Dawn Editorials (with Summary and Vocabulary)

 

DAWN EDITORIALS

February 3, 2024 (Saturday)

Day’s Vocabulary

• Coalesce.    come together to form one mass or whole
• Cower.         crouch down in fear
• Avarice.       extreme greed for wealth or material gain
• Gruelling.  extremely tiring and demanding
• Woe.  great sorrow or distress (often used hyperbolically)
• Fraught.      (of a situation or course of action) filled with or likely to result in (something undesirable)
• Blatantly.   in an open and unashamed manner
• Stoop.          bend one's head or body forward and downward
• Construed. interpret (a word or action) in a particular way
• Cynicism.   an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism
• Devious.      showing a skillful use of underhanded tactics to achieve goals
• Perennial.  lasting or existing for a long or apparently infinite time; enduring or continually recurring
• Discerning.           having or showing good judgment

Yemen’s stand

Summary

• Yemen condemns Israel's actions: The author argues that Yemen, despite facing its own internal struggles, took a moral stand against Israel's actions, which they view as genocide.
• Historical connection: This stance is linked to Yemen's history of colonization by Britain, who they see as using similar tactics as Israel.
• Yemenis see a duty to Palestinians: The author highlights the shared religious and moral connection Yemenis feel with Palestinians, motivating their stance.
• South Africa's legal support: South Africa, with its own history of overcoming oppression, is legally aiding Yemen.
• Collective memory and action: The article emphasizes the power of collective memory and shared history in driving moral action.
• Pakistan's response criticized: The author criticizes Pakistan's muted response compared to Yemen's, despite shared Islamic faith.

Article

HISTORY and memory are at the very root of our collective thought and actions as a society. The events of history and the trauma and memory stemming from that history live on, intermingling through various stages of progress and continuing to shape not only the future but also the psychology of nations. History in that sense is ever-becoming, undefined, shapeless. Nevertheless, it can provide a definite link between a specific set of people and events.

One such link is evident in the recent bombing of Yemen by the US and the UK. The Western allies took this step because, in their view, an ‘illegitimate’ and ‘terrorist’ government — one that does not trail behind the oil-laden fumes of the Middle Eastern parade — had disrupted international shipping, and was threatening the ‘international community’. But if you ask the Houthis (the de facto rulers of Yemen) they will tell you that their preventing Israeli ships or those bringing goods to Israel from passing through the Bab al-Mandeb strait is an act of service to the ‘international community’ — whose soul bears the wounds and scars of Palestinian suffering.

The Bab al-Mandeb strait is one of those places where geography and history coalesce. It is a narrow channel of water — about 26 kilometres wide — that separates Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula from Djibouti on the Horn of Africa. This is the crucial entry point into the Red Sea from where a majority of international shipping passes to the Suez Canal. The historical port of Aden sits right next to this narrow body of water.

The geography of this area has allowed the Houthis to hold captive international shipping since it is at this point where large cargo ships and tankers are at their most vulnerable after passing through Suez. It is also this geography which led the British to advance their imperialistic ambition in the 19th century when they took control of Aden and most of southern Yemen. This is not the first time that British or Western interests in that area have been threatened.

The Yemenis have taken a moral stand against Israel’s genocide.

From 1839 until 1967, the British were the colonial occupiers of south Yemen. The port of Aden oversaw the vital link to India. It is here that the British played the game of colonisation and native subjugation. Now that its ‘illegitimate child’ state follows in its footsteps, they have reverted, in true imperial style, to bombarding its former colony.

History has unmasked the genocidal past of the champions of the ‘international community’, whose knee-jerk reaction was nothing more than muscle memory — for the Yemenis have previously been bombed, terrorised, brutalised and harassed by a colonial power. The British in their attempt to stop an indigenous liberation movement in Yemen, resorted to brutal tactics to suppress the local population especially in Aden and in the Crater region of southern Yemen. Lt-Col Colin Mitchell (‘Mad Mitch’) of the Argyll Battalion imposed the ‘Argyll law’ in Yemen, which included the mass butchering of innocent civilians to terrorise the population. The imperialist British compared the killing of Yemenis to hunting birds for sport. Israel now sees the genocide of men, women and children in much the same way — of those they deem as less than human.

