Mediaboss Marketing

Some observers are concerned that the national conversation about federal overreach in Portland has overshadowed the Portland Police Bureaus brutality against protesters

As the federal deployment of secretive law enforcement proved violent in the Trump administrations crackdown on protests, activists stressed that these officers behavior was largely familiar.

On July 22, as Mayor Ted Wheeler engaged in tense conversation with protesters walked from City Hall to the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse, a protester stepped in front of him and, without words, poured a bag of spent tear and crowd control munitions at his feet.

Minutes later, the crowd pressed in around Wheeler, and chants of Ted shot us too drowned him out as he tried to speak during his listening session. Less than an hour after that, the crowd chanted Youve been doing this for months, Ted and Youre just like them as he discussed being tear-gassed with national media.

Whenthe national spotlight was on the presence of federal officers in Portland and as many local elected officials also condemnedthese officers behavior some activists saidbrutality by local law enforcement wasgetting pushed out of the conversation.

Danialle James, a longtime Portland community activist and part of Dont Shoot Portland, said Wheeler, who is Portlands police commissioner, has unleashed a lot of violence on Portland, and that his response to protests set the groundwork for what (federal law enforcement) can do to us.

This was unleashed on us long before the federal government got here, she said. Its important to remind folks that while local law enforcement is sitting back and just watching except for (a couple of recent) of nights they painted the picture for how terrible to treat folks here.

James said there is a danger in focusing too heavily on the actions of federal law enforcement agencies and not on the Portland Police Bureau because, she said, it stands to overshadow what we were going through before the feds even got to town.

She is not alone in this sentiment. A number of local journalists and activists have reported this from the ground.

Elliot Young, a professor at Lewis and Clark College, described a similar pattern in an opinion article for the Houston Chronicle.

As the national media focuses on the unconstitutional abductions of protesters from the streets of Portland and the nightly litany of assaults on protesters, the much longer and more persistent history of local police engaging in some of the very same attacks is lost, he wrote.

While the Portland Police Bureau and other local law enforcement agencies have not been reported to use snatch-and-grab style detainments, many say their conduct echoes the tone and tactics of the federal law enforcement agencies response to Portlnad protests.

Since the George Floyd protests erupted in Portland, the local police have been using tear gas, pepper spray and flash bang grenades to disperse crowds of peaceful protesters, Young wrote.

PORTLAND PROTESTS: Pain, arrests and trauma: 4 injured protesters share their stories

These tactics, also deployed by federal law enforcement agencies, have gotten both federal and local law enforcement sued a number of times by a variety of parties, including Dont Shoot Portland, the Wall of Moms and Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum.

The suits primarily focus on both federal and local law enforcements extreme use of tear gas, similar chemical agents and potentially deadly crowd control munitions, and their targeting of press, medics and legal observers.

When asked about parallels between the actions of local and federal law enforcement, Rosenblum told Street Roots, Im not here to say that local law enforcements response has been perfect. There have been serious allegations about their use of force and the targeting of journalists and legal observers.

She said that while there may have been some missteps by PPB, the federal law enforcement agencies who are not accountable to Portlanders or to Oregonians in general have deployed violence and tactics which simply have no place in Portland streets and I believe do go beyond what we have seen (from Portland police).

To Rosenblum, the issue is uninvited, unwelcome federal officers, pursuing illegitimate goals, through means that seem to be illegal. She said the tactics that theyre using to quell the protests are designed to scare people and have often been targeted at journalists, legal observers and even medics.

Stressing that Portland police are more accountable to Portlanders and Oregonians than federal agents, Rosenblum pointed to a 14-day restraining order preventing Portland Police Bureau from using tear gas.

In a June special session, the state Legislature banned the use of tear gas, but the bureau has dodged the new restriction by frequently designating protests a riot rather than an unlawful assembly. The states ban on tear gas excludes situations where police declare a riot.

Maybe we need to address the definition of a riot, Rosenblum said when asked about this. Maybe the definition of a riot is too broad.

A blanket ban on tear gas is among bills Oregon lawmakers will consider either during another special session in August or during the regular session next year.

Both federal law enforcement and Portland police have ventured into the streets, seriously injuring protesters while deploying immense amounts of crowd control munitions and riot control agents, beating protesters and making extensive arrests.

OPINION: Struck by a rubber bullet: My experience as a Black woman at a Portland protest

Since the start of George Floyd protests in Portland, the local police bureau has arrested arrested more than 460 people, according to The Oregonian. Analysis of the U.S. Department of Homeland Securitys press releases and reporting by The Oregonian revealed that throughout the protests, federal law enforcement officers have arrested a least 77 people.

Local reporting has also documented widespread brutality by both federal and local law enforcement.

STREET ROOTS INTERVIEW: Feds sprayed chemicals into eyes of retired ER nurse and veteran

But beyond operating similarly, reporting from The Oregonian has shown the two agencies have worked together throughout the protests. Following outcry about this cooperation, City Council on July 22 banned Portland police from working with federal law enforcement agencies.

However, the two have worked together as recently as July 26 to clear areas and make arrests, according to Department of Homeland Security press releases.

This relationship between federal and local law enforcement is not new. In June 2018, journalist Mike Bivins tweeted videos of the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Protective Service making arrests and firing crowd control munitions at protesters opposing fascist groups.

The practice of federal law enforcement agencies snatching people up is also not new, activist Morgan Godvin and legal Scholar Leo Beletsky note note in The Appeal. They explain agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement,which has also participated in the federal response to protests,do this every day in communities of color.

