QUEENS INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER
A Letter from the Editor
Morgan Tomalty
Dearest reader,
Welcome to Volume Ten of the Queen’s International Observer! We have chosen to celebrate QIO’s growth since its establishment ten years ago by bringing you our most action-packed issue yet: Heroes and Traitors.
e media has been saturated with stories of glori ed heroes and misrepresented traitors. Our goal for this issue is to maintain the multifaceted nature of international a airs by studying contemporary heroes and traitors through a variety of perspectives. In this Fall’s Art Column, Claire Pierce presents the inextricable nature of Ai Weiwei’s art with political activism. Aaron Gi ord and Deborah Chu tackle the Debate Column by discussing the heroic and traitorous nature of “whistleblowing”. Erica MacLachlan highlights the transphobia shown through the media towards “whistleblower” Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning. Alexander McGurk discusses Russian President Vladimir Putin and his logic surrounding the issue of United States intervention in Syria. Similarly, Corey Schruder discusses the reoccurring crises in Syria and the role played by the United States. I examine the impact of sixteenyear-old Malala Yousafzai and her courage that has galvanized international attention towards universal education. Idrees Ali, a Queen’s Commerce alumni, discusses Pakistan’s economic stability and nuclear strategy. Last but not least, Richard Beattie investigates the relationship between global a airs and athletics in his comprehensive look at the dark side of FIFA.
With plenty of international drama to dissect, Queen’s students from all faculties are able to engage in the ever-evolving global conversation. Whether you are an experienced QIO reader or just dipping your toes into the QIO waters, I hope you enjoy our Fall Issue!
Happy reading,
Morgan Tomalty, Editor-in-Chief Vol. 10
Deborah Chu and Alexander McGurk, Assistant Editors Vol. 10
QIO is the Queen's International Observer, a
-
Jacqui Palef - Marketing
Want to submit a piece to QIO? Email your 600-900 word piece to contact@queensobserver.org by midnight of November 8th. All submissions from all faculties and departments are welcome!
Lionel Messi of Barcelona dodges an attack during a match against Manchester City.
THE WORLD CUP
A MATTER OF LIFE, DEATH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
by Richard Beattie
Former Liverpool FC manager Bill Shankly once said, “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I’m very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.” FIFA, The Fédération Internationale de Football, agrees with Mr. Shankly : soccer – to use the North American lexicon – is more important than life and death
Nextsummer Brazil will be hosting the most expensive World Cup in history at a price tag of $13.3 billion and likely to grow. is is in addition to the $15 billion which will be spent on the 2016 Olympics. Brazil’s expensive World Cup ambitions come despite rising in ation and government neglect of public services, healthcare and education. Foreign investors quickly targeted Brazilian construction interests and look set to reap heavy returns while local economies will gain little. To make way for costly stadiums and parking, poor neighborhoods have been bulldozed and the inhabitants forced out. ese costs, on the heels of corruption scandals and rising in ation, have resulted in widespread protests across Brazil. e authorities have thus far been quick to respond to the protesters with thousands of police and military personnel armed with rubber bullets and tear gas. When thousands of rowdy fans from across the world are combined with this domestic turmoil, the security situation for the 2014 World Cup appears ominous. A further blow to Brazil’s domestic and international reputation came recently as the Labour attorney general's o ce suggested that treatment of workers on World Cup sites rendered them “analogue to slaves".
Photo: Tsutomu Takasu
Thoughfans may feel uneasy about the police in Brazil, during the 2018 World Cup in Russia they can rest assured that Putin's government will protect them from recently criminalized "homosexual propaganda". is law bans the dissemination of information on gay rights and thereby e ectively outlaws public demonstrations by the LGBT community. Discrimination in Russia is not monopolized by the state. e countries domestic soccer league has become home to some of the most vicious racism in European soccer and thus far the Russian authorities have not done enough to discourage such behavior – little looks set change by the 2018 World Cup.
85% of Qatar’s population and a million more are likely to arrive before 2022. Lured to Qatar by the promise of higher wages, migrants face discrimination, minimal safety standards and long working hours. Migrant workers are denied a path to citizenship and are forbidden from unionizing. eir pay is o en withheld inde nitely and, in order to leave their job or the country, migrants must obtain
more will die before kick o in 2022. Human rights abuses in Qatar extend beyond migrant workers; homosexuality remains illegal, women are oppressed, the government remains a unitary absolute monarchy and criminals can still be sentenced to stoning or ogging.
