0:00

listening to the monocle daily first broadcast

0:02

on the sixteenth of November twenty twenty two

0:04

or monocle twenty

0:05

four. NATO ambassadors consider

0:07

their response to yesterday's apparent

0:09

inadvertent bombing of Poland. Donald

0:12

Trump steps up for a third swing

0:14

at winning the popular vote. And are

0:16

we yet ready to hand broadcast media

0:18

over to machines? I'm Andrew

0:20

Mueller. Or am I? The monocle daily starts

0:23

now.

0:35

Hello, and welcome to the monocle daily coming

0:37

to from our studios here at Midori House in

0:39

London by Andrew Mueller. My guest, Yasmin

0:41

Abdul Najeed, and Quentin Peale will discuss

0:43

today's big stories. And we'll hear from the

0:45

former Hungarian MP, Suzanna Saleni,

0:48

about her new book chronicling the descent

0:50

of her former comrade, Viktor Orban,

0:53

into paranoid populism. Stay

0:55

tuned, all that, and more coming up right here.

0:57

on the monocle daily. This

1:04

is the monocle daily. I'm Andrew Mueller, and

1:06

I'm joined today by the writer and broadcaster

1:08

Yasmin Abdul Majeed, and by Quentin

1:10

Peale, Associate Fellow with the Europe program,

1:12

at Chatham House. Hello to you both? Hello.

1:15

Okay. As we were just discussing,

1:18

and this is the bit where I am

1:20

basically extending the pre show

1:22

chat into the light introductory banter

1:24

at the top of the program, you, Yasmeen,

1:27

are going to Villeneers for Christmas

1:28

Yes. I'm doing a residency in

1:31

Lithuania in Villas for the month

1:33

of December working as one

1:35

does on the novel. And

1:38

and, you know, who will we'll see what happens

1:40

if, you know, when I'm next on in January

1:42

in Charlotte, if the novel is done, I'll be able

1:44

to talk about it. If not, I just will never mention

1:46

it again.

1:46

One of the greatest ever private eye cartoons

1:49

is that one of two men at a party, one saying

1:51

to the other, I'm writing a other one replied,

1:53

really, neither am I. Quentin,

1:56

do you do you have any exciting, exotic, or

1:58

indeed literary Christmas plans? too

2:01

early to be talking about Christmas plans. Almost

2:03

certainly, but we're on a roll now.

2:06

No. I don't. But I've just been to Strasbourg

2:08

where I went to a very very

2:11

and sort of reassuring conference

2:15

on the future of democracy where there was

2:17

really good gathering of young people even

2:20

if everybody was feeling or a

2:22

little bit down there. Was it actually billed

2:24

as a reassuring conference? I quite liked that

2:26

idea. Not really. There's

2:28

just like a big gathering of basically

2:30

upbeat optimistic people who'll just go it's

2:32

it's it'll be fine. I'd sign up for

2:34

that. I went to expecting

2:36

it to be really glum, and it

2:38

was not quite as glum as I

2:40

thought it was gonna be. Well, starting

2:43

in while staying in Europe for our first

2:45

item. Today in Brussels, NATO

2:47

ambassadors have been meeting to consider

2:49

responses to last night's incident in

2:51

which a missile landed on a Polish village

2:53

killing two people. In the last few

2:55

hours, NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg,

2:58

has said that it looks likely other than not that

3:00

the missile was fired by Ukraine

3:02

in a bid to bring down one of the dozens

3:04

of missiles fired at Ukraine

3:07

by Russia yesterday Earlier today

3:09

on the briefing, I was joined here in the studio

3:11

by Richard Cheriff, retired British General

3:13

and NATO's former deputy supreme allied

3:16

commander, Europe. here is a bit of what

3:18

he had to say. We should remember this

3:20

was a brutal onslaught by

3:22

Russian missiles, yet again,

3:24

on Ukraine, I think we should also

3:26

add good for Ukraine that that that the

3:28

number shutdown was much higher proportionately

3:31

than on previous, which shows that the arguably,

3:33

that the air defense systems are are getting through

3:35

and having an effect. I think the message

3:38

it sends though is the West

3:40

has got a double down not only

3:42

on providing The means

3:44

the military means to allow Ukraine to

3:46

defend itself and to retake

3:48

its territory. But the West

3:50

NATO needs to look to its own capabilities

3:53

and be prepared for the worst case, as indeed I've

3:55

been saying since the twenty fourth of February. That

3:57

was former deputy supreme allied commander

3:59

Europe general, Richard Cheriff, speaking to

4:01

us earlier for the latest I'm joined now

4:04

by O'Reilly Pune, deputy editor

4:06

in chief and a reporter on NATO for

4:08

Bouygues Ader. First of all,

4:10

what's your impression of the tone

4:12

of today's communicators from NATO? Has

4:14

it mostly been about trying to calm

4:17

things down? I

4:18

think it has. I think this is this has

4:20

been the way NATO has always operated

4:22

since the beginning of the war. It's been really

4:24

about trying not to escalate the situation,

4:27

about really trying to step back,

4:29

making sure NATO does not

4:31

give Russia any sort of pretext to

4:33

keep attacking Ukraine, keep

4:35

trying in gaining ground, and all of this

4:37

Soton bag stayed, that he firm,

4:40

there was no university, there was

4:42

no

4:43

nothing in his turn that could also make his feeling

4:45

like nature was going to go

4:46

outside of these parameters that

4:49

are the ones that they set since the very beginning

4:51

of the war. And he

4:53

remained very clear. This war is illegal

4:55

and the allies would sent by Ukraine.

4:58

And this is not Ukraine thought. He

5:00

was very clear

5:00

about that too, about the fact that

5:02

even if it was I

5:04

it mean,

5:06

even if it is a a

5:08

Ukraine missile that did hit

5:10

Poland in the end, which

5:11

we don't know for sure yet.

