Month: Aug 2018

30-8-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I wanted to tell you about the “The Assault on Intelligence” by Michael V. Hayden, former Director of the NSA (National Security Agency) and CIA under George W. Bush. Unlike former Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper’s book (“Facts and Fears”), MH’s is not a memoir of service in which the author also complains about the dire straits of American leadership and its approach to the intelligence community (“IC”). MH is squarely focused on the latter and the matters of truth and facts, also as they apply to the intelligence tradecraft and political leadership in general. While MH was a Clinton and GW Bush appointee, he is a Republican and was part of the foreign policy team of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2012 in charge of counterterrorism. In his role at NSA, MH was at the forefront of the nascent cyber warfare and all the hacking campaign against American interests and their responses, notably, at the time, on the part of China.

The book is focused on the state of America and the IC, the 2016 presidential campaign, the transition period and the first hundred days of the Trump Administration (defined as “chaos on steroid”), the impact of DT as President on several core national security issues, the relationship between DT, truth and Russia while ending with some conclusions from an evolving story about truth, intelligence and America. To summarise the feelings of many of his intelligence colleagues, MH quotes Robert Kagan, a conservative like Trumpocracy’s David Frum clearly stating at a gathering set up for the Republican congressional caucus at the onset of the Trump era: “Look! What’s going on here is the melting down of the post-World War II, American liberal, Bretton Woods, World Bank, IMF world order. Get it?”.

MH’s starting point with his book is that he wants readers to look at facts and realise that while civil war or societal collapse was not imminent or inevitable, the structures, processes and attitude relied upon to prevent those were under stress and many of the premises on which are based U.S. governance, policy and security were now challenged, eroded or simply gone. He goes on explaining that the craft of intelligence, as practiced in the Western liberal tradition, which is where there is a link with our overall book notes theme, pursues the Enlightenment values. MH explains that intelligence gathers, evaluates and analyses information and then disseminates its conclusions for use, study or refutation, concluding that the erosion of Enlightenment values would devalue or even threaten the practice of good intelligence.

There was clear evidence for MH that there was convergence of a mutually reinforcing swirl of presidential tweets and statements, Russian-influenced social media, alt-right website and talk radio, Russian press like RT and even mainstream U.S. media like Fox News that helped the DT campaign and Russia’s desire to see DT in the White House. MH made a specific effort to understand how and why DT got elected in November 2016. Being a Pittsburgh native, he even went on to organise a meeting with some of his old friends from his neighbourhood, all DT’s supporters, who were finding DT as “an American”, “genuine” and “authentic, not filtering everything or parsing every word”. His old friends were simply not interested in facts, very much along the same lines as, much later, DT’s supporters, even some decent people with high religiously-based principles would give DT a pass on his colourful life as long as he was pushing forward an agenda they liked ranging from the move of the U.S. embassy in Israel to the reshaping of the Supreme Court. He had a chat with Salena Zito co-author of “The Great Revolt” and a Pittsburgh native who confirmed the rationale for DT being in the White House, even if an electoral fluke. In 2016, the U.S., home of free markets and the world’s largest, most integrated economy went populist, nativist and protectionist. MH going through Walter Russell Mead’s classification of American Presidents between Hamiltonians (Romney if he had won in 2012; an America strong thus prosperous); Jeffersonian (Obama II), Wilsonian (George W. Bush; let us free the world of its ills) and Jacksonian (America first; a long time ago) clearly states that DT is more Jacksonian than Andrew himself though at a time where that presidential style family was the least to work well. When the incoming Tea Party wave of new congressmen went to Congress in January 2011, MH was to brief them on international affairs, noticing that it was not their main area of focus and barely prompting him to ask them how many held a passport. MH felt that the U.S. was for a change to come that took place later due to the increasing duel between: internationalist-nativist, nuanced- blunt, informed-instinctive, no drama-all drama, studied-spontaneous, fully formed paragraphs-140 characters, America as an idea-America as blood and soil and free trader-protectionist.

MH quickly found that the campaign was about the truth or more clearly DT not telling it, or at least not bothering to find the truth in order to speak accurately while his campaign normalised lying to an unprecedented degree, routinely disparaging critics with a large number of invectives ranging from lying media, so-called judges, “intelligence” fake news, Washington insiders and the deep state. MH is going so far as mentioning the potential matter of metacognition in relation to the candidate not knowing what he was talking about and not knowing that he did not know. Borrowing from Tom Nichols who teaches national security at the Naval War College he stresses that “the U.S. is now a country obsessed with the worship of its own ignorance, Google fuelled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden…with an insistence that strongly held opinions are indistinguishable from facts”. From an intelligence and foreign affairs standpoint, MH and his like-minded internationalist civil servants had many reasons to worry about the rising nativism in DT’s campaign ranging from the alienation of a Southern friend, limitations of the bounty linked to the entrepreneurial vigour of new arrivals, easy confusion between Islam and terrorism, the distance from important allies and cooperative foreign sources and the redefinition of the essence and values of the American nation.

MH makes it clear that American intelligence professionals, through a process of self-selection and acculturation, like their diplomatic counterparts (before many resigned) trend overwhelmingly internationalist. This was seen as the natural order of things with the deep belief that American disengagement rarely made things better anywhere. MH is going through the rising concerns about the candidate during the campaign and the response from the foreign policy and intelligence establishment

with the famed Elliot Cohen letter signed by 122 prominent practitioners (incidentally which might also have helped DT as they were indeed seen as the “establishment” by DT’s supporters, enhancing their beliefs that their candidate was the target of a conspiracy). MH did not sign the Cohen letter as he was on a book tour and thought it might be seen as self-serving. He signed however the John Bellinger letter put out by the former senior legal adviser to Condoleezza Rice at the NSC and State Department which stressed that DT never made any effort to educate himself in, and was displaying an alarming ignorance of, basic facts of contemporary international politics. All the signatories were clearly putting themselves off any role in any future DT Administration should he win, which at the time, was a worry but far from a certainty.

MH visited the relationship that needs to be based on trust between the President and the IC, making some very valid points. The IC deals in “facts” that are stolen, elicited or otherwise acquired to inform executive decision-making. Intelligence is focused on the world as it is while the President and his team dream of the world as they want it to be – especially in the DT era. Intelligence is inductive, swimming in data and attempting to draw conclusions while policymakers are deductive, following first principles, the ones they were elected for, to fit specific situations. Intelligence trends pessimistic, with intel analysts as Bob Gates, once said, “stopping smelling the flowers and looking around the hearse” while policymakers need being optimistic as otherwise they would never have pursued the job. The President is the “first customer” with DT being a challenging one for any IC given that his main objective is to find rationale for the views he holds dear and tells his core electoral base. MH spends much time dealing with the IC trauma of telling DT what he does not want to hear in relation to Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. electoral process, itself the cardinal sin for DT which would shape his views of the IC and would never changed his basic views of Russia and its leader. This DT posture continued as the aftermath of the Helsinki July meeting with Putin and later mentions of the “Russian hoax” would show (on that matter, MH’s account of the timely Wikileaks release of the DNC’s John Podesta emails, courtesy of “Russia” that provided the goods, thirty minutes after the Washington Post’s publication of a video of DT speaking in explicit terms about groping and kissing women, is very puzzling at the least).

MH has an interesting take on the Transition (the period between the early November election and the late January inauguration) with a focus on intelligence. He is stressing that the intel transition team was not heavily populated (as a result of all the intel segment signatories of letters denouncing DT’s profile) though was lead by Mike Rogers, a former House intel committee chairman selected by Chris Christie, who led the Transition Team before disappearing (he was with Rudy Giuliani, one of two senior Republicans having joined the campaign team but had also prosecuted Jared Kushner’s father for tax fraud, sending him to jail, some years earlier, making it an issue with the First Family). Mike Rogers gave hope to the old intelligence hands as he was seen as giving DT some directions in the field but did not stay beyond transition, leaving the radical wing represented by the Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka or young Ezra Cohen-Wattnick in lead positions dealing with intel matters. MH goes into some examples we remember about his ignorance of international affairs and his pride in not reading much about issues (“I never (read). I am always busy doing a lot” as he stated on the campaign trail in the summer of 2016). DT was wondering about the meaning of the word “triad” when asked about nuclear forces during a debate. He did not know the names of the leaders of Hezbollah, ISIS and al-Qaeda, not knowing their distinctions, confusing the Iranian Quds Force with the American-friendly Kurds. All these huge gaps created problems to the IC in terms of where to begin to well inform the “first client” all the more when he started by not wanting daily intelligence briefings (“How do you connect for him things that he does not connect himself and he is not aware that they are key?”). The other issue came quickly to be what mattered to DT in terms of facts, the key feature not being accuracy but that “many people agree with me when I say that” as DT told ABC News during the Transition, making it a nightmare to deal with someone who may not distinguish between truth and untruth and being primarily driven by reassuring his core electoral base that feels he can say no wrong, all the more under the assault of the political and media establishments. The relationship between the President and its IC was off to be one of the worst ever in American history, which prompted DT to go to Langley to meet with the CIA staffers one day after the inauguration, conducting according to MH, “the worst presidential visit to an intelligence agency in the history of the American Republic”.

