radicalization

Rising radicalization in Europe – how best to address the crime-terror nexus?

It is estimated that 50% to 80% of Europeans involved with ISIS have a criminal record. So say recent studies by the EU Institute for Security Studies and the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence. Furthermore, up to 40% of terrorist plots in Europe are partly financed through petty crimes. In fact, criminals are specifically targeted by ISIS recruiters because of their skill sets. In return, ISIS offers what researchers call, ‘redemptive narratives’. These preach forgiveness and belonging to those with criminal pasts, while  legitimizing future crimes. I recently spoke with Amanda Paul, co-author of a large study on the link between criminality and jihadist terrorism in Europe.

The link between crime and terrorism is not new. Reports by organisations like the RAND Corporation showed that ISIS generated over 6 billion dollars at the height of its territorial control in 2015. Oil revenues clearly played an important part but a range of other criminal activities such as theft and antiquities smuggling were also used to generate income. Bottom-up funding through petty crime is also key. To this end, recruitment of individuals with a criminal background is increasingly common. Social media has proved highly powerful in this regard. Prisons and recently released prisoners as well as returning foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) are also fertile sources. Vulnerable individuals such as these are more easily recruited by ISIS and similar.  

“Sometimes people with the worst pasts create the best futures”– Facebook posting from UK extremist group.

Amanda Paul, of the European Policy Center (EPC) in Brussels, recently to spoke here in the Hague about the results of a 9 month research project completed in cooperation with the Counter Extremism Project. Independent research on ten European countries including Albania, Belgium, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom was conducted from October 2018 until the summer of 2019. The results provide a complex picture of radicalization within Europe and its links to the crime-terror nexus. Nevertheless, certain trends stand out. The growing overlap between crime and terrorism in Europe is particularly prominent in those with immigrant backgrounds, specifically alienated youth. Young males, from socially excluded areas with low living standards and/or suffering from mental illness or substance abuse, often with friends or family who are already radicalized, are particularly vulnerable.

The study also highlights the potential security threat posed by returning foreign terrorist fights both in and outside of prison. Many of the hundreds of known returning FTFs have not been prosecuted in European countries due to lack of evidence for specific offenses. This means that many simply return to deprived communities where narratives of heroism in war are often unopposed. The study talks of some becoming ‘insurgent rock stars’ with the potential to radicalise others and create new jihadist networks. For those who do go to prison, sentences are often no more than 3 years, leaving little time for rehabilitation. Furthermore, in countries such as France, Belgium, Sweden and the UK, where prisons are overcrowded,  understaffed and have inadequate programmes for rehabilitation, the potential for radicalization is greatly increased. Some European countries, especially Sweden and the Netherlands, support the idea of an international tribunal to try FTFs . They are currently looking for support from other EU member states.

No quick fixes.

So far, there are few examples of released terrorist offenders successfully disengaging from extremist ideology and reintegrating in into society. The findings of the study highlight two areas of focus: the prison system and systems of integration in main stream European society. An ‘All of society’ approach to prevention is recommended by Paul and Acheson. Educational institutions, the role of community police and programmes aimed at building resilience in marginalised communities are all key. The provision of positive role models for youth, careful monitoring of mosques and religious schools as well as cracking down on petty crime are also recommended.

‘Discussing radicalization should not be taboo’ – Amanda Paul.

For those who are already radicalized, prison systems and information sharing relating to prison services are highlighted for greater attention. Research across all ten countries shows that there are significant gaps in the transfer of information and intelligence on extremist prisoners between European countries, from their time in custody to their release. Discussing radicalization should not be considered a taboo.

To this end, they recommend the creation of an Extremist Prisoner Information Center (EPIC) to facilitate information sharing between EU prison information systems. This in turn would feed into enhanced powers for the European Border and Coastguard agency. Which would facilitate the provision of a high quality, security focused common response to FTFs. The creation of a network of high-security prisons across Europe with effective rehabilitation centers would complete this multi-agency approach. Such a long-term, holistic approach underpinned by more open, honest exchange of information and discussion is no small ask. But more integrated, resilient societies across Europe are surely worth the investment.

Did Trump and Johnson rely on an outdated voting system to come to power?

More than 50% of UK voters actually voted for a pro-Remain party in last month’s general election. So how was Johnson’s pro-Brexit party able to come away with such an apparently resounding victory? Trump’s victory in the 2016 US elections was  equally counter-intuitive if you look at the numbers. Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes – 48% to 46% but Donald Trump is president. The answer lies in the so-called winner-takes-all or First Past the Post voting systems used in both the US and the UK. Increasingly recognised as divisive, out-dated and often undemocratic, this system continues to hold sway, with serious consequences.  

In the 2020 US presidential elections, it is predicted that campaigning will be concentrated in just four states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. Former campaign manager for Barack Obama, Jim Messina, describes it as ‘the smallest map in modern political history’.  It is typical that no more than 12 states are the focus of campaign events in recent US elections. Candidates focus their time, energy and money both before and after voting day on these so-called swing states. This is largely because of the winner-takes-all voting system in operation in 48 US states. In practice, this voting system means that that even if a candidate wins with a very small majority, all electoral votes go to the winner. For example in 2012, Obama won 1.5 million votes in Minnesota while Romney won 1.3 million. However the winner-takes-all approach meant that all ten of Minnesota’s electoral votes for president were cast by Democrats.   

Voting is a postcode lottery  

Voting systems such as these encourage candidates to ignore states in which they are either well ahead or far behind. The chances of them changing the status quo are small and the pickings are much better in the swing states. The result; in the 2016 election, 94% of general election campaign events took place in the twelve battle ground states.

A similar situation exists in the UK where each constituency has a winner who will represent that constituency in parliament, irrespective of how many actual voters live in this constituency. Hence there are a lot of wasted votes. Thus, despite receiving just 1.2% more of the popular vote, the Conservative party managed a huge swing of 48 seats out of 650, compared to the last election. As a voter, where you live determines what, if any, power your individual vote will have. It also means that ruling parties like the Conservatives or Labour in Britain can get an absolute majority in parliament with approximately 35% of the votes. Local MPs are generally required to tow the party line creating a gap between voters and their representatives in parliament.

