- 15 Jul, 2024

- 10 Jul, 2024

- 27 Jun, 2024

- 26 Jun, 2024

- 19 Jun, 2024

15 Jul, 2024

- Bulwark in the Pacific: Implications of the January 2024 Taiwanese Elections

Bulwark in the Pacific: Implications of the January 2024 Taiwanese Elections

William Tan  1:00PM, 15 Jul, 2024

In Taiwan’s most recent presidential election, held on January 13, 2024, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Lai Ching-te secured a clear victory against opponents Hou Yu-ih of the Kuomintang (KMT) and Ko Wen-je of the newly created Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). At a critical juncture for the direction of Taiwanese democracy, Lai's election promises unyielding yet restrained policy responses to the People’s Republic of China’s desire to annex the country, along with other issues that impact Taiwan’s relationship with the United States and the state of democracy abroad.

Who is Lai Ching-te?

Formerly Taiwan’s 15th-term Vice President, Lai Ching-te was inaugurated as the next Taiwanese president on May 20, 2024. Lai received his medical training from National Taiwan University and obtained a Master of Public Health degree from Harvard University. Soon after, Lai reacted strongly to the 1996 Taiwanese Strait Crisis, ending his medical career to go into politics in hopes of steering Taiwanese political decisions in a more favorable direction. In 2010, Lai became the mayor of Tainan City, and when he ran for reelection in 2014, he garnered a record vote share. As mayor, Lai strengthened Taiwan’s relationship with Japan, Israel, and the United States by visiting these countries. Lai’s rise to power expanded his presence as a major political player in Taiwan, and in 2020, he accepted President Tsai Ing-wen’s invitation to be her vice-presidential running mate.

In 2024, Lai’s presidential campaign won 40 percent of voters. His campaign differed from his KMT and TPP opponents’ in several regards, the most notable being his stance toward relations with China. The DPP and Lai insist that Taiwan will only come to the table for dialogue if China abandons its insistent pressure to unify Taiwan with China. Lai’s statement on cross-strait relations contradicted that of the KMT—or the Nationalist Party—as it hoped to make concessions to China to avoid conflict and ease tensions. Furthermore, Lai seeks to continue the work of his predecessor, Tsai Ing-wen, the first female president, who won by a landslide in 2016 and in 2020. In a famous campaign commercial, Tsai and Lai take a drive together, and at the end, she hands him the keys, a symbolic gesture implying continuity in policies if he wins.

History of the Taiwanese Party System

The longstanding differences in opinion between the DPP and the KMT stem from the creation of Taiwan and its party system during the 1960s. In 1949, the independent island of Taiwan was established as a result of a civil war on mainland China, where Communist forces led by Mao Zedong claimed victory over forces led by Nationalist Party leader Chiang Kai-shek. When Chiang Kai-shek and the last of the KMT fled to the island, they established a militaristic regime that acted with extreme aggression toward the mainland.

However, democratization slowly began to transform the island as Taiwan focused on economic mobilization and improvement. One catalyst for Taiwan’s economic growth was the education of Taiwanese students abroad in the United States. These students returned to the island filled with thoughts about democracy, spurred by the non-violent protests of the US Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War protests during the 1960s and 1970s. Instead of fighting for Taiwan as the true Republic of China—as the KMT had done decades prior—the new generation pushed for a full break from the mainland. In this “new” Taiwanese history that students brought back, all of China was the antithesis of Taiwan, and the Taiwanese people committed to procedural democracy as a model for political reorganization.

Issues at Stake

Lai's campaign focused on maintaining relationships with the United States and other democracies to maintain Taiwan's status as an independent and democratic nation. In his victory speech, Lai indicated an openness to speaking with China “under the principles of dignity and parity” and maintaining peaceful relations. However, his inauguration speech also demonstrated a bolder stance towards China than his predecessor’s. While Tsai mentioned “sovereignty” once in her 2016 inauguration speech and not at all in her 2020 inauguration speech, Lai mentioned “sovereignty” seven times. Similarly, Tsai said “Taiwan” 41 times in 2016 and 47 times in 2020, while Lai said “Taiwan” 82 times. (Referring to the nation as “Taiwan” instead of “Republic of China” demonstrates more respect for Taiwanese sovereignty; Chinese authorities therefore prefer the latter.) Lai also forcefully criticized China’s military threats and foregrounded democracy in his speech. His policy initiatives mirror his inaugural address; they include strengthening weapons and force infrastructures to dissuade China from attacking, expanding conventional capabilities such as naval ships and combat aircraft, and working to improve relationships with the United States.

Notably, US and Taiwanese officials seem increasingly nervous that Lai’s more contentious goals might risk deviating from Tsai’s more moderate line of politics. Top Taiwanese diplomat and “de-facto ambassador” to the United States Alexander Tah-Ray Yui asserted in January 2024 that the Taiwanese government wants to maintain the status quo: a balance of neither unification nor independence from China. Yui sought to reassure both Beijing and Washington that Lai would not incite a conflict that could spur US military engagement. The contradictions between Lai’s bold inauguration speech and Yui’s more moderate stance suggests tensions among top Taiwanese officials regarding the nation’s official posture towards China.

