‘AI-powered Weapons Depersonalise the Violence, Making It Easier for the Military to Approve More Destruction’

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Nov 22 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the dangers arising from military uses of artificial intelligence (AI) with Sophia Goodfriend, Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Middle East Initiative.


The global rise of AI has raised concerns about its impact on human rights, particularly for excluded groups, with controversial uses ranging from domestic policing and surveillance to ‘kill lists’ such as those used by Israel to identify targets for missile strikes. Digital rights groups are calling for the development of an AI governance framework that prioritises human rights and bans the most dangerous uses of AI. While recent United Nations (UN) resolutions recognise the human rights risks of AI, more decisive action is needed.

Sophia Goodfriend

Why should we be concerned about AI and its current and potential uses?

AI is being rapidly integrated into military operations around the world, particularly in weapons systems, intelligence gathering and decision-making. Its increasing autonomy reduces human oversight, raising serious concerns and sci-fi fears of machines making life-and-death decisions without meaningful human intervention.

AI-based technologies such as drones, automated weapons and advanced targeting systems are now part of military arsenals. The military’s increasing reliance on these systems raises significant concerns, as they are largely unregulated under international law. The level of surveillance these technologies rely on violates privacy protections under international law and many national civil rights laws.

The rapid development and deployment of these technologies is outpacing regulation, leaving the public largely unaware of their implications. Without proper oversight, AI could be misused in ways that cause widespread harm and evade accountability. We urgently need to regulate the military use of AI and ensure it is consistent with international law and humanitarian principles.

In addition, faulty or biased data can lead to devastating mistakes, raising serious ethical and legal questions. And the decisions made by these systems can undermine the principles of proportionality and distinction in warfare, putting civilian lives at risk.

What’s an example of how AI is currently being used?

The Israeli military is using AI-assisted targeting systems to identify and strike targets in Gaza. These systems analyse huge amounts of data collected through drones, satellites, surveillance cameras, social media and phone hacks to identify potential targets, locate them and decide where and when people should be killed.

AI-generated ‘kill lists’ raise serious concerns. Flawed or biased data has already led to devastating mistakes, with journalists and humanitarian workers killed in strikes. There have also been allegations that the military has expanded its definition of who or what constitutes a valid target, allowing attacks on people or places that may not meet the standards set by international law.

These systems operate at an unprecedented speed and scale, creating a huge number of targets. They have the potential to cause widespread destruction without thorough oversight. Soldiers operating in Gaza have as little as 20 seconds to approve targets that include Hamas militants, but also people who wouldn’t be considered valid military targets under international laws of war and human rights standards.

What does this mean for moral responsibility over the damage caused?

AI-assisted targeting technologies such as the Lavender system are not fully autonomous. They still require human oversight. This is a critical point because these technologies are only as destructive as the people in charge. It all depends on the decisions made by military leaders, and these decisions can either comply with or violate international human rights law.

At the same time, the use of machines to target and destroy can depersonalise violence, making it easier for military personnel to authorise more destruction. By outsourcing decision-making to AI, there’s a risk of abdicating moral responsibility. This technological approach makes military action seem more efficient and rational, which can help justify each bombing with a seemingly logical rationale, but it also dehumanises the civilian casualties and widespread devastation that follow.

Are current AI governance frameworks sufficient to protect human rights?

The short answer is no: current AI governance frameworks fall short in protecting human rights, particularly in military applications. While most states agree that AI-driven weapons – from fully autonomous to AI-assisted ones – should comply with international human rights law, there’s no global framework to ensure this happens.

This has led to calls for more comprehensive and enforceable rules, and there have been some positive steps. For example, civil society groups and researchers successfully pushed for a ban on fully autonomous weapons in the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which was supported by over 100 states. As a result, the UN Secretary-General has called for a legally binding treaty to be adopted in 2026 to completely ban fully autonomous weapons, which are powered by AI but have no human oversight of their operations.

The European Union (EU) has also taken action, banning some military AI applications such as social scoring systems – which give people ratings based on their social behaviour – as part of its AI Act. However, the EU still lacks specific rules for military AI.

