Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Welcome to this Chatham House webinar on The UN’s Vision for a Digital Future. I am Robin Niblett, the Director of Chatham House. It’s my very great pleasure to be here with you today and co-hosting this meeting with the UN Secretary-General Special Representative for Digital Co-operation, and with the International Chamber of Commerce, a three-way partnership that I think captures some of the dynamics of this subject, which, as you know, coincides with a – I think it’s almost a week now, certainly four or five days, of discussions following the Secretary-General’s release of the roadmap on digital co-operation on the 11th of June, a few days ago. This is part of a long process, which has been built up ever since July 2018, with the creation by the Secretary-General of a high-level panel, and we’ve got on digital co-operation, and a series of recommendations that were released last year, in 2019, the next iteration, I think coinciding very specially with the UN’s 75th anniversary as well, putting digital co-operation really at the heart of the UN mandate and mission for the future.
We’ve got a super panel with us, who I’m going to introduce in a minute, perfectly chosen for this particular topic, but I did want to just remind you all, this is, as you know, ‘cause you’ve joined the meeting, being livestreamed. It will be posted online afterwards. You can comment, if you wish, during the meeting, of ideas that really strike you and you want to just share them. On Twitter, we recommend you use the #DigitalCooperation, and, importantly, as this is being livestreamed, could you please submit your questions through the Slido function. So, if you go to slido.com or sli.do, either one would work, you’ll be asked for a hashtag, and the hashtag name you put in, very simply, is DigitalCoooperation. You do that and you’ll come to a place where you can submit your questions. We’ll be able to take a look at them, and then come and get into the questions, once we’ve had a chance to have our discussion with our speakers.
And I’m particularly pleased, in that sense, as I said, that we’re collaborating here with the UN on this particular meeting, because we have with us Fabrizio Hochschild-Drummond, who is the – as I said, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for – Special Advisor, I should say, for the digital co-operation, who’s been intimately involved in putting this whole process together. Fabrizio, welcome to this meeting, thrilled to have you with us. We also have with us Maria Garza, who is Executive Board Member and Chair of the Global Networks Committee for the International Chamber of Commerce. She’s also Regional Co-ordinator for the Americas, for the ICC, based out of Mexico. Maria, welcome, we’re very pleased to have you with us, and I presume from Mexico. And we have Marietje Schaake, who is the International Policy Director of the Cyber Policy Center at Stanford University, though she is joining us from Amsterdam. As those of you who know, Marietje will know, she was formerly, prior to this, through 2019, a Member of the European Parliament for the Netherlands, part of the liberal grouping, but somebody who’s very actively involved in the whole topic of internet governance, including with a number of Chatham House activities, and was the Founder of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on European Digital Agenda.
But, as I said, we’ve got a super group with us to be able to discuss this topic. I thought I should just say a couple of words, in terms of context. As I said, US Secretary-General released the roadmap on digital co-operation about five, six days ago. This roadmap arrives at a critical inflexion point, obviously with the pandemic having really intensified the relevance and importance of digital platforms for all activity, whether it be business, whether it be the delivery of public services, and interaction with government, whether it be politics, and we’re heading up to some very big elections, where the role of big technology platforms are that much more important. And, at the same time, this, kind of, focus on the importance of the digital world for our social, political and economic wellbeing is coinciding with a much more fraught, I will say, geopolitical political environment, which has intensified forms of competition that is spilling over into questions of the future of technology governance.
And so, you know, this is a perfect time to be having this conversation, I think, and I’m going to start, you know, just really a conversation around our three speakers, and, as I said, invite all of you to throw in questions via Slido, within the next 20/25 minutes. We’ll make sure we get to them and have an interactive discussion with our panellists here. But Chatham House is in its centenary year, and I think it’s particularly appropriate that we’re focusing on the issue of the future of digital co-operation, that’ll be so much the future of our next 100 years, and the Digital Society Initiative we set up a couple of years ago, is feeling more and more relevant for our own work.
Fabrizio, it’s good to see you again. I know you’ve participated in the past in a couple of our panels. I think I just need you to share, given we have a large audience here that won’t have the same specialist knowledge that you do, of the process that got us here to the roadmap. Could you just tell us where we’re at, in – you know, is this – not the end, we have a roadmap that implies there’s a road to travel down to the future, but if you could just tell us where you feel you’ve got to, what are the key recommendations that you’re trying to advise, and what’s the prospects for this document going forward? We’ll start out with you.
Fabrizio Hochschild
Thank you, and thank you for this opportunity, and I’m very glad to be on the panel with such distinguished co-panellists. The UN has long had a tradition of trying to steer new technologies in such a way to maximise their benefits and curtail their harms. And that goes back to the very first resolution that came out of the UN in 1946, which was on the peaceful use of atomic energy, and we might not be that aware of it, but if we grew up and our parents grew up in a world largely free of nuclear harms, it’s not least thanks to the foresight of our forefathers and mothers, who had the vision to put in place mechanisms, at an international level, to guide nuclear technology towards good, and curtail the threats it posed.
Today, we’re faced with a very different set of challenges. We have the fastest spreading technology ever, digital technology. Digital technologies, in just 25 years, have reached half the globe. Pause and reflect on that. Electricity, which is often used as a comparison, it took 150 years, literally, from about 1830 to 1970 or 1980, to reach half of the planet. Cars, in 25 years, from the first commercial model, had just reached 2% of the US population, let alone half the world. So, we have this technology that has spread at a speed and with an impact like no technology before it. And it’s not, like most technologies in our lifetime, an incremental change, where we go from, you know, records, long plays or discs or tapes that are unwieldy and large, to models that are evermore compact, ever faster, evermore efficient. No, this isn’t an improvement on what was before, it transformed what was before, and we see that in music, we see that in photography. It’s a truly transformative technology.
But the technology has not kept pace with the policy setting, so we have this very risky pacing problem where technology is advancing and being applied like nothing ever before it, and those who are responsible for steering it, for protecting the public good, are not keeping pace. And, of course, a lot of that has to be done at the national level, a lot of it has to be done at the regional level, and in recent years, there’s been an awful lot of catching up at the national and regional levels across the world. But these technologies, by definition, don’t recognise borders, these technologies, by definition, collapsed distance and time, so whatever is done at a national and regional level, needs to be complemented at an international level.
