The international order

I’m off to England tonight for a conference at Ditchley Park on the subject ‘Russia’s role in the world today and tomorrow.’ I’ll be slumming it in a grand country mansion with a bunch of ambassadors, retired senior officials, and other people far more distinguished than myself, but as it’s all under the Chatham House rule, I regret that I won’t be able to report on it. Still, it provides an excuse to ponder the state of Anglo-Russian relations.

British Prime Minister Theresa May sought to divert attention from her Brexit troubles the other day with some inflammatory remarks about Russia at the annual banquet of the Lord Mayor of London. May remarked that Russia has

fomented conflict in the Donbass, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries, and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber-espionage and disruption. This has included meddling in elections, and hacking the Danish ministry of defence and the Bundestag [German parliament], among many others. It is seeking to weaponise information. Deploying its state-run media organisations to plant fake stories and photo-shopped images in an attempt to sow discord in the west and undermine our institutions.

May accused Russia of ‘threatening the international order on which we all depend,’ and concluded by saying that, ‘I have a very simple message for Russia. We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed. Because you underestimate the resilience of our democracies, the enduring attraction of free and open societies, and the commitment of western nations to the alliances that bind us.’

As if to back May up, Ciaran Martin, the head of Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre, stated yesterday that, ‘I can confirm that Russian interference, seen by the National Cyber Security Centre over the past year, has included attacks on the UK media, telecommunication and energy sectors.’ To this Martin added, ‘Russia is seeking to undermine the international system. That much is clear. The PM made the point on Monday night – international order as we know it is in danger of being eroded.’

Along with all this comes alongside allegations that Russian internet trolls attempted to the influence the Brexit referendum. Evidence for this is a little weak since despite the hype, the Guardian reports that, ‘Prof Laura Cram, director of neuropolitics research at the University of Edinburgh, told the Guardian that at least 419 of those [Russian Twitter] accounts tweeted about Brexit a total of 3,468 times – mostly after the referendum had taken place.’ It would be interesting to know how many tens of thousands, or for all I know, hundreds of thousands of tweets were posted about Brexit by Brits and peoples of other non-Russian nationalities, but the fact that the alleged ‘interference’ mostly took place after the referendum in any case rather weakens the argument for the prosecution.

But let’s put that to one side. And let’s put aside also May’s somewhat contestable claims about fomenting war in Donbass, regularly violating European airspace, and the like. Let’s accept, for simplicity’s sake, that Russia is trying to influence people in Britain and that its intelligence agencies are attempting to hack the computer systems of British institutions. Let’s face it, it would be pretty odd if they weren’t. This is pretty much run of the mill for states which imagine that they have some position on the international stage. The questions which then arise are: a) does this constitute ‘interference’? and b) does this constitute  an attempt ‘to undermine the international order.’

The answer to the first question depends, I guess, on how you define ‘interference.’ But, to my mind, trying to influence people isn’t interference; it’s just a normal part of human relationships. I think that people need to calm down a little bit on this matter. There seems to be a rather odd view that only people within a country can attempt to influence the citizens or the government of that country. That is, of course, not the way Western states operate – Brits, for instance, are continually trying to influence others. And in any case, it’s just impractical. Human interaction is a perpetual attempt to influence one another. The interaction between states and between states and the peoples of other states is just the same. For sure, Russians want to change the way people in Britain think. That’s normal. There’s nothing wrong with it. The whole ‘interference’ narrative is wrong-headed at the philosophical level.

To this, some might reply that the problem is not Russians trying to influence Brits, but that they are doing so by spreading ‘fake news’. Well, perhaps they do sometimes, though I think that the ‘fake news’ meme is greatly exaggerated, and if we’re talking about social media there’s no shortage of utter tripe, including manifestly untrue stories, appearing in the Facebook and Twitter posts of non-Russians. A few hundred Russian tweets really don’t matter very much in the larger scheme of things. But, at a deeper level, we have to ask, ‘who is determine what is ‘fake’ and what is not?’ Are you going to say that we should have some sort of media police which eliminates what we deem to be inaccurate? If so, we have censorship, not a free society.

And then we come to question b) – does this constitute an attempt to ‘undermine the international order?’ The answer to this is fairly simple – No, and two times no! Yes, the Russians engage in espionage. They try to influence people. They always have! And so have Western countries! This isn’t an attempt to undermine the international order. This is the international order!! Let’s not be naïve about this. The international order consists of a whole set of institutions and rules which states for the most part abide by. At the same time, they occasionally break the rules, by for instance carrying out espionage on one another. Yet the order continues on nonetheless. Russia spies on Britain. Britain spies on Russia (remember the British spy rock in Moscow, anyone?) That’s how the order works.

I’m tempted to go off into a bit of ‘whataboutism’ and talk about all the many times that the United Kingdom has egregiously broken the rules of the international system. It’s hardly an innocent in this regard. But instead, I’ll end on a different thought. If Mrs May really thinks that Russia is undermining the international order in general and more specifically British democracy, then shouldn’t she be reconsidering Brexit? Of course, Mrs May won’t do anything of the sort. She recognizes the result of the Brexit referendum as legitimate and binding. Yet Brexit is a huge shock to the international order, one of the biggest in recent years. Who ‘undermined the international order’? The British people, that’s who.

