Freedom in a digital world

Digital activism in a framework of uncertainty

Victor Ângelo

 

I participated this week in a webinar about "Internet and Geopolitics". The question at the centre of the debates was very direct: is a global, universal, and open internet possible?

The question came from civil society associations that militate for digital freedom. And they follow the line of the United Nations: in June 2020, António Guterres proposed a Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, with the aim of achieving that by the end of the decade every person can access the internet at a minimum cost and without obstacles.

The reality is very different. At this moment, there are two parallel digital universes. The international one, essentially North American, built around platforms that are part of our everyday life. And the Chinese, a reproduction of the Western constellation. We can subscribe to the Chinese platforms, but the residents of China do not have access to the international networks, which are blocked by Beijing. So, the answer to the central question can only be negative. Access to the internet is, in autocratic regimes, limited or banned for political reasons. 

Beyond calls for multilateralism, new 'silk routes' and progress in communications and transport, we are moving fast towards a historical phase of fragmentation and open rivalries between blocs of countries. In the digital area, this competition centres on the issues of artificial intelligence, data clouds, cybersecurity, espionage, competing political narratives and surveillance of citizens.

Those in power, whatever they may be, increasingly use social media to influence public opinion, manipulate political discourse and create an interpretation of reality that is favourable to them. Donald Trump has excelled in this art. Today, Narendra Modi is the incumbent leader who is followed by the largest number of people, some 175 million. Modi knows that images attract attention if they are intuitive, dynamic, colourful, and empathetic. In Portugal, António Costa has around 266,000 followers on Twitter. It's not much, but in our country, what continues to weigh is the frequent presence on free-to-air television channels. President Zelensky's official Twitter account has 6.2 million subscribers. The Ukrainian leader has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for communication through digital media.

As a curiosity, note that Cristiano Ronaldo has around 445 million followers on Instagram, Lionel Messi 329 million and Khaby Lame, an Italian influencer of African origin, is followed by 136 million via TikTok. What would happen if one of them launched into political activism?

As for the confrontation with Russia, it seems clear to me that it will contribute to the deepening of geopolitical fractures. Nobody knows how the war of aggression against Ukraine, or the huge crisis triggered between Russia, the United States and the various NATO countries will evolve. However, it is clear that we are still on an escalation course, in a highly complex and exceptionally worrying context. On the one hand, it is not acceptable to systematically violate the international order, as defined in the United Nations Charter, nor to disrespect with impunity the institutions that are the pillars of peace and security, such as the International Court of Justice. Nor is it acceptable that international law, the basis of relations between states, should no longer apply to the major powers, giving primacy instead to their geostrategic interests, in the old concept of force as the main lever of power. On the other hand, there is a very serious risk of a new, large-scale, global confrontation.

In this context, my suggestion is simple: civil society can use the digital platforms to tip the balance towards the side of law, moderation, and peace. And start by promoting international agreements on cyber non-aggression to critical infrastructures, essential for the daily life of every citizen.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 27 May 2022)

 

 

 

Looking at a possible UN role in Ukraine

UN: a roadmap for peace in Ukraine

Victor Angelo

 

More than a month has passed since an open letter was sent to the UN Secretary-General on the situation in Ukraine, signed by former senior officials. Meanwhile, António Guterres has been in Moscow and Kyiv, and has managed to push forward the UN humanitarian response. The political dimension, however, continues to be determined elsewhere. In general, words coming out of the West have been accentuating the possibility of a Ukrainian victory. Statements of this kind tend to aggravate the confrontation. It is true that there has been a considerable increase in arms support to Ukraine and that this is positive, as it allows for a redoubling of self-defence efforts. But in public, we should only talk about self-defence and, in tandem, the urgency of peace.

In this context, it makes perfect sense for the Secretary-General to stand up for a political process that recognises both the right to self-defence and war reparations, and the imperative of a peace agreement, guaranteed by the United Nations.

A new open letter should now insist on this line of action. A draft was prepared this week. I was one of those who found the text too vague, when the moment demands clarity and a firm assumption of responsibilities. So, for the time being, there will not be a new missive from us. The important thing is to show that the political pillar of the United Nations has the necessary authority to propose a way out of the crisis which will counter the escalation of military aggression and prevent the destruction of Ukraine.

The UN's political agenda could be built around four converging lines of intervention.

First, by seeking to establish temporary pauses in the fighting, in various localities deemed vulnerable, in order to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance. In this vision, the pauses would be monitored by a contingent of UN observers, with a mandate from the Security Council. The proposal to create a group of international monitors would be appreciated by many, although it is acknowledged that it would encounter immense obstacles to be approved.

Second, by maintaining a constant call, repeated until heard, for an end to hostilities and acceptance of a UN-led mediation process, which could include the preparation of a conference on a new framework for cooperation and security in Europe. 