Lai is already facing pushback on his policies. His ambitions can only be realized if the Legislature Yuan, Taiwan’s legislative body, successfully passes laws that cooperate with the DPP’s vision for Taiwan. Winning a plurality with 40 percent of the vote, Lai did not win a landslide majority victory like Tsai’s 57 percent in 2020. Moreover, Lai’s party, the DPP, lost its majority in the Yuan. In this election, the KMT won 52 seats and the newly created TPP won eight seats in the 113-seat Yuan. To achieve the majority of 57 votes to pass legislation, the DPP will have to collaborate with other parties: namely, the TPP. Though the TPP entered the political scene in 2019 as a minority alternative to the two traditional parties, its recent electoral victories ensure the party leverage in legislative decisions because its eight seats in the Yuan must be swayed for the DPP to win a majority.

The TPP’s existence is indicative of an electoral issue facing the DPP. Though the KMT and the TPP never formed a joint ticket to overturn the DPP because this past election was the first time the TPP was on the ballot, the two parties’ combined votes could, in the future, lead to the DPP losing power. The creation of the TPP reflects voter fatigue and exasperation with the age-old rivalry between the DPP and the KMT, and this dissatisfaction may play a larger role in political decisions moving forward.

US Interests

Lai’s policies regarding Taiwan’s relationship with global superpowers inevitably spotlight the partnership between the island and the United States. For the United States, Taiwan continues to serve as an important bulwark against China’s growing territorial and political presence in Asia. Reports show that China is increasingly dissatisfied with Taiwan’s refusal to acknowledge itself as part of the mainland, and China has increased military pressure on the island. Chinese naval ships are edging closer across the Taiwan Strait, planes are crossing the airspace median line, and live-fire drills have increased since Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022. Notably, Chinese officials criticized the Taiwanese elections at every turn, citing Lai as an unfavorable candidate and a dangerous separatist.

Additionally, Chinese officials are wielding diplomatic pressure against Taiwan’s allies in an attempt to isolate the island without the use of physical force. On January 15, 2024, the Pacific Island nation of the Republic of Nauru severed relations with Taiwan because their diplomatic relationship violated the “one China principle.” Nauru’s stance change follows Honduras’ exit from its partnership with Taiwan in March 2023 for similar contentions over sovereignty. In total, throughout Tsai’s tenure, China persuaded 10 countries to switch ties.

Because of mounting fears that China is increasing pressure on Taiwan, the Taiwanese election serves as a critical juncture for the direction of the country. Lai's commitment to maintaining autonomy balanced with a KMT- and TPP-majority legislature will send a clear yet nonviolent message to Xi Jinping and the Chinese government that the nation is unwilling to yield.

The United States knows that Taiwan is an important island in the Pacific to protect. The annexation of Taiwan would signal that global superpowers such as China can use force to redraw borders whenever and wherever they want. A Chinese annexation of Taiwan would damage the credibility of the United States with other Asian allies in the Indo-Pacific region. A war in Taiwan would halt the production of semiconductors and other industries central to Asian economic chains. Globally, the prospect of war over Taiwan rides on the heels of Russia’s ongoing attempt to annex Ukraine. The annexation of Taiwan would therefore compound a chilling precedent for democracies around the world.

Looking Forward

The January 2024 Taiwanese election has reinforced Taiwan’s commitment to maintaining a state of democratic resilience even in the face of mounting cross-strait opposition. As the Taiwanese people double down on democracy, this commitment inevitably strengthens their partnership with the United States. As the two countries move forward with a diplomatic and economic relationship, compromises, careful choices, and caution are the building blocks to successfully deter China. Taiwan’s future as an independent island nation remains critical to the security of liberalism around the globe and to the hegemonic influence of the United States. Only time will tell if Lai Ching-te’s presidential term policies will improve or worsen Taiwan’s challenges abroad and at home.

10 Jul, 2024

- Linguistic Colonialism: Moroccan Education and its Dark Past

Linguistic Colonialism: Moroccan Education and its Dark Past

Vikram Kolli  1:00PM, 10 Jul, 2024

In February 2024, the Minister of Education in Morocco unveiled plans to gradually introduce the teaching of the Berber (Amazigh) language in primary schools, marking a significant shift in educational policy. The initiative, set to impact four million pupils by 2030, reflects a pivotal moment in the nation's educational landscape.

The decision responds to longstanding demands from linguistic activists, underscoring the growing momentum behind efforts to preserve the language and culture of Morocco's indigenous communities. Currently, the Amazigh language is only taught to approximately 330,000 students. By expanding its inclusion within the curriculum, Morocco has taken a significant step towards recognizing and celebrating its diverse linguistic heritage, reckoning with its dark colonial past.

The current system reflects lasting French influence, as France aimed to assert cultural dominance over the North African nation during its colonial rule. Moroccan schoolchildren learn in Modern Standard Arabic or French—and, occasionally, English and Spanish—despite speaking Moroccan dialects of Arabic or Amazigh at home. Adhering to the colonial agenda of cultural assimilation, social control, and economic exploitation, the French administration implemented policies aimed at eradicating indigenous languages and traditions, substituting them with French language and culture.

However, resistance to these colonial educational policies emerged from nationalist movements, intellectuals, and grassroots initiatives. These forces face a monumental task, as the inequalities stemming from French colonial rule are deeply ingrained in the Moroccan education system. Moroccan education remains a battleground for preserving cultural heritage and asserting national identity.

Entrenched in a Colonial Past

Before the First World War, overlapping European spheres of influence in Africa made Morocco into a battleground of geopolitical rivalries. Following numerous infringements on Moroccan sovereignty—including a secret 1904 treaty between France and Spain dividing Morocco between their spheres of influence and the 1907 occupation of Oujda by French forces—the Treaty of Fez on March 30, 1912 established Morocco as a French protectorate.

