Suchergebnisse

Today, DSIT's Responsible Technology Adoption Unit (RTA) is pleased to publish our guidance on Responsible AI in recruitment. This guidance aims to help organisations responsibly procure and deploy AI systems for use in recruitment processes. The guidance identifies key considerations …

Today, we are pleased to announce the launch of DSIT's Portfolio of AI Assurance Techniques. The portfolio features a range of case studies illustrating various AI assurance techniques being used in the real-world to support the development of trustworthy AI. …

As set out in the Government's National AI Strategy, the UK aims to establish the most trusted and pro-innovation system for AI governance in the world. A key component of getting this light-touch and pro-innovation governance right, is delivering on …

DSIT's Responsible Technology Adoption (RTA) Unit is pleased to publish its Introduction to AI assurance. This guidance is an accessible introduction that aims to support organisations to better understand how AI assurance techniques can be used to ensure the safe …

We are looking at professionalisation and certification as part of our programme of work to support the vision laid out in our roadmap to an effective AI assurance ecosystem. As discussed in part one, it will be helpful to learn …

Lesson two: Broad community building is crucial Community building that emphasises skills, communication, and diversity is crucial for ensuring that certification is reliable and accountable. Other sectors, like cybersecurity and healthcare, as well as cross-sector communities organised around ESG and …

The UK government's recently published approach to AI regulation sets out a proportionate and adaptable framework that manages risk and enhances trust while also allowing innovation to flourish. The framework also highlights the critical role of tools for trustworthy AI, …

U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping had a phone conversation on Tuesday, the first time the two leaders have spoken since their in-person meeting in November. As has happened following previous conversations, there is a considerable difference between the Chinese and U.S. readouts of the conversation. While both sides stressed the importance of maintaining open lines of communication, the official White House readout as usual placed a high stress on cautioning China against a variety of actions while saying virtually nothing about the clear need to undertake constructive actions to address common problems, such as those regarding climate change and pandemics. Equally important, as in past such readouts on conversations held between U.S. and Chinese officials, Beijing listed a set of assurances that Biden has supposedly made several times to Xi regarding Taiwan, U.S. alliances, and other critical security issues. And yet the U.S. side, as in the past, again failed to mention such assurances in its official readout of the conversation. Why is it that Washington will not confirm, clearly and unambiguously, that Biden either has or has not made all such assurances to the Chinese side? Various lower-level officials have at times made some of these assurances. But to my knowledge no U.S. official has made all of them. And Biden has not personally confirmed that he has made all such assurances.The failure to clear up this apparent disparity in messaging on these crucial issues could eventually produce Chinese expectations and perhaps even pressure on the U.S. that Washington pushes back against, thus creating a crisis in relations. Washington needs to do more to build constructive relations with Beijing on both sides' vital interests, and clarify its stance regarding Biden's supposed assurances. This is particularly necessary with regard to the administration's policies regarding Taiwan. See my recent brief on what the White House needs to say and what Beijing needs to do on that critical issue.