Lured to Qatar by the promise of higher wages, migrants face discrimination, minimal safety standards and long working hours.
Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA, has already admitted in separate interviews that FIFA might have made a mistake in awarding the World Cup to Qatar and Brazil. e FIFA president has even been so candid as to admit that political pressure from foreign governments
as a political tool to legitimize their autocratic regimes. FIFA is complicit in this propaganda. By using the World Cup as leverage FIFA possesses –but does not exercise – the power to initiate antidiscrimination and human rights reforms. is inaction reveals every antidiscrimination campaign the organisation has led –and there have been many – amount to nothing more than mere platitudes.
Prior to the World Cup Russia will host the 2014 Winter Olympics. Costs for the games have risen from the initial estimate of $12 billion to an expected $50 billion and we can anticipate that the 2018 World Cup will follow a similar trend. Much of this money will be pocketed by corrupt o cials and the businessmen-cum-cronies of Russia’s increasingly autocratic government.
Following the 2018 World Cup in Russia will be Qatar 2022. In preparation for the World Cup, Qatar has embarked on a number of ambitious construction projects, which estimates suggest will cost ten times more than those of Brazil 2014. ese projects –for all their grandeur –will be built by heavily exploited, predominantly South Asian migrant workers. ese laborers currently comprise over
permission from their employers. Even with this permission many are unable to return home due to debt ostensibly incurred through recruitment and living expenses. Human rights watchdogs and NGOs have been pressuring Qatar to better protect migrant workers, but thus far only half-measures have been implemented. Tragically (but unsurprisingly) at least 44 migrant workers died building World Cup infrastructure between June 4th and August 8th alone. Many
with interests in the Persian Gulf may have in uenced key voting delegations – many commentators point to France under former President Sarkozy. Blatter has been less eager to discuss allegations that Qatar spent millions of dollars to bribe 25 or more FIFA o cials.
FIFA is, by design, an apolitical organisation but being apolitical should not equate to being amoral. e governments of Qatar and Russia are using the World Cup
In Brazil it will not be the poor or the long neglected government services on which they rely that will reap the economic bene ts of the World Cup. It will be domestic and foreign investors, corrupt o cials and FIFA itself. e Federation will walk away from Brazil 2014 with an estimated $4billion in revenue, tax free –it will likely make even larger sums in Russia and Qatar. Soccer is the sport of the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed. FIFA must do more to advocate for those to whom soccer means most. In Brazil, Russia and Qatar FIFA could ght poverty, save lives and uphold human rights and human dignity. FIFA, however, shares Mr. Shankly’s priorities – soccer, and its pro ts, are more important than life and death.
QIO
Construction on the 2010 World Cup Stadium in Cape Town, South Africa.
Photo: Matt Wakeman
Below:
NUCLEAR WEAPONS VERSUS ECONOMY
A LOOK AT WHY PAKISTAN IS SPENDING ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS WHILE ITS ECONOMY STRUGGLES
by Idrees Ali
Pakistan is a country that has become synonymous with poor governance and terrorism in the recent past. Add to this list a struggling economy that is failing to support a rapidly growing population. And yet why does Pakistan continue to spend money on its military and nuclear weaponry, given the country ’ s economic problems?
is question arises due to a Sept. 2, 2013 Washington Post article that examined the deep mistrust between the United States and Pakistan. One aspect this article investigates is the state of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. e article drew its sources from the “black budget,” a document that reveals the spending of di erent security agencies for the rst time e Washington Post had gained access to these documents through Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor turned whistleblower who is currently in Russia. e “black budget” disclosed that Pakistan had allocated more than $52 billion for scal 2013.
Above: Pakistani ood victims await relief supplies.
Pakistani villagers cross a bridge made of trees.
Photos: DVIDSHUB, CC
Pakistan’s current economic turmoil is what makes Pakistan’s increase in nuclear weapons funding highly disconcerting. Recently the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a $6.6 billion loan in order for Pakistan to stabilize its economy and to promote growth. is goes to show the precarious state of Pakistan’s economy. Yet despite this instability,, the most recent budget showed a rise of more than 15% in military expenditure.
According to Nancy Gallagher, Associate Director for Research at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), the cost of a country’s nuclear weapons is based on more than just the cost of the warheads. It includes the infrastructure, the safeguards in place to protect them, and the training required to ensure that the weapons remain modern.
