Author Archives: markdowe1

Afghanistan, Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, NATO, Politics, United States

Afghanistan must not be allowed to slip back into its old ways…

AFGHANISTAN

Intro: As British troops prepare to exit Afghanistan after more than 12 years of bitter fighting, a bilateral agreement between Afghanistan and the West will be needed to prevent the Taliban becoming a major political force again. That would ensure our sacrifices have not been made in vain

Task Force Helmand, the military campaign to bring stability to the south of Afghanistan, ended this week with US Marines assuming responsibility for the province. Whilst it may be argued that the British mission has not been an overwhelming success, some of what has been done has led to tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary Afghans – particularly in education, health care and security. Some 350,000 Afghans have been trained by western forces in a policy designed to allow them to take full control of their own security.

Related:

The conflict in Afghanistan has lasted more than 12 years – a bitter war that has resulted in the loss of 448 British lives, with thousands more that have suffered serious injury. It will be with a collective sigh of relief that Britain’s military engagement in southern Afghanistan is now finally drawing to a close. Following a two minutes silence for the fallen this week, it was fitting that the presiding padre overseeing the religious ceremony paid tribute to our ‘bravest and best’ that had ‘borne the cost of freedom for others.’

Despite areas of progress that have been made much of the country is still threatened by the Taliban-led insurgency. With this is mind, there will be many who will question just how much has actually been achieved in Helmand province and elsewhere. The amount of treasure plundered, in terms of human sacrifice and the enormous amounts of money expended, has been a high price to pay. The words used in 2006 by John Reid, the then defence secretary, that British troops would be able to complete their mission ‘without a single shot being fired’ have turned out to be complete balderdash when compared now to the actuality of events on the ground over the past 12 years. However, the intensity and ferocity of the fighting, often with ill-equipped and under-manned British troops in a desperate battle for survival, has led the British commander of UK forces, Brigadier James Woodham, to conclude that we ‘have given the Afghans a chance.’

That, no-doubt is the case, but Afghanistan still has a long way to go before it reaches anything approaching long-term stability. This weekend, the country will hold its third presidential elections since western forces overthrew the Taliban led government in 2001. Hamid Karzai, the country’s unpredictable and impulsive president, is ineligible to run, but the outcome of the election could provide an opportunity for Western governments to agree terms with Kabul in maintaining their support for Afghanistan’s fledgling security forces, once all NATO combat operations conclude at the end of this year. Mr Karzai has refused to sign a bilateral security agreement with Washington – the objective of which would be for the US and its allies to remain in a supporting role beyond 2014, as well as providing financial assistance – which, undoubtedly, will be needed if Afghanistan is not to slip back into its old ways. If the Taliban were to re-establish itself as a major political force the country could quickly become a safe haven again for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

Standard
Arts, Business, Consumer Affairs, Economic, Government, Society, Technology

Internet privacy and the need for firms to profit…

BIG DATA

The next phase of the internet revolution will concern Big Data. Coupled with that will be a ‘Big Debate’ about privacy.

Big Data, a Californian gold rush for the internet age, is all about the potential of the vast quantities of data generated online. It is only now that the brainboxes of Silicon Valley are beginning to harvest, store, transfer and analyse in ways that could prove extremely valuable to companies and governments among others.

Silicon Valley is well known for its liberal sprinkling of fledging firms whose business models are built around Big Data. AdParlour, for instance, set up in 2008 by young entrepreneur Hussain Fazal, is designed to build an advertising network for Facebook.

Whereas traditional advertising is transmitted to those who are not remotely interested as well as to prime potential customers, the new generation and streams of ads can be targeted at people based on personal data gleaned from their online activities.

As Fazal says: ‘Almost everywhere you go on the web, you are being tracked.’

The difficulty for companies such as Facebook, which styles itself as a trendy firm in tune with users, is that increasing numbers of people are uncomfortable with having their every online move observed and used for commercial gain.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a prominent article headlined ‘Give Me Back My Online Privacy’, which highlighted findings by the Pew Research Centre suggesting more than half of Americans are concerned about the amount of personal data online. Potentially there is big money in all that minutiae about our lifestyles and shopping habits.

The anecdotal evidence is important to note. The annual value to Facebook of an American woman who is a light user of the site is just over $12. This doesn’t sound a lot until you multiply this by the millions of users and factor in those online advertising techniques – many of which are still in their infancy – and are likely to become more sophisticated and effective over time.

