Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for censorship

censorship

Putin’s People Part 2: How the Oligarchs Took Russia’s Wealth and then Silenced the Journalists

by

Russian Newspapers by Ruslan Krivobok / Руслан Кривобок is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Most books on modern Russia tend to isolate Russia’s re-emergence as a significant power in Europe from the West. Its rise is often attributed to Putin’s bellicosity in dealing with the West, buffeted by the rising oil prices and Russia’s wealth of natural resources. However, Catherine Belton’s Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and then Took on the West is a deep dive into the corruption of the system behind Putin. It is a self-assured description of how the officers of the KGB implemented a system, beginning in the dying days of the Soviet Union, to ensure that the hold on power is never left to chance. But it is also a damning indictment of the West’s blindness to the risks of accepting what was obviously dirty money and the foolishness in suggesting that were the organisations peddling this cash exposed to Western ways of doing things, then they would see the error of their ways. The Western financial systems were not unwitting victims of disinformation and cleverly concocted schemes; rather, they were complicit actors in the fleecing of the Russian people and the consolidation of Putin’s power.

During Andropov’s premiership, the KGB realised that the Soviet Union was beginning to lag far behind the West in terms of economic prosperity and capacity and that the system in the Soviet Union could not compete with the West for much longer. The inefficiencies of a planned system and compulsory employment could not hope to compete with the efficiencies demanded and the innovation encouraged by the capitalist system in the West. The KGB had always had access to ‘black’ money to finance its operations in the West[1] and to ensure their networks were maintained. They began to funnel ever greater amounts out of the Soviet Union for slush funds and to ensure permanent access to the financial networks of the West.

It is no secret that many of the Russian billionaires who earned their wealth in the 1990s did so through shady, secretive schemes and that many have done so since through their connections with the people at the centre of Putin’s Kremlin. We also know that those who refused to play ball such as Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky, Berezovsky to name just a few, were relieved of their possessions through the shameful use of the courts in barely masked power grabs by the Kremlin and its allies. While it may be hard to feel sorry for people whose own wealth was generated in what many view today as theft on a mass scale, it opens up questions about what other billionaires from Russia do in order to prevent that happening to them.

The research that went into this book is phenomenal. There are countless interviews listed over a number of years as well as reports and articles written by journalists and investigators during the Putin years. What I took most from this book and that I think others will too, is not the names of the Russian billionaires involved or the numerous schemes that the KGB have used to funnel money out of Russia, but the appalling lack of judgement and due diligence on the part of Western financiers who have allowed this flow of illicit finance into the stock markets and property markets.[2] The furore that has been caused by the publication of this book has also once again exposed the complicity of London’s courts in Russian score settling. Author Belton is facing numerous lawsuits from some of the oligarchs listed in the book – Roman Abramovich is not only suing the publishing house Harper Collins but also Belton herself; Mikhail Fridman, owner of Russia’s largest non-state bank, Pyotr Aven, Fridman’s business partner, and Shalva Chigirinsky are also suing. London-based lawyers are representing them. The UK Government continually promises to counter Russia’s disinformation campaigns as well as rid and clean the London markets of their corrupting financial influence. As these court cases show, the UK Government is failing miserably.

Investigative journalists are vital for upholding democracy but too many are being impeded in their work by SLAPPs – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Those with money, and therefore power, are using the courts to harass the media and civil society, to silence journalists and activists who are drawing attention to the abuses of power that are happening on a huge scale across the world. Of course, there should be laws to protect innocent people from libel and from illegal intrusions. However, investigations that are in the public interest and which are carefully carried out so as to ensure that information is accurate and corroborated must be given the respect and protection that it deserves. SLAPPs are a cynical use of the legal system to protect the malign interests of the few whose money makes them believe they are untouchable. Our courts are renowned around the world for their long-standing dedication to fair trials for all, regardless of one’s background or finances. This reputation is being sullied and the UK Government are doing little to stop that happening.

