Ep 172: Navigating Geopolitical Shifts and Misinformation with Waqar Rizvi

In this episode, Dominic Bowen engages in a thought-provoking conversation with Waqar Rizvi, a multilingual Canadian-Pakistani journalist and strategic policy analyst. Rizvi shares his expertise on the evolving multipolar world order, the complexities of Iranian politics and society, and the challenges of combating misinformation in the digital age. The discussion covers a range of topics, including the nuances of Iranian culture, the impact of AI on fact-checking, and the importance of diverse perspectives in global discourse. Rizvi offers valuable insights into the ethical considerations of AI deployment in journalism and emphasizes the need for critical examination of biases in data collection and analysis. This episode provides listeners with a deeper understanding of current geopolitical dynamics and the importance of nuanced, cross-cultural communication in addressing global challenges.

The International Risk Podcast is a weekly podcast for senior executives, board members, and risk advisors. In these podcasts, we speak with experts in a variety of fields to explore international relations. Our host is Dominic Bowen, Head of Strategic Advisory at one of Europe's leading risk consulting firms. Dominic is a regular public and corporate event speaker, and visiting lecturer at several universities. Having spent the last 20 years successfully establishing large and complex operations in the world's highest-risk areas and conflict zones, Dominic now joins you to speak with exciting guests around the world to discuss international risk.

The International Risk Podcast - Reducing Risk by Increasing Knowledge.

Follow us on LinkedIn for all our great updates. 

Transcript

Host: Hi, you're listening to the international risk podcast. We hear from the traditional to the wacky. Your host, Dominic Bowen, will ask the questions that you will want the answers to. If you know Dominic, then you know he is well acquainted with risk. Joined by our excellent guests, he'll reveal innovative ideas on how you can ensure your organization thrives in areas with high risk.

Dominic: Hi, I'm Dominic, host of the International risk podcast, and today we're joined by wakar Rizvi. He's a multilingual Canadian, Pakistani journalist and strategic policy analyst with 17 years of experience. He has a master's in media ethics from the University of Sussex, and he specializes in sociopolitical analysis on Iran policy research, global communications and geopolitical security. He’s fluent in English, Persian and Urdu, and he has professional proficiency also in French. He's big on leveraging artificial intelligence and fact checking, and he has a lot of experience combating misinformation, a really relevant topic today. He's lived, studied and worked in the UAE, Canada, Iran and Pakistan, and I'm really excited about our conversation today. Welcome to the International risk podcast, Waqar. 

Waqar: Thank you very much for having me, Dominic. I’m excited about this. 

Dominic: Waqar there's so many topics that we could jump into today, but let's start at the macro level. What are some of the major geopolitical shifts you've observed? Let's start at the last couple of years, and how we're seeing global stability evolve over the last couple of years. 

Waqar: I know this may sound a bit cliche, and I know people have spoken about this a lot, so I'm probably not saying something very, very new, but I think that the biggest, the most important shift that is happening in the world, and has been happening for a while now, is a shift towards a more multipolar world. By that, I mean where the world used to be. I mean I mean, I don't like the word West centric, but let's just use that for the sake of simplicity, West centric world, where a lot of policy making used to come from the west towards the east, or the global north to the global south. And I think that that has changed a lot now, where the global south has risen, even those countries that are not wealthy still have found their voice, and I think that that is the biggest shift that I think the world is having a very hard time coming to terms with. To be very honest, even people in the global south are having a hard time coming to terms with that, and certainly people in the Global North are, because it's just not the way the status quo has been for a very long time. The people that you weren't used to hearing from as much now, you hear from them a lot more, even in policy making circles. And I think that that to a certain extent, I'm not trying to judge anybody, but I feel like that makes certain people uncomfortable, just because it's a very new thing.

Dominic: You know, I really appreciate you bringing that topic up, because the you know that distribution of power is certainly more diverse. I mean, we can't get away from the fact that America, China, certainly some other countries, are still the dominant powers, but there's certainly a lot more power beyond the traditional superpowers. And I think this is gaining influence, and this shift is allowing the less dominant countries, particularly in the Global South, to assert their sovereignty, to explore and to project their identity. And I think we are certainly seeing alternatives to the western model. And you mentioned the bricks, and potentially the brick plus. And what machinations that may may look like, is that something that the new bricks, or the brick plus plus, something that you're expecting to actually evolve into something that you think will be quite important in the coming years, or do you think it's just a fad? 

