Daily Archives: April 25, 2023

The news media plays a key role in shaping public perception about artificial intelligence. Since 2017, when Ottawa launched its Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy, AI has been hyped as a key resource for the Canadian economy.

With more than $1 billion in public funding committed, the federal government presents AI as having potential that must be harnessed. Publicly-funded initiatives, like Scale AI and Forum IA Qubec, exist to actively promote AI adoption across all sectors of the economy.

Over the last two years, our multi-national research team, Shaping AI, has analyzed how mainstream Canadian news media covers AI. We analyzed newspaper coverage of AI between 2012 and 2021 and conducted interviews with Canadian journalists who reported on AI during this time period.

Our report found news media closely reflects business and government interests in AI by praising its future capabilities and under-reporting the power dynamics behind these interests.

Our research found that tech journalists tend to interview the same pro-AI experts over and over again especially computer scientists. As one journalist explained to us: Who is the best person to talk about AI, other than the one who is actually making it? When a small number of sources informs reporting, news stories are more likely to miss important pieces of information or be biased.

Canadian computer scientists and tech entrepreneurs Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Jean-Franois Gagn and Jolle Pineau are disproportionately used as sources in mainstream media. The name of Bengio a leading expert in AI, pioneer in deep learning and founder of Mila AI Institute turns up nearly 500 times in 344 different news articles.

Only a handful of politicians and tech leaders, like Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg, have appeared more often across AI news stories than these experts.

Few critical voices find their way into mainstream coverage of AI. The most-cited critical voice against AI is late physicist Stephen Hawking, with only 71 mentions. Social scientists are conspicuous in their absence.

Bengio, Hinton and Pineau are computer science authorities, but like other scientists theyre not neutral and free of bias. When interviewed, they advocate for the development and deployment of AI. These experts have invested their professional lives in AI development and have a vested interest in its success.

Most AI scientists are not only researchers, but are also entrepreneurs. There is a distinction between these two roles. While a researcher produces knowledge, an entrepreneur uses research and development to attract investment and sell their innovations.

The lines between the state, the tech industry and academia are increasingly porous. Over the last decade in Canada, state agencies, private and public organizations, researchers and industrialists have worked to create a profitable AI ecosystem. AI researchers are firmly embedded in this tightly-knit network, sharing their time between publicly-funded labs and tech giants like Meta.

AI researchers occupy key positions of power in organizations that promote AI adoption across industries. Many hold, or have held, decision-making positions at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) an organization that channels public funding to AI Research Chairs across Canada.

When computer scientists make their way into the news cycle, they do so not only as AI experts, but also as spokespeople for this network. They bring credibility and legitimacy to AI coverage because of their celebrated expertise. But they are also in a position to promote their own expectations about the future of AI, with little to no accountability for the fulfilment of these visions.

The AI experts quoted in mainstream media rarely discussed the technicalities of AI research. Machine learning techniques colloquially known as AI were deemed too complex for a mainstream audience. Theres only room for so much depth about technical issues, one journalist told us.

Instead, AI researchers use media attention to shape public expectations and understandings of AI. The recent coverage of an open letter calling for a six-month ban on AI development is a good example. News reports centred on alarmist tropes on what AI could become, citing profound risks to society.

Bengio, who signed the letter, warned that AI has the potential to destabilize democracy and the world order.

These interventions shaped the discourse about AI in two ways. First, they framed AI debates according to alarmist visions of distant future. Coverage of an open letter calling for a six-month break from AI development overshadowed real and well-documented harms from AI, like worker exploitation, racism, sexism, disinformation and concentration of power in the hands of tech giants.

Second, the open letter casts AI research into a Manichean dichotomy: the bad version that no onecan understand, predict, or reliably control and the good one the so-called responsible AI. The open letter was as much about shaping visions about the future of AI as it was about hyping up responsible AI.

But according to AI industry standards, what is framed as responsible AI to date has consisted of vague, voluntary and toothless principles that cannot be enforced in corporate contexts. Ethical AI is often just a marketing ploy for profit and does little to eliminate the systems of exploitation, oppression and violence that are already linked to AI.

Our report proposes five recommendations to encourage reflexive, critical and investigative journalism in science and technology, and pursue stories about the controversies of AI.

1. Promote and invest in technology journalism. Be wary of economic framings of AI and investigate other angles that are typically left out of business reporting, like inequalities and injustices caused by AI.

2. Avoid treating AI as a prophecy. The expected realizations of AI in the future must be distinguished from its real-world accomplishments.

3. Follow the money. Canadian legacy media has paid little attention to the significant amount of governmental funding that goes into AI research. We urge journalists to scrutinize the networks of people and organizations that work to construct and maintain the AI ecosystem in Canada.

