The US spearheads worldwide coalition against foreign disinformation.

Washington desires additional nations to join the US, UK, and Canada in endorsing an agreement to define, identify, and label such operations.

The US special envoy on the issue has announced the formation of a global coalition of democracies aimed at safeguarding their societies from disinformation campaigns orchestrated by foreign governments.

James Rubin, serving as the special envoy for non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts at the US State Department’s Global Engagement Centre (GEC), outlined the coalition’s objectives, emphasizing the need to delineate between information manipulation and legitimate differing opinions held by other governments.

The United States, United Kingdom, and Canada have already committed to a formal framework agreement, with Washington urging more countries to join in. The GEC, with its exclusive focus on foreign disinformation, not only endeavors to devise global strategies but also works to expose specific covert disinformation operations, such as a recent Russian endeavor in Africa aimed at discrediting US health services.

Signed this month, the framework underscores disinformation as a national security threat necessitating coordinated responses from both governments and civil society. It advocates for a collective approach among like-minded nations to counter the manipulation of foreign information, emphasizing the importance of strengthening resilience and response mechanisms.

The framework also promotes information-sharing and collaborative data analysis tools to identify covert foreign disinformation efforts. Rubin, a seasoned US official and journalist with extensive diplomatic experience, acknowledged the intellectual challenges posed by the nuanced definitions surrounding disinformation during his first year as special envoy.

He has endeavored to discern the appropriate points along the spectrum from contentious viewpoints to deliberate disinformation, seeking to determine where and how governments can intervene without impinging on freedom of expression.

The core principle he emphasizes is the deceitfulness employed by foreign powers. “In essence, every government should have the freedom to express its viewpoints, but transparency regarding their origin should be mandatory,” he explained in an interview.

“We aim to encourage the dissemination of fact-based information while simultaneously devising methods to identify information operations originating from entities like the Chinese government or the Kremlin, even when they refuse to acknowledge their involvement.

“Ultimately, this is the extent of action we can currently take without impinging on press freedom. We are not advocating for the removal of such covert disinformation, but rather advocating for a system to label its source.”

As an illustration, he presents a hypothetical scenario where individuals in Eastern Europe receive a message on their phones claiming, “The US possesses bioweapons in Ukraine.”

“It’s a typical disinformation tactic, one that individuals may or may not believe,” he remarked. “However, if the message is accompanied by a disclaimer stating ‘Russia asserts that the US has bioweapons in Ukraine,’ or ‘As reported by Russia Today,’ the potential harm is mitigated.

“While there will always be individuals who subscribe to outlandish beliefs, at least they will be informed of the source of the information.”

In a nation like the United States, where the constitution upholds freedom of speech, the matter presents challenging dynamics regarding the relationship with social media platforms—a concern not as pronounced in the more interventionist European Union. The EU has enacted the Digital Services Act and initiated an investigation in December into X regarding illicit content and disinformation, as well as issues surrounding advertising transparency and perceived “deceptive” design practices. Meanwhile, the UK’s media regulator, Ofcom, has been granted authority over social media content under the Online Safety Act.

Rubin emphasized that it wasn’t within his organization’s purview to dictate the conduct of social media companies, particularly those in the US. However, he asserted that it was legitimate for his organization to expose foreign disinformation campaigns. The responsibility to enforce terms of service on social media companies, he added, rested with other entities.

“I’ve tackled issues like nuclear disarmament in the past, and people considered that challenging, but this is even more so,” Rubin remarked. “In America, freedom of the press is enshrined in our constitution. We lack regulation of social media companies, and there’s a widespread misunderstanding of the term ‘disinformation.’

“If you visit Eastern Europe and officials claim they experienced a significant disinformation incident yesterday, and upon inspection, it’s merely an article, the term ‘disinformation’ can devolve into a synonym for ‘fake news’—just a label for something one dislikes. That’s not what we’re addressing.”