A Swarm? Calm down and get some perspective

Will Yeldham

David Cameron recently sparked outrage with human rights activists lampooning both his rhetoric and Britain's policy on refugees. The media backlash did have a tinge of hyperbole about it and overlooked his more reasoned comments urging the prosecution of criminals trafficking both children and refugees. However, it is undeniable that as prime minister he must choose his words more carefully and not further the hostile rhetoric surrounding the issue.

What's more worrying is the stark difference between his recent statement and beliefs he espoused 2 years ago: “I believe that immigration has brought significant benefits to Britain, from those who’ve come to our shores seeking a safe haven from persecution to those who’ve come to make a better life for themselves and their families, and in the process they have enriched our society by working hard, taking risks and creating jobs and wealth for the whole country”. So what's changed? Well British political opinion to the EU for one thing. The principal problem is that this unhelpful language is continuing to cloud and disfigure the realities of the issue for the British public. Many members of the British press and government implicitly or explicitly classify many of those wishing to reach the UK as migrants as opposed to refugees.

Leaving rhetoric aside there is the more immediate problem that Britain is simply not pulling its weight in allaying the Europe-wide crisis. Any notion of helping Italy, which has been struggling to accommodate the 63,000 refugees that have arrived by sea, is caught up in the ongoing debate of Britain's position in the EU which, with the upcoming referendum, is coming to a head. When one looks at the numbers, Britain's ethical position is essentially indefensible. So far this year, more than 180,000 migrants have reached Greece and Italy by sea (others come from Turkey via the land border with Bulgaria). In Calais there are just shy of 3000.

Of course, people ask 'Well what about the next 3000’, and more refugees will come, but is it Britain's duty to stand quibbling on the sidelines of Europe, leaving countries such as Greece and Italy, far less able to process and accommodate migrants, in the lurch? UN Special Representative for International Migration Peter Sutherland argued just this in his statement that the UK should take more migrants as part of a “fair” solution to the problem, saying that “at the moment there is a huge disparity in the numbers that different countries are taking. On any basis, the Germans and the Swedes are taking far more per capita than the United Kingdom.” Many asylum seekers head for Germany, which in 2014 had more than 200,000 applicants. Sweden's next, with 81,000, then Italy, France and Hungary. Britain is way down the list, with only 32,000.

The most recent decision of the British Government to opt out of a voluntary scheme to resettle thousands of refugees arriving in Europe drew criticism from around the world and rightly so. The heated talks at the EU summit in Brussels saw European leaders endeavouring to formulate a solution to the Mediterranean migrant crisis. Whilst a proposal for mandatory quotas was rejected, EU countries agreed on a voluntary intake scheme. In order to relieve the pressure from southern European countries, members agreed to resettle 40,000 refugees now in Italy and Greece and another 20,000 people currently outside the EU. However, David Cameron's government has opted out. Just as depressing has been the range of headlines from tabloid papers calling for the Prime Minister to 'send in the army'. Luckily, home secretary Theresa May rejected calls for this ludicrous policy. Nevertheless, Britain must start pulling its weight, accept the voluntary intake scheme, engage in meaningful dialogue with the EU and most importantly place the humanitarian plight of refugees over short term political appeasement.

Follow the Leader?: Kazakhstan’s Succession Crisis

Katherine Crofts-Gibbons

On April 26th, the Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev won re-election with 99.7% of the vote in a rigged snap election. The officially designated ‘Leader of the Nation’ is very good at what he does. He has overseen an economic boom and rising living standards in Kazakhstan. He has successfully maintained political stability and prevented the emergence of rivals and opposition movements.  He is genuinely popular, and would probably win a free and fair election were he to hold one. However, the President is 75 and, it is rumoured, in ill health. He can almost certainly, if he chooses, hold on to power until he dies, but, despite the aura of immortality his 26 years in power have conferred, one day he will have to let go. 

It is not clear what will happen next. There is no precedent for a transfer of power in Kazakhstan, and there are no institutions to manage one. Nazarbayev has spoken publicly about the need to put in place a system for the succession, but he does not appear to have taken any steps in this direction. The Kazakh political system is highly personalised, based on informal patronage networks, with the president at the summit, rather than formal institutional structures. To simplify slightly, in this sort of regime, to secure power, a single successor must win over a critical mass of these client networks by presenting him or herself as the strongest possible patron, and it is in the clients’ interests to coordinate around one successor, who can thus become an effective patron. 

