Mediaboss Marketing

Large crowd of presidential candidate Eric Zemmours supporters Spech/Shutterstock

In Sundays first round presidential race, even though the ultimate result is to set up a repeat of the 2017 runoff between the incumbent Emmanuel Macron and the xenophobic candidate Marine Le Pen, there were two enormous surprises. The first was the utter humiliation of the two political groupings that traded turns at running the country for the past 70 years. Valrie Pcresse, the candidate of the Republican party (the establishment right), ended up with 4.7% of the vote. The Socialists, heirs to the Mitterrand legacy and the last of the dominant parties to hold the office, didnt even reach 2% (they got 1.75% of the vote), less than the communist candidate who got just over 2%.

The second surprise was the strong showing of Jean-Luc Mlenchon, a non-establishment leftist, who, it now transpires, would have overtaken Le Pen had any of the other candidates dropped out to line up behind him. Its a moral victory of sorts for voters on the left, who have now been excluded from the final round of the two most recent presidential elections. The compensation is that, with legislative elections looming in the immediate aftermath of the April 24th presidential face-off, it will inevitably lead to some kind of intriguing regrouping or redefinition.

In its reporting on the election, The New York Times focused on the one issue that is of most interest to its American readers: the impact on what it calls the Western unity US President Joe Biden has so solidly engineered in his response to Russias invasion of Ukraine. The Times foreign editor, Roger Cohen expresses the fear that, in the event of an ultimate Le Pen victory France will become anti-NATO and more pro-Russia. He adds that this would cause deep concern in allied capitals, and could fracture the united trans-Atlantic response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In other words, make no mistake about it, The New York Times is rooting for Macron.

Todays Weekly Devils Dictionary definition:

Opposed to the ideal the United States government imagines for Europe, defining it as a continent composed of free, enlightened democracies irremediably dependent both economically and militarily on the benevolent leadership of a powerful American Deep State and the sincere brotherly love offered by the American military-industrial complex.

The Times may have reason to worry. While the odds still favor Macron, Le Pen could possibly duplicate Donald Trumps incredible overcoming of the odds in 2016 when he won the US presidency, and largely for the same reasons. Macron has been a contested leader, branded by opponents on the left and right as the president of the rich. Hillary Clinton similarly suffered from her image of being a tool of her Wall Street donors. There comes a point in every nations life when the people seem ready to take a chance with what appears to reasonable people as a bad bet.

Perhaps that time has come for France. Its electors exercised what they call republican discipline against far-right politicians when Jacques Chirac defeated Le Pens father, Jean-Marie, in 2002. He harvested 82% of the vote to Le Pens 18%. In 2017, though Macron was still an unknown entity with no serious support from either of the major political groupings, the young man easily defeated the far-right candidate with 64% of the vote to Le Pens 36%.

Prognosticating statisticians might simply follow the curve and assume that the downward slope will lead this time to a 50-50 election. They may be right. But the reason lies less in an arithmetical trend than in the growth of a largely non-partisan populist revolt directed against what is perceived to be an occult power establishment comprised of powerful industrialists, bankers, unrepresentative parties, corrupt politicians and a political class marked by an attitude of subservience to the American empire. Macron, the former Rothschild banker, has himself tried to burnish his image as a neutral, pan-European visionary who seeks to break free from the chokehold held by the power brokers of Washington DC, Arlington, Virginia and Wall Street. His attempts to negotiate with Vladimir Putin before and after the Russian invasion were undoubtedly designed to bolster that image.

The explanation everyone likes to give for Marine Le Pens success in distancing her rivals including fellow xenophobe, Eric Zemmour is her focus on inflation. James Carville may be applauding from afar. It is, after all the economy, stupid. The issue has been there throughout Macrons term. It was the COVID lockdown and not Macrons policies that cut short the dramatic yellow vest movement that was still smoldering when the pandemic struck. The French have not forgotten their own need for economic survival while living in a society in which the rich keep getting richer. Voters remember Macrons joyous elimination of the wealth tax and the alacrity with which he announced higher gas taxes would fill the gap.

