Type: IOCR

Central Idea: The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared an end to the global emergency status for COVID-19. It had in 2020 declared the disease as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

Practical effects of WHO declaration

• The classification of COVID-19 as a global emergency is meant to warn political authorities of an extraordinary event that could constitute a health threat to other countries and requires a coordinated response to contain it.
• For the average person, the decision to end the global emergency classification will have no practical effect.
• WHO’s emergency declarations are typically used as an international SOS for countries who need help or to spur countries to introduce special measures to combat disease or release extra funds.

What is PHEIC?

Definition: Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), a public health emergency is defined as “an extraordinary event which is determined, as provided in these Regulations: to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease; and to potentially require a coordinated international response”.

Emergencies declared so far

• WHO has previously declared global emergencies for outbreaks of swine flu, Zika, Ebola, polio, and monkeypox.
• Polio was declared nearly nine years ago, and its emergency status has persisted even as officials work to wipe out the disease from a shrinking number of countries.
• MPOX was declared a global emergency last July but technically remains a global emergency.

What criteria does the WHO follow to declare PHEIC?

• PHEIC is declared in the event of some “serious public health events” that may endanger international public health.
• The responsibility of declaring an event as an emergency lies with the Director-General of the WHO and requires the convening of a committee of members.

Implications of a PHEIC being declared

• There are some implications of declaring a PHEIC for the host country, which in the case of the coronavirus is China.
• Declaring a PHEIC may lead to restrictions on travel and trade.
• However, several countries have already issued advisories to their citizens to avoid travelling to China, while others are airlifting their citizens from it.

Is COVID-19 still a pandemic?

• Yes, COVID-19 is still a pandemic, as the virus is here to stay and thousands of people continue to die every week.
• WHO chief Tedros warned that the risk remains of new variants emerging that cause new surges in cases and deaths.
• Countries need to transition from emergency mode to managing COVID-19 alongside other infectious diseases.

When will the COVID-19 pandemic end?

• It is unclear when the COVID-19 pandemic will end, as the virus is still a public health threat and its continued evolution could cause future problems.
• Pandemics only truly end when the next pandemic begins.
• COVID-19 will continue to spread among people for a very long time but at a much lower level of threat that does not require extraordinary measures taken to try to curb the virus’ spread.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

Central Idea: The context is the recent visit of the South Korean President to the US to commemorate the 70th anniversary of US-South Korea bilateral relations. During the visit, the two countries signed the “Washington Declaration” as a nuclear deterrence strategy against North Korea’s regional aggression.

Washington Declaration: Key Terms

• Nuke deployment by US: According to the declaration, an American nuclear ballistic submarine would be deployed in the Korean peninsula.
• Intel mechanism: A nuclear consultative group would be formed to formulate principles of joint response tactics, and South Korea would receive Intel from the US regarding nuclear advancements.
• Joint training: The US will strengthen South Korea’s nuclear deterrence capabilities through joint military training programs and an annual intergovernmental simulation.
• Deterrence creation: The declaration reaffirmed the Non-Proliferation Treaty implying that South Korea would not venture into the creation of its own independent nuclear capabilities and would instead focus on deterrence measures through an alliance-based approach.

Implications of the treaty

• Big power politics: While the existence of the agreement is based on the security needs of South Korea, the policy reflects big power politics where the interests of the larger power (US) takes precedence.
• US proprietorship over the nukes: The US is the only ‘sole authority’ to use the nuclear arsenal of the US in the event of a nuclear confrontation.
• Maintaining stability: The assurance that the US and its nuclear weapons would protect its allies by being responsible for maintaining stability in the region aligns with the larger goal of non-proliferation.

US Stance on South Korea’s Nuclear Capabilities

• Fouled the SK nuclear program: South Korea’s nuclear development programme supported by former president Park Chung Hee was hindered due to US pressure.
• Strategic arms reduction: The US withdrew one hundred nuclear weapons from South Korea in the 1990s as part of their “Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty” to make North Korea unarm itself.
• Renewed interest after North Korea’s Rise: The Nuclear Posture Review 2022 reflects a shift in the US narrative where it is now concerned about the progressing nuclear capacities of North Korea.