The problem in Kazakhstan is that there is no clear successor for the networks to back. Although the workings of the regime are opaque, the consensus is that Nazarbayev has yet to pick one. Experts and insiders regularly come up with lists of potential successors, but they are usually six, seven or eight names long, with no consensus, or even firm answers, on who is most likely. Dariga Nazarbayeva, Nazarbayev’s eldest daughter (he has no sons), was considered the likely successor, but has since fallen out of favour. Her ex-husband, Rakhat Aliyev, was at one time the front runner, but he too fell from favour and committed suicide in an Austrian prison in February. The number of potential competitors will complicate the coordination of elites around a new patron, unless Nazarbayev can use his personal authority to install one. 

The President may yet have time to pick and groom a successor, following the example of Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev, who successfully handed power to his son, Ilham, in 2003. Should the President’s chosen successor fail to win the loyalty of the Kazakh elites, or should Nazarbayev die before selecting one, a chaotic power struggle is likely, which could tip over into general unrest. 

A number of factors will add fuel to the fire.  There are fears of a ‘Ukraine scenario’; Kazakhstan shares 4,250 miles of border with Russia, and has a large ethnic Russian minority concentrated in the north. In 2014, Putin appeared to suggest that Kazakhstan’s existence as a state was tied to Nazarbayev. On top of this, and perhaps making Russian intervention to ‘protect’ ethnic Russians more likely, a recent spate of terror attacks reflects the growing presence of radical Islam. Home-grown sources of potential conflict include an increasing rich-poor divide, growing labour unrest and economic difficulties stemming from Russia’s economic crisis, cooling growth in China and low oil prices. Nazarbayev is strong enough to keep a lid on the instability these factors might otherwise create. His successor, particularly if the Leader of the Nation dies before designating an heir, may not be able to. 

Even if a successor does emerge, Kazakhstan faces an uncertain future. In order to hold on to power in the face of intra-elite competition and growing domestic instability, Nazarbayev’s successor, who will lack his popularity and personal authority, may turn to even tighter political control and repression. Rule of law is unlikely to be high on the agenda. Such a crackdown may provoke a popular backlash. 

Until a strong successor emerges, the stability of Central Asia’s largest and richest country rests on the, possibly delicate, health of a 75 year old man. 

The Alternative to Hatred: Small Steps towards a Shared Society in the Middle East

Rose Vennin

As I am shown around the Givat Haviva campus in Northern Israel, I walk past a three-meter high wooden sculpture similar to a totem pole. Curious, I ask Lydia Aisenburg, educator at the centre, whether it is indeed a totem pole and its significance. She swiftly corrects me: it is a peace tree, proudly sculpted by a group of Israeli and Arab children in one of the day-long sessions organised by the kibbutz to bring the two cultures together and further dialogue. It has symbolically stood there for a decade, persisting throughout the innumerable acts of violence in the region. 

With Israel having experienced violence and instability once again this past weekend, discussing local efforts fostering harmony, such as this joint arts program, seems particularly relevant. When considering the matter, most think that peace building and international relations in general are a top-down affair, that inter-governmental agreements are those that will end conflict. However, this is only part of the story: if tension exists among the local population then even a unanimously recognised agreement at the diplomatic level is ineffective. More than ever, long-term stability in the region needs to come from local communities, with Arab and Jewish civilians working hand in hand. 

This is where an organisation like Givat Haviva comes into play. Founded in 1949 as a national education centre, it is a recipient of the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education for its longstanding work in promoting Jewish-Arab dialogue and reconciliation. I meet with Yaniv Sagee, the Executive Director, who details the centre’s new strategy: striving for a shared society, the programs created aim to enhance cooperation, equality and understanding between what are today divided groups in Israel. Although this may appear to be an impossible goal in a region with a tumultuous history, Givat Haviva’s record is quite convincing at showing that change on a societal scale begins with the socio-political unit closest to the people – the community level. Projects like the implementation of common educational programs and the establishment of Arab-Jewish municipal cooperation are tiny steps in the longer stride towards regional peace, developing interaction and understanding between the two groups.  

