By Miquel Sánchez
In today’s world, information can be used as a weapon or a shield, and journalists play a crucial role in defending the pillars of democracy. However, their quest for truth and transparency often faces challenges, including threats to their privacy and freedom. To discuss these current issues, AEJ Belgium sat down with Dutch Volt MEP Sophie In ‘t Veld to talk about her latest book “Naked Power” and the relationship between power dynamics, spyware, and the fundamental rights of journalists.
Throughout the interview, the far-reaching implications of spyware for journalistic integrity were explored. As governments and powerful entities seek to control narratives and suppress dissent, surveillance technologies have become formidable tools in their ‘arsenal’. However, In ‘t Veld also highlighted the resilience of journalists in the face of such threats. Their commitment to uncovering the truth and holding power to account has led to important investigations that have shaped public discourse.
AEJ Belgium: On page six of “Naked Power” there is a sentence that has caught my attention: “Democracy never happens automatically. Like all parliaments, the European Parliament has had to overcome significant resistance to get to where it is today and to exercise real powers”. Was this what inspired you to write this book?
In ‘t Veld: I feel I’m a politician, I have a message that I want to convey to the wider public. I did an earlier [book] which is called The Scent of Wild Animals and it’s very much intended to spark debate. I’m concerned about the state of parliamentary democracy. And I also think that’s the reason that I wrote this, but also the previous one two years ago.
I was elected in 2004, but I arrived in Brussels in 1994 when there were still 12 member states. So, I have seen a lot of the development of the European parliament, the European Union, treaty changes, various treaty changes. I also feel that I have a bit of… not a helicopter view, but I have a long-term perspective. I can put things in perspective because I know what it was… what it used to be like and what it’s like now. And I probably also have a clearer idea of where it could or should go. So, it’s also about wanting to share my experience and my views with the wider public.
Your book also argues for greater transparency and accountability in the government. Could you give some examples of how this can be achieved, and to be more specific, where do you think this transparency is lacking in the EU?
In lots of different places and in different ways, one is of course that, although we have a good law on access to documents, it is still incomplete because it covers only the EU institutions. And then it also always relies on what they call originator consent. So, let’s say that the Dutch government sends a letter to the European Commission, and if I as a citizen ask to get access to that letter, then if the Dutch government doesn’t give consent, the commission cannot share it with me. And this is something which is being not just used but also abused, but also to cover things up. And secondly, in terms of decision-making in the institutions, more and more decisions are taken in the European Council, which is a black box… I have this long-term historical perspective, there has been a battle for decades to get more transparency in the legislative work in the Council. And when we achieved that, or at least a degree of transparency, then suddenly, the European Council pops up, becomes an institution, and everything goes back into the black box.
Coming back to the title of the book, “Naked Power”. Does “Naked power” mean no limits, and no checks?
Yes, there is no countervailing power, and naked power is also something which drives a lot of people. They want power, and once they have power, they want more and more and more. So, the essence of democracy is to contain the power.
There are several cases of the use of spyware by member states such as Spain, Italy, France, etc. What’s your position on this issue?
Everybody is worried about this very draconian surveillance law. Interestingly, there was a previous instance, when in 2015 there was a scandal when it was revealed that the French Secret Services had been engaging in mass surveillance without any legal basis.
They very rapidly passed a law to legalise the practice. So, I challenged that law in court, initially in the “Conseil d’État” (The Council of State). This was a very interesting experience because I went through to the “Conseil d’État”, this very vulnerable French institution, where of course I had to argue my case in French.
Then the “Conseil d’État” unsurprisingly told me after a year, a year and a half: ‘Mademoiselle, please don’t bother with this, because the law is fine.’ Then I took it to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, and it’s been sitting there for nearly five years now. I still have no reply. Let’s say that tomorrow I get a reply, then what’s the point? I did it as a kind of strategic litigation. But if you say that you’re a journalist, you’ve been spied upon, you go to court, and you must wait for seven, eight years or longer for a reply, that’s not an effective legal remedy. It’s a joke. In general, it’s not just about, you know, whether the law is good, it’s also about whether there are sufficient safeguards and whether the remedies work. And if the answer is no, they don’t.
In the “European demos” and “European democracy” chapters you mentioned the importance of protecting journalists and their sources. There have been, in 2019, two European Union regulations and directives in protecting journalists’ whistle-blowers. Nowadays, we have the EMFA proposal regulation. Will the EMFA mark a turning point in the protection of journalists?
