UK

Right-Wing Watch

Is the media now the real opposition?

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Yesterday

LEFT FOOT FORWARD


The Conservatives' ability to hold Labour accountable has disappeared down the same rabbit hole as the Party itself. As the Tories struggle with their own identity crisis, the press has stepped up to fill the gap.

TweetShareWhatsAppMail


“A honeymoon period will be very, very short. Almost non-existent,” said the former Sun editor David Yelland. Some right-wing newspapers may have briefly endorsed Labour during the election, but Yelland, who led the Sun from 1998 to 2003, warned that these outlets would never truly support Starmer. He stressed that Starmer and his team must understand that the two most influential media groups – News UK and Associated Newspapers, the parent company of the Daily Mail – are not their allies.

This became evident immediately after the election when the Sun – despite Starmer’s efforts to cosy up to the Murdoch press by attending the media mogul’s summer party and visiting the Sun HQ, much to the ire of the left – swiftly issued a challenge to the new prime minister. “Better times? Let’s see them … While we wish Labour luck, we will scrutinise every decision and hold their feet to the fire,” wrote the newspaper the day after the election.

And nine weeks into Labour’s leadership, the newspaper has stayed true to that promise.

On September 16, the Sun attacked Starmer and his wife, accusing them of hypocrisy. In a comment piece, assistant editor Clemmie Moodie criticised them for “private jets, cronyism, and free clothes,” eagerly reviving the familiar “champagne socialist” trope often used against Labour figures perceived as wealthy, or hypocritical because they do not live out a ‘socialist’ life as imagined by the likes of Moodie.

The Daily Mail followed with its own sensational headline: “Starmergeddon, after just 68 days,” accompanied by an image of newly freed prisoners celebrating with champagne. The lead article asked, “Who voted for all this?” implying that the country was already descending into chaos after only two months of Labour governance.

These early and relentless critiques from the right-wing press signal that the media, particularly these powerful newspaper groups, may now be acting as Labour’s most vocal and influential opposition. Of course, we would expect the usual right-wing, Tory-loving media to take aim at the new Labour government, recycling the usual attacks – “Labour’s in the pocket of the unions!”, “they’re lying about the ‘black hole,’” etc. But beyond the predictable criticisms, there’s a growing sense that the media in general is taking on a more central role in opposing the government.

The Conservatives, weakened and navel-gazing after years of internal battles and declining public support, seem to have gone AWOL. Consequently, their ability to hold Labour accountable has disappeared down the same rabbit hole as the Party itself. As the Tories struggle with their own identity crisis, the press has stepped up to fill the gap. Publications like the Mail and Express are driving the narrative, scrutinising every move the government makes, but even traditionally more centrist outlets, like The Times newspapers, seem to have adopted a more mocking tone.

The Sunday Times, like The Sun – both owned by Murdoch’s News UK – had endorsed Labour ahead of the general election. In a June 30 editorial, it stated that the Conservatives had “in effect forfeited the right to govern” and that it was “the right time for Labour to be entrusted with restoring competence to government.”

But post-election, the paper’s coverage of the new Labour government seems more exaggerated and critical. On September 15, the newspaper led with a sensational headline: “Starmer breached rules over clothes that donor gave wife,” plastering it on the front page as if it was a major political scandal. While the allegation that the prime minister violated parliamentary rules by failing to declare clothing donations is indeed a legitimate public interest story, the headline appeared unusually tabloid-like for a publication known for its typically serious and measured tone. It seemed more designed to provoke controversy than to provide a balanced account of the situation.

In a commentary piece the following day, the Times Leader called for Starmer to apologise: “Ministers are demanding painful sacrifices by Britain’s pensioners this winter. For most, there will be no one to buy them a warm coat, let alone a designer one. Sir Keir should apologise.”

But did these newspapers take the same moral stance when Boris Johnson, as prime minister, accepted freebies, including the extravagant renovations to his Downing Street flat? On X, author Peter Osborne highlighted this apparent hypocrisy: “Powerful Times leader. I can’t remember any Times leaders making the same point about Boris Johnson’s free holidays, free meals from donors etc. I can remember the Times suppressing Simon Walters’ story about Johnson wanting to make Carrie Symonds his £100,000 pa chief of staff.”

Even the Financial Times, a reputable and respected publication, appears to be following this broader opposition trend. ‘More than half of Britons disapprove of Labour government, poll finds,’ was a recent headline. Polls are of course a legitimate tool for gauging public opinion and reporting such findings is a standard journalism practice, but the FT’s choice to lead with this particular headline simplifies a complex issue into a negative snapshot of public opinion. This editorial decision may be seen as part of a broader shift, with even traditionally neutral or business-focused outlets like the FT leaning into more critical coverage of the Labour government. Whether this is a conscious choice or not, such coverage can substantially shape public perception, especially when it comes from a publication as influential as the FT.

Farage and the press

As the centrist press adopts a more critical stance in its coverage of Labour, seemingly amplifying more minor issues to undermine Starmer’s leadership, the tabloids appear to be rallying behind Farage.

Following the general election, Yelland cautioned that tabloid coverage might increasingly be influenced by the Reform Party in the months ahead. “Farage says he’s coming for the Labour party. He’ll work with the tabloids to control the agenda,” he said. “Most of the tabloids are at least 50 percent pro-Reform now, if not more. Three areas that the right will push are immigration, what they call ‘the war on woke’, and net zero. The tabloids are going to use these tools of the right to oppose the government.”

Farage has said that he aims to become the “real opposition to a Labour government” in the years ahead, and it seems that the right-wing press may be furthering his ambition. This week, the Express ran a headline: “Keir Starmer issued urgent Farage warning as Labour on ‘far shakier ground’ in Red Wall.” The article references a pollster who claims that Farage’s party may have helped deliver an emphatic Tory wipeout, but it could “spell trouble for Labour’s hopes of re-election.” The piece also quotes Reform UK Chairman Zia Yusuf who told GB News that his party is planning a major push in seats currently held by Labour. With Reform targeting key Labour seats, and media outlets amplifying these threats, Farage and Reform could present a significant challenge to Labour in the years ahead.

The rise of far-right media: Paul Marshall buys the Spectator

As the tabloids shift towards Reform and centrist outlets mock Labour, the far-right media is on the march. GB News, created to challenge mainstream UK media, has become a platform for populist right-wing views, focusing on culture wars and immigration, and attacking what it perceives as a disconnected establishment. In an FT article entitled Why GB News is Angrier than Ever, Henry Mance, the FT’s chief features writer, noted: “GB News hoped to reshape British TV news in a post-Brexit world — to provide an alternative to the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News, which pride themselves on impartial journalism, but which, to some, are guilty of liberal metropolitan bias. Critics worried it would have the same impact that Fox News did in the US: undermining truth, dragging voters to the right.”

A prominent figure at GB News is Sir Paul Marshall, a hedge fund tycoon, owner of the right-wing news site UnHerd, and a major investor in the channel. Earlier this month, Britain’s media landscape was rocked with the news that Marshall had bought the Spectator, which has always been considered the “house journal” of the Conservative Party, with its editorship often used as a springboard to political prominence, most notably Boris Johnson. The Telegraph remains for sale, and Marshall is believed to be in the running to buy it, as he continues his bid to build an empire of right-wing media outlets. The purchase also led to the dramatic public resignation of the magazine’s chair, Andrew Neil, who expressed concerns that Marshall might not fully grasp the importance of the magazine’s hallmark – editorial independence.

Having been bought by a buyer who has a history of providing a platform for hard-right narratives, where the likes of Lee Anderson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Esther McVey are let off the leash, there is concern that Marshall’s acquisition of the Spectator and possibly the Telegraph will take the outlets even further to the right. As Guardian columnist Zoe Williams writes in a piece about the Spectator, “You only have to look at GB News, in which Marshall is a major investor, to know exactly what makes Marshall tick, and that his project does not set out to excel in ratings and profits, and its impact can’t be measured in those terms.”

This development could pose a real threat to the Labour Party, as these platforms have the potential to amplify opposition voices and shape public opinion in ways that may undermine Labour’s messaging.

