|
New Document
|
|
 |
 |
Secretary Clinton's Remarks At the Freedom Online Conference |
 |
 |
Secretary Clinton |
|
 |
정치외교연구센터 / 시민사회와 사회운동 |
|
 |
참고자료 |
|
 |
정책보고서 |
|
 |
주한미국대사관 |
|
 |
2011/12/08 |
|
 |
December 8, 2011
Fokker Terminal
The Hague, Netherlands
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good evening, and it's wonderful to be back inThe Hague. I want to thank my colleague and friend, Foreign MinisterRosenthal, a longtime friend, and co-conspirator from time to time, EricSchmidt. Also, thanks to Leon Willems, the director of the Free PressUnlimited, and to those of my colleagues whom I know are here, namelyCarl Bildt, an incredibly connected foreign minister, along with otherministers, ambassadors, the diplomatic community, and ladies andgentlemen.
It's a pleasure to join you here today to discuss this issue, because wethink it is vitally important to every nation represented and everynation in the world; namely, internet freedom. And I want to thank Uriand the Netherlands for hosting this conference, which is a reflectionof your long tradition of defending and advancing people's human rightsand fundamental freedoms everywhere, including online. And thanks aswell to the representatives of nearly two dozen other governments here,all of whom I know will be working to get real solutions andrecommendations agreed to tomorrow. I'm pleased we also haverepresentatives from the private sector and civil society. So it alladds up to a multi-stakeholder event.
Now, in two days, on December 10th, we'll celebrate Human Rights Day,which is the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights. And in the 63 years since that achievement, the world hasbeen implementing a global commitment around the rights and freedoms ofpeople everywhere, no matter where they live or who they are. Andtoday, as people increasingly turn to the internet to conduct importantaspects of their lives, we have to make sure that human rights are asrespected online as offline. After all, the right to express one'sviews, practice one's faith, peacefully assemble with others to pursuepolitical or social change - these are all rights to which all humanbeings are entitled, whether they choose to exercise them in a citysquare or an internet chat room. And just as we have worked togethersince the last century to secure these rights in the material world, wemust work together in this century to secure them in cyberspace.
This is an urgent task. It is most urgent, of course, for those aroundthe world whose words are now censored, who are imprisoned because ofwhat they or others have written online, who are blocked from accessingentire categories of internet content, or who are being tracked bygovernments seeking to keep them from connecting with one another.
In Syria, a blogger named Anas Maarawi was arrested on July 1st afterdemanding that President Asad leave. He's not been charged withanything, but he remains in detention. In both Syria and Iran, manyother online activists - actually too many to name - have been detained,imprisoned, beaten, and even killed for expressing their views andorganizing their fellow citizens. And perhaps the most well knownblogger in Russia, Alexei Navalny, was sentenced on Tuesday to 15 daysin jail after he took part in protests over the Russian elections.
In China, several dozen companies signed a pledge in October, committingto strengthen their - quote - "self-management, self-restraint, andstrict self-discipline." Now, if they were talking about fiscalresponsibility, we might all agree. But they were talking aboutoffering web-based services to the Chinese people, which is code forgetting in line with the government's tight control over the internet.
Now, these and many other incidents worldwide remind us of the stakes inthis struggle. And the struggle does not belong only to those on thefront lines and who are suffering. It belongs to all of us: first,because we all have a responsibility to support human rights andfundamental freedoms everywhere. Second, because the benefits of thenetwork grow as the number of users grow. The internet is notexhaustible or competitive. My use of the internet doesn't diminishyours. On the contrary, the more people that are online andcontributing ideas, the more valuable the entire network becomes to allthe other users. In this way, all users, through the billions ofindividual choices we make about what information to seek or share, fuelinnovation, enliven public debates, quench a thirst for knowledge, andconnect people in ways that distance and cost made impossible just ageneration ago.
