They keeping echoing Putin's lies

The restlessness of confused intellectuals

Victor Ângelo

 

Some of our intellectuals are somewhat confused, especially when it comes to the war in Ukraine. They complain, for example, about the media and the political class, which are allegedly engaged in persecuting those who do not follow what they call "the one way of thinking". They even claim that there is an attack against "the faculty of thinking". It must be a very sneaky attack, because the TVs and newspapers are full of all kinds of opinions and the most foolish and biased theories, including some of their own.

This manifest confusion leads them to try to explain the unacceptable at all costs and with supposed geopolitical and historical approaches, which were developed during the Cold War and are now largely obsolete. And the unacceptable is the violation of international norms by the undemocratic and aggressor regime that Vladimir Putin personifies. And they also forget the war crimes and crimes against humanity that Putin's troops carry out on a daily basis, as Amnesty International reminded us of this week. Crimes that are already under investigation by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, as well as documented by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, based on a resolution by member states passed on March 4.

These intellectuals add to their ideological clumsiness several attacks against intergovernmental institutions to which Portugal belongs and which are fundamental to guarantee our defence, security and prosperity. In doing so they seem not to understand the gravity of the crisis in which our part of Europe finds itself, in the face of Putin's revanchism and his aggression against the people of Ukraine, including Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

I want to believe that political alignment with the adversary is part of a visceral attitude of opposition to the prevailing order and common sense, a philosophy of good-natured contrariness, proper to those who think they are smarter than the rest. At a time like the present, some may see in this positioning something close to a betrayal of national interests. I think it is an exaggeration to characterize these people in this way, because we are not in an open war against any state, and therefore it is not appropriate to talk about treason.

To understand the defence Europe of now, it would be good to remember that the countries of the former Soviet area of influence, which joined NATO in the late 1990s and already in this century, could have sovereignly opted for an alliance with Russia. Moscow had created a parallel military structure to NATO in 1992, currently known by the initials CSTO - Collective Security Treaty Organization. However, on the European side, only Belarus and Armenia made this choice. In addition to these states and Russia, only three Central Asian countries have joined, the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The other countries, and there are several, either stayed out or preferred the Atlantic Alliance. The so-called NATO enlargement was, in reality, the result of a series of sovereign national decisions. What authority does a Portuguese thinker have to tell the Polish, Latvian, Romanian, or any other people that they should not have made the choice they did? The same question can be addressed to Vladimir Putin.

To the theory of strategic zones of influence, an analytical construction dating from the early 1960s of the last century, but which had its origins in the colonial and imperialist movements of the 19th century, and which was consolidated at the Yalta Conference in 1945, the United Nations proposes a new vision. An alternative that has as its foundation the respect for human rights and universal norms, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and international cooperation. This may sound like idealism and geopolitical unrealism, especially when one bears in mind Putin's way of doing things or the strategic competition between the US and China. But this should be the banner of progressive intellectuals and all reasonable people.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 1 April 2022)

 

 

 

Positive stories must be told as well

Reports say that China is 85% back to normal. I have some questions about this figure. I think it is too high. But there is no doubt that the economic activity is resuming. And people are again on the move. There are still some restrictions being imposed, especially on travellers intending to come in from abroad. But all in all, things are now moving in the direction of recovery. 

That’s good news. Our media should be reporting about that. We need that kind of encouraging news. It is not good just to be inundated with our own sad figures and disturbing information about the existing chaos in some of our Western places. 

We must also fight all types of prejudice concerning the Chinese people. That should be part of the new world, the one we would like to live in, after the Covid crisis.

President Trump's smart press conference

President Trump’s press conference about the coronavirus pandemic was a smart move. It was about big money, resources to fight the virus, and to show an alliance between his office and key pharmaceutical corporations. He said the usual banalities about the extraordinary job he is performing, attacked the Europeans and the Chinese, stated the populist slogans that are his banners, and so on. That was the painful part of the show. But the expressions of support he got from the medical specialists and the corporations gave the impression to the middle-of-the-road American Joe and Josephine that the President is mobilising every effort and his directing the campaign. That is a vote gainer and it is also appreciated by the markets. Not bad, when we know that a good deal of this challenge has to be fought at the level of the public opinion.

The right question

I have always admired those who are good at asking the pertinent questions. For me, that proves they are intelligent people. A well-formulated question is powerful. The other side can feel deeply challenged. And that's what we want politicians to feel. 

Large-scale corruption

Today’s revelations about Isabel dos Santos, the Angolan entrepreneur and the richest woman in Africa, just confirm a few things I keep repeating. 

First, dictatorship and high-level corruption go hand in hand. 

Second, corruption is the key impediment of development and human security. 

