On October 28, 2013, journalist and writer Anne Applebaum attends the Bertelsmann building, Berlin, Germany, for a discussion on her book “Iron Curtain – The Crushing Of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956”. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
In recent years, democratic nations have faced a number of pressing issues, including the inherent flaws in long-established political systems and the erosion of international alliances. At the same time, autocracies have gained power by exploiting the instability.
The latest book by American journalist and historian Anne Applebaum, “Autocracy, Inc.,” explores the complex mechanisms that support autocratic regimes, highlighting financial networks, surveillance technology, and propagandists, who bolster the narratives of control and power.
Applebaum argues that today’s autocrats are not motivated by ideology, but only by the pursuit of power. Unfazed, Russia, China and other countries such as North Korea, Iran and Venezuela, form alliances in order to support each other’s political, financial and security objectives. Some have even dubbed Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela the new “Axis of Evil.”
In this context, it can be difficult to maintain an optimistic outlook. Applebaum, however, not only stresses the urgency of defending democracy against the rise in authoritarianism, but also offers effective ways to do so.
The Kyiv Independent spoke to Applebaum recently about the rise of autocracies, and possible strategies the West could employ to counter them.
This interview has been edited to make it shorter and more concise.
The Kyiv Independent (The Independent): In “Autocracy, Inc.,” in which you describe how Russia has led the way in merging autocracy and kleptocracy, you create a network of countries that support each other and sustain their economies in the face international sanctions. Do you believe that we will face a long-term threat from an autocratic Russia, given the scale of the system Russia helped to create?
Anne Applebaum: I hesitate to make predictions about Russia’s future. We don’t only not know who could succeed Putin, we also do not know how he would be selected. In a way, Russia is one of the most unstable autocracies in the world.
In China, it is the Communist Party that will select the next leader. In Iran, a religious group stands behind the government. We know how the systems work. In Russia, the system doesn’t work anymore. Russia is essentially an one-man state.
It’s true the autocratic system Russia created has had an important global impact. Many countries have imitated it. What was once a simple act of corruption has now become a financialized crime, allowing huge sums of cash to be hidden. Autocrats are now able to turn their political power into billionaires. This pattern, which was set by Russia, is highly influential.
It will likely continue beyond Putin and will continue until a way is found to challenge or counteract this. What will happen to Russia once Putin is gone remains a mystery.
The Kyiv Independent : I was struck by your statement that no country is genetically programmed to be autocratic. This could unintentionally bolster the power of an autocrat. How should democracies deal with autocracies such as Russia and China, given the many conflicts that have occurred in recent years?
Anne Applebaum: Our trade with these countries needs to be more strategic. Autocracies use our technology and economic ties as a means to exert influence in our countries. We need to abandon the idea that the economy is neutral and without any significant implications.
It’s important to understand that, but I don’t advocate cutting off all relationships with these autocracies. That’s neither practical nor realistic. There are important conversations to have with autocratic government, whether they’re related to climate change, trade, or urgent crises. We can’t ignore them.
Understanding their worldview, however, is crucial to protecting our democracies. My book aims to explain how they see themselves as in constant conflict with us and that we must recognize this and respond accordingly.
The Kyiv independent: We have seen a growing frustration with international institutions such as the U.N. who continue to engage Russia as usual even while it commits war crime. Has the international rules-based system that was created after World War II failed us? If so, should it be radically rethought about?
Anne Applebaum: It has failed for a long time. The so-called global order has always been more idealistic than real. The U.N. Convention on Genocide, for instance, did not prevent the genocide that took place in Rwanda. The same is true for international laws against torture. However, this has not stopped torture being used in dozens countries since 1945. These laws are more ideals than guarantees.
Some nations do, however, take these standards very seriously. When U.S. troops were accused of torturing Iraqi prisoner, they were court-martialed. While some countries enforce these laws many others don’t.
I do not think the U.N. can be saved or rebuilt. It’s a very dated institution, based on the idea that large bureaucracies in places like New York and Geneva can solve global issues. This mindset is reminiscent of the 1950s but it’s out-dated. I would rather see countries working together to solve specific problems.
Take kleptocracy as an example. A group of 100 countries could come together to combat offshore tax havens and anonymous companies. If these countries were committed to the cause, then they could create an effective plan to combat these issues. This is the kind of coalition that’s worth building.
