Afghanistan

Twenty years on Taliban terrorise Afghanistan again.

Photo by Mohammad Rahmani on Unsplash

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Nowhere is this more evident than Afghanistan. Also known as the graveyard of empires, this war torn country sits at the crossroads of central and south Asia. Its neighbours include Pakistan, Iran and China and its history is chequered with invasions. Twenty years after US forces invaded Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, the terrorist threat has just begun with a suicide attack from IS-K. A range of experts at a recent CSIS event agree that Biden’s ill-prepared withdrawal of US forces from the country is a ‘black eye’ for America and the global fight against terrorism.      

President Biden has been an advocate of US withdrawal from Afghanistan since the beginning of the Obama administration. His reasoning: a strategic withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Middle East and Africa more generally, will allow the US to focus more effectively on the Indo-Pacific region, including its arch nemesis, China. Sadly, the geopolitical environment of the 21st century is not so simple. As national security expert and Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, Michael J. Green, points out, ‘I think that this notion that we can turn off one theater of the world completely to have more success in another theater that we think is more important is just wrong’.

A theatre of tragedy is what the world has watched play out in Afghanistan over the last month. Aside from the huge humanitarian costs of US withdrawal and Taliban dominance, is the astonishing speed at which the geopolitical fallout is occurring. ‘The Chinese are chortling’ as Green puts it and US allies in South and East Asia are privately frustrated. A Taliban takeover of Afghanistan significantly complicates India’s security situation too, Green explains. The last time the Taliban ran Afghanistan, India struggled with direct attacks from a range of terrorist groups including Lashkar-e-Taiba.  What Green terms the ‘terrorism spillover effect’ of US withdrawal, is a problem for allies but also for the US itself. Ironically it was because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that US forces entered Afghanistan twenty years ago.

‘The relationship between al-Qaida and the Taliban is stronger than it’s been for years’ – Dr. Seth G. Jones

Yet, in spite of the death of Osama Bin Laden and the apparent ousting of al-Qaida from Afghanistan, Taliban rule in the country is already resulting in a rapid and significant rise in the threat of terrorism. As director of both the International Security Program and the Transnational Threats Project at CSIS, Dr. Seth G. Jones, explains that the Taliban have emptied the jails in Kabul, some of which held ‘some very senior al-Qaida leaders – by our count several thousand’. This has increased the number of foreign fighters in Afghanistan by as much as 50 percent. ‘The relationship between al-Qaida and the Taliban is stronger than it’s been for years’. Biden’s own intelligence experts are warning of a surge in terrorist activity in the area including from Islamic State.

In order to end what Biden and others have termed  this ‘forever war’, an over-the-horizon approach involving MQ-9 drones and other high level technology will be used to ensure US security without the need for a presence on the ground. Will such an approach really provide the necessary intelligence to effectively prevent another 9/11? As both Jones and Green point out, the decision to withdraw, at speed, was primarily political. From an operational and logistical perspective, the timing and manner of US withdrawal makes little sense.

Pakistan’s role in Taliban victory has been overlooked.

By 2021, the US had only 2500 troops in Afghanistan and no American solider had been killed there in 18 months until the recent suicide bombings at Kabul airport. Green questions why the withdrawal had to be done in the summer, the fighting season, and whether crucial bases like Bagram and all the supporting enablers, technical assistance and contractors needed to be withdrawn post haste. Jones asks whether staying on in this limited capacity might have been done for another couple of years at least.Withdrawal means that the US will have no military bases in central Asia nor in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s role in the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan is seldom mentioned in this tragedy. Green describes Pakistan as ‘both an enabler of the Taliban and extremism, and a victim at the same time.’ While Jones ascribes the Taliban’s unexpectedly speedy take-over of the country to long years of state support from Pakistan. The Taliban’s command-and-control structure has been based in Pakistan. With Taliban victory in Afghanistan, Green predicts further empowerment of the Pakistan Taliban sympathisers within the Pakistani political context. This will require more, rather than less involvement from the US  in the future. ‘It’s going to be a subtle and very difficult game for us.’

‘China is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at us’ – Michael J. Green.

Leaked intelligence reports also highlight assistance from both the Russian and Iranian military to the Taliban. Unsurprisingly, both Russia and Iran are taking this opportunity to strengthen and extend their own power and influence in the region. China too, although against a Taliban-led Afghanistan, is taking the chance to throw dispersions on America’s reliability as an ally and its commitment to democracy and human rights. As Green puts it, China is ‘throwing everything but the kitchen sink at us’.

But more important, is the feeling for many Americans that after twenty years in Afghanistan, thousands of American lives and billions of dollars later, the Taliban are once more in control. ‘It feels like an awfully familiar place to be in, September 11th, 2021’ admits Jones. Green agrees he too is worried that the US might be forced to return to Afghanistan. But looks to a 240 year history of American strategy in Asia and recalls Churchill’s comment: ‘you can count on the  Americans to do everything wrong before they do it right’, to make a strategic recovery. The people of Afghanistan might not be so lucky.    

Big pharma big profits

Big Pharma’s big profits on corona vaccines. Who’s to blame?

Big pharma, like big tech, are used to making big profits. Research shows that profit margins for the pharmaceutical industry averaged almost 14% between 2000 to 2018, close on double 7.7% for other industries. But a recent report from Dutch NGO, SOMO, detailing how Moderna is expected to make 44% profit on its Covid vaccine, is big even for the pharmaceutical industry. Whats more, the report explains how Moderna will funnel much of this lovely lolly through tax havens in the US and Switzerland. The villain in this narrative seems easy to identify. But what about the G7 governments and the EU who allow companies like Moderna and Pfizer to benefit from extensive state funding with so few strings attached? Why do these governments and their citizens demand so little transparency in the struggle for affordable, accessible drugs, developed with tax payers’ money?