What are the alternatives?

There are a number of other options but Proportional Representation (PR) is widely used in many European countries. A version thereof, Alternative Voting (AV) or proportional instant run-off voting, was proposed in the UK, in a 2011 referendum. The AV system ensures that the winning candidate in a constituency has to gain 50% of the votes. Voters put candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives 50% of first preferences they are elected. If no one has 50% then the bottom candidate is eliminated and their second preference votes are allocated to the other candidates.

Surprisingly perhaps, there was an overwhelming majority against the idea of changing the current voting system. Only 32.1% of Britons voted in favour of it. Critics maintain that this system leads to the election of a least disliked candidate rather than a real favourite. However, defensive voting strategies, often employed in winner-takes-all systems, lead to similar results. Voters vote simply to block the candidate they dislike most.

Going Dutch

When voting in the Netherlands, one is faced with a rather large, initially complicated looking, ballot paper. Candidates from all parties, all over the country, are listed in rank order. Voters thus choose from a single national list of candidates rather than selecting representatives for their local district. You pick a party and then choose an MP from that party – in this way one can vote for a local or a national candidate. Any candidate who receives a certain percentage of the vote wins a seat in the Dutch parliament.

Proportional Representation (PR) results in a wider range of parties in parliament, including smaller ones. Thus coalition governments are common. In the Netherlands it is not uncommon to have as many as four parties forming a coalition government. Supporters of the First Past the Post voting system argue that this leads to unstable governments that lack strong leadership. However, in the four UK national elections since 2010, half have produced hung parliaments where no single party had a majority.

What if?

An academic from Strathclyde University, Heinz Brandenburg, experimented with the recent UK election results using the Dutch PR system. Although some things could not be factored in because of obvious differences between the two countries, he found that with the Dutch voting system, the Conservative party would not have won an outright majority. Smaller parties like the Lib Dems, the Greens and the Brexit party would have done better. As one commentator put it, ’Britain has a multi-party politics trapped in the decrepit body of first past the post.’ A recent report by a British thinktank, the Constitution society, concluded that First Past the Post encourages extreme politics. Increasing polarization of political views in both  the US and the UK seem to support this claim.

Launched at the United Nations in 1998, the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network is the world’s largest online repository of electoral knowledge. It shows that the global movement towards democratic governance in the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in a growing awareness of the importance of voting systems as one of the most influential political institutions. They are charged with fostering stable and efficient government, coherent coalitions and strong parties, among others. But perhaps it is the general principles of design that need revisiting in these turbulent times. Principles of fair representation, transparency and inclusiveness.

The Calculus of Consent

Over fifty years ago, two American academics, James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, wrote a seminal book on democratic theory, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Fusing economic methods and political theory, this groundbreaking work argues that the essential function of democratic institutions is to induce mutual gains by resolving conflicts through exchange. Buchanan calls this ‘politics as exchange’.

It offers a solution to the problem of democratic justification in political theory. It also shows that dissent and the requisite negotiation that leads to what economists would call ‘exchange’, is a healthy thing. Thus leading to more optimal decisions in so far as satisfaction levels of greater numbers of individuals are higher. Calculus of Consent provides convincing theoretical and practical justification for voting systems like Proportional Representation, that take into account the increased number and plurality of views in modern day states. No voting system is perfect but the real question is whether it is an improvement on the current one. Recent rises in populism and polarization in both the US and the UK suggest that it may well be.

Brexit

‘Getting Brexit done’ and the UK undone?

Boris Johnson has lead his party to the biggest Conservative victory since the 1980s. Winning 364 of the 650 seats in parliament, the Tories now have strong majority and Johnson a clear mandate to ‘get Brexit done’. However voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland are far less eager to leave the European Union it seems. In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) surged ahead securing 45% of the votes. While Northern Ireland voted 56 per cent to 44 per cent to remain, in the Brexit vote.

Get Brexit done!

Since the initial Brexit referendum three years ago, many have blamed then British Prime minister, David Cameron, for needlessly creating a problem where there wasn’t one. But these election results suggest otherwise. Boris Johnson has lead his party to a resounding victory on the most simple of election slogans: Get Brexit done. Johnson’s self-described, ‘stonking’ mandate now means that the Tories now have free reign to go about leaving the European Union as they see fit. The problem however, is that few concrete details have thus far been provided. One of Johnson’s final pre-election stunts involved driving a Brexit backhoe through a wall of polystyrene bricks with the words ‘gridlock’ on them. This was apparently enough for the majority of Britons.

Election results show however, that for Scottish and Northern Irish voters, Boris Johnson’s devil-may-care exit plans are far less appealing. Nicola Sturgeon’s nationalist party gained thousands of votes in every seat, even unseating Lib Dem leader, Jo Swinson, in East Dunbartonshire. Ms Sturgeon said the results exceeded even her expectations. ‘Scotland has sent a very clear message – we don’t want a Boris Johnson government, we don’t want to leave the EU.’ With a 68.1% voter turnout in Scotland, the SNP’s landslide victory has been heralded by Sturgeon as ‘a clear endorsement’ for a second independence referendum.

A second independence referendum for Scotland?

Scotland held a first independence referendum in 2014 when 55% of voters chose to remain within the United Kingdom. However after the Brexit vote in 2016, opinion polls showed widespread reluctance among the Scottish public to leave the EU. Scotland’s union with Britain was created in 1707. First Minister, Sturgeon, herself admits that not all SNP voters want to leave the Union. Nevertheless, Sturgeon will now request a second referendum from the UK Government.

Results in Northern Ireland, although not as decisive, returned more nationalist than unionist MPs for the first time. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) suffered ‘a bruising’ election night. Signficantly, it lost both North and South Belfast, including its Westminster leader, Nigel Dodds. This is significant as Dodds was a powerbroker in May’s Brexit negotiations. The DUP propped up the minority Tory government after the 2017 general election. Adding insult to injury, Dodds lost his seat to high profile Sinn Féin MP, Mr. Finucane, Lord Mayor of Belfast. ‘North Belfast is a remain constituency and wants a future as part of the European Union.’ he said. In South Belfast, DUP MP lost to another Irish nationalists, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP).