In order to understand Pakistan’s current approach towards its nuclear weapons, it is important to understand the country's history with these weapons in
the country. According to Shuja Nawaz, Director of the South Asia Center of the Atlantic Council, the primary reason for Pakistan pursuing nuclear weapons was to counter similar steps being taken by India. In 1972, a er three wars with neighboring India, the country secretly began its nuclear program to match India’s capabilities. Pakistan carried out its rst nuclear test in 1998, soon a er India acknowledged that they had nuclear weapons.
John Isaacs, the Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation, said, “ e main reason for Pakistan in gaining nuclear weapons was India’s steps towards developing these weapons.” Even though the reasons for Pakistan gaining the nuclear weapons were clear, they had reached their nuclear deterrent goal and there was no need to add more. According to a CNN report, Pakistan is believed to possess anywhere between 90 and a 110 nuclear weapons.
According to Ms. Gallagher, it is clear that Pakistan is increasing
its nuclear arsenal and “Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are aimed at conventional weapons being used by India.” She believes there was worry inside Pakistan that if their stockpile of nuclear weapons was too small , India may attempt to disarm them. is may help to explain why Pakistan continues to expand its arsenal.
e only clari cation that was o ered by the Pakistani authorities was in a press release, which contained a number of contradictions that show the level of confusion in the government with regard to its nuclear policy. Although the press release a rms Pakistan’s commitment towards disarmament and nonproliferation, it goes on to state that its nuclear deterrent is aimed at “maintaining regional stability in South Asia.” e National Command Authority, the organization responsible for protecting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, said the country would follow a “credible minimal deterrence” strategy without entering an arms race with another country.
What all this points to is a confused approach by the country towards its nuclear program. According to Ms. Gallagher, even though the concept of deterrence is an abstract one, Pakistan does not seem to have a deterrence theory. She stated that few real e orts had been taken to understand the economic costs of these weapons. Given the economic situation described above, this is a serious concern.
Shuja Nawaz cited a recent report by the National Intelligence Council entitled “Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds” when looking at what Pakistan should look towards in the future. According to the report, India’s economy will be 16 times as large as Pakistan’s economy by 2030. Nawaz said that given the rapid growth of India’s economy, it would be very di cult for Pakistan to maintain equilibrium in the battle eld. He believed that it was time Pakistan nally moved away from its hostility with India and heavy investment in nuclear weapons.
e overwhelming consensus, and what this article has pointed towards, is that Pakistan must clearly articulate its nuclear strategy. Gone are the days where simply building up a large nuclear arsenal was the way to dominate your surrounding countries. Countries are now measured by their economic stability and attractiveness to outside investors. To stay relevant in a region dominated economically by India and China, Pakistan must look away from a military buildup, and towards reviving its stagnant economy. QIO
e A-bomb Dome in Hiroshima stands as a memorial to the nuclear devastation sustained by the dropping of the atomic bomb in August of 1945. e dome is a testament to and reminder of the power of nuclear weapons.
Photo: Imahinasyon Photography
Transition in the Media
by Erica MacLachlan
It is December 1, 1952. e elegant, angular visage of a woman, sharply dressed, her long blonde hair coiled neatly into a bun at the nape of her neck, is plastered on the front page of the New York Daily News. She shares the spotlight with a second photo, to her immediate left, of a uniformed soldier with a garrison cap perched on his head. e title emblazoned above reads: “Ex-GI Becomes Blonde Beauty.”
Christine (née George) Jorgensen was the rst individual in America to undergo sex reassignment surgery in the public eye. Ensconced in the socio-cultural ethos of the McCarthy era, complete with its emphatic nationalist sentiment and disdain for subversion, Christine’s break with conformity was newsworthy. Her transition attracted the attention of international media, who simultaneously glamorized and made a spectacle of the former WWII Private. For six months, Christine Jorgensen became a symbol of American nationalism and was portrayed as the epitome of femininity. Nevertheless, when the media unearthed the details of her “incomplete” surgical transformation, she quickly morphed from America’s “glamour girl” into a duplicitous and sexually ambiguous pariah. Fast forward to August 22, 2013. Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning, formerly a private rst class and known internationally as a “whistleblower,” issued the following statement:
“As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun.”
presenting as a man? Would it then be acceptable to call me “he?” I hope you can understand that, under scrutiny, it becomes signi cantly more confusing to deny a trans person’s gender than to accept it.”