But the media’s rightward shift and its bias in marginalising the left is nothing new. The demonisation of Jeremy Corbyn in the media is perhaps the most glaring example. Research by the London School of Economics (LSE) showed that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader. According to LSE, this process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: through a lack of or distortion of voice; through ridicule, scorn, and personal attacks; and association, mainly with terrorism.

“All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served,” wrote LSE.

The rise of populist platforms like GB News and Paul Marshall’s growing media empire further consolidates the right’s control over influential outlets, allowing them to set the narrative and fuel opposition against Labour on topics like immigration, cultural issues, and climate policies. The press, emboldened by its own political agendas and less concerned with traditional impartiality, is stepping into the role of a primary opposition force. With the Conservatives weakened, the media has filled the void, and Labour faces an unrelenting barrage of criticism from across the spectrum, suggesting that in today’s political landscape, the media is indeed the real opposition.

Goodness knows what would happen if Labour actually tried to do anything at all radical, or even slightly socialist!

Right-wing media watch – Press fuels absurd claims about Kamala Harris

Deciding whether to have children is a deeply personal choice and no one else’s concern. One would think that this would be universally understood, but recent events suggest otherwise. A grotesque term, the “childless cat lady brigade,” has been doing the rounds, pushed by Republican figures and their media allies.

This phase originated from Senator JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. After Donald Trump named Vance as his running mate, an old 2021 interview resurfaced in which Vance claimed the US was being run by “childless cat ladies” like Kamala Harris – women, he said, with no “direct stake” in the country’s future.

The remark understandably sparked outrage among most people, but the right-wing media was quick to defend it. Vance had “meant it as a joke” and that it had been “wilfully misinterpreted by Democrats,” claimed Fox News.

This week, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders joined the vile assault. Sanders previously served as press secretary in the Trump White House. During an event in Detroit with Trump this week, Sanders criticised Harris for not having children of her own, saying: “The most important job I have; the greatest title I have is that of being a mom.” She added, “My kids keep me humble. Unfortunately, Kamala Harris doesn’t have anything keeping her humble.”

In response to the smear, a satirical movement has been gaining momentum, with childless women voicing solidarity with Harris. Taylor Swift, who has three cats but no children, recently endorsed Harris, posting a photo of herself with her cat Benjamin Button and signing it “Childless Cat Lady.”

Right-Wing Media Watch might not have picked up on this grotesque smear had it not been reported by the Daily Mail. The tabloid ran a headline this week that read: “Sarah Huckabee Sanders slams Kamala for not having kids after Taylor Swift joins childless cat lady brigade supporting Harris.”

Sadly, this is just the latest in a series of desperate attacks on the vice president. With Harris’s popularity rising, Trump’s camp seems intent on seizing every opportunity for personal attacks. The ugly ‘childless women’ smear followed unfounded accusations that Harris has a drinking problem. The unsubstantiated rumour was reportedly started by Trump campaign insider James Blair on X.

These childish and slanderous tactics are all too familiar with Trump’s campaigns, despite concerns from Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham, who worry that focusing on personal attacks rather than policy may harm Trump’s election chances.

Most sensible observers can see these smears for what they are, a juvenile attempt to tarnish Harris’s reputation by campaign officials mirroring the impulsive immaturity of their leader

Yet, the Daily Mail couldn’t resist joining in, even reporting the baseless claim that Harris appeared drunk during several public appearances, though they admitted there was no evidence of a drinking problem.

They also dredged up a nearly 30-year-old DUI incident involving Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, Harris’s VP pick, though it had absolutely no relevance to the story.

One might expect more from a national newspaper than digging up irrelevant scandals to stir controversy. But the absurdity doesn’t stop there. The article entertained suggestions that alcohol was to blame for Harris’s so-called “lunatic” laughter and her occasional off-script “word salads,” even pointing to a speech where she repeated the word “democracy” three times in 30 seconds.

A Vice President emphasising democracy in a speech? Surely it would be more concerning if she didn’t?

Smear of the week – From swans to strays – Trump’s baseless immigrant smear echoes absurd right-wing media myths

Do you remember when the Sun sensationally claimed that asylum seekers in London were poaching and eating swans? In July 2003, the newspaper published a story about the disappearance of swans in Beckton, alleging that the police had caught asylum seekers preparing to roast them. After complaints, the paper issued a small clarification, admitting that no arrests had been made. But they stood by claims that locals had accused Eastern European refugees of killing swans for food.

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) deemed no further action necessary, as the Sun had published a retraction, a decision that was criticised by Presswise, the media ethics charity, as “disgraceful.”

This lack of accountability likely did little to curb right-wingers’ fixation on immigrants and the bizarre notion that they are eating domesticated, or, in this case, protected animals.

Fast forward to today, and this strange narrative has found new life in an even stranger claim from Donald Trump. During his first presidential debate against Kamala Harris, Trump echoed a conspiracy theory promoted by his running mate, J.D. Vance, (him again) stating that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs.

Kamala Harris wasn’t the only one left bewildered by Trump’s comments, anyone watching with a hint of normalcy was similarly stunned. The jokes and memes quickly flooded the internet. A parody song by the South African musician David Scott mocking the former president’s outrageous claim went viral. A video, entitled “Eating the Cats” by Scott’s band Kiffness, used an edited audio clip of Trump’s viral comment, composed in a Reggaeton-beat style. In the satirical song, Scott urges the people of Springfield not to eat his cat and dog and suggests alternative food options.

A flurry of Bart Simpson memes did the rounds. The BBC’s Have I Got News For You X account shared an image of Homer Simpson and his dog writing: “US Presidential debate: After Trump claims people in Springfield are eating dogs, there’s concern about where he’s been getting his news from.”

Jokes aside, just as the Sun’s nonsensical swan story showcased a low point in media accountability, Trump’s baseless claims show how far political discourse has strayed from serious, substantive issues.

It’s a sad commentary on the current state of politics, where misinformation and sensationalism overshadow meaningful discussion.



Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

 

Gitmo and Politics

by Andrew P. Napolitano Posted onSeptember 20, 2024

It is always dangerous to human freedom and due process when politics interferes with criminal prosecutions. Yet, present-day America is replete with tawdry examples of this.

The recent exposures of the political machinations of the Chief Justice of the United States in the presidential immunity case is just one sad example of the highest judge in the land determined to change the law, even at the cost of sacrificing good jurisprudence; and this from a jurist who once promised the Senate that he envisioned himself as a mere baseball umpire – just calling balls and strikes. Now, he is a historical revisionist, ruling that the Framers actually wanted an imperial presidency.

His rationale was his understanding of history – not the laws, not precedent, not the Constitution, not morality; a first in modern Supreme Court history.

But this awkward behavior, in which he also engaged when he changed his mind at the last minute and saved Obamacare from constitutional extinction because he was convinced that Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama in 2012, sends messages to those who enforce the law and those who interpret it that due process can take a back seat to politics.

That is happening at the prosecution of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Here is the backstory.

After the dust settled from the attacks on 9/11 and the federal government responded by assaulting the Bill of Rights at home and innocent Afghani peasants abroad, it declared that the mastermind of the attacks was Osama bin Laden. It never charged bin Laden with any crime, but it dispatched a team of killers to assassinate him in his home, which they did. Then the feds decided that bin Laden was not the mastermind; Mohammed was.

By the time of bin Laden’s death, Mohammed had been captured and had undergone years of torture at the hands of the CIA, and he was incarcerated at the prison camp at Gitmo. He was eventually charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder and was put into the hands of a military tribunal, which Congress had established at the insistence of the George W. Bush administration believing that military men on a military court would administer swift and rough justice.

Then, his lawyers argued successfully to the Supreme Court that conspiracy is not a war crime and thus not triable before a military tribunal. In so ruling, the Court overruled an appellate court decision written by the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice back when he was an appellate judge – another Supreme Court first.

Then Congress changed the format of the tribunals so that they’d follow the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and effectively turned them into federal courts in Cuba with military trappings.