5:12

this was Russia's

5:15

fault because they did start

5:17

the war at the very beginning.

5:18

Amid that

5:20

reassurance that Stoltenberg issued

5:23

and and calm adherence to the

5:25

rules is very much Stoltenberg's default

5:27

setting. Did did he did he say anything

5:29

that he or NATO as an entity

5:31

hasn't said before in the last

5:33

eight or nine months?

5:35

Not really. No. And he's

5:37

he's kept a very

5:38

decline. Everything that

5:40

we do expect actually out of NATO,

5:43

which is to or that that

5:44

we do expect out of him, it is to make

5:47

sure that we stay calm

5:49

and he mentioned the need for investigation

5:51

and we do need attribution. to

5:55

know where this messiah has

5:57

come from, who

5:58

fired them,

5:59

why to where?

6:02

Because they landed in Poland, but they were

6:04

clearly not meant to lend there. And

6:06

he did mention, again,

6:08

that the iron the

6:09

the article five clause

6:12

is that important and allies then together

6:14

in United against Russia and any

6:16

other attack that could come their way?

6:18

this time twenty

6:20

four hours ago or a little less than

6:22

twenty four hours ago, it did look worryingly

6:25

like this might become an extremely

6:27

significant moment in this conflict

6:29

and not in a good way. Is

6:32

that still possible though? Could this

6:34

be? Or do you get any sense that Nato

6:36

were thinking this could be some

6:39

sort of pivotal moment, which

6:41

enables the neither to increase

6:43

the supply of better surface

6:46

to wear capability to Ukraine or,

6:49

I guess, further ink

6:51

red lines on Russia's behavior.

6:53

I

6:53

think Nato is going to keep

6:56

delivering equipment. So you can even

6:58

though not only though which has been a very

7:00

significant. part

7:02

of the line of NATO since

7:04

the very beginning. We are not I mean NATO

7:06

is not supporting Ukraine by anything

7:09

related to lethal equipments.

7:11

I mean, it was, I

7:13

think, twenty four hours ago. I think the the

7:15

world was really, really, really worried.

7:18

Could that be we're

7:20

we're starting basically tomorrow

7:22

and what happens in Poland. And I think

7:24

we are still asking ourselves Everyone

7:26

is still asking themselves those questions,

7:28

and NATO is

7:29

still as well.

7:31

Everyone keeps mentioning the fact that the investigation

7:33

is still going on. Everything that we do

7:36

know is that, basically, what

7:38

the Russians said last night, it

7:40

it it was not

7:40

fired by Russia.

7:42

onto Poland. So this

7:44

is what we know so far. And I think

7:47

what

7:47

we learned is it's

7:50

also by

7:51

telling how the Poles reacted and

7:53

how the West reacted, which was they stay

7:55

calm, they stay united,

7:56

kid everyone

7:57

stands by Poland. And before

7:59

escalating and maybe playing the

8:02

game of, okay, you attack. We're

8:04

gonna reply without really looking

8:06

into it, then we might as well take a

8:08

stay back. And then try

8:09

and keep our headquarter. Arlai

8:12

Peunier at Ruida. Thank you for

8:14

joining us. I do want to bring in the

8:16

panel on this as well. quentin,

8:19

first of all, as we were just discussing,

8:21

it was an extremely anxious

8:23

moment about

8:25

this time last night, which is not to belittle

8:27

the series in of the event two people

8:29

died and considerable damage

8:31

was done to an entirely blameless Polish

8:34

village, but does this or should

8:36

this reemphasize the

8:38

danger here of, well, escalation

8:40

by accident? Yes. I'm

8:42

unsure that that is is a real

8:45

possibility. And and therefore, that's

8:47

why, perhaps, people overreacted. I mean,

8:49

to be absolutely honest, right from

8:51

the start, I thought, hang on. this doesn't

8:53

really sound like a deliberate

8:55

onslaught on Poland. So

8:58

I think that what we've seen from

9:00

NATO has been quite

9:02

an anxiety not

9:05

to go down the Article

9:07

five route. We've got to all

9:09

gang together and and attack

9:11

Russia. So they they were

9:13

pretty quick, really, all things

9:15

considered, to row back and say,

9:17

whoops, this isn't a Russian attack.

9:19

And just to talk about Ukraine's

9:21

reaction and with all

9:23

due acknowledgment of the fact that they

9:25

have every reason to have

9:27

entirely run out of patients with this

9:29

entire scenario. A couple of

9:31

major Ukrainian officials rather

9:34

did jump the gun somewhat. yesterday

9:37

saying that this was, you know, a

9:39

deliberate attempt by Russia to escalate,

9:41

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. does

9:43

Ukraine though have kind of an

9:45

opportunity here to, I

9:47

guess, further entrench themselves on

9:49

the moral high ground by saying yes,

9:51

that was us. It was a mistake. We

9:53

are terribly sorry. At which point they

9:55

are entitled to make the point that

9:57

the only reason we launched the thing was

9:59

that hundreds of missiles were being launched

10:02

to us. Well, Ukraine sort

10:04

of has the moral high ground already.

10:06

Right? They've they've sort of and they've been

10:08

coming from a

10:08

position of we have been invaded. This is

10:11

an illegal

10:11

war. All we want to do is,

10:13

you know, Zelensky

10:14

sort of saying we want peace and and the

10:16

question of what

10:16

victory looks -- Mhmm.

10:18

-- is still something that is that

10:20

is being negotiated to some extent.