Organisations such as the Future of Life Institute, Human Rights Watch and Stop Killer Robots have been instrumental in pushing for change. But they’re facing growing challenges as Silicon Valley tech CEOs and venture capitalists push for faster AI development with fewer regulations. This is worrying, as these powerful figures will now have more influence over AI policy under a new Trump administration.

What role should AI companies play in ensuring compliance with human rights principles?

Companies have a critical role to play. In recent years, many of the leading companies, such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft and OpenAI, have made public statements about their commitment to human rights. OpenAI, for example, has called for the creation of a watchdog similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its founders have pledged not to allow their technology to be used for military purposes. Amazon, Google and Microsoft also have fair use policies, which they claim ensure their technologies are used in accordance with human rights principles.

But in practice, these policies often fall short, particularly when it comes to military applications. Despite their claims, many of these companies have sold their technologies to military forces, and the extent of their involvement in military AI development is often unclear. Just a few weeks ago, The Intercept reported that the US military’s Africa Command had purchased OpenAI software through Microsoft. We also know the Israeli military used Google cloud services to target bombs in Gaza and Amazon web services to store classified surveillance data on civilians in the Palestinian territories.

This has sparked protests within the companies involved, with workers staging walkouts and demanding greater transparency and accountability. While these protests are important, AI companies can ultimately only do so much to ensure their technologies are used ethically. We need stronger, more comprehensive international laws on the military use of AI, and governments must take responsibility for ensuring these laws are enforced at the national level.

At the same time, many tech CEOs, such as Elon Musk, have moved away from their previous commitment to human rights and are more aligned with right-wing political leaders like Trump. Some CEOs, such as Peter Thiel of PayPal and Alex Karp of Palantir Technologies, argue that private companies need to work closely with the military to maintain US technological superiority. This has created tensions between human rights advocates and tech giants, highlighting the need for stronger regulatory frameworks to hold these companies accountable and prevent AI being used in ways that undermine human rights.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
LinkedIn
Twitter

SEE ALSO
Human rights take a backseat in AI regulation CIVICUS Lens 16.Jan.2024
AI: ‘The biggest challenges are the biases and lack of transparency of algorithms’ Interview with Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team 24.Aug.2023
AI regulation: ‘There must be a balance between promoting innovation and protecting rights’ Interview with Nadia Benaissa 25.Jul.2023

  Source

Climate Change in Azerbaijan is Putting Women at Increased Risk of Gender-Based Violence

Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: UN Women

PARIS, Nov 22 2024 (IPS) – Climate change exacerbates existing gender inequalities and gender-based violence. At COP29 in Azerbaijan, governments have been urged to prioritize gender-responsive climate policies that address the specific needs of women and girls, and serious concerns have been raised about backtracking on women’s rights during these crucial negotiations on climate action.


In Azerbaijan, extreme weather events made worse by global warming and poor environmental management are heightening the risks women and girls face. As the frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters increase, more families are being left vulnerable, accelerating the need for targeted interventions.

Clean World Social Union participated in COP29 to address the critical intersection of gender inequality and the climate crisis, advocating for policies that prioritize the needs and rights of women and girls in the face of environmental challenges.

Clean World Social Union is one of only two civil society organizations in Azerbaijan providing specialist accommodation and support to women escaping gender-based violence. They operate a shelter in the capital city, Baku, housing up to 60 women and children. A second shelter in Ganja, managed by the Public Union “Tamas,” accommodates 25 residents.

Clean World Social Union collaborates with the international women’s rights organization Equality Now to strengthen the legal rights of women and girls in Azerbaijan.

Leyla Suleymanova

Coordinator Leyla Suleymanova spoke to Equality Now about how climate-induced displacement is impacting women in the country and why the government urgently needs to do more in response.

What are some of the ways that climate change is affecting women and girls in Azerbaijan?

Climate change is definitely making women more vulnerable to gender-based violence. We’ve worked with many women from rural areas whose families have lost their homes and livelihoods due to floods, drought, and other environmental crises. People become homeless, their lives have been devastated. Before, they had opportunities to earn money to improve their lives, but now they don’t.

This is forcing people to migrate and is pushing them into urban areas. Gender-based violence increases because when people become poorer, it puts pressure on families who cannot earn a living, and men can become more violent. Every day, we receive hundreds of calls from women, but due to the limited capacity of our shelters, we have to refuse many.

