The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday issued notices to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) and the information ministry on a plea challenging the “ban” on social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
Access to X has been disrupted in many areas of Pakistan since February 17, when former Rawalpindi commissioner Liaquat Chattha accused the chief election commissioner and chief justice of Pakistan of being involved in rigging the February 8 general elections.
In a statement on Feb 29, monitoring website Downdetector said “metrics shows that X/Twitter remains restricted in Pakistan despite brief moments of availability”.
Rights bodies and journalists’ organisations have condemned the muzzling of social media, while internet service providers have also lamented losses due to disruptions. The United States had also called on Pakistan last month to lift restrictions on social media platforms.
The Sindh High Court (SHC) last month expressed displeasure on the disruption and instructed the PTA to restore X services “without any interruption or disruption”. However, services remain disrupted sporadically.
Today, IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq took up a plea challenging the restriction on X across the country. Lawyers Sardar Masroof and Amna Ali appeared before the court on behalf of the petitioner.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Farooq asked if X was down, to which Masroof replied: “The government has imposed a ban on X since February 17.”
The IHC chief justice then noted that the SHC had already issued an order on the matter. However, the counsel informed the court here that a contempt case was being heard over the failure to implement the SHC’s directives.
Subsequently, the IHC issued notices to the respondents, including the information ministry and the PTA, and adjourned the hearing till next week.
The plea
The petition was filed on Monday by Ehtisham Abbasi, a resident of Islamabad, and named the information ministry and the PTA as the respondents in the case.
It urged the high court to issue directives to the respondents to “immediately lift the ban on X (Twitter) access in the interest of justice”.
It argued that the “act of the respondents against journalists particularly in the recent past is highly violative” of Article 19 of the Constitution (freedom of speech).
Referring to the “very important fundamental right” as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution (inviolability of dignity of man, etc), the plea said that the “liberty of a person” was a “pivotal right and falls squarely within the ambit of right to life and dignity of a person”.
The petition asserted that the “impugned inaction of the respondents is deliberate, arbitrary, mala fide, without lawful authority” and “derogatory” to the provisions of the Constitution and the fundamental rights guaranteed therein.
It added that the “impugned inaction is patently void, ab initio, a contrived an untenable, misplaced, misdirected, unfounded, erroneous, contrary to the law and facts on the record”, and was liable to be set aside by the IHC.
The petitioner further argued that the disruption of X “suffers from serious legal infirmities as the same is not sustainable in view of the settled law” and that “a number of other constitutional and statutory rights have been infringed and circumvented”.
Soon after the results started pouring in following the Feb 8 general elections in Pakistan, several members of the US Congress, as well as the US State Department, expressed concern over alleged interference in the polls, with the former even calling on President Joe Biden not to recognise the incoming government until a transparent investigation into the allegations.
During a press briefing, White House spokesperson John Kirby emphasised the US administration’s vigilant observation of the Feb 8 elections in Pakistan, making his apprehensions about “intimidation and voter suppression” clear.
While it may appear that they are expressing valid concern, why is the US so deeply invested in the elections in Pakistan? And does this actually mean anything, particularly when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has brushed off the US statements by saying that the elections are an “internal sovereign affair”.
The answer to these questions lies in the history of the US-Pak relations.
To put it simply, the US and Pakistan have been through the entire spectrum of relationship stages — from moments of cooperation to periods swinging between indifference and outright hostility. This relationship has become entangled in domestic politics as much as it has in foreign policy. As a result, it has brought out the best and worst in the systems of both countries alike.
Significance of politics in shaping public policy
In the grand theatre of governance, where policies form scripts and politicians the directors, every decision becomes a gripping performance with high stakes and dramatic twists.
Policies, by their very nature, emerge as compromises with objectives that include but aren’t limited to the national interest. While the national interest often takes precedence, it is crucial to recognise that in the discourse surrounding any policy, the paramount consideration for the ruling establishment is how they can advance their personal political agenda.
This trend is particularly prevalent in advanced democracies, where electoral dynamics shape public policy. In such countries, politics have a profound impact on the policymaking process due to the influence of public opinion, facilitated by the 24/7 commercial TV, radio talk shows, the internet, and social media. Political activists, advocacy groups, lobbies, and special interest groups, including the influential military-industrial complex, contribute to this influence.