But when ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled,and people constrained in their choices, the internet is diminished forall of us. What we do today to preserve fundamental freedoms onlinewill have a profound effect on the next generation of users. More thantwo billion people are now connected to the internet, but in the next 20years, that number will more than double. And we are quicklyapproaching the day when more than a billion people are using theinternet in repressive countries. The pledges we make and the actionswe take today can help us determine whether that number grows orshrinks, or whether the meaning of being on the internet is totallydistorted.
Delivering on internet freedom requires cooperative actions, and we haveto foster a global conversation based on shared principles and with theright partners to navigate the practical challenges of maintaining aninternet that is open and free while also interoperable, secure, andreliable. Now, this enterprise isn't a matter of negotiating a singledocument and calling the job done. It requires an ongoing effort toreckon with the new reality that we live in, in a digital world, anddoing so in a way that maximizes its promise.
Because the advent of cyberspace creates new challenges andopportunities in terms of security, the digital economy, and humanrights, we have to be constantly evolving in our responses. And thoughthey are distinct, they are practically inseparable, because there isn'tan economic internet, a social internet, and a political internet.There is just the internet, and we're here to protect what makes itgreat.
Tomorrow's sessions provide the opportunity for us to make concreteprogress. At this kickoff event, I'd like to briefly discuss threespecific challenges that defenders of the internet must confront.
The first challenge is for the private sector to embrace its role inprotecting internet freedom. Because whether you like it or not, thechoices that private companies make have an impact on how informationflows or doesn't flow on the internet and mobile networks. They alsohave an impact on what governments can and can't do, and they have animpact on people on the ground.
In recent months, we've seen cases where companies, products, andservices were used as tools of oppression. Now, in some instances, thiscannot be foreseen, but in others, yes, it can. A few years ago, theheadlines were about companies turning over sensitive information aboutpolitical dissidents. Earlier this year, they were about a companyshutting down the social networking accounts of activists in the midstof a political debate. Today's news stories are about companies sellingthe hardware and software of repression to authoritarian governments.When companies sell surveillance equipment to the security agency ofSyria or Iran or, in past times, Qadhafi, there can be no doubt it willbe used to violate rights.
Now, there are some who would say that in order to compel good behaviorby businesses, responsible governments should simply impose broadsanctions, and that will take care of the problem. Well, it's true thatsanctions and export controls are useful tools, and the United Statesmakes vigorous use of them when appropriate; and if they are broken, weinvestigate and pursue violators. And we're always seeking to work withour partners, such as the European Union, to make them as smart andeffective as possible. Just last week, for example, we were glad to seeour EU partners impose new sanctions on technology going to Syria.
So sanctions are part of the solution, but they are not the entiresolution. Dual-use technologies and third-party sales make itimpossible to have a sanctions regime that perfectly prevents bad actorsfrom using technologies in bad ways. Now, sometimes companies say to usat the State Department, "Just tell us what to do, and we'll do it."But the fact is, you can't wait for instructions. In the 21st century,smart companies have to act before they find themselves in thecrosshairs of controversy.
I wish there were, but there isn't, an easy formula for this. Makinggood decisions about how and whether to do business in various parts ofthe world, particularly where the laws are applied haphazardly or theyare opaque, takes critical thinking and deliberation and asking hardquestions. So what kind of business should you do in a country where ithas a history of violating internet freedom? Is there something you cando to prevent governments from using your products to spy on their owncitizens? Should you include warnings to consumers? How will youhandle requests for information from security authorities when thoserequests come without a warrant? Are you working to preventpost-purchase modifications of your products or resale through middlemento authoritarian regimes?
Now, these and others are difficult questions, but companies must askthem. And the rest of us stand ready to work with you to find answersand to hold those who ignore or dismiss or deny the importance of thisissue accountable. A range of resources emerged in recent years to helpcompanies work through these issues. The UN Guiding Principles onBusiness and Human Rights, which were adopted in June, and the OECDGuidelines for Multinational Enterprises both advise companies on how tomeet responsibilities and carry out due diligence. And the GlobalNetwork Initiative, which is represented here tonight, is a growingforum where companies can work through challenges with other industrypartners, as well as academics, investors, and activists.