Regional and domestic responses

• China: It said it undermines the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the strategic interests of other countries.
• North Korea: Kim Jong-Un’s sister warned that the declaration would only result in making peace and security of North-East Asia and the world be exposed to more serious danger.

Conclusion

• Overall, the Declaration is an important step in the direction of creating a more overt and close coordination among the US allies in the Indo-Pacific.
• It seeks to deal with not only North Korea but also moves of China and Russia.

Back2Basics: Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

The NPT is an international treaty signed in 1968 that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Key facts about the NPT include:

• Members: There are currently 191 parties to the treaty, including the five recognized nuclear-weapon states (the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK).
• Three main pillars: Non-proliferation, Disarmament and Peaceful use of nuclear energy.
• Non-nuclear-weapon states: They are parties to the treaty agree not to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on their nuclear activities.
• Nuclear-weapon states: They are the parties to the treaty agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or technology to non-nuclear-weapon states.
• 5 year review: The treaty is reviewed every five years at a conference of parties, with the most recent review conference taking place in 2015.
• Criticisms: NPT has been criticized for not doing enough to promote disarmament, and for perpetuating a system of haves and have-nots in which certain states have nuclear weapons while others do not. However, proponents argue that the treaty has helped to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

Central idea: The European Parliament has recently reached a preliminary deal on a new draft of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, after two years of drafting and negotiations.

Regulating AI

• The need for regulation of AI technologies has been highlighted worldwide.
• EU lawmakers have urged world leaders to hold a summit to brainstorm ways to control the development of advanced AI systems.

EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act

• The aim of the AI Act is to bring transparency, trust, and accountability to AI technologies and to mitigate risks to the safety, health, fundamental rights, and democratic values of the EU.
• The legislation seeks to address ethical questions and implementation challenges in various sectors, from healthcare and education to finance and energy.
• It seeks to strike a balance between promoting the uptake of AI while mitigating or preventing harms associated with certain uses of the technology.
• It aims to strengthen Europe’s position as a global hub of excellence in AI from the lab to the market and ensure that AI in Europe respects the 27-country bloc’s values and rules.
• The Act delegates the process of standardization or creation of precise technical requirements for AI technologies to the EU’s expert standard-setting bodies in specific sectors.

Details of the Act

• Defining AI: AI is broadly defined as “software that is developed with one or more of the techniques that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the environments they interact with.”
• Four risk-category: The Act outlines four risk categories:

1. Unacceptable: The use of technologies in the unacceptable risk category is prohibited with little exception, including real-time facial and biometric identification systems in public spaces, China-like systems of social scoring, subliminal techniques to distort behavior, and technologies that exploit vulnerabilities of certain populations.
2. High: The focus is on AI in the high-risk category, prescribing pre-and post-market requirements for developers and users of such systems and establishing an EU-wide database of high-risk AI systems. The requirements for conformity assessments for high-risk AI systems must be met before they can make it to the market.
3. Limited and minimal: AI systems in the limited and minimal risk category can be used with a few requirements like transparency obligations.

Recent proposal on General Purpose AI

• Recent updates to EU rules to regulate generative AI, including language model-based chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are discussed.
• Lawmakers are debating whether all forms of general-purpose AI will be designated high-risk.
• Companies deploying generative AI tools are required to disclose any copyrighted material used to develop their systems.

Reaction from the AI Industry

• Some industry players have welcomed the legislation, while others have expressed concerns about the potential impact on innovation and competitiveness.
• Companies are worried about transparency requirements, fearing that they may have to divulge trade secrets.
• Lawmakers and consumer groups have criticized the legislation for not fully addressing the risks associated with AI systems.

Global governance of AI

• The US currently lacks comprehensive AI regulation and has taken a hands-off approach.
• The Biden administration released a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (AIBoR) that outlines the harms of AI and five principles for mitigating them.
• China has come out with some of the world’s first nationally binding regulations targeting specific types of algorithms and AI.
• China enacted a law to regulate recommendation algorithms, with a focus on how they disseminate information.
• While India is still stuck with the Personal Data Protection Bill.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!