The Taiwan issue is heavily involved in Sino-US relations, especially with the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and the three joint communiques. The TRA obliges Washington to guarantee Taipei a continuous flow of armaments for defensive purposes, with the aim of guaranteeing the Taipei government military capabilities for its own defense. But Taiwan I'm coming! also that Washington, to respect the One China Policy, would not accept any declaration of Independence by Taipei, preferring to maintain the Status Quo.
In recent days, US President Joe Biden himself stated that Washington will intervene militarily in support of Taiwan in the event of an attack by the armed forces in Beijing; later, during an interview on CNN, Taiwan's President Tsa-Ing Wen confirmed the Wall Street Journal's early October rumors about the presence of US military units on the island, with advisory and training duties.
For Washington, the concern will also be linked to the nuclear deterrence capabilities that Beijing could acquire by 2030. According to the Pentagon Report Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China, the People's Republic of China could increase the Chinese’s nuclear arsenal, up to the one thousand nuclear ballistic carriers ceiling for 2030.
For the American political-military leadership, this scenario could compromise US deterrence in the Indo-Pacific area in the coming years.
In recent decades scientists have proved that humankind is entering the Anthropocene: a new geological era where the effects of human activities and pollution will push the environment towards a collapse of its ecological equilibrium. The growing concerns about this shift, have been recently reflected in the Resolution 48/13 of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which acknowledges a close link between ‘environmental degradation and climate change’ to human subsistence.
To sum up, this UN HRC Resolution recognizes ‘the right to a healthy environment’ as a full-fledged human right. This development has been welcomed by human rights experts. Notably, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet expressed satisfaction, mentioning that:
‘Bold action is now required to ensure this resolution on the right to a healthy environment serves as a springboard to push for transformative economic, social and environmental policies that will protect people and nature’.
Indeed, this is a historical development, but also a topic for scholarly debates. In fact, the catastrophic consequences of the deterioration of the global ecosystem are leading experts to question the ‘state of the art’ of the international legal structure. More precisely, does international law play a role on the ongoing environmental crisis? In this paper, I will argue that the ‘right to a healthy environment’ does not break with the traditional thought and structure of international law; rather it provides an additional perspective to it.
The birth of the ‘homo economicus’
International law does not engage thoroughly on the protection of the environment. It is significant how even in landmarking environmental treaties – such as the Rio Declaration and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – the main focus is on economic expansion and land exploitation rather than protection of nature. For scholar Anne Grear, this approach is coherent with the Western cultural myth of ‘rational human subject’ and the construct deriving from such ideology.
According to this reconstruction, since the famous pronouncement of René Descartes, cogito ergo sum, the idea that above all there is human rationality has been thriving throughout Europe. However, Grear claims that this narrative is exclusionary at its roots, as only a precise kind of rationality is endorsed: behind the illusion of objective rationality lies a design that promotes certain hierarchies. This includes a specific kind of relationship between humankind and nature.
Indeed, analysing national contexts, most countries in the world address the conservation of the environment in their legal systems; however, the same becomes more uncertain in the international setting. For instance, this is visible within the 8 Millennium Sustainable Goals (MDGs): out of the eight points enshrined in this agenda, only the seventh is about ‘environmental sustainability’ and among the four targets within the latter ‘only two were genuinely about environmental conditions’.
The idea that humankind can bend ‘nature’ as it pleases has been further promoted through the rise of international corporations, which can escape both territorial and legal boundaries. In the past, these associations of interest were subservient to the goals of the Western elite, aiming to exploit developing countries, their ‘nature’ and resources. However, as suggested by Grear, corporations have now become so prominent that they have managed to emancipate themselves and become a sort of ‘homo economicus’ based on legal fiction. This is the pinnacle of what is meant to be 'rational' according to the Western legacy, but, paradoxically, this is detrimental even to their former creators. Like a golem without its master: international corporations can now continue their mission of exploiting the Earth and its resources with hardly any restraints.
The environment as a ‘grundnorm’
Today, this tradition in international law is being challenged. New international treaties and standards are leading countries in adopting sustainable approaches in their development policies. for a contribution to this shift comes from human rights law: in the landmarking Urgenda Case, the Dutch Supreme Court stated that ‘the government had to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020, respectful of commitments made in the Paris Agreements’.
Interestingly, the court stated that this decision was made in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has recognized the importance of environmental protection, as nature is inevitably intertwined with relevant ‘human rights’, such as the ‘right to food’.
This seems consistent with scholars Kim and Bosselman’s position, which suggests that ecological integrity should be understood as a conditio sine qua non – or grundnorm – of international law, as the equilibrium of the ecosystem is necessary for the subsistence of humankind. Hence, the call for a sort of ‘international constitutionalism’ which should be capable to work within the decentralized system of the international community:
‘Where there is a regulatory gap, this grundnorm fills the void. Where there is already a treaty obligation, it reinforces and clarifies treaty obligations in light of the planetary boundaries framework.’
Whereas the proposal of Kim and Bosselman is undoubtedly bold, it is undeniable that big progress has been made in this sense. The Urgenda Case itself is proof that, perhaps, a decentralized environment protection system is not impossible. Nonetheless, ‘the right to a healthy environment’ is not such a radical innovation.
Concluding remark
The challenge of ‘climate change’ is arguably one of the main reasons why ‘green movements’ have gained momentum in the last decades. Because of this threat, the wild exploitation of the Earth – based on traditional ‘human subject rationality’ – is starting to increasingly sound irrational. Still, the response of the international community continues to be mainly human-centric and tied to human rights law.
Therefore, what we are witnessing with the UN Resolution 48/13 is a ‘greening’ of pre-existing human rights. The traditional foundation of international law is unchallenged. However, while humanity remains the main yardstick to assess the protection of nature, this new approach, could represent a gradual path towards a more comprehensive protection of the environment and human survival in the context of ‘climate change’.