A musician I work with regularly told me recently: Im not voting in the first round, but Ill vote against Macron in the second round. In other words, of the possible rivals in the second round Le Pen (far right), Mlenchon (progressive left), some even predicted Valrie Pcresse (right) he would have voted for any one of them, just to eliminate Macron. I dont believe hes a racist, but he is now ready to be voting for a woman who has put xenophobia at the core of her political program.

If we tally up the scores of the candidates who are clearly anti-NATO without including Macron who keeps his distance but adheres to the US alliance in the current campaign against Russia the total climbs towards 60%. Historically, France is the only European country to have declared independence from NATO, when De Gaulle withdrew from NATOs military structure and banished all NATO installations from the nations territory in 1966.

Roger Cohens and The Times concern may be justified, even if Macron wins the election. Even more so if the results are close. Very few commentators, even here in France, have begun trying to tease out whats likely to emerge from Junes legislative elections. With the two traditional establishment parties on the ropes and utterly leaderless, is there any chance that a reassuringly coherent order dear to establishment politicians might reappear? Even if Macron wins, he never really managed to assemble a stable majority in his first term. The real questions now are these: among the defeated, who will talk to whom? And who will even grudgingly accept to defer to whose leadership? If Le Pen wins, it is unlikely she will be able to muster anything resembling a loyal majority. It is often said that the French voters heart is on the left, but their vote is on the right. With a president so far to the right, the voters wont deliver a presidential majority in parliament, as they have so often done in the past.

Like the US and the UK, Frances democratic institutions have become profoundly dysfunctional. In no way does the political class even attempt to implement the will of the people. The globalized economy, with its arcane networks of power, had already diminished the meaning of democracy. The US is now consciously splitting in two that same globalized economy through its campaign of sanctions against Russia, possibly as a broader strategic move designed to create a degree of chaos that will ultimately embarrass its real enemy, China.

That radical split points in one direction: militarizing even further an economy already dominated by military technology. And as we have seen, a militarized economy means an increasingly militarized society, in which surveillance, propaganda, control and enforced conformity in the name of security cancel any appeal not just to the will, but even to the needs of the people.

It is a real pity that Jean-Luc Mlenchon didnt make it to the second round, if only to enrich a largely impoverished debate. Independently of any of his political orientations concerning the economy or foreign policy, the leader of his party, La France Insoumise (France Unbowed), was already insisting in the previous election five years ago that the nation needed to replace with a 6th Republic an out-of-date 5th Republic created in 1958 by Charles de Gaulle. Mlenchons idea of a 6th Republic contained less presidential power and weaker parties, meaning better access for the people.

A lot of water has flowed under the Pont Neuf since 1958, and neither of the candidates appears interested in reducing presidential powers. But the result of this election demonstrates clearly that both presidential power and the ability of parties to give direction to the politics of the nation have become non-existent as tools of democratic government. The results show that they have reached a point of no return. No one should be surprised to see at some point in time after the legislative elections France being rocked by a constitutional crisis on the scale of the one Pakistan lived through this past week. At which point, a 6th Republic may emerge from the ashes, Phoenix-like, but with more than a few burnt feathers.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devils Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Fair Observer Devils Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observers editorial policy.

For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.

In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.

We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesnt come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.

{{policy}}

{{dismiss}}

{{deny}}{{allow}}

{{deny}}{{allow}}

' + o + "

Fair Observer All rights reserved

Visit link:
Democracy and Frances Theater of the Absurd - Fair Observer

If asked to name the greatest threat facing Europe today, the continents leaders would probably point to Russias invasion of Ukraine. The war has completely upended European politics, sending millions of Ukrainian refugees into neighboring European Union countries and putting states nearest to Russia on high alert. Disagreements over further sanctions on Moscow following the Russian militarys atrocities in Bucha have begun to expose the cracks in Europes fragile unity.