As the DT Administration was now in charge and passing its first hundred days, MH saw a few key policy tenets as follows: i) Immigration will be treated more as a threat to American-well being than as a strategic advantage; ii) Alliances will be seen more as transactional than as strategic relationships; iii) Despite being the global champion of free trade for three quarters of a century, the U.S. will turn more protectionist; iv) The relationship with China will be reset and v) The fight against terrorism will fundamentally be about more combat power. As the new administration goes into motion, MH provides us with testimonies from recently retired intel veterans “happy to have taken the king’s shilling for doing the King’s work”, some happy about the gradually stated more aggressive posture of the new administration but also worrying about what the intel agencies might be asked to do going forward, even if many chaffed about the overlaying, indecision and restrictions imposed in a post-GW bush world during the Obama years. MH felt after 100 days that the IC had helped Team DT realise that “China was not a currency manipulator, NATO was not obsolete and maybe Vladimir Putin sometimes did bad things”, also because the NSC team put together at that point had been receptive and helpful in a post-Mike Flynn era. H.R. McMaster, who replaced Mike Flynn after his reluctant firing (that would lead to serious legal problems for him) was seen as a very positive change by the “professionals” given his status as a thinking military leader built through his PhD thesis-originated book “Dereliction of Duty” on the military leadership failings during the Vietnam war. However H.R. M did not have the gravitas of previous NSC advisers like Kissinger, Brzezinski, Powell or Scowcroft which, dealing with a mercurial leader, would ultimately take its toll as would be seen later.

Besides H.R. M, another good news for the professionals was Jim Mattis at the DoD whose main nickname was not “Mad Dog” but “the warrior monk” closer to General George C. Marshall than to an aggressive George S. Patton combat commander and someone who appreciated intelligence and would work well with the IC via his own DIA. Rex Tillerson at State would be more challenging as while he appeared a positive addition, he ended up alienating both the White House (with his f… moron comment and his questioning, unusually for a cabinet member, of DT’s IQ) and his own department as he wanted to reshape it, prompting a record, mass exodus of needed, long-serving, diplomats. Of note, even those like well known like Eliott Abrams, ex-NSC head of the Middle East under GWB, was crossed out by DT to be Tillerson’s choice for deputy at State as, while he never signed any of the “never Trump” letter, he had published a milder “When you can’t stand your candidate” in the Weekly Standard. John Kelly, (another marine general, stressing the rise of the military – as safe pairs of hands) who was applauded as a great choice to lead Homeland Security, was seen as great news for White House Chief of Staff. MH found that Mike Pompeo as the designate to lead CIA was a sound choice also as he was to be seconded by highly respected CIA veteran Gina Haspel who was to succeed him to lead the agency when Pompeo went to State in 2018. Lastly Indiana Senator Coats, former Ambassador to Germany, was seen as an excellent choice as Director of National Intelligence, overseeing 17 agencies. When thinking of it, the people around Trump were not to his image and could be counted to restrain him while providing him with sound views. MH goes through the Syria, ISIS and Iran approaches developed by DT and the Administration, the latter subject leading to the breaching by the US of the “Iran nuclear agreement” (or JCPOA) followed by the reinstatement of sanctions in August 2018. On North Korea, MH tends to agree with DT that he inherited a mess (reminding us he is no a fan of the Obama era, notably of the US policy towards Syria and the lack of action following the red line crossing after the alleged use of gas on its own population by the Syrian regime).

MH deals with the subject of Russia and its alleged meddling in a focused manner throughout a chapter entitled “Trump, Russia and the truth”. He narrates how the “meddling” in the electoral process started with the Wired magazine in the summer of 2017 that reported a European study finding that the main Russian objective was not to change minds, but “to destroy and undermine confidence in Western media”. MH stresses the convergence and similar degree of ferocity between DT and Russia in their attacks of American institutions while staying away from arguing the facts (DT in a tweet stressed that “there is no truth, so you should just follow your gut and your tribe”), all with an echo chamber between Russian news and American strong and far right-wing outlets. MH deplores that Russia was able to influence the outcome of an election that was ultimately decided by the Americans but unsurprised as the expertise and craft of Russia given his own experience dealing with this matter over the last twenty years, notably in the cyber space and at the NSA. MH goes though how social media played a major role in shaping voter perceptions and helping DT as a candidate, with developments we are seeing only recently and having further consequences even on the stock of Facebook, shaving USD 120 bn in one trading day in July 2018, due to the aftermath of the privacy issues we now are more familiar with.

MH looks at the divided land that he sees as America today, feeling that Russia would be mad not to continue to play as it faces no real costs with Americans making it easier and the government being frozen in its response. He quotes Lenin and his “What is to be done?” which is of course identifying the problem which can be summed up as two intertwined issues: i) the declining relevance of truth as traditionally understood, derived from the evidence-based patterns developed during the Enlightenment; and ii) Russia both exploiting and exacerbating that phenomenon. The latter clearly depends on the former and could not exist nor succeed without the former. Fixing the first point makes the second go away, something that MH sees in Russia having been less successful in manipulating less fractured societies such as Norway, France or Germany. While technology has been a medium of destabilisation of American society, MH feels that the remedy is not to be found in technology, the excesses of which need to be controlled (as we see happening with Big Tech) but the long term cure dealing more with principles and basic political health. He also sees the private sector and notably Silicon Valley (for tech) and Hollywood (for image creation) as being useful partners in the fight with leading figureheads in both joining it (on cybersecurity, it is worth noting MH credits the current administration with good marks, which is encouraging given the new axis of warfare). While focusing on these areas, MH sees the IC as doing not an unimportant role in addressing the declining relevance of truth. He believes that intelligence professionals will keep to their professional duty to collect and analyse intel but is more concerned about the issue of the presentation of that intel and not only on the Russia question. He sees it as crucial that the IC keeps being able to push back against preferred policy narratives, which would not be uncommon with Team Trump when it matters and when they slip the bonds of objective reality, this being a question of simple honesty. All that being said, MH is now recommending younger colleagues not to join Team Trump and not to put themselves at risk for the future when they could still contribute to shaping policy meaningfully under different conditions and leadership. He also reminds us that while the “sound and the fury” are at play, Bob Mueller keeps working at his DoJ investigation and will one day report, this with potentially devastating consequences for DT and his close team (on the time Mueller is taking that DT is irate about, it should be noted that his investigation seriously pales in terms of the time spent in comparison with those of Benghazi or Watergate and that such investigations are in no way linked to any electoral calendars such as that of the November 2018 mid-terms).

MH’s book is a fascinating account focused on International affairs and America from the standpoint of the intelligence professionals and without falling easily into irate criticism of DT and his administration on every point. In writing about the future, MH focuses on the future of truth which he sees as the fundamental item to look for and after with the current American administration. He rightfully stresses, with many of his colleagues, on the strong desire from many foreign countries to find again the America they are now missing. He hopes for a time when the media will not be under attack from an American President undermining the American constitution. He wants a President, paraphrasing Lincoln, who appeals to “the better angels of our nature”. MH quotes Timothy Snyder’s “On Tyranny” (also a former book note): “To abandon facts is is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticise power as there is no basis to do so. Post-truth is pre-fascim”. MH concludes his book with a sentence formed when visiting Langley to celebrate the retirement of a CIA veteran (and where he met a young and enthusiastic, trained cryptologic linguist who then joined the agency to put his skills to good use but would not have entered the U.S. had the administration ban being in place): “We are accustomed to relying on their truth telling to protect us from foreign enemies. now we may need their truth telling to save us from ourselves”.