4. Diversify your sources. Newsrooms and journalists should diversify their sources of information when it comes to AI coverage. Computer scientists and their research institutions are overwhelmingly present in AI coverage in Canada, while critical voices are severely lacking.

5. Encourage collaboration between journalists and newsrooms and data teams. Co-operation among different types of expertise helps to highlight the social and technical considerations of AI. Without one or the other, AI coverage is likely to be deterministic, inaccurate, naive or overly simplistic.

To be reflexive and critical of AI does not mean to be against the development and deployment of AI. Rather, it encourages the news media and its readers to question the underlying cultural, political and social dynamics that make AI possible, and examine the broader impact that technology has on society and vice versa.

If so, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. With the latest scientific discoveries, thoughtful analysis on political issues and research-based life tips, each email is filled with articles that will inform you and often intrigue you.

Get our newsletters

Editor and General Manager

Find peace of mind, and the facts, with experts. Add evidence-based articles to your news digest. No uninformed commentariat. Just experts. 90,000 of them have written for us. They trust us. Give it a go.

Get our newsletter

If you found the article you just read to be insightful, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. Each newsletter has articles that will inform and intrigue you.

Subscribe now

CEO | Editor-in-Chief

It helps you go deeper into key political issues and also introduces you to the diversity of research coming out of the continent. It's not about breaking news. It's not about unfounded opinions. The Europe newsletter is evidence-based expertise from European scholars, presented by myself in France, and two of my colleagues in Spain and the UK.

Get our newsletter

Head of English section, France edition

See the original post:

News coverage of artificial intelligence reflects business and government hype not critical voices - The Conversation

The Global Assault on Environmentalists

Earth Day arrives only weeks after the main U.N. body on climate change cited the work of many hundreds of scientists in this grim consensus: Climate change is now so grievous a threat to human well-being and planetary health that our window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all is rapidly closing.

Those most endangered include Indigenous people, over 475 million, who safeguard their ecosystems and the bulk of Earths remaining biodiversity with their traditional, generations-old expertise. Communities such as the Amazons Yanomami and Karipuna, or northeast Indias Khasi, are attacked as governments, industries and other powerful interests seize lands to mine, drill for oil, clear-cut timber or dam rivers. Attackers kill four environmental defenders every week 1,733 of them since 2012 and this murderous pace has accelerated, reports the human rights group Global Witness. In 2021, 40 percent of those killed were Indigenous, with most attacks in Latin America and Asia.

Activists in a coalition known as ALLIED document a wider campaign of attacks, including death threats, beatings, sexual assault, smear campaigns and arbitrary imprisonment or judicial harassment. In five of the most dangerous countries for environmentalists Colombia, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico and the Philippines hundreds of non-lethal attacks have presaged deadlier violence. The group reports that most governments do not specifically monitor attacks on environmental defenders, leaving that task to civil society and thus failing to effectively counter the violence.

One campaign against Indigenous environmentalists roils Indias eight northeastern states. There, 45 million indigenous people of 272 ethnicities live amid forested mountains and valleys a region almost as large as Burkina Faso or Colorado. At the eastern end of the Himalayan Mountains, northeast India falls within one of Earths 36 hotspots where environmentalists say biodiversity is at particular risk.

For decades, Indias northeast has faced border clashes with China, communal conflicts and insurgencies that have killed more than 50,000 people. In the region, India has leaned heavily on its Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which provides impunity for violence by the military. Under this historically militarized governance, the northeasts Indigenous peoples have been killed, and their visions for development and governance ignored, by authorities. Indias Supreme Court ordered government investigations into civic groups accounts of 1,528 extrajudicial killings by Indian forces just between 2000 and 2012 in the state of Manipur. Nearly six years later, prosecutions have not begun.

Central government power, allied to business interests, drives most deforestation in the northeast, which is 8 percent of Indias territory but has 24 percent of its forest cover. Forestlands are slashed for farming by settlers; government-backed oil, gas and mining projects; and, most threatening of all, dams. The government aims to make the northeast Indias future powerhouse by building more than 100 dams, including massive projects that would inundate entire valleys. Prime Minister Narendra Modi says negotiations with insurgents have let the government lift the special military powers in many areas and accelerate development. In the northeast, obstacles such as corruption, discrimination, violence and [partisan] politics were removed, Modi declared.

A grassroots movement, led largely by Indigenous people, students and women, opposes the dam-driven model of development. They cite the northeasts severe risk of earthquakes; flood disasters created by existing dams; and the displacement of thousands of families by a single dam in Tripura state. Indian authorities arrest and harass campaigners who oppose government-backed projects. Environmentalists have been shot dead, their killers never identified. Few cases are as publicly reported as the 2016 arrest of a Buddhist lama, Lobsang Gyatso, for opposing dam construction. People protesting his arrest were shot dead six of them by police, according to a local environmental group. Officials continue to detain and threaten Indigenous activists, northeast civil society organizations declared last month.

