War always forces change. If the war against Russia’s mafia state is to be won, or even fought, then the network of tax havens, trusts and shell companies that has made London a global money-laundering center will have to be busted open.
Senior Conservatives talk as if they understand after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury that the Russian police, secret services, propaganda stations, sporting federations and ministries are not separate institutions, but parts of a complete merger of the political and criminal classes.
Maybe I am naive, but I believe them when they say they are willing to take on Russian President Vladimir Putin. I just doubt that they understand how much of Britain’s plutocrat-enabling culture must change.
Illustration: Yusha
To use the cliche, sunlight has become the West’s disinfectant. Never has the closed world of intelligence been as keen on publicity.
The pictures Dutch intelligence released of the arrest of Russian military intelligence agency (GRU) personnel attempting to hack the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons performed the same function as the British authorities’ exposure of the Salisbury poisoners.
Russian spies no longer appeared to be supernatural figures, but blunderers with cover stories a child could unpick.
The willingness of the UK and Dutch intelligence agencies to go public has turned Russia into a laughing stock, and Russia, like all dictatorial countries and individuals, can stand anything except mockery.
Do not laugh too heartily, though. A regime might be simultaneously preposterous and effective.
Take the case of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, to reach for the closet example of the absurd.
Holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy for years because he is not man enough to face the charges against him, he seems the Ben Gunn of the Internet age.
Yet the US inquiry headed by special counsel Robert Mueller credibly alleges that Assange was the final link in the Russian state’s operation to help then-Republican candidate Donald Trump defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton.
GRU agents passed 50,000 documents from the Clinton campaign to WikiLeaks, which presented them as the product of its own investigations in the journalistic equivalent of money laundering.
We think that modern history is the result of grand forces — the revolt of the white working class, the backlash against globalization — but it is as likely that supposedly comic Russian spies collaborating with a lank-haired braggart hiding from justice in a Knightsbridge basement, with only occasional visits from Pamela Anderson to relieve the tedium of his wasted life, have changed the world.
Nor can the successes of Western intelligence stop Russia spreading fear. The US authorities matched the Dutch and British by revealing every detail of how the GRU targeted international sporting organizations as punishment for their role in exposing doping in Russian sport.
It seems a counterespionage coup until you remember that a frightened World Anti-Doping Agency hastily rehabilitated Russia last month rather than risk further GRU attacks.
Exposure will do little good unless openness by the intelligence services is matched by the breaking of financial secrecy that protects the assets of a criminal regime.
As those assets have delivered large commissions to everyone from City of London banks and law firms to private schools and Mayfair estate agents, it has taken an unconscionably long time for Britain to accept that national security comes before the national income.
Russia, like all dictatorial countries and individuals, can stand anything except mockery.
We have been living through a rerun of the 1990s, when the security services refused to listen to warnings from the French that London had become a center of Islamist terrorism. They did not wake up until the exploding planes of Sept. 11, 2001, shook them from their slumbers.
Until Salisbury, the British government treated Russian terrorism and threats to the democratic process with the same willful neglect.
As late as 2014, then-UK home secretary Theresa May was attempting to stop an inquest into the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko for fear that open justice would harm the British Foreign Office’s attempts to mend relations with Putin.
Belatedly, the government is preparing to hit the alleged looters with “unexplained wealth orders” that freeze assets until oligarchs can show they are not the proceeds of crime.
A test case earlier this month demonstrated how hard it is to shift a rotten culture.
For all ministers’ fighting talk, class privilege still beats open justice in the English courts.
The judge said journalists could only refer to a woman, who is being asked to account for how she and husband acquired US$72 million, as “Mrs A.”
If the police alleged that you or I had stolen even a tiny amount, our names would be public property. Face accusations of stealing US$72 million and the judiciary rushes to guarantee anonymity.
The British National Crime Agency has deeper worries and wonders how it will prove London’s Russian oligarchs are criminals when the Russian state can provide them with fake property deeds as easily as it supplies its propagandists with fake news.
To succeed, the intelligence agencies need to win the trust of the public and, indeed, of the judges. They should be able to release verifiable intelligence not just on oligarchs, but on the lawyers, bankers, accountants, journalists and politicians who work for Putin, and expect a fair hearing.
However, trust is impossible as long as the state expects us to believe the transparent falsehood that Britain is the only country in the West where Russia has not tried to rig elections.
I can guess why the police and intelligence services have released nothing on the meetings between Leave.EU and the Russian embassy. If they were to do their duty, they would embarrass a Conservative Party that was taking Britain out of the EU and a Labour Party led by far-leftists who have opposed the EU all their lives.
Neither wants the Brexit campaign examined.
I do not want to draw a crass moral equivalence between the Russian and British security services, but they are similar in one respect: Both put political convenience before the national interest.
Brexit, in other words, is poisoning the attempts to defend British democracy as it has poisoned everything else, which was why Russia was so anxious for Britain to leave in the first place.
Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist.
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Chinese social media influencer “Yaya in Taiwan” (亞亞在台灣), whose real name is Liu Zhenya (劉振亞), made statements advocating for “reunifying Taiwan [with China] through military force.” After verifying that Liu did indeed make such statements, the National Immigration Agency revoked her dependency-based residency permit. She must now either leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Operating your own page and becoming an influencer require a certain amount of support and user traffic. You must successfully gain approval for your views and attract an audience. Although Liu must leave the country, I cannot help but wonder how many more “Yayas” are still
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
RSS