Africa is one of the fastest-growing continents in the world: according to some of the latest reports its population will double by 2050, and it will represent over 50% of the global demographic growth. According to these predictions, 2,5 billion people are expected to live on the continent, and by mid-century 25% of people will be African. Moreover, the continent, whose average age is 19, is extremely young and dynamic. This data is estimated to grow to 26 within thirty years, making African youth ten times larger than that of Europe by 2050.
It is not hard to understand how such dynamism will make Africa a prominent player in global development, and one of the most active markets worldwide. In a context which is already an area of interest to international powers, the continent will increasingly become an equal partner to Western countries.
Given the difference in wealth and development between different African countries and regions, the actual growth rates are generally not accompanied by the reinforcement of services and infrastructure. About 600 million African people do not have access to electricity while around 900 million people lack access to clean cooking (IEA Africa Energy Outlook 2019). The near-future increase of the African population will exacerbate the situation, pushing millions of people to demand access to energy and facilities. How African governments will respond to these requests will be a crucial issue.
In particular, the energy supply is, and will be, a key point of African development. Governments will have to be able to provide access to electricity to their whole population, supporting local, national, and continental development. In this framework, renewable energy sources could play a pivotal role in African energy self-sufficiency and sustainable development. But how can green energy be implemented in African production chains? And what is the current situation in this field?
The role of green energy in Africa
Energy consumption in Africa is characterized by a high level of disparity: South Africa, together with North African countries, cover more than 70% of the entire energy consumption of the continent, while a Sub-Saharan urban citizen uses only 200 kWh per year on average (North Africa 1442 kWh/year, South Africa 4148 kWh/year). This fragmentation gives a snapshot of the unequal development of the continent, particularly in a strategic sector such as the energy industry. It also represents a significant issue for an equal development of the continent and for “the pan-African drive for unity, self-determination, freedom, progress and collective prosperity pursued under Pan-Africanism and African Renaissance” (African Union, Agenda 2063).
At present, renewable energy only accounts for 2% of the total production, confirming the backwardness in this field (45% of the total energy is sourced from biomass burning, typically used by people who lack access to clean cooking systems). Of these renewable energies, hydroelectric power is the most used (74% of the total), as large dams represent strategic infrastructures in several regions, and their construction is heavily promoted at an international level. Unfortunately, regardless of this, fossil fuels still make up the majority of the share, prompting several African countries to even import it from abroad.
As stated earlier this situation contributes to Africa’s slow and unequal development, notwithstanding its potential in the fields of solar and aeolian energy. Currently, South Africa, Morocco, and Egypt are the major solar energy producers whereas Kenya, and Senegal dominate in the production of wind energy. Still, green energy is under-exploited despite the continent’s possibilities. For instance, solar radiation in North Africa is 3 times higher than the European average, and the Saharan Desert alone could accommodate a great number of solar power plants. Wind energy could also be effectively produced and harnessed in many African areas.
There are many economic, logistical, and political reasons for this underdevelopment. The construction of any kind of renewable energy plant requires large investments, and a network of efficient infrastructure to guarantee widespread distribution. Green energy production also requires high knowledge and trained personnel at all levels, such as design, construction, maintenance and so on. In most cases, African countries do not have the economic resources and the know-how to pursue it alone, thus relying on foreign investments in the sector which finance and oversee construction of new energy plants.
In addition, the lack of infrastructures in large parts of the continent, especially in rural areas, represents a serious obstacle to the development of a high efficiency energy grid capable of distributing electrical power and to allow countries to reach a homogeneous and effective progress. Moreover, the lack of facilities which lead to, for instance, limited mobility in certain areas, would make the maintenance of the energy grids extremely difficult. Therefore, green energy expansion in Africa is realized mainly through small-scale implants that can ensure electricity supply to small villages or limited areas, which are low-cost and easily maintainable. Although this configuration can actually support the development of poor rural areas that have no access to electricity, it no longer appears to be a sustainable way to strengthen African growth and to reinforce its international role.
Lastly, the political instability of many African countries is a severe threat to the establishment of a modern energy network in the continent. Conflicts drain state funds, making the construction and management of energy infrastructures very difficult. Moreover, political agendas of unstable governments do not focus on the strengthening of energy independence of their countries.
Green energy in Africa: a geo-political issue
Despite all these obstacles, the International Energy Agency (IEA) claims that green energies will represent one of the main development factors for African countries. In its 2019 Africa Energy Outlook it foresees that by 2040 more than 60% of the total electricity production will come from renewable sources. Although the speed of that growth is uncertain, scenarios agree that technologies related to wind and solar energy will be those that will be developed more, pushing green energy production up to 40% of the total. This expansion has both economic and political consequences; electricity cuts, and inefficiency in distribution in general, represent a big issue especially in African cities. Indeed, many of the latest clashes in North Africa cities were generated by protests on the lack of energy. For instance, last year clashes in Libya were triggered by electricity outages. Similarly, power absence in Sinai generated discontent, subsequently providing opportunity to terrorist groups to increase their influence in the region.
There is no doubt that a higher production at national level could allow Africa to achieve a more equal development. To this end, renewable energies could give the continent a new international role as energy provider, by also supporting the increase of its population, and the resulting rise of new consumers, markets and needs. Moreover, considering African population rates, a green change could have beneficial effects on global warming too, which represents one of the main challenges of the next few years. That is why Western countries, whose role is crucial for an African Green Deal, should promote international investments, training, transfer of knowledge and, more in general, development aid and support to local Governments.
“Where we choose to invest speaks to what we value as a Nation. This year’s Budget, the first of my Presidency, is a statement of values that define our Nation at its best.” - Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (The Budget Message of the President)
This article navigates the landscape of AI policymaking and tracks efforts of the United States to promote and govern AI technologies.
