The Map is not the Landscape: Reflections on WSIS 2003

The Map is not the Landscape: Reflections on WSIS 2003

Sharon Hom[1] and Amy Tai[2]

INTRODUCTION: Running the inclusion gauntlet

The tenth world summit since 1992[3], the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) had the ambitious goal of producing a shared global vision for an information society and a concrete plan of action. These outcomes were to be the result of an inclusionary process providing an opportunity for multi-stakeholders to assemble, discuss, and implement policies that use information and communication technology (ICT) to serve the needs of all humans. The full inclusion of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society actors was viewed as critical because they "play an active role in identifying the social and cultural consequences of current trends and in drawing attention to the need to introduce democratic accountability on the strategic options taken at all levels. Its diversity and often, hands-on approach to issues, make civil society a key player in the renewed international partnership called for by the UN Secretary-General."[4]

As an international human rights NGO based in the U.S. and in Hong Kong, with more than 14 years track-record of reliable and accurate human rights reporting, research, and effective advocacy work, Human Rights in China (HRIC) like many other NGOs, had to run the gauntlet of an NGO accreditation process that was apparently politicized - at least with respect to the applications of certain NGOs. Despite (or perhaps because of) our work to promote freedom of expression and association, and our advocacy on behalf of political prisoners and human rights defenders including journalists and Internet activists, HRIC was not recommended for accreditation by the WSIS Secretariat.[5] This was especially surprising in light of HRIC's receiving accreditation as an NGO observer to the Fifth World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial in Cancun where HRIC was able to raise human rights issues related to China's WTO accession and economic development policies.[6] Ironically, HRIC was thus officially recognized by a multilateral trade body as having relevant expertise to make an NGO contribution, but not to a summit where the focus-building an inclusive and democratic information society - is also a core focus of HRIC's human rights mission and work.

Despite these obstacles faced during the accreditation process, HRIC was able to send representatives to the WSIS as part of partner and affiliated NGOs that we work closely with. As two participants from an independent Chinese NGO, we were encouraged by the generous and warm support of many of our NGO colleagues, and we welcomed this important opportunity to learn and engage with the WSIS process. Prior to the December 2003 summit in Geneva, Sharon Hom also participated as an independent expert in the International Symposium on the Information Society and Human Dignity held in Geneva at the beginning of November. During the WSIS, HRIC actively participated in various NGO and civil society caucus events, including presentations on peace-building processes at the Youth Caucus[7], communications and human rights at the World Forum on Communication Rights[8], and a workshop on state security and state secrets at the ICT4D, organized jointly by the Swiss Agency for Development and the Global Knowledge Partnership[9]. The week ended with a well attended press conference called by the Human Rights Caucus, where Diana Bronson of Rights and Democracy and on behalf of the caucus, presented an evaluation of the WSIS outcomes, Sharon Hom and Souhayr Belhassen from OMCT and the Tunisian Human Rights League highlighted the human rights issues in China and Tunisia, respectively[10].

As stated in the final WSIS Declaration of Principles, the WSIS was a call to "to build a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge."[11] Inevitably, the inherent structural limitations of international conferences, such as the WSIS, the complexity and diversity of languages, cultures, and interests, and the disparities of power, information, and access, shaped the considerable challenges faced by the conveners and the participants.

(Re)Enter China, new global citizen

The dominant story of China's Internet development circulated by mainstream media and in policy circles is one of breathtaking technological leapfrogging with great hopes for the potential of the Internet for democratizing a closed society. Indeed, the statistics of China's ICT development are impressive. As a poster child for technological infrastructure development, a success story for developing countries, and market and growth - driven reforms, with now over 80 million (and growing) Internet users and the world's number one cell phone market at 240 million mobile phones[12], China is a significant government player in the WSIS process. The invocation of ICT and the Internet as ultimate connector and leveler also receives prominent play in the media and policy circles, at the WSIS governmental debates, and in terms of China, recently released studies point to the positive impact of the Internet in promoting greater openness and democracy in China.

But another story is the often "out of sight-out of mind" story of serious human rights abuses-including violations of the right to freedom of expression, association, rights to information, right to life, health, and education. This is the story about millions who live in poverty and under conditions created by unequal and unsustainable development, severe environmental degradation, an internal digital divide, internet surveillance and censorship. Some ongoing challenges include building a functioning legal system that will protect fundamental due process rights, reform of public health, and addressing social development inequalities. Although there is progress in these areas, as the examples below illustrate, the urgency of the ongoing human rights problems demands greater interventions.

