DI am pleased to welcome you to the first issue in The Observer’s Volume XIII: Summer in Review.
With the largest issue in our publication’s history, The Observer team is overjoyed to present you with a comprehensive and engaging overview of the biggest and most significant news stories and events this past summer. We take you to five continents and into many different realms of international affairs with articles written by our talented staff writers.
Beginning with a deep dive into the drama of electoral politics, Nick Pearce writes on the Trump p phenomenon and Sean Stead-Fecser on Brazil’s presidential impeachment trial. Then, we take a close look at crises of democracy around the world. Spencer Belyea writes about Putin’s next step in Eastern Europe, Ryan Anderson describes Venezuela’s descent into authoritarianism, and Carla-Maria Estrada-Tobar looks at the breakdown of order and the lasting consequences of Boko Haram’s actions in Nigeria. Isabella Gudgeon puts all of these stories into broader perspective with her article on populism and the crisis of democracy. Kayla Rolland then takes us North where she analyzes multilateralism as a means for Arctic protection and then we follow Haleigh Johns South to Brazil to hear about the threat Zika poses. Sean Adessky brings us toward the con vergence of sports and politics as he describes corruption in the IOC, IAAF, and FIFA. Last, and certainly not least, Gavrilo Randjelovic writes on digital rights in America.
We are also lucky to have six external submissions adding to our lexicon of international events. Robert Conor Tomalty offers his perspective on the Orlando shooting, Hana Chaudhury on the Bangladeshi hostage crisis, and Emily Robertson on the Fort McMurray fire. In the realm of economics, Catherine McDonald looks at how the migrant crisis has affected the Macedonian economy and Lauren Craik highlights Japan’s faltering economy, asking the important question, could Japan be the new Greece? Finally, Jacob D’Souza writes about the amicable relations between the United States and India.
In a unique and captivating joint article crafted by our assistant editors, Nicole Toole and Kelley Humber look in depth into one of the most divisive debates this year as they offer a comprehensive analysis of all factors contributing to, and affecting, the successful Brexit vote. I myself have chosen to write a piece on Germany’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide, analyzing its historical and modern implications.
We would like to extend a warm thank you to our layout editor, Raine Storey, for without her this magazine would truly not be conceivable. While the staff writers communicate their ideas via sentences and paragraphs, she uses her talents to connect us to you, the reader. If you have any remarks or concerns please feel free to email contact@queensobserver.org. We encourage you to consider writing for our next issue, so please follow us on facebook or instagram for updates on The Observer’s activity.
Happy reading!
Georgie Giannopoulos Editor-in-Chief Political Studies ‘17
QQueen’s International Affairs Association: Summer in Review
After a great 2015-2016, (remember Edward Snowden? North America Top Fifty MUN teams? Samantha Nutt?) QIAA is hard at work this summer trying to make the upcoming year bigger and better than ever.
We started the summer with a brand new Core Executive team, after what was our most competitive hiring season ever. Since then, directors have been hard at work planning some amazing initiatives. As evidenced by this magazine,The Observer team hit the ground running to publish our largest edition ever. Our Technology Director is hard at work building a brand new website for QIAA and all of our initiatives, so you’ll be able to check out qiaa.org for a more user friendly experience with updated information on our events through the year.
Make sure to check out QIAA’s Twitter (Queens_IAA) and Instagram (Queens_IAA) too! Marketing Directors have been hard at work on social media to make sure we get the latest QIAA updates and global news, to our members on all platforms.
The Queen’s Model United Nations Invitational (QMUNi) is back for our fourth year, with even more committees than before. This year’s conference will take place at Queen’s from November 17th-20th, 2016 and attracts students from Cornell, Middlebury, University of Toronto and more. Keep your eyes on the QIAA Facebook page for information on hiring for this incredible experience.
Other major events to look forward to this fall include our monthly Speaker Series events, an American Election pub night on November 8th; an in-house Model United Nations conference in September; more Community Outreach events; and of course stay tuned for Right of Reply, our radio show, on CFRC as well as Podomatic! The winter activities continue with the third installment of International Development Week and Queen’s favourite crisis conference, QICSim.
Of course the biggest event of the fall here at Queen’s, next to Homecoming, is Frosh Week, and QIAA will be there at all the major events! Come check out our new swag at the Sidewalk Sale and Queen’s in the Park. Be sure to visit our booth at the annual Open House at the end of September.
GET INVOLVED!
QIAA is always looking for new members; whether you want to be a social member with VIP access to events and conferences, a delegate on the Model UN team or join the executive, we have a place for everyone! We will be hiring for a number of positions in the fall from reporters on the radio show, to researchers for our spring crisis conference (QICSim), to chairs for QMUNi, and First Year Interns! Check out our Facebook page, website or email contact@qiaa.org to find out more on how to become a member and join QIAA!
We hope everyone has had an amazing summer and we are looking forward to an amazing year!
Your Leadership Team, Lauren Craik, Hana Chaudhury, Michael Molyneaux & Jeremy Rogers
Our Team
“The views expressed by the authors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editorial board or the Queen’s International Affairs Association.”
Staff Writer Bios
Sean Stead-Fecser is in his second year at Queen’s University majoring in Political Studies. Born and raised in Ottawa, his interest in politics stems from living in the nation’s capital and being in the heart of politics in Canada. His interests range from environmental politics to ethnic conflict, and is curious to see how technological advances change the political landscape surrounding us.
Gavrilo Randjelovic is a second year commerce student at Queen’s University pursuing additional studies in Mathematics. He has a long-standing interest in global affairs and international economics and hopes to bring some of his unique international experience and financial knowledge to The Observer. In addition to his professional interests, Gavrilo likes biking, playing tennis, and learning new pieces for the piano.
Haleigh Johns is currently in her third year, pursuing a medial in Political and Religious Studies. Originally from Kanata, Ontario, Haleigh came to Queen’s in second year after completing the first year study abroad program at the BISC in East Sussex, England. Her academic interests include Canadian foreign policy, the politics of global health, and the intersection of public policy and religion.
Kayla Rolland is a third year student excited to return to The Observer for her second year as a staff writer. A lifelong interest in politics and a love of the outdoors followed her to Queen’s, and she is currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Political Studies with a minor in Environmental Studies. Her research interests include the political implications of an aging Western population and the changing nature of borders, but her primary interest is environmental politics. Elsewhere on campus, she is involved with Conservation Queen’s as a general member and sits on the executive committee of Queen’s Amnesty International.
Monique Sereneo is in her second year, pursuing a major in Economics and a minor in Global Development. Originally from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Monique has fostered a curiosity for global issues, development economics, and socio economic inequalities. Apart from The Observer, she is involved with Queen’s Conference on Philanthropy and AIESEC Queen’s. With this being her first year involved with The Observer, Monique is incredibly excited to be a part of the team.
Ryan Anderson is currently in his third year at Queen’s majoring in Political Studies and minoring in History. Ryan’s research interests lie within the realm of comparative politics, namely in areas such as democracy and democratization, authoritarianism, nationalism, and ethnic conflict. Besides being a staff writer for The Observer, Ryan is the Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Politicus Journal and will be studying on exchange at the University of Edinburgh in the Winter semester. Academics aside, Ryan enjoys playing hockey and lacrosse in his free time and is also an avid baseball fan.
Carla-Maria Estrada-Tobar is a second year Politics major and French minor at Queen’s University. Her political interests include minority rights, racial politics, and foreign policy. She is particularly interested in social justice movements and their impacts on society. In her spare time, Carla-Maria enjoys relaxing with friends and doing yoga. She one day hopes to work for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development where she can fulfill her dream of being a part of Canada’s global humanitarian assistance.
Kelley Humber is a third year Political Studies and History medial, and one of The Observer’s Assistant Editors for 2016/2017. Her academic interests include Eastern European politics and Canadian ally relations. She spent her past summer as a Research Fellow with the Queen’s History Department working on a project about foreign aid to Soviet Russia. Apart from The Observer, Kelley is involved with Politicus Journal and is a member of the Queen’s Rowing Team.
Sean Adessky is a third year history student currently studying abroad in Oslo, Norway. Being on exchange has really added to his international knowledge, as he has lived in and learnt about a country with a strong history as a mediator in international politics. He is an avid reader of topics in international politics and enjoys learning about new and different cultures. He is a keen traveler and considers trying new foods the key to learning about different cultures.
Nicole Toole is a third year undergraduate student studying a medial in Political Studies and Global Development with a Certificate in Business. Her passion towards international relations and development studies led to her join The Observer. Nicole is excited to be one of the Assistant Editors for the 2016/2017 year! Alongside of her work with The Observer, Nicole is part of Queen’s Students for Literacy Prison Literacy Initiative, and a Supervisor for Helen Tuft Child Outreach Program.
Isabella Gudgeon is a third year student at Queen’s University, pursuing a medial in Political Studies and Global Development. This is her first year with The Observer and she is very excited to join the team! Growing up in Victoria, British Columbia, at the heart of provincial government and environmental activism, Isabella has always been interested in exploring how people, the planet, and policymakers interact. During her first year, Isabella had the opportunity to study at the Bader International Study Centre in the United Kingdom, an experience that allowed her to apply this interest to affairs in the international political and economic sphere. Outside of her role at The Observer, Isabella will also be involved as an Undersecretary General for this year’s Queen’s Model United Nations Invitational and as a Residence Don on Campus.
Nick Pearce is a third year student pursuing a Global Development Studies major and an English minor. His writing covers identity politics, colonialism, processes of decolonization, and the political economy of developing regions. Beginning as Features Editor at The Queen’s Journal, Nick’s love of storytelling and debate has led him to the The Observer — as well as intense discussions over the dinner table. In his spare time, Nick enjoys live music and all-you-can-eat-sushi. He intends to pursue a Master’s degree in Public Policy after completing his undergraduate degree.
Georgie Giannopoulos is a fourth year political studies major and history minor and is the editor-in-chief of The Observer for 2016/2017. Her academic research interests include minority rights, ethnic conflict, international security, and constitutional law. She is completing an honours thesis discussing next steps in solving the ‘Cyprus Question’. Outside of the academic realm Georgie enjoys playing violin in the Queen’s Symphony Orchestra, volunteering at Martha’s Table, and is the Vice Chair of the Alma Mater Society’s Board of Directors.
Spencer Belyea is a fourth year History and Politics student originally from Toronto, Ontario who is thrilled to combine two of his passions - writing and international affairs - into one endeavour as an Observer staff writer. Spencer has long had an interest in the goings-on around the world, fueled by his extensive travel, having been to over 40 countries. He is particularly interested in security and defense, and the political maneuvering associated with it, as well as domestic politics and its effect on international events. Aside from international affairs, writing, and travelling, Spencer can be found cheering on his beloved sports teams, a pastime that is fun but often painful, given his allegiance to Toronto’s teams.
Kelley Humber
Brexit: An Uncertain Future
Nicole Toole
Brexit: A Mistake
Nick Pearce
The World With Trump
20
Spencer Belyea
Sean Stead Fecser
Brazil’s Turmoils
The Russian Bear (Still) Looms Large 21 Ryan Anderson Venezuela’s Descent Into Authoritarianism
23
More than Just a Hashtag: The Boko Haram Victims 24
Carla-Maria Estrada-Tobar
26
Hana Chauduhry
The Wake of a New Dawn: the Aftermath of the Rise of Extremism in Bangladesh
Monique Sereneo
The Post Arab Spring: Any (Democratic) Dream Will Do
27 Isabella Gudgeon
Boaty McBoatface, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy
29
The Arctic Council: A Multilateral Tool to Protect the Arctic Region 31
Kayla Rolland
32
Haleigh Johns
A Dangerous Game: The Zika Virus at the 2016 Summer Olympics
36
Gavrilo Randjelovic
Digital Rights: Freedom of thought in the information age
40
Jacob D’Souza
A Masterclass in Diplomacy: India-U.S. Relations
44
Catherine MacDonald
Macedonia and the Migrant Crisis: Economic Implications
Emily Robertson
Fort McMurray Wildfire: Political Opportunism Throws Oil on the Fire
34
Sean Adessky
Is there Any Trust Left in International Sport Governing Bodies?
