Amy R. West

It is deeply disturbing that the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) proudly states that 'all key stakeholders' were present for the Geneva discussions on global information and communication technology strategies, discussions meant to address and offer methods to repair existing 'digital' divides.[2] Noticeably missing were those within society with the greatest at stake in the information revolution. Marginalized groups stand at the furthest reaches of this glaring global information and communication divide, one that has been widened by the onslaught of rapid technological advancement. Alarmingly, such groups had no voice at the Summit. The most marginalized groups within society were neither present, nor readily acknowledged as a priority in the plenary speeches or many of the panel discussions held in conjunction with the Summit. However, marginalized groups are the true litmus test for any serious evaluation of successful development policies and their real practice on the ground. Is it possible that refugees and internally displaced persons, the most extreme examples of marginalized groups, will receive any attention in the frenzy of funding that is sure to produce 'success' stories for the second phase of the World Summit in Tunis 2005? Or, will the critical suggestions offered by participants of the World Forum on Communication Rights (WFCR) be heeded and integrated into the planning and product of these funded projects? [3]

While information and communication technologies ("ICTs") can be beneficial to bridge glaring gaps between rich and poor, or developed and developing countries, those whose stake in the divide is repeatedly dismissed will be driven to prove the level of their desperation, as well as the import of their stake. With the staggering numbers of refugee populations and internally displaced peoples in existence today at over 20.5 million worldwide, it is disastrous to discount their needs and the actions they will take to secure those needs, as they continue to be ignored by heads of state, the international community and civil society.[4] People left on the periphery of one network will create a parallel network upon which to function. Subsequently, no matter how high the information and communication technology penetration could be, and no matter how developed an ICT framework actually is, in a given area, if certain groups are restricted from accessing such a network, its potential strength and effectiveness will be challenged and eventually undermined. Such a challenge to the framework being developed and executed by well-meaning proponents of e-government, e-commerce, e-health and e-education, will perpetuate an already dangerous power dynamic that exists within the information society.

The evolution of conflict throughout history is a somber reflection of how information and communication technologies have aided in the spread of antagonisms, as well as the scope and scale of aggression. The cycle of violence, most notably in conflict and post-conflict zones, is perpetuated by a disturbing lack of access to information from a plurality of sources. In such an environment, people will go to great lengths to protect themselves. The more desperate the situation, and the greater the limits imposed, the more necessary it will become for the desperate to exercise their own form of protection outside the law. Thus, national security and public order are directly threatened, by a mass of people driven to create informal channels of information, a communications network inaccessible to the very 'authorities' withholding information or manipulating what little information does seep through. The power of these informal information and communication networks, virtually banned in a more public context, rests in the value attributed to each meager piece of information acquired and the limited sources from which that information is extracted. The inability to receive a plurality of information or to communicate widely in a crisis leaves people vulnerable to the power and control of a single message and its messenger.

The case of what happens in a refugee camp is among the most extreme of circumstances through which one can examine the dangers associated with the divisions created by the information revolution. When refugees fail to receive the protection they are guaranteed under international law, they will try to protect themselves. The survival instinct is accentuated among the traumatized. Therefore, when refugees find that a 'safe haven' is, in many ways, an illusion; and, that those with the military power and the legal authority to protect refuse to inform or communicate with them, they will protect themselves by communicating with each other and whatever other entities fall within their information network. This is because refugees value information as much as they do food. And, if a particular government or international organization is not feeding their hunger, some other entity will. Thus, with limited resources at their disposal, the most marginalized will turn the very basic elements of economics, politics and social interactions afforded them into access points of information. The establishment of an informal network of information and communication exchange, then, renders impotent the ICT frameworks depended upon by those in positions of power who seek to control information flows and maintain a hold on security. While governments spend millions to advance, and in some cases nefariously wield control of, an intricately constructed system of information and communication exchange, it should be noted that the very basic, human need to communicate will never truly be controlled. And, if there is no legitimate protection or practice of communication and information exchange with the most marginalized, the informal networks constructed on the periphery of the information society will undermine the purpose and intention of any development platform, no matter how well-constructed in theory.

If there is any hierarchy to the steps that must be taken to construct the development programs forecasted for many developing countries across the next two years, it must begin with a critical analysis of those most marginalized and the ways in which their rights and freedoms will be protected and strengthened in the information society. These marginalized groups must be identified and targeted by leaders of both West and East, North and South, developed and developing. For though it is rather easy to shift responsibility onto the shoulders of what President Mugabe, for example, deems the 'aloof landed gentry', sincere accountability also rests in the hands of self-proclaimed saviors, themselves exceedingly culpable of ignoring the most vulnerable within their societies.[5] The importance of this perspective, lost in the diplomatic speeches of the plenary, was addressed, in part, at the panel presentations of the World Forum on Communication Rights. This forum sought to bring into focus what was so glaringly absent at the WSIS: people-centered discussions on communication rights, freedoms of expression and information, and the urgency of such protections. Rights and freedoms, like the people who most need them protected, are dismissed as vital components of the Summit's ICT 'agenda'. If the international community does not protect the interests of the most marginalized by protecting certain basic rights (i.e. rights to communicate, freedoms of information and expression), there will be no stability. Without stability, there is no security. And, without security, development will never be effective. This, in turn, will lead to further credibility gaps between those who claim to be promoting such an important goal and those meant to benefit from that goal.

Without protecting the interests of the most vulnerable stakeholders within the information society, the very systems, networks and frames of reference built in the name of innovation and development are weakened. Technological intervention can only aid development if it is viewed as legitimate and serves the interests of those for whom it is purportedly being designed. If refugees and the internally displaced persons of the world are not acknowledged as principle stakeholders to this end, are heads of state and international organizations willing to risk finding themselves on the margins of an information society they no longer control?

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

[1] Extracts taken from a presentation given by the author at the World Forum on Communication Rights, December 11, 2003, Geneva, Switzerland. For further reading on informal information and communication networks, please see ARTICLE 19's Africa Thematic Report, Left to Their Own Devices: The Impact of Informal Information and Communication Networks in the Tanzanian Refugee Camps, December 2003.

[2] See WSIS website at http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/about.html for basic information on WSIS, including statement of purpose.

[3] For more information on the World Forum on Communication Rights, which took place on December 11, 2003, during the WSIS, please see http://www.communicationrights.org.

[4] Statistic cited from UN press release, http://www.hrea.org/lists/refugee-rights/markup/msg00346.html.

[5] Speech by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe on the occasion of the World Summit on Information Society, Geneva, Switzerland, 10th December 2003.