It is the history of that earlier colonisation and genocidal force that has led the Yemenis — the poorest nation in the region, ravaged by a decade-long civil war, faced with famine and disease — to take a moral stand against the Western-backed Israeli genocide to their north. For the Yemenis, it is the moral and religious duty they owe to the Palestinians.

Even after the bombing, thousands gathered in Sana’a, chanting with one voice ‘We do not care! Make it a World War!’. While the Houthis may have internal benefits in angling for such a foreign policy, the outpouring of the mass public behind this sentiment shows that the scars of history can become signs of empathy and strength. Yemenis are living that history and forming it anew by taking a stand against Israel.

The Yemenis are aided, legally, by South Africa — there too the history of apartheid has been the impetus to take action. The memory of trauma can lead to collective moral action. When the chips are down, what matters is how, in our collective spirit, we read our history. Does it compel us to stand, even if alone, or does it terrify us to cower behind power? For a nation born of the flames of colonial history, our answer has been disappointing. Collectively we have failed in our tribute to the Palestinians even on the basis of Islam — a moral force steeped in a glorious past. But Yemen, unlike us, pays homage to its history.

Circular economy

Summary

• What is it? A circular economy aims to minimize waste and pollution by keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible through reuse, repair, and recycling. It's different from the traditional linear economy, which takes, makes, and discards.
• Why is it important? It's crucial for efficiently using resources, tackling climate change, and ensuring a sustainable future. The current linear model is unsustainable and exceeding planetary boundaries.
• The problem: Despite growing awareness, the global circularity gap is widening. We're extracting more resources while recycling and reusing less. This puts stress on the environment and future generations.
• The solution: Transitioning to a circular economy requires systemic changes, including redesigning products for longer lifespans, implementing policies that encourage reuse, and investing in sustainable practices.
• Urgency: The Earth's carrying capacity is limited, and the current model is unsustainable. We need to act now to avoid further damage and secure a better future.

• The article mentions a recent report showing a decline in global circularity despite increased awareness.
• It emphasizes the need for context-specific policies and starting small with concrete actions.
• The transition is not a choice, but a necessity for a sustainable future.

Article

A CIRCULAR economy is a model of economy which focuses on the reuse and regeneration of materials or products to ensure environmentally friendly and sustainable production and consumption. The central idea of this economic system is to keep products and materials in circulation and increase their life cycle as much as possible through reuse, repair, refurbishing, composting, and recycling to avoid waste and promote regeneration. Hence, the circular economy seeks to productively use the products again after the end of their life, thereby creating further value and sending off the traditional linear economic model.

In other words, a circular economy is based on a systems-level approach such that industrial processes and economic activities are designed to be restorative or regenerative, seeking to maintain the highest value of resources while also minimising waste through alternative designs and production and consumption approaches. The redesigning of materials and products entails less resource intensity and the use of waste as a resource to manufacture new materials and products. Thus, the circular economy incorporates the full impacts of materials and waste in a transformative manner which ensures inclusiveness and equity.

This circular economy model incentivises the reuse of products to minimise the extraction of new resources which is critical to tackling climate change, biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution. While the circular economy model is very important for the efficient use of resources and living within the safe limits of planetary boundaries, ie, the limits beyond which the environment may not be able to sustain itself, the progress is unsatisfactory, to say the least.

Recently, the Circular Economy Foundation released the Circularity Gap Report 2024, showing that global circularity has declined despite the fact that the theme of circular economy has gained a lot of traction in the mainstream. The report claims that while awareness and interest in circularity has increased, more and more resources are being extracted from the pool of natural resources, and the proportion of reuse and use of secondary materials is decreasing. The report claims that globally, the increase in the quantity of materials extracted and used has massively gone up. For example, more than half a trillion tonnes of materials were extracted and used in the past six years alone, which is roughly equal to the total use in the 20th century.

Unfortunately, the global community is not committed to or serious about the conservation of natural resources and a stable future climate, and this is stressful, to put it mildly. The recent COP28 in Dubai was a similar spectacle where several pledges were made without concrete plans of action — speeches and goals are not being translated into much-needed actions and measurable impacts. The limited progress on the circular economy means a risk to global resources and planetary boundaries, which results in violation of the key tenets of the circular economy: reduced use of material for a long time, prioritising use of regenerative materials, and recycling and refurbishing at end-of-life.