I dedicate this book note to my friend, Rufus the IV, and his father Rufus the III, Virginians with a long family line since Plymouth Rock, the latter having been “present at the creation” to borrow from Dean Rusk, from the Yale cradle that was so key in those early years of the Cold War (as depicted in “The Company” by spy novelist Robert Littell).

Warmest regards

Serge

Serge Desprat- 30th August, 2018 (Prague)

29-8-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I know that going from Madeleine Albright to Omarosa Manigault may be a steep shift (I did not say decline) though her book “Unhinged” is very interesting (how British of me) at many levels. It could be a memoir of a colourful TV reality star turned political activist but it is not. It is a rehabilitation attempt book cum preemptive Trumpian shield from a loyalist who either grew genuinely disappointed and/or sought revenge for her ultimate Trumpland treatment, which makes it valuable to read if one focuses on why she says what she says and how she does it. It is actually quite an enjoyable read and I dare say, against all expectations, actually well crafted and rather fluid. To be sure, O’s book is not about policies (beyond those related to the African-American community she focused on) but more about DT’s (or DJT’s as she would write) style and behaviour which are defining features of his presidency and clearly as a way to get back at him for having been disappointed and/or dismissed. O’s book is in the high critical tradition started with journalist Michael Wolff and followed by insiders like Jim Comey and now Sean Spicer. As she stayed in the Trump WH before being pushed out, it is hard to know whether she really objected with so many of DT’s wrong features as described in her book or she was mad at being dismissed, hence the tell all book.

While O tells us about her very poor background in the “projects” – something that is also meant to offset the image of the nasty TV reality star we know (well, those who watch this type of entertainment) – she focuses on various key periods which are her early and long – 12+ year – Trump history mainly with “The Apprentice”, the 2016 campaign and the White House up until her forced exit by Chief of Staff John Kelly assisted by the WH legal team on rather dubious grounds (if we believe O – as she would have transgressed WH car transportation rules). She clearly wants to portray herself as a good person, who just seized the American dream to propel herself out of poverty to the riches and of course with a clear focus on improving the plight of all African-Americans on the way. And she now decided to tell the world how her former mentor was a terrible person.

Interestingly we learn that O was very involved in White House matters way, way earlier having worked there in the last year of Bill Clinton (describing her role as “mid-level staff” which is to the say the least “remarkable” at age 25 then!) and then joining Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000. O is actually a registered Democrat (interestingly at the time so was DT). Apparently, many accounts say she was not very good at any of the roles she had for Bill and Al, something she does not mention in the book (having said this, these accounts may be DT-driven too so one should be cautious in our age of easy news). The fun part on the political angle of things is that O worked hard to being part of the Hillary campaign in 2015 but was forgotten for another lady out of doing a favour for a congressman close to HC, making O ultimately rooting for her old boss and against the “swampy” manoeuvring she felt victim of. She tells us that she also joined his campaign team all the more easily as she felt DT was a lost cause with no hope of winning, which looks a bit too rearview mirror easy even if the odds were long at the time.

In 2003, she found in DT a father she lost too early and while making a great TV career with national reach, joined a cult where loyalty was the key driver, making her a very faithful cheerleader and, as time went by, a partner of DT, never questioning his shortcomings. She saw many objectionable traits of DT, notably in relation to women over the years that she never, admittedly, challenged as he was just “like that” (his relationship with Ivanka made her very unsettled, with DT’s wandering hands and claims he would date her should she not be his daughter, though apparently O tells us the first daughter was playing on that trait to manage or control her father). It is clear that O fills her book with the bad aspects of DT that she otherwise clearly found very manageable over fifteen years, creating a terrible image of the President. Faithful no more…

She was the only African-American on the presidential campaign team that was led by white men (and Kellyanne Conway at some point) and in charge of the African- American outreach. Her goal was for DT to do better than Mitt Romney in 2012 who had attracted 6% of the African-American vote (in the end, DT got 8% while HC got far less than Obama had achieved). She wanted to run the Office of Public Liaison (OPL) part of the Executive Office but Reince Priebus who had run the Republican National Committee (wanting DT “out” after the Hollywood tapes, something that would stick) and now, as Chief of Staff (we almost forgot) in charge of “roles” in the early DT White House did not think she made the cut so gave her a communications role at the OPL (focused on African-Americans), which she finally accepted (she really wanted in). O describes her daily schedule of meetings in the Reince galaxy at the WH including all the tenors from the times including Ivanka, Jared, Bannon, Kellyanne Conway (a future nemesis she always likes to beat hard on) and the A team. She sees DT two to three scheduled times a day and in fact many more times due to his Trump Organisation’s legacy of the open door policy and “his need to fight loneliness and to see familiar faces”.

That section on the WH is part O’s memoir, part attacks on DT (which would never had been aired before her dismissal). We learn that DT does not read and he is “just side of the functionally literate”. O stresses unequivocally that DT “has never read from beginning to end any piece of legislation, policies even some executive orders that he has signed” or that advisers “spoon feed” him five to ten bullet points notes about legislations, forgoing any discussion of their complexities. There is little doubt that even if true these statements are there to hurt or to show what could come next, like with the famous tapes including the N word and many other things (as an aside and regardless of DT, that O would tape these meetings and conversations is also educational about her true personality for whom the loyalty she talks so much about may have been purely tactical). DT would “struggle with complex documents or complex briefings” and the senior WH team knowing he is the messenger, not the writer of the message would rely on his charisma and make excuses for his faults in true cult fashion. O gradually seemed to have felt that she was not considered core as she was asked to take the blame supposedly for mistakes of others like Kellyanne Conway, “the chameleon”, who becomes one of the chief villains in O’s book (a status not hard to achieve when seeing her in action, but a common feature of many in the Trump WH if one is to believe O). She goes at length about DT’s lack of impulse control and the team’s problems to control and tally his tweets, which have become the stuff of legend and start losing their impact even if they help change the level of the acceptable political discourse and hence general civility (based on a number of live experiences, I believe DT’s poor communication style has had an impact on how many Americans feel they can behave and communicate in society). We learn that one of the erratic aspects of DT would be when he would correct one of his most terrible earlier tweets as his team would work on managing its fallout though without telling the team. We also learn that not one – “not a single one” – top person in the WH agreed with DT’s firing of FBI Director Comey on loyalty grounds. She insists upon DT’s mental decline which she says she was able to notice as having known him for years and noticing his many lapses in the WH (also lambasting the WH doctor Ronny Jackson “who would go on to declare an obviously obese, sleep-deprived man in excellent health”). She also dwells on the Don Corleone loyalty expected by DT from all his staff while he treats them as he wishes. She tells us about DT’s dismissive, critical and mocking behaviour toward some of the staff, especially with Sean Spicer, the first Trump WH press secretary and communications director nicknamed “the spokesman from Men’s Warehouse. Cheap and tacky”. There are some expected savoury tidbits as when Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci having just been fired after only a few days in the job goes into a cubicle and starts crying “like a girl” (again if we believe O).

It is clear that her race and the fact she was the only senior black woman in the Trump WH was a key issue for O, making us know that she felt like being the “token black” in Trumpland (even if there was Ben Carson as HUD Secretary). Certainly the “token black lady”. It would appear that she genuinely worked hard to ensure better race relations and improve the conditions of black students, particularly at black colleges (she received a Master’s degree from Howard in DC, a beacon of “black college” education which she is deservedly very proud of). That latter mission where she tried working with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos (Blackwater’s Erik Prince’s sister en passant) and her for-profit education mission seems to have rattled O. In addition the dramatic events in Charlottesville in the summer of 2017 are reported by O with a personal angle and clearly shook her to the core as an African-American and the official in charge of OPL communications in relation to African-American matters – one feels that this event may have dampened her loyalty to DT given his response to the tragedy (as an aside and more generally O seems to have been conflicted between her image of the “strong black woman” – her words – which served her well in reality TV and also drove her to the WH and her perceived continuous offenses in private on the part of most senior white male staffers dealing with a senior African-American woman though knowing that she could not defend herself adequately lest she passed for an “angry black woman”).

