Bruce Sterling says: Marry the UN and the Net 343
An anonymous reader writes "SF writer Bruce Sterling is guest-posting on the global-eco-tech blog Worldchanging today and thinks we ought to marry the Internet and the United Nations. 'The UN has cumbersome rules, no popular participation, and can't get anything useful done about the darkly rising tide of stateless terror and military adventurism. The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate. Vigilante lawfare outfits like RIAA and MPAA can torment users and ISPs at will. The dominant OS is a hole-riddled monopoly. Its business models collapsed in a welter of stock-kiting corruption. The Net is a lawless mess of cross-border spam and fraud. Logically, there ought to be some inventive way to cross-breed the grass-rootsy cheapness, energy and immediacy of the Net with the magisterial though cumbersome, crotchety, crooked and opaque United Nations.' It's obviously part tongue in cheek, but it does make you think."
How about this (Score:3, Interesting)
All the world's problems would be solved instantly. Or at least it would be entertaining to watch.
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:1, Interesting)
But it has a clever name and a concept that most people think is right. For this reason it is easy for many people to judge others when they dismiss the ICC as absolutely insane as being pretentious by not wanting accountability for their government's actions. Unfortunately thats the way soverneity works. Having the US answer to France for its actions in Iraq are like having Microsoft answer to Walmart for its actions against Netscape. Without a world government the ICC is absolutely illegitimate. Saying that not wanting to join the ICC is a way of not being accountable for your actions forgets the entire illegitimacy of the ICC. Obviously there should be some accountability but the ICC can't do it.
Well, the internet is missing something... (Score:3, Interesting)
Our glorious, progressive 20th century institutions gave us about a hundred and fifty million real, rotting bodies to enjoy, while this vile anarchic 21st century internet has given us a only few hundred pictures of corpses--and most of them are the same old dead people from the 1900s!
It's just uncivilized.
Projecting from today's numbers, the internet will have produced not even a dozen violent deaths by century's end. Something must be done to end this lawless barbarity before it corrupts us all!
Internet Council (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly what I expected from an Idealist. (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Point out things you are unhappy with, no complaint is to small to be totally blown out of proportion. Make sure you compare whatever exists to a perfection that need not be possible to attain.
2. Propose solution! The solution is to always get rid of the evil conspiracy holding back progress, because the answers to how to do really complicated things on a large scale are clear to everyone and all that stands in the way is the conspiracy.
3. Leave all the details for later (and there are a lot of details). Explain that you or your favorite know-it-all organization have to be in charge of things before you'll even bother with figuring out the details.
4. Get in power, screw up far more than what was there already and blame it on the continuing legacy of the conspiracy.
5. Propose even stronger more drastic reforms. Continue from here to step 4 until people are totally sick of you and tell you to get lost or you've totally destroyed what you were trying to fix to the point that nobody cares about it anymore.
Re:Without the ICC, this won't work (Score:1, Interesting)
So, it seems to me, that your personal distrust for foreign and/or supranational entities is more the basis for your reaction than its legal framework."
Undue punishment is not even a question being asked. The questions being asked are whether small countries like Iran suddenly charge than 50 US generals, 25 British generals, etc. have committed war crimes to stall larger countries from taking certain actions. Under the ICC false charges could temporarily imprison a large fraction of the military or political leadership. As I said in a previous post [slashdot.org], the ICC is also illegitimate without a world government.
I'm not suprised by your knee-jerk response that the US doesn't want to be accountable for its actions. It seems to be the default answer for people who are pro-ICC (rather than emphasize its virtues to convince people they degrade people to try to force them to join--doesn't work with stubborn people; it just pisses them off).
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Interesting)
Politics at that level is nasty, the USA (and not only the USA) has moved to neuter the UN at every step, almost as badly as they did with the league of Nations in the 1930s when they wanted trade with Italy and broke the sanctions. If the USA wanted to go into Iraq without the UN by design they couldn't have done it a better way - the reaction of France to threats (vote with us or face the consequences indeed!) was entirely predictable by anyone with the vaugest idea of international politics (although I still think it was total incompetance and ignornance and not planned).
