Here Come the Black Helicopters!: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom

by Dick Morris

  All this has led Cerf, one of the founders of the Web and currently a vice president of Google, to tell Congress recently that these proposals for regulation mean “the open Internet has never been at higher risk than it is now.”11

  Cerf warned, “If all of us do not pay attention to what’s going on, users worldwide will be at risk of losing the open and free Internet that has brought so much to so many.”12

  Cerf said the implications of the potential treaty regulating the Internet are “potentially disastrous.” He added that more international control over the Net could trigger a “race to the bottom” to restrict Internet freedom, “choking innovation and hurting American business abroad.”13

  Richard Grenell, who served as spokesman and adviser to four US ambassadors to the UN between 2001 and 2009, said that “having the UN or any international community regulate the Internet only means you’re going to have the lowest common denominator of 193 countries.”14

  We would not know of this plan to squelch Internet freedom but for a courageous—and still anonymous—leaker who unveiled a 212-page planning document that Crovitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal, reports is “being used by governments to prepare for the December conference.”

  The leak materialized when Jerry Brito and Eli Dourado, George Mason University researchers, frustrated by the secrecy of the talks, created a website called WCITLeaks.org and invited anyone with access to documents outlining the UN proposals to post them online “to foster greater transparency.”15

  That those who would protect the freedom of the Internet had to go to such lengths to find out what is being contemplated is itself a scandal. Why on earth would the delegates from the United States and the European democracies consent to secret negotiations and allow the documents and proposals being distributed to be shielded from public view or scrutiny? These talks do not concern top-secret military or intelligence matters. There is no valid reason for having kept them secret. But the fact that the Western delegates consented to the gag order indicates how supinely they are confronting this threat to freedom.

  Of course, the autocratic nations want to negotiate to squelch the Internet in secret. Secrecy for the likes of the rulers in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran is the norm. The last thing they would want is for their own people to know of their efforts to keep the truth from them. And, these tyrants must realize that exposure of their plans would help to doom them. (That’s why we wrote this book!)

  Dourado—one of the two courageous men who facilitated the leak—explained that “these proposals show that many ITU member states want to use international agreements to regulate the Internet by crowding out bottom-up institutions, imposing charges for international communication, and controlling the content that consumers can access online.”16

  Crovitz, one of the only journalists covering this horrific development, notes that “the broadest proposal in the draft materials is an initiative by China to give countries authority over ‘the information and communication infrastructure within their state’ and require that online companies ‘operating in their territory’ use the Internet ‘in a rational way’—in short, to legitimize full government control.”17

  The Internet Society, which represents the engineers around the world who keep the Internet functioning, says this proposal “would require member states to take on a very active and inappropriate role in patrolling” the Internet.18

  Crovitz reports other proposals in the planning document:

  “Give the UN power to regulate online content for the first time, under the guise of protecting against computer malware or spam.

  “Russia and some Arab countries want to be able to inspect private communications such as email.

  “Russia and Iran propose new rules to measure Internet traffic along national borders and bill the originator of the traffic, as with international phone calls. That would result in new fees to local governments and less access to traffic from US ‘originating’ companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple. A similar idea has the support of European telecommunications companies, even though the Internet’s global packet switching makes national tolls an anachronistic idea.

  “Another proposal would give the UN authority over allocating Internet addresses. It would replace Icann [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], the self-regulating body that helped ensure the stability of the Internet, under a contract from the US Commerce Department.”19 Currently, nongovernmental institutions, including ICANN, oversees the Web’s management and its technical standards.

  The Russian and Chinese justification for Internet censorship—that it would fight hacking (at which they are the world’s masters)—is specious. Congressmen Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Jim Langevin (D-RI), the cochairs of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, note that “[i]t must be made clear that efforts to secure the Internet against malicious hacking do not need to interfere with this freedom and the United States will oppose any attempt to blur the line between the two.”20

  China’s stated rationale for its efforts to regulate the Internet is preposterous. The tyrants of Beijing say that their proposal “raises a series of basic principles of maintaining information and network security which cover the political, military, economic, social, cultural, technical and other aspects.” The government statement continued: “The principles stipulate that countries shall not use such information and telecom technologies to conduct hostile behaviors and acts of aggression or to threaten international peace and security and stress that countries have the rights and obligations to protect their information and cyberspace as well as key information and network infrastructure from threats, interference, and sabotage attacks.”21

  This statement comes from the government that, more than any other, tries to interfere with and sabotage the Internet. Beijing employs tens of thousands of specially trained hackers whose job is to pry loose military and technological secrets from American and European governments and companies. Now this Internet pirate-regime is calling for greater “security”!