Waqar: It'll definitely evolve into something important. It's hard to say exactly when that will happen. You know, everyone, everyone talks about the US dollar going down, but I think that that, I think we're all looking at this in a bit of a simplistic way, because I don't think it's that easy, right? So, I mean, if you, if you say you want to de dollarize your economy, or the global economy, as as many on on this side of the aisle will say, sometimes I don't think it's not one of those magic wands right, in which you wave around and make it happen. The world is so married to the US dollar for better or worse. I'm not trying to judge whether that's a good or bad thing, but I'm just saying that if that is your goal, then that's not something that's going to happen in the near or I feel even midterm. I feel like that's a long term goal. So it's really hard to say how quickly this will all happen. Plus, the fact is that the BRICS countries do not always agree on all policies, right? Because this is, this is a very this is quite a large variety of countries, and there are even disagreements amongst these countries. So how do you then get them to agree on the most important things, even deuterizing. For example, I don't think every single person or every single nation, I should say, pardon me, within that BRICS nation alliance will agree to. So that's a huge challenge at this point in time. 

Dominic: It's a really important point, too. And I think when we look at the power, I think some of the main points that characterize the. Current geopolitical order is the preeminence of the US dollar, and the US dollar maintaining its dominant position certainly gives the us a lot of power, a lot of currency, so to speak. And similarly, for China, I think huge supply chain power, and the amounts of our supply chains that are still extremely coupled with China gives China its power. So any de dollarization or initiatives to de dollarize, you know, is likely to be gradual, and certainly something that the US is likely to resist. And what are you seeing there when it comes to current trends in international relations that policymakers really need to be paying attention to in 2024?

Waqar: The big one is the Middle East, certainly, but I think that we shouldn't all have our blinders on to the rest of the world as well. Certainly, there are shifts happening in the United States, even though the elections are in November, but I think it's still very significant to view how things are playing out there politically. Because even before the elections, we're already having tidal waves of, you know, different sorts of policies, events happening in that country. You know, the attempt of Trump and Biden stepping down from the race, these sorts of things have reverberations around the world, and they have an influence even in the Middle East or even on Far East, right? So East Asia, for example, that's something that's not spoken about a lot these days, just simply because the Middle East is dominating. But I feel like that shouldn't take a backseat, necessarily. I think we should always keep our eyes on all of the above, Russia, Ukraine is already a big one, especially if Trump does win. And even South Asia. You know, sometimes I feel like South Asia, some just because of the fact that it's, it's not the wealthiest region in the world. And I'm not trying to put down India. India certainly is a very wealthy country and very, very successful country in its own right, but as a whole, South Asia is not always given a lot of importance, even politically. I'm speaking, economically is one thing, but they do have a significant amount of political influence, even at international fora. So you know, just for the fact that this region has votes at the United Nations, which I know many countries, do you know that voting bloc, so to speak, even though it's not united, can sometimes be united just purely out of natural needs, those sorts of things, I think should not be disregarded when we're talking about policy making overall. 

Dominic: And this policy making needs to occur and is occurring within that backdrop of huge technological disruptions, very real climate change concerns and evolving societal expectations, and all of these are reshaping the global economic landscape. And so with that in mind, how do you assess the potential impacts of current geopolitical events on the global business and on the economic environment? 

Waqar: The reality is that there is no guarantee anymore. You know where I think that there used to be a guarantee of stability in certain countries where you're investing, or where you're looking to move, even as an investor or businessman, or even if you're just looking for work, right? If you're an economic migrant, those sorts of guarantees that once existed, or at least existed in our minds. Because I think that there's sometimes that the reality that did not actually exist, where we felt like it existed, I feel like that entire facade has has been, you know, shaken slash, even broken in certain places. You have countries where you once felt it was very safe to invest are not as safe to invest simply, simply out of the fact that, you know, we now have political realities, right? So, we have political realities in many European countries, which are sometimes moving towards a more anti migrant stance, not all, but I'm just saying that that's something that is, that is felt and in the air. So, you know, I was, I was in Germany about a week, a few weeks ago, I should say, I wouldn't say that the atmosphere was unfriendly. Everyone was very, very nice, but you still felt like probably, if somebody from the outside were to come in, they probably do not have as an easiest time to find work if they are a person of color. And of course, I'm not trying to generalize in tavern German society. I think that's just the way a lot of the world is moving. So I'm saying even in the Global South, we have this mentality now, more so, of filter bubbles, slash wanting to remain within our own and not being as accepting or tolerant of other people's cultures and ways of living. And so I think that this is something happening globally where a lot of us in the global south sometimes look to the global north and point fingers at them and say, you know, why are you being racist, or why are you being, you know, unwelcoming. We actually do the exact same thing, just in different ways, right? So for example, I'll give an example out about Pakistan or Iran, in fact, and the way that they view Afghans. Many Afghan migrants have been in these countries for generations now, genuinely since the first Taliban regime. So when the Taliban was first in power, and a lot of people escaped to Iran, slash Pakistan, and they're very well settled in these countries, but now there's this feeling of, oh, because there are economic problems in both of these countries, Iran and Pakistan, I'm saying they're suddenly not as welcome anymore, even though they. Do a lot of the jobs, as with the US, which many others do not want to do, which many of the citizens of these countries are not, you know, comfortable doing. So, you know, it's sort of like this, you know, we can point the fingers, but then we have to. It's sort of hypocritical. So I generally think that there's no moral authority in that regard, and that certainly has huge economic ramifications. So if you remove a portion of society which is willing to do the kinds of jobs your citizens are not willing to do, that certainly has a very immediate economic impact. And secondly, if you're not even willing to integrate them into the main society, then you are losing out on their skills. Because, you know, they're not meant to just remain low skilled, right? They're meant to be doing a lot more. They are. They are very, very well educated Afghans as well as other migrants who are moving to other countries, and if you do not give them the opportunities, then your economy is losing out too. So I think that that sort of xenophobic view, it hurts economically.