So, as with previous technologies, as important as national and regional approaches are, we need international approaches. And it was against that backdrop that two member states in April 2017, the UAE and Switzerland, invited the Secretary-General to a lunch with business leaders, with civil society leaders, and with tech experts from all over the world, and among them was former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, who’s written eloquently on the subject of the dangers of new technologies, and who makes the point – I don’t want to get too academic, but he makes the point that big previous changes in technology have always been preceded by big changes in philosophy and human thought, and that new technologies, post-enlightenment, for example, have come out of new thinking. Whereas now, we’re faced with the reverse, we have new technologies, but our modes of thinking are still antiquated and outdated and haven’t kept up.
And this group pushed the Secretary-General to position the UN to do more, so that was in April 2017. The Secretary-General, on the basis of that, in summer, after consultation with many stakeholders, convened the high-level panel, the most diverse high level panel that there’s ever been in the history of the UN, co-led by Jack Ma and Melinda Gates, but with people from 20 different nationalities, with young entrepreneurs still in their 20s, with distinguished academics, Noble Prize winners, with people who’d been close to the invention of the internet, so an extremely diverse panel, and they put together a report, which, as you pointed, which was published about a year ago, with recommendations about how the world could come together.
And the SG very consciously wanted a high-level panel because his thought was that these issues were transforming everything. It wasn’t just a technical sideshow, they were transforming peace and security, they were transforming human rights, they were transforming development, and Politicians and senior leaders were not keeping up and needed to get more involved. So, the aim of the Secretary-General was not only to improve our thinking, but to get much more high-level engagement with these issues. And I must say Boris Johnson, to his credit, is the first global leader who, last year at the General Assembly, gave a speech entirely on the impact of new technologies, but that’s – that had never happened before, but I think that is a sign of changing trends. So, they produced a report, the Secretary-General has now worked on that report and issued his own report to member states, building on that report, and setting out the priorities, and it basically sets out there are eight clusters of recommendations, but they can be boiled down to three.
The first is connect. You know, this is a technology that has spread faster than ever before, but with that – you know, previous technologies took a long time to evolve, so they started as luxury goods, think of electricity, think of cars, while the world caught up. And then they’ve become mainstream in our lives, and they’re no longer luxury goods, they’re considered a basic need because the whole economies, societies, have adapted in ways to make them a basic need. With digital technology, we’ve rapidly moved within the sphere where they’ve become a basic need, because our economies, our health systems, everything is constructed around them. Imagine how we’d be faring in a COVID era without them, and yet we – they haven’t reached the spread where that should happen, so those who are left out, half of the people who are not connected are left behind. And in that sense, although this is technology that spreads at an unprecedented speed, it threatens to become the new face of inequality, the new cause of inequality. So, getting universal access is the number one priority, the number one set for recommendations around it.
The second is, of course, access has to be not only affordable and universal, but it has to be safe and meaningful. So, the next set of recommendations is around having – reasserting digital public goods on the net, not just letting the net, against the intentions of its originators, become a, sort of, universal marketplace, as valuable as that is to business. It has to promote knowledge, it has to be for the sharing of the greater good, which is very much – was the ideal behind it, so reasserting digital public goods, and then it also has to be safe and secure. It cannot be a means to promote human rights abuses, to spread hatred and disinformation on a scale we’ve never seen before. We need to get better at managing the dark side of the internet. We need to get better at managing the internet and cyber as a whole new domain of insecurity, a whole new domain for conflict, and also, we have to get much better at ridding it of conflict that is abusive, harmful, or diminishing its use, frankly, to violate our human rights.
So, those are the principal ideas which, you know, we sum up, if there’s a message of the report in three words, it’s connect, respect, protect. Connect, respect, protect and that needs to happen through international, multi-stakeholder efforts. Sadly, we can’t go about it in the same way we went about it with atomic energy, where it was very much a top down approach, conventions of government, a big international institution. All that itself as well, but that won’t work for the digital area. We need much more nimble, flexible, decentralised, multi-stakeholder models, and the report makes a number of recommendations around that. So, that’s really the drift and the history of the report, and I think the extent to which we can make it work will very much determine whether digital technologies ultimately lead us safer, lead us to have our rights more respected, and lead us to live with greater equality, or they become the new face of inequality, domain of insecurity, and a greater threat, at least to many of their human rights. And I think that is the challenge of our generation, and we have a lot of catchup to do to make sure that we don’t portray the promise of the internet for future generations.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Fabrizio, thank you, and that’s a very neat encapsulation, including, as you said, of the history, and a reminder of the role that the UN has played historically in trying to capture these moments of deep technological change and make sure that they’re managed in a way that is as inclusive as possible. You noted, however, that that moment of creating treaties, agencies, as the IAEA was done, and as the – in the end, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. You know, that was an era in which governments came together and tried to write rules of the road, or at least set frameworks, but, as you’ve noted, the whole definition of these digital technologies is that they leak out of the hands of governments, and are incredibly difficult to manage the same way. So, I think we’ll come back later on to what it means, but I think it’d be good to jump right now, Maria, to bring you into the conversation as well, because we’re really going from the architectural to the very practical, if I can put it that way. I know that, as mentioned before, that you lead a business yourself in Mexico, and therefore, you’re very much at the coalface of how important technology is for companies these days, being able to operate, to employ people, to be successful. Can you say a bit – you know, the view that the ICC has towards the development of the internet, how it’s governed, the opportunities it’s offering, and literally, how you’ve experienced it, maybe in these last few weeks through COVID?
Maria Fernanda Garza
Thank you very much, Robin. Now, first of all, it’s really an honour to be part of this webinar and to speak a little bit about how the UN’s Secretary-General vision on the international community can engage in key issues such as this, and digital connectivity, the digital human rights, trust and security. I truly believe that private sectors, civil society and governments, along with the UN, must work together in the adoption of specific policies to support digital inclusion, just what Fabrizio was mentioning, and definitely new models of internet governance and co-operation in the post-COVID-19 recovery stage will need to be set in place. And now, for many years, business has advocated for the potential of the digital technologies to act as a catalyst for accelerated implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and that is why the International Chamber of Commerce really applauds this foresight in recognising the Secretary-General early in his tenure, the imperative of harness of power of technology as a force for good in the world. But, more than that, his personal commitment to chart a digital future that really works for everyone, everywhere, that’s truly important.