Recent research by the Dutch Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), shows that Moderna developed its vaccine with at least $4.1 billion from the US government. The report further outlines how subsidiaries ModernaTX Inc and Moderna Switzerland GmbH have established themselves in corporate friendly, secrecy jurisdictions – Delaware in the US and Basel in Switzerland.   The term “secrecy jurisdiction” refers to jurisdictions that specialise in enabling individuals to hide their wealth and financial affairs from the rule of law. In places like these, records of profits generated are not available for public scrutiny. It is difficult therefore to ascertain how much tax Moderna will ultimately pay on profits accrued from a product developed largely with tax payer money.  

Lower ‘pandemic pricing’ currently in place from both Pfizer and Moderna for corona vaccines.

Moderna also received initial funding from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). An NGO working under COVAX (the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access scheme) involving the WHO and Unicef, the funding included agreement to “equitable access principles”. This means the distributions of vaccines according to need and at affordable prices for at-risk populations, especially in low-and middle-income countries. Yet Moderna only reached an agreement in May this year to deliver 34m doses in 2021 via CEPI. It will therefore continue to sell its vaccine primarily to wealthy countries.

Sales of vaccines to wealthy countries are highly lucrative even with the lower ‘pandemic pricing’ currently in place. Leaked documents show that Moderna is charging the EU, $22.50 per dose for their corona vaccine. While Pfizer is charging the US government $19.50 per dose and Moderna is charging $15. Pfizer has stated its intention of increasing its pricing to more ‘normal’ levels of $150 to $170 per dose, once the pandemic has ended. These margins are fantastic. Indeed shareholders in Moderna include a number of large investment companies such as the Vanguard Group and Blackrock.

Why are governments unwilling to hold Big Pharma to account?

The corona vaccine is Moderna’s first commercial product. Yet it had raised substantial amounts of private equity in the years preceding this. According to a report by Follow the Money, Moderna currently has more money invested in financial markets than in pharmaceutical activities. This is in keeping with a growing trend. Large non-financial companies including big pharma, invest in assets rather than R&D in order to maximise gains for their shareholders. As a recent report by SOMO points out, the current Big Pharma business model is designed to benefit shareholders but impedes truly effective and efficient healthcare. SOMO researcher, Jasper van Teeffelen, describes the system as ‘ludicrous’.

Both Van Teeffelen and his colleague, Vincent Kiezerbrink, view the relationship between government and big pharma as inherently unequal. Governments are ‘at the mercy of these companies’ says Van Teeffelen and they ‘will only get more powerful’ predicts Kiezerbrink. Why are governments and powerful institutions like the EU unwilling to hold big pharma to account? Is it the life-saving products that they produce and on which we depend or is there more to this story? The wide-spread acceptance of tax havens and secret jurisdictions shed some light on the problem. As does the system of pharmaceutical patents organised via the World Trade Organisation.   

The Global Minium Tax agreement represents a ‘monumental shift in the narrative’ – Jasper van Teeffelen.

The release of the Paradise Papers in 2017 provided unprecedented insights into the extent of tax avoidance by multinationals globally. The EU’s competition chief, Margrethe Vestager’s, efforts to  tackle some of the worst offenders further highlighted the complicity of several governments in the creation and maintenance of tax havens. Both Ireland and the Netherlands were involved in the creation of lucrative tax breaks for Apple and Nike, respectively. Many of Pfizer’s activities outside the US are organised by a company near Amsterdam – CP Pharmaceuticals International CV (CPPI) . In the 2018/19 financial year, the Dutch CPPI generated a phenomenal turnover of $40.3 billion dollars, and made a profit of 11.9 billion dollars. All this, with only 220 employees, according to Follow the Money. The Netherlands is currently ranked at number 4 and Switzerland number 5 on the Corporate Tax Haven Index for 2021.

More to gain by enabling tax evasion than preventing it?

Do governments gain more by enabling tax evasion than preventing it? The recent agreement by 130 countries globally on a proposed Global Minimum Tax suggests that things are changing.  Jasper van Teeffelen agrees that this agreement represents ‘a monumental shift in the narrative that would have been inconceivable twenty years ago’. The agreement involves two pillars. Pillar 1 is focused on changing where large companies pay taxes; Pillar 2 includes the global minimum tax. Essentially, it will mean that large companies will pay more taxes in countries where they have customers and a bit less in countries where their headquarters, employees, and operations are. The agreement also sets up the adoption of a global minimum tax of 15 percent. This will increase taxes on companies with earnings in low-tax jurisdictions.

Nevertheless, there are always loop holes to be found and the agreement in its current form will doubtless be watered down as compromises within and between 130 countries must be reached. If we consider that the cost of global vaccination is estimated at just $23 billion, then the savings accrued from applying this new tax standard to Big Pharma would certainly cover the bill. The issue of vaccine nationalism clearly involves complicity in the power and unbridled greed of Big Pharma, rich world governments and we, their citizens too. What are we waiting for?

rainbow sport

Rainbow sport for the full gender spectrum?

Photo by Harry Quan on Unsplash

Sport continues to be categorised by outdated notions of both sex and gender. Only free male citizens were allowed to participate in the Olympic games of ancient Greece. For millennia athletic prowess has been inextricably bound up with ideas about masculinity. The hunter gathering communities of our distant ancestors relied on physically strong men to hunt and fight for their tribes. Biological differences between men and women have been used as an excuse to maintain strict gender divisions in sports. But these outdated notions of male and female continue to colour even scientific research into issues of sex and gender. Is it time to consider a rainbow gender spectrum? Will this help professional sports become more tolerant of the full spectrum of athletes looking to compete?    