Best Christmas present for Northern Ireland?

Although election results in Belfast showed significant change in sentiment from unionist to nationalist, the DUP is still the largest party. Nevertheless it holds fewer seats than Sinn Féin and the SDLP and this means a return to Stormont. New talks aimed at restoring the power-sharing executive are due to start on Monday. The devolved government at Stormont collapsed in January 2017 after bitter disagreements between Sinn Féin and the DUP. “As it turns out, nobody is going to stop Boris’, said Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald. But results in Northern Ireland have created renewed interest in the restoration of the Assembly that has lain dormant for nearly three years. Getting around the table and agreeing to restore the territory’s devolved government, ‘would be the best Christmas present for the people of Northern Ireland’ says DUP MP, Jeffrey Donaldson.

So the question now, is what kind of Brexit does Boris Johnson have in mind? For the nature of Britain’s now assured exit from the European Union, will clearly impact a second independence referendum for Scotland and Northern Ireland’s long-term political landscape. No real solution for the Irish backstop has yet been found. As such, it will continue to be a sticking point for the Republic of Ireland and the EU more generally.

Increasing strain on the ties that bind the United Kingdom.

The first hurdle, is time. Britain will now definitely leave the EU on the 31st of January. But the period allocated for so called transition is ridiculously short – the end of 2020. European Commission President, Von der Leyen has described it as, ‘very challenging .’ Nevertheless, the Conservatives vowed in the election manifesto not to request an extension to this deadline. A request for transition would need to be made by June, 2020. Such a deadline gives little hope of anything more than World Trade Organisation rules for Britain’s future relationship with the EU. Hardly optimal. Yet it is very difficult to tell what Johnson really has in mind when it comes to his long awaited Brexit. One thing however seems certain, whatever shape or form the ultimate exit takes, it will significantly increase the strain on the ties that have bound the United Kingdom for centuries.

China

China: an increasingly precarious international image? (5 min)

China’s international image has been decades in the making. Although democracy and human rights have never been high on the Communist Party’s agenda – phenomenal economic growth paired with a reasonable record of line towing with regards to international organisations and diplomacy resulted in acceptance by many Western nations of China’s authoritarian regime. Some even suggested that China might provide an alternative model to Western capitalist democracies for developing nations.  But in just a few short months, much has changed.

Some of the less savoury aspects of just how the massive apparatus of the Chinese Communist Party works have been highlighted. From the Hong Kong protests to the mass internment camps of China’s Uighur Muslims, along with advanced surveillance schemes and claims of the debt trap diplomacy of its Belt and Road initiative – China is coming under increasing pressure, particularly from the US. For those who favoured a live and let live approach, because, let’s be honest, money talks, such an option is increasingly difficult to justify.  

Increasing tensions between China and Hong Kong are perhaps one of the greatest sources of embarrassment for a nation for whom ‘face saving’ is essential. After months of protest by pro-democracy groups, local Hong Kong elections have shown that the vast majority of Hong Kongers support the protesters. Contrary to narratives portraying the protesters as criminal thugs, bent on disrupting one of China’s most prosperous financial hubs, these results have apparently surprised even Beijing.

For years Hong Kong has seen its rights eroded by involvement from Beijing.

In contrast to Beijing’s trust in the power of economic prosperity to ensure compliance, a combination of factors have created a storm that is proving difficult to contain. For years now, Hong Kong has seen its basic rights eroded and ‘reinterpreted’ by Beijing and those who support it. This, in combination with a lack of social welfare programmes in Hong Kong, soaring house prices and erosion of job opportunities by an influx of mainlanders have created rising levels of anger and discontent among Hong Kong’s youth.  

Close on the heels of the Hong Kong protests and Taiwan’s increasingly pro-democratic stance in the run-up to January elections, come the Xinjian Papers. Over 400 pages of leaked documents, detailing exactly how ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region would be ‘re-educated’ in government organised ‘training schools’. These internal documents were leaked to the New York Times by a concerned member of the Communist Party. They reveal just how different the sanitized narrative of job training centers for China’s Muslim minority is from the chilling reality of exactly how officials should go about organising the most extensive internment campaign since the Mao era.

What happens to party members who dissent?

Documents went so far as to advise officials on how to handle awkward conversations with returning students who found their relatives gone. Lines like ‘Freedom is only possible when this virus in their thinking is eradicated and they are in good health’ bear a striking resemblance to the doublespeak of Orwell’s seminal work on totalitarianism, 1984. The leaked documents also provide insights into what happens to those party members who dissent. Especially high-ranking ones, such as Wang Yongzhi,  who did not ‘stick to rounding up everyone who should be rounded up’.  Mr. Wang who also defied the regime by ordering the release of 7000 camp inmates, was subject to public character assassination, stripped of his position and prosecuted.

Even more recently, China has launched compulsory face scans when registering users of new phones at stores across China. Those registering a new phone number will, according to reports, have to record themselves turning their head and blinking. For years now China has focused on matching internet users with their real identities. Social media firms were required to implement real-name registration almost a decade ago. The Chinese government insists that such measures are in the interests of all citizens as they will boost cyber-security and reduce internet fraud. This culture of surveillance dovetails almost seamlessly with the rise of artificial intelligence and big data.

Black-listed on China’s social credit system?

Beijing’s social credit system, due to come into full effect in 2020, exemplifies the kind of social control of which any self-respecting totalitarian regime would be proud. Although commentators say that its reach is still patchy and it is doubtful that it will be ready by next year, the ideas behind it are draconian. Credit is not only gained, it can also be lost and an individual may be black-listed as a result. If this happens, rights can be removed, including one’s right to travel, buy property or take out a loan. When this happens, as it did to Chinese journalist, Liu Hu, there is little one can do. There was no file, no police warrant, no advance notification, in his case. The lack of due process, makes recourse to justice extremely difficult.  