The financial notion of the effective co-operation cannot be underestimated, especially now that we’re living the situation with the COVID-19, both in terms of containing the pandemic, but also, enabling a sustainable economic rebuild. Over the last few months, we have all been witnesses of this rapid adoption of digital technologies that have enabled a certain continuity of essential services in both business and governments, and there’s no doubt that the digital solutions have been playing a key role in helping mitigate the already heavy human economic effects of this crisis. We have seen how enabling distance learning and facilitating remote signature of contracts, the technology has helped to connect people and enabled commerce to continue on this disruption of our physical world. There also – it has also enabled innovative public health strategies such as telemedicine, AI-based triage systems in hospital, and a rapid information sharing for Researchers studying the virus. Fabrizio was mentioning how other challenges that we have overcome took so many years. We’re going to see now how the science community will develop – is developing a vaccine through collaboration, distance collaboration, and this will be done in a much, much rapider space than ever before.
Just as an example, recently, the World Bank organised a consultation to learn how Latin America and Caribbean countries are responding to this educational crisis, and noted how the countries are adapting and innovating flexible ways to incorporate different channels, and different media, to facilitate teaching and learning. The participant countries implementing a national repository of digital, as well as learning management systems that connected Teachers with the students. They were use WhatsApp, phone, social media, that were adopted to provide pedagogical guidance and support for both Teachers and parents, because parents have also become essential on the education of their kids. But, however, these many, many students in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Mexico, will not have the chance to access the media learning, because the COVID-19 struck the region, under the context of very low potential growth and high, high inequalities.
One example is in the Puno region of Peru, the children from the isolated village of [Canta Tiruri – 22:16], have to walk nearly 15 kilometres, and we’re talking about childrens from four years of age to 12/13 years of age, and they walk 15 kilometres in the highlands. They are located more than 4,000 metres above the sea level, and they walk towards the hill where they can receive a radio signal that transmit educational content for all of them. So, you can imagine that the content is not really suited for each of these children. So, that is why we must accelerate the efforts of projects such as the high-altitude platform station or HAPS, systems that can be built into aircrafts for the purpose of beaming down high internet to – so these children, along with millions around the world, can access adequate education.
The COVID-19 has not only exposed, it has – also has exacerbated the gaps between those who have access to digital technologies and the opportunities that they bring, and those who do not. Our experience, in dealing with the pandemic, underscores the economic analysis that we have seen for many years now. That those without meaningful access to digital solution, such as the 3.6 billion people that still do not have access to high-speed internet, at the very real risk of being left behind. For example, in Mexico, only 55% of households have access to internet, and the sad truth is that those often without meaningful access, which are women and girls, migrants, refugees, citizens of rural and remote communities, these are the very people who would benefit most, in relative terms, from the gains in development that digitalisation can bring. So, we cannot allow the world to fragment between the haves and have nots.
We – what I want to convey to you is that business recognises the absolute imperative, in both moral and economic terms, to – that we need to and have to play a full part in enabling an inclusive digital future. And this goes beyond just ensuring access to good quality and affordable digital infrastructure. We also need to make sure to provide relevant content, services and applications that are available in local languages, and that serves the needs of local communities like those needed by the children in [Canta Tiruri].
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Thank you, Maria. I was just going to come to that point, because you’ve really pointed out, by giving those examples from Latin America itself, that both the opportunities being provided by digital, but, as you said, this risk of the divide being deepened, especially in the wake of COVID, which may slow down some of the infrastructure rollouts, that, as you noted, are so important for everyone to have access. Thank you for that.
Marietje, let me turn to you now. You know, you’re being slightly put in the role of the civil society voice, given your current role, and I think also, some of the pioneering work you did when you were a Member of the European Parliament, but I – not least ‘cause I can see we’ve got 35 minutes, there’s a lot of questions coming in, I just wanted to piggyback your remarks, if I could, on one of the questions that’s been coming in as well, which is about the issue of rights, and human rights in particular. I think when Fabrizio was describing it, his, kind of, second of his three pillars were respect, and it’s quite notable how strong the Secretary-General’s roadmap is on openness, and particular references to making sure that the use of surveillance technology, restrictions on content, are not done in such a way that they affect rights. And we had a question in already from Howard Hudson, and I’m picking this one up here. What role can the UN play in protecting our basic human data rights? So, as – is this just a theme that the UN talks about and highlights, or is it something that the UN can try and find a role for itself, and if it can’t, then who steps up to take up that role? In any case, come in any way you want, but I thought that was something you’d be good to address.
Marietje Schaake
No, I really appreciate it, and I, too, am honoured and very happy to participate in this important discussion. I think the fact that there’s a roadmap and that so many sensitive topics have not been shied away from, our first step in actually implementing an action plan. And I think, from the UN’s side, we have to appreciate that that’s not always easy, but I hope that the mutual dependence that is, I think, more clear than ever, when it comes to the digital domain and the open internet, must lead to a revamping of multilateralism and a shared sense of purpose, which I hope the UN will be a driving force behind. And, obviously, it doesn’t mean that everybody, all different stakeholders that the UN has to work with and has sought to bring together in the high level panel, all have the same vision or the same role or the same responsibility, but it is important to put these subjects that are high stakes openly on the table.
And, so, I think, indeed, the roadmap highlights where threats and challenges are and where opportunities are, a lot of emphasis on access and inclusiveness, which I appreciate, and, as you mentioned, and as the question highlights, an emphasis on human rights and the public good and openness, from a technological and access point of view, which I think is crucial. And I do hope that some of the hows, of how universal human rights can be safeguarded in the context of digitisation, and how, for example, the rollout and the facilitating of access can be going hand-in-hand with an articulation of the protection of rights, maybe conditionality, where appropriate, when governments are being supported, and also, with an eye on security, which I think is an integral part of development, which cannot only have an economic component, but where security and new risks must be appreciated and – as I mentioned, and as the question hints to, also from a human rights point of view.