. The legal profession is moving towards greater independence and professionalism, and the problems of corruption and politicization of the courts is on the reform agenda of Chinese leaders. However, at the same time, lawyers who represent sensitive cases such as massive forced relocations in redevelopment projects or political cases are beginning to find themselves under attack. In the past year, two prominent defense lawyers were arrested; one was charged with disclosing state secrets and the other in assisting in the fabrication of evidence in a major corruption case.[13] China leads the world in its extensive use of death penalty, including for many non-violent crimes and for alleged state security crimes. Of the 1,526 executions worldwide in 2002, 1,060 took place in China.[14]

. The collapse of a healthcare infrastructure especially in the rural areas, and the government's culture and policies of secrecy and information control contribute to the serious healthcare crisis, including HIV/AIDS pandemic. Over one million people in China suffer from HIV/AIDS; if no effective intervention is made, a projected ten million will be infected by 2010, with 260,000 orphans.[15] The SARS outbreak last year underscores the deadly impact of information and media censorship not only for China, but for its global neighbors.

. Despite the impressive progress in the urban areas, the minimal progress in the rural and interior regions is more sobering. Only 9.1% of the villages in the Western Provinces have running water.[16] A dozen of China's inland provinces have no higher than 15% access to phones.[17] At least 1.8 million migrant children do not have access to education.[18]

These human rights problems reflect a profound disconnect between the WSIS vision and the realities for the vast majority of the world's population. The disconnect - between the realities of the connected wired online citizen and China's elites and privileged, and the reality of poverty and exclusion from the benefits of development for the vast majority of Chinese citizens - has serious consequences for both the future of ICT and human rights in China. ICTs by themselves will not necessarily have a democratizing impact. They will have a democratizing impact only if respect and promotion of human rights is placed at the core of any vision of information society. The use of ICTs to claim rights to public spaces, education, culture, right to life and another representation is only possible by the protection and strengthening of human rights - interdependent and indivisible.

With its enormous economic and political power, China's increasing integration into the global community, including trade and human rights regimes, and the emerging information society, is important and necessary for the effectiveness and legitimacy of these regimes. However, we should not uncritically accept assumptions reflected in trade policies debates or economic market reform arguments that free markets or rule of law reforms will necessarily lead to greater democracy or openness for civil society.

As China gradually develops its role in these multilateral fora, it is important to monitor both the impact of these fora on China's development as well as China's impact on these multilateral processes and institutions.

A beginning conversation

SH: Amy, you have been working on the Internet and China issues from the on-the the ground program perspective, and WSIS was your first international conference. What was your most important takeaway from the experience?

AT: With over 10,000 participants, ranging from government officials, international and multilateral organizations, businesses, NGOs, academia and media, the WSIS held potential for these actors to interact in both formal and informal settings. While it was not possible for us to attend the hundreds of events or dinner conversations that took place during the course of the week, it seemed that the potential for exchange was not maximized, or at least the dynamics and discussions were not unique to the "international relations" discourse. Most of the exchange that I witnessed, participated in, heard or read about in different fora consisted of the same rhetoric that has been used for the past 10 years: "North vs. South"; "East vs. West", "Rich vs. Poor". Of course, these binaries do in fact exist, and such differences need to be pointed out. But how can we think in more nuanced ways about affecting change, about progress-- such as addressing health problems, promoting more access to information, creating the independent civil space for journalists, lawyers, students and others to express themselves peacefully?

SH: I think those are really good observations echoed by the reflections of other NGO participants. You also raise good questions--hard questions.

I think polar power and distributive binaries are also invoked by the different actors (e.g. governments, UN agencies, NGOs) involved in a multi-stakeholder process. I think the important critical question is to keep our eye on who rhetorically invokes these binaries, for what purposes, and within what strategic contexts. For example, UN bodies invoke them to signal their intention to address them as a normative goal of bridging development gaps. China invokes them so that it can position itself as a leading voice for developing countries, and to channel international attention on the macro-level inequalities between countries and regions. Even though there were references to intra-country inequalities, I don't think the massive economic and social disparities inside China and the relationship between China's economic policies and these inequalities were critically acknowledged at that formal level. That's in part the added-value of HRIC's participation -- bringing critical attention to ongoing human rights issues and the responsibilities of different actors, but since we were limited to the NGO meetings, our audience was also limited then primarily other NGOs, and the media at the end of the WSIS.

