I explore the activities of transnational advocacy networks and their innovative use of internet strategies in pursuing their activities. Advocacy networks are nonstate actors that interact with each other, with states, and with international organization. They are networks of activisits, distinguishable largely by the centrality of principled ideas or values in motivating their formulation. Advocacy networks are not new and have existed as far back as the 19th century campaign for the abolition of slavery. But their number, size, and professionalism, and the speed, density and complexity of international linkages among them have grown dramatically in the last three decades. (Keck & Sikkink, 10)

Activities of advocacy network run counter to the established theory of Westphalian sovereignty, where state authorities are considered to have supreme, independent authority over their territory. Much international network activity presumes the contrary - that it is both legitimate and necessary for states or nonstate actors to be concerned about the treatment of inhabitants of another state. (Keck & Sikkink, 36) Advocacy networks are therefore significant transnationally and domestically. By building links among actors in civil societies, states, and international organizations, they multiply the channels of access to the international system. They blur the boundaries between a state's relations with its own nationals and the recourse both citizens and states have to the international system, helping to transform the practice of national sovereignty. (Keck & Sikkink, 2)

At the core of the activities of advocacy networks is is information exchange. What is novel in these networks is the ability of nontraditional international actors to mobilize information strategically to help create new issues and categories and to persuade, pressure, and gain leverage over much more powerful organizations and governments. (Keck & Sikkink, 2) Information binds network members together and is essential for network effectiveness. Traditionally, this information exchange Many information exchanges are informal - telephone calls, e-mail and fax communications, and the circulation of newsletters, pamphlets and bulletins. They provide information that would not otherwise be available, from sources that might not otherwise be heard, and they must make this information comprehensible and useful to activisits and publics who may be geographically and/or socially distant. (Keck & Sikkink, 18)

The internet has emerged as an invaluable resource in

Transnational advocacy networks appear most likely to emerge around those issues where (1) channels between domestic groups and their governments are blocked or hampered or where such channels are ineffective for resolving a conflict, setting into motion the "boomerang" pattern of influence characteristic of these networks; (2) activists or "political entrepreneurs" believe that networking will further their missions and campaigns, and actively promote networks; (3) conferences and other forms of international contact create arenas for forming and strengthening networks. (Keck & Sikkink, 12)

Transnational advocacy networks seek influence in many of the same ways that other political groups or social movements do. Since they are not powerful in a traditional sense of the word, they must use the power of their information, ideas, and strategies to alter the information and value contexts within which states makes policies. The bulk of what networks do might be terms persuasion or socialization, but neither process is devoid of conflict. Persuasion and socialization often involve not just reasoning with opponents, but also bringing pressure, arm-twisting, encouraging sanctions, and shaming. (Keck & Sikkink, 16)

The ideas that networks bring to the international arena impinge on sovereignty in several ways. First, the underlying logics of the "boomerang" effect and of networks - which imply that a domestic group should rech out to international allies to bring pressure on its government to change its domestic practices - undermine absolute claims to sovereingty. Secoond, by producing information that contradicts information provided by states, networks imply that states sometimes lie. (Keck & Sikkink, 36)

Network members actively seek ways to bring issues to the public agenda by framing them in innovative ways and by seeking hospitable venues. Sometimes they create issues by framing old problems in new ways; occasionally they help transform other actors' understanding of their identities and their interests.

Tactics that networks use in their efforts at persuasion, socialization, and pressure includes (1) information politics, or the ability to quickly and credibly generate politically usable information and move it to where

Information binds network members together and is essential for network effectiveness. Many information exchanges are informal - telephone calls, e-mail and fax communications, and the circulation of newsletters, pamphlets and bulletins. They provide information that would not otherwise be available, from sources that might not otherwise be heard, and they must make this information comprehensible and useful to activisits and publics who may be geographically and/or socially distant. (Keck & Sikkink, 18)