Technological advancement has become a new approach to increase a state’s political, military, and economic strength. The Cold War and the arms race between the two then strongest nations in the world, the United States of America (USA) and the Soviet Union (USSR), revealed the potential that lay in the development of technology. Today, the United States is again at the forefront in the race for supremacy in the potentially world-changing technology: artificial intelligence (AI).
Artificial intelligence has the potential to fundamentally change strategy, organization, priorities, and resources of any national community that manages to develop AI technology, lead to further innovation, and eventually apply it. Artificial intelligence is going through major evolution and development, and its potential is increasing at a speed rate. Progress is visibly accelerating, and our social, political, and economic systems will be affected greatly. One of the important questions is how to define and approach all the opportunities AI technology can offer while avoiding or managing risks.
The United States published its national AI strategy, the American AI Initiative, in 2019.The responsible organization is the White House, and its priority is to increase the federal government investment in AI’s Research and Development (R&D), and to ensure technical standards for safe AI technology development and deployment. American AI Initiative expresses a commitment to collaborate with foreign partners while promoting U.S leadership in AI. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the American AI Initiative is not particularly comprehensive, especially when compared to other leading nations, and is characterized by the lack of both funding and palpable policy objectives.
President Biden's budget for FY2022 includes approximately $171.3 billion for research and development (R&D), which is an 8.5% ($13.5 billion) increase compared to the FY2021 estimated level of $157.8 billion.
According to the 2021 AI Index Report, in FY 2020 the USA federal departments and agencies spent a combined $1.8 billion on unclassified AI-related contracts. This represents an increase of more than 25% from the amount spent in FY 2019.
One of the agencies with the major R&D program is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). President Biden is requesting $1,497.2 million for NIST in FY2022, an increase of $462.7 million (44.7%) from the FY2021 $1,034.5 million. The second-highest program budget increase in NIST is for Partnerships, Research, and Standards to Advance Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, $45.4 million (an increase of $15 million compared to FY2021).
Some departments are expecting large percentage increases in R&D funding, among which the Department of Commerce, with an increase of up to 29.3%. At the same time, it is interesting to note that one of DOC’s latest projects is the creation of the National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Advisory Committee (NAIAC), which will be discussed below.
Numerous policymakers in Congress are particularly interested in the Department of Defense Science and Technology (DOD S&T) program funding. The increasingly popular belief in the defense community finds ensuring support for S&T activities as necessary to maintain USA’s military superiority in the world.
The budget request represents President Biden’s R&D priorities, and the Congress may agree with it partially, completely, or not agree at all.It is safe to say that AI has gained the attention of the Congress, considering the 116th Congress (January 3, 2019 - January 3, 2021) is the most AI-focused congressional session in history with the number of times AI was mentioned being more than three times higher compared to 115th Congress (115th - 149, 116th - 486).
National and International Efforts
As indicated in its national AI strategy, the United States takes part in various intergovernmental AI initiatives, such asGlobal Partnership on AI (GPAI), OECD Network of Experts on AI (ONE AI), Ad Hoc Expert Group (AHED) for the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, and has participated in global summits and meetings, such as AI Partnership for Defense, and AI for Good Global Summit. In addition, the United States announced a declaration of the bilateral agreement on AI with the United Kingdom in December 2020.
On September 8, 2021, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo announced the establishment of the National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Advisory Committee (NAIAC). The main purpose of the NAIAC will be to advise the President and the National AI Initiative Office (NAIIO) on issues related to AI. “AI presents an enormous opportunity to tackle the biggest issues of our time, strengthen our technological competitiveness, and be an engine for growth in nearly every sector of the economy. But we must be thoughtful, creative, and wise in how we address the challenges that accompany these new technologies,” Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said.
The United States or China?
The United States is showing an increasing interest in developing and implementing artificial intelligence through the increase in federal AI-related budget, establishment of new committees, intergovernmental AI initiatives, bilateral agreements, and participating in global summits but the constant comparison is being made between USA and China. Should the future battle over artificial intelligence be between USA and China, the question arises: Who will win this battle for AI supremacy?
Recently, a former Pentagon expert said that the race is already over, and China has won. The Pentagon’s first chief software officer resigned over the slow pace of technological advances in the U.S. military. He claims the USA has no competing fighting chance against China in the upcoming years and that it's already a done deal.
At the same time, an expert in artificial intelligence Kai-Fu Lee, former President of Google China, disagrees with this claim. He notes that the US has a clear academic lead in artificial intelligence, supports his claim by noting that all 16 Turing award recipients in AI are American or Canadian, and the top 1% of papers published are still predominantly American. China is simply faster in commercializing technologies and has more data.
Artificial intelligence already has numerous uses (academic, military, medical, etc.) and when assessing countries' AI technology reach it is important to separate different uses of technology.
To answer the question on whether the United States or China will win AI 'race' or whether a new force will emerge, it is necessary to closely monitor artificial intelligence technology development and compare different countries using a uniform set of criteria before reaching a conclusion. Another potential scenario, as highlighted by Kai-Fu Lee in his book AI 2014: Ten Visions of Our Future, states the possibility of United States and China co-leading the world in technology.
Image Source: World Resource Institute, https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/water_stress_world_map_large.jpg
Water is a vital component of all life on the planet. Its importance is rarely overstressed. This is no truer than in the Middle East. The region, characterised by a hot and arid climate, has several major lakes and river systems supporting local agriculture. Unfortunately access to the water supply has often been a point of contention.
It has been reported that the Middle East is warming at twice the global average. Coupled with the World Resources Institute (WRI) listing 12 out of 17 of the world's most water-stressed countries in the Middle East and North Africa region, water access will only become more critical in the coming years and decades. This article will look at two different case studies—first, the actions of Iran in reversing the environmental degradation of Lake Urmia. Second, how a combination of infrastructure projects by neighboring countries and environmental changes have altered the flow of the Tigris and Euphrates River system in Iraq.
