expression, whose advocacy hasbeen an element of U.S. foreign policy for decades.After all, American ambassadors have long pressedforeign governments to allow a free press, releasejailed journalists and cease jamming unwantedbroadcasts.Freedom via the Internet is at once both a morealluring and complicated idea. Its advocates suggestthat more online freedom can lead to moreoffline freedom; that is, the free flow of ideas overthe Internet promotes democratization. Freedomvia the Internet has captured the imaginationof many in Congress, the media and elsewhere(including dissidents and dictators) who havewitnessed the Internet’s seemingly transformativeeffects on autocratic governments. Protesters,democratic activists and average citizens areincreasingly using Facebook, Twitter and otherapplications to communicate and organize – mostrecently in Tunisia and Egypt, but in other countriesas well.Internet Freedom and U.S. National InterestsThe United States has a long history of providingdiplomatic and financial support for the promotionof human rights abroad, including the right to freeexpression. While each presidential administrationemphasizes human rights to differing degrees,during recent decades they have all consistentlyheld that human rights are a key U.S. interest.Promoting freedom of the Internet expands humanrights support into cyberspace, an environmentin which an ever-greater proportion of humanactivity takes place. The United States advocatesfor freedom of the Internet because it accords notonly with American values, but also with rightsAmerica believes are intrinsic to all humanity.For years, the U.S. government has programmaticallyand rhetorically supported democracypromotion abroad. The State Department routinelydisburses millions of dollars in funding fordemocracy-building programs around the world,many of which are aimed explicitly at expandingfree expression. Presidential and other speechesregularly refer to the American belief in the universalityof this right; to cite but one example, aMarch 2011 White House statement on Syria notedthat, “The United States stands for a set of universalrights, including the freedom of expression andpeaceful assembly.” 8 The Obama administration’s2010 National Security Strategy specifically calledfor marshaling the Internet and other informationtechnologies to support freedom of expressionabroad, 9 and the Bush administration adopted apolicy of maximizing access to information andideas over the Internet. 10America’s interest in promoting freedom viathe Internet comes from the same fundamentalbelief in democratic values and human rights.Despite inevitable inconsistencies and difficulttradeoffs, the United States continues to supportdemocracy. The Bush administration’s 2006National Security Strategy committed to supportdemocratic institutions abroad through transformationaldiplomacy. 11 President Obama, afterentering office with an evident desire to move awayfrom the sweeping tone of his predecessor’s “freedomagenda,” nevertheless told the U.N. GeneralAssembly in 2009 that “there are basic principlesthat are universal; there are certain truths whichare self-evident – and the United States of Americawill never waver in our efforts to stand up for theright of people everywhere to determine their owndestiny.” 12To the extent that supporting Internet freedomadvances America’s democracy-promotion agenda,the rationale for promoting online freedom is clear.However, cause and effect are not perfectly clear andthe United States must choose its policies under conditionsof uncertainty. Both the Bush and Obamaadministrations have wagered that by promotingglobal Internet freedom the United States will notonly operate according to universal values but willpromote tools that may, on balance, benefit societies
over the autocrats that oppress them. Secretary ofState Hillary Rodham Clinton urged countries to“join us in the bet we have made, a bet that an openInternet will lead to stronger, more prosperouscountries.” 13 Given the evidence we discuss throughoutthis report, this bet is one worth making.Yet promoting Internet freedom inevitablyrequires the U.S. government to make tradeoffswith other national security and economic interests– a perennial challenge for a governmentpursuing competing priorities. After all, it iseasier to support Internet freedom in countriesin which the United States discerns few overarchingstrategic and economic interests than incountries where the United States has a robustand complex agenda.Consider China, for example. China engages inwidespread Internet repression and hosts theworld’s largest population of online users. Butpromoting Internet freedom there complicatesAmerican efforts to win Beijing’s support on anarray of other issues, ranging from North Koreato Iran. And strengthening controls over the saleof American technologies to China could meanshutting U.S. companies out of the world’s largestInternet market at a time when the Americaneconomy is still recovering from the recentfinancial crisis.The United States should promote Internet freedomabroad, but this policy does incur costs.Funding for Internet freedom programs usesscarce dollars. The Internet can empower violentradicals as well as peaceful reformers. There is noguarantee that supporting Internet freedom willenhance freedom or lead to greater democracy. Yetit is virtually certain that if the United States ceasesits Internet freedom-related activities, the balanceof online power would shift toward autocraciesseeking to restrict their populations’ freedom. Thisalone should compel American officials to takeInternet freedom seriously.A Brief History of the U.S. Government’sInternet Freedom EffortsThe U.S. government started pursuing an Internetfreedom agenda during the second term of theGeorge W. Bush administration. Congress beganscrutinizing Internet freedom issues in 2005,focusing particularly on the private sector. Reportsthat a local Yahoo affiliate gave the email recordsof a journalist to Chinese authorities, which ledto his 10-year prison sentence, prompted congressionalhearings that also included Microsoft andGoogle. 14 The same year, Congressman ChrisSmith, R-N.J., introduced the first version of hisGlobal Internet Freedom Act, which would prohibitexporting certain hardware and software torepressive regimes. 15 In 2008, representatives fromCisco Systems, Inc. were asked to appear beforethe Senate Judiciary Committee to determine ifthe company knowingly sold routers to China forthe purpose of controlling political dissent andstrengthening the state’s Great Firewall. 16 TheYahoo incident, together with Cisco’s sales andGoogle’s agreement to censor its search results inChina, generated a larger discussion on CapitolHill about whether the government should prohibitAmerican technology companies from respondingto politically motivated information requestsor selling technology that could help governmentscommit human rights violations. After the socalledTwitter revolution in Iran in 2009, Congresspassed the Victims of Iranian Censorship (VOICE)Act, which authorized (but did not appropriate) 55million dollars for State Department programs thatwould help the Iranian people overcome electroniccensorship and digital oppression. 17The executive branch has also been increasinglyactive. In February 2006, then-Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice established the Global InternetFreedom Task Force (GIFT) as a way to coordinateState Department efforts to promote Internetfreedom and respond to Internet censorship. 18Soon thereafter, then-Under Secretary of State for| 11
Page 1 and 2: J U N E2 0 1 1Internet FreedomA For
Page 4 and 5: J U N E 2 0 1 1Internet FreedomA Fo
Page 24 and 25: UkraineThe fall 2004 Orange Revolut
Page 51 and 52: About the Center for aNew American

Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?