The Portland Police Bureau and Homeland Securitys Customs and Border Patrol stressed that they have different goals in their responses to Portland protests. Portland police told Street Roots it works to manage events with the goal of life safety while not allowing criminal acts. Border Patrol told Street Roots its officers have been deployed to Portland in direct support of the Presidential Executive Order and the newly established DHS Protecting American Communities Task Force (PACT) to support the Federal Protective Service (FPS).

However, both President Donald Trump and Daryl Turner, the head of the police union, Portland Police Association, have used similar language in describing the need for law enforcement talking about a city under siege by rioters. The two have both also criticized Portlands elected leadership.

Neither Turner nor the Portland Police Association responded to Street Roots request for comment.

Meanwhile, many of Oregons elected officials have condemned the presence of federal law enforcement while mostly ignoring the actions of local police.

Gov. Kate Brown and Oregons Democratic congressional delegation Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici, Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader have published a combined 40 press releases on the conduct of federal law enforcement from May 28, when the protests started, to July 28, a couple of days before the federal officers began withdrawing from Portland.

None of them published any press releases about the actions of local law enforcement agencies during the same period of time.

Merkley and Wyden both responded to requests for comments for this article, but neither addressed Street Roots questions related to local polices behavior during the protests. Rather, both highlighted their recent work on national police reform legislation, including the Enhancing Oversight to End Discrimination in Policing Act.

Oregonians elected me to focus on the federal side, Wyden wrote. And thats exactly what Ive been doing by using all the tools available to push back against federal forces occupying our city uninvited, inciting violence and attacking peaceful protesters. Ending these abuses is my top priority.

Among state lawmakers, Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek (D-Portland) strongly condemned Portland Police Bureaus violent and aggressive responses to protests, and in a marathon special session in June, Oregon legislators passed a number of police reform laws.

Among Portland elected officials, however, there was a split.

Wheeler, who did not respond to Street Roots request for comment, published a number of press releases condemning the actions of federal law enforcement agencies in Portland. He did not publish any criticism of the actions of local law enforcement, though he did once tweet that the Portland Police Bureaus targeting of the press was extremely concerning.

Commissioners Chloe Eudaly and Jo Ann Hardesty were the strongest voices on City Council against local law enforcements response to protests. Both have repeatedly blasted the actions of federal and local law enforcement officers for their brutality at protests.

Hardesty, a longtime community activist and police reform advocate, speaking on OPBs Think Out Loud, discussed her criticisms of Portland police in response to protests as well as a number of reforms she has been pushing. She did not respond to Street Roots request for comment.

Eudaly drew parallels between the federal forces behavior during Portlands protests and that of the local police.

The tactics being deployed by federal forces are nothing new to activists in Portland, who are accustomed to violent crowd control tactics by the Portland police, Eudaly told Street Roots in an email.

She stressed the importance of not losing sight of the fact the nation is in the midst of an outcry over police brutality against the Black community.

Many elected officials throughout our region recognize the need to transform our approach to policing and public safety, Eudaly said in her July 29 email, but that conversation has been overshadowed by this federal occupation. With yesterdays announcement of the Reimagine Oregon plan, and todays announcement of a withdrawal of federal forces from our city, the conversation is already refocusing on racial justice.

She said that while a significant amount control over the Portland Police Bureau has been bargained away by past Councils, the city still has control over its budget and position authority.

Thats not the case with the federal forces occupying our city, she said. Now that the federal government appears to be standing down, we need to get our own house in order.

Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who didnt respond to Street Roots request for comment, released a statement in which she condemned the actions of federal law enforcement officers and noted that policing is a part of a much larger system of oppression, but she stopped short of criticizing any aspect of local law enforcement agencies responses to protests.

Regardless of the actions and inactions of elected officials, all parties agree protests, which have lasted more than 65days will continue.

Federal law enforcement began withdrawing from Portland Thursday, July 30, and during the following two nights of mass, peaceful protest downtown, there was no obvious police presence and no conflict. It was a drastic change from nights of unrest leading up to the deployment of federal troops. It's yet to be seen how long Portland police will stand downas the protests continue to draw thousands of people to the city's center.

Meanwhile, James, who has been on the ground since the beginning of protests in Portland, said she is going to continue to hold Portland police accountable and exercise her rights. She has been supportive of Dont Shoot Portland founder Teressa Raifords mayoral write-in campaign.

STREET ROOTS PODCAST: Talking with Teressa Raiford of Dont Shoot Portland

Its important for us to speak out. Its important for us to be able to be out there and freely speak our voices, James said. So, my fight will continue in holding them accountable, and I look forward to that process.

Go here to see the original:
Portland police are no better than the feds, activists say - Street Roots News

The release of a long-delayed report on Russian interference in the United Kingdom by the British cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee has inevitably revived the debate about how a democratic state can best resist Moscows meddling.

The trouble is, of course, that political point-scoring and competitive rhetoric quickly dominate such discussions. The Intelligence and Security Committee refused to grapple seriously with whether or not Russian political operations affected the outcome of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum or the 2016 Brexit vote. Along with a general lack of clarity on just how certain sources of potential influence, from oligarchs to trolls, may affect the political system, this means everyone can put their own personal spin on the issue. The risk, then, is that this simply generates a short-term storm of comment, reaching few actionable policy conclusions, that is soon overtaken by the next issue of the moment.