I’m not an expert on EMFA, but first, we are not nearly at the conclusion of that legislative procedure. And there’s already a big difference between the European Parliament and the European Council, where, when the whole spyware scandal broke, the European Parliament said: ‘This is horrifying. We’re going to set up an inquiry and we made recommendations.’ That was the reaction of Parliament and of the Council. ‘Oh, this is cool. We like spyware. We want to legalise it.’ Meanwhile, the main spyware vendors have been blacklisted by the United States, but because of the way that the European Union is constructed, national governments get away with it. And this is where we get back to power because spyware is not about spying. It’s about power. It gives governments a lot of control, it gives them a lot of power.
I also argue in my book, how government leaders in particular, are grabbing power more and more. And this spyware thing, it’s not an issue of technology. It’s about power, naked power. I think it’s very worrying and there are also incidents like the arrest of a French journalist in order to pressure her into revealing resources. Now the problem is either journalists have been targeted with spyware and cannot protect their sources anymore, or there’s the chilling effect, because people think, well, ‘I don’t feel comfortable talking to this journalist because I don’t know if the journalist is targeted with spyware.’
What are the possible implications and concerns about the use of this spyware in the European Union, especially in relation to privacy security and human rights?
My main concern isn’t even about privacy and human rights. My main concern here is about democracy. If all the critical and opposing voices of the government, the parties in power, if all those voices are silenced, then we have no more democracy because then there are no countervary powers anymore, because in the title, checks or power, they will all be eliminated and that’s the whole idea. What’s interesting is that, while in Europe these days people are not thrown in jail or murdered or tortured because of their views, the use of spyware for political purposes is no different if it’s done by a democratic government than by a dictator, because the purpose is the same, namely, to eliminate all critics or opposition. It’s the same.
I’m worried very much about privacy. Privacy violations are an individual problem. The threat to democracy is a problem that affects all of us.
Your book stresses the need for more democratic participation in the EU decision-making process. What do you think that journalists’ associations, such as, for example, the Association of European Journalists in Belgium, could do to increase democratic participation?
I think journalists are partly on the right track. What I see is that there is more and more cross-border cooperation. Now there are a lot of investigative journalists. And that is excellent. That’s been developing for the past 10 years or so. And that is exactly the way it should be. That is fantastic. What I also see is that national media are– there are still differences between the member states– very much focused on national politics. They tend to be either disinterested or a bit dismissive of the European Union. They often use the term Brussels to indicate anything to do with the European Union. And you get a headline saying, Brussels wants this or that, or Brussels bans this or that. And it goes to the point where once I even saw a headline, “Brussels has rules on something”, in some cases, and then I read the article, and it was about the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. So they even label that as Brussels. And then, you know, I think this is actually very serious, because it’s not about making propaganda for the European Parliament or something like that, but how can citizens really participate in democratic life and the European democratic life, which is spreading out over more and more areas if they have no clue who’s taking the decisions? And of course, national politicians are quite happy with the situation. It serves their purpose because if citizens don’t know whom to hold to account, they will not ask any difficult questions.
There is also a development in pan-European investigative journalism. I think that journalists’ associations could insist more on giving training and education to journalists, and insisting that journalists inform themselves a bit more about Europe, and not just the correspondents in Brussels, but also the ones back home. I think they should see it as a source of pride to report correctly and accurately.
As far as checks and balances, on the one hand, you have to be a Parliament, which is a very important one. But of course, journalists are essential in holding power to account, essential in revealing scandals, and essential in asking critical questions. It’s a vital part of democracy, and it is extremely worrying that they are under so much pressure. We have seen a lot of interest in the issues since the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. The funny thing is that everybody is talking about it, and then it led to this legislative proposal for EMFA, but at the same time, the situation is deteriorating, and this is because the national governments are cracking down on journalists. And the European Union is not doing anything about it, and this is the whole point because we can have ten EMFAs,so long as the European Commission is reluctant to act against governments.
And so, governments are very two-faced. On the one hand, they say, ‘we are democrats, we like European values such as media freedom, etc.’ But at the same time, they themselves, the governments, are cracking down on journalists. I think journalists can also do more to show that hypocrisy and that they are being so double-faced.
Would you like to add any other remarks?
I talk about the media, as if they’re all the same. Of course, there are also media who have themselves contributed to this climate. Media who are supporting populists and authoritarians and who are casting suspicion on media which have a different view. And so, there are outlets who themselves have done great harm to media freedom. They became the extension of authoritarian rulers, and they became an instrument in the battle against media freedom.
________________
At a time when journalism faces unprecedented challenges, Sophie In ‘t Veld’s “Naked Power” gives first-hand analysis and experience, exposing the insidious nature of spyware and its impact on journalists’ fundamental rights. By amplifying the voices of those who refuse to be silenced, In ‘t Veld reminds us of the vital role journalists play in safeguarding democracy.
As we navigate an increasingly complex digital landscape, AEJ Belgium argues that it is imperative to recognise and protect the rights of journalists. By championing their cause, we not only defend press freedom but also preserve the very essence of an informed society.