This model is important for the efficient use of resources.

Then accelerated consumption and production no longer warrant human well-being, while material extraction and a neglect of the conservation of the natural environment result in more socioeconomic disparities, creating conditions for political and social instability. This is because of the flawed development model where economic growth is fuelled by unsustainable consumption and production approaches. Hence, the global economy must adopt principles of circularity to achieve sustainable development and a resilient future, one that safeguards the real well-being of existing and future generations.

As for the solutions, economic development must consider socially just and environmentally sound approaches. This necessitates a change in the rules of the game which starts with the design and implementation of context-specific policies that minimise the carbon and ecological footprint and ensure environmental sustainability and a climate-resilient future.

There are countless problems and constraints; but, starting small in the right direction with a timeline would not hurt anyone. However, the transition to a circular economy is not a choice as the global economy is changing and so is the structure of different economic sectors as the Earth system is unable to sustain the linear economy of the past, which contributed to climate change, biodiversity loss, and mountains of waste, and was beyond the carrying capacity of Earth.

Dark days for democracy

Summary

Pakistan's Democracy in Crisis:

• Upcoming elections (Feb 8th) face challenges due to alleged manipulation and suppression of opposition.
• Authoritarianism on the rise, with limited freedom of speech and dissent.
• Powerful institutions like the Election Commission and judiciary accused of bias.

Key Concerns:

• Unfair playing field: Major political party potentially denied participation.
• Electoral manipulation: Gerrymandering and disenfranchisement tactics used.
• Human rights violations: Crackdown on opposition supporters and rallies.
• Military's influence: Inappropriate public pronouncements by Army Chief.

Call to Action:

• Citizens urged to vote despite risks and resist intimidation.
• Importance of transparency, integrity, and public trust in elections.
• Hope for peaceful and fair elections to choose Pakistan's leaders.

Article

THESE are difficult, frightening times. In the words of Martha Beck (The Way of Integrity, 2021), “A value system built on avarice, ambition, and oppression shows up in unprincipled leaders, corrupt groups, and then entire national cultures.”

Unfortunately, Pakistan has lost its way of integrity. The current caretaker regime is complicit in punishing dissent and criminalising opposition, jailing and torturing people. Democracy is ominously passing through dark days on the eve of the national polls. Are we going through a ‘democratic recession’ as Larry Diamond, a Stanford professor puts it: “There is a spirit of the times, and it is not a democratic one.”

In my last piece in this paper on Jan 8, I had pinned hopes on two chiefs for ensuring that the national polls on Feb 8 will be free and fair. One honourable chief ensured that a major political party continued to be dismantled by another chief heading the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

The party symbol verdict by a Supreme Court bench was widely criticised as denying a level playing field to one of the major mainstream political parties. The principle of fair play was seen as having been grossly violated. After watching the intense and gruelling display of verbal onslaught in the apex court over a weekend, I was willing to bet that the party in question would not be denied its ballot symbol and may well be directed to hold fresh intra-party polls in accordance with their own constitution. The decision led to a burst of dismay followed by a ripple of woe.

The conduct of another chief is beyond any doubt fraught with double standards. The former bureaucrat, heading the ECP, is living up to his reputation of actively promoting a partisan political agenda. Crude ways have been adopted to literally disenfranchise a huge chunk of the electorate by denying their preferred candidates a level playing field.

The electoral watchdog is blatantly ignoring what the current chiefs of police are involved in: massive transgressions in violating the basic human rights of citizens. The rallies of the targeted party are disrupted, their workers arrested, the privacy of their homes violated with impunity. There is no one to check such acts of persecution. The courts are helpless as their lawful commands are disregarded with contempt.

As a former police chief, my head hangs in shame at seeing some police commanders stoop so low to please the ‘invisible forces’ of the deep state. They lack the courage to say no to the illegal manoeuvres of political engineering. They see their role only as serving the powers that be.

Meanwhile, there has been a report in a daily paper quoting the army chief at a function where he is said to have interacted with students from various universities in the public and private sector. He was reported to have said that people should carefully choose their representatives and asked whether political parties should be permitted to break the country and if people should have to wait till the end of the five-year term.