Dominic: It certainly does. And you mentioned Iran a few times, and I'm keen to hear from you, and I know you do a lot of work focusing on Iran and researching Iran and speaking to people in Iran. Can you describe the prevailing socio political sentiments in Iran. I mean, it's such a huge time. You've had recent elections, you've had a reformist candidate win and be sworn in, you've had a president die, and there's been assassinations both in Iran and in Lebanon. So what is the current sentiment inside Iran? 

Waqar: The first thing to understand is that the Iranian psyche is very different than the psyche of many other nations around the world. So the Iranians do not bow or do not bow easily. Let me put it this way. But they're very strong nation. There is a lot of tension in the air. So everyone I speak to, there is definitely tension in the air right now in Iran, on the streets of Iran. And I lived in Iran for 13 years, so I can say that I've been there during times. I was there during the 2009 election rise as well, and I saw that firsthand because I was working in media there at the time. Even at those sorts of moments of great societal upheaval and civic upheaval, there was still this, the sense that the Iranians have certain red lines when it comes to their nation as a whole. And so you know, when we're talking about, let's just talk about the assassination of Islam hanya, the Hamas political leader, right? So the Iranians view this very differently than the assassination of their own officials or their own nuclear scientists, because what you've done is, and I'm just putting, I'm going to leave you out there, because, you know, there's, there's no, there's no confirmation on who actually carried this out, but it doesn't say they blame the Israelis. But, you know, there's no guarantees about that at the specific point in time. So I want to be careful with my words. Let's just say whoever carried out this attack, in fact, sort of, in some ways, I don't know if the word is miscalculated, but possibly miscalculated where they didn't realize that. Listen, if you have a guest coming in and staying in Iran, and then you kill that guest, and that to a very high dignitary such as Hania, the Iranians will view that very differently, as I said, than how they would view even Qassem Soleimani being killed because you've killed a guest on Iranian soil. And Iranians, as with many people around the world and especially in the Middle East, are very hospitable people, and they do not look kindly upon any offense to a guest. That's why the statements that have come out have very much specified that he was a guest in our country and he was killed. They've used words so like you know that the Supreme Leader idol Khamenei has used the word duty for vengeance. And that's a huge step up from previous statements of other assassinations, where, in previous assassinations, he has said we have a right to avenge this, but now he's saying it's our duty to avenge that sort of tension in the era, and that sort of very clear now mandate, almost about what needs to happen next. I think for Iranians, I think that they're probably, I would say, around the 70% mark, probably agree with that sentiment, that this, you know, you've offended our guest, Eisen, you've killed our guest, and so we need to avenge that blood. So that sets up, obviously, the region for a very dangerous for the dangerous next days, weeks, months, depending on when the Iranians act.

Dominic: And there's obviously been a lot of speculation about whether Iran will respond, and how they'll respond, and what their proxies in neighboring countries will do. And I won't ask you what your prediction is, because it's probably unfair, and there's so many people speculating about that already. Instead, you mentioned that the pension within Iran and even across the region, and a big part of that was the protests in Iran, often referred to as the women life freedom movement, and that was sparked many of our listeners will remember by the death of Gina Amini in September 2022 when she was in custody of the morality police. And these protests triggered widespread demonstrations right across the country, and this led to a really significant crackdown by the Iranian government. This was, I think, a significant challenge to the Iranian government, and reflected widespread discontent, certainly amongst the younger members of the population. Since then, we've had political actions and the ongoing regional tensions that you've mentioned. Has this calmed? Has this brought the country together and perhaps calmed some of those domestic tensions that the race. Team was facing, or is it just put them on hold for the moment?

