Holger Haibach, MP: Freedom of Opinion under Dictatorship

International Conference
"Freedom of Opinion and of the Press for all Cubans - Perspectives for a Democratic Change in Cuba"
A Conference of the International Society for Human Rights/ISHR-IGFM
Königstein/Taunus, May 5 - 6, 2006

Holger Haibach, MP
Speaker of the Christian Democrats in the Parliament's Human Rights Commission of the Deutscher Bundestag

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank you very much for your kind invitation to the Cuba Conference of the annual general meeting of the ISHR. As in previous years I am glad that I could follow your invitation and hope that we will all enjoy interesting and stimulating talks and discussions.

The ISHR has a longstanding reputation for promoting Human Rights through its conventions that is renowned all over the world. Therefore I am even more pleased that I have the opportunity to speak to you today.

The Internet has shown a robust growth in recent years and it has been joined by many new users. The Internet has become indispensable not only in the commercial field of online shops and auctions but also for the social life. It is used by many people all over the word not only as a mean of communication but also as a source for current news and information. To this end online news services as well as the websites of broadcasters and publishers are used. It is especially the promptness with which information can be acquired on the internet that is appealing to many users.

But the Internet is also gaining significance because many clubs and organisations put information about their work on the web instantaneous and ask users to contribute in discussions or by collaboration in a number of different projects. In addition to this there is a growing number of web forums and online diaries, so called weblogs, in which the participants can share their opinions on social or political issues.

The issue of the suppression of the press and free speech is probably as old as the state. In recent years however a new aspect has been added that shines a light on how dictatorships work and how they control their citizens. With the spread of the Internet the desire of many dictatorial and authoritarian states to control access to and the content of many web pages has also risen significantly.

These measures affect especially human rights groups such as amnesty international, the ISHR or Reporters without Borders that campaign for freedom of speech in the countries concerned. Particularly those states that have a standing for strict information and press policies have recently added censorship of the Internet to their questionable reputation.

Mainly the communist regimes in China and Vietnam but also a host of Islamic states censor or block whole Internet sites under the guise of protecting their people from ,bad, or ,unhealthy, information. In reality though, they have the intention to shut out unwanted content and to abolish the freedom of information. These regimes are mostly aware that their actions constitute a breach of international conventions such as the Universal declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

What kind of control is exerted?

Today there are two major ways to censor the Internet: The first is the general denial of access to the Internet by regulating the distribution of private Internet access or the admission to public internet computers in Cyber Cafes etc. The other is the screening of content by state authorities; only content that conforms to government rules is then made accessible.

An especially blatant example of rigid access control is Turkmenistan where it is illegal for private individuals to have an Internet access. Use of the Internet is only permitted for members of the civil service via their office computers. This allows it for the government to keep the community of Internet users small and controllable. Obviously anyone who uses such methods is not interested in a policy of freedom of information for his people. Internet censorship is also commonplace in Belarus where the government tightly controls access to the net to quell any opposition rigorously. The same path is followed by the government of communist North Korea or the rulers of Myanmar (Burma) who shut out their citizens from the Internet as well and persecute any dissidents.

State repression in Cuba

The situation in Cuba is quite similar. Access to the Internet is restricted to a few citizens. Computers are hardly available and E-Mail communication is closely monitored. Only about 120.000 out of Cuba's 11 million inhabitants have access to the Internet. A special ministry was even founded in the year 2000 with the task to monitor and regulate networks and telecommunication. Most citizens have only access to an Intranet that is compiled and authorised by the government, access to the World Wide Web is restricted and only open to tourists. Illegal use of computers and the Internet is prosecuted and severely punished by authorities.

Only a few weeks ago news broke that the Cuban journalist Guillermo Fariñas Hernandez went on a hunger strike to force Cuban authorities to grant him access to the Internet. He also demands free Internet access for all Cubans and an independent press to report on the performance of the government. It is for those and other reasons that the organisation Reporters without Borders has Cuba on its list of the largest prisons for journalists and counts the country also among the "15 Enemies of the Internet".

