|
A personal account of WSIS PrepCom 1 |
 |
 |
|
- Seán Ó Siochrú
- Day 0: Sunday 30 June 2002
- We arrived to register at the Conference Centre, the location of the huge multi-lingual theatres that host the intergovernmental sessions, the day before the PrepCom. We quickly realised that the Civil Society Segment was actually to be held in the basement of the ITU Tower itself, only a couple of minutes walk from the PrepCom venue but still physically removed and unlikely to offer opportunities for informal exchange with delegates. Given this, many of us camped for the duration in the basement Press Area of the Conference Centre, where there was a bank of computers, lots of network connections, better access to delegates, and (vital) unlimited photocopying. This was our ‘unofficial’ networking area, our toe-hold in the official conference building.
- CRIS people there on Sunday morning, about a dozen, met first at 11.00 am, in the PrepCom registration area – interrupted by the World Cup Football kick off. A few gave up the match to prepare the agenda for the afternoon open CRIS meeting. This began at 3.00 pm, with a good attendance of about 40 people, maybe half already involved in CRIS. But just about all the others were ready to join in with us – and we with them. The meeting was positive, and some key decisions were taken:
- •
- We set up an e-mail list of all those present, which grew into the WSIS-Prep1 list. The Conference Centre and the ITU Building are very well cyber-connected – you could even buy a card for wireless internet access anywhere in the building - so a list appeared to be an easy way to stay in touch. But those without a laptop or who couldn’t check their e-mail regularly risked falling out of the loop (more than 150 messages were sent to the list during the five-day meeting). By Thursday we set up an old-fashioned – chalk, glue and paper - bulletin board, which served the needs of many better.
- •
- We agreed to meet every morning, at 8.00 or 8.30 am, to report back and plan out the day. This was to be open not just to CRIS members but to all who agreed broadly with CRIS aims, and so became known as the CRIS+ meeting.
- •
- We agreed that a major concern was that the Civil Society Segment had been organised in such a way as to leave no opportunity for us to strategise together. Basically, there was to be a briefing every morning from the Civil Society Division (CSD) of the Secretariat, followed by Workshops on whatever topics people had asked to have included. Most of us felt we had not come all the way to Geneva to take part in Workshops, especially since it would mean being isolated from the decisions being taken in the other building.
- Day 1: Monday 1 July
- We held our first CRIS+ meeting in the morning at 8.30 am in the basement of the ITU Tower. We decided to seek time, from the CSD, for a Civil Society Plenary Discussion on Strategy later in the day. We also spent some time analysing the proposals before the PrepCom, especially with regard to the modalities for the so-called Rules of Procedure for PrepComs, which include the modalities and mechanisms by which civil society will be able to participate at this and other PrepComs. While rules and procedures were not the main interest of most civil society participants, they are the most important item on the agenda of the first Prepcom, since they define who will be able to participate and how.
- The official documents contained two optional proposals (Rule 55). One would open the door widely, in principle, to civil society participation (option b); the other (option a) being far more restrictive. The details of the modalities for participation were then to be included in an Annex to the rules. Furthermore, Rule 56 used the exact same wording, but appeared to accept individual private sector firms for official accreditation, which we understood to be a dangerous precedent in a UN Summit.
- We also heard that one of our CRIS+ number (I think it was Stéphane Koch from ISOC) had secured the domain name wsis.info, which we promptly set up as our ad hoc Website. The media team used this site throughout the week for posting our various documents and communiqués. Unfortunately, this resource was underused. Few of us thought to look at it and it was not widely publicised. We could have made more use of it, for CRIS members other civil society actors, and even our onsite lobbying efforts.
- The opening ceremony of the Intergovernmental meeting then began at 10.00 am, in the Conference Centre, which (like all plenaries) was open to all. We heard Daniel Pimiento give a speech presenting a civil society perspective (he rightly denied being able to represent civil society) – apparently he had been asked by the CSD a couple of days before to make this speech. This was followed immediately by the First Plenary Meeting.
- But by then, most of us were trooping back to the ITU Tower for the opening of the Civil Society Segment at 12.00, in which Cees Hamelink exceeded his usually high standards in rhetorically juxtaposing humour with serious comment. (His paper is on the wsis.info Website)
- We also heard here that the Intergovernmental session to decide the Rules of Procedure (SubCommittee 1), beginning at 3.00 pm, was to be open only to government delegates. We had ways to monitor developments - I was a member of the Irish delegation, and Michel Egger of the Swiss delegation – but it seemed we were doubly removed from the decision making and discussion processes. It did not augur well.
