The week before last new US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual, met with the Ukrainian Internet community (I picked up this term from one of our newest programs). Ukrainian journalists spoke at the meeting about the flight of political journalism to the Internet in response to the pressure of censorship. Recalling the questions the US Ambassador was asked, I would single out this one: “Don’t you think, Mr. Ambassador, that the explosive development of the Ukrainian Internet could be explained by a flight from censorship, something the traditional mass media are subjected to in Ukraine?” Mr. Pascual and his team tried to diplomatically avoid any direct answers, arguing that it is the expansion of the online press that makes the traditional media go on the Internet. In this context, the creation of web versions by the press provides tangible grounds for optimism.
Nonetheless, we kept pushing for a direct answer to the question. Finally, after several attempts to specify their point the Americans had to admit that “it is due to the reasons that you named that we will help develop Internet access sites” (The Embassy had announced a program to open six such new sites). We had our answer, after all.
What incorrigible daydreamers the Americans are, believing that the number of Internet access centers could really solve the problem. Or perhaps they would rather not risk breaking the news to us, realizing that the problem is much more serious.
WHO IS TO BUILD THE INTERNET?
Ambassador Pascual also said, “A government edging toward an authoritarian regime fears the Internet and free access to the Internet.” And what are the citizens to do while their government is edging this way? Correct, they leave the real battlefield and retreat to the virtual one, believing that this gives them a ticket to political freedom. Political freedom on the Internet, the existence of which could be questioned now, might be the next victim of such edging towards an authoritarian rule.
Meanwhile, the state’s steamroller is slowly moving toward cyberspace. Judging by the government’s first moves in this direction, specifically by the landmark summer conclave of state officials, law enforcement, and Internet providers in Koncha- Zaspa, it would more correct to speak about the state taking control of the Internet, not cooperation between the state and it.
One might also predict with a high degree of certainty that enacting new laws on the Internet will not be a simple procedure; suffice it to recall Russia’s experience. Hence, considering that our state, to put it mildly, is not quite democratic and our civil society, to put it mildly again, not quite mature, one can understand the pessimism with which UANET officials are awaiting state “offers that cannot be refused.” The most pessimistically minded speak about “the subordination of the Internet” in the future.
A letter signed by 27 Ukrainians (who had been awarded the title of the Hero of Ukraine) and published by
Uriadovy kurier government daily was seen by the Ukrayinska pravda and ProUa non-governmental web sites as a clear signal of the state’s attact on the Internet. This document has several lines related to the Internet: “We have seen the emergence of ‘narrow’ specialists who specialize in poisoning the minds of Ukrainians. These experts do not hesitate to apply their skills even to the Internet. They are out to turn this wonderful invention, whose goals are to serve the public good and unite individuals and peoples, into a sieve where they can freely and irresponsibly dump their libelous canards.” The authors of the letter are sure that “with the parliamentary elections approaching, this unbridled campaign, unless stopped by reliable barriers, will escalate, gaining more and more momentum.” (Sic!).
In its article called “Ukraine’s 27 Heroes Ready to Give Their Lives for Internet” (www.proua.com/const htm /msociety.php?id_art = 236), ProUa writes: “Being well aware of how the public opinion is manipulated in Ukraine, one can predict that quite soon we will be flooded with indignant letters from workers and collective farmers who have never seen a computer but who are still are demanding to put a stop to ‘uncontrolled anarchy’ on the Internet. Everything will unfold in accordance with a Pasternak-style scenario of “Although I have not read Doctor Zhivago personally, like the whole Soviet people, I am indignant’...”
The entire saga spells two major perils for the Ukrainian Internet. First, there is the inertia of totalitarianism, including a desire to control and subordinate the mass media, the Internet belonging here. Second comes support by “the broad popular masses” for the state’s encroachments on the Internet. Moreover, these same masses could themselves demand barriers to curtail the spread of information. The authorities would then simply have to heed the voices of such grassroots initiatives and carry out to the appropriate measures.
TRIANGULAR RUBIK’S CUBE: INTERNET-SOCIETY-STATE
The wish by the state to control and regulate the flow of information is quite understandable. So far, this is only a trend, albeit quite an obvious one, and the lack of movement by the state could be explained by the fact that the problem is quite complex and has a multitude of aspects: legal, political, technical, psychological, etc.
No doubt, the state has its specific interests with respect to the Internet, and it continues to defend these interests. But will the immature Ukrainian civil society be able to uphold the freedom of the Internet? We do not mean restrictions on the misuse of the World Wide Web or total lack of control by the state over the Internet. We do agree that there is more than enough mudslinging materials in the Internet and some legal regulation (not to be confused with arbitrariness) is imminent and is really needed. The central point is that public must have unlimited and free access to information on the Web.
The answer is unclear so far. There is, however, one disturbing point which emerged due to the letter by the 27: there has been no visible public protest over demands to tame the Internet. It seems that Ukrainian society is not fully aware of the benefits of getting information freely from the Web, especially with the majority of the off-line media being controlled by certain circles and serving as mouthpieces for these same circles.
MYTH OF THE WEB COMMUNITY
The sad fact is that there is no one who is capable of defending the Internet from efforts by the state to transform relationships within the network. The Web could be protected only by a mature, real society, not the one which has escaped to the Internet in search of political freedom there. In addition, the desire of this escapist segment to form a separate group which wants to be recognized as a society per se (the latter being manifested in such terms as Internet community or Web community) seriously cripples the chance to uphold the interests of society as a whole with regard to the Internet. Internet-related providers and journalists must react more resolutely to the efforts to ration freedom of access to the Web, explaining to public what the consequences of such encroachments might be. This is something they should really bet the farm on, for there are no deserts or other hiding places where one can really escape the state.