UN is nothing more than a bash Israel community (Score:2, Interesting)
Jump over to the Security Council where VETO power protects the big 5 from any world responsibility or rebuke.
This same organization cannot even stop obvious cases of genocide because they take too damn long to act. They always want to review the issue, then sanction the bad guy, and only act after the oppressed party is reduced to little more than a handful. Nearly all of election monitoring they have provided was ripe with fraud as they will not put their monitors into situations where they could be killed, in other words - if you promise not to harm our UN people we will say your election was fair.
HELL NO! The Internet will be what reveals the UN for the failure it has become. It will fully reveal all the machinations of an organization taken over by 3rd world dictorship led countries whose only agenda is to oppress their own people and blame Israel.
U owe /. an apology (Score:5, Interesting)
Has it ocurred to anyone that the reason the UN "can't get anything useful done" is that the US owes close to $600 Million in dues? The US also routinely withholds money whenever it feels it can gain leverage on an issue.
So you believe all you hear, right? Have you ever considered which national military makes up the bulk of the UN "peacekeepers"? Did you know the US is billed for 25% of the UN's operations (over 30% for the "peacekeeping" operations), in addition to the non-dues support it provides (which has estimates ranging from 15-20+ Billion in the last 8-10 years)?
Indeed, between 1992 and 1997, the US provided "voluntary" (in truth all of it is voluntary, the UN has no rightful or legal claims to *any* national treasury) support topping 11 billion dollars --just for "peacekeeping" activities. A march 1997 report showed US troops supporting such actions numbered approximately 68,000.
Hey, maybe we can just "pay our dues" and stop making all that voluntary contributions. Whaddya say? Wanna trade that 11+ Billion for 600 Million? No? Didn't think so.
Did you know that in fact, when it comes to peacekeeping forces, more than half the member countries refuse to make payments? Indeed, the UN thinks it is owed some 5+ BILLION in USD, yet we don't see you, or other UN apologists, pushing for the rest of the member countries (about 2/3rds any given year) to pay up (BTW, France is included in the top 5 list).
And FYI, the "withholding" of US funds has been tied directly to reforming functional aspects of the UN, such as the portion the UN allocates, the funding of conferences and organizations directly opposed to the United States (something no country should have to support -- organizations that oppose it), and a proper accounting of the US' military support which has far exceeded it's "assigned share".
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues
So does Russia, so does China, France. All five of the permanent members of the UNSEC have veto powers, but that is ONLY limited to the (in)Security Council. "The council's five veto-wielding permanent members are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US."
Indeed, do you know which country has used their veto power more than the rest? Bzzzt, no it isn't the US, it is USSR/Russia.
-- http://www.peace.ca/securitycouncilveto.htm
In the UN General Assembly, there is no veto power. Indeed, the UN GA can override the SC through UN resolution 377 which allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/a major.htm
And guess which country pushed for that ability? Yup, the nasty old United States, in 1950. But that action has rarely been used. Indeed, only ten times since it's inception has it been used. Why was it not used in the Iraq affair? not enough support. If the majority did indeed oppose it, they were apparently unwilling to go on record as being against it.
Given the actual layout of functions and powers in the UN, your claims fall flat on their face, as the US does not have "veto power over most issues ", that the USSR has used the veto power more than any other member of the SC, that veto is no
It's obviously part tongue in cheek (Score:3, Interesting)
in a very short paragraph, he's expressing some views which basically say that the effects of capitalism - which you are taking for granted as sacrosanct - are causing some really serious world-wide problems; that the internet is viewed by those who support capitalism is a threat _to_ capitalism.
except he's not quite come out and said that directly, because, of course, capitalism _is_ sacrosant.
i recommend anyone who believes that capitalism is good, or that corruption and bribery is bad for trade, or that racism extends just to skin colour, to read _all_ of Ian Macleod's sci-fi books, back-to-back.
if you can't hack Ian Macleod then at least go read some of Anne McCaffrey's co-authored books.
Re:Start from scratch (Score:1, Interesting)
But, before we can effectively make a good political system, we have to change the economic system first. Democracy cannot exist in any form unless there is at least general economic equality among the citizens of said democracy. And this "general equality" is not too general, either.
