Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:31:22 +0800 From: Susanna George <susanna@isiswomen.org> Subject: [communication 976] Re: Giving Asia Caucus support to key issues at the WSIS To: communication@wsisasia.org Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20031023135807.00ad7978@202.57.74.189> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310221545370.21698-100000@hjlee.ohmymokdong .or.kr> References: <014b01c3985d$93535b80$0a01a8c0@anoop> X-Mail-Count: 00976Dear Adam, Anoop, Chun, Patcha, Sacha and all others, Thank you for all the indepth responses that have been given to the message I posted. I waited for more responses before responding but I think now would be a good time since there is a pause in this particular discussion. Let me try to explain what I meant when I introduced the idea of the Asia Caucus giving support to key issues at the WSIS: 1. We are all fully aware that there has been reams of document produced from civil society, through the issue-based and regional caucuses, and through the Content and Themes Group, and as we have seen little has been picked up in the actual government documents. The Asia Caucus, as Patcha points out has also prepared several different documents in the various meetings that represent our thinking on the different issue. 2. My experience is arising from having worked with the Asia Caucus in the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in 2000-2001. In this process, the Asia Caucus decided to give its full backing to two critical issues from the region: Dalit Human Rights, and the Self Determination of Palestinians. What this meant is that all Asia Caucus members, no matter what their other lobbying work involved, made a commitment to ensure that these two issues were always raised on behalf of the Asia Caucus. Isis, for example, held demonstrations here in Manila in support of Dalit Human Rights, and the Women's Caucus was heavily involved in promoting both Dalit Human Rights and Palestinian concerns. This is basically what I am proposing: an attempt to bring our weight as a regional Caucus behind key issues. 2. My main point really, thus is a desire that the Asia Caucus should be seen more strongly identified with political positions from the South, as has been the case of the Africa Caucus, and the LAC Caucus. I felt that it might be useful in this final leg of lobbying work for the Geneva phase of WSIS, to put out a brief document that would simply state the issues that the Asia Caucus consider to be crucial if the document is to be meaningful to the vast majority of Asians. It is basically a lobbying strategy...it could be used specifically in taking up our agenda with Asian governments that we do negotiations with at this final stage. 3. I agree with Chun that is is crucial for us to decide at this point what level of engagement we want in this process, and whether we want to give further legitimacy to a multi-stakeholder process that has for the most part has been superficial. And we could decide that if we put out a statement, we state it in such a way as to make clear that we will not give legitmacy to a process that has ignored what we consider fundamental and critical to the WSIS process. So for me its not a long list of musts - it is a way of doing lobbying that clearly restates what we think are crucial to be able to gain our support to this process. I don't think any of us or euphoric about the engagement thus far, nor of the multistakeholder modality which is at best superficial. 4. Can I ask if others on this list agree with Chun's position that we should first interrogate our degree of engagement in this process? How many of us would like to make a statement that makes clear that the Asia Caucus will not provide legitimacy to a document that has not taken into account the key positions of civil society? I hope this helps us to move forward. Ultimately, I think we need to give backing to some crucial issues and state our support in a way that helps in a lobbying. Looking forward to more comments on this in the coming days, and from those who have not responded so far? salaams, susanna At 04:07 PM 10/22/2003 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote: >Dear Anoop, > > >Thank you for your feedback! > >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Anoop-focus wrote: > > > My impression of the Asian Caucus was not merely to attempt to influence > > the decision making process but rather to bring our quite clearly key > > areas of concern which have either been sidelined, diluted or simply > > ignored. A means to lay upfront, issues that a critical for asia, not > > with the belief that they may be incorporated in the document. > >ok. Anyhow, this attitude is far away from multistakeholder approach. You >are assuming that the principle of multistakeholder approach has already >broken down. Then, is it our common ground in Asia Caucus? It should be >clarified before we go one step further. And next, we should ask what is >our engagement strategy at this situation. Your idea could develop into >various types of actions and it could be expressively declared in PrepCom >IIIA and even to the Summit. To me, that discussion seems to be more >important than simply making another inventory of musts which would be >certainly not reflected in those documents. > > > > As you and many others have pointed out the process of 'constructive' > > engagement with the WSIS has yielded little, and I have ( or had) no > > illusions of the WSIS actually taking seriously anything of substance > > that the civil society has to offer. > >I feel that still some people have such an expectation or wishful >thinking. And the fact that the modality of civil society working with >governments in WSIS, which is implied in multi-stakeholder approach, is >very unique and truly one progress compared with the prior UN meetings is >being justified for taking such an attitude. > > > > My opinion would be quite similar to yours, in that, we cannot provide > > legitimacy to document that is clearly non-endorseable. How can civil > > society de-legitimise the WSIS process is something that needs more > > clarity and direction. > >In last PrepCom III, this was one significant shared mind among civil >society participants. But in reality, it is lingering and becoming unclear >day by day. Are you proposing that we, Asian Caucus, should clarify not to >endorse both of documents at PrepCom IIIA to governments as well as other >civil society group members? > > >regards, > >Chun > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------ >Chun Eung Hwi >General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2205 >Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667 >Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: chun@peacenet.or.kr >------------------------------------------------------------976_2.html (attatchment)(tag is disabled)