Courtesy of U.S. Department of State.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers remarks on “Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices and Challenges in A Networked World” at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 15, 2011.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks on Internet freedom this week are sure to further the dialog on American diplomacy’s view of the Internet and its capacity to deeply influence politics at all levels around the globe.
A great deal of the address, titled “Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices & Challenges in a Networked World,” was directed at events in Egypt, a country whose leadership attempted to squelch internal dissent by shutting down the Internet as regimes in similar straits have done, such as Burma’s disconnect from the global grid after the death of Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai during the 2007 protests there. Secretary Clinton sent two clear messages to the world’s leaders:
1. Do not attempt to censor the Internet, especially with regard to political speech.
2. The U.S. government will gladly bankroll entities developing technologies to subvert Internet censorship.
But this is all about cyber censorship, or as I like to think of it, the soft power component of cyber statecraft. Secretary Clinton also opened the door on State’s involvement on the hard power element of cyber statecraft, the security issue, in her speech. Announcing the appointment of National Security Council staffer Christopher Painter as the Department of State’s cyber coordinator in her address, she also raised the matter that the world’s digital information space has some serious security and governance problems.
While Secretary Clinton advocates for a free and open Internet, she also is putting into place the policy team to assure that the Internet remains open for business. By asserting State into the cybersecurity debate (which it should have entered years ago), she is also entering a bureaucratic fray dominated by the Defense Department, but also impacted by the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce and members of the Intelligence Community.
If Mr. Painter is to succeed at his new job, he will need to build many bridges, all over the U.S. government, but also into the soft power offices of the State Department, in public diplomacy, democracy and human rights, and political affairs. It is good that Mr. Painter’s portfolio has been created, but fleshing out what it is to look like will be immensely difficult as he stands on rapidly shifting terrain and holds no playbook on how to manage the game.
Christopher Bronk is the Baker Institute fellow in information technology policy. He previously served as a career diplomat with the United States Department of State on assignments both overseas and in Washington, D.C.