So although it may sound idealistic and trivial given the current conflictual situation, it is these tiny steps that matter today. By instituting shared values from an early stage in Arab and Jewish children’s political maturation, concrete programs like these lessen the separation between the two. As witnessed during my two-week trip to the region, hatred of the “other” is instilled from a very young age on both sides. Arab and Jewish communities can live 5 kilometres from one another, yet a world separates their views regarding the region, its history and the future they envision. Later on in the day, I visit one Jewish village, on top of a hill, and another Arab one at the bottom, both having yet to follow Givat Haviva’s program. After talking with local shop-keepers about their respective points of view, I am struck by the fact that there seems to be no interaction between the two communities – they are so close, and yet so far. In this context, how can we realistically expect the state of stability the international community repeatedly calls for?

Hence, as the peace process has slowed down to a standstill and a seemingly hopeless situation prevails, “the time to build a society of dialogue and understanding between all groups, has come, and not only at the governmental level, but even more importantly between local communities and civilians,” concludes Lydia Aisenburg. It is time to put the work of organisations like that of Givat Haviva further into the spotlight, promoting the notion of a peaceful shared society. And then only will the peace tree stand firm for centuries.

Title image taken at Givat Haviva.

Culturally Combating Da'esh

WILL YELDHAM

He saw life as a saga. All the events in it were significant: all personages in contact with him heroic. His mind was stored with poems of old raids and epic tales of fights, and he overflowed with them on the nearest listener. - T.E Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom

T.E Lawrence's description of Auda, a desert warlord, homeless but armed with poems and stories, resonates with the essential function of Jihadi poetry in creating a sense of cultural identity within Da'esh, the organisation that calls itself 'Islamic State'.  Admittedly, Lawrence was writing in an entirely different, and importantly less religiously radicalised society, however, he frequently notes how essential culture and particularly poetry was to an essentially nomadic people. Whilst Da'esh's rapid expansion, declaration of a 'caliphate' and alleged issue of passports seem to propose a strong sense of state identity this is flawed. Its success is fundamentally based upon military victory, for example the capture of Mosul was touted as a clear sign of God's favour, however, as they encounter more organised resistance in the form of the Iraqi Military and a reinvigorated Kurdish force this is waning. In its place a fledgling cultural identity is forming and presents an essential target for attack. There are many admirable initiatives rewriting and poking fun at Da'esh and the exaggerated culture it's weaving but more must be done to undermine the dangerously attractive image it presents that not only strengthens it internally but allures potential foreign fighters.

A principle player in fostering Da'esh's poetry is Ahlam-al-Nasr, whose collection 'The Blaze of Truth' was published online last summer and circulated extremely quickly through militant networks. Known as 'The Poetess of Da'esh' she's the closest thing to a literary celebrity that Da'esh can hold and she provides a powerful rallying call. Indeed in February she wrote a 30 page essay defending the leadership's decision to burn the Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh. In a recent article in the New Yorker Robyn Creswell and Bernard Haykel comprehensively dissect a number of the collections 107 poems and consider their cultural impact. They noted the importance of her recent marriage  to Abu Usama al-Gharib, a Vienna-born jihadi close to the movements leadership which was reported on numerous Da'esh-affiliated twitter accounts. However the celebrations of nuptial bliss also mark the creation of media power couple as Al-Gharib is a veteran propagandist, initially for al-Qaeda and now for Da'esh. 

Political Poetry 

To get an idea of the importance of Jihadi poetry in fostering Da'esh's identity we must examine both its roots in traditional Arab poetry and its politicisation in the Arab Spring.  The poems Lawrence frequently encountered were the latest in a long tradition based in a oral culture. The earliest poems were written primarily in monorhyme, for easy memorisation, and functioned as historical record. By celebrating famous victories, lamenting the fallen, celebrating love and degrading their enemies they fostered a culture of romance and more importantly gave a fixed identity within it. Even now television shows such as the UAE-based 'Sha'ir al-Milyoon', or 'Millionaire Poet',  in which poets compete along the lines of American Idol for enormous prizes, continue to celebrate this oral tradition. The political dimension of this poetry is  paramount - indeed the 2010 winner of 'Millionaire Poet' delivered a piece fiercely critical of hard-line Saudi clerics. The most obvious example of poetry's political use is in the Arab Spring. During the Egyptian revolution lines from an early 20th century Tunisian poem by Abul-Qasim al Shabi were chanted, recitals broke out nightly and poetry was a catalyst for staying inciting cohesive resistance. An Al-Jazeera correspondent reported that protestors were chanting throughout the evening. He commented ‘There’ve been poetry readings. It seems as if they’re saying, “It’s early in the morning but we’re here to stay. We’re not going anywhere".' Indeed, Nasser Farghaly, an Egyptian filmmaker, poet and writer, recently spoke to Granta about the use of poems as a tool for political movement in modern Arabic poetry:

"The dialectic that has characterised the Arabic contemporary poetry scene for the last fifty years was very evident in the revolution; this is the dialectic of revolution in poetry, or revolution by poetry."