38
Robert Conor Tomalty
Untangling Orlando: The How & Why Behind the Deadliest Mass Shooting in U.S. History
42
Lauren Craik Is Japan the New Greece?
46
Georgie Giannopoulos
A Country Built on Guilt & a Country Built on Denial: Germany’s Recognition of the Armenian Genocide
Brexit: An Uncertain Future
By: Kelley Humber
In the early morning of June 24th, Britons woke up to the news of a majority referendum vote in favour of leaving the European Union. Brexit is now more than just UK Independence Party (UKIP) rhetoric. It’s a reality.
Britain is set to start on a path towards extracting itself from the European Union (E.U.); however, the journey ahead is uncertain and could prove to be a watershed moment that causes the disintegration of the E.U.
The process for a member state to remove itself from the E.U. is detailed in a 250-word clause, Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the E.U’s de facto constitution. Article 50 gives a two year maximum on the process, meaning that once the two years are up Britain is “out” whether they have an established divorce agreement or not. Until that time the United Kingdom (U.K.) will maintain its full E.U. membership rights and responsibilities.
The content of the negotiations will largely be regarding trade tariffs, the new U.K. - E.U. trade relationship, migration, and regulation of everything from agricultural products to car manufacturing. These negotiations will be pivotal in deciding how different from its current form the U.K.-E.U trade framework will be. If an agreement is not struck then the default option is the existing World Trade Organization’s (WTO) trade framework, which is similar to the current American agreement with the E.U. This means that whoever is seated at the negotiation table will have an indefinite effect on Britain’s place in European markets.
Since the current Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has stated he will resign by October, the new leadership will decide the general tone of Britain’s Brexit. The future of the British economy, British jobs, and British trade networks all hang in the balance.
For most European leaders, the results are disappointing and potentially dangerous and there has been
considerable disagreement about the speed at which the negotiations should begin. The exit agreement must be approved by a “qualified majority ” of the remaining 27 E.U. states, and many are concerned that a lengthy process that allows the British a favourable exit would only spur anti-E.U. sentiments in the remaining countries.
The reason swift and calculated actions are so necessary for the E.U. is because this British divorce is coming at a time when “euroscepticism” is at an all-time high. Euroscepticism is a term used to describe opposition and doubt towards European integration, and a general disenchantment towards the E.U. It is British in origin, but the condition has been quickly spreading across Europe.
Currently, only one third of Europeans say they trust E.U. institutions, and less than half have said that they are happy with the way democracy functions in the E.U. The recent economic recession has only exacerbated these democratic concerns. There is increased euroscepticism in coun-
tries that have been adversely affected by the economic downturn, for example Greece. But even in countries that are economically stable, like Germany, there is fear that being in an economic union with countries that have such high debt and unemployment rates is hindering their growth.
These anti-E.U. sentiments are the central platform features of fringe parties in numerous European countries; for example, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the United Kingdom, the Front National (FN) in France, the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands, and the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in Austria.
It is important to note, however, that anti-E.U. sentiments are rising on both
ends of the political spectrum. Rightwing eurosceptics dislike the E.U. mainly on the grounds of preserving state sovereignty and a purer national identity. Their policy concerns thus center on issues relating to migration and open borders. Whereas leftist eurosceptics are concerned that E.U. leaders in Brussels continue to pursue neoliberal economic policies that they maintain are destroying the social welfare systems of poorer E.U. member states.
This rising populism seems to be a marker of our times, and the U.K. referendum results reflect this popular dissatisfaction with political elites in Brussels. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum results, many across Europe are calling for E.U. reforms to satisfy these populist
Brexit: a mistake
By: Nicole Toole
On the eve of June 25th, 2016, the citizens of the United Kingdom (U.K.) voted in favour of leaving the European Union (E.U.). Upon the declaration of this historic referendum, a frenzy began.
Britons started furiously googling what the E.U. was, and tweeting they voted for the ‘leave’ party because they never expected a majority win. The U.K. experienced a 25% decline in the value of the pound (the lowest since 1985), the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron, and widespread protests. The momentous vote has sparked various controversies regarding the misrepresentation of facts by the ‘leave’ party during their campaign. In addition, it
has illustrated the flaws of modern democracy, espousing negative influences on the U.K., Europe, and Canadian – European relations.
The E.U. is a partnership between 28 states, which was established upon the devastation of WWII. The founding notion behind its creation was to foster economic co-operation and maintain peace between states. Emphasizing the democratic peace theory, no two democratic states in the union have gone to war with one another.
Since the formation of the E.U. in 1993, no state has ever left, or requested to leave, the union.The ‘Vote Leave’ campaign in the U.K. was first
criticisms. The German newspaper, Der Tagesspiegel, warns that the E.U. must “reform or be destroyed” by the populist fever. Although not all are pleased with the prospects of a Brexit, this moment represents a critical juncture for the E.U’s democratic integrity. The U.K.-E.U. divorce is an opportunity for serious reflection on the institutional failings of the Union.
The British will be the first to ever leave the E.U. since its inception. Will they be the last?
It is possible that we are witnessing the disintegration of what is arguably the most integrated supranational political structure to ever exist in modern times.
launched in October 2015 due to an unfavourable increase in immigration and payments to the E.U. From 1993 to 2014, the number of foreign-born U.K. citizens doubled. This significant rise in immigration led to the establishment of an anti-immigration movement, based on the fear of job loss, terrorism, and strain on public services. However, many of these concerns are overblown as a majority of immigrants are relocating to the U.K. from other E.U. states, not from abroad.
In fact, the rise in immigration is vital for the survival of Britain’s economy. During the past decade, the birth rate has begun to decline to below 2.0 births per women – the number
needed to sustain the population. This gradual decline in population undesirably impacts the economy, as there will not be enough workers to support the aging population, nor to maintain the current level of production.
The second principal argument for leaving was the E.U.’s negative impact on the British economy. The E.U. acts as a single market, mandating free trade and movement between states. Thus, the successful ‘leave’ vote removes Britain from this partnership, opening the country to potential trade restrictions, costing companies and customers more. These trade restrictions may push multinational organizations based in the U.K. to move to another E.U. nation.
cantly subsided university education within the E.U. The loss of the free trade agreements, and goods and services provided by the union will vastly increase government spending, coinciding with greater tax costs for residents.
Tellingly, U.K. polling data revealed that 64% of citizens aged 18 to 24 voted in favour of remaining in the
The ‘leave’ movement claims that the U.K. pays £350 million a week to the E.U., and that these costs outweigh the benefits of remaining in the partnership. However, this number neglects to take into account the £300 billion in imports Britain receives annually. These fees help fund trade at a reduced cost. As well, they serve to increase access to beneficial services and opportunities for U.K. citizens, such as signifi-
E.U., while 58% of citizens 65+ voted to leave. Simply put, the younger the age range the more voted in favour to remain. This statistic became problematic for many, as the younger generation will have to live with the consequences of the vote.
Similar concerns that motivated Britain’s ‘leave’ campaign have influenced other conservative governments in
the E.U. to push for referendums. Just three days after Brexit, a leader of Austria’s populist Freedom Party called on the country to hold a referendum on its membership if the E.U. did not refocus on its original role as an economic and trade alliance within a year. It is important to note, however, that such calls for additional referendums on E.U. membership are not without backlash. Scotland has announced a second Scottish independence referendum, with the aim of gaining independence from Britain and then rejoining the E.U.
The unfavourable press and outcome of Brexit has triggered a leadership crisis within Britain. Both Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, leaders of the ‘leave’ campaign, have since resigned. In addition, the Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation just hours after the results were announced.
With the already experienced hardships of economic decline, no leaders to guide the transition out of the E.U., and calls for a second referendum, the future of the U.K. remains unknown. Many are now questioning if Brexit was mistake.
The World With Trump
By: Nick Pearce
This past April, hundreds of Trump supporters gathered in an airport hangar to see one of their candidate’s infamous speeches.Watertown International Airport is a small airfield in an economically depressed region of upstate New York. Between the journalists, entourage, and Secret Service it was unaccustomed to this attention.
The predominantly white attendees were indicative of Trump’s populist political base. Indeed, so-called “Middle American” voters have driven Trump’s campaign thus far. His peculiar brand of right wing nativism, a frequently crude, always informal collection of sound bites and monosyllabic jabs, makes him the ideal non-politician to lead America’s anti-Washington sentiment to the White House.
Arguably, Trump’s concerns speak directly to his supporters — white, middle class Americans deeply dubious of their government and furious about a culture of political correctness. Those concerns have garnered daily headlines, record voter turnout, and widespread backlash. Trump’s proposed wall along the Mexican border
became just one example of the slogans that built his platform.
But these outlandish statements have their benefits; Trump has earned an estimated $2 billion in free media exposure through campaign coverage.
While tenuous, Trump’s path to the White House is very possible, argues Political Science professor Hemut Norpoth. Norpoth researches contemporary elections to identify trends in the electorate. Using a formula that has predicted every American president (with the exception of John F. Kennedy) for the past one hundred years, he stated that Trump had an 87 per cent chance of election if he faced Hillary Clinton this November.
“When I started out with this kind of display a few months ago, I thought it was sort of a joke.” Norpoth told his university’s student paper. “Well, I’ll tell you right now, it ain’t a joke anymore.”
Ray C. Fair, a professor at Yale who studies American elections, concurred and cited the usual factors: the lack of an incumbent candidate, election year GDP growth, length of the incumbent party’s hold on office, and a
slight Republican tendency to hold the presidency. He believes these circumstances make the prospect of a President Trump a reality.
If Trump were any given conventional candidate, this logic should hold. Hillary Clinton would be wasting another set of campaign signs to match the 2008 set. But Trump’s candidacy has been anything but conventional.
Complications have arisen. Established Republicans — Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, former opponents Marco Rubio and Chris Christy and a host of others — have provided half-hearted, belated endorsements. The GOP’s arm’s length embrace support for Trump may just be self-preservation. Their previously safe seats may be threatened once Trump’s populism drips down to Congressional and state elections.
However, these endorsements hardly inspire confidence. Christy was chided on late-night television for his dazed look during his endorsement. Ryan, possibly considering his own run in 2020, waited until the last minute to endorse, and then proceeded to call Trump’s politically incorrect remarks regarding a federal judge a “textbook example of a racist comment.”
Republicans might have (barely) closed ranks.
The presumptive nominee’s theatrics may have divided Republicans, but they also serve to draw in new voters. Trump routinely attracts ‘Middle American’ Republicans and Independents who were politically disengaged beforehand. Even a subsection of Bernie Sanders supporters may change colours from Democrat to Republican following Sanders’ loss. These voters might identify with Trump’s anti-establishment rhetoric, seizing a perceived chance to change Washington or simply to deny Clinton’s presidency.
This is not to say Trump’s unorthodox methods have secured the White House.
Furthermore, this election holds the disheartening record of the nominees being more disliked than any nominee in the past 10 presidential cycles. Clinton eked out at 37 per cent un-favourability to Trump’s 53. If less-
than-thrilled voters make it to the polls, they’ll be voting for fear of the alternative.
Trump may pull off a win if most voters stay home, but he’d have another challenge in the international arena. Trump’s “America First” policy, a contradicting collection of populist foreign policy has drawn the ire of the international community. It is both the rebirth of American isolationism and a continuation of hawkish foreign policy designed to flex American military muscle on a global scale.
