Archive Page 2
The Center for American Progress has released a new report on using technology to fight human rights abuses.
Sarah K. Dreier and William F. Schulz write about how mobile phones, social networks, satellite imagery, and DNA forensics can all be deployed to enhance and protect people’s rights.
Cell phones with photo capabilities convey images of human rights violations at a moment’s notice. Internet social networking tools enable activists to connect with one another and with sympathetic audiences to build worldwide networks for change. Electronic data analysis tools allow for vast amounts of information about human rights crimes to be collected and analyzed.
Among other measures, they call for Congress and the Obama administration to
- “Increase funding for scientific research and technology development that link to human rights.”
- “Increase the effectiveness of satellite imagery to document abuses by updating publicly available mapping databases” and increase “NGO access to commercial satellite imagery.”
- Develop “an ongoing, comprehensive effort to facilitate community monitoring. The U.S. government should commit to making satellite imagery of high-risk locations publicly available on a weekly basis.”
- “Support international prohibition of restrictions on cryptography.”
The authors also suggest that predictive modeling could provide early warning: “Scientists can … use advanced sensing technologies in tandem with predictive studies to identify regions at risk before they explode into conflict.”
Technology does not have to be cutting-edge to be highly useful:
Even a recycled, dated cell phone can be a significant boon to human rights and development. Every voter who believes that she or he has been inappropriately turned away from the polls can report that experience to the groups monitoring election violations.
It is clear from the report that creating more tools that support distributed human rights monitoring will be crucial, so that ordinary people can safely, secretly, and readily send calls, text, and images from mobile phones, which will shortly be truly ubiquitous.
To increase affordability, the report suggests that mobile networks in developing countries should provide “text messaging services to social change projects for little or no cost.”
Beyond the material in this report, use of technology for human rights might also be enhanced by:
- crowdsourced monitoring and research — enlisting remote volunteers to go through documents, monitor visual databases or live feeds, and other tasks (building on some early efforts by Amnesty International and others)
- crowdsourced geolocation tools to fill in more of the holes in global mapping they identify
- use of small, inexpensive UAVs in human rights work and related journalism
- deploying a dedicated NGO satellite — expensive but well within the budgets of, for instance, the Gates Foundation
(Image copyright FutureAtlas.com — usable with attribution and link)
Follow on Twitter: @Geofutures
Io9 has a useful review of George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years.
We’re in for the return of Cold War politics, the rise of new dominant powers, and a full-blown space war, according to a new book. What are the chances his dire predictions will come true?
In the details, the chances are virtually nil, of course. But this book should be judged more on the broad outlines than on the scenario particulars.
Suspiciously, it is the same future that Friedman always sees: 19th-century style realpolitik, with great powers contending violently for position. That is hardly inevitable, as ideological, economic, and military factors that enabled that environment are no longer in place. Great powers have not fought each other directly for over 50 years, a gap that cannot be found in previous centuries. Indeed, a variety of factors could tip the world toward full-blown peace in coming decades.
As for the details:
Conflict will arise between the United States, which, in his view, will remain the most powerful nation on the planet, and these new players. Friedman singles out three countries, in particular, that will become the next major powers during the 21st century: Turkey, Japan and Poland, with other nations, such as Mexico, becoming far more powerful in their respective regions.
Friedman’s casual dismissal of China, India, and Brazil should raise some eyebrows. He plausibly explains why Russia might falter, but seems to drop the others either to be deliberately contrarian, or out of deep faith in the determinative power of geography.
It is geography which seems to anoint Turkey, Japan, and Poland. Turkey bears watching, as this blog has noted. As for Poland and Japan, they suffer from the same demographic malady as Russia. Poland is embedded in the pacifying embrace of Europe, and is expected to lose two million people by 2030. Japan cannot be counted out, but is also shrinking already.
How will countries fight at mid-century?
Warfare will be characterized by air forces, robotic forces and enhanced soldiers, and will rely in electrical power grids and other resources as soldiers fight across new battlefields in Europe and Asia. Space will be a vital element, as it allows for communications and the ability to watch a battlefield from a better birds eye view.