Because too often, we see that the rollout and the making available of new technologies, including by the private sector, does not get accompanied by safeguarding people. Like, for example, I was the Chief Observer on behalf of the European Union in Kenya for the elections in 2017, and those elections were highly digitised in all segments of the democratic process. But Kenya, at the time, did not have data protection laws, and so, this just is an anecdotal example of how the digitisation, without a right framework, can lead to new challenges for people, even as the goal is to have a humancentric approach, which is very, very clear from the UN’s roadmap and the results and the report of the high-level panel.
So, let me touch on two more things and then I’m happy to engage in more interactive exchange with participants. I think another question that will have to be addressed in the, sort of, how to make the roadmap work is the question of governance, and the question of how the public good and the common good, which has been clearly mentioned today and in the roadmap, are actually safeguarded, and what that means for responsibilities and accountability of the private sector, which is powerful in unprecedented ways in the digital domain. And so, I think we have to be conscious of the fact that when the benefits and the profits are all going into private hands, when the price of risk is being paid by the public, then we have a problem. So, questions about who is responsible, in a multi-stakeholder context, how can the accountability gap be closed. I know this report is not so much about cyber, but the same question must be asked in the cyber domain, as in the internet governance domain, as in the whole vision for the digital society.
And so, what I think will be a challenge going forward is which values are going to be leading? We cannot be naïve about the competition between governance systems, where there’s clearly, you know, democratic models that the EU, for example, is trying to articulate and continues to lead in. There’s also more authoritarian models that are gaining steam and power, and whether we like it or not, and I would say there’s a private governance model. And I think that has to be recognised for what it is, and I think the UN, like no other international organisation, has this global view, has this global mandate, has this global remit, and it will be an extremely challenging task to balance the different interests, but one that will probably, sooner or later, have to start tackling the values question and the principles question, and has to, kind of, mitigate the big differences in interests that are at stake.
I think COVID has underlined what is at stake and how some of the entrenched interests and roles can even be accelerated, even if we thought they were already quite powerful, like that of the private sector. The role of children has been mentioned, I think, a lot of parents must have been quite frustrated, after trying to teach their kids not to look at screens too much, having to depend on screens for their kids to go to school, so how to roll that back, I don’t envy them. The same can be said for health, as an entirely new sector, where big tech companies have made huge inroads, whereas health data has been protected, with very high standards originally, and now is becoming opened up in a way that I think will have many consequences for notions of surveillance of people, for notions of data security and Data Protection that will have to be looked at.
So, to conclude, I think the stakes are high, the urgency is extraordinary, the task of the UN is herculean, but I hope that the momentum that we’re in, including because of the pandemic, will lead to new willingness on the part of all stakeholders to come together, and it will also mean that there has to be engagement from all sides who feel like there’s something at stake. So, there will no doubt be a challenging, sort of, political battle emerging, and we will be following, and I think it’s also an open invitation, that’s how I see the roadmap, for engagement by multiple stakeholders to frame the next steps, and to actually start engaging in the challenging discussions that cannot be avoided, such as those about values and governance.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Thank you for those comments, Marietje, and I think when you come in later, on one of your later comments, it would be good as well to get your perspective on where you think European countries and/or the EU will play in this process, ‘cause the how will require support. It’ll require champions to get behind the roadmap, to lead by example, to set a precedence, if you see what I’m saying.
And, Fabrizio, I know this is a tough question, but you’re on a – you’re used to taking them, but a lot of the questions coming in on Slido at the moment revolve around a similar topic, which is the fact that there are barriers rising, there are different visions of the future of the internet. And, as I noted to Marietje, and I played out the remarks by the Secretary-General about being concerned about the use of surveillance by governments maybe impinging on individual rights, about restrictions on content, how do you go from making the statement that you’ve made of these principles, the Secretary-General has made, what support do you need to ensure, or what steps could be taken to ensure, that the internet does not become a world of barriers, where you’re ending up with a splintered net, as that phrase has been used for many years right now, but if there are different approaches to the economic returns versus the rights for return – the rights for human rights, you may end up with a very different set of approaches to governing the internet, as we look to the future? But I’m wondering how you’ve thought about this issue of the rise of barriers. So, it’s almost like the roadmap is a call to stop this from happening, to remind everyone we’re in it together, but, you know, where do you need the help from? What are the steps that could be taken to prevent this from becoming a more splintered environment?
Fabrizio Hochschild
Thank you. I think if current trends are left to drift, which is more or less what’s happening now, we will end up with a splintered internet. We will end up with competing internets. We will betray one of the chief virtues of the internet, which is its universal reach, and we will end up less secure, more unequal, and, overall, with our human rights threatened. Because, of course, splintering the internet is going to lead to competition, attacks, and we’re already seeing that, and, of course, it’s hugely expensive to try and splinter the internet, to try and create walls in cyberspace. It’s massively resource intensive, resources that otherwise could be put to better purposes. So, I think we have to act against that drift and really make an effort, and I, frankly, think Europe has a strong role to play in that. Europe, of all regions, is the most advanced in finding a good balance between protecting public interest, and, at the same time, allowing for innovation, and I think Europe could perhaps be a little more courageous and exercise greater leadership in doing that, and, of course, that’s a personal observation.
But I think we have to go back, and I don’t think – you know, let’s not – I mean, Marietje made an extremely good comments, but she said “Don’t be naïve about the competing values,” but let’s not also be naïve. Those competing interpretations of how to apply international human rights norms preceded the intervention of the internet. Different values around freedom of speech, including incidentally between the US and Europe, so let’s not oversimplify, preceded the intervention of the internet. So, the assumption that we would have a technology, and I know this is a simplification, I know this is a caricature, but it helps me make my point, that we would have an invention in some part of California that would then spread to the whole world and would automatically carry with it the set of values that happened in that particular – that happened to be the dominant values of those people who – males, white males, behind it in California, would automatically spread with it, is, you know, a little bit like the assumptions of Missionaries, who went forth to spread the Bible in the 19th Century.
I mean, I don’t think that’s an assumption to make. Of course there are universal values enshrined in the UN, of course we have to uphold those values, including in digital, and the UN has reaffirmed the application online as offline of human rights values. But to think that a universal invention would mean that we would suddenly have universal values in itself was a little naïve. But, having said that, I do think that the internet and the fight of the technology is symptomatic of a broader breakdown and a broader resurgence of global politics. So, it’s much the symptom – it’s more a symptom than a cause that the resurgence in global politics has grabbed onto some technology issues to manifest itself, and that’s not helpful.