  But the reality, of course, is that the only “hostile behavior” or “act of aggression” that is likely to invade Chinese cyberspace is the truth. Facts, accurate reporting, correct data, and public debate are the only acts of aggression China is trying to regulate. Indeed, China wants the ITU to collect IP addresses of Internet users so it can identify dissidents, whom it will move to suppress.

  AMERICA SEEMS TO BE ACQUIESCING

  As you are reading these outrageous proposals, you are probably saying to yourself what we said when we first saw them—that the United States and the European Union would never permit these changes and regulations to take effect.

  But not so fast. Crovitz reports that while the leaked documents suggest that US negotiators are objecting to the regulatory changes behind closed doors, they are doing so “politely.”22

  Very politely. Apparently, the US called the Chinese proposals for Internet control “both unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope” of UN regulation. Then, to soften the blow, the leaked document notes that “the US looks forward to a further explanation from China with regard to the proposed amendments, and we note that we may have further reaction at that time.”23

  American delegates also objected to proposals to give the ITU a role in regulating Internet content, tamely noting that they do “not believe” the ITU can play such a role.

  Crovitz writes that the American objections are “weak responses even by Obama administration standards.”24

  From Washington, the Obama administration’s response to the Internet governance proposals has been muted and laggard. Ambassador Phil Verveer, deputy assistant secretary of state for international communications and information policy, noted that some of the pending proposals, if adopted, “could limit the Internet as an open and innovative platform by potentially allowing governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international data flows.”25

  But, in the next breath, he denie
d that any of the pending proposals would give the ITU “direct Internet governance authority.”26

  Verveer’s circumspection in attacking the regulatory proposals—and his use of wording such as “could limit” and “potentially allow”—indicates less than hard and fast opposition. And the administration’s willingness to keep secret the negotiations themselves suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department and Barack Obama’s White House may be slender reeds to rely on in keeping the Internet open and free.

  Both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama owe us an explanation of why they countenanced secrecy in these negotiations during which our free speech is on the line!

  Indeed, as of this writing, the only statement from the administration on the possible UN Internet controls came from a May 2, 2012, blog entry by the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, which read: “Centralized control [of the Internet] would threaten the ability of the world’s citizens to freely connect and express themselves by placing decision-making power in the hands of global leaders who have demonstrated a clear lack of respect for the right of free speech.”27

  Again, what is worrying is the muted nature of the administration’s objections. So radical a proposal as to put the Internet under UN control and to give Russia and China the ability to restrict the flow of information to their citizens would seem to call for opponents to be shouting their objections from the rooftops. Instead, there has been no presidential statement or comment from Secretary Clinton, just a blog entry by a minor White House office.

  Fortunately, a more robust response to this erosion of Internet freedom came from the House of Representatives, where a bipartisan group of congressmen on the House Energy and Commerce Committee introduced a resolution calling on the Obama administration to oppose efforts to turn the Internet over to UN regulation. The resolution called on the US delegation to the ITU talks to “promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet today.”28

  The resolution is sponsored by Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) and has the support of Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), ranking member Henry Waxman (D-CA), Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), and ranking subcommittee member Anna Eshoo (D-CA).

  Sounding a clarion call, Congresswoman Bono Mack said that “[t]his year, we’re facing an historic referendum on the future of the Internet. For nearly a decade, the United Nations quietly has been angling to become the epicenter of Internet governance. A vote for my resolution is a vote to keep the Internet free from government control and to prevent Russia, China, India and other nations from succeeding in giving the UN unprecedented power over Web content and infrastructure.”29

  Bono Mack warns: “If this power grab is successful, I’m concerned that the next ‘Arab Spring’ will instead become a ‘Russian winter,’ where free speech is chilled, not encouraged, and the Internet becomes a wasteland of unfilled hopes, dreams and opportunities. We can’t let this happen.”30

  The resolution’s Democratic cosponsor, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, added that “this resolution reaffirms our belief and sends a strong message that international control over the Internet will uproot the innovation, openness and transparency enjoyed by nearly 2.3 billion users around the world.”31

  More and more voices are suddenly speaking out against the UN regulation of the Internet. At a congressional hearing in June 2012, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell asked, “Does anyone here today believe that these countries’ [Russia’s and China’s] proposals would encourage the continued proliferation of an open and freedom-enhancing Internet?”32

  House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said that an “international regulatory intrusion into the Internet would have disastrous results, not only for the US, but for folks around the world.”33

  But statements from American politicians are not going to derail this effort at global censorship. Only the full mobilization of the more than two billion Internet users worldwide will suffice. It is time they learned of the threat to their liberty and battled to defeat it!

  KEEP THE INTERNET FREE!