These are just a few of some of Beijing’s less savoury projects. Much has been written about the so-called debt-trap diplomacy of its Belt and Road Initiative. In addition, China’s increasingly proactive stance when it comes to territorial claims in the South China Sea and Antarctica have also been noted. There are also a number of individual cases that raise concern. Australian journalist and blogger, Yang Hengjun, has been held in China since January. Details regarding his alleged offence are sparse but he has been charged with spying.

‘Democracy peddler’ held for months without access to his lawyers.

Australian authorities are concerned about his ailing health and the fact that he continues to be denied access to his lawyers. His case is due to be heard in China, in March. The conviction rate for those accused of a crime is 99% in China. It is typically preceded by a confession obtained through a long and secretive detention process. For self-confessed Chinese spy, Wang Liqiang, death is fairly certain should his request for asylum in Australia be denied. Wang’s story is still under investigation by Australian authorities. Beijing claims that he was convicted of fraud in China and that his claims are ‘absurd’.

What does the future hold? At a recent Chatham House rules event I attended on China’s role in global economic governance, a number of experts on China drew on the country’s history in order to  provide a context for its future path. More than one drew attention to the Chinese view that the nation dominated the international system between the 5th century BC, right up until 1900. The following decades were a time of humiliation and isolation for China. This ended in the 1970’s when China returned to the international system. Focusing on inclusion in global governance institutions and wider international acceptance, China was ready to step forward into a more assertive role by 2010.

Is it simply a matter of time?

Now, rising Chinese nationalism goes hand-in-hand with the nation’s increasing global dominance. The issue of course, is the Chinese people themselves. Will increased power and prosperity be enough to quieten a desire for more individual rights and freedoms? History suggests not, especially given events in Hong Kong and Taiwan. But the time scale of rising discontent, is also a major factor and that, is far more difficult to gauge.  

rhino wars

South Africa’s rhino wars – a battleground of values?

A rhino is killed every 8 hours in South Africa – the nation that is home to three quarters of the world’s rhino population and 85% of all rhinos on the African continent. The battle to save South Africa’s rhino population has taken on epic proportions in the last decade. Following a sudden spike in demand for rhino horn in 2007, the slaughter of these prehistoric giants of the African bush has escalated at a staggering rate.

It has lead to the acknowledgement of what is now called the Second Rhino Crisis, spawning documentary series like Rhino Wars. Rhino horn is regarded as having special medicinal properties in traditional Chinese medicine. However the biggest drivers of demand are in fact the growing Vietnamese middle class. Many wealthy businessmen regard a rhino horn as a status symbol and/or grind it up for use as ‘a cool cure’ for hangovers. Add to this a large population of poverty stricken people, who have no source of regular income and one has the ingredients of a full scale tragedy. What to do?  

There are many brave men and women who have dedicated their lives to saving the African rhino – both the black and the white. I spoke with Dr. Mike Slattery, environmental scientist and founder of the Texas Christian University (TCU) Rhino Initiative. They have teamed up with South African wildlife vet and rhino conservationist, Dr. Will Fowlds, in an effort to ensure the long-term survival of rhino in South Africa.

The story of Hope.

Dr. Slattery explains that they focus on five key themes in their approach to the problem. Raising awareness, protection of rhino on the ground, community outreach projects, reducing demand campaigns and rehabilitation for the rhino. It was Mike Slattery’s involvement in the last of these that caused him to begin this programme. He shares the story of a white rhino called, Hope, with us. A large female who had much of her face hacked off by poachers. So severe where her injuries, that they struggled even to find a place to anchor the necessary bandages.

Rhino horn now costs more than gold, platinum or cocaine.

The environmentalist explained that when he looked in her eye and saw the pain and suffering there, he knew that he simply had to do something to help her and others like her. It is difficult for someone who has never seen one of these great prehistoric beasts in the wild, to appreciate just how special such a sight can be. I grew up in the province of Kwa-Zulu Natal, one of the natural habitats of the African rhino. As a child, I remember going to a small, local park to see two large white rhino grazing calmly, protected only by reinforced steal fencing. This, we were told was to protect visitors from a rampaging rhino, nothing more. The steal was a little rusty and could have been hacked relatively easily with modern machinery. It never occurred to me then that these creatures would become the victims of an apparently insatiable demand. One that has seen the value of their horns surpass that of gold, platinum and cocaine.

If there is one thing that can be agreed upon in this multi-layered problem, it is the source of demand and the fact that this has resulted in a staggering increase in poaching levels in the last decade. Research shows that in the 1970’s, Japan was the major consumer of rhino horn in Asia, followed by South Korea in the 1980’s and Taiwan in the late 80’s and early 90’s. However with the ratification of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and pro-active government intervention, demand has significantly decreased.

China and particularly, Vietnam are now the major destinations for both legal and illegal rhino horn. Growing wealth has caused demand to soar and has seen a corresponding shift from ‘health to wealth’ as some have dubbed it. The high level of demand together with the sophistication of the cartels involved, make it increasingly difficult to control. Dr. Slattery points out that there is now evidence that terrorist organisations including Al Qaeda, Boca Haram and Hezbollah are clearly tied into various poaching syndicates. Money talks.   

Poachers typically get only 1%-3% of the market price of the horn.

Various solutions have been tried and proposed over the years. Protection of the animals on the ground can be highly effective, but is extremely costly. Amongst the private game parks in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa with which TCU Rhino Initiative works, 50% of their budget is spent on protection. This includes putting a plane up in the sky, 8 to 10 hours a day for monitoring purposes, teams of trained rangers on the ground as well as equine units. Poaching is a complex problem, linked to high levels of poverty. Those who risk their lives typically get only 1% to 3% of the market price of the horn. Theirs is a wretched existence and in some countries like Botswana, the shoot-to-kill policy makes it even more so.

Prosecution of poachers has been slow in South Africa and fines are typically paltry. Reduction of demand is the most logical solution but will take time. Time that many like Mike Slattery, do not think the rhino has. Others suggest that legalisation of horn, even the farming of rhino is the answer. However some economists have estimated that even if all the reserves of the South African government and the private game reserves in South Africa were dumped on the market, it would satisfy no more than 0.1% of the demand, Dr. Slattery tells us.