Then-General of the Protectorate Louis-Hubert-Gonzalve Lyautey saw Morocco as a blank slate for Western progress that needed to be “protected” until it became “developed, civilized, living its own autonomous life, detached from the [French] metropole.” The biased, colonial view of propriety was expressed through language, education, and government. French control in Morocco was modeled after the French protectorate of Tunisia, which had a similar legacy of colonialism.

Although the sultan maintained some of his powers through decrees and seals of religious status, the French constructed a separate government of colonial bureaucracy that held superior jurisdiction. This extensive French bureaucracy included institutions for native affairs—which monitored Moroccans’ daily life and civil society—and legal matters. A native population with religious and cultural practices and a dominant French administration constituted a complex, dual-power system.

The French first oversaw only finance and public works, but their jurisdiction eventually expanded into eight departments, including education. Systems of education were established through the protectorate and originally segregated, with Muslim- and Jewish-run schools and separate schools for French and Europeans. Between 1926 and 1936, only 51 Moroccan Muslim students graduated from higher education institutions in the protectorate. The graduation figures underscore how higher education remained nearly inaccessible due to the segregationist policies of French colonizers.

One factor that explains the historical and modern discrepancies between Moroccan social mobility and that of predominantly white European countries is language. Under the protectorate, the French language was viewed as superior to Arabic, and the establishment of elite private schools with full French instruction superseded public schools taught in native languages. Moroccans thus faced monetary and linguistic barriers to higher education. The reduction of native linguistic influence and the prominence of French was thus a colonialist method of cultural suppression and forced assimilation.

“Arabization” and Linguistic Reconstruction

The ongoing debates surrounding which language to teach in Moroccan education persist, echoing the pendulum of language policies that characterized the mid- to late-20th century. Following Moroccan independence in 1956, Morocco launched an “Arabization” initiative aimed at reclaiming linguistic sovereignty and dismantling French hegemony in public institutions. This effort marked a definitive break from the influence of la francophonie, or countries in which the French held significant cultural sway due to colonization. Consequently, the medium of instruction shifted from French to Standard Arabic. Critics of Arabization lament the “neglect” of the Amazigh language, suggesting that this attempt to decolonize Moroccan education has failed to uplift indigenous voices. Other critics emphasize the potential disruptions that abrupt shifts away from French cause.

The policy’s sudden reversal of French linguistic influence had both immediate and long-lasting negative effects on the Moroccan population. Despite Arabization on other levels of education, French remained the main language of science instruction in higher education; therefore, students struggled to transition from primary and secondary schools taught in Standard Arabic to higher education taught in French.

As one student noted when surveyed: “The current Arabisation project is not consistent; it enhances our problems in studying sciences, particularly when we reach university where French is the sole medium of instruction.” Students must excel in Standard Arabic and French to succeed in the sciences. A 1996 study found that 40 percent of science students switched to the humanities in higher education because of inadequate French skills. Teachers have expressed similar concerns. One private school math teacher explained how he struggles to teach in Standard Arabic because he—like many other teachers of his generation—was educated in French. Linguistic inconsistency across different levels of Moroccan education therefore poses challenges for students seeking careers in science.

Socioeconomic disparities ingrained in Moroccan society also highlight the policy’s failures, as public schools serve a wider population of economically disadvantaged students. Wealthy and elite members of Moroccan society bypass the initiative through private education and schools abroad, motivated by better language instruction. According to a 2019 study, about nine percent of students in public schools finish middle school with “satisfactory” French skills; the proportion for students graduating from private middle schools is 62 percent. The enrollment rate for private schools in Morocco was 17.8 percent in 2022-2023, reflecting the exclusivity of a private education.

For years after independence, educators were frequently French nationals or locals educated in French institutions. This  involvement speaks to the atrophy of the Moroccan education system under the French protectorate. The 1951 education budget allotted 1.92 billion francs for Moroccans and 2.29 billion francs for French colonists—the budget per French student (17,270 francs) was thus 23 times larger than that per Moroccan student (731 francs)—and the enrollment rate for Moroccan elementary schools was only 11 percent in 1954. The transition from French teachers to native primary school teachers was not finalized in Morocco until 1974, and despite this shift, the reliance on French-authored textbooks continued.

Sudden Arabization was ineffective in eradicating French influence. Morocco boasts a comprehensive and structured education system consisting of six years of primary school, three years of intermediate school, and three years of upper secondary education, followed by tertiary studies. However, traces of French colonialism persist. Notably, prestigious French mission schools—in which French serves as the primary language of instruction—remain attractive to Moroccan elites. In 2023, 70 percent of the students at Morocco’s 45 French mission schools were Moroccan.

Furthermore, within the realm of public administration, there has been a resurgence of legal proposals reminiscent of the pre-Arabization era. For instance, in 2016, Minister of Education Rachid Belmokhtar proposed a policy to reintroduce French for subjects like mathematics and sciences in secondary schools. Although initially vetoed by then-Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane, the proposal was later approved in February of 2016 with plans for implementation spanning 15 years, revealing that the issue remains unresolved. More recently, a 2024 joint education program between France and Morocco—in which France pledged a loan of 130 million euros (US$140.9 million) and a grant of 4.7 million euros (US$5.1 million)—is especially focused on French instruction in secondary schools.

Upward Mobility or Cultural Sustenance

Defense for the emphasis on French is partly due to its reputation as a “[language] of commerce,” with fluency seen as advantageous in the job market. To some, French enables upward mobility; historically, skilled workers often secured positions in the French-trained civil service or within sectors engaged in trade with French-speaking nations. As stated in 2019 by Hamid El Otmani, head of talent and training at the Confederation of Moroccan Employers: “In the Moroccan job market, mastery of French is indispensable. Those who do not have command of French are considered illiterate.”