The State Department said on Monday that it has found no evidence that Israel is violating a recent directive that recipients of U.S. military aid comply with international human rights law.In February, partly due to pressure over support for Israel's war on Gaza, the Biden administration issued a national security memo that required any country receiving military aid from Washington while participating in an active armed conflict, to issue "credible and reliable written assurances" that they will use weapons funded by the U.S. in accordance with international law, and that they "the recipient country will facilitate and not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance and United States Government-supported international efforts to provide humanitarian assistance."Sunday was the deadline for Israel, along with the six other countries deemed to meet the criteria — Colombia, Iraq, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia and Ukraine — to issue these assurances. "For these seven countries (...) we have received written assurances that are required in the memo," State Department spokesman Matt Miller said during a press briefing on Monday. "In each case, these assurances were made by a credible, high-level official in the partner government who has the ability and authority to make decisions and commitments about the issues at the heart of the assurances." "We've had ongoing assessments of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law," Miller added. "We have not found them to be in violation, either when it comes to the conduct of the war or the provision of humanitarian assistance. We view those assurances through that ongoing work we have done." The announcement came shortly after the U.S. abstained from a resolution that demands an immediate ceasefire in Gaza — the first sign of public disagreement between Washington and Tel Aviv. The Biden administration will now have 90 days to provide Congress with a report on whether the Israeli government has abided by its assurances.This determination by the administration comes despite recent opposition from progressives in Congress to rule that the Israeli government's assurances were credible."The current circumstances on the ground in Gaza, the many statements made by the President and other senior Administration officials, and the recent IPC assessment that:'famine is imminent' – make it abundantly clear that Netanyahu's government is not doing nearly enough to allow aid to reach starving and otherwise desperate people in Gaza," 17 senators wrote the White House on March 22. "As a result, we believe it would be inconsistent with the letter and spirit of NSM-20 to find that assurances made by the Netanyahu Government meet the required 'credible and reliable' standard at this time. Such a determination would also establish an unacceptable precedent for the application of NSM-20 in other situations around the world."The letter's signatories included Sens. Chris van Hollen (D-Md.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)Six House Democrats made a similar case in a letter sent on March 23. "[T]he Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has restricted the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza by placing onerous burdens on the oversight of aid, severely limiting entry points for aid delivery, and arbitrarily preventing food, medicine, and other supplies from entering Gaza," wrote Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). "Given the catastrophic and devolving humanitarian situation in Gaza, we urge you to enforce the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act (Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act) and, as required by that law, make clear to the Israeli government that so long as Israel continues to restrict the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, the continued provision of U.S. security assistance to Israel would constitute a violation of existing U.S. law and must be restricted." The determinations match with assessments made with leading humanitarian organizations and human rights groups.Miller maintained that the current assessment was part of an ongoing process that "requires a fact-intensive analysis of relevant factors related to international humanitarian law," but that "as of yet, we have not made a conclusion that Israel is in violation of international humanitarian law."Reports last week suggested that officials at the State Department and USAID had expressed "deep skepticism" over ambassador to Israel Jack Lew's assertion that Israel's claims of compliance with international law were credible.

The West's complacency and enabling of non-alignment 2.0, as much as embodying optimism for India's convergence with the West, ignores the possibility of an Indo-Sino-Russian alliance. In seeking greater assurances, the West must begin matching Indian rhetoric with its deeds.

Andrew Gunn The UK Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has returned following revisions, but how has it changed? Are we any nearer to solving the wicked problem of measuring university teaching? And why did England, which already has mature quality assurance arrangements, need to introduce the TEF in the first place?   New Framework This September […]
The post Bringing Transparency to University Teaching: The English Experience appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Andrew Gunn The UK Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has returned following revisions, but how has it changed? Are we any nearer to solving the wicked problem of measuring university teaching? And why did England, which already has mature quality assurance arrangements, need to introduce the TEF in the first place?   New Framework This September […]
The post Bringing Transparency to University Teaching: The English Experience appeared first on Europe of Knowledge.