Lake Urmia:
Once the largest lake in the Middle East and the 6th largest saltwater lake on the planet Lake Urmia was both an ecological sight of interest that supported several different species and a popular tourist destination with a local economy tailored to it. Lake Urmia covered an area of over 5,200 square kilometres. But, a combination of policy decisions and poor weather saw the lake diminish in size to a mere 10% of its maximum capacity in 2014.
The desire to utilise natural resources led to the construction of several dams, for irrigation and hydropower, on the three rivers, which were the source of 90% of the water to the lake. There were also an estimated 40,000 illegal water wells were also in the surrounding area.
The effect of the shrinking lake affected the local wildlife and tourist industry and the local agriculture. In addition, the receding water exposed massive amounts of salt, which produced dust that affected the agriculture of the surrounding areas. The effects of the reducing lake were severe enough to cause several protests.
Efforts to reverse this trend have seen the creation of the Urmia Lake Restoration Program (URLP). Local press have reports $1 billion dollars have been spent to restore the size of the lake and wildlife habitats. In addition, the URLP has tried to wean farmers off thirstier crops and fill in the lake's illegal water wells. Also, higher than expected rainfall has contributed to the increase of the lake to 2,700 square kilometres in 2021.
Tigris and Euphrates:
As the water source for one of the three major ancient river civilisations, the Tigris and Euphrates have always held a special place in the collective consciousness of historians. A bountiful river system that for generations provided fertile land for in the surrounding area. However, this is no longer the case in Iraq. Reports state over 7 million people in Iraq are directly affected by low water levels in the Tigris and Euphrates . In addition, UNICEF has reported that 3 out of 5 children have no access to safely managed water services.
Both the Tigris and the Euphrates originate in Turkey before descending into Syria and Northern Iraq. The Tigris also has supporting tributaries originating from Iran. The rivers provide 98% of Iraq's water. Therefore, the policies enacted by Turkey, Syria, or Iran directly affect the flow of water into Iraq downstream.
The construction of major infrastructure projects, including over 20 major dams and numerous hydraulic power plants, in Turkey since the 1970's have significantly reduced the flow of water to Iraq. In the 1990s saw Turkey intentionally filled up its reservoirs that proved significantly detrimental to Iraq and Syria's water supply. Iraq's water supply issues were further exacerbated due to the infrastructure projects of Iran and Syria. This in turn, affected the agriculture of Iraq and the health of its growing population.
The three major conflicts in the past three decades in Iraq have also seen the destruction of much of Iraqi water infrastructure, including many water treatment centers. This has proven consequential. Due to the infrastructure of other countries further upstream, the reduced flow of water reaching Iraq affects the cleanliness of the water systems - as the water is unable to dilute much of the sewage and dirt that gets into the Tigris and Euphrates. Without the ability to treat the water in the country, it creates sanitary problems. As a result, whatever water can now reach Iraq is not a clean as it had been previously
The domestic political factors have contributed to the worsening water crisis. Successive divided national governments focused on insurgency of militia groups in the country have been unable to formulate an effective strategy to counter the effects of the looming humanitarian crisis.
The October 2021 elections, the sixth since Saddam Hussein's regime's fall, have seemed to produce little evidence that an effective coalition will be able to address the water crisis. If there is any hope to address the problem directly, the next Iraqi government will need to have a tangible power-sharing coalition and agree with their regional neighbours on managing the Tigris and Euphrates.
Conclusion:
There is an imperative need for precise and effective action to counter the changing climate in the Middle East. To this end, collaboration and consultation over infrastructure projects between the neighboring countries is required to prevent sever disruption to the shared water resources, particularly as severe droughts are expected to exacerbate humanitarian conditions in the region. It will require not only the consensus within individual states to implement constructive change but also wider regional cooperation.
By Adelaide Martelli, Francesco Bruno, and Zachariah Parcels
Proceeding the culmination of the Taliban’s 20-year insurgency, complete withdrawal of NATO forces, and reinstatement of the Taliban’s repressive policies reminiscent of their harsh rule in the late 1990s, domestic actors have emerged to question the Taliban’s renewed governance. Amidst the frantic evacuations of foreigners and vulnerable Afghans, Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP; aka ISIS-K) or Wilayat Khorasan emerged in our public consciousness with their horrific attack on 26 August at Kabul’s International Airport. This attack seemingly inaugurated ISKP’s ongoing suicide bombing campaign currently inflicting Afghanistan. ISKP appears to represent the most significant threat to the Taliban’s already teetering“domestic sovereignty” and internal integrity. Thus, to understand the potential security threats emanating to and from the new Afghanistan, it is essential to understand ISKP’s history, operational capabilities, and radical ideology.
The Beginning of the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP)
ISKP was formed in 2014 by defecting Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP; Pakistani Taliban), Afghan Taliban, Lashkar-e-Islam, and disenfranchised al Qaedafighters active in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These defections were welcomed later by representatives from Iraq and Syria of the Islamic State (IS), corresponding with IS 2015 announcement of a “Khorasan” province. Among the TTP defectors were high ranked commanders previously active in Pakistan and its Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), including ISKP’s first wali (governor), Hafez Sayed Khan.
Under Sayed Khan, ISKP successfully infiltrated Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in 2015, conquering eight Taliban districts and displacing thousands who did not conform to the group’s apocalyptic ideology. According to Lushenko et al. (2019), contradicting the Taliban’s aspirations to “Talibanize” Afghanistan and effectively counteracting the latter’s opposition to government and coalition forces, acute disagreements between the two groups has resulted in increasing violence plaguing Afghanistan and bogging of Taliban forces. The looming expansionist threat of IS, at that time, caused coalition forces and Kabul to redirect resources to eradicate ISKP from Afghanistan. This campaignseemingly alleviated and unintentionally strengthened Afghan Taliban forces.