Editor in Chief of the largest gay newspaper in the Benelux countries, Rick van der Made, recently explained how difficult it still is for top sportsmen to come out as gay. Preliminary research conducted by the Mulier Institute for the John Blankenstein Foundation, here in the Netherlands, found that seven out of ten professional football players rate general acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality as insufficient. While 46% of players say that it is difficult to be openly gay as a professional football player. This is in a country with a history of high  tolerance levels for gay rights. The Gay Krant editor, explains that many top players are concerned about their ability to transfer to other clubs in less tolerant societies if they are open about their sexuality.

Outdated ideas about sex and gender continue to inform discriminatory legislation in parts of the European Union.

Sadly, one needn’t look very far to find places where LGBTQ rights are under threat. Victor Orban’s government in Hungary has recently passed legislation banning gay people from featuring in TV shows and in educational material for under 18’s. The Vatican urged the Italian government recently to change a proposed law that would criminalise homophobia. Czech President, Milos Zeman, called transgender people ‘disgusting’ in a recent interview with CNN. He also affirmed his agreement with Hungarian laws banning educational material that ‘promotes’ homosexuality. The Christian Church has promoted a simplistic equation of sexual identity and biological gender for centuries. It is no coincidence that all of these countries have a strong Catholic tradition which promotes sexuality almost exclusively for purposes of reproduction.

Professional sport has been struggling with simplistic definitions of sex and gender for some time now. Take the case of South African athlete, Caster Semenya. Born with exceptionally high levels of testosterone in her system, she is classified as ‘intersex’, also known as a disorder of sex development. The Court of  Arbitration in Sport (CAS) recently ruled that Semenya would have to lower her testosterone levels in order to be eligible to compete as a women in certain races at the upcoming Tokyo Olympics. This goes against their own rules which, from the 2000 Sydney Olympics onwards, involved abandoning sex determination in favour of gender for professional athletes. It was agreed that there would be no tests of gender other than self-identification.

International Association of Athletics Federation contravenes its own gender-based approach to inclusion in Semenya case.

Semenya has always identified as female, she was raised as female and is legally categorised as female. Contrast this case with that of New Zealand weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard. The first transgender athlete to compete at an Olympic games. Previously she competed at men’s events before coming out as transgender in 2013. She will compete in the women’s 87 kg weightlifting category after the IOC changed its rules in 2015. Transgender athletes are now allowed to compete as women if their testosterone levels are below a certain threshold.  The problem with such an approach, apart from the fact that it contravenes the International Association of Athletics Federation’s  own gender-based approach and basic human rights, is that it is based on insufficient scientific research.

Hyperandrogenism is a term used to describe high levels of testosterone. But there are different forms of hyperandrogenism and none of them are fully understood. Testosterone levels are one thing but testosterone receptors are another. In people with partial androgen insensitivity syndrome, like Semenya, the testosterone receptors do not respond to the hormone in a usual way. That is why, in spite of having XY chromosomes (male), these individuals have typical external female physical characteristics. In short, it’s complex. Far too complex to be dealt with by a blanket insistence on a randomly chosen level of testosterone.  

‘Let’s start by saying, everyone is welcome and then decide how such inclusion can be achieved’ – Rick van der Made, Gay Krant.

If we are serious about creating a truly open, equal society in which individuals of all persuasions can feel welcome on the sports field, we need to be more serious about expanding our understanding of both sex and gender. A rainbow gender spectrum encourages a view of both sex and gender as varied and fluid. As Rick Van der Made suggested, let’s start by saying, ‘everyone is welcome to compete’ and then talk about how this might work. The sporting world is an excellent place to start. It is high profile and provides inspiration and role models for future generations. It brings people together and fosters confidence and a sense of community when done right. Let’s draw inspiration from the Rainbow flag. This symbol highlights the incredible diversity that nature offers. Let’s embrace it and the notion of a rainbow gender spectrum with tolerance and understanding.

Future of journalism

Stop stealing my lunch! Newsrooms vs Big Tech & the future of journalism.

Photo by Jon Sailer on Unsplash

David and Goliath is a biblical story that pits agility of mind and body against size and power. At Deutsche Welle’s recent Global Media Forum, I witnessed a fascinating contest of wits in which DW’s Head of News, Max Hofmann, interviewed video blogger, Nuseir Yassin of Nas Daily. The issue – is what Yassin does, journalism? Yassin claims that the future of journalism lies with the individual, not the institution. But it’s a little more complicated than that. Behind the phenomenal individual success of someone like Nuseir Yassin (Nas Daily has over 38 million followers) stands an even larger giant. These are the social media platforms, Facebook and YouTube, that have allowed Yassin to reach millions of people globally on a daily basis. So who is the winner in this David and Goliath story and why does it matter?

History can help put things in perspective. As Yale History Professor, Timothy Snyder, points out, the invention of the printing press in 1450 resulted in over a hundred years of religious war in Medieval Europe and beyond. The internet and all that comes with it, is still in its infancy. It is still being shaped and yet it has already caused considerable disruption, particularly for traditional media. It has overturned long-established business models based on advertising dependent on new distribution channels. According to Reuters, 69% of people worldwide now access news via their smartphones.  Conversely, US newspaper circulation in 2020 was at an 80-year low.

‘The future belongs to the individual, not the institution’ – Nuseir Yassin

The battle between traditional media organisations and social media giants like Google and Facebook is now familiar to most of us. Nuseir Yassin, colourfully describes it as ‘Some schmuck eating your lunch’.  Content, produced by media organisations is distributed via social media platforms who get rich on the advertising revenue that accrues. One should not forget however, that these same platforms are helping news outlets reach a far wider audience than ever before. More consumers have traditionally been considered a sign of success. This is because it meant that more people were buying your product. But if no one is paying for the news that you produce with such painstaking care, does a larger audience benefit you and what does this mean for the future of journalism more generally?

