Last Thursday,
Meta announced the newest iteration of its large language model (LLM), Llama 3. The newest model will aim to dislodge OpenAI as the market leader through various improvements driven by what Meta claims to be “high quality” data training sets and new computer programming capabilities. Meta’s chief product officer, Chris Cox, predicts that future versions of the model will include “multimodality”
driven advanced reasoning. While Meta’s aspirations grab headlines, the sheer complexity of the systems will likely lead the predictions of Cox and others to fall short. Llama 2, for example, failed to understand basic context. It’s critical that regulators recognize artificial intelligence ecosystem
is complex and allow for developers to adjust and improve models throughout the process of deployment.
Researchers, engineers, companies, academic institutions and government agencies, work together across disciplines and industries to integrate AI into a wide range of complex socio-technical-economic systems—illustrated by the cases of ChatGPT and Gemini. The development of these foundation models requires collaboration between linguists, computer scientists and engineers, firms with the computing power and data necessary to build and train the models. The process also requires funders for developing the models, scientists from other disciplines, such as sociology and ethics, and firms that will use them in customer-facing applications like websites.
Consequently, the resulting ecosystem is incredibly complex
and it exhibits the properties of complex systems—incomplete knowledge, uncertainty, unpredictability, asynchronicity and non-decomposability. The behavior of the overall system cannot be easily predicted or controlled due to the many interconnected components. Hence, diffusion of AI applications creates new challenges to understanding, explaining and controlling the emergent behaviors of the coupled systems. For example, the propensity for LLMs to “hallucinate” and report incorrect information (which independent research suggests
occurs around 20 percent of the time, even in the most “truthful” systems currently available). Due to the complexity of the models, even their creators are unable to explain
why or how each specific “untruth” is generated; hence it is difficult to create systematic ways of detecting or deterring such behavior.
Governance of complex
systems — like the AI ecosystem — requires policymakers to take account of varying perspectives, unintended consequences, and unpredictable emergent behaviors—both of the systems themselves and of the humans responding to them. As applications can be developed and deployed in different, and multiple, jurisdictions, and the effects and impacts can play out across many different sectors, it may not be clear where responsibility for regulation lies. At the very least, effective governance will require coordination and collaboration across multiple stakeholders. This level of coordination itself is complex, as the ecosystem is constantly changing as new systems are developed, new applications are deployed and more experience is gained.
To date, regulation in both the EU and the U.S., has been predicated upon risk and risk management, in order to provide assurances to society that AIs are developed and deployed in a manner deemed “safe.”
The EU rules
derive from the continent’s experiences in embracing regulation to ensure product safety and protect individuals from known harms associated with specific AI uses and breaches of privacy. Systems are classified according to perceptions of the risk they pose. Banned AIs include the manipulation of individuals’ behavior in specific undesirable ways or the use of particular technologies (e.g. biometric data, facial recognition) in prescribed circumstances.
High-risk AIs that require extensive documentation, auditing and pre-certification draw extensively on existing EU product safety conformity legislation (e.g. toys, protective equipment, agricultural and forestry vehicles, civil aviation and rail system interoperability), as well as applications in areas where physical safety is prioritized (e.g. critical infrastructure) or where risks of psychological or economic harm may ensue (e.g. education, employment, access to services). Low-risk applications required to meet only transparency obligations perform narrow procedural tasks, the focus is on improving the outcome of human decisions and where ultimate decision-making is controlled by human decision-makers.
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget
provisions for government use of AIs are less restrictive and prescriptive than the EU rules, but the focus is still on addressing a subset of AI risks and governance and innovation issues directly pertaining to agencies’ use of AI. Specifically, the risks addressed result from “reliance on AI outputs to inform, influence, decide, or execute agency decisions or actions, which could undermine the efficacy, safety, equitableness, fairness, transparency, accountability, appropriateness, or lawfulness of such decisions or actions.”