At the same event, the youth were reportedly told that it was not possible to govern virtually, as “it must be performed on the ground” and that decisions should not be based on what is displayed on mobile screens, an apparent reference to social media.

The choice is simple: keep your head down and survive, or speak out and suffer.

This news item reported him as saying that the army paid the most taxes in the country, with half its budget going to the government in taxes, and that no other army anywhere was functioning on such a low budget. The remarks, it was reported by the paper, also centred on Pakistan’s financial prospects with $10 trillion worth of reserves in the shape of mines, minerals, and earth metals, in contrast to $128 billion in foreign debt. It was pointed out, according to the report, that the military-run Green Pakistan Initiative would end the country’s reliance on imported food and make it self-sustaining.

Many questions have arisen following this event. One of the foremost on the minds of some observers has been whether a public political discourse was needed by the head of an ‘apolitical’ institution on the eve of national polls, while some have also asked whether the message for the youth was to not be led astray by social media and Western influence on our culture.

With the challenges to security and territorial integrity on the rise, perhaps remarks that can be construed as political reflections are best left to those within political circles.

The real issues facing the nation are: the elite capture indicative in the widening gap between the rich and poor; stagflation and economic deprivation; lack of security and justice; corruption in public institutions; unaccountable intelligence agencies; poor governance; inadequate health and education facilities; and above all, lack of inclusive democratic practices.

In the current environment of spin and cynicism, the choice given to the people is simple: keep your head down and survive, or raise your head and challenge the atrocities and suffer the consequences.

The response must be a principled one: it should be refusal to be part of an immoral, devious regime and a commitment to bring a change through ballot, by being brave enough to reach the polling stations on Feb 8 and casting their votes. Then it would be the test of those who will count the votes. Will they defy the choice of the electorate or become part of a shameless legacy of yet another rigged election?

We should not forget a perennial truth: that the potential tools of democracy are integrity, public trust and transparency. As Margaret Mead famously said, thoughtful and committed citizens can change the world. “Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Let the people of Pakistan freely choose their leaders.

Disinformation and fact-checking

Summary

• AI-generated deepfake calls were used to mislead voters in New Hampshire's primary elections, showcasing a broader trend of AI-generated content manipulating election scenarios globally.
• Disinformation challenges during elections include caller ID spoofing, where the actual source is hidden, and the creation of AI-generated news segments spreading false information.
• Counteracting political disinformation requires a balanced approach, avoiding overly stringent laws that might suppress free speech.
• Strategies for combating disinformation include the "inoculation" approach, exposing the public to weakened misinformation in advance, and consistent fact-checking by reputable media organizations.
• Challenges in monitoring social media for disinformation include the volume of content and financial constraints faced by newsrooms, leading to difficulties in timely fact-checking.
• Strengthening credible newsrooms is crucial, involving sustainable models for fact-checking operations, improving news sourcing and verification techniques, and engaging tech-savvy individuals for innovation.
• The fight against misinformation requires a combination of traditional and tech-based initiatives, emphasizing the importance of diverse entities contributing to this space.

Article

PHONES rang in the state of New Hampshire ahead of primary elections. Joe Biden’s voice was heard over the line. “We know the value of voting Democrats. It’s important that you save your vote for the November election,” the voice said.

“Voting this Tuesday only enables the Republicans in their quest to elect Donald Trump again. Your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday.” Between 5,000 and 25,000 calls were made. The Biden administration never initiated any of those calls, and the voice was a deepfake — generated through artificial intelligence (AI) and mastered to sound like President Biden.

“These messages appear to be an unlawful attempt to disrupt the New Hampshire presidential primary election and to suppress New Hampshire voters,” said the state attorney general’s office in response to the ‘robocalls’.

These robocalls used caller ID spoofing, a technique which alters the caller ID to show a different phone number, hiding the actual source of the call. In this case, the robocall appeared to have come from a number associated with Kathy Sullivan, chairperson of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, an affiliate of the Democratic Party.

This example is part of a broader trend where AI-generated content was used to mislead voters during election periods. In Bangladesh, feeds of ‘international’ news channels were created using AI ahead of elections.

