Day: September 14, 2024

(LONDON) — Prince Harry was always something different.

From the moment he first appeared in public, snuggled in Princess Diana’s arms outside the London hospital where he was born in 1984, Harry was the ginger-haired scamp who stuck his tongue out at photographers. He grew to be a boisterous adolescent who was roundly criticized for wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party, and then a young man who gave up the trappings of royal life and moved to Southern California with his American wife.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Through it all, there was a sense that Harry was rebelling against an accident of birth that made him, in the harsh calculus of the House of Windsor, just “the spare.” As the second son of the man who is now King Charles III, he was raised as a prince but wouldn’t inherit the throne unless brother William came to harm.

Now the angry young man is turning 40, the halfway point in many lives, providing a chance to either dwell on the past or look forward to what might still be achieved.

For the past four years, Harry has focused mainly on the past, making millions of dollars by airing his grievances in a wildly successful memoir and a Netflix docu-series. But he faces the likelihood that the royal aura so critical to his image may be fading, said Sally Bedell Smith, author of “Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life.”

“He is at a sort of crossroads,’’ Smith told The Associated Press. “And he appears to be struggling with how he wants to proceed.’’

How did we get here?

It wasn’t always this way.

Six years ago, Harry and his wife were among the most popular royals, a glamorous young couple who reflected the multicultural face of modern Britain and were expected to help revitalize the monarchy.

Their wedding on May 19, 2018, united a grandson of Queen Elizabeth II with the former Meghan Markle, a biracial American actress who had starred for seven years in the U.S. television drama “Suits.” George Clooney, Serena Williams and Elton John attended their wedding at Windsor Castle, after which the couple were formally known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

But the optimism quickly faded amid allegations that Britain’s tabloid media and even members of the royal household treated Meghan unfairly because of racism.

By January of 2020, the pressures of life in the gilded cage had become too much, and the couple announced they were giving up royal duties and moving to America, where they hoped to become “financially independent.” They signed lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify as they settled into the wealthy enclave of Montecito, near Santa Barbara, California.

Since then, Harry has missed few opportunities to bare his soul, most famously in his memoir, aptly titled “Spare.”

Read More: These Are the Most Shocking Revelations in Prince Harry’s Memoir ‘Spare’

In the ghostwritten book, Harry recounted his grief at the death of Princess Diana, a fight with Prince William and his unease with life in the royal shadow of his elder brother. From accounts of cocaine use and losing his virginity to raw family rifts, the book was rife with damning allegations about the royal family.

Among the most toxic was Harry’s description of how some family members leaked unflattering information about other royals in exchange for positive coverage of themselves. The prince singled out his father’s second wife, Queen Camilla, accusing her of feeding private conversations to the media as she sought to rehabilitate an image tarnished by her role in the breakup of Charles’ marriage to Diana.

The allegations were so venomous that there is little chance of a return to public duty, Smith said.

“He criticized the royal family in such a powerful and damaging way. You can’t un-say those things,’’ she said. “And you can’t unsee things like Meghan in that Netflix series doing a mock curtsey. It’s such a demeaning gesture to the queen.’’

Harry, who agreed not to use the honorific HRH, or “his royal highness,” after he stepped away from front-line royal duties, is now fifth in line to the British throne, behind his brother and William’s three children.

While he grew up in a palace and is said to be in line to inherit millions of pounds (dollars) on his 40th birthday from a trust set up by his great-grandmother, applied developmental psychologist Deborah Heiser thinks that, in many ways, Harry is just like the rest of us.

Like anyone turning 40, he is likely to have learned a few lessons and has a good idea of who his real friends are, and that will help him chart the next phase of his life, said Heiser, who writes a blog called “The Right Side of 40” for Psychology Today.

“He has had a very public display of what a lot of people have gone through,’’ Heiser said. “I mean, most people are not princes, but … they have all kinds of issues within their families. He’s not alone. That’s why he’s so relatable.’’

Harry’s next chapter

Of course, Harry’s story isn’t just about the drama within the House of Windsor.

If he wants to write a new chapter, Harry can build on his 10 years of service in the British Army. Before retiring as a captain in 2015, the prince earned his wings as a helicopter pilot, served two tours in Afghanistan and shed the hard-partying reputation of his youth.

Harry also won accolades for establishing the Invictus Games in 2014, a Paralympic-style competition to inspire and aid in the rehabilitation of sick and wounded servicemembers and veterans.

Harry and Meghan made headlines this year with their two international trips to promote mental health and internet safety. While some in British media criticized them for accepting royal treatment in Nigeria and Colombia, the couple said they visited at the invitation of local officials.

Will Charles see the grandkids?

Prospects of reconciliation are unclear, though Harry did race home to see his father after Charles’ cancer diagnosis. And in what may be seen as a tentative olive branch, the paperback edition of “Spare” slated for October has no additions — so nothing new to stir the pot.

But plainly at this point, Harry is thinking about his family in California. He told the BBC about the importance of his two young children, Archie and Lilibet.

“Being a dad is one of life’s greatest joys and has only made me more driven and more committed to making this world a better place,” the prince said in a statement released by his spokesperson.