Third, by continually recalling the Geneva Protocols on the limits of war. The major concern is the defence of civilian populations. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited; acts of military violence to create terror are a war crime; infrastructures essential to the survival of communities must be spared; certain types of munitions are absolutely prohibited, including cluster bombs, chemical and biological weapons. It is also time to underline the rules on the treatment of prisoners of war, now that the defenders of the last stronghold in Mariupol have surrendered to Russian troops. This surrender is a highly political and symbolic event, which calls for a special reference, in defence of the rights of these prisoners. And of all the others, of course. 

Still under this heading, it seems essential to me to reiterate that the UN is already engaged in documenting possible war crimes and will seek, as far as possible, to increase its efforts in this regard.

Fourth, bearing in mind the divisions within the Security Council, and considering this war to be the greatest threat in 77 years, the Secretary-General could try to set up a Contact Group on the conflict. Such a group would bring together several influential countries that would be in constant liaison with Guterres in the search for solutions. It is a way to multiply the Secretary-General's capacity for intervention and to create a circle of support to protect him from political attacks. It would also show that the crisis has an international and not just a European scope.

None of this would be easy. But the fact remains that the job of UN secretary-general is anything but an easy one.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 20 May 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

China's responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council

Ukraine: what are China's responsibilities as a P5?

Victor Angelo

 

Earlier this week, Olaf Scholz met by videoconference with Xi Jinping. A day later, it was Emmanuel Macron's turn. I imagine there was a prior settling of positions between the two European leaders, even though the face-to-face meeting between the two only took place a few hours after the German chancellor's virtual meeting with the Chinese president. Xi Jinping is convinced that strengthening European unity will eventually allow Europe to gain greater autonomy in relation to the USA. That is why he must have compared the statements made by Scholz and Macron to see if they are along the same lines.

The big issue, in an extensive agenda of issues to be dealt with between China and Europe, is that of the war in Ukraine. During the calls, Xi repeated phrases he had uttered before - Europe's security must be in the hands of Europeans; it is fundamental to build a new security structure in Europe that takes into account the concerns of all parties; China has acted diplomatically for peace to return to Ukraine, starting by insisting on a ceasefire and respect for the country's territorial integrity; it continues to promote multilateral solutions, because it recognises the central role of the UN; and, finally, China defends the globalisation of markets. At the outset, these declarations are positive. But what do they mean in concrete terms, when it comes to putting an end to Russian aggression against Ukraine and stopping the risks of the conflict spreading?

Scholz, Macron and the entire European leadership must go further and unambiguously confront Xi Jinping: what does China intend to do to contribute with all its political and economic weight to making Vladimir Putin's Russia cease hostilities and respect the sovereignty of its neighbour? The videoconferences need to be more demanding and explore what the grand declarations of principles mean in practice. The gravity of the international situation requires a dialogue that goes beyond make-believe.

China, beyond its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a global power, however much that pains some Western leaders. Both realities, in New York and around the world, give China rights and responsibilities. And in the case of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, China has a duty to actively contribute to the return of peace and international law. It cannot use the argument that this is only a European problem and that it is therefore up to the Europeans to solve it. Nor should we insist on this line of argument.

What we are facing is a conflict that could dramatically threaten international peace and security, particularly if non-conventional weapons are used. And which already has a widespread impact on food security, supply chains, energy prices and other dimensions that lead to the impoverishment of millions, and even more so in the most economically fragile countries.

In essence, my message is that Europe needs to talk more assertively with China. Xi says it is for peace and international order, for the centrality of the United Nations. So, ask him how he translates those admirable axioms into a peace process for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the annual summit between the EU and Japan took place yesterday in Tokyo. Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen led the European delegation. They began by pointing out that Japan is Europe's most important strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific region, which must have attracted some attention in Beijing. The intensification of sanctions against Russia was one of the central themes of the discussion. There is a convergence of views between Brussels and Tokyo on the issue. But here too it would have been strategic to discuss how to involve China. This is now one of the big questions. It is not enough to write in the final communiqué that the EU and Japan will "deepen exchanges with China", namely in the political and security fields. That is mere lip service.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 13 May 2022)

 

 

Writing about the future of democracy

Democracy in the digital age

Victor Angelo

 

The Association for the Promotion and Development of the Information Society (APDSI), a civic institution that has contributed over the years to the growth of cybernetics in Portugal, organizes today, at the Convento da Arrábida, a reflection on democracies in the digital age. In other words, a debate on the future of the exercise of political power in the face of extraordinarily rapid advances in the area of ​​information technologies, which will further deepen the era of the instantaneous, as I call the period we live in.

Immediate access to information without reference to context, the abundance of data available at any given time, the truth in competition with the false, advances in artificial intelligence, all this will end up jeopardizing political representation as we know it. It could also seriously undermine the credibility of institutions of governance, the administration of justice, representation and the media, and create new opportunities for manipulating citizen opinion.

As always, it will be the question of control of power that will be at stake. It is only the technologies and methods of achieving this end that change. About ninety years ago, extremists mobilized populations thanks to the adroit use of broadcasting. Now, it is about the ingenious use of digital platforms and the repetition ad infinitum of what is convenient for those who hold authority or want to come to power, regardless of the veracity of what is told. This creates a biased reality, which in politics serves two objectives: the destruction of the adversary's integrity and image; and the consolidation of power in the hands of those who appropriated it. This appropriation, in our western democracies, takes place first through elections and then through the manipulation of information and mirror games. Viktor Orbán is a concrete example, among many. He knows that being in power and losing the elections should only happen to the naive.