In these fabricated news segments, AI-generated anchors falsely reported significant events, including allegations of US involvement in funding riots and violence in Bangladesh. Previously, disinformation from external sources in the US presidential elections of 2016 aimed at influencing voter behaviour caught many off guard. Similar trends are observed globally. The challenge then is to find effective means to counteract political disinformation.

While imposing stringent laws or criminalising disinformation are pegged as solutions, such measures could inadvertently criminalise free speech and be used to suppress legitimate discourse. Therefore, the answer to combating disinformation isn’t as straightforward as ‘enacting a law against fake news’, or erecting a ‘national firewall’. It requires a careful balance between regulation and the preservation of free expression.

An effective strategy in countering political disinformation is the ‘inoculation’ approach, a topic I’ve extensively covered in a previous op-ed. This method involves pre-emptively exposing the public to a weakened form of misinformation, thereby enabling them to better recognise and resist deceptive information.

Another proven strategy in combating disinformation is the consistent publication of fact-checks by reputable media organisations. This approach helps to identify and correct misinformation, fostering an informed public. It also enhances the credibility and reliability of media sources, making them trusted authorities in discerning truth from falsehood. However, this approach has challenges.

The challenge is to find effective means to counteract political disinformation.

Monitoring social media platforms for disinformation is an uphill task due to the enormous volume of content. Even with a substantial team, addressing the flood of disinformation items for fact-checking is daunting. Selecting just a few pieces from thousands that circulate daily for verification, while ensuring timely publication of fact-checks, is challenging. This is compounded by financial constraints faced by newsrooms in recent years, which caused massive layoffs and pay cuts, making the allocation of sufficient human and technical resources for this task even more difficult.

Additionally, the financial viability of many fact-checking organisations remains a concern. A significant number of these outlets struggle with sustaining operations due to funding challenges. Many of them operate without a robust sustainability plan, often relying on partnerships through various third-party fact-checking programmes funded by tech companies, or operating on a grant basis around landmark events. This lack of a stable financial model and the resultant limitations pose a risk to their mid- to long-term viability.

For third-party fact-checkers working with tech companies, a significant concern is the potential conflict of interest. The relationship between traditional media and information literacy (MIL) initiatives and conventional fact-checking based on post-bunking, highlights a substantial gap.

While tech platforms might support MIL and traditional fact-checking, their willingness to fund in-depth investigations into organised disinformation campaigns, especially those that might scrutinise the role of tech companies themselves, including the lack of effective regulation of hate speech against vulnerable groups, is less certain. Comprehensive investigations into the sources and beneficiaries of disinformation, such as those conducted into the disinformation in the US presidential elections of 2016, are crucial but may not always receive support from the said platforms.

To effectively combat disinformation, it is crucial to strengthen credible newsrooms, the long-standing gatekeepers of information, rather than creating parallel structures with little to no transparency in ownership. This means making the publication of fact-checks a sustainable venture for credible newsrooms, enhancing their web traffic, and consequently, revenue.

There are several strategies to achieve this. Drawing from my recent experience with a newsroom that is profiting from publishing fact-checks, a combination of leveraging Cunningham’s Law, effective Search Engine Optimisation, and smart social media tactics can be significantly impactful. This approach is also vital in redirecting web traffic to credible news sources, thereby countering the dominance of big tech companies over Pakistan’s digital advertising revenue.

Another strategy to empower newsrooms against disinformation is to improve their news sourcing and verification techniques, and augment it through tech-based initiatives. My experience training 14 leading newsrooms in Pakistan highlighted a common practice of sourcing information from social media platforms. This practice, while essential in modern times, can sometimes contribute to the spread of misinformation.

Finally, the fight against misinformation necessitates an influx of new players in both pre- and post-bunking strategies. While this may seem to counter the idea of avoiding parallel structures, the reality is that fresh perspectives are needed. This includes tech-savvy individuals who can innovate in digital investigations and tech-based initiatives to empower newsrooms.

It is also crucial for diverse entities, from independent digital-first media start-ups to third-party fact-checkers, to engage and grow in this space. Although there may be some concerns with the latter, their contributions are nonetheless vital, as they can reach and correct misinformation for thousands, if not more, daily.