Third, European leaders know that corrupted practices are widespread in non-democratic regimes, but they quite often prefer to turn a blind eye on the issue, if there are political or economic interests at play. 

Fourth, global consultancy firms do not mind offering some cover to illegal transfers, if there is money to be made from that. 

Fifth, an independent media is essential to uncover malpractices. And to keep dictators on guard, under watch. 

The populism is attacking our democracies

Populist leaders will do anything to keep power. They get to power through lies, manipulation of facts, verbal violence, intrigue and appeals to the most primary instincts of people. They keep using the same tactics once at the top of political food chain. They are then particularly dangerous as they have control over the institutional levers of authority and manage to acquire the support of those in the media that love to be obsequious to dictators and are ready to embark on the same disastrous demagogic train. All of them, leaders and their media acolytes, create a special type of enemy, what they call the elites. Everyone that opposes them, or comes up with different ideas, or talks about the respect for rules, institutions and separation of power, is tagged as an elite. The members of the elite are then called enemies of the people. We hear that accusation being thrown at judges, democratic politicians, professional journalists, competent civil servants, and so on.

All this is not really new. What is new and extremely worrisome is to see this type of unacceptable political behaviour taking ground in our traditionally open and democratic societies. The worm is now in our democratic apple. That’s a major development that needs to be combated with clarity of purpose and extremely effective communications. We must not be perceived as hesitating in front of the populists that are in charge or try to get to power. We must show leadership and moral strength.

Deception and intent

We should always remember the wise aphorism about politics. It goes like this: in politics everything could mean the opposite of what it is said or done. Our job is to try to find out what is behind the words or the deeds. Like asking, what is the point? Sharp minds do that.

TV shows that create the conditions for demagogues to win

People who spend too much time watching soap TV programmes should not be allowed to vote in elections that go beyond the affairs of local administration. This is certainly a shocking statement and of course, I do not mean it. Everyone has and should keep the right to vote. That is what democracy is about. Every vote matter, be it the one coming from a high-level scientist or from a uneducated person.

My initial phrase aims just at opening the debate about the influence of superficial TV shows on people’s views of their country and the world. I am one of those who is convinced that the competition between TV channels is narrowing down people’s capacity to have a full and intelligent view of their surroundings and the world at large. TV shows are contributing to the development of a majority of voters that do not understand what is going on, do not care about the common good and, in the end, become vulnerable to the crude rhetoric of people such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Jair Bolsonaro or Rodrigo Duterte, to cite just a few of them.  

These politicians take advantage of such alienation. They are experts at proposing basic answers to complex issues. They know people can identify themselves with a simpler view of things.

The democratic combat is therefore about fighting banality and stupidity on TV. The younger generations are no longer as connected to traditional TV as the older ones. They prefer to make use of their cell phones and get their information through them. It is not always a good option, but in general is better than TV and their ridiculous treatment of the news and minor issues. But older age groups are still very dependent on what they get through the TV channels, in a classical way of accessing information and entertainment. They are the people that need to watch better TV programmes. They also deserve it, as an expression of respect. 

Big corporations should be under pressure to withdraw publicity that is linked to substandard TV shows. That is a way of approaching the matter.

Official secrets and the media

The British Police is now investigating the leak of Ambassador Kim Darroch’s cables. The task has been given to the Counter Terrorism Command because the leak is considered a criminal breach of the Official Secrets Act.

I agree there has been a serious violation of that Act. Ambassadors and other Envoys work under special rules and conditions. They must be able to write about their assignments in full confidence and without fear.

I authored many cables during my years as head of special political missions and every time I had to be sure the matters I was reporting about – and the opinions I shared – would remain within a very limited circle within the top decision-makers. Basically, the rules on the receiving side were about secrecy and access reserved to those who needed to know.

That is the nature of diplomatic work and international affairs.

There is another dimension that the Metropolitan Police raises, and I see as of exceptional relevance. In short, the Police advises media editors and the social platforms not to publish any additional document that might be made available to them on the matter or related issue and that is covered by the Official Secrets Act.

I agree with the Police’s warning. The advice takes into account the freedom of the press. The Police is not questioning the freedom to print and to inform. It is reminding all of us that some matters are of vital national interest and should be kept secret. 

Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, in their frenzy to please as many Conservative Party members as possible, have indirectly criticised that Police’s statement. They fundamentally said the press could go ahead and disseminate that type of information. It is wrong. Their statements are just opportunistic and foolish. They mislead the public. That is not what leaders are supposed to do.

Assange and the legality of some cover operations

Julian Assange’s predicament leaves no one indifferent, in our part of the world. He has scores of supporters. Also, plenty of detractors. His personality, not just his deeds, is deeply controversial. I will not enter that discussion.

