[WSIS Edu] Re the Comments on boycott Wsis 2

[james.archibald at staff.mcgill.ca]

Dear Liss,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.  "Constructive engagement" has in many
cases been a cornerstone of Canadian international policy with regard to
regimes which may not share the same democratic values promoted by Canada in
international fora. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it is less successful.

The Winnipeg meetings certainly provided Tunisian representatives with ample and
generous opportunities to voice their opinions on human rights issues and in
particular on the freedom of the press question.  The Canadian Commission for
UNESCO certainly questioned the validity of some of the views put forward by
the Tunisian representatives in Winnipeg and rightly so. The consensus was,
however, that Tunisia should not use WSIS to promote its propaganda the and
that the WSIS process must move forward in the broader interests of the
international community as unsavory as this approach may be to some.

Naive engagement is clearly not the way to go, but I do believe that all
stakeholders - governments, businesses and civil society organizations included
- must engage by holding the current Tunisian government up to internationally
acceptable standards and goals as set out in the Declaration of Principles and
work in concert to translate these principles into an action plan which will
lead to true reforms and an improved human rights situation in Tunisia and like
regimes. The conclusion of the Rugh study was that reform is possible, but all
those involved in promoting reform must do so in a purposeful manner and hold
those who abuse basic freedoms and rights accountable for their actions in the
clear view of the international community represented in this case by the UN
family of nations.

Best regards,

Jim

Quoting 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Edu mailing list
> Edu at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/edu
>