Your questions also reflect the question of expectations of what is possible for such an international gathering. So what were your expectations? That is, expectations regarding the process, the actors, and maybe we can then talk more about what our expectations were for HRIC's role.

AT: While I had never attended a UN meeting, most of what I have read and heard, in the context of international crises, genocide, and political conflicts was critical of the UN's bureaucracy, lack of impact, and the domination of the "rich nations" in its decision making process. In terms of the WSIS, I remember HRIC being advised to "not bother" with the chaotic summit-that our efforts would be better spent elsewhere.

In hindsight, I agree that the summit was somewhat disorganized. However, I think our attendance at the summit was worth the resources. In terms of the human rights violations in China -- for the individuals and journalists who are imprisoned in China for peacefully publishing their opinions online, for the millions of Chinese who don't have access to clean water, etc. -- some body, independent from the government, had to be present to raise these issues. HRIC was able to speak at a few events and engage the audience to recognize the importance of these issues. Even if our audience was predominantly NGOs and the media, the issues were raised. In this sense, you can say it was effective. But I also want to emphasize that raising the individual political prisoner cases isn't and shouldn't be about cost-efficiency. It's idealistic, but more specifically, while it is important to recognize systemic changes and overall economic progress, we can't talk about China's 80 million Internet users (and growing) and its rapid infrastructure development without addressing the problems of surveillance, censorship, and arrests. If there are at least 69 journalists and Internet activists imprisoned in a population of 1.3 billion people[19] -- these individual cases DO matter because you can't measure cost-efficiency when you are talking about individual lives and their rights.

The articles in this journal reflect the diverse voices and opinions present at the summit. When criticized about the restrictions on civil society at the WSIS, the UN Special Advisor to the Secretary-General Nitin Desai responded with "What summit were you at?"[20] This statement comments on the different interests during the summit. At the end of the week, who benefited more from the conference -- the participants who are supposedly there to network with each other or those who are envisioned to be at the core of the information society? Did we all lose sight that we were there to promote ICT development with human interests at the core? I think some of us remembered to raise human interests, and some participated to promote ICT development.

SH: I have always been struck by the gap between those who can attend these international gatherings and the billions of the world's citizens who are not and were not able to participate in these high level policy-making fora. But you can also see the gap between the size and resources of the delegations sent by different countries.

The reactions of Yoshio Utsumi of the ITU and Nitin Desai to criticisms by the civil society representatives of the Summit's treatment of protesters and alternative media are interesting because they seem to assume that there was only one possible experience of the Summit. In light of the diversity of stakeholders, experiences, and agendas, it seems so limited to defensively insist that "civil society had a place at the table throughout the entire preparatory process" and that "All stakeholders could express their views." When I think of communication, I think of stories, language, and culture. Stories are told by individuals, by groups, by the media (or not) -- countries tell stories -about themselves and the rest of the world. At the WSIS plenary, the Chinese Minister of Information for example told a story about China that featured China as spokesperson for developing countries. He also focused on an ICT infrastructure success story,

What would be useful in the next stages is a recognition of the inevitably Rashomon-like aspects of telling the story (stories) of the WSIS. We all have our cultural, linguistic, political, and other world-filters and our understanding is inevitably partial. In an information and knowledge-focused conference where there is a powerful eloquent call for dignity, mutual respect, etc. this fundamental epistemological dynamic needs to be remembered. Furthermore, there is a tendency to refer to Civil Society (capitalized) as if it were monolithic, ignoring the many differences among civil society stakeholders.

AT: I agree that it is simplistic to assume that bringing together multiple actors and thousands of participants will be experienced by everyone as one experience. Moreover, I don't think that civil society expressed one position and the governments held another view. I think I was hoping to see more dialogue-not necessarily just between different sectors, but also within each group. We attended several interesting events, mostly pertaining to human rights issues, with diverse groups of speakers. But how can we be more active than sitting in at panels with six speakers who only get to speak ten minutes each about a topic of their expertise?

