Internet Press Freedom Conference

Remarks by Henrikas Yushkiavitshus

The World Summit on the Information Society will play a key role in shaping an environment for the free flow of the information in the XXI century.

The XX century produced several documents, which have had long-lasting consequences for the press freedom, both positive and negative.

For example, the effect of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been extremely positive. Its clearly formulated text has been and continues to be a powerful tool in the hands of the defenders of the free flow of the information.

As to the European version of the Declaration, which included several limitations, (concerning public order etc.) it has been sometimes used to limit the press freedom-not in the Europe itself, but in other countries.

An essential document for the defense of the human rights and the press freedom was the so-called “Third basket” of the Helsinki Agreements on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Indeed, the role of this document has been vital.

Helsinki groups in communist countries fought heroically for human rights. In spite of all persecutions they had to suffer, activists of the Helsinki movement were successfully destroying the Iron Curtain.

The principles of the free flow of information and free movement of the people inscribed in the Helsinki Agreements inspired not only the dissidents, but also designers of glasnost and perestroika.

Today Helsinki Agreements are forgotten, especially by the old western democracies. The interviews that Russian applicants for visas have to undergo in some consulates are not less humiliating than those conducted in the past by the Communist Party commissions, created to screen visitors to the West.

Iron curtain gradually is being gradually replaced by a “Shengen wall”.

However, the Helsinki Agreement will remain in history as a major victory in the struggle for the human rights.

Later, we had the notorious “New World Information and Communication Order” proposed at UNESCO.

It was highly detrimental not only to UNESCO as an organization, but also to the free flow of information as such. This is a good example of how good intentions can pave the road to hell. That’s why we are worried about the Summit.

It is not very well known in the West, but principle of the “balanced information” was also used inside the Soviet Union.

In Lithuania, for example, there were attempts to limit the number of the radio and television programs in Lithuanian language, because their ratio with the programs in Russian was not acceptable to the central authorities in Moscow.

Therefore, instead of the promised development, the New World Information and Communication Order resulted in all kinds of restrictions.

The state controls, structuring the media in the convenient forms for the state establishment were and remain the danger for the press freedom.

The World Summit on the Information Society is taking place at the time, when it is difficult to ID political leaders, who would have the human rights, freedom of expression as top priorities on their agenda.

The reaction to NWICO - the New World Information and Communication Order was immediate and strong both by governments and by non-governmental organizations.

The United States, Great Britain and Singapore withdrew from UNESCO. The World Press Freedom Committee, the International Press Institute, Freedom House and other organizations have launched a fierce battle against the NWICO concept.

In the long run UNESCO has come out of this painful experience as a more mature and a more respectable international organization which today, is in the forefront of the struggle for press freedom.

The past decade has been a period of excellent cooperation between UNESCO and non-governmental organizations working in the area of press freedom.

Regretfully UNESCO-which has a clear mandate to deal with information issues-is somewhat marginalized in the process of preparation for the World Summit on the Information Society.

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) the lead agency for the Summit was created to deal with the technological norms and international standards of telecommunications and has done an excellent job in this domain, but it has no experience, nor, indeed mandate, in the field of information content.

As a result, some draft documents for the Summit contain statements that may be dangerous for the free flow of information.

For example, the Declaration of Bucharest states: “To realize fully the benefits of ICT’s, networks and information systems should be sufficiently robust to prevent, detect and to respond appropriately to security incidents”.

or:

“ICT can potentially be used for purposes that are inconsistent with the objectives of maintaining international stability and security and may adversely affect the integrity of the infrastructure within the states, to the detriment of their security in both civil and military fields, as well as in relation to the functioning of their economies...”

That was in November 2002. In January 2003 in Tokyo, there was a further development in the same direction: “Safe and secure Information Society must respect the sovereignty of nations”.

Finally two weeks later in Latin American / Caribbean Regional Preparatory Conference we were informed that governments should lead the transition to the information society.

Internet has been developing so successfully precisely because governments had not understood what was happening and when they did, it was too late.

The Draft Declaration of Principles drafted in Geneva last March has a whole bunch of statements look like an updated version of the New World Information and Communication Order.

It calls for “New ways of thinking about human rights and democracy”

It promotes independent and free communication media, but “In accordance with the legal system of each country”

It speaks again about the “Imbalance of information flows”

Such formulations would never appear in UNESCO texts, because UNESCO has gone through painful experience of the New World Information and Communication Order.

The Summit organizers realize that, but while there are attempts to associate UNESCO with the decisions taken, UNESCO is de facto denied any real role in the decision-making process.

Next month, there will be an intersession meeting in Paris at UNESCO building, which can create impression that UNESCO is heavily involved in the preparation of the documents for the Summit.

In reality, the Summit is in the Governments hands and “defense wall” is built against a real possibility to participate in the drafting of the documents, except making some not important noises in different parallel events.

The fact, that those drafts of the documents represent a modernized version of the New World Information and Communication Order does not prompt any governments to withdraw from the ITU.

Quite the reverse, there seems to be a happy consensus among governments on the subject.

Indeed, times have changed. I remember the time when people in the Soviet Union were looking forward to visits by western political leaders, because every such visit was bringing hope.

Those visits helped to get dissidents out of jail, to increase the number of the permissions to immigrate to Israel and to stop jamming of foreign radio stations.

Today we are happy to see friendly family photos of our leaders. Moreover, it is a rare chance for the world to benefit from good personal relations among them.

It is good to know that they have a common understanding of the dangers of the terrorism in the world. However, what about the freedom of expression? It would be interesting to know whether Berlusconi, Blair, Bush and Putin share the same views on this issue.

Coming back to the World Summit on the Information Society, I do not have any brilliant ideas how to change the course of its preparation, which sometimes look dangerous.

The non-governmental organizations working in the area of the press freedom may have to rely more, on the new democracies such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Baltic states - and approach their leaders.

These countries have a better memory of what the lack of freedom of expression in society means. Among their leaders are personalities who themselves fought and made sacrifices for human rights and fighting spirit is still alive.

One thing is clear it is time to act.

Thank you.