When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
eyes on the U.S.

What Watching Whistleblowers Tells Us About Ourselves

Why did he do that? And if you ever thought to do the same...?

Edward Snowden
Edward Snowden
Rinny Gremaud

GENEVA - Why are the whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning making people so uncomfortable?

Here’s the story of a 29-year-old man living with his girlfriend in Hawaii, making $200,000 a year, who one day decides to set himself on fire professionally and socially in the name of democracy. When this man talks to the camera, he articulates his wish to no longer be the nodding cog in a devilish machine. It will cost him everything -- but such is the price to follow his “moral compass,” that ethical internal ear that is quite highly developed for the whistleblowers of his kind.

First reaction: Admiration. What an incredible display of abnegation, a true sense of self-sacrifice from this young man! This is what heroes are made of.

Then comes the slight collective feeling of awkwardness. Suspicion, even. There has to be something wrong in this man’s life, maybe that’s just how he is. Maybe it’s some kind of narcissism, paranoia perhaps, or just another guy with a Jesus complex. For all we know, his girlfriend had just dumped him or his boss said something mean to him and he overreacted. Who just snaps like that? Someone, we tell ourselves, who probably suffers from a great unidentified perversion.

What would you have done?

Edward Snowden, the man who brought the NSA to its knees, is about to be handed over to the two-bit psychological profilers. Details on his private life will leak soon enough, exposing to the world that the knight in shining armor is in fact flawed and that his motivations were not that noble. It happened to Bradley Manning, whose trial started a week ago. Brad Birkenfeld, who exposed fraud at Swiss bank UBS, had to go through the same process, but he got away with it quite well -- just like the other whistleblowers who all suffered from difficult social experiences.

One of them talked to the British daily The Guardian about the five nails on the whistleblower’s cross: 1) You’re ignored, 2) You’re discredited, 3) You’re fired, 4) You’re publicly shamed, 5) Your friends and family turn their backs on you.

All of this, for the record, is perfectly depicted by Michael Mann in the movie The Insider, the true story of Jeffrey Wigand, a former executive from the tobacco industry who had revealed his company’s manipulations to make sure the cigarettes were produced in a way to be ever more addictive.

Why are the whistleblowers making everyone uncomfortable? Probably because it’s the nature of our society to keep its distance with the insubordinate, those people who place their judgment above the rules of the community. But wait, there’s more to it. Maybe it’s this way of putting every one of us in front of our responsibilities. We end up asking ourselves: What would I have done if I were in his place? What kind of machinery am I fueling, doing what I do? Every single day I do what I’m told, but in the end, am I not contributing to making this world worse than it is? Is my salary a monthly bribe to keep my mouth shut? Should I ask for a raise?

I’m not writing this just for the bankers, the business lawyers, the tax specialists and the CIA agents reading this newspaper. The truth is we can all ask ourselves those questions. The tricky part is that with the twists of history, the shifting sands of power and laws, no one can ever be sure that he or she has the right answer.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Economy

Lex Tusk? How Poland’s Controversial "Russian Influence" Law Will Subvert Democracy

The new “lex Tusk” includes language about companies and their management. But is this likely to be a fair investigation into breaking sanctions on Russia, or a political witch-hunt in the business sphere?

Photo of President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda

Polish President Andrzej Duda

Piotr Miaczynski, Leszek Kostrzewski

-Analysis-

WARSAW — Poland’s new Commission for investigating Russian influence, which President Andrzej Duda signed into law on Monday, will be able to summon representatives of any company for inquiry. It has sparked a major controversy in Polish politics, as political opponents of the government warn that the Commission has been given near absolute power to investigate and punish any citizen, business or organization.

And opposition politicians are expected to be high on the list of would-be suspects, starting with Donald Tusk, who is challenging the ruling PiS government to return to the presidency next fall. For that reason, it has been sardonically dubbed: Lex Tusk.

University of Warsaw law professor Michal Romanowski notes that the interests of any firm can be considered favorable to Russia. “These are instruments which the likes of Putin and Orban would not be ashamed of," Romanowski said.

The law on the Commission for examining Russian influences has "atomic" prerogatives sewn into it. Nine members of the Commission with the rank of secretary of state will be able to summon virtually anyone, with the powers of severe punishment.

Under the new law, these Commissioners will become arbiters of nearly absolute power, and will be able to use the resources of nearly any organ of the state, including the secret services, in order to demand access to every available document. They will be able to prosecute people for acts which were not prohibited at the time they were committed.

Their prerogatives are broader than that of the President or the Prime Minister, wider than those of any court. And there is virtually no oversight over their actions.

Nobody can feel safe. This includes companies, their management, lawyers, journalists, and trade unionists.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

The latest