The view of French as a language of commerce, however, still traces its roots to socioeconomic disparities created by colonization and the limitations of Arabization. Arabization—by creating a linguistic fissure between primary and secondary education (Arabic) and higher education (French)—undermined higher education opportunities for secondary school students taught solely in Arabic. Arabization also triggered a drastic decline in French writing skills. This shift reduced the economic premium of students after primary education by one-half, setting them behind the wealthy and privileged elite.

Moroccan schools must create an education system that acknowledges the value of French while strengthening Arabic proficiency and promoting linguistic inclusivity. Learning two languages simultaneously in a child’s development period results in heightened linguistic performance, compared to constant language switching. Consequently, incorporating Arabic into French-centric educational settings and vice versa would permit students to develop fluency in both languages, enhancing their competitiveness in the job market.

That said, the increasing emphasis on English as the new global lingua franca further complicates the linguistic conundrum in the Moroccan education system. In 2023, the Moroccan government began to incorporate English into public primary and secondary schools—English was previously only available in private schools—to improve students’ professional opportunities. The plan aims to offer English in all public primary and secondary schools by 2026. Although the Ministry of Education stated that the introduction of English “was never a break with the French language,” English is predicted to replace French as the most important second language in Morocco. According to a 2021 British Council report, 40 percent of young Moroccans believe that English is the most important language to learn, while only 10 percent choose French. These developments suggest that Morocco faces a linguistic crossroads, as French and English contend for prominence.

The Mother Tongue and Moving Forward

Against the social mobility argument for French or English, the current linguistic composition of Moroccan schooling strays from the mother tongue of the native people. While Modern Standard Arabic is taught in schools, Moroccan Arabic (also known as Darija) is often spoken in everyday life, an amalgamation of modern Arabic, Spanish, French, and the indigenous language of Morocco, Berber (also known as Amazigh). Creating greater complexity, this dialect also has regional differences, all different forms of Arabic than that traditionally utilized in classrooms. With French entrenched in Morocco's linguistic landscape, there is a clear interplay of cultural authenticity and colonial legacy in the evolution of the country’s vernacular.

Native languages anchor a child to their sociocultural heritage, and an erasure prevents an “intellectual and aesthetic creativity” that is synonymous with the mother tongue. It is therefore imperative for Moroccan education to instill Amazigh, Arabic, and native dialects. Though the inclusion of French or English may promote economic mobility, it should not overshadow the importance of cultural continuity. The prioritization of native languages in education facilitates reconciliation with the past and cultivates a culturally rich and inclusive future for Morocco.

27 Jun, 2024

- The Asilomar Conference and Contemporary AI Controversies: Lessons in Regulation

The Asilomar Conference and Contemporary AI Controversies: Lessons in Regulation

Saddat Nazir  1:00PM, 27 Jun, 2024

Will humans remain relevant in the age of artificial intelligence (AI)?

The inevitable, escalating force of AI is moving towards a head-on collision with the ever-evolving but timeless staples of higher education, labor and litigation. Academic and political discourse has exploded, with fears regarding AI models ranging from grossly exaggerated to rationally substantiated.

Within this tumult, a growing chorus of tech leaders had proposed a moratorium on AI, hoping to offer a bit of room for the proper ethical frameworks to catch up with technology. The implication was that no further progress would occur until an acceptable set of standards for safe AI use could be  instituted.

However, it was not long before the dominating ethos of “move fast and break things” prevailed in big tech, as the development of AI models appeared to instead accelerate. Even Elon Musk, who had initially expressed solidarity and signed the proposed moratorium, launched an artificial intelligence startup just last year.

We now face a crossroads: do we allow artificial intelligence to overtake traditionally human-led endeavors, or do we frantically install speed bumps?

Our imminent decision is certainly not unique alongside the cascade of historical events that have defined the past century, with one hot-button controversy coming to mind: the regulation of recombinant DNA technology. The climacteric controversy that once plagued geneticists and politicians alike provides a useful historical precedent for regulating contemporary AI research.

Recombinant DNA Technology

Between the 1950s and 60s, recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology positioned itself as a trailblazing innovation, bolstered by grandeur claims of using gene editing to create plants resistant to crop disease or artificially produced insulin with few side-effects. However, concerns rapidly spread over protecting the general public and laboratory personnel from the potential biohazards created through experimentation. Fears intensified over individual scientists creating novel fatal diseases or a lab experiment producing some variant of Frankenstein’s monster. These fears were bolstered by vocal objections from prominent academics and scientists such as Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner for biology in 1967.

This rising tide of concerns culminated in a moratorium on rDNA research in July 1974, championed by the leading experts of the rDNA regulatory movement. Chief among them was a biochemist and pioneer in genomic editing, Paul Berg, who led the discussions between government and academia. In perhaps the most famous example of scientists regulating scientific research, the moratorium represented the intense battle between innovation and ethics that dominated the latter half of the 20th century. In several ways, the existential and moral struggles faced by Paul Berg and his colleagues echo those that plague AI proponents and opponents today.

The Asilomar Conference of 1975

From February 24 to 27, 1975, the Asilomar Conference gathered over one hundred scientists, lawyers, and select journalists in Monterey, California to discuss whether the instituted moratorium on recombinant DNA technology should be lifted. Their question: what guidelines would facilitate safe, “protected” experimentation to mitigate the risks of rDNA technology?