Pre-trial proceedings in the Mohammed case have been conducted on and off since 2012. He is on his second team of defense counsel, as the first team was infiltrated by an undercover FBI agent and his lawyers resigned. Mohammed is being tried by his fourth judge. The first judge ruled that because his confession was made under and as a consequence of torture, it could not be used at trial. But the prosecutors persuaded judges two, three and four to reconsider the decision of judge number one on whether the confession was lawful.

Then, a second team of prosecutors entered the case and they told the fourth judge in the case that if he permitted Mohammed’s confession at trial, Mohammed and his physicians would testify as to the psychological effects of torture, and they could not ethically defend what the CIA did. They also told the judge that they had begun plea negotiations with defense counsel.

Two months ago, the defendants and the government and the judge agreed to a plea agreement and all relevant persons signed it, including the Pentagon official supervising all prosecutions, a retired Army general whose last assignment in her active-duty military career was as the chief judge of the Army Court of Appeals. The plea agreement saved the government’s lawyers from having to defend Bush’s torturers, and it saved the defendants from the death penalty.

Then, after the plea agreement became publicly known, the Secretary of Defense – who is not a lawyer – belatedly overruled the retired general supervising the case and the legal team prosecuting it and the judge trying it and ordered them to rescind the plea agreement because he felt that the American public should learn the evidence in the case. Stated differently, the last thing the Biden administration needs in the midst of a presidential election campaign is to appear less than aggressive in its pursuit of 9/11 justice.

So, here is the legal dilemma now confronting the current judge – who is an active-duty colonel in the Army. All parties and the court have agreed to a plea agreement. But the judge’s boss – the Secretary of Defense – has ordered him to reject it. This is a state of affairs unknown and unheard of in American jurisprudence, where judges don’t have bosses telling them what guilty pleas to accept and what to reject. This has only come about due to Bush’s lust for torture and the post-9/11 Congress’ antipathy to the Constitution and the now fashionable entry of politics into the case.

Gitmo costs half a billion dollars a year. In its 20-plus year existence, it has yet to conduct a trial of any person for 9/11. And the prosecutors who know the case have told their bosses in the Department of Defense that trying the case will expose American troops to vicious retribution because the trial will expose the heinous acts the CIA inflicted upon the defendants.

Under federal law, there are no do-overs once a guilty plea has been entered and accepted. But we have a government of politicians whose fidelity to law and the Constitution is barely an afterthought.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the US Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.

COPYRIGHT 2021 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO – DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

PAKISTAN

AS THE OLD IS DYING, A NEW STRUGGLES TO BE BORN

Ammar Ali Jan 

Published September 22, 2024

 DAWN / EOS

Illustration generated using Microsoft Designer

There are a few unique moments in global history when multiple crises, accumulated over a long period of time, express themselves simultaneously with an unprecedented intensity. Such a ‘polycrisis’ combines to form a crisis of legitimacy for the ruling order, highlighting the repressed deficiencies that undergird its apparent stability.

One example of such a moment is the crisis of the global colonial order in the late 19th century, where the scramble for colonies created intense antagonisms between the great European powers of the time. This inter-imperialist rivalry culminated in two World Wars, the rise of fascism, communism and anti-colonial movements, and the emergence of the United States (US) as the primary hegemon in the global order.

The world is now entering another such period of a great transition, with the slow decline of the US and the rapid rise of China. This historical tendency is exacerbated by the polycrisis that involves climate change, economic disintegration, global debt crises, and the emergence of a lethal war industry that combine to undermine the stability of the current order.

An important element of such great transitions is the loss of ideological certainties, with old narratives losing their appeal and being replaced by new ideas, as is being witnessed in the crisis of liberal democracies and the rise of the far-right (and, at times, far-left) parties/figures across the world.

Third World countries such as Pakistan are incorporated into these larger structural tensions that are tearing apart the world today. Beyond the dizzying pace of breaking news, we must decipher the breakdown of the political, economic and ideological anchors that have fallen apart and thrown the Pakistani state into an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy.

Decades of economic, political and social neglect have now metastasised into a scenario that sees Pakistan seemingly heading down a blind alley. Many indicators point towards a worsening of the crises that plague the country. Ammar Ali Jan attempts to answer the questions: how did we as a nation end up here, and is there any way out?

A TIME OF TRANSITION

The multiple hybrid regimes, the rigged elections, the controlled media and a subservient parliament are all failing to cover-up the instability that haunts the present dispensation, demonstrating the intensity of the challenge faced by those who would want a return to ‘normalcy.’

One of the key elements of a crisis of legitimacy is that it destabilises conventional measures through which a crisis is often averted, producing a state of emergency where the past becomes a poor guide to resolve a radically novel situation.

My contention is that the current political, economic and social crisis engulfing Pakistan is part of long-term historical trends, both global and specific to our own history, that are now maturing into a full blown existential threat to our polity. The grievances have accumulated over time, exacerbated by the ruthless exploitation by the ruling elites and their refusal to follow any legal frameworks that may restrain their power.

On the other hand, the changing geopolitical situation, as well as the declining global economy, has meant that there is very little possibility of a bailout by Western powers. The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) versus the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) drama, and the fissures in the judiciary, military and the media, are reflective of this larger breakdown of structures that once sustained the ruling dispensation.

Moreover, while Imran Khan represents the crisis in its most potent, disruptive element, our tragedy is compounded by the fact that neither he, nor any other political force, has emerged that can present an alternative vision to move beyond the punishing stagnation afflicting our society. The crisis of imagination makes our predicament all the more painful.

We are then living through the ‘End Times’ of a journey that contained much promise, but was derailed by despair, greed and short-sightedness. To discern this fall, the multiple crises of political economy, ideology and political leadership have to be understood in their historical formation that are now combining to impose a permanent form of destabilisation in our system.


The current political, economic and social crisis engulfing Pakistan is part of long-term historical trends, both global and specific to our own history, that are now maturing into a full blown existential threat to our polity. The grievances have accumulated over time, exacerbated by the ruthless exploitation by the ruling elites and their refusal to follow any legal frameworks that may restrain their power.

THE COLLAPSE OF A RENTIER ECONOMY

The roots of Pakistan’s economic crisis lay in the fateful decisions made by our political elites in the 1950s. Pakistan’s independence occurred at a heightening moment of Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union. American author and journalist William Blum, in his fantastic book titled Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, explains how the “bipolar world”, split between the capitalist and the socialist camps, did not reflect the actual power imbalance that existed between the two sides.

The Soviet Union had suffered enormous destruction during the Second World War, including the death of 27 million people, as it fought against a punishing Nazi military occupation. On the other hand, the US did not see its mainland get attacked by war, emerging as the primary industrial power (50 percent of global industrial production) and became the primary creditor of the world.

This imbalance explains why the US aggressively thwarted any left-wing movement in Europe and across the colonial world while the Soviet Union maintained, contrary to the Western narrative, a minimalist interventionist position. This was a time of high prestige for left-wing movements, as they had played a pivotal role in anti-fascist and anti-colonial struggles.

Thus, the US, with the aid of the newly formed Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), embarked upon a ruthless campaign of subjugating mass movements in the name of ‘fighting communism’, a crusade that led them to attack or destabilise countries as distinct as Italy, Korea, Angola, Guatemala, Syria, the Phillipines and a host of other countries in the 1950s.

The historian Christopher Simpson meticulously shows how the US camp did not consist of ‘liberal democrats’ but often involved former Nazi sympathisers who were given respectability by the US to fight the “communist threat” in Europe.

In the Third World, this alliance of the ‘free world’ was secured through an alliance with conservative forces that often denounced the more emancipatory ideals of the anti-colonial struggles. The key pillar of this alliance was the military, a conservative force that became the vanguard in the fight against socialism.

The US developed special relations with military officers in countries as diverse as South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil and a host of other developing countries. In other words, developmental funds to these countries were tied to their participation in America’s war against communism, which often meant brutal repression at home.

Pakistan’s ruling elites, always anxious of their place in popular politics, made a Faustian pact with Washington by joining the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) in 1954 and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) in 1955, sealing the country’s fate for decades to come.