This would be to squander an opportunity. The administration already has a Russia strategy intended to minimize the impact of Russian activities in the short term, while working for a Russia that chooses to co-operate, rather than challenge or confront. The Intelligence and Security Committee is brutal in dissecting what it sees as an uncoordinated process in Whitehall, though, and a lack of clear tactics as to how to advance the strategy, so here are 10 suggestions.

1. Tackle the Oligarch Problem, but First Decide What It Is

Rich Russians have flocked to London, and their wealth buys them a degree of political leverage: Is this a security problem, an ethical challenge, or simply how Britain has always done business? The report raises concerns about the way that the United Kingdom has become a favored destination for rich Russians and their dirty money. Apparently, the veteran parliamentarians of a country that for decades has welcomed the wealthy of the worlds dictatorships and kleptocracies were shocked, shocked to discover that Russian oligarchs no less appreciate the charms of one of the worlds great financial centers combined with one of the worlds great cities.

The report claims that this money is also invested in extending patronage and building influence across a wide sphere of the British establishment. One particular weakness is that the Intelligence and Security Committee gives no examples of how this practice actually influenced the political process, and how the Kremlin may have benefited from this.

Of course, there are close ties between many rich Russians and the Kremlin, just as there are between many rich Chinese expats and the Communist Party, for example. Arguably, this is not a Russian oligarch issue but a wider problem of how money can buy access and leverage, distorting the democratic process on behalf of foreign interests. In this case, it needs to be tackled across the board, addressing everything from media control to political funding.

It would be nice to think of the United Kingdom becoming a superpower of ethics. Lets be honest, though: It prizes its role as a magnet for global assets. Especially while facing the potential economic hit of Brexit, no British government is going to be eager to turn away foreign cash. The priority is going to be to deal with the immediate threat that rich Russians could become Russian President Vladimir Putins lobbyists.

The British government will need the will and the powers to tackle specific cases where Russian money is buying influence at the Kremlins behest. This is a tough problem, which is really in the realm of the intelligence services rather than the police. However, being more cautious about handing out passports to rich Russians (so that they can more easily be deported or excluded) and having a register of foreign agents (criminalizing acting as an instrument of the Kremlin without declaring that role) is a start. In truth, it is no more than that, but for the present it probably represents the most that is politically feasible.

However, we also need to be honest here: Just as welcoming rich Russians into the United Kingdom and allowing them to enjoy all the benefits of a law-based democratic society did not, as the Intelligence and Security Committee notes, lead to reform in Russia, so too cracking down on them now will not put meaningful pressure on the Kremlin. Putin is committed to a personal agenda of great-power politics and building his historical legacy. If some oligarchs have to lose some of the millions they have already been allowed to steal on his watch, he will not be especially concerned.

2. Russian Organized Crime Is Not Just for the Police

The expat Londongrad set has to be seen to work within the law; an even more serious potential threat that needs to be addressed comes from gangsters mobilized as tools of the Kremlin.

In parallel, there needs to be a sharper focus on the aspects of transnational crime that pose a clear and present national security threat. Russian-based organized crime has been used to generate chyornaya kassa funds (black accounts, or deniable and untraceable moneys), carry out assassinations abroad, and even smuggle wanted agents across borders. Most recently, a Georgian Chechen was gunned down in Berlin by what seems to have been a gangster hitman, recruited by Russias Federal Security Service, and an online fraudster accused of stealing up to $2 billion is allegedly being protected by Russian military intelligence. Kremlin outsourcing of its operations to criminals continues unabated.

In the United Kingdom, despite regular rhetorical statements about taking a tough line on Russian criminality, it has in practice been a lower priority for police agencies. There have been several high-profile deaths of Russians but in practice most were probably not murders (allegations of untraceable poisons and carefully contrived fake accidents notwithstanding) and those which were essentially resulted from criminal score-settling. Only two, the murder of defector Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 and attempted killing of turned Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal in 2018, have been ascribed to the Kremlin.

The threat appears limited to Russians who themselves were likely involved in questionable activities, and generally driven purely by business interests. To be blunt, for the police, this makes them less of a concern than the gangs directly responsible for public disquiet. As one police officer told me, So long as the Russians are not committing crimes on the streets, were not going to be able to justify putting resources into going after them. Instead, in the United Kingdom, Russian-based gangs largely operate as a facilitator and wholesale supplier behind the more immediately dangerous gangs. However much sense it may make from a public safety perspective to give them a lower priority, because of the wider national security concern, the National Crime Agency needs to be tasked and resourced with giving Russian gangs a harder time.

3. Fight Disinformation Through Demand, not Supply

Information operations continue to be regarded as a serious threat, even if there is still very little evidence that they actually have a major impact on peoples attitudes. At most, these efforts tend to strengthen existing beliefs of whatever shade, although that is not something to be taken lightly when it can push mild dissatisfaction into protest.

Like corruption, though, this is not something exported onto a hapless and helpless nation. You cant bribe an honest official and likewise its hard to get traction on the minds of people who are essentially content with the status quo and who trust their politicians and the mainstream media. The reason there is such an appetite for alternative narratives is that, at present, just as elsewhere in the West, the United Kingdom is going through a legitimacy crisis. Communities that feel alienated and unheard are the natural constituency for information operations peddling alternative answers, conspiracy theories, and bile.

