The last time I was in Ukraine was in 2012, almost exactly 10 years ago. I remember visiting a Soviet era-themed restaurant, and eating some delicious, albeit heavy, Russian dishes, and drinking an intriguing range of vodkas.
There were old Soviet radios on shelves, all kinds of military paraphernalia, communist memorabilia and a variety of cracked, plastic children’s toys, including a small, battered bear wearing a fur cap and propped up against a hammer and sickle flag. The toys were strangely poignant, though not as poignant as the ones displayed in a heap at the Chernobyl museum.
Unfortunately, I can’t remember the restaurant’s name. Was it perhaps Spotykach? If it was, the Soviet décor only lasted another two years. In 2014, Lonely Planet tells us, "Spotykach shed its retro-Soviet theme … and adopted a Ukrainian revolutionary theme, with pictures of [Ukrainian folk heroes] replacing Lenin. They do highly original takes on Ukrainian classics, including yellow-and-blue varenyky — the ultimate nationalist expression — and a borshch popsicle."
Why the 2014 pivot, you’re wondering. It might be significant that the Russia-Ukraine war started in July of that year.
And here we are in 2022, with Russia threatening to invade Ukraine again. And, indeed, given the vagaries of a print deadline, it might already have done so by the time this column is published — though the general agreement by commentators appears to suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin will wait until the Beijing Winter Olympics has ended, so as not to take the gloss off the glorious sportswashing competition of his new buddy, President Xi Jinping.
I’m not going to delve into the intricacies of that, you’ll be relieved to know. But I am interested in how misinformation narratives are playing out in relation to it.
On February 4, the Kremlin released the snappily titled "Joint statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the international relations entering a new era and the global sustainable development".
It was a display of solidarity designed for propaganda purposes, and followed a meeting between Xi and Putin. The meeting — the first in two years where Xi has met an international counterpart in person — was held ahead of the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing.
The meeting coincided with what The New York Times describes as "a moment of escalating tensions between the West and Russia over Ukraine. Mr Putin has amassed more than 100,000 troops to his neighbour’s north, south and east in what Nato [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation] allies view as a menacing prelude to an attack."
In the Russia/China joint statement, "China accused the US of stoking protests in Hong Kong and encouraging independence in Taiwan, while Russia said the US was playing a similarly destabilising role in Ukraine".
So this is your basic "you scratch my back, and I’ll turn my back on your human rights abuses" kind of agreement.
Our politicians are going to steal from this playbook of propaganda, in the same way they steal from the Americans ’lucky dip of disinformation
For some reason, which I assume is an unconscious acknowledgment that this is a partnership doomed to only ever be expedient, the writers refer to the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China as "the sides". However, what is even more revealing — and very telling, if you’re interested in how governments set about constructing a language of mis/disinformation, and how they set down the markers for influence narratives to follow — is how they define democracy.
"The sides believe that democracy is a means of citizens’ participation in the government of their country with the view to improving the wellbeing of population and implementing the principle of popular government. Democracy is exercised in all spheres of public life as part of a nation-wide process and reflects the interests of all the people, its will, guarantees its rights, meets its needs and protects its interests.
"There is no one-size-fits-all template to guide countries in establishing democracy. A nation can choose such forms and methods of implementing democracy that would best suit its particular state, based on its social and political system, its historical background, traditions and unique cultural characteristics. It is only up to the people of the country to decide whether their state is a democratic one."
The casual reader could probably get behind most of that paragraph. But the killer sentence is the last one. "It is only up to the people of the country to decide whether their state is a democratic one." It’s a deliciously circular thought process. There is no objective definition of what constitutes a democratic state — a democracy is a democracy if its citizens decide it’s a democracy.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would applaud. North Korea’s constitution, Wikipedia says, "defines the country as ‘a dictatorship of people’s democracy’ under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea, which is given legal supremacy over other political parties."
A dictatorship of people’s democracy … now that’s a phrase to conjure with.
So that’s the one sleight of hand to expect from Chinese and Russian counternarratives to accusations of human rights abuses and invasions of other countries: it’s a democracy if we say it is, and if you disagree, that’s because you’re antidemocratic.
Another is an argument that South Africans will find familiar: your democracy is not in my culture.
The joint statement says the following: "The sides believe that the advocacy of democracy and human rights must not be used to put pressure on other countries. They oppose the abuse of democratic values and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights, and any attempts to incite divisions and confrontation in the world.
"The sides call on the international community to respect cultural and civilisational diversity and the rights of peoples of different countries to self-determination.
"They stand ready to work together with all the interested partners to promote genuine democracy.
"At the same time, as every nation has its own unique national features, history, culture, social system and level of social and economic development, universal nature of human rights should be seen through the prism of the real situation in every particular country."
You’ll notice this leitmotif: "[The sides] stand ready to work together with all the interested partners to promote genuine democracy."
If we’re defining democracy as what we tell our citizens is democracy, the kind of democracy you’re trying to foist on us isn’t genuine.
How Russia and China define democracy is very telling
— What it means:
It’s the Cold War all over again, where the battles are fought over definitions, meaning and propaganda. But a lot has changed since 1990, and the tropes of Cold War rhetoric have received some modernising makeovers. The race to space has become a little more sinister, and "the sides oppose attempts by some states to turn outer space into an arena of armed confrontation and reiterate their intention to make all necessary efforts to prevent the weaponisation of space and an arms race in outer space".
The entirely new entry to the battleground is AI: "The sides attach great importance to the issues of governance in the field of artificial intelligence. The sides are ready to strengthen dialogue and contacts on artificial intelligence."
And if you want a hint of where China is going with AI regulations, one of 30 rules recommended by the Cyberspace Administration of China stipulates that recommendation algorithms "vigorously disseminate positive energy".
Let me pause for a second, and point out that if you’re an interested party sitting here in Africa, then China and Russia aren’t the only villains of the piece. The US, France and a host of other players all have a vested interest in pushing their idea of democracy on us, and there are no unambiguously good guys at play in the fields of propaganda. And, as usual, we appear to be humble pawns in the new Cold War chess game.
But we should be OK. Happily, the sides "reaffirm that the new inter-state relations between Russia and China are superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era".
Except, are they? Sweden has taken its Swedish Psychological Defence Agency, which was dismantled after the Cold War, out of mothballs. According to The Guardian, "a top official from Sweden’s new ‘psychological defence’ agency said the country had decided to bring back the Cold War-era government body amid fears over Russian aggression against Ukraine".
Why do we care about all this? You know why. Our politicians are going to steal from this playbook of propaganda, in the same way they steal from the Americans’ lucky dip of disinformation. The conflict over how we define democracy, and who gets to do that, is only going to get dirtier.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.