Rhino horn is useless – except to the rhino.

Perhaps, as an article in the Guardian newspaper points out, the question to ask is, who has an interest in perpetuating Vietnamese demand for rhino horn? Vendors, traffickers, poachers and even legal stockpilers of the horns have vested interests in perpetuating the belief that traditions are difficult to change. However, previous examples show that this is not the case. Ending all legal trade in rhino horn, thus removing its legal value is clearly the first step. Rhino horn is useless – except to the rhino.

Most importantly, attitudes need to change. Societies need to value the live rhino in the wild more than the horn of a dead one. Campaigns of the kind involving celebrities like Jackie Chan are key. Rather than being seen as a status symbol, use of rhino horn and other illegal animal products should be understood as, ‘I support organised crime’.  Anything less is a betrayal of our environmental heritage and ultimately our humanity.

markets

Why Economics is mostly about how one views human nature.

‘Bleeding heart liberal’, Deirdre McCloskey and progressive capitalist, Joseph Stiglitz, see human nature very differently. These two world class economists were in Amsterdam this week to talk about their new books. Deirdre McCloskey’s, ‘Why Liberalism Works’ and Joseph Stiglitz’s ‘People, Power and Profits’. Their latest offerings place these two giants of American economics in direct opposition to one another on many counts. McCloskey is for markets, Stiglitz for government  to deliver growth and prosperity. What’s new you may ask? Quite a bit, when you look behind the economics to the underlying ideas about human nature that underpin each approach.

In his latest book, the Nobel Prize winning economist argues for what he terms ‘progressive capitalism’.  Stiglitz explains this idea as ‘a rejuvenated, reinvigorated social democracy, a new social contract between the state, civil society and the market.’  His latest book attempts to clarify the difference between what makes the wealth of a nation vs. what makes the wealth of an individual. Stiglitz is concerned that some individuals are not playing fair and are growing wealthy at the expense of the nation as a whole. He describes Trump and America under Trump as ‘a country of rent-seekers.’  The only way to solve this problem is to regulate and allow the government to police these individuals and the corporations they create. For example, he would like to see Facebook broken up.

Stiglitz on the dangers of market power.

For Stiglitz then, the big tech companies like Facebook and Google are perfect examples of what he terms market power. This means that markets have become dangerously dominant and are no longer competitive as a result. Lack of sufficient regulation exacerbated by asymmetries of information and a weakening of countervailing powers like the Unions have all played a part in this trend. The result: increasing inequality between the very wealthy few and the rest. Stiglitz is a long standing Democrat although he admits that ‘I sometimes describe myself as conservative’. He served in the Clinton administration and was an advisor to President Obama.

Stiglitz is in some sense a politician more than a pure economist. His economics policies are underpinned by a strong sense of the haves vs the have nots. Specifically, the need for government to protect the have nots from the ever more powerful haves. The picture he paints in ‘People, Power and Profits’ is gloomy. The myth of the American dream is underpinned by a lack of any real improvement in living standards for 90% of Americans, in the last 4 decades. In short, a large stick is needed rather than a bigger carrot.

‘I came to liberalism from the left’ – McCloskey

Professor McCloskey on the other hand refuses to buy into what she terms ‘the economic sky is falling’ argument. She points out that ‘envy is insatiable’ and cannot therefore be the basis of social policy. A Harvard educated economist who admits she was initially an anarchist, then a Joan Baez socialist and then a Keynesian, McCloskey ‘came to liberalism from the left’. She is unrelenting in her belief in the power of markets to optimise equality because they are a naturally occurring human phenomenon and do not come from the government. Describing herself as ‘a radical’ she advocates for a ‘bleeding heart’ or ‘feminist liberalism’, rather than the kind of social Darwinism that prioritises  maximisation of profit. She believes in a constitutional democracy and the power of the individual over the general will. This is perhaps the defining feature of McCloskey’s position – a belief in the power of the individual.

‘Liberalism is the theory that you should let people be adults’ – McCloskey

‘Liberalism is the theory that you should let people be adults’.  Socialism she argues is based on the idea that the economy of a country is like that of a family. This is the attractiveness of socialism – the idea that the government is like a benevolent parent who will shoulder much of the responsibility. Families are inherently socialist in nature, she explains, as they should be. But equating the family with an economy of 300 million people is a mistake. ‘Let people do what they want, because that is the dignity of adulthood.’  I’m inclined to agree. She admits however, that such a position is difficult to maintain. Especially when dealing with innocent victims such as the children of drug addicts and the destitute. For this reason McCloskey is in favour of helping the poor. Even a modest form of Universal Basic Income for those members of society who need it.

Not a question of Economics

So how to reconcile these two opposing camps? The issue it seems is not purely a question of economics. Rather it is a matter of how one views human nature. McCloskey makes a case for the manner in which behavioural economics has resulted in the highlighting of irrational behaviour in economic life. Many, like fellow Nobel prize winner (2017) Richard Thaler and Stiglitz himself, regard this as evidence of the need for a strong government, representative of society as a whole, to keep erring individuals on the straight and narrow. ‘The end is near, so take me, the man on the white horse, and let me run your life for you’, McCloskey puts it with characteristic directness.

Sustainable prosperity must be shared prosperity – Stiglitz

Stiglitz’s refrain, that ‘You can’t have sustainable prosperity without shared prosperity’ is initially attractive but begs the question, how will this be achieved? Of course, the answer is government and regulation. McCloskey’s plea for the prioritization of individual human dignity above all else is challenging. It places more responsibility on the individual. Ultimately it celebrates the power of the individual over that of society. As many lovers of literature would no doubt agree, this is always the stuff of which the most inspiring works of art are made. 

zoka forest

William Amanzuru on saving Zoka forest.