UPDATE:  According to Sky News, Yin Yin Lu of Oxford Internet Research has identified 22.6 million tweets associated with the alleged Russian ‘troll factory’. Of these, 400 were about or related to Brexit. As Ms Lu says: “First of all the number of these tweets is important to highlight. So there’s about 400 tweets here out of 22.6 million. That is a very infinitesimal fraction. So the word interference is perhaps a bit exaggerated.”

13 thoughts on “The international order”

  1. “And so have Western countries!”

    What it is you don’t get? Western countries do it out of the goodness of their hearts, for the sake of democracy, human rights, and freedom. And the evil Russkies attempt to sow discord and undermine institutions.


      1. I don’t think you get how deep it goes. The U.S., by divine Providence, has FullSpectrumGlobalDominance, while Russian government efforts to influence events in Russia, contrary to US will, are outrageous demonstrations that Russia remains The Focus of Evil in the Modern World (c.. The case against Khodorkovsky).

        And at thats just for the internal affairs of Russia. You can imagine what the USG feel about the fact that Russia has a foreign policy!


    1. Very true, and the instructions we received for the conference say as much. Please excuse me, though, if I err on the side of caution.


  2. But, at a deeper level, we have to ask, ‘who is determine what is ‘fake’ and what is not?’ Are you going to say that we should have some sort of media police which eliminates what we deem to be inaccurate? If so, we have censorship, not a free society.

    This really worries me lately in terms of the pressure being put on, in particular, Facebook, to prevent its platform being used to spread “fake news”. So far, Facebook seems to be trying to avoid acting as an arbiter by only blocking stories that are definitively confirmed to be factually false, and outsourcing the fact-checking work. It seems that this has minimized the interference in Facebook traffic, but hasn’t done much to filter out obviously false stories (There’s just too much volume to keep up with). I’m concerned that there may be pressure to go further, and I think anyone can see that if Facebook bends to the pressure, the “filtering” (more accurately censorship) will have a pronounced political slant.


  3. Wow, what a collection of emminences you could be mixing with – Cressida Dick, Jack Straw, David Cameron, Lord Carrington, John Major, David Miliband, Lord Patten, Lord Rees, Malcolm Rifkind, Baroness Williams, and Rodders Braithwaite. If he turns up, you really must ask Rodders about the British involvement in the dodgy dossier linking Trump, prostitutes, beds and Russia.


  4. Whoa, I anticipated John McCain’s reaction pretty accurately:

    In Washington, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) denounced the new Russian law, saying there is “no equivalence” between RT and networks such as the Voice of America, CNN and the BBC, whose journalists “seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments accountable.” By contrast, he said in a statement, “RT’s propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin’s agenda.”

    Is “debunk the truth” a meaningful expression in standard English, or only in newspeak?


  5. “‘I have a very simple message for Russia. We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed. Because you underestimate the resilience of our democracies, the enduring attraction of free and open societies, and the commitment of western nations to the alliances that bind us.’”

    Jolly good! This speech sounds as if Her Majesty’s government will finally make a long awaited “Dad’s Army” re-boot – full of in-your-face modernism, lame jokes and applea to the ruling political zeitgeist!

    Oh, wait… They already did it! Still – new re-make (of the re-make) couldn’t be worse than that, could it?

    “We’re making progress. A short time ago, we were just an undisciplined mob. Now we can deal with tanks, we can kill with our pikes, we can make ’em all sneeze with our pepper. And, after all, even the Hun Russki is a very poor fighter with his head buried in a handkerchief. But remember, men, we have one invaluable weapon on our side – we have an unbreakable spirit to win. A bulldog tenacity that will help us to hang on while there’s breath left in our bodies. You don’t get that with Gestapos FSB (former KGB) and jackboots. You get that by being British. So come on, Adolf Vlad. We’re ready for you!”


    1. Thank you for this light relief!

      I am in the Uk and I was very surprised by Theresa Mays speech.
      The blame Russia meme has crossed the Atlantic!

      – David Cameron agreed to an unnecessary referendum to quell his party’s internal problems
      – David Cameron lost the Brexit referendum and resigns leaving the country in confusion
      – Theresa May takes over to lead her party and on Brexit, she then calls an unessasry election and looses her majority exposing herself as a weak leader
      – she enters the Brexit negotiations as a weakened leader and no strategy
      Juncker and Tusk are walking all over her

      How is any of this Russia’s fault?

      Most voters will not buy into this – but the media seem to have latched on to it and are pushing this idea just like in America. The guardian, the Times and the Mirror and the BBC

      Our problems in the uk are to do with poor govt for the past 4 decades if not longer in my view . Brexit was a response to this. Not Russian meddling but specific problems in parts of the UK.


  6. Thanks, Paul. Now factor in Official Washington’s chronic case of projection. It’s how that pristine City on the Hill maintains its purity. I know I don’t have to cite one of that bazillion examples of innocent America wading knee-deep in other people’s blood. It was all the fault of those evil commies, doncha know.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s