[WSIS CS-Plenary] Global Alliance: Consultation

[mclauglm at po.muohio.edu]

Rik and all,

Thanks very much for helping to clarify what constitutes the "Global 
Alliance" at this point. I agree with you that more information needs 
to emerge and more consultation has to occur (especially among 
members of CS) before any decisions are taken. And, I'm pleased to 
hear that it appears as though organizations will likely individually 
endorse this alliance if it comes to pass.

Respectfully, I'd like to add something that is meant to supplement 
your future-oriented suggestions, not to undercut them. And, this 
invokes the only disagreement that I have with what you've observed 
below: the idea that the canvas is empty. I think that we need to be 
cognizant of the information that has emerged already in addition to 
that which will do so in the future. Among this information is the 
following:

1. if the Global Alliance is to include the private sector, 
represented by the CCBI, "the voice of business" at the WSIS, the 
CCBI/ICC will eschew any arrangement that calls for monitoring, 
mandatory accountability and reporting of the full results of 
public-private partnership initiatives, adherence to a mandatory code 
of conduct, and so on. This has been the position of ICC all along in 
respect to the Global Compact, and the CCBI has made it clear in 
several venues that they will comply with what they described as a 
"digital global compact" only if every element of engagement is 
entirely voluntary. "Voluntary" allows such compacts/alliances to 
work quite effectively as a form of public relations ("bluewashing" 
as some call it in the context of the UN), but there is little 
evidence that corporations that have signed such voluntary agreements 
have complied with the various principles of the compacts (in the 
case of the Global Compact: human rights, labor, and environment 
issues). One other likelihood based on history: the UN will find 
among CS entities partners who will collaborate on this Global 
Alliance--no question--and it's not likely that those of us who wish 
to see transparency and accountability mandated will ever share a 
vision with such CS entities so the idea that there will ever be a 
"we" that finds some version of a Global Alliance acceptable is not 
likely to be realized.

2. So, why is it important to know what information is available now, 
rather than wait for it to emerge? Please--and I'll be as brief as 
possible--allow me to use an example from my research involving 
public-private partnerships and the "corporatization of development." 
I want to use the case of Cisco Systems, the leader in the router 
industry that is perhaps best known to many of us as the benefactor 
of a number of programs: the Gender Initiative, the Least Developed 
Countries Initiative, partner with the ITU on Internet training 
centers, sponsor of NetAid, signatory to the Electronics Industry 
Code of Conduct, etc. While it may be fairly easy to see how Rio 
Tinto Mining Company, Unilever, and Royal Dutch Shell have been "bad 
actors" as signatories to the Global Compact, and badly hurting the 
reputations of NGOs that have made deals with them (Amnesty 
International, World Wildlife Federation, etc.), how could it be that 
a seemingly progressive router-making corporation could wreak havoc 
on a Global Alliance (and Cisco is sure to be a signatory if this 
alliance takes off as a voluntary endeavor)? Three problems with 
Cisco are most apparent: 1) the corporation sells itself to the UN 
and to "least developed countries" as a kind of angel investor, while 
addressing itself to the business world in a very different way: 
essentially, by making the case that the lack of networking 
professionals in the world is driving up wages, so that the various 
Cisco Networking Academy Programs (CNAPs) will create more networking 
professional and therefore suppress wages. 2) that although Cisco 
offers a module on the fundamentals of network technology, it 
otherwise only teaches modules based on its proprietary hardware and 
software, thus creating a captive labor and consumer force that uses 
Cisco products and only Cisco products. 3) that Cisco Systems is 
teaching women in the Women and Gender Studies Program at Makerere 
University in Uganda how to make routers, be network troubleshooters, 
etc.; in the end Makerere University must make its own decisions, and 
I realize that my privilege in respect to resources, but I don't know 
of anyone who would agree that teaching women how to make routers is 
a method for empowering women within Women's Studies program (which 
is to say that the Global South shouldn't be considered the 
laboratory for vocational training, at the expense of education).

But, there is one more point, and it's perhaps the most serious of 
all: 4) When we think of defense contractors, we don't think of Cisco 
Systems. Yet, in May 2000, Cisco Systems made an alliance with 
Lockheed Martin, to incorporate Cisco's "technology solutions" into 
Lockheed's government bids. Most of us know that Lockheed is a 
defense contractor; I would imagine that few know of Cisco's role in 
this consortium, although Cisco does have an Army division and a 
Global Defense and Space Group. The Lockheed-Cisco partnership is 
meant to develop approaches to "net-centric warfare." You don't hear 
the name "Cisco" mentioned when defense contractors such as Lockheed 
Martin beat the drums for the war, as when the company's former VP 
Bruce Jackson co-chaired the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq 
prior to the invasion. That's because Cisco is "smuggled in" under 
the Lockheed Martin military contracts. Most recently, Cisco has been 
instrumental in the US Army's Warfighter Information Network-Tactical 
(WIN-T) program (under a Lockheed Martin bid of course). WIN-T is 
meant to create a "war infosphere" to support US dominance in the 
Middle East and elsewhere. Although WIN-T's rewards aren't expected 
to be realized until several years from now, the Army's Third 
Battalion in Iraq is being used as a kind of guinea pig for this 
project involving the "leveraging of technology" in wartime.

So, if like most of the world, CS actors are not supporting the Iraq 
war, is it appropriate to make alliances with Cisco Systems? That's 
for each organization to decide, I suppose. But it is important that 
we know, not that we're sleeping with strange bedfellows, but how 
strange are the bedfellows with which we are sleeping. I'm well aware 
that some on this list believe that I have some simplistic notion of 
"evil corporations." In fact, I don't believe in evil because the 
idea removes the element of human agency. I'm sure that many 
employees of Cisco Systems and many representative of the CCBI are 
fine people, doing their best within a certain ideological framework 
to support human rights, gender equality, and so on. But, they're 
representing a particularly contradictory element that is 
characteristic of these neoliberal times, where human/communication 
rights discourse is available to everyone and has become useful for 
corporations precisely because it *can* be useful for neoliberalism.

My question is how are we going to differentiate ourselves (if there 
remains a "we") from the various missionaries for global capitalism. 
That's what I'd like to address in respect to the question of a 
Global Alliance.

With apologies for an overly-long message and best regards,

Lisa



>Adam, et al,
>
>This is my understanding of the current thinking around the 
>structure of the Global Alliance.  Basically there are only 3 
>assumptions:
>
>1. It will have some formal association with the United Nations
>2. It will be multi-stakeholder in character
>3. It will have a "light" structure, i.e. no huge secretariat or budget
>
>Beyond that, the canvas is empty.  Also I should say that it is not 
>conceived of as simply extending the mandate or structure of the 
>current UN ICT Task Force, nor will it simply be the implementing 
>body of the WSIS.
>
>As to Lisa's question about whether or not the Alliance will 
>"happen" or not, I  think it is more useful to think about what kind 
>of effective, transparent and participatory Global Alliance would we 
>like to exist and how should it function?  What kind of Global 
>Alliance would we wish to have no formal association with?  The 
>whole idea may go down in flames in November, or it could have wide 
>endorsement by governments and almost none by civil society.  Or 
>vice-versa.  It is not really possible to predict at this point.
>
>As I see it, our job at this point is to conceive of what we would 
>see as the most acceptable and functional and democratic Global 
>Alliance structure that we would endorse?  Write that down, send it 
>in to the UN ICT Task Force.  We can always chose to reject or opt 
>out of what emerges later.  But we don't know enough to accept or 
>reject anything yet, in my opinion.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Rik Panganiban
>CONGO
>