Waqar: So, you know, the way Iranians view the hijab is something that's being debated from the beginning of the revolution, to be honest. So 1979 onwards, there's been a huge debate about the hijab and the hijab law. The Hijab law just, just for clarity sake, is part of the Constitution itself. So amending it is not that easy a task, by the way. So you know what we say when we say the hijab law is a bad thing for better or worse, it is part of that country's constitution. And as we know, changing the constitution of any country is a huge undertaking, and it's not that simple to do. Another thing to mention is that scholars, and I'm speaking specifically about religious scholars have debated this as well, and whether or not this is the sensible thing to do, whether this is what is required, quote, unquote, under what a country that would name itself the Islamic Republic. So that's a huge theological discussion, and I'm not, certainly not, you know, qualified to discuss that. But my point is that it's a huge point of debate, and it's being debated even on state TV. It's been debated even by the most pro establishment, religious scholars and politicians, even when Mahsa Amini and what happened to her occurred even before that, this was already an issue. It just obviously gained much more momentum because of the way she was treated and what happened while she was in custody. And you know, there's certainly the the the government's narrative and what happened and what people believe happened, and you know there's, there's, there's a huge, wide gap between that, but let's just say that certainly, and no one disagrees with this, that she was the responsibility of those who took her into custody, and so her well being was also their responsibility, and certainly they faltered in that regard right there. There is no doubt about that. Let's put it that way, the actual debate of the hijab is still very much ongoing. You know, I've lived in Iran, like I said, for 13 years, so the definition of a hijab and the way it's worn across the country and in different neighborhoods of different cities varies drastically, drastically. So you know, if you if you are in a more religious city, such as Qom, where you have religious shrines, you will have the hijab worn much more strictly around the shrine itself and possibly across the city. But that is also changing. Where I was based in Tehran, the hijab was a very loose concept because I was in North Tehran. And North Tehran is seen as more, quote, unquote, modern slash, richer neighborhood for better or worse. You know, the definition of a job is also and the enforcement has also been sort of, I wouldn't say random, but I feel like it has been different in different areas depending on the culture of that specific neighborhood and that specific city. So this is not something that is nationwide. So you I mean, you know, we we see images of women and child or, you know, those black Childers, but that is not, that's not the reality for many, many Iranian women, but at the same time as the reality for many Iranian women, depending on the certain cities that they may be in. And sometimes it's not even about police or the morality police coming in and enforcing it, but it's sometimes about society and those around you enforcing it upon you, simply because that is what the culture of that specific neighborhood is. It's a huge debate, and I don't think it's, it's I don't think it's going to be resolved anytime soon, anytime soon, because, like I said, changing the constitution would not be an easy undertaking. 

Dominic: Thanks very much for explaining those nuances. That's really interesting, and I appreciate that. And I wonder if you can explore for our listeners some of the significant and underreported or under the radar stories that you're discovering during your analysis of Iranian media and social platforms and people that you're speaking with. 

Waqar: Yeah, I think that the biggest thing that I that always catches me is how vibrant political debates within Iranian society are, as I mentioned, hijab already. You know, you would not expect sitting on the outside. I mean, even myself, before I moved to Iran, I had this very different view of what the country was like. And when I went there, it was very, very different. So I feel like that's one thing that we we need to appreciate. Whether we like a country or not, whether we like its direction or not, is one debate. But just realizing the fact that this is a country that, even on state TV, you can have debates which are sometimes very, very open and make people very uncomfortable. Sometimes, by the way, when I worked in media there, or when others I've seen and worked in media, you know, I interviewed during the Ahmadinejad percent presidency. I interviewed Ahmadinejad's president, Ahmadinejad's Foreign Ministry spokesman. I remember thinking that, Oh, I'm going to be censored, and you're not going to be told that there are a lot of red lines. But the earpiece I was wearing, I was told by my executive producer, this is not scripted. Ask whatever you want. And I interviewed him twice, and obviously, as any politician does, he deflected many of the uncomfortable questions. But that's fine, you know, in the sense that you know, the very fact that I was allowed to ask the questions, I think surprised me myself, firstly and secondly, I think probably surprises a lot of other people who who have this certain point of view about what Iran is like. So I think that that's a huge. Huge, huge reality, which many of us do not appreciate about Iranian politics and just Iranian society as a whole. 

Dominic: Yes, certainly, and I think that's really important. What challenges did you find when you were trying to gather and examine data from diverse sources and you're trying to triangulate your information, including the opposition media, social platforms, forums, blogs and everyday citizens in Iran. 

Waqar: There's this concept in Iran called Taro, T, A, A, R, O, f is how we write it in English. And I'll explain what it is. It's basically, basically the best translation in English, which is not a very good one, is formality. When we say Taro, we mean that Iranians will not always say things directly. So let's say, just for example, sake, that I want to criticize you, Dominic, or somebody around you, but I do not want to be offensive, so I will probably like, if I say that, Oh, I don't like the culture, right? For example, I would never say that directly to you. I'd probably say something very, in a very rounded fashion, saying that, Oh, brown you know, I don't know. I don't know about brown coats. You know what I mean, as in, you know, I would, I would ease you into it, and sometimes you wouldn't even realize, actually, that I'm actually criticizing you, even though you're sitting right opposite me. This would happen to me, by the way, all the time, in meetings with the Iranians, where I'd be sitting across the person. And then I would come out of a meeting, I'd be like, it'll take me five minutes about what just happened, and then realize, Oh, my God, he was actually criticizing me, right? So I wouldn't even realize it's happening, and it's obviously a cultural difference, right? They, they're very, very careful about offense, and like I said, that's why I said at the top of the discussion about Hania as well. For them, offense and image and honor is everything, and so even if they disagree with you, they will not do anything to dishonor you or offend you in any way. And so that's the biggest thing, which is a challenge, even then, for looking for information, because then when statements come out, official statements, or even opposition statements. So let's just say you have people in exile, such as Reza behlabi, who is, you know, the son of the Shah. He's based in the US, and when he releases a statement, he is less he uses less thought of because he's lived in the west now for so long. Nevertheless, he knows his culture, so he will still sort of mask what he's trying to say directly sometimes. And so finding that very direct point sometimes takes some time where you have to read the entire statement three or four times be like, what's this person really trying to say? What is the underlying message here? And so, you know, in between all the niceties, you will have one word or one sentence, which will then be a very direct point. And so finding that amongst the nuances can sometimes be a challenge. 

