The UN's Desire to Control the Internet - Relevant to the entire internet United Nations ...

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

The UN's Desire to Control the Internet - Relevant to the entire
United Nations   Last Updated: Dec 6th, 2005 - 08:23:55=20
The UN's Desire to Control the Internet
by Steven J. DuBord
December 12, 2005

UN pirates sailed into Tunis this November 16-18, looking to take the
helm of Internet supervision from U.S. hands.    
  Do you treasure the freedom to wade out into the vast sea of
information that is the Internet and surf the World Wide Web? Then look
out for what is coming over the horizon: a fleet of ships is bearing
down on you and your little surf(key)board, and they are flying the
blue Jolly Roger of the United Nations.
  You will see among them such ships of state as Russia, China, Cuba,
Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, hardly paragons of liberty and human rights.
All of them are waving their cutlasses in outrage that the United
States is refusing (for now) to relinquish its supervisory role over
the private-sector, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN). Even the European Union has revealed its
true colors and fired a broadside of protest against supposed U.S.
dominance of the Internet. The captain of this bunch is none other than
the UN secretary-general himself, Kofi "oil-for-food" Annan.
  Treasure That Should Stay Buried
  ICANN is essentially the mapmaker for the Internet. It handles the
technical operations of the root servers of the Internet, mapping the
relatively easy-to-remember domain names like or to the unique numerical address assigned to that domain.
Since its inception in 1998, ICANN has plotted this map with a minimum
of governmental interference and for only nominal fees.
  Even without the UN's meddling, ICANN is a collaborative effort of
the global community. The ICANN website notes that "citizens of
Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana,
Japan, Kenya, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Senegal, Spain,
the United Kingdom, and the United States" have all served on the
organization's board of directors. "ICANN's President directs an
international staff, working from three continents," ensuring that "all
users of the Internet can find all valid addresses" through the
organization's domain name map.
  Now, Captain Annan has his eye trained on this map, looking not only
for control of cyberspace, but for the buried treasure of taxing access
to it. To this end, he convened the first World Summit on the
Information Society in Geneva from December 10-12 of 2003, and also a
second such summit this November 16-18 in Tunis.
  To get a good idea of what the summit in Tunis was all about, one
need only pay heed to Senator Norm Coleman's (R-Minn.) preview of the
Geneva summit in the November 7, 2005 Wall Street Journal: "It sounds
like a Tom Clancy plot. An anonymous group of international technocrats
holds secretive meetings in Geneva. Their cover story: devising a
blueprint to help the developing world more fully participate in the
digital revolution. Their real mission: strategizing to take over
management of the Internet from the U.S. and enable the United Nations
to dominate and politicize the World Wide Web. Does it sound too
bizarre to be true? Regrettably, much of what emanates these days from
the U.N. does." Sen. Coleman should know: his Senate investigation into
the UN's oil-for-food scandal has exposed the entrenched bureaucratic
corruption of the world body.
  Anti-American Audacity and Duplicity
  In "Make Way for the UNternet?" in our January 26, 2004 issue, this
publication quoted the blunt statement of a UN official at the Geneva
summit: "What we are looking at is the future management of the
Internet. It's [about] what is the best way to manage what has become a
natural resource for all humanity." The summit in Tunis took up where
Geneva left off, holding fast to this course of audacity and duplicity.
  The audacity comes in the form of declaring the Internet to be a
"global resource" belonging to the world. While this "resource" is
global in scope, it clearly bears the stamp "Made in the U.S.A." Its
origin can be traced back to U.S. Defense Department efforts in the
1960s to build an interconnected network -- or "Internet" -- of
computers that could survive a nuclear war. Although others have
contributed to the Internet, the primary technology and hardware that
make it possible belong to the United States. To declare that the U.S.
has done such a good job of creating the Internet that it is now
obligated to give it up for the sake of the world is ludicrous.
  Through the technical know-how of automobile manufacturers such as
Volkswagen and BMW, Germany has excelled at making automobiles. Is
Germany going to turn over these companies to the United Nations
because everyone in the world deserves an affordable, fuel-efficient
vehicle? Nokia of Finland owns 32 percent of the global cellphone
market. Is Finland going to turn Nokia over to the UN's International
Telecommunication Union because 100 percent of the world's inhabitants
deserve to have a cellphone? Sony Corporation of Japan has become the
leader of the home game console market with its PlayStation 2, and is
gearing up to release a powerful new version next year. Is Sony going
to turn over this technology to UNICEF because every child in the world
deserves to play games? Don't hold your breath waiting for these or any
other members of the UN to put a new car, cellphone, or game console
under your Christmas tree.
  It is through sheer anti-American bias that the nations of the
world, via the UN, want to steal control of technology that the United
States has developed. What other country would have shared the immense
benefits of this technology with the world while asking so little in
  In the October 25 Deseret Morning News, Representative Chris Cannon
(R-Utah) noted that the Internet's "potential contributions to economic
growth in less developed countries dwarf anything the United Nations
could conceivably provide." Yet "there is no other country on the face
of the earth whose government would have had the restraint to permit
the freedom of thought and action that has produced the present
benefits and future promise of the Internet." Rep. Cannon concludes
that "it is nothing short of preposterous to suggest that any aspect of
management of this amazing engine of knowledge and development be
turned over to bureaucrats under the sway and direction of some of the
most brutal and controlling tyrants in the world whose antipathy to the
free flow of information is pathological."