Such photos make a spectacle of these women, focusing solely on their physical appearance. As if appearance were what defined gender. As if the uniform somehow makes both Christine and Chelsea less of a woman.
is simple request resulted in a storm of controversy as media outlets scrambled to accommodate, neglect or simply ridicule Manning’s chosen identity. In a classic display of irrepressible impudence, Fox News played Aerosmith’s “Dude Looks Like A Lady” during their segment on Manning. Following a similar vein, Kevin D. Williamson of e National Review published an article entitled “Bradley Manning Is Not a Woman,” claiming that “no amount of pronoun play, psychotherapeutic doublespeak, or wishful thinking can make it otherwise.” Likewise, CNN refused to use feminine pronouns on the basis that Chelsea had not yet legally changed her name or begun the process of physically transitioning.
In “An open letter to CNN on Chelsea Manning,” activist blogger, Heather McNamara, responded to this attempt to police trans* bodies by asking:
“At what point would her hormone replacement be considered su cient? When a blood test showed her testosterone as su ciently repressed? Or not until surgery? [...] e surgery is prohibitively expensive and can lead to complications. At what point would she be considered to be presenting as a woman? When she wears makeup and dresses? And if I wear pants and no make-up, am I therefore
Indeed, a number of publishers chose to utilize feminine pronouns in order to respect Manning’s right to self-identify. A few, like CBC, adopted a formal transition process whereby they shared Chelsea’s announcement, but continued to use male pronouns in the short term in order to help audiences shift gears. Others, like Al-Jazeera, began using the appropriate female pronouns on the very day she issued her statement. Organizations such as GLAAD and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) have encouraged journalists to use feminine pronouns to refer to Chelsea Manning. ese groups have pointed to the o cial guidelines provided by the Associated Press Stylebook (AP Stylebook), which suggests that reporters should: “Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly.”
Chelsea, having clearly expressed her desire to be referred to using feminine pronouns, presumably left no room for debate.
e outing of pronouns is problematic, but so too are the visual representations of Manning in the media. A picture of Manning in full military uniform is often presented beside a grainy and pointedly un attering black and white photograph of her with lipstick and long blonde hair. e common practice of juxtaposing “before” and “after” photos of a person’s gender transition has not changed since the 1950’s, when Christine Jorgensen’s face rst made headlines. Such photos make a spectacle of these women, focusing solely on the changes in their physical appearance. As if appearance were what de ned gender. As if the uniform somehow makes both Christine and Chelsea less of a woman.
Over sixty years have passed since the media precipitated Christine Jorgensen’s rise to fame, and her subsequent fall from grace. Many things have changed in the interim, but regrettably, not enough. Notwithstanding the respectful responses and support of a select few organizations, Manning’s case has illustrated the overwhelming persistence of transphobia within the media. QIO
THE DARK KNIGHT WHISTLE BLOWS
by Aaron Gifford
It has been several months since Edward Snowden leaked information about National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programs to the press. After leaving his job as a federal contractor and exposing national secrets Snowden has been considered both a hero and a villain. Originally, Snowden claimed that he left the NSA because he was appalled at the level of spying taking place on the American public. For many, this seemed a noble cause and for a short period, Snowden was viewed favourably. As more questions came out surrounding the NSA, Snowden eventually admitted in an interview with the South China Morning Post that he considers himself a traitor. He confessed that he pursued his job with the NSA in a bid to collect information about the US surveillance programs, falsifying his original claims to be a whistleblower. Snowden had planned the breakin with the intent of releasing the information to the public. Although his actions can be seen as immoral, they opened new debate to American public.
Snowden played an important role in creating media discussion surrounding government transparency, and called into question the very essence of civilian privacy in the 21st century. Is a surveillance state necessary to combat new forms of terrorism and threats to national security? Surprisingly, many Americans argue that they do not object to the measures taken by
the NSA because they have nothing to hide from the government; others argue sacri cing civil liberties may be justi ed in the name of national security. If the public did not view Snowden as a villain after the media debate surrounding NSA privacy, his search for asylum and the damage he did to American foreign policy certainly undermined his cause. Snowden maintained that the US had been spying not only on the Chinese government, but also on Chinese universities and researchers. By revealing the hidden face of American foreign policy Snowden curried favour with foreign governments at the expense of his own.
Snowden confessed that he pursued his job with the NSA in a bid to collect information about US surveillance programs.