Just as with the struggle against narcotics, its easy to focus on supply rather than demand. Already there are renewed calls for Russian foreign-language TV channel RT to be banned, for example. To be sure, RT does carry blatant propaganda (just as it also carries decent news coverage), but an outlet with just 3,400 viewers at any one time is not a serious threat. Likewise, the fad for myth-busting operations meant to counter fake news is always tempting for governments keen to be seen to act, and bureaucracies that mistake activity for impact, but there is little credible evidence they really work except as part of a wider program.

One clear organizational recommendation in the Intelligence and Security Committee report is that the Security Service (better known as MI5) ought to be responsible for the integrity of the democratic process. The implication is that the challenge comes mainly from hackers and trolls. But this isnt the case, and following this advice would be disastrous. In reality, Britains main problem consists of alienated communities. It would be unwise to basically put MI5 in charge of policing thought crime and news accuracy, let alone media education.

Of course, there should be proper media and social media regulation, but this should not be confined to Russian outlets. Instead, the harder and more important task is to address demand. In part, the answer is media education, and not just for schoolchildren but at every level, including seniors (this doesnt have to be in a classroom: as the fight against cigarettes and drugs has shown, even storylines in soap operas have their role) to create resilience against this problem. It is also a much bigger issue, about closing the trust gap and exploring how well democratic systems originally founded in the 19th-century industrial age work in the postmodern, 21st-century information era. This is, of course, way larger than just being about Russia, but is also a fundamental question that, so long as it is dodged, leaves the United Kingdom and the rest of the West vulnerable to such information operations.

4. Upping Britains Intelligence Game, a Critical and Expensive Task

Information operations are only a small part of the wider Russian active measures (covert political activities) challenge. Many of the more nefarious, involving corruption, blackmail, chyornaya kassa support for subversive political movements and the like are managed or supported by Russias extensive intelligence community. Russia needs to be much more of a focus for both intelligence gathering and counter-intelligence, but this needs to be supported with real funding, not just airy assumptions that it can be covered by working smarter.

Britain needs more and better information about the Kremlins goals and methods, not least to make the strategy to respond to it as effective as possible. Here the Intelligence and Security Committee was critical, highlighting the extent to which MI5, the Secret Intelligence Service (better known as MI6), Defense Intelligence, and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, the British equivalent of the National Security Agency) all scaled down the attention they paid Russia dramatically through the 1990s and 2000s.

One can hardly blame them, as during this time their political masters were demanding they focus on new threats, from jihadist terrorism to China, North Korea to transnational drug cartels. They have also continued to maintain the United Kingdoms status as one of the worlds intelligence superpowers, even though the Single Intelligence Account (the budget for MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) is only around one-twentieth the $85.75 billion the United States will (officially) spend on intelligence this year.

It seems likely that there will be a new Espionage Act to replace the dusty and largely ineffective Official Secrets Act (originally passed in 1911, albeit revised since), including some register of foreign agents in the style of Americas Foreign Agents Registration Act. However, the Intelligence and Security Committee did not call for an increase in spending, instead talking of smarter working and effective co-ordination the usual bureaucratese for doing more with the same.

This is not enough: The suggestion that the intelligence community should be able to mount more effective information-gathering against what is still a hard target like Russia, and also do more to counter aggressive activity from Moscow, and also maintain existing commitments to other problems and challenges all on the same budget is unsustainable. More money for U.K. intelligence will be a sound investment when set against the direct and indirect costs of everything from technological secrets lost to Russian hacking to the political impact of covert influence. These funds will also better position Britain to cope with another increasingly adversarial actor: the Peoples Republic of China.

5. A War with Russia Is Unlikely, but Planning for It Is Critical

In raw terms although these comparisons are as meaningless as they are tempting the U.K. and Russian defense budgets are quite similar. Of course, in real terms, Russias is perhaps three times as large. The United Kingdom does not need to plan to win or deter a one-on-one war with Russia, though, being both part of NATO and also on the other side of Europe. The question becomes, then, how far the Russian challenge ought to inform British defense planning and spending, something that will increasingly also mean cyber security in an age of ubiquitous connectivity and undeclared, ambiguous conflicts. Britain cannot pretend to be able or need to deter Russia itself, but it must stop trying and failing to do everything. Instead, it should make a serious commitment to being able to mount expeditionary operations as part of wider alliances, but to be able to do so in the face of the latest Russian tactics and technologies.

Britain clearly wants to play a credible role within NATO: It already spends a greater proportion of its gross domestic product on defense than most members. It also has particular interests of its own relating to defending its territorial waters and lines of communication to overseas territories, aims that sometimes rub up against Russian operations. Although the planning for the next integrated Strategic Defense and Security Review, due this year, was temporarily paused because of COVID-19, some tough decisions will soon have to be made. As the Royal United Services Institutes Jack Watling wrote, given resource constraints, the United Kingdom will be faced with a stark choice: whether to accelerate and expand the modernisation of its heavy forces, or move away from heavy forces and prioritise the development of resilient reconnaissance and fires.

So far, the government looks inclined toward the latter in order to maintain a credible rapid expeditionary capability, not least as this fits the continued commitment to a Global Britain. Nonetheless, as Moscow sells more and more of its latest kit to buyers around the world, even if they will not be facing Russia, British forces will have to be configured and prepared to fight Russian-equipped and -trained forces. Besides which, as deterrence is anchored on signaling capability and intent, the United Kingdom ought to look willing and able to take on Russian forces. There is, it seems, no escaping the continued centrality of Russia in British military thinking.