As moneyed, powerful elites slash Latin Americas globally vital forests for more farmland, minerals and timber, international attention via books, films, protests, even lawsuits has focused heavily on Brazil. But most Latin American states continue to allow the dual assault on Indigenous peoples and their biodiverse homelands.

A struggle often overlooked is Nicaraguas. Indigenous andcampesinocommunities led protests to halt an attempt by President Daniel Ortegas government to build a massive Chinese-funded canal that would have smashed through pristine forestlands of Miskito, Rama and other Indigenous peoples. In 2018, Nicaraguans protested what they said was the governments poor response to massive firesacross the Indio Maz biological reserve. The reserve is Nicaraguas second-largest lowland rainforest, part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and home of the Rama-Kriol people. Those protests energized the years-long civic uprising against Ortegas rule.

More than 260,000 Nicaraguans have fled violence and oppression as refugees, mainly to the United States and Costa Rica and violent struggles over resources have embroiled Indigenous people and their lands. Farmers clear Indigenous forestlands to raise cattle; settlers illicitly clear forest for its timber. Ortegas government has allowed such incursions and has promoted gold extraction by issuing mining permits some within legally protected reserves, according to reports from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the nongovernmental Oakland Institute and the Nicaragua-based River Foundation. Whether passive or active, official facilitation of encroachment has fueled killings, rapes, forced displacement and other violence against Indigenous peoples by armed gangs aligned with land-grabbers, environmental activists and independent analysts say.

In Venezuela, Indigenous peoples, about 3 percentof the population, remain the most marginalized. Although the 1999 Constitution established state protections for Indigenous languages, cultures, and territorial rights, those communities still face extreme violence and oppression by state and non-state actors. Yet Indigenous peoples plightis overshadowed by Venezuelas national humanitarian and political crises. Indigenous communities bear the brunt of the Nicols Maduro governments extractive mining policies, particularly in the rural Amazonas and Bolivar states bordering Brazil. Of Venezuelas 40-plus ethnic groups, the Yanomami and Pemn are among the most victimized. Deep in the Amazon rainforest, the Yanomami suffer deaths and displacement from attacks, abuses and diseases inflicted by illegal miners, the Venezuelan military and non-state armed groups. As the Pemn people in Bolivar resistmining activities, security forces severely suppress their protests, killing, detaining and reportedly torturing Pemn activists or community members.

Preserving our planets endangered ecosystems requires all the resources and allies we can muster. U.S. and international policymakers should recognize indigenous environmental defenders as irreplaceable allies, and should strengthen policies and practices to protect them. Key steps include:

Earths degrading climate speaks clearly: Our modern states and economies have erred disastrously in silencing and ignoring our Indigenous neighbors plea for respect and care toward our shared planet. Preserving a viable Earth for our children means first hearing and heeding those neighbors voices.

The authors work at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Chris Collins is a senior program assistant and Emmanuel Davalillo Hidalgo is a program officer in the Institutes Climate, Environment and Conflict unit; Binalakshmi Nepram is a senior advisor and Mona Hein is a visiting scholar on the Religion and Inclusive Societies team.

See the original post:

To Secure Shared Environments, We Must Protect Indigenous ... - United States Institute of Peace

The University of Akrons Center for Conflict Management sponsored a panel on Thursday, April 20, to discuss the social justice ramifications surrounding the death of Jayland Walker.

The panel was organized by social justice student Jameel Anderson, who wanted to promote social justice and equality through discussion.

Students, faculty, and attendees had the opportunity to engage in dialogue after each of the three speakers addressed the audience.

The panelists, Ben Holda, Imokhai Okolo, and Professor David Licate offered expertise on social justice, legal, and criminal justice aspects of Jaylands case and the community response.

Ben Holda, Coordinator of the National Guild Branch, was the first to take the podium. He offered the caveat that he was speaking from his own point of view as a former student and an academic, and what he shared was not the opinions of or endorsed by the National Guild Branchs beliefs.

Focusing on systemic issues involving the Akron Police Department, Holda described an open season on peaceful protestors that he has observed since last summer.

I want you to know that policing in this city goes beyond the systemic and that the issues we see and think are somewhere off in another community- happen every day, happen with members of The University of Akron police department, Holda said.

Holda believed that systemic repression is embedded in everyday branches of local government, with injustices increasing since the protests for Walker started in 2022.

What is most troubling is the record of malicious prosecution by the city, he said. The city knows that they beat people, that they violated civil rights. That people were peacefully assembled and ordered to disperse, which is illegal.

But what seemed to impact the audience the most was Bens recap of what he and other legal observers witnessed at this past Wednesdays protest on April 19.