Not only is Edward Snowden a traitor, he is also naïve . e perception that the US is the only nation that performs internal and external surveillance is misguided. Since his escape from the US, Snowden has tried to appeal to Russia and China for asylum, – ironically, two governments that run formal surveillance and intelligence gathering operations that are arguably far worse than that of the NSA. Both China and Russia have professional hackers working long hours for the government. Snowden exposed information about US interests and activities with little to no concern in regards to the consequences it would have against the country he claimed as his own. Had he stayed in the United States and not attempted to ee, he would have exposed what can be deemed an unconstitutional surveillance program while keeping the sympathy of the American public. Had Snowden faced jail time and prosecution he could have gone down as a hero; instead, he has lived long enough to see himself become the villain. QIO
Photo: David Morris
PROMETHEUS VS. BIG BROTHER
by Deborah Chu
From the moment e Guardian published Edward Snowden’s exposé on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance of phone records, United States government o cials have remained adamant that such measures were in the public’s interest. But in a democracy, there must be a line in the sand with regards to the government’s role in public life, and no amount of fear-mongering should condone its transgression.
What is perhaps more shocking than the content of what such whistleblowing brings to light is the horrifying truth that it underscores – that without public scrutiny, the government is liable to give itself powers to which it is not entitled . How did the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s mandate (FISA) go from reviewing individual wiretapping cases, to passing sweeping legislation that allowed the NSA to spy on Americans? How can entire bodies of law and judicial precedents be kept secret from its citizens? What acts are our governments committing overseas in our name? During his time at Booz Allen, a NSA contractor, Edward Snowden was sitting on the phonetracing data of all Verizon customers, as well as the digital information of foreign governments. Private Chelsea Manning released hundreds of thousands of secret records relating to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including a 2007 video of an Apache helicopter killing 12 civilians. If Snowden and Pvt. Manning are indeed traitors to their nation, why did they not simply sell what they had to America’s enemies? Goodness knows the US is not lacking on that front these days, and there is no doubt that Snowden and
Manning could have turned a tidy pro t. Instead, they turned their information over to the hands of the public, to do with what they will. Whistleblowers such as Julian Assange, Snowden, and Manning have all insisted that their intention was to spark debate – whether about the direction of our governments’ foreign policy and the role of the military, or the shrinking privacy of civilians. ey didn’t set out to deliver the nation’s head on a platter, as their detractors are wont to accuse them of doing. ey simply wanted people to start talking. Whistleblowers are our modern-day Prometheans. By endowing the public with the knowledge that their governments have willfully deprived them of, they are empowering citizens to take their governments to account for their actions. But with Snowden charged under the United States Espionage Act, and Manning tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it seems that the book will be thrown at anyone who has the gall to point out how insidiously pervasive the system has become towards the people it is ostensibly meant to protect.
Yes, Snowden and Manning’s leaks have hurt US national interests. But as PJ Crowley, former assistant Secretary of State in the Obama Administration pointed out, it was the Iraq War that revived al-Qaeda. erefore, whistleblowers should not be accused of putting the public in harm’s way any more than the politicians who instigated that misguided war. Moreover, the Obama Administration has yet to provide any concrete proof that this massive surveillance program has foiled any terrorist attempts.
Some measure of transparency is necessary between a government and its people. If a government intends to represent the people, then the people have a right to know what is being done in their name. Otherwise, things could get ‘Big Brotherly’ very quickly around here. QIO
In the Wake of Malala Day
by Morgan Tomalty
is summer the United Nations celebrated “Malala Day”, a commemoration of a young girl’s struggle to bring education to the youth of her community. Malala Yousafzai came to public attention by writing for BBC Urdu about her family’s ght to educate girls under Taliban rule. Her in uence grew to such an extent that the Taliban decided they needed to silence the attention she was bringing to her community and the regions lack of female rights.
On 9 October 2012, a Taliban assassin shot Malala in the head on the bus home from school. Nearly two years later, she has survived the attack and the assassination attempt has sparked an international outpouring of support for Malala and her message the Taliban initially meant to silence. Gordon Brown, the United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education, started a UN petition called "I am Malala" with the goal for children worldwide to be in school by the end of 2015. Malala’s recovery has galvanized the international public, brought the spotlight on the issue of universal education, and has led to the creation of “Malala Day.”
“Malala Day” marked the young girl’s sixteenth birthday on 12 July 2013 and comprised of Malala delivering her rst public speech to over 550 young international leaders at the UN Headquarters. She wore a shawl that belonged to the late Pakistani President
Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated by Pakistan’s Taliban in 2007. e shawl, Malala stated, is symbolic of the struggle between Pakistani civilians and the Taliban. " ousands of people have been killed by the terrorists and millions have been injured," she declared, "I am just one of them."