The most evident case study of Trump’s proposed changes remains the United Kingdom (U.K.). Trump recently said he wouldn’t get along with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron reciprocated, calling the temporary ban on Muslim immigration “divisive, stupid and wrong”. Their love loss, if continued with Cameron’s successor, could constitute a major reversal for the special relationship — an alliance that’s seen unprecedented cooperation and mutual support between two great powers.
Likewise,Trump’s general appeal among everyday Britons remains extremely poor. His promise for a temporary but “total and complete” ban on Muslim immigration into the United States resulted in Europe’s first Muslim mayor, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, to call the policy out as unsafe and “ignorant.”
But for all the promises to take on ISIS and hold China responsible for vanishing manufacturing jobs, there are other promises to make allies pay their fair share and for possible meetings with North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Un.
These possible appeals to a world-weary populist base are a marked departure from the American foreign policy truism that the United States is an indispensible nation. Trump’s foreign policy shift would be the largest since the Cold War and could entail an entirely new role for America as a global powerhouse.
Trump closed his speech in Watertown with one more promise to the cheering crowd, still unused to all this attention. “You’re going to win with me,” he said.
Brazil’s Turmoils
By: Sean Stead-Fecser
Brazil is in what one might call a rough patch. With the troubles of hosting the 2016 Summer Olympic games along with the current Zika virus epidemic and economic recession plaguing the country, they are now facing political turmoil with the impending impeachment trial of President Dilma Rousseff. Rousseff’s vice-president Michel Temer has taken over office while Rousseff is suspended during her upcoming trial. Rousseff’s upcoming impeachment trial is one small case of a larger systemic issue in Brazilian politics: the widespread corruption among the political class.
It is important to understand that Brazil is in fact relatively new to a democratic form of government. The country was under military rule from 1965-1985. The military reign ended in 1985 after it went back peacefully to the people. In 1988 Brazil finally had their first free presidential elections in 30 years along with the writing of their new constitution.
This brings us to present day, where Rousseff is about to be tried for impeachment. Her upcoming trial is based on the grounds of accusations made against her that she broke budgetary laws by manipulating budget accounts. In 2014, Rousseff and her cohorts in the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), which translates to the Workers’ Party, partook in what they are calling “creative accounting”. They are alleged to have enhanced the government surplus by moving loans from banks to the treasury, which essentially gave the appearance that government accounts were improving when they were not. The government surplus is one way to look at how well an economy is doing. They did this because Brazil’s Congress sets budget surplus targets that they have to meet, so they made it seem that the government under their power was economically thriving. President Rousseff claims that she did not act criminally and did not break any laws, and that many politicians before her have done the same.
Rousseff isn’t the first politician in Brazil to show signs of corruption. Brazil has 594 members of Congress,352 of which have criminal accusations made against them. The 60% of people in Congress that have criminal accusations are accused of a range of crimes, such as bribery, illegal deforestation, electoral fraud, kidnapping and even homicide. Only 15% of people in Brazil approve of their current leadership, and 78% percent believe that political corruption is at the
highest it’s ever been. The approval rating for President Rousseff is currently in the single digits. It is hard to say if the impeachment of President Rousseff would instigate any serious political change in the corrupt political class of Brazil, but it appears the Brazilian people are getting tired of their corrupt politics.
Previous Brazilian President, Fernando Collor de Mello, left office in 1992 from another corruption scandal before returning to politics as a Senator. If a previous President left office because of a corruption scandal, and still managed to return to politics, this doesn’t give much hope towards eradicating political corruption in Brazil. Even Rousseff’s Vice President Michel Temer, who would take over office if Rousseff is proven guilty, was ordered to pay a fine for violating campaign financing limits. Political corruption runs deep in Brazil, just impeaching President Rousseff wouldn’t completely change the deeply imbedded corrupt political culture. President Rousseff and her PT party are also shrouded in the Petrobras scandal. Rousseff’s PT party was once known as the least corrupt political party in Brazil. Now they are involved a corruption scandal by one of Latin America’s biggest companies, Petrobras. Petrobras is an oil company that the Workers’ Party (PT) restored to state control during former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s eight-year rule. The PT party appointed their own candidates to Petrobras’s highest executive positions. They then secretly diverted funds valued at up to 3 per cent of their contracts to the PT party, which ended up being worth billions of dollars when Petrobras found the biggest offshore oil find in several years. The PT party is suspected of using the funds from Petrobras to fund election campaigns to ultimately keep their party in power in Brazil. Rousseff isn’t being charged with any of these crimes and allegedly has nothing to do with them, but this gives perspective on the widespread political corruption in Brazil, even in a party that had a reputation of being the least corrupt.
The corrupt political culture is consequently also hindering Brazil’s economy. As of early 2016, Brazil had lost 1.5 million jobs putting the unemployment rate at 11.6%. This number had gone up considerably from the 8% unemployment rate from last year. Brazil’s budget deficit has grown to 10.8% of their GDP; when Rousseff started out in office it was a mere 2.4%. Their GDP has had its worst contraction since 1990, shrinking 3-4%. The governor of Rio De Janeiro, Francisco Dornelles, has just claimed that the state’s government is bankrupt, which is terrible news for the Summer Olympic games in Rio. Some of the blame is appointed to Rousseff and her staff. When they made cuts to unemployment benefits and ministerial budgets, that is when the economy started contracting at such a rapid pace that government revenues decreased sharply.
Brazil needs new leadership that is not corrupt and self-interested.They are suffering economically, and they are becoming the center of attention with the Olympic games fast approaching. Impeaching Rousseff is a good start to correcting such a corrupt political culture. It shows that Brazil is taking the right steps towards eradicating this type of corrupt political class. But, it will take more than just impeaching President Rousseff, as corruption runs deep in Brazilian politics. Brazil’s government is starting to take a stand for the bettermint of their country, as they can see firsthand what political corruption can do to their country and economy. Her impeachment is starting to deepen the discussion surrounding Brazil’s corrupt political class, at last.
The Russian Bear (Still) Looms Large
By: Spencer Belyea
In a 2012 presidential election debate on foreign policy, Barack Obama derided Mitt Romney’s view of Russia as America’s biggest geopolitical threat. It made for a nice sound bite for the President, casting his opponent’s foreign policy as a Cold War relic, but there was one problem. He was wrong. Dead wrong.
Romney was prescient with his then-controversial view, as Russia has become a dangerous, aggressive state that refuses to play by the rules and is perfectly willing to not just cross, but eviscerate, previously accepted norms. The most imminent security threat to the U.S. – and their Western allies in general – is still a terrorist attack from ISIS, al-Qaeda, or similarly inspired groups or individuals. However, in terms of a more overarching threat, one that isn’t based on terror-inducing, asymmetrical, hit and run attacks, the great bear of Russia looms large.
But how can this be?
Obama was right that the Cold War ended over 20 years ago, and the relationship of NATO countries with Russia has changed. This change in mindset, however, is one-sided. Russia, through the eyes of Vladimir Putin, sees the collapse of the Soviet Union as the “major geopolitical disaster of the century.” What Putin longs for is not the return of Communism, but the return of the Communists’ territory – the scope of influence and power that was held over the now ex-Soviet Republics during much of the twentieth century.
Today, many states that were long under Russian domination have left – or are trying to leave – the Rus-
sian sphere of influence. Russia cannot bear to see these states, most of whom are better off than their former overlord, being absorbed into the very organizations that they opposed a few short decades ago. It is the dream of returning to the days when Moscow was one of the centres of power in the world that drives Putin’s reckless actions.
To achieve his dream, Putin has first set his sights on Ukraine. Using the overthrow of his anti-European ally, the quasi-dictator Viktor Yanukovych, as an excuse to intervene, Putin and the Kremlin engineered a rigged referendum in which Crimea was annexed to Russia and it continues to support separatist rebels in the East of the country. As a result of these aggressive actions, a country that was developing well has been split in two, trying to push itself towards Europe but also being pulled into the chilly embrace of Russia.
The conflict in Ukraine is not as violent as it once was, though local sources report some intensification recently, with a skirmish on June 14 resulting in 40 deaths. And, unfortunately, there is no end in sight for Ukraine. Russia is unwilling to back down, and while the Ukrainian army is performing well, it cannot win without significant assistance from allied countries, all of whom seem unwilling to give much, if any, substantive help.
That being said, NATO may not be able to stay out of a conflict against Russia much longer. Latvia and Estonia, member states who border on Russia, fear an incursion, and for good reason. These states contain significant Russian minorities, relics
from the Soviet era, who Putin has labeled “co-patriots” and vows to protect. He is a fairly smart tactician and will not launch a full-out invasion, so less overt tactics – like those used in Ukraine and Crimea – would be used to try to give Russia a veneer of deniability. In the face of unofficial actions like these, and the inevitable invocation of Article V, what would NATO do?
The answer should be obvious –each member-state should uphold their obligations and help protect the country that has been threatened. But there is significant cause for concern. It would be easy to turn a blind eye, citing a lack of evidence since Russia would not launch a fullscale invasion. But this would just be a convenient excuse for NATO to shrug off what they know to be happening, a way to abdicate responsibility in the false hope that letting Russia win – even at the expense of the organization’s integrity – would get them to back down.
And unfortunately, this scenario is quite possible.
For all the lip service that politicians pay to international cooperation the true test will come, likely within the next five years, when a NATO member is threatened by Russia. The mere existence of NATO can’t stop this from happening, but the collective defence organization does have the mandate and the capability to address it effectively. The only question is: will member countries honour their commitments?
Venezuela’s Descent Into Authoritarianism
By: Ryan Anderson
On May 20th, 2016,Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro single-handedly launched the country’s largest military exercise in its history.
While the National Bolivarian Armed Forces (FANB) flaunted their array of weaponry on state television – including their tanks, soldiers, and even their recently acquired Sukhoi Su30MK2 fighter aircrafts - Maduro’s message was clear. His regime is still willing to use state force to confront any opposition-led movement that threatens his grip to power. Such autocratic practices should not come as a surprise however. Instead, it marks yet another example of Venezuela’s rapid descent into increased authoritarianism, one that began shortly after Maduro came to power following the death of his presidential predecessor Hugo Chávez nearly three years ago.
With that being said, Venezuela’s backslide away from democratization and into increased authoritarianism carries a far greater implication, one that supports a relatively recent pattern that has been noted by many acclaimed scholars and reputable indices of democracy (e.g., Freedom House).
This pattern suggests that in the past
decade, the world has entered into a ‘democratic recession’. That is, democracy as a system of government has steadily been on the decline in most regions of the world. Although the current political circumstances in countries such as Turkey, Malaysia, or Ecuador all fall into this theme as well, the case of Venezuela is unique as it involves many multifaceted variables that may help provide a better explanation as to why this decline in democracy is being witnessed. Nevertheless, it is important to first recognize the ways in which Maduro has been able to steer Venezuela into this new chapter of authoritarianism before coming to such concrete conclusions.
To begin, it should be made clear that prior to Maduro, Venezuela was never once a functioning democracy, even by any loose definition. While free and fair elections that allowed for universal suffrage were regularly held under the leadership of Chávez, there often was a manipulation of the processes and procedures that always ensured his own success. As such, autocratic authority inevitably resumed and the checks and balances throughout the regime remained obsolete. Maduro has been able to continue this democratic façade thus far, however it has not proven to be enough to ensure his own political survival. Although he turned out to
be victorious in the 2013 election, Maduro won only by a margin of one and a half percent over his opponent who represented a far more centralist party. These percentages greatly differed from the double-digit margins that the United Socialist Party of Venezuela enjoyed under Chávez in the mid-2000s. Once an opposition that frequently questioned the legitimacy of Maduro and his regime started to grow and gain influence throughout the region, Maduro was forced to become more authoritarian over time in order to protect his own political power.