- In the meantime, an early highlight of the Intergovernmental Plenary was the election of the President of the WSIS: Adama Samassekou from Mali. (We heard the former Mali President Konaré had pulled out in his favour, as he could not commit to all the travel involved). A nice touch was that Samassekou, immediately upon his election, rushed over to the Civil Society meeting which was just breaking up, and made a short speech emphasising the key role he sees for civil society. After that, the PrepCom Plenary settled into a series of intensely boring ‘opening statements’, a fitting start to the official activities overall. (Later debates made these speeches, by comparison, seem interesting.) These continued all day and into the next, as one by one ministers and officials had their say.
- For the afternoon, we produced the first of many ‘Communiqués’ which expressed our views to the rest of the PrepCom. This one was presented in the name of CRIS, whereas later ones came from the Civil Society Segment as a whole, or its Sub-Committees. (These are all on the wsis.info site.)
- The real action also began in the afternoon in the closed Sub-Committee 1 on Rules of Procedure. Sub-Committee 1, which is open to all governments, tediously began the process of line-by-line trawling through the draft proposal. It very quickly became clear that Pakistan, Iran, Egypt and a few others were determined to filibuster this indefinitely, specifically with a view to narrowing participation down to governments only. The tactic was to object to everything. Their attack was not directly on civil society or the private sector – the main intent seemed to be on putting the governments fully in charge of the Summit. Of course, nothing was explicitly said to this effect – all speeches reaffirmed the need for all stakeholders etc. etc. But those in the meeting became very familiar with the Pakistani delegate’s voice, and indeed there was general surprise when she failed to object to a line or phrase.
- By the end of the day, the Chair of the session, D. Stauffacher (Swiss ambassador to the UN events in Geneva), could see it was going nowhere, and so began developing informal proposals to progress on the real sticking points. These proposals were to be put to a sub-group of the main protagonists the next day, to try to break the impasse. The meeting was even more secret – it was held in another room and no-one other than selected Government delegates could attend (and not, for instance, civil society representatives on the government delegation). Denmark, current holder of the EU presidency, represented EU countries, which met in private session every morning to agree their position and strategy. From then on, we were to rely on often quite inaccurate rumours emanating from time to time from this room.
- Back at the Civil Society Segment, during lunchtime we explained our problems regarding the absence of Civil Society Strategy Plenaries to Louise Lassonde and Alain Clerc of the CSD. It transpired that they were each going to chair one of the first two Workshops (on Governance and Communication Rights, and the Gender Caucus), so any agenda rearrangement would have to include both. The Gender Caucus did not agree to conclude their session early, which would have facilitated a plenary Civil Society discussion. But the other Workshop agreed to drop a couple of speakers, and Alain Clerc, chairing it, agreed to reserve the last hour before 6.00 pm for a plenary civil society strategy discussion. He had also agreed to step down from the Chair, as we argued that civil society organisations should themselves select a chair and generally decide what they should do.
- Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. The session continued on, very loosely chaired by Alain Clerc, until 5.50 pm. The translators left precisely at 6.00, so there was no possibility of holding the plenary. At the end, Alain Clerc agreed with a small group that the Tuesday morning briefing session at 9.00 am would instead be devoted to strategy.
- The private sector also met that day, under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce. They too were concerned about lack of access and participation - though they were surely not unaware of the major marker being set for the future, to allow private firms in as accredited participants. At the time we thought it was a precedent, but the reality is that Monterrey (FfD) had already set the stage. We will have to figure out how to deal with this.
- Day 2: Tuesday 2 July
- The government session continued the next day with opening statements in Plenary, and the secret unofficial meeting trying to broker a deal on Rules of Procedure. There was not much there for us, so we were busy getting organised.
- The CRIS+ meeting began at 8.00 am, and a large group came. Unfortunately none of our informal meetings had interpreters, since they had not been planned in advance. English was the norm. The meeting reaffirmed our decision that it was necessary to have a series of Civil Society Plenaries, organised by ourselves.
- The promised Civil Society Strategy Plenary then began at 9.00 am. Alain Clerc again took the chair, though we understood that the previous evening he had agreed to step down. It became more like a question and answer session, and quite a few people became agitated. After talking for over an hour, the meeting had several proposals on the table, including the creation of Sub-Committees to shadow and comment on the work of intergovernmental Sub-Committees. A proposal was also on the floor to elect a new Chair for the meeting, but Alain, probably in confusion, attempted to wind up the Plenary meeting, convene a civil society Sub-Committee on Rules of Procedure, and continue with the planned agenda of workshops.