Pakistan’s incorporation into the global order as a client state meant a surrender of a sovereign path of development for the country. Pakistan’s economic growth was now permanently tied to its relationship with Washington, with massive aid flows generating impressive growth in the 1960s, 1980s and 2000s. Incidentally, all these growth spurts were experienced under military regimes, solidifying the legitimacy of the institution and strangling the prospects of a democratic polity.

Pakistan’s pre-eminent social scientist Hamza Alavi described this expanding power of the coercive apparatuses by calling Pakistan an “overdeveloped state”, where a “military-bureaucratic oligarchy” controlled the levers of power. The power of the landed and industrial elites was secured through the military that used its role as the primary mediator of imperialist rents to cement its hegemony on the political scene.

The impressive growth stories under military regimes veiled a darker reality. Our economic engine was not fuelled by a long term vision for industrial growth, but was linked to perpetual wars in the region in

which we were expected to participate as proxies. In the 1960s, anchoring Pakistan into the anti-communist camp and wiping out Leftist elements in the nascent postcolonial state was central to the CIA’s strategy for the region.

Not only were Leftist organisations repressed, including the tragic murder of the Communist Party of Pakistan’s secretary general Hassan Nasir, democrats from across the spectrum were declared traitors to the federation, putting in place a tradition that continues to haunt us.

One of the most famous ‘traitors’ of this era was ‘Mother of the Nation’ Fatima Jinnah, who challenged Gen Ayub Khan’s dictatorship and suffered an electoral defeat in a presidential election widely believed to be rigged.

US President John F Kennedy, Gen Ayub Khan, and US Vice President Lyndon B Johnson pictured in the Oval Office in Washington on July 13, 1961: Ayub’s development model, built on extreme forms of class and regional inequality, experienced its slow demise when the US pulled its support after the Pakistan-India war in 1965 | John F Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum

DIGGING THE HOLE DEEPER

This tendency of centralisation of state authority and the demonisation of opponents was further strengthened under Gen Ziaul Haq, whose draconian repression of political activists, including the judicial murder of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, stands out as a particularly brutal period.

To compound the problem, the aid flows to Pakistan were tied to the military junta’s commitment to fighting a US-sponsored Afghan jihad, turning the country into a bastion of right-wing militants from across the Muslim world.

The economic boom during the Zia regime was linked to the construction of this jihadi infrastructure, an infrastructure geared towards war, destruction and bigotry, which wrecked Afghanistan and Pakistan while fuelling conflicts across the region. Less than two decades later, Gen Pervez Musharraf’s economic success was also tied to imperialist rents, this time to dismantle this jihadi infrastructure.

The obverse side of this development model was not only economic inequality, but the recurrent collapse that we faced whenever we were abandoned by Washington. Ayub’s development model, built on extreme forms of class and regional inequality, experienced its slow demise when the US pulled its support after the Pakistan-India war in 1965.

The deteriorating economic situation led to riots across Pakistan in 1968-1969, an unexpected victory of anti-establishment forces in the 1970 elections, and a brutal military operation that ended in the dismemberment of Pakistan, concluding the “Decade of Development” with nothing to show but blood and tears.

The same pattern was repeated in the case of Zia and Musharraf regimes. In both cases, America’s diminishing interest in Afghanistan meant an abrupt drying up of resources for Pakistani governments. While Washington became involved in wars elsewhere, the Afghan wars crippled our polity, leading to a rise in religious extremism, prompting repeated internal military operations, and causing the deaths of at least 70,000 Pakistani citizens, including political leaders.

This boom and bust cycle has created a strong consuming class that has benefitted from this rent-seeking behaviour of the state. Yet, the parasitic nature of our elites can be gauged from the fact that their lifestyles are comparable to their counterparts in places such as India, South Korea etc while being decades behind them in industrial/economic output. Instead, their wealth was owed to their links to the Pakistani state, which in turn depended on borrowed money from the US as part of providing its territory and services for America’s proxy wars in the region.

My contention is that this arrangement has come to a definitive end. The US is no longer an industrial power that can give cheap loans to its client states. With a military budget of US$883 billion and a declining industrial base, its ability to demolish far exceeds its ability to reconstruct, as witnessed in a series of wars across the Middle East.

On the other hand, China’s model is geared towards trade and boosting industrial productivity, an enterprise that our rent-seeking elites are singularly incapable of undertaking, as demonstrated by the botched results of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

It is no wonder that abandonment by the US is leading to outbursts by the political leadership, with Imran Khan claiming that his government was overthrown by the US, while Ishaq Dar recently claimed that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was punishing Pakistan for geostrategic reasons.

This angst is nothing but the painful withdrawal symptoms of a state addicted to proxy wars and the dollars associated with them. The result is an impossible debt burden that continues to get worse, with over 50 percent of our budget geared towards debt servicing. Instead of debating any reforms, the ruling elites are using the state to impose the costs of their own debt-fuelled lifestyles on to the public through increasing taxation.

Today, the political economy of Pakistan appears akin to what American political scientist Jodi Dean has described as “neo-feudalism”, a system where the rich increasingly impose rents upon society to feed their luxurious lifestyles. In other words, we are witnessing the end of citizenship and the emergence of a new kind of mass serfdom, with all the authoritarianism and militarised control such a tendency entails.

A man holds a placard during a protest in Karachi against inflation, unemployment and increased taxation on August 23, 2023: the ruling elites are using the state to impose the costs of their own debt-fuelled lifestyles on to the public through increasing taxation | AFP


IDEOLOGICAL DISARRAY

The state’s narrative about the ideology of Pakistan is also increasingly viewed with cynicism by an ever-growing section of society. As the American professor of history David Gilmartin has suggested, the Pakistan Movement was always an eclectic mix of Muslim nationalism and more mundane local realities that included social categories such as caste, region, language etc.

In other words, the universalising narrative of the state as an Islamic polity had to contend with historical differences, particularly the question of different nationalities/ linguistic groups that constitute Pakistan. This tension was felt in the early years, with conflicts raging in the peripheries during Jinnah’s own lifetime, including severe hostilities and riots, from the erstwhile North Western Frontier Province (NWFP, now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa) to Dhaka in East Pakistan.

Such tensions were not unique to Pakistan, since most postcolonial national states had to engage with different ethno-national groups to create a unity of purpose. Yet, Pakistan’s fateful decision to join the US camp hastened the centralisation of the state with the excessive power of the military, which viewed assertion of ethnic difference as a negation of the idea of Pakistan.

It was not long before nationalist aspirations were also dubbed as ‘communism’, so that the great anti-communist crusade could be invoked to stifle dissent internally. The tragedy of 1971, where for the first time in human history, a majority population separated from a minority, did not soften the centralising tendencies of the state, as a brutal operation was launched in Balochistan in 1974 to defend the ‘integrity’ of the country.

Similarly, large sections of the Pakhtun population have grown under the shadow of US-sponsored proxy wars fought by the Pakistan state. The militarisation of everyday life, as well as the devastation caused by endless wars, has become an integral part of Baloch and Pakhtun identity.

Unfortunately, constitutional movements — such as the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) and the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) — have also been labelled as ‘traitors’, thus making any compromise increasingly difficult. The vacuum is resulting in the emergence of terrorist organisations, such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), that seek to exploit the ethnic cleavages in the country in order to push the region into a vortex of ethnic hate and bigotry.

Perhaps the biggest irony is that the state no longer even has a monopoly over political Islam. The state’s policy of waging jihad was part of a cynical world view of a rentier state rather than being reflective of any deep ideological commitment. As a result, jihadi and other religious forces have taken the initiative away from the state, often dictating Islam to the state rather than being dictated by it.

Gen Musharraf’s compliance in the US-led War on Terror, allowing drone strikes on Pakistani territory, and conducting military operations against religious groups, has hollowed out the state’s claim to be the primary representative of religion, depriving it of a key ideological cement to discipline populations.

The final frontier for the state was its monopoly over ‘Pakistaniat’, an elusive category that has intense emotional appeal for large sections of society. In that realm, PTI and Khan have decisively displaced the military as the primary expression of nationhood in mainland Pakistan.

For decades, the establishment projected Khan as a political alternative in whom the modernist, corporate aspirations of society coalesce with more traditional virtues of piety and personal integrity. After alienating political leaders from the peripheries and the mainstream, Khan was the final line of defence for the state.

Yet, in a bizarrely whimsical manner, the establishment switched sides, hoping that the military’s historical core support base would abandon PTI. Instead, they moved with the PTI, making Khan the embodiment of ‘Pakistani nationalism.’ Consequently, the state no longer has a monopoly over religion or nationalism, while also struggling to fend off intensifying challenges from ethno-nationalist forces.

IS THERE A BEGINNING AFTER THE END?

Adeel Malik, a scholar at the University of Oxford, has recently published some groundbreaking research on the social transformations occurring in society. Access to social media, university education and new employment opportunities have combined to reduce the influence of traditional power brokers across large parts of Pakistan. This fundamental shift has weakened old political parties that garnered their support from these patronage networks.

Such weakness is amplified by the fact that these parties have been targeted by the establishment for decades but have failed to develop any adequate vision for national politics. The result is that their primary politics now revolve around keeping one individual out of power, a task for which they are ready to jettison long-held principles of constitutionalism that they espoused in the past. In other words, they have been reduced to pure negativity, without a clear vision for what they offer to society.

Khan, on the other hand, represents the spirit of the time, insofar as these new social groups are more willing to coalesce around him. Yet, his stint in power was marred by the fact that he and his party offered precious little in terms of new ideas for Pakistan’s political economy. IMF conditionalities, bulldozing bills in the parliament (similar to what we recently witnessed with the clumsy attempt to pass the 26th Constitutional Amendment Bill), helplessness in front of rent-seeking elites while using severe repression against opponents, and very little discussion on redistribution of economic power were the hallmarks of his brief stint in power.

Even today, PTI’s strength remains its ability to harness the anger of the people through the production of a catchy narrative that feeds into the anxieties and aspirations of people. But a narrative is different from ideology, since the former can be moulded anytime to suit the particular audience one is addressing, while ideology requires a consistency of principles over an extended period of time.

This is why we hear very little from PTI in terms of a concrete vision for the future and a lot on how the current dispensation is a hopeless failure. Consequently, we have entered a stage of revolutionary aesthetics that veil a deep conservatism, an intensification of tactical manoeuvres but without any strategic horizons, and an increasing anger towards the status quo without any proposals for an alternative social contract.

What we are then witnessing in these multiple crises is the culmination of an order that began in the 1950s — a status quo that was propped up by foreign powers to do their bidding in the region, a political economy addicted to war, rents and excessive consumption, a failure to innovate, and a refusal to incorporate difference.

It is resulting in the dismantling of ideological underpinnings of the ruling order and a deep political disorientation, exemplified by the lack of imagination exhibited by political parties. In other words, the old order has lost its raison d’etre, and the instability we witness today is a symptom of a deeper crisis that signals the end of a historical epoch.

In moments of great transitions, repetition of old clichés is not possible. A crisis of imagination often turns into a crisis of adequate language itself. To answer the new questions we are confronted with, we must first be willing to situate ourselves in the novelty that stares us in the face.

There is no going back to becoming a client state for the US, just like there is little possibility of sustaining a rent-seeking economy that seeks to sacrifice the future of millions of children to sustain luxuries for the few. The spectre of ethnic hatred and religious extremism are no longer peripheral concerns but are becoming existential threats for our society.

One must remember that after every end, there is a new beginning. The moment is pregnant with extreme danger and unprecedented opportunities. The task of intellectuals in Pakistan is no longer to regurgitate clichés learnt from the West. Certainties have collapsed everywhere, and what we require are bold new ideas that can help us chart our journey anew in this transformed world.

In that sense, despite the tragic situation, there is an opportunity to rethink history and propose a new social contract around issues deemed taboo. Such ideas must be boldly generated and propagated to find new anchorage for Pakistan in the current moment.

The world is out of joint, and to seek illusions instead of truth in such moments will be a great abdication of intellectual responsibility. Our biggest failure will be if we continue to comfort ourselves with the belief that things will go back to a ‘normal’ equilibrium at some point.

The costs of failure are too high for us to remain comfortable in our illusions.

The writer is a historian, academic and political organiser. He is the founder and general secretary of the Haqooq-e-Khalq Party. X: @ammaralijan

Published in Dawn, EOS, September 22nd, 2024

PAKISTAN

Shaky stability

Khurram Husain 

Published September 19, 2024

Dawn




RARELY have I seen a situation like this one. The economy is finding an uneasy and shaky stability; as inflation peaks, the exchange rate looks like it might well stick, the backlog of unpaid dividends is being cleared, interest rates are on a downward trajectory from here on, the current account has returned to surplus, reserves are stable and so on. The list can get as long as one wants.

But the problems are growing. Rarely have we seen a situation where the economy stabilises while the government gets shaky. Usually, political and economic stability go together in our history. And mind you, I’m talking about economic stability, not growth. Paradoxically, periods of booming economic growth are also periods when politics becomes shaky.

Nawaz Sharif found himself facing disqualification right when his economic growth rates were hitting their peak and the first of the large mega projects his government had commissioned were getting ready for start of commercial operations. Likewise, Imran Khan found himself facing a vote of no-confidence precisely when the economy was hitting its peak growth rate of seven per cent.

But I cannot recall a government going wobbly when the stabilisation phase of the economy is peaking. That is where we are today. The economy has not fixed itself, nor is growth about to return. All that has happened is the worst effects of the bitter medicine one has to take to stabilise an out-of-control economy are now beginning to wear off. 

That’s all.

Usually this is the sweet spot. This is usually the time when the government of the day can start crowing about its achievement in having stabilised runaway fiscal deficits and falling foreign exchange reserves. Once interest rates start coming down — with IMF approval, as evidenced by the fact that an Executive Board meeting has been scheduled in the midst of the rate cuts — it usually means the worst is over.

They use bailouts and loans to fuel the country’s economy and repression to stifle the people’s will.

But this is the first time we are seeing a government struggle politically while having largely survived the worst of the economic pain. And as its political moorings start loosening, its capacity to stay on the path of stabilisation as required will weaken.

We are drowning in ironies today, but one to marvel at is how one of the strongest governments we have had in a long time in terms of its numbers in parliament is proving unequal to the task before it.

Despite its numbers in parliament and the strong backing of the establishment, this government is struggling to get things done that those with fewer numbers and less powerful backers in the past managed to do. This only means one thing: despite all its apparent strength in terms of its parliamentary arithmetic and powerful backing, this is probably the weakest government we have had in at least a quarter of a century.

How does that happen? How can a government be so strong by one standard, and yet so weak by another? This can only happen if the system of rule upon which the government stands itself is losing traction.

Systems are not build with force alone. They require buy-in from the population over whose affairs they preside. The current system of rule has taken a mortal hit on its ability to command its own population’s loyalties after more than two and a half years of the most ferocious inflationary fire the country has ever seen.

Nothing kills people’s faith in their system, their own lives and their future, like inflation. And the kind of inflation we have seen since May 2021 is literally unprecedented. The fire still burns, even if it has stopped spreading. It will be many years before people’s incomes potentially catch up with the loss their purchasing power has suffered over these years.

To compensate for the people’s loss of faith, the rulers of our time have resorted to gimmicks to deprive them of a voice in choosing their elected representatives.

When people protest this denial of fundamental rights, the rulers reply with repression, arrests, abuse. When attention is drawn to the violation of people’s rights, they respond with measures to silence the media, throttle the internet, police social media, and more repression. When the judiciary refuses to play ball with this escalating cycle of repression, along comes a constitutional amendment to bifurcate the apex court and make its crucial functions — constitutional interpretation — subordinate to the government of the day.