But another, more insidious, threat can be found within the EUs own borders, one that it only now truly appears to be waking up to.

Last week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbn was reelected, securing not only four more years in power but a two-thirds supermajority, thus enabling his ruling party, Fidesz, to unilaterally amend the countrys constitution. For years, he has overseen the steady destruction of his countrys democracy, transforming Hungary into what some scholars refer to as a soft or competitive autocracy, in which elections are held but the oppositions ability to compete in them is severely undermined. Orbns influence over Hungarys institutions, coupled with his control over state coffers and the airwaves, has made elections ostensibly free but far from fair. Such was the implicit verdict of a team of election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which concluded that the Hungarian contest was marred by the absence of a level playing field. Including a lack of transparency about campaign finances and pro-Fidesz bias in the Hungarian media, all of the issues that we raised this time around were raised in previous reports as well, Jill Stirk, a former Canadian ambassador leading the OSCE mission in Hungary, told me. Perhaps the most pervasive issue was the overlap between government information and campaign messaging. Whether it was on the war in Ukraine or on economic issues, Stirk said, in some instances, it was really hard to know who exactly was speaking.

For all the attention being paid to the autocratic threat from Russia, the European Union seems belatedly to be coming to the realization that autocrats among its ranks are just as great a risk. Last week the EU announced that it would, for the first time ever, apply new powers enabling it to withhold funds from countries that fail to meet the blocs democratic standardsa move that could cost Budapest tens of billions of euros.

That this decision should come amid the war in Ukraine is an encouraging sign that perhaps Europes leaders have finally recognized the importance of tackling threats to democracy both within and beyond the bloc. But by waiting so long to act, the EU has made its task that much more difficult.

Read: The EU watches as Hungary kills democracy

The question, then, is what took so long? The bloc has ostensibly long had instruments by which to keep its member states in line with its core values, though it hasnt always had the easiest time implementing them. Perhaps the most obvious example of this was in 2018, when the EU moved to suspend Hungarys voting rights within the bloc under Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty, citing a serious breach of the EUs founding values, including freedom of expression, democracy, and the rule of law. But this process requires the unanimity of all EU member states, and Poland and Hungary, which have had Article 7 proceedings triggered against them, each acted as an assured veto for the other, rendering the process effectively redundant.

But the EU isnt without leverage. Under a new mechanism, which was introduced in 2020 and approved by the European Court of Justice this year, the bloc now has the power to withhold its funding from any member state where rule-of-law violations could affect how the money is spent. Daniel Freund, a Green Party member of the European Parliament and one of the negotiators behind the so-called conditionality mechanism, told me that though it was designed to prevent abuse of the EU budget, it can in effect be used by the EU to compel member states to enact reforms and to punish those that dont. It cannot be that we send billions of taxpayer money to a country where this money is being stolen, where its being misused, where its actually used to attack the European Union and its principles, Freund said. You cant be part of a club, not play by its rules, but keep all the money. That just doesnt work.

Such funding cuts would have a huge impact on Hungary, which is one of the largest per capita recipients of EU funding, and on Orbn. The prime minister has spent more than a decade enriching himself and his cronies with European funds. As Orbn faces a costly election tab, rising inflation, and an energy crisis brought on by the war in Ukraine, he cant exactly afford to lose any fiscal support right now. Its for this reason that the prime minister wrote to Brussels last month requesting the release of the blocs pandemic-recovery funds, billions of which have been withheld from Budapest over corruption concerns.

He will attempt to lobby, blackmail, by hook or by crook, to solicit this financing from Brussels, Mujtaba Rahman, the managing director for Europe at the Eurasia Group, a research firm and consultancy, told me. Orbn is running a kleptocracy and so these funds are pretty important to him politically and pretty important for the equilibrium that hes created around him.