- Knowing that the status of the Civil Society Plenary would then have become uncertain (who would call another one? Who would chair it?) several people insisted that Alain Clerc stand down as Chair. In an uncomfortable and confused moment, he complied, leaving the top table empty. We elected Renata Bloem, President of CONGO, to Chair the plenary session. (CONGO is the Conference of Non-Governmental Organisations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations.) She agreed – on condition that we would elect a new chair for the next meeting. (We never did – Renata did a fine job and chaired all our subsequent plenary meetings.)
- So we then immediately convened a meeting of our Civil Society Sub-Committee on Rules of Procedure, and elected Roberto Bissio as Chair. (Roberto at one point offered to act as a ‘suicide bomber’, if we needed to make a difficult point in Plenary. As he dryly noted, however, he could do it only once.) We found a room that could seat 15, but in the end over thirty people were there, some spilling out the door. At this, the French Ambassador (who was very helpful) arrived and gave us a draft of the negotiation proposal on Rules of Procedure. These were very worrying, essentially offering a watered down version of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio + 10, scheduled for August/ September 2002). We were very dissatisfied, and a delegation comprising myself and others met officially with D. Stauffacher and Bruno Romazzotti (also on the Swiss delegation) and went though our concerns. A few of us stayed up late drafting a second Communiqué.
- The secret negotiations also went on into the night – there was genuine concern that the entire process could break down. The EU had even prepared what the Irish delegation called a ‘doomsday statement’, to be read out if it broke down irrevocably. It makes interesting reading.
- One other item of note that day. The Intergovernmental Plenary invited speakers from civil society and the private sector. We were told that 19 had duly registered to speak but that we had to choose only four or five. An equal number were to speak from the private sector. (Incidentally, the private sector not only had their own meetings, but also had associations attending the civil society sessions – one of the imbalances of which we complained.)
- The five all spoke well, Luis Dávila from ALER spoke on behalf of CRIS; Anne Walker on the gender theme; one spoke on behalf of both the youth caucus and Asian civil society organisations; Alain Ambrosi spoke on behalf of the Carrefour Mondiale de l’Internet; and M. Diallo from Mali gave a message from the African regional preparatory meeting. We agreed that each would devote a part of their short (four-minute) speech to issues of common concern.
- However, the process by which this number of speakers was arrived at was never clear. And in the end there were six private sector and six civil society - the sixth ‘civil society’ position was expressed by the International Publishers Association, an industry association that was not nominated by the civil society plenary.
- Day 3: Wednesday July
- As always, the day began with a lively CRIS+ meeting to compare notes and discuss priorities. The Civil Society Plenary at 9.00 am then discussed and approved the Communiqué on Rules of Procedure it. Sheets were passed around for individual endorsement, and within a few minutes a total of fifty-eight organisations had signed up. Within a couple of hours we had it translated into French and Spanish, and in the hands of many delegates, passed around in the corridors and in the main meeting rooms. (Later that day, we were handed two ‘non-papers’, i.e. they had no official standing but were the basis of discussion, that further refined the earlier draft agreement but brought no improvement.)
- The Plenary also agreed to set up a second open Sub-Committee, to match that of the governments – a Sub-Committee on Substance and Content. And we set up a Sub-Committee on Finance to begin lobbying for support for civil society participation, especially from the South, and to begin to devise mechanisms for administering such support. A Press Group was created, which set about organising our own press conference alongside the official one. Gradually, civil society organisations were coming together and getting organised. This plenary was attended by well over 100 people.
- The new WSIS President wanted to meet with all sides on the Rules of Procedure, and agreed to a delegation from civil society. At 4.45 pm, just before he was to go back into the open Plenary meeting, he met with myself and Meryem Marzouki from IRIS. He seemed sincerely determined to ensure that civil society should have effective participation, but he was up against stiff opposition. He was concerned also that we might run with a counter Summit. We explained our concerns in detail to him.
- Day 4: Thursday 4 July
- After an early CRIS+ meeting, there was news that a breakthrough had been made in the negotiations. Furthermore, the Chair of the Session, D. Stauffacher, was coming to address our Plenary about it. He outlined the plans – in reality nothing new on offer. They were going to go with option a), the restrictive one, but with an appendix that made it somewhat less restrictive. As we noted, the only innovation was an unwelcome one – they were definitely going to include individual private sector firms for accreditation, and this was to be formally decided in a special session of the Sub-Committee on accreditation convening on Friday morning. He himself was most helpful throughout, but he left the meeting in no doubt as to our concerns.
