[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] Background of my objection on final statement of Internet Governance Caucus

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le vendredi, 25 fév 2005, à 16:02 Europe/Paris, YJ Park a écrit :

> From: "Meryem Marzouki" <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
>
>> YJ, I really don't find this comment fair and honnest. I've myself
>> mentioned violations of human integrity and dignity by the USA. And it
>> seems that you've clearly understood what it means, from Guantanamo to
>> Iraq, not to mention what happened inside the US.
>
> Then, I would expect more balanced reference in the context of human 
> rights
> between govt's from the North and gov'ts from the South from now on at
> WSIS.

Why "from now on" ? From the HR caucus side at least, we address 
governements globally - and making it explicit that both North and 
South governments are concerned, see our documents - when dealing with 
global issues, and specifically when dealing with specific issues: 
China on accreditation, USA on ICANN, Tunisia as organizer of the 
Summit w.r.t. to bad records on HR and specially on HR in the 
information society. Isn't it legitimate to raise special concerns 
regarding the WSIS host? You may also note that no single country is 
mentioned by its name (although easily identified in context) in our 
documents read in official plenaries, and these are UN rules.

> You cannot force which option can serve an individual better in the 
> name
> of human rights.
> [...]
> If you ask for my personal views, change or revolutionary depends on
> people not governments. Governments have been reactionary. They have
> to go through certain stages to build a certain level of trust between
> people
> and their coorresponding gov't. That process should not be intervened 
> by
> the third party in the name of justice.

I hope you're aware of the fact that, by saying that, you're ignoring 
years of progresses in a (still ongoing) battle for the universality of 
human rights... and their indivisibility. You also seem to ignore that 
there is something called non-derogable rights, so considered because 
of their special value recognized by the international community.
Let me add that you're arguing against the wrong person, and the wrong 
caucus, ICANN/sovereignty matters-wise :-), but this is not a problem 
for me.

Meryem