The first example of Maduro’s increased authoritarian tendencies can be seen through his dependency on the Venezuelan military, using them as a separate apparatus to push his own autocratic practices and policies. Although Maduro has zero military background, this resource has become one of the most salient features of his government. His defense minister is an active general, all five of his vice-ministers are uniformed officers, and the minister whom he recently appointed in 2015 to the role of ‘Minister of Popular Power for Interior, Justice, and Peace’ is also a serving army general. Coincidently, this minister also happens to be one of the seven Venezuelan officers who have been sanctioned by the United States for violently suppressing civil
protests. As Roberto Giusti, a prominent journalist in Venezuela puts it, “the Venezuelan armed forces have become a ‘military oligarchy’ with economic and political interests that make them an ‘autonomous bloc’ in Venezuelan politics.”
The greatest instances of this increase in oppression via military action came as a response to two separate political protests held against Maduro’s regime; one in 2013 following the initial presidential election, and the other in 2014 held for similar reasons. In 2013, after Maduro’s narrow win, massive protests broke out in Caracas and several other cities as it was claimed that nearly three thousand electoral irregularities took place leading up to the voting day. Within hours, military troops were deployed to each protest to “keep the peace”, however, by the time they were finished, seven civilians were killed and more than twelve were left injured. In the following year between February and April 2014, nearly eight hundred thousand people took to the streets in a combined total of sixteen states and thirty-eight cities. In the end, more than thirty-nine protesters were killed and over six-hundred were injured. It was also reported by leading human rights organizations that the government forcibly broke up thirty-four percent of the demonstrations and detained more than thirty-one hundred people along the way.
However, those detained did not just consist of the on-ground activists, they also included many opposition leaders such as Leopoldo López (a former mayor of the Chacao municipality of Caracas), María Corina Machado (an MP at the time), and
Antonio Ledezma (the mayor of metropolitan Caracas). Maduro’s accusations against them ranged from “subliminally” inciting the protesters, to treason and conspiracy. This is yet another example of how Maduro has targeted his most influential opposition in hopes to silence and suppress them from critiquing his regime.
Further illustrations of Maduro’s increased authoritarianism consists of the use of state-owned media to control what Venezuelan’s are both watching and hearing. In 2014, Maduro made it his goal to have a state-controlled newspaper in every town of Venezuela. As it did during Chávez’s era, this effectively limits the amount of information available to the general public, tailoring it towards what the regime wants to be published. An example of this biased information came in January 2015 when the opposition party held a large march in downtown Caracas. Not a single television network broadcasted the various speeches that the opposition gave or featured any footage from the march – instead, each network continued with their regular programming. However, most of these same networks found time to broadcast an hour-long speech Maduro gave later that day. Moreover, during his time as president, Maduro has drafted several frivolous lawsuits for the attorney general to view against politically driven daily newspapers whose headlines have “displeased him.”
Venezuela is currently in the midst of one of their largest economic crises since the 1980s.Their annual inflation rates have reached an astonishing 482 per cent, and extreme product and food shortages are creating hav-
oc throughout the country. To make matters worse, the Maduro government just recently announced that they will be cutting imports for products such as food and other basic necessities from thirty-seven billion dollars in 2015, to twenty billion for the 2016 year. Simply put, the Venezuelan population is starving and are now demanding a regime change. In fact, recent polls suggest that Maduro only holds onto a fifteen percent approval rating across the country. These issues all play to be extremely important factors in Venezuela’s political future, as when Maduro was faced with a new competitive opposition in 2013, he chose to suppress them with increased authoritarian practices. Now that this opposition has grown significantly in the past year alone, it will be interesting to see what the next couple months ahead look like for Maduro, his regime, and for Venezuela as a whole.
If Maduro does indeed take Venezuela to new heights of authoritarianism as his opposition increases, this could inevitably help create certain hypotheses as to why we are witnessing a decline in democracy throughout most regions of the world. Perhaps this case simply reinforces the long-standing correlation between poor economic growth and authoritarianism, or maybe it suggests that democracy is in decline because unfavourable leaders have never had to face such large, highly engaged, and passionate civil-societies before. Regardless though, one thing can be made for certain; Venezuela will not begin to witness democratic transitions until Maduro has been overthrown or ousted from his position of power.
More than Just a Hashtag: The Boko Haram Victims
By: Carla-Maria Estrada-Tobar
The Global Terrorism Index estimates that the number of deaths due to extremism increased by 80% in 2014, with an anticipated surge. A rise in the number of identified Islamist extremists has been experienced due in part to mass media attention, which has helped to garner supporters and power. Boko Haram, in particular, has displaced over 2.3 million people and taken the lives of over 20 000 individuals. Reports have shown that in 2014, Boko Haram killed more civilians than any other extremist group, claiming 6,644 lives.
Founded in 2002, Boko Haram mainly operates within Chad, Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon. The organization is well known for widespread destruction through waves of violence, including bombings, assassinations of government officials, and sex trafficking. The goal of the group is to overthrow governments with the hopes of establishing a theocracy - an Islamic state. Their presence in Eastern Africa has drastically increased the occurrence of religious conflict.
#BringBackOurGirls
In a series of school attacks on April 14th and 15th, 2014, Boko Haram kidnapped 276 young women between the ages of 16-18 in Chibok, Nigeria. Militants from the extremist organization pretended to be school guards and the group convinced the teachers and girls to leave their secure building due to a “threat” inside. The militants began yelling obscenities, and this is when it was realized
that the guards were actually part of Boko Haram. The extremists forced the group of women into trucks, many never to be been seen again. Despite the Nigerian military confirming knowledge of the mass abduction hours prior, no action was taken.
The abduction of the 276 schoolgirls attracted international attention. Various influential figures voiced concern for the abduction, including First Lady Michelle Obama who popularized the hashtag “#BringBackOurGirls”. This hashtag demonstrated global unity and applied pressure on both the Nigerian and foreign governments to take action. Sadly, this global support only lasted a few short weeks before experiencing a rapid decline. And then soon, forgotten for the next tragedy.
Two Years Later
Only 57 girls have since escaped from the mass abduction, leaving the large majority of girls still missing and their location unknown. The individuals that succeeded in escaping have described their horrific experience to include rape, forced marriage, compulsory prostitution, and unwelcome pregnancies fathered by militants. One survivor alleges that the girls are now opting to participate in suicide terrorist missions as a means of escape.
Despite the newfound freedom of the survivors, the victims are facing various obstacles upon reintegration into their communities. According to research by International Alert
and UNICEF, the children fathered by Boko Haram members and their mothers are being rejected by their families and communities. It is commonly believed these children are tainted with “bad blood” and are not to be trusted, as Boko Haram uses juju (witchcraft) to initiate members.
The lack of continuous support in Western media illustrates the power dynamics within the global community. If this horrific event were to take place on American soil, all efforts would be taken by regional and transnational governments to find them, along with continuous media coverage. It also reflects the vast gender inequality experienced within Nigeria and abroad. There is speculation that if these were men kidnapped, the governmental response would differ.
The minimal actions by the Nigerian government to find and rehabilitate the survivors has taken a large toll on their communities. Further, the unwelcoming response by community members has created a stigma regarding these brave women. Therefore, further action to not only rescue, but also to rehabilitate these women into society must be taken.
The members of Boko Haram have not only capitalized on the vulnerability of these women, but have also begun to see them as mere weapons used to further advance their agenda. The captive girls must be recognized as victims, with their lives held to equal to those of men and young women worldwide.
The Post Arab Spring: Any (Democratic) Dream Will Do
As the spark that instigated a wave of democratic upris ings that has rattled the Arab world for 5 years, Tunisia has always been significant to the Arab Spring. The thou sands of Tunisians that swarmed the Avenue Habib Bour guiba on January 14th, 2011 were demanding “enough”.
Enough to the unemployment, enough of the economic rut and above all, enough of the political restrictions that Zein Al Abidine Ben Ali’s 23 years in power had created.
This protest was only one of many that fed the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa. Through this particular protest, revolution appeared to be the answer to demands for political reform. Consequently, President Ben Ali was ousted from office, paving the way for democracy in Tunisia.
In the series of violent revolts that spread throughout the Arab world in late 2010, Tunisia was the instigator. Tunisia was where police abuse and an authoritarian regime led to fruit seller, Muhammad Bouazizi’s self-immolation. It was an act that inspired a pro-democracy movement
gled through a counter-revolution. Tunisia was the suc cess story, albeit relatively. A supposed shining example of democratic change, it set a low standard as to what constituted success in the post Arab Spring. It’s been over 5 years since Muhammad Bouazizi’s self-immolation demonstration, the Arab world is still in crisis, and Tunisians are stagnated in the same battle for democracy that started the Arab Spring.
This is not to say that Tunisia failed to achieve any progress after the 2011 revolutions. Once President Ben Ali fled the country and left Tunisia in a state of emergency, the country took tangible steps to political reform. Directly after the January 14th protest, Mohamed Ghannouchi was the self-proclaimed President before Tuni-
sia’s Constitutional Council declared the parliamentary speaker, Fouad Mebazaa, as the acting President. A caretaker coalition government was created using opposition members alongside members of Ben Ali’s party – the Constitutional Democratic Rally (CDR).
The first election was held on October 23rd, 2011, with the Islamist Ennahda party winning the most seats. It was optimistic. For the first time, Tunisians had a government that represented their needs. Or, what appeared to be their needs until the Ennahda government turned a blind eye to extremist group activities. When the Opposition MP was assassinated in early 2013, the ensuing political crisis forced the current government to resign, and public opinion of the Islamist party was tainted.
Simultaneously, more protests erupted in the midst of a rising unemployment rate. The following October, the centrist/secular Nida Tounes party won the parliamentary elections with Beji Caid Essebsi, a former Ben Ali official, as the elected president. His opposition was incumbent Moncef Marzouki, who claimed to defend the legacy of the 2011 revolution and whose Congress for the Republic party had been a junior member of the former Islamist-led coalition.
It seemed strange for Tunisians to choose a figure representative of the former Ben Ali regime that the Arab Spring uprisings had dismantled and which Marzouki defended. This decision, however, was indicative of the people’s priorities rather than their ideals. Essebsi had a track record with the administration, representing stability and anti-terrorism. Marzouki reminded Tunisians of the extremist group activities and the indifference of the former Islamist Ennahda party.
As fond as the Tunisians were of protests, the violence that they believed the Ennahda party allowed was intolerable. With the current unemployment protests, terrorism was only another hindrance to economic development and further political reform. While this realization won Beji Caid Essebsi the presidency, any hope for the future has been short-lived. In 2015, Tunisia was the first
Arab country to be declared as fully “free” by Freedom House, an American monitor of civil liberties. A rather ironic victory for the country. Later that year, President Essebsi’s attempt to install a family dynasty was revealed after he named his son, Hafedh as his Vice-President.
Rather than a celebration of Tunisia’s political progress, the 5-year mark of the Arab Spring is a dismal realization. In a 2015 survey of 1580 Tunisians adults, 85% were recorded to believe that the Arab Spring was not beneficial for either their country or them personally. Over 50% went on to claim that it was, in fact, harmful.
President Essebsi’s latest move aside, Tunisia has been struggling with its proposed economic development plan and the situation of most citizens is still precarious. In a country where 80% of Arab adults regard democracy as the best form of government, the revolution likely appeared to be the fastest way to achieve political reform. Such is noted from the unrelenting series of protests that Tunisia has had. Unfortunately, for those living in the wake of the revolution’s’ aftermath, the Arab Spring does not live up to its expectations.
For effective policy, Islamists in the Arab nations seem to favour gradual reform rather than a revolution. Two elections later, Tunisians are now faced with a president gradually creating a dynasty. It was this past November that violent protests broke out in Tunisia as the news of President Essebsi’s meeting regarding planned leadership were released. The windows of a 5-star hotel in the tourist resort of Hammamat were smashed along with any hope that perhaps, the Arab Spring was helpful after all. The only thing left unharmed was the unwavering fact that nothing has changed at all.
