Recollections of the
WSIS Geneva phase
Yasuhito Tamada
The then First Secretary to the Permanent Mission of
Japan in Geneva
I served for three years for the Permanent Mission of
Japan in Geneva as an attaché from the ICT Authority,
MIC (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication,
formerly MPHPT).
My experiences in the preparatory process of the WSIS
were most impressive and instructive to me among other
businesses in Geneva; since my position was
multi-faceted and I had to play different roles in
different occasions, which was really an exciting
experience.
My position was like this:
- I was a Japanese diplomat to represent general
interests of Japan, sharing some of them with
western developed countries and simultaneously being
a member of Asian region, where developing countries
were quite dominant in number.
- I was also an expert in ICT, having been engaged
in the internet policy and broadband promotion
measures in my preceding career in Japan.
- Moreover, I was expected to function as a bridge
between Tokyo and ITU Secretary-General Utsumi, who
used to be in a high position in our government and
whom we strongly support.
1. Dual structure of the WSIS and “Non-paper”
based discussion
The scope of the WSIS was information society as a
whole, which was clearly beyond the coverage of the ITU.
At the core, however, were there ICT related issues as
main themes of discussion and the ITU definitely played
a leading managerial role in the preparation process.
This dual structure made it difficult for many member
states to show their formal position explicitly at the
early stage.
Under such circumstances, Permanent Missions in
Geneva of western countries tried to put discussion
forward on the “non-paper” basis. This modality to
discuss on the basis of “non-paper” was quite fresh to
me. I urged Tokyo to determine Japan’s position as soon
as possible so that we could participate more actively
in the discussion in Geneva but in vain at the early
stage.
Thus, I myself drew up a draft of Japan’s non-paper,
considering the discussions in Geneva and my experiences
in Japan. It contained basic recognition of the WSIS,
operational aspect of the preparatory process, output
images of the summit, etc. I again encouraged Tokyo to
determine its position with that draft and it was
Japan’s first step forward to the WSIS. This experience
taught me how important it was for those engaged in
discussion on site to propose practical ideas to the
capital rather than to behave as a critic.
2. Bureau meetings and Framework discussion
Bureau meetings at their early stage were also quite
distressing to me. I was accustomed to the ITU meetings
where substance and speed in determination would matter.
ITU Secretariat prepares documents to facilitate the
discussion. However, at the bureau meetings, member
states devoted themselves to repeatedly confirming basic
principles like bureau never deciding substantial issues
or like the importance of civil society’s participation;
bureau sometimes took a whole day to decide merely the
date and time of the following bureau meeting; some
members were suspicious of legitimacy of the documents
prepared by the secretariat and sometimes neglected
them; almost no interests were given to substantial
reference such as broadband; on the other hand, member
states were eager in thorough discussion of the rules of
procedure. Tokyo seemed embarrassed in such incredible
situation never met in the context of ITU meetings.
However, I found, especially in summit process, that
framework modality sometimes has greater power than
substantial discussion. It was such a precious
opportunity that ICT stakeholders could share
recognition on that point.
3. Exchanging information and views in Asian group
In the preparatory process of the first phase, western
countries group (WEOG) was keen on exchanging
information and views. Compared to WEOG, countries in
the Asian region had a limited exchange of information
and views since they found difficulty in reaching
consensus due to its diversity. Even in such a
situation, our home government was successful in
compiling Tokyo Declaration in the Asia-Pacific Regional
Conference overcoming a number of difficulties. Through
such an experience, I became more eager to enhancing
communications with other countries in the Asian group.
At the beginning of the second phase, Asian group was
faced with another difficulty in deciding bureau
membership; 10 members raised their hands for 5 seats.
But I was still confident that we could reach consensus
because I made great efforts in enhancing communications
with each other in Asian group. As I had expected, our
group could manage ourselves in deciding membership for
the second phase through the spirit of collaboration and
compromise.
4. Bridging Tokyo, ITU and WSIS stakeholders
I made efforts to prepare opportunities for stakeholders
of WSIS and ITU, including our Ambassador and
Secretary-General Utsumi of ITU to enable exchange of
views at most appropriate timing. For instance, just
before the PrepComs we invited Ambassadors of host
countries or others in Geneva, and during the session of
the ITU Council we invited ICT experts from the capital
as well as WSIS and ITU key players in Geneva. I believe
these arrangements could facilitate more effective
discussion at formal meetings. I also believe that they
could also contribute in some ways to bridge member
states with Secretary-General Utsumi, who was
straight-forwarded and sometimes unexpectedly
misunderstood.
I am proud if we could serve as an interconnection
point between Foreign and ICT Ministries of member
states, stakeholders of ITU and WSIS.
Final remark
I learned from a number of experiences that a summit is
not only the process of conflict and compromise in
substance but also the corpus of political dynamics of
framework, leadership, procedure and logistics.
Stakeholders have different positions and strategies as
time passes in the long preparatory process over a few
years. It is definitely a political creature that is
really hard to manage. I am confident that the
experiences in the WSIS process in which ITU and member
states could manage the creature successfully will lead
to brilliant future.
|