According to Holda, what started off as a non-violent movement in Hawkins Plaza, quickly turned as police aggressedthe protestors, using crowd-control-level amounts of chemical irritants.

Holda described the Akron Police Department that evening as having an arbitrary timer, moving to threatening manners as that timer ran out.

According to him, they moved back when the protestors were commanded to move back. APD asked them to move back again, but before finishing their sentence this time, APD began teargassing.

How many of you have seen tear gas? How many of you have felt tear gas? How many of you have seen a three-year-old get tear-gassed? I saw a three-year-old get tear-gassed, Holda said as the audience sat in somber silence.

After the panel, there have been more breaking stories about the April 19 protest. The Akron Bail Fund shared on their Instagram account that they had filed a lawsuit against the city regarding the treatment of protestors.

On Saturday morning, various news outlets reported that a stipulated restraining order had been reached between the two groups as facilitated by an Akron magistrate.

Saturday evening, the Akron Police Department released an edited video that included non-time-stamped aerial footage and limited body camera views. The chief of police asserted that protestors initiated the violence. However, the Akron Bail Fund attorney is reported to have said that the illegal actions of one of two bystanders did not give the police license to revoke the first amendment rights of the peaceful marchers.

The community on social media appears in turmoil about the events of April 19, not unlike the events of the shooting of Jayland Walker.

Next to take the podium was Imokhai Okolo, attorney, and former Akron Police Oversight Committee Candidate.

The thing is, the law is not fair. We operate off this thing called fairness the law is not, Okolo said, speaking of his struggle to balance fighting the system while also working in it.

Okolo repeated a question throughout his speech: What is Justice for Jayland Walker? Okolo believes black and marginalized people have been fighting systemic oppression since, as he put it, the dawn of time.

When this system says youre supposed to have a trial, each side gets to tell their sides of the story, give their two cents. Jayland Walkers family still doesnt have their two cents, he said. Weve been out in the streets trying to give it to them, but I ask, are we going to be able to? Did we get it for Emmet Till? Okolo asked members of the audience.

After explaining that black and marginalized people have been organizing for freedom since the slaves were first brought to America on ships, he stated that slavery is still alive and well- its just changed form.

Okolo says he cannot tell people the exact step-by-step process of how we as a people make a change. He sees it coming only if people get outside and take their first step in getting involved with reformation groups.

I struggle to figure out how were going to get forward, he said. How are we as a people going to move forward? Because its happening day in and day out. The only way forward is to get out in the streets, organize, and experiment with ways to make change, said Okolo.

He suggests that increased brain power and stronger relationships are the only way people can become truly liberated.

Stay mad, stay vigilant because there is no other alternative, Okolo said.

Last to take the podium was Professor Dave Licate, Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice Studies.

Licate focused on what police do and the why behind what they do on the street. Part of his research has included working with police departments in Northern Ohio and Western Pennsylvania and doing frequent ride-alongs.

Licate says he has seen both the good and the bad in the criminal justice system.

Have I seen things that shake the foundations of trust in the community? Yes. Have I seen the police stop people of color without constitutional basis to do so, or do things I wouldnt recommend that bordered on illegal and unconstitutional? Yes, he said.

On the other hand, Licate has also observed the positive aspects of policing.

Have I seen the police do things that are incredible in terms of rescuing children, and other heroic activities to protect us? Yes, he said.

According to him, reform comes from building healthy and intelligent organizations from the inside.

If youre sick and not feeling well, are you going to run a marathon? Licate asked. Its the same thing with our organizations, when our organizations are ill and dont have good administrative practices, policies, procedures, training, and technology; theyre more susceptible to corruption, theyre more susceptible to deviation, he said.

Licate believes in building healthier policing organizations through better training and various research-based approaches.

He emphasized, however, that the intergenerational strife and mistrust between the public and police are more complicated.

Until you address that issue of trust and legitimacy, those reforms arent going to take. Or even if they do, if no one believes that theyve actually occurred, whats the point? Licate said. Building trust and legitimacy becomes the focus of what we need to look at now.

Licate says the lack of trust was not born overnight and similarly will not be quickly rebuilt in three months or even a year.

He described a model in which there needed to be internal and external pressure to move the needle.

You need a sustained plan change effort, he said. You need to do it in conjunction with the police department, who also has to have a sustained plan change effort, and you need to keep the pressure on both internally and externally to move forward, he said.

Licate also addressed the issue of limited immunity, which may limit the ability of the public to hold police accountable.

I think we need to discuss the issue of limited immunity that protects police officers right now, he said. Im all about balance, but at this point, its virtually impossible to use civil rights laws to hold police accountable, said Licate.

He also believes that lawmakers should codify a duty to act that would make it mandatory for officers who see injustice to act out to stop it in the moment and to report it after the moment.