The U.S. will have almost half of its aircraft carriers deployed in the Pacific in the coming weeks. The South China Morning Post reported on February 14 that five of America's 11 aircraft carriers would all likely soon be deployed there at the same time. Two of the carriers, the USS Carl Vinson and USS Theodore Roosevelt have been participating in a military exercise with Japan in the Philippine Sea, the USS Ronald Reagan is in port at Yokosuka, the USS Abraham Lincoln departed San Diego earlier this month, and the USS George Washington is expected to relieve the Reagan in a few weeks. This is an unusual concentration of America's naval power in one region at once, and it is being widely interpreted as a show of force meant for China and North Korea. The Biden administration has made a point of making more shows of force in East Asia over the last year to reassure Asian allies that the U.S. has not forgotten about them. That isn't surprising given the importance that the administration attaches to the "Indo-Pacific" and an active U.S. role in it, but in doing this it may also be contributing to increasing tensions with both Beijing and Pyongyang. We have already seen some of this in the back-and-forth between the U.S. and North Korea since last summer as North Korea has answered U.S. naval deployments to South Korea with additional missile tests and more bellicose rhetoric. While these carrier deployments are presumably intended to signal American resolve and commitment to its regional allies, they could easily encourage China and North Korea to engage in their own reciprocal demonstrations of strength. They are also a reminder that the U.S. approach to East Asia is still very much a "military-first" approach that gives short shrift and devotes relatively few resources to economic statecraft and diplomacy. International relations scholar Van Jackson warned about the dangers of this approach more than two years ago, and since then the U.S. has only ramped up its military spending and deployments.Because Washington's attention has been focused so intently for the last four months on the war in Gaza and the other conflicts in the Middle East connected to it, it seems that the administration wants to show that it isn't neglecting East Asia. The carrier deployments in the Pacific appear to be an attempt to "make up" for the continued massive over-investment of energy and resources in the Middle East. The show of force may satisfy some allied governments, but it could also confirm the impression in both friendly and hostile capitals that the U.S. is overstretched and trying to take on too many tasks at the same time. The habit of reassuring allies so frequently has its own costs, including encouraging greater allied dependence, and when it is done too often it can have destabilizing effects on the wider region. One of the principle weaknesses of U.S. foreign policy in East Asia is an overreliance on military deterrence. This tends to ratchet up tensions more than necessary and undermines credible assurances to adversaries. The U.S. excels at reassuring allies with its displays of military power, but because it often fails to strike a balance by giving adversaries assurances about its intentions, our government can feed the fears of Chinese and North Korean leaders and encourage them to assume the worst about what the U.S. is doing. The carrier deployments suggest that the administration doesn't understand the need for balancing deterrence and assurance. Failing to balance the two risks making conflict based on a miscalculation more likely. As the Quincy Institute's Michael Swaine recently wrote about U.S. deterrence and Taiwan, "This balance is essential because, if the level of punishment or denial capability acquired is in fact seen as threatening the adversary's most vital interests, the adversary, rather than being deterred from taking aggressive action, will become more inclined to undertake or threaten preemptive or punishing moves of its own in order to protect those interests, thus increasing, rather than decreasing, the chance of conflict." By relying so much on shows of force designed to intimidate China, the Biden administration increases the risk of a crisis.The potential danger with North Korea is arguably even greater, since the North Korean government has a long history of responding to U.S. and allied pressure with its own provocations and threats. To the extent that Pyongyang perceives the deployment of so many carriers to the Pacific as directed even partly at North Korea, Kim Jong-un may conclude that he needs to show off his country's own capabilities with additional missile tests and possibly even a new nuclear test. Last year, North Korea reacted very angrily to the arrival of the USS Ronald Reagan in Busan, so it seems reasonable to expect an even harsher response if there are multiple carriers in the vicinity. Given the increasingly hostile rhetoric already coming from Pyongyang in the last few months, it would not take much for a new standoff between the U.S. and North Korea to begin.The U.S. can ill afford a new crisis in East Asia on top of the other conflicts that it is involved in, but its overly militarized approach to the region is not the way to avoid it. If Washington wants to make conflicts in East Asia less likely, it will need to do a much better job of understanding its adversaries' thinking and of offering them assurances that they can believe. Right now, the U.S. is doing far too little of both, and that is making the U.S. and its allies less secure than they could be.