  These brutal, pathological tyrants would have us believe that they
only want to help manage the Internet because it has "become a natural
resource for all humanity." They are eager to see the Internet
controlled, regulated, and taxed by the UN supposedly for the good of
humanity. But the UN's choice to hold the second summit in Tunisia --
of all places -- reveals the duplicity of such feigned concern.
  Consider what the journalistic organization Reporters Without
Borders has to say about Tunisia in their 2005 report: "The Tunisian
media work in a strait-jacket. The press code stipulates heavy fines or
prison sentences for the author of any overly critical article or
comment." The report also notes: "Repressive laws, bureaucratic
harassment, the withdrawal of state advertising, corruption, police
violence, political trials and torture are all common practices that
have been condemned by human rights organizations. Self-censorship has
become second nature for journalists confronted by a brutal and
ubiquitous apparatus of repression." Yet this is where Captain Annan
had his crew digging for the root servers of the Internet.
  Running under a false flag of neutrality and magnanimity, Annan
tried to plunder public opinion in a November 5 Washington Post
article, claiming to believe that "censoring cyberspace, compromising
its technical underpinnings or submitting it to stringent governmental
oversight would mean turning our backs on one of today's greatest
instruments of progress. To defend the Internet is to defend freedom
itself." Aye, aye, Captain! But if you mean one word of what you say
about the Internet, then tell me how you can justify "defending" it
with a summit in Tunisia? After all, I'm sure that China would have
been happy to make Tiananmen Square available.
  Reasons to Sound "Battle Stations"
  At the risk of sounding like the parrot on Captain Annan's shoulder,
to protect the Internet really is to protect freedom itself. It's time
to sound "battle stations" in defense of the current system of private
oversight under the auspices of the United States. ICANN is, in a
sense, the Internet Service Provider to all other Internet Service
Providers. The UN covets this role of "master" Internet Service
Provider because most of its members are repressive governments who
lust for this control, while the organization itself drools at the
thought of limitless income. You still can't think of any other reasons
to get involved in preventing the UN from pirating control of the
Internet? I can.
  When was the last time a chief executive officer of your Internet
Service Provider was deeply involved in allowing a tyrannical dictator
to swindle billions of dollars in humanitarian aid? UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan is deeply implicated in the UN
oil-for-food scandal, which netted Saddam Hussein as much as $10
billion in illegal revenues and lined the pockets of UN
Undersecretary-General Benon Sevan, Annan's prot=E9g=E9, to the tune of
$1 million. Can you imagine a better choice for master Internet Service
Provider than Annan and his cronies? I can.
  When was the last time you typed in some search terms to your
favorite search engine and found that a member of your Internet Service
Provider's board of directors had blocked access to all results using
those words? If you were a resident of Communist China, you would find
that your government had coerced even American companies such as
Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google, which operate search sites in China,
into blocking words like "freedom," "democracy," "human rights," and
"Taiwan independence." (For further information, read "A World Wide Web
of Oppression" in our August 8, 2005 issue.) How strange, then, that
Communist China has not only replaced the free republic of Taiwan at
the UN, it has become a permanent member of the UN's Security Council
-- the board of directors, if you will. Can you imagine a better choice
for master Internet Service Provider than a body that promotes such an
oppressor to its board of directors? I can.
  When was the last time you heard that the human resources department
of your Internet Service Provider was abusing the very people they are
supposed to protect? "Dilbert" cartoons notwithstanding, the best
example of this is the UN's own Commission on Human Rights. China,
Cuba, Sudan, and Zimbabwe sit on this commission, all of them known for
violating the human rights of their own citizens. If the UN allows the
fox to guard the henhouse, so to speak, it surely can't be trusted to
oversee fairly the use of the Internet to promote freedom and human
rights. Can you imagine a better master Internet Service Provider than
an organization that allows the worst criminals to judge what
constitutes a crime? I can.
  When was the last time you heard that employees and security guards
at your Internet Service Provider were guilty of running prostitution
rings, even forcing children into sexual servitude? In recent years, UN
personnel and peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Liberia, Burundi, Haiti, Kosovo, and other locations have been awash in
allegations of sexual misconduct. On March 13, 2005, the Washington
Post noted that these "reports of sexual abuse have come from U.N.
officials, internal U.N. documents, and local and international human
rights organizations that have tracked the issue. Some U.N. officials
and outside observers say there have been cases of abuse in almost
every U.N. mission." The charges range from outright rape of women and
children to coercing them into exchanging sex for food, medicine, and
other relief supplies. Can you imagine a better master Internet Service
Provider than one which employs pimps and sexual predators? I can.