After extreme climate events, many women migrate alone to urban centers like Baku to support their families. However, some do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to find employment and earn money. Displacement caused by ecological crisis isolates women from their social networks and support systems, and makes them more vulnerable to abuse. As well as domestic violence, we have seen increases in commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking.

How is Azerbaijan’s government responding to the impact that climate change is having on women in the country?

In Azerbaijan, there is some understanding about how climate change impacts women and girls, but not enough. And while the government is doing some things about climate change, it’s not making the connection between ecological crisis, gender issues, and gender-based violence.

Changes in legislation and punishment for child marriage are getting tougher, but I think the ecological crisis is making the situation worse. With people becoming poorer and life getting harder, this connects to child marriage. Some families think if they have a girl who they cannot afford to provide food and education for, she should be married off quickly.

In cases of gender-based violence after extreme weather events, women often don’t have financial support, don’t know who to turn to, and may have psychological issues. It is sometimes very difficult to support these victims as they need free and regular assistance, but there are many we cannot help because of limited resources. And when there are floods, there is a big increase in the number of women needing help but we cannot provide so much support.

I have not heard of any official strategies or action plans to improve the situation for women when an ecological crisis happens. Government strategies should include implementation and coordination to address women’s issues. Without this, it is difficult to deal with these problems.

What action on climate change to support women is needed from governments?

Women and girls are being directly and disproportionately affected by the ecological crisis and we have to raise this with governments and other key stakeholders. There is a critical opportunity to address the unique challenges by developing and implementing comprehensive frameworks and gender-responsive strategies that tackle both the immediate and longer-term impacts.

Vocational training programs can help women adapt to climate change by equipping them with skills for sustainable livelihoods. This is particularly crucial for women in rural areas who may need to migrate to urban centers, where employment opportunities are more accessible. Providing these tools empowers women to rebuild their lives and communities while fostering resilience against climate-related challenges.

It is equally important to increase women’s participation in decision-making processes related to climate policies. By including women’s perspectives and experiences, governments can create more equitable and effective solutions. Gender equality must be central to these discussions, ensuring women’s voices shape policies addressing ecological and societal impacts.

Strengthening support systems is another vital step. Expanding access to psychological counseling, legal aid, and safe shelters for women and girls will address the immediate fallout of climate shocks. Additionally, building local capacity to meet the needs of women affected by these events will ensure long-term sustainability.

Public awareness campaigns are necessary to educate communities about the gendered impacts of climate change, and women should be given information about who they can turn to for support when their rights have been violated. Initiatives can shift societal attitudes, promoting a greater understanding of women’s vulnerabilities and the need for protective measures.

The COP29 summit in Azerbaijan underscored the urgency of integrating gender issues into climate action. Coordination among government agencies, civil society organizations, and international partners is essential to ensure these efforts are effective, inclusive, and provide women and girls with protection in the face of an evolving climate crisis.

Maithreyi Kamalanathan, Equality Now

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Stand Up, Speak Out: A Global Call to Men on the 25th Anniversary of International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: UN Women

LONDON, Nov 22 2024 (IPS) – In 1960, the Rafael Trujillo regime in the Dominican Republic assassinated the Mirabal sisters— renowned and respected for their courage and activism against dictatorship. To give their senseless violent death some meaning and to preserve their legacy, in 1999, the United Nations inaugurated November 25—the day of their assassination—as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW).


When talk of violence against women (VAW) was still taboo in polite and political circles, the UN’s stance was powerful. It put a spotlight on a pervasive pandemic of violence evident across continents and cultures that caused devastation in the lives of millions and replicated itself across generations.

The assumption was that raising public awareness and creating a political platform—a global one, no less—would prompt attention, concern, action, and genuine political will to address and eliminate this preventable form of harm and trauma.

Unfulfilled Promise of Global Initiatives

In the subsequent years, other high-profile, largely performative, initiatives followed. UN events became annual feel-good rituals, sidelining seasoned women’s rights advocates in favor of celebrity-driven initiatives.

