Jindal:
Obama's Internet Folly -
By Gov. Bobby Jindal
It was an act generations from now will regret: The country that
invented the Internet unilaterally decided to give it away —
jeopardizing the freedoms of billions of citizens the world over in the
process.
Last month, the Obama Administration's Commerce Department announced it
would transfer control of the Internet's essential functions from the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a Los
Angeles-based non-profit, to the "global Internet community." It
is
unclear exactly who or what will replace ICANN, but one thing is
certain: the successor organization won't increase online freedom,
openness, and transparency.
If anything, ICANN's replacement could empower hostile regimes with a
greater voice in the Internet's governance, allowing censorship and
repression to expand and flourish. And you don't just have to
take my
word for it: Bill Clinton opposes the ICANN transfer too, saying that
"a lot of these so-called multi-stakeholders are really governments
that want to gag people and restrict access to the Internet."
A
list of members of the United Nations' Human Rights Council shows the
dangers of the Obama Administration's internationalist approach.
Among
the Council's current members is Venezuela — currently engaging in a
violent campaign of repression under President Nicolas Maduro. In
response to negative media coverage of the unrest, government forces
attacked CNN cameras, and ordered Internet service providers to "block
websites with content contrary to the interests of the
Government." If
these thuggish actions qualify Venezuela for membership in the UN Human
Rights Council, what role will Maduro's government get to play in
governing — and censoring—the Internet?
Last November, the United Nations elected China to join its Human
Rights Council. China's communist authorities have adapted
Chairman
Mao's famous dictum to the 21st century—for them, power does not come
just from the barrel of a gun, but also from pixels on a screen.
Thus
the infamous "Great Firewall of China," which blocks many web addresses
and websites, along with content related to "subversive" topics like
the Tiananmen Square protests. Reporters without Borders even
suspects
that China has turned online censorship into an export industry,
selling surveillance technology to nations like Cuba (also a Human
Rights Council member) and Zimbabwe. Yet as the world's largest
country, China will undoubtedly demand a seat at the table as
part of
the "global community" the Obama Administration wants to govern the
Internet.
Then
there's the case of Russia, also elected to the UN Human Rights Council
last fall. Russia's invasion of the Crimea — aided by immediate
censorship of pro-Ukrainian websites by Russian authorities — leaves
little doubt of that country's cavalier disregard for the freedom of
other nations, and its own people. Yet even as his half-hearted
actions failed to preserve Ukraine's territorial sovereignty, President
Obama seems perfectly willing to surrender America's sovereignty over
the Internet, giving autocrats like Vladimir Putin a greater say in how
the Internet does — or, as online censorship increases, does not —
operate.
Sadly, the Commerce Department's proposal to transfer control of the
world wide web to the "global Internet community" is consistent with
President Obama's desire to promote multi-lateralism over America's
national interests. During his 2008 campaign, candidate Obama
famously
addressed crowds in Germany as a "citizen of the world." But the
world
doesn't look to countries like North Korea, China, and Russia for
openness and free speech — it looks to our shores.
The country that invented the Internet is also the country that
enshrined free speech as part of our First Amendment to the
Constitution. Both concepts have transformed the globe — and for
the
better. From the online communities that gave birth to the Arab
Spring, to the spread of commerce around the world, to the rapid spread
of free ideas, the Internet has promoted democracy and freedom
throughout the globe. Given this track record of unparalleled
success,
why should the United States give people like Vladimir Putin, Nicolas
Maduro, Iranian mullahs, or other oppressors access to its governance?
The answer is simple: We shouldn't. Before giving those autocrats
a
greater say in the Internet's governance, Congress should first have
its say, and block the Obama Administration's proposed transfer.
Freedom is a terrible thing to fritter away for the sake of giving
tyrants a stronger voice.
The author is Governor of the State of Louisiana.
NET
RIGHT DAILY