This is where individuals like Nuseir Yassin come in. ‘The future belongs to the individual , not the institution’, he declares. Based no doubt on his own phenomenal success as a vlogger, Yassin argues that people like and come to trust individuals rather than institutions in the social media world. He is unashamedly biased in his position – an Israeli  Arab, he supports a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestine conflict. His plan, he tells us, is to flood the internet with an alternative message of hope and peace in the Middle East. Idealistic perhaps, but not without substance when one considers the kind of power he commands in the virtual world as a result of his enormous following.

‘We need less information and more knowledge’ – Elif Shafak.

There is power in numbers. Nowhere is this more evident than on social media. Clicks are king. But they signal little more than a fleeting interest in an endless stream of information that barely registers with the consumer of this fast news diet. ‘We need less information and more knowledge’ says Turkish journalist, Elif Shafak. Knowledge implies processing and interpretation. This takes time. Yassin echoes this idea.  ‘We live in a world where information is free but opinion is hard to come by’. Some see the future of journalism in the rise of new approaches like slow journalism. This is journalism that does not follow the 24 hour news cycle. A cycle on steroids since the arrival of the internet. Notions of time and space are different in the digital world. Or, as Professor Snyder puts it, ‘the digital world works in its own way, via its own rhythms’. Everything in this world is faster and further away. Further away from our real, locally rooted lives. Faster than our everyday routines.   

The death of local news, newsrooms and papers is by now well documented. The consequences are revealing themselves more slowly as communities find themselves stranded in local news deserts. Professor Snyder explains that the increasing polarisation and levels of disinformation that we find in the social media world, have sprung up as a result, at least in part, of the lack of real, locally rooted news. ‘If media’s going to work in the future, it has to work locally’. Connection to local news and local reporters builds trust. In the virtual world, trust is becoming an increasingly rare commodity. Vloggers like Yassin are gaining trust globally, via individual, first person narratives that speak to a new generation. But he too agrees, that ‘distribution is not a right, it’s a privilege’.

Democracy thrives on truthful reporting and factual accuracy.

The question remains, who should be trusted with this privilege and who are the gatekeepers now? The European Union’s new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market provides for new rules to ensure fairer remuneration for publishers and journalists. It also increases transparency in their relationships with online platforms. It’s a start, but democracy is a delicate flower in many ways. It cannot be regulated into law, permanently. It thrives on the very openness that can also pose threats to its existence. Freedom of the press is one part but freedom of expression via social media platforms is another. Sometimes these two pull together, sometimes they are at odds with one another.

Who’s the winner in the David and Goliath battle? That depends on who one casts as David and who one views as Goliath. One thing is clear however, democracy thrives on truthful reporting and factual accuracy. These should form the basis of our trust in an individual or an institution and these should be prioritised in the new online world in which so many of us now spend our time. The future of journalism is dependent on recognising and supporting these ideals both in spirit and with cold, hard cash.

American dream

Resurrecting the American Dream – a crisis of confidence.

The United States is associated for many with optimism and confidence. Built on the ideal of the American dream – the individual’s ability to succeed based on hard work and talent, the country has epitomised the hope and promise of the new world over the old for centuries. But what happens when this confidence falters? When events both at home and abroad, conspire to undermine the dream so long cherished by many. Under the auspices of think tank, CSIS, a group of experts recently gathered to discuss how this loss of confidence will affect America’s ability to tackle growing competition from China. Although none used the term – the ghost of the American dream is difficult to dispel. What does America look like in the 21st century? How are current immigration and education policies affecting its ability to reimagine itself in the digital age?  

Like all great nemeses, China has forced America to confront itself in a way that no other country has done since it gained independence from Britain almost 250 years ago. The United States of America is a young country, typically characterized by the sort of optimism and idealism that would have raised eye brows and little else in the Old World. The story of America’s success has been difficult to dispute until fairly recently. As China, with 14% of the world’s population continues to grow at exceptional rates, the US, with 4% of the world’s population, finds itself less certain about its ability to win what some have termed a second Cold War. ‘I think we feel stuck and stagnant now as a country – we struggle to think big’ says US Congressman, Andy Kim.

5G battle with China was a wake-up call for the US – Andy Kim, Congressman

The New Jersey congressman explains, ‘We cannot sustain another ten years of stagnation as a country and expect to be on top’. Kim highlights the key role that education and innovation have played in America’s success. But suggests that it is less competitive than it used to be, particularly in STEM subjects. He points to the 5G battle with China as ‘a wake-up call’. Nevertheless, the US continues to be home to over 40 of the world’s best universities. This compares to just three such top institutions in China, explains Yingyi Ma, Associate Professor of Sociology at Syracuse University.

America also continues to boast a stay-rate of 80% of Chinese doctoral students – top students who have typically won funding based on ability. The author of a recent book on Chinese students in American higher education, Ma explains that this contrasts with undergraduate students. In this group, 90% are funded by their families and a much higher proportion return to China. As Ryan Hass of the Brookings Institution points out, only 20% of America degree holders are STEM graduates, in China it is 33%. Clearly it is in America’s best interests to attract and keep Chinese graduates in these fields. This raises the increasingly charged issue of immigration.