However, in weaker democracies, especially those lacking legitimacy, policy formulation is often dominated by the political interests of the ruling establishment. This results in policies that are convenient to implement, irrespective of whether they are beneficial or counterproductive. Within this spectrum, diverse combinations of policies and politics emerge, contingent upon the specific characteristics of each political system.
A perpetual gap tends to exist between policy decisions and public opinions, prompting leaders to strategically explain policies in a manner that appeals to public sentiment. This is often achieved through selective presentation of facts, disingenuous arguments, confusing the rhetoric, or tailoring different messages for different constituencies.
Governments, regardless of their political systems, wish to garner public approval for their actions and frame policies in the most politically advantageous manner. Aligning policy with politics poses a formidable challenge as public perceptions tend to be emotionally charged, especially in matters as sensitive as war.
Wars exact immense human and financial tolls, stir nationalism, and engage various stakeholders. In the context of war, governments face a daunting dilemma — either adhering to public opinion, potentially undermining strategic goals, or shaping policies to match public sentiments, risking long-term credibility.
The post-World War II history of America’s military engagements has shown a consistent trend — initiation of wars fuelled by public pressure, followed by difficulty in pulling out of them, especially from the failing ones as the government was afraid of political fallout.
Prime examples of this dilemma are the prolonged Vietnam War and the Afghanistan War. Exploring how these wars have influenced America’s relationships, especially with countries like Pakistan, is crucial for understanding their broader impact.
A relationship built on paradoxes and contradictions
Let’s zoom into the dynamics of the US-Pakistan relationship. The two countries have shared a complex bond, swaying between close-knit relations, at times even bearing the characteristics of the closest of allies and tense moments where Pakistan finds itself on the receiving end of sanctions.
At times, US leaders have showered praise on Pakistan, hailing it as a crucial ally, yet there have been instances of Washington casting aspersions on Islamabad. This seesawing of sentiments becomes even more puzzling when we reflect on how, historically, this relationship has served as a cornerstone for advancing crucial national interests of both nations and it holds the potential to continue doing so in the future.
The issue lies in the fact that the benefits derived from the relationship have come at great costs for both parties involved. There is also a substantial disparity between the policies guiding the relationship and the public’s perceptions of it. This gap, exacerbated by unusual fluctuations in their relationship, stems partly from the absence of a strategic consensus between the US and Pakistan and partly from a lack of permanence of US interests in South Asia.
This discrepancy has given rise to widespread misperceptions, rendering the relationship multifaceted and challenging for both sides to garner public support.
It’s safe to say that this bilateral relationship has been far from ordinary. Pakistan’s role in Washington’s eyes has been anything but steady. Its importance has waxed and waned, depending on the evolving interests of the US in the region, resulting in a dynamic where Pakistan either teams up with or stands against the US.
This nuanced relationship was particularly visible during the Afghanistan War when the two nations functioned as allies without a genuine sense of camaraderie, enemies without deep-seated animosity, and partners without a foundation of trust.
This still leaves us questioning how, despite these inherent contradictions, the US engaged in an extraordinary aid relationship with Pakistan, even when it seemingly lacked economic or strategic interests. The explanation extends beyond mere foreign policy considerations; there was a confluence of factors at play.
Pakistan’s assigned roles held significance not only from a strategic standpoint but also had significant political implications, particularly during events like the 1980s Afghan war, the post-9/11 conflict in Afghanistan, and the broader war on terrorism. Domestic politics weighs heavily on wars in any country. This holds especially true for the US.
Due to its crucial role as a partner in various wars, Pakistan found itself navigating an unusually extensive relationship with successive US administrations. This relationship was primarily steered by the White House, with support from the Pentagon and the CIA, focusing on military intelligence cooperation. Complicating matters further, military governments held power in Pakistan during this period, leading to a bypassing of the regular policymaking process.
However, the challenge of conveying this unique relationship to the American people who saw no grounds for such strong ties between the two countries persisted. In the initial stages, this challenge was addressed within the context of Cold War rhetoric, where Washington, driven by both domestic considerations and foreign policy needs, exaggerated the value of alliances and allies.
The relationship was oversold domestically, inflating Pakistan’s importance as an ally.
Regrettably, Pakistan misinterpreted the praise from American leaders, failing to recognise that it often constituted political statements thrown in the air rather than official policy. But in Pakistan, people took these words at face value. This led to the mistaken belief that the provision and volume of aid directly correlated with the strength of this relationship.
In response, Pakistan, for its domestic objectives, perpetuated this inflated image of being America’s ally — a move driven by the need to address local reservations about the relationship. Within Pakistan, segments of public opinion, political institutions, and the strategic community viewed this association as constraining the country’s foreign policy options.
Concerns were raised that the US connection had strengthened the military, elevating its political influence and impeding Pakistan’s path toward democratisation.
From strategic partners to strategic rivals
Due to the mutual exaggeration in both, the rationale and the quality of the US-Pakistan relationship, as well as the perceptions held by Pakistanis were distorted, leading to a disconnect between reality and public sentiment when the US distanced itself from Pakistan in 1965. Despite public disappointment, the official stance from Pakistan expressed a lingering favourability towards Washington, rooted in a dependency that had developed over time.
This dependency on the US was shaped by a combination of policy and politics. From a policy perspective, Pakistan sought political and diplomatic support from the US, even in a less-than-close relationship.
The need to turn to a major power for assistance, especially due to its influence in International Financial Institutions (IFIs), and the importance of the US as a trading partner and potential mediator in the India-Pakistan crisis further solidified this dependency. During the first engagement (1954-1965), the US indeed helped the state’s survival and stabilisation, raising its potential for progress. But that was the last time America helped Pakistan.
The dynamics of US-Pakistan ties from the 1980s onward became predominantly conflict-oriented, centering around the Afghan wars and the war against terrorism. Unfortunately, these wars were characterised by flawed strategies, and in some cases, were deemed unnecessary, causing considerable harm to Pakistan.
Despite the adverse consequences, Pakistan found itself compelled to maintain the relationship due to the aforementioned policy considerations.
Since emerging as a superpower, the US has often engaged in wars with impulsive entrances and exits, resulting in repercussions for both itself and its allies. These conflicts were triggered by inflated confidence in its military prowess and influenced by domestic political interest groups, as elucidated in Jack Snyder’s work, “Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition.”
Moreover, Stephen Walt, a renowned American academic and author, noted that some leaders initiate wars to preserve their power or leave a lasting legacy, while various interest groups advocate for war to bolster their influence, increase profits, or further specific causes. Walt’s assertion gains credence through reports suggesting that Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s election strategist, advised the President that the Iraq War would benefit his chances of reelection.
Given the Americans’ own historical experience, going to war comes naturally to them. They do not consider any moral qualms or contemplate how wise it is to launch a war, almost as if an American war is an inherent extension of their national ethos — a default solution to global conflicts.
Therefore, when faced with setbacks, the discourse rarely revolves around questioning the fundamental merit of the war; rather, the focus shifts to minimising losses and making swift exits. This pattern creates a cycle where Americans find themselves pulling in and out of wars without a clear understanding of the rationale behind initiating them in first place.
Pakistan had become a victim of the worst feature of the US foreign policy — its propensity to go to war. But America too suffered from the weakening relations as it was dominated by elements in Pakistan that had strategic ambitions that clashed with US interests. And whose need to stay in power or dominate it made it sensitive to public opinion and limited the cooperation it gave to Washington.
This added an ironic twist to the dynamics of the bilateral relationship as it was America’s support for the military that enabled it to gain political primacy in Pakistan.
Were past military rules in Pakistan orchestrated by Washington?
It is no secret that the strength of US-Pakistan relations has been most pronounced during periods of military rule, with substantial economic and military aid. At the same time, this was perceived as undermining democratic institutions. However, contrary to popular belief, attributing direct American influence to prolonged military interventions requires a more nuanced understanding of the circumstances.
Pakistanis believe that the US has preferred a certain kind of government in Pakistan, specifically a military regime, to safeguard its security and strategic interests. The idea is that since the lifespan of such regimes aligns with their relationship with the US, Washington must have played a role in both — bringing them to power and removing them when they were no longer needed.
Contrary to this narrative, the reality lies in the fact that the US collaborated more effectively with the military due to historical factors that coincide with America’s interests in Pakistan. From the outset, the nature of the relationship made the military a central player. Apart from the strategic importance of the army and the country’s geopolitical location, Pakistan’s value to Washington was limited. And that was not all.