In both cases, the risks addressed arise almost exclusively in relation to specific products, activities, decisions or uses of AIs, rather than the complex ecosystems in which they operate. The relevant circumstances are narrowed down to a specific set of situations, actions, actors and consequences that are already largely known and controllable. Even the banned EU uses are limited to specific outcomes that have already been largely identified and described. Both require single named individuals to be ultimately accountable for the AIs and their regulatory reporting and management.
Neither set of regulations addresses the elements of complexity, uncertainty, unpredictability, asynchronicity and non-decomposability of the ecosystems in which the AIs will operate. Indeed, references to “complexity” and “uncertainty” are conspicuous by their apparent absence
from consideration. Neither of itself appears to accommodate the extensive multi-stakeholder collaboration and multiple perspectives necessary for governing complex dynamic systems.
Perhaps it is time for some regulatory humility
and acknowledgement of what these regulations can and cannot achieve. They do not give assurances of safety as we proceed with the development and deployment of AIs. Neither do they acknowledge what we know, don’t know and can’t know, because of the bounded rationality of the humans overseeing them. They simply endeavor to manage for the subset of risks that have already been identified or anticipated. We should still expect some surprises from unexpected emergent behaviors, and from the discoveries of things we previously did not know or understand, as we develop our experience of the new ecosystems in operation.
The question is — how do we anticipate managing in those circumstances? Some leadership in the discussion of how we want our societies will evolve in the face of these unerring uncertainties is necessary. We cannot presume that existing regulatory efforts looking backwards are either sufficient or a substitute for this bigger and more complex endeavor, which necessarily must be forward-looking, for a future that is inherently uncertain.
Bronwyn Howell is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where she focuses on the regulation, development and deployment of new technologies.
Former President Trump had a busy legal day Thursday as the Supreme Court weighed presidential immunity arguments while his criminal hush money case continued in New York.
David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, was back on the stand for a full day in Manhattan where he continued providing a timeline of his agreement to bury bad news about Trump during the then-candidate’s 2016 campaign.
Meanwhile, in Washington, the high court heard oral arguments in a historic case that weighs the limits of presidential immunity, which Trump is arguing makes him safe from prosecution in his three other criminal cases.
The University of Southern California (USC) has canceled its main commencement ceremony amid criticism over its decision to nix its pro-Palestinian valedictorian’s speech.
The school announced on Thursday that due to new safety measures it would not have the main graduation ceremony that normally holds 65,000 people.
“With the new safety measures in place this year, the time needed to process the large number of guests coming to campus will increase substantially. As a result, we will not be able to host the main stage ceremony that traditionally brings 65,000 students, families, and friends to our campus all at the same time and during a short window from 8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m.,” the announcement said.
The cancelation comes after the school said valedictorian Asna Tabassum could not give a speech due to “safety concerns” after people were upset with posts she had on her social media.
Tabassum had a link on her social media to a site that called for the “complete abolishment” of Israel and said that “Zionism is a racist settler-colonial ideology that advocates for a Jewish ethnostate built on Palestinian land.”
Some groups, such as USC’s Trojans for Israel, labeled Tabassum antisemitic and said she should not speak. The school canceled her speech citing safety reasons but did not name any concrete threats.
The news comes as numerous pro-Palestinian protests are being held at campuses across the country and advocates predict
a controversial year for commencement speeches.
USC had dozens of students arrested on Wednesday night who were protesting for Palestine, closing the campus afterward.
“The protest on the [University Park Campus] has ended,” the alert from the safety department said. “However, the campus remains closed until further notice. Students, faculty, staff, and people with business on campus may enter with proper identification.”
USC said Thursday it will still hold commencement events, “including all the traditional individual school commencement ceremonies where students cross the stage, have their names announced, are photographed, and receive their diplomas.”
“We understand that this is disappointing; however, we are adding many new activities and celebrations to make this commencement academically meaningful, memorable, and uniquely USC, including places to gather with family, friends, faculty, and staff, the celebratory releasing of the doves, and performances by the Trojan Marching Band,” the school said.
From “Black Widow’s” Scarlett Johannson — seemingly in town to support husband Colin Jost — to “Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” star Rachel Brosnahan and rapper Jermaine Dupri, a hodge-podge of performers are poised to head to Washington for Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner.
