FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Diplomatic Madness: the Expulsion of Russian Diplomats


How gloriously brave it seemed, some 23 nations coming together like a zombie collective to initiate a fairly ineffectual action in of itself: the expulsion of Russian diplomats or, as they preferred to term it, intelligence operatives.

It all began in celebratory fashion in Britain, when Prime Minister Theresa May decided to push the issue with the expulsion of 23 in the wake of the poisonings of Sergei Skripal, his daughter Yulia, and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. Russia, in a reciprocal effort, retorted in kind.

Since then, the number of states similarly inclined to reduce Russia’s diplomatic set has grown.

This is a time for mania, and the Trump administration will not be far behind in participating in anything that reeks of it.  From the United States, 60 have been ordered to leave, including 12 at the United Nations.  16 EU countries and six non-EU members have also joined in the fun.

Issues of politicised intelligence are always matters of convenience for a particular state.  The vision of a balanced intelligence officer conveying material to an obligingly balanced politician is one best done with.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a triumvirate of states from the Anglosphere who all, in parts, ignored, distorted, and manufactured suitable “intelligence” in the name of eradicating weapons of mass destruction, attests to that need.  Be wary of the misuse or use of material concerned with chemical weapons or other such WMDs.

The latest expulsions have an air of rhythmic repetition.  Even Seumas Milne, a spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn of Britain’s Labor opposition, saw a troubling parallel.  There is, he noted, “a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.”

Never you mind that.  UK foreign secretary Boris Johnson deems “the smug, sarcastic response that we’ve heard from the Russians” as evidence of guilt, a distinctly low threshold of evidentiary vigour.  States are taking sides and extolling the virtues of “international rules” and “shared security”.

For all that, China and India have stood back; certain European states refuse to follow suit, preferring caution.  A club with certain credentials for membership has formed, with sides being taken.  All of this has taken place on faith.

Political advantage is already being claimed by May, suggesting that there is something far bigger than those poisonings that took place in sleepy Salisbury.  This is a government on life support barely holding the Brexit process together.  A good show was required, and May is delivering it.  With implausible confidence, she has told parliamentarians that Russia’s western spy network had been “dismantled”.

What Britain can do, the United States can do boisterously better, and Washington made a good fist of it by sending sixty Russian diplomats packing.  The Seattle consulate office would close.  One administration official suggested that the move was occasioned by “its proximity to one of our submarine bases and Boeing.”

This adds to the emerging story of some grand ploy supposedly to impair Russian espionage capabilities, ostensibly to punish it for using a nerve agent on British soil.  The expulsions “make the United States safer by reducing Russia’s ability to spy on Americans and to conduct covert operations that threaten America’s national security.”

Veteran cynics of this are bound to point out that Russian surveillance of US citizens is less developed than Washington’s own vast capacities, aided on by the not-so-humble types in Silicon Valley.  As President George W. Bush erred with unintended accuracy, the enemies of the United States “never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people – and neither do we.”

Impairing Russia’s intelligence gathering capacities is only going to be a temporary measure at best, a pruning of the tree rather than a savaging to its roots. “It is likely,” suggests Alexey D. Muraviev, “they will restore their intelligence-gathering capacity very quickly.”

The spectacle of certain smaller powers, subservient to the Anglo-American line, has also become tediously predictable.  Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop took their spots on the pro-expulsion train.  The number leaving Canberra, two “undeclared intelligence officers,” is unimpressive and tokenistic.

The joint statement by Turnbull and Bishop is a point-by-point regurgitation of Johnson’s presumptuous gruel.  The decision “reflects the shocking nature of the attack – the first offensive use of chemical weapons in Europe since World War II, involving a highly lethal substance in a populated area, endangering countless other members of the community.”

The latest staging of moral outrage is dangerous in one fundamental aspect.  It is a show that diplomacy is being abandoned, adding more succour to the image of Russia as unrepentant villain and the West, more broadly described, as appropriately righteous. Such a stance ignores the more constructive role played by Moscow in security issues and debates, be it North Korea, Iran or anti-terrorist initiatives. The Kremlin, far from being discouraged in standing down, will undoubtedly do the reverse. Dogma and politics, for the moment, are in the ascendancy.

 

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail