You can also watch this video by clicking HERE or on the Play Button below
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fa9d6/fa9d6da8c7d4078d2a7b1256ab777fac0d61ec58" alt=""
Ethical worries may mount in the future, especially if the armed forces ask for permission to give their machines greater autonomy. But for the moment they remain conventional weapons, with humans subject to the conventional tests that their action be discriminate and proportionate. The remote-pilot in, say, Nevada who pushed the button that killed al-Awlaki is as accountable for his actions as the pilot in the cockpit of a fast jet; and so are the drone pilot’s commanders—right up to Mr Obama himself.
In Pakistan, drone strikes are conducted to support a counter-insurgency operation. Al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen, not in a war zone. The president’s defenders claim that strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters are legal under the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act, which allows Mr Obama to employ “all necessary and appropriate force” against any country, organization or person involved in the September 11th attacks or “to prevent future acts of international terrorism”. They add that killing a man who is plotting to kill Americans is a legitimate act of self-defense, given that al-Awlaki was in a country that was unable to act against him.
From this perspective, America has a prima facie case that it acted legally. But that argument clearly needs to be tested. It is not just that international law, which surely applies in this case, is less generous towards targeted assassination. There are questions to be asked even under American law.
Is the president’s right to place an individual on a “kill or capture list” greater than that individual’s constitutional right to due process? The Supreme Court should look at this rapidly.
Finally there is the impact on America’s broader aims. Targeted assassination may cause more problems than it solves. Although drones have decimated al-Qaeda, they have also helped to destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country of 190m Muslims. Nobody wants to make America’s “long war” even longer.
Two things would make America’s conduct somewhat less controversial. First, all drone killings should be carried out by the armed forces, not the CIA: they must be part of the conventional chain of command. And second, there should be some system of formal judicial review to determine whether the evidence against someone is sufficiently strong to make that person a target for assassination.
America has a potent new weapon. Now it needs to adapt it to its principles.
On October 4th Quacquarelli Symonds, an education consultancy, published the first regional ranking of Latin American universities, combining measures of reputation, research output, academics’ qualifications and staff-student ratios. Of the 200 top universities, 65 are in Brazil, 35 in Mexico, 25 apiece in Argentina and Chile and 20 in Colombia (see table for the top ten). The University of São Paulo (USP), the richest and biggest university in Brazil’s richest state, came top.
This week USP became the only Latin American university to make it into the world’s top 200 universities in another much-watched list, published by Times Higher Education, a British specialist weekly. USP ranked 178th this year (up from 232nd last year). Founded and supported by the government of São Paulo state, USP has been helped by a big increase in private funding and in international collaborations and recognition. It also led the Latin American contingent in another list compiled by Shanghai’s Jiao Tong University and released in August, ranking in the cluster between 101st and 150th. This list focuses on scientific research; USP is becoming a world leader in tropical medicine, parasitology and biofuels.
Nowhere else in Latin America can match USP. The other leaders in the region are a mix of old-established public universities (the University of Chile, for example), Catholic institutions or secular non-profit places such as Bogotá’s University of the Andes and Monterrey’s Tecnológico.
University rankings miss hard-to-measure factors such as the quality of teaching and the campus atmosphere. They are biased towards bigger universities, which tend to be better known and to produce more research. (This may have helped Argentina’s UBA, whose glory days are in the past.)
At many Latin American public universities students pay nothing, staff are unsackable, and the curriculum is old-fashioned and politicised. Good teaching and research are not rewarded with extra funding or promotions; institutions do not lose money if their students drop out. Except in Brazil many faculty members are part-timers without PhDs.
In the past three decades, governments have accepted a huge expansion of private provision. That has allowed them to expand higher education quickly without spending more, but before they decided what made a good university, says Francisco Marmolejo, a Mexican consultant on university administration. The result is that mechanisms to ensure quality are weak or nonexistent.
No country in the region has worked out satisfactorily how to share the cost of degrees between students and taxpayers. Chile’s government is currently suffering the consequences. Months of student protests against the exorbitant cost of for-profit universities have seen the popularity of the president, Sebastián Piñera, plunge. The country’s education system, from primary school to university, is probably the region’s best. But Chile also has one of world’s lowest levels of public funding for higher education, some of the longest degrees and no comprehensive system of student grants or subsidised loans. When a flat jobs market was added to this mix, it became combustible.
In Venezuela Hugo Chávez’s government has expanded higher education by forcing existing universities to accept a massive increase in student numbers, and by setting-up a giant new open-access state institution, the “Bolivarian University”. This is supposed eventually to have around 200 campuses. The result, says Mr Marmolejo, is a “time-bomb”. “Unprepared institutions; non-existent infrastructure; 300 students in classrooms that used to hold 15. You end up with a system where hundreds of thousands of people have degrees that are totally worthless.”
If Latin America’s universities are to flourish their governance must be reformed, says Philip Altbach, director of the Centre for International Higher Education at Boston College in the United States. “In most countries the flagship public universities are simply too big to be managed,” he says. Creating a world-class modern university needs flexibility in hiring, promotion and pay rather than the rigid rules that are traditional in the region.
Stronger mechanisms to ensure quality and more equitable student financing will also make a big difference, says Andreas Schleicher of the OECD, an organisation of mainly rich countries. He is optimistic that USP’s growing pre-eminence could show the way for the entire region.