The wake of a new dawn: the aftermath of the rise of extremism in Bangladesh
By: Hana Chaudhury
Located in the southernmost peninsula of Southern Asia sits Bangladesh, a small densely populated country with a population of nearly 157 million. Despite a high poverty rate, corruption, and overpopulation the country has made significant advances in recent years.
Bangladesh gained its independence in 1971 from Pakistan (which was then East and West Pakistan, separated by a strip of Indian territory), but the region’s history goes back centuries.The rise of Bangladesh’s independence was born out of a strong national identity and the unifying force of a common tongue: Bengali. The majority of its population is Muslim, but a fairly secular government has governed the country since its independence, with the principle of secularism enshrined into its constitution.
Despite its political instability, riots, and corrupt policing forces, Bangladesh ranked ahead of Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan in the Global Peace Index in 2015. The majority of violence in the country has been characterized by political struggles, and has been internal in nature. However, religious minorities have faced persecution and violence, and such conflicts have begun growing in recent years.
In 2013, a secular blogger, Ahmed Rajib Haider, was murdered for his involvement in protests against Islamic leaders who committed war crimes during the Independence war. Then, in early 2015, a secular writer, Avijit Roy was brutally killed while walking back from a book fair. Bloggers continue to be targeted and killed throughout the year.
In 2016, Xulhas Mannan, the founder and editor for the country’s only LGBT magazine, was violently hacked to death for the simple act of being who he was. Then, most recently in June, another murder, this time, the wife of a police officer investigating an extremist group, spurred the government into some action. Mass arrests were carried out by the police, with more than 11,000 people being taken in. Yet, many of those arrested were identified as the Awami league government’s political opponents.
The government’s response to these killings have been found wanting, and have been widely criticized. Outright condemnation of the extremist sentiment has been lacking amongst officials. The weak response has been exacerbated by the government’s refusal to acknowledge the presence of religious extremism and associations with terrorist’s groups within the
country. In a country filled with political strife and violent crackdowns on any opposition, the climate is far riper for the growth of extremism and it is clear that the status will not be enough to fight the extremist threat in the country. Not to mention the condemnation of attacks against religious minorities and secular activists have been weak, at best.
Despite these atrocities, it is important to understand the context of these attacks and the impact it has had on this small state. Bangladesh is not a country unified by its religion, but rather, its language and culture. Unlike its neighbouring state of Pakistan, terrorism and religious extremism is not common within the country – the nature of the brutality seen in these past few months is deeply unsettling for the country’s population.
On July 1st, the country saw its most jarring attack, with gunmen attacking Holey Artisan Bakery in Gulshan, a diplomatic district within the capital of Dhaka, was attacked by gunmen resulting in a horrifying hostage situation that left 20 dead. A community that housed consulates, embassies, residences, and restaurants, it was considered to be one of the safest areas in the city, frequented by locals
and foreigners alike. Amongst the victims; Italians who worked in the country’s textile industry, Japanese consultants working on the country’s infrastructure, a Bengali non-profit and development worker, and three young students (Indian, American and Bangladeshi) studying in the States, spending the summer in the country with family and internships. The senseless murders have left a community shaken and reeling from the aftermath of the violence and terror, exacerbated by the fact the terrorists were home-grown, directly linked to ISIS (who took claimed the attack as their own), from an educated background.
The attack spells a new, grim reality for this country and serves to destabilize the region even more. For those who live, and have lived there, it is an attack that feels as jarring and brutal as one that happened in any other state. Yet, extremist violence in Muslim-majority countries against its civilians by terrorist groups is hardly a new phenomenon. No, it is frankly, more likely to be more common than elsewhere, as evidenced by recent deadly attacks in Istanbul, Baghdad, and the Islamic holy city of Medina. The country faced yet another attack on July 2nd during prayers for Eid-al-Fitr in a town 60 miles from Dhaka.
States with advanced intelligence and military capabilities are unable to effectively fight the threat of terrorism. How, then, do countries such as Bangladesh fight this? For one, it is an issue that must be acknowledged and addressed by its own government – a fact that it has yet to do. corruption and repression play a deadly role in such a cinder box, but the well to do backgrounds of the Holey Artisan terrorists paints an even more troubling picture for the country. It is a question that must be answered urgently in the face of continuing and escalating violence and bloodshed.
Boaty McBoatface, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy
By: Isabella Gudgeon
In March, Britain’s National Environment Research Council (NERC) launched a new public relations (PR) campaign to engage the populous by enlisting them in the naming process of its new vessel. Yet, when “Boaty McBoatface” surged ahead to first place in the polls, the NERC was left with a challenging PR decision - either choose the popular choice, or select another at risk of public discontent.
Choosing the latter, the council found itself facing strong online indignation; soon, media outlets, Twitter users, and engaged spectators worldwide were citing the choice not only as a disappointment, but as a “crisis of democracy”.
While the Boaty McBoatface saga may sound trivial, the questioning of our democratic processes is neither foreign nor insignificant. A repetitive theme in current events, particularly in the past few years, has been the generation of controversy when the democratic system doesn’t produce what we perceive to be a desirable, “democratic” outcomes.
Proponents of liberal democracy have long been concerned when more recent democracies display high showings for religious or ultra-right wing political parties. Yet in recent years, poor economic conditions and security threats have made such occasions more likely, more concerning, and much less limited to transitioning democracies.
It can no longer be taken for granted that promoting democratic systems and democratic values can be seen as one and the same.
On May 9th, the Philippines’ presidential election saw a similar movement to the NERC when unprecedented voter turnout resulted in a landslide win for the controversial candidate Rodrigo Duterte. The Davao mayor campaigned as the people’s warrior against corruption, criminality, and complacency, touting his tough-oncrime record and making lofty promises to eradicate criminality within the first six months of his term. Duterte’s campaign generated significant political engagement and controversy; the self-proclaimed ‘dictator’ made clear his willingness to kill corrupt officials,
criminals, or even his own children if they were caught with narcotics. The new President also suggested the dismantlement of congress if it is uncooperative, and that the killings of journalists may be justified if they are too critical or have “done something wrong”.
Duterte’s political position directly opposes what most consider to constitute any functional liberal democracy. This election result may be due to public suffering from dire circumstances, and the manipulation of a radical political group. Despite recent economic growth in the Philippines, poverty remains dangerously high, and corruption is rampant. For the vast majority of Filipinos, change is necessary, and if there’s anything Duterte or any other populist candidate could provide, it is a necessity.
Populism is a feared yet familiar cohort of the democratic system. It can be defined as “an appeal to the people against both the established structure of power and the dominant ideas and values of the society”. In simple terms, it can be seen as a democracy gone wrong.Yet such a perspective overlooks a critical counterpoint.
erates renewed engagement of the masses in the political process, bringing the voices of even the apolitical to the election booth. The product of such elections are undisputedly the will of the people, regardless of whether or not it is the outcome that ‘should’ occur in a liberal democratic environment.
In the Philippines, the apparent disconnect between democratic values and outcomes presents advocates for democracy with a very clear and difficult choice - either continue to embrace the democratic process
power are more often than not insufficient in dissuading unilateral action from independently elected presidents. Especially in times of crisis and poor economic conditions leaders often justify such actions on the legitimacy they have derived from the formal division of power. Yet, even in states with a more comprehensive balance of power, this solution is still problematic.
If we subject the will of the people to institutional constraints, are we not actually lessening - rather than increasing - the democracy of our system?
and accept its outcomes, or continue to embrace its values and constrain its process in order to ensure their survival.
While many see populism as democracy gone wrong, is the effect of populism actually democracy gone right?
As we saw with the 81% Filipino voter turnout, the revivalist nature of a populist movement typically gen-
The Philippines establishment did not fight back against the outcome they received. In the national political sphere, the repercussions of fighting back would be much more grave. But, so too may be the alternative. While such outcomes could be less overtly combatted through checks and balances on executive power, they are not always effective. In the Philippines, constitutional divisions of
Is the will of the people really as vital as we would like to believe?
Does the democracy of the process really matter at all, so long as the result is desirable?
The answers to these questions are not immediately clear. In any case, it is necessary that we stop looking at ‘democracy’ in the way we are conditioned to. In order to be addressed, populist movements cannot be seen as a threat to democracy, but instead as a function of its process. Democracy should not be viewed as synonymous with freedom, equality, or liberty, but as what it is: a system of decision-making, that like all systems, can produce a variety of results.
The Arctic Council: A Multilateral Tool to Protect the Arctic Region
By: Kayla Rolland
“That’s a responsibility that all of these countries have for one of the most fragile ecosystems, which is the barometer of the planet” – Stephane Dion
As temperatures rose this summer, attention turned to one of the coldest, and most vulnerable, regions of the globe. The effects of climate change have had a particularly negative effect on the Arctic region. Rising temperatures have melted sea ice at twice the global rate, with resulting consequences including a rise in sea level and the loss of one of the globe’s most significant checks on methane and temperature. The loss of sea ice has exposed the arctic to new vulnerabilities, particularly the growing interest in the region’s natural resources, Arctic tourism, and the Northwest Passage as a conduit for international trade. A call to action has arisen, aiming for greater protection of this sensitive ecosystem, with multilateral organizations including the Arctic Council rising to prominence.
In May 2016, several British companies including the heavyweight McDonalds U.K. vowed to stop their suppliers of cod from venturing further north. This would protect the fragile ecosystem from the damages of commercial fishing including “trawling”, a practice that frequently damages coral reefs and other seafloor structures. A drop in oil prices this past summer also caused big names in oil, such as Shell, to relinquish drilling rights that they paid billions for.
While these developments are notable, with the Arctic warming at a substantial rate there are calls for more to be done. In addition, as the Arctic region spans territory across multiple states, interest is growing in multilateral organizations to advance Arctic protection, particularly in the Arctic Council.
Established in 1996, the Arctic Council is composed of 8 states, indigenous groups, and a growing list of observer states. In its 20-year history, the Council has focused mainly on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection. The Council has been responsible for a variety of scientific studies and acted as a forum for two pieces of binding legislation, including one on oil pollution preparedness. As the Council cannot discuss military security, it exists as a promising venue for states at odds to come to the table to discuss environmental concerns. There is hope that without military debates on the table, the Council may be a venue to engage in diplomatic discussion and further environmental protection measures, especially with Russia following the country’s aggressive actions in Ukraine.
One of the challenges facing Arctic protection is that countries well beyond the region, including export driven economies such as China and India, are now looking northward. The result has been the addition of “observer” states, such as China, Japan, and India, who can participate with the consent of member states. As commercial traffic is expected to flow through the Northwest Passage from all corners of the globe, there are concerns surrounding the increase in vessels relating to pollution and oil spills. The inclusion of these observer states reflects the lessening importance of physical geography in the future of the region.
As a region that acts as one of the world’s most significant checks on global temperature and methane, it seems only appropriate that the burden of its protection should lie in more than one set of hands. As Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion said in a recent interview, “We need to work with the Americans, we need to work with the Danes, we need to work with the Russians. That’s a responsibility that all of these countries have for one of the most fragile ecosystems, which is the barometer of the planet.”
Fort McMurray Wildfire: Political Opportunism Throws Oil on the Fire
By: Emily Robertson
This spring’s wildfire around Fort McMurray was considered one of the worst in Canadian history and was a defining moment in the Trudeau Government’s term. This domestic challenge became inextricably intertwined with opportunities for international diplomacy that could not be ignored, while the physical costs and implications of this wildfire consumed the Canadian public.
The consequences were devastating as 80,000 people were evacuated from their homes and over 2,400 structures destroyed. Further, this wildfire is expected to become the most costly disaster in Canadian history with restructuring and repairs estimated to be 9 billion dollars. Images and stories of the natural disaster quickly went viral, prompting offers of aid to Fort McMurray from both national and international sources.