Dominic: Yeah, I think tariff really is a complex system. I must admit, though I actually like that ritual politeness, you know, civility, modesty and certainly consideration of others in social interactions. I'm certainly quite direct, and I'm very Australian in the way I communicate with friends and colleagues, but that formalized process of politeness, I think perhaps Perhaps we could have a little bit more of that in our society today.

Waqar: It makes things a lot easier when it comes to social interactions. It makes things difficult when it comes to business negotiations, or just negotiations in general. Because if the if your opposing side is not being very clear about what their stance is, that that can sort of make it a bit confusing for you. The Iranians are learning, by the way, they're learning by the way, they're learning, that sometimes they need to be straightforward, but it's not that easy for them. Just doesn't come naturally to them on this side of the aisle too. Then you need to realize that you also need to use just as many niceties so that you don't end up offending the other side and getting a worse deal. You know what I mean. So it's sort of those, those intricacies, which are very important too.

Dominic: No, that's great. And you spoke about business leaders and people with business interests you know, with the the USA unlikely to become a friend to a run in the next few years, and either during a Harris or a Trump presidency, what opportunities and risks exist for European business leaders watching the more reformist President take over and find his seat at the table?

Waqar: So I would argue, and this is something I think probably a lot of Iranian analysts would agree with me about, is that it's easier to, in fact, do business with a conservative president in Iran, because there's more of a guarantee that that sort of deal will remain but when you have a conservative president in Iran, that means he or she is more aligned with the establishment. When you have a reformist president in Iran, that doesn't mean that a reformist president is not aligned. I mean, we're talking about reformists within the context of Iranian politics. So, you know, position, who is the current new president is nowhere close to a liberal president in Australia, possibly, or in Canada. He's nothing like a Trudeau, for example, in Canada, right? So, I mean, his policies will not be that sort of liberal. He'll be working very much within the phrase. Work of Iranian constitution and politics nevertheless, and we saw this during the Rouhani presidency. Because Rouhani, you'll remember, was the president who brought in the Iran nuclear deal, which fell apart pretty, pretty soon after. So those sorts of deals that are signed during a reform as President, I'm not saying that they would not be honored. I'm just saying that there are less chances, not of it not being honored, but because of just the realities of the world, right? So Rouhani learned this the hard way. He learned that, listen, if you sign a deal with the United States, there are no guarantees that that deal a will remain and B, that you know, just all those international deals that you have signed. So they had signed deals with total they had signed deals with any the Italian company, you know, a lot of gas, slash fuel, petrol deals, which all fell apart because of the reality of sanctions. So it wasn't really anyone's fault, so to speak. So it was neither the Iranians fault, nor the other side's fault. But then the Iranians will obviously say, Listen, you signed a deal with us, so you should honor it. But then the other side will say, we can't honor it because, you know, we're stuck in international sanctions. And what are we supposed to do as well? We can't, like, you know, shut down our company, and we're not just going to work with only the Iranians over the Americans or whoever else. That's the reality that currently exists. And what that then means is, regardless of reformist, slash conservative in Iran, the Iranians are actually the ones who would be very, very suspicious signing deals with the international community. So they would want guarantees that such a deal would remain, which is very hard for any international businessman to give at this point, because we simply do not know the nature of international sanctions in the near to midterm or long term future. So that's a very, very tough hurdle. I mean, I don't know the solution to it. I don't think anyone's figured out the solution to it. There are certainly a lot of money to be made in Iran. You know, the aviation industry is suffering. So there's certainly for aviation. I mean, that's a huge, huge amount of money to be made. I know the Chinese are trying. They may very well succeed in selling some airliners to to the Iranians to badly eat them, certainly. And you know, beyond that, of course, infrastructure of different sorts, trains. Their trains are fairly modern. They bought some from the Chinese. But they still need help in that regard. There's a lot to say there. You know, construction, materials, medicines, pharmaceuticals, you know, the list is really endless. 