10:23

But it is, you you know,

10:25

Ukraine is in the position of constantly defending

10:27

itself. Whether or not they will sort

10:29

of put their hands up and say, you know, this

10:31

is this hundred percent us. It

10:33

depends on, I think, how the investigation

10:35

goes. But I also think that

10:37

it is an opportunity perhaps

10:39

for them to continue

10:41

to put pressure on the west and

10:43

on NATO. And of course, NATO, I

10:46

mean, not wanting to

10:48

escalate. I think it is it's It's

10:50

a real challenge at the

10:51

moment for all of the leaders

10:52

in or all of the countries in NATO

10:55

because everybody is dealing with their

10:57

own domestic challenges. And I think there is very

10:59

little appetite for it to

11:01

escalate in any way. So, I

11:03

mean, yes, there is an opportunity. But

11:05

in a sense, part of me thinks everybody

11:07

kind of wants this to go away. I don't even

11:09

think Putin would be interested necessarily

11:11

in an escalation to this

11:13

extent. So So perhaps it was

11:15

in everybody's interest to sort of say, alright,

11:17

let's let's take a deep breath as, you

11:19

know, as

11:19

the previous speaker was saying, take

11:21

a deep breath and and

11:24

take stock again of where we are. And, you

11:26

know, Putin is on the

11:27

back foot at the moment. And so

11:29

there is this opportunity, I think,

11:31

you know, to again ask, like,

11:33

what do we want? What do we want the resolution

11:35

of this to look like?

11:36

Well, let's move along with due

11:39

trepidation and reluctance to

11:41

the United States where former president

11:43

Donald Trump wobbled back onto the

11:45

political stage last night seeking

11:47

an encore. Here is an

11:49

excerpt of what he had to bubble.

11:51

Together, we will be taking on the most

11:53

corrupt forces and entrenched

11:55

interests imaginable. Our

11:58

country is in a

11:59

horrible state. We're in grave

12:02

trouble.

12:02

This is not a task for a politician or

12:05

a conventional candidate. This is

12:07

a task for a great movement. that

12:10

embodies the courage, confidence, and

12:12

the spirit of the American people.

12:14

This is a movement. This is not

12:16

for any one individual

12:18

There's a job for

12:20

tens of millions of proud people

12:22

working together from all across the land

12:24

and from all walks of life,

12:26

young and old,

12:27

black and white Hispanic and Asian, many

12:29

of

12:29

whom we have brought together for

12:32

the very very first time

12:33

Only a couple of weeks ago,

12:36

Trump would have imagined delivering this speech

12:38

against the backdrop of a Republican

12:40

triumph in last week's midterm elections

12:42

led by his personally endorsed vanguard

12:45

of cranks coop's head mangers and

12:47

weirdos. This however

12:49

largely declined to occur

12:51

Indeed, the biggest winner of the midterms was Trump's

12:53

likelyest rival for the GOP nomination,

12:56

fellow Florida man governor

12:58

Ron DeSantis. Yes, I mean, first of

13:00

all, are you excited to have Donald

13:02

Trump back? I don't

13:03

have fun. I mean, even just

13:05

listening to that little accent, it may

13:07

I I almost it's almost AAA

13:10

satire of itself in a way. Like, I'm like, is

13:12

this a sketch? You know? Is this and

13:14

and you're like, oh, are we going to have to be in

13:16

the position of discussing this man again,

13:18

you know, taking the the amount

13:20

of airtime.

13:21

III was summoned back

13:24

to four years ago when I was almost

13:26

certainly in this exact chair

13:28

confidently proclaiming this is

13:30

going nowhere.

13:32

Gosh, I mean, it is it is

13:35

also I mean, you know, as you say, it was

13:37

meant to be a bit against the backdrop of

13:39

of people predicting a red

13:41

wave. I think it was described as

13:43

a red

13:43

ripple, but I like I like to think of it as more

13:45

of a red ripple

13:46

or dribble really. But

13:48

it is interesting to think, you know,

13:50

a lot of the Republicans had

13:53

been sort of saying to Donald Trump, you know,

13:56

please delay your announcement to

13:58

run again and and he wasn't really

13:59

interested in that. And there is unfortunate significantly.

14:02

Whether we like it or not, there is a strong

14:04

base and it is possible, quite

14:06

possible that he will be elected

14:08

again as the Republican nominee

14:10

whether or not you know, the

14:12

ronda santas or as, you know,

14:14

Trump calls on the sanctimonias. I mean,

14:16

or we'll we'll be able

14:18

to be a worthy

14:20

challenger will be able to take enough of his

14:23

primary votes away remains to be seen. Rhonda

14:25

Santos is still very untested in the

14:27

national, you know, in Florida he's very, very

14:29

popular and was came back on a

14:31

landslide that, you know, untested in

14:33

the national electorate.

14:35

However, you know, it is concerning

14:37

because I don't think the country has changed.

14:39

I think the last years where Joe Biden

14:41

has seen the division

14:43

sown by Trump become more and more

14:45

entrenched. And so, unfortunately, I'm

14:47

sort of with trepidation

14:49

thinking, oh, gosh, we're back here.

14:51

Mhmm. And instead of talking about draining

14:53

the swamp, we're talking about whether you know,

14:55

the election we we have

14:57

to entertain conversations about

14:59

electoral fraud and and all

15:01

of these Yeah. Very I mean,

15:03

speaking of saving democracy, Clinton, I

15:05

think you're just like, oh my gosh. How do we

15:07

even conduct a conversation when

15:10

when the the

15:12

vote two years ago is considered

15:15

by the person who could

15:17

be the Republican nominee, non

15:20

existent or a lie.

15:21

And Quentin, what do you think his

15:24

chances are? Bookmakers for

15:26

what they're Well, for what the opinions of their

15:28

betters are worth now have Trump actually

15:30

slightly second favorite behind the

15:32

Sanders. He didn't face as obviously

15:34

a stronger contender for on

15:36

the Republican I mean, four years ago,

15:38

he was up against an absolute clown

15:40

car of of Republican

15:43

nominees. Some actually even

15:45

by some measurements more preposterous than Trump.