“Saturday Night Live’s” Jost is headlining the entertainer and lawmaker-filled media event at the Washington Hilton Hotel.
Here’s a running list of the political and media figures, celebrities and VIPs expected to attend the dinner with news organizations:
ABC News
Da’Vine Joy Randolph
Andrew McCarthy
Hiro Sanada
Molly Ringwald
Rosario Dawson
Quavo
Naomi Biden
Gov. Wes Moore (D-Md.)
Gov. Chris Sununu (R-N.H.)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)
White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby
When it comes to cybersecurity and Communist China, Microsoft needs to get its act together — and so does the American government.
When an independent board of experts tells a company — which boasts to its customers
about the security its products offers — that its corporate culture in fact deprioritizes cybersecurity, it might be time for some self-reflection. When that company plays a dominant role providing essential technology services to the U.S. government, critical infrastructure, tens of thousands of companies and tens of millions of Americans, the federal government also needs to self-reflect.
This month, the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) released
a damning report
on Microsoft’s cybersecurity failings, following revelations last summer that China’s hackers leveraged compromised Microsoft systems to access the email accounts of senior American officials. The report does not mince words: This cyberattack was “preventable,” and “should never have happened,” and was the result of a “cascade of security failures at Microsoft.”
Modeled on the National Transportation Safety Board, although with a narrower scope, the CSRB is a new initiative to investigate significant cybersecurity incidents. It provides recommendations to improve national cyber resilience based on its findings. Housed within the Department of Homeland Security, the CSRB is made up of government officials and experts from the private sector. Assessing how nation-state hackers can compromise America’s largest companies is one of the main reasons the Biden administration created the review board.
That Microsoft is a target of nation-state attacks is no surprise. Greater efficiencies and reduced costs have led to heavier reliance on geographically distributed data centers — that is, “the cloud.” Microsoft dominates the cloud service market, providing services to federal and state governments, corporate America and much of America’s critical national infrastructure. As the CSRB observed, “Microsoft’s ubiquitous and critical products … underpin essential services that support national security, the foundations of our economy, and public health and safety.”
Hacking Microsoft’s cloud environment is the espionage equivalent of striking gold, the report vividly explained, and both nations and criminals are the “Forty-Niners” of this 21st-century gold rush.
What is shocking, disturbing and unacceptable is that Microsoft is significantly failing in both its security architecture and implementation of basic security procedures, as the report makes amply clear. The dependence of U.S. national security, economic prosperity and public health and safety on cloud service providers should require these companies to “demonstrate the highest standards of security, accountability, and transparency.” But the CSRB concluded
that even as other cloud service providers were maintaining security controls, Microsoft was not.
This failure was exacerbated by Microsoft’s aggressive approach to reducing competition for its services by ensuring customers buy few or no other security services outside its product suite. This “monoculture” approach helps Microsoft’s bottom line but does not ensure its customers — even critical ones like the Department of Defense — are running the most effective security programs
possible.
Microsoft’s cut-throat approach is a national security risk the United States cannot abide.
There is a solution to this challenge. Cloud service providers are, as the report notes, one of the “most important critical infrastructure industries” — yet, until now, the Biden administration, like its predecessors, has failed to treat them as such.
The administration is undertaking a review of the decade-old policy document that outlines which industries are considered critical infrastructure and how the federal government interacts with those sectors. The resulting update should state clearly and unambiguously that cloud services are a stand-alone critical infrastructure. Recognizing the cloud computing industry as critical infrastructure will ensure that a federal agency is assigned as the sector risk management agency to work to mitigate threats and establish cybersecurity standards nationally.
While designating the cloud as critical infrastructure and creating national cybersecurity standards for providers would be the most important step to come out of the CSRB’s report, there is still another Microsoft-sized elephant in the room.