‘There is nothing more unattractive than a lack of confidence’ – Kaiser Kuo

The US is a nation of immigrants. The ‘melting pot’ of American culture has typically been seen as a great strength borne out by history itself. However recent attitudes toward immigration have shifted. A less open, more protectionist stance gained solid footing during the Trump administration. This has been characterised by hardening attitudes toward immigrants including those from China. Yet it is precisely these attitudes that must be avoided if America is to regain its confidence and succeed in the twenty-first century. As Kaiser Kuo, host and founder of the Sinica podcast, points out, soft power is simply the power of attraction rather than coercion. Racism on the other hand, repels. ‘There is nothing more unattractive than a person who lacks confidence, this is America’s central problem’, he maintains.

An erosion of confidence by Americans in their institutions and most importantly in their values, has created doubt and uncertainty, where previously there was clarity and optimism. Yet as Kuo so rightly asserts, the values of openness, tolerance and rule of law are the one thing that cannot be sacrificed. These values cannot flourish in a climate of fear and mistrust. Fears about losing the battle with China or, as Kuo puts it, ‘America getting its butt kicked’, undermine what Hass describes as America’s winning formular. This is: the country’s brain gain from places like China; rule of law; deep liquid capital markets and a focus on research and development from some of the best universities in the world.

Resurrecting the American Dream

The key, as Kim and others agree, is a much clearer focus on an affirmative view of America’s vision of itself. ‘What are we building towards and why does it matter?’ is the question Americans should be asking themselves, says Hass. Perhaps most importantly, this means being clear about exactly where the US is competing with China and where it’s not. The tendency toward scapegoating and generalisation is destructive. Indeed, as the US faces a downward trend in population growth, immigration could be used as a tool to leverage in the competition with China, points out Kim. But more than anything, the US needs to regain it’s national confidence, maintains Kuo. Let’s hope that President Biden, together with the vast majority of the American people, can resurrect the much maligned but undeniably enduring American dream.

algorithms

Why is bias in algorithms so difficult to avoid?

Algorithms are as biased as the human beings who create them. So how do we ensure that algorithms don’t simply amplify the biases already inherent in our societies and further entrench the human tendency to allow the past to shape the future? What does socially sustainable AI look like and will it push us to explore our own humanity in new ways?

Algorithms are part of modern life. Every time a new app appears on the market, someone, somewhere has written a bunch of algorithms to make it happen. They are commercial and issues of fairness have been left almost entirely up to the markets. In some cases such an approach might work, in other cases it has gone badly wrong. Racial bias in predictive policing tools and gender bias in recruitment software. Recall Amazon’s failed attempt to find top performing software engineers based on analysis of the CVs of past applicants. Sounds sensible, but no one thought to consider the male-dominated nature of the industry when these algorithms were designed.   

‘Bias is part of being human’ – Assistant Professor of the Ethics of Technology, Olya Kudina

Predictive algorithms use the past to shape the future, yet human beings have been using inductive reasoning for millennia. Olya Kudina, Assistant Professor of the Ethics/ Philosophy of Technology at the University of Delft, Netherlands argues that bias is part of the human condition. From an evolutionary perspective it provides a short-cut to meaning making, a sort of muscle memory that helped our ancestors survive. Nevertheless, the sort of split-second decisions that arise from such biases, are not helpful when making long term decisions. Although this sort of reasoning may be hard wired, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t or couldn’t be aware of it.

Julia Stoyanovich, Associate Professor at the NYU Tandon School of Engineering, maintains that  new algorithms are not needed right now. Rather, we need to focus on understanding how to make those we already have, more ethically aware. ‘We need to rethink the entire stack’ she admits. This is no small task. It requires the education of all those involved in the development of algorithms and those who use them. It also requires us to grapple with tough questions like; What should and shouldn’t algorithms do?

‘ Fairness is deeply contextual – there is no single definition’ – Microsoft Chief Responsible Officer, Natasha Crampton

Natasha Crampton, Chief Responsible AI Officer, Microsoft agrees that operationalizing  fairness is difficult. Even for Microsoft. Thus far, teams at Microsoft have succeeded in breaking it down into the labelling of what have been identified as different types of harms that algorithms might do. These are: quality of service harm (e.g. facial recognition technologies); allocation harm e.g. housing and employment and representational harm. This last involves reinforcing stereotypes by over or underestimating the prominence of particular groups. Crampton explains that the last is the least understood at present but in order to reduce all of these causes of harm, real world testing at all stages of the development cycle is needed.

A lack of methodology and norms around the concept of fairness makes the work of engineers more difficult. ‘Fairness is deeply contextual’ says Crampton, ‘there is no single definition’. It is clear that different notions of fairness will arise at different times and in different places. But Stoyanovich makes an interesting suggestion. Why not use the tried and tested scientific method in order to ascertain whether the tools we build actually work? Using hypotheses that can be falsified and tested will help provide concrete evidence that an algorithm does what is says on the tin. Further, there should be greater transparency with regards to the creation and the implementation of algorithms. As former US Congressman, Will Hurd explains, engineers must be able to explain how an algorithm makes a decision especially if it is being deployed to consumers. ‘I don’t know, is not good enough’. 

Who is responsible?

The question of responsibility looms large over AI. Who is responsible when algorithms misbehave?  Stoyanovich points to the importance of distributed accountability structures to ensure that AI use is responsible all the way from creation to application and consumer use. ‘Who’s responsibility is it? Each and every one of us!’. Crampton agrees that the European Union’s approach to digital regulation, including AI, is ‘ambitious’. It places more requirements on engineers to specify design time, the testing obligations made on developers are also more demanding.

From the consumer side, Stoyanovich and Herd agree that individuals must be able to contest decisions made by algorithms. For this to happen, there has to be a great deal more transparency about how they work. Standards for public disclosure are key here. Consumers too need to educate themselves to avoid being passive bystanders in this process. Perhaps  Kudina’s more philosophical perspective here is helpful. She is keen to avoid what she terms a purely technical, instrumental perspective on AI but advocates instead for an interactionist view. From such a perspective AI shifts our perspectives and societies in subtle ways and we in turn respond to this.