This would allow officers to speak out about injustice without fear of being alienated by the department. This is often why officers do not speak against other officers.

Licate offered the example of George Floyd.

Theres a cultural issue here that might need to be overcome. Officers do need to be protected because they could be vulnerable if they say something about an officer of higher rank, he said. So, we need to codify and put in a policy that says if an officer sees somebody with their knee on somebodys neck, they need to say back off.

Transparency and participation of the community are ways to build legitimacy, truth, and reformation, according to Professor Licate.

Following the panelists speeches, attendees had the opportunity to ask questions and or make comments. The majority focused on specific steps that can be taken to create change in the system and how individuals can be involved without directly protesting.

Both Holda and Okolo shared similar views of the system being designed to keep minority and poor individuals where they are.

Black Panther Party- some of the most successful reform has come from radical people on the outside, Okolo said, supporting Holdas view on the system being inherently designed for oppression.

Regarding steps the public can take, the panelists agreed on multiple tips, such as educating oneself to better understand society at large. Another was getting involved with community organizers and programs like the Akron Bail Fund.

Another point of agreement was making strides towards integrating the police academy with the education process and possibly requiring officers to obtain a degree before entering their field.

Near the end, one attendee raised her hand simply to have everyone take a deep breath together following the intensity of the discussions.

Try to find balance. Allow yourself to enjoy life. That (indulgence of enjoyment) just cant be the only thing you do, said Okolo

Though the speakers were emotional at times, the panelists did leave the room on a lighter note. All encouraged the initial step of getting out and involved with the community.

Excerpt from:

Speakers at Panel on Social Justice and Jayland Walker Leave ... - The Buchtelite

The worst-case scenario is coming to pass, apparently, in Sudan. That is, at any rate, the apocalyptic message streaming out of Khartoum in the Western media.

US President Joe Biden lent credence to the alarmist perception by confirming that on his orders, the US military had conducted an operation to extract government personnel from Khartoum.

According to the US Department of State, about 16,000 American nationals are currently in Sudan. The US Embassy in Khartoum had an excessive staff strength on par with its Mission in Kiev which was unwarranted by the scale and volume of US-Sudanese bilateral ties, leading to speculation that it was a key intelligence outpost.

In the Horn of Africa, the Arab Gulf states traditionally took a deep dive into the complexities of power projection, political rivalry and conflict across the Red Sea, which has lately re-emerged as a geo-strategic space in which competing global and regional players have sought to project influence.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on the one hand, and Qatar and Turkey on the other, intensely competed to counter each others influence and project their rivalries on to the politics of the Horn, but after years of fierce competition, signs have appeared lately that theyve begun cautiously recalibrating their respective roles.

The post-Covid strain on their financial resources, the drawdown in Yemen, and the eagerness of the Gulf states to appear as constructive and reliable partners, adopting a more pragmatic approach on regional issues all these contributed to the notable signs of dtente replacing the intense intra-Gulf competition in the Horn of Africa.

In Sudan, Saudi and Emirati efforts to shape the political transition after Omar al-Bashirs ouster in April 2019 led to partial successes but also significant difficulties, as they came at a severe reputational cost under scrutiny from both the Sudanese population and the international community.

The US and the European Union saw Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries as useful partners in the Horn in terms of their surplus capital to invest that Western powers lacked, as well as their good personal networks. The Faustian deal between the Donald Trump administration, Israel and the Gulf states to lure the Sudanese military leadership into the Abraham Accords in 2020 was a defining moment.

However, that dalliance proved short-lived, and the Western powers game plan to ride on the wings of the Gulf states to counter the growing influence of Russia and China in the Red Sea met a sudden death too, as the ground beneath the feet of the US-Saudi alliance shifted dramatically under the Biden presidency and Riyadh began strengthening its ties with Moscow and Beijing.

This, in turn, compelled the Western powers to explore the opportunity to push for greater coordination and constructive engagement directly with the generals in Khartoum, banking on their own efforts and resources running parallel with the Gulf states recalibration of their involvement in the Horn.

In a nutshell, the crux of the matter is that the Western understanding of stability and sustainable development in Sudan through the prism of the neocon ideology that permeates the Biden administration lies at the core of the aggravation of the sluggish internal political crisis in Sudan that has been brewing since 2019 between the army led by the de facto leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and armed formations led by Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo.

The immature, unrealistic political settlements promoted by the Western liberal democracies significantly fueled the militarys infighting.

The Anglo-American dealmaking was largely limited to the Transition Military Council and the Forces for Freedom and Change, an inchoate coalition of hand-picked civilian and rebel Sudanese groups (Sudanese Professional Association, No to Oppression Against Women Initiative, etc) that by no means represented the national forces in Sudan.

Unsurprisingly, these neocon attempts at imposing exotic settlements on an ancient civilization were doomed to fail.