That is not a bad forecast for conflict, though other paths are possible. Some would point to nanotechnologies and biotech weapons.
As for the overall book, as Io9 suggests, it is a better introduction to “realist” thinking than an actual guide to coming developments.
(Image by FutureAtlas.com — usable with attribution and link)
Follow on Twitter: @Geofutures
Zachary Karabell, author of Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World’s Prosperity Depends on It, spoke at New America Foundation this afternoon.
In discussing the deep mutual dependence of the US and Chinese economies, he suggested that two pathways are likely:
- China and the US might be like future EU members at mid-century, in proto-partnership, though no one is acting with that intention.
- China might be playing the role of the US in its relationship to the UK in early-mid 20th century, with the US fighting irrelevant fights (Iraq, Afghanistan) while China grows in power; it was ultimately the US that supplanted Britain, not Germany.
Other ideas of interest:
- It is not clear if global resources –- steel and oil, for instance –- could even support a much more prosperous China. Chinese demand is likely to drive up oil, copper, etc. prices in a few years.
- The chances are “almost nil” that China will follow Japan’s path, falling into stagnation. Japan was never as open to global commerce than China is; India is not as open as China either.
- China may be pleased with the American obsession with Iran, because that is something that it hardly cares about at all — it is always great to have one’s adversaries expending their energies at something that doesn’t matter to you.
(Image copyright Futureatlas.com — usable with link and attribution)
Follow on Twitter: @Geofutures
Radiolab recently asked the question, “Will humans ever stop fighting wars once and for all?” Passerby confronted with this query were skeptical, citing “human nature.”
Now, “once and for all” is an extreme criterion, but most people seem to take the question to mean, “Is peace possible? Might wars stop?” And a variety of factors suggest that this could happen, possibly within decades.
The drivers are diverse:
- Decline of violence — Violence is less tolerated globally, within cultures and between them. Behaviors in warfare that were routine a few decades ago — such as targeting civilians — are now deeply controversial. The number of states that engage in large-scale, serious human rights violations has also greatly declined, and abusers receive global attention. (See this Stephen Pinker article for more.)
- Decline of state-to-state warfare — The Catholic Church itself was more likely to engage in armed violence only a few centuries ago than are most dictatorships now. Even “civilized” states routinely attacked each other in the recent past, but this happens more and more rarely. (This is one reason the US invasion of Iraq was widely seen as such an aberration, and as morally repugnant.)
- Democracy and freedom — Both have been spreading in recent decades; even authoritarian states such as China have far more social freedom than they did in the past. This trend reduces pent-up frustration against governments that can result in violence, and provides outlets for self-determination, one of the more common causes of war.
- Transparency — Formal or crowdsourced media have an ever-growing reach, and fewer and fewer things will happen outside the reach of the camera lens. In a couple of decades, 80-90% of the world’s population will be carrying the equivalent of their own broadcast stations, upping the price to be paid in public opinion for those engaged in conflict or oppression.
- Rising wealth — Wealthy states are less violent, internally and externally. Middle classes are more educated, less likely to support authoritarianism, and have much more invested in stability. Setting aside artificial oil economies, no countries with a per capita income of more than $30,000 have significant human rights issues — and many countries are headed for that level of wealth in coming decades.
- Human nature — It is not a prohibitive obstacle. We need look no farther than Scandinavia: the same genetic pool that produced the Vikings, who engaged in savage violence from Greenland to Russia only a millennia ago, now yields peoples with essentially zero chance of waging aggressive war. Their genomes have probably barely changed: it is their social and physical environments that have shifted.
Peace is hardly inevitable, of course. Any number of factors could produce more rounds of wars:
- New or resurgent scarcities could pit nations against each other, fighting over energy or water, for example. Many forecast that climate change and population pressure could drive this result.
- Western values that have slowly evolved to make war less likely might be replaced in the international system by other perspectives as the 21st century wears on.
- A sufficiently serious calamity — peak oil combined with a severe climate shift, for instance — might rip away the social underpinnings of more peaceful societies, setting humanity back centuries.