On May 3rd 2016, the area surrounding Fort McMurray was declared to be in a state of emergency. Many international actors including Australia, Israel, Mexico, the Palestinian Authority, Taiwan, Russia and the United States offered assistance to help battle the fire. However, all offers were promptly declined by Prime Minister Trudeau who, in a press conference on May 9th, said that while the assistance from abroad was “touching,” it was unnecessary.
John Babcock, a spokesman for Global Affairs Canada, added that accepting international aid offers were considered “against the technical needs on the ground”. Both Babcock and Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision were based on an assessment made by the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFCC), a non-profit corporation in charge of provincial and federal wildfire management.
Social media would later react to Trudeau’s decision arguing that there is still a need for more aid because the damages left behind were significant. A full recovery of the area will take not just weeks but several years. Some areas have been completely destroyed by the fire so entire neighbourhoods are no longer considered habitable and many people have found themselves homeless. However, the wildfires have since been brought under control and, as of June 1st, evacuees were able return home.
Historically, it has been uncommon for the Canadian government to receive offers of foreign aid. Nonetheless, Trudeau’s decision to reject such offers was taken after considering not just the practical reality of the situation in terms of the security and safety, but political factors such as diplomatic relationships and international alignments were also at play. In addition, Trudeau’s decision was made in the comfort of knowing that he had both financial and personnel support pouring in from Canadians across the country. During the wildfire crisis, Canadians made record high charity donations to the Red Cross Foundation to help displaced people, while firefighters and water bombers in provinces such as Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick raced to the effort on the ground.
Although the Prime Minister refused most offers of international aid (namely Russia’s), this decision appears to have been made based on political, as much as practical, concerns. The offer of aid from Russia may have been made with sincere intentions, but Trudeau appears to have interpreted the offer from Putin largely as being a public relations stunt intended to demonstrate a positive relationship between Russia and Canada.
At the same time, an offer of aid made by South Africa was more easily accepted by Prime Minister Trudeau, perhaps because he saw this as a political opportunity to bring the two countries closer together. Despite Canada playing a key role in the anti-apartheid movement, and most recently as an important supporter of Nelson Mandela, Canada’s diplomatic relationship with South Africa has been weakening over the last 20 years. For Trudeau, accepting this aid seemed to be a means to rebuild what had become, under the Conservative Government, a more distant relationship.
However, accepting aid from South Africa came with some unexpected baggage. Beginning the week of the fire, approximately 300 South Africans were deployed to Canada to fight the wildfire in Alberta. This would have been the biggest non-military foreign deployment of South Africans. However, the cost of their labour and the following mass strike of the South African workers led to more trouble than actual aid. South African workers were being paid $15 a day by their South African employer while Canadian firefighters were being paid over $20 an hour. The South African employer did not want
their salaries to be increased because the exchange rate in terms of cost of living would greatly increase back in their home country.
The South African employer’s wages were the equivalent of slavery by Canadian standards.
This led to a workers strike amongst the South Africans after their first week. The strike meant 300 less firefighters working at the scene and increased tension between the South African employer and the Canadian govern-
ment. In the end, the South African firefighters went back to their home. The South African firefighter agency has since apologized to the Canadian government and Canadian citizens for any inconveniences the strike has caused. However, this leads to questions over whether or not Canada will ask for aid from South Africa again. Diplomatic relations between Canada and South Africa are no closer than they were before Fort McMurray. In the game of political opportunism, the stakes are high. In this case it looks like by playing with fire, Trudeau got burned.
A Dangerous Game:
The Zika Virus at the 2016 Summer Olympics
By: Haleigh Johns
In an increasingly globalized world, everything spreads from nation to nation extremely quickly. When countries from around the globe come together for events such as the Olympic games, information is passed between countries, financial deals are struck, and disease can be spread in a matter of days.
In February of 2016, the Centre for Disease Control issued a Public Health Emergency of International
Concern regarding the Zika virus. The virus is spread through the bite of the Aedes species of mosquito, which inhabits most of Central and South America. There have also been recorded cases in North America of the virus being sexually transmitted. The symptoms of the Zika virus include itchiness, redness, and fever, but these symptoms usually disappear after a few days. The original alarm over the Zika virus was its perceived link to the birth defect known as microcephaly. When a woman is infected with the Zika virus through
the bite of a mosquito, she runs the risk of having a child born with this defect, which causes a child to develop an abnormally small head and brain. This damage to the brain can cause lifelong problems for the child, including seizures, learning disabilities, and developmental delays.
However, a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine concludes that the lifelong effects of the Zika virus are no longer limited to newborns. The virus has now been linked to serious adult conditions.
These include Guillain-Barré Syndrome, an immune disorder causing severe muscle weakness, and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis, an autoimmune disease that causes inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.
This new research concerning the implications of the Zika virus makes the prevention of the spread of the virus of the utmost importance. If the disease can result in lifelong complications for those infected, serious measures must be taken to ensure the disease does not spread worldwide.
These new medical discoveries call into question the feasibility of hosting the upcoming summer Olympic Games in a country already infected by the Zika virus.
With the Games of the XXXI Olympiad set to begin this August in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the Zika virus presents a huge risk to visiting athletes, heads of state, and spectators from across the globe. As the Aedes mosquito can be found across Brazil, large metropolitan areas such as Rio de Janeiro are hotbeds for Zika infection. Between the infection via mosquito and sexual transmission from returning travelers after the fact, the
Olympic Games provide the perfect setting for the global spread of the Zika virus.
In order to prevent such a spread of Zika, Olympic Committee officials might consider cancellation or postponement until relocation is logistically possible. States who have hosted previous summer olympic games, such as Greece or the United States, already possess the necessary infrastructure for hosting the Olympiad. A postponement until the following summer, although perhaps a disappointment to spectators and athletes, could prevent a devastating spread of the Zika virus. With the new discovery of adult conditions caused by the Zika virus, hosting an international event is just too risky.
Some high-profile athletes have already willingly withdrawn from Olympic consideration over fear of contracting the Zika virus. American cyclist Tejay van Garderen has stated he will not be competing in Rio de Janeiro, as he does not want to risk infecting his pregnant wife with the Zika virus. South African golfer Charl Schwartzel has also bowed out of the Olympics, citing his fear of passing the Zika virus onto his wife as his reason for withdrawal. However, it’s not just athletes who are cancelling
their trips to Brazil – NBC news anchor Savannah Guthrie, who is expecting a child, will not be covering the Olympic Games, stating that her doctors have advised her against doing so.
It’s difficult to imagine that each of the 207 states set to send athletes to Rio de Janeiro this summer will pull out of the Games. The Olympics are often viewed as an opportunity for the world to come together, engage in good sportsmanship, and display national pride. A withdrawal from such an event could be read by many as a political move – and a risky one at that.
Past Olympic boycotts have been due to extreme political instability. For example, the 1936 Olympics in Berlin were boycotted due to the power of the Nazi party. While the 2016 Games may not present a political reason for boycott, the dangers of the Zika virus are serious enough to warrant a withdrawal from the Games, if not a cancellation entirely.
Although the political cost of boycotting a world event may be high, the cost of a worldwide spread of the Zika virus may be even greater.
Is there Any Trust Left in International Sport Governing Bodies?
By: Sean Adessky
It was just over a year ago in Zurich, Switzerland at the Hotel Baur au Lac that a bombshell was dropped on one of the biggest international sports organizations in the world. On that day, as they prepared for the 65th FIFA Congress, seven senior officials were arrested on accusations of bribery and money laundering connected with the past 5 World Cups. In the months that would follow, more officials would be arrested, president Sepp Blatter would be forced to resign, and many are now awaiting trial for various charges of corruption and other offences.
As shocking as these allegations were, they were merely the tip of the iceberg. The next 12 months would prove to be one of the most disastrous periods in history for various international sporting governing bodies, particularly the International Olympics Committee (IOC) and the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF).
In November 2015, a 60-minute documentary made by a German state broadcaster was released alleging that a
high level of suspicious blood test results were not followed up by the IAAF after the most recent Olympics and World Championships. Even more damming, the documentary accused Russia of systematic state-sponsored doping. Soon after, IAAF president Lamine Diack was arrested by French prosecutors and was accused of having accepted approximately $1.2 million from the Russian athletics federation to cover up the questionable results of Russian athletes. Russia was subsequently suspended by the IAAF indefinitely, and the Rio 2016 suspension was upheld by the IAAF on June 17th. However, the IOC has left the door open for Russian track and field athletes to compete in Rio if they can prove they are clean, though the IAAF claims they should only be allowed to compete under a neutral flag, thus it remains to be seen how this saga will end.
The IOC has not been without its own controversies, as just last month, it was announced that French prosecutors have opened up investigations into bribery allegations associated with the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. Tokyo bid leaders acknowledged the payments, but contended that they were for ‘legitimate consulting work’. Author-
ities are now looking into the Sochi Olympics as well for any evidence of bribery. Meanwhile, the host nation of the 2016 Summer Olympics, Brazil, continues to deal with numerous issues related to the upcoming games on a national level; notably security, the Zika virus, and accusations that a top construction company bribed the Brazilian government for work contracts for the upcoming games.
What makes these controversies all the more hard to swallow is the notion that the Olympics are meant to be a celebration of higher values, both on and off the field of competition. Values such as fairness, equality among nations, trust, honour, and respect are just a few of the values that the Olympics are meant to elevate. Yet reality would seem to indicate that they are nothing more than elaborate moneymaking schemes for the wealthy and a way for countries to cheat their way to international success. As the accusations continue to mount, the public loses more and more trust in the Olympics and what they are supposed to represent. How can the IOC claim such an elevated status when they are dealing with rampant accusations of bribery and cheating? Every nation in the world is supposed to be given a fair shot, both at hosting the games and in participating but the scandals indicate that the Olympics are an opportunity for wealthy countries to bribe the IOC into hosting rights, and, particularly in the case of Russia, to dope their way to as many medals as possible.
The official website for the Olympics contains a page entitled “Peace Through Sport”, where the IOC lists the numerous ways in which the Olympics are seen as a catalyst for promoting peace and international cooperation. They list achievements such as reducing violence in the favelas in Brazil, helping with youth violence in Colombia, and building resilience in violence-affected communities in Jamaica. Even if one chooses to focus on these programs, and not the bidding and doping scandals, the
problem persists. A recent Wall Street Journal report indicated that crime in the favelas has actually risen in recent months. It seems impossible for the IOC to get out of its own way, and makes it incredibly difficult for the Olympics to be looked at as a moral crusade of any sort. Indeed, it begs the question, how can sport be a catalyst for anything positive if there is such a lack of accountability with these organizations?
Inside Brazil’s Rio preparations, the lack of accountability and transparency is equally astonishing. An out of control virus, a rising crime rate, issues of pollution, and reports of bribery for construction contracts show that both the IOC and the countries awarded the Olympics operate on a completely different set of standards than what the organization claims to stand for. Russia’s Sochi doping scandal only further exemplifies this problem, and if accusations into Tokyo’s successful Olympic bid prove to be correct, it may well completely erode any remaining trust and faith that the world currently has in the IOC.
While FIFA and the IAAF do not promote the loftier values as aggressively as the IOC does, their own scandals further exemplify the lack of accountability that exists in international sports’ governing bodies. These federations seem to be nothing more than a gathering of a group of (primarily) men who meet regularly to discuss how to best fill their pockets, regardless of what rules are broken, and with a complete disregard for any sense of moral responsibility.
While they are sure to continue to make money, until these organizations, and the IOC specifically, can prove to the world that they operate using the guidelines they claim to champion, it will be impossible to look at them as a catalyst for “moral good”. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be the case.