And of course, companies can always learn from users. The SiliconValley Human Rights Conference in October brought together companies,activists, and experts to discuss real life problems and identifysolutions. And some participants issued what they called the SiliconValley Standard for stakeholders to aspire to.
Working through these difficult questions by corporate executives andboard members should help shape your practices. Part of the job ofresponsible corporate management in the 21st century is doing humanrights due diligence on new markets, instituting internal reviewprocedures, identifying principles by which decisions are to be made intough situations, because we cannot let the short-term gains that all ofus think are legitimate and worth seeking jeopardize the openness of theinternet and human rights of individuals who use it without it comingback to haunt us all in the future. Because a free and open internet isimportant not just to technology companies but to all companies.Whether it's run with a single mobile phone or an extensive corporatenetwork, it's hard to find any business today that doesn't depend insome way on the internet and doesn't suffer when networks areconstrained.
And also I would add that, in this day, brand and reputation areprecious corporate assets. Companies that put them at risk when theyare careless about freedom of the internet can often pay a price.
So I think it's particularly appropriate and important that the privatesector is strongly represented at this meeting and that Google isco-hosting tonight's event. In both securing the promise of a free andopen internet and managing the risks that new technologies raise, theprivate sector is a crucial partner.
But even as companies must step up, governments must resist the urge toclamp down, and that is the second challenge we face. If we're notcareful, governments could upend the current internet governanceframework in a quest to increase their own control. Some governmentsuse internet governance issues as a cover for pushing an agenda thatwould justify restricting human rights online. We must be wary of suchagendas and united in our shared conviction that human rights applyonline.
So right now, in various international forums, some countries areworking to change how the internet is governed. They want to replacethe current multi-stakeholder approach, which includes governments, theprivate sector, and citizens, and supports the free flow of information,in a single global network. In its place, they aim to impose a systemcemented in a global code that expands control over internet resources,institutions, and content, and centralizes that control in the hands ofgovernments.
Now, in a way, that isn't surprising, because governments have never meta voice or public sphere they didn't want to control at some point oranother. They want to control what gets printed in newspapers, who getsinto universities, what companies get oil contracts, what churches andNGOs get registered, where citizens can gather, so why not the internet?But it's actually worse than that. It's not just that they wantgovernments to have all the control by cutting out civil society and theprivate sector; they also want to empower each individual government tomake their own rules for the internet that not only undermine humanrights and the free flow of information but also the interoperability ofthe network.
In effect, the governments pushing this agenda want to create nationalbarriers in cyberspace. This approach would be disastrous for internetfreedom. More government control will further constrict what people inrepressive environments can do online. It would also be disastrous forthe internet as a whole, because it would reduce the dynamism of theinternet for everyone. Fragmenting the global internet by erectingbarriers around national internets would change the landscape ofcyberspace. In this scenario, the internet would contain people in aseries of digital bubbles, rather than connecting them in a globalnetwork. Breaking the internet into pieces would give you echo chambersrather than an innovative global marketplace of ideas.
The United States wants the internet to remain a space where economic,political, and social exchanges flourish. To do that, we need toprotect people who exercise their rights online, and we also need toprotect the internet itself from plans that would undermine itsfundamental characteristics.
Now, those who push these plans often do so in the name of security.And let me be clear: The challenge of maintaining security and ofcombating cyber crime, such as the theft of intellectual property, arereal - a point I underscore whenever I discuss these issues. There arepredators, terrorists, traffickers on the internet, malign actorsplotting cyber attacks, and they all need to be stopped. We can do thatby working together without compromising the global network, itsdynamism, or our principles.
Now, there's a lot to be said about cyber security. I won't go intothat tonight. I'll be talking about it more, but my basic point is thatthe United States supports the public-private collaboration that nowexists to manage the technical evolution of the internet in real time.We support the principles of multi-stakeholder internet governancedeveloped by more than 30 (inaudible) all over the world. So to use anAmerican phrase, our position is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."And there's no good reason to replace an effective system with anoppressive one.
