Mediaboss Marketing

In the fall of 1989, Czechoslovak citizens took to the streets of Prague to peacefully protest the repressive Communist regime that had maintained a stranglehold on the country for over forty years. Within months, this Velvet Revolution caused the regime to collapse, democracy to take root, and a leading dissident who had been in prison a year prior, Vclav Havel, to be elected and sworn in as president of the new Czechoslovak Republic. The pro-democracy Czechoslovaks were assisted in this effort by the U.S. embassy in Prague, whose staff persistently advocated for human rights using all available diplomatic channels.

Our new bookDemocracys Defenders: U.S. Embassy Prague, the Fall of Communism in Czechoslovakia, and Its Aftermathanalyzes the supportive role that the United States played in Czechoslovakias Velvet Revolution and the peaceful democratic and economic transitions that followed. The best practices of U.S. diplomacy made a peaceful and successful transition possible and at times exemplified the highest ideals of the American experiment.

1. Support international organizations. In 1975, the Czechoslovak government signed the Helsinki Accords, an international agreement in which the regime formally (albeit reluctantly) committed to respecting human rights in exchange for other concessions from the West. This commitment opened the door not only for increased dissent among Czechoslovak citizens, but for a new form of leverage by the United States. The Human Dimension Mechanism of the Helsinki Accords established a channel for countries to raise concerns about human rights abuses in other participating states, and the U.S. Congress established a Helsinki Commission to monitor compliance.

While the Communist regime continued to harass dissidents for over a decade after the accords were signed, it could not flagrantly repress dissent without repercussions from the international community. As we discuss in the book, the international pressure of this human rights strategy supported the development of the vibrant dissident community that drove the Velvet Revolution. It likely contributed to the events of 1989 in other ways as well, including helping to ensure that the Communist regime surrendered power without firing a single shot.

By contrast, the Trump administrations notorious go-it-alone style has typified its response to the COVID-19 crisis, as reflected in its ongoing assault on the World Health Organization (WHO). In a seeming attempt to deflect from his own widely panned handling of the pandemicwhich has led to the deaths of over 125,000 Americans to dateTrump turned the international health body into a boogeyman. Claiming, without evidence, that the WHO helped China cover up the coronavirus outbreak and was therefore responsible for its spread around the world, Trump first froze U.S. funding to the organization, then announced that the United States would leave the organization entirely.

While his legal ability to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO is unclear, the message that such a move sends is not: that Trumps longstanding disdain for alliances, partnerships, and international organizations knows no bounds, including those of a deadly virus. The harms of this approach range from the immediate (the attendant public health consequences of defunding an international health organization in the midst of a pandemic) to the longer term (including a collapse in global trust in the United States to lead the world in the right direction). By pulling out of the WHO rather than leading it from within, the United States weakens its owns securityand, perversely, strengthens Chinas influence within the public health community.

2. Exercise moral leadership. When the new American ambassador to Czechoslovakia, Shirley Temple Black, arrived in Prague in August 1989, she met with the East German ambassador, Helmut Ziebart, whom she termed the dean of the Prague diplomatic corps. After peppering him with questions about protocol and politics alike, Ziebert offered one piece of unsolicited advice: Do not ask the Czech officials any tough questions. Fortunately, Black ignored him. In her first meeting with Czechoslovak Foreign Minister Jaromir Johanes less than a week later, she emphasized the importance of freedom of the presssticking up for the Western news outlets Radio Free Europe and Voice of America, which were regular targets of Communist attacksas well as freedom of assembly and religion. Black continued to tirelessly advocate for these hallmarks of a democratic society in the months that followed.

That clear vision of robust American leadership, guided by democratic principles and exemplified by its diplomats, has been sorely lacking in the Trump administrations response to COVID-19. Indeed, throughout the crisis, the United States government has not only failed to stand up for its founding principles, it has actively worked to turn the international community against them. At a March meeting of the Group of 7 (G-7), an organization consisting of seven countries with advanced economies, the Trump administration insisted on referring to the coronavirus outbreak as the Wuhan virus, a term that has fanned the flames of xenophobia against Asian people and those of Asian heritage around the world. The insistence of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the term Wuhan virus be included in any joint statement issued by the countries was rejected by all other G-7 members. As a result, the group failed to issue a joint communiqueas is customarybut instead issued separate statements.