Is it unrealistic to expect more from a world summit? As a human rights organization, HRIC will always be pushing for human rights at the core of any policy. As we continue to push for individual freedoms in many forums, such as in our Incorporating Responsibility 2008 Campaign[21] and at the UN, perhaps there is a certain level of acceptance every actor needs to take on -- not to be complicit with ongoing violations, but for us to accept that corporations and civil society actors have different agendas, and then to engage in a new way of thinking and acting together with the realization that at the end of the day, our interests do serve one another.

The intent of the summit was to promote mutual understanding of the information society and address issues of bridging the digital divide. At the same time, the goals and visions, such as those stated in the Declaration of Principles, attempt to be so encompassing and inclusive, the product ends up being too vague and watered down.

SH: I also think there is a tendency to become such a text-driven process during the negotiation and drafting of the texts that the complex realities can get lost, erased, or flattened by the Summit imperative to reach agreement on a "shared" vision. The line by line, phrase by phase trench warfare as it were sometimes takes on a life of its own-and sucks up the already limited resources of NGOs, leaving inadequate time and energy and political will left for the more pressing task of developing a concrete implementation plan. Despite "official languages," I also wonder how much is inevitably lost in translation, especially after we listened to the Chinese translations during the official plenary session. There were the usual translation problems -- what was NOT translated-whole points collapsed, confused or incoherent glimpses of what was being said in another language. Viewed within these translation challenges, one has to be concerned about what survives the speed and language specificity of the text negotiations. Of course, oral and text translations present some different challenges, but still both processes raise fundamental issues about what is actually being communicated and understood across these international dialogues and exchanges.[22]

Despite the formal inclusionary rhetoric and references to multiple stakeholders reflected in the Summit documents, the WSIS like all international meetings also had to address enormous logistical, conceptual, and political challenges --for organizers, and for participants. Thinking about the logistics of the WSIS--it's pretty ironic that for a TECHNOLOGY-focused summit meeting and one that invoked the power of technology to empower people, the technology (the sound system, the transportation, the set-up for the meeting rooms) --the organizers were not able to pay attention to the necessary details (better materials distribution system, rooms that did not have to be inundated by the speakers all around) that would have ensured better communication among the participants.

AT: In addition to the technical logistics, the censorship reported during the week in Geneva was also very ironic in light of the objectives of the summit. The Polimedia Lab, which was set up by the Geneva '03 collective as an open space for participatory communication, was shut down; thousands of copies of the Terra Viva summit newspaper produced by the independent news agency IPS, InfoSud and AWCIS disappeared from various displays in the Palexpo; other documents critical of the WSIS, of the media, and corporations were confiscated and prevented from circulation inside the Palexpo; and a peaceful demonstration was also broken up by riot police.[23] The silencing of critical voices and peaceful expression that took place in Geneva during that week raise serious concern, particularly in the context of a world summit that is intended to address such issues and promote freedom of expression. And of course, there were also challenges prior to the summit, in the preparatory stages -- i.e. the politicized accreditation process with governments being able to weigh in and silence independent and critical NGO participants.

SH: These efforts to censor and control the role of NGOs at an international forum are also related to the domestic efforts to control independent critical voices. In addition to strict regulation of domestic Chinese NGOs[24], and suppression of democracy advocates, journalists, labor activists, religious practitioners, China's clear willingness to use its economic and political clout internationally to exclude independent voices it perceives as critical, requires careful attention from the international community. For example, at the UN Commission on Human Rights, China has been a leading voice calling for limits on NGO participation and vociferously opposed HRIC's initial bid for ECOSOC consultative status.[25] In the WSIS drafting negotiations for the documents, China like all the other government actors also lobbied for its proposed language and concerns. This lobbying of course also had an impact on the final normative vision of the WSIS. Leading up to the summit, for example, China had consistently voiced its opposition to language such as reference to international labor standards or rights in the Draft Declaration of Principles. The absence of this language in the final text undercuts the implementation potential of a concrete plan of action which requires reference to and integration with existing and developing global standards and norms.

AT: The exclusion, politicized accreditation process, and the impact of governments on final documents to remove human rights language or to preserve their power to invoke state security provisions to silence peaceful dissent are concerns that should be taken seriously moving forward to Tunis.[26] From the censorship that reportedly occurred in phase one -- both leading up to the first meeting and during the course of the week, should we be skeptical of access in phase two -- in a country that has been criticized for locking away journalists and Internet activists? How difficult will it be to obtain accreditation and a visa to attend Tunis' meeting?