Washington’s need for Pakistan was also sporadic, impermanent, and coincidentally; whenever the need for Pakistan arose, the military was already in power in some form or another.
Are Pakistan’s puppet strings in America’s hand?
Simply put, Washington did not orchestrate the rise of military governments to power, a fact obvious in the cases of Zia and Musharraf. Even in the era of Ayub Khan, while Washington may have tacitly accepted martial law or potentially played a role in its initiation, it did not orchestrate it.
The relationship between Pakistan and Washington is not a manifestation of direct control by the US but rather stems from Pakistan’s dependence on it. Whether under civilian or military rule, both were dependent on Washington, serving as an external pillar to the elite-led civil-military oligarchy in Pakistan. This model benefited the ruling establishment, albeit with limitations for Pakistan.
Dismissing the myth that nothing moves in Pakistan without America’s approval, it’s important to note that Washington doesn’t tell Pakistan which policies to implement or whom to appoint. The relationship between a dependent elite-led system and an external benefactor has naturally led to policies that favour both — the ruling government and the benefactor, often at the expense of the country’s interests.
In cases where Pakistan’s fundamental interests clashed with US interests, Islamabad, to the credit of both civilian and military leadership, defended its policies by standing up to Washington. The nuclear programme and relations with China are examples of such instances. America had to make peace with it. And its relationship with Pakistan continued.
While Washington doesn’t explicitly dictate Pakistan’s policies, it also refrains from dictating key appointments, such as those of the foreign minister or the finance minister. The ruling government in Pakistan though, ensures that those who are appointed are favoured by the US and formulate policies that are not in contention with American interests. This understanding remains unspoken and implicit.
The fundamental reality is that through the years, both the US and Pakistan found themselves mutually dependent. They each had reasons to cooperate and the power to resist the other’s influence. The crucial difference lies in Pakistan being consistently in need of the relationship, compared to America’s temporary need for it.
There also existed a lack of agreement between the two countries regarding the terms of their interaction, given the global focus of Washington’s interests was in contrast with Pakistan’s regional concerns. It’s worth noting that the US lacked a coherent South Asia policy until the late 90s, and when it finally emerged, the primary emphasis was on the US-India relationship.
Consequently, each interaction between the US and Pakistan seemed to function as a standalone event, highlighting the cynicism of the relationship.
Anti-Americanism and conspiracy theories
The political landscape in Pakistan has undergone significant transformations due to globalisation, increased connectivity, educational advancements, civil society emergence, cultural intermingling, the internet and media revolution, and economic opportunities.
These factors have contributed to heightened political consciousness among Pakistanis and other developing nations, spurring nationalism and aspirations to achieve true democracy. Both the domestic system of governance and the international order led by the US are facing challenges, with Washington’s support for the ruling government exacerbating its waning popularity.
The leadership finds itself caught between an assertive, nationalistic population and a self-absorbed America. Washington often jeopardises this delicate balance, alienating the people in the process. The consequences are twofold, resulting in increased disapprobation for both the leadership and the US.
The rising anti-American sentiment is reshaping relations with the US and influencing domestic politics in Pakistan. Governments leverage their American connections for financial and diplomatic support, while the opposition exploits anti-Americanism to delegitimise those in power.
Notable instances include the campaign against Musharraf, which used anti-Americanism to stir public sentiment against him for his pro-Washington policies and Imran Khan’s campaign against the sitting governments before he rose to power.
Was Washington involved in the removal of Imran Khan from power? This raises important questions about the dynamics behind his ousting. Were the actions driven by internal forces within Pakistan, or did external factors, particularly from Washington, play a role? Throughout history, Pakistan’s political dynamics have operated relatively independently, with domestic influences being the primary catalyst for changes in government.
It appears that the US has shifted away from engaging in coup activities. While the US continues to pursue its interests in other countries, the idea of covertly manipulating and overthrowing governments is now questionable.
In cases like Pakistan, where the US has important but not critical interests, it seeks to exert influence through established diplomatic channels, often using coercive language. The US may exploit a regime’s vulnerabilities without necessarily orchestrating a change or issuing explicit threats of change.
It is believed that the relationship between the army and the former prime minister had deteriorated, particularly concerning the appointment of the director-general of the ISI. The primary reason was the potential disruption of the civil-military balance of power by then prime minister Imran Khan.