Zoka forest covers an area of 25 square kilometres in North West Uganda. It is the only natural rainforest in the region and is unique in that it is composed of tropical areas, savannah and woodland. It houses 75% of the world’s butterfly species and is also a breeding ground for the edible grasshoppers so popular in Uganda. But the most important inhabitants are perhaps the Afzelia Africana trees or African mahogany and the so-called charcoal tree. The latter can be used for fuel, paper and pulp production, rope-making and has numerous medicinal properties. It may be used to treat anything from sore throats and asthma to gonorrhea and toothache. William Amanzuru Leslie, winner of the EU Human Rights Defenders Award, 2019, grew up in this area. ‘I have a feeling that nature was born in me, so I can’t live without it,’. The simple sincerity of this statement, belies a life threatening battle that William has faced since he decided to ‘speak for the trees because they can’t speak for themselves’. He has faced death threats, break-ins and has had to send his wife and children to live 500km away in order to ensure their safety. Can the Friends of Zoka movement, that he and 6 others founded, save the remaining 35% of this special piece of Ugandan heritage?

Zoka Central Forest Reserve has been designated as a protected area by the Ugandan government. However, from around 2013, William tells me that he and others who lived in the area saw the forest ‘coming under massive attack by those who were meant to be protecting it’. In less than six years  65% of the indigenous Zoka forest was destroyed. William noticed large-scale logging activities taking place there. He and a few other concerned citizens felt that they could not simply sit by and do nothing. So they started asking questions in search of  ‘a peaceful answer’ as William puts it.

This lead to the creation of a small local movement calling themselves Friends of Zoka, in 2015. Members took it upon themselves to walk to a government office, William explains, and ask questions about what was happening to the forest. Slowly word spread, he says with quiet pride. More and more people expressed an interest in what we were doing. Their first meeting involved no agenda and there was no chairperson, nor secretary. ‘Everyone was a chairperson, everyone was a secretary’, says William, who later took on the role of deciding which concern should be addressed to which government office, i.e. the Forestry department or the central government and so on. 

Friends of Zoka as a large WhatsApp group

The movement does not have any fixed offices or address. Distances in Uganda, even within a district area are large and transport is often on foot. In August 2016, William decided to create a WhatsApp group for all those interested and involved in the initiative. They started simply by sharing questions, comments, articles, even songs and poems. In this way, the sense of community and dedication to the cause grew.

However, they also decided to include those who were not friends of Zoka forest but who had power and interest in and over it. ‘We then decided to handpick government agencies, leaders, loggers and others who are responsible for what is happening to the forest’, William explains calmly. So it became ‘an enclosed family question’ he adds, not without a note of irony. I ask William what happens if one of these individuals chooses to exit the group. He agreed that they had had instances of people exiting but they simply re-added them and followed this up with a question like, ‘Why did you leave the group…..? We know you destroyed the environment…’ The dynamics of group pressure are clearly at work here.

The WhatsApp group creates important dynamics among its members.

As the activist explains, ‘the community knows that the car such a person drives, the food they eat, the house they live in, is an abuse of the environment.’ So oftentimes, such individuals choose to ‘stay dormant’ in the group, rather than attract attention by leaving. However, these same individual can find themselves drawn in to arguments in an attempt to defend their often already tarnished reputations. Accusations have been made within the group regarding meeting places, exchange of money and other key details linked to  illegal logging in Zoka Central Forest Reserve. William now collects all these conversations, raises money and then pays a local radio station to broadcast the conversations. Via an interview with William, all of the news from the WhatsApp group is disseminated to the local community.

He explains to the listeners that they are a WhatsApp group of around 250 people. William goes on to ‘name and shame’ in an effort to call to account those who live in the area and are involved in illegal logging in Zoka forest. As a result, some of the local loggers are now known to the Adjumani community. William asks them to shun these people, in order to create shame among the community for destroying their natural heritage.  In some cases, it works. William tells me that all three local loggers who he has confronted personally, broke down in tears in response to his question; why are you doing this? 

‘I have made one of the most painful decisions a father can make’ – William Amanzuru.

William speaks with humour and conviction but he pays a high personal price for his decision to spear-head the Friends of Zoka movement. The is the second year in which he has lived apart from his wife and children. ‘I have made one of the most painful decisions a father can make and at times it breaks me down.’ The question that haunts him he tells me, is ‘How will my children look at me when they come of age, because I have made a decision without consulting them.’ The decision to move his family 500kms away was prompted by numerous threats and break-ins but got to a critical point when William was tipped off about a plan to kidnap his children. It was at this point that he made the difficult decision to send all four of them (two adopted and two biological) along with his wife to live in relative safety elsewhere.

However William’s own safety continues to be threatened. He tells me that in January of this year ‘a very powerful woman who works for the Ministry of Health threatened to kill me.’ William came across her in Zoka forest on one of his regular rounds. She was in the company of a group of loggers, felled trees nearby and chain saws lying on the ground.  In response to his question, ‘What are you doing here?’ she grew incensed and threatened him with a knife. Later she arranged a roadblock for William and his colleagues and was there waiting for them with a can of petrol in her hands. ‘But again we managed to elude her’, William tells me with characteristic understatement. William tells me that he is attacked all the time on social media but has learnt to take this in his stride.

The activist remains committed to a peaceful approach. He believes that this is what has helped win him so many supporters from the local community. ‘I come head on with the loggers – loggers who literally held me at gun point at times, but I tell them, “It’s beautiful, you can kill William now but the challenge is, that someone else may take my place, someone greater than William. So for how long will you keep killing? If you think killing is sustainable, then keep killing. If not, then let’s talk.”’ He admits that he feels he has had success with such an approach. He has spoken with three local loggers in this way and tells me that ‘they have found such discussions so touching that they have broken down’.

‘If you look at what we have done, it is quite tremendous.’ – William Amanazuru 

Looking ahead, William would like to build on the structure of the movement he has begun. He increasingly receives demands from across the country to talk to communities about environmental issues. Travel is time consuming and expensive so the activist often shares his knowledge and advice with communities via phone. To date, the organisation has no physical office. ‘I think this is hard for people to believe. But if you look at what we have done, it is quite tremendous.’

He believes that ordinary people see the beauty of such a set-up as it makes the prospect of beginning their own, similar initiatives more realistic. William also emphasises the priority they give to trust and transparency. ‘In the work we do, we trust everyone’. From the WhatsApp discussion group, he spreads the word via local radio, church leaders and at community meetings. In this way, trust grows and with trust, more information is gathered and progress is made.