Even if money is a powerful form of leverage, the threat of losing it is unlikely to have a transformative effect on Orbn, at least in the short term. In response to the EUs announcement that it would begin the process of applying the conditionality mechanism, his government urged Brussels not to punish Hungarian voters for their choice and cautioned the bloc against making the same mistakes as the Hungarian left. The Hungarian prime minister has since positioned himself as the greatest obstacle to additional European sanctions on Russia over its atrocities in Ukraine, further demonstrating the cost of the EUs inactionnot just within the bloc, but beyond it. Orbn has already been vindicated by winning another term; any attempts by the EU to reverse Hungarys democratic decline is already 10-plus years too late, Rahman said.

From the May 2022 issue: There is no liberal world order

But so long as the bloc continues to overlook, much less subsidize, autocracy within it, the whole European project is at stake. Its late, but its not too late, Freund said. This is one of the core fights of the European Union right now. In a way, [its] the fight for the soul of Europe.

Read more:
The Other Threat to Democracy in Europe - The Atlantic

These safeguards were too little, too late. And they were only temporary. Just days after these measures took effect, Facebook (now Meta) shut down its civic-integrity team and its amplification engine returned to business as usual. This happened just as Trumps Big Lie about the election outcome was gaining traction online among conspiracy theorists and far-right extremists planning a violent attack on Congress.

Get Weekend Reads from IdeasA weekly newsletter from the Boston Globe Ideas section, forged at the intersection of 'what if' and 'why not.'

The online lies that helped incite the Jan. 6 insurrection share unsettling similarities with the information war now being waged over Russias unjustified invasion of Ukraine. The current situation is even more dangerous, given both the extent of Russian state-sponsored disinformation and the horrors and casualties of the war. Meta is again grappling with a disinformation deluge. And its response to Russian propaganda has been as inconsistent and patchy as ever.

Pleas from civil-, digital-, and human-rights groups to protect democratic values around the world have been met with indifference at Meta and other major online platforms. In the conflict between the public good and corporate profits, profits win each time. They do so regardless of the resulting harm. Profiting from hate and misinformation appears to be hardwired into Metas business model. This must change.

While Moscow has blocked Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram within Russia, its government accounts are still actively spreading pro-Putin, pro-war disinformation to the world. Moscow has activated its global army of bots and trolls to echo and amplify false claims across social-media networks. Former State Department official Ben Scott who is a board member of Free Press, the media and tech justice advocacy group where one of us is senior counsel reports that the use of the Z hashtag and imagery supporting Russian aggression are still proliferating across social media, despite these platforms claims that theyre taking actions to curb them. And The Guardians Kari Paul reports that on Facebook 80 percent of the false claims around the US bioweapons conspiracy theory have gone unflagged.

Organizations including Free Press and the Real Facebook Oversight Board a group of activists holding the company accountable in ways that Facebooks official oversight board does not have routinely pressured online platforms to do more to combat hate speech and disinformation.

Today, were calling on Meta to take three decisive steps to stop amplifying the worst Russian propaganda. These are measures that should also apply to other disinformation campaigns worldwide, including targeted efforts to misinform voters participating in the dozens of national elections that occur in any given year.

First, Meta needs to fix algorithms that promote the most incendiary and hateful content, including disinformation that makes a false case for going to war, covers up or distorts evidence of war crimes, and dehumanizes the innocent victims of combatants. Metas business model is built on its ability to increase users engagement with its platforms. But keeping eyeballs glued to Russian disinformation comes at a great cost to free societies. Meta needs to stop amplifying hate and lies for profit.

Second, Meta must protect its users equally. Haugens testimony made clear that the company prioritizes content moderation in English but is woefully understaffed when it comes to vetting disinformation in the worlds other languages. These include Russian and 25 other languages that are collectively spoken by more than half of the worlds population. Nobel Prize laureate (and Real Facebook Oversight Board member) Maria Ressa, who is a frequent target of Facebook attacks in the Philippines, has spoken frequently about this gaping double standard. Meta must devote more resources to content moderation outside the United States and Western Europe.