  How do we stop this power grab and keep the Internet free? Richard Whitt, public policy director and managing counsel for Google, emphasized the importance of a cyber-roots rebellion against UN control. “I think a key aspect of this [battle] is that this cannot be the US against the world,” said Whitt. “If that is the formula, we lose, plain and simple. This has to be something where we engage with everybody around the world. All of the communities of interest who have a stake, whether they know it right now or not, in the future of the Internet, we have to try to find ways to engage them.”34

  Nina Easton, writing on fortune.com, says that “business leaders beyond Silicon Valley would be smart to sit up and take notice [of the UN initiative]—and fast. American opponents are being seriously outpaced by UN plans to tax and regulate that are already grinding forward in advance of a December treaty negotiation in Dubai.”35

  But what happens if a majority of the 193-member ITU votes for a plan that regulates, censors, and controls the Internet? The United States should walk out of the conference in Dubai and refuse to be bound by its strictures. We should work to persuade our European allies to join us.

  If the ITU enacts rules on the Internet and the US and the EU refuse to abide by them or recognize them as binding, Internet administrators and the major online companies and servers will be in a bind. They will face a push-pull that may well lead them to compromise our freedoms in order to appease the ITU.

  Another bad outcome would be a compromise—in the tradition of the United Nations. Building on the model of the UN Rio Conferences, the so-called middle ground might recognize ITU jurisdiction over the Internet but restrict its power so it does not regulate content or adopt the other nefarious proposals being put forth by Russia and China.

  But a compromise of this sort would be a terrible blow to freedom of speech. Conceding that a global body—where autocrats, corrupt regimes, and tyrants have a voting majority—controls the Internet would be the first step in restricting its freedom.

  Since the ITU normally does not vote on proposals, preferring instead to negotiate a consensus, Cerf worries that there may be a series of incremental changes that would, together, doom Internet freedom. He cites a proposal by Arab states changing the definition of “telecommunications” to include “processing” or computer functions. FCC commissioner McDowell warns that such a definitional change would “swallow the Internet’s functions with only a tiny edit of existing rules.”36

  Indeed, the way the UN works is that such proposals are always, at least partially, adopted. Once a suggestion is raised and ratified by becoming the subject of high-level UN negotiations, a consensus almost always emerges. In this case, it is easy to see how the United States and Europe, heavily outvoted in the ITU, would focus on watering down the Internet regulations while leaving the basic premise—that the ITU can regulate the Net—fundamentally unchallenged.

  To counter this consensus approach, we need a massive sense of public outrage (in this election year) demanding that the United States pull out of these negotiations and the Dubai Conference and refuse to recognize the authority of the ITU or its member states or its UN sponsor to even discuss Internet regulation. This is the time for us to stand up and demand an end to this process before it goes any further.

  Would the United States cravenly agree to participate in secret negotiations on proposals by Russia and China to restrict global free speech, free press, or freedom of religion? No way. Yet these talks are just as pernicious and destructive of our liberties.

  The Internet must see to its own self-preservation! Its users need to spread word of the UN effort virally and arouse a cyber-roots rebellion against the proposed treaty or even the negotiations concerning it. If we want to preserve our freedom to use the Internet as a free exchange of ideas, we have
to act and act soon.

  Internet users of the world! Speak up!

  PART FIVE

  TRANSFER OF WEALTH: THE RIO+20 TREATY

  Until June 2012, the United States showered the world with foreign aid. We couldn’t afford it. It went to the pockets of third world tyrants and dictators. Countries who received our largesse snubbed us at every turn. And some of the money went to our outright enemies.

  But at least we had control over how much we gave and who received the money.

  In June 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton journeyed to Rio to attend the twentieth anniversary of the original Rio Conference on global sustainability. There, she set a bold new precedent: She committed the United States to giving the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)—an incipient global EPA—$2 billion toward an eventual fund of $100 billion, in turn to be given to the nations of the third world, nominally to assist in their adjustment to global climate change.

  There’s nothing new about the $2 billion commitment. But what is new is that:

  a) It implied an American commitment to an even more massive transfer of wealth running to the full $100 billion; and

  b) It left it up to a new “Green Climate Fund” headquartered in Switzerland to decide how to spend the money. We would have no control over who received the funds.

  The Green Climate fund was formally created at a UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011. It is to be administered by a twenty-four-nation interim board of trustees. Its short-term goal is to amass $100 billion, including $30 billion in “fast start-up” money that has already been pledged by member nations. Hillary’s $2 billion was part of that fund.

  Hillary’s pledge was made at the Rio+20 Conference, where 190 nations gathered on the twentieth anniversary of the 1992 Rio Conference on global sustainability. They committed themselves to the development of a worldwide “green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.”1