The Iraq war — sold on lies and bungled in its prosecution — has become the embodiment of American hubris in the 21st century. Hundreds of thousands died, allies were alienated, and the U.S. became mired in a decadeslong boondoggle that is still unfolding. By 2007, a few years after the war was launched, all but its most diehard proponents had come to see it as the mistake it was.

Today, those same diehard war hawks — the very people who planned and carried out the Iraq invasion — are proudly throwing their full support behind Vice President Kamala Harris in the November presidential election.

Chief among them is former Vice President Dick Cheney. Not far behind are a clutch of other Bush-era figures aligned with the neoconservative movement, like Bill Kristol; former officials like former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; and staffers for the late former Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Harris is, in turn, embracing her new right-wing fan club, touting endorsements from more than 200 Republican staffers who worked for George W. Bush, McCain, and another former Republican presidential nominee, Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah.

Harris is embracing her new right-wing fan club.

“Of course, we have plenty of honest, ideological disagreements with Vice President Harris,” the GOP staffers wrote in a letter. “That’s to be expected. The alternative, however, is simply untenable.”

These hawks say they’re endorsing Harris largely to stop Donald Trump — citing his conduct and “chaotic leadership” — but these prominent conservatives are backing the Democratic nominee because their visions for U.S. foreign policy increasingly appear to be aligned. The Democratic and Republican parties are more unified than ever in their commitment to preserving American hegemony and preventing the multipolar world from emerging.

As vice president, Cheney was one of the principal architects not only of the Iraq War, which left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, but also the U.S.’s worldwide torture regime. The aftershocks of America’s eight-year occupation are still being felt in the region and in our domestic politics to this day. Former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wy., who inherited her father’s hawkish views, has also pledged to do whatever she can to elect Harris, including launching a PAC that has raised millions of dollars to boost the Democrat’s campaign.

This marks a departure from the past 20 years of Democratic presidential campaigns, which were built on a repudiation of the Bush administration and its disastrous war in Iraq.

Just 18 months after American troops went into Baghdad, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, said that the invasion created “a crisis of historic proportions.” He charged Bush with “stubborn incompetence” over his handling of the war. In 2008, Barack Obama’s opposition to the unpopular war was a major source of his success at the ballot box.

Even in 2016, the repercussions of the Iraq War were a major issue in the Democratic primary. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made his opposition to the war a cornerstone of his platform and repeatedly referenced Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of it. “I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq,” Sanders said of Clinton.

Now, however, an endorsement from one of the biggest war criminals in recent history is seen as an asset, not a liability.

Harris for Hawks

The Harris campaign isn’t just courting moderates and conservatives as part of a short-term strategy to win the election. Rather, Democrats are actively supporting and spouting neoconservative ideas.

During her keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, Harris vowed: “As commander-in-chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” — as her party blocked any Palestinian Americans from appearing on the convention stage to speak about Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

The party’s 2024 platform also reflects this rightward shift. A section from the 2020 platform on ending forever wars and opposing regime change was completely removed in 2024. The Democratic Party went from calling for an end to U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen to championing the Biden administration’s plan for a normalization deal between Israel and the Persian Gulf monarchy — a plan that could also put American lives on the line to protect the Saudi dictatorship for decades to come.

Some of the most glaring neocon-coded changes in the platform have to do with Iran policy. This year’s platform attempted to portray Trump as being too soft on Iran, while including no mention of the Trump administration’s assassination of a top Iranian military commander. Though Harris’s national security adviser, Phil Gordon, helped negotiate the 2015 Iran deal, others in her circle have predicted that a Harris administration would not seek to return to the Iran nuclear deal.

It’s not like Trump offers a viable alternative. As recently as the debate this week, Harris and Trump tried to outflank each other on issues like China, immigration, and crime. Trump called Biden a “very bad Palestinian” who doesn’t want to help Israel “finish the job” in Gaza. Both parties are guilty of China-bashing and casting China as an existential threat to the U.S. As president, Trump declared economic war on China, which was then escalated by Biden.

The American people don’t support any of these bloodthirsty policies, but it appears that circles of power in the U.S. are increasingly disconnected from the will of the people. The vast majority of Americans who want the U.S. to pull back and focus on domestic issues are going to be left without any serious option in November. The country, and the world, will pay the price.

The post Do Kamala Harris’s Neocon Supporters Just Hate Trump, or Is There Something More to Her Appeal? appeared first on The Intercept.

A digest of recent analysis of national security and rights-related news and developments at Just Security.