- Later, the inter-governmental Sub-Committee 2 on Content and Themes could finally begin its deliberations, and our own shadow Sub-Committee began drafting its ideas. Unlike with Sub-Committee 1, civil society organisations were permitted to participate in formal sessions of Sub-Committee 2. It held all its meetings in the plenary room, with hundreds attending, and most contributions took the form of formal statements rather than debate or discussion of the issues. The game was that if you managed to say what you thought should be on the agenda, then whatever body or mechanism was later assigned to refine the agenda could refer to it as official input. If you didn’t get to voice your theme and nobody else voiced it, then it was not an interest of the meeting.
- It became clear very soon that Sub-Committee 2 would not get far. Immediately some countries indicated that the WSIS should not consider anything that falls under another UN context – so human rights were out. Brazil and many G77 less developed countries were intent on retaining only a narrow ICTs and development focus. The USA wanted to include just three items: infrastructure, e-commerce and security. The EU proposed a broader agenda covering e-government, e-inclusion and education. Few governments wanted to limit the agenda to the US proposal, but few wanted governance questions on the agenda either.
- Later, Sub-Committee 2 did offer another chance for civil society to address the meeting, this time on themes. Conflicting stories abounded all morning as to how many might be allowed speak. We were finally told late in the morning plenary that we had to select just one speaker from our plenary, as the other slots had been filled – once again we were in the dark as to how the other places were bartered, and who had taken the decision on who was to speak supposedly on behalf of civil society. The final speakers included representatives of cities, universities, gender/women and others. We agreed that a person from the Youth Caucus should speak on our behalf, once again expressing our general concern especially in relation to the WSIS agenda and themes.
- Bruce Girard and myself got to talk to the President informally one more time, over evening cocktails! We explained our concerns on accreditation in depth, and on content, and outlined the argument in our communiqués. Once again he emphasised that his door is always open, and that he wants our active participation. He also said that he was concerned by the possible precedents that might be set regarding accreditation of private sector firms.
- Day 5: Friday 5 July
- After the final CRIS+ meeting –with tiredness beginning to show in many faces - the first Civil Society Segment Plenary of the day discussed progress and statements, updated overnight after the previous day’s events. It also began to address the issues of how to organise in the next phase.
- After this, a delegation led by Steve Buckley (with myself, Susanna George, Bill McIvor and George Christensen) met with the Secretary General of the ITU, Yoshio Utsumi. The forty-minute meeting had its light moments, as Utsumi strained to fashion three fingers into three solid columns, planting them firmly on the table and stroking each in turn to demonstrate his vision of the WSIS: high-level government commitment; a broad agenda; and wide participation of all stakeholders. I leaned forward and pointed out that his three fingers were effectively being chopped in half in this PrepCom, asking will the Summit still stand on these stumps? Amid laughter (we discovered a good sense of humour), he changed his metaphor to that of an extendable tripod.
- At the end of the forty-minute meeting, Utsumi agreed to help set up informal contacts with governments, if we sought them; and that he would remain open to future periodic meetings. Significantly to those who have been demanding this for years, he also agreed to consider and respond to proposals we would put to him about NGOs participating more effectively in ITU activities (they have long refused to accredit NGOs in the normal way). We are firming up these promises with a letter.
- Although the Sub-Committee 2 meeting had been formally open to civil society, the real negotiations, as with Rules of Procedure, did not take place in the plenary hall, but in a closed meeting (and apparently a very difficult one) all day Friday. The failure to reach an agreement on the agenda (though the principles were informally approved) was the cause of the late start of the final plenary session. In one way this was advantageous to us, since gave us more time to reflect on the implications and come up with more consistent proposals for the agenda.
- The civil society media group, the same who did the wsis.info website, arranged a press conference at 13.00 Friday, immediately following the press conference with Adama Samassekou (chair of the preparatory process) and Utsumi (ITU Secretary General) and in the same room. Bruce Girard spoke for the plenary and for CRIS, expressing our concerns about the rules and procedures adopted, and concluding that while we have decided to continue with process, we will evaluate that decision as we proceed with our challenge to the accreditation of private sector firms and in the expectation that the restrictive rules and procedures adopted this week will be reconsidered at PrepCom2.
- We held our final Civil Society Plenary Session in the afternoon, in a spot originally allocated to CRIS, between 1.30 pm and 3.00 pm. We had been told that translation would be available, but it was not. We began late to facilitate the Gender Caucus, who were scheduled to finish by 2.00 pm, and we had agreed to take no decision before they arrived (in the event, only CRIS members of the Caucus came).
