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 Age12 |Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobrianskyannounced that the State Department would henceforthinclude a country-level assessment of Internetfreedom in its annual human rights reports.Like its predecessor, the Obama administration’sInternet freedom agenda goes well beyond fundingfirewall-evading technology. The State Departmenthas bolstered its capacity to use its diplomatic,economic and technological resources to promotea free Internet. Clinton has established a team ofexperts, including a senior advisor for innovation,to develop creative ways to blend technology withtraditional diplomatic and development efforts.In addition, the State Department re-launched itsInternet freedom task force in 2010, rebrandingit the “NetFreedom” Taskforce, and established aCoordinator for Cyber Issues in early 2011. TheWhite House established a deputy chief technologyofficer for Internet policy within the Office ofScience and Technology Policy (OSTP) to coordinategovernment-wide Internet and technologypolicy, including issues related to cyber securityand Internet freedom.Clinton has led efforts to promote Internet freedomin the Obama administration. Evoking PresidentFranklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1941 Four Freedomsspeech, in 2010 Clinton added a fifth, the “freedomto connect – the idea that governments should notprevent people from connecting to the Internet, towebsites or to each other.” 19 In a second speech ayear later, she pledged America’s “global commitmentto Internet freedom, to protect human rightsonline as we do offline,” including the freedoms ofexpression, assembly and association. 20These speeches represent the clearest and mostcomplete articulation of the U.S. government’sInternet freedom strategy, but questions remain.For example, does the government aim to promotethe online freedoms of expression, assemblyand association as intrinsic goods, regardlessof whether their exercise engenders democraticchange offline? Or does the U.S. governmentbelieve that, on balance, a freer Internet willpromote democratic political change? The administrationstill lacks a clear message for precisely whyit is undertaking efforts to promote online freedomin the first place, which has produced confusionabout its overall approach to Internet freedom.Crafting the MessageIn her 2011 speech, Clinton said, “There is a debatecurrently under way in some circles about whetherthe Internet is a force for liberation or repression.But I think that debate is largely beside the point.” 21In fact, that is the key point – if the Internet is aforce for repression, why should the United Statessupport its freer use?Administration officials emphasize that theirpolicies support freedom of the Internet, notfreedom via the Internet; these policies are notpart of a broader democracy-promotion strategy.In her 45-minute speech, Clinton used theterm “democracy” just once, when defending theadministration’s position on WikiLeaks. Instead,she said that the United States supports a freeInternet because it helps build “strong” and “prosperous”states. She did not say that the Internethelps build freer or more democratic states. 22Yet that is a key reason why the administrationsupports Internet freedom. It is the central motivationbehind the State Department’s training andtechnology programs, which are aimed at onlineactivists, dissidents and democracy-related NGOs.The U.S. government should clearly state why itpromotes Internet freedom: Doing so accords withAmerica’s longstanding tradition of promotinghuman rights, including freedoms of expression,association and assembly, and the United Statesis betting that access to an open Internet canfoster elements of democracy in autocratic states.Officials can acknowledge the potential downsides,but they need not shy from publicly acknowledgingthe U.S. interest in democratization and the
hope that promoting Internet freedom can assistthose who are pressing for liberal change abroad.The government should not discredit dissidentsby suggesting that they are an arm of U.S. foreignpolicy, but refraining entirely from mentioningdemocracy in connection with Internet freedomrisks undermining domestic support for its policies– including on Capitol Hill. And the current rhetoricalambivalence belies the increasingly robust– indeed, increasingly impressive – U.S. efforts topromote Internet freedom.At the same time, the United States shouldcounter the view that Internet freedom is merelyan American project cooked up in Washington,rather than a notion rooted in universal humanrights. The United States promotes Internetfreedom more actively than any other country,and is one of the only countries that activelyfunds circumvention technologies. It leads inpromoting international norms and has made agreater effort than most to incorporate Internetfreedom into its broader foreign policy. This hasprovoked concerns that American advocacy willtaint the efforts of local activists. For example,Sami ben Gharbia, a prominent NetherlandsbasedTunisian blogger, has said, “Many peopleoutside of the U.S., not only in the Arab world,have a strong feeling that the Internet Freedommantra emitting from Washington D.C. is just acover for strategic geopolitical agendas” and thatthis could threaten activists who accept supportand funding. 23 Autocratic governments routinelydenounce Internet freedom-related activities asimposing American values, and some technologycompanies and foundations have shied awayfrom supporting circumvention and anonymitytechnologies because of their perceived tie to U.S.foreign policy.effort. Despite reservations from some, more than5,000 foreign activists and others have acceptedInternet-related training funded by the StateDepartment, and many more employ U.S. government-fundedtechnology. 24 Many governmentshave not yet formulated policies in this area, butsome are expressing growing interest in doing so,including several European countries and the EU.To the extent that foreign governments advocatefor Internet freedom and foreign corporations joinsuch efforts as the GNI and international organizationspromote new norms, the United States willbe able to make a stronger argument that Internetfreedom is truly a global effort.The response to such concerns should not be toavoid any suggestion that Internet freedom isrelated to American support of democracy andhuman rights, but rather to internationalize the| 13
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?