War and pandemic, differences and similarities. Interview with Alberto Negri

Share

Yesterday an article in the International magazine raised an important question about the use of the 'war metaphor' in the context of political communication and information in the time of the coronavirus. Many, even among us journalists, have found the use of the word 'war' appropriate to this pandemic emergency, however it is an experience that remains unprecedented for everyone and especially for the final recipients, that is, the readers. There is talk of trenches in hospitals, of insufficient ammunition, in the face of the virus, of war economics ...

We asked Alberto Negri, a journalist - a war envoy - who thinks about the use of terminology or 'war' language formulas in these days. Is this language realistic? Are we at war or not, in your opinion?
Our fathers were asked to go to the front, we were asked to sit on the sofa. It is a very different thing. The language of war does not reflect the political and social material reality we are experiencing. Around us there are real wars that do not end or do not end with the pandemic as in Syria, Libya, Yemen, and while using war language, NATO arsenals continue to increase.

What do you mean?
In early March, as the pandemic was spreading, it was the same American secretary Mike Pompeo who asked the countries of the NATO Atlantic Alliance to enter another 400 million military dollars in the resources to be allocated to the war sector. Now it has reached 1000 billion. So the argument is not to say whether 'we are at war' or not, but in the event we ever divert huge resources destined to military expenses for civil use, for health care and social safety nets in this delicate economic phase. Then there are other evidences that tell us that the language of war is not adequate and indeed is misleading and encourages misplaced rhetoric. As long as essential services targeting everyone are working and will not be interrupted, there is no talk of war. When a war starts these services don't work, there are health and food supply problems that become huge. Today we live a sort of 'curfew', but not a check point with soldiers shooting at you. We are only asked to be disciplined and to stay home.

So the fight against coronavirus does not present any similarity with the traditionally understood war?
Yes, there are some. We must bear in mind that generally there are three events that upset human life: wars, epidemics and revolutions. In fact, at the end of this epidemic, governments, political and social systems that we have accepted so far could be called into question. We could go bankrupt by entire states, and this is where the European Union is needed.

The virus is still an invisible enemy, however it must not be looked upon as something frightening but only as an emergency for which we are much more equipped today than in the past. A century ago there would probably have been millions of deaths. We must not panic and irrational fears. What should make us reflect are our individual and social behaviors that endanger the environment and nature. The real enemy today is social and economic destabilization, the real enemy is inequality, job losses, things that could help increase the economic gap between people already at a frightening level. In 2015 Thomas Piketty said that 60 people on the planet possessed the total wealth of 3.5 billion people. This should make us think. The European fund of € 100 billion to be allocated to the unemployed to study these days in Brussels can be a solution.

Can the public be exposed to some sort of dangerous political propaganda while inquiring about the virus?
Yes, this is a time when some governments take advantage of the situation to consolidate or extend their power over the population even more, this is the case in Hungary where President Orban asked for and obtained special powers that make him a sort of autocrat in the heart of Europe. Maneuvers of this kind go against all democratic principles. His move is no wonder, what rather puzzles us are the lukewarm reactions of the European Union.

Explain yourself better
Coronavirus can be a temptation to impose tighter control on the population, for example with the control of even digital movements. The Chinese model, for example, is unacceptable for a democratic society. Beijing had a huge responsibility in communicating belatedly the presence of this epidemic, it is true that already at the end of December and at the end of January the Chinese public opinion had mobilized on social networks to raise the alarm about the coronavirus.

Yet the South Korean model of control on the infected through App liked ...
It's different there because some privacy principles have been respected. As for Italy, an emergency measure was taken as early as January 31, unfortunately science and technicians did not assist the government to make the right decisions. On January 24 I remember that two eminent exponents of Italian virology said that coronavirus was little more than a flu fever. These statements have been harmful above all to public opinion which has underestimated the indications necessary to contain the infections, such as social distances and avoid crowded places.

Pope Francis said today "I would like us to pray for all those who work in the media, who work to communicate today, because people are not so isolated". And last but not least Rai which yesterday created a task force against fake news right in the middle of the epidemic. What do you think?
The Pope's words are a good antidote, which stimulates journalists and all those who work in communication to give their best, because it is precisely in moments like these that correct communication is important. This invitation from the Pope should be extended to politicians and scientists who should be clear and precise towards public opinion, otherwise everything becomes much more difficult. Rai's initiative is excellent for checking fake news: fake news is an emergency that never ends and will never end even when the coronavirus ends.