A State - or a State in Our Eyes 

The poems that are chanted by Da'esh militants now may be different but they serve the same function of social cohesion. 'The Poetess of Da'esh' herself began her poetic career penning verses in support of the protests to oust Bashar al-Assad in 2011. Since then her work has become progressively more Islamist and extremist.  Celebrating the symbolic capture of Mosul she wrote

Ask Mosul, city of Islam, about the lions—

How their fierce struggle brought liberation.

The land of glory has shed its humiliation and defeat

And put on the raiment of splendour.

By repeatedly portraying Da'esh in paradisal language she is balming an integral existential anxiety within it. Surrounded by enemies on all sides and pounded by coalition bombing, the identity of Da'esh lies less in its fluctuating borders than the imaginative fantasy realm of the 'Caliphate'. By exploiting the rich oral tradition of Arabic poetry they are in effect hijacking a cohesive cultural identity for themselves and appropriating the societal roots they lack.  Robyn Creswell and Bernard Haykel make the important distinction between Ahlam's poems and other like it and videos of beheadings and burnings. The graphic atrocities 'are made primarily for foreign consumption' whereas 'poetry provides a window onto the movement talking to itself. It is in verse that militants most clearly articulate the fantasy life of jihad'. 

Da'esh itself has a troubled relationship with the idea of 'statehood'. In the early summer of 2014 Abu Bakr al-Bhagdadi declared 'Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis. The land is for the Muslims, all Muslims', thus disavowing traditional notions of statehood which typically find their model in a Westphalian secular system. However, in some respects Da'esh is behaving very much like a state. Indeed, a comprehensive study by Charles C. Caris & Samuel Reynolds for the institute of war examined how it 'has built a holistic system of governance that includes religious, educational, judicial, security, humanitarian, and infrastructure projects, among others'. Admittedly these initiatives were largely centred around the stronghold of Raqqa but the resemblance to organized statehood is striking and this is also reflected in its governing structure. Beneath him, al-Baghdadi has a chief advisor on Syria and a chief advisor on Iraq, each of whom lead 5-7 governors. There are nine councils, including the Leadership Council, the Shore Council, the Military Council, the Legal Council, the Fighters’ Assistance Council, the Financial Council, the Intelligence Council, the Security Council, and the Media Council. Thus it's clear that Da'esh is striving after a kind of sovereignty and statehood whilst simultaneously rejecting traditional, or at least Western, definitions of them. This is reflected in the names they employ. On the one hand, they use the term khalifah, a religious term far older than the 19th century nation state, to refer to Bhagdadi. This proclaims him the leader of the entire Muslim community across the world thus disregarding traditional state boundaries and national identities in favour of religion. On the other, they call themselves 'Dawlah' a term originating in the 10th century but used more recently to describe a sovereign state with the panoply of statehood. In this way Is both subscribes to and frustrates Western conceptions of secular statehood. Da'esh claims sovereignty for its 'caliphate' yet rejects the treaty from which 'sovereignty' as a modern concept was born – the treaty of Westphalia. The poetry of Ahlam-al-Nasr and others like her treads between these seemingly conflicting positions by not only perpetuating the religious call of the caliphate but also celebrating the everyday life within the 'state' of Da'esh. The two positions are collapsed in her declaration 'In the caliphate, I saw women wearing the veil, everyone treating each other with virtue, and people closing up their shops at prayer times' written in an essay defending the leadership's decision to burn Moaz al-Kasasbeh. However, the danger of propagandists like Ahlam al Nasr is that they inspire followers who in turn encourage foreign fighters disaffected with western sovereignty. One such is a British Da'esh militant, Abuqaqa Britani, who used to go by the name 'greenbirdexpress' on the social networking site Ask.fm and has started posting his own verse on Twitter.  The widespread proliferation of jihadi poetry not only serves to redefine traditional notions of sovereignty but also endeavours to lure disaffected Muslims abroad to become foreign fighters. 