The security establishment was reluctant to give up control over critical foreign policy matters traditionally within its domain. The immediate concern was the potential strain on relations with the US and other key allies like Saudi Arabia, which could adversely affect institutional and national interests.
While both the US and Saudi Arabia reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with Imran Khan’s policies, the military — Washington’s main ally — was also discontent. However, this begs the question: was there a need to seek American involvement to address the situation? If the US shared similar concerns, would it not have simply observed the situation unfold?
By early 2022, it became evident that those with reasons to remove Imran Khan could do so without external assistance. The game of political manoeuvring, where politicians often allowed external influences, had been played successfully for decades. In this scenario, the interests of the US and the Pakistani establishment aligned, rendering Washington’s direct intervention unnecessary.
Bottom line
Criticising the US necessitates a parallel scrutiny of its Pakistani counterparts, notably figures like Zia and Musharraf. It’s imperative to acknowledge that Washington did not take anything from Pakistan that the latter did not give of its own accord.
While Pakistani leaders may have failed to serve the people over the years, they have fought battles to culminate a system that protects their interests. The idea of ‘Pakistan’ under their rule, is a product owned and operated by them, not beholden to foreign influences.
While maintaining ties with the US is crucial, there is a need to readjust the terms of engagement that is contingent upon efforts from both Pakistan and the US. Islamabad needs to recognise that a weak and dependent Pakistan undermines its negotiating position. Simultaneously, Washington must grasp that the people of Pakistan should be able to feel the benefits of the relationship for it to garner sustained public support in the country.
Ultimately, both parties must realise that the traditional model wherein the leaders reap benefits at the expense of the population is no longer tenable.
ISLAMABAD: The state-owned electronic media on Monday continued blocking speeches made by members of National Assembly (MNAs) belonging to the opposition. However, the authorities concerned expressed ignorance about the decision to black out the opposition.
Leaders of PTI, who are sitting under the banner of Sunni Itehad Council (SIC) in the lower house of parliament, have announced to submit a privilege motion against Pakistan Television (PTV).
Speaking in the National Assembly on Monday morning before Shehbaz Sharif took oath as the prime minister, Omer Ayub conveyed his concerns to the speaker and said the state media was discriminating against them.
“My speech was not aired by PTV while I was making a speech yesterday (Sunday) as a candidate for the slot of prime minister,” Mr Ayub said, adding: “This was despite the fact that not a single word from my speech was expunged by the speaker. The question is why Shehbaz Sharif’s speech was aired directly.” He also announced to submit a privilege motion against the PTV.
SIC legislators to file privilege motion against state-owned electronic media
Incidentally, after his speech, there was a total blackout of Mehmood Khan Achakzai and Akhtar Mengal whereas there were repeated blockades and interruptions by PTV when Asad Qaiser was given the floor. Their speeches were not only censured on the PTV telecast but also PTV’s channel on social media.
The privilege motion against PTV will be referred to the NA committee on rules and privileges after it will be formed.
Later in his speech, PPP Chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari referred to the complaint of Omar Ayub that the opposition members’ speeches were not being broadcast on the state-run TV.
He said: “We should not continue this tradition [of censorship] set by Khan sahib. We have to make decisions that strengthen this house and brighten the country’s future.”
He said our colleagues would have been able to listen to the prime minister’s speech if they had not been protesting.
On the other hand, no authority acknowledged responsibility for the blackout of coverage.
Murtaza Solangi was the caretaker minister for information and broadcasting till the oath-taking of Mr Sharif as prime minister on Monday afternoon.
When he was asked about the reasons for the blackout of the speeches by the MNAs belonging to the opposition, Mr Solangi said the PTV managing director was the responsible person to answer the query. However, there was no reply either from the secretary information or the PTV chief.
Shazia Syed, the former CEO of Unilever Pakistan, has been named in a Forbes list again — this time for the 100 Most Powerful Businesswomen 2024.
She, who is currently the general manager for Unilever’s operations in North Africa, Iraq, Levant, and Arabia, had previously been recognised as one of the top executives in the Middle East in 2023.
Emerging from Abbottabad, Syed embarked on her professional journey as a Management Trainee at Unilever Pakistan, swiftly climbing the corporate ladder and slipping into leadership roles across Pakistan and Unilever’s global spectrum in Marketing, Sales, and General Management.