Dominic:  It's a really interesting point you've raised. And I appreciate that Waqar about the difference of dealing with a reformist president who I think in the West, many people would be welcoming, as opposed to a conservative president who is perhaps more aligned and more able to actually guarantee that what he promises will actually come to fruition. So no Thanks for exploring that with us. And of course, verifying information is a critical component of what we all need to do, and certainly what you do as part of your daily work. I wonder if you can help explain for us and your experience and what you're seeing. How is artificial intelligence, when it comes to fact checking, transform the way that we verify information, especially when we're looking at international events that are occurring around the world?

Waqar: So you know, AI, is, is, is a great tool. I use chat, GPT a lot. I use meta, AI, I use all of the above a lot because I do a lot of research work, but I use it less to do my research and more to do editing, and I'll explain why. So you know, I know that, and I know that a lot of people realize that certainly you cannot rely on AI to do your research for you. But just in case you haven't, I'll say this that you shouldn't, because the AI does make very, very clear mistakes sometimes, or it'll make mistakes which are subtle because it misses the nuance of certain information. So such. So, for example, I do a lot of work around Iran right? Because I'm working with a client specifically on Iranian stability, it will miss the nuances of statements, such as the ones that I've mentioned. So official statements. If I, if I copy paste that into chat GPT, for example, and I say, Please give me the main points of this statement. It'll sometimes give me the points where she'll say, oh, you know, and I'm obviously paraphrasing this, but you know, oh, this person is so nice. You know, the Iranian way of of, you know, charming, you right? And that's obviously not the main point. I mean, that's those are niceties. That's certainly not important. And I can, I know that's not important, but the fact that the AI cannot tell, and obviously we cannot expect the AI to tell because the AI doesn't have that augmented understanding of reality around it, right? So that's the one huge thing where it misses nuances, and those nuances can sometimes be extremely important. So let's just say you have somebody who doesn't speak Persian who is then using the AI in that way, blindly to tell him or her whether this what the statement says, and then they miss the main points and instead focus more on the niceties. You know what I mean? Like that would probably create a lot of, you know, waves which which don't need to be created, and have a domino effect. That's the one thing. Secondly, there is this huge reality which has an effect even on misinformation. This information from AI, and that is the reality of bias within AI output. So one of my master's research papers was on this, and that was more about Islamophobia, and this was for a previous language model called GPT three. So which is, this was the predecessor to chatgpt, and GPT three was the first language model, or second, I think possibly or third language model that open aI had released. Nevertheless, Stanford researchers found that certain prompts, or many prompts, which included the word Muslim, would would have responses which were very negative towards Muslims. I believe it was something on around the 80% rate. So it was, it was insanely high. And then they tried other ethnicities slash religious groups, such as Jews and Christians even. So there was a lot of xenophobia towards them as well, but in very large numbers towards Muslims. And so this all comes out to the debate, and this is a huge debate within the AI ethics circles about big data, and the reality of big data and the fact that big data is not perfect, and it's not meant to be perfect, because this big data takes data from the entire internet, we expect it to give us, you know, output which will then be correct, and that then creates a lot, you know, this happens a lot. This happens a lot where, I think that there's a lot of people do not realize in newsrooms around the world that if you're using this information blindly, which I'm hoping that by now, we've realized we shouldn't be, but let's just say we are, then that has a domino effect on how you then perceive realities, political slash other realities, that'll obviously influence how you write your articles, how you conduct your TV shows, etc, and so that's the biggest thing when it comes to misinformation slash disinformation. I mean, it's less about pure, clear, fake news, but it's more so about that domino effect which then affects how you present that news to the rest of the world. 

Dominic: Yeah, certainly a lot for us to be keeping in mind. And what are some of the biggest challenges that you've come across when you're trying to combat misinformation and disinformation, and how can society, students and businesses be better equipping themselves to tackle these issues and be aware of them and mitigate them?