UN Women’s campaigns, such as actress Nicole Kidman’s “Say No-UNiTE to End Violence Against Women,” featuring stern Wonder Woman-inspired imagery on reusable bottles, raised funds but did little to reach perpetrators of violence. Emma Watson’s HeforShe seemed to admonish women for excluding men—despite decades of efforts to engage men in tackling violence.

Iceland even hosted an all-male “barbershop” conference to address equality, with limited impact. Similarly, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague garnered attention with grand declarations about ending wartime rape through the UK-led Prevention of Sexual Violence Initiative (PSVI), backed by long-time activist and actress Angelina Jolie.

But his premise that sexual violence in war would be prevented if cases were documented and perpetrators faced the future prospect of criminal justice, missed fundamental facts – including that to stop war-time rape, more focus and resources should be put on preventing wars.

Meanwhile, the top-down international attention barely made a dent in addressing the problem where it resided worldwide: in communities and homes, and increasingly online—especially in times of crisis and conflict. In large part, the lack of impact of these high-level initiatives was their failure to reach the right audiences with the right messages through trusted messengers.

Relying on Hollywood actresses to inspire largely women’s audiences to unite against violence may be necessary for motivating women, but it is not sufficient. When the perpetrators of violence are overwhelmingly male, strategies, messaging, policies, and programs must also be directed at men.

Implicitly acknowledging that world leaders did not care about the social and human cost of violence against women, the World Bank took a different tack: following the money. In 2014, the Bank reported that violence against women cost countries up to 3.4% of their GDP.1 In some countries, this was more than double their investments in education.

Implying that we should care about violence against women because it affects our bottom line is certainly a mercenary approach, but even this stark calculation failed to prompt a change in policies, practices, or prioritization of the elimination of violence against women (EVAW) as a socio-economic and security concern.

Countless diplomats, activists and bureaucrats have shaped new policies and resolutions at national and international levels. A transnational bureaucracy has grown around the agenda and EVAW has gone global with the “16 Days of Activism” campaign. Yet, 25 years later, the outlook remains grim.

We know that in Gaza women endure caesareans without anesthesia because of the Israeli blockade on food, water, electricity, and medication—but nothing is being done to prevent it. We know that in Sudan, women and girls face extreme sexual violence and rape, yet nothing is being done to prevent this violence or provide protection and care for survivors.

We saw how the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a spike of some 40% in domestic violence across the world—and yet, nothing is being done to acknowledge or deal with the issues systemically. Year after year, femicide persists. Between March 2023-2024, in the UK alone, 100 women were killed by men.

Multifaceted Solutions

Breaking the silence on violence against women through awareness-raising campaigns has certainly drawn attention to the issue. We now have increased reporting, with better data on the forms of violence and the victims and survivors. We have an increased trickle of funding for programming and, perhaps most importantly, we have clear evidence of what works. It is not surprising that the solutions are multifaceted.

Laws and policies matter. In France, as the Gisele Pelicot case reveals, the legal definition of rape matters. Similarly, changing institutional cultures matters, especially in male-dominated law enforcement. In the U.S., a 2020 study found that one in four women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime, but fewer than 5% of survivors report the assaults to law enforcement.

In the U.S., police code 20% of reported cases as “unfounded,” based on the reporting officers’ perceptions of the woman reporting the incident. The 2020 report notes that “dismissing sexual violence has become common practice amongst the police.”2 Training and changing police practices is therefore essential to bring perpetrators to justice and increase women’s trust in the service.

Globally, grassroots initiatives prove that impactful change begins with local security personnel and community leaders. At the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), we have supported many of our partners in the Women’s Alliance for Security Leadership (WASL) in their efforts.

In Sri Lanka, the Association of War Affected Women (AWAW) successfully advocated for deploying female police officers to rural areas, trained male and female police officers on international laws such as UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and encouraged them to develop culturally effective approaches to addressing VAW.

In a Syrian refugee community in Turkey, our partner Kareemat has led interventions to stop child marriages that often take place because they are “one less mouth to feed.” Since fathers are making these decisions, raising awareness of the risks to their daughters and offering livelihood alternatives is essential.

To ensure the message resonates, Kareemat engaged trusted male religious leaders to emphasize that child marriage contradicts Islamic values and harms young girls. They also advocate for continued education and provide skills training, supporting girls to have their own livelihoods.