The Emerging Cultural Battleground

However, around the world people are fighting back. Sana al-Yemen, a British teenager recently found herself the centre of a media craze after she uploaded a video reciting her own anti-Da'esh poem on youtube. Within minutes Al-Jazeera, CNN and the BBC had contacted her for comment and the poem had gone viral. She now has over 4000 followers on Twitter and has been the focus of a feature length documentary. The poem itself specifically attacked preachers in Europe calling for young people take up arms in support of Da'esh. In particular she comments upon Sheikh Mohamed al-Areifi, a Salafist cleric from Saudi Arabia who has been accused of encouraging young British Muslims to head to Syria and Iraq. There are countless other individuals around the world undermining Da'esh's rhetoric, another British example being Humza Arshad. His joint project with Scotland Yard is an essential part of their counter extremism outreach work. Alongside police officers he participates in presentations at schools all over the UK. His tongue in cheek delivery was recorded by Griff White who observed:

The police officer had just finished an earnest presentation on counter-extremism before an audience of 200 restless teenagers at an East London secondary school when a young man of Pakistani origin in a black hoodie took the stage. "How many of you people are Muslim?" the man barked. He grinned as nearly every hand went up. "Guys, we can take over! Sharia law coming soon!" the man cried gleefully. "Allahu Akbar!"

The teens erupted in laughter even before the man had a chance to clarify: "I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I think I scared the white people."

There is a fine balance between ascribing media coverage to anti-Da'esh Muslim voices and ascribing expectation. A combination of the religious motivation of IS and the hesitancy of western media to confront to 'Islamic' aspect of 'Islamic State' has been counter-productive. Whilst striving to avoid offence, news agencies are overlooking how religion - if a warped interpretation - is fuelling the conflict. The danger with this approach is that it places an inordinate pressure upon the Muslim community to denounce Da'esh's use of religion. One example of this is the decision of the mosque that Mohammad Abdulazeez, the Tennessee shooter, prayed at to cancel its Eid al-Fitr celebrations and mourn the dead marines. The eyes of America and its news agencies were upon them and thus they felt unable to continue with their own un-radicalised religious practises, and obliged to provide the rejection of Da'esh's religion that others have avoided.  Headlines such as 'Government to take firmer stance on Muslims who fail to denounce jihadis' (the Independent, 18/07/2015) simply serve to increase this pressure and create an expectation for Muslim's to 'prove' their non-radicalisation by denouncing Da'esh. Marc Schneier wrote persuasively on this topic, commenting that this question arises out of the failure of the western media to effectively record the instant rejections of radicalism that surround many Islamist terrorist attacks. For instance, during the summer of 2014, the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza triggered an explosion of violent anti-Semitism across Europe; many acts were committed by Muslims. While the media highlighted the very real and deeply troubling upsurge of violence in countries like France, Germany and Belgium, they rarely reported on Muslim leaders who denounced the violence. This media neglect then occasionally boils over into sudden bouts fierce expectancy where various Muslim communities are forced to 'prove' their moderate beliefs even though they have frequently espoused them in the past. Ironically, the trepidation of news agencies to approach the clear religious motivation of Da'esh is placing an inordinate expectation and ultimately suspicion upon wider Muslim communities to do so. This is why the widespread coverage of everyday low key actors such as Sana al-Yemen is so important.

This coverage is also essential as initiatives such as Humza Arshad's showcase the power of humour to undermine Da'esh's rhetoric. In a recent interview on CNN Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef, former host of Al Bernameg, summed this up perfectly when he said 'I think satire is incredible because basically it takes down this kind of fear from the hearts of people and when you take away the fear through laughter, they aren’t scary anymore'. Indeed, just across the border from Da'esh is the new hit Iraqi comedy show Dawlat al-Khurafa or the Superstitious State — a play on khilafa, or caliphate. It features Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Da'esh's leader, as a buffoon who hatches from an egg after a truly bizarre ceremony involving Satan, the Joker and, as far as I can make out, a Western cowboy. The show draws attention to the little known ludicrous laws imposed by Da'esh such as the banning of electric razors and the displaying of tomatoes side by side. 