Digital Rights: Freedom of Thought in the Information Age
By: Gavrilo Randjelovic
Over 60 years ago, British author and devout socialist George Orwell published the novel Ninteteen Eighty-Four, which echoed concerns about surveillance in the wake of fascism and concurrently with the peak of Stalinism. The novel portrayed a grim reality whereby individuals are constantly monitored –through cameras, “telescreens” and informants - and any of their actions were subject to the scrutiny of the state. The only place where this dystopia’s denizens have freedom is in their own mind. In contemporary society, however, surveillance is now not only an issue for citizens in oppressive regimes, but a practice of modern Western governments.
In North America, the average adult spends approximately 5 hours of their day on their phone, with the the rise of social media allowing for incredibly faster and easier communication between individuals. However, the widespread and consistent use of social media has a variety of negative effects. As the volume of messages and interactions increases, so does the information each user makes available about themselves, their personalities, their interests, and their plans.
Essentially, the contents of their mind are codified and made permanent for collection and examination by a third party, going beyond how we defined surveillance even in the Orwellian sense.
All of this is protected only by a
password. A password, however, is not privacy.
In one month in 2013, over 14 billion intelligence reports were gathered by the American National Security Agency (NSA), including over 3 billion in North America. These reports contained detailed information about highly specific individual communications. Many of these reports were related to social media use, website access, and the internet history of those analyzed, creating massive amounts of metadata that is mathematically organized to locate individuals that may be considered a security threat. As the NSA has a relatively high level of autonomy, their data-collecting activities are rarely hampered by public opinion or opinion within the Senate, much of which is negative due to the NSA’s lack of transparency and often condemned methods.
In late April 2016, the Microsoft Corporation sued the Government of the United States for the right to inform customers of federal surveillance on their emails - a defense of the fourth amendment right to knowledge regarding government searches or seizures. The NSA, among other agencies, has justified its invasion of Microsoft servers using a broad interpretation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act - an act passed in 1986 intended primarily to extend previous wiretapping telecommunications laws to computer information transfer. The law has received significant
criticism from both those in the legal profession and everyday consumers.
The tension that has arisen between the United States Government and Microsoft is part of a larger debate between the extent to which the Government has a right to access individuals’ private online information. In the months between November 2014 and April 2016, Microsoft received over 5 600 orders to provide information about its customers, and with almost half of these they were not permitted to inform customers of the government’s requests.
The wide access and legal protection that agencies such as the NSA have, and their relative autonomy from other parts of the United States Government, create opportunities for abuse. Indeed, there have been at least 12 recorded cases in the 2000’s where NSA employees have used the agency’s information gathering techniques to spy on individuals for private reasons. The majority of these incidents went by initially undetected and usually unpunished.
Ultimately, the purpose of most modern surveillance programs is to prevent incidents of terrorist violence and protect domestic safety. However, this ostensible tradeoff of privacy for safety has been poor, not only with regards to the level of intensity that invasions of global privacy have had, but also in how much they have actually improved security.
In the present, most people in the Western world have astronomically low chances of being affected by terrorism – belief otherwise can be ascribed to a cognitive bias known as the availability heuristic, which heavily weighs events in memory that are more graphic or make a greater mental impact. However, this rarity is largely due to the infrequency of terrorist incidents themselves as opposed to a positive effect of mass surveillance. Indeed, the NSA’s massive surveillance programs, for instance, have failed to neutralize a single potential threat, and many of the Western world’s most heinous terrorist incidents have occurred even in the wake of their implementation. Despite their large paper trails, preparation for attacks such as those in Paris, Brussels, and Orlando avoided meaningful detection before
the tragedies themselves occurred. The degree to which the NSA and associated government divisions collect information on both American citizens and foreign nationals is extreme, and the methods that they use to collect that information are clandestine and invasive. The laws that these agencies take advantage of to legally justify their extortion of United States companies are not relevant to the use of information technology today, both in the technology they refer to and the provisions they create.
Domestic surveillance in the United States has received massive criticism both at the citizen level and among elected officials. This level of discontent creates an increasingly large rift between agencies such as the NSA and the population at large, and risks both further alienating
citizens and expanding the agencies’ autonomy and power even more against voters’ wills. It is time for these agencies to be more transparent regarding their data collection methods, targets and goals, and it is time for legislators to modernize their laws regarding government intervention in virtual affairs. Because of the borderless nature of the internet and the presence of United States companies globally, this is not an American issue. This is an issue regarding the rights and freedoms of all people that contribute content and utilize the internet around the world. In order to foster the free flow of information and all of the economic and social benefits it creates, a person’s right to use the internet unmolested should be protected by governments, not infringed upon by them.
Untangling Orlando: The How and Why Behind the Deadliest Mass Shooting in U.S. History
By: Robert Conor Tomalty
Before any discussion of the massacre in Orlando I want to first say that my heart breaks for the families of the victims, for the emotional devastation wrought by the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, and for the people and communities of Orlando, Florida, the United States, and the world. We can endeavour to understand why and how such a violent person caused this level of suffering, try to correct the conditions that led to this loss of life, and try to console the bereaved, but nothing can bring back the victims of this attack. I am deeply saddened by the systems and people that motivate and arm hateful monsters. The shooting in Orlando is a tragedy in every meaning of the word.
Omar Mateen’s target, the nightclub “Pulse” in Orlando, wasn’t random. However, as easy as it is to prove Mateen’s actus raes, his mens reas remains a compilation of factors which are not easily untangled.
When investigating why a hate-filled person would commit an act of violence on this scale, discounting spontaneous action is among the first steps. Mateen was not an Orlando resident. Instead, he traveled over 100 miles from Fort Pierce to carry out the attack. Two months prior Mateen had transferred his share of a Port St. Lucie home, two weeks before the attack he legally purchased the weapons, and between June 1st and 6th, he went with his second wife Noor Salman to scope out the Pulse nightclub.
It’s clear that Mateen’s religiously backed politics were significant to his motivation to target the people he did. Early on the morning of the attack Omar Mateen made several Facebook posts calling for an end to the Russian and American airstrikes against the Islamic state and for Daesh to carry out attacks in the U.S. He wrote, “The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the
west”. Shortly before Omar Mateen began his attack on Pulse he called 911 and swore allegiance to the Daesh leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. However, the CIA has been unable to find any formal links between Mateen and Daesh. It’s likely that Omar’s connection to Daesh was lip service only. These statements are political, religious, and radical. There is no doubt that the entirety of what motivated him isn’t limited to his religious beliefs, but to dismiss his religion as insignificant is dangerously negligent of the man’s stated intent. As an American citizen he lived surrounded by religiously motivated anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.
Following the attack there was a horrifying abundance of examples proving that religiously motivated hatred of the LGBTQ community isn’t unique to Omar Mateen. The morning after the attack Pastor Roger Jimenez of the Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento commented, “Hey,
are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today? No ... I think that’s great. I think that helps society. I think Orlando, Florida’s a little safer tonight”. He later went on to add, “The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die”.
The even greater tragedy is that Roger Jimenez isn’t alone in his sentiments. On June 16th Pastor Donnie Romero of Stedfast Baptist Church in Fort Worth told his congregation that he agreed with Pastor Roger Jimenez saying, “These 50 sodomites are all perverts and pedophiles… There are still several dozen of these queers in ICU and in intensive care, I will pray to God that God will finish the job that that man started… and by tomorrow morning they will all be burning in hell”.
For all the complication behind deciphering why Omar Mateen commit ted mass murder, the how is disgustingly simple.
Long before the events in Orlando, Omar Mateen was a person of interest connected to FBI investigations of extreme violence. He had been questioned several times by the FBI and was on watch for supposed connections to Moner Abu Salha, a U.S. suicide bomber. Despite this, he was able to easily and legally acquire the weapons he used during the Pulse shooting without a license. While Mateen was not on the FBI watch list at the time that he purchased his weapons, he would have been able to acquire them regardless of his FBI watch list status.This is because in December, senate republicans blocked a bill that would have stopped people on the FBI terrorist watch list from legally purchasing weapons. They cited infringement of constitutional rights for Americans wrongly placed on the list as their reasoning behind the rejection of the bill.
I would like to believe that the largest mass shooting in recent American history would motivate people, pundits, and politicians to make progress towards stricter gun laws. But, considering that even the cold-blooded murders of children at Sandy Hook failed to produce any sort of meaningful change, it’s hard to imagine that this shooting will be any different. Rhetoric will be passed around, calls for safety and claims of defending essential rights will be exchanged, and eventually the dust will settle with no progress until the next loss of life prompts the cycle to start all over again. Large scale gun violence in the United States hasn’t slowed following Orlando.
For the victims in Orlando understanding why it happened is complex, how it happened is simple, and what needs to be done moving forward is clear. The aftermath of apathy from all of us who are responsible for ensuring their deaths were not in vain is unforgivable.
What we know for a fact is that Mateen legally owned a gun and had complex motivations in carrying out this attack. But the convergence of these two factors at Pulse nightclub does not condemn all religious peoples or all gun owners. The overwhelming majority of religious and gun-owning peoples are both peace-loving and compassionate, who want to end violence as much as anyone.
Such people deserve to be applauded. However, with this praise also comes a responsibility for enacting overwhelming positive change to help prevent these factors from converging and resulting in the loss of human life again. At the same time, those who do not identify with these communities also have a responsibility not only to condemn the actions and beliefs of violent radicals, but also to embrace the efforts of such moderates. Only then will the cycle of apathy begin to weaken and hopefully crack.
A Masterclass in Diplomacy: India-U.S. Relations
By: Jacob D’Souza
If anyone needed an example of a politician willing to forgive and forget, it’s Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi; the man who has breathed new life into U.S.-India relations was denied a visa by the State Department in 2005. While his predecessor, Manmohan Singh, was pro-American, Modi has taken Singh’s policy and injected it with a large dose of diplomatic steroids. The results have been breath taking, and what has emerged are the seeds of what might be the defining partnership of the 21st century.
In his two years as Prime Minister, Modi has met President Obama seven times, making five trips to the U.S. The two leaders often warmly embrace in a hug. Obama made the “pivot” toward Asia an integral part of his foreign policy.
President Obama correctly realized that Asia is a genie lamp, within which resides the superpower of the future. India has a population of 1.2 billion; and as the Population Reference Bureau points out, the population is largely youthful. It’s also a democracy with relatively stable and inclusive governments (by regional standards). Despite having all the makings of an obviously ally, successive Indian Prime Ministers have failed to court the U.S.
The primary reason for this failure is that India is beholden to an image of a poor nation whose infrastructure lags far behind the developed world.
Prime Minister Modi has countered this perception brilliantly. Proving to be an apt marketer, he launched a number of initiatives to improve India’s image abroad. His “Digital India” program aims to increase Internet infrastructure in the country, and his ‘Clean India” drive focuses on reducing littering and improving sanitation. Further, the Prime Minister’s tours across European and Asian capitals have improved India’s image as an outward-looking country and global citizen.
For Prime Minister Modi, closer relations with the U.S. provides tangible benefits for India.
If one were to scroll through Prime Minister Modi’s Facebook page, they would find picture after picture of him with the CEO’s of companies including Apple, GM, Amazon, and Microsoft. According to the United Nations (UN), foreign direct investment in India grew 26% during Prime Minister Modi’s first year in office, with India attracting $44 billion USD (much of it being from American companies).
After numerous economic reforms, American multinationals are confident that strong relations with the U.S. Government means the America won’t be sanctioning or
limiting access to the Indian market anytime soon. Such investment suits the American Government perfectly. No relationship can, after all, be forged with the world’s greatest power unless America has some form of leverage. The more India relies on American investment, the more its interests are intertwined to those of the U.S..
None of this is a concern to Prime Minister Modi, who is in favour of general American policy regardless. For examples, he maintains closer relations with Israel than any former Indian Prime Minister, he agrees with the U.S. approach to fighting terrorism, and India has signed on to the U.N. climate deal that has been vital to crafting President Obama’s legacy.