Since WSIS is a two-phase summit, unlike other world summits, it provides an opportunity for another intervention - including participants to set concrete benchmarks and monitor the implementation of these standards leading up to Tunis. In this sense, like an adaptive technology project, we can think of the summit as an ongoing, adaptive process that needs to adapt to the changing technological environment and feedback after the prepatory phases and phase one. In addition, if this two-phase summit, can prove itself successful; it could serve as a model for future international conferences and debates.

SH: I am not sure about a summit model being a good model given the limited successes of past summits in producing sustainable and real progress on the ground. Perhaps the most that they can accomplish is to contribute discursively to the definition of terms, identification of problems, and setting of priorities, and the legitimation of certain proposed concepts[27] such as an "inclusive and democratic information society." Many actors, including government actors, made eloquent statements on a vision for the future information society. It remains once again to be seen whether and how these fine words will translate into commitments that are implemented. But I think the real test of whether such an enormous deployment of public global resources and the limited NGO resources is justified and worthwhile (but not in a strict cost-benefit sense) is an assessment of the impact-- measurable impact-- on the daily lives and the health and flourishing of communities. This is where the final plan of action for WSIS II must be seriously strengthened.

"Toward Tunis (or Not)"

"We believe that the information society is the result of human civilization and progress. As such, it should be a people-centered, development-oriented and inclusive society, which benefits all peoples and countries."[28] H.E. Mr. Wang Xudong, Minister of Information Industry, People's Republic of China.

Tunis presents the question that is often asked regarding the selection of the host country for an international gathering - how do we ensure that the legitimacy of the process and the outcomes is not undercut by contradictions presented by human rights violations in the host country? These were questions raised about China's hosting of the Olympics in 2008 and the Women's Conference in 1995 for example. To varying degrees, there is virtually no country that can claim a spotless human rights record entitling them to hosting such conferences. However, degrees do matter and where a country has engaged in serious ongoing violations, it is important that these not be ignored and pushed aside in the rush to solicit tourism and foreign investment by the host country.

While we need to recognize and respect cultural diversity, the differences and complexities of development challenges and conditions facing each country, the cultural relativism arguments politically made by governments should no longer be acceptable: especially when invoked to silence criticism of their human rights record at home. We need to remember it is Chinese NGOs, workers, peasants, religious practitioners, intellectuals, democracy activists, AIDS activists and other public health advocates, and lawyers who are raising issues of religious expression, independent labor unions, participation, right to health, government corruption and the need for accountability and the need for more due process protections for Chinese citizens. What the international community can do to honor these voices and these struggles is to at least take seriously our opportunity as members of the international community to support them in whatever ways we can. As an independent Chinese human rights NGO-HRIC's role is to amplify the voices of those silenced, of those who continue to speak and write in the face of prison and persecution, to document and report on the systemic abuses, to develop recommendations and proposals for change-and to push the envelope to enlarge an independent civil space by working with citizens and activists inside and outside China.

As articulated in the Declaration of Principles, the WSIS hope and vision is to use ICT to "eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empowerment of women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and develop global partners for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world."[29] As recommended by the Human Rights Caucus, supported by the civil society plenary, and the International Symposium on the Information Society, Human Dignity and Human Rights, an Independent Commission on the Information Society and Human Rights composed of highly qualified experts with a broad geographical representation should be established to monitor practices and policies on human rights and the information society[30].

While the articulation of a powerful normative vision is an important step, to move towards a truly "people-centered" information society, we need to operationalize this vision through an implementing structure, adequate and serious funding, and an open and accountable monitoring process. In the lead-up to phase two of the WSIS, the challenge facing NGOs, governments, and other stakeholders is the development of a concrete monitoring and implementation framework and benchmarks. In this regard, there are a number of emerging indicator tools, many developed by international bodies that focus, for example, on governance, human development, poverty, press freedom, and health.

We recognize the complex methodological issues presented by quantitative indicators across diverse country conditions and any effort that attempts to cross-reference different indicators due to limitations of available reliable, accurate, or comparative datasets and methodologies. However, as an illustrative example of an approach that we can begin to advance now that builds upon this foundation, we offer the following chart to show how these existing indicators might serve as a 2003 benchmark, against which 2005 progress might be assessed for one country -- for China. This is also an invitation for collaborative efforts-and reflects a faith in our capacity to move beyond eloquent statements of principles and vision.