The report leaves unaddressed Microsoft’s continued
research and development and engineering work in the People’s Republic of China. While other tech companies have pulled out
of the country, Microsoft has expanded
collaboration with Beijing. The company has assured the public
that it is a good corporate citizen and not complicit in China’s censorship, despite evidence
that it is. And Microsoft dismisses concerns that this ongoing business relationship poses risks
to U.S. national security. But after reading the CSRB report, no one can reasonably trust Microsoft’s ability to assess its own security risks.
Presidents Biden and Xi had a “candid and constructive” phone call earlier this month in which Biden warned
his Chinese counterpart that the United States will “take necessary actions to prevent advanced U.S. technologies from being used to undermine our national security.”
It might be time for President Biden to have that conversation with Microsoft’s leadership as well.
Rear Adm. (Ret.) Mark Montgomery is a senior fellow and senior director of the Center for Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He served as executive director of the congressionally mandated Cyberspace Solarium Commission.
A small tornado hit Brookdale Farms in Eureka, Missouri last Thursday — during a wedding rehearsal dinner.
Buildings were damaged and chaos ensued, though no one was hurt.
The farm’s employees worked through the night to make repairs and the wedding went on as scheduled.
EUREKA, Mo. (KTVI
) — At least six small tornadoes developed in Missouri and Illinois last Thursday. One of those went right through Brookdale Farms in Eureka, Missouri — during a wedding rehearsal dinner.
“We had just gotten here to do the rehearsal for the wedding on Saturday, and then got in the building and shortly thereafter, the storm hit,” Heather Jonas, the mother of the bride, said. “We kind of ran to the bathroom and (it) sounded like a train was getting ready to come through the building.”
The venue and nearby barns were damaged during an EF1 tornado that ripped through Eureka, Missouri, on Thursday. (KTVI)
Annette Johnson, the wedding coordinator, said there were around 25 people in the building when the storm arrived.
“Everything started rattling when the roof ripped off and we got everyone to safety,” she said. “It was a little bit of chaos, but we stayed very calm and tried to keep our guests calm, but nobody was hurt.”
Nearby barns were also destroyed in the storm, but no one was injured at the 350-acre event venue.
“Once we knew everyone was OK, we went outside and practiced and rehearsed for the wedding,” Jonas said. “Everyone was good, (we) kind of celebrated and we were all safe.”
The team at Brookdale Farms worked overnight to assess structural integrity and make repairs. In photos shared to Facebook,
workers could be seen replacing the roof of the wedding venue in preparation for Saturday’s reception.
“We are optimistic that we will be able to host their wedding here at 5 p.m.,” James Vivak, general manager of Brookdale Farms, said Saturday.
A couple tied the knot at a wedding venue in Missouri that had been struck by a tornado two days before. (Mindee Malloy Photography)
Come the day of the wedding, the happy couple — Kyle and Taylor O’Driscoll — were able to celebrate (almost) as planned, complete with photos in front of a damaged barn.
Wedding photographer Mindee Malloy, speaking with Nexstar, said she wasn’t present at the rehearsal dinner, but praised Brookdale Farms for their impressive turnaround.
“Brookdale Farms did an outstanding job dealing with the situation and making sure Taylor and Kyle were still able to have the day they deserved,” Malloy said.
Last week, the United States agreed to withdraw around a thousand troops
from the West African nation of Niger, where they had been supporting a regional fight against jihadist insurgents. This withdrawal wasn’t the result of domestic pressure, but instead the culmination of rising tensions with the Nigerien military government that seized power last year. The withdrawal also coincides with the arrival of Russian military advisers
.
These two developments are a black eye for American foreign policy, especially considering how hard the Biden administration attempted to avert this outcome
. Niger has taught the U.S. an unfortunate lesson about appeasing coup plotters — but one that can be instructive.
With coups on the rise
, it is long past time that the U.S. reconsider its approach toward this growing problem. If it does not, American leaders are only inviting both uncertainty about our credibility as a democratic leader and the opportunity for autocrats to take advantage of a confused policy.
This development placed the United States in a tough strategic position. As part of the coalition fighting jihadists across the Sahel, Niger has played host to members of the American military. A $110 million military installation, Air Base 201
, managed U.S. drone activity for the region. But the sudden coup put that relationship in immediate jeopardy.