Waqar :The biggest challenge really is, is it's almost like you're fighting with yourself and your own biases. So that's the biggest thing, to put your own bias to a side. So let's just say a big event occurs, right? So I'm gonna, I'm gonna pick on an event that's happened just recently at the Olympics, we had this boxer. We had these two female boxers, and one, you know, step down because she was, she claimed, or at least, many people are claiming that the other side or the other, the opponent was biologically a male, and so, you know, that created fervor online. You know, we had a lot of people speaking about the fact that things have gotten too crazy. And I don't have an opinion on that, but I'm just saying that that became the point of discussion, right? Where, Why do we have a man and a woman boxing with each other in the same ring? And obviously a biological male would have certain advantages, right? And that's, that's undeniable fact. But what many people didn't realize, and the reason I'm bringing this up, is that when you look deeper into that issue, and, you know, I sort of caught, I sort of got caught up in it for a few moments, and you know, then I was like, Hey, maybe I should step back and I should do some research on this, even though it's not even something that I, you know, I don't have a huge interest in sports. But I was like, you know, this is a good point. Maybe this is misinformation. And then I looked into it, and, you know, this was somebody who was born with X and Y chromosomes, you know, she lives in Algeria, and in Algeria, they do not have enough resources for gender reassignment surgeries or for gender reassignment period, right? So, if she, if she chose to become a man, for example, chose to, you know, take on that side, she wouldn't be able to do that as easily. You know, in Algeria. Now, obviously there's a huge debate on that, and I don't want to get into the debate about whether this is right or wrong, et cetera, but just that reality and that nuance, which very few people are talking about, it's very important, you know what I mean. So that sort of challenge of that nuance, where it affects the story that you're telling them, because the story then doesn't become, oh, there's this conspiracy against, you know what? I mean, like it's this person or this opponent didn't come into the ring with this malice in saying, Oh, I have this advantage because I have X and Y chromosomes, and I'm not, you know, I just don't only have the female chromosomes that I have this huge advantage over you, and so, you know, I I'm going to beat you up whatever. You know what I mean. So I feel like that sort of nuance really needs to be presented in all such stories. And this happens in many such story, in much more important stories, in the sense of, you know, political realities, right? So sometimes this happens when it comes to the issue of Israel Palestine, and that's a very sensitive topic, or other issues of terrorism, right? Or, how do we define terrorism? And, you know, why is one terrorism and what the other not terrorism? Or, you know, why do we immediately go towards terrorism instead of actually looking at, you know, what actually happened? This may just have been a criminal act or an act of mass shooting or whatever, because of personal reasons. Those sorts of things are very important. And I feel like in a world. Where we are very obsessed with fast and immediate news. This is what happens. You have people then taking advantage of the fact that you want immediate breaking news, and you do not want to then go back and research whether this news was correct or not, just because you do not have the time everyone's working nine to five. They want their immediate news. They want that bite sized news, they're going to want to think about it. But actually, as responsible citizens of the world, that's actually exactly what we need to do. We need to not accept what we're being told all the time, and we need to at least Google things sometimes, sometimes, literally, it's just about googling the issue. And sometimes it'll be the it won't be the first link, but it'll be the fifth or sixth link. And so, you know, you put your cursor down and go down the page and look and read. You may not agree with it, but at least it'll give you a nuance. And I think that's very, very important when it comes to the issue of fake news slashes information.
 
 Dominic: Yeah, definitely. And that need for fast and immediate news, and the provision of fast and immediate news is a huge opportunity. It's a huge opportunity. It's fantastic. But as you said, it certainly does bring risks, and this evasiveness of bias, even in research and even in data collection and analysis, I think, is more widespread and more insidious than most people realize. There was actually a recent study by the University of Southern California, and the researchers found that up to 38% of Vax used by artificial intelligence systems actually contain biases. You know, just highlighting how deeply ingrained many of these prejudices can be from the information sources that we use. And I think the statistic really underscores the importance of that we need to really critically examine not just our own biases, but also the biases that may be embedded in the tools and the media sources and the processes and the way that we're collecting data really, really does matter. I wonder if you can perhaps elaborate on that and some of the ethical considerations that we need to be aware of, particularly when deploying artificial intelligence, but also when consuming and producing journalism and conducting fact checking, especially as we move even closer to the ever important US elections. 
 
 Waqar: You know, one of the things that we discussed in my Masters is that there's, there's this debate within AI ethics circles, and just ethics circles, actually, I should say it's not just to do with AI about whether society impacts technology or technology impacts society. And by this, I mean which decides how the other is designed and how what the future of the other looks like. And so my own research, I found that it's obviously a two way street, right? So it's it's both affect the other. It's very hard to speak about AI in a vacuum. We have to discuss the realities of society and bias and prejudice within society. And I'm speaking about a global society right now. Globally, we are biased. Globally, we are racist, we are xenophobic, we're all of the above. We're misogynistic. You know, this is endless, right? There's a lot of negatives there as a whole. You know, when we're looking at us as a whole, you know where we're colorist? You know we in certain parts of the world. You know the color of your skin makes a huge difference in whether or not you're respected or not. And this is the same in South Asia or many other parts of the world. That reality then obviously translates into AI, and I'll give you an example. So when I was doing a master's, it took me a very long time, in fact, to find a university which I was comfortable to do my master's at. The reality of academia as well is that we have very biased views, or we have academics only from certain parts of the world whose research papers or research is actually respected, and other parts of the world, we sort of look down upon them and say, Hey, what do you know about research? I mean, you're living in Nepal, for example. I'm just speaking that as a random example. What do you know about proper research methods? Is the point of view many times in academic circles in the West. And so I won't say the university's name, because I don't want to create problems. But there was University before the University of Sussex that I found, and I was very excited about doing a master's there. And then I went through the reviews, as I always do. I always check reviews for everything I do in life, which is probably a bad thing too, because reviews can be bought. I've had reviews of students who had gone through that master's program, and they were like, beware that you're not going to be able to use academic sources from the Global South. Professors will look down upon that. And this was, I mean, the title was something like international relations, right? So, which is really silly. I mean, how? What do you mean? You're going to do a master's in international relations and not give importance to global south voices. So University of Sussex, you know, pretty much guaranteed from day one that we would be allowed to use academic sources from the global south. So, you know, I was able to, I did a lot of research on issues in Pakistan, I did some research on issues in Iran, and I was able to use a Persian and Urdu language sources as well, as long as I obviously gave, you know, proper translations. And secondly, they were obviously peer reviewed. You know, they'd gone through the entire stringent process, as you would expect anywhere else in the world. Certainly, some of them were not the same as Western academic journals or, you know, research papers, but that's just a nuance of culture that affects academia. But. Was very rare, and that's the exact same problem I'm having, by the way, finding a PhD program. I've been wanting to do a PhD ever since finishing my master's, but I have yet to find a university where I'm comfortable parking myself, simply because I do not want to get into that entire debate of, you know, global south versus Global North. I just want to be able to do the research that I want to do, as long as, of course, it meets you know certain guidelines.