In the course of her speech, Malala noted that her injury had spurred "thousands of voices" to ght back against oppression of children. is, however, is a cautious estimate and the number of ‘voices’ is quickly rising. Ayesha Gulalai, a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Senior Vice President declared an ‘education emergency’ and put education at the top of PTI’s to-do list. In addition, Malala’s struggle and speech has caused four million people worldwide, nearly half of them Pakistani girls, to sign petitions advocating for girls who are denied education. Together, they have joined Malala in de ance of Taliban intimidation. e courage shown by the world’s youth in the wake of Malala’s speech has put the Taliban on the defensive, and has even elicited a public admission from the terrorist organization that its attempt to assassinate Malala was counterproductive to their aims. e fact that one sixteen year old girl – armed with only her voice and her courage – has rendered such a blow upon the Pakistani Taliban is nothing short of remarkable.
Malala ended her speech on ‘Malala Day’ by illuminating the Taliban’s weakness. " e extremists are afraid of books and pens,” she said. “ ey are our most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one pen and one book can change the world." QIO
THE ARAB SPRING IS STILL IN FULL SWING
EGYPT IS UNSURE OF THEIR GOVERNMENT AND REBELLION HAS LEFT A SCAR ON SYRIA
by Corey Schruder
The Syrian Civil War started on March 15th, 2011 with popular demonstrations against the Assad regime. Within a month, demonstrations had spread across the country and government forces were violently suppressing public dissent
Photo: Saleem Homsi
Syrian protestors clamor as individuals and the media look on.
Photo: Saleem Homsi
Gra ti around Tahrir Square often takes on a political tone as protests continue
Photo: Denis Bocquet
The Syrian Civil War started on March 15th, 2011 with popular demonstrations against the Assad regime. Within a month, demonstrations had spread across the country and government forces were violently suppressing public dissent. Since the con ict started, US President Barack Obama has presented the Syrian regime with various ‘lines’ they could not cross without provoking American intervention. For the most part, these lines have been ignored and the promised action did not come. e narrative nally changed on August 21st, 2013 when it was alleged that the chemical agent sarin was used in the disputed suburbs of Ghouta.
e possibility of US intervention in Syria has been divisive, to say the least. In the wake of the alleged chemical attack, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been seeking congressional approval for action in Syria. Among their traditional allies, Prime Minister Harper has refused to involve the Canadian military, while Prime Minister Cameron tried and failed to secure Parliamentary approval for a British strike on Syria. Certain political leaders have attempted to justify intervention by referring to Syria’s human rights violations and its use of chemical weapons. ese reasons, however, conveniently ignore the real situation in Syria. is is not a black and white scenario, wherein the government is clearly in the ‘wrong’ and the rebels de nitively in the ‘right’. Although both sides in the con ict claim otherwise, the war is being fought on sectarian grounds. Assad’s forces are made of mostly Alawite shabiha militias and other Shia groups with Hezbollah support. e rebels, backed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are made up of mostly
Sunni groups, including alQaeda. Although they are considered freedom ghters in Syria, al-Qaeda is considered a terrorist group everywhere else in the world. Like the government they are ghting against, these rebel groups have also been accused of using chemical weapons, raiding places of worship, and killing civilians. All of these examples illustrate the moral opaqueness in Syria. How then can the West choose a side to defend when both sides have used chemical weapons? How can the West decide who is in the right when both sides have killed innocents? So far, it seems as though Western leaders have made up their minds, accepting the narrative that all rebellions stemming from the Arab Spring are ghting for democracy and human rights, even though a democratically elected government was overthrown in Egypt.
How then can the West choose a side to defend when both sides have used chemical weapons? How can the West decide who is in the right when both sides have killed innocents?
We know that at the start of this war, there was a clear divide between who was doing wrong and who was doing right; the Assad regime’s crackdown on what were initially peaceful protests was wrong. However, as the war went on the rebels descended into the same morally ambiguous area as the Assad regime. e rebels, under duress of losing the war, e ectively made a deal with the devil. e outcomes of intervention are highly variable and therefore the e cacy of intervention is hard to determine. It is hard to say whether the bene ts of Western intervention will outweigh the costs, both of which are situated
in highly subjective and murky contexts. Both sides have used questionable tactics and have aligned with less than legitimate groups. Western leaders have made the right choice by not intervening in the a airs of the Syrian Civil War. Although proponents of both sides of the debate claim they are right, all we can say for certain is that hindsight is 20/20. QIO
e ag for Syrian independence ies over a large gathering of protestors in Idlib, Syria.