6. Cultivate Solidarity by Defending Others

Alliances also matter in responding to non-military challenges. Following the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal in 2018, Moscow was surprised and shaken when Britain successfully brokered a campaign of expulsion of 130 suspected Russian spies from 28 states plus NATO. This was a striking and groundbreaking example of international solidarity of a sort that had been sadly absent until then. And since then, for that matter, but if the United Kingdom wants to be able to call on similar support in the future, it has to make preparations now and also be willing to offer it to others, and not be dependent on ad hoc responses. This ought not to be focused on NATO, nor in a time of Brexit the European Union. Rather, it should be a coalition of the willing, perhaps starting with the Anglosphere Five Eyes intelligence partners (the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), expressing a willingness collectively to respond to future Russian adventurism.

7. Engagement Is a Weapon Too

The answer to Russian political war intended to divide, distract, and demoralize is generally not to try to fight fire with fire. There is not only a moral high ground to be lost a central element of Putins narrative is that Russia is simply responding to Western subversion but open, democratic societies tend to be more vulnerable to any such active measures arms race. Instead, it is worth considering how the best lessons of the Cold War can be adapted and amplified in the modern age, using soft power to counter Putins dark power.

Although hawks will nod toward historical traditions, or notions that somehow Russians are genetically predisposed to tyranny and aggression, change is not only possible but inevitable. While containing Kremlin aggression and interference, this must be balanced with a sustained and meaningful effort to engage. There is still a strong vein of Anglophilia in Russian culture: encourage and magnify this. Student bursaries, cultural exchanges, extravagant celebrations of historical ties between the two countries (remember: Ivan the Terrible even offered Queen Elizabeth I his blood-stained hand in marriage), all of this will have minimal impact today especially as the Kremlin does what it can to limit them but will reap benefits in the future, when London will be able, rightly, to tell the Russians it never abandoned them.

They have few illusions about their own leaders, so exposing their corruptions and hypocrisies is of limited real value (even though some in the West think this is their magic bullet). More broadly, using the capabilities of the modern media to support Russias brave independent media and also puncture some of the Kremlins lies would accelerate the existing decay of the regimes legitimacy. The BBC still has a powerful brand, and it can be a powerful link to Russians who increasingly get their news online. That does not mean being a propaganda arm it is important to be objective, and that includes highlighting Russian successes, too but rather, along with British academia, a counter to increasingly blatant Kremlin efforts to mobilize todays news and yesterdays history to its ends.

8. Dig in but Stay Optimistic

After all, Britain has more of a Putin problem than a Russia problem.

There can be little hope of truly meaningful improvement of relations with Russia so long as Putin and his cronies continue to govern the country. Previous attempts at resets such as U.S. President Barack Obamas in 2009 have been grandiose exercises in self-deception, as French President Emmanuel Macron will discover, if he goes ahead with a similar outreach of his own. Putins people are the products of a Soviet upbringing, the kleptocracy rooted in the lawless 1990s, and a bitter sense that Russias global status was somehow stolen by the West. It is highly unlikely that they will change.

However, that political generation is getting older. Putin could reign until 2036, but it is not clear that he even wants to or that his health would allow him to do so. The younger political elite, while dutifully echoing the Kremlins anti-Western talking points, show no signs of really being as enthusiastic about a geopolitical crusade. They are more likely to be pragmatic opportunists, who would love to return to the days of being able to steal at home, bank and spend abroad. These days, for anyone but the super-rich, it is harder and harder to travel to the West, let alone move money there, not just because of our controls, but also because the Kremlin is cracking down on capital flight.

The Russian people seem even less consumed by the strident Kremlin propaganda. Surveys show them being much more positive toward Westerners than vice versa. They do not accept the official line that their country is under threat and now that the Crimea effect has worn off show no enthusiasm for foreign adventures. Russia wont become a liberal democracy any time soon, but the United Kingdom can have reasonable relations with all kinds of hybrid reforming or even downright authoritarian states. It is the Kremlins demand for a special status, for a sphere of influence, and for the right to flout international norms and laws that causes the problem, and this is likely to prove very much a product of Putins transitional generation.

9. Know Your Enemy

While there are some able subject-matter experts within various arms of government, and a real and laudable recent effort to deepen the knowledge base within the military, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and other relevant agencies, this comes at the end of a long, sharp decline. There are simply not enough genuine experts, and the lingering influence of the cult of the generalist unkind souls would say of the amateur within the diplomatic service has often meant even those who do invest the time and effort learning Russian and, more importantly, Russia, will move to wholly unconnected postings for the sake of their careers. Back in 2017, Crispin Blunt, chair of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that the Foreign Offices Russia expertise has disintegrated since the end of the Cold War.

The people who are expected to implement policy ought to understand the country with which they are dealing. That policy ought to be rooted in a detailed, nuanced grasp of the country. Russia is a complex country in transition, still coping with the political and socio-cultural trauma of the end of empire and great-power status. Too often the country and even its leadership are rendered down to some oversimplified clich: mafia state, new tsarism, new Soviet Union, tyranny, whatever. Policy rooted in any such caricature, stripped of the necessary nuance and context, will be fruitless at best, dangerous at worst.