The third and final challenge is that all of us - governments, private(inaudible) - building this global coalition is hard, partly because,for people in many countries, the potential of the internet is stillunrealized. While it's easy for us in the United States or in theNetherlands (inaudible) so we have to work harder to make the case thatan open internet is and will be in everyone's best interests. And(inaudible) we have to keep that in mind as we work to build this globalcoalition and make the case to leaders of those countries where the nextgeneration of internet users live. These leaders have an opportunitytoday to help ensure that the full benefits are available to theirpeople tomorrow, and in so doing, they will help us ensure an openinternet for everyone.
So the United States will be making the case for an open internet in ourwork worldwide (inaudible) here tonight, Mongolia, (inaudible), Chile,also represented, I saw, Indonesia and others, (inaudible) are sure tobe effective at bringing other potential partners on board who have(inaudible) perspectives that can help us confront and answer difficultquestions. And new players from (inaudible) governments, the privatesector, and civil society will be participating in managing the internetin coming decades, as billions more people from all different regions(inaudible) items on your agenda for tomorrow.
The first will be to build support for a new cross-regional group(inaudible) that will work together in exactly the way that I've justdiscussed (inaudible) based on shared principles, providing a platform(inaudible) for governments to (inaudible) hope others here will do thesame, and going (inaudible) forward, others will endorse the declarationthat our Dutch hosts (inaudible) have prepared. It's excellent work,Uri, and we thank you for your leadership.
(Inaudible) who are threatened by their repressive governments. The(inaudible) Committee to Protect Journalists recently reported that ofall the writers, editors, and photojournalists (inaudible) and I waspleased that the EU recently announced new funding for that purpose.And I know that other governments, including the Netherlands, are alsolooking for ways to help out.
By coordinating our efforts, we can make them go further and help morepeople. Earlier, (inaudible) I heard what the foreign minister here isproposing. And we have talked about creating a digital defenderspartnership to be part of this global effort. We hope tomorrow'smeetings will give us a chance to discuss with other potential partnershow such a partnership could work.
So while we meet here in the Netherlands in this beautiful city to talkabout how to keep the internet (inaudible) walls between differentactivities online (inaudible) economic exchanges, political discussions,religious expression, social interaction, and so on. They want to keepwhat they like and which doesn't threaten them and suppress what theydon't. But there are opportunity costs for trying to be open forbusiness but closed for free expression (inaudible) costs to a nation'seducation system (inaudible) political stability, (inaudible) tomaintain.
Our government (inaudible) will continue to work very hard to get aroundevery barrier that repressive governments put up. Because governmentsthat have erected barriers will eventually find themselves boxed in, andthey will (inaudible) keeping them standing by resorting to greateroppression, and to (inaudible) escalating the opportunity cost ofmissing out on the ideas that have been blocked (inaudible) and thepeople who have (inaudible) disappeared.
I urge countries everywhere (inaudible) instead of that alternative,dark vision, join us (inaudible). This is not a bet on computers ormobile phones. It's a bet on the human spirit. It's a bet on people.And we're confident that together, with our partners and government, theprivate sector, and civil society around the world, who have made thissame bet like all of you here tonight, we will preserve the internet asopen and secure for all.
On the eve of Human Rights Day, this meeting reminds us of the timelessprinciples that should be our north star. And a look at the worldaround us and the way it is changing reminds us there is no auto-pilotsteering us forward. We have to work in good faith and (inaudible)engage in honest debate, and we have to join together to solve thechallenges and seize the opportunities of this exciting digital age.Thank you all for being committed to (inaudible).
# # #
|
|
|
 |
seoul.usembassy.gov/p_gov_120811.html |
|
  |
|
 |
 |
※ 코리아연구원은 기획재정부에서 공익성기부금대상단체(2006-176호)로 선정되었으므로
연말정산 때 소득공제를 받으실 수 있습니다. |
|
 |
|
::: 코리아연구원 (KNSI : 새로운 코리아구상을 위한 연구원) :::
New Document
|