15:47

There was a Florida governor in the mix,

15:49

of course, Jed Bush, but but

15:51

DeSantis seems a a tougher nut for

15:53

Trump to crack, especially as the scientists

15:55

can now make the case that Florida

15:57

used to be a swing state. And now it's

16:00

not DeSantis can show

16:02

he's a winner because of his result,

16:04

whereas Trump is actually starting

16:06

to look a bit limp and

16:08

even within It sounded a bit

16:10

rung out in that quickly. It rumbled

16:12

on for now apparently. Wow.

16:14

People were trying to leave to hearth

16:16

and the security guards wouldn't

16:18

let them know. And that is You

16:21

know, I think that there is quite

16:23

a wobble within the republican

16:25

party precisely because the

16:27

midterms have been a big disappointment.

16:29

That was one of the reason why my

16:31

little conference in Strasbourg cheered

16:33

up because they don't hey, the

16:35

midterms show that the loonies are

16:37

no longer so likely

16:39

to really dictate what's gonna

16:41

happen in America. So I

16:44

actually I'm a little bit more sanguine

16:46

about the the democratic process in

16:48

America. I think that the

16:50

the election deniers the democracy

16:53

deniers are on the back foot again.

16:55

Yes, ma'am. There's been a notably

16:57

equivocal reaction by what we might think

16:59

of now as and

17:01

it's weird to talk about Fox and the New York Post as

17:04

this, the sort of more orthodox conservative

17:06

media because obviously there is now a whole

17:09

ecosystem way further out on

17:11

the fringes, which is obviously all

17:13

aboard for Trump. But Fox News kind

17:15

of zoned out of his address when he

17:17

started unraveling somewhat. The

17:19

New York Post, a newspaper, are

17:21

not always keen to, quote, or

17:23

indoors, but they relegated it to

17:25

a subhead along the bottom of the front

17:27

page, which was Florida demand makes

17:29

announcement. And and

17:32

the the small copy inside on Page

17:34

twenty six, referred

17:36

to him as a retiree and

17:38

an avid golfer. Wow. You

17:40

can really see the steam coming out of

17:42

his ears. Right.

17:43

Donald Trump's ears. I think what's interesting as

17:45

well is is Donald Trump will be

17:48

trying to get reelected without the motive press

17:50

behind him, you know? And so he's fallen

17:52

out with the mayor of president. And

17:54

and quite, you know, the twenty

17:56

sixteen

17:56

campaign was very much supported by

17:59

Fox

17:59

News and and by, you know, the the sort

18:02

of the talking heads repeating

18:04

his lines and reinforcing,

18:06

you know,

18:07

whatever messages that puts forward.

18:09

So it will be interesting to see who they

18:11

support more, who they who they sort

18:13

of push their viewers to

18:15

get behind. But it will be more challenging.

18:17

Also, you know, until this moment, I

18:19

don't believe he's been reinstated on Twitter. You

18:21

know, who knows what Elon Musk will do?

18:24

The the

18:24

it is a very different

18:27

situation. in twenty twenty

18:28

two than it was in twenty sixteen.

18:30

So perhaps perhaps that's a little

18:32

bit of hope. An illustration though,

18:35

Quintin, of the fact that some politicians,

18:37

although we did hear there from the former

18:39

actual president of the United States claiming he

18:41

wasn't a politician. But some

18:43

politics petitions really do struggle to know when

18:45

the jig is up? They do.

18:48

Yes. And I think that I

18:50

I thought that Trump would be so

18:53

hypersensitive that he would realize that

18:55

the game was up and therefore not do

18:57

what he's just done and throw his hat back

18:59

in the ring. But in fact, he seems

19:01

to be so thick skin that he

19:03

hasn't seen the damage coming and

19:05

that has happened to quite a

19:07

lot of lot of people in history. It's

19:09

a very hard thing to

19:11

get back into the game.

19:12

I think he misses being relevant

19:14

and misses being in the limelight. I think the the

19:16

sort of position of being president

19:18

gave him, you know, it's the ultimate reality

19:21

TV show for him. And so he I think there is

19:23

something about him not being able

19:25

to to sort of be in the limelight

19:27

and and sort of have

19:28

that millions of adoring fans can and because

19:30

a lot of his platforms were taken away. So I think

19:33

part of it is actually wanting to be

19:35

like, look, all the media is

19:37

talking about me, I'm as relevant and as

19:39

important. I don't think he actually

19:41

liked doing the governing, but he

19:43

liked being president. And that's I

19:45

think what people come back time and

19:47

time again, I think ultimately they love

19:49

that position. And we've

19:50

just seen Boris Johnson here

19:53

like he was going to come back in and

19:55

then suddenly bottle out of it in the

19:57

last minute. Cutting short that holiday

19:59

of his -- Yeah. they they should just do what

20:01

every other grouchy white guy with a Fiat

20:03

ego doesn't start a podcast.

20:06

We will move along to Shamill

20:08

Shake where COP twenty seven is

20:10

ongoing, and at least one prominent theme

20:12

is emerging that of climate

20:14

reparations. The idea here

20:16

is that the rich countries, which

20:18

have benefited industrialization, which

20:20

has caused climate change, should punt some

20:22

of that wealth to the poorer countries, which

20:24

find themselves on the receiving end of

20:27

climate change. At cop twenty seven so

20:29

far, seventy five point eight million US

20:31

dollars have been pledged in so

20:33

called loss and damage payments. certainly

20:35

better than nothing, but not much at

20:37

all when compared to, for example,

20:39

the damage done by the colossal

20:42

floods which swamped Pakistan earlier this

20:44

year. Yasmin, the

20:46

idea itself, we will deal with the

20:48

practicality shortly we've got a

20:50

few minutes. How hard can this be? But the idea

20:52

itself, is it fair enough?

20:54

I

20:54

think the question of climate justice

20:56

and framing it as a question of

20:59

justice I think is is something that has obviously,

21:01

you know,

21:03

essentially most of the global south or what

21:05

would be also called the developing countries.

