![]()
|
||
22 January 2010
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm Remarks on Internet Freedom
Hillary Rodham
Clinton The Newseum Washington, DC January 21, 2010
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Alberto, for not only that
kind introduction but your and your colleagues' leadership of this important
institution. It's a pleasure to be here at the Newseum. The Newseum is a
monument to some of our most precious freedoms, and I'm grateful for this
opportunity to discuss how those freedoms apply to the challenges of the
21st century.
Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people
from accessing portions of the world's networks. They've expunged words,
names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy
of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people
have the right âto seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.â
With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain
is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral
videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.
As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. In the demonstrations that followed Iran's presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman's bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government's brutality. We've seen reports that when Iranians living overseas posted online criticism of their nation's leaders, their family members in Iran were singled out for retribution. And despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, brave citizen journalists in Iran continue using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening inside their country. In speaking out on behalf of their own human rights, the Iranian people have inspired the world. And their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice. Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. And we must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes. The freedom of expression may be the most obvious freedom to face challenges with the spread of new technologies, but it is not the only one. The freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to commune or not commune with their Creator. And that's one channel of communication that does not rely on technology. But the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share your values and vision for humanity. In our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Today, they may also take place on line. The internet can help bridge divides between people of different faiths. As the President said in Cairo, freedom of religion is central to the ability of people to live together. And as we look for ways to expand dialogue, the internet holds out such tremendous promise. We've already begun connecting students in the United States with young people in Muslim communities around the world to discuss global challenges. And we will continue using this tool to foster discussion between individuals from different religious communities. Some nations, however, have co-opted the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith. Last year, for example, in Saudi Arabia, a man spent months in prison for blogging about Christianity. And a Harvard study found that the Saudi Government blocked many web pages about Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. Countries including Vietnam and China employed similar tactics to restrict access to religious information. Now, just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must also not be used to persecute or silence religious minorities. Now, prayers will always travel on higher networks. But connection technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance individuals' ability to worship as they see fit, come together with people of their own faith, and learn more about the beliefs of others. We must work to advance the freedom of worship online just as we do in other areas of life. There are, of course, hundreds of millions of people living without the benefits of these technologies. In our world, as I've said many times, talent may be distributed universally, but opportunity is not. And we know from long experience that promoting social and economic development in countries where people lack access to knowledge, markets, capital, and opportunity can be frustrating and sometimes futile work. In this context, the internet can serve as a great equalizer. By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunities where none exist. Over the last year, I've seen this firsthand in Kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30 percent since they started using mobile banking technology; in Bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people have signed up to learn English on their mobile phones; and in Sub-Saharan Africa, where women entrepreneurs use the internet to get access to microcredit loans and connect themselves to global markets. Now, these examples of progress can be replicated in the lives of the billion people at the bottom of the world's economic ladder. In many cases, the internet, mobile phones, and other connection technologies can do for economic growth what the Green Revolution did for agriculture. You can now generate significant yields from very modest inputs. And one World Bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10 percent increase in the penetration rate for mobile phones led to an almost 1 percent increase in per capita GDP. To just put this into context, for India, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year. A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity. In the early years of these technologies, many believed that they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. But that hasn't happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today. Many of them are in the hands of market vendors, rickshaw drivers, and others who've historically lacked access to education and opportunity. Information networks have become a great leveler, and we should use them together to help lift people out of poverty and give them a freedom from want.
Now, we have every reason to be hopeful about what people can accomplish
when they leverage communication networks and connection technologies to
achieve progress. But make no mistake -- some are and will continue to use
global information networks for darker purposes. Violent extremists, criminal
cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit
these global networks. Just as terrorists have taken advantage of the openness
of our societies to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet
to radicalize and intimidate. As we work to advance freedoms, we must also
work against those who use communication networks as tools of disruption
and fear. The final freedom, one that was probably inherent in what both President and Mrs. Roosevelt thought about and wrote about all those years ago, is one that flows from the four I've already mentioned: the freedom to connect -- the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate. Once you're on the internet, you don't need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society.