The spin propagated by the Western media reduces the present crisis in Sudan manifesting it as conflict within the military establishment is a grotesque oversimplification and attempt at a cover-up. Simply put, this crisis cannot be reduced to a personal dispute between the two generals Burhan and Hemedti who had been friends for a very long time.

The crisis can be resolved only through a security solution, which means an integration process involving the Rapid Support Forces in an appropriate manner as a political partner in governance, not just a military force affiliated with the army.

Lest it is forgotten, Sudan is a vast country of great ethnic and regional diversity, inhabited by something like 400-500 tribes. The countrys stability depends critically on an optimal model of interaction between the elites and clans.

Basically, what drives the special forces in the current conflict is their expectation to increase their importance in the domestic political process of the country. It must be understood that the current strife is not about access to some military resource, but about control over the economy and the distribution of power.

Meanwhile, the clumsy, inept handling of the formation of the new government by United Nations representative Volker Perthes significantly contributed to the present crisis. Perthes, a German establishment think-tanker, fired up by the neocon ideology, was the wrong man to handle such a sensitive mission.

This is yet another edifying example of the legacy of UN Secretary General Antnio Guterres to prefer Westerners as envoys to those hotspots where the Wests geopolitical interests are at stake.

The UN meeting on March 15 exposed that the overzealous Perthes was detached from reality by rushing through the transfer of power from the military administration to the civilian one rather than concentrating on helping to form a government and creating a committee to draft a new constitution which, alas, provoked the intensification of confrontation between the warring parties.

The good part is that there is not yet any sign ofradicalization in this conflict on religious grounds. Nor is there any power vacuum that could be exploited by a terrorist group. At the same time, mediation by external powers is required.

The countries of the region can help resolve the conflict. A comprehensive settlement may not happen soon, since the internal contradictions that accumulated over time require compromises,and so far at least, the parties are not ready for this.

In the present climate of conflict resolution enveloping regional politics in the West Asian region and the Persian Gulf in particular, there are no objective prerequisites for the conflict to move to the regional stage. The main countries that are associated with the warring factions have come up with peacekeeping initiatives the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

In addition, other external partners, especially Russia and China, will make efforts to prevent a prolonged open conflict. By the way, Sudan has an external debt under US$60 billion, and most of it falls on China and Russia, on the other hand, is well placed to foster rapprochement between Burhan and Dagalo.

Russia takes a balanced position. During his visit to Sudan in February, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with the leaders of both opposing sides. Russia is a stakeholder in Sudans stability.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement, The dramatic events taking place in Sudan cause serious concern in Moscow. We call on the parties to the conflict to show political will and restraint and take urgent steps towards a ceasefire. We proceed from the fact that any differences can be settled through negotiations.

However, the Anglo-American agenda remains dubious. Their focus is on internationalizing the crisis, injecting big power rivalries into the Sudanese situation and willy-nilly create pretexts for Western intervention.

But any attempt to reignite the embers of the Arab Spring will be hugely consequential for regional security and stability. The Gulf states and Egypt will need to be particularly watchful.

Sudan would have figured in the phone conversation between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian President Vladimir Putin on April 21.

This article was produced in partnership by Indian Punchline and Globetrotter, which provided it to Asia Times.

M.K. Bhadrakumar is a former Indian diplomat. Follow him on Twitter @BhadraPunchline.

Like Loading...

Follow this link:

Alignment of incendiary forces torching Sudan Asia Times - Asia Times

The intent of the Constituent Assembly and Dr Ambedkars words that the fundamentals of the Constitution should not be nullified resonated in the basic structure doctrine expounded by the Supreme Court in theKesavananda Bharati judgment.

TODAY marks the 50th anniversary of the invocation of the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in itsKesavananda Bharati judgmenton April 24, 1973. This is a landmark event in Indias arduous journey anchored in the constitutional scheme of governance.

The historic order of the Supreme Court in that case, that the Parliament, by exercising the procedure to amend the Constitution underArticle 368of the Constitution, cannot alter its basic structure, has beendescribedby Chief Justice of India Dr D.Y. Chandrachud as the north star always guiding the judiciary and the country to remain wedded to the Constitution and to uphold it.

Also read:Keshavananda Bharati of basic structure fame dies

It is quite tragic that the Union Law and Justice MinisterKiren Rijiju and even the Vice President of IndiaJagdeep Dhankharhave taken public stands against the basic structure doctrine, and articulated statements in several public fora against it, in complete contrast to theoaththey have taken owing allegiance to the Constitution. Such open and blatant defiance of the Constitution shocked the whole nation beyond measure, and constituted an attack on the Supreme Court and the very Constitution, the basic structure of which cannot be altered.

