Statement by representative of the Russian Federation Mr.Boris Meschanov at the presentation of the Global Digital Compact zero project
Excellencies,
Distinguished Colleagues,
Let me first of all express appreciation of the explanation and briefing just provided concerning the new proposed instruments and mechanisms as a follow-up of the GDC.
The Russian Federation acknowledges the efforts to create a Global Digital Compact, which, according to the authors, should define a vision of an open, free, secure and human-centered digital future based on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 2030 Agenda.
1.In our view, the zero draft of the document as it stands now, does not yet fulfill its purpose. It does not contain many proposals from the Russian delegation, which were repeatedly brought to the attention of the process coordinators and the UN Secretariat. In particular, the mostly GDC ignores the most important documents on the digital agenda. These include the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, which define the role of ICTs in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The principles set out in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society adopted in 2005, consolidated by UNGA Resolution 70/125, reaffirm the importance of the participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, technical and academic communities and all other relevant stakeholders in working together on Internet governance issues, within their respective roles and responsibilities and within their national laws.
2.The Russian Federation supports the principle of openness and indivisibility of the Internet as "a common network of networks" and a global public good. In this regard, we reiterate the importance to note in the GDC that the governance of the Internet should not be subject to any unilateral political restrictions or commercial interest. The global critical infrastructure governance should be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenge in order to prevent fragmentation of the Internet. In this regard, we urge that the GDC reflect a commitment to refrain from any initiatives aimed at disrupting the connectivity of the global network and its national segments.
We welcome the appeals contained in the GDC to bridge the digital divide between developed and developing countries. At the same time, we draw your attention to the fact that this goal cannot be achieved solely by promoting the interests of the transnational corporations that are often subordinate to national interests. The document tends to impose formulas that lead to consolidation of the technological dominance of certain countries and the monopolization of ICT markets. The document does not provide real measures aimed at building up the digital capacity of developing countries, including sharing cutting-edge technologies with them, stimulating their own developments, and preventing unfair trade practices.
The Russian Federation calls on to prioritize underserved regions, countries and populations. At the same time, we want to pay particular attention to the inadmissibility of considering the problem of the "digital divide" only from the point of view of connectivity and capacity building. The "digital neocolonialism" is emerging, where a narrow circle of digital elites retain the initiative in the field of innovation, counteract the emergence of comparable competitors in the global market, defend their own dominance and the right to single-handedly manage data flows, contribute to the technological and information gap between developed and developing countries.
It is obvious that the need to strictly limit the arbitrary behavior of digital corporations is long overdue. Such a set of rules would guarantee trust and security on the Internet.
Instead, there is a risk that the document in its current form may enshrine the unlimited freedom of actions for Big Tech with regard to censorship and their lack of accountability to the laws of the countries where they operate. It is proposed to introduce blocking for content distribution based on user agreements. This is in direct conflict with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary. The document is oversaturated with excessive gender narrative and inappropriate use of clichés and stereotypes, such as "gender-based violence". Such an important area as data security is proposed to be regulated within these narrow, opaque formats, such the OECD, the G7, the EU - that do not reflect the interests of the vast majority of countries in the world.
Importantly – and let me share with you now some Geneva perspectives - the proposals contained in the draft for the creation of additional auxiliary and supervisory structures draw concerns. Among them are the Annual High-Level Forum on GDC, Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology, Digital Human Rights service, and the International Group of Artificial Intelligence. In essence, this pertains to building a new architecture for governing (instead of supporting) global processes in the digital sphere with an unlimited mandate and lack of accountability to states. It is proposed to put the UN Secretary-General, who, according to the UN Charter, is only the "chief administrative officer" at the head of this process. The parameters of such an opaque system of interaction have not been discussed in any way at relevant international platforms and undermine the potential of already agreed upon decisions. The fact that all the issues raised in the Compact are already within the terms of reference of incumbent organizations – ITU, CSTD, the WSIS process, IGF, Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes and the UN Open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies is being ignored.
There is also a threat of duplication of effort of the OEWG within the framework of the GDC: the compact contains provisions on international information security and the secure operation of digital infrastructure. For the same reason, mentioning the risks to international peace and security when using ICTs is not justified. It is not clear what international standards for tracking and data encryption technologies are being discussed in the context of the need for their compliance with national law.
The notion that GDC could lay the "foundation for international governance of artificial intelligence," including non-state actors, seems so far, unrealistic. Specific mechanisms for implementing this initiative are not provided. The fact that AI is a type of information and communication technologies and requires regulation in line with existing developments in the OEWG is ignored.
The Russian Federation expresses concern on the lack of attention to the WSIS process in the GDC zero draft. We call for the GDC to reflect the achievements, progress and identified challenges of the WSIS process, as well as close links and synergies with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the role of WSIS in achieving the SDGs, including successful projects such as the annual WSIS Forum.
Lastly, we have to support the process of developing the GDC but subject to transparency and participation of all states, taking into account their opinions, strict adherence to the UN Charter and its fundamental principles of sovereign equality and international cooperation. As previous experience in preparing the document has shown, the process needs serious improvement. The document will have to be radically revised to suit the interests of developing countries. It is important to provide participants with sufficient time to harmonize the document between various stakeholders domestically, taking into account its cross-cutting nature. For our part, we stand ready to participate in this work.
I thank you.