“We have observed a positive shift among many beneficiaries, especially men…agreeing on the importance of waiting until a girl reaches the age of eighteen before marriage,” says Kareemat Founder, Najla Sheikh. “These men also advocated for preparing young women by equipping them with a profession that enables them to support themselves…The beneficiaries expressed a desire to see girls achieve financial independence and be able to protect themselves in a safe environment like Kareemat.”3

Efforts to engage men in communities has expanded over the years. But as UK-based investigative journalist Sonia Sodha wrote in 2022,4 when it comes to the seriously violent, awareness and education is just not enough; reflecting on the differences between and within men is also essential.

Sodha highlights the UK-based project, Drive, which “has shed once and for all the feminist attachment to the idea that the key to reducing serious violence is teaching men to be better.” The project works with high-risk domestic abusers, assigning them case managers to provide support with jobs, mental health, and housing, while also serving as early warning conduits to involve police and social services when necessary to disrupt violence.

The results are astounding with an 82% and 88% drop in physical and sexual abuse respectively. Yet, access remains severely limited, with only 1% of serious abusers receiving such intervention.5

Meanwhile, a consistent factor in men’s violence is their own exposure to violence as children. Childhood abuse is a leading precursor of adult violence, yet in rich and poorer countries, programs to protect children are being slashed. As the wars in Gaza and Yemen show, children are increasingly the key targets of violent conflict.

Violence Against Women Amidst War and Displacement

With 56 wars raging and over 120 million people displaced by conflict, violence against women is on the rise, in increasingly complex forms. Ukraine is a case in point. Ukrainian men have become soldiers at the frontlines fighting Russian forces to protect their families and homeland.

But too often, on leave, they mete out their own trauma against their wives and children. It is wretchedly heartbreaking, yet universal in contexts of crisis and conflict.6 Simultaneously, displacement and economic hardship forces more women into sex work, trafficking, and other situations that heighten their vulnerability. Political dealmaking, such as the U.S.-Taliban agreement, has fueled multi-generational violence against women and children.

Over half a century since the Mirabals’ assassination, as a global community, we are certainly more aware of the horrors of violence against women. But it is still women who are picking up the pieces.

Our support networks are critical, says South African activist Bernedette Muthein, recalling “the street groups that intervene during domestic violence” and the women-led organizations that provide advice, support, and exit plans that “include stashing identity documents, clothes and money.”

Shelters and women-only spaces also remain essential for victims. But in Liberia, says peacebuilder Cerue Garlo “such issues are still not seen as national issues. The public expects women to handle them as ‘women’s issues’,” a sentiment that resonates around the world.

Time to Break the Cycle

On November 25, 2024, as the UN commemorates the 25th anniversary of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, perhaps it is worth stating it explicitly: violence against women is not just a women’s issue. It is a societal, economic, and security issue. Given the vast majority of perpetrators are men, it is also very clearly a men’s issue.

At a minimum, it is time to shift the shame and fear that women have harbored for so long, onto the men who perpetuate the violence. Too often, when such calls are made, social media platforms are flooded with #NotAllMen. Of course, not all men are implicated in VAW—and this is precisely the point. It is time for the good men—those who are indignant about and abhor such violence—to stand up, speak out, and join women to take on the challenge of ending this pandemic.

It is also time to dedicate more funding and channel resources directly to the women’s organizations working to tackle the roots, symptoms, causes, and effects of such violence.

The good news is that when the most serious abusers in the UK can be stopped, and destitute Syrian fathers can be convinced to protect their daughters, we know that violence against women is not inevitable. We just need to muster up the political will, social courage, and economic resources. Let’s not wait another 25 years to make the promise of ending violence against women a reality.

1 https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2023/08/25/tackling-gender-based-violence-development-imperative
2 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9136376/
3 Personal correspondence
4 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/06/male-violence-against-women-much-more-than-toxic-masculinity
5 Ibid
6 https://gppi.net/media/Kotliuk_2024_Hidden-Front-of-Russias-War_ENG.pdf

Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, MBE, is Founder/CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN)

IPS UN Bureau

  Source