It also contributes to what might be considered a failure of tone, something which is by no means confined to the United Kingdom. The days of speak softly but carry a big stick seem to have been replaced by hector loudly, while waving a small twig. Russia, still coming to terms with its reduced status, is at times also ridiculously prickly and acutely conscious of slights to its dignity. Of course, it has practical and political ambitions, but also is run by human beings who desperately crave respect. It is possible to push back against Kremlin aggression and adventurism even while treating it with that respect, whether it means giving full credit to the Soviet soldiers and citizens who fell in World War II (not for nothing do they still call it the Great Patriotic War) or not repeating the calamitous blunder of dismissing Russia as a mere regional power. Manner and manners, idiom, and tone matter in international relations, especially when dealing with such a personalistic system where a relative handful of individuals call the shots.

10. Make Strategy Matter Again

The Intelligence and Security Committee complained that its investigation has led us to question who is responsible for broader work against the Russian threat and whether those organisations are sufficiently empowered to tackle a hostile state threat such as Russia. This is a fair point. However, the document is much more comfortable making critiques than proposing remedies beyond the aforementioned one about MI5.

If the cross-Whitehall Russia strategy is to mean anything, then the question becomes how to ensure that it genuinely drives policy across the breadth of government. This is in many ways a test case of successive administrations glib rhetoric about joined-up government or all-of-government responses. The strategy is in the hands of the National Security Strategy Implementation Group for Russia, which brings together 14 different departments and agencies under the chair of the Russia Unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Much has been done to involve stakeholders in discussions, but in at least some cases, the sense has been which is, of course, code for the gossip I have heard from different quarters that participants treated this as an opportunity to advance their own departmental interests, or simply to make a show of participation. The strategy needs to have teeth, and it is open to discussion whether those of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are sharp enough. If not, either they need honing or the Cabinet Office ought to be responsible for, if not running the group, at least playing a role as its genteel leg-breaker, given that this is arguably its main function in Whitehall.

The point is, after all, that all this matters. It matters not just in terms of the challenge from Moscow which, after all, needs to be taken seriously, but not exaggerated but also because the skills, policies, attitudes, and strategy adopted today are likely to be needed to face rather more problematic threats tomorrow. As China moves into the wolf warrior diplomacy phase of its rise, Britain might even want to thank the Kremlin for the early wake-up call and opportunity to build these capabilities.

MarkGaleotti is an honorary professor at University College London and a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

Image: President of Russia

Read the original post:
Ten Suggestions for a 'Russia Strategy' for the United Kingdom - War on the Rocks

PETALING JAYA (THE STAR/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - From Saturday (Aug 1), Malaysians will be joining their counterparts in places such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Victoria in Australia where face masks are mandatory in public spaces to stem the tide of Covid-19 infections.

Under the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act, those who do not comply with the new rule will face a fine of up to RM1,000 (S$324).

During the height of the Covid-19 outbreak in Malaysia in March, face masks were only required for front liners such as healthcare workers and those with symptoms of the virus.

But as cases started to re-emerge following the easing of the movement control order (MCO) to the recovery phase, Senior Minister (Security) Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob on July 23 announced that face masks would be made compulsory after there was an increase in Covid-19 cases.

Health director-general Datuk Dr Noor Hisham Abdullah had said that the use of face masks would be mandatory at crowded public places.

He added that the long-term plan was to eventually get everyone to wear a face mask once they stepped out of the house.

Medical Practitioners Coalition Association of Malaysia president Dr Raj Kumar Maharajah said wearing face masks helps keep the infectivity rate or the R-naught (R0) rate under 1.0, which means that the probability of an infected person spreading it to others can be minimised.

During the MCO, the R0 rate was at 0.3. It is now at 1.36.

"Wearing face masks could prevent a second wave of the virus," he said.

"This sacrifice is needed from everyone - at least until a vaccine is ready."

Apart from wearing face masks, Dr Raj said physical distancing, good hygiene and isolation - for example, by working from home - can also help prevent the spread of the virus.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has advised people to wear a face mask in public where there is a community transmission and when social distancing is not possible.

WHO said that healthy people wearing face masks can reduce the potential risk of exposure from infected persons who had yet to develop symptoms.

According to the Health Ministry, there were 25 active clusters as of Wednesday with 10 clusters in Sarawak, four in Kuala Lumpur, five in Selangor, two in Johor and the remaining ones in other states.

Dr Noor Hisham attributed the resurgence of cases to the "public's complacency and their non-compliance with the standard operating procedure (SOP) set by the government".

There have been incidents where returning travellers breached their mandatory home quarantine.

Identified by their tracking bracelets, they were seen dining at restaurants when they were supposed to be at home.

This sort of defiance had riled up other Malaysians, who took to social media to express their anger at this lack of social responsibility.

Dr Noor Hisham pointed out that if non-compliance and public complacency continued, there was a possibility of another wave of transmissions if the R0 exceeded 1.6.

Malaysians have also been more receptive to the idea of wearing face masks compared with those in nations such as the United States, where some of its citizens have been reluctant to do so.

A poll conducted on The Star's Facebook page on July 21 found that 41,200 out of 45,700 people who voted had overwhelmingly agreed to make wearing face masks compulsory in public areas.

Meanwhile, ABC News reported that Dr Anthony Fauci, the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, had suggested Americans also consider wearing goggles or a face shield on top of wearing face masks to protect all mucosal surfaces.

Dr Fauci, however, noted that eye or face shields were "not universally recommended" yet.

When asked about this, Dr Raj said he believed that the use of goggles and face shields would only be necessary in red zones in Malaysia, adding that such equipment should be used together with a face mask.

Red zones are districts with more than 40 local transmissions over a 14-day period, while those with between one and 40 cases are yellow zones, and green zones are those that have no cases.