Foreign assistance is largely allocated by Congress each year as part of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. Tucked within is Section 7008
, a decades-old clause
stipulating that foreign governments deposed by military coups will be ineligible for large portions of American assistance. For the clause to activate, it requires confirmation from the executive branch that a coup has taken place. Quite literally, the presidential administration must call a coup a “coup” for funding to be suspended.
Many observers, including myself on this site
, concluded within days that a coup had taken place in Niger. However, the Biden administration appeared hesitant to make this declaration
. This wait-and-see tactic was not new, as the Obama administration had taken a similar approach (to much late night comedy derision
) following the 2013 coup in Egypt. Rather than confronting coups head on, American administrations have prioritized gambling that their strategic place in these countries can be negotiated with the new military dictators.
Rather than calling a coup a coup, the administration took a position of avoidance
. American representatives were deployed to Niger, which only heightened tensions through a confused strategy
. Their “rudderless
” efforts continued into 2024, even after the U.S. finally invoked Section 7008
three months after the fact. By that point, the Nigerien junta had entrenched itself and (like their fellow putschists in neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali) invited opportunities for new partnerships with Moscow
to substitute for the U.S.
The downturn in U.S.-Niger relations was rapid. In March, Niger’s spokesman read a decree suspending military
cooperation. Less than a month later, paramilitary advisors and equipment from Russia’s Africa Corps
landed in Niger. Civilian protests
within days of Russia’s arrival began to demand the immediate removal of American forces from the country. Finally, last week, the U.S. agreed to withdraw its troop presence, leaving the status of its remaining bases
in question.
This policy setback suggests that it is beyond time for the U.S. to reconsider its approach toward coups globally. First, coups are unconstitutional and usually anti-democratic. As a self-proclaimed leader in the fight for global democracy
, America has a moral imperative to take a proactive role in leading the international charge against these bad actors. Second, as I have noted previously
, Congress holds the power of the purse in this situation and should wield it accordingly.
One option for Congress would be to revise Section 7008 to set a timeline for the State Department to make a coup determination. A formal request could initiate the process and set this timeline in motion. In the interim, Congress could hold hearings and build public consensus about the facts on the ground. This would set conditions for oversight, ensure there aren’t unnecessary delays and allow the U.S. to put early pressure on coup actors.
Another option would be for Congress to introduce a statutory definition of a coup in legislation. Having this in writing would prevent administrations from avoiding sanctions triggers by hedging with terms like “uprising.”
If administrations are slow or unwilling to make determinations, Congress should give itself a stronger oversight role in the review process. By simply revising extant appropriations legislation, the United States can rejuvenate its policy of protecting partner democracies and confronting anti-democratic behaviors when they emerge.
Austin S. Matthews is an assistant professor of political science at East Carolina University. His research focuses on authoritarian regimes and the dynamics of regime change.
President Biden and former President Trump don’t agree on much, but they do agree on this: China poses a threat to the United States. Biden’s language on this score is more diplomatic, but his administration’s policies are unambiguous. Some analysts even contend
that his approach to China has been tougher than Trump’s. Although this has not stopped Trump from repeatedly chiding Biden for being soft on China
. Meanwhile, Biden has criticized
Trump along similar lines. Such squabbling aside, the message is consistent: America must stand up to China.
This drumbeat has been a constant in American politics in recent years, but its urgency will grow as we move closer to the general election in November. Already, Biden has proposed tripling sanctions
on Chinese steel and aluminum products. And Trump has floated a blanket 60 percent tariff
on all Chinese goods coming into the U.S. Legitimate policy concerns underlie such a rising cacophony. China under President Xi Jinping has become much more of a challenger to U.S. interests. This applies not only to trade but also a wide array of national security issues. However, the main driver of the noise that is to come has even more to do with what is going on inside American politics than what is happening on the other side of the Pacific.