And my third point is that I don’t think we should overexaggerate the differences, either. I think there is room for commonality, and I think we’re overplaying the differences and underplaying the common ingredients. The Security Council, with the countries who are most in rivalry, have, over the past ten/15 years, had very important agreements around counterterrorism in cyberspace, and the big states have agreed on those. In Osaka, at the G20, with states that theoretically can’t reach agreement, they did reach agreement on a declaration, which included upholding human rights on the internet, so there are examples where states have come together.
And, for me, the biggest deficit in international co-operation in this is illustrated by child harms. When it comes to freedom of speech, when it comes to exercising human rights obligations, when it comes to acceptable limits of surveillance, there are very big differences between the US, between Europe, between China, between Russia, and between other countries. But when it comes to doing harm to children, there’s a pretty universal sharing of values, that the internet should not be used as a tool for abuse and harm to children, and I don’t see big regional differences anywhere. And yet, harms to children have increased at a greater speed than the spread of the internet, so that, for me, even in areas where we have universal agreement, we can’t make differences of values, we do not have adequate mechanisms to scale with the problems we’re facing.
So, I think we have to not put aside our differences, but not let those differences, as is being done now, paralyse us. Not let those differences take away all hope and motivation of change. And we have to rise to the challenge, and just do better, and there are areas like counterterrorism, like harm to children, where there is pretty universal agreement, and I think we can also find agreement on the other areas. We can find common principles. So, I think we shouldn’t let the momentum of isolationism and resurgence of global politics frighten us, paralyse us, which is a little bit what’s happening, and we need those, who have managed to negotiate this at a regional level with great success, to raise their ambitions, to try and do this globally. Not only because it will serve the world well, but because it will also serve them well, because unless they’re going to invest billions in erecting cyber fences, they will remain vulnerable to the extent that we don’t have universal, as well as regional approaches.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Very interesting points, some very important points. What I’m going to do is, I want to just come back to Marietje because Europe was called out a couple of times, then I’m going to go to Maria, I think to dig a bit more into the cybersecurity side, ‘cause I think that’s something you all know very practically. But let me just start, before cybersecurity, Marietje, this – you know, do you think COVID-19 has changed the debate at all in Europe about attitudes to big platforms? You know, there’s been a much bigger reliance on them for COVID tracing and apps, there seems to be a relaxation in attitudes to the – the negative attitudes, should we say, to some of the big platforms on that front. Do you think there’s an opportunity for a, sort of, coalition to emerge perhaps even between the US, Europe, some other countries, to start to create the framework for political change? ‘Cause the UN can only lead as far as the governments are willing to then pick up the baton and take it. Do you see any movement here or not?
Marietje Schaake
Well, I wanted to pick up on what Fabrizio said about this notion that technology would be a self-fulfilling prophecy for liberty and certain values was always, you know, clad in high amount of wishful thinking, and governance is important, and we cannot expect optimal outcomes without efforts. And I think some of the same wishful thinking or similar wishful thinking, I mean, we can’t really compare, but – is seen with these technological solutions for the pandemic. I am not seeing many successes yet, even though obviously, everybody is desperate to find solutions to lockdowns while safeguarding public health and individual health, but there has been a lot of overpromise of which role technology and apps would play here, including in Europe.
So, what I hope is that Europe will continue on the path, because I do believe it was leading, the European Union was leading in acknowledging that this self-fulfilling prophesy was failing, and that we needed to be deliberate about anchoring technology and its use and its applications in the rule of law, while recognising, and because we recognise, that the rule of law provides the framework for the quality of life of people, for questions of fairness, for questions of accountability, for questions of redistribution, and senses of responsibility.
And so, when I think about the role of Europe, I can only hope and encourage leaders that are in office now to not be distracted in many ways by the COVID-19 pandemic and by the overtures of tech companies, which have been obvious, there have been a lot of charm offensives, but I think the agenda, such as the data strategy, the AI strategy, and the updating of the GDPR, Digital Services Act and other legislation, still needs to be finished, and have made initial steps to rebalance the oversight over the private sector, governance in the public interest and the safeguarding of rights, and I think that that is still extremely important.
What I hope will happen now is that Europe will take more of a global role at the UN in this roadmap effort, but also, as a leading force to build coalitions between democracies and democracy-supporting actors. I believe that the task ahead and the stakes in governance competition are so high that democracies have to come together from, you know, Japan to India to the European Union and the United States and Canada, to – or Australia, basically the whole broad coalition of democracies, to develop a democratic governance model of technology, and I hope that the EU will play a leading role there.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Something we can return to maybe later on, and fast to the question, and I’m conscious that we’ve only got 15 minutes left and we’re – I’ve got – for those of you sending questions on Slido, thank you very much, a huge number coming in, and I will get to a few of them, with some short answers as we go on. But I wanted to come back to Maria Garza in particular because the second, or maybe it was the third point actually, in the list that we had from Fabrizio before was about protect, and the extent to which cybersecurity has now become as much of an infrastructure need for many companies as any other element has become. What is the role of business in making sure that the higher standards are being put into place for cybersecurity, both for your own companies, but also, helping then individuals make the best use of the internet?
Maria Fernanda Garza
Well, first of all, I’d like to thank Marietje for her comment about the rule of law, which is a must in our region and many regions of the world, and this is also applicable to the cybersecurity, which is of special relevance right now. Online scams like ransom or attacks and phishing email schemes have proliferated in Latin America amid the coronavirus pandemic, and this poses incredible threats to people, business and governments as well. And this is of particular relevance for SMEs that have been hit very, very hard by the pandemic, and are also the target of these cyberattacks in general. Just in 2019, it was estimated that one out of five SMEs had fallen victim to ransomware attacks, but more than that, in the US, they estimated that 60% of these SMEs who were victims of attacks, did not recover and had to shutdown after six months.