In July of last year, the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament released their ‘Russia Report’, an investigation into the security threat that Russia poses to the UK and the weaknesses of the UK in resisting this threat. It was noted that Russia views any loss for the West as a win for Russia – foreign policy as a zero-sum game.[3] One of the report’s recommendations was to develop a new statutory framework to tackle espionage, the illicit financial dealings of the Russian elite, and the ‘enablers’ who support this activity. It is there in black and white in a UK Government report. The financial dealings of the Russian elite are considered a threat to the security of the UK – Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’. There are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene and accepted because of their wealth[4]

It is clear from this book that changes in the markets need to be made. Audits should be demanded for companies operating in the UK, and the company only accepted if they are transparent and show adherence to Western laws. UK courts must be above reproach and should be protected against being used as pawns in a cynical game to protect the wealth and interests of those corrupting our system. Putin believes that he can behave as he likes because the West can be bought. The West must demonstrate that this is wrong; that the West will forego the millions and billions that are stolen from the Russian people and used to prop up the Kremlin’s authoritarian regime. The West must demonstrate that they will stand by the principles of transparency so vital to maintaining our democracies.

[1] Belton, Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and then Took on the West, Harper Collins, 2020. p.15, 64

[2] Belton, Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and then Took on the West, Harper Collins, 2020. p., p.488

[3]Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, Russia, https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20200721_HC632_CCS001_CCS1019402408-001_ISC_Russia_Report_Web_Accessible.pdf p.1

[4] Ibid, p.22

Op-Ed — Unboxing Freedom of Speech

by

By Eve Gleeson

29 November 2018

Joanna Williams spoke at the launch of the Endangered Speeches series on 13 November 2018. (Image Credit: Eve Gleeson)

 

Editor’s note: This is an opinion-editorial piece written in response to the Endangered Speeches event review published on 27 November 2018. The views expressed in this post are the views of the author and are not the views of Strife.

 

On 13 November 2018, Joanna Williams, an author, commentator, and head of education and culture at the think tank Policy Exchange, was the first guest speaker of the Endangered Speeches talk series hosted by King’s College London’s Department of War Studies and mediated by department head Professor Michael Rainsborough.The event incited uproar on King’s campus; several campus groups called for Williams’ no platforming due to some of her rhetoric.

I had the opportunity to attend the event and interview Williams. Here, I share my reactions to some of her statements. The points in this piece correspond with those in the event review but include my opinion rather than an objective summary.

 

  1. There is a difference between harsh words and physical violence. 

What do we do when we prohibit speech? Many liberal democracies are seeing the condemnation of ‘socially unacceptable’ or ‘radical’ positions on critical issues.‘Darkness allows these bad ideas to fester and germinate,’ Williams said. She argued that when these perspectives are out in the open, we have the opportunity to address them.  I do not worry about the free expression of these ‘radical’ ideas, but I do worry about the moment when these ideas become so widely expressed that they are also widely adopted.

 

  1. Universities are censorious and protective liberal havens.

As an American master’s student at King’s College London, I’ve only experienced two months of the British education system. I can attest that there are many American professors that fully welcome different perspectives and encourage students to look beyond their initial assumptions. Surely, there have been problems across America and the UK regarding universities inviting contentious speakers to campus, with an outpour of dissatisfaction from a variety of student groups.

That being said, I have found that in the US the ‘censorship’ on university campuses is not practiced by the university itself but by students and groups who see themselves as representative of the university’s values. In the administration, there is less outspoken partisanship, if any at all.

 

  1. If you disagree with someone who has a platform, go to the event and criticize them. Don’t stay at home.

I could not agree more with Williams on this point. It was disappointing to hear so much backlash the day of the event, and then to see that very few of these opponents attended when the time for questions rolled around. In reaction to Williams’ writing that have allegedly dismissed entire demographics, The Student Union framed their dissent around being active proponents and protectors of vulnerable students. The event, however, was objectively civil and discussion was highly encouraged. It would have been nice to hear the views of the dissidents who had made their voice so audible earlier in the day.

 

  1. Universities are insulated and politically homogeneous.

Williams argued that universities are left-leaning because of self-selection bias, perception of students as vulnerable, and perception of students as a customer who must be satisfied. In her defence, according to a 2012 study by the American Association of University Professors, right-of-center papers do tend to be subject to higher scrutiny; however, there are likely multiple other trends at play here.

A study done by the Pew Research Center showed that left-leaning individuals tend to be more educated than right-leaning and independent voters. This goes for the UK as well, as noted in an article published by The Conversation, which also noted that academics who have chosen the field do so partially because it ‘involves teaching the next generation, plenty of bureaucracy, and different risk and reward structures from other industries graduates may gravitate towards’.