In the coming months, electoral math is likely to have a destabilizing effect on U.S.-China relations. The temptation will loom for the candidates to accentuate differences, play on underlying fears, and enact (or at least propose) policy measures that will risk pulling the U.S. and China into more direct conflict— and in a worst-case scenario, to the brink of war.
Biden and Trump will be viewing China less through the prism of national interest, and more, via the looking glass of how to win the White House in November. Last year, the Pew Research Center
observed that 83 percent of Americans surveyed had a negative view of China, while over 44 percent had “very unfavorable” views of the country. Importantly, such antipathy was pronounced among both Democrats and Republicans (although the latter group tends to harbor deeper and sharper suspicions of Beijing). As such there is little evidence of support across the political spectrum for working with China.
Given the fragility of both countries’ economies and their ongoing interdependence, real or proposed changes to trade policy risks direct U.S.-China conflict that could have far-reaching implications. The danger becomes even more pronounced should accusations begin to fly regarding China’s commitment to maintaining peace and stability within the existing international order. Where it has the potential to truly metastasize is regarding Taiwan. Its relationship with mainland China (which views it as wayward territory) already stands on a knife’s edge in the lead-up to next month’s inauguration of its new president, Lai Ching-te
. And tensions between Beijing and Washington over the island will be further heightened in the coming days as foreign aid legislation
just approved by the House (containing provisions for billions in military aid to Taiwan) becomes law. China’s leaders are sure to sharply criticize such support as a form of inference in their country’s internal affairs.
What would ramp things up to a much more worrisome level is if Biden actively moves to significantly upgrade (in volume and quality) U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Such a gambit from an American president facing a hotly contested election would not be unprecedented. In the fall of 1992, George H.W. Bush
, while behind in the polls to his Democratic challenger Bill Clinton, voiced his support for selling F-16s fighter jets to Taiwan. While this did not bring China and the U.S. to the brink of war, it did mark the start of a sustained period of pronounced tensions between the two sides over the island (culminating in the 1995-1996 Taiwan Straits crisis
). That downward spiral occurred when China was much weaker than it is today, and somewhat less demanding that the island be accepted by all as a part of China. Biden would be ill advised to go down the same path now, even if doing so would bolster his being strong on China credentials.
Conversely, Trump continues to revel in shaking up the status quo in U.S. foreign policy. There is an element of volatility in his approach to the world, and this includes his stance on China. Although he repeatedly touts his record of being tough on Beijing, especially on trade issues, he has also expressed
personal admiration of Xi. There is a perception
in some corners that his support for Taiwan might be conditional — that in search of a deal with China, he could sell Taiwan down the river. There is no evidence that Trump is actively contemplating such a move, but it is also not hard to imagine him floating the idea at a campaign rally as he searches for a new applause line. Regardless of whether there is any truth in such a possibility, the very fact that it has been discussed
on both sides of the Pacific is cause for concern. It could very easily embolden China to act unilaterally on Taiwan. Trump should make clear that as much as his supporters love him to shake things up in Washington, he is not going to waffle on this issue.
The problem of China policy during an election year is how to avoid unnecessarily pushing U.S.-China relations to the brink solely as part of a search for short-term political gains. The collateral damage from such posturing could be immeasurable. War with China serves no one’s interests. One hopes both Trump and Biden agree on this statement. We should all also hope that they agree that winning the White House at the expense of dragging America and China into direct conflict is also not worth doing.
Allen Carlson is Associate Professor of the Government Department at Cornell University.
How is it that in the United States, a country dedicated to protecting the rights of every minority and where hate speech is a crime, antisemitism is surging
on college campuses?
Three reasons:
In recent decades, our educational institutions have drifted far to the left
, encouraging and sometimes aligning with ultra-liberal groups who despise the foundational values of the United States. Young people today study gender politics (search Yale University’s courses for “gender” and find 191 offerings
) but are taught little
about World War II or the Holocaust (16 courses); they know almost nothing about the foundation of Israel and the history of the Middle East. In a vacuum, they are easily misled.
Rising antisemitism
has been underway for some time in the U.S. and in Europe, but been largely ignored by our political leaders.