Third, Meta must be transparent about its amplification and moderation practices. That means making it possible for researchers and journalists to investigate whether the company is adhering to its stated commitments to combat misinformation, protect elections, and keep people safe. In the past, when researchers began to touch on any of these sensitive topics, Meta summarily cut off their access or attempted to bury the results of their research.

These break-glass measures should continue even after Meta decides that a crisis has passed. We are in a global disinformation crisis. With Russian aggression escalating and 36 determinative national elections taking place in 2022, the urgency to act has never been stronger. The spread of disinformation never ends. Metas efforts to safeguard its users shouldnt either.

Nora Benavidez is the senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights at Free Press. Kate Coyer is a fellow with the Democracy Institutes Center for Media, Data and Society at Central European University and a member of the Real Facebook Oversight Board.

See the article here:
Facebook ought to be protecting democracy worldwide every day - The Boston Globe

For all the talk about our democracy being in a death spiralthe worries about toxic polarization, government paralysis, attempts to overturn elections, the Jan. 6th insurrection, nonstop culture wars, and rising illiberalismthere turns out to be little agreement on exactly what democracy is, what it is supposed to do, and whom it is supposed to serve. As a result, a concept that should be one of the unifying core tenets that all Americans subscribe to becomes yet another thing that sends us to each others throats.

A large online survey of American adults, conducted in November and released late last month by the Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, hints at how our differing perceptions of democracy, among other terms, contribute to the anti-democratic impulses were presently seeing.

For example, only 61 percent of the respondents said they view democracy positively, while more than a third view it neutrally or negatively. And, like many things in our country, there is perception gap between the races. Nearly 3 in 4 (72 percent) white Americans have a positive impression of the concept of democracy compared to less than 50 percent of black Americans; Hispanics respondents came in at 58 percent, Asian Americans at 63 percent, and Native Americans at 51 percent. Yet there was almost no distance among those with negative impressions, each racial or ethnic group falling in the 7 to 9 percent range. Rather, neutral feelings toward democracy drive the racial disparity, with nearly twice as many black Americans and Native Americans saying they hold no positive or negative impressions of democracy relative to white Americans views (35 and 38 percent to 18 percent). Clearly, a groups historical experience with democracy influences its present-day feelings towards it.

Podcast April 13 2022

Like Hitler and Mussolini before him, Putins acting with hubris and arrogance because hes been

These results suggest that although Americans talk about democracy like its a value, many perceive it as little more than a toollike a gun or a hammer, its goodness or badness is mostly connected to our perception of who is using it and for what purpose. Those who have benefited the most from its employment are more likely to have positive impressions of it while those who feel it has been used against them or to subjugate them are less likely to see it as inherently good.

In this way, when democracy is perceived to be less an expression of values and ideals and more an object to be wielded on behalf of some at the expense of others, the doomsday predictions become all the more understandable. The notion that our democracy is eroding is directly connected to the idea that people we disagree with are using it against us. It is a commentary, not that there is a fraying commitment to a government of, by, and for the people, but that the question of who are considered to be the peoplethe real and true Americansremains heavily contested.

As one might expect, this quandary bleeds into perceptions of other terms central to our civic language. The words with the most positive ratings in the study were unity, liberty, and citizen; the words with the most negative ratings were privilege, social justice, racial equity, and activism. Again, the racialand partisanundertones of these words are impossible to ignore.

Theres not even consensus on words like patriotism, which has become highly partisan in the last decade-plus: More than 83 percent of Republicans view it positively, compared to about 47 percent of Democrats. And 72 percent of white Americans hold positive impressions of the term patriotism, compared to just 30 percent of black Americans; the latter are almost twice as likely to hold a negative view and two and half times more likely to view it neutrally.