  And so, apparently, can Sen. Coleman. On October 19, Reuters
reported his concern for the Internet: "Is it going to become a vehicle
for global taxation of domain names? Are you going to allow folks who
have demonstrated a pattern of suppression of content, are they going
to be put in charge of running this thing?" Because of his
investigation into the oil-for-food scandal, the gentleman from
Minnesota knows that of which he speaks. When he says, "I really think
you're talking about the future of the Internet here," only a fool
would ignore his warning.
  Thankfully, Sen. Coleman has put some bite behind his bark and
sponsored Senate Resolution 273, "Expressing the sense of the Senate
that the United Nations and other international organizations shall not
be allowed to exercise control over the Internet." He is definitely not
alone. On November 17, the House passed unanimously Rep. John
Doolittle's (R-Calif.) House Concurrent Resolution 268, "Expressing the
sense of the Congress regarding oversight of the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers." These legislative measures are a good
beginning, but concerned Americans also need to set their sights at a
longer range.
  Gradual Permission to Come Aboard
  Too many officials at the highest levels of the U.S. government have
an internationalist mind-set. Even though the United Nations is
irredeemably corrupt, these officials remain committed to it as a
fledgling world government. Many are even members of globalist
organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations. For them, and
for other key members of the global power elite outside as well as
inside government, the UN is merely a vehicle for consolidating power
and creating a world government controlled by themselves.
  Because of the influence the American power elite exerts over U.S.
government policy, that policy is generally steered toward a course of
apparent resistance to UN demands while actually implementing its
edicts slowly over time. U.S. refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, for
instance, has not stopped the federal government from implementing
intrusive environmental regulations to combat the supposed threat of
global warming.
  Even more telling is the existence of a plan that President John F.
Kennedy unveiled before the UN General Assembly in 1961. The plan was
detailed in a State Department document entitled Freedom From War: The
United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a
Peaceful World. According to this plan, nations would gradually
surrender their military forces to the United Nations. According to
Freedom From War, "States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear
armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining
internal order." There would be no allowance for unrestricted civilian
ownership of firearms. This plan of eventual subservience to the UN,
originally articulated in Freedom From War, is still official U.S.
  Even before the plan was put into writing, the process of
subordinating our military was well underway. Not since World War II
have our troops been sent abroad with a proper, constitutionally
mandated declaration of war from Congress. They have been sent
everywhere from Korea to Iraq by imperial presidents who instead have
either sought approval from the United Nations or, at the very least,
paid lip-service to enforcing UN decrees.
  Sadly, the same patient, gradual process of surrender, this time
regarding the Internet, has already begun in Tunis. By even attending a
UN summit and seeking the world's permission to retain Internet
superintendence, the U.S. government is assuming an inferior status,
granting validity to baseless claims, and manifesting a predilection
for appeasement.
  In Tunis, appeasement was the order of the day. As the Associated
Press reported on November 16, the United States reached a consensus --
at a price -- with the delegates from more than 100 other countries "to
leave the United States with oversight of the computers that act as the
Internet's master directories." The negotiated price was an agreement
to "create an open-ended international forum for raising important
Internet issues." The new group will address "any issue, such as spam
or cybercrime, not currently covered by ICANN." As if the group's
purpose were not clear enough already, it will be called the Internet
Governance Forum.
  It is claimed that, for now, the forum "would have no binding
authority." But with such a vague mandate to address "any issue ... not
currently covered by ICANN," this forum gives the UN one foot on the
command deck of the Internet. If it were not so, then why did EU
spokesman Martin Selmayr exult: "What we see here is a clear indication
that what [the U.S.] said ... is not the last word and that we are back
on track towards internationalization." David Gross, "the U.S. State
Department's top official on Internet policy," was for some
unfathomable reason "thrilled by the last-minute deal," claiming it
"preserved the unique role of the U.S."
  But for how long? According to AP, "many delegates ... did not
believe the Americans emerged victorious," and "even traditional allies
of Washington considered it to have opened the door to the possibility
of more shared governance." Though Captain Kofi claimed at the summit
that the UN "does not want to take over, police or otherwise control
the Internet," he is expected to "open the forum's first meeting
perhaps as early as next year in Athens." With this old sea dog at the
helm, the Internet Governance Forum is sure to navigate the UN into a
position of ever-increasing cyberspace dominance.
  Making the UN Walk the Plank
  For now, it is time to load your e-mail cannons and fire off a salvo
in support of Senate Resolution 273 and against any form of UN control
over the Internet.* Furthermore, we must remain vigilant to oppose all
attempts by the Internet Governance Forum to give the UN any degree of
power over cyberspace. We must also guard against any other plan that
compromises with the UN in even the slightest way. The ultimate
solution, of course, is to pressure your representative and senators to
support U.S. withdrawal from the UN, eventually making the UN walk the
plank and ship its headquarters off our soil.
  Whether the question is, "Who should oversee the Internet?" or "Can
I help save the Internet?" there is only one answer that will keep
cyberspace freedom afloat: "ICANN."
  * Sample letters can be found by visiting and clicking on the link to "Say NO to UN
Control of the Internet!"


Site Timeline