The administrations adamance about using such a racially charged term is part and parcel of its incessant attempts to both deflect criticism of its own pandemic strategy and to prioritize domestic political posturing above much-needed international cooperation. By referring to the Wuhan virus and the Chinese virus, Trumpas he did with the WHOseeks to blame China for the spread of the virus and in doing so vindicate the United States own poor coronavirus response. Such scapegoating, as best exemplified in Trumps candid statement that I take no responsibility at all for failures in the U.S. coronavirus testing apparatus, is not just a far cry from Blacks moral clarity: it represents the precise opposite.

3. Work across the aisle. The notion that politics stops at the waters edge has never been fully accurate, but it is undeniable that the foreign policy goals of the Democratic and Republican parties at the end of the Cold War were far more aligned than in the present day. The fall of 1989 saw the arrival in Prague of a bipartisan congressional delegation, whose membersDemocratic and Republican alikequestioned Foreign Minister Johanes on the regimes recent crackdown on a protest, suppression of a dissident petition that circulated in Czechoslovakia throughout 1989, and other tough issues. After the regime fell, the Republican Bush administration assisted with Czechoslovakias economic and political transitionswork that would continue and deepen under the Democratic Clinton administration.

In recent months, the bipartisan domestic response to the international COVID-19 crisis started auspiciously enough. Democrats and Republicans in Congress quickly passed several bills, including an unprecedented $2.2 trillion domestic stimulus and relief bill and $8.3 billion for COVID-19 responses domestically and internationally. The State Department and USAID further dedicated $900 million for COVID-19-related international assistance. However, these brief moments of bipartisan cooperation were rapidly undermined by Trumps relentless efforts to paint Democratic states and cities as poorly run and so undeserving of aid, his raging against such Democratic politicians as Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer and Washington governor Jay Inslee, and his promotion of a conspiracy theory implicating former president Barack Obamato name just a few. The lack of bipartisan solidarity in facing the domestic and international threat of the virus weakens our ability to address it. If the United States cannot unify at home, we cannot be effective or respected abroad.

American foreign policy in the years leading up to, during, and after 1989 contributed to the peaceful fall of a repressive Communist state in Czechoslovakia and the transition to democracy there and elsewhere in the former Soviet bloc. The Trump administration has lost sight of the benefits that a foreign policy melding ideals with interests can offer, at great cost to both leadership and lives. By studying the lessons of history, we can see the full extent of that blindnessand look forward to a day when the United States government returns to its proud tradition of global leadership as the world continues its fight against COVID-19.

View original post here:
Democracys defenders no more: Trumps failure to learn from history in the global COVID-19 fight - Brookings Institution

WASHINGTON, July 5, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The Pan-American Prosperity Institute (PPI) is a non-profit organization that seeks to foster a closer relationship among countries in the American continent. With this intent, PPI would like to publish a letter from Mr. Luiz Philippe Braganca about the dire conditions Brazil is currently facing.

Mr. Braganca is a Brazilian citizen-elected Congressmen to the Brazilian House of Representatives. He holds a master's degree in political science from Stanford University.

It is with concern that this letter is published regarding the unprecedented political challenges that many free nations are facing at this moment in history.The forces that seek to subvert the social and political order are the same in every western democratic country. Should anyone doubt this danger, history is unequivocal regarding the certainty of the outcome, from Bolshevik Russia to Chavez's Venezuela, the list is long. But even lesser-known examples, such as Brazil, should serve as a stark reminder of the cloaked threats posed by the modern left, and why educated observers throughout the world quietly pray that America rejects their false narrative.

The Brazilian 2018 general elections ushered in a new popular conservative government in opposition to the social, political and economic failure of progressive/socialist policies, and accompanying widespread corruption scandals that dominated Brazil for the previous 30 years. However, the transition to the new political agenda has been challenging.