Dominic: Well, thanks for explaining that to us. I think there's some points that many of us don't consider. You know, we just consume our media, maybe from the UK, maybe from America, maybe we get really exotic and we look at Canadian news or Australian news. But I think it really, really is important that occasionally we are looking at the news. What's, what are the media sources in China and Russia saying? What's the media in Vietnam saying? I think this is really important to be looking at what the local media says. And certainly that's something that I'm continually, continually pushing our analysts to do when discussing and considering issues in Lebanon. If they're not speaking to people in Lebanon, you know, speaking to politicians, think tanks, academics, but also just speaking to people at restaurants, speaking to local police officers, speaking to the local car rental companies. That's, you know, a critical, a critical component of really understanding the environment. So when you look around the world, Waka and you're, you're talking about issues, or maybe even just putting your head on your pillow at night, what are the biggest international risks that concern you?
 
 Waqar: I think the biggest risk for me is just continued polarization around the world. And because polarization, by default, means that you other the other, right? So I mean, you know, as an, as an I would view somebody from from Australia negatively, simply for the fact that he or she is Australia, because I have these preconceived notions in my mind that I've been put in by media or by what I've read or seen, that Australia is bad, for example, right? And so then that then means that that then it's at some point grows into hatred, doesn't it? That's where then racism and xenophobia, and then you have violence that occurs from there itself. Sometimes, actually, I think that's a root cause of many wars, in fact. So sure, we can talk about politics. We can talk about, you know, wars over land and wars over Hey, who is? Who is the bigger superpower in the world? And all that is, is certainly a very valid point. But I think that at the root of it, it comes down to some view of bias and prejudice. So it comes down to, oh, we should have this land, because we'll do better with this land than these people, because they don't know what they're doing. And that's obviously a very biased slash, precious view, right? So you know, why are you expecting the natives of that lab don't know what they're doing with the land? You know, they've been there for generations, centuries, whatever you know. And who are you to say that you know you can take over someone's land, just using it as an example, so that, that is what really, really worries me overall. And I find that when we discuss these things now more openly, and I'll say that, you know, when I was in Germany, the delegation I was part of, you know, it was a freedom of speech delegation, and so we had some very uncomfortable discussions about freedom of speech, even in a society like Germany, right? Where, where they were very, very, I don't want to use a pompous but very proud of the fact that they have freedom of speech, and they certainly do more so than many other parts of the world, but at the same time they don't. So there's certain topics which would immediately mean that the person we were speaking to and having a meeting with would immediately go into a harsh tone. The biggest example was obviously the issue of Israel Palestine. Yes, there's a huge historical context for Germany. All the above is is completely valid as context and nuance. But then you cannot then tell me that we're having a discussion about freedom of speech, but I cannot then approach this one topic. You know what I mean? Like, like, you know, no one is saying you have to agree with my point of view, or I have to agree with your point of view, but the fact that we cannot even discuss it without speaking in hushed tones and locking the door, closing the door. That says something about societies, right? And this happens everywhere. I mean, there's such topics in every single society around the world, and so that's just very telling. For me, it's very dangerous if we cannot have discussions even again, it doesn't have to mean you're convincing the other party. Just means you can have a discussion. I mean, we're all mature adults. We should be able to have discussions on things we don't agree with, and the fact that we can't do that really, really worries.
 
 Dominic: I wholeheartedly agree. I mean, I think it's only that we make progress by listening to each other across political and across ideological divides, by sharing, by debating, and really by building on the ideas of each other, even those of opposing views or different views. So no, I definitely agree with you, and I hope there's a little bit more sensibility as we approach the American elections, certainly as an increasing tensions right across the Middle East, along with many other places. But thank you very much for coming on to the international risk podcast today. Wakar really enjoyed our conversation.
 
 Waqar: So did I, and thanks for having me.