No constitutional functionaries such as the Law Minister and the Vice President of India, who is the ex officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, have ever so brazenly attacked the basic structure doctrine post the Kesavananda Bharati judgement.

Against this background, it would be illuminating to understand the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly, when it discussed Article 304 of the draft Constitution on September 17, 1949.

Discussions in the Constituent Assembly on the above Article throw light on the significant fact that some Members of the Assembly, including the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr B.R. Ambedkar used phrases such as fundamentals of the Constitution and principles of the Constitution, and indicated that those fundamentals and principles should not be altered easily.

It is quite tragic that the Union Law and Justice Minister Kiren Rijiju and even the Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar have taken public stands against the basic structure doctrine, and articulated statements in several public fora against it, in complete contrast to the oath they have taken owing allegiance to the Constitution.

Dr Ambedkar, while replying to the discussion on Article 304, made it clear that if the power of the states in their legislative, administrative and financial spheres were to be altered by the Union government by employing two-thirds majority of the Parliament without in any way allowing the states to have any voice, it would mean, in his words, nullifying the fundamentals of the Constitution.

Social activist and farmer leader Dr P.S. Deshmukh used the phrase principles of the Constitution in his amendment to the aforementioned article in the Constituent Assembly. He moved an amendment to the effect that if the President of India felt that an amendment would not vitiate or abrogate the principles of the Constitution but was necessary, then that could be passed by simple majority.

Dr Ambedkars emphasis on principles of the Constitution and Dr Deshmukhs usage of the phrase the principles of the Constitution in the Constituent Assembly, and their views that these were not to be vitiated, clearly underlined the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution, albeit in an embryonic form.

The intent of the Constituent Assembly and Dr Ambedkars words that the fundamentals of the Constitution should not be nullified resonated in the basic structure doctrine expounded by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.

Also read:Basic structure and unwritten constitutional principles: analysing the Canadian Supreme Courts recent ruling in relation to the position in India

It is worthwhile to dive deep into the other elaborate statement of Ambedkar while replying to the discussions in the Constituent Assembly on Article 304 of the draft Constitution. That statement, in fact, signalled that the there was no absolute power vested in any organ of the State, and the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the authority of those organs. He cautioned that the purpose of a Constitution is not merely to create the organs of the State but to limit their authority, because if no limitation was imposed upon the authority of the organs, there will be complete tyranny and complete oppression.

Stating that [t]he Constitution is a fundamental document and it defines the position and power of the three organs of the Statethe executive, the judiciary and the legislature, Dr Ambedkar made it clear that[i]t also defines the powers of the executive and the powers of the legislature as against the citizens, as we have done in ourChapter dealing with Fundamental Rights.

Without such limitations, Dr Ambedkar cautioned,The legislature may be free to frame any law; the executive may be, free to take any decision; and the Supreme Court may be free to give any interpretation of the law. It would result in utter chaos.

Stating that a model Constitution could be sustained only on two bases, he said that one base would constitute the foundation for a parliamentary system of government and another base could nourish a totalitarian or dictatorial form of government. Then he hastened to emphasise that, If we agree that our Constitution must not be a dictatorship but must be a Constitution in which there is a parliamentary democracy where government is all the time on the anvil, so to say, on its trial, responsible to the people, responsible to the judiciary, then I have no hesitation in saying that the principles embodied in this Constitution are as good as if not better than, the principles embodied in any other parliamentary constitution.

Dr Ambedkar cautioned thatthe purpose of a Constitution is not merely to create the organs of the State but to limit their authority, because if no limitation was imposed upon the authority of the organs, there will be complete tyranny and complete oppression.

The words of Dr Ambedkar that the government is at all times responsible to the people and to the judiciary, must be marked and paid heed to by everyone, especially those in government. On that count, he said that the principles embodied in our Constitution were equal in importance to any other parliamentary constitution.

Also read:On the Trajectory Shown by Ambedkar

The basic structure doctrine expounded by the Supreme Court embodied in it those principles which would enrich parliamentary democracy and negate any attempt to usher in a dictatorship.

Thecomplete washing awayof the recent Budget session of the Parliament because of the calculated measures by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party Parliamentarians to paralyse the proceedings of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and the attack on the basic structure of the Constitution by the Law Minister and the Vice President of India, signal an ominous trend for our democracy.

Dr Ambedkars vision articulated in the Constituent Assembly in defence of the principles of the Constitution needs to be invoked to defend its basic structure. This is the meaning and significance of the fiftieth anniversary of the invocation of the basic structure doctrine by the Supreme Court to save the Constitution.

See more here:

Legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly resonated in basic ... - The Leaflet

A glimpse at Israel at 25, 50, and now 75 offers three touchpoints through which to reflect on the countrys evolution as a modern state and my relationship with it.

