11 World Summit on Information Society
| (25840)
11546/04
COM(04) 480
| Commission Communication: Towards a Global Partnership in the Information Society: Translating the Geneva principles into actions: Commission proposals for the second phase of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | 13 July 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 21 July 2004
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 3 August 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but relevant to the debate on the future of e-Europe
|
Background
11.1 The December 2003 Geneva World Summit on Information Society
(WSIS) was the first global event concerning the Information Society,
involving over 150 countries and some 11000 participants from
public entities, civil society and the private sector. It adopted
a Declaration of Principles, embodied in a Plan of Action (POA),
as the basis of a common approach to the information society by
all UN Member States. This includes key human rights, such as
freedom of opinion and expression; access to information and the
media; combating the "Digital Divide"; and the potential
of the information and communication technologies (ICT) for achieving
the UN Millennium Development Goals.[18]
The Commission Communication
11.2 This latest Commission Communication seeks to suggest how
the EU's own experience hitherto and its external policies can
contribute to the next phase —implementing the POA, preparatory
to the second WSIS, to be held in Tunis in November 2005. The
Communication notes the importance of countries creating an "enabling
environment" capable of attracting information society investment
and providing sustainable growth. It highlights the importance
of "e-Strategies", especially in the area of
Government, education, health and business; of stimulating research
and development in this area; of favourable regulatory frameworks;
and establishing and disseminating best practice. It describes
how to improve the provision of IT services.
11.3 The Communication also considers various EU
mechanisms that could be used to achieve the overall objectives
of the POA (such as development aid and economic co operation)
and highlights key issues that will need to be considered by two
groups set up as a result of the Geneva Summit — the Working
Group on Internet Governance and the Task Force on Financing.
The Government's View
11.4 The Minister for Europe (Mr Denis MacShane)
says the UK supports EU aims for the WSIS and describes the ideas
outlined as "broadly in line with UK policy for the second
phase of WSIS" and containing "no issues that we would
strongly disagree with". Additional UK objectives for phase
two are that the preparatory process should be fully transparent
and not involve elaborate, expensive meetings; that civil society
and business should be able to participate fully; and that fundamental
rights in the area of access to information and freedom of the
media are respected (especially during the Summit itself in Tunis),
which officials will pursue in further preparatory work in Brussels
and Geneva. He notes that there are no direct financial implications,
other than the possibility raised by the Communication of using
existing EU resources (e.g. development aid) in line with the
POA objectives.
Conclusion
11.5 It is inevitable that the international community
will feel the need to examine, discuss and seek to address issues
such as the role of the information and communication technologies
(ICTs) in bridging the gap between rich and poor — hence
the WSIS. But it is equally important to ensure that the follow-up
is realistic and avoids over-ambition and waste. In this context,
the UK objectives for the next phase are good ones, particularly
in not overlooking "low-tech" but nonetheless fundamental
information society issues such as access to information and freedom
of the media. Beyond that, the Minister's somewhat half-hearted
Explanatory Memorandum suggests a lack of enthusiasm for the Commission's
approach, which we share.
11.6 Although the Communication puts forward some
sensible suggestions — e.g. the possibility of participating
in the Global e-Policy Resource Network, launched at Geneva,
to help ICT policymakers in developing countries — there
is a strong theme of "the Commission knows best" running
through it, the basis of which is not at all clear. It is as if
it is the Commission, and not national governments and private
companies, that is responsible for the ICT strides made in Europe,
and that the developing world should simply follow suit —
especially in copying methodologies such as "the open method
of co-ordination" — in an area in which public authorities
have a generally unimpressive, and costly, track record. It appears
to ignore the huge developmental differences not only between
Europe and the developing world, but within the latter. It has
very little to say about what individual Member States might do
with different partners of choice in different parts of the world.
And there is scarcely a word about the central role of the market,
which in the middle-income developing countries in particular
has shown what can be achieved, and quickly, if the right environment
is created. Although the Communication is not of great significance
in itself, in many ways it reinforces our earlier concerns about
the Commission's approach to the future of e-Europe, which
we recommended for debate,[19]
and over manifestations of the e-Agenda such as the proposed
e-Health programme.[20]
We are accordingly drawing the Communication to the attention
of the House, and we consider it relevant to the debate we have
already recommended on the future of e-Europe.
18 The eight goals that , in 2000, the UN set itself
to achieve, most by 2015: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality;
reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/Aids,
malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability;
develop a partnership for development. Back
19
(25683) 9675/04; see HC 42-xxv (2003-04), para 1 (30 June 2004). Back
20
(25646) 9185/04; see HC 42-xxix (2003-04), para 7 (21 July 2004). Back
|