- There was general agreement to set up an Interim Co-ordination Group, and to continue with the Sub-Committees. Overall, people could see the need to set something in place, or at the next PrepCom we would be back to square one. Final communiqués were drafted expressing our great disappointment, but also our willingness for the time being to continue with the process. (Again, endorsement appeared to be unanimous, and our position on the Rules of Procedure was immediately endorsed by fifty-seven organisations.) There was a general feeling that continued involvement will depend on how the words agreed translate into real participation, and whether the agenda is left with anything of interest by the time the informal meeting is finished with it.
- After our session, we went to the final intergovernmental Plenary, to distribute our various final statements. The Plenary, which was to begin at 15.00, only did so at 17.00, shortly before I had to leave. A delegate on his way to the airport said it was like wading through 52 chapters of War and Peace, only to find the last few pages missing. But in fact the real decisions had already been taken. Minimal provision is being made to allow the participation of civil society; the doors are being opened wide to individual private sector firms; and the agenda will be left to the tender mercies of a (probably closed) meeting sometime in the Autumn.
- ‘A shambles’ is how one national delegate described the overall meeting. He said that under no circumstances could he recommend to his Minister that she should attend the European meeting. There was simply not enough of interest on the table. I could see his point. But for civil society, deciding whether or not to participate is more complicated. For example, the regional meetings can permit major participation by civil society – they are not bound by agreements here. And it may offer a good opportunity to mobilise at a European level. A Spanish delegate argued that open regional meetings, like the African one and the upcoming European one, would be de facto precedents, pressuring the second Prepcom to adopt more open rules and procedures.
- A further twist was added by another European delegation. They suggested that the only reason they were still in the WSIS process was because civil society was sticking in there. It would appear that if a critical mass of civil society organisations pulled out, then the EU itself might also abandon ship. These are matters we must continue to review.
- Final comment
- It’s fair to say that all of us in CRIS worked for the civil society presence as a whole, building a general alliance and a feeling of identity between us all. We largely set aside a distinct CRIS presence, and opened out. We joined with some great activists from different areas, and really worked as a team. In some ways, this gave us an even bigger influence as people appreciated that we were not pushing a particular agenda. The CRIS influence was everywhere and undoubted. In lobbying e.g. the European Commission, I began to explain what CRIS was about, but was quickly assured they knew all about CRIS (and in general were impressed). We even heard scurrilous rumours spread by a former UNESCO cold-warrior that CRIS was a conspiracy, really a front for an ex-Soviet Lenin Peace Prize winner. Such rumours can only do us good (but who was this, anyway?). Our five two-page leaflets were widely distributed, and were well appreciated. An EU official also told me that the series of communiqués were very important to them as they provided timely feedback on the civil society position – which they in turn needed in the negotiations.
- The other main civil society presences were the Youth Caucus, who were well prepared (and supported by Sasha, our CRIS internee) and joined in fully with us after a while; and the Gender Caucus (which of course has many CRIS members) who joined in but at the same time kept their own separate stream of activities going.
- The PrepCom was simultaneously greatly disappointing and hugely exhilarating, the former because of the official outcomes, the latter thanks to the spontaneous level of organisation that was achieved by civil society there. If we build on the latter, we may yet be able to influence the outcome of future PrepComs and the Summit. More important we may begin to organise together outside of the WSIS process, on shared issues of concern.
- This mirrors the general conclusion of the Civil Society meeting – let’s closely monitor developments over the next months, demanding and taking every opportunity to participate in the intercessional activities on agenda, regional meetings and participation. If the door is repeatedly closed to us, and if the agenda ends up at the lowest common denominator, then let’s reassess our situation and be ready and organised to take whatever actions we decide are best, both leading up and at the PrepCom. The danger is that we will again end up responding to events, not influencing them.
- Pressing issues for civil society right now include consolidating our new Civil Society Co-ordinating Group; establishing relations with the CSD – they must be encouraged to recognise the legitimacy of this group (which it must continue to earn) and to provide the support it needs. At the same time, some of us are determined to take the matter of private sector firms’ accreditation to higher UN levels, and to open discussion with other groups such as Third World Network etc. on how this fits in broad global governance trends. The whole issue of what precedents exist here, and their implications, deserves close study.
- All of us must learn and apply practical lessons for the Regional Meetings and PrepComs– the need to plan and organise meetings and events in advance, ensuring we have interpreters, arranging effective means of communication between us and with others, the value of monitoring and reporting back, and especially of ensuring the we are open, transparent and inclusive in our activities.
- Seán Ó Siochrú. 16 July 2002 Thanks to Bruce Girard and Sally Burch for their comments.
|
|
Articles in this Issue
|