Israel's finance minister has blocked a major U.S. shipment of humanitarian aid meant to feed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to Axios, setting up a faceoff with the Biden administration, which has come under increasing pressure from Democrats in Congress to increase the flow of aid into the besieged territory.
The news comes just days after President Joe Biden issued a memorandum in which he committed to enforce a little-used provision of U.S. law that bans Washington from giving security assistance to states that block U.S. humanitarian aid. The memorandum drew heavily on a proposal from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that called for the implementation of U.S. law restricting military aid for human rights violators.
Biden now finds himself in a bind: He can ignore the memo and anger his allies in the Senate; cut off military aid to Israel; or issue a waiver that would allow shipments to continue while conceding that Israeli actions are contrary to U.S. law.
"The most likely possibility is that the president says, 'Yes, there's been a restriction, but because of the importance of supporting Israel, we're going to waive,'" said John Ramming Chappell, an advocacy and legal fellow at the Center for Civilians in Conflict. A waiver, Ramming Chappell argues, "would require being honest about the fact that the Israeli government is restricting the delivery of humanitarian assistance."
Such an admission would be embarrassing for the administration given its repeated declarations that it has not seen credible allegations of Israeli war crimes, a view at odds with the assessment of all major human rights organizations and even U.S. allies.
"If you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people having been killed," charged European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell on Monday, following Biden's comment that Israeli operations have been "over the top."
As Israel faces charges of genocide at the International Court of Justice, the Biden administration is reportedly conducting internal reviews of Israel's compliance with the laws of war, an important question given the scale of U.S. military aid to the country.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment from RS. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said yesterday that "the Israeli government made a commitment to allow the flour to go in, and we expect them to implement this commitment."
The flour in the shipment, which is currently sitting in the Israeli port of Ashdod, would be sufficient to feed 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza for five months, according to Miller. United Nations experts estimate that one in four Gazans is now experiencing extreme famine conditions, indicating widespread starvation.
Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's finance minister, reportedly blocked the U.S. humanitarian aid because it was destined for distribution by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA. Israeli officials recently accused a dozen of UNRWA's 10,000 Gaza-based employees of participating in or facilitating the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, which killed nearly 1,200 people, most of whom were civilians.
While Israel has yet to provide evidence for the accusations, many countries, including the U.S. and Germany, have paused funding for the U.N. agency pending an investigation. UNRWA, for its part, has cut ties with the accused employees and urged states to reverse course on funding cutoffs. The agency says a continued suspension of funding could have catastrophic consequences in Gaza, which is already facing one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
Smotrich's office told Axios that he is now looking for a mechanism to deliver the aid without going through UNRWA, which he alleges is part of the "Hamas war machine."
The decision to hold up aid throws another wrench into the Biden administration's efforts to pass a funding package that includes billions of dollars in assistance for Ukraine and Israel. The package made it through the Senate Tuesday, but its odds of passing the House continue to dwindle due to progressive opposition to Israel aid and conservative opposition to Ukraine aid.
In a House hearing Wednesday, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) asked Bonnie Jenkins, a top State Department official on arms control, if the new memorandum would be applied to Israel.
"It's going to be applied to all countries," Jenkins said. "We have talked to Israel about the NSM, and they are aware of it and agreed to it."
But Jenkins punted when asked if the U.S. had secured assurances from Israel that it will allow the provision of U.S. humanitarian aid to Gaza, noting that the memorandum allowed up to 45 days for a state to provide such assurances if it is actively at war.

Jim Jordan's bid to become the next Speaker of the House gained momentum today, with a number of prominent Republican members reversing earlier statements and pledging to support his bid. According to a new report from Axios, that change of heart may have been motivated in part by assurances from the Ohio Congressman that he would allow a floor vote on linking Ukraine funding with Israel funding if he wins the gavel. Axios' reporting cites four House Republicans that left meetings with the Speaker nominee "under the impression" that Jordan would allow such a vote. Many of the members who came out in support of Jordan's bid this morning cited productive conversations with the Congressman, without providing any specifics. Some of the members who surprisingly endorsed Jordan's bid this morning are defense hawks like Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who were reportedly concerned about Jordan's reluctance to continue funding Kyiv's war effort and his desire to enact that 1% across-the-board spending cut that could have included the Pentagon. ""He's not going to block a vote,' said one of the House Republicans who spoke with Jordan," according to Axios. A spokesman for Jordan's office told Axios that the Congressman made no promises, and that "Jordan's conversations were about working to find the right approach, rather than specific promises." As RS previously reported, a significant number of Republicans on Capitol Hill — including a number of supporters of further aid for Ukraine — had balked at the Biden administration's planned proposal to combine aid for Kyiv, Tel Aviv, and more into a single package.Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who last month emphasized his support for supporting Ukraine, likened the move to combine that effort with aid to Israel to "blackmail."Others were more blunt. "They shouldn't be tied together. I will not vote to fund Ukraine. Absolutely not," said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) last week. "Israel is totally separate."Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who has been a staunch supporter of Jordan's candidacy, said on CNN last week "however you feel about Israel and Ukraine, I think a responsible and reasonable government ought to address those questions separately." During the interview, he implied that Jordan shared that sentiment. Gaetz earlier led an effort to remove Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from the Speakership, in part because the former Speaker had made a "secret side deal" with Biden to keep funding Ukraine.The floor vote for Speaker is expected to be held tomorrow, and it is not yet confirmed whether Jordan has enough votes to cross the 217-vote threshold, despite the string of eleventh-hour endorsements.