Illustrative WSIS Benchmarks for China

| | |China |

|WSIS Goals and |Indicators | |

|Priorities | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|gap | |100: Perfect inequality) | |

| | | | |

| |- UNDP Net primary enrollment ratio|- 93% | |

| | | | |

| |sanitation; |- 75% | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

References

Amnesty International. www.amnesty.org

China Labour Bulletin www.clb.org

Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) www.ciesin.org/indicators/ESI/downloads.html

China Rights Forum, Incorporating Responsibility 2008. No.1, 2003. iso.hrichina.org/iso/article.adp?article_id=4679&subcategory_id=299

China Rights Forum, China and the Rule of Law. No.2, 2003. iso.hrichina.org/iso/article.adp?article_id=5066&subcategory_id=299

China Rights Forum, Rise of Civil Society. No.3, 2003. iso.hrichina.org/iso/article.adp?article_id=5374&subcategory_id=299

China Rights Forum, China's Spiritual Revival. No.4, 2003. iso.hrichina.org/iso/article.adp?article_id=5698&subcategory_id=299

CNNIC http://www.cnnic.net/index.htm

Human Rights in China. 2002. Shutting out the Poorest: Discrimination against the most disadvantaged migrant children in city schools. iso.hrichina.org/iso/article.adp?article_id=2432&category_id=30

Human Rights Watch www.hrw.org

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 2003. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/dai/index.html

Klein, H. 2003. "Understanding WSIS: An Institutional Analysis of the UN World Summit on the Information Society." Retrieved from www.IP3.gatech.edu

"Maligned and Excluded in a Politicized Process: HRIC denied consultative status." China Rights Forum, Fall 1999.

Press, L., W. Foster, P. Wolcott, and W. McHenry. 2003. "The Internet in India and China." Information Technologies and International Development. Retrieved from mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/itid_1_1_41_0.pdf.

Privacy International. www.privacyinternational.org

Reporters Without Borders: Worldwide Press Freedom Index (2002). www.rsf.org

Transparency International. www.transparency.org

UNAIDS. www.UNAIDS.org

UNDP Human Development Report 2003. www.undp.org

World Bank. Governance Matters III 2003. www.worldbank.org

World Economic Forum. 2003. Global Information Technology Report 2002-2003. Retrieved from www.weforum.org/pdf/Gcr/GITR_2003_2004/Executive_Summary.pdf.

World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). 2003. Declaration of Principles. http://www.geneva2003.org/wsis/index_c01_3_18.htm

World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). 2003. Plan of Action. http://www.geneva2003.org/wsis/index_c01_3_18.htm

-----------------------

[1] Executive Director of Human Rights in China.

[2] Internet Project Manager of Human Rights in China.

[3] Earth Summit (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), Human Rights Summit (Vienna, 1993), Population Summit (Cairo, 1994), Social Summit (Copenhagen, 1995), Women's Summit (Beijing, 1995), Habitat II (Istanbul, 1996), World Food Summit (Rome, 1996), World Summit Against Racism (Durban, 2001), and World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002).

[4] Official WSIS Web site http://www.itu.int/wsis/

[5] HRIC conducted an informal survey reviewing China-related NGOs that initiated the WSIS application process and contacting the groups to confirm the cause as to why the NGOs were not accredited. We found 21 China-related NGOs (including HRIC) that had initiated the application process: 9 organizations self-identified themselves as Taiwan based, 4 as Hong Kong based, 7 as People's Republic of China (PRC) based, and 1 (HRIC) as United States based. Excluding the 4 organizations accredited under ECOSOC, only 4 organizations were accredited through the WSIS application process. The 13 organizations that were not on the Executive Secretariat's list for recommendation for accreditation included all 9 of the organizations self-identified as Taiwan-based and 3 organizations self-identified as PRC-based.

[6] Hom, S. and J. Rockwitz. "Looking Back at Cancun and Forward to Hong Kong." China Rights Forum: China's Spiritual Revival. No.4, 2003. http://iso.hrichina.org/download_repository/2/rf8_irupdate4.2003.pdf.

[7] Youth Caucus. www.takingitglobal.org.

[8] World Forum on Communication Rights. www.communicationrights.org

[9] ICT4D www.ict4d.org.