Under Khan, ISKP rapidly consolidated territory – predominantly from the Taliban. Albeit thousands of ground and air operations against ISKP by coalition and Afghan forces – including the deployment of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) munition – fighting with the Taliban, and the death of Khan in 2016, ISKP continued to make gains. This includes ISKP nearly capturing the infamous Tora Bora cave complex from the Taliban in June 2017.
However, by 2017, Wilayat Khorasan (ISKP) had suffered heavy casualties, including the loss of three walis, half its fighters, and two-thirds of its territory. Notwithstanding, ISKP still maintained the capability to launch consecutive terrorist attacks in Kabul in 2017, predominantly against Shi’a mosques and cultural sites to spark sectarian divisions. Nevertheless, after a sustained campaign, ISKP surrendered to the Taliban in the summer of 2018. Though, Taliban-IS relations reportedly have not been fully hostile, as parts of the Haqqani Network have coordinated with ISKP. ISKP faced further setbacks in 2019 when more than 600 fighters surrendered to Afghan forces.
These setbacks drove the Islamic State (IS) Core to make internal transformations. IS founded new provinces in India and Pakistan in May 2019, territory formerly under ISKP’s purview; and, in June 2020, appointed the zealous Shahab al-Muhajir – who was previously associated with the Haqqani Network and planned urban attacks in Kabul for ISKP – as ISKP’s new wali, as the incumbent Aslam Farooqi was captured.
ISKP’s Contemporary Operational Capabilities
Contemporarily, the organisation can count on a number of foreign fighters who have been smuggled into the country. The organisation has a strength of between 2000 and 4000 fighters spread across the provinces of Kabul, Nangahar, Kunar, Jowzjan, Paktia, Kunduz, and Herat, areas in which the organisation has claimed attacks.
Though when analysing ISKP’s current capabilities and operational organisation, it is possible to argue that ISKP is going towards a period development and readjustment due to Afghanistan’s changing landscape amidst the withdrawal of the US-led coalition. These changes can be both an opportunity and a risk for the organisation. Until 2020 (and illustrated above), ISKP was threatened by the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda based in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the US-led coalition, and the now-defunct Afghan government. By a tacit consensus, the three were able to repress the group and dislodge it from their main areas of influence which worked as a catalytic for fundraising.
Since the US withdrawal and the Taliban takeover, the landscape has profoundly changed. There are two key elements to consider. First, Afghanistan remains one of the most prominent theatres of jihad, disproportionately increasing the number of foreign fighters moving to the country. For instance, al-Qaeda has encouraged its members to relocate to Afghanistan from Syria and Iraq, while IS has smuggled key leaders into the country. Secondly, the power and security vacuum left will consequently cause instability that ISKP aims to capitalise on. This has resulted in an increased number of attacks since the beginning of 2021. ISKP conducted 77 attacks only in the first 4 months of the year, with the most known being the attack at the airport in Kabul, which killed 170 civilians and 13 US Marines. Similarly, it is unclear if the Taliban will be able to stabilise the country and provide basic necessities to the population. This instability provides ISKP with an opportunity to gain more traction among the population, gain more recruits in their fight against the Taliban, and plan new international attacks from Afghanistan – as they have done until recently.
ISKP’s Ideological Threat
Islamic State Khorasan Province’s (ISKP’s) security threat – both to the Taliban’s governance and internal integrity and to the international community – is not only manifested in their capabilities but also their ideology. ISKP is a Salafi-jihadistmovement whose goal is to establish a global Caliphate through armed struggle. With this purpose, ISKP follows the teaching of two Salafi scholars, Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab, who supported purist visions of Islam and the necessity of Sharialaw. Takfiri strategy is their modus operandi that, similarly to other jihadist groups, allows them to kill all those Muslims declared as kafir, meaning “apostate”. Not accepting their same extremist ideology is enough to be labelled as such. Considering this, ISKP rejects the Taliban government and its rules.
ISKP has a transnational and all-encompassing goal, unlike the Taliban which they consider as a “nationalist movement” with an “impure” ideology. The latter is a pivotal factor when considering its success over the larger audience. This group does not only focus on the region – the “Near Enemy” – but adopts a global jihad mentality in which the West is seen as an urgent target to destroy. Another difference with the Taliban, which is consequential to the first, relies on its relationship with the United States (US). ISKP has always condemned the presence of this foreign power on Afghan territory while the 2020 US-Taliban peace deal represented a huge occasion for this faction to delegitimise its counterpart.
ISKP is a threat not only to the Taliban’s renewed governance in Afghanistan but its internal integrity. ISKP is very effective in winning the “hearts and minds” of its followers because of a variety factors. Furthermore, it takes advantage of the fractures inside other jihadist groups, awards compensations to its followers, and employs several platforms to spread its propaganda, such as through Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and its radio channel, “The Voice of the Khilafat”. These virtual channels are fundamental when waging global jihad, they are the main, and sometimes also the only means to incite and attract recruiters abroad.
In recent years, the development of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) has increased rapidly, thanks to the successful use in unconventional warfare theatres, as well as for civil purposes, such as environmental disasters. Ranging from Aerial Reconnaissance to package delivery, their use is now consolidated all over the world in everyday life. Due to the large use of them in different fields, there is a significant interest in developing drones conceived to accomplish specific military purposes. Among them, today a new kind of drones is proving very popular among armed forces: The loitering munitions swarm. This weapon system combines the advantages of a UAV with the specifics of a swarm SAM rocket system with anti-armor, anti-personnel and anti-material targets. Called also “suicide drone” or “kamikaze drone”, a loitering munition differs from a conventional UAV because it is only equipped with an explosive warhead in order to crash towards the target.
Although the interest in this kind of weapon rose recently, the development of an unmanned flying bomb can be tracked back to Nazi’s Germany. The German V-1 (Vergeltungswaffen 1 - retaliation weapon 1) can be considered as an ancestor of the loitering munitions weapon. It was an unmanned jet propelled flying bomb used to terrorize the civilians of Allied cities, especially London and Antwerp. In addition to be unmanned and one-target, the V-1 shared different features with the current loitering system, including low-cost production and easy assembly. Nowadays the modern loitering munition has been developed on a large scale by the Israeli Harop loitering munition system: presented in February 2009 at the Aero-India show, he represents the main model of modern loitering munitions for airforces around the world.