21:08

sort of very strongly behind it. I mean, they

21:10

fought for this for the idea of loss and

21:12

damages to be on the agenda, and they fought quite hard.

21:14

And I think it actually delayed the beginning of

21:16

cop. And so And this is

21:18

something you know, some countries like the Pacific countries have

21:21

been talking about climate justice or

21:23

reparations for three decades. So this

21:25

is the first time and perhaps not

21:27

perhaps supported by the fact that it is the first crop

21:29

in Africa. It's the first time this has been able

21:31

to be put very squarely on on

21:34

the agenda. I, you know, as somebody

21:36

who is a believer in justice

21:38

kinda more broadly, I think it is a very at

21:40

least fair thing to be placed on the agenda

21:42

because, you know, the country's I

21:45

mean, I think the twenty three richest countries are

21:47

responsible for fifty percent of carbon

21:49

emissions, and and

21:51

they are benefiting, you know, these

21:53

top rich countries

21:55

are benefiting from the industrialization process and

21:57

so on. And a lot of that wealth

21:59

was

21:59

extracted from these global health countries. And

22:02

they are still, you know, not only unable to

22:04

deal with the effects

22:05

of climate change, the drought and the floods

22:07

and so on, but it also stops them

22:09

from being able to catch up in any way.

22:11

And I mean, you know, at the moment,

22:13

you've got all like the horn of Africa

22:16

facing drought and intense famine. And the

22:18

other thing, you know, part of my

22:20

thinking is If you're not going to pay up now, you're

22:22

going to see if you think that if Europe thinks

22:24

the refugee issue is bad now,

22:26

when hundreds of millions of people

22:28

no longer have inhabited able

22:30

lad, they're going to look for somewhere else to go.

22:32

So not doing something about it now

22:34

is really just kicking the can down

22:36

the road. this is a a case that we

22:39

have or that I've tried to put to various guests

22:41

on the shows before, the idea of

22:43

and you could think of this as

22:45

foreign aid as just a

22:47

massive demonstration of self interest. Yeah.

22:50

I'm I'm really glad to hear you mentioned, for

22:52

instance, the Pacific Islands. I mean, that's

22:54

such an obvious case

22:56

where these poor people are gonna

22:58

lose. It is literally it is literally

23:00

existential for them. Yeah. They're gonna

23:02

lose their islands. And it's

23:04

doesn't cost an arm and a leg to say, we'll

23:06

give them somewhere else to go. They

23:08

haven't raised the oceans level

23:10

at all. It's nothing to do with them.

23:13

So I think it's a bit of a no brainer, but I can

23:15

see that the developed countries are

23:18

scared about signing off on a

23:20

degree of automaticity that,

23:22

you know, hey, you're gonna have to pay up, come what

23:24

may. Because after all, we did our

23:26

pollution a long time ago, hey, when was

23:28

the industrial revolution? You

23:30

know, that's that's But but but that

23:32

right there, Yasmin is going to be part of

23:34

the problem of if this idea

23:37

takes hold and there is general agreement

23:39

that, okay, this should be a thing. we

23:41

should contribute countries which have

23:43

suffered should get paid. It's how do

23:45

you decide do you decide who gets paid?

23:47

Because it has been a recurring theme

23:49

from India and China that

23:52

they don't feel like they should be buying

23:54

for any of this because and they've got a

23:56

case when they say to the developed Western world,

23:58

look, you had your fun. You did your

24:00

industrialization. You did your modernizing. Now

24:02

it's our turn. But

24:04

India and China are the second and third

24:06

biggest C02 emitters. So

24:08

are they part of the problem or part of

24:10

or should they be part of a solution? It's a

24:12

really

24:12

wicked challenge, isn't it? And I think part of

24:14

it as well is if no

24:16

quarter is given, then you're not going to be able

24:18

to progress the conversation at all. We can't have

24:20

a reasonable conversation about India and China

24:23

if, you know, the United States great

24:25

Britain, etcetera, even Australia don't

24:27

come to the table and say, we are at least

24:29

willing to put, you know, enough on the

24:31

table that this is this is a

24:33

conversation and good faith. And I also

24:35

think what's fascinating is some of these, you know,

24:37

Somalia, for example. I think the

24:39

deputy prime minister said that they

24:41

needed fifty five billion over the next ten

24:43

years, which is a lot of money but a

24:45

reasonable amount, but they can't

24:47

eat their bard from getting

24:49

loans because of the IMF sort of

24:51

debt repayment agreement. And so

24:53

they structurally are also sort

24:55

of like, in

24:57

handcuffs because not only because of, you

24:59

know, other challenges, they're unable to

25:01

sort of borrow any money. And so where

25:03

do they

25:04

turn? Where do these countries turn. So I

25:05

think that, yes, the conversation about Indian China

25:08

is one thing. But if developed countries

25:10

aren't, you know, as an

25:12

in some ways, they have the right to be afraid.

25:15

And the other the the other thought I have

25:17

about the sort of numbers, you you

25:19

can you can draw a line

25:21

some connection between the conversation that

25:24

black Americans have about, you know, reparations for

25:26

slavery and so on. That is also

25:28

a wicked

25:28

a wicked number to come up with. How do

25:31

you quantify that level

25:33

of trauma and so on?

25:35

However, we have to begin by

25:37

saying, okay, an injustice has been done. We are going

25:39

to

25:39

do something about it.

25:40

If that is where the conversation begins,

25:42

then you can start

25:43

talking about practicalities. Well, let's

25:45

move along now to one

25:48

of the everyday miracles to which modern

25:50

technology has a custom disk. It is

25:52

possibly the most marvelous This

25:54

is translation software, especially to we

25:57

who can recall agonizingly reciting

25:59

syllables from a Bulgarian phrase book in

26:01

the hope of receiving directions to plot

26:03

form three and not a smack in the mouth. We

26:06

can now glean at least the

26:08

gist of articles in any of the

26:10

world's newspapers and avoid when

26:12

ordering from a menu written in foreign

26:14

mousse fat fried in mayonnaise. If

26:16

it turns out that actually is a thing and is

26:18

delicious, don't write in, I don't care.

