Marc Raboy's article on the WSIS highlighted a particularly interesting issue for me. The WSIS was intended to be a forum for the planning of the new rules of information governance. It was, in many respects, addressing the complaints and fears of the countries that signed onto NWICO years earlier: all aspects of IT infrstructures and technology, the internet, television and print media, as well as popular culture were examined and discussed within the overall subject of global governance. One of the most striking developments was the proposal for the inclusion of Civil Society in the overall structure of regulation and oversight that the summit members were crafting. What happened, however, was that no consensus on the role of Civil Society, or how they would be allowed into the debate itself. The consternation of the spurned non-governmental groups actually spawned a protest outside the summit hall. After the initial tension, protests, and debate, the Civil Society Declaration was signed in 2003, outlining the methods by which non-governmental actors can influence foreign policy, information flows, and international relations.
So what is the real legacy of WSIS? It is certainly not universal, and it is certainly not perfect, to be sure. There is no catch-all solution to the question "who controls the media?" As we discussed in class, true cosmopolitan globalization has not occurred worldwide, nor likely anywhere in the world. As such, every nation-state has its own governmental regulations, its own internal media legislation and market that determines what and how much information will be transmitted outside of its hard borders. Some countries, like North Korea, Burma, and China employ isolationist networks and filtering to various degrees, all of which are directed by the government. Other countries like the United States have a very egalitarian, liberal view of media boundaries, with a plethora of privatized companies that dominate the international media and information trade.
The WSIS was a major step towards coordinating the laws and regulations of global media governance, but it, and any similar summits that follow, will be hard-pressed to find a universal solution to this problem. It is perhaps impossible to completely dispense with national identities, and the protective culture quotas or filtering systems that might spring from them (or from political corruption). On the other hand, there might always be a need for some sort of impartial oversight in the event of a purely privatized media industry.
In any event, the field of International Communications is one of the youngest in the overall field; there's still plenty of time for improvement of the theory.
As you mention, according with Raboy’s article, the role of Civil Society was unique on the negotiations that took place on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Raboy’s conclusion is that “The WSIS exemplifies, therefore, the important trends emerging in global governance, encouraging civil society to participate more actively in defining a new public sphere and to integrate more deeply to development transnational public policy.” It clear that a new paradigm is necessary to explain the logic of international relations and the negotiation process that took place at the WSIS. Using one of the old paradigms, any absentminded analyst, diplomat or policymaker will be misleaded, because there are many new relevant actors like civil society, transnational companies and global commercial media crafting the public sphere and, in consequence, public policy.
ReplyDelete