Gathering Storm

16 www.digitaldaya.com communications using web resources including browser software, blogging applications, email cli- ents, instant messaging technology and chat func- tions that are routinely a part of Western busi- ness and personal activities. Deputy SecretaryWolin explained further,“As re- cent events in Iran have shown,personal Internet- based communications like email, instant messag- ing and social networking are powerful tools.This software will foster and support the free flow of information – a basic human right– for all Iranians. At the same time, as we take these steps, the [Obama] Administration will continue aggres- sively to enforce existing sanctions and to work with our international partners to increase the pressure on the Government of Iran to meet its international obligations.” This news, while encouraging, still places the implementation of web access squarely on the shoulders of national leaders. Indeed, the U.S. has freed up both the technology and methodology to increase web access among all peoples. But to go further in attempting to force national leaders to grant access to web communications would be seen as attempting to influence internal activities within sovereign nations. While the easing of sanctions is certainly a posi- tive step, the hard truth is that it does not go far enough.The West benefits through the exporta- tion of web-based assets – the tools needed to engage moderate Muslims seeking a more en- lightened approach to governance.And while the lifting of sanctions against Iran,the Sudan and Cu- ban indicates a change in U.S. policy, more must be done. The U.S., the de facto leader in theWest (despite its recent financial declines) must issue clear, un- ambiguous statements presenting qualified argu- ments against censorship of web access among, not just Muslims, but of all world communities. Indeed, search engine powerhouse, Google, has withdrawn from engagement with China because of perceived censorship on the part of the Chi- nese government.The results of this pull-out will be known in the future, but at this stage we have no firm data on the impact of Google’s retreat. However, Google is a public company, not a gov- ernment agency and,therefore acts with different motives and objectives than the national govern- ments of Western nations. Google is a for-profit company. It has shareholders to whom it must answer. It must remain profitable while establish- ing policies that benefit the company and its own- ership – the millions of individuals, mutual funds, pension plans and other financial entities that in- vest in Google stock. The objectives of Google may be seen as noble, advocating unfettered ac- cess to the web,but let’s keep in mind that unfet- tered web access is the key to Google’s success. This is not necessarily the case with governments. The U.S. government is not a for-profit entity. Its objectives are different, and while pundits compare Google’s pull-out from the Chinese search market as evidence that theWest wants open access to the W3, it’s a false analogy to compare the actions of a publicly-held enterprise in the private sector and the actions of state governments – the U.S federal government,the governments that form the EU and other governments allied withWestern beliefs. The issue goes beyond censorship as political opposition websites are becoming a primary tar- get of hackers.This new phenomenon of defac- ing dissident and opposition websites seems to be spreading across the world in attempts to suppress political activism. Even though it is not always clear who is behind these cyber attacks, threatened governments are being accused of organizing campaigns as new means of cracking down on oppositional activities online. If we examine the activities on the highlighted websites we discover people using the Web to express religious beliefs radical or otherwise, to join forums that engender debate on oppos- ing views, to act as citizen journalists publicizing their points of view, and to call for reform or ex- press dissent towards established governments and their policies. Any attempts to curtail this platform whether by the withholding of enabling technology, acts of censorship, or organized cy- ber attacks is much akin to“...prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press;or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Gov- ernment for a redress of grievances.” Facebook: A Platform for 21st Century Politics Winning Hearts and Minds on the World Wide Web