The largest public response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai was launched
by a 13-year-old boy. He used social networks to organize blood drives and
a massive interfaith book of condolence. In Colombia, an unemployed engineer
brought together more than 12 million people in 190 cities around the world
to demonstrate against the FARC terrorist movement. The protests were the
largest antiterrorist demonstrations in history. And in the weeks that followed,
the FARC saw more demobilizations and desertions than it had during a decade
of military action. And in Mexico, a single email from a private citizen
who was fed up with drug-related violence snowballed into huge demonstrations
in all of the country's 32 states. In Mexico City alone, 150,000 people took
to the streets in protest. So the internet can help humanity push back against
those who promote violence and crime and extremism. The freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform societies, but it is also critically important to individuals. I was recently moved by the story of a doctor -- and I won't tell you what country he was from -- who was desperately trying to diagnose his daughter's rare medical condition. He consulted with two dozen specialists, but he still didn't have an answer. But he finally identified the condition, and found a cure, by using an internet search engine. That's one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important in individuals' lives. Now, the principles I've outlined today will guide our approach in addressing the issue of internet freedom and the use of these technologies. And I want to speak about how we apply them in practice. The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic, economic, and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and every interest that spans the globe. Our foreign policy is premised on the idea that no country more than America stands to benefit when there is cooperation among peoples and states. And no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflict and misunderstanding drive nations apart. So we are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnectivity. And as the birthplace for so many of these technologies, including the internet itself, we have a responsibility to see them used for good. To do that, we need to develop our capacity for what we call, at the State Department, 21st century statecraft. Realigning our policies and our priorities will not be easy. But adjusting to new technology rarely is. When the telegraph was introduced, it was a source of great anxiety for many in the diplomatic community, where the prospect of receiving daily instructions from capitals was not entirely welcome. But just as our diplomats eventually mastered the telegraph, they are doing the same to harness the potential of these new tools as well.
And I'm proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40
countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments. We are
making this issue a priority at the United Nations as well, and we're including
internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after
returning to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Madame Secretary. The Secretary has
agreed to answer some questions. So if you would, there are going to be three
microphones in the audience. If you would make your questions short, we'd
appreciate it. And identify yourselves, please.
Yes. Could you wait for the microphone? QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you talked about anonymity on line and how that's something -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm Robert (inaudible). I'm with Northern Virginia Community College. I'm sorry. STAFF: Could you hold the microphone up, please? QUESTION: Sorry. STAFF: Thank you. QUESTION: You talked about anonymity on line and how we have to prevent that. But you also talk about censorship by governments. And I'm struck by -- having a veil of anonymity in certain situations is actually quite beneficial. So are you looking to strike a balance between that and this emphasis on censorship? SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. I mean, this is one of the challenges we face. On the one hand, anonymity protects the exploitation of children. And on the other hand, anonymity protects the free expression of opposition to repressive governments. Anonymity allows the theft of intellectual property, but anonymity also permits people to come together in settings that gives them some basis for free expression without identifying themselves. None of this will be easy. I think that's a fair statement. I think, as I said, we all have varying needs and rights and responsibilities. But I think these overriding principles should be our guiding light. We should err on the side of openness and do everything possible to create that, recognizing, as with any rule or any statement of principle, there are going to be exceptions. So how we go after this, I think, is now what we're requesting many of you who are experts in this area to lend your help to us in doing. We need the guidance of technology experts. In my experience, most of them are younger than 40, but not all are younger than 40. And we need the companies that do this, and we need the dissident voices who have actually lived on the front lines so that we can try to work through the best way to make that balance you referred to. MODERATOR: Forty may be (inaudible). SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) MODERATOR: Right over here. Yes. QUESTION: Hi, my name is Courtney Radsch. I'm the Global Freedom of Expression officer at Freedom House. And I wanted to ask you -- you spoke about business and relying on them to do the moral, right thing and not put profits first. But the goal of business is to make a profit. So what kind of teeth are going to be put into this? What role does the World Trade Organization play? And how are you going to encourage them to do the right thing? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I think this is one of the issues that we want to have a very vigorous discussion about. I know that asking business, which is in business to make a profit, to do the right thing is not always easily translated into practical practice. On the other hand, I think there is a broader context here. It's -- companies that don't follow the sanitary and hygiene procedures of a prior generation pay a price for it. And government and business have to constantly be working together to make sure that the food and other products that end up on the shelves of consumers around the world are safe, because individual consumers in a global interconnected economy can't possibly exercise that vigilance on their own. Similarly, when it comes to censorship, we believe that having an international effort to establish some rules over internet connectivity and trying to protect the basic freedoms I discussed is in the long-term interest of business, and frankly, I would argue, governments. I used the example from the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is very hard to keep information out. It was hard to keep it out at a prior age; it is even harder now. And trying to adjust to that, work with that, and learn from that about what could be done better is going to challenge every single government in the world. So I think business, as such a driver of economic growth globally, has to have that in mind, both when they go into countries and when they confront the kind of censorship that we're hearing about around the world. It's particularly acute for the technology companies, the media companies obviously, but it's not in any way limited to them. Other companies are facing censorship as well. So this is an issue that we have to surface and we have to talk about and we have to try to find as much common ground and then keep claiming more common ground as we go forward. MODERATOR: We have a question way over here on the left. QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Aly Abuzaakouk. I'm the director of Libya Forum website, promoting democracy and human rights and civil society in Libya. We have been attacked and hacked many times. I would like Madame Secretary to tell me how can you help those voices which do not have, you know, the technology or the money to protect themselves, protect them against the hackers which are the silencers of voices from outside the countries which lacks freedom and freedom of expression. SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is one of the issues that we are debating and we're looking for ideas as to how we can answer it in a positive way. We would invite your participation. After I take the last question, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the Director of my Policy Planning unit inside the State Department and someone -- the former dean of the Woodrow Wilson School who has written a lot about interconnectivity and how we have to begin to look at the world as the networked reality that it is, will be leading a discussion. And I hope some of you with ideas, suggestions, cautions, worries will stay and really get into an in-depth discussion about that. MODERATOR: Thank you. And right here in the mezzanine, right next to the microphone. QUESTION: Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang with BPSOS. We serve Vietnamese Americans and work with Vietnamese in Vietnam. While your initiative will take some time to take effect, just recently, in recent months, the Vietnamese Government sentenced several bloggers to five years all the way to 16 years in prison. So what does your office plan to do, and how the U.S. Government can confront such an emergency situation in Vietnam? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have publicly spoken out against the detention, conviction, and imprisonment of not only the bloggers in Vietnam, but some of the Buddhist monks and nuns and others who have been subjected to harassment. Vietnam has made so much progress, and it's just moving with great alacrity into the future, raising the standard of living of their people. And we don't believe they should be afraid of commentary that is internal. In fact, I would like to see more governments, if you disagree with what a blogger or a website is saying, get in and argue with them. Explain what it is you're doing. Put out contrary information. Point out what the pitfalls are of the position that a blogger might be taking. So I hope that Vietnam will move more in that direction, because I think it goes hand in hand with the progress that we've seen in the last few years there. MODERATOR: Thank you. Up in the back. QUESTION: Nora von Ingersleben with the Association for Competitive Technology. Madame Secretary, you mentioned that U.S. companies have to do the right thing, not just what is good for their profits. But what if I am a U.S. company and I have a subsidiary in China and the Chinese Government is coming after my guys for information and, you know, we have resisted but now my guys have been taken to jail, my equipment is being hauled away. In that situation, what can the State Department do? Or what will the State Department do? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we obviously speak out on those individual cases. And we are, as I said, hoping to engage in a very candid and constructive conversation with the Chinese Government. We have had a positive year of very open discussions with our Chinese counterparts. I think we have established a foundation of understanding. We disagree on important issues with them. They disagree on important issues with us. They have our perspective; we have our perspective. But obviously, we want to encourage and support increasing openness in China because we believe it will further add to the dynamic growth and the democratization on the local level that we see occurring in China. So on individual cases, we continue to speak out. But on the broader set of issues, we hope to really have the kind of discussion that might lead to a better understanding and changes in the approach that is currently being taken. MODERATOR: Thank you. Up in the very back in the center, if you