The modern use of loitering munitions
At the beginning, the initial model of loitering munition was designed to autonomously attack one kind of defensive installation, with the development of the communication system, technology, processing and miniaturized sensors, today the loitering munitions can serve a range of functions in war once reserved for crewed aircraft or artillery.
An example of their use during a conflict, and how they can influence the strategy of the warfare system, was during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where both Azerbaijan and Armenia used the loitering munitions in order to destroy the anti-air defences of the opponent. In addition to that, the loitering munitions can be exploited to turn into a missile and crash into a target without needing direct human supervision.
This action was seen last year in march, when a drone was used in this way against a human target. The episode happened in Libya, and there was a convoy of the Libyan National Army of Khalifa Haftar, which was attacked by drones, that may have included a Kargu-2 autonomous quadcopter and loitering munitions.
Through the use of the loitering munitions during conflict or not, it is clear the fundamental importance of the airspace in the battlefield and moreover the necessity to establish a regulation of their use, because at the moment this technology, which enables this weapon system to be used without human control and to target people, is being used without regulation.
The future of unmanned warfare
Loitering munitions and its systematic use has highlighted the new frontiers of warfare. As proven by recent experiments and projects, militaries around the world are developing programs in order to introduce the use of massive swarm attacks by drones, and countermeasures to drone warfare. Loitering munitions represents a peculiar use of drone warfare, which could be exploited primarily in the context of hybrid warfare. The most advanced militaries have the technology to implement countermeasures, from electromagnetic interference to anti-drone drones, while middle and small armies are the most affected by these cheap and effective weapons.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has shown how efficient are the loitering munitions against old SAM systems, which were the main target of the drone strikes by Azeri army: after annihilating air defences, the aviation had proceed to operate without the risks of anti-aircraft fire, and with the help of the loitering munitions, it destroyed the Armenian fortification, allowing a swift victory. Without loitering munitions, the war would have been dragged into a stalemate, as the Armenians would have entrenched themselves with the help of the mountains. Therefore, these new weapons would probably see implementation by military forces, like Iran and Turkey, who would provide their proxies with them. For instance, the Houtis or Hamas have the interest to economically logorate their adversaries, Saudi Arabia and Israel: the high cost of air defence systems as the THAAD, could be exploited to increase the “war fatigue” of their enemies, with the use of cheap loitering munitions.
Unmanned warfare is going to revolutionize the way in which war is fought: low tech will present the main challenge to the advanced militaries around the world, since the massive use of loitering munitions can saturate defence systems, no matter how advanced they are. The mix between high tech and low tech could drop to its knee even the mightiest army: loitering munitions represents pre-eminently the spearhead of low tech warfare in modern wars.
Embassies are much more than just a mere foreign praesidium; their openings, closings, evacuations have a strong potential effect on world politics. Image source: https://unsplash.com/photos/tI_DEyjWOkY
What role do embassies play in major events nowadays? When do countries consider opening, evacuating or temporarily closing embassies? These are some of the questions that arise when we consider global events such as the U.S. moving the capital of Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and also when analysing the recent crisis in Afghanistan.
In order to answer them, we met with Boy Frank, a former diplomat with 34 years of experience in the Dutch foreign service, during which he worked in the opening of three embassies and the evacuation of the same number.
Embassies in a nutshell
Generally, we think of embassies as mere foreign praesidiums in a country. However, they play a much more significant role, as they help us communicate, find refuge, and especially establish a medium between two countries.
But opening an embassy in a specific country or even city is much more than just opening a new access point. An embassy is used as a base for economic relationships, and is a necessary instrument to waive a country’s presence on the ground. Mr Frank explains that ‘’when determining where to open an embassy all factors are carefully weighted’’. Embassies will be opened in those countries that are the most relevant economically, politically or culturally.
Just as embassies can be opened, they can be closed, evacuated, and their personnel can be called back for consultation. This was recently the case with the French president Emmanuel Macron, who called back his Ambassadors to the United States (US) and Australia after the latter cancelled its purchase of French submarinesand announced a new contract with the US.
Such moves have a political weight, and rightly so. The act of recalling Ambassadors was a way for France to underline its discontent with Australia’s move. By the same token, Trump's decision to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem through which he took sides in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Also in times of pandemic, embassies come to play an important role. While most of those we know were functioning on high alert, tasked to inform the public about the situation surrounding Covid-19, many embassies situated in North Korea’s capital Pyongyang were temporarily closed due to restricted access to essential goods. European countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom temporarily closed their missions, as opposed to Russia: proof that although closing an embassy or calling back its personnel can be a political move, it can also be the result of a humanitarian emergency.
Trump’s controversial move: from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
International custom dictates that a country has to place a diplomatic representation in a country's capital. However, as the status of Jerusalem is considered one of the greatest disputes in International Law as both Israelis and Palestinians claim sovereignty over the city. Nevertheless, on the 6 of December 2017, Trump announced that he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thus changing de facto Israel’s capital city.
During the opening ceremony of Jerusalem’s embassy, Trump said: “Our greatest hope is for peace”. Still, as Mr Frank states, it appears evident that this was a unilateral move by which the U.S. took sides in favour of Israel. Pro Israeli politicians in the U.S had long been pressuring Washington to move the Embassy to Jerusalem. In 2017 Trump maintained the promise he made during his 2016 presidential campaign, where he used the argument of moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as one of the main points in his race for the White House.
The major European powers did not take long to distance themselves from Trump’s decision. Indeed, the European Union (EU)’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP) reiterated that the EU would continue to respect the international consensus on Jerusalem's status. The European Parliament has always favoured the two-states solution, in which Jerusalem would serve as the capital of both Israel and Palestine.