The accessibility of digital platforms makes them fertile ground for the propagation of populist ideas. These movements, built around a leader who combines charisma, enthusiasm and personality cult with simplistic slogans, have at their disposal, in this digital age, the means that allow them to massively explore three lines of political action. One, which involves the creation and amplification of collective fears that later use as banners of struggle. Another is the discrediting of institutions and opponents, who are demonized as “professional politicians”. And the third, which tries to subvert constitutional principles by resorting to popular referendums on fracturing issues, using reductive questions, drafted in a biased way.

All this calls into question representative democracy. Even more easily, when democratic practice came to depend on and be dominated by the leader of each major party and parliamentary representation lost its meaning, as it resulted only from personal loyalty and unreserved flattery. There is, therefore, no connection between the deputy and his constituency, at a time when social networks promote exactly the opposite and make everything more personal and direct. This results in a growing disconnect between the voter and the elected, which explains a good part of the apathy that many citizens feel towards electoral processes. Paradoxically, a higher level of information, made possible by digital networks, leads many to abstain, as they do not identify with the ready-to-vote menus of choices made by the parties.

Another phenomenon linked to the abundance of information has to do with political fragmentation. Through social networks, each person tends to identify with only a small circle that thinks the same way and ends up closing themselves in this round of contacts. This leads to the proliferation of opinion movements. In the future, governance will have to take this trend into account. In other words, it will no longer be possible to govern effectively with 50% of the electorate plus one. I am convinced that broader and relatively disparate coalitions will emerge, but necessary to guarantee the representation of various segments of society and governmental stability. The digital revolution will eventually shake up the conventional political scene.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 6 May 2022)

Antonio Guterres and his visits to Russia and Ukraine

Maintaining contact with the aggressor while supporting Ukraine

Victor Ângelo

 In a situation of conflict between states, every word counts. Experience has also taught me that it is better to start by asking questions and listening attentively to the answers before proposing any kind of solution. It is true that listening is a difficult art. Important people consider that their status is affected if they are sober in their words.

In the specific case of the aggression against Ukraine, the key is in Vladimir Putin's hands. Even if we know that we are facing a sly leader, we must insist that he tells us his proposal for ending the crisis, a proposal that will have to be realistic and respect the sovereignty of neighbouring countries. At the same time and without hesitation, it is essential that the question be accompanied by a crystal-clear reference to the basic principles that define good international relations, and which are perfectly enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

Telling him that one understands his obsessive concerns about his country's external security is not good politics. This phrase seriously weakens the person who utters it. We must respond to these obsessions with a reference to the existing international mechanisms, to which the Russian Federation is a signatory, which allow for the peaceful settlement of disputes between states. This is what António Guterres did when he was in the Kremlin, and he did it well.

On the other hand, when we speak of humanitarian tragedies, in Mariupol or elsewhere, the response must be equally clear: only the end of military aggression will make it possible to put an end to the immense suffering being inflicted on the Ukrainian people. In saying this, one is making the link between humanitarian issues, war crimes and political issues. For the United Nations, the ultimate goal is to promote a political framework that will restore peace and good neighbourliness. 

Careful with words also leads me to say that this is by no means a war between the West and Russia, nor even a proxy war. Statements made this week, notably in the context of the meeting convened by the Americans in Germany, aimed at strengthening logistical support to Ukraine, were ill-advised. They should not have stressed that the aim is to weaken Russia as a military power. What should be said is simple and needs to be expressed unequivocally: Europe, the US and the other allies are helping Ukraine to defend its territorial integrity, in a process of legitimate defence.

The governments participating in that meeting could have added something more: Putin's Russia represents a threat that needs to be contained. If support for Ukraine fails, the possibility that tomorrow they will be the next targets of a similar aggression is a well-founded fear.

We are in a crisis that will linger, with enormous risks and costs. As those costs accumulate, the tendency on the Russian side will be to resort to more violent and immensely destructive means. That option is already part of Putin's calculations, as he made clear again this week in St Petersburg. The best way to avoid the worst outcome of that scenario will be an exceptional increase in aid to Ukraine and the adoption of a new round of sanctions that would decisively reduce Russia's financial revenues and further isolate it.

In parallel, it is up to the UN Secretary-General to insist on the need for a political solution. His point of departure and arrival will always be the UN Charter. Then, he will have to stress that a crisis like the current one entails very serious risks for international peace and stability, clearly explaining some of these risks and the dramatic consequences that they would entail for all parties. Finally, it will be important to underline that the only reasonable way out is to organise a political process leading to a conference for peace, reconstruction and stability in Eastern Europe. By doing so, one will be strengthening the credibility of the political pillar of the United Nations and working to prevent us sliding into an abyss of unfathomable proportions.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 29 April 2022)