The EU’s future could hinge on the next occupant of the Élysée

Article published in Katoikos

 

"Sous le chapeau" [Under the hat], a sculpture from Andras Lapis, Rue Bonaparte, Paris. © 

The result of this year’s election will determine France’s place in the world and affect the future of Europe for years to come. More than a vote, it has become a battle for the country’s soul.

France will go to the polls this spring, ending long speculation over who will succeed the unpopular President François Hollande. A vote on EU membership, the creation of a European army, better relations with Russia, an unconditional basic income, a higher minimum wage, a future without nuclear energy – this is what is at stake. But who will win the clash? Europe – and the world – has its attention fixed on this decisive election: its outcome may transform the fate of Europe.

1. Who are the candidates in the race to the Élysée and what are they pledging?

François Fillon, Republican Party

Surprisingly smashing both Nicolas Sarkozy and subsequently Allain Juppé in the primaries, François Fillon gained the sound support of 68.6% of the Republican electorate, in the second round, hence becoming the Republican candidate in the contest. Fillon, a conservative on both economic and social issues, proposed the creation of a European defence alliance aligned with NATO when presenting his vision of a Europe less reliant on the United States and in reconciliation with Russia. As for immigration, Fillon pledged a “strict administrative control of the Muslim faith” vowing to fight the “fanatics relentlessly and with no mercy”.

Emmanuel Macron, En Marche!

Emerging from the wreckage of the mainstream left comes the candidate Emmanuel Macron, who quit President François Hollande’s government after launching his own political party last April. Its name En Marche! ('On the march!', or 'Forward!') even shares the initials with his name. A self-proclaimed pro-European aiming to appeal to a large part of the electorate, ranging from the left to the right, Macron rails against what he considers France’s real establishment: a society supported by precarious employees which excludes young people from the labour market. A former investment banker, Macron also pledges to relaunch an investment policy that would see France again competing among “the big players” on the international scene.

Marine Le Pen, Front National

In the meantime, Marine Le Pen, who is running for the anti-immigration Front National (FN) has been spreading her anti-European rhetoric and patriotic values throughout her campaign. Holding strong to her pledge to quit the European Union, Le Pen has made a public appearance in Koblenz, Germany, alongside the Alternative for Germany’s leader Frauke Petry and several other far-right European leaders in a public relations effort to pledge alliance ahead of the forthcoming French elections.

The most Eurosceptic of the French presidential candidates and a MEP, Le Pen has vowed to “put an end to Brussels superpower” while she praises Donald Trump’s “common view” on “economic axes” and his apparently unconstitutional stance on migration. In addition, the far-right contender promised to nurture solid relations with Russia.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, France Insoumise

A Nordic Green Left MEP and hard-line leftist, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who joined the Socialist Party in 1976, launched his contention in February 2016 with the creation of the political movement France Insoumise (“Unsubmissive France”). His political movement heralds an ideology based on sustainable environmental policies including shutting down French nuclear plants and withdrawing from trade agreements like TTIP and CETA – which Mélenchon claims to “require us to pursue policies of austerity, without state action or public investment”.

The 65-years old defends the need to have the means to invest and change the way we produce and consume. “The energy transition is vital,” Mélenchon insists. Compared to Fidel Castro by François Fillon, the veteran leftist is also staking his cause upon a reduction of the retirement age to 60 years and a vow to increase the minimum wage to €1,300 per month.

Benoît Hamon, Socialist Party

After the incumbent President François Hollande decided not to run for a second term in the Élysée, Benoît Hamon emerged as the Socialist candidate, beating former Prime Minister Manuel Valls in a runoff ballot with 58% of the vote. His campaign was centred on the basic income, the legalisation of marijuana and taxing robots, both projected to boost the revenues of the public coffers. Moreover, Hamon has pledged to push France into an energy transition from fossil fuels to 50% renewables by 2025.

The 49-year-old former education minister Hamon was the most left-wing of all the Socialist candidates. Indeed, the Socialist is a public admirer of Jeremy Corbyn’s and Bernie Sanders’ vision of the world.

The French Socialist party has been in decay since Hollande’s election and its fresh new candidate is likely to rank only 5^th on election day, according to polls. Given the political weight distributed on the left with both Macron and Mélenchon, some had even questioned whether the Socialist Party would present a candidate at all. “It is a probability,” said the MEP, anticipating a possible fragmentation of the left vote, which could empower the FN’s Marine Le Pen. Still, it seems unlikely that Benoît Hamon will abandon the electoral race.

 2. What seems likely to happen?

Le Pen vs Fillon

According to The Independent, FN leader Le Pen is the frontrunner for the first round in the latest election poll, with 25-26% of the votes, while Fillon is expected to beat the far-right figurehead with 64% in the May runoff election, to become Hollande’s successor. 