Thus kicks off a vicious cycle that eats away at the system’s legitimacy and weakens its foundations. Riding the whole wave is a group of leaders using the oldest of the old playbooks that has always been used in Pakistan. They use bailouts and loans to fuel the country’s economy and repression to stifle the people’s will. Historically this has worked, but only partially. Military rulers in the past managed to get large, concessional inflows with which to fuel the economy while engineering the local political landscape to their liking.

But this time it’s not working, and that is why the situation looks unique. The repression is not silencing the people’s will, and no foreign partner is stepping in with a bailout. A people burdened with inflation and repression at the same time will not be enthused about being part of the system that rules them. And the longer this state of affairs continues, the more the government will lose traction even as it succeeds in stabilising the macroeconomic indicators.

There is a lesson here for those who have not forgotten how to learn. Pakistan is not like one of those countries where a single dictator has ruled for three or four decades at a stretch. The demand for the ruler to earn his or her right to rule through the ‘just consent of the governed’ is strong here.

Less than eight months into its tenure, and one of the (arithmetically) strongest governments we have had in decades is already old and infirm. Time to read the writing on the wall.

The writer is a business and economy journalist.

khurram.husain@gmail.com

X: @khurramhusain

Published in Dawn, September 19th, 2024

PAKISTAN

TTP’s reach

DAWN
Editorial Published 

September 22, 2024 

THOUGH the banned TTP is principally a threat to Pakistan’s security, the terrorist group’s wider ambitions should not be ignored by the world.

In this regard, Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN, Munir Akram, recently told the Security Council that the TTP is an “umbrella organisation” for militant actors, with the potential to destabilise the region. Moreover, indicating the state’s dissatisfaction with the Afghan Taliban regime, he added that the TTP operates with “full support … of the Afghan interim government”.

There are, of course, justified reasons for the state’s frustration with the Afghan Taliban’s inability to crack down on cross-border terrorism. In attacks on Thursday and Friday, several security men were martyred, mostly in areas close to the Afghan border. In one incident, terrorists were prevented from crossing into Pakistan, while in another, Pakistani forces traded fire with Afghan security men.

Expanding on the TTP’s potential to cause havoc beyond Pakistan, Mr Akram cited the terrorist group‘s ties with Al Qaeda, saying that the TTP — by joining forces with the multinational terror franchise — could become a “spearhead” for regional and global terrorist goals. The TTP is already on the UN’s radar, as the multilateral body has affirmed that the outfit is currently the largest terror group in Afghanistan, enjoying close bonds with the Afghan rulers.

While there are strong ideological and doctrinal links between the Afghan Taliban and the TTP, the former are satisfied with implementing their rigid system internally, while the latter group has a wider ‘vision’, working as it does with transnational terror concerns. Therefore, as this paper has mentioned before, there is a need to pursue the anti-TTP campaign on two fronts: the domestic and the foreign.

Domestically, the state must ensure that TTP fighters and allied groups are not able to hold any territory or freely cross the Afghan frontier. Our demands for international action will lack conviction if we are not able to keep our own soil free of terrorist groups. Secondly, as the ambassador pointed out, the TTP — particularly its activities inside Afghanistan — should be a matter of global concern, specifically for regional states.

The TTP is not the only violent outfit operating within Afghanistan; Al Qaeda, IS-K, Central Asian fighters, as well as Uighur militants are also believed to have a presence in that country. Some have cordial relations with the Afghan Taliban, while others, for example IS-K, have adversarial ties with Kabul’s rulers. Therefore, Pakistan, along with Iran, the Central Asian states, Russia and China, should evolve a joint strategy to address the militancy problem in Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s warning about the threat the TTP poses should be heeded by the international community, as Afghanistan has remained a hotbed of extremist groups in the past. The same mistake should not be repeated.

Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2024

AI development cannot be left to market whim, UN experts warn

AFP 

 September 20, 2024 

UNITED NATIONS: The development of artificial intelligence (AI) should not be guided by market forces alone, UN experts cautioned on Thursday, calling for the creation of tools for global cooperation. But they held back from suggesting the creation of a muscular worldwide governing body to oversee the rollout and evolution of a technology, the proliferation of which has raised fears around biases, misuse and dependence.

The panel of around 40 experts from the fields of technology, law and data protection was established by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in October.

Their report, published days before the start of a high-profile “Summit of the Future,” raises the alarm over the lack of global governance of AI as well as the effective exclusion of developing countries from debates about the technology’s future.

Of the UN’s 193 members, just seven are part of the seven major initiatives linked to AI, while 118 are entirely absent — mostly nations of the global south. “There is, today, a global governance deficit with respect to AI,” which by its nature is cross-border, the experts warn in their report.

Alarm raised over lack of global governance and exclusion of developing countries from debate about technology’s future

“AI must serve humanity equitably and safely,” Guterres said this week. “Left unchecked, the dangers posed by artificial intelligence could have serious implications for democracy, peace, and stability.”

‘Too late’?

To the backdrop of his clarion call, the experts called on UN members to put in place mechanisms to grease the wheels of global cooperation on the issue, as well as to prevent unintended proliferation. “The development, deployment and use of such a technology cannot be left to the whims of markets alone,” the report says.

It called firstly for the creation of a group of scientific experts on AI modeled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forum of experts, whose reports are the last word on the issue of climate change.

The panel would brief the international community on emerging risks, identify research needs as well as how it could be used to alleviate hunger, poverty, and gender inequality, among other goals.

That proposal is included in the draft Global Digital Compact, still under discussion, which is due to be adopted Sunday at the “Summit of the Future.” The report endorses setting up a light-touch “coordination” structure within the UN secretariat.

But it stops short of a fully-fledged international governance body — like that sought by Guterres — based on the model of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

“If the risks of AI become more serious, and more concentrated, it might become necessary for Member States to consider a more robust international institution with monitoring, reporting, verification, and enforcement powers,” the report said.

The authors acknowledge that owing to the warp speed of change in AI, it would be pointless to attempt to draw up a comprehensive list of dangers presented by the ever-evolving technology.

Published in Dawn, September 20th, 2024

Rewiring humanity

Shaukat Ahmed 

Published September 21, 2024

DAWN

IMAGINE a world where libraries fit in your pocket, where distant voices echo in real-time across continents, and where the collective knowledge of humanity streams at your fingertips. This isn’t a utopian dream; it’s our present reality. In 2007, when Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone, he set in motion a chain of innovations that would fundamentally alter our relationship with technology. This device became the paradigm for a new era of digital integration in everyday life, radically reshaping how we connect, work, and express ourselves.

Apple’s metamorphosis from a garage venture to a trillion-dollar titan epitomises the seminal ascent of Big Tech. Yet, Apple is merely one player on a grand technological stage, where the future of hu­­manity unfolds act by act. Consider a world ber­e­­­ft of Google’s omniscient search, Amazon’s ubiquito­­us marketplace, Instagram’s shared gallery of hu­­m­­­­an experience, or X’s real-time global conversations. In a mere two decades, these digital behemoths have propelled us from a world of fragmented communication to one where information flows as freely as thought itself. They’ve forged con­nections between billions, spawning an ecosystem that addresses a myriad of societal imperatives.

The democratisation of knowledge is perhaps Big Tech’s most profound gift to humanity, turning the internet into a vast, accessible repository, empowering both autodidacts and formal learners. This emancipation extends beyond the intellectual and into the economic realm, where e-commerce platforms have globalised local markets, and gig economy apps have shattered traditional notions of employment. In emerging economies, these digital tools enable entrepreneurs to leapfrog conventional development stages, fostering innovation and economic growth at an unprecedented pace.

At the epicentre of this seismic upheaval, Big Tech companies are charting the course of our collective future. Their substantial investments in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and machine learning are expanding the frontiers of possibility. These advancements transcend the tech sector, driving breakthroughs in transportation and space exploration, transforming agriculture, and combating climate change with hyper-efficient energy systems. Technology-driven learning environments that go beyond physical boundaries are profoundly reshaping education. In healthcare, they are pioneering everything from real-time health monitoring to AI-assisted diagnostics, personalised medicine, gene editing, and bioengineering — paving the way for unprecedented improvements in human health and longevity.


The global footprint of Big Tech extends far beyond innovation or the foundation of our digital existence.