Da'esh is in a critical stage in its development. No longer fuelled by constant military success and under increasing threat from Kurdish forces, who recently captured military bases 30 miles from Raqqa, it is becoming increasingly reliant on its own interpretation of sovereignty. Nevertheless, it still poses an enormous threat to regional and international security so this cultural weakness needs to exploited to destroy the fantasy caliphate that both holds Da'esh together internally and allures foreign fighters. By examining jihadi poetry we can gain an essential glimpse into the cultural mindset of the fighters and use this to target anxieties afflicting the self proclaimed state as a whole. To do this the international community must draw media attention to individuals such as Sana, Humza and the unpublicised hundreds like them who recognise this weakness. News of the military battle against Da'esh is daily reported, with accounts of coalition bombing filling headlines, but its cultural and intellectual counterpart has not been sufficiently covered.  The intellectual battleground needs to be placed at the forefront by policymakers, not simply sidelined in favour of an expansion of coalition bombing. In codifying its reinterpretation and rejection of Western sovereignty, Da'esh is becoming more reliant on its own self proclaimed myth. By waging this 'intellectual war' and expanding media coverage of everyday rejections of radicalism we can both deconstruct Da'esh's self edifying mythos and reduce the number of foreign fighters flocking to support it.

Click here for an Iraqi News report on Dawlat al-Khurafa.

Russia and the Power of Social Media

JACOB WILLIAMS

Half a century is a long time in international politics. In 1959, when Khrushchev visited the American National Exhibition in Moscow, he was shown a model American kitchen and told by his counterpart, then Vice-President Richard Nixon, of the wonders of capitalism in easing the domestic burden of the Western housewife. His scathing reply was that this backwards attitude towards women “does not occur under Communism”. This was not an isolated incident, but part of a wider pattern of cultural conflict: viewing marriage as a bourgeois institution, the Soviet regime made divorce so easy that the Palace of Marital Union in Kiev was viewed as a laughing stock; meanwhile, a key plank of McCarthy’s Red Scare was the paranoid persecution of homosexuals as a threat to the American family.

Fast-forward to today and Russia and the West are again increasingly at loggerheads, but this time the cultural battleground is reversed. Russian lawmakers extol the virtues of conservative Christian social attitudes whilst the West, increasingly tending towards a more socially progressive outlook, lambasts the country’s repressive treatment of sexual minorities. When the US Supreme Court declared bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional and Facebook erupted into a sea of rainbow colours, the suggestion by legislator Vitaly Molonov that Russia ban the website for breaking its law against “gay propaganda” was met with outrage and disgust. 

The argument made by Molonov concerning Facebook, that the website ought to be banned for breaching Russian laws against the “promotion” of homosexuality in a manner visible to children, ties in to wider Russian critiques of a hegemonic western media promoting a socially liberal agenda at the expense of nations’ rights to determine moral questions for themselves. A glance at the responses to the Supreme Court ruling from most large, mainstream western media organisations tells us that this is not without substance. Western elites tend to support policies like same sex marriage out of proportion to the views of their consumers, who are much more divided in their views.

The case of Facebook is particularly interesting. When logging into Facebook, a Russian uses a means of communication whose structure, down to the smallest detail, is continually designed and re-designed by Americans. And the structure of a communications system can powerfully influence the content it produces. Facebook and Twitter are inherently about self-promotion, about asserting individual preferences and tastes in a sphere where community structures, if represented at all, are dissolvable at click of a button. Small wonder that just as community-minded commentators in the Anglosphere used to rail against the ills of television, so too social conservatives in Russia are suspicious of social media. 

Neither is the choice to use social media one made in isolation. The whole business model of the dominant platforms is that of achieving a critical mass of members, at which point a cost, in isolation, is imposed on those slow to take them up. In a globalising world, this increasingly looks to the Russian right like a cost imposed by liberal minded Californians on God-fearing Russian families against their will and consent. For people like Molonov, the decision to use a platform that promotes individualism and self-regard is one that ought to have been taken collectively, not through formally free global markets that allow liberal America to impose its values abroad. 

If this all sounds disturbingly authoritarian, on one level, of course, it is. But there is no point in getting carried away in our outrage. Not so long ago, here in the UK, similar arguments were widely accepted for the banning of pirate radio stations in the days of the BBC’s broadcasting monopoly in order to safeguard cultural standards. Of course, it is far easier, and thus a more significant restriction if one is prevented from doing so, to sign up on Facebook than to create a radio broadcasting station. And actually banning foreign broadcasting was a step few liberal democracies ever had the stomach to take. 

Whether the idea is as egregious a violation of human rights as our media suggest, however, is far from clear. Certainly it is illiberal and dangerous, and speaks to a wider culture of censorship in Russia. In any case this is not a defence of the idea, or of Russian cultural and media policy generally, just a plea that our governments might make better choices if we took the time to understand it, and to understand the fact that Russian conservatives are often more than just simple bigots.