Joe Biden is a coward. He should be standing tall and commanding Hamas-loving thugs barring Jews from campuses and “occupying” schools to stand down. He should demand that university authorities and local leaders call out the National Guard if necessary to arrest and jail those creating chaos and acting illegally. It can be done, but Biden is terrified of losing the Arab-American vote — in particular not winning Michigan, a critical swing state
, so he will not do it.
The protests roiling some of our most prestigious campuses may have started organically, with students genuinely concerned about the fate of Palestinians in Gaza
, but the unrest now appears increasingly guided by professional agitators.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams noted that the tents in the so-called “Gaza Solidarity Encampments” at different schools look remarkably alike
, suggesting that some central group may have distributed them to campuses. In addition, arrests at Yale in recent days included students but also suspected outsiders
, apparently there to encourage mayhem. Also, ABC News reported that school administrators are describing the protests as “largely peaceful’ while “some officials” and the NYPD are “blaming unaffiliated individuals for instances of violence and offensive rhetoric.”
This is not surprising. There are those who, like George Soros
, are happy to fund protests that suit their progressive causes and that challenge the bedrock ideals and values of our country. Soros money was linked
to the anti-capitalist group Adbusters that started the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011; he’s now been tied
to the pro-Palestinian demonstrations on our college campuses. Since Soros is a Jew, his backing of pro-Hamas outfits is mystifying.
U.S. campuses are ripe for anti-American causes. Since the Oct. 7 massacre
of Jews in Israel, Americans have been shocked by the rise in antisemitism and enthusiasm for left-wing activism at universities like Harvard and University of Pennsylvania. They should not have been. The Harvard Crimson’s annual survey of almost 500 faculty members’ political leanings in 2023 showed nearly 80 percent
described themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Less than 3 percent said they were conservatives.
Worse, Harvard’s faculty does not see diversity of opinion as a worthy attribute, with only a quarter
of respondents supporting (and almost one-third opposing) hiring more conservative-leaning professors. Imagine pretending to be an intellectual and not supporting open debate.
It isn’t just Harvard. Surveys have found a notable shift leftward in academia
writ large over the past few decades. This political bias produces an incomplete education. A nationwide survey of millennials and Gen Z conducted in 2020 revealed that almost two-thirds did not know the basic facts about the Holocaust
. They were unaware that 6 million Jews had been murdered in concentration camps. This is appalling, and perhaps explains why so many young people have drifted to the pro-Palestinian cause.
Today we are witnessing the fruits of this political shift. Jews are attacked and reviled
on campuses, schools are shutting down and young people are supporting extremist organizations. Some are actually aligning with Hamas, that just months ago killed hundreds of Israelis, including children and pregnant women.
What can be done?
In May 2023, the Biden White House unveiled a “U.S. national strategy to counter antisemitism.”
In the announcement, Biden says, “Six years ago, Neo-Nazis marched from the shadows through Charlottesville, Virginia, chanting, ‘Jews will not replace us.’ With torches in hand, they spewed the same antisemitic bile and hate that were heard across Europe in the 1930s.” He says that “the horror of that moment … drove me to run for President.”
The initiative includes numerous educational efforts by different departments and agencies, including about the Holocaust, and also calls upon members of Congress, state and local leaders, the media, influencers and sports teams — everyone under the sun — to speak out against antisemitism.
And yet the one person who should be speaking out forcefully about the abhorrent anti-Jew demonstrations on campuses today, and has failed to do so, is Joe Biden.
He put out a written statement
commemorating Passover, appropriately noting “the alarming surge of antisemitism – in our schools, communities, and online.” But the very next day he equivocated, saying
, “I condemn the antisemitic protests” and “I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.”
Biden wants it both ways; he wants to maintain the financial and political backing of Jews but also hopes to appease Arab-American voters angry about his support of Israel. Without those pro-Palestinian voters, he might not win in Michigan and could consequently lose the election.
The president needs to deliver an Oval Office address making it crystal clear that antisemitism on college campuses and violence against Jews is completely unacceptable and that perpetrators will be punished. Say it. Mean it. And no more equivocation.
Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company.
The stories of China, Russia and Iran’s confrontations with the United States and its allies began independently. Each has roots and causes quite separate from the others.
And yet, the logic that governs human conflict has been pushing these three powers into greater strategic collaboration. It is likely to develop further, and may eventually take the form of a fully aligned geopolitical camp whose members operate against their common adversaries in concert.
The outcomes that the regimes in Beijing, Moscow and Tehran seek to bring about through their strategies are not the same. But this would not be the first time when powers with very different geostrategies aligned with one another.
Nazi Germany gave weapons
to the Ethiopians during the Italo-Ethiopian War of 1935-1936, because Fascist Italy opposed the German plans to annex Austria. Nazi Germany also maintained close military and economic cooperation with China, before finally choosing to align with Japan instead during the Sino-Japanese War.
In the end, the factor that defined the strategic choices of Berlin, Tokyo and Rome resulting in the formation of the Axis was having the same main adversaries in the Western democracies.
Iran wants to become the hegemon of the Middle East. This goal is in the ideological DNA of the current ruling regime in Tehran. Its support of Shi’a rebel movements
, implacable enmity of Israel and the creation of states within states in Lebanon and Iraq all are means to this end. The most powerful force that stands in the way of this imperialist project is the U.S.
Russia wants to replace the global leadership of the U.S. and its allies with a world of a few great powers that dominate their neighbors and compete or cooperate with the rest of the world. It intends to be among these great powers and therefore seeks to restore its lost empire in a new form.
Since, unlike the Soviet Union, modern Russia has no resources to attempt to dominate the world by itself, it wants it to be leaderless. Those in the U.S. who dream about aligning with Russia against China fail to understand that America’s world leadership is completely incompatible with the purposes of the current regime in Moscow and no amount of talk about the Chinese threat can change this reality.
China currently is the only power capable of an attempt to replace America as the global leader. This is exactly what the regime in Beijing has set out to do. The resulting Sino-American struggle is on and will continue for the foreseeable future.
In every one of these three very different strategies the main obstacle, the chief adversary to overcome, is America. But there is also another refrain common to Beijing, Moscow and Tehran, in addition to their geopolitical struggle with the U.S.
These three regimes do not wish to live in a world where democracy, with all its values, is the primary, influential and legitimate form of political thought and practice. They do not want to remain in the role of political rogues. Such status is tiresome and potentially very dangerous for them. They want their despotism to be the norm rather than a deviation from modern human civilization.
In this sense, too, the global leadership of America — by far the most powerful and influential proponent of democracy — is a problem that needs to be eliminated from the perspective of Beijing, Moscow and Tehran.
Russia and Iran found their way to serious strategic cooperation in 2015, in the joint effort to save the Assad regime in Syria. Since then, they have operated together in that country on numerous occasions.
As the Russo-Ukrainian War continues, Iran is making an important impact on European geopolitics for the first time in modern history by supplying Russia with weapons
. Even more arms to fight Ukraine are delivered to Russia by North Korea
. It is hardly conceivable that Pyongyang would commit to such a consequential step if China were against it. Moreover, China’s support of Russia in its war against Ukraine has been growing
.
There is still a lot of room for further closer alignment between China, Russia and Iran. So far, the new Axis has not been fully formed. But the inexorable logic of struggle applies great pressure in favor of strategic collaboration between these three powers.
They have the same main adversary — America. Their chances of prevailing against it will be better if they work together, still more if they coordinate their actions forcing the U.S. to split its limited resources between different geographic theaters. Moreover, the serious success of any one of these three powers would weaken America, its prestige and its alliances, thus helping the other two.
The world is a dynamic place right now. Many processes are gathering pace. The growing alignment of China, Russia and Iran is among the most consequential. Everyone who stands against the ambitions of any of these three states and their ruling regimes needs to pay close attention.
David Batashvili is a research fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (Rondeli Foundation) in Tbilisi, Georgia. Previously, he was an analyst at the Georgian National Security Council.