- Humanity may begin to modify itself, creating new divisions; willingness to use genetic enhancement is one possibility.
Still, peace might break out, and it might do so relatively soon.
(Image courtesy cell105, Flickr)
Follow on Twitter: @Geofutures
Marian Salzman asked me and others to talk about re-branding the United States. These are extracts from two of her blog posts, about challenges and solutions.
My remarks:
Brand America is suffering from the hangover of the Bush years, which intensified perceptions of the U.S. as arrogant, violent, greedy, ignorant and self-interested. One of the tragedies of the Bush administration’s missteps was that about a billion people came of age during those eight years, forming their first impressions of the U.S.
One path to future reputation is making an impression on the vast cohorts of young people growing up now. We don’t want to battle the BRICs with our legacy strengths, the size of our economy and our military power, which are declining or sullied advantages. We can fight the challengers in areas where they have weaknesses and we are admired: freedom, egalitarianism, creativity and opportunity, for instance.
As Davids says below, diversity is another area of comparative advantage over the BRICs.
Keith Reinhard:
We have become an unwelcoming brand—with visa policies that discourage the best and the brightest from coming to study … We are not taking the lead in addressing challenges the global “market” most cares about—climate change being an important current example. America is still the leading nation brand. Surveys on innovation and competitiveness still rank us as No. 1. But other nation brands, like China, are gaining on us.
Our position as the world leader did not come overnight, and our brand recovery will take some time—maybe a generation.
Axle Davids:
A smart marketer would push diversity and inclusiveness for Brand America. Show us how you are a world nation, instead of acting like the standard-bearer for all nations.
N. Sedef Onder:
A global audience watched as we failed the most basic test of our authenticity during the recent financial crisis. A country built on the premise of capitalism, or the ability of anyone with any background to succeed based on individual effort, hard work and innovation simply failed to deliver on that promise.
Brand America was, and is still, a bit “drunk” on its faded glory as the pinnacle of opportunity and invention during the industrial age. We’ve yet to reinvent ourselves for the Brave New World. Understanding our role as international partners and working in collaboration with other nations will be critical to regaining respect and credibility.
Joy Donnell:
It seems all my overseas acquaintances felt America had gone rogue during the Bush administration and hoped our new president would signal a return to the world stage.
Michael Margolis:
What “big story” initiatives might the government introduce that bring to life how our country continues to fulfill the larger promise? What about a global entrepreneurship competition sponsored by the U.S. government, with both monetary prizes and immigration visas?
Several of those interviewed wisely point out that it is not about PR — real-world actions matter.
(Image courtesy Ctd 2005, Flickr)
China is about to become the world’s second-largest economy, supplanting Japan, the New York Times reports.
This “will bring an end to a global economic order that has prevailed for 40 years, with ramifications across arenas from trade and diplomacy to, potentially, military power,” the Times notes.
China is already the second-largest economy measured by purchasing power, of course. But as early as next year it could achieve this status at exchange rates as well, a crucial turning point, as it is a better measure of global economic clout.
China is projected to overtake the US in total purchasing power before 2020, the Times says. Then comes the big moment:
Based on current growth and currency trends, Mr. Kwan forecasts that the Chinese economy could surpass that of the United States in 2039. And that date could move up to 2026 if China lets its currency appreciate by a mere 2 percent a year.
Meanwhile, Japan is not faring as well:
China’s rise could accelerate Japan’s economic decline as it captures Japanese export markets, and as Japan’s crushing national debt increases and its aging population grows less and less productive — producing a downward spiral. “It’s beyond my imagination how far Japan will fall in the world economy in 10, 20 years,” said Hideo Kumano, economist at the Dai-Ichi Life Research Institute.
Japan is already fraying, by some standards:
Many here ask whether Japan is destined to be the next Switzerland: rich and comfortable, but of little global import, largely ignored by the rest of the world… The per-capita gross domestic product of Japan … stalled at $34,300 in 2007; it is now a quarter below American levels and 19th in the world. Both income inequality and poverty are on the rise.