Often characterised as a French Margaret Thatcher, Fillon is an economic liberal, whereas Le Pen is a protectionist. Fillon wants to remove 500,000 jobs from the French civil service, while Le Pen favours a strong state. Yet, the recent scandal involving Fillon’s wife and the misuse of public funds has put the Frenchman at the centre of a scandal that could seriously jeopardise his candidacy. Indeed, the latest poll from Les Echos has suggested that Fillon will fail to make to the second round of the election on 7 May. Given this hypothesis, the survey puts Macron as Le Pen’s main contender.

Yet, Le Pen has also been on the spotlight after having refused to pay back €339,000 of misused EU funds, the deadline for which was 31 January. An investigation by OLAF, Europe’s anti-fraud watchdog, concluded that the FN leader leveraged her presidential campaign with public money, falsely employing parliamentary assistants in Brussels.

A poll by Kantar Sofres puts Le Pen in the lead.

Macron could surprise

Meanwhile, Emmanuel Macron is polling well and beginning to close on Le Pen and Fillon, bringing a dose of extra uncertainty to the electoral result. Naturally, a race to the Élysée doesn’t come without a shower of critics. Le Pen criticised the independent candidate, when he delivered a speech in English during an official visit in Berlin. Moreover, Fillon has accused Macron of being a replica of Hollande, saying that the former economy Minister helped the outgoing president building up his political programme.

As for Mélenchon, the leftist is expected to win only 10% of the vote, according to latest polls. 

The blame game is traditional in politics, particularly in times of elections, yet one thing seems certain: both Fillon and Le Pen – the highest polling contenders so far – have been using social media not only to launch their political campaign but also to denigrate their opponents. Macron, Mélenchon and Hamon, on the other hand, have stuck to a more candid campaign focused on what they are promising to achieve.

The race is on. The winner will lead the VI Republic and choose its future direction.

Documentary: "Four Horsemen": Are we living in a depressed society?

 

Four Horsemen. Youtube 

"This is not a religious documentary, but the disaster it outlines is almost biblical in its scope. The four horsemen of the title refers to US-led financial wrongdoings, escalating violence, deplorable conditions of poverty, and looming environmental catastrophe. The film contends that the driving force behind this doomsday plot is the new morality in America: money. The country has gone far afield from a true free market system where wealth is shared and benefits all. Capitalism may be on the brink of extinction. Today, in the midst of massive deregulation and corporate greed, the country's financial institutions are operating only in their own self-interests. Politicians are owned by corporations, and the wars they wage are merely vehicles to drive profits."

 

Aleppo and the war on the right to know

Article published in Katoikos

Reporting in times of war reveals both the magnitude and the weakness of journalism. © Khalid Albaih

The ravaged battleground that replaced the once cosmopolitan city of Aleppo is at the centre of a major war of information and disinformation.

Biased journalism: a look at the media coverage of Aleppo

Over the past weeks Aleppo has been worldwide news after the Syrian Army regained control of the city, home to thousands of besieged civilians. The media coverage of this case has been quite diverse, so it deserves particular attention, avoiding excessive reliance on the mainstream Western media.

A quick anthology of Western reporting from Aleppo: The Guardian reported atrocities perpetrated by Assad forces within “moments” of retaking the city. CNN reported that “the regime and Russia — its most powerful ally — decimated neighbourhoods with airstrikes, leaving scorched earth where a bustling metropolis once stood”. The American news channel further stated that “those who remain in the city fear reprisals from Assad forces”.

While the West’s big hitters seem to be flooding the news with atrocities committed in Aleppo, the media outlet RT, formerly called Russia Today, has been sharing videos and images of Syrians celebrating on the streets after reporting that the Syrian army had retaken Eastern Aleppo.

Admittedly, I have not found any international news channel outside Russia reporting that civilians were returning to their normal lives in liberated and ruined Eastern Aleppo. It is, of course, unsurprising that RT should broadcast expressions of support by the Syrian people for Bashar al-Assad; the question here is why the Western mainstream media, which claim to provide objective reporting, chose to sweep out such politically significant social behaviour, even if it characterises only part of the Syrian population.

How can the two sides of the international media broadcast such different images from one reality on the ground?

Through “enemy” eyes

Ilya Yabolok authored the academic article Conspiracy Theories as a Russian Public Diplomacy Tool: The Case of Russia Today (RT) where he defends the claim that RT’s news agenda is aimed at counterbalancing the “information monopoly” of Western media. He explains that the main goal of its journalists is to “find the news that would be ignored by the so-called ‘mainstream media’ and bring it to viewers’ attention”.