Strengthening our understanding of what it means to be human.

‘We’re growing with each other and we’re pushing each other’s boundaries, our ethical frameworks are co-evolving with what technology presents us with but it doesn’t mean anything goes’, explains Kudina.  Perhaps it comes down to fear. Fear of new, advanced technologies that we do not fully comprehend and a desire to protect what we know. If we approach it with awareness and a clear sense of agency, Kudina suggests that AI may help us strengthen our understanding of what it means to be human. Science fiction books and films have raised similar questions for decades. To finish then, a question from Philip K. Dick: Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?

EU Parliament

Sanctioned by Beijing – EU parliamentarians defiant.

What does it mean to be sanctioned by the world’s largest authoritarian regime? In March this year, Beijing sanctioned a range of EU and UK parliamentarians, think tanks and EU committees in response to European sanctions on four Chinese officials connected to human rights violations in Xinjiang. Condemned by EU and UK officials as an attack on democracy, China’s sanctions are unprecedented in terms of their level and reach.  They also directly affect the ratification of the EU- China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI).  Three of the EU officials targeted by these sanctions recently spoke out about the personal and political implications at an event organised by the Brookings Institute.

The CAI has been a decade in the making. Widely regarded as one of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel’s legacy projects, the Chancellor has yet to comment on the sanctions imposed by Beijing. Green MEP and Chair of the Delegation for Relations with the People’s Republic of China, Reinhart Butikofer, claims that these sanctions are a signal of political defeat, on the part of Beijing, rather than one of strength. Beijing, he says, misread the situation in so far as they took the finalization of the CAI as concrete evidence that Berlin in particular, and Brussels and Paris too, were committed to the path of strategic autonomy. A wedge had finally been driven between the EU and the US. So sanctions against Chinese officials came as an unwelcome and unacceptable surprise to Beijing. “China forgot about the role played by parliamentarians in democracy”, notes Butifkofer.

Loss of face for Xi Jinping?

Beijing, he continues was surprised by the role played by public opinion in the decision by European Foreign Ministries to impose sanctions on selected Chinese officials due to growing concerns about human rights violations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. ‘It may amount to a huge loss of face for Xi Jingping himself” maintains the MEP. ‘He was so overly proud of having reached this deal with Merkel and now, not even three months later, the EU teams up with the UK, the US and Canada to impose sanctions’. Beijing was allegedly so angry about this, that they did not even listen to their own diplomats in Brussels.  Butikofer tells us that he has information that Chinese diplomats in Brussels warned Beijing not to go as far as it did in retaliation, to no avail.

The China Relations Delegation Chair declares little surprise at finding himself on the ‘honour roll’ of Beijing’s sanctions. But he admits concern at the escalatory nature of them. However, Miriam Lexmann, fellow MEP from Slovakia, who has been in politics only a year, was surprised to find herself a target. The sanctions mean that neither she nor her family can travel to China or partake in any financial transactions linked to China. They also apply to all ‘associated persons’. The vagueness of this term might include her contacts in Hong Kong. Butikofer too admits that he will refrain from contacting his colleagues in Hong Kong out of concern for their safety. For Lexmann, the lesson is clear: ‘We need to sit down and change our policy vis-à-vis China and work more closely with our trans-Atlantic allies’.

‘There are no independent businesses currently in China’ – Dovilė Šakalienė.

Lithuanian MP, Dovilė Šakalienė, also sanctioned by Beijing, agrees that ‘standing united’ with allies ‘across the ocean’ is the way forward. “We have not forgotten the Communist methods and the Communist regime’ she says. She declares that she is wearing her new status as ‘a badge of honour’. A long time human rights defender, Šakalienė, explains that Lithuania has taken ‘very serious steps’ against Huawei. It is also expected to withdraw from China’s 17+1 programme and instead strengthen commerce with Taiwan. ‘It is important to understand that there are no independent businesses currently in China’. The MP points to her own country’s ‘extensive experience with a Communist regime’ and warns of the importance of understanding the true cost of economic co-operation with China. She describes it as ‘a mouse-trap that will not only hurt you but will cut off your head’.

Certainly, attitudes towards China have shifted significantly across Europe in the past year. This is partly linked to the pandemic. But for many Europeans it is also evidence of increasing disregard for human rights on the part of Beijing. This paired with an overtly ‘wolf warrior’ attitude on the international stage and the renewal of relations between Brussels and the White House sets the stage for a subtle but significant shift in geo-political relations. The CAI may be the first casualty. According to Reinhart Butikofer, the EU-China investment agreement is currently ‘dead as a door nail’. The European Parliament (EP) must ratify the CAI. But since MEPs from all four groups across the EP have been sanctioned by Beijing, including the China delegation and the Human Rights sub-committee, this is being viewed as an institutional attack on European democracy.

Help from the US

The two most powerful drivers behind the CAI, Merkel and Macron, are also less likely to continue to push for it so strongly, maintains Butikofer. Merkel is on her way out and Macron finds himself struggling at national level with this deal, on both the left and the right. Both Lexmann and Butikofer agree that the EP will push for increased due diligence on human rights and enhanced Foreign Direct Investment screening in order to better protect European businesses and intellectual property. Lexmann admits that the depth of what she terms the ‘IP problem’ in both the business environment and academia is of increasing concern as is the lack of a clear legal framework within which to address such concerns.