26:20

However, Bloomberg are taking a fake tempting

26:22

next step by announcing that it will rely

26:24

on artificial intelligence to translate

26:27

broadcast content for its Spanish

26:29

speaking audiences, Quentin, what

26:31

could possibly go wrong? Oh,

26:33

I tried listening in to

26:35

it. and it just does still sound. They

26:37

say they could put emotion into it

26:39

and everything else. It doesn't did

26:42

sound dull. I want

26:44

radio to be fun. I want

26:46

to hear the

26:48

laughter. I want, you know, is

26:50

AI going to giggle? No.

26:52

I don't think is he, but this is the

26:54

thing, Yasmeen, it

26:56

probably will. This stuff is

26:58

still at quite an early

27:00

stage. it is getting better and better. Possibly

27:02

somewhat guiltily, I will admit to

27:04

being one of those journalists who

27:07

just every time I run transcription thought file

27:09

through Otter. It's just like, think

27:11

which isn't perfect, but oh my

27:13

god. It gets as a much

27:16

younger journalist years before any of this

27:18

stuff was even thought of the amount of my

27:20

life I have spent meticulously,

27:23

laboriously and weeping with

27:25

boredom transcribing conversations I've

27:27

already had. But

27:29

Quentin edges us towards an

27:31

interesting question. If we get to a point and we

27:33

probably will where written

27:36

prose and even perhaps

27:38

spoken word is not

27:40

all that much different from actual human

27:42

beings. Will people still want to listen to

27:44

it? Or do people still want to hear and read

27:46

things where they think this is one of

27:48

my fellow creatures? The

27:50

thought that I had is is we're

27:52

talking about this. I don't know if you've seen the

27:54

the AI art, the sort of there's

27:56

essentially and I cannot remember the name where you sort of

27:58

plug in a few words and it will

28:00

produce a an AI created image.

28:03

They all look

28:03

like those murals that Donald Trump fans have

28:05

on the back of their cars. So

28:07

Yes. But also,

28:09

you know, it is it's it's challenging our

28:12

idea of what art is, of what,

28:14

you know, conversation looks like.

28:16

And and I do think I

28:18

think

28:18

that perhaps if I may broadly

28:20

say, you know, the

28:21

the generations that grew up in an

28:23

analog world or, you know, I'm AAA millennial. I

28:25

grew up in in sort of a pre and post internet

28:27

age. I think we have a different relationship

28:30

to to to machine

28:32

learning, to

28:33

stuff that is produced by computers

28:35

because I

28:36

I think younger generations have

28:39

if

28:39

not the same relationship or

28:41

if not the same expectations. They

28:43

have a relationship with

28:45

content created by computers that

28:47

doesn't necessarily mean that

28:49

they don't appreciate what is created by humans

28:52

as well. So I think rather than us

28:54

seeing it as a cannibalization of what's

28:56

already out there, perhaps it's in

28:58

addition to. And perhaps there is creativity

29:00

in being able to engage with

29:02

what, you know, AI can produce and machine learning

29:04

can produce, as well as,

29:06

you know, what human beings can

29:09

can also chat about on the radio.

29:11

But is there a potential problem

29:13

here for Bloomberg? And I am sure, at least I

29:15

hope Quentin Bloomberg will have

29:17

thought of this. It's not beyond

29:19

the realms of

29:21

possibility that a a

29:23

mistranslation could not merely be, you know,

29:25

embarrassing and amusing, but every he sort

29:27

of laughs it off. But, you know, actually

29:29

potentially dangerous. If you're if you are

29:31

trafficking in actual proper real time

29:33

information, which people take seriously,

29:35

moving markets perhaps. Well, I mean,

29:37

you would think that the AI

29:39

would be instructed in sort

29:42

of every particular ramifications.

29:44

But he loses out, actually,

29:47

I love the mistakes that

29:49

can be made when you're listening

29:51

to interpreter. And it

29:53

that's the fun part of it. It's a

29:55

human being. So I I'd be just

29:57

a little bit chilled by the thought that

29:59

it

29:59

was a machine translator. think

30:02

the

30:02

the London based startup that Bloomberg

30:04

is working with have said that, you know, there

30:06

will be a translation and there will be people

30:08

who sort of checking quality, Azure, and so on. And

30:10

so perhaps what

30:11

it is is rather than replacing it sort of

30:13

augmenting in the same way that you might use OTTA to

30:15

translate

30:15

and so on. Maybe it's about

30:18

how do we make our

30:18

lives slightly easier. They actually said they

30:21

were gonna check for emotion. And

30:23

we've got the emotion. Yeah. But hang

30:25

on. What can do you know there's

30:27

wonderful interpreters who get the the sign

30:29

language ones behind politicians?

30:32

I love watching them because

30:34

so full of gestures and excitement.

30:36

We wouldn't get that from that.

30:38

And and also from AI, you definitely wouldn't

30:40

get the equivalent of that bloke who did

30:42

Mandela's funeral despite the fact that

30:44

he didn't know any sign language whatsoever. Just

30:47

so no worries. I couldn't ask this.

30:49

It's just expression. No. No. No. No.

30:52

I'll totally get away with this. Generally,

30:54

that that that that man is a hero. I I draw

30:56

upon his example every time I think I'm

30:58

doing anything or I'm slightly out of my depth.

