Davide Castro is a Critique senior editor and co-founder, holding a bachelor's degree in International Relations & Politics.
Davide Castro
This may well appear as a needless reminder but do not be fooled. It never fails to amaze me when I see otherwise incredibly bright and critically engaged people, accept the status quo as if intimidated by the grandiosity of the places they are visiting. In the process, many forego the opportunity to ask important questions that challenge the functioning order of the system.
1.
I visited Nato’s S.H.A.P.E headquarters earlier this year, for a second time, in Belgium. I was forced to correct one of the Nato officers during a talk after she stated that NATO is grounded in a particular set of principles, particularly democracy. This immediately startled me. Without much thought I put my hand up and proceeded to point out that if this was so, why was Portugal a founding member of the organisation? (Portugal was a dictatorship at the time).
Portugal’s membership existed due to its strategically positioned Azores military base, which had been used by the Allies during WWII. Although Portugal was officially neutral during the War, it nonetheless felt obliged to assist in the war efforts (under the recognition of the Anglo-Luso Treaty of Windsor, established centuries before).
It seemed like the Nato officials weren’t aware of this. I therefore ask, what kind of people do we have in such positions of power that not only wish to gain credibility within the organisations that they work for, but also propagate the supposed values that they represent?
She looked at me, confused as I had never seen before, her cheeks slowly turning pink. I was told I would be spoken to afterwards to address the matter. To their credit, I was approached but my question remained unanswered. The conversation quickly moved on to terrorism and NATO’s anti-terrorism stance. Here we had a minor disagreement too, for members of Nato appear to have been convicted for international terrorism before (USA vs Nicaragua) by the International Court of Justice.
I think it's important to ask questions when unsure about something, whatever it may be. Always question information you are given when doubtful. We shouldn't just accept what we are told, instead we should seek answers for ourselves. This is simple and takes little time. Share your experiences in the comment section!
Contrary to popular belief, they really do not like answering questions (EU Commission)
This dichotomy puts journalists in a position where asking the ‘right’ questions is the safest option. What this unfortunately means is that journalists often dare not challenge the existing social order and fail to act on their responsibility and privilege.
In this pathetic way, journalism becomes a major limb of the system, for without the existing media, the system would collapse. So we MUST begin to formulate the ‘wrong’ questions for the right reasons. It is precisely these questions that they wish to remain silent about.
Earlier in March I found myself sitting in a conference room on the ground floor of the European Commission. The typical scenario presented itself. I walked inside, after queuing outside for what seemed like an eternity. I proceeded to reception where I was asked to show my passport or identity card and then passed through security. Not long after I was greeted by a chap or lady in a suit, though on both occasions it was men. I walked through a maze until I reached the room.
This particular talk was about regional security. I suppose I was more excited to ask questions than to hear them out. I was writing up my dissertation at the time entitled ‘Europe in the age of Austerity: a contemporary analysis of Portugal’s economy since the adoption of the Euro’, so it was a great opportunity to get some important answers. I began by pointing out the inconsistency of the EU’s social and economic policy.
The social policy with emphasis on liberal rights and the economic policy on neo-liberal trickle down economics which seem to trickle up more than anything. Although lecturers and others clapped my efforts, the institutional response was ‘you must be an indignado’. First of all I am not Spanish, though I very much like the country and its people, but the label itself served to highlight a greater issue.
Society & Culture
Philosophy & Ethics
What is the role of philosophy in our age?
Societal & Cultural analysis
"Most writers earn less than £600 a year, survey reveals.."
The Critique is dedicated to changing the status quo of 'free labour' that publishers hold towards writers. We believe that a society lacking in a wide variety of critics is one lacking the tools it needs to progress efficiently. The Critique promises a small payment to those who contribute outstanding works towards the Editorial Themes. See details below..
Editorial Writing Guidelines and Payment.
Community Project News
Connect with @critiquerd
Bloggers Needed!
Our newly established 'Voices' section is in need of contributors. Short, personalised observations of events or traits in society (wherever you are) are all welcome.
Email the team at thecritique.rd@gmail.com with your pieces or message us via social media.
Love in a constantly evolving society.
L’objet petit a: the object cause of desire.
An exploration of Lacan’s conception of desire and its link to symbolic lack.
As our cities progress, so do we as people. But do the lines between public and private life become blurred?
1
3 Things I Learned From Visits To International Institutions
Journalists in the 21st century have a responsibility to challenge the prevailing power structures and those working within, and for them. At the same time, those working in institutions ought to answer questions appropriately. Yet, this simple idea does not seem to materialise naturally. The reality is that nobody likes to be challenged. This is particularly true of organisations and institutions. There is a difference between asking questions. Some are the ‘right’ questions and others are the ‘wrong’ questions. If you dare challenge the established order you may be doing a favour to society and humanity but you are not doing a favour to the institution or organisation, or those running it.
2.
By being labelled an ‘indignado’, I was being told I was part of the problem. The reaction then turned to ‘would you like to give a presentation instead?’. Maybe the EU Commission representative felt overwhelmed by my questions and turned reactionary in response, or maybe he was literally clueless and had to invert it. To this day I don’t know.
Institutions appreciate questions so long as they fit within a certain paradigm. As soon as the individual goes on to unknown territory, it is like having one’s face close to the steam of a volcano. Not pleasant and potentially deadly.
3.
The International Criminal Court has an obsession with Africa
Yep, it does. The ICC is the International Criminal Court. It’s unfortunate but all cases have been from African countries. Countries choose whether or not to be subject to its jurisdiction. The US, for example, decides on jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. Though, four out of eight current investigations originated from referrals of concerned states’ parties themselves. Nonetheless, it does make me wonder, are there no terrorists outside of the African continent?
Of course there are is the obvious answer but it’s easier to target certain individuals over others. Here lies a fundamental problem in the international justice system. Much is symbolical, non-binding so impunity remains and nothing is done to address it. The UN requires urgent reform. If we consider its formation post-WWII, it has largely remained the same since, yet the world has change significantly. The UN has not kept pace.
Do not accept everything you are told as the truth (Nato)