Now, imagine the situation with the pandemic. Many SMEs do not have enough working capital to support themselves for more than 30 days without operations, and from 40 to 60% of these businesses will never reopen after a disaster. So, in an economy such as the one in Mexico, where there are over four million SMEs and they generate 52% of the GDP and 78% of employment, this can really have devastating consequences. That is why the ICC launch a campaign early at the beginning of the pandemic that’s called Save our SMEs, SOS, that is based on the collaboration and action and information sharing, and we work on this with partners from international organisations like the WHO, the ILO, the UNICEF, and also, with companies like Amazon and Facebook, and non-profits like the Cyber Readiness Institute. So – and also, with local Chambers of Commerce, from The Gambia to Canada, and we gather the resources and offer support, policy advice and training to MSMEs, so they can battle this crisis.
With our partners, we offer tools and training on cybersecurity, digital rapid response measured by banks, or making use of digital to make sure that trade and finance, supply chains, dispute resolution or brand protection, continues under the situation that we have right now. Because on this unprecedented context, the MSMEs – we need to support them because they are the backbones of our economies. All stakeholders and communities across the globe have come together, in the face of this crisis, so we really need to show the same spirit of co-operation and embrace to build back better, and bring the other half of the world online and be able to bridge these existing divides. Now, more than ever, we have seen what we can do working together.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Yeah, exactly, this – you’re right, the crisis has brought out the best, in many cases, of what’s possible, not just some of the worst, in terms of what nature can inflict. What I – the top question that we’ve got here, I’m going to link to, from Pablo, who asked a question whether there could be a new treaty on the new technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. I know this is a time when people are highly sceptical about the capacity to get governments together around treaty ideas, but when people think of the UN, Fabrizio, I’m afraid, and you yourself gave the example of 1946, you know, people do think about treaty opportunities. And if you yourself was trying to describe the things that were outside maybe of the most contentious areas of geopolitical competition, some aspects of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, as Jake also mentioned, are built around AI, which will be absolutely central to the Fourth Industrial Revolution and is already proving that way, where there’s some pure artificial intelligence, or more simply in assisted intelligence, assisting human beings. Do you think there’s any scope or appetite, whether amongst governments or creating some broader multi-stakeholder approach, to try to look at the Fourth Industrial Revolution as a space where governments and other stakeholders, companies, NGOs, could come together, a, kind of, forward-looking set of commitments and principles, more around the economic space, which maybe, maybe would be less contentious in this geopolitical environment? How would you answer that question, Fabrizio?
Fabrizio Hochschild
Thank you very much. First, let me just go back to your previous question, but I will be very brief. You know, what I – you asked how we can better respond to these challenges. First, I should say that the roadmap we’ve put together was a multi-stakeholder effort. We played a co-ordinating role, as the Secretary-General, but it was put together by multi-stakeholder roundtables, with very diverse stakeholder participation, and very diverse geographic participation. And I also have to acknowledge, in case I was perceived to be too critical of Europe, that the EU was a very active participant in our roundtables, France, Netherlands, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, were all champions, leaders, and played a fantastic role. So, we had very strong engagement from many, many EU states, so I don’t want to be on record for not adequately acknowledging that.
In terms of a new treaty, you know, some states have called for a new treaty or a new convention. Some private sector actors have called for it, you know, Brad Smith caused a stir a few years ago by calling for a digital Geneva Convention. Many, at the time, said it was premature, it was not realistic. I think that the current global environment is not conducive to treaties. I think treaties usually take ten to 15 years to develop, so, also, regardless of the dysfunctional global politics, by the time it was ready, it would already be out of date. And I think, if you look at governance, it’s moving towards other models. I mean, the SDG, the Sustainable Development Goals, are not enshrined in the treaty, they’re a global declaration where member states came together, sent out aspirations, and then articulated their commitments under that. The Paris Climate Accord is similar, it’s not a treaty, as such. The Global Compact on Migration, which Chatham House did a lot of good work on, the Global Compact on Refugees, these are different models, and, indeed, in line with that, we have proposed that there should be a high-level political declaration on digital trust and security.
But I have to acknowledge, many states want that, but many states also consider that too binding, and there is – you know, there is a dominant atmosphere that we go further alone than together, which, you know, whether we like it or not, is reality. So, I think it’s highly desirable. I think, in the economic fields, maybe there’s more space, but if we see what’s happening around the way of World Trade Organization and with regard to trade agreements in general, it’s not – and also, with regard to digital companies, it’s not an area without its own geopolitics and not functioning terribly well. But I do believe, not least to try and articulate common principles, that we should put an effort into trying to articulate not a treaty, but some global principles, commonly held principles, of – for example, to protect against child harms, for example, to have universal affordable access, for example, to combat terrorism, and there are areas where it shouldn’t be that difficult. So, I think it’s certainly desirable. How feasible it is, we will see, in the months to come. I mean, it’s a recommendation in the report, and we’ll see to what extent this flounders on the rocks of resurgent geopolitical rivalries, or to what extent the – I would say the majority of member states who would probably wish for something like that can make their voices prevail.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
So, I’m wondering – but I’ll take the question over maybe to Marietje and then back to Maria as well, and I saw by one of my colleagues there, 160 different statements of principles on AI out there right now. I mean, everyone’s got a different set of principles. Perhaps one of the roles of the UN and what we need to have here, given that the treaty world, which we’ve had lots of questions about, is probably just unfeasible in the near-term future, we’re much more into creating environments where standards are expressed that carry multi-stakeholder support, even if not of all governments, and then companies and civil societies and individuals are almost shamed into trying to follow them or not.
It’s a very different theory of change to the one that animated the 20th Century, in the second half of the 20th Century. But, Marietje, I’m just wondering whether you think we need to be coming up, especially with the work you’re doing in Stanford, do we need some different approach to governance that’s going to be more realistic for this world? ‘Cause when I see the roadmap from the UN, maybe we need to be, sort of, cracking three or four of the recommendations, turning them into individual declarations, and then trying to build support round them individually. What – how would you break it open and try to push change?
Marietje Schaake
I think the example of the multitude of ethics frameworks, which I think the roadmap refers to and which I’ve pointed out in the past by saying when everything is ethics, nothing is, and I think with all these big declarations, we have to wonder, you know, why is there a parallel process of all these ethics frameworks when we already have the rule of law principles, and who benefits from having such a different approach? My sense is, oftentimes, it’s the already powerful private sector that benefits from talking about ethics, and not about universal human rights, accountability, and other kinds of concepts that are well enshrined in our laws. And I would ask the same question to those who are pushing treaties, who benefits of that process? Which I think Fabrizio pointed out very clearly, are very, very lengthy, and perhaps not the tool that we need right now.