In spite thereof, European institutions did not seem to reflect the position of every European country: recently, Hungary and the Czech Republic have opened a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem, underlining the friendly relationship with Israel, destined to change the political dynamics of the region.
As Mr Frank suggests, this case demonstrates that the U.S. has the ability to affect and influence the development of international geopolitics, just as it recently happened with the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan. This resulted in the arrival of the Taliban and the evacuation of its capital, which Joe Biden called “the largest airlift in U.S. history”.
Evacuation of Kabul’s Embassies: what went wrong?
When in April, the U.S. announced that it would be withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan by 11 of September 2021, many feared the arrival of the Taliban, although no one was prepared for what was about to happen.
In mid-August, the capital of Kabul was taken over by the Taliban, creating immense chaos that led to the evacuation of both civilians and diplomats, who desperately tried to reach the airport in an attempt to flee the country.
More than a month after this international incident, we asked Mr Frank what went wrong in Kabul’s evacuation and what could have been done better from a European perspective. He explains that: ‘’people waited too long to evacuate. They let the crisis unfold, and it got too intense to plan for a proper evacuation.’’
Indeed, the time at which the Taliban arrived in Kabul was highly underestimated, which only contributed to the emergency of the situation. So this bears the question: are European embassies sufficiently prepared for these types of circumstances?
How could they not be prepared? In the interview, the former diplomat points out that, in theory, each embassy has an evacuation plan. Still, because there are always-changing scenarios, the circumstances remain unpredictable, and embassy evacuation plans are thus limited to the most likely scenarios.
One could ask, why a plan if they cannot apply it? Embassies do so to ensure the highest chances of safety, which is what they come down to in times of hardship. But while many of those located in Kabul and their staff warned their home countries about the situation and the arrival of the Taliban, EU countries were scrambling to send rescue.
Today the respective Foreign Affairs departments of each state have audit teams, which are in turn responsible for identifying gaps and proposing improvements for incidents such as the one in Kabul. We can only hope that the international community will learn from this political and humanitarian disaster.
Conclusion
As we have seen, it seems that most of the major events of our time, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the Afghan Crisis, can be read in the key of embassies’ openings and movements. Today embassies are not just a medium between two states; they play a leading role in developing economic, political and cultural relations and are symbolic in acknowledging and recognizing a state.
If you are interested in learning more about opening and closing embassies, our interviewee, Mr Frank, provides Masterclasses on the topic. He has also recently published his first book, ‘’The adventures of Boy Frank’’ where he talks about his diplomatic experience in several countries, including Pakistan, Algeria, Eritrea, Angola and many others.
Published with the support of Sofia Staderini and Leigh Dawson.
"Drilling holes in the patriarchal permissiveness" Image Source: https://www.vectorstock.com/royalty-free-vector/woman-road-worker-jackhammer-vector-20961675
Countering equality
Recently issued UN Report Our Common Agenda states “No meaningful social contract is possible without the active and equal participation of women and girls,” certainly for good reasons. The global and growing trend of gender equality awareness constantly collides with multiple Nemeses, resulting from the trivialisation at the very least – invisibilisation mostly – of gender matters and milestones. In the pursuit of gender equality, or even of partial alleviation of struggles that women face daily, trivialization and invisibilisation divert attention from relevant points. It seems like women are sentenced to walk a Teflon Road where nothing sticks or sticks briefly. Plentiful actions, debates, discussions, roundtables, publications, reports, books, films, protests, advocating for gender equality are not enough to either extinguish the re-signification of gender milestones, or to fill the policy vacuum in equality, sometimes counterproductively rolling-back advancements as recently seen in Afghanistan and Texas.
Resignification
A salient example of resignification is the commercialization of the International Women’s Day.March 8th is a commemoration day that seeks bringing to mind multiple events happened along the last century and a half, having all in common the push for advancing gender equality, whether voting rights, work and safety rights, health and reproductive rights, access to resources and power, economic security, education, reward and income parity; the list just goes on. Media and sales treat March 8th as another yearly business opportunity with messages that transpire the flavor of either a late Valentine’s Day for unmatched women, an early Mother’s Day for single mothers, or a sort-of-birthday for women with ‘an attitude’. At the very best, male partners and colleagues honor women for complying with specific behavioral traits such as being kind, brave, sweet, maternal, and for ‘selflessly’ performing with many roles, always silent and patient. A critical eye would rather see indoctrination efforts leading women on complying with such roles.
Policy Vacuum
A dantesque example of policy vacuum is the worldwide difficult access to period products, still called feminineproducts. Estimates show that about 800 million people on the planet menstruate daily. Despite that women are unemployed, underpaid, and have a heavy glass-ceiling limiting their advancement, period products are taxed as luxury goods. In some countries, girls lose school due to both lack of access to menstruation and hygiene resources and to stigma; this last one perpetuates feelings of shame around an organic function that women cannot opt out from while generating an environment of fear and insecurity, all which hinders societal advancement. Period poverty is reported globally, to which only Scottish lawmakers have responded properly by making such products free to their citizens. In addition, while in some contexts women advocate to have paid period leave, in other contexts women struggle for lost productivity due to menstrual pain.
Both Nemeses in action
On a side note, resilient capitalism found a way to resignify and exploit women’s physiology when suggesting that, “Learning to sync your female hormonal cycle with your work and life schedule is the ultimate bio-hack … helping women harness their energy and productivity.” Such bio-hack would sound better if harassment and public shaming would not exist.