It is really difficult to know whether O is a genuine person, so much she is a TV reality one and whether she really believes in the causes she advances in her book. She was, given her background, the odd duck in the WH team but then there have been many others, who if they had a more formal, elitist education and background, would not be considered top tier among civil servants or politicians, as if the word “expert” was definitely out, allowing for other “managers” to come in and work as if beliefs were facts. Her account of her time with DT, during the campaign and at the WH is definitely interesting if only from a sociology point but smells of revenge and unwittingly depicts a shark tank, well beyond the usual norms of politics. That a faithful TV reality star and partner got a role at the WH says everything about the nature of the Trump WH. That she, unwittingly or not, took what looks like her revenge the way she did, adding to what most observers would know and have read from others “leavers”, does not add much to our understanding of the current workings of the WH but reinforces the feeling we have for this WH. That she accepted to work for DT while being so offended by so many aspects of his presidential style and stayed does not show great spine but is what one would expect – she really enjoyed working at the WH and would have probably stayed much longer if not pushed out. If anything the book is an extension of TV reality and O is indeed very good at it. When all is said and done, the prevailing feeling is that it is indeed a book about revenge and as DT would say, accurately for once, also about betrayal if we accept that Trump made O as she writes herself.

If I may say, I am not dedicating this book to anyone out of fear of offending but it does not mean it should not be read. I was hesitant to add to O’s royalties but decided that it is always educational to do such an exercise and trying to understand what goes in their minds. As Ed Luce wrote in the FT recently, 90% of Republican voters (not the independents) still support DT in spite of “all” we know about him. This is the true enigma. Why do good people – and most Republicans certainly are – still support DT after all we have read from a variety of people, his lack of dignity for the role, style, behaviour, tweets, not to mention erratic, ill-thought policies and lately the McCain flag controversy that says it all? This is the baffling point which the current state of the economy, unemployment level and stock market cannot explain given the harm done at so many levels and the future at stake.

Warmest regards,

Serge

Serge Desprat- 29th August, 2018 (Prague)

21-8-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I wanted to tell you about two books from Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton and a personality whom we know well and is always very engaged in the defence of Western liberal values. She is 81 years old now and still very active, having written a recent book on “Fascism” that depicts her fights for democracy worldwide as part of her long mandate (in another time for U.S. diplomacy and leadership) and “Prague Winter” about her childhood in Prague and also London as a Czechoslovak child born in 1937 (in Smichov, my very neighbourhood), something that some people (not us of course) do not realise or have forgotten but is a key aspect of whom she became and she is.

“Prague in Winter – A Personal History of Remembrance and War – 1937-1948”, published in 2012 narrates her life in Prague (based on family accounts that she researched in the nineties and later) and in London during the war before returning to Prague in 1945 and then finally going to America in 1948. She was not just a Czechoslovak child like any other. She was born Marie Jana Korbelova, the daughter of Josef Korbel, who was a senior Czechoslovak diplomat, working as the right end man to Jan Masaryk, himself the son of Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, the founder and first President of Czechoslovakia in 1918. Jan went on to become Ambassador to London during the Munich Agreement, (I recommend you the great 2017 movie “Masaryk” with top Czech actor Karel Roden in the lead role), then part of the London-based government in exile during the war and Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1945, only to fall from his window at the ministry in the Bohemian defenestration tradition after the Czech Communists won the parliamentary elections in 1946, setting the stage for a long and dark journey. Josef Korbel, his main aide, who had gone to be Ambassador to Yugoslavia after the war, then emigrated to America and taught International relations while settling his family in Denver. The University of Denver’s school of foreign policy is now named after him. One of the strange aspects of MA’s story is that she had not realised by the age of 59, when she became Secretary of State, what her true roots were and that she was actually Jewish (having been raised a Catholic and having converted to Episcopalianism for her marriage to Mr. Albright in 1958). MA only discovered this rafter defining fact while traveling to the country of her birth in her role of top American diplomat, which led to the writing of her book. “Prague in Winter” that became a personal journey into her Jewish roots as well as into totalitarianism in her country of birth and gradually all of Central & Eastern Europe. One part that is especially gripping is the period of 1945 to 1948 when all was still possible for the future of Czechoslovakia which then went into the post-war Communist and then Stalinist camps, following the local Communist party win and gradual takeover of the young, reborn, democracy following the Nazi occupation. There are great accounts of this period and I also recommend little-known Boston University’s Igor Luke’s “On the Edge of the Cold War – American diplomats and spies in postwar Prague”. The American legation in Prague was always a place with interesting game changers such as George Kennan, who became famous for his “Long Telegram” from Moscow in 1946 and was actually stationed in Prague in 1937. The period before the fall in 1948 was indeed one of intense activity by American diplomats in Prague to try to keep Czechoslovakia from falling for the then highly popular Czech Communist Party basking in the key role of the Soviets in defeating the Nazis. Of note in today’s debate about immigration, MA became a U.S. citizen only in 1957. One criticism, echoed by the late Philippe Kerr, back in 2012 was that MA did not have in her book a word of thanks for Britain, which while arguably tainted (like France) by the 1938 Munich agreements, ensured that MA and her close family were rescued and did not end up in Theresienstadt or Auchwitz like some other family members. The book is a first hand account of a period not well known by most unless one lives in Prague, though with memories vanishing or not wanting to be triggered locally. It is a must read for lovers of history, particularly about the onset of the Cold War. I also recommend you the excellent “Iron Curtain – The crush of Eastern Europe 1946-58” (2012) by Anne Applebaum, the well-know commentator of that period and also spouse of Radek Sikorski, the former Polish Foreign Minister in the Donald Tusk government from 2007 to 2014, also in a different time for Poland.

“On Fascism – A Warning”, which was well reviewed in the FT earlier this year, is about MA’s experiences dealing with totalitarianism while being Secretary of State and afterwards. This is also based on exchanges with her students as she went on to teach international relations at Georgetown University after her role in the Clinton Administration. The book deals with the main question that is: “Can it happen here?” and is of course linked to the rise of populism and the attacks against Western liberal values and our democratic system. She focuses on Europe and America looking at the needed ingredients allowing the rise of fascism which she sees as economic, social and political chaos as in the case of interwar Germany and Italy with their high unemployment and left and right wing gang battles in the street (developments when incivility takes root in the political discourse) that lead to despair for the citizenry of these countries. MA looks at parallels with Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela, Viktor Orban’s economic backdrop in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s gradual suffocation of democracy in Turkey or Vladimir Putin in Russia which, even if he was desired to restore order and dignity, also benefitted from a country having lost half of its economy in the 1990s. She thus sees problems being opportunities for fascists and other anti-democrats. She also mentions the connivence of the conservatives who always think they can control fascism and can use its popular support to achieve their own goals. She hopes that Democrats and Republicans will work together, worrying that Trump’s isolationism, protectionism and fondness for dictators are weakening America’s ability to solve international challenges (which may no longer be a goal), while deepening divisions among allies and strengthening anti-democratic forces. In the end, MA remains hopeful, looking at Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela as guides who did save their countries when they were going through immense and irreconcilable challenges in their own times. She feels strongly that we need to recognise history lessons and should never take history for granted. As she says: “The temptation is powerful to close our eyes and wait for the worst to pass, but history tells us that for freedom to survive, it must be defended and if lies are to stop, they must be exposed”. It is clear that MA also writes thinking much of Trump and the direction taken by America on a number of key topics. She would also advises, like me if I my say, that those who like Trump because of a low unemployment rate and good economic growth, all of which are temporary and the result of many factors, not to think that style and values no longer matter in the way freedom, democracy and indeed the indispensable country should be conducted.

I dedicate this note to Bert, born Hubertus in the low countries, Yale Law School graduate and a great globalist who has done so much for impact investing in emerging markets from his great firm and with his amazing team in DC, the latter which I also salute chapeau bas.

Warmest regards,

Serge

Serge Desprat- 21st August, 2018 (Washington, DC)

12-8-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I wanted to tell you about something I will work on when and if in Strasbourg (the European Parliament).

Cyber warfare and cyberthreats are omnipresent in our lives and a key issue for government, military and business communities not to say society today. These asymmetrical warfare and threats allow for “enemies,” whoever they may be, to inflict losses and disrupt far larger organisations than they are and for a very cheap cost. Cybersecurity is now an essential component of protection of not only our financial and strategic assets but also of our very Western liberal way of life like in the context of our democratic electoral process.