From leading Unilever’s Personal Care in Vietnam to steering as CEO in Sri Lanka and later ascending as the global Executive Vice President for Unilever’s Beverage empire, Syed’s trajectory is a tale of unparalleled success.
She has also advocated for women’s empowerment and advancement in the dynamic world of business — both in Pakistan and beyond.
In a post on LinkedIn, Syed said she was “delighted to be recognised” by Forbes and share the space with “99 other brilliant thought leaders and change-makers of the region.”
“To me, personally, it’s a wonderful reminder of boldly championing my values in my personal and professional leadership journey,” she said.
“I am humbled and proud to represent Unilever and deeply grateful to every person in the organization who has contributed to my journey of enabling change both internally and externally.”
Three Indian men have appeared in court after the gang rape of a Spanish tourist on a motorbike trip with her husband, with police hunting four other suspects, reports have said.
The attack took place on Friday night in eastern India in Jharkhand state’s Dumka district, where the couple were camping.
A total of seven men are accused of carrying out the brutal assault.
“We have formed a team to hunt the remaining suspects,” senior local police officer Pitamber Singh Kherwar told AFP.
On Sunday, three accused were seen being escorted into court with sacks on their heads by police officers holding ropes tied around their waists. The three were later remanded in custody.
The Spanish woman and her husband were also in court.
“We have to ensure strict punishment,” Kherwar said, the Press Trust of India (PTI) news agency reported Monday.
Kherwar said a special team including forensic officers had been formed to scour the scene of the attack, while another team was hunting more suspects.
“They are constantly raiding places,” Kherwar said in PTI’s report. “We will soon arrest the remaining accused.” An average of nearly 90 rapes a day were reported in India in 2022, according to data from the National Crime Records Bureau.
However, large numbers go unreported due to prevailing stigmas around victims and a lack of faith in police investigations.
Convictions remain rare, with cases getting stuck for years in India’s clogged-up criminal justice system.
The notorious gang rape and murder of an Indian student made global headlines in 2012.
Jyoti Singh, a 23-year-old physiotherapy student, was raped, assaulted and left for dead by five men and a teenager on a bus in New Delhi in December that year.
The horrific crime shone an international spotlight on India’s high levels of sexual violence and sparked weeks of protests, and eventually a change in the law to introduce the death penalty for rape.
Jennifer spent her weekend calling California voters, urging them to cast their ballot in Tuesday’s primary election for Democrat Peter Dixon.
But unlike her human counterparts, Jennifer is a creation of artificial intelligence (AI), allowing her to make thousands of calls without taking a break or losing her cool.
“Hello there. My name is Jennifer and I’m an artificial intelligence volunteer,” she says, immediately declaring her identity in calls to Silicon Valley voters in the US congressional race.
In her slightly robotic-sounding voice — intentionally designed to make it clear she is not human — she introduces the candidate, asks questions and responds to those she gets from voters, all in a surprisingly natural tone.
“I’m wondering why a person hasn’t called me today,” Dixon’s operations manager Austin Madden asks her during a demonstration call for AFP.
“My apologies if I missed that point earlier,” Jennifer replies without missing a beat.
“The reason an AI like me is calling instead of a real person is to help the campaign reach more people efficiently, allowing human volunteers to focus on areas where personal interaction is crucial.” Dixon only recently began using Jennifer, the product of start-up Civox.
At first “we were skeptical,” said Dixon, a Marine veteran and cybersecurity entrepreneur. “And so we tested it.”
‘People were shocked’
His staff expected results would be “a mixed bag.” Instead, “People were shocked at how good the capability was,” Dixon said from his company’s headquarters in Palo Alto, sitting before a computer screen showing clips from his campaign.
In one of the videos, images alternate between reality (Dixon holding his young daughter) and sequences in which the background (the Afghan war) and his outfit are artificially generated — and presented as such.
Peter Dixon, a Silicon Valley congressional candidate, poses in his campaign office on February 29, 2024 in Palo Alto, California.—Photo by Amy Osborne / AFP
The point, he said, was to “show that we are comfortable not just understanding these tools, but… using them in an ethical, responsible and transparent way.”
Stunning progress in AI in the past year and the appearance of generative AI programs like ChatGPT — which produce text, images and sounds on demand and in everyday language — have sparked tremendous enthusiasm but also grave concerns about potential risks, including lost jobs, intellectual property theft and fraud.