So, one avenue that I think is worth exploring, and I know has been highlighted in the roadmap as well, is this notion of norms. You know, can we come together by articulating very clear principles that meet the challenges of the moment, that cover areas that may not be so clearly defined, both in terms of definitions and in terms of procedures and accountability mechanisms, in existing law, whether it be international law or national law or trade agreements or whatnot? And so, through norms, we can really create big and broad and multi-stakeholder coalitions of the willing, and then look at whether these norms may solidify into laws later, or into, you know, other kinds of mechanisms of enforcement.
But I think that’s an avenue where action can be more swift, and where we can really say, you know, we don’t have to wait until everybody’s onboard, which, you know, it’s a great ideal, but sometimes not feasible, I remember this from the EU times, and certainly in the global context, this is a difficult time for unanimity. But we should not stop and continue to look for innovative ways to make sure that there’s not too much of a vacuum in the way in which principles are articulated, and the way in which they’re applied. And I think that that’s the big risk of the moment, that some of the credibility of efforts can be eroded, if there’s no enforcement and if there’s no way to actually make sure that people do what they sign up to and not just sign nice declarations on ethics or otherwise.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
We’ve – well, we’re coming close to the end of time, and I think we’re going to go five minutes or so over, if the panellists can spare us the extra five minutes, just ‘cause there are a lot of questions, and I’d like to be able to get to a couple more. But, Maria, I wanted to come to you because the roadmap has some pretty strong language, and I know this isn’t your corporate sector, obviously you’re involved in a manufacturing SME, but you’re carrying the ICC flag, but there’s some strong language in there, Fabrizio will correct me if I’m wrong, but talking about the, you know, collection of personal data for commercial purposes, being a model that really will have to change, that somehow the balance that has emerged as driving this incredible explosion of internet technologies is one that will not be sustainable in the long-term, within that, sort of, protect and trust and safety context that Fabrizio described at the beginning. Even SMEs, I imagine, must be caught up a little bit in this side, where does the ICC stand on this issue of an internet system that is heavily driven on the big platform side by being able to monetise personal data, and this, kind of, trade-off that exists? What’s your sense? Will that have to change? What are you hearing? You’re muted, Maria, so you just need to unmute.
Maria Fernanda Garza
Yeah. Definitely, and I was just thinking about this as Marietje was speaking. It took us – it has taken us more than 100 years to regulate the traditional markets, not the virtual ones, and even though countries like the UK and the United States have competition regulations and laws for more than 100 years, there are countries that still do not have them right now in place, and they do not control monopolies and all kinds of disruptions of the market. So, we cannot afford to go another 100 years with this situation, this is something that we need to act as soon as now, especially on the crisis. And for the ICC and its global network of 45 million businesses, in more than 100 countries, we are ready to start acting on this, and enable meaningful digital inclusion that concerns all of these issues in years to come.
But a business does not operate in a vacuum, and we cannot act alone, that is why we need effective collaboration between all the stakeholders in achieving all of these and as they exist, especially on the COVID-19, because we cannot afford to leave anybody behind right now. The situation is even more complicated than it was before, due to the pandemic. So, we are really excited to see this spirit reflected in the roadmap and look forward to playing a full part in the evolution and implementation of the roadmap that tackles all these issues you were mention. The digital technologies, we understand, and we all know, that present challenges, but, thankfully, they also present almost unique upsights. So, we really need to take – seize this opportunity that it’s presented by the General – Secretary-General’s leadership to avoid the possible fat back of division and fragmentation, and we need to really embrace this digital co-operation as the bedrock of the future to rebuild from the crisis that we’re facing us today, but to rebuild better than before.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Thank you for those comments. Let me come round to a couple of last comments by Fabrizio and Marietje. Maybe I should let Fabrizio have the last word, but I therefore, won’t give him the question that he cannot answer, or – oh, well, no, the other way round, the one that I know how he’ll answer, actually, maybe I should say, which is, will the UN remain the best platform to be able to deal with these types of very complex problems into the future? And I don’t know whether Marietje, as a former Politician, a recovering Politician, you might just talk a little bit about the framework that you think the UN still does or doesn’t offer, what is its potential? And not – I don’t know whether you have a, kind of, view as well on the issue of blockchain, because there is a big discussion here as to whether the, kind of, transparency that it can provide might actually become an interesting tool to enable a much more frank conversation about the future of internet governance in the future. But maybe something about the UN, if you’ve got something to say, as we did have a question on the future role of blockchain. I’ve then got two very specific questions for Fabrizio to finish up with. So, last words from you, Marietje.
Marietje Schaake
Thank you. I’ll be brief. I think blockchain might have to be looked at in a different session, because it’s such a new, kind of, theme. So, I’ll stick to the question of who can best govern and how can we get there? You know, I’m always reminded, when I hear a lot of recommendations about multi-stakeholder processes, that democracy is a multi-stakeholder process. You know, when we look at how the EU proposes new legislation, there’s public consultation, there are input sessions, there are sessions with civil society, and people can approach lawmakers and share their expertise, whether they’re academics or people representing the private sector or non-European governments, and, of course, also European governments.