As you know, I have been a founding investor in the UK’s Cyber Essential Direct (CEDL), a start up, chaired by Lord Blunkett, formerly Home Secretary to Tony Blair and set up to assist the SME sector in the UK, but also internationally to cope preemptively with cyber risk. As such and while I can barely turn on my laptop as the 19th century man I always will be, I have become quite enthralled by cybersecurity tales over the last two years, helping me understand the geopolitics of the field and feeling a bit more part of my era (on this latter point, one does not need to be a tech expert, to study the dynamics of cybersecurity very much like those liking the matter of submarine warfare do not need to know how to pilot a sub).

With this in mind, I would like to recommend a short book “Cyber Wars” by Charles Arthur, a freelance journalist and former Tech Editor at The Guardian, the UK newspaper where he covered related topics such as Wikileaks and Anonymous amongst others. His book does not require any tech knowledge or cybersecurity expertise and is a great introduction to the field focusing on the major cyberattacks and the hacks we all have heard of over the last few years. This well-crafted book is mostly focused on the business targets of cyber attacks though these may emanate from governments or directed or abated by them. There is also a useful summary page after each case study, also comprising helpful tips for the reader’s own usage in case she may find herself dealing with similar situations in her daily life.

The main cyberattacks covered are as follows:

• Sony Pictures

How North Korea exerted punishment on Sony Pictures in 2014 for a satiric movie, “The Interview” involving Kim Jong-un

• Anonymous attacks/HB Gary

How Anonymous, the activist network, hacked into HBGary, and destroyed a leading cybersecurity company for revenge

• John Podesta and the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign

How a presidential campaign was derailed by Russian “patriotic” agents (for some) and likely “led” by Russia (for others)

• TJX

How adopting new technologies, a natural development, led to serious customer problems for TJ Maxx, a major retailer

• Ransomware

How malware can take over computers and threaten harm unless a ransom is paid

• TalkTalk

How teenagers infiltrated the systems of a major internet provider to then call its clients to fix problems from its supposed call centres

• Mirai

How the “Internet of Things” is not really safe, making our daily lives at risk

CA goes into the future of cyberwar offering very interesting viewpoints on a matter which is in constant evolution.

I would like to make a few comments, seemingly pell-mell, aimed at touching upon some key features of cyber threats and cybersecurity. It is fair to say that while we often hear about the attacks against Western institutions, be they public or private, the West also can be found on the offense and taking preemptive strikes against governments and entities, particularly in relation to China, North Korea, Russia and Iran to name a few. China was definitely the main culprit of cyber attacks in the past and this before all the publicity given to non-governmental “Russian patriots” being involved in interfering in elections in the West as often claimed and always publicly disavowed in the cases of the U.S. and French presidential elections of 2016 and 2017. Cybersecurity is now a major segment of offense and defence for governments, big and small, given the dynamics of the matter. Large corporations have taken the threat very seriously (notably banks whose payment integrity is essential but also energy companies and those involved in running the power grids that is one of the weakest link of our vital infrastructure) and are now ensuring that their supply chains, involving many thousands of SMEs, are appropriately protected, diminishing the risks of “own goals” by following the likes of Cyber Essentials guidelines promoted by HM Government in the UK and, increasingly, Commonwealth. One interesting feature of cyber warfare is that when the enemy has been penetrated, that victory is often not heralded as one waits and takes advantage of that enemy not knowing it has been compromised, an approach often taken by the West while parties attacking the West are more focused on disruption, ransom or theft and dont’t care whether they are caught as long as they reach their primary objective (some that can be hard to pin down precisely in terms of impact, like with elections, as opposed to when banking account or credit card numbers are accessed and stolen for profit). Cybersecurity is a complex area which requires attentive analysis, which the book, while; giving an easy-to-read tutorial, helps achieving.

We can’t be safe and the only way to be would be not to use email and unhook our computers, which is the conundrum of our times. Cybersecurity can help readiness, reduce losses whatever their nature, but is a constant fight where the defence struggles catching up with the offense, the latter which benefits from cheap asymmetry.

If any of you or the companies you work for or with wanted to know more, I would be happy to put it touch with John Lyons, the founder of CEDL, who would expertly and efficiently guide you on matters cybersecurity (without going into heavy marketing, I would recommend for example to all my PE friends that they should make sure their investee companies are preemptive about cyber attacks as they could end up feeling the pinch).

I actually dedicate this book note to John and Steve, partners not only in thought but also in the active defence of our values.

Warmest regards,

Serge

Serge Desprat- 12th August, 2018 (Prague)

9-8-18

Dear Partners in thought,

I wanted to share briefly with you a book close to a topic I often write about, “liberalism” but this time taken from the other side (which I have not called “dark” as the beauty of Western liberal values is that there is nothing like a good and respectful debate regardless of the strength of opposing beliefs). There is thus a book called “Why Liberalism Failed” which is a good capture of its theme written by Patrick J. Deneen, a professor of political science at Notre Dame, the famed Indiana university, not only glorious for its football team but also the alma mater of President Joshua Bartlett in “The West Wing” (whom by the way would never have followed PD in his stance). PD is a Rutgers graduate, having being an Associate Professor at Princeton and a frequent contributor to The American Conservative blog. The American edition has a nice cover with the image of an antique Greek pillar showing its age and probably, let’s wager, uselessness in PD’s mind, though this is good communication and fair game. This is not a light book and it is much focused on concepts inherent to liberalism and its opposites, even if PD gives us many live examples, mainly from the American landscape, to make his case.

It is interesting to note that PD was published as part of the politics and culture series at Yale University Press (YUP), that is not the kind of place where one would think he would be but then it is not surprising they would adopt a fair-minded approach. YUP believes that self-government, what is the West including of course the U.S., is increasingly ailing globally and has entered a crisis of legitimacy, with no agreement on the best treatment. It has failed a growing number of people, not delivering its historical promises, with various key symptoms being noticed such as unequal wealth distribution, institutional decay, loss of trust in authority at all levels and among citizens, polarisation among those wanting open and closed societies with new political tribes and a redefinition of political landscapes arising. This premise led to PD’s book that puts the blame of the legitimacy crisis on liberalism itself, something that runs contrary to those of us who believe that we should keep promoting liberal values that made us “who we are” in order to relaunch our democratic system. His approach is scholarly and much focused on the philosophical foundations of liberalism and the developments that according to him make them failed. PD argues that liberalism needs retirement and cannot be reformed as its original sin, centred on the Kantian elevation of individual autonomy, was inherently wrong, something that the passing of time has shown. PD’s radical and disruptive critique of liberalism comes after Marx and Foucault on the “left” and Nietzsche or the Catholic Church on the “right”, among others. It is obviously coming at a turning point in the West with the rise of populism and major developments such as the election of Donald Trump or Brexit.

PD believes that the demise of liberalism started ten years before Trump or Brexit, creating a ripe environment for these developments. He felt that the “inherited civilised order” derived by family and community values and crafted through religious and cultural norms, would gradually vanish through the influence of the liberal social and political state in spite of a rising opposition of the people, who are no longer benefitting from a liberal system, in turn potentially leading to authoritarian illiberalism. PD adds that the people want increasingly a strong leader to take back control over cultural norms, political habits over a bureaucratised government and a globalised economy that have now grown remote from them. He stresses the energy spent on mass protests rather than self-legislation and deliberation faulting liberalism to have created its own nightmare and not being able to correct its course. He quotes my once neighbour, Vaclav Havel, who stated that the remedy can only be found first in the polis – lives shared with a common purpose and not the system first (“A better system will not automatically create a better life. Only the opposite is true: only by creating a better life can a better system be developed” as stated in The Power of the Powerless).

PD takes a 500 year historical journey into liberalism starting with the Enlightenment, making it clear that all really started 250 years ago with the American liberal experiment that is now coming to an end. He explains the historical bases of liberalism represented by a limited government devoted to securing individual rights within a free-market economic system. Political legitimacy is based on a social contract ratified by fair and free elections. Key words are limited but efficient government, rule of law, independent judiciary, responsive public officials and again fair and free elections. However he stresses that 70% of Americans (his book is focused on the U.S. and its “experiment”) believe that their country is going in the wrong direction with 50% of them believing that the past is best. Public trust in institutions has markedly declined. Future generations for the first time will be less prosperous than the previous ones. Cynicism is running amok. Elections are seen as evidence of a rigged system. The political system is broken. The social fabrique is fraying with the widening gap between the “wealthy haves” and the “left out have nots”, this being enhanced by geographic divides (the two coasts and the heartland in the U.S. and London vs. the Rest in England). The hostile divide between the faithful and the secular people (religion seems key to PD in terms of providing societal norms). The promises of liberalism have been shattered as the liberal state expands to control many aspects of life while citizens feel powerless in front of a rootless globalisation. Rights can only be secured by wealth and status, the liberal system favouring a new meritocracy based on generational succession.