If we perceive patriotism to be a love of country, these numbers might be troubling, but the fact that black Americans constitute more than 17 percent of the active military force despite being about 13 percent of the nations population demonstrates that their love for America pulses deeply. Moreover, love of country often finds other expressions: black Americans are nearly 50 percent more likely to think positively of activism and social justice relative to white Americans; Democrats twice as likely as Republicans. Through this lens, little wonder that some who consider the Jan. 6th insurrectionists to be patriots often describe Black Lives Matter as a terrorist threat. Ones view of what actions are patriotic most often depends on ones opinion of who is taking the action.

Here is where another study is especially useful. In 2019, More In Common, a nonprofit that researches the things dividing us and tests interventions to improve our democracy, published a study titled The Perception Gap, drawing on a survey of American adults conducted days after the 2018 midterm elections. (Disclosure: Im a board member of the organizations U.S. chapter.) The survey found that Democrats believe Republicans are far more anti-immigration or deniers of the existence of racism than they actually are. And Republicans perceive Democrats to feel far less national pride than they really do, to consider police bad people much more than they really do, and to support open borders much more than they really do. The results also revealed how media coverage of the most extreme views contribute to a number of national misunderstandings.

On the question of racial perceptions, social psychologists Thierry Devos and Mahzarin R. Banaji have found that Americans across race and ethnicity believe that equal treatment and democracy are civic values that are central to the American identity. But they also found that Americans hold the view that some races and ethnicities are simply less American, not due to a lesser belief in equality but the product of the American identity being seen as prototypically white. This insight aligns with scholarship from a range of disciplines that reveals how entangled race is with our national identity.

Taken together, our perceptions of the concepts that should unite us run headlong into our perceptions of which groups best embody them and our misperceptions of one another along partisan and racial lines. Suddenly, conversations about democracy are not about democracy at all, but about who gets to access it and for what purpose. Discussions about patriotism or equity are just opening salvos for zero-sum arguments about American culture, identity, and belonging.

In America, democracy is more than just a system of institutions, relationships, and processes. It is a declaration of our national identity that we have not yet managed to accept and appreciate as being multiracial and ideologically diverse.

So, when you hear laments about the state of our democracy, dont think exclusively in terms of a crumbling system. Think instead of a people who are hesitant to be governed by those different than them, a nation deficient in social trust.

View post:
Whats Democracy to You? - The Bulwark

Russian President Vladimir Putins goal is to attack Ukraine and Ukrainians, but also to make the idea that might makes right into the organizing principle of international legal relations, said Stavros Lambrinidis, the European Unions ambassador to the United States, at a discussion at Harvard Law School last week. And it is a battle the U.S. has to win too not just Europe.

Lambrinidis, who has served in his role since March 2019, was speaking at an event hosted by the Harvard International Law Journal that was moderated by Mark Wu, Henry L. Stimson Professor of Law. In a wide-ranging discussion, Lambrinidis spoke about the shifting alliance between the U.S. and Europe, and emphasized the need for the West and its partners to work together to address the worlds most pressing issues, including the war in Ukraine, trade, climate policy, and more.

There has long been a strong and reciprocal relationship between the U.S. and Europe, Lambrinidis began. Part of [my] job is to create that sense that this relationship is not a one-way street, he said. That is hugely important for U.S. interests as well. And maybe thats what Russia showed us now.

If the litmus test for human rights is perfection, no one passes it, because no one is perfect. But that is not the litmus test for human rightsThe test is not whether youre perfect, but whether you have independent institutions in place in your country

Stavros Lambrinidis, the European Unions ambassador to the United States

When he assumed his ambassadorship during the presidency of Donald Trump, The first thing that I wanted to accomplish was playing defense. Trying to make sure that this [relationship] didnt get worse, but also trying to make sure that we could reply in kind if illegal measures were taken against us, he said, adding that he aimed to show that the E.U. is both an economic superpower and not the enemy of the United States.

