Archives for December 2020

Is it right to separate humanity from warfare? Governments and organizations across the world have been struggling with this question throughout the 21^st century, as technological advancement has increasingly removed people from the reality of war. This progress is culminating in what is called autonomous weapon systems, or AWS. Imagine if, for example, drones could identify targets autonomously, without the need of a human operator, and actually act upon this information. This is a future that major actors in international security and defense are grappling with as it rapidly approaches.

Clearly, these weapon systems bring a whole host of ethical issues to the table. What is an acceptable amount of accuracy? Who gets to evaluate the performance of these systems? Should we really allow the removal of humans and, more importantly, our empathy from the act of killing? With these questions in mind, countries and organizations from across the world have come out to address their concerns with these systems. The proposed approaches differ, with a core group of countries advocating for an outright ban while the United States and others have refused to commit to one.

It needs to be stressed that these systems are not a reality. No country or company has developed an AWS but with the rapid progress of machine learning technologies and the massive boom in investment, nations need to realize that this matter needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. And that’s the crux of the issue: countries have been stagnant in facilitating meaningful conversations on either a ban or regulatory approach. There have been several conferences but no meaningful progress has been made and there’s a clear reason – there is no standard legal definition to identify AWS.

It’s daunting to develop a definition for a (currently) theoretical system, but countries like the US and China have submitted one. Unfortunately, these definitions vary significantly and much of that has to do with what seems to be intentional ambiguity. As countries propose their definitions without real commitment from other nations, loopholes are being included to allow for their own continued advancement. That’s the problem – a lack of serious commitment has perpetuated a myriad of definitions that are often too vague. We’ve seen from previous weapons agreements, like the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), that regulatory success is rooted in extensive definitions that allows for actual international collaboration. Unfortunately for AWS, the conversation has now shifted from classifying these systems to whether or not to ban them, which is a clear contradiction – without a standard way of identifying these systems, a ban is hopeless.

The conversation of whether or not to ban these systems is an altogether different topic. Personally, I believe a regulatory approach is needed. The massive influx of money in machine learning is quickly turning into an arm race that can likely only be mitigated through regulation. Whether you believe in a regulatory approach or an outright ban, the first step towards either is creating standardization in identifying and classifying these systems. This is going to require serious commitment from the US and other nations but is crucial in averting devastation beyond comprehension.

Amid his unending attack on the democratic process, President Trump tweeted yesterday that “our two GREAT friends Israel and the Kingdom of Morocco have agreed to full diplomatic relations – a massive breakthrough for peace in the Middle East!”. The announcement of normalization between Israel and Morocco marks the fourth normalization agreement between Israel and an Arab nation this year. Hailed as one of Trump’s most significant foreign policy achievements, the normalization agreements have profound consequences for the Middle East and the United States’ role in the region.

Until 2020, the only two formal agreements between Israel and an Arab Nation were the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty (1978) and the Israel–Jordan Peace Treaty (1994). These two agreements were momentous. Both agreements ended decades of military conflict and established the framework for future peace and normalization agreements. The Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty earned Egyptian Prime Minister Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin Noble Peace Prizes, and the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty is widely considered as the only successful agreement of the 1990s peace process. Although consequential, the peace treaties are “cold” agreements where full diplomatic and economic normalization has yet to materialize.

The recent normalization agreements between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco are the first peace or normalization agreements between Israel and an Arab nation in over twenty years. Each agreement is unique in its formation and historical context; however, all agreements contain four similar elements. First, recognition of sovereignty. The agreements call for mutual recognition of sovereignty and thus legitimize the Israeli claim to statehood. Second, diplomatic and economic normalization. The agreements set up steps for diplomatic exchange and further economic cooperation. Third, security coordinaton. The agreements along with verbal commitments have promised increased security coordination to counter regional threats (e.g. Iran). Fourth, the Palestinian cause. Each agreement articulates a joint Israel-Arab commitment to Palestinian peace. The agreements pave the way for a more robust Israeli-Arab economic and political relationship.

Although Israel already maintained some sort of relationship with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco before normalization, the agreements still have major implications for each nation and the region. The significance is threefold.

First, Iran. Iran has relied on the disunited nature of Israel, the United States, and the Arab nations to maintain influence in the region (e.g. Yemen, Syria, etc.). Effective coordination between Israel, the United States, and the Arab nations will significantly limit Khamenei’s influence in the region. The recent killings of Abu al-Masri and Mohsen Fakhrizadeh on Iranian soil are indicative of the growing willingness to directly interfere in Iranian affairs.

Second, Palestine. The recent normalization agreements have undermined the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The Arab Initiative promised comprehensive peace with the Arab world in exchange for (1) Israel’s complete withdrawal to the 1967 line, (2) a just resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem, and (3) the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the capital. Arab states were forbidden from normalizing relations with Israel prior to a just resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The recent normalization agreements effectively nullify the conditional nature of the Peace Initiative. The Palestinian leadership now possesses significantly less negotiating power compared to before the normalization agreements.

Third, the United States. The normalization agreements allow for the United States to begin decreasing its involvement in the region. Contemporary US involvement in the Middle East is focused on countering Iran, preventing regional instability, and reducing terrorism. A joint Israeli-Arab partnership would be similarly committed to these goals. Israeli-Arab normalization offers the prospect of reduced American military involvement in the Middle East.

As the President of the United States continues his attack on America’s democratic institutions, Israel and Morocco will begin laying the foundation for diplomatic and economic normalization. Ultimately, these normalizations will likely transform the region by building a more robust Israeli-Arab partnership and lessening US military involvement in the Middle East.