As I sit writing this in my room at Hamra Hotel in Baghdad I have just finished a series of terribly familiar conversations with friends and colleagues from the British media in Iraq. The "security conversation" is a staple of those who cover wars. It usually starts: "Mate ... not for reporting, but for my own security can you tell me ..."
The "security conversation" last week focused on a single issue, the kidnapping of my friend and colleague on the Guardian, Rory Carroll, and the implications for working in Baghdad. And behind the "security conversation" lies a question -- sometimes unspoken -- is it actually possible to carry on? The answers to these things are never simple. By the time you read this, along with my colleagues on the Guardian, I will be out of Iraq, leaving a couple of days earlier than I had intended to. Others are leaving or relocating to Kurdistan to wait and see what happens next. Most, however, will be staying, although limiting their operations.
For me it has been a bad year in Iraq. A friend from the US, an aid worker, was killed. An Iraqi woman -- a translator who I liked a lot -- was shot and badly wounded in the south. Then there was Carroll's abduction.
I am not alone. Most people who work here a lot have been touched by similar violence, because in Iraq violence is omnipresent.
You learn in large measure to deal with it, adapting your behavior to the different kinds of threat. Many of the men grow beards, the women reporters wear abayas. Traveling around Baghdad, you move "low profile" in tatty but well-serviced cars. I take off my glasses as they look too "Euro" and wear stripy shirts that look "Mansour" -- the fashionable middle-class district of Baghdad.
None of it, as an Iraqi friend points out, would bear much scrutiny, although the trick is not to disguise yourself but achieve a little misdirection.
None of which deals with the central question -- is meaningful journalism still possible in Iraq, and is it worth the risk? It is a question that has been posed in the last few weeks by both Maggie O'Kane and Robert Fisk, both of them celebrated war reporters, leaning towards the answer "No."
It is where I disagree with them. Because journalism in Iraq is difficult, it is certainly dangerous, but it is still just possible.
What is true is that for journalism that involves images -- whether television or photography -- the only people able to really operate are Iraqis and even they are regularly threatened and killed.
For print journalists, and especially those prepared to travel without a retinue of bodyguards and armored cars and body armor, it is easier to get around a bit inside Baghdad (or was until last week).
To travel more widely requires pragmatism and compromises of the sort rejected by the likes of Fisk -- hitchhiking on US helicopters to other cities and working the ground from there. You can hear stories about politics and civilian life. What you cannot do is reach the men of the insurgency.
That is left to a handful of courageous, largely Arab, journalists working for the Western media, people such as Hala Jaber of the London Sunday Times and Ghaith Abdul Ahad, of the Guardian and Washington Post.
Is it worth it? I still think so, although I know that my wife and family disagree. I know that my trips to Iraq cause pain and worry. But -- selfishly perhaps -- I think that there are still important stories to be done here. In recent visits I have written about human-rights abuses and corruption, about failures and successes, about the violence and the courage of the coalition. Above all, however, I have tried to communicate the murky contradictory and paradoxical nature of Iraq, to explain that a real country exists beyond the simplicity of the columnists who never come here and yet insist on their own ideologically informed versions of it.
Most of all I feel we owe it to communicate the reality of Iraq on behalf of a nation whose ordinary people have no access to the international media. We may get it wrong -- my e-mail correspondence is full of those who insist we do -- but to try is better than to give up.
But in the end, as Carroll himself has said, it is a calculation. It is about risk measured against what we can achieve. And at the back of all our minds is the existence of places such as Chechnya that have become too difficult to report.
This is a period of assessment of a new risk. It has made the space smaller in which we can effectively work. Will I be back? I don"t know.
One thing that I am certain of, however, is that there is still good journalism to be done in Iraq.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the