Trust and transparency are everything.

‘In the work we do, we trust everyone.’  Transparency is their strength. This and his determination to  bring the ‘elite discussion’ taking place on the WhatsApp group to the wider community. This is done through radio talks, community meetings, even the help of church leaders in explaining what has been posted on WhatsApp. In this way, one creates trust in the realities of this problem. Once trust is achieved, it is easier to gain more information from all community members.

In March of this year, Friends of Zoka and a number of other environmental activists completed a 470 km walk from Kampala, the capital, to William’s home town in the Adjumani district. Designed to raise awareness across the country about the ecological importance of  Zoka Forest, it involved the planting of trees at each town and village they passed along the way. Each tree was named by local inhabitants and William and his fellow activists took time to talk with them and share the idea that ‘the environment should be looked at as our source of livelihood, our source of life!’.  William Amanzuru admits that by the time they reached his home town he was very emotional – ‘I couldn’t believe I had walked all the way from Kampala and now I was home.’

‘Corruption has become a ministry of its own in Uganda’ – William Amanzuru.

Home and community is clearly something that William feels very strongly about. A social worker and counsellor by training, William also has a legal background and so he offers those in his district free legal advice and helps with social issues too. He tells me that he has no interest in politics per se, but wishes to help strengthen accountability and transparency at the local political level through citizen participation. This in spite of the fact that corruption and impunity are rife across all levels of government.

‘As a country we have lost a grip on our own identity. People believe that they are the law and the law is themselves’. He blames this on what he terms the death of institutions in Uganda. This is why personalities rise above these institutions and believe that they are more powerful than them, he explains. ‘Corruption has become a ministry on its own. It is a ministry that is not funded, it is a ministry  headed by everyone, it is a ministry that has employed all Ugandans. But silently we don’t want to talk about it.’

But William Amanzuru is talking about it. What’s more, he is encouraging local communities to come together and talk about it too. In particular, he is helping to foster a growing awareness of the value of the environment which is so much a part of his Ugandan heritage. Coming from Africa myself, I can only wish that more men and women like William Amanzuru will come forward and lead their communities with peace and dignity, into the future.

brave new world

Brave New World: Man vs nature or technology?

What is hybrid intelligence? Can bots learn empathy and is technology the new religion? These and similar questions were all up for discussion at the Brave New World Conference in Leiden recently. Philosophers and science fiction writers have long grappled with questions of man and machine. But technological advances combined with the climate crisis have brought these debate to the fore. I spoke with journalist and author of ‘New Dark Age’ (2018), James Bridle and heard philosopher, Nolan Gertz, author of ‘Nihilism and Technology’(2018) speak there. The relationship between man, nature and technology has always been complicated. But increasingly there seems to be a polarization between those who see man and nature as allies against the growing threat technological dehumanization. And those who see man and technology as partners in overcoming the limitations of the natural world.

Imagine a world in which one could design one’s own family. A research team at Eindhoven University of Technology was recently awarded a €2.9 million grant to develop a working prototype of their artificial womb. The artificial womb would deliver oxygen and nutrients to the baby through an umbilical cord-like tube, mimicking the natural environment of the female uterus. This breakthrough raises ethical questions about the future of baby making on a global scale. But it doesn’t stop there. The Reproductopia Clinic, created by the Next Nature Network, is the creation of various artists and designers, in light of these and other developments. It allows one to design your own reproductive future through a series of six steps. These included, finding your co-parents, assembling your gene pool and creating your reproductive technology.

Turning my son into a cyborg – Dr. Vivienne Ming

Technological advances such as these highlight the increasingly blurry boundaries between the human and the non-human. As a recent article in Forbes magazine put it, ‘Cyborgs are here and you’d better get used to it’. Cyborgs are organisms with both biological and technological components. As new technologies such as artificial intelligence and 3D printing bring ever more possibilities, theoretical neuroscientist, Dr. Vivienne Ming is unapologetic about her decision to ‘turn my son into a cyborg and change the definition of what it means to be human’. When her son was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, she admits playing the ‘mad scientist with my son’s biology’. She hacked his insulin pump by building AI that learned to match his insulin to his emotions and activities. 

Cyborgs are part of a growing ‘transhumanist’ movement, popularised by writers, thinkers and entrepreneurs like Professor Nick Bostrom, James Lovelock and Elon Musk. The latter, recently revealed first details of an electronic brain implant. Developed by Neuralink, the company in which he has invested more than 100 million dollars, it facilitates direct communications between people and machines. At the Brave New World conference we were treated to a viewing of Zima Blue. An award winning animated adaption of short story of the same name, by Alastair Reynolds. Now part of a Netflix series called Love, Death and Robots, Zima Blue explores the notion of transhumanism through the central character, Zima. A universally acclaimed artist, who lives a reclusive life in a far flung galaxy, Zima turns out to be more machine than man.

‘If Mother Nature had been a real parent, she should have been in jail.’ – Nick Bostrom

Transhumanism is a philosophical movement that advocates for a transformation of the human condition via recourse to advanced technologies. Emerging technologies are seen as a way to overcome fundamental human limitations so that a posthuman future may be imagined. Philosopher, Nolan Gertz, therefore argues that transhumanists see nature as essentially flawed and technology as a new God-like entity. He quotes author of New York Times best-seller, Superintelligence, Professor Nick Bostrom, as saying, ‘If Mother Nature had been a real parent, she should have been in jail.’ Does such a position posit technology as God and transhumanists as the priests of tomorrow’s brave new world, tasks Gertz? What are the implications of such a perspective for the brave new world of tomorrow?

James Bridle takes up a related argument when he asks, what form of intelligence are we creating via AI? And why is the development of AI consistently predicated on the notions of domination? He encourages us instead to look once more at the natural world, about which we still have so much still to learn, in order to gain a more diverse understanding of intelligences. What he calls, ‘other intelligences’. By this he means that of the fauna and the flora with which we have shared the earth for thousands of years. ‘The more we learn about nature, the more we realise how blind we’ve been’ he says. Bridle gives us the example of Pando, a single male quaking aspen tree found in Utah, US that covers 43 hectares. Known as the trembling giant, this incredible organism is estimated to have an 80 000 year old root system. Pando’s status as the world’s most massive organism was only recognised in 1992.