For PD liberalism has failed not because it fell short but because it was in fact true to itself, achieving not its stated objectives but what was always in store, producing ruins as being its very successes. In other words, instead of promoting greater equity, multiplicity of cultures and beliefs, human dignity and expanding liberty, PD feels that liberalism fostered inequality, uniformity and homogeneity, material and (again) spiritual degradation while undermining freedom. PD believes that America is at the end of the natural cycle of corruption and decay that limits the lifespans of all human creations, including its biggest one which is liberalism (in other words, all things come to an end). Liberalism is one of three “isms” (with Fascism and Communism) that took center stage and the only one left standing after 1989, while the one with the claim to legitimacy is in fact insidious as it does not sell itself as an ideology but as an invitation more than a coercion to enjoy freedom, pleasure and wealth.

The failures of liberalism are exemplified in four distinct yet connected areas which are i) politics and government; ii) economics; iii) education; and science and technology. Looking at these four sectors, PD makes the main points as follows:

• Politics: Citizens revolt against their own governments which they elected, the “establishment” and the political class, feeling too much distance from them. Government is deemed to be an entity separate from the will of the people and constraining the very rights of conscience, religion and association. Government is too big and Orwellian in nature for PD with unsurpassed capacities for surveillance and control of movement, finances, deeds and thoughts, while the people, being actually lost, ironically and perversely demand more intervention from the government.

• Economics: Civic unhappiness is mirrored in economic discontent as citizens are reduced to being “consumers”. They can buy everything and increasingly so but consumerism does not erase economic angst and unhappiness of over-anxiety. All the while PD recognises that there will likely always be inequality in society, especially at the geographic level and this, increasingly, globally (with a gap between metropolitan elites and rural populists, very much as described by Gideon Rachman in the 1st August issue of the FT). Similarly PD believes globalisation will not stop and is an inevitable process as “the wages of freedom are bondage to economic inevitability”. 

• Education: The rising generation feels forced to adopt an economic and political model they fear, making them cynics about their future and being part of an order they despise. They play the game, but without joy or love, as they have no choice, feeling (en)trapped. They have to become “meritocrats out of a survivalist instinct”. Advanced liberalism and elite universities are eliminating liberal education and    reducing students, citizens in the making, as followers of a system “sifting the        economically viable from those who will be mocked for their backward views on trade, immigration, nationhood and religious beliefs”. Universities focus on practical learning outcomes with the only goal to make students immediately employable.

• Science and technology: Students are encouraged today to study a STEM discipline (science, tech, engineering and maths) as the greatest tools of liberation from various forms of bondage and effectively to “control or master nature” finding its roots in Francis Bacon arguing that “knowledge is power”. PD believes we hold the  incoherent view that science can liberate us from some human limits. He feels that we are too used to follow science on issues like climate change, ignoring that “the crisis is the result of longstanding triumphs of science and technology”. PD believes that tech and its multiple tools make us prisoners instead of liberating us, foregoing  long simple reading and meditation that we can no longer afford due to tech addiction. Connecting tech de facto makes us alone together.

PD goes in more details in these four areas in six chapters which are: Unsustainable liberalism; Uniting liberalism and statism; Liberalism and anti-culture; Technology and the loss of liberty; The new aristocracy; and The degradation of citizenship.

These chapters are very rich in arguments about PD’s demise of liberalism and are indeed worth reading.

PD of course offers in his last chapter a raft of recipes to correct all the ills created by liberalism which I will let you read and fit his very conservative nature and tendency to go for “small is beautiful”.

Not so fast, Pat…

Clearly we are not on the same page, even if I feel PD is not wrong (for me) on all issues (like some of Trump’s policies could be agreed with, if never his style). While the point here is not to make a counter argument to PD’s, I would like to throw in some less sophisticated though fact-based realities to his well argued but somewhat dry academic postulate.

PD’s approach strikes as being very scholarly with the likely objective of giving credibility to his arguments, even if at times conveying a sense of artificiality to his reasoning, as if wanting to provide his captive audience, who badly needs a rational basis for their destructive stances, with some academic veneer of respectability. While well argued scholastically, PD’s book seems detached from reality today while claiming to be so close to the “real people” and what they feel, as if our world not upholding all the tenets of ancient Greece or all of the fundamentals of the Founding Fathers were proof enough that we were doomed and that liberalism should be sent to the dustbin of history. This feel-good populist tutorial as to why we are so wrong about the world we live in – a.k.a. liberalism – feels a bit easy even if well argued on the surface, though with too many self-evident truths lacking in depth evidence. “All things come to an end” is easy and again simple as a message. Who could argue? PD’s book is an answer to a rising scream of the left outs and discontents for change and a demand for alternatives, not knowing how to evaluate what they could be (he tries hard for them) and wanting simple answers to complex questions they at times don’t fully see nor grasp, so much the existential anger is a driver.

Liberalism to put it simply has been behind the massive historical rise in GDP we know especially in the West, the empowering of many, the lifting off poverty of millions if not billions, the best answer to tyranny, indeed the right of vote for all in many countries (sadly not all) but also the American civil rights achievements, and peace in Europe for 75 years…The list of achievements is too long here and you get the drift. It is very easy to forget these. We are all getting richer as a group and GDPs keep growing. That there are disparities (with the famed one percent getting richer) and some feel left out and forgotten by growth is undeniable. However, that liberalism can and will be perfected (like say the European Union to my British friends) is clear. While having been a bulwark against tyranny that is so easily forgotten, liberalism can be perfected as it is based on humanity that is imperfect (think of me) but can always redeem itself. Liberalism has always been a work in progress that is adaptable to ever-changing times as we, the citizens, shape through it, our destinies.

Elections should actually not be seen by liberalism’s haters as rigged given DT’s and the Brexit wins (a FT reader and Brexiter shared recently his belief that democratic decisions should be upheld, thus backing a very liberal concept even if one can argue in that case that democracy can also allow voters to change their minds two years and thousands of facts later). Democracy keeps producing unhappy voters as they are rarely happy as a state of being, with a gap between promises and reality even if the system works well incrementally (Macron, while bringing much needed improvements to the French Republic, is at a 32% satisfaction rate one year later). Big government which is the main target of PD is there to stay as it is hard to believe that national, not to mention regional issues or the Moon conquest could be dealt with by small Phalansterian communities, which if charming in nature, would have little clout to effect real and durable change on major issues.

PD’s views on education, while interesting, are a bit simplistic. Liberal education, which rightly needs to be fought for, is far from dead and still allows students to know “how to think” leading them to a vast choice of avenues in further education or the job market. PD should read Fareed Zakaria’s “In defence of a liberal education” as while they share the same view as to its importance, Fareed also focuses on why there is the world “liberal” in liberal education. The decline in liberal education may have been a temporary matter and clearly has been noticed with steps being taken even if there are great market needs for STEM graduates. I can only think of the many young college graduates with a History major I know and whom I struggle to debate with so much their thinking have been crafted by the best, and by the way many of them are also going into and much desired by strategy consulting (the “investment banking” of today for grads) in what would be an upside down way for PD. Meritocracy, another enemy, is also about hard work, not sheer money or roots – or “generational succession” and even today, regardless of financial considerations, allowing more or less all to succeed particularly in well-endowed elite U.S. universities if they work for it. And yes, one’s background matters. And yes, parents want their kids to succeed and if they come from good universities, they will be more likely than not to wish their offsprings to follow their paths (which does not mean that so-called “legacy” is great and it should not be left out, which in practical terms it is by and large the case judging from many irate parents I know). And let’s be clear, as Churchill could have said, selection is the fairest of all the unfair tools at our disposal. There are less slots in elite institutions than they are talented candidates and admission committees often follow their “reason that reason can ignore”, making it like a black box as to why Julie is in and not Max. And even looking more broadly at the whole spectrum of higher education, not everybody is gifted for it so trade schools should be re-emphasised, also as there is a great need for special tradecraft and many people would reach a satisfied professional existence if following that path. Finally not everybody in the world can make it to and at university as there are circumstances that fate gives us that one cannot overcome – but again the nice idea in some quarters that university should be for all actually means it would be for no one (lowering standards, like what may have happened with the French “Bac” at the end of high school some years ago made for happiness with a piece of paper but frustration later as both universities and the job market naturally reacted, showing for the former a staggering percentage of first year students not being able to go further and being lost on an unclear path). We live in an imperfect world though one where liberalism has allowed a large number of students to learn how to think as well as, if they chose to, to learn a practical trade and contribute to a growing society. At the end of the day, education, even in a competitive liberal world, is the single most important passport that parents, if they can, should focus on early on for their children, this at every level and regardless of socio-economic conditions, so they are best prepared for what is life.

