[Bureau] Re: Speaking Slots - CSB Role

[Ronald Koven]

I really don't understand Angela's reply to Carthage.

Her allegation that I was "shouting" falls at a peculiar time. I am
literally incapable of "shouting" since my throat operation. I think what
she means is that trying to make one's point against the current
constitutes "shouting."

I believe that what Carthage is trying to say in diplomatic terms is that
the Civil Society process is being dominated by small militant activist
groups who, by multiplying their presence and the number of caucuses they
form, have succeeded in drowning out the voices of the major professional
NGOs who represent thousands of members worldwide.

It was clear from the discussions in the Content and Themes meeting about
allocating Civil Society speaking slots that there was extreme reluctance
to allocate a speaking slot to the Media Caucus. Finally, it was decided to
give us the last possible slot available on the third day of the four-day
intersession.

What this meant was that our voice might not be heard at all since the
intersession chair was allowing a fixed amount of time for Civil Society
and any time runovers were being deducted from the time available to
everyone. It also meant that we could not make our points in time to have
any impact on the governmental debates.

So, as we explained when asked at a later Content and Themes meeting, we
went straight to the Prepcom Presidency to say that it was unacceptable
that the groups representing the press freedom interests of the world's
leading print and broadcasting organizations could not be heard at a world
summit on  communication issues.

(Can you imagine the headline: "Press Groups Are Silenced/At World
Communication Summit"? By the way, shutting up the press is the first thing
an authoritarian regime normally undertakes.)

Mr. Samassékou apparently understood the point that seems to escape so many
civil society militants -- namely, that press freedom is a major issue for
the summit and that those most directly concerned should be heard.

One of the problems with summits in general is that, no matter what the
announced subject is, civil society militants want to turn each and every
one of them into a consideration of all the issues on every topic facing
the planet. While it is true that it's "all one ball of wax," that most
problems are interconnected, there can be no solutions if the problems are
not cut into manageable pieces.

Angela talks about "disrespect," but from the perspective of the press
organization representatives present, there is little respect for the
legitimate interests of the press in the outcome of this summit.

A perfect example of this is the repeated insistence on returning to the
notion of "Right to Communicate" in the Civil Society documents, after the
leading press groups (along with UNESCO spokesmen and others) have said
time and time again that that approach has proven historically to be a way
for authoritarians to restrict press freedom, that it is vague at best and
that the attempts to define it have been dangerous for free speech. So,
where is the respect for consensus when the other groups keep insisting on
pushing that idea down our throats in the name of all of "Civil Society"?

I think our case is proven by the way in which governmental delegates tried
to gut the thrust and import of Article 19 of the Universal declaration of
Human Rights. What does it signify when governments that refuse to reaffirm
Article 19 and then call for a Right to Communicate?

What is it exactly that some groups want that is not already covered by
Article 19?

Why are we calling for some utopian "Right to Communicate" in a world where
a good half of the countries do not honor the terms of Article 19, which is
overwhemingly recognized in the relevant legal circles as established
international customary law.

If Article 19 were generally followed. perhaps it would be appropriate to
try to go further with a step like an international Freedom of Information
convention. But it seems to me that we need to put first things first and
that it is in civil society's own interest to back the efforts of press
freedom groups to seek implementation of Article 19.

In any case, we were told that by publicly opposing the Civil Society
Priorities document calling for "Right to Communicate," the Media Caucus
and the International Federation of Journalists  had "undercut" Civil
Society. We were only reiterating our well-established viewpoint. One could
argue that those dominating the Civil Society process of WSIS have been
"undercutting" our attempts to defend and promote press freedom at the
summit.

That said, I want to express my deep appreciation for the way in which the
Human Rights Caucus spoke out at the final day of the intersession in favor
Article 19, free speech and press freedom.

On another topic, I am rather surprised that the points I made in earlier
messages about the proposal that Civil Society statements should be
submitted in writing 48 hours ahead of time have been ignored. This can
easily be seen as prior censorship. In any case, it seems to be an attempt
to control what is said.

I understand that it stems from a desire for efficiency. But the stress on
the need for efficiency over the messiness of democracy is a standing
feature of authoritarianism. The desire to reach consensus is laudable. But
there are important matters of principle on which we just may not all
agree. Recognition of that kind of diversity, it seems to me, is an
absolute condition for the credibility of civil society's place in the WSIS
and elsewhere. A position that tries to homogenize all of civil society and
say that it always speaks with a single voice is so patently untrue that
trying to make it so can only undermine the possibility of civil society
being taken seriously by governments and intergovernmental organizations.

Also, the debate about what John Gagain said about civil society strikes me
as surrealistic. He clearly misspoke. He clearly did not mean that attempts
to represent civil society are illegitimate. He appeared to be trying to
make a purely technical point about its forms of representation. There must
be an assumption of good will if there is to be a meaningful exchange of 
views. Jumping on someone who expressed him or herself perhaps maladroitly,
just for the sake of winning debating points, is not a show of good will.

Carthage Smith was right to say in effect that just being there and
crowding the hall with people does not make one truly representative of the
world's civil society, if there really is such a thing, seen as a
monolithic entity.

The fact is there is no single world "Civil Society," with capital letters.
There are many civil societies out there, and their diversity cannot be
boiled down to what a few persons -- no matter how articulate, intelligent,
caring and well-intentioned -- say all the world's varied interest groups,
all the world's associative life, ought to think and say.

In as loud a whisper as I can muster,

Rony Koven