Scientists recognized the need to approach rDNA technology in a way that not only satisfied public concerns but also supported autonomy in research. Self-governance was an attractive principle, for it avoided the chaotic patchwork of federal legislation in decision-making forums related to science. Anxious uncertainty weighed on conference members, with many fearing that strict regulation would fill the policy lacuna. As the discussions in Monterey transpired, Congress prepared to impose stringent regulations if no standardized norms were adopted before the conference’s conclusion.

Following multiple spirited sessions rife with disagreement, several recommendations were combined in an unsteady compromise: proper handling of bacteria that are incapable of surviving outside a lab, classifying experiments based on necessary containment levels, and discontinuing experimentation involving known carcinogens, toxin-producing genes, and antibiotic resistance genes. Paul Berg spearheaded the synthesis and proposal of these recommendations, which ultimately resulted in the formal adoption of the Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The heart of the Asilomar Conference’s debate centered on the appropriate level of interference and oversight that a governing body has over uncharted territory. Participants in the conference lauded their fulfillment of social responsibilities and hailed the avoidance of government-regulated oversight as a boon for future research. As one molecular biologist expressed, it was “really an amazing time for scientists actually putting restraints on themselves in a working situation.” The Asilomar Conference was initially perceived as wildly successful, even considered the gold standard for self-regulation in science at some point. It also prompted general improvements in lab safety practices.

However, the efficacy and motives of the Asilomar Conference have been called into question. Many of the imagined genetic horrors the convention sought to prevent were discovered to be exaggerated and currently unfeasible, and the intentions buoying the “self-restraint” demonstrated by scientists have met more intense skepticism as the passage of time has allowed reflection upon Asilomar. Scientists were partially motivated by a desire to avoid regulation and maintain favorable public relations, which is evident in first-hand accounts by participating researchers that allude to widespread relief. Many scientists feared that indecisiveness and disagreement around stringent guidelines would result in “heavy legislation” by Congress and that “[their agreed-upon guidelines were] probably the fastest route towards the science we know.” Therefore, the research restrictions approved at Asilomar were partially rooted in an ulterior motive: reducing the perceived need for government oversight.

The Asilomar Conference as a Lens to Evaluate Contemporary AI Debates

Echoes of these hidden intentions and calls to action manifest in the contemporary AI landscape, where tech leaders are once again calling for a moratorium. An open letter signed by over 30,000 individuals, including Elon Musk and political economy expert Daron Acemoglu, demonstrates how concerns have spiked over "AI systems with human-competitive intelligence [that] can pose profound risks to society and humanity.”

The AI Asilomar Principles, developed at the 2017 Beneficial AGI Summit, reiterate the concerns expressed by the participants of the 1975 convention. The decision to host an AI conference in Asilomar, California—where, only decades before, regulation fell in the hands of genomic researchers—is no coincidence. The collection of scientists led by Paul Berg provides a helpful historical comparison to evaluate measured responses to AI tools today.

A particularly critical lesson gleaned from the Asilomar Conference on recombinant DNA is that oversight and innovation are not necessarily incompatible. The 1975 guidelines spread in a way that welcomed oversight, with new security facilities being required at universities and the founding of investigatory bodies such the US National Institute of Health Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. Public scrutiny also quickly followed these proceedings—as just 15 percent of the Asilomar participants were from the media—which provided the public a glimpse into the decision-making process behind the intensely poignant issue. The conference therefore boosted the transparency of rDNA research to both regulatory bodies and the general public.

However, a key difference between genetic modification research in 1975 and AI technology today lies in the institutions involved. In the 1970s, many of the scientists engaged in recombinant DNA research were spurred by collaboration across their respective academic institutions. In contrast, the majority of AI developers and software engineers are contracted to private companies, blurring the divide between public responsibility and private sector work. This dilemma is not unique to AI, as many issues in science and technology are beset by economic self-interests.

A handful of powerful tech giants like OpenAI now drive the development of generative AI tools. Big Tech rivals can obtain AI-related intellectual property (IP) granting companies ownership over certain generative AI elements and tools. IP can either be held in reserve or wielded as “competitive weapons in lawsuits against rivals.” The accumulation of these patents by Big Tech competitors drives a deeper wedge into future possibilities of open collaboration and establishing agreed-upon rules of conduct.

OpenAI, for instance, does not offer particular details on how its model GPT-4 is trained, citing a highly "competitive landscape and safety implications." Chatbot creators have admitted that their AI tools possess deep flaws, yet there is a push to rapidly release products in order to out-pace rivals.

As several reports point out, government policy may run the risk of "entrenching" the purview of a few big tech companies, rather than mitigating it. Aggressive oversight that leverages public and private sectors becomes increasingly necessary to ensure proper legislation passes.

In the past year, several experts warned Congress not to place the future of AI solely in the hands of the few most powerful tech companies. Rigorous public oversight and scrutiny, combined with strong government regulation, are essential to ensure that the development of transformative AI systems is done responsibly and with the best interests of society in mind.

The decision-making process at the 1975 Asilomar Conference was influenced by interests beyond simply public welfare—including intentions to avoid regulation and preserve the freedom to continue experimentation—which presented challenges in responding to more dire assessments of potential dangers. Those interests for individual gain should not be prioritized in the age of AI.

