In a recent essay entitled, “The Strategic Significance of the Internet Commons,” former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff describes cyberspace and the Internet as a “global commons” that must come under “global governance.” This is the latest salvo in an ongoing campaign by a disparate congeries of internationalists, socialists, communists, and jihadists to turn over control of the Internet to some sort of regime under the United Nations.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, the effort to transfer that control to the UN — including Internet taxing, censoring, and surveillance powers — is already far advanced. As The New American reported in March of this year, the Obama administration has already begun the phased transfer of Internet control to a nebulous and uncertain governance structure that has been set up as an innocent-appearing transition platform that, ultimately, is set for transfer to UN control.
The Chertoff article, which appeared on the International Relations and Security Network (ISN) on August 14, was originally published in the Summer 2014 issue of Strategic Studies Quarterly, a journal published by the Air Force Research Institute. In it, Chertoff writes:
Cyberspace, much like the high seas, air, outer space, and Antarctica should be viewed as the newest global commons…. Cyberspace is a strategic resource that is essential to today’s global economy yet poses unprecedented risk and vulnerability. Like the development of global governance for the high seas and outer space, cyberspace needs global governance that preserves its freedom and openness while strengthening its security to protect the shared economic and utility value of all nations.
Chertoff Cheers UN Law of the Sea Treaty
Chertoff seems especially enamored of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), citing it approvingly several times as the model for dealing with the cyberspace global commons. This is revealing, inasmuch as LOST has been a cauldron of controversy for decades, since it would: a) challenge the sovereignty of our inland and coastal waters; b) give the UN pretended legal authority over “all ocean space”; c) give the UN a huge constant revenue stream from seabed mineral rights and sea lane taxes ; d) subject our naval operations to UN interference; and much more. (See here, here, and here.)
Read more from source