Photo: FreedomHouse
PUTIN'S COMMON SENSE
by Alexander McGurk
When the British House of Commons voted against military action in Syria on August 30, 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin was surprised. He told reporters that he had expected Western nations to follow the lead of the United States. In spite of his initial shock, he was pleased: “even [in Britain] there are people who are guided by their national interests and common sense, and who value their sovereignty.” In the coming weeks, Putin's vision of sovereignty and common sense would proceed to upset the settled plans of the President of the United States.
Putin has upheld Russia’s longstanding defence of the Assad regime in Syria. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union armed secular Arab republics like Syria against Israel and the Arab monarchies – America's regional allies. Islamist movements challenged Moscow's secular and modernist claims to order and progress, threatening its rule in the Muslim communities of Central Asia and the Caucasus. ey could not be countenanced. When chemical weapons were used in Damascus on August 21, it was far easier for him to blame the opposition – and the mujaheddin among them – than
States, where President Obama had arranged a congressional vote on intervention on September 11, the executive resisted the initiative. e State Department disavowed Kerry's remark.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Syria's response merely demonstrated the e ectiveness of American threats. en, on September 10, the president backed down.
In a live television address, President Obama announced that he had accepted the Russian proposal. e congressional vote would be postponed.
editorial argued, trumped the “ine ective and pointless” use of force. e American exception to these norms had gone on long enough. “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.”
the regime. “Common sense speaks for itself,” Putin said.
On September 9, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Syrian President Bashar alAssad could prevent US-led intervention in Syria if he turned over his chemical weapons to the international community without delay. Within hours,
Constructive talks with Russia and President Putin would continue, and a Security Council resolution, written in consultation with Russia and China, would authorize Syrian disarmament. e US president continued to defend the principles of intervention – peace through strength, international norms, the responsibilities of a great power, and the duties of America as an 'exceptional'
Putin's most pressing concern seemed to be the defence of American credibility.
Russia's foreign minister declared that this proposal, which Kerry had already foreclosed (“It can't be done,” he said), had been sent to the Assad government as a Russian initiative. e Assad government accepted. It would submit to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which it had never signed, and relinquish its chemical weapons.
is it had done only, the Syrian foreign minister declared, “out of our faith in the wisdom of the Russian leadership.”
e plan for intervention, already frayed by British defection and congressional opposition, would now come apart. France, one of America's few allies, declared its support for the Russian initiative within hours. In the United
nation, conducting its foreign policy on moral principles. ese were principles that the president would not apply in Syria. At the close of his speech, the president said “I believe we should act.” But in Syria, at least, the United States had decided that it would not.
e following day, the New York Times published an editorial from President Putin. e piece brought the press campaign that Moscow had long conducted outside mainstream western outlets to America’s attention. e interplay of Putin's familiar doctrines of national interest, common sense, and sovereignty shaped the editorial's diplomatic provocations. Instrumental reason and customary law, the
Putin thus ended the week in triumph, Obama in defeat. Putin had played a long game of public support and private engagement with the Assad regime. Meanwhile, it was never clear what game Obama was playing. His most pressing concern seemed to be the defence of American credibility, or at least the credibility of a president who had called the use of chemical weapons a “red line” event. A humanitarian intervention had never been in the cards.
President Obama had been prepared to order a military strike against a sovereign power against the express wishes of Congress, the American public, and the international community. He had resolved to do so even had he lost the vote in Congress. Washington would have been darkened by an unpopular foreign con ict and a crisis of authority. Americans would have had no end of a lesson, but it would not have done them much good.