However, I recognise that, thanks to his initiative, it has been possible to demonstrate that a good number of actions taken by powerful Western governments, under the cover of national security and defence, surpassed the limits of what can be considered legitimate. Basic rights and values have been shaken by such actions.

And that brings back a fundamental question that remains unresolved in our democracies. The systems in place do not ensure a proper democratic, ethical and legal control of some undercover operations carried out by special military forces, or by specific police and intelligence services within the security apparatus. It has become obvious that our parliaments are not prepared to exercise such oversight. They intrinsically lack the competence and the political strength to carry out that role. And the justice machinery is basically in the same position of weakness.

I think it is time to envisage the creation of a constitutional body that would bring together a small number of elders, a group of sages who have reached the end of their professional ambitions and careers, and have behind them an immaculate life history, a public image of great credibility. This would be a top-level group mandated to oversee and assess complex legal and ethics practices as carried out by special government agencies. Such independent panel would report to an appropriate parliamentary committee.

This move would certainly respond to some key interrogations that we ought to deal with, based on what Assange and Wikileaks have revealed.  

Assange and the law

Julian Assange has a long legal battle in front of him. The decision about his fate must be based on the law. But his case has so many political ramifications that it will be difficult to separate the legal aspects from their political context. It will be a very controversial process.

It's all Theresa May's fault!

In the UK, key Conservative opinion makers are now in a campaign to place all the blame on Prime Minister Theresa May.

Uncertainty, even confusion, and growing resentment define the current British political climate. Like the proverbial meteorology of those Isles, the climate around Brexit is foggy and unpleasant.

And they are openly saying, it is May’s fault! They add then: it comes from her lack of true enthusiasm for the exit ideals. Those Conservatives – and they are quite influential in the mainstream right-wing media, not just in the tabloid sheets – want to divert people’s attention from the inescapable issue, meaning, that the UK needs to agree on an exit deal with the EU. And that inevitable deal is the one that has been on the table since November 2018.

They also want to present some crazies – Jacob Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson, David Davis, Dominic Raab, Ian Duncan Smith, among others – as true patriots, people that can take over from Theresa May and move the UK to the centre of the world.

Really? Well, with their Victorian way of looking at Britain and Europe, they might be able to bring the country back to the XIX Century. And make it imperial again!

Undemocratic leadership

It’s a grave mistake to refer to autocrats as “illiberal leaders”. They are undemocratic political monsters that managed to get to positions of power because they manipulated their country’s public opinion and were able to ride on the most primary sentiments one can find in some nations that are experiencing deep crisis. The media and the academic circles must call those leaders what they are: demagogues, totalitarian, despot, or just dangerous populists.

Theresa May and her negative delaying tactics

As I listened this afternoon to Theresa May’s statement at Westminster – and to the following parliamentary debate – I could only conclude that the Prime Minister has no concrete alternative plan to the existing draft Brexit Deal.

Moreover, she is not credible when she sustains that “the talks are at a crucial state”. There are no real talks taking place. And there is no plan to that in the days to come.

The Prime Minister is just trying to gain time. Not that she expects a miracle to happen in the next couple of weeks. No. Her hope is that in the end the British Parliament will approve the Deal, with some cosmetics added to it, but basically the same document that she has agreed with the EU last November.

To believe in an approval because the MPs will have their backs against the wall is a very risky bet. Also, it’s distinctly unwise. In the end, it might bring all of us closer to a No Deal Brexit. Such possible outcome would have deeply negative consequences both to the UK and the EU. Only open fools, like David Davis, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, can believe that a No Deal situation is a good option for the UK.

It’s time to bring the Prime Minister back to earth and stop the delaying tactics.

As a footnote, it’s quite shocking to see that idiotic belief about the positives of a No Deal being militantly supported by some mainstream British media. For instance, by The Telegraph, the well-known right-wing daily newspaper. This media behaviour is clearly the result of a mixture of chauvinist madness with commercial opportunism – trying to sell newsprint paper to the retrograde Conservatives that constitute a good share of the British market. It’s abundantly irresponsible.

Friendly journalism

It can take months for a well-known, credible journalist to get a visa to enter Syria. Most of the times, the answer is no, no visa. Therefore, be on guard if one news person not only manages to get in but is also given a free hand to roam around as he pleases. Including to walk without a chaperon the streets of Douma, a township that remains out of reach for the UN chemical inspectors.

What do you expect from such a journalist? He is certainly a friend of the Assad circle of power. He will write stories that will go along with the regime´s narrative.

That will be highly appreciated by Assad and his supporters. And even more, if the said journalist comes from the UK or another major Western nation.

We should always keep in mind that the war is also about the way the stories are told and by whom. Propaganda is key in any war effort.  