While I can't say for sure how economically equal people have to be for democracy to work, I can say with absolute certainty that current equality (say, in U.S.) is not enough.
Or, to put this bluntly, as long as the rich can buy any politician and political process at a whim, having millions of people vote in elections between John Jackson and Jack Johnson, who are identical twins as far as their policies and actual behavior in office are concerned, is a pointless sham.
Of course, many would say that the solution to this is to get rid of corruption in politics. This won't help. Not only is the prerequisite for getting rid of corruption having non-corrupt politicians start the ball rolling, but the corruption is merely a symptom. The cause is economic inequality.
And, of course, the cause of economic inequality is, not surprisingly, the economic system.
You can continue the reasoning from this point and draw your own conclusions.
The ultimate solution: cyberdemocracy (Score:3, Interesting)
What should be the best solution?
We, the users take the "cyberlaw" into our own hands! The only crime will be that against freedom of speech and the only recourse will be a permanent disconnection from the net!
Once the People have spoken, everybody on the planet (presumably we all will have one small client running) will start sending little packets to those turds.
That should teach them!
Spam from china?
Scam from nigeria?
Well, if nobody does anything, their entire nation's link is not going to live very long under the People's action!
Until the UN/Iraq "Food for Oil" Scandal is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Saddam Hussein would have fallen from power long ago and the Iraq war never occurred had Kofi and Company not taken billions of dollars in bribes in return for helping Saddam circumvent the trade sanctions levied against Iraq after Gulf War I.
United Nations Oil for Food Scandal [google.com].
Griping about the internet a new fad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh god, the internet is broken, oh god, the internet is doomed. Oh there's no control over the internet (isn't that a GOOD thing, even with some of the bad stuff?)
I keep hearing over and over from certain individuals that the internet is broken and doomed. I get on it every day and read up on topics of interest, chat with others, download files, etc and it doesn't seem very broken to me. Yes there are a lot of unsavory types and sites out there, but the same applies to the real world. The internet right now seems to work just fine as is, so why made such a radical change to who runs it if most of the problems on the internet are avoidable today? How is making the UN run things going to change the corporate corruption and 'stock kiting?' I don't see how this helps or changes anything.
Facist and Socialist (Score:2, Interesting)
Absolutely foolish (Score:1, Interesting)
Darn it - my respect for Bruce Sterling has been diminished. This is the kind of naiveness that comes from staying too cerebral and avoiding painful realities of politics, corruption and power. Bruce is still one of my favorite writers, but just as no sane person looks to a Hollywood actor as a credible source for political perspective, extreme visionaries should be thanked for challenging the status quo and proposing radically different (if not absurd but interesting), though usually unworkable ideas.
Consider: US progressives (liberal/leftist/socialist/whatever your label is) correctly criticise many conservatives/right-wingers/etc. for being anti-government - as if the government was some evil autonomous, lifelike entity aka Godzilla. While bureaucracies can act oppressively, the reality is that the oppression is usually a manifestation of individual action and will. Bad governments don't raid the cookie jar, bad people do.
Applied to the UN, it too is not an autonomous "evil organization" in itself and should not be measured on that basis. It is, however, a composition of its elements, and overwhelmingly its members and leadership are crooked and apothetic regarding the welfare of the world's masses. It is comprised overwhelmingly of representatives appointed by dictators and corrupt governments. They appoint UN administrators that mirror their own philosophy (which is why no one should be remotely surprised that the Iraq Oil for Food program reaches throughout UN administration and much of the EU elite - so what if that money Chirac got caused one-hundred thousand Iraqi children to starve - Chirac needs a new vacation house!). Imagine the Internet run by China and you'll have the best-case model for UN Internet (you can guarantee firewalling of ideas will be applied univerally - no UN would permit the criticism by foolish European and US citizens. ) And understand that my attitude on corruption is terribly US-centric; corruption, bribery and coercion are acceptable business forms in most of the world. If the China Internet model didn't prevail, a Venezuela model would be the minimum (perpetually broken, money's always missing, special friends of powerful interests always seem to get all the goodies, everyone on the take down to the smallest guy but nobody is around to make it work and everyone is miserable. Opposition and criticism is loosly tolerated though occasionally results in people being shot).