Brazilian government suffers constant overreach from an activist far-left judiciary bent on impeding the advancement of the duly-elected government's agenda.And, unfortunately, unlike in the USA, Brazil's constitution does not protect the executive or legislative branches from this abuse of power. Brazil's current body of judicial ministers is predominantly socialist. Most of them were nominated by past left-wing presidents.

Unchecked, the Brazilian judiciary has abused its power by interpreting laws so broadly as to defy our written constitution.A chilling example of this judicial abuse of power is the recent rash of illegal searches, seizures and arrests conducted by direct order of the judiciary, without cause or due process, against various conservative members of congress, political activists and journalists. The elected government can do little to protect citizens against these actions as the federal police, by law, are required to obey orders from the judiciary even if they have been issued without appropriate checks and balances.

Much of what the socialist movement in America demands, we in Brazil have been suffering under for decades. Regardless of the nirvana that is promised, the resulting reality is corruption, high taxes, inefficient public services, restrictions on individual rights, economic instability and the creation of bureaucratic elites that concentrate power and resources, making it almost impossible to rid of their abuse once in power.

May this letter heighten the awareness of US citizens as to what is at stake.The United States' Constitution is a blessing to its citizens allowing them to stand free and protected from the tyranny of any sort of government overreach. Americans successfully defending against these challenges will inspire citizens around the world to continue to hope that one day they might achieve the same for themselves.

Respectfully, a concerned Brazilian Citizen,

Luiz Philippe Braganca

Related Files

PPI_LPOB_July4_Letter__20200704.pdf

SOURCE Pan-American Prosperity Institute

See original here:
The Attack Against Democracy in the American Continents - PRNewswire

The political history of the world can be described as a narrative of political events, ideas and movements that bring about a drastic shift in world systems. From bartering trade system to today's capitalistic system, everything has over the course of centuries evolved through the cognitive evolution of mankind. Before conferring about coexistence between capitalism and democracy we must have a vivid idea about both systems since they are drastically different from one another.

A democratic system deals with equality; where people are recognised in an equal manner of their 'rights and dignity'. On the other hand, capitalism is devoid of any form of equality. Instead it focuses on the idea of profit maximisation, which can only be achieved through the exploitation of those that are vulnerable and in need. Furthermore, in a democratic system people make the laws and practices of their land together as equal citizens. But under capitalism, capitalists make laws and policies by using their money and power. According to a recent survey conducted in 27 countries, 51% of the people are dissatisfied with how democracy is working. Many experts have voiced their opinions against a demo-capitalistic approach while some go as far as to say that they dont acknowledge its coexistence.

Capitalism is the right way to organise an economy but proves to be counterproductive when organising a society; And while market do a good job of allocating resources, fostering dynamism and preserving individual choice, they cannot solve the ills of society.

Shahjahan Baloch

Ahmedpur

Published in The Express Tribune, July 5, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Here is the original post:
Capitalism and democracy - The Express Tribune

Brave judges, a feisty press and plucky civil society boost a hopeful trend in Africa

THERE IS A blueprint for presidents keen to rig elections. First, use state resources to bribe, fool and bully people before the poll. Once voting starts, stuff the ballot boxes or fiddle the tallies. Afterwards, make sure the army and judges are on your side in case opponents take their case to the streets or to the courts.

When Peter Mutharika, the incumbent, was declared the winner of Malawis presidential election in May 2019, it seemed a textbook case of rigging. Voting sheets had been altered with Tipp-Ex, a correction fluid. International observers complained only half-heartedly. But Malawians fought back. Activists organised peaceful protests. Opposition parties went to the Constitutional Court. In February its judges, apparently after turning down bribes, granted a re-run, which was held on June 23rd.

The result, announced on June 27th, was a victory for Lazarus Chakwera of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and his opposition alliance. He won 59% of the 4.4m votes cast; Mr Mutharika took just 40%. The margin of defeat was such that the now former president had no grounds to question the outcome.