No Japanese companies are now in the top 10 firms by market capitalization, and Japan’s largest, Toyota, is 22nd. Only 5 other Japanese companies are in the top 100.
Japan’s self-regard has taken a hit; a new poll finds Japanese to be the least proud of their country among 33 nations surveyed.
(Japanese self-image: tip from @Urbanverse)
(Image of Shanghai courtesy alexkost, Flickr)
The US is preparing to push for new sanctions against Iran in light of its nuclear program, aiming to interfere with Iranian trade more broadly.
A comprehensive sanctions approach has more chance of success than efforts so far, and Iran might be more susceptible to pressure in the wake of the post-election political and societal divides that have opened up. But analysts note that sanctions may be weakened by Russian and Chinese resistance, and that sanctions may simply may not be enough to change Iran’s course. One problem is that Iran is fixing one vulnerability, building up its capacity to refine gasoline.
Some US politicians are talking about regime change in Iran in place of more gradual measures. Sanctions might bring this about, but the US lacks leverage, and pushing for it might delegitimize the very forces that might replace the current government. In any case, regime change would not guarantee an end to the nuclear program: support for aspects of it is widespread among Iranians, and Iran’s strategic situation will remain largely the same.
A military strike is also put forward as plausible, but most analysts see it as at best a delaying tactic. It also has severe potential downsides:
- It might well mean an angrier, more aggressive Iran, possibly more determined to pursue nuclear weapons.
- A strike might rally the populace around the regime and even around the nuclear program, reducing the impact of sanctions or regime change.
- Iran has substantial ways to retaliate against the US, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond.
- If Israel carries out an attack, it runs the risk of turning the Iranian-Israeli struggle from a cold war to a hot one, increasing the danger to Israel in the medium- and long-term, especially when Iran acquires nuclear arms anyway.
Pew reports that most Mexicans see life in the US as better than that in Mexico, and 33% of Mexicans would like to come to the US. Some 18% would do so even if it were illegal.
They identify these issues as “very big” problems in Mexico:
- crime — 81%
- the economy — 75%
- illegal drugs — 73%
- corruption — 68%
That is a lot of people interested in a life in the United States, given that Mexico has a population of 111 million, of whom 68 million are over 19.
- 33% = 22 million adults
- 18% = 12 million adults
The poll was of adults over 18 generally, while likely immigrants would be concentrated among young adults, but they would tend to create chain migration that can bring in children and older people.
(Image copyright FutureAtlas.com — usable with attribution and link)
Russian-Ukrainian tensions are building. “Now, for the first time in years, the word ‘war’ is being used here, and it’s not dismissed as impossible,” Ukrainian analyst Valeriy Chaly told the Washington Post.
This is driven by specific issues, such as the Crimean issue, and by the larger Russian skepticism that Ukraine is a permanent, independent state.
Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, told the Post that the debate in Moscow “is between moderates who want to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and ensure that it continues delivering Russian gas, and officials calling for a proactive strategy aimed at ’soft dominance’ over the country.”
Either path could lead to greater instability, amongst Ukraine’s divided citizenry, and between the two countries.
Researchers are creating digitized versions of cities from thousands of photos that people have shared online, Physorg.com reports.
The program used 150,000 photos of Rome to create a 3-D digital rendering of the city, for instance.
This capability is another step toward truly open-source intelligence: publicly available images and other information will be able to generate increasingly detailed snapshots of places, people, and particular moments. And the ability to analyze this information will steadily democratize, and grow more powerful: Google is experimenting with facial recognition software that could reveal the locations and activities of millions of people who aren’t even the primary subject of a given photo, as just one example.
This idea has historic antecedents, by the way. During WW II, the OSS collected American’s tourist photos of Europe, cataloged them and made them partially machine-accessible, and used them to plan bombing raids. (Nicholson Baker, “Deadline,” New Yorker, July 24, 2000, 47.)
(Tip from @Changeist)
(Image: Creative Commons from gruntzooki, Flickr)