could come to the aisle so we can get a microphone to you, and then we'll come back down here. Thank you. QUESTION: Imam Mohamed Magid from ADAMS Center in Virginia. My question for you, Madame Secretary: When you talk about social networking, we're trying to address the issue of youth in the West, Muslim youth. Would you be open to the youth forum to speak about foreign policy? Because one of the reason that youth be radicalized, they don't have a way to express themselves when they disagree with the United States Government or their own government overseas. Would you be open to those ideas? SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, we would. In fact, we -- in the wake of the President's speech in Cairo, we have been expanding dramatically our outreach, particularly to Muslim youth. I agree with you completely, sir, that not only young people in the Muslim world, but young people across the world are increasingly disconnected from authority, from government, from all kinds of institutions that have been historically the foundations of society, because they are so interconnected through the internet, something that my generation can't really understand. In America, the average young person spends eight hours a day with media. The internet, cell phones, television -- I mean, you think about that. Eight hours a day. That's more time than they spend in school, that's more time than they spend with their families. It's often more time than they spend asleep. So when you think about the power of this information connection to young people, I don't think it should cause panic in people my age. I don't think we should begin trying to stop it and prevent it. We ought to figure out how better to utilize it. You go back to the millennia; how were values passed around? Sitting around a fire, how were values communicated? In the homes by parents and grandparents. Now, values are being communicated by the internet, and we cannot stop it. So let's figure out how better to use it, participate in it, and particularly to focus on the needs of young people. They're often looking for information. They're looking for answers. At least until now, in most cultures that I'm aware of, despite all of the time that young people spend with technology, when they're asked who do they look to for guidance about values, they still say their families. But if families increasingly feel disconnected from their highly connected young people and don't know what their young people are doing online, then we see the problems that can result.
And there are so many manipulators online right now, not just stoking the
anxieties and the fears of Muslim youth, but youth everywhere, defined by
all kinds of characteristics.
MODERATOR: I see a lot of hands going up as you speak. Let's try over
here on the far right. QUESTION: Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. Bahgi Gilamichael with the Sullivan Foundation. And also, thank you for inviting us to apply for grants. Now I'm interested in knowing what are the procedures, what is the agency we need to deal with, and if you have someone in the room we can follow up with on that? Thank you so much. SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Well, in addition to our panel, we have a lot of the members of our team who are working on these initiatives, and we can certainly connect up. If we invited you, we know how to find you. So we will make sure you get information about all of these programs, the ones that already exist and the ones that we're rolling out. MODERATOR: There's no anonymity in this room. (Laughter.) We have actually time for one more question, but I really would encourage you to stay for the panel that Anne-Marie Slaughter will chair on connection technologies and diplomacy immediately following. And I'm sure some of the questions will get answered. So let's do one last question over here on the far left, down below here. Can we get a mike? Thank you. QUESTION: Hello. Thank you so much. I appreciated your wonderful program speech. I'm Mary Perkins from Howard University, and at Howard University, we -- very much interested in particular aspects of the internet with respect to the digital divide. Or -- in your story about the young girl being pulled out of the rubble because of the text message she was able to send brings to mind -- the question in my mind, how many others could have been saved had they had that technology? SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. QUESTION: And so we're very interested in knowing, in terms of access, the -- not only internet freedom but free internet for all, the universal service aspect, and what can be done, particularly right now for Haiti, with this. SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as -- thank you for that. As you know, that is a continuing issue for us and for many countries around the world. We're at 4 billion cell phones. And certainly, the cell phone is becoming the principal tool of communication, both through the applications that are on it, through the texting that it enables. And there are a lot of groups, NGOs, and even businesses that are passing out and providing cell phones at very low cost. We just have to keep incentivizing and encouraging the technology to be as low cost as possible so it can be as ubiquitous as possible. But I think we've made enormous progress. Ten years ago, we talked a lot about the digital divide even in our own country. We are overcoming it, but there are still questions of access, still questions of cost. Now, obviously, we have to recognize that a lot of the search engines are run by for-profit companies. They're not -- it's not going to be free. But there are lots of ways of trying to encourage more universal access. And that's part of the Obama Administration's overall policy on technology, not just the diplomatic and development aspects of it. Thank you, Professor. MODERATOR: Thank you, Madame Secretary. Thank you very much. SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Alberto. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause) PRN: 2010/083
|