Lazarus is a deliciously appropriate name for a politician whose career seemed to have died a year ago. It also marks his religiosity, since his father, a subsistence farmer who had already seen two sons perish in infancy, named the future president after a man whom Jesus is said to have raised from the dead. Mr Chakwera became a theologian, leading the Malawian branch of the Assemblies of God church, part of a global Pentecostal network. In 2013 he swapped the cloth for the campaign trail. He became head of the MCP, which had struggled to shake off its legacy as the political vehicle of Hastings Banda, the dictator who ruled Malawi from 1964 to 1994.

Malawi is one of the most devout countries in Africa. Fully 81% of Malawians say they trust religious leaders, compared with an average of 69% in the 34 countries recently surveyed by Afrobarometer, a pan-African pollster. That made it easier for Mr Chakwera to present himself as a clean alternative to Mr Mutharika, whose regime was widely seen as filthy.

It will, however, take more than preaching to improve Malawians lot. Mr Chakwera has promised 1m new jobs and a universal subsidy for fertilisera tempting pledge in a mostly agrarian economy. But it will be hard to pay for these promises. The country is one of the poorest in the world: 70% of its people live on less than $1.90 a day (at purchasing-power parity). Many public services depend on foreign aid. GDP per person is forecast to fall this year and next, thanks to covid-19.

In any event, Malawi deserves to savour its victory. It has shown the importance of strong institutions in fragile democracies. Independent judges, a vibrant civil society, a feisty press, a strong parliamentthey all make it harder for a dodgy incumbent to cling to power. Their steady if uneven rise across the continent is one reason why there have been 32 peaceful changes of power in Africa since 2015and why 19 of these have involved an incumbent having to stand aside. Malawi is a sign that African politics is becoming more competitive. And politicians and parties that have to compete have more of an incentive to deliver improvements to voters lives, in Africa as anywhere else.

This article appeared in the Middle East & Africa section of the print edition under the headline "A lesson in democracy"

More here:
Malawis re-run election is a victory for democracy - The Economist

Discussions on disinformation mostly focus on the external sources of disinformation: Russia and China. If we focus exclusively on disinformation as a foreign challenge, we are simply ignoring the elephant in the room. Democratically-elected leaders are increasingly fuelling the spread of disinformation.

Contemporary disinformation is distinct from propaganda. It is neither based on ideologies nor facts. In many ways, it is predicated on a much more pessimistic and cynical worldview where, as Peter Pomerantsev writes about the disinformation of the Putin-regime, Nothing is true and everything is possible.

The goal of disinformation is not to persuade the audience with one message. Rather, disinformation is intended to confuse people with multiple messages. As a result, it does not need ideology or to be fact-based at all. It can be almost anything, which is why it is so much more dangerous than propaganda.

Without the pesky requirement of being beholden to facts or ideas, one can simply throw out any sort of (false or strange) information to confuse the public. And it is increasingly being exploited for political gain. We live in an era where political campaigns are less focused on winning hearts and minds; rather, campaigns in now tend to gain traction by sowing division and engendering tribalism.

Disinformation creates chaos. The public finds itself confused about what is true and reality suddenly becomes murky. Without clear and reliable information, people revert to visceral tribalism based on the narrative they like the most. Cleavages deepen. The mission of the disinformation campaign is accomplished.

The pandemic has given a dangerous boost to domestic disinformation narratives in the democratic world.

In Hungary, a NATO and EU member state), Viktor Orbn has created the most centralised media empire ever within the European Union, with more than 400 media outlets all parroting similar political messages. The Hungarian government and its media have also successfully blamed Iranian students in Hungary for the onset of the pandemic, falsely claiming that the primary source of the pandemic is illegal migration. Orban and his media have also blamed George Soros for the tanking Hungarian currency and claimed that a vocal critic of Orbans anti-democratic tactics was descended from Nazis. These narratives are not only for domestic use: Orbn is spreading them throughout the Ango-Saxon world through his news agency V4NA and throughout the Western Balkans via media acquisitions.