In 1973, when Israel turned 25, I was a senior at UC Berkeley, headed to Israel that summer to live in Jerusalem for my first year of rabbinical school. Four months later, the Yom Kippur War would start.

The 1967 Six-Day War had transformed Israel and the relationship between American Jews and Israel. Six years later, American Jews love affair with Israel was still going strong. For many of us, Israel was a source of Jewish pride, a miracle in the desert with a can-do spirit, an incubator of unbounded creativity, determined to balance the realities of living in a tough neighborhood with a strong moral code. It represented Jewish history coming to life every day.

We idealized the socialist kibbutz model while simultaneously protesting on behalf of fiercely anti-socialist Soviet Jews for whom the right to live in Israel represented the fulfillment of their Zionist dreams and their refuge from Soviet oppression. On Israels 25th, some may have looked ahead at looming issues, but we mainly basked in the joy of watching Israel continue to grow as a new, still-struggling country with tremendous promise.

In 1998, when Israel turned 50, I was the executive director of the S.F.-based Jewish Community Relations Council, which took the lead in organizing both the communitywide celebration in Golden Gate Park and a major Israel at 50 conference with renowned Israeli writer Amos Oz as the keynote speaker.

Israel, by then, had gone through the first intifada starting in 1987. It was in the final shaky stages of the Oslo peace process that began in 1993 with a dramatic handshake on the White House lawn and the promise of a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. The peace process continued after the 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin before ending with the start of the second intifada in 2000.

During the Oslo period, I was on a panel with Gary Rosenblatt, then editor of the New York Jewish Week, who commented on a poll indicating that 82% of American Jews supported the peace process. I remember him saying that if the poll was accurate, he personally believed hed heard from every one of the other 18%. In short, the critics felt much more passionate and were much louder than the supporters in part because Yasser Arafat was reviled by so many and deemed wholly untrustworthy.

Divisions in Israel were even more intense, captured in a Washington Post article written two months prior to Israels 50th that highlighted the one area of possible agreement. As Israel prepares to launch its 50th-anniversary celebrations, most of its 5.9 million citizens seem united for once on one thing: Practically no one is in a mood to celebrate. American Jews, by and large, while not ignoring the mood in Israel, were far less ambivalent about celebrating. Reaching half a century after 2,000 years without a Jewish state was appropriately a big deal.

What about at 75?

Israel is at a precarious moment with anti-democratic and extremist voices within the government threatening to do what external enemies have been repelled from doing since 1948: weaken the very foundations of the State of Israel. The extraordinary protests that have been waged this year against judicial reform efforts demonstrate the depth of outrage and polarization. They stand out because they have been nonviolent and fiercely patriotic. This is not the action of anti-Israel activists. These protests have been the expression of passionate Zionists who care deeply about their countrys future.

So, having marked Israels earlier quarter-century anniversaries, where do I come out on this one? Here is my bottom line: Not even a profoundly troubling Israeli government should detract from our joy of Israel turning 75. I am not talking about unrestrained joy but rather reflective joy combined with a redoubled commitment to an Israel that strives to live up to its founding principles as a Jewish and democratic state.

Countless countries, including ours, are dealing with deep divisions, doubts and anti-democratic pressures. Israel is hardly unique. But that is also not the whole story. It is important to hold onto a fuller picture of Israels evolution over 75 years.

The diversity of the country, within and beyond the Jewish population, is breathtaking. The waves of immigration have contributed greatly to that diversity as Jews from other Middle Eastern nations, the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia fled oppression and made aliyah to the historic homeland of the Jewish people. In 1948, Israel had a population of 800,000. Today it has over 9 million people. Israels innovation as a startup nation is world class. Its efforts to improve the quality of life for all Israelis is inspirational. And though a small country, Israel punches way above its weight when providing humanitarian aid to other countries hit by major natural disasters.

Israel is not the country I wish it to be. I am profoundly disappointed in its current leadership that puts selfish interests ahead of the nations. At the same time, Israel lives in the real world, not in my idealized post-1967 world. The continued terror attacks and missile attacks, including those of recent days, are a constant reminder that modern Israel has been built not on a tranquil island but in the midst of a tough neighborhood. Even while the last 50 years have witnessed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan along with the more recent Abraham Accords, Israel still faces constant threats from those bent on destroying the only Jewish state.

Israel is still a young nation. After all, in 1851 when our country turned 75, Millard Fillmore was president, the New York Times and Western Union were founded and the Gold Rush was still going strong in the new state of California.

There is a lot more to unfold as Israel celebrates 75, and I believe that the good will continue to far outweigh the bad. This is more likely if we ramp up our engagement rather than withdraw. That, more than anything, is the lesson from Israels first 75 years.

Read the rest here:

FIRST PERSON: Remembering Israel at 25, 50 and now 75 J. - The Jewish News of Northern California