A 2017 study by the Adam Smith Institute found that ‘the left-liberal skew may be partly explained by openness to experience; individuals who score highly on that personality trait tend to pursue intellectually stimulating careers like academia. And within the top five percent of IQ, openness to experience predicts support for left-wing parties’. The previously mentioned AAUP study also had a similar finding: ‘students’ underlying preferences appear to lead more liberals into advanced degrees, thus creating a fairly large ideological gap’.

Most studies I reviewed admitted that partisanship depends on the field, with humanities, social sciences, and arts academics swaying left and a partisan balance remaining in mathematics, sciences, and engineering. The studies also discussed the consequences of this imbalance, some of which Williams stressed as well, such as discrimination against conservative people and ideas, biased research and publications, and double standards.

 

  1. There is a harmful connection between language and identity, in that words can dismiss entire demographics.

Maybe this isn’t the case for Williams or Rainsborough, that their identity is easily dismissed. In agreement with the two, I do think that many people have a vulnerable sense of identity. Yes, sense of identity is vulnerable for many groups who have been oppressed and whose legitimacy as society members is often questioned. This language is threatening not because it offends us, but because it demonstrates how people in our own society think about fellow citizens. Language reflects ideas. Those ideas can threaten someone’s livelihood.

 

  1. Politics is no longer a question of opinion, but a question of morality. Those who can more readily demonstrate their suffering have more clout.

I do think some minorities will have a more accurate perspective on what it is like to be a minority and the problems they are facing. Because it is a matter of their livelihood, they have a right to be understood on behalf of morality.

It is like players on a baseball team discussing problems the sport is facing. The baseball players will be taken seriously because they play the game every day. If a hockey player, on the other hand, were given a platform to discuss these same baseball issues, the hockey player would not be taken as seriously. The hockey player is by no means barred from discussing baseball, and they may have meaningful things to say about baseball, but the players on the baseball team do have more weight, and for good reason — it concerns their entire career.

 

* * *

I found Williams’ claims to be well-formulated and intelligible, yet sometimes more based on personal conviction than objectivity. She was welcoming of alternative perspectives, though I wish more had been offered. Though I disagree with an array of things she proposed, she spoke with carefully chosen words and phrases and was well-received by the audience.

My interview with her really pushed at where freedom of speech stops and hate speech begins. According to Williams, there is no difference.

I think labeling some speech as ‘hate speech’ is more often used as a way to identify speech that is not conducive to a cohesive culture with common values. Such a culture is necessary, especially in diverse societies, because it creates a way for a country to cater to the largest amount of people in their society, not only a select group.

For me, the problem is not about the words themselves. It is about spreading toxic ideas, like that climate change is not real. These ideas can have real consequences on society. For example, anti-Semitism has existed for centuries, long before the Nazi movement was born. If this rhetoric towards Jews had been prevented from circulating and escalating, and if Nazis had been prevented from actively spreading horrible things about Jews — if they were denied a platform — perhaps those ideas wouldn’t have been so widely adopted.

When opinions become so toxic that they can change normative expectations in a society and go so far as to endorse attacks on other people, then a line should be drawn to prevent those convictions from becoming more than just speech.

Plenty of American alt-right groups have been banned from social media platforms. This is not just because their speech is considered hateful, but because they have used social media as a tool to turn their hateful speech into hateful action, as was the case for the Charlottesville Massacre in the summer of 2017.

The issues entailed in the phrase ‘culture wars’ are not ubiquitous. It has been my experience that productive bipartisan discussion can and does happen often in academia. I have changed my mind in both directions, toward and away from left-wing thought, many times since beginning university. My professors welcome alternative perspectives, and they push students to fully develop convictions before making sweeping claims.

That being said, issues still remain. Student have a lot of work to do to truly open our minds beyond what is put in front of us. That was my main takeaway from Williams’ discussion. As envoys of knowledge, professors, students, and researchers have both the opportunity and responsibility to draw from a variety of ideas in order to produce work that truly has merit. We have the obligation to criticize ideas with which we do not agree, not to back into a corner for fear of being wounded. Being closed minded just does not cut it anymore.

Eve Gleeson is a master’s student in International Relations at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, as well as the Communications Manager of Strife. Her courses focus on security challenges in the evolving global context, including cyber threats, nuclear and biological programs, and security in new states. Eve holds a BA in International Studies with a focus on conflict and security from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. You can find her on LinkedIn and on Twitter @evegleeson_.