Russia Today, the state-financed disinformation outlet planned to open a branch in Budapest a few years ago. Russias foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov announced the plan and the editor-in-chief was selected. Ultimately, RT abandoned the idea. Why? Most probably because they felt there was no need for such an outlet in Hungary, as the state-owned media is misinforming voluntarily for free. As a study by Political Capital - in association with Euronews - found, Euroskeptic narratives representing Moscows interests are present in the Hungarian media space without any efforts being made by the Kremlin (for instance, the messaging that only Russia and China help, the EU does not).

Meanwhile, in Poland, state-owned media have been claiming that opposition mayors have enacted policies that are contributing to the spread of the virus. At the same time, Central European governments like Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria in order to silence critical voices - have passed harsher criminal punishment for media outlets that they claim are spreading fake news.

Even the United States once a respected global beacon of democratic principles and a trusted ally of other like-minded democratic states is spearheading massive disinformation campaigns, especially related to COVID-19. During the pandemic, which has seen a hugely disproportionate death toll in the US (relative to its percentage of the global population), we have seen democratically-elected political leaders flood the public discourse with disinformation.

President Trump is attempting to alter the narrative of the pandemic and its effects and to achieve particular political ends and kickstart his re-election campaign. Rather than providing the public with clear and digestible facts, he touts wild and unproven medical treatments and puts forward man-made sources of COVID-19 without evidence, often contradicting scientists and American intelligence agencies. Trump lies repeatedly about US testing capabilities, and regularly fabricates data regarding the scope of US infections and deaths. When a journalist deigns to question him on the information he puts forth in his press briefings, he becomes agitated, casts doubt on the credibility of the journalist or media outlet, and cries fake news!

Trump also promotes notable conspiracy theorists in his Twitter feed. He recently accused an MSNBC anchor, Joe Scarborough, of murder and has been claiming that young children interfere with mail-in voting in an effort to call into question its efficacy and to discourage voters. Trump has also publicly retweeted conspiracy theories about coronavirus espoused by Diamond & Silk, two celebrities whose Twitter feed was suspended for disinformation, and recently argued that a 75-year old protestor in Buffalo was a member of Antifa.

President Trump will likely continue his disinformation campaign with the purpose of creating chaos and dividing constituents, as tribal politics can always benefit from more division and polarisation. The public confusion and division it breeds may just be enough to save him.

Historically, dictatorships and authoritarians have effectively utilised state-sponsored disinformation tactics and the politically-elected leaders of Western democracies have aggressively condemned them. In fact, the US government and the European Union have proactively opposed the use of such flagrant authoritarian tactics, as they pose a fundamental and profound threat to well-established democratic principles. Western democratic leaders generally oppose authoritarians who deliberately deceived their citizens to create and sustain a virtual reality: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and in the 21st century, Kim Jung-Un and Vladimir Putin.

But suddenly, state-sponsored disinformation is no longer reserved for authoritarians and dictators. It has infiltrated the Western democratic world, catching us all off guard.

In the last general election campaign in the UK, the incumbent Tories deployed a flood of fake news regarding Brexit and their political opponents until tech giants (including Google) had to step in and remove some of their misleading ads.

We must now recognise the painful truth that - even in a Western democracy - there is almost no way to stop disinformation, especially when it comes from the top. Viritually all of the funds and institutions in the Anglo-Saxon world are aimed exclusively at targeting disinformation coming from the outside - from foreign sources.

Because such extensive disinformation campaigns are a relatively new phenomenon in the West, we do not yet have adequate norms and/or institutional practices in place to combat this new challenge. There are no institutions ready to deal with domestic, homegrown politically-charged disinformation - neither in the US, nor in the UK or in the EU. As a result, we are no longer simply ignoring the elephant in the room. We have allowed the elephant to take over the room.

_____________

Are you a recognised expert in your field? At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at view@euronews.com to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

View post:
State-sponsored disinformation in Western democracies is the elephant in the room View - Euronews