PD’s views on science and education can resonate in part. Tech can indeed bring a sense of efficiency while it does destroy many things that makes our lives, some of which many of us would argue should likely not be sacrificed on the altar of progress and evolution. Amazon comes to mind. While it is hard to negate science and the advancements it has given the world at large, it is true that some aspects of the tech revolution can be of concern in terms of lesser interaction and thinking, focusing on the medium and not the substance. One does not need to hate liberalism to agree with the “Alone Together” as Sherry Turkle, the Harvard-trained and MIT professor did a few years back. However it is hard to follow PD on science and climate change as if something called fact-based rationality was in the way. If we cannot use science to assess climate change, would the tea leaves do?

I was not sure Yale should play that “fair” in pushing forward such an articulate yet quite dangerous piece of thinking that unwittingly or not lends credibility to populism, something it is dead set against value-wise. However once again, the approach of liberalism in its opening the debate to its would be destroyers is its inherent strength and guarantor of success, if citizens can understand fully the stakes of the game.

To be fair, PD does not attack everything linked to the Western liberal world and liberalism as we know it. One can agree with him on many of the ills but not on his views that liberalism needs to go to the graveyard. Liberalism can be constantly improved, which many if not all of the other applied philosophies and programmes of easy answers to complex problematics, however attractive and soothing, cannot provide.

I wish you an enjoyable and focused read (as it can be arduous at times), believing that the opponents to liberalism should be heard (and they certainly are today) and their philosophy known also so it can be fought equally fiercely with facts and not just scholarly tenets.

I dedicate this book note to Michael and my dear friends who felt that “whom should govern us” was the key issue, with their heads saying “yes” and hearts “out” on that key June question, hoping that all goes as well as it can (for all) next year and beyond, though hoping even more that the sovereign people can indeed revisit the matter given the “facts” they now should know better.

Warmest regards,

Serge

Serge Desprat- 9th August, 2018 (La Bernerie en Retz)

1-8-18

Dear Partners in thought,

As we are in mid-summer, I wanted to go back to novels but still keeping the international affairs feel to these book notes, I decided to go the spy novel route. One of the best spy novelists today in my book (pun intended) is American author Daniel Silva who since 1996 has nearly written a book a year, the last 18 focusing on Gabriel Allon, the now legendary Israeli “Office” agent (read Mossad). DS publishes his book every year in mid-July and just released “The Other Woman”, which is the 18th book of the Allon series. To me DS is the new, though less with an axe to grind, great John Le Carré to whom he resembles greatly in his ability to project the world of intelligence, mixing strategy, tactics, atmosphere, tradecraft, services interactions and indeed sheer action, the latter which is always a by-product of the story and not its main focus (in other words, the Allon series is for the thinking man and woman, who “also like” some action along the way but are more into the “hunt”). His latest novel “The Other Woman” particularly shows DS’s strong reliance on intelligence history with a focus on one of the most famous 20th century British spies (I will say no more but his mix of fiction and history is especially unique and credible, this in his dealing with all the major intelligence players globally).

DS went squarely away from the traditional CIA, MI6 or fictional intelligence service hero. Instead he chose to depict the adventures of Gabriel Allon, a veteran agent of the Israeli external intelligence service and also a top art restorer, giving us a very original blend of hero. Allon is working with a tightly knit team comprising well-depicted characters all of whom have grown with us over the last 20 years (I confess I started reading DS back in 1996, even corresponding with him on details of his pieces, giving him then some needed guidance on France). Not surprisingly he was a journalist with UPI and then joined CNN, with stints in the Middle East, which explains the wealth of his story crafting, attention to details and historical accuracy that is topped up by a great writing style making reading the Allon novels a real pleasure for the eye and the mind. Selecting the Mossad (well, The Office in the books), entrusted to protect the interests of the state of Israel, was not easy so much the intel service is unsurpassed and the country always “different”, to treat with care, especially today given its current premiership and some of the policies of Israel, which may not make it the most popular country in all quarters globally. However DS, never taking a strong side on policy matters has kept stressing the reasons why Israel always benefited, especially early on and in the West, from much support and admiration, partly driven by guilt, partly by respect for its many achievements, often alone against many. DS is a Catholic by birth, converted to Judaism (as he married Jamie Gangel, then a well known CNN reporter), who went deeply into Jewish matters as shown with his board membership of the Holocaust organisation in New York City.

Gabriel Allon, his main character, is a “Sabra” whose first language is German and was raised a secular Jew in the valley of Jezreel. His mother, Irene, is an Holocaust survivor from Berlin while his Munich-born father (not much mentioned) would die in the Six-Day War in 1966. He is a fluent speaker in many languages (helpful in his trade). His grandfather was a well known Expressionist painter from Berlin passing his talents to Irene before being killed at Auschwitz in 1943 while his mother kept the tradition and bestowed Gabriel with very special skills that will make him an art restorer. He comes out of art school in 1972 to be part of one of the Munich massacre revenge hit teams, hired by Ari Shamron, a putative father, to go after Black September terrorists. He will then live as Mario Delvecchio in Cornwall as an art restorer, leaving his Office past behind. His life however is changed when his family is victim in turn of a revenge terrorist car bombing in Vienna in 1991. He will then come back to work at the behest of Shamron and Western intelligence leaders in need of his particular skillset and experience, until he becomes head of The Office in 2016, having been one of its most senior members and souls. Of note in Judaism, the archangel “Gabriel” is the guardian angel of the State of Israel and is often “sent” by God, also at times to deliver His wrath, which is befitting Allon’s profession and origin.

Allon, although a fictional character (though is he?) operates in a world where leaders are who they are in real life even if never named by DS (In the latest opus, we know the American President is a departure from the standard White House leadership while the Israeli Premier is dealing with personal financial matters risking derailing the longest tenure of a PM since David Ben-Gurion). Allon and his team project teamwork and professionalism, facing many foes ranging from Middle Eastern and Iranian terrorists, to bad Russian oligarchs, to elements in the Russian SVR (my profuse apologies to all my Russian friends part of the network though I am sure there must be good Russian spy novels where the Westerners act as baddies), to neo-nazi organisations, shady Swiss bankers and rogue Vatican outfits, while working closely with the CIA, much with MI5 and 6 and even the French DGSE, very much part of the Western team. There is an element of continuity as the characters grow with the books over the years. Allon, whose three main residences, depending on the story, are Venezia, London and today Jerusalem, is also an art restorer with art as a key theme being often the initial focus of the stories, at times quite deeply ensconced into the international intrigue, with the looting of art pieces during WWII being often visited.

I know many of you, like me, have been fond of the recently departed Philip Kerr’s Bernie Gunther novels. I think Silva has the same authorship quality even if his hero is more of a hero than Bernie could ever be (indeed a anti-hero if there was ever one, though possibly explained by his German nationality and background role in Nazi Germany even if not a Nazi himself) and does not ask himself existential questions as you would expect from an efficient Mossad leader. However the art dimension gives Gabriel some humanity which may equate that of Bernie’s conscience in hell on earth.

DS’s books, published about once a year since July 1996, are as follows:

The early books

The unlikely Spy (1996) – Early 1944 before D-Day. A female German intelligence sleeper agent will try to know where the landings are planned. A game of cat and mouse is on with the fate of the war at stake. This novel made DS but he was still searching for his “genre”.

The Mark of the Assassin (1998) – Michael Osbourne, CIA, investigates a plane bombing off Long Island and risks everything to uncover the truth. DS tries to find a way and has the will for it.