The feelings that Europeans have for the United States are deep and positive, he said. But realizing that the feelings that Europeans had that this was an indispensable, deep, unshakable relationship, [albeit] with difficulties, with troubles could be read by some on this part of the Atlantic as a disposable, if not unfriendly and unhelpful relationship Thats something that a lot of Europeans didnt expect.

The Trump administrations sentiments toward Europe convinced many there of the need to strengthen the continents defense capabilities. When article five of NATO was questioned by the previous administration, many Europeans said, it is imperative, it is a matter of life and death, that Europeans develop a military capability that is quite independent of a NATO.

Today, under President Joseph Biden, everyone wants to work with me now on everything, which is actually a different kind of challenge, because you have to find out what to prioritize of all those things, said Lambrinidis. He counted international trade, democracy and human rights, climate policy, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as among the most important issues for the U.S. and Europe to work on together.

Indeed, the current crisis with Russia and its invasion of Ukraine, and tensions with President Xi Jinping of China, have awakened us up to the fact even more urgently now that a liberal international order is not a foregone conclusion, said Lambrinidis. I think that the transatlantic relationship after this crisis is without a doubt strong, including the focus that we are placing on the values that we were taking for granted.

Democracy and open society, human dignity, doesnt necessarily win we have to work for it, he said, pointing out that only around 40 countries have sanctioned Russia for its blatant violation of international law, its brutalities, violation of international humanitarian law, or the law of war.

Yet, while countries that have declined to issue sanctions dont necessarily approve of what Russia is doing, The fact that they dont like Russia does not mean that they dont at the same time resent us in some way, he said, adding that the U.S., Europe, and its allies had to understand and appeal to these nations in a different way to bring them into the coalition.

Lambrinidis also recognized that both the U.S. and Europe have faced criticism about human rights violations, but he was forceful about the role each had to play in promoting them globally.

If the litmus test for human rights is perfection, no one passes it, because no one is perfect, he said. But that is not the litmus test for human rights. I submit to you the test is not whether youre perfect, but whether you have independent institutions in place in your country to ensure that you cannot shove your imperfections under the carpet. In other words, whether or not you have what it takes to try to be more perfect than you are.

Institutions like independent courts, the rule of law, and the existence of a free press, he said, allow violations to come to light, and I am doing what I can do to make sure that those institutions in Europe are free, and are effective, and function, because this is my calling card around the world.

Credit: Lorin Granger/HLS Staff Photographer

Turning to the war in Ukraine, Lambrinidis was forceful in his condemnation. What Putin is doing is black and white. He has decided, in a very calculated way, a very unilateral way, and for reasons that are both strategic and personal, psychological that he thinks Ukraine should not exist as a country. And then he moved to violate every norm of international law that even Russia had signed, to extinguish it as a country.

Putin is trying to assert dominance over diplomacy, and Today, there are too many bullies in too many parts of the world that are more than happy to use that principle to create really serious instability, he said. And if we get to that world, our security as Americans or Europeans is going to be fundamentally altered, and we will not be able to wash our hands clean from all this.

Lambrinidis also touted the E.U.s leadership on other pressing issues, such as data protection. Although the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation initially faced opposition from internet companies and free speech groups, Lambrinidis said it had proved prescient. Weve gone from that, to today, having people competing on who protects your privacy more. But that took the European Union to come in and say we were going try to legislate this.

Lambrinidis ended the discussion by offering a few words of advice to students on how to build a career after law school, imploring them to understand their greater motivations for whatever it is they choose to do. Your why is going to be the most important question you have got to answer, he said, adding that ambition was not a good enough goal on its own. I have no respect for ambition, none, unless your why is good. But if your why is good be ambitious. If you figure it out, if you follow a path that takes you instinctively to that why, youre going to be okay.

Read this article:
'Democracy and open society, human dignity, doesn't necessarily win we have to work for it' - Harvard Law Today - Harvard University