Moreover, the global footprint of Big Tech extends far beyond innovation or the foundation of our digital existence. Their economic impact reverberates worldwide, generating millions of jobs directly and through extensive supply chains. They’ve birthed entire industries, from app development to digital marketing, while their cloud computing services and network infrastructure investments support the exponential growth of our data-driven society.

In times of global crisis, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, these companies proved indispensable, facilitating remote work and education, thus sustaining economic and social continuity amid extraordinary disruption. Social media platforms evolved into digital agoras, bridging vast geographical chasms and fostering unparalleled cultural cross-pollination. During crises, these platforms metamorphose into critical infrastructure, coordinating relief efforts and disseminating vital information with unmatched efficiency.

However, this digital renaissance is not without its shadows. Big Tech now navigates an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. In the US, a bipartisan coalition of senators has proposed some of the most stringent technology regulations in decades. These include the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, aimed at preventing large platforms from favouring their own products; the American Data Privacy Protection Act, which seeks to establish a comprehensive national framework for data privacy; the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act, focused on increasing transparency in content moderation practices; and the Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act, designed to combat algorithmic bias and promote fairness in automated decision-making systems.

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, unilateral regulation by any single country, especially one as influential as the US, risks creating fragmentation in the global digital ecosystem. An internationally coordinated approach is essential — only through global cooperation can we hope to create a regulatory framework that is as borderless and dynamic as the technology it seeks to govern.

The path forward demands a delicate balance — nurturing innovation while addressing legitimate concerns. It calls for a collaborative framework uniting tech companies, governments, and civil society. This tripartite alliance must tackle multifaceted challenges: establishing ethical guidelines for AI development, enhancing data protection and transparency, mitigating algorithmic biases, and creating robust global standards for data privacy and security. Equally vital are diversity initiatives that will ensure the fruits of innovation are shared inclusively, and dismantling the technological apartheid that silently segregates our society based on digital access.

In the realm of fair competition, the alliance must act as a vigilant guardian, safeguarding digital marketplaces as level playing fields where nascent innovators can challenge tech titans without fear of being stifled by preferential treatment. This watchfulness must extend to the equally crucial domain of content moderation. The goal must be to avoid burdening tech companies with an impossible mandate that forces them to choose between creating sterile voids or allowing anarchic cesspools — neither of which serves the public interest.

A promising path forward lies in developing an internationally coordinated, tiered system of content moderation with clear guidelines for different types of harmful content. This approach would es­­tablish baseline content policies while allowing for necessary cultural and legal variations. By prese­rving the vibrancy of online spaces while mitigating the spread of harmful content, such a system would serve both free expression and public safety.

As we stand at the helm of this technological revolution, where the algorithms of today sculpt the realities of tomorrow, we must recognise both the transformative power of Big Tech and the weight of its responsibility. The challenge extends beyond merely reining in Big Tech. By embracing this pivotal moment with wisdom and foresight, we can harness the raw power of technology into a catalyst for universal enlightenment and progress. In this grand digital odyssey, we are not just spectators, but the authors of our collective destiny.

The writer is an entrepreneur based in the US and the UK, and a shareholder in several technology companies, including some mentioned in this article.

sar@aya.yale.edu

X: @viewpointsar

Published in Dawn, September 21st, 2024

Anthems and perceptions

Muhammad Amir Rana 

Published September 22, 2024 

DAWN

ON Sept 26, 1960, Fidel Castro delivered a historic and defiant speech at the UN General Assembly, but it was not his words that caused the stir. Instead, Castro and his Cuban delegation refused to stand up for the US national anthem during the meeting, a clear symbolic rejection of American influence. This provocative gesture deepened the already strained relations between the US and Cuba, further fuelling Cold War tensions.

In addition to the diplomatic stand-off, Castro’s delegation faced blatant discrimination when New York hotels refused to accommodate them, forcing the group to find refuge in Harlem, a neighbourhood at the heart of New York’s Black community.

However, there was no similar backdrop to what the acting Afghan consul general, Muhib Ullah Shakil, did in Peshawar the other day during the National Rehmat-ul-lil-Aalamin (PBUH) Conference, when he did not stand up for the Pakistani national anthem. Afghanistan justified this refusal to stand by arguing that, since the anthem was set to music, it went against their religious beliefs. Just a few days later, a Taliban diplomat repeated the same action at the 38th International Islamic Unity Conference, where Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was also present. Interestingly, Iran is also a state run by the clergy, but its anthem contains music.

Whatever the Taliban’s justification may have been, such junctures are considered an affront to the national dignity of the hosting state. Apart from the Cuban delegation’s protest of America’s undignified ‘hospitality’ and the Cold War background, there are several other examples where actions disrupting or going against flag hoisting or anthems of nations have had wider implications for bilateral ties.

Disputes over national anthems and flags often reflect deeper political tensions.

Diplomatic protocols for national anthems vary by country and occasion, but standard guidelines are generally followed during official ceremonies. These protocols may accommodate religious or cultural sensitivities; for example, diplomats from certain countries might refrain from specific gestures during anthems due to religious customs, and host nations usually respect such practices as long as it is communicated in advance.

It is certain that, at least in Pakistan, the Taliban diplomats had not conveyed their reservations to Pakistani officials. Otherwise, Pakistan’s Foreign Office would not have been provoked into giving a strong response to the undiplomatic gesture.

Afghanistan’s internal crisis is evident in its national symbols, despite the Taliban’s claims of peace in the country. National symbols unite people by creating an emotional bond among citizens. When these symbols fail to serve the purpose, a clear disarray within the citizenry becomes apparent. The ongoing dispute over the flag and anthem highlights the deep divisions between Afghanistan’s political factions and the struggle over the country’s identity, governance, and future direction.

When the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 2021, they replaced the national flag and anthem. The Taliban anthem, which lacks instrumental accompaniments, challenges singers to create a musical impact solely through their voices. Despite these changes, the Taliban’s flag and anthem are not widely recognised internationally, nor are they accepted by a large segment of the Afghan population, who still favour the pre-Taliban flag and anthem. The old Afghan anthem is still used at international sporting events, particularly in cricket, and Afghan players wholeheartedly respect it.

The Taliban’s anthem, ‘This is the Home of the Brave’, resembles a war song, with a tone often used by jihadist groups in their motivational music. In contrast, the pre-Taliban anthem was created by Article 20 of Afghanistan’s constitution, which mandated that the anthem include the names of the country’s various ethnic groups and the phrase ‘Allahu Akbar’.

This was an achievement for Afghanistan, a multi-ethnic country that created a consensus anthem in 2006. Kosovo, which declared independence from Serbia in 2008, is facing an anthem crisis because of its ethnic diversity. The country had left its national anthem without lyrics until a national consensus evolved over the words. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also an example in which tensions emanating from the two sides’ anthems are as deeply rooted as the historical, political, ideological, and ethnic differences between them. The Palestinian national anthem, Fida’i, and Israel’s national anthem, Hatikvah, have often caused mutual tensions.

Disputes over national anthems and flags often reflect deeper political tensions, territorial conflicts, or historical grievances between nations. Though symbolic, such incidents can stir nationalist sentiments and lead to diplomatic protests, potentially escalating broader tensions, as seen in the case of Cuba and the US. While international norms and diplomacy typically stress the importance of respecting national symbols, perceived violations can quickly become flashpoints in international relations. These disputes often underscore more profound political or historical divides.

For example, in 2017, China passed a ‘national anthem law’ after pro-democracy protesters began booing during the Chinese national anthem.

Perhaps Pakistan’s response to the ostensible disrespect for its anthem by the Taliban diplomat would have been different had the country had good relations with Kabul. After all, Pakistani society is as religious as the Afghans are, and, until 2022, when the Taliban refused to cut ties with the terrorist group TTP, a major segment of the state and society had fallen in love with the Taliban system.

After the Taliban takeover in 2021, a retired general, during an event, warned Pakistani political parties to be ready to face the music when the Taliban become a model for good governance. Pakistan’s former special envoy to Afghanistan, who recently left his post, was seemingly also influenced by the same perception and believed that the TTP was a Pakistani problem, which could only be addressed through improving the rule of law.