Is democracy under attack by technology?

The journalist goes on to provide other examples of different kinds of intelligences that are being successfully used in politics. There are many who fear that democracy is under threat by technology. Bridle goes back to Ancient Greece where democracy was based on the random allocation of jobs. The idea that we might benefit from more randomness in decision making was put to the test in Ireland. The writer explains how the ‘big, knotty societal problem’ of abortion was successfully resolved there, using citizens assemblies. The cognitive diversity of this large number of randomly selected individuals aided them in coming to a consensus on an issue that many politicians preferred to avoid. Since then, more successes have been achieved using this method.

So how are we to make sense of the brave new world that awaits us? How are we to choose between an increasing number of options that seem to pull us first one way and then another? History teaches us that we can not stop time or change. Whether you’re a cyborg fan or a traditional naturalist, perhaps a bit of both, it’s worth bearing the following in mind. Nolan Gertz encourages us to think more carefully about how we think about advanced technologies. He emphasizes the importance of being more aware about the assumptions we might unquestioningly carry around with us. James Bridle reminds us that not everything can or should have a solution. It is important to retain the ability to wonder. Science’s inability to fully explain a phenomenon, does not justify our dismissal thereof.

intelligence watching

Can intelligence be done democratically?

Earlier this week, the world’s most wanted terrorist, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was killed by American special forces in North West Syria. This operation was the culmination of co-ordinated intelligence work and President Trump thanked Russia, Iraq, Syria, Tukey and Kurdish intelligence  for their help. The rise of terrorism and technological advancement are re-shaping traditional intelligence gathering. The shadowy world of Cold War espionage made famous by novels like Le Carre’s, ‘The Spy who came in from the cold’ ,now seems more nostalgic than dangerous. Ironically, Orwell’s dystopian novel, ‘1984’, published more than a decade earlier, finds increasing resonance in the Big Brother world of 21st century cyber-surveillance. But is this compatible with democracy?

Last year I interviewed Dutch security specialist, Elsine van Os, whose company, Signpost Six released a documentary (2018) called, Edward Snowden – Whistleblower or Spy. The film traces Snowden’s journey from high-level employee in various US intelligence units, to his exile in Russia, where he still lives. Variously called a hero, a traitor, a whistleblower and a patriot, Edward Snowden’s Wikileaks disclosures fuelled debates over mass surveillance and government secrecy. His revelations revealed the extent of the surveillance being carried out by American and British intelligence agencies, globally. Although Wikileaks is a 21st century phenomenon, it is worth remembering that intelligence is not. It is surely no coincidence that ancient Greek thinkers like Plato and Socrates who developed early theories of democracy and citizenship, also contemplated the role of intelligence in the security of the city state.

‘Intelligence is a necessity for democracy’ – Hayez.

The notion that intelligence and politics are one and the same, is not new. Dr. John Fox have chartered the role of espionage and the development of the nation state. He argues that information gathering of this kind has played a central role in how we understand the powers of the modern state. Listening last week to French security specialist, Philippe Hayez, I heard these ideas echoed in some of his comments. ‘Intelligence is a public service – at best’ and ‘Intelligence is a necessity for democracy’. Speaking to a room full of next generation intelligence professionals, he pointed out that intelligence has been the highest growth industry in the last decade, in both France and the Netherlands. So although we might rail against the idea of living in a ‘Big Brother’ society, this public service is not so easily dismissed.

Two apparently opposing forces – privacy and transparency, have come to the fore in recent decades. These are creating the kinds of tensions highlighted by people like Edward Snowden. The rise in the threat of terrorism has resulted in a strong push for more information gathering, more surveillance and more secrecy. Advances in technology have aided this process. But, ironically, they have also facilitated the transparency that allows the public access to large amounts of information. The result, intelligence has had to come out of the closet and clean up its act, to some extent at least.

‘Intelligence is now in the age of compliance’ – Hayez

If intelligence is to be just another area of public policy, as Hayez and other experts suggest, then legitimacy and accountability are key. This, Hayez quips, has prompted some in the business to claim, ‘We are no longer a secret service but a service with secrets’. There is, he claims, a growing acknowledgement that democracy is first and foremost about the limitation of power. This includes intelligence services. In France, the limits of such information gathering was defined by the 2015 Law on Intelligence. Similar attempts at legitimacy may be seen in the UK’s Official Secrets Act of 2011. Hayez admits that the idea that intelligence must comply with the rule of law only really began in the 1990s, in Europe. ’Intelligence is now in the age of compliance’ he tells us.

Boundaries between the foreign and the domestic are increasingly blurry.

This leads to the fundamental question, posed concisely here by the Hoover Institute. Can a government impose the secrecy that intelligence requires and still legitimately claim to be a democracy? Intelligence is valuable because of the advantage it offers, and secrecy is often necessary to protect that advantage. As Australian academic, Simon Chesterton, notes, international law tolerates intelligence activities. But spying on one’s own citizens in a democracy has traditionally been subject to legal and political restraint. However the rise of globalised terrorism and digital media have made boundaries between foreign and domestic blurry.

In the age of big data, the focus should perhaps be on how all of the collected information is used. Estonia and China provide two very different models in this regard. The small Balkan state is working towards a largely digitalised society. It has made a virtue of the new levels of transparency that technology offers. Citizens can access personal data online and see how the government is using it. In contrast, China is using wide-scale surveillance as part of their social credit system. A Big Brother style campaign apparently designed to promote virtuous behaviour amongst its citizens. Perhaps Stanfield Turner’s maxim is helpful here.  Director of the CIA under Jimmy Carter, Turner oversaw major reforms at the agency after the Senate uncovered CIA surveillance aimed at American citizens. ‘When you do intelligence, the bottom line is, will it be legitimate in 20 or 30 years’ time?’