Terrorism: the narrative matters

Tomorrow I should spend some time on the relationship between terrorism and media. Basically, the question is about the way our European media is reporting about the terrorist incidents that have recently caused serious despair in our societies. More specifically, the concern is about the media as amplifiers of the terror atmosphere the criminals want to create among us. How is our serious media telling the stories? The narratives, including the exaggerations, have a major impact on people. And terrorism is about impacting and destabilising as many as possible. We should not be naïve and allow ourselves to serve their objectives.

Furthermore, a crisis psychosis is the ideal ground for the growth of all kinds of opportunistic politicians. They know how to take advantage of our fears. Are we unwillingly helping them?

These are some of the questions on the table. 

Murdoch against the EU

The billionaire Rupert Murdoch owns several, diversified press groups in Australia, Hong Kong, the US and the UK. As a result, he controls a good share of the information that shapes the views of many ordinary people in these different countries. In Australia, for instance, about 60% of the media, both national and local, is under the grip of his holding group. In the US, Murdoch´s main vehicle is anchored on Fox TV, which has a tremendous influence on the conservative public opinion. In the UK, his empire is built around the daily tabloid The Sun, but comprises other means, including TV, and also that “old lady” of the British press, The Times.

Murdoch, who is now 85, loves political power and the games that go along with it. He is always ready to play a major role in the building of the most populist political agendas and to actively support the blatantly conservative causes. All that is rooted in a very old fashioned way of looking at the world from an outdated and long gone Anglo-Saxon perspective.

His British media tools were decisively behind the Brexit propaganda. His loyal scribes made use of them to actively and purposely misinform and misguide the British grassroots readers. And also to promote the key advocates of quitting. Lies and half-truths make excellent headlines.

Now that the referendum results are in the bag, Murdoch has instructed his agents to move to the next stage of his anti-EU crusade: to attack the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. The insinuations and fabrications have started in a very subtle way by placing dismissive and unsettling words in the mouth of no-name-mentioned German diplomats. They are abundantly “quoted”, but nobody knows their identities. And the Murdoch boys and girls are doing it in a smart way, by using the very serious Times, instead of the more sensationalist papers the group controls. The Times pretends, and then other media outlets take the cue from it, that Germany sees Juncker as major problem and therefore it will be asking for Juncker´s departure later in the year or soon after that.

This is the new stage of Murdoch´s anti-EU demolition initiative.

It is also a smart move to justify the Brexit option to the very sceptic eyes in the UK. Particularly now, that the Brexit promoters are in some kind of disarray and also under fire. The best and better informed sectors of the UK are on the offensive against the “quitters” and their irresponsible behaviour.

In the near future we will see the anti-Juncker campaign moving to the level of the personal insult. That will the task reserved for the tabloids Murdoch owns. They will be gladly accompanied by other European media organs, both in the UK, including by The Telegraph, and elsewhere. That´s a good way to continue the job of undermining the EU and its institutions.

And Rupert Murdoch, if we let him on the loose, will be able to claim that he is always a winner.

Tell your story

In today´s developed and democratic societies, every political move, every key institution, every public action boils down to perception. More than the facts and the messages the political and social actors put across, what counts in the end is the way they are perceived and understood by the citizen. That´s why today´s wars are not just about fire power. Guns and bullets are still a deterrent, but not good enough. Wars, as well as any political fight, are gained and lost in the narrative that is communicated to people. 

Moderation is essential at this stage of the EU affairs

The current political narrative within the EU is led by those with extremist views. The Greek crisis has in many ways contributed to a serious intellectual split. Many have taken the defence of the underdog and are expressing radical opinions against Northern Europe, in general terms, and more specifically towards Germany. This trend is certainly not the best to keep the EU together. It also undermines a tolerant approach to the cultural differences within Europe. It is actually the best way to foment prejudice and hatred.

I am certainly worried by this development.

It is time to show that Europe is still a worthwhile project. And that we are not at all at the deathbed of the common project. To start with, there is a need to better explain the reasons for the approach followed at the last Eurogroup summit. Many people have yet to understand its rationale. We cannot be blind to the damage ignorance causes. Particularly when, on the other side, many people are just adopting a very negative approach or being influenced by those who have an exalted, exaggerated, unrealistic opinion about these matters. 

Most Europeans believe in the future of the EU

The daily “La Libre Belgique”, a key newspaper in Brussels, is conducting a survey on line about the future of the European Union. Basically, the question is: do you think the EU will disintegrate in the future? Over 7,000 people have now replied and only 30% said yes, that there will be no EU in the future.

At a time the common project is under serious attack in almost every EU country, the outcome of this consultation is rather encouraging. For many, Europe remains a project that is worthwhile.