“I’m terrified about all of that,” Dixon admitted.
But he would rather see the US “continue to lead in how we use it, and figure out how to write the rules of the road ourselves, as opposed to having another country like China” doing so.
Ilya Mouzykantskii co-founded Civox partly to sharpen the focus on “the intersection of artificial intelligence and politics.”
“We are already in a future,” he said, where politicians are “using artificial intelligence tools to develop policy and to make decisions” — without necessarily announcing that they are doing so.
“Maybe that is the benevolent technocracy that we are hurtling towards,” Mouzykantskii said. “But we shouldn’t end up there accidentally, and we shouldn’t end up there without consent.”
‘The best technology’
In the future, said Adam Reis, Civox’s other co-founder, “it’s not going to be the best-funded campaigns necessarily that have an unfair advantage. It’s going to be the ones with the best technology.”
Reis said he had long been working to create AI “characters” with whom he could have believable dialogues. The arrival of generative AI made that much easier.
But, he added, “We’ve discovered that the mechanics of conversations and of speech are actually much, much more difficult than the content of what is said.” To be truly convincing, an AI character needs to speak fluidly, understand and react quickly, and know both when to interrupt and when to allow an interruption — all difficult challenges.
Adam Reis, co-founder and CTO of Civox, poses for a photo during an interview with AFP in San Francisco, California, on March 1, 2024. —AFP
“Some people try to trick the system,” said Patrick McNally, Civox’s field director. “But the bot is very good at bringing it back to policy… sometimes to a point a human wouldn’t even be able to.”
In January, an automated program that called voters using an AI-generated voice of President Joe Biden heightened concerns about massive disinformation enabled by the novel technology in an election year. US authorities subsequently banned the use of such “cloned” voices, to combat political or commercial fraud.
But that does not affect Jennifer or her counterparts using Civox technology. For they don’t pretend to be something — or someone — they aren’t.
Around 170 people were “executed” in attacks on three villages in northern Burkina Faso a week ago, a regional prosecutor said on Sunday as religious violence flares in the junta-ruled country.
On that same day, February 25, separate attacks on a mosque in eastern Burkina and a Catholic church in the north left dozens more dead.
Aly Benjamin Coulibaly said he had received reports of the attacks on the villages of Komsilga, Nodin and Soroe in Yatenga province on February 25, with a provisional toll of “around 170 people executed”.
The attacks left others wounded and caused material damage, the prosecutor for the northern town of Ouahigouya added in a statement, without apportioning blame to any group.
He said his office ordered an investigation and appealed to the public for information.
Survivors of the attacks told AFP that dozens of women and young children were among the victims.
Local security sources said the attacks were separate from deadly incidents that happened on the same day at a mosque in the rural community of Natiaboani and a church in the village of Essakane.
Authorities have yet to release an official death toll for those attacks but a senior church official said at the time that at least 15 civilians were killed in that attack.
Burkina Faso has been grappling with a violent insurgency waged by rebels affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group that spilt over from neighbouring Mali in 2015.
The violence has killed almost 20,000 people and displaced more than two million in Burkina Faso, one of the world’s poorest countries situated in the Sahel, a region wracked by instability.
Anger at the state’s inability to end the insecurity played a major role in two military coups in 2022. Current strongman Ibrahim Traore has made the fight against rebel groups a priority.
‘Coordinated’ attacks
There were several attacks on February 25, notably against a military detachment in Tankoualou in the east, a rapid response battalion in Kongoussi in the north and soldiers in the northern region of Ouahigouya.
In response, the army and members of the Volunteers for the Defence of the Fatherland (VDP), a civilian force that supports the military, launched operations that were able “to neutralise several hundred terrorists”, according to security sources.
At the beginning of the week, Security Minister Mahamadou Sana described the wave of attacks as “coordinated”.
“This change in the enemy’s tactical approach is because terrorist bases have been destroyed as well as training camps and actions were carried out to dry up the enemy’s source of financing, as well as its supply corridors,” said Sana.
Mosques and imams have in the past been the target of attacks blamed on religious extremists.
Churches in Burkina have also at times been targeted and Christians have been kidnapped.
The ACLED analysis group says that 439 people were killed in such violence in January alone.