There are currently 207 active cases in Malaysia.

Here is the original post:
Malaysia implements mandatory mask-wearing in crowded places from Aug 1 - The Straits Times

SINGAPORE - People's Action Party MPs must expect sharper questioning and more robust debates in Parliament with more opposition MPs and a Leader of the Opposition in the House, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Saturday (Aug 1).

In a letter on how the ruling party MPs should conduct themselves, he told them to be prepared to engage the opposition, to clarify their interventions and scrutinise their ideas.

"PAP MPs should express their views frankly, whether for or against government policies. During debates, speak freely and with conviction. Press your points vigorously, and do not shy away from robust exchange," he said in the eight-page "rules of prudence" traditionally issued to PAP MPs after each general election.

The ruling party won 83 out of 93 seats and 61.2 per cent of the votes in the July 10 polls in which all seats were contested.

Noting this, PM Lee, who is the head of the PAP, said: "The people have endorsed what we have done in our previous term, and given us a clear mandate to take Singapore forward, through the crisis and beyond.

"Now we must work with Singaporeans to keep Covid-19 in check, protect jobs and livelihoods, and make sure everyone comes through safely together."

In a new section in the letter, PM Lee also specifically addressed the use of social media by MPs.

Social media has become a part of daily life and MPs are free to use it to let the public know about their work or their views, he said, urging MPs to "have some fun" and to "try out different platforms".

But he also asked them to be mindful as elected officials and public figures.

"So observe decorum, ensure factual accuracy, as this is an absolute requirement for us, and remember every social media post will be permanently associated with you and the Party," he said.

"Be honest, empathetic, positive and affirming in all your messages. Know your audience and be sensitive to how they feel. Do not use social media to attack another person."

PM Lee also reminded MPs that social media is but one way to connect with people, and they have to attend to residents' needs and interact with them in person.

In the rest of the letter, he reiterated points he has been making over the years on the need for PAP MPs to uphold the party's reputation for clean and incorruptible government.

Tothis end, they should separate their public political status from their private business or professional interests, PM Lee said.

This means that MPs should, among other things, be careful of the invitations and gifts they accept, and ensure they do not lobby public officers on behalf of friends, clients or the like.

MPs also should not solicit directorships or accept those where the company wants to "dress up the board with a PAP MP or two, in order to make the company look respectable".

As MPs, they must also always listen closely to Singaporeans and help them to tackle pressing needs, and express their worries and aspirations to the Government.

"Never break faith with the people," he said.

Sharing the letter on Facebook, PM Lee said: "Whether or not we are in a pandemic, our responsibility as MPs is clear. We are servants of the people, and will carry out our duties with integrity, honesty and incorruptibility. We will always be sensitive to the views and attitudes of the people we represent, and conduct ourselves with humility, modesty, decorum and dignity."

Read this article:
PM Lee tells PAP MPs to be prepared for sharper questioning with more opposition MPs in Parliament - The Straits Times

This is not about you, me or the millions who watch sports in America. At its core, the resumption of games is about powerful and wealthy men, accustomed to winning in life, knowing their legacies depend on how they manage the coronavirus. Nothing much is at stake, only the future survival of leagues and the scrutiny of history: which commissioners and owners pivoted successfully in a health crisis, and which lost the swab war.

In this athletic Game of Thrones, Adam Silver is best positioned to win the pandemic. And it should be said, here and now, that hed better win, as a shutdown of the NBAs celebrated bio-Bubble would throw the league into financial chaos and bring more attention to its troubles in China. An ESPN investigation shocker, I know, the broadcast partner reporting dirt on its business bedfellow revealed human rights concerns at the NBAs China-based youth academies, raising questions about a league that rushed too quickly to tap the vast sports economy of a Communist country.

All of which adds even more urgency to the most audacious undertaking in league history, a controlled basketball environment at Walt Disney World. No sports organization has embraced the technical explosion and social complexity of the 21st century like the NBA, and if any commissioner has a chance of conquering a fraught mission completing a season while keeping 1,500 human beings safe from COVID-19 it is Silver.

The world `anxious would describe how I feel, he said.

Frightened would work, too.

As sure as Charles Barkley is round, the NBA restarts its season with only minimal talk about the virus. Thats because Silver, in collaboration with Disney Company chief executive Bob Iger, hatched a grand design that made medical sense from its infancy: Protect 22 teams and more than 350 players from the worlds infectious ravages by placing them in isolation, in a community of hotels and glammed-up gyms, and having them test for the virus daily with rapid results from a private laboratory. In basketball, an 0-for-344 percentage sounds like another bad week for the Knicks, but inside the Silverdome, its the most recent sign that the experiment is working so far: zero positives among players for the second consecutive testing period.

Juxtaposed against the life-threatening chaos of Major League Baseball, which already is losing a Whack-a-mole game of outbreaks and frantic re-scheduling, the NBA again presents itself as a forward-thinking trailblazer. While MLB irresponsibly paints the Miami Marlins as a rogue, protocol-breaking team and refuses to stop its season amid virus hell, Silver was typically practical when asked on ABCs Good Morning America how hed respond if 17 members of an NBA franchise were infected like the Marlins.

If we had any significant spread at all, wed immediately stop and what wed try to do is track and determine where theyre coming from, Silver said. I would say, ultimately, we would cease completely if we saw this was spreading around the campus and something more than an isolated case was happening.

