Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, an initiative for a World Summit on the Information Society is a good initiative. Information society means freedom, freedom of information, freedom of circulation of information, and it is there that we have a problem: a free information society that meets in Tunis to discuss the freedom of the information society is like sending a small child into a cage of lions to learn how to eat. We really must, indeed, be aware that Internet surfers are arrested in Tunisia, that people who use the Internet and who use the information society for the freedom that it offers are imprisoned in Tunisia. We are, therefore, going to be involved in a second world summit in Tunisia, but it is likely that by the time we arrive, the President, Mr Ben Ali, will have imprisoned a further two or three hundred Internet surfers to protect the information society from those making use of the freedom that it offers. I truly believe that if we do not protest – and by ‘we’ I mean the UN in this case, and the European Union – then that will be the sign that we are making a wrong move. In that case, why should we not go to China? All Internet surfers are imprisoned there too. We sell arms to the Chinese and, while we are at it, we organise a major international conference on freedom of information in China. Why not? Let us be logical. We will make the journey directly from Tunisia to China where we will shout to the people: ‘eat and be quiet, but above all do not make use of freedom of information; furthermore, this is why we want to have a major meeting in China.’ Moreover, this event, organised at the initiative of the UN, is partly distinguished by some Member States’ repression of NGOs. This is the case, for example, where Reporters without Borders is concerned, an organisation fighting for freedom of information. Following a request from Iran, signed by a large number of countries, Reporters without Borders was excluded from the NGOs recognised by the UN. You will see, therefore, that a commendable initiative for freedom and the information society is not enough; there also needs to be consistency. For example, the European Parliament has fought to obtain a directive on the patentability of software that is radically different from the directive proposed by the Commission. We know what it means to fight to defend intellectual property and, if we want to be consistent in the process of setting up the information society, then we must fight for freedom and the protection of intellectual property. That means that when we organise something such as the Geneva Summit, it has to be more than just a large market enabling Microsoft or others to take over new markets throughout the world. The freedom of the information society does not mean Microsoft über alles. That cannot work. In this respect too, we must, clearly, take advantage of the framework offered by a multilateral organisation to develop regulations that, rightly, ensure equality for those entering, and those already within, the market. To conclude, Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, the European Union cannot simply attend this type of event: it should also intervene. So, when we are keeping quiet, when we cannot find the words, is when it is an issue of protecting the freedom of the information society. The information society is not simply a market. The information society also means setting up democracy and freedom.

Political group: Verts-ALE