Putin's defence of the repressive and authoritarian Assad regime has made him a villain in the eyes of humanitarians the world over. His intervention in the American debate over intervention, however, has saved the Obama administration from a crisis of its own making. Putin’s intercession allowed the Obama administration to achieve its limited aims – the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons –without a military intervention and without provoking a political crisis in Washington. In the United States, at least, that may make him a small hero. QIO
'MIDDLE FINGER TIANANMEN SQUARE '
FROM 'ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE' TO THEIR VOICE
THE
TUMULTUOUS
LIFE OF AI WEIWEI
by Claire Pierce
The contemporary Chinese artist Ai Weiwei has spent much of his life in a state of flux between hero and traitor. He is a hero for the Twitter age, an accessible activist in 140 characters or less. This has made him an enemy of the establishment that has sought to suppress him since birth
Whenhis poet-intellectual father was labeled an “enemy of the people” in the 1950s, his entire family was exiled to a hard labor camp. Yet for an artist who has been lauded by some critics as the ‘conscience of China’, Ai’s formative artistic education took place in the United States. From 1981 through 1993, Ai immersed himself in the artistic landscape of downtown New York City, a world that was going through an upheaval of its own, spurred by the calamities wrought by AIDS. ough he was not directly involved in this movement its e ects can be seen in his later work.
Ai was certainly fond of controversial artists, namely Marcel Duchamp and Jasper Johns, as well as avantgarde movements such as
constructivism, minimalism, and pop. He thus returned to China poised as the perfect artistic ambassador for contemporary Chinese artists to the Western art world, due to his uency in English and the most popular aesthetic styles. For a time he excelled in this role, directing an underground artistic movement that resonated with critics, curators, and collectors outside of China. His popularity in the West led the Chinese government to seek his assistance in the design of what would be the focal point of the 2008 Olympic Games, the Bird’s Nest Stadium.
Two events, the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan province and the removal of migrant workers from Beijing ahead of the Olympics, forced Ai’s subversive activities above ground and caused him
to fall from favor. In 2009 he su ered a brain hemorrhage after a beating from police o cers, his Shanghai studio was bulldozed in 2010, and in 2011 he was jailed for three months. ese days, his studio is under 24-hour surveillance and his passport has yet to be returned
to him. His status as a dissident has crippled his e cacy in China, yet has made him an emblem of resistance to the outside world. e exhibition Ai Weiwei: According to What?, on view at the AGO (Art Gallery of Ontario) until October 27, provides a retrospective look
at the body of work that either heroicizes or condemns him. Ai’s international appeal is due in no small part to slick selfpromotion designed to appeal to English-speaking audiences. e 2012 documentary Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry repackaged footage from his Chinese lms while his Twitter feed played the role of narrator. Indeed, Ai and social media seem to be a perfect match. He is arguably the most famous artist to have such a cross-platform presence. His blog has been shut down several times by the Chinese government and excerpts from it have been published in a book by MIT. One of his most famous- and provocative- works is Studies in Perspectives, a series of photographs of him giving the nger to famous landmarks. From the White House to the Ei el Tower to Tiananmen Square, it is a call to arms for the Instagram generation. Intriguingly, much of Ai’s work involves the appropriation of Western art forms within traditional Chinese culture. In the West, works associated with Minimalism and Pop Art have faced criticism from audiences for being vapid, inaccessible, and lacking in artistic skill. Yet, when
Ai Weiwei works within these styles his works are heralded as profound and moving. is is in part because the culture he is critiquing is not the audiences’ own. When Andy Warhol o ers the soup can as the ultimate art object of the American consumer, the audience feels that they are being placed under a microscope and found wanting. When Ai Weiwei paints the Coca-Cola logo on a Qing Dynasty vase so as to symbolize the loss of traditional culture
in favor of materialism, the audience can nod along while escaping judgment themselves. One of the most moving pieces in the exhibition is the installation cum sculpture Straight. is piece is made from over 40 tonnes of reclaimed rebar from the 2008 Sichuan earthquake arranged to mimic the topography of a ‘fault line’. is work is a deliberate charge at the Chinese government for their failure to take responsibility for the shoddy “tofu construction” that claimed
the lives of over 5000 students. e names and ages of these victims are listed on an adjacent wall while a recording reads them out continuously. Like so many of his works, Straight is powerful in its ability to summon an immediate visceral response. e individual rods are held in place only by gravity, and one has the sense that the slightest shift would bring the entire composition crashing down. is precipitous dynamism seems to mimic that of Ai’s own life in his dual role as hero and traitor. e energy of all of his work, be it video, photography, or sculpture resonates with the viewer. His art and activism are inextricable from one another, but while a devotee in the West may have the opportunity to interact with his art, it is unclear how they may also become involved in his political causes - his work o ers awareness but not solutions. Yet Ai Weiwei currently holds an enormous amount of leverage over Western audiences; to let this type of platform go to waste would certainly be traitorous.
QIO
Ai Weiwei's exhibit at the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington, DC
Photo: Angela N.