India has also benefitted from large weapons sales the U.S. has been approving since Prime Minister Modi took office. Previously sourcing most of its weapons from Russia, India is now the second largest importer of American military equipment. These Indian imports accounted for 11% of all American sales in 2015, according to The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Critically, the hardware America is selling to India is advanced- attack helicopters, drones, and anti-submarine aircraft. Sales of such technology are frequently denied to many countries over concerns about their potential use by a military in conflict with American interests. The sale demonstrates that the U.S. trusts India not to act against its interests.
Most recently, the U.S. also supported an unsuccessful bid by India to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 48-county organization that sets global rules for international trade in nuclear energy. India’s bid faced considerable opposition from other countries but the willingness of the U.S. to go out of its way to publicly support India demonstrates the depth of their bilateral; relationship.
All of this aside, Prime Minister Modi’s true genius lies in the fact that India has managed to maintain strong relations with American adversaries, including Iran and Russia.
India’s recent announcement that it would invest $500 million to redevelop an Iranian port is proof that India’s alliance with the U.S. is in addition to (not a replacement of) its existing ties to other countries.
Both Modi and Obama deserve credit for building the alliance will shape the world’s most important region of the century. As for Prime Minister Modi, no matter who becomes the leader in 2017, he surely won’t have to worry about any U.S. Visa problems.
Is Japan the new Greece?
By: Lauren Craik
Japan could be on the brink of an economic crisis, the severity of which parallels Greece. Only in Japan’s case, no one is paying attention.
Since the 2008 recession Japan, a country with the third largest economy in terms of GDP, has faced slow economic times. GDP growth hit a low of -5.5% in 2009, and has fluctuated between -0.5% and 1.8% since 2011. While the country continues to narrowly avoid recession, this economic stagnation risks turning into a much more dangerous and global catastrophe. The financial crisis of 2008, plus a rapidly aging population, has turned the once heralded economy of Japan into one largely propped up by government spending.
Its problems are cyclical and there is no end in sight.
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has utilized a number of mechanisms (often dubbed “Abenomics”) in an attempt to stimulate growth from unconventional tactics such as negative interest rates to large-scale stimulus packages. In June 2016 the Bank of Japan, despite previous promises not to renege, postponed an increase in sales tax due to falling prices and lagging consumption. Yet the costs of these repeated attempts are mounting.
Poor economic performance and declining tax revenue combined with aggressive fiscal and monetary policy has increased Japan’s debt levels to record highs. Debt to GDP ratio has reached 245%, making it the highest in the world. This ratio makes that of Greece’s (174%) pale in comparison.
While the financial crisis in Greece was severe, the majority of its ramifications were contained to the European Union (E.U.) due to the small size of Greece’s economy. This would not be the case if Japan were to reach a similar precipice. One sign of hope is that Japan, unlike Greece, does control its own monetary and fiscal policy allowing it to print money to pay off debts and avoid default. Yet, this policy has its own share of risks, namely high inflation and a hit to standard of living.
One of the many reasons Japan’s market have not fallen into crisis despite this staggering debt is the global trust in the Japanese economy. The yen is considered to be a reserve currency by the IMF, alongside the Euro, US dollar, Chinese Yuan and Pound Sterling. This means that the yen is held by foreign governments as a mechanism to stabilize their exchange rates and by institutions to safely store money. The trust in the yen was demonstrated by the recent vote in the United Kingdom to leave the E.U; the vote sent the yen soaring as investors moved money to what is considered a safe haven.
However, this trust in the yen is both a curse and a blessing.
While this trust has enabled Japan to experiment with risky monetary and fiscal policy to stimulate the economy, it has also hindered those attempts by increasing the price of Japanese exports and shrinking the manufacturing sector.
Japan is not on the brink of collapse just yet the economic, but political risks are too high for the rest of the world to be complacent. A big hit to the world’s third largest economy would send stock markets, and subsequently pension funds, reeling.
Therefore, world leaders need to look for ways to assist Japan in rebooting their economy. One major boost would be getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) through the United States Congress. The TPP would bring much needed growth into the export sector, and help to open up some of the rigidities still existent in Japanese industry.
In many ways Japan does not just pose a risk to the global economy, but as many will argue, it also acts as a looking glass into the possible future for many for democracies in the Western hemisphere. The United States, Canada, and Europe are all facing the same large demographic shift and rising debt levels; so it would be wise of them to carefully watch how Japan handles the next crucial couple of years.
Macedonia and the Migrant Crisis: Economic Implications
By Catherine McDonald
On a bright Sunday morning in Skopje, Macedonia, the sun shines high in the sky. Shops and restaurants are open, and music plays from the speakers that line streets. Yet, the streets remain deserted, with only the occasional shop owner or meandering backpacker wandering through them.
The silent and rather empty streets of Skopje pose a stark contrast to the loud and overcrowded migrant camps that lie less than 170 km away, just south of Macedonia’s borders with Greece.
Macedonia has long had a history of being a path towards safety for migrants, most notably during the Kosovo war of 1999 when over 250,000 ethnic Albanians sought refuge in the nation. In the past year, Macedonia has continued to act as a path for migrants, as geographically Macedonia has been a vital partner to the European Union (E.U.) in stemming the flow of migrants, as they travel through the Balkans and into Western Europe. A recent report released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates a total of 65.3 million people were displaced by the end of 2015, an increase of approximately 5.8 million people from the previous year.
War, persecution, political instability
and a lack of economic opportunity are all to blame, along with a wider host of factors.
However Macedonia faces its own challenges as well, as the country seeks to control its borders as they face internal political and economic instability. Protests, allegations of corruption, and the releasing of leaked wiretaps are among these challenges. The contention of Macedonia’s bid for E.U. accession has also played into their discussions over border control, creating difficulties following a two-decade dispute with Greece over Macedonia’s nomenclature.
The implications of the migrant crisis have also brought about further economic difficulties for Macedonia, as an upper middle-income country, which lies along the path towards more economically stable nations. The resource mobilization and funds required to maintain border security are being utilized at a time when allegations of corruption and financial mismanagement have been prevalent within the country. In the short term, it is clear to see that Macedonia’s current response to the migrant crisis does not promise economic benefits for the nation.
Although these measures aim prevent further economic strains on the country, such as having to provide further aid and shelter for migrants, the aggressive means that have been employed by Macedonia’s govern-
ment such as the use of tear gas, and heavily guarded border closures haven’t aided towards humanitarian or economic progress. Rather than a peaceful means of border protection, the use of military force and resources has only furthered Macedonia’s budget deficit.
However there is still hope that in the long run Macedonia may be able to potentially benefit from the migrant crisis, should they choose to accept more migrants into their nation and introduce them into their labour force. A large number of migrants hold educational and professional backgrounds that would be of use to the Macedonian economy, which due to a strained professional workforce hosts an informal labour market estimated to be between 2045% of the nations GDP. Despite the security risks that many warn such an endeavour would pose, and the possible economic risks and challenges the nation could face, the opening of Macedonia’s borders may prove to hold long run economic benefits.
Whether economic progress can be made in Macedonia through labour mobilization of migrants has yet to be seen, however hopefully it will not be long until Skopje’s streets are bustling once again and political stability can once again be restored.
A Country Built on Guilt vs. a Country Built on Denial: Germany’s Recognition of the Armenian Genocide
By: Georgie Giannopoulos
Germany’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide confirms what some scholars, activists, and policy advisors have been debating for a centennial. The term genocide is not just descriptive; it is unavoidably political.
On June 2, 2016 the German Bundestag overwhelmingly voted in favour of recognizing the 1915 mass killings of Christian Armenians at the hands of Turkey, as a genocide. There are now 26 countries that recognize the Armenian genocide, suggesting the foundation of an international moral consensus of Turkey’s wrongdoing. However, the outcome of the vote is almost as significant as those who were absent from it. The chancellor, deputy chancellor, and minister of foreign affairs were among those who voted in favour of the resolution during a test vote at a party meeting, but they were absent from the actual vote.
Chancellor Merkel had to navigate a fine line between acknowledging Germany’s dark history engendered in genocide, providing recognition for the hardships of survivors and their families, preserving Germany’s leadership in the refugee crisis, and maintaining peaceful relations with regional and international allies. As the pragmatic political
considerations stacked up against idealism, and in an attempt not to slip off the tightrope of diplomacy, Merkel attended a previously scheduled speech in Berlin, not the vote.
The immediate diplomatic consequences were clear. Erdogan, the president of Turkey, was publicly fuming at the result of the vote, declaring that the decision “…will seriously impact Turkish-German relations.”
The Turkish ambassador to Germany was withdrawn in less than two hours and armed riot police stood outside the German embassy in Istanbul in case of protests.
Internationally, Merkel continues to rely on Turkish help to stem the flow of refugees to Euro-
pean shores. The refugee crisis is a top priority for Europe - constituting the largest movement of people since WWII - and both Germany and Turkey are necessary and integral in solving issues that pertain to it. It is reported that Merkel and Erdogan spoke by phone the night of the vote in a vital effort to
“I want to say to people with Turkish roots: you’re not only welcome here but you are part of this country”
-Chancellor Merkel
preserve the fragile European Union Refugee Accord.
Regionally, Brexit has undoubtedly weakened the European Union (E.U.) and Merkel as the de facto leader of the regional organization must not only provide direction after the United Kingdom’s exit, but must also craft a response to calls for similar referendums in other E.U. countries. For example, just three days after Brexit, a leader of Austria’s populist Freedom Party called on the country to hold a referendum on its membership if the E.U. did not refocus on its original role as an economic and trade alliance within the year.
Domestically, Germany is home to 3.5 million ethnic Turks, and this vote came at a time when Merkel was trying to raise her popularity after
widespread discontent regarding her initial response other refugee crisis. Merkel did attempt to reach out to the large Turkish-German population by stating, “I want to say to people with Turkish roots: you’re not only welcome here but you are part of this country”. Merkel’s kind words may have been reassuring to some, however, a poll on ARD television showed that while 74% of Germans supported the term ‘genocide’ to describe the killings but 57% think the resolution will hurt ties with Turkey. There is still apprehension among the German population.
Over 100 years after the genocide took place, the political considerations of acknowledgment are not yet part of history. But, despite the pragmatic international, regional, and domestic considerations, modern Germany is built on a national recognition of guilt and on the day of June 2, 2016, the country lived up to this
sobering reputation. The resolution that was passed did not forget this, as it acknowledged Germany’s fault in not taking the necessary actions to stop the systematic slaughter in 1915. Therefore, it is especially significant that the German Bundestag overwhelmingly chose to recognize a genocide that Turkey has made their international mission to deny.
As Cem Ozdemir, German Green Party co-chair, rightly declared there is “never a favorable time to speak about something as dreadful as genocide”. Political considerations matter more and more in an interconnected world, they cannot be severed from the legal and moral aspects of genocide. Therefore, each country that chooses to recognize the Armenian Genocide will be a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.
The Observer Metric
157 000 000: population of Bangladesh
49: number of victims in the Orlando shooting
15.5: percent of Russian GDP spent on the military
5: number of countries that have claims to the Arctic territory
500 000: number of estimated victims of the Armenian genocide
7: number of American presidential state visits to India since 1959
276: number of school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram on April 14-15, 2014
45.39: percent of voting age population that voted in Tunisia’s 2014 national election
8 500: number of troops involved in Russian military exercise along the Ukrainian border
367: number of members in Brazil’s lower house who voted to impeach President Rousseff
29.5: proportion of seats held by women in the Nepalese national parliament
41: percent of Americans in favour of voting for Trump on July 7, 2016
80 000: number of people evacuated due to the Fort McMurray fire
62: number of countries and territories with confirmed Zika cases
81: percent of Filipino population that voted in the last election
72: percent of UK citizens who voted in the Brexit referendum
180: percent approximated for Venezuela’s inflation rate
20: number of deaths in the Bangladeshi hostage crisis