31:00

I just think there is what to aim

31:02

at. But, you know, you could we get

31:04

the the nightmarish dystopian prospect

31:06

where you get AI software actually

31:08

building in the human frailty and building in

31:10

the mistakes needed to be posted to

31:12

the software. And now we're in

31:14

the realm of have you seen the BBC drama

31:17

the capture? don't know if I heard all those

31:19

shit. Oh my well, if

31:20

be gird your loins because it's it

31:22

is it's a little too close to a dystopia

31:24

that is potentially possible with deep fakes

31:26

and so on. So,

31:27

you know, who knows what the

31:29

next the next decade will

31:30

happen? But just finally, I want to pick up

31:33

on that thing you were saying about upcoming

31:35

generations and perhaps their more sort

31:37

of relaxed attitude to dealing with this

31:39

stuff. And whether we do

31:41

still need to know that there is

31:43

a human in there somewhere

31:45

even if that makes things perhaps

31:47

not as efficient and bore prone to mishap.

31:49

And the example I was thinking of, which I

31:51

wanted to put to you as a dyed in the wool

31:53

petrol head, You could, for example,

31:55

unsure make Formula one faster

31:57

and safer by just not

31:59

having humans driving the cars and doing

32:01

it all remotely, but no one's gonna watch

32:03

that other. No. And for

32:05

for people who are listening in, I've got a

32:07

very sad pout on my face at this

32:09

point.

32:10

thought of essentially, like, remote

32:12

controlled vehicles. So just yeah.

32:14

You're right. And and maybe, you

32:16

know, maybe this is kind of the limit

32:19

technology. Technology, you you know, the tech

32:21

leaders will constantly say, we will

32:23

improve things by adding more tech, but at some

32:25

point, you you know, human connection is

32:27

irreplaceable. And this is something I think

32:29

we've seen over the course of the

32:31

pandemic is we spent about

32:33

two years communicating through

32:34

technology on Zoom and on phone calls and so

32:36

on, and we thought that that would be just as

32:39

good, but it actually wasn't.

32:41

And the way to test was it for

32:43

human connect What I think is if we

32:45

haven't what I think is really interesting is a

32:47

recent report I read about Gen Z

32:49

was talking about how they feel the sense

32:51

of loneliness and disconnection because

32:53

they know how to create community

32:55

online, but have not built the

32:57

muscle to create community in person. And

32:59

and so when they get together, they

33:02

there's a little bit of anxiety about

33:04

actually that's human social

33:06

interaction. And so how that is going to play

33:07

out over the next generations, I think, will be

33:10

very interesting. Yasmin Abdul Mahdiad and Quentin Pil, thank

33:12

you both for joining us. Finally, on

33:14

today's show listeners with long ish

33:16

memories of Hungarian politics.

33:18

will be aware that Hungary's long serving prime minister,

33:20

Viktor Orban, has undertaken quite

33:22

the journey to his present position on

33:24

the Bellico's nationalist populist right.

33:28

back in the late eighties and early nineties,

33:30

Orban and his party, Fidez,

33:32

were regarded as the Western facing

33:34

liberal future of Eastern

33:36

Europe. Few people have had a closer view of Orban's transformation

33:38

than Suzanna Zalenghy. She

33:40

too joined Fadesh as communism

33:43

collapsed in the and she too was elected

33:45

to Hungary's parliament as a twenty

33:47

something MP in nineteen ninety.

33:49

Zalenia has chronicled the trajectory

33:51

of her former ally in a new book

33:53

tainted democracy, Viktor Orban,

33:55

and the subversion of Hungary. I

33:57

spoke to Suzanna earlier and began by

33:59

asking whether Orban really

34:01

had changed or had just gone where

34:03

he thought the votes were. Well, I

34:04

think Fidas as a young

34:07

organization, an an early party was

34:10

very, very determined to liberal democracy. And we

34:12

looked ourselves like the main

34:14

guardian during

34:16

the Tristan the

34:18

transition. We were very proud to be

34:20

young, to be the kids of the new

34:22

age, and we were very

34:24

tough on the first government when we

34:26

got in element in nineteen ninety and criticized

34:28

it at every minute when when it

34:30

seemed that somehow they try to

34:32

abuse their

34:34

power. what made some changes is that, of course,

34:36

when Fidesc got into the parliament

34:38

and we got access to resources

34:40

money,

34:43

practically, and status, we we

34:45

had to professionalize.

34:48

So this movement type

34:50

of politics didn't really work any

34:52

longer. High priority

34:54

was there to set up we

34:56

elected Orban as a first attraction

34:58

leader and then a party

35:00

president in nineteen ninety three. And

35:03

at both momentum, he

35:05

was very quick. to grab

35:08

the resources human resources,

35:11

financial resources for

35:14

himself to dominate the discourse,

35:16

the political discourse first within the

35:18

party and and, of

35:20

course, through the party in in

35:22

a larger public. And I think

35:24

that this was really

35:26

the first

35:26

conflict of this kind that

35:28

came

35:28

from his his dominant power

35:32

related leadership style revealed already in nineteen

35:34

ninety one, and the early

35:36

debates were all was all about

35:39

how to, you know, be

35:42

a leader. and we criticized our our bank to not to be

35:44

democured in our offense. This actually

35:46

was very much the case. Now what's

35:48

your

35:48

sense when you think about his relationship

35:52

with hungry. Your your sense of why this has

35:54

succeeded. What part of

35:56

the belligerent nationalism he has

35:59

bows is is resonating with

36:01

Hungarian voters because clearly it does. He

36:03

does keep getting elected.

36:05

Yes. Well, it

36:07

also goes back to the early nineties when

36:09

Fidesse was in it early stage a very

36:12

liberal census

36:14

party almost almost a

36:16

greenish social liberal party.

