[WSIS Edu] Re the Comments on boycott Wsis 2

[lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca]

Originally posted Sept. 14.05.
Thanks for the Interesting exchange here.

Jak, a few comments (none of this is a criticism of your fine work, but I do 
take friendly issue with certain implications of your reply to the 
colleague's proposal to personally boycott Wsis2):

"Constructive engagement" seems a reasonable strategy, especially for 
governments, so long as it does not require one to close one's eyes, hold 
one's nose, and act like there are no issues regarding human rights and 
media freedoms in many of the nations party to this Wsis process. Tunisia is 
the object of attention here not because it is an Arab transitional print 
media country, but because of its symbolic showcase status  (as you know). 
The public relations value of hosting this summit will always  involve some 
trial by global attention, media and otherwise. That's part of the summitry 
game. Tunisia expects people to visit, dollars to flow, and why not?

However, the tricky part of the Tunis phase IMO lies in discerning when and 
how to constructively raise matters that are central to the principles and 
practices of the kind of information society that civil society groups have 
actively worked to achieve and promote. That's where the public relations 
runs a bit thin.

If constructive engagement means turning a blind eye, and hoping for the 
best while not raising the basic issues of media freedoms and human rights 
for fear that the hosts will be offended, or if constructive engagement 
means acting as if the denials of such violations are accepted, or as if 
silence on such matters is ok, then whose interests will be served? Why 
should the civil society sector in the multi stakeholder process go along 
with this? I do not think this is our role.

Civil society groups should not in my view consider this kind of engagement 
constructive because it is not.

Your laudable study of Arab media reaches this conclusion, as you say below: 
  ..."future developments under these regimes remain uncertain." Indeed. 
That is a fair academic conclusion, as we in university land know.

However, this does not offer much to go on in the development of a serious 
set of principled practices, targets, and ways to measure and evaluate them. 
This is what many of us think Wsis 2 is about. Tunisia provides a context, 
backdrop and model for this potentially significant achievement. The 
question then becomes what is the most effective course of action that 
should be taken to make such outcomes more certain, and thus to realize the 
hopes implied in your Winnipeg comments?

What I tried to do back in May of this year was not original to me: on our 
Wsis civil society web site (http://wsis.ecommons.ca ) I had called the 
attention of the Canadian civil society and ngo community to the violations 
of rights in Tunisia that experienced witnesses (including some of our own 
Press, human rights and democracy groups) were reporting on at that time. 
This is not my direct area of expertise, but I was alarmed by the silence on 
these questions, and thus called attention to the recommendation by others 
that a boycott be considered. My aim was to ensure that a debate took place, 
as it seemed to me that government had not talked publicly about any of 
this, no matter how troubling the situation, and that the Canadian civil 
society groups seemed more concerned with booking hotels or haggling over 
words on wikis than with comprehending or speaking out about some of the 
rights that seem to many of us fundamental to what's at stake at Wsis 2.

That may seem unfair, sorry, but with respect I do not think that "alluring" 
(boycott) vs "viable" (constructive engagement) is quite how I would frame 
the polarity in this dilemma. There are grave dangers (as you know) in 
seeming to endorse a regime that violates human rights and press freedoms 
systematically, and especially one that leaves little viable option for 
domestic resistance. Symbolically, as host of Wsis 2, and a showcase for the 
developing world and its information needs and potentials, the message 
seemed troubling and worth comment and attention.  (Again I think 
governments should engage constructively along lines that you suggest, even 
with non compliant regimes, however i do not consider this the role of civil 
society.)

Certainly I would not have framed this boycott question as an 'alluring' 
option had I been permitted to speak in Winnipeg, however even in Canada we 
have our old fashioned ways of making sure some voices are not heard (just 
don't invite the ones who may not toe the line, even if they have knowledge 
to pass on from Wsis 1 ). Certainly there were plentiful Tunisian 
representatives in attendance at the Winnipeg civil society confab, and I am 
sure a constructive and engaging time was had by all.

But i digress. Seems to me that the choice on boycott and Wsis 2 is now an 
ethical and individual one; the original post stated this position quite 
reasonably. The only way this personalization of the boycott question might 
change would be if a totally egregious and unacceptable action took place, 
and it is difficult to determine what line would have to be crossed in light 
of the sort of 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' with constructive 
engagement logic. I mean, take what happened in the murder of Canadian 
photojournalist Zahra Kazemi in Iran: even if someone were killed by the 
police after taking photos, and found to have been tortured and brutalized, 
Iran would doubtless show up at Wsis, and Canada would probably decide to 
engage constructively in order to stay at the table and pursue national 
interests. But civil society groups would hopefully then boycott, as such an 
assault on our advocacy of human rights and media freedoms would demand a 
response.

Let's pray things do not come to this, and presumably they will not. So the 
trick for civil society is in discerning where the line should be drawn, and 
at least raising the issues and not colluding in the silences.

But meanwhile, back at the Wsis 2 prep, the hotels and flights are booked, 
civil society is engaged (well, some are, and with due recognition for the 
many hard working CS old hands at Wsis and summitry, we are still finding it 
hard to rouse enthusiasm for the Wsis process on the grassroots ground). For 
better and worse, the real backdrop at the moment remains the besieged UN 
itself and the major states jockeying for geopolitical power.

None of this is news.
Perhaps summitry as usual, but I think we have reason to expect and work for 
more than this.

One more Canadian view.
Liss Jeffrey, PhD
Director
McLuhan global research network
& eCommons/ agora project
www.ecommons.net
================================================


	 	Dear Colleague,

An extract from our review of Arab Mass Media (William A. Rugh. Praeger,
2004.) may be of interest to you in this regard:

Transition toward a freer press is manifested by a select group of
states including Algeria, Egypt, Jordan
and Tunisia, where the press vacillates between support for government
positions and social criticism.
Emergent freedom of expression, albeit under strict state control, is
symptomatic of the TPM [Transitional
Print Media]system owing to extant laws limiting freedom of the press.
However, future developments
under these regimes remain uncertain.

(Archibald, J. & M. Guidère. (May 2005). "Arab Mass Media: Newspapers,
Radio and television in Arab Politics".
Middle Eastern Studies 41(3):453.)

Liss Jeffrey, a professor of communication studies at the University of
Toronto's McLuhan Program,
(http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/lissjeffrey.htm) had also proposed a
boycott of the Tunis Summit at the time when the Canadian Commission for
UNESCO was considering recommendations for Canada's participation in the
Summit.  In reaction to her proposal, I made the following statement:

Tunisia [is] a "country in transition" whose technological
infrastructure, legal framework and human capital
are key elements which make change and reform possible. International
pressure and "constructive
engagement" are but means to secure positive change for Tunisians and
subsequently for other people in the
Arab World for whom a reformed Tunisia compliant with the rules of the
free world would be an inspiration.

(Archibald, J. "Constructive engagement". 12 May 2005.)

Although a boycott may be an alluring alternative, I submit that
constructive engagement is a more viable alternative at this juncture.

Best regards,

J. Archibald