Normalising microaggressions
The structural level – lack or insufficient policy – and the individual level – attitudes and beliefs – articulate to support a patriarchal system whose connecting lines are often invisible. Sylvia Walby argues that patriarchy is a cumulative product base on everyday practices. Often, those practices happen in the form of daily micro-aggressions in family, school, or workplace contexts where women are systematically ridiculed, laughed at, unheard, ignored, disbelieved, disregarded, dismissed, held back, or blatantly silenced. Women are called to endure those practices under the premise that those are not–ill-intended or lacking harm intentions; doers remain unaware and sometimes disinterested in the outcomes of their actions. Two lenses come relevant here. First, the logic of intention—effect. At this point of history, we know better that no matter the initial intention – or lack thereof – we evaluate actions based on the outcome, which in human relations is the effect in the other: pain, suffering, fear, stress, trauma, etc. Second, what Hannah Arendt calls the banality of evil. Under this perspective most of wrong doings are not intended but inertial acts that follow preestablished social patterns, introjected as normal.
Mansplaining, public-shaming, belittling, discounting, gaslighting, harassing, controlling, subjecting women to higher standards are understood as relational misdemeanors, therefore treated as a natural part of interactions that women should take lightly. However, such misdemeanors weave a support network that eventually upholds lack of accountability for major aggressions –physical violence, rape, femicide. The cultural permissiveness based on lack ofbad intentions leads into an inertial indulgence supported by education, where women are thought to not take issue and be tolerant, reframing the micro aggression while bearing the burden of abuse. Women are expected to program into their brains that men are ‘like children’, granting green-light to the micro-aggression, not even a yellow.
The psychological science available, therapeutic resources, communication, and leadership training, amongst other tools to improve relations, did not stick enough to provide safe grounds for women. In fact, an over-indulgent look at systemic and cross-cultural gender abuse enables its perpetuation. This pattern constitutes the resistance to laws, policies, regulations, and codes of conduct, and the reason those fail to protect and support women; those laws, policies, etc., do not permeate beliefs, attitudes, and interactions. The Teflon paved roads between laws and behaviors precludes the advancement of gender equality, no matter how many glass ceilings women break.
Drilling holes in the (Teflon) road ahead
Women’s and supporters’ work, therefore, is instead to visibilise – signalling yellow at least – and not let micro-aggressions pass unseen; to stop making excuses for abusive behavior of any size. The immediate goal is to corrode the cements of gender-based violence aiming to debilitate inequality in daily interactions. Ultimately, the resistance to major aggressions should ebb leading to the decrease of sexual harassment, child-marriage, female genital mutilation, rape, femicide, etc. Besides breaking glass-ceilings, we must drill holes in the Teflon Road, everywhere.
Operation Falcon Strike 21 was initiated from the Italian Military Air Force base in Amendola (FG), Italy on 6th June 2021. It was promoted by the Stato Maggiore della Difesa (Defence Staff) in partnership with NATO, mainly with the United States of America and the United Kingdom and Israel. The involvement of Israeli Air Force (IAF) in the twelve days of aeronaval training, its consequential collaboration with the Italian, American and British military forces gathered the Italian public attention and raised questions on the role of ethics in the decisions made by the NATO powers.
While there are not many details available on how the Operation Falcon Strike 21 originated, it facilitated the integration from airplanes between the 4th and 5th generation of fighters and increased the level of cooperation between powers in the logistic field and concerning the transfer of F-35 fighter jets. Thus, strengthening the interoperability of allied air forces and partners during joint operations. Exercises to master the use of the most advanced missile defence systems took place in between Sardinia and regions of Southern Italy (Il Manifesto, 2021).
As the Operation was initiated, an old debate on the role of ethics in military trainings emerged, due to the public fear for how the development of knowledge in the field could be exploited by Israel in its own military operations. Indeed, the participation of this Middle-Eastern Power in exercises that are strategically designed to test the firepower of new F-35 fighter-bombers provided. The debate in fact dates back to 2016 when IAF received its first F-35 fighter jets. Initial trainings with the collaboration with the Western military forces, in particular with the Royal Air Forces and the US Marines, started in 2019. It included the Tri-Lightning exercise and continued with the Enduring Lightning ones organised by Israel and the United States (Aviation Report, 2021).
Since the IAF received its first F-35 fighter jets, it has strived to obtain more of them to be added to its fleet in groups of twos and threes throughout the past years, reaching the current level of 27 planes in total. Additionally, by 2024 23 F-35 jets will be owned by Israel to meet the Israel Defence Forces’ (IDF) purpose of acquiring a total of 50 aircraft. The Israeli officials have also confirmed that they are planning to purchase more of these aircrafts (The Times of Israel, 2021).
Undoubtedly, the possibility of Israel deploying the acquired assets to fight its own wars within the Middle East generates an evident threat, which has indeed awakened concerns among the public. In particular, strikes have been organised in the areas close to the military air force base in Amendola, from where the operation was launched as pro-Palestine organisations have mobilized to show their disapproval for the partnership with Israel (Rete Italiana Pace e Disarmo, 2021). The exhibited disagreement with practices strengthening Western powers relationship with Israel was further emphasised since a statement released by one of IAF senior officials claimed that the extensive training conducted in Italy would be a historic chance to train its pilots to future wars in the Middle-Eastern area, particularly in Iran (Il Manifesto, 2021).
Hence, the rise of concerns among pro-Palestine groups regarding the consequences of including Israel in the trainings is inevitable. Yet, this only seem to strike the attention of worried civilians, as indeed even after the IAF statement, the Operation was successfully carried out.
Operation Falcon 21 was arguably an implicit declaration that it is ultimately ethical to include powers such as Israel in advanced military training conducted by NATO powers, regardless of the knowledge that the former might use the abilities and means gained to fight its own wars. The United States, United Kingdom and Italy have inevitably provided Israel with an outstanding opportunity to improve its military capabilities by supplying it with arms and helping in the development of knowledge about their use. This comes as a direct contradiction of the values of human rights and peace-keeping that these Western Powers claim to uphold. It appears though that for the Western powers, the role of ethics in strategic military decisions is overshadowed where there is a need to build partnerships with key powers such as Israel.
