CREES-FMSO: Western versus Russian Notions of Internet Freedom

Western interpretations of democracy rest partially on the notion of an ‘open society’; a society that is afforded access to information as it pleases. The recent restrictions or denial of access placed on the Internet by governments during the so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions (namely Egypt, Syria, and Bahrain), as well as longstanding limits on Internet accessibility by North Korea, Russia, and China (among others) has influenced the United States government to spearhead and fund the creation of “shadow” Internet and mobile phone systems. The $2 million State Department grant is part of a growing global effort to undermine repressive governments that seek to limit, censor, or shut down dissident telecommunications networks. According to the New York Times report on June 12, the State Department is recognizing the widespread concerns about Internet accessibility and restrictions on freedom of information across the globe, and “is simply taking advantage of enterprising dissidents who have found ways to get around government censorship.”

From burying Chinese cellphones in the hills bordering North Korea to the creation of the “internet in a suitcase” system that can be concealed and transported into repressive countries, granting quick and easy setup of a wireless communication network with a link to the global Internet, the technological revolution—namely the extensive use of the Internet, text messaging, and social networking sites—has changed the face of protest and revolution in recent months. These technologies have created new avenues for mass sentiment to erupt into mass protest, therefore allowing for public disapproval to more quickly effect political change. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “There is a historic opportunity to effect positive change, change America supports. So we’re focused on helping them do that, on helping them talk to each other, to their communities, to their governments and to the world.”

It remains to be seen what the official stance of the Russian Federation will be regarding the United States’ initiative. Nikolai Troitsky, analyst for Russian news agency RIA Novosti, offered the assessment that the United States was overstepping its bounds, simply assuming one of these nations was totalitarian or authoritarian and severing its ability to maintain the stability of the country, through its support of foreign dissidents. Troitsky highlights the differences in understanding of the ideas of freedom and democracy, notions of openness that differ in Russian society, as suggested by Vladimir Shlapentokh: “The assumption that openness always promotes democracy and guarantees it will function turned out to be wrong, since the extension of openness and the fading away of Russia’s fledgling democracy have been evolving simultaneously.” This disconnect between interpretations of openness suggests that the future of Russian openness will continue to stifle dissident information, therefore coming into direct conflict with Western understandings. Troitsky’s stance becomes especially heated by the end of his report, as he argues against the effectiveness of the US “shadow” Internet project:

You should not confuse technological progress with policy. Revolution does not live within technology. It is necessary to lay down an objective situation. The impotence of the rulers. Large-scale demonstration of solid masses. And no civil society activists, armed with iPhones, Androids and other gadgets. Offline, that is, in reality, they [the authorities] are simply catching everything, clearing them out and suppressing them. And there is no alternative network that will help. Democracy, like revolution, cannot be exported overseas like fruit, which the local public organism is not used to. It does not take root. Or it causes indigestion.

While Troitsky’s remarks do not necessarily represent those of the Russian Federation, his sentiments provide a starting point for watching and analyzing changes in official policy toward the Internet and freedom of information, as revolutions continue in the Arab world. Should ‘Arab Spring’ stir any revolutionary tides closer to Russia’s borders, one must only remember the changes in Russian policy that occurred during the Color Revolutions in the early 2000s as a benchmark for official reactions to oppositional or dissident information.

Articles referred to in this post:

«Дайджест российской прессы – 14 июня» (“Russian Press Digest – June 14”)

http://rian.ru/media/20110614/388045728.html

«Свобода приходит онлайн» (“Freedom comes online”)

http://rian.ru/videocolumns/20110614/388217735.html

«США обсуждают власти Сирии за отключение интернета из-за протестов» (“US condemns the Syrian authorities over shutdown of Internet because of protests”)