However, this dilemma does not mean that a complete pause on AI development is the sole, viable solution. Rather, it necessitates the installation of speed bumps to slow the dangerous race towards ever-expanding, unpredictable AI models. The focus should reorient towards making powerful AI systems more accurate and transparent. AI developers must modify their rules of conduct to encourage open collaboration with competitors and policymakers. The creation of robust AI governance frameworks is necessary to combat the potential for self-incentivized standards of regulation.

Just as with recombinant DNA technology, the choice before us is clear: do we proactively shape the future of transformative AI, or do we allow it to shape us? The stakes could not be higher, and the lessons of the 1975 Asilomar Conference loom large. We have an opportunity to enjoy a long "AI summer," reaping the rewards of our innovations while engineering them for the clear benefit of all and giving society time to adapt. Ethics must catch up with innovation. Let us not rush unprepared into a perilous fall.

26 Jun, 2024

- Knowledge, Soil, Politics, and Poverty: How Drug Trafficking Has Kept Its Hold on Latin America

Knowledge, Soil, Politics, and Poverty: How Drug Trafficking Has Kept Its Hold on Latin America

Isabela De los Rios Hernández  1:00PM, 26 Jun, 2024

For decades, Latin America has remained a hub for the illicit drug market and a target of international efforts to eradicate the production of cocaine and marijuana. Many scholars attribute the surge of drug trafficking in Latin America to the instability of the region and its complex political and social landscape. However, many places around the world have experienced some degree of similar fragmentation, yet they do not struggle with the emergence of powerful groups that have been able to infiltrate the government and the military while becoming epicenters of drug production.

Even though there have been several attempts to kill it, the illicit drug market has strengthened, and drug production continues to increase. For example, coca leaf production has reached countries like Guatemala and Honduras, whereas previously, only Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador produced it. Understanding how this black market has remained a constant in Latin America in an ever-changing world might be the key to understanding how to dismantle it.

Knowledge and Soil: The Origins of the Illicit Drug Market

Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the world with cocaine following closely behind. Even though both are currently produced in the region, cocaine is endemic to South America. Different from marijuana, whose production spread to most continents centuries ago from Asia, coca (the plant source processed to produce cocaine) has been cultivated by Andean indigenous communities for over 5,000 years, protecting it from being eradicated in their ancestral lands. These leaves are important to the indigenous communities due to their medical properties and ritual usage.

In the 19th century, when European and US pharmacists started to look for new medicines, they traveled to the forests in South America where they found that indigenous communities had been using coca leaf to cure pain and boost energy. Nicolás Fajardo, researcher at the Universität Potsdam, has studied how crossing borders between Europe and the Americas transformed an almost natural product into one of the most popular drugs in the world. He explains that, initially, European scientists started to extract the cocaine from the leaf for medical purposes. However, “cocaine stopped being medicine in the 1940s to become a recreational drug like alcohol or tobacco, with much more fatal consequences.”

"Coca Plantation. Peru." by William Lewis Herdon (1854)

Even though scientists knew how to extract the alkaloid cocaine from the leaf, the indigenous communities in the Andean countries were the main group cultivating the plant. As the 20th century advanced, farmers around the region learned to cultivate the coca leaf and sell it to illegal groups that would later synthesize the extract and produce the famous white powder. Since then, the production of cocaine has kept increasing. For example, Peru produces 10 times more cocaine than what the indigenous communities need for medicine and rituals; the rest is directed to the illegal market to be processed into cocaine. Colombia has reached its highest number of coca plantations with 230,000 hectares at the end of 2022. Despite the governments' eradication efforts, the price drug traffickers pay for the prime product and the lesser demand for fertilizers make it a more attractive, highly profitable crop to farmers.

Also, the geographical advantages of the Andes and the Amazonian regions have offered nurturing soil and a sanctuary for these illegal crops and the laboratories where the cocaine is extracted and the drug produced.

When Did Drug Trafficking Boom in Latin America?

When cocaine was first introduced in the international market, it was received with great praise by the highest personalities of the time. Sigmund Freud and John Pemberton, creator of the Coca-Cola recipe, helped cocaine become a widely recognized drug reportedly offering quick energy and improved concentration. It was not until the 1920s that cocaine began to be seen as dangerous and was banned by the US government. Even though cocaine has been a product on the black market since its prohibition, the distribution of the drug did not peak again until the 1970s when young Colombians from humble neighborhoods started to transport it across the Caribbean, exploiting Colombia’s fertile soil and proximity to the United States.

Initially, the fight to control the US market was especially bloody. It was nicknamed the “Miami drug wars” because 50 percent of the homicides in the city were drug-related; these homicides collapsed the morgue system during the late 1970s. The kidnapping of Jorge Luis Ochoa’s sister in 1981 marked a turning point in how the most prominent Colombian narcos interacted. In a meeting, Ochoa and other drug traffickers decided to create the paramilitary group MAS (Death to Kidnappers) to protect themselves and create a united front. Thanks to the alliance, the war among drug traffickers decreased to a certain extent, and the fight in Miami diminish. However, the formation of MAS also helped to skyrocket cocaine production. From that meeting, the first drug cartel—Medellín’s Cartel—was also born, paving the way for the complex drug trafficking structures that we see today. The consolidation of the “business” helped traffickers gain more terrain because they were not worried about fighting with each other but rather other groups that controlled important drug transportation routes.