36:19

And I believe that what

36:21

the Hungarian political arena become very

36:23

divided early on. And we

36:25

were very proud that we were not part

36:27

of this division, which were actually

36:29

very historic and went back to

36:31

two hundred

36:32

years ago. So the main ambition of

36:35

the young Fidesse party was to

36:37

make the center strong. And

36:40

this

36:40

eventually Orban gave up

36:42

very

36:42

quickly. And this was a reason why

36:44

me and many other people actually

36:46

left the Fidesc party

36:48

in a mid nineties. he party to

36:50

the right. And with the

36:53

remaining Fides party, he had

36:54

to

36:55

make huge compromises

36:58

to be accepted on the right. And the first thing what the

37:00

party did is to try to

37:02

pick up this nationalist sentiment, which

37:05

was very present. in the nineteen

37:07

nineties on the right among voters and also the political forces

37:10

and some part of the elite, like in

37:12

the intellectually

37:14

elite conservative intellectually, the the catholic

37:16

church, and Fidesh had to make

37:18

a lot of gestures. So Fidesh actually

37:22

made itself as a

37:24

conservative party like a newcomer with

37:26

a lot of gestures,

37:28

visible gestures until by

37:30

the end of the nineties. B. S.

37:32

could make itself settled on the right and become

37:34

the central force and the right

37:36

political right in Hungary. Thank you.

37:38

Your your book is

37:39

interesting for all so of

37:41

reasons, not just about Hungarian politics, but

37:44

because of the the wider

37:46

residences it has, and a lot of Europe

37:48

and the Western world has been trying to figure

37:50

out over the last six or

37:52

seven years, how do you actually

37:54

take on a a

37:56

nationalist, populous and defeat them.

37:58

Now you had a go at that

38:00

by going back into parliament in two

38:02

thousand fourteen as an

38:04

opposition MP. Did you

38:06

learn anything from that experience

38:08

about what works and what

38:10

doesn't? Yes. Well,

38:11

it was

38:13

another fantastic experience for me

38:15

in Hungarian politics in a very, very

38:18

different political context. Politics

38:21

become very professional by

38:24

the two thousand tens and very

38:26

divided in most of the Central European

38:29

countries. So traditional political

38:31

parties become very strong, dominated a lot

38:33

of resources, financial resources

38:36

specifically and also become

38:38

very strong in big part of

38:40

the country. politics become also very the

38:42

campaign the American type

38:44

campaign politics become

38:46

very prevalent. which

38:48

is also being very divisive. Politics is basically

38:51

not about idealologists any longer,

38:53

but it's about how to catch

38:55

the tension of the people of the moment.

38:58

Mhmm. And and this

39:00

speed as party very different from

39:02

the one I left back then made it in

39:04

a spectacular success.

39:06

Of course, it was necessary that

39:08

the socialist led government

39:11

fade badly thousand and eight financial crisis,

39:13

Orban's big landslide victory was

39:15

a result of the failure of

39:17

the previous government at

39:19

the economic crisis. But what

39:22

I learned in the last

39:24

years was how easy

39:26

to make an integral state, how just

39:29

changing a few rules -- Mhmm. --

39:32

like election rules or

39:34

media rules or

39:36

advertisement rules or

39:38

sitting a couple of people to

39:40

loyalists to state institutions.

39:43

It's very easy to to get rid of checks

39:45

and balances. And over the time, there

39:48

this is going to vary in a subtle

39:50

way. It's not very violent.

39:53

It's actually not violent at all. It's almost

39:56

invisible. In a couple of years, a

39:58

time you just realized you were living in

40:00

a completely different political

40:02

environment. And I think this is

40:04

what everyone can learn from the Hungarian

40:06

experience that it's not

40:08

so visible. There are not

40:10

big red lines to cross. It's no big, you

40:12

know, riots. It's not violent

40:15

and and dressed stake.

40:17

It's actually a fine process

40:20

and you can change the entire

40:22

political and

40:24

economic environment. very, very quickly, actually. And and

40:26

the society does not

40:28

really realize this. Just

40:30

finally

40:30

then, do and and

40:33

focusing again on Hungary. Do you have any optimism that

40:35

this can be turned around? That

40:37

Hungary can be

40:40

restored to or perhaps something like Fidesse's original

40:42

idea for what post communist

40:44

Hungary could have been. I

40:46

think that

40:47

the basic hope is that

40:49

nothing lasts forever. And Fidesh with

40:51

the leadership of Victor Arbanes

40:54

seems very

40:56

robust. But

40:56

it's actually a very fragile system because it's

40:58

very much on one person's rule.

41:00

And no one can tell

41:04

especially not Victor Orban what's going to come after

41:06

him. So I think

41:08

that they make a lot of investment

41:11

for the future. but

41:13

I believe that it's just impossible. But my worry is

41:15

that that when so many

41:17

basic rules are

41:21

changed and actually under

41:23

continual changes because they are

41:25

not fixed rules. The Hungarian

41:27

constitution was changed amended ten times just in

41:29

the last ten years. Elections rules were

41:32

modified more than twenty times in the

41:34

last ten

41:36

years. So the moral compass of people of the

41:38

system is is gone. And this is

41:40

something which I believe will be

41:42

very, very difficult to

41:44

to set. and

41:46

we really have to see what

41:48

is

41:48

happening in Europe and the west

41:51

and how liberal democracy

41:53

is developing or

41:56

how it remains resilient to

41:58

various efforts, which are

41:59

happening all over the world in

42:02

these days.

42:02

That was Suzanna Salenio speaking

42:05

to me earlier. Her book is

42:07

tainted democracy, Viktor Orban, and

42:09

the subversion of Hungary. And that is all for

42:11

this edition of the monocle daily. Thanks to our today, Yasmin Abdul Mahjid and

42:13

Quentin Peale. Today's show was produced by Lilian

42:15

Fawcett and Research by

42:18

Emily Sands. sound engineer is Adam Hutton with editing assistance from Townsend

42:20

Howard. I'm Andrew Miller here in London. The daily

42:22

returns at the same time tomorrow. Thanks

42:24

for listening.