Journalists critical of the regime, like Fariñas, accuse the government of using the longstanding US embargo against the island as a pretext for the limitation of Internet access.  States authorities for example claim that because of the embargo it is impossible for them to obtain modern telecommunication technology like fibreglass cables to modernise the country's run down telephone network. But this appears to be nothing more than a cheap excuse given the fact that no more than 10% of all Cubans have a phone connection and this only after obtaining a licence from the phone company. In defiance of the repression by the state a growing number of Cubans tries to circumvent the government's blockade of information and to get hold of an Internet connection. But those who succeed may face a prison term for counterrevolutionary use of the Internet. Because of that we have to pay great respect to people like Guillermo Fariñas who put their health and personal well being at risk in their fight for freedom. The ISHR has also got itself involved in his case and is campaigning for support for Cuban journalists and dissidents.

"China's great Firewall"

In another communist country control of the Internet is much more diverse and sophisticated. The People's Republic of China (PRC) presents itself as a prime example of Internet censorship. The PRC leadership has acknowledged that the Internet is a significant factor for the countries economy which can spur economic growth and bring about international contacts. But China's Internet boom also constitutes a threat for the communist regime which is not ready to share its power and to open up the country for democracy.

In recent years China has erected a new wall around the country. With reference to the famous historic Great Wall the government has put up "The Great Firewall" to keep its people from receiving unwanted information through the Internet.

At the moment there are 100 million Internet users in China and their number is growing by the day. The economic dynamic of this huge country has also its effect on the Internet. The main areas of interest are commercial sites like online shopping and banking but also entertainment and job offers. While these areas of the Internet can be used almost without restriction the access to foreign sites with political content is next to impossible.

The "Great Firewall" that has already been mentioned tries to regulate the influx of information into the country or even to stop it. This task is assisted by special police units for the monitoring of the cyberspace. Foreign websites are the hardest hit by these measures as domestic Internet content has to be registered with authorities and must be approved by them. Under the pretext of fighting pornography several thousand foreign websites were shut out in the year 2004 and also about 8600 cybercafés were shut down during the same campaign. While the ban on pornography is only a side event to prevent the undermining of the moral values propagated by the communist government, the main interest of the authorities is the surveillance of dissidents and dissenting intellectuals. The filters employed in the institutions controlling the Internet are often programmed in such a way that requests for banned websites are redirected to government websites, making the display of the websites of human rights organisations impossible.

Especially such Internet sites that publish comments on the democracy movement or demands for the further opening of the country invariably face suppression. Even more than 15 years after the brutal squashing of the democracy movement on the Tiananmen Square in Beijing articles and reports about these events are strictly forbidden and their authors are persecuted. It has also become increasingly difficult to obtain news from foreign sources since authorities have blocked access to Google News.

Google itself has been criticised for making advances to the Chinese censors by publishing a stifled version of its website for Chinese users that is more in tune with the demands of the communist rulers. Censorship now extends even to the search engine itself. Search results for queries such as "Human Rights", "amnesty international", "ISHR" or popular broadcasters as "BBC" are still displayed but the results are not linked to the actual websites making the search engines virtually unusable for performing such queries. Self-censorship of this kind has also been witnessed with other popular internet portals, as for example sina.com, that want to safe themselves from being banned.

The Internet portal Yahoo has even gone one step further by handing over personal data of two Chinese bloggers to the authorities. Those two dissidents have meanwhile been arrested and sentenced to prison terms. This example makes it quite clear what the Chinese government fears about the Internet: the perceived freedom and anonymity on the Internet that tempt dissidents to express their opinions more openly. But the censorship strikes back unremorseful and wrestles down all expressions of discontent. This course of action is an evident proof of the fact that the communist party still wants to uphold dictatorship in China and does not tolerate any form of political resistance. Their motto is: Yes to market oriented reforms but no political concessions that could strengthen the opposition.

Arabic and Islamic countries

The situation in many Islamic countries is quite similar. Access to the Internet is also strictly regulated and content is being filtered or blocked as well. It is this policy of censorship that has reinforced the digital divide between the rich and the poor. A study on the use of the Internet in a number of Arab states published by the human rights organisation "Arabic Portal for Human Rights Information" has shown that "among poverty and illiteracy, especially political repression is the prime cause for the slow development". The United Nations as well have stated in an report on the development in those countries that a lack of education, the common shortage of internet access and censorship are the reason why Arab countries are lagging behind in their economic and social development. Having the skill to write and read is today a key element in the development of states and societies. In a world in which success is increasingly based on knowledge, illiteracy becomes the largest obstacle to economic growth and the development of a democratic society. This relationship is exploited by authoritarian regimes because those who cannot read and inform themselves are susceptible to government propaganda.