The cartels were able to put more pressure on the Colombian government to meet their demands through coordinated violent attacks like bombings and assassinations. Pablo Escobar’s death in 1993 and the crackdown on the cartels by the Colombian and US governments in the late 1990s and early 2000s erased the powerful monopoly Colombian cartels had held over the trade for the previous three decades. It opened up the drug market to new players. During the early 2000s, most of the distribution networks moved north and shifted from the Caribbean to the US-Mexican border, which accelerated the formation of the cartels that now traffic in Mexico. At least 170,000 people died between 2006 and 2016 due to the war between the Mexican government and the cartels. While drug traffickers in Colombia were mostly a force against the government, recently, drug traffickers in Mexico have infiltrated most of the hierarchies inside the police and the federal government, gaining more power with less opposition.

Politics and Poverty: The Stabilizers of the Drug Trafficking World

Latin America has long been a deeply unequal region; in 1985, 45.6 percent of Colombians and about 25 percent of Mexicans lived under the poverty line. The income gaps turned people towards the profitable market of illegal drugs to earn “easy money” and escape a life of needs. For example, “El Chapo,” former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico, said in an interview that he went into drug trafficking because there were no job opportunities in his region. According to the Spanish newspaper El País, drug traffickers are the fifth-largest employer in Mexico with around 165,000 people involved.

These high poverty levels reflect the instability of Latin American states with recurrent civil wars and military coups. The rural zones where most of the cocaine is produced feel abandoned by the central government due to isolating geography and the political elites’ concentration in urban areas. The lack of law enforcement in these rural areas gives more maneuverability to illegal groups. In the last couple of years, Central America has become a key place in the drug distribution chain due to its high levels of corruption and impunity. The instability of these failing Latin American states creates the perfect environment for drug trafficking groups to thrive.

After 50 Years of Drug Trafficking, Why is the Fight Against Violence Still Far From Finished?

There have been several efforts to eradicate drug trafficking in Latin America mostly sponsored by the US government. The Plan Colombia is one of the offensive plans that the US government has repeatedly called a success. Through the Colombian military, the United States spent US$10 billion in training, armament, and coca eradication strategies to stabilize the country and take away the power of narcotics traffickers. Even though Plan Colombia decreased the power of illegal groups and brought stability during the 2000s and 2010s, the plantations are again quickly spreading, and the elimination of the drug industry by domestic and international efforts seems far away. In Peru, since 1991, the government has also received support from the US government to fight drug trafficking based on the coca plantations and the established routes to Colombia to distribute the cocaine.

Nonetheless, the efforts made by the Latin American militaries have yielded few long-term results. Drug trafficking works as a parallel economy to the legal exportations of the countries, which entrenches it in local economies and therefore makes it harder to eliminate. Even though political instability and poverty are not unique to Latin America, the combination of these factors—along with the fertile soil and the indigenous knowledge to cultivate the coca leaf—created the perfect setup for a thriving drug trafficking market that does not seem close to dying.

19 Jun, 2024

- Facts or False Alarms: The State of Illicit Arms in Ukraine

Facts or False Alarms: The State of Illicit Arms in Ukraine

Lizzie Place  1:00PM, 19 Jun, 2024

Both US lawmakers and Ukrainian officials have raised concerns regarding the final destination of weapons donated and sold to Ukraine. Ukraine has historically had one of the largest black markets for arms in Europe, with around 300,000 small arms and light weapons reported lost or stolen during the Russian invasion of Crimea between 2013 and 2015. This number is small compared to the estimated US$32 billion lost in Ukrainian military equipment stolen and sold on the black market between 1992 and 1998. NATO nations have spent US$40 billion sending weapons to Ukraine since the war started, and the extent to which equipment remains solely in control of the Ukrainian military is unclear. This uncertainty raises questions about what is happening to the mass amounts of weapons the United States and NATO allies have distributed and sold to Ukraine in the past two years.

There are also questions about the legality of the types of weapons being sold and provided to Ukraine by the United States (cluster bombs) and the United Kingdom (depleted uranium rounds), as well as some of the weapons reportedly deployed by Russia, including chloropicrin, phosphorous bombs, and other chemical weapons. Both Russia and Ukraine have also violated the 1997 Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention; anti-personnel landmines, which remain hidden underground and active, endanger aid workers, civilians, and other noncombatants.

The illicit nature of banned weapons and the potential for weaponry theft and circulation on the black market raise genuine concerns about the security of arms sales to Ukraine. These two problems, which continue to plague lawmakers in Washington, have been exacerbated by the perpetuation of the war in Ukraine.

The Illegal Movement of Weapons

Weaponry Theft in Ukraine: Reality or Russian Disinformation?

The invasion of Ukraine has led to a larger quantity of weapons entering Europe, and thus a greater possibility for weapons to go missing. Since 2022, there have been sporadic reports of small and large arms being stolen in Ukraine. In early 2022, a Russian-led criminal organization operating in Ukraine reportedly stole at least one grenade launcher, a machine gun, and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition to sabotage and destabilize Ukraine’s efforts to secure the region. Although it is difficult to confirm when and where weapons are stolen, the sheer scale of weapon transfers means that it is highly likely that some weapons will go missing over the course of the conflict.

However, when examining the extent to which illicit weapons are being used or sold in Ukraine, it is important to acknowledge the massive amount of Russian disinformation about these weapons. Russia has been working within the United Nations to spread disinformation about the state of weapons being sold to Ukraine by the United States and other Western nations. Reports about Finnish gangsters, French rioters, Nigerian fighters, and Mexican cartels gaining weapons—like rifles and grenade launchers—from Ukraine have all been debunked as Russian propaganda attempting to sway the United States and NATO allies to decrease arms transfers. Russia is actively trying to disincentivize US support for Kyiv, which necessitates caution when discussing illicit weapons trading in Europe.