Just as conservatives need to check their paranoia vs. the UN and "the government,' liberals need to check their heads on their own paranoia and self-loathing of their governments and quit seeing some fabrication of an autonomous world organization to save them from George Bush, Newt Gingrich or whoever the scary monster of the day is. Practical criticism is one thing, but absent effective assessment vs. the rest of the world, their actions will only ensure totalitarianism. Go check the CIA's Fact Book [cia.gov] on the political status of world nations.
So what would a UN+Internet look like? No different than Oil for Food. Any assets will be repurposed for the political/power/personal benefit of corrupt powerful interests (and no, not Halliburton - one needs to read about the real private money power in the world and quit subscribing to this misdirection - go read about George Soros and why he's spending so much money to confuse the idealistic young sheep in the US while he instructs his investments to outsource jobs to the third world, works to get US youth hooked on narcotics, etc. Why is Mr. Soros critical of outsourcing when he's one of the most powerful proponents of it in his business?)
Recognize the UN for what it is and will always be as long as most of the worlds citizens are either oppressed or unwilling to stand up for their own liberty.
"Four legs bad. Two legs better!"
Future of the Internet Hive Mind (Score:5, Interesting)
We're making an Internet Hive Mind. [communitywiki.org]
It's started with commited group efforts like Free Software. As communications technology develops, we start seeing things like Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]
As it develops further, we will see things like the project-space network, [communitywiki.org] and local economies and sharing networks. As it develops still further, local governments will be mediated over by well organized electronic communities online.
Really, if this all seems strange to you, you have no idea the power of communications technologies.
Before "wiki," a piece of software, there could be no wikipedia. After that piece of software, it's almost impossible for there not to be a wikipedia. Details could be different, but the basic idea is almost an inevitabilitiy.
We are not done. There's still a hoard of communications software in the pipes. We're just now getting our event systems [taoriver.net] online. We'll start seeing things like "OverHear," [communitywiki.org] allowing you to hear your friends' public conversations, with voice even. As we get the ability to index the world's voice conversations (with voice-to-text software), we'll be able to ask, "Who in the last 5 minutes said this world," we'll see that the online world will become one gigantic OpenSpace [communitywiki.org] conference. We'll see the conferences, we'll see the group affiliations, we'll see the projects, we'll see it all.
I predict that between 2015 and 2020, the Hive Mind [communitywiki.org] (by some other name) will be a recognized and powerful force. It will also recognize itself and it's own power. We could call this the day that the Hive Mind achieves "self-awareness."
It may even have a military force- I don't know what else to call a gigantic networked mess of sympathetic hackers, chemists, biologists, and lawyers. It is not unthinkable that "the Internet" may become it's own "sovereign nation," of sorts, lack of an independent land be damned.
So, connecting the idea of the UN and the Internet is not all that strange. I mean, what else? What else could it possibly be?
Our next generation "communications software" isn't so much about making it so that messages can be sent from person to person in different ways, but about organizing the existing communications, and about organizing ourselves. We're putting in individual-to-group affiliations, and affiliations amongst groups with each other.
There's no reason to believe that our communications will stop networking and developing.
People do not have their attention on our trajectory. They see half the people downtown walking around with cell phones stuck to their ears, but they don't think that anything can "come next." But it will. There's much much more on the way.
The "Hive Mind" will look less rediculous, I think.
In 5 years, VoIP will be mature, and have basically taken over. Online group VoIP conferences may be primitive, but some ordinary people will be using them. Semantic web technologies like RDF [w3.org] will be in mainstream understanding and use (like XML right now), and our computers will be noticably "smarter" than the information desplay we have today. Tablet's will be cheap and accessible, and we'll tighten up the "I drew something"-to-"There it is on the web" loop. In short, our conversations will be full of napkin diagrams, Visual Language [communitywiki.org] will take off beyond web comics. Our user interfaces will have transcended (finally) the box-ish interfaces, because graph data-structures have taken on new-found importance, and with the new interfaces, we'll see component lan