States like Tunisia and Iran are examples for the increase in control of the web. In those states the number of public cybercafés has significantly increased and a growing number of schools and universities are connected to the Internet. But while the possibilities to access the Internet have increased so have the censorship of websites and the control of Internet users.

Tunisia has above all gained a questionable reputation in this respect. On the one hand the government under President Ben Ali has expanded the state owned telecommunication network, put up new cybercafés and increased access to the Internet. But on the other hand Internet users are only allowed to see what has been approved by the censors and what is deemed to be no threat to "national security". Especially foreign media with reports on the human rights situation and articles critical of the government are blocked. Like in many other countries it is only possible to use a cybercafé after registering with the authorities.  With respect to the fact that Tunisia was connected to the Internet relatively early in 1991 the "Arabic Portal for Human Rights Information" comes to the conclusion "The first, the worst."

Any offence against the strict rules governing the use of the Internet in Tunisia leads invariably to an arrest. It was only in the spring of 2004 that several persons were convicted to prison terms ranging from 19 to 26 years for downloading illegal documents from the Internet. It is even more regrettable therefore that last year's World Information Summit was held in Tunis although it was known that the regime would not allow a free discussion. Particularly the presence of Non-governmental organisations was severely restricted to prevent critical opinions. The chairman of "Reporters without Border" was denied entry into the country under the pretext that he lacked accreditation. Obviously the government of President Ben Ali is afraid of the Power of the Word.

The Iranian government employs similar tactics in its fight against opposition. Also in this country journalists and authors of weblogs have recently been arrested and sentenced to long prison terms for their work. Iran as well justifies censorship and arrests with alleged dangers to national security or violation of religious sentiments. But there are also signs of hope in Iran. The so called blogger scene in particular has developed into an internal opposition to the mullah regime. In this case especially young people, among them many women, use the relative freedom that the Internet provides to express their opinions in a wide range of bloggs and forums. But the users face severe punishments if they are caught by state censors. So Iran was not called by Reporters without Borders the "largest prison in the middle east" for nothing.

The official reason given by authorities for censoring the Internet is the protection of the people from immoral and profane content. But the focus of the censors has now shifted to political websites and also sites concerned with women rights are slowly disappearing from the net. It appears therefore that it is now easier to access sites with sexual content than those of the reformers. The regime is now planning to enact a law that would make any criticism of the regime or its representatives illegal.

The situation in Saudi-Arabia is next to absurd. With the help of German companies the Saudi royals have put in place one of the most effective filtering systems worldwide to block large areas of the Internet. Especially hard hit are sites covering topics such as politics, sexuality, religion and human rights. Even unsuspicious sites have been put on the index, for example that by the American music magazine "Rolling Stone". Most affected though are sites concerned with homosexuality and women rights. But many Saudis evade this ban. Although the filters normally block the access to illegal content a black market has sprung up on which hackers offer to circumvent the filters for a few dollars fee. The hacking is not illegal and is not persecuted. Saudi citizens depend on the Internet as many political and leisure activities are banned because of the religiously motivated strict morale values.

This enumeration of several examples from a host of countries could be continued almost indefinitely. It is remarkable that those regimes that impose strict censorship of the Internet and stern access control are also denying their citizens almost all civil and political rights and are regularly cited as violators of human rights by the ISHR and other human rights organisations.

What can we do?

As a politician concerned with human rights I see the rise in censorship and the growing suppression of democratic opposition as a serious danger to economic development and peace in foreign countries.
But what can we do? We are called upon to raise our voices time and again to denounce those deficiencies. We have to try to appeal to the governments to make it clear that this situation is not acceptable to us.

But we also have to admit that it is highly immoral to criticise this situation while we are at the same time exporting advanced software that makes it technically possible for those countries to control the Internet in the first place. Not everything that is marketable should find its way into the hands of authoritarian regimes if it can only be used for suppression. This is a demand that needs to be acknowledged as a moral category that we must act upon.

Thank You very much!