Israel-Hamas War

• “With Utmost Urgency”: Arrest Warrants and Amicus Observations at the International Criminal Court
  by Adil Ahmad Haque (@AdHaque110)

Telegram / Data Privacy

• Telegram’s Security Sham
  by Michael Van Landingham and Gavin Wilde

Cambodia Trials / Social Media

• Vlogging International Criminal Justice? Digital Optics at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal
  by Andre Kwok

Africa / Democracy

• To Challenge State Capture, the US Needs a Strategy of State Retrieval
  by John Prendergast and Damon Wilson (@DamonMacWilson)

2024 Presidential Election Interference

• Election Certification Refusers Are a Movement: Georgia Lawsuit Highlights Alarming Trend
  by Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports)

Executive Power / US Foreign Policy

• America’s Overlooked National Security Threat
  by Harold Hongju Koh (@haroldhongjukoh)

International Space Law

• In the Woomera Manual, International Law Meets Military Space Activities
  by David A. Koplow

Podcast: REAIM Summit

• The Just Security Podcast: Strategic Risks of AI and Recapping the 2024 REAIM Summit
  Paras Shah (@pshah518) interview with Brianna Rosen (@rosen_br)

The post Digest of Recent Articles on Just Security (Sept. 9-13) appeared first on Just Security.

Artificial intelligence is poised to deliver tremendous benefits to society. But, as many have pointed out, it could also bring unprecedented new horrors. As a general-purpose technology, the same tools that will advance scientific discovery could also be used to develop cyber, chemical, or biological weapons. Governing AI will require widely sharing its benefits while keeping the most powerful AI out of the hands of bad actors. The good news is that there is already a template on how to do just that.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In the 20th century, nations built international institutions to allow the spread of peaceful nuclear energy but slow nuclear weapons proliferation by controlling access to the raw materials—namely weapons-grade uranium and plutonium—that underpins them. The risk has been managed through international institutions, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency. Today, 32 nations operate nuclear power plants, which collectively provide 10% of the world’s electricity, and only nine countries possess nuclear weapons.

Countries can do something similar for AI today. They can regulate AI from the ground up by controlling access to the highly specialized chips that are needed to train the world’s most advanced AI models. Business leaders and even the U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres have called for an international governance framework for AI similar to that for nuclear technology.

The most advanced AI systems are trained on tens of thousands of highly specialized computer chips. These chips are housed in massive data centers where they churn on data for months to train the most capable AI models. These advanced chips are difficult to produce, the supply chain is tightly controlled, and large numbers of them are needed to train AI models. 

Governments can establish a regulatory regime where only authorized computing providers are able to acquire large numbers of advanced chips in their data centers, and only licensed, trusted AI companies are able to access the computing power needed to train the most capable—and most dangerous—AI models. 

This may seem like a tall order. But only a handful of nations are needed to put this governance regime in place. The specialized computer chips used to train the most advanced AI models are only made in Taiwan. They depend on critical technology from three countries—Japan, the Netherlands, and the U.S. In some cases, a single company holds a monopoly on key elements of the chip production supply chain. The Dutch company ASML is the world’s only producer of extreme ultraviolet lithography machines that are used to make the most cutting-edge chips.

Read More: The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024

Governments are already taking steps to govern these high-tech chips. The U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands have placed export controls on their chip-making equipment, restricting their sale to China. And the U.S. government has prohibited the sale of the most advanced chips—which are made using U.S. technology—to China. The U.S. government has also proposed requirements for cloud computing providers to know who their foreign customers are and report when a foreign customer is training a large AI model that could be used for cyberattacks. And the U.S. government has begun debating—but not yet put in place—restrictions on the most powerful trained AI models and how widely they can be shared. While some of these restrictions are about geopolitical competition with China, the same tools can be used to govern chips to prevent adversary nations, terrorists, or criminals from using the most powerful AI systems.

The U.S. can work with other nations to build on this foundation to put in place a structure to govern computing hardware across the entire lifecycle of an AI model: chip-making equipment, chips, data centers, training AI models, and the trained models that are the result of this production cycle. 

Japan, the Netherlands, and the U.S. can help lead the creation of a global governance framework that permits these highly specialized chips to only be sold to countries that have established regulatory regimes for governing computing hardware. This would include tracking chips and keeping account of them, knowing who is using them, and ensuring that AI training and deployment is safe and secure.

But global governance of computing hardware can do more than simply keep AI out of the hands of bad actors—it can empower innovators around the world by bridging the divide between computing haves and have nots. Because the computing requirements to train the most advanced AI models are so intense, the industry is moving toward an oligopoly. That kind of concentration of power is not good for society or for business.

Some AI companies have in turn begun publicly releasing their models. This is great for scientific innovation, and it helps level the playing field with Big Tech. But once the AI model is open source, it can be modified by anyone. Guardrails can be quickly stripped away.

The U.S. government has fortunately begun piloting national cloud computing resources as a public good for academics, small businesses, and startups. Powerful AI models could be made accessible through the national cloud, allowing trusted researchers and companies to use them without releasing the models on the internet to everyone, where they could be abused.  

Countries could even come together to build an international resource for global scientific cooperation on AI. Today, 23 nations participate in CERN, the international physics laboratory that operates the world’s most advanced particle accelerator. Nations should do the same for AI, creating a global computing resource for scientists to collaborate on AI safety, empowering scientists around the world.

AI’s potential is enormous. But to unlock AI’s benefits, society will also have to manage its risks. By controlling the physical inputs to AI, nations can securely govern AI and build a foundation for a safe and prosperous future. It’s easier than many think.