End-Use Monitoring of Weapons by the United States and Ukraine

Ukraine has also consistently released information about the state of weaponry in the country and allowed for US end-use monitoring through the State Department or the Department of Defense. However, while these actions evidence transparency, US end-use monitoring is relatively ineffective in Ukraine due to the frequent movement of weapons along front lines. The current US end-use monitoring program focuses on Man-Portable Air Defense Systems and Anti-Tank/All-purpose Tactical Guided Missiles because of the classified information used to build those weapons. Contrarily, monitoring efforts have paid little attention to small arms and light weapons, yet those are the weapons more likely to be stolen by criminal organizations in Ukraine. In January 2024, the US military admitted that it had failed to effectively track over US$1 billion worth of small and light arms. The US military also stated that it could not maintain an accurate serial-number inventory of those weapons. Therefore, while there had been no reports of the weapons being stolen, it was impossible for the Department of Defense to fully determine the endpoint of the weapons.

The United States has also shifted the majority of responsibility for end-use monitoring onto Ukraine, due to the difficulties of managing large-scale weapons transfers. However, Ukrainian officials have also struggled to track weapons movements, and oversight failures have had lethal consequences. Oleksandra Ustinova—a former anti-corruption activist in Ukraine who now monitors foreign arms transfers to Ukraine—stated: “We’ve literally had people die because stuff was left behind, and they came back to get it, and were killed.”

The Deployment of Illegal Weapons in the Russo-Ukrainian War

Cluster Munitions

Along with clearly illegal transfers of weapons within and beyond Ukraine, there are murkier questions about transfers of illegal types of weapons from the United States to Ukraine. The most significant example of illegal weapons used in Ukraine has been cluster munitions. Both Ukrainian and Russian forces have utilized these weapons. Cluster munition usage is banned by the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which 123 countries—excluding Russia, Ukraine, and the United States—have signed. Several European supporters of the agreement—including Spain and the United Kingdom—have criticized President Biden’s decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine on humanitarian grounds. The US Export Control Act states that the United States can only transfer cluster munitions that “after arming do not result in more than one percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments.” Biden’s exports of cluster munitions violated this rule. However, he argued that extreme circumstances and Russia’s usage of the weapons justified the decision.

Chemical Weapons

In addition to cluster munitions, Russia has actively been deploying chemical weapons prohibited by international law. According to an official statement by Ukraine's General Staff on December 27, 2023, Russia had carried out 81 chemical attacks in Ukraine in December 2023 alone. It is unclear whether the substances inside these weapons are chemicals like mustard gas or ‘just’ tear gas that is burning at an incredibly high temperature of 650 degrees Celsius. However, even if the chemicals being used are ‘only’ tear gas, usage still violates international law. These violations have pushed Ukraine to violate international law to match the scale of violence inflicted by Russia. According to the Institute for the Study of War, Russia resorted to using World War I chemical weapons—such as chloropicrin, a compound used in the agricultural industry—in January 2024. A spokesperson for the Tavria Ukrainian military group stated that “Russian forces had been using K-51 grenades with chloropicrin in their attacks on Kyiv's positions.” These usages of chemical weapons demonstrate Russia’s violations of international law.

Russia also accused Ukraine of using chemical weapons in the eastern Ukrainian towns of Soledar and Bakhmut without any evidence. The Ukrainian public affairs office stated that "the enemy's accusations of the use of chemical weapons by units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are untrue" and that Ukraine did not use chemical weapons "anywhere...at any time." Russia’s accusations could reflect attempts to legitimize its own usage of chemical agents and spread propaganda to Russian and Ukrainian citizens about the plight of Russian troops.

Looking Ahead: The Geopolitical Consequences of Illicit Transfers and Illegal Weapons

This spread of Russian propaganda—combined with the transfer of questionably legal weapons and lots of smaller munitions—can be geopolitically destabilizing. For example, there have been concerns that Ukraine will use US tanks to cross the Russian border, which would place the United States in a de facto state of war with Russia. In the context of cluster munitions, some fear that Ukrainian usage would cause Russia to escalate to other chemical and larger-impact weapons. There is also fear that, if Russia continues to use chemical weapons, Ukraine may escalate usage as well.

The extent to which arms are being illegally trafficked once arriving in Ukraine is overstated by Russian media sources, but the US and Ukrainian governments are straining to track weapons to ensure that none go missing. The usage of cluster munitions by both Moscow and Kyiv and Russia’s usage of chemical weapons, however, are not being overstated. The deployment of these weapons is particularly concerning, given Washington’s difficulties tracking weapons. These weapons present real threats of conflict escalation and great harm to civilian populations in both Ukraine and Russia. While small arms falling into criminal groups' hands may have peripheral consequences, a world in which these actors can obtain cluster munitions and chemical weapons would have catastrophic consequences for stability beyond the Russo-Ukrainian War. End-use monitoring of all these weapons needs to be a major focus to prevent dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

Table of Contents

Harvard International Review: 15 Jul, 2024

15 Jul, 2024

Bulwark in the Pacific: Implications of the January 2024 Taiwanese Elections

10 Jul, 2024

Linguistic Colonialism: Moroccan Education and its Dark Past

27 Jun, 2024

The Asilomar Conference and Contemporary AI Controversies: Lessons in Regulation

26 Jun, 2024

Knowledge, Soil, Politics, and Poverty: How Drug Trafficking Has Kept Its Hold on Latin America

19 Jun, 2024

Facts or False Alarms: The State of Illicit Arms in Ukraine