U.S. Department of State
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.
If one wants clear evidence of how high the politics of the Internet have risen on the international agenda, look no further than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Jan. 21 address on Internet freedom at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. In it, Clinton made a clear statement in support of free movement of information around the world unfettered by state censorship.
The address was rich in issues and facts, mentioning, for instance, the potential for mass mobilization by information technology, including State innovation officer Alec Ross’ superb initiative to direct relief donations to Haiti by telephone text message. But at the center of the speech was the clear message that freedom of speech and expression is considered by the United States to be a global value, and that value will be delivered by the Internet. This represents a fundamental shift in grand foreign affairs strategy between the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Where the former made democracy a core element, the latter has sent a clear message that the First Amendment has value in every corner of the globe.
Watching the speech via webcast, your blogger waited intently for the “G” word – Google. Clinton’s “Remarks on Internet Freedom” cannot be divorced from the stream of events that surround it, chief among them Google’s decision to declare “J’accuse!” regarding Chinese cyber-intrusions against the company’s networks and services. While China was mentioned in the third paragraph of the address, Clinton would wait until well after the midpoint to bring up America’s latest in a long line of monolithic information companies, Google. (Others on this list include Western Union, AT&T, IBM and Microsoft.) She did not mince words, demanding, “We look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement.” Beijing was not pleased.
Chinese press response to Clinton’s remarks was universal in its hostility, with your blogger reminded of Pravda’s rhetorical zeal, now largely forgotten. The editors of Global Times, a subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Daily, called out the Americans for their global dominance of information.
“The free flow of information is a universal value treasured in all nations, including China, but the US government’s ideological imposition is unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed. China’s real stake in the ‘free flow of information’ is evident in its refusal to be victimized by information imperialism.”
Hong Junjie of Shanghai’s Jiefang Ribao took an almost conspiratorial tone:
“The US is controlling core technology in the internet realm and is occupying the vast majority of internet resources, and has to a certain extent turned this weapon for benefiting mankind, disseminating knowledge and maintaining peace into a tool for regime infiltration and wanton interference in other countries.”
The editors of Huanqiu Shibao portrayed their big picture view of the remarks stating,
“China is neither Hawaii nor Iraq, and it will not become like Japan, which was completely transformed by the US after World War II. China cannot become a colony of Western thought.”
But what of the rest of the world? Did the Europeans or Africans protest? There was scant mention of the Clinton speech in most world capitals. Although the United States has received criticism from those advocating global governance of the Internet, the few accounts were similar to that of Le Monde’s brief dispatch “Clinton menace la Chine à demi-mot,” in which a French journalist basically said Clinton was hinting at a threat.This all left your blogger to wonder about India. What did the world’s largest democracy think of the speech? There wasn’t much news on it out of Chennai or Delhi. What was news the day of the address was secretary of defense Robert Gates’ visit to Islamabad, where he publicly pressed the Pakistanis for prosecutions related to the Nov. 26, 2008, terror attacks. His next stop – India.
While the world may often see the United States as blundering, clumsy and perhaps even a bit isolated, every once in awhile its leaders do or say something that appears quite the opposite. Secretary Clinton’s “Internet freedom” speech, while not by any means a barn-burning oratory, was the right thing to say at the right time. As one commenter remarked, Internet freedom “should be part of the national brand” of the United States. Although we can only hope there shall be no great bellicosity with China in the coming years, Clinton’s speech reminds us that ideas do matter, and those who build walls, both real and virtual, to keep them out, do so at their own peril.
Christopher Bronk is the Baker Institute fellow in technology, society and public policy. He previously served as a career diplomat with the United States Department of State on assignments both overseas and in Washington, D.C.