Question

This Discussion Forum is a two-part question: 1.Two broad foreign policy approaches to the Internet have emerged: one advocates a free, open, global Internet and a multistakeholder model of global governance involving states and private actors, while the other supports limiting the flow of certain information online and a state-centric, multilateral model of governance. What motivates each of these approaches? 2.How revolutionary is cyberspace? In what ways have policymakers and academics struggled to apply traditional concepts in international relations to cyberspace?

Answer 1

1. Different approaches in foreign policy shows that the world progresses differently and different thing mean differently to different people because of the social, political and religious reasons.

If we look at the developed and individualistic countries, they support the open and non-restricted internet usage as they believe that internet creates more jobs, helps people share their ideas, makes products and services easily available at low cost etc. These countries do not depend on their cultural and religious beliefs, so they promote it.

On the other hand countries that are governed by different political ideology such as communism in China and religious based such as Islam in Arab countries, countries that have collective culture and more restriction on gender roles want to restrict what come into the country and what goes out for all the above reasons. They are also aware about the information, data and secrets are stolen thus putting the country in danger.

1. Internet is not owned by anyone it’s common to all and the information available will be available whether one likes it or not. One could only retrain oneself from using it. When it comes to cyberspace governance, it becomes very difficult as to who will do what and who will play a major role. The answer to this question is very simple, whoever is economically and technologically powerful will have an upper hand on this again. So, bringing all the nations together becomes very difficult. Besides, the developing and underdeveloped countries will have their cultural reasons to deny this type of governance.