Such simplistic arguments turn more sensitive when compared to the emotionalism attached to national symbols. Indeed, the rule of law is an issue in Pakistan, but it cannot be used to justify the Taliban’s support for the violent TTP.

The writer is a security analyst.

Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2024

Forever in fervour

Muna Khan 

Published September 22, 2024 

DAWN

ONE of my favourite lessons in the classroom is on the use of descriptors and adjectives, and to demonstrate, I teach how national holidays like Aug 14 are reported. Since I began work as a journalist in 1995, I have read iterations of ‘Pakistanis celebrated such-and-such day with fervour’. The exercise on reporting on national holidays without using patriotism in the copy is a great lesson and also allows reflection on how we’ve been conditioned to think.

If we’re singing the anthem every day at school or the cinema, or waving flags at a ce­­­remony, it does not necessarily mean we are patriotic. Habit does not equate fervour.

The opposite is also not true, ie, a person not waving flags etc is unpatriotic. Over the years, the weaponisation of ghaddar coupled with a highly inflammable society prone to violence has resulted in a deadly combination.

Patriotism has long been used to exclude communities — cementing stereotypes, creating divisions and keeping power in the hands of the elite.

Our guests’ beliefs deserve as much respect as ours.

I did not think a recommendation of Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 Against Our Will, about how men use rape to keep women in a state of fear, and its use in war by soldiers, would earn me a label of ‘anti-state’ by one student. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction when presented with something that goes against everything you’ve been taught. I don’t blame the student as much as I do the system that produced a factory of workers handing out certificates of patriotism.

I’ve been thinking this while watching the discussion around the Afghan diplomats not standing for Pakistan’s national anthem in KP. There is a lot of hysteria on YouTube and mainstream TV across the political divide. The diplomats’ explanation was pretty simple: they did not stand because the anthem contains music which they consider unIslamic; they meant no disrespect.

Because we are so conditioned into equa­ting respect with standing for the national anthem, the rage we felt is understandable but cannot be condoned. Our guests’ bel­iefs deserve as much respect as ours, especially when they have clarified their position. But we live in a strange time where my belief (read: facts) trumps everyone else’s.

A lot of folk on traditional and social media went out of their way to prove their loyalty to the state or the KP government which hosted the Afghan delegates. Chief Minister Ali Gandapur defended the Afghan diplomats, saying he accepted their explanation while the KP governor, Faisal Kundi described Gandapur as the chief minister of Afghanistan.

In this toxic battlefield that has created deep divisions which show no sign of healing, the media also chose sides.

One headline read: Gandapur “defends Afghan diplomat’s disrespect for national anthem” as if the act was intentional. Of course, readers would seethe.

I watched one news anchor use his YouTube channel to tell his audience to confront those who refuse to stand for the anthem. I’m pretty sure his anger was directed at PTI supporters for what he says is not distinguishing between state (ie anthem) and government.

It is problematic to police people’s choices. Perhaps a Pakistani chooses not to stand as a way to protest the state’s failure to protect its citizens’ rights.

Every country has its version of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ patriots. When American footballers were taking the knee — following the murder of George Floyd by the police in 2020 — as a way to protest racism, then US president Donald Trump said “maybe they shouldn’t be in the country”.

Narendra Modi has ignited hatred for Muslims in India. The British tabloid media is full of racist lang­uage about Mus­li­­ms. One survey done earlier this year fou­nd an “almost statistical correlation bet-ween GB News view-ers and hate crime”.

I think it is unpatriotic to be ill-infor-med.

After all, the act of calling someone unpatriotic is rooted in propaganda and/or misinformation. Belie­ving your leader is more patriotic than their opponents and running campaigns on this serves no purpose. It may win you more seats at the next (s)election but it does not prevent children from dying of pneumonia, the leading cause of death among children under five, according to Unicef. These deaths can be prevented through immunisation and one glance at the papers tells you how those drives are going.

This government’s not-so-slow-anymore erosion of our civil liberties has left us with few avenues of protest — we can’t tweet, we can’t even organise demonstrations without fear of reprisal. And a lot of the media is enabling this with their partisan positions, probably because their survival depends on it.

Patriotism is anti-poor and racist. In its current form, it is totalitarian, too. Patrio­tism works when democracy does because it allows all of us to peacefully coexist with our differences, with or without fervour.

The writer is a journalism instructor.

X: LedeingLady

Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2024

PAKISTAN

Pilgrims stranded by transporters’ protest in Gwadar

Behram Baloch Published September 22, 2024 

GWADAR: A sit-in by local transporters in the port city of Gwadar for the second-consecutive day on Saturday has left hundreds of pilgrims returning from Iran stranded.

The pick-up owners’ alliance is holding a protest against the alleged atrocities of the Coast Guards at the Surbandan Cross.

Hundreds of protesters have placed barricades and boulders on the Coastal Highway and stopped traffic.

The pilgrims, including women and children, are stranded at the Pak-Iran border and waiting for the opening of the coastal highway.

Over 200 families are also waiting at the sit-in point as protestors are not allowing them to continue their journey towards Karachi and other cities.

A huge number of passenger coaches, buses and trucks carrying goods are also stuck on both sides of the coastal highway at the Surbandan cross.

The protesters have vowed not to end the demonstration until their grievances are addressed.

They allege that the Coast Guards were harassing the pick-up owners at the coastal and other highways.

The Coast Guard personnel hold up vehicles, including passenger coaches, for several hours on the pretext of checking.

The negotiations between the local administration of Gwadar and the protesters remained fruitless amid a lack of trust between the two sides.

Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2024

Saudis cool talk of ties with Israel as Gaza conflict widens

AFP Published September 22, 2024

A WOMAN and a child inspect the damage after the Israeli strike on a school housing displaced Palestinians in Gaza City’s Zaytoun neighbourhood on Saturday.—AFP


RIYADH: Just a year after ann­ouncing that diplomatic ties with Israel were getting closer, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince has shut down talk of normalisation as the Gaza conflict threatens to spread.

The tougher tone from Prince Mohammed bin Salman came the same day that exploding walkie-tal­k­ies killed members of Leba­n­on’s Hezbollah movement, again raising fears of a wider confrontation.

The Iran-backed group blamed Israel and has been exchanging fire with Israeli forces since October in support of Hamas.

The Saudis have previously made clear they want a path to a Palestinian state, but Prince Mohammed explicitly told the Shura Council on Wednesday that an “independent Palestinian state” is a condition for normalisation.

“We affirm that the kingdom (Saudi Arabia) will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without one,” he said.

According to Saudi government adviser Ali Shihabi, Riyadh’s position was always clear, even if “some had insinuated that it was flexible”. Prince Mohammed wanted to “eliminate any ambiguity” with his latest comments, he said.

Weeks earlier, Prince Mohammed had told US TV channel Fox News that “every day we get closer” to normalisation, although he added: “For us, the Palestinian issue is very important. We need to solve that part.”

Israel ties unthinkable, for now

The US has pushed the idea of Saudi-Israeli normalisation, hoping to give an incentive to Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the attacks on Gaza and at the same time gain a powerful Arab ally.

But after almost a year since the invasion of Gaza began, relations with Israel are simply unthinkable for the Saudi public, analysts say.

“The violence of the war and the atrocities committed against the Palestinians have killed the possibility that normalisation could be accepted by public opinion in Saudi Arabia,” said Rabha Saif Allam of the Cairo Centre for Strategic Studies.

According to Anna Jacobs of the International Crisis Group think tank, “Israel has crossed all the red lines and is trying to start a multi-front war, which will further destabilise the Middle East”.

Saudi Arabia initially opened talks on normalisation in an attempt to help calm the troubled region as it seeks to shift its oil-reliant economy to trade, business and tourism.

But a “spread of the conflict could affect development projects” and Saudi Arabia’s ability to attract investment, Allam said.

Prince Mohammed is now trying to “increase pressure on Israel and the US to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza”, Jacobs said.

Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2024