The Marching Season (1999) – Michael Osbourne, retired from CIA, comes back to work on rescuing his U.S. Senator father in law in line to be the next Ambassador to the Court of Saint-James’s. This will end the literary career of Osbourne with DS focusing next on something he “feels” more about.

The Gabriel Allon (“GA”) series

The Kill Artist (2000) – Gabriel Allon, Israeli art restorer living in England, comes back from his retirement from intelligence, to assist his former boss, the legendary head of The Office, Ari Sharon, to hunt for the killer of the Israeli ambassador in Paris, who is also GA’s nemesis. GA who was part of one of the Munich 1972 teams that went after the killers of Israeli athletes and paid a terrible price years later for his involvement is going to settle some accounts once and for all.

The English Assassin (2002) – GA now works part-time with The Office though is framed for a murder he did not commit in Switzerland, getting involved in the matter of looted paintings during WWII and dealing with a secretive elite group of Swiss bankers and businessmen determined to protect the reputation of Switzerland at all costs, leading to fierce developments.

The Confessor (2003) – GA investigates the murder of Jewish scholar Benjamin Stern in Munich and, doing so, gets involved with The Vatican and his new Pope who wants to candidly shed light on the role of the Church during the Holocaust, prompting some strong feedback from the conservative wing of the Vatican that will defend the reputation of the Church at all costs.

Death in Vienna (2004) – An Israeli-run Holocaust research office in Vienna is destroyed. GA gets involved in the dark world of Nazi war criminals and neo-nazi organisations that protect them, finding some very personal reasons to go after the culprits. The Vatican gets involved again, together with Langley, confirming some post-war odd friendships of circumstances, and a hunt leading to Argentina ensues, while GA needs to deal with a professional killer sent to stop him.

Prince of Fire (2005) – The Rome Israeli embassy is bombed, leading GA to take a fuller role at The Office, working with a team that will be seen in later books. The team finds out that a descendant of Palestinian warlords, now a carefully reconstructed renowned French archeologist, may be the leader of the Rome bombing and other terrorist attacks.

The Messenger (2006) – GA uncovers a plan to kill the Pope, which drives him to investigate likely terrorist suspects among Vatican staff and infiltrating the network of a terrorist financier, leading to the man behind many terrorist activities and the plan against the Pope. It turns out that the main target also involves another major world leader.

The Secret Servant (2007) – GA goes to Amsterdam for a routine mission of purging the archives of a murdered Dutch terrorism analyst who was also an asset of Israeli Intelligence and discovers a conspiracy festering in the city’s Islamic underground targeting the American diplomatic community.

Moscow Rules (2008) – GA is approached by the editor of Moskovsky Gazeta about imminent threats to the West and Israel where a well known Russian arms dealer may be involved and senior members of the FSB play on all sides.

The Defector (2009) – GA continues his Russian adventures, trying to rescue a kidnapped Russian defector who sets him on a lethal course with the Russian arms dealer of Moscow Rules.

The Rembrandt Affair (2010) – GA and his team seek to recover a lost Rembrandt painting whose previous owners have included both Holocaust victims and terrorists. The book is focused on art theft and its links with terrorism and related activities.

Portrait of a Spy (2011) – A pair of bombings in Paris and Amsterdam have erupted while GA is unable to stop a third attack at Covent Garden. GA will face the new face of terror in an American-born cleric of Yemeni descent, once a paid CIA asset. GA will need to work with the art collector daughter of an arch-enemy who can traverse the murky divide between radical Islam and the West.

The Fallen Angel (2012) – The book is mostly set in Italy with GA helping Monsignor Luigi Donati, the Pope’s private secretary with a murder case that is troubling the Vatican given its location beneath Michelangelo’s dome in St. Peter’s Basilica. The story taking its roots in the art world leads to a smuggling art network with links to terrorists planning a major attack with apocalyptic consequences.

The English Girl (2013) – The mistress of the British PM is kidnapped in Corsica, prompting Sir Graham Seymour, Head of MI6 to request the assistance of GA in what is a delicate matter. GA starts working with a colourful Corsican crime boss and Christopher Keller, a new recurring character, former SAS officer believed dead in Iraq. All is not what it seems.

The Heist (2014) – Once again, this book is focused on the recovery of stolen art. GA is in Venice restoring a Veronese and will rescue an old friend, St. James’s art dealer, Julian Isherwood, unwittingly in the grips of Italian justice for being at a grisly murder scene. The dead man is a former British spy doubling as an art trafficker having dealt with one Caravaggio too many. Another hunt where shady Vienna bankers, Marseilles and Corsica criminals abound.

The English Spy (2015) – An iconic member of the British Royal Family is killed when a bomb explodes on her yacht. British intelligence asks GA to investigate, leading to targeting Eamon Quinn, a master bomber and mercenary. Christopher Keller, joins anew the ride in what they will find out they face old enemies.

The Black Widow (2016) – GA is now expected to become the chief of Israel’s secret intelligence service though on the eve of his promotion a massive ISIS bomb detonates in Le Marais district in Paris, killing an old relationship of GA. Enters Saladin.

House of Spies (2017) – GA is still on the hunt for Saladin, shadowy ISIS mastermind, four months after the deadliest attack on American soil since 9-11. He will soon go to Southern France where terrorists share the company of art dealers and models in Saint-Tropez.

The Other Woman (2018) – GA is about to organise the defection of an SVR agent in Vienna when he is killed with a set up to make the world believe The Office and GA did the deed, making him and New Russia engaging in an epic, final struggle, where a KGB mole of old, still in place, stands at the doorstep of the ultimate power.

You will discover alongside Gabriel Allon a cast comprising regular “friendly” characters who indeed grow with the books. Some of the key ones are Ari Shamron (legendary, on and off, now retired head of The Office, Polish-born from Lviv); Julian Isherwood (né Izakowitz, St. James’s art dealer and GA’s often partner and main link to that other world); Eli Lavon (Head of the Watchers at the Office and professor of biblical archeology); Chiara Zolli (now Allon, retired Venice-based Office agent); Uzi Navot (Ex-head of Paris station and Western Europe, then DG of The Office prior to GA in 2016); Christopher Keller (ex- SAS officer presumed dead, resurrected and now part of MI6); Mikhail Abramov (Moscow- born special forces officer at Sayeret Matkal and one of GA’s enforcers); Yaakov Rossman (Office head of special forces); Rimona Stern (Shamron’s niece, ex-IDF Intelligence Major and Iran nuclear specialist); Dina Said (Head of research, the encyclopaedic memory of The Office); Graham Seymour (cautious Oxbridge educated head of MI6, having had an extensive intelligence career in the defence of the realm); Adrian Carter (longtime deputy director of operations now head of clandestine services, CIA – Langley through and through); Paul Rousseau (Pipe-smoking head of the counter-terrorism section of Alpha Team, French DGSI); Don Orsatti (crime lord, from some remote location with high walls in Corsica); Sarah Bancroft (Engaging CIA case officer, in an on and off relationship with Abramov). One point which is amusing is that GA has never been a young guy, being around since 2001 so the maths are a bit on the tough side here though he seems to be permanently in his late 50s which, being 58 myself, I find eminently acceptable and reassuring. When one reaches that noble age, one obviously stops getting older.

Just so you know, if I may be facetious and as I am sure you were wondering, like DS I am a born and raised Catholic, quite secular these days even if applying many of the faith’s principles (except the other cheek). However, we never know our roots too well, and quoting my better half’s very witty grandfather, himself from the Jewish faith having married Catholic Sophie in a second wedding for both: “Well I don’t know whether Serge is Jewish or not but I only have one question…Ashkenazi or Sephardic?” As it turns out, I discovered only a few years back that my maternal grandfather was such as a result of a post-war re-marriage and that my real grandfather was a a sculptor who died at a young age in 1943 (ok that is quite short and there would be no female bloodline, but…). Maybe I am GA’s forgotten brother after all? 😉

I dedicate this note to Ron, a thinking leader among leaders and one of the most private and caring men I have been fortunate to know. I also dedicate this note to Alain, the “real thing”, a patriot who inspired me so much as a young man. Stay well, cousin.

I wish you all a great read and wonderful escape in the dark world of contemporary espionage with an unusually differentiated flavour.

Warmest regards, or should I say Shalom!

Serge

Serge Desprat- 1st August, 2018 (Prague)