THE International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has always prided itself on being one of the most pragmatic organisations of the United Nations. Engineers, after all, speak a similar language, regardless where they come from. Even during the cold war they managed to overcome their differences and negotiate the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR), a binding global treaty that even today governs telecommunications between countries.

But the internet seems to be an even more divisive medium than cold-war ideology. The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, where the ITU met to renegotiate the ITR, ended in failure in the early hours of November 14th. After a majority of countries approved the new treaty, Terry Kramer, the head of the American delegation, announced that his country is “not able to sign the document in its current form.” Shortly thereafter, at least a dozen countries—including Britain, Sweden and Egypt—signaled that they would not support the new treaty either.

The main issue was to what extent the internet should feature in the treaty. America and its allies wanted to keep it from being so much as mentioned—mainly out of fear that any reference to it whatsoever would embolden governments to censor the internet and meddle with its infrastructure. For some time a compromise among the more the 600 delegates, who were confined to an oppressive convention hall, seemed possible: the binding ITR would indeed hardly make any mention of the internet, but China, Russia and many Arab countries would get a non-binding resolution on the internet (with the awkward title “To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet”).

Yet this package did not fly—because for America both the ITR and the resolution crossed several red lines. One section of the draft treaty calls for the regulation of “unsolicited bulk electronic communication”, commonly known as “spam”. But prohibiting spam in an international treaty, the Americans argue, would require some definition of the kind of content intended—which could thereby limit the freedom of expression. Russia also insisted that the relevant entities in the treaty be defined as “operating agencies”, which would include internet services providers (ISPs) and other internet firms. (America wants the entities to be classed as “recognised operating agencies”, code for old-style telecommunication carriers.)

America’s willingness to stand up for the internet should be welcomed. But it has to be said that in doing so it is also defended its interests: no other country benefits as much from the status quo in the online world. Since much of the internet’s infrastructure is based in America and most of its traffic zips through it, America is in a unique position to eavesdrop, should it be so inclined. America’s internet firms also capture most of the profit pool of the online industry.