Networks strive to uncover and investigate problems, and alert the press and policymakers. To be credible, the information produced by networks must be reliable and well documented. To gain attention, the information must be timely and dramatic. Sometimes these multiple goals of information politics conflict, but both credibility and drama seem to be essential components of a strategy aimed at persuading publics and policymakers to change their minds. (Keck & Sikkink, 19)

Along with the Kosovo Roma Refugee Foundation, the Roma Information Foundation, and the Society for Threatened Peoples (Germany and UK), Ms. Post continues to work for the approximately 550 Roma Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Kosovo who were forced for over 9 years to live on lead contaminated toxic land. Two actions have been filed with the United Nations itself since Kosovo has been governed these nine years by the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) who is the responsible party. Actions have also been filed with the ombudsmans office and the local Human Rights Advisory Board (HRAP). Badly needed medical treatment for the affected children finally began on 30 August 2006 after an international letter writing campaign by Global Response. Food aid which was part of the medical treatment was then stopped in July 2007 and the medical treatment itself in October 2007. Thus UNMIK has made known its complete disregard for the health and welfare of the IDPs under its responsibility. Hearings on the situation were held in Brussels, London and Dublin in November 2008. An admissibility decision was made by HRAP on 5 June 2009 and can be found on this web site at "Research and other tidbits". An international advocacy group has a web page at www.toxicwastekills.com and you can go there and see what you can do to help these most forgotten victims. (http://www.delapointe.net/diannepost/current.php)

In March 2009, ten years after the war and the NATO intervention in Kosovo, 160 Roma refugee families, including 200 children under ten years old, are still living in two displaced persons' camps built for them by the United Nations on the most toxic waste tip in Europe.

Despite promises that they would be moved from their "temporary" accommodation on waste tailings at the Trepca mine complex within 45 days, they have been left there to survive in poverty and a poisoned environment for the last ten years. The children have some of the highest measured levels of lead, arsenic, & cadmium in their blood ever recorded. They show symptoms of severe neurological and physiological damage.

There are 112 families living in Osterode Camp and 48 families in Cesmin Lug/ Çesmin Llug. (Another 38 families in a third contaminated camp, Leposavic/ Leposaviq, are also affected.)

The camps are located in North Mitrovicë/Mitrovica, a city divided between Albanians on one side and Serbs on the other. These children and their families, members of the second largest ethnic minority in Kosovo, are trapped in a polluted no-man's-land of ethnic conflict.

Despite warnings from international human rights organisations and agencies including the World Health Organisation and the International Committee of the Red Cross the United Nations Mission in Kosovo has failed to take any effective steps to protect the lives of these desperately vulnerable children.

THESE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. THE KOSOVO MEDICAL EMERGENCY GROUP AND SOCIETY FOR THREATENED PEOPLES DEMAND THEIR IMMEDIATE EVACUATION AND APPROPRIATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT. (http://www.toxicwastekills.com/)

The blog's very architecture solves one part of the problem [of the isolation of political discourse that has become extreme]. People post when they want to post and and people read when they want to read. Technologies that enable asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, increase the opportunity for communication. Blogs allow for public discourse without the public ever needing to gather in a public place. But beyond architecture, blogs also have solved the problem of norms. There's no norm in blog space not to talk about politics. (Lessig, 43)

Commercial pressures don't exist with blogs as with other ventures. Televisions and newspapers are commercial entities. They must work to keep attention. If they lose readers, they lose revenue. But bloggers don't have a similar constraint. They can obsess, they can focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a particularly interesting story, more and more people link to that story. And as the number of links to a particular story increases, it rises in the ranks of stories. people read what is popular; what is popular has been selected by a very democratic process of peer-generated rankings. (Lessig, 43)

Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the debate - "amateur" not in the sense of inexperienced, meaning not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range of input into a story.... Blogs are communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it, with all the benefits and costs that might entail. (Lessig, 44)

You don't have to work for somebody who controls, for a gatekeeper. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As more and more citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will change the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be criticized by others. (Lessig, 45)