“I don’t think a massive organization, which includes Russia, China Togo, Sierra Leone and the U.S., is capable of solving issues internationally effectively.”
I don’t think a huge organization, which includes Russia, China Togo, Sierra Leone and the U.S., is capable of effectively solving international issues.
The Kyiv Independent : Given the extent to which these financial systems benefit individuals, as well as the complexity of a globalized economic system, do you believe these reforms will be possible in our lifetimes?
Anne Applebaum: There are already changes in the U.S. as well as the U.K. There have been significant progresses in eliminating anonymous companies. Both the British prime minister and foreign minister addressed this issue in speeches, demonstrating a clear commitment to tackling it.
It’s not impossible, I think. There’s a growing desire to fight back against these practices. The outcome of the next U.S. elections will determine a lot. Kamala Harris is a former prosecutor with a strong interest for the rule of law. She could be a champion on this issue. The Biden administration is already making progress.
If Donald Trump wins, the world could turn in the opposite direction. He personally benefited from offshore kleptocratic life — this was a part of his business plan. An anonymous company purchased a significant portion of the apartments in Trump’s buildings. We don’t know the real owners, but we suspect that many of them are from Russia, China or other autocratic countries, and may have used these purchases to launder money.
Secrecy is the hallmark of autocracies. We don’t have any idea where leaders like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin get their wealth from, and we know that this opacity was deliberate. I do believe that it is possible to end these practices. It will take a coalition of nations that are willing to work together and a gathering in political will. But signs of this momentum are already evident.
“Secrecy identifies autocracies.”
The Kyiv independent: Many people, frankly, seem uninterested by the developments in countries such as Russia, China and Venezuela, or the threats they pose, leading to an absence of urgency among the populations of democracies. Unfortunately, democratic leaders did not communicate these threats effectively, allowing bad actors to mock or exaggerate fears, such as Russian interference in U.S. election. How can we better inform people that these threats are interconnected?
Anne Applebaum: They would first need to understand the issue. I’m not certain that all of them have. They would also have to make the issue a priority. Foreign policy issues are rarely at the forefront of domestic election campaigns. It’s therefore important to find ways to make them relevant.
In my book, I focused primarily on the ways in which autocratic practices directly impact us and influence our internal politics. This is how I think it should be framed to convince people of its importance.
I co-produced, with Peter Pomerantsev who is a prolific writer on Ukraine, a podcast. The podcast “Autocracy in America” explores autocratic practices in the U.S., with the aim of engaging American voters. It’s about finding new ways of connecting with people and raising awareness.
The Kyiv independent: In “Autocracy, Inc.,” You describe how authoritarian governments frequently co-opt language of independent media in order to present themselves as legitimate information sources. They spread disinformation, which, in the age of the internet, quickly becomes viral. What strategies can democratic countries adopt in the future to strengthen their information ecosystems and defend themselves against such tactics? What makes a democracy more susceptible to disinformation and propaganda?
Anne Applebaum: It’s a complex problem, and the core of it is social media regulation. I don’t think there is a solution that doesn’t include this. Even though people like Maria Ressa tried to create online networks to counter the propaganda, she seems to have concluded regulation is the only solution. Regulation does not mean censorship, but holding social media platforms accountable for the content they post.
In the U.S. Section 230 protects platforms against being held liable for posts made by users, unlike newspapers and TV companies who are responsible for their content. I think we will need to change this law eventually, and I hope that we’ll make progress in this area under a future administration. Perhaps under Harris.
As an example, if we found out that a bank was funding terrorism or facilitating the sale of child pornography then we would not hesitate to hold their CEO accountable. These actions are clearly illegal. Internet platforms continue to avoid accountability. It’s time for a change.
The Kyiv Independent : You dedicate “Autocracy, Inc.” for the optimists. What does it mean to remain optimistic in a world of authoritarianism? How can you maintain this optimism when faced with these growing threats?
Anne Applebaum: History is not predetermined. There is no guarantee that democracy will fail or autocracy succeed. We’re not promised victory at the end.
The optimistic view is what we do today directly influences what happens tomorrow. Each of us can influence and change the future, to make a positive difference. The fact that we can influence the world and make a difference is what gives us hope.
Read More @ kyivindependent.com