It is remarkable how the British and American Right, which once sensed a threat in everything the Kremlin plotted, are now embracing the most subversive plot ever to have come out of Moscow.
Countless Russian sources offering help in terms of finance, illegitimately obtained information, and fake social media accounts designed to boost support for Brexit and Trump in the 2016 UK referendum and US election have been uncovered. And the reason why Vladimir Putin was so keen for the UK to leave the EU and to have someone like Trump as US President can be summed up in three words: Destabilise the West.
Putin do not like dissent at home or challenges from abroad. Within Russia, he could have his critics arrested and imprisoned. But outside, he could not ignore the strength of the Western allies. Ever since he sent his troops to Ukraine in 2014 which led to the Russian annexation of Crimea, his stance has been opposed by the West. His support for the Syrian government has also been at odds with Western attempts to get Assad to step down. Then in 2016 he saw, not one, but two outstanding opportunities to weaken the West.
True patriots clearly would not take kindly to a foreign power meddling in their own democratic processes, and would stand together against those who try to hurt their country. But Putin’s strategy has been to stoke false patriotism. He targeted resources to aid those who would wrap themselves up with the Union Jack or Stars & Stripes, and turn Britons and Americans against foreign ‘enemies’ such as immigrants, refugees, and their neighbouring countries and allies such as the EU in the case of the UK, and Canada and Mexico in the case of the US.
The Russian backed law-breaking Brexit campaign fuelled the rise of hate crime and its outcome has mired the UK economy in debilitating uncertainties. The successful Russian plan to help Trump get elected emboldened racist extremism and led to trade wars that would harm many businesses in the US and abroad. Brexit has also posed immense problems for the EU, while Trump is undermining NATO with his adversarial stance against America’s allies.
With the UK, US, and their Western allies severely disrupted by Brexit and Trump, there is only one winner – Putin. After Russia sent troops to the Ukraine in 2014, Putin was told his country would no longer be welcome as a member of the G8 group of industrial nations. But once Tump became US President, he refused to cooperate with what was now the G7 group, and instead called for Russia’s return.
Putin’s strategy is not confined to the UK and the US. He has developed links with right-wing groups across Europe. He invited France’s National Front leader, Marine Le Pen, to meet with him at the Kremlin. Italy’s Northern League signed a cooperation agreement with United Russia, the political group led by Putin. And like Trump, these tactical flag-wavers tell their supporters that while they must be harsher on immigrants in their country, they should seek better relations with Russia.
Russian clandestine involvement in aiding the campaigns for Brexit and Trump is by now well documented. What needs to happen next is for true patriots to rise up to demand an end to this gross subversion.
Sunday, 15 July 2018
Sunday, 1 July 2018
Big Egos, Small Print, & Zero Accountability
How many times have we heard the excuse from people at the top of an organisation that they could not possibly have time to read everything that was sent to them? The UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, we are told, has not even read the Brexit impact assessments even though she was pushing the process through on the tightest timescale she imposed herself. Donald Trump, in his private business dealings and very probably in his role as US President, is known for responding to lawyers’ questioning about what he had authorised by saying he did not know what was in documents he had signed.
At one level, many of us may feel that we have all experienced having too much to read, or signing up to agreement that are too long or too complicated for us to fully grasp. But we must not forget one critical difference – we in our own everyday lives weigh the costs/benefits to ourselves of how much we explore any proposal before we make a decision on it. We are not paid a hefty salary and given substantial powers to make decisions that will affect the lives of millions of other people. If we do take on jobs that have that kind of responsibility, we have no doubt we need to get hold of and read the relevant information before we sign off on a way forward.
This ‘I’m so high-up, no one can expect me to read everything that can influence the decisions I make’ excuse must be turned on its head. It is precisely because the people high up are entrusted with such power, that they must be held responsible if they fail to digest the relevant information presented to them, and go on to make decisions that result in dire consequences for others.
Political leaders like Trump and May, not to mention those presiding over openly authoritarian regimes, want to wield maximum power with minimal accountability. And they would get away with it if people buy into the fallacy that they have not got time with details. If they lack the ability to digest all the relevant information effectively, then two possibilities should be explored. One is to open the public office in question to others who genuinely have that ability. That would require a critical process that, unlike routine electoral contests that reward those with clever soundbites or superrich backers, tests how well candidates can absorb information, reason on the basis of evidence, recall what is pertinent, and make coherent judgement accordingly.
A second possibility is that even with the most able candidates, the powers associated with that position should be revised. It could be that it is too much to expect any one person to handle the workload involved. A co-leader may be appropriate to share out specific responsibilities. Some decisions should be delegated to others who will be given the corresponding power and responsibility to carry them out. Other powers may be better devolved to other public bodies that have the technical expertise and/or local experience to make far more informed decisions. And there will be areas that are so complex that a scrutiny committee or chamber should be entrusted with examining a proposal, and where necessary, veto it so that the fate of thousands, or even millions, is not left to an executive leader who would otherwise make an arbitrary decision without having engaged with all the relevant information.
It is bad enough to be governed by an individual with too much power. But so much worse when that power is so vast and unmanageable that it will only be taken on by a reckless fool.
At one level, many of us may feel that we have all experienced having too much to read, or signing up to agreement that are too long or too complicated for us to fully grasp. But we must not forget one critical difference – we in our own everyday lives weigh the costs/benefits to ourselves of how much we explore any proposal before we make a decision on it. We are not paid a hefty salary and given substantial powers to make decisions that will affect the lives of millions of other people. If we do take on jobs that have that kind of responsibility, we have no doubt we need to get hold of and read the relevant information before we sign off on a way forward.
This ‘I’m so high-up, no one can expect me to read everything that can influence the decisions I make’ excuse must be turned on its head. It is precisely because the people high up are entrusted with such power, that they must be held responsible if they fail to digest the relevant information presented to them, and go on to make decisions that result in dire consequences for others.
Political leaders like Trump and May, not to mention those presiding over openly authoritarian regimes, want to wield maximum power with minimal accountability. And they would get away with it if people buy into the fallacy that they have not got time with details. If they lack the ability to digest all the relevant information effectively, then two possibilities should be explored. One is to open the public office in question to others who genuinely have that ability. That would require a critical process that, unlike routine electoral contests that reward those with clever soundbites or superrich backers, tests how well candidates can absorb information, reason on the basis of evidence, recall what is pertinent, and make coherent judgement accordingly.
A second possibility is that even with the most able candidates, the powers associated with that position should be revised. It could be that it is too much to expect any one person to handle the workload involved. A co-leader may be appropriate to share out specific responsibilities. Some decisions should be delegated to others who will be given the corresponding power and responsibility to carry them out. Other powers may be better devolved to other public bodies that have the technical expertise and/or local experience to make far more informed decisions. And there will be areas that are so complex that a scrutiny committee or chamber should be entrusted with examining a proposal, and where necessary, veto it so that the fate of thousands, or even millions, is not left to an executive leader who would otherwise make an arbitrary decision without having engaged with all the relevant information.
It is bad enough to be governed by an individual with too much power. But so much worse when that power is so vast and unmanageable that it will only be taken on by a reckless fool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)