The public mood among Americans about being watched online is more sensitive than it is in the UK following the revelations about the National Security Agency. Many Britons, though, do feel a sense of unease at the snooping of their personal data, and how the information may be exploited.

From the corporate point of view, probing into customer lifestyles and behaviours is not a novelty. Firms have always, and quite legitimately, wanted to know as much as they can about consumers, so they can target their products and prices to best advantage.

Loyalty cards have been tracking people’s purchases and giving stores information on shopping habits for years. Credit scoring for loans and plastic cards, which monitors behaviour in terms of how, when and whether people repay their debts, has also been a feature of the commercial landscape for some time.

At the moment, the use of Big Data to target ads is relatively crude, which is why those spawned by your previous purchases often miss the mark.

At this point in time, however, it is only scratching the surface. Once the so-called ‘internet of things’, where everyday objects are connected to the internet, takes hold, even your fridge will be tracking your habits, making known all about your clandestine food intake. Privacy is not an absolute, but a concept that changes according to time and place.

The internet is redefining some existing social norms: the generation that grew up with the internet and those that come after may be comfortable sharing information their parents and grandparents would have considered wholly personal.

At the moment, it would seem that many users either do not know or do not care that they might be giving away valuable information about themselves online. The online economy has unarguably brought significant consumer benefits.

Shoppers can easily compare prices and obtain the best deals, and can buy goods from anywhere in the world. Users value their experiences on Facebook and Twitter and may feel the surrender of some personal data is a price worth paying.

Set against that is the reality that the details of our day to day lives, hobbies, friendships, work and interests, is being mined by companies as if it were just another commodity.

Yet, it is an exchange in which the terms of the deal are not clear – we have no way of knowing how valuable our personal information might be to companies, and whether the benefits we receive in return are a fair deal.

The debate about privacy and commercial profit will become more pressing as the online world becomes smarter.

Standard
Economic, Europe, Government, History, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

America has a role in supporting Europe. It isn’t about to turn its back…

AMERICA & EUROPE IN COUNTERING THE THREAT FROM RUSSIA

A European crisis has, once again, brought the ambitions of a second-term American president into the sharp light of day. Mr Obama could never have wished that he would land in Europe with the sole task of rallying some of his country’s oldest allies against the expansionist threats posed by Vladimir Putin of Russia. And yet, this is precisely the situation Barack Obama finds himself in.

Mr Obama arrived in The Hague and described Europe’s idiosyncratic collection of comatose economies as the ‘cornerstone of America’s engagement with the world’. His presence was enough to underline the realities of a new and emerging Cold War message: one to which America remains the ultimate guarantor of European security.

Whatever the intrinsic American wishes are, America cannot abdicate from that role. While history may reflect back the words of Franklin Roosevelt who pledged that America would never send US troops to fight in Europe, or even during Mr Obama’s own reign in office when he pronounced America’s ‘pivot’ and orientation towards Asia, Putin’s provocative stance and actions in Crimea has made such a profound difference to how the US reflects upon Europe. The United States accepts that the threats posed by Russia are serious and interconnected, and is turning away from the Pacific to behave in a way that every president from Truman to Reagan would have recognised.

Predicting what Putin will do next to enhance and strengthen his Russian Federation is difficult to determine. As a former KGB officer, he knows the high value placed on keeping his intentions as mysterious and covert as possible.

Psychology is also at play. The flint-eyed incumbent of the Kremlin strongly believes that Mr Obama is a president motivated far more by what is happening in the Pacific. To Mr Putin’s eye Barack Obama is a leader that is fundamentally uninterested in Europe and viscerally reluctant to use force of any kind. The Russian leader observed how Mr Obama steered clear of intervening in Libya by allowing Britain and France to claim the credit for toppling the Gaddafi regime. America’s role in that campaign was leadership from the back, rather than the front dynamism many would otherwise have expected.

And no-doubt the Kremlin hardliner would have taken special note when Bashar al-Assad made a mockery over Mr Obama’s ‘red lines’ and gassed hundreds of innocent Syrian civilians without paying a military price.

Mr Putin may even have thought this was an American president who could be pushed around. The disarmament treaty with Moscow, signed in 2010, for example, imposed far greater cuts on the US arsenal than was made to the Russian inventory.

Russia has remained committed in driving a wedge between Europe and America. Along with its actions in Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated the compelling necessity of NATO and the Atlantic Alliance. Such miscalculations may even impel Europe to realise the mistakes of continuously running down its defences.

America and Europe seem certain to respond with skill and resolve. Such a partnership can only make the world a safer place.

Standard