Both Lexmann and Šakalienė propose working more closely with the US who has greater experience of such issues with regards to  China. Data sharing between the US and Europe will also help to provide a clearer picture of what exactly the economics costs of gaining access to the Chinese market really are, maintains Lexmann. More fundamentally, the Slovakian MEP argues that totalitarian regimes like the Chinese Communist Party have learnt how to use economic co-operation with Western democracies to strengthen their own positions. They have not changed their ideologies as previously hoped. ‘Our great failure is that we saw it happening but failed to react for economic reasons’, she says.

‘The strongest thing we have as a democracy, are our values’ – Miriam Lexmann

Ultimately, it comes down to values. Perhaps because of the more recent experiences of both Slovakia and Lithuania with authoritarianism, Lexmann and Šakalienė are both unequivocal in their belief in the central role played by values. ‘The strongest thing we have as a democracy, are our values’ says Lexmann. With this in mind, it makes sense to team up with other like-minded countries, ones who share these values. Because as Šakalienė points out, ‘We’re playing in the same team, we’re playing for democracy’. 

Red light district

Red light for the Hague’s Red Light district?

Two of the oldest streets in the Hague, have the dubious reputation of offering the cheapest rates for sex work in the Netherlands. Shireen Poyck, lobbyist and long-time resident of the Hague old town has spent over 20 years campaigning for the removal of the Red Light district from her neighbourhood. During this time, she has come to believe that legalization of sex work is not the answer. Local authorities have offered few workable solutions to a problem that no one wants on their doorstep.  

‘Doubletstraat looks very small but is in fact very big’ Shireen Poyck tells me, more than a little wryly. This is one of the two streets in the Hague that is dedicated to the sex trade. Doubletstraat and Geleenstraat contain many brothels, women are displayed in windows and attract thousands of Johns every day. ‘It’s like an IKEA but without the parking spaces!’ says Poyck.  This long time resident of the old town has spent years campaigning to have these streets closed down. This Red Light district, like the one in Amsterdam and other Dutch cities attracts drugs, vandalism, high volumes of traffic, noise and general disruption of the peace. As a member of the residents committee of this neighbourhood, Shireen has regularly lobbied the city council for action, to little avail.

‘Do we move it or do we stop it?’ – Shireen Poyck

Yet the kind of action Shireen Poyck now hopes for, is not what it was 20 years ago. Initially a supporter of the legalisation of sex work, Poyck explains that her own first hand experience of living with legalised prostitution has changed in her mind. ‘Do we move it or do we stop it?’ she wonders. Certainly the current working conditions are very bad. Small, unsafe, dirty rooms used mostly by migrant women working for pimps who are answerable to no one. As a resident of the old town neighbourhood, Shireen wants them out. But as a concerned citizen she also wants to be sure that the move will mean better working conditions for the women involved.

Each year, the municipality conducts research into the matter and each year, it is agreed that working conditions in the Red Light district are unacceptable. Last year, plans for an erotic centre on the outskirts of the Hague, near the Binkhorst, were drawn up. The centre would include medical facilities, law enforcement, banks and other necessary conveniences. However there has been push back from those living in this area and the municipality has cited unresolved issues around building permits and funding as obstacles to its realisation. ‘Nobody wants these people near them. So what does the municipality do – nothing!’ Shireen tells me, in exasperation.

‘I’ve totally changed my mind!’ – Shireen Poyck

At heart, the issue seems to be the inescapable fact that sex work is unlike other forms of employment. In spite of largely liberal attitudes toward it and its legalization here in the Netherlands, there is still a stigma attached to the oldest profession in the world. Sex workers are reluctant to register publicly with the local municipality. They are also not afforded the same rights when it comes to sick leave, holiday leave and pensions as others working in service industries. Legalisation has not changed many of the age-old structures that have shaped the industry for centuries.

Many, including Shireen, thought that when the industry was legalised in 2001, it would mean more independence for the women involved. This is not the case. There are many layers to this industry. The brothel owners or managers, who are legal and rent rooms or houses from a landlord. There are also the pimps, who are illegal, they are often involved in the trafficking of migrant women. It was hoped that legalisation would help eliminate the pimps but this has not happened. ‘I was one of the first to say legalisation is a good idea. But now I’ve totally changed my mind!’ admits Shireen.

Legalisation has empowered the wrong people.

The reality for this long-time lobbyist is that legalisation has empowered those who ‘make big money off the women involved’. It has not had the desired effect of empowering the sex workers themselves as independent service providers. ‘And now people say, it’s legal, what’s the problem?’ says Shireen. She admits that when she asks those in favour of legalisation if they would be comfortable with their daughter or sister becoming a sex worker, the answer is invariably negative.  ‘They don’t like my remark and they don’t like the idea’.

She tells me about Dutch artist, Saskia Tannemaat, who became famous in the Netherlands for her portraits of the women working on Doubletstraat in the Hague’s Red Light district.  Tannemaat gained the confidence of those she painted and many shared their stories with her. ‘They are terrible stories’ says Shireen, with feeling. ‘Stories of mistreatment, coercion, of a desperate desire to escape’.  

‘ This street makes millions’ – Shireen Poyck

Money too is an important part of this complex problem. The business of prostitution generates large amounts of revenue – ‘this street makes millions’, Shireen assures me. But little goes to the sex workers. The issue of poverty and those drawn into this work because of it, makes the problem both local and global. Human trafficking and prostitution often go hand-in-hand. Shireen agrees that this is what makes the problem so difficult to deal with at a local level. Ideally support needs to be provided for the vulnerable at source – education, training, opportunities for a better life. If there are other options made available to these women, then you can ask them ‘Do you still want to be a prostitute on Doubletstraat in the Hague?’ maintains Shireen. ‘And they will say, ‘no!’

Nordic model?

Perhaps the biggest concern for Shireen is what she describes as a lack of energy and enthusiasm to further discuss this long-running issue among stakeholders. This might mean having to admit that the 20 year experiment with legalisation has largely failed. ‘Legalisation of sex work wasn’t thought through properly’, admits Shireen, ‘it was a dream’.