Yabolok further claims that the Russian channel challenges “an elitist aspect of American politics through populist ideas”, vocalised by experts and show hosts; real people with real ideas that are often overlooked in the search for a balanced analysis of certain subjects.

Founded in 2013 by Jason Bassler and Matt Agorist, the Free Thought Project, a hub for “conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability”, delivered a compilation of reportedly fake news about the liberation of Aleppo. Patrick Henningsen and Shawn Helton characterised the Western media’s reporting of the Syrian government retake of Eastern Aleppo as “inverted coverage”.

Examining the terrain where journalism faces its biggest challenges will be crucial to determining the veracity of the reporting.

Vanessa Beeley, a British independent journalist based in Syria, who has been actively contesting the mainstream media, is reporting from the ground in the war-torn city of Aleppo. She denounced “the lies of the Western media”, particularly with regard to the White Helmets. This volunteer rescue NGO supposedly acts “neutrally, impartially and for all Syrians”. It was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’.

Independent journalists have been speaking out against the Western's media coverage of the war in Aleppo, Syria. © Honest Reporting

Beeley has accused the NGO of being “no more than a support network for Al Nusra Front and associated extremist terrorist groups […] carrying out criminal acts alongside the recognised US coalition armed and funded terrorist factions”.

Further research on this topic has revealed that the White Helmets have been funded “to the tune of over $100 million [by] the UK and the US alone” and that these resources are channelled through a Dutch NGO registered as Mayday Rescue.

The 21st Century Wire media outlet – “news for the waking generation” – has denounced the work of the White Helmets, claiming they have “rescued the same girl three times in three months” and that “none of [the White Helmet] claims can be independently verified”.

Eva Bartlett, a Canadian independent journalist, delivered an interesting and rather marginalised speech during a press conference at the United Nations in December 2016. Having visited Syria several times during the war herself, she condemned the non-existence of Western broadcast news reporting from the ground in Aleppo and found it astonishing that the mainstream media in the West had created a deceptive image of the liberation of Eastern Aleppo.

Diplomatic accusations and geopolitics in Syria

Speaking at the United Nations Security Council on 14 December 2016, the US Ambassador Samantha Power accused the Assad government of “conquest and carnage” in Aleppo, rhetorically asking the Syrian government whether they were ashamed of their actions.

Her Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin retorted by reproaching the power of cynicism, indirectly alluding to the wars waged by the US. “The speech by the US representative is particularly strange to me; she gave her speech as if she was Mother Teresa herself. Please, remember the track record of your country,” Churkin said.

Since Russia’s decision to intervene militarily in Syria in support of Assad’s forces, the US has vehemently condemned its presence in the country and the blame-game of “who bombed who” has become routine. Yet, it seems difficult for the American government to accept the fact that Russia and Iran are effectively combating the rebels in Syria, many of whom belong to terrorist organisations that the West too wants to bring to heel.

Mainstream media: a weapon of disinformation?

In his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, Daniel Estulin points out that “the world media are part of the global elite”. Estulin further states, “A free press is a myth because it is property of the powerful. Only when ownership is shared by many private citizens will a truly free press come about, based on our ‘right to know’.”

According to Estulin, the media act as a powerful tool to shape public opinion, while representing primarily the interests of the rich and influential. Here too, the problem is the concentration of ownership in a few powerful hands.

The mainstream media in the US are “very” dishonest, said Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, in a recent interview to Fox News.

© robinhoodrevival

The documentary film The War You Don’t See by the Australian journalist John Pilger denounces the ghastly circumstances in which the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Vietnam were carried out by the US and British governments and largely ignored by the Western media. The film is based on documented statements, which reveal the indisputable relationship between the media and the political sphere, particularly in periods marked by war.

In yet another documentary, entitled Orwell Rolls in his Grave, the American Robert Kane Pappas presents additional evidence that portrays the media as an “antidemocratic force in the United States”.

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the classic by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, provides a strong theoretical basis to the idea that the media, by their very nature, serve the ruling power. Applying the “Propaganda Model”, which is essentially a conceptual theoretical model explaining how propaganda and systemic biases function in mass media, the authors claim that the North American media are at the service of large corporations and the state.

In times of war there is a wide range of contradictions and they all have the same goal: to become part of the “reality of the media” by entering people’s houses and hence becoming part of their realities, shaping their opinions. The interests of the warring factions, the moral value of the reporters and the different strategies of media companies play a very important role in establishing different versions of the truth.

The media do not only report on military conflicts, they play a crucial and increasingly active role in them. The reporting on the military conflict in Syria reveals both the magnitude of the task for journalism in wartime and its structural weaknesses, if not its complete inability to get to grips with events in a fair and balanced manner.