So, I think that we should build on success that we see, and I personally believe that the UN offers opportunities to convene, but when we look at the balance of power between democracies and non-democracies, we have to also be mindful of what is at stake when we start pushing for treaties or when we hear pushes for treaties, because the majority voices are not always on the side of democracy. And I think that’s something that a lot of people should be worried about, including the private sector, notably tech platforms, that have benefited so fundamentally from having emerged in free and open societies. And I really urge them to give back to those principles, and not to be completely pragmatic, if not to say cynical, and only go for the biggest revenues and profits at the expense of the very foundations that have, one, allowed them to grow, and, two, have facilitated and enabled and safeguarded the best quality of life for people, including the protection of rights. So, I see a lot of relevance for the United Nations, but I do urge those who support the rule of law to stand up and to try to influence the processes of the UN, because otherwise others will, and I think it will be to the detriment of openness, including technological openness.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Sorry, a very clear statement, thank you, and it’ll give an opportunity for Fabrizio to come back. Fabrizio, I’ve got one – if you don’t mind, one technical question, which you may or may not be able to answer, but I think it was quite specific, and maybe you addressed it in your topic, and then I’ll give you one broad question, because it is the one that’s at the top of the list, I’m afraid, now that I did the other one. But one from Alfredo Caldaron, who said, “Digital content repositories are available in most countries. The biggest issue is the economic and business models used by local ISPs. What is the UN doing?” If there is something you have to say about that, then I’ll let you mull on it, but you won’t necessarily appreciate me doing that, because the question that remains at the top of the list is, “If the US continues to retreat from multilateral institutions, then how will the UN cope with China asserting a brand of digital authoritarianism as the working model that the UN, in essence, should be operating under? How does it manage that reality, not least, given the strong statements in the roadmap there about human rights being at the core of it?” So, a very – a technical one and a difficult one. Maybe they’re both difficult. But over to you, Fabrizio, you can handle this.
Fabrizio Hochschild
Thank you. Look, on the technical one, I would have to consult, to give a detailed technical answer, with my colleagues from the International Telecoms Union, ITU, but – so, I can’t answer on a technical level. On a more political level, what I can say is that one of the eight principal lines of argument of the roadmap is that we have to boost digital public goods, and that includes across geographic boundaries. So, where there are public goods resting domestically or held by specific domains, we are trying to find ways, technically and politically, that they can become more broadly accessible, and there’s a lot of excellent work already going into that, spearheaded by Norway, but with the very broad multi-stakeholder and multinational alliance behind it.
In terms of, you know, China versus the US, this is complicated, and we shouldn’t oversimplify it. You know, the UN is made up of 193 member states, and even if obviously, large states, moreover permanent members of the Security Council, moreover some of the largest economies in the world, moreover now some of the largest contributors to the UN, have a very high profile and a very high weight, you know, we are 193 member states, and they are two of those. So, it shouldn’t be a zero-sum game, and it’s not a zero-sum game, and it’s never been a zero-sum game, even during the Cold War, between Model A or Model B.
And I think – you know, I – and, again, speaking in a personal capacity, and many may disagree with me, but I say this as somebody who’s worked and watched the UN for over 30 years, with a resurgence in global politics, I think there’s been a little bit of a trend, a, sort of, sudden multilateralism fatigue where, you know, with the elephants butting heads, the smaller actors have felt, you know, we should hide in the grass, we should keep our heads down, we should not get into the brawl, we’ll only get trampled upon. And I think now is the moment to step up, now is the moment to assert, I don’t want to say a third way, but assert a more multilateral way, where we do reach common agreement. And, again, I think there’s a tendency to overplay the divisions and underplay the agreement.
I mean, just think – and, you know, I was amazed, when we put together the panel, co-led by a very successful Chinese Entrepreneur and a very liberal US Philanthropist, with people from every continent, with very diverse backgrounds, I was very concerned that there would be no panel report. That the level of disagreement would be such that either we would end up with a horribly vague, loose product like so many UN declarations that just retreats into generalities, or we’d have to keep highlighting options and divisions among the panellists. But we got very broad agreements among very diverse people, and likewise with the roadmap, we had these multi-stakeholder panels, we had people from very different backgrounds, very different professions, very different geographies, coming together and agreeing on the same things.
And so, there is a huge level of consensus, and by the way, I mean, this panel, for me, is also an illustration of that. I mean, there are three of us with very different backgrounds, very different formations, and I wholeheartedly agree with everything I’ve heard from Marietje and from Maria Fernanda, and I have to say the only substantive difference between us, leaving gender aside, is that I’m not called Marius, but, you know, having now been inspired by them, I will think of changing that. But – so, I don’t think – I think we have to make the effort to build on our disagreements, not get overly distracted by resurgent geopolitics, and let the voices of industry, of civil society, of the vast majority of the member states, be heard and build on that, and not – you know, not be so – I mean, let’s rise to the challenge, let’s raise our level of ambition.
You know that our forefathers, and I have to say they were mostly male at that time, unfortunately, didn’t let themselves be discouraged, in the 40s and the 50s, by massive global divisions, the North-South division, the East-West division. They built institutions that have kept us safe, so I hope we don’t go down in history as the selfish generation that couldn’t rise to the challenge, that gave up, and profited greatly from the efforts of those who came before us, and left a world, for those after us, that wasn’t just destroyed environmentally, but was also more divided than ever. I think we have to do better.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Those are stirring last words, Fabrizio, thank you very much for sharing them, and a big thanks to all of you, Fabrizio, obviously, Maria Fernanda, Marietje, for joining us this afternoon, for sharing your different perspectives, obviously coming from the different angles you have. We shared on the Slido the link to the various documents and so on, and, as Fabrizio mentioned, there’s a sequence that you can follow through there from the high-level report, to the recommendations, through to the roadmap that’s just been released. And the one thing I can confidently say is that it provides a big menu, as I think you were saying, Fabrizio, at the end, for others to step up to.
We can easily be frozen by just the spectacle of the growing geopolitical competition we face today, but, as I think you rightly said, there is a multilateral way. It’s proved very successful in the past, and we all need to do our bit to step up and try to pick it up. From Chatham House’s perspective, I’ll simply do a callout for our inclusive governance initiative, which is actually looking at these frontier areas of technology governance, amongst others, trying to think how more bottom up approaches can dock, maybe the right word to use, to dock with some of the bigger, multilateral and government-led processes, because everyone’s going to have to play a role in the end for multi-stakeholder to be legitimate and not just become its own term. So, all I would say is thank you enormously to all three of you, and for all of you who’ve joined us, and for the many, many questions that came in, I’m – I did my best to group them by intent, and didn’t call each of you out individually, but I think we covered the main sets of topics that were brought up there. So, a big thank you from Chatham House. I think we can – we should all unmute, so we can hear at least the four or five of us applauding each other for great work done.
Maria Fernanda Garza
Thanks.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Hope to see you again, physically, and keep in touch with all of us. Thank you very much.
Maria Fernanda Garza
Thank you. Bye, bye. Thank you.
Fabrizio Hochschild
Thank you, all. Take care.
Dr Robin Niblett CMG
Bye.