As so-called MLB commissioner Rob Manfred is now painfully aware, a season is not sustainable in 2020 without an NBA-like Bubble. The almighty NFL and college football soon will reach that conclusion, with likely dire consequences, while the NHL, WNBA and Major League Soccer remain optimistic all after adopting the NBAs isolationist lead. If Manfred is the predictable early misfit in the swab war, Silver looks like the visionary.

From my standpoint, its going very well, and Im cautiously optimistic that were on the right track, Silver told the New York Times this week. But I also recognize what were doing has not been done before, and the competition is just beginning. The real test will come when players are commingling, playing basketball without masks and without physical distancing.

Never lose sight of that: So much still could go wrong, even when so much has gone right especially when COVID-19 remains out of control beyond the Bubble in Florida. We should avoid calling it a Bubble, Silver warns, because it isnt hermetically sealed. Its his way of saying the controlled environment is neither fool-proof nor Lou-proof, as shown by the protocol violations of three players, including Lou Williams of the title-contending Clippers, who was excused by the league for a family funeral but also strayed to an Atlanta strip club for dinner. I dont care if Magic City is known for its chicken wings; did Williams ever think about the Magic Kingdom, the potential virus exposure throughout a league? He has been confined to quarantine the new NBA term for jail for 10 days, missing two games that could cost his team in the playoff seeding race. But in the bigger scope, Williams pit stop is what keeps Silver up at night. Its the blueprint for disaster: players tiring of being confined to life with each other, in a season that wont end until October, and sneaking off to who-knows-where at the risk of contracting the virus and sabotaging the plan.

No doubt the attention to detail in this vast undertaking is staggering. But one fluky quest for chicken wings is exactly the foolishness that could burst the Bubble. The league does such a good job of being hypercautious when they bring them back to the bubble, that I dont really feel like thats where our jeopardy is. I dont think we have any kind of real opportunity to sort of pop the bubble, said David Griffin, basketball operations boss of the Pelicans, on a Zoom call with reporters. I think the real issue is going to be, as this goes along further and further: Is there more and more pull to sort of break rank and just walk off campus? Thats when youre really going to see how well this is insulated.

A collapse of the Silverdome would be devastating to a league that has its own existential issues. The NBA is investing more than $180 million in Orlando with hopes of finishing a postseason and recouping lost broadcast revenues. If not? With no vaccine or cure in immediate sight, chances are slim of inviting fans into arenas during a 2020-21 season scheduled to tip off ready? on Dec. 1. With ticket sales and corporate sponsorships amounting to 40 percent of total revenues, the league is facing a financial crisis. Even the most well-heeled team owners, such as Golden States Joe Lacob, are raising capital with a murky future in mind. Houstons Tilman Fertitta (restaurants), Miamis Micky Arison (cruise lines) and Indianas Herb Simon (malls) have taken massive hits in accompanying businesses. Put it this way: The Timberwolves wont be the only franchise up for sale if fans cant return next season. Meaning, as National Basketball Players Association executive director Michele Roberts said, the NBA might be back in the Bubble mere weeks after a champion is crowned.

Unless, of course, the players dont want to return, which is possible.

Then, you have no NBA.

But for now, Silver can consider it a small victory that the virus is not front and center on Opening Night. Well be watching to see how many, if not all players, decide to kneel during the national anthem, a gesture Silver will support despite a longstanding NBA rule requiring players to stand for The Star-Spangled Banner. Said the commissioner: I respect peaceful protest. I understand these are unusual times. And unlike MLB, where an immature meathead such as Joe Kelly prioritized purpose-pitch revenge on the trash-can-beating Astros during a pandemic, the NBA is talking story lines!

Will LeBron James win his fourth championship, the most daunting ever attempted by a superstar, while advancing his social justice platform like never before? Is it Giannis Antetokounmpos turn to rule the sport and sign long-term in Milwaukee? Are the smallball Rockets a sleeper pick with a rested James Harden and Russell Westbrook? Are the Clippers deep enough to deal with a revolving door of players coming in and out of the Bubble?

Yes, the NBA has its own loons, such as Denvers Michael Porter Jr., who thinks COVID-19 is a conspiracy to control the global population. I think the coronavirus is being used obviously for a bigger agenda, he said. I mean, because of the virus, the whole world is being controlled. Youre required to wear masks. And who knows what will happen when this vaccine comes out? You might have to have the vaccine in order to travel. Like, that would be crazy.

Like, shut up, dude. And wear a damned mask.

Adam Silver cant do anything about free speech, even the weird stuff, when he heartily endorses such liberties. What he can do is try to steer his basketball league through a raging, unprecedented storm without risking lives. None of this should be happening, of course, and sports should not have resumed in America until next year. But if youre going to try, at least be smart about it.

Rob Manfred is letting the coronavirus control him. Adam Silver, a wiser man, will try to control the coronavirus.

Until he cant.

https://barrettsportsmedia.com

Jay Mariotti, called the most impacting Chicago sportswriter of the past quarter-century, is the host of Unmuted, a frequent podcast about sports and life (Apple, Podbean, etc.). He is an accomplished columnist, TV panelist and radio host. As a Los Angeles resident, he gravitated by osmosis to movie projects. He appears Wednesday nights on The Dino Costa Show, a segment billed as The Rawest Hour in Sports Broadcasting. Compensation for this column is donated to the Scripps College of Communication General Fund at Ohio University. He can be reached on Twitter @MariottiSports.

Link:
NBA Positioned To Win The Pandemic....And It Better - Barrett Sports Media