Is it time to consider the Nordic model? First introduced by Sweden 20 years ago, it criminalises prostitution and makes the buying of sex illegal. Studies show that this approach results in a decline of demand for prostitution. Shrinking demand has resulted in a corresponding reduction in supply. This ultimately lowers the volume of the sex trade more generally. With such an approach the Red Light districts, famous for the women displayed in their windows, might finally become a relic of the past.

Europe

EU Elephant – why Europe is still a dirty word in Dutch politics.

Europe is a dirty word for many national politicians in EU Member States. The Netherlands is no exception. This year, for the first time, the #EUolifant (EU elephant) went viral on twitter prior to the elections, hinting that a change might be underway. The rise of pan-European party, Volt, may be part of this shift. But how deep does this change really go and how has the pandemic reinforced the somewhat stultified status quo in Dutch politics? What are the implications for democracy at both national and European level? 

The national elections here in the Netherlands have raised the perennial questions of housing shortages, healthcare and education. But this year, the issue of Europe is also here. Perhaps the pan-European response to the pandemic is responsible for this shift. Despite the very vocal protests from the Dutch government against the introduction of corona bonds last year, more Europe seems inevitable. Are attitudes are shifting in a country where ‘less-Europe’ has long been a cherished campaign slogan for national politicians?

The democratic deficit

For years, the EU has been accused of running on a democratic deficit. This refers to the lack of democratic mandate from EU citizens who vote at national level for local politicians. They are unable to vote directly for those that represent them at the EU parliament in Brussels.  In national political debates, Brussels is conveniently used as a scapegoat for much that is wrong while local politicians take the credit for what goes right. EU citizens themselves thus remain confused or worse, blissfully ignorant of the vital role that Europe plays in their prosperity.  In Dutch politics this phenomenon has been particularly pronounced.

Common myths regarding the EU abound, even among professional, educated members of the electorate.  Perhaps best understood as a strongly held belief that the EU is a money-hungry bureaucracy in which the Netherlands has too little say. Stats show that in fact the average Dutch citizen gains far more than s/he contributes toward the EU. And, that the number of bureaucrats in Brussels is comparable to those in the Dutch government! As journalist and lecturer, Caroline de Gruyter, pointed out at a recent discussion in Amsterdam, Brexit has made it easier to talk more positively about Europe in the Netherlands. There is general, if unvoiced acknowledgement that the Netherlands, as ‘the port of Europe’, needs the EU, says de Gruyter.

Integration in disguise

De Gruyter argues that the Dutch are in fact very active in Europe. She compares Dutch politicians to shoppers out with their list of priorities in the EU, looking for like-minded partners with whom to do business. ‘Lots of things are happening in Europe at the moment and the Dutch are in all of them’ assures de Gruyter. But after the fuss they made about the corona bonds, politicians have to be careful how they play it, she explains. Certainly, Mark Rutte’s strategy regarding the EU seems to be ‘integration in disguise’ notes Luiza Bialasiewicz, Associate Professor in the Department of European Studies at the University of Amsterdam. It is definitely something at which he has become very good, agrees Pepijn Bergsen, Research Fellow in the Europe Programme at Chatham House. Bergsen believes that this approach will continue for the foreseeable future.  

In spite of expectations that the pandemic might cause shifts in the Dutch political landscape,  Bergsen admits that this has not really occurred. De Gruyter puts it down to a tendency, seen across Europe, to ‘rally around the flag’. Matt Steinglass, Europe correspondent for the Economist, suggests that there has been a consensus on the political left, not to attack the government in a time of crisis. He argues that the left ‘were already low but the pandemic has left them paralyzed’. The result; a stultified political landscape in the Netherlands, underpinned by a somewhat misplaced sense of complacency that all is well. Steinglass cites the country’s relatively poor handling of the Covid crisis as evidence of an inability to change in response to changing circumstances.

Left out

Arun Chaudhary, American campaign advisor to Obama and now the Dutch Labour Party, argues that although there are a lot of parties in the Dutch system, ‘when you look at the data, you still have just two teams’.  One team, he argues, has a clear captain – referring to Mark Rutte, while the other, left-wing team ‘just has kids’. Perhaps this is why there has been a lack of real opposition from the left to the current government. Chaudhary agrees that Rutte in particular, is extremely well established as a leader. He is more popular than his party and this makes criticism of him risky for opponents. The pandemic too, ‘slowed the election’, he agrees.

Chaudhary points out that the political left has lost much of its working class support because it has ceased to deliver the kind of tangible results typically expected by its  supporters. He describes the left as ‘more of a life-style choice’ for the professional middle class. For these people politics is not so much about community building. It is comparable rather to the gym or club you join, the newspaper you read or the vacation destination you choose. This phenomenon helps explain the rise of populism across Europe. Perhaps it also explains the lack of genuine debate around the issue of Europe. It is the average working wo/man who needs to be convinced of the importance of Europe in their lives. But which team is able and willing to do this?

Problem lies at national level

As the initiators of the #EUolifant twitter campaign point out, the lack of genuine debate around Europe’s role in Dutch political decisions was still largely absent in the recent election campaigns. Debate at national level on vital decisions involving Europe is central to the democratic process. A lack of local debate on issues such as coronabonds and vaccination passports means that national politicians may find themselves out of touch with changing attitudes toward Europe. It also leaves the public with the familiar feeling of being left out of the loop when it comes to EU policies that affect their lives. Perhaps, as the EUolifant initiators point out, the problem of the democratic deficit does not lie in Brussels but much closer to home, at the national parliament level, right here in the Hague.