[10] December 12, 2003. Human Rights Caucus. www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list

[11] Declaration of Principles. December 12, 2003. http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsis/doc/S03-WSIS-DOC-0004!!MSW-E.doc

[12] CNNIC http://www.cnnic.net/index.htm

[13] For more information on Zheng Enchong's case, see Human Rights in China. http://iso.hrichina.org/iso/news_item.adp?news_id=1593; For more information on Zhang Jianzhong's case, see Congressional-Executive Commission on China. http://www.cecc.gov/pages/news/zhang_052703.php?PHPSESSID=11707874bf272b56ec4b703c7e9462e1.

[14] Amnesty International. www.amnesty.org

[15] UNAIDS. www.unaids.org ; Human Rights Watch. 2003. Locked Doors: The human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS in China. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/china0803/.

[16] World Bank. www.worldbank.org

[17] BDA China Limited. www.bdachina.com

[18] Human Rights in China. 2002. Shutting out the Poorest: Discrimination against the most disadvantaged migrant children in city schools. http://iso.hrichina.org/iso/article.adp?article_id=2432&category_id=30; UN Special Rapporteur on Education's Report on China. 2003. http://www.unhchr.ch/

[19] "In Custody." China Rights Forum: The Rise of Civil Society. No.3, 2003. http://iso.hrichina.org/download_repository/2/incustody3.2003.pdf

[20] December 12, 2003. http://www.edwebproject.org/andy/blog/000007.html

[21] China Rights Forum: Incorporating Responsibility 2008. No.1, 2003.

[22] For a description of a translation project aimed at developing a language resource for the 1995 Women's Conference see Hom, S. and Xin Chunying, eds. 1995. English-Chinese Lexicon of Women and Law (Yinghan funu yu falu cehuishiyi). Beijing: China Translation and Publishing Corp. and UNESCO and Hom, S. 1999. Lexicon Dreams and Chinese Rock and Roll: Thoughts on Culture, Language, and Translation as Strategies of Resistance and Reconstruction. University of Miami Law Review 53 (4): 1003-1018.

[23] WSIS? We Seize! www.geneva03.org/ and WSIS Heinrech Boll Foundation www.worldsummit2003.de/en/nav/14.htm.

[24] Although the number of civil society organizations in the PRC has increased over the past decades to an estimated 200,000, the emergence of a truly independent civil society faces legal, political, and institutional roadblocks. For an examination of some of these challenges and obstacles as well as some examples of relatively successful social movements, see Liang, S. "Walking the tightrope: Civil Society Organizations in China." China Rights Forum, The Rise of Civil Society, No.3, 2003. http://iso.hrichina.org/download_repository/2/Sharon%20Liang.pdf. See also China Development Brief. 2001. Directory of International NGOs. www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/dingo/index.asp.

[25] "Maligned and Excluded in a Politicized Process: HRIC denied consultative status." China Rights Forum, Fall 1999.

[26] "In Custody: People imprisoned for counterrevolutionary and state security crimes." China Rights Forum: China and the Rule of Law. No. 2, 2003. http://iso.hrichina.org/download_repository/2/incustody2.2003.pdf

[27] See Klein, H. 2003. "Understanding WSIS: An Institutional Analysis of the UN World Summit on the Information Society." www.IP3.gatech.edu.

[28] "Strengthening cooperation, promoting development and moving towards the information society together." 2003, December 10. Statement by H.E. Mr. Wang Xudong, Minister of Information Industry, People's Republic of China at the World Summit on the Information Society.

[29] Declaration of Principles. December 12, 2003. http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsis/doc/S03-WSIS-DOC-0004!!MSW-E.doc

[30] December 10, 2003. Human Rights Caucus. www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list.

[31] supra Note ____

[32] supra ____ China Rights Forum: The Rise of Civil Society. No.3, 2003

[33] supra ____ China Rights Forum: China's Spiritual Revival. No.4, 2003

[34] The Gini Index measures inequality over the entire distribution of income or consumption. A value of 0 represents perfect equality, and a value of 100 represents perfect inequality.

[35] % age 15 and above that can read.

[36] Supra ____ Human Rights in China. 2002. Shutting out the Poorest: Discrimination against the most disadvantaged migrant children in city schools. http://iso.hrichina.org/iso/article.adp?article_id=2432&category_id=30

[37] From UNDP Human Development Report 2003. www.undp.org

[38] Privacy International http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/foia/foia-laws.jpg; 3-tier scale: Comprehensive access law enacted; Pending effort to enact law; No law