All About That B.A.S.S.

Cyber war is defined as a “hostile action in cyberspace whose effects amplify or are equivalent to major physical violence”. And some would argue that if a state is invaded in cyberspace it should be the same as if they were invaded in their own physical territories, since it threatens a state’s sovereignty . To date however, there has been no fatalities as a result of cyber war. But this does not mean that internet governance or cyber security shouldn’t be taken seriously. Since the internet basically has no physical and political boundaries and is international and goes across all borders, it is difficult to govern and to decide who gets jurisdiction to police the internet. So far the US plays a major role in internet governance which is also problematic in terms of special interests, accountability, and representation. Since the internet provides a great degree of anonymity it is difficult to police and states themselves can enact a cyber attack in complete secrecy versus traditional warfare tactics were secrecy is not so much a factor.

The nature of cyber warfare allows for diverse non-state actors with identities that are often difficult to trace which makes internet governance really difficult. The term “Cyber attack” covers a wide variety of actions, ranging from simple probes, to defacing Web sites, denial of service, espionage, and destruction. Deibert argues that cyber attacks have the right quality for an arms race because there is low cost of entry, attribution is difficult, that the internet provides a somewhat level playing field for small and major states and attacks are immediate regardless of physical location.

Some of these factors were in play as to why Stuxnet a cyber attack on Iran’s Nuclear Centrifuges, managed to put back the nuclear program a few years. Israel and the United States are said to be the masterminds of the Stuxnet worm and they obviously had political motives driving their cyber attack on Iran. This apparent sabotage seems to be a new form of warfare that is played in the fifth dimension, although no one was physically injured from this form of attack, it was a big blow to the Iranian Nuclear program.

Also if the US plays a major role in internet governance and internet policing, how does the rest of the world keep the US itself accountable if it was also a major actor in a cyber attack against Iran. The fact that the internet was a US invention already gave the US a huge advantage. Their strong national ties to the internet coupled with US hegemony has sown doubts about the legitimacy and neutrality of the US as the internet police.

International organizations like the UN have been trying to get more control on internet governance but the the West especially the United States is upset and is in strong opposition of a UN body governing the internet. I think that an intergovernmental, neutral third party should play a leading role in internet governance to ensure legitimacy, neutrality, and accountability.

The actors in modern warfare and contemporary conflicts have dramatically changed in the 21^st century and especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11. We see the rise of non-state actors in contemporary conflicts along with the rise of Private Military Companies (PMC’s). PMC’s are seen as the contemporary evolution of age-old mercenaries that provide tactical military capability and are essentially known as “guns for hire”. Mercenaries have a bad historical reputation of (rape, pillaging, and conquest) and this sentiment carries on today since there is a different moral judgment placed on mercenaries who are known for selling their services as compared to a soldier fighting under the flag of his or her country. These different moral implications affect public perception towards PMC’s and also raise questions and various concerns about the privatization of security and warfare.

In the documentary Shadow Companies, a Professor of Ethics Eike Kluge states that there is a fundamental difference between a mercenary and a soldier. An ordinary soldier has a legitimate use of force that allow them to engage in activities that might be consider murderous or criminal while a mercenary lacks that immediate social justification and it may be seen as an illegitimate use of force. The Soldiers also fight on behalf of a government and under the flag of a country while PMC’s fall under the private domain. These fundamental differences between soldiers and mercenaries explain certain moral judgments placed on PMC’s. Soldiers are perceived as dignified moral agents fighting in behalf of their country and are memorialized and respected by the public. Allan Bell, CEO of Globe Risk, notes that twice as many contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan but these numbers are not reported and the public doesn’t even bat an eye.

These different moral implications facing PMC’s may arise as a result of the increasing privatization of security. Warfare and conflicts have tended to be in the realm of the government and states but now that the trend is for states to “outsource” their conflicts to PMC’s. For example in the Gulf War in 1991 1/100 soldiers were private contractors, but in the Iraqi war 1/10 are private contractors and there is approximately 20,000 private military contractors in Iraq. There’s no denying that PMC’s have played a huge role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is likely that they will also play a significant role in future conflicts.

Professor Aim asked Allan Bell a pertinent question if he thought that what his company, Globe Risk, does cannot be done by governments? Mr. Bell’s response was that his company protects nouns (persons, places, and things) and soldiers and the military does not necessarily want to focus on protecting nouns because they are busy trying to fight the “bad guys”. There is a need to protect people and infrastructure and his company provides that kind of private security. They also train local security personnel to be able to eventually take charge of their own country’s security. Mr. Bell also noted that even special operations teams have been franchised out and outsourced to Private Military Companies because he says that the Americans are willing to do command and control but usually have other special ops teams as boots on the ground because they don’t want to face casualties to their own military.

Issues of the accountability of Private Military Companies are also questioned since they are private entities separate from the military and face different rules of engagement. According to the documentary Shadow Companies, under the Coalition Provisional Authority the quasi-government set up in Iraq by the U.S., private military contractors don’t fall under Iraqi law. With over 20,000 contractors in Iraq not even one has been charged of a crime. It seems like they have a free for all pass since private military contractors are not tied to the laws they come from or to the laws where they are engaging in security conflicts. If they don’t fall under Iraqi law when they are there and are not apart of the military jurisdiction then to whom are they accountable to and what ensures that they have a legitimate use of force?

There are “Rules of Engagement” that PMC’s rely on when they exercise force, for self defense, to protect their noun, and to protect civilians. According to Mr. Bell, private security contractors can only shoot if their lives are in danger and if their client is in danger. However these rules of engagement are not always followed since there are contractors without proper military training or combat expertise and Mr. Bell even stated that some mercenaries might have even gotten away with murder.

In contemporary conflicts we cannot ignore the fact the Private Military Companies and private contractors have played an increasing role. However, we need a proper and withstanding set of rules and regulations that govern PMC’s and keep them accountable for their actions. Since PMC’s are global entities now and different contractors come from all over the world, there needs to be an international Authority that ensures that the PMC’s are legitimate and ethical to provide proper accountability.

It seems quite intuitive to believe that if a state were well-endowed with natural resources it would overall be better off since it can reap the benefits of those resources. However this is not the case for certain countries that suffer from the “The Resource Curse”. The Resource Curse implies that resource rich countries generally suffer from lower growth, high violence, and worse development than their counterparts. This is especially the case if that country is a developing country. Many African countries suffer from the resource curse such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Sudan because they make poor use of the revenue they make from their resources. Instead of promoting prosperity and growth, resources have done the opposite in these countries, by undermining economic growth, fostering corruption, and often times provoking armed conflict and even civil wars, while also damaging the environment in the process.

A few questions come to my mind when thinking about the Resource Curse. How do countries like Canada, the U.S., and Norway who have an abundance of natural resources avoid the resource curse and seem to benefit greatly from their natural resources? And why is that this curse seems to have such a devastating effect in countries like Sudan?

Initially we have to analyze the institutional and structural differences between the resource winners and the resource losers. Resources do not automatically lead to poor outcomes in all circumstances. Developed countries, like Norway, U.S., and Canada have the proper and accountable institutions that are able to make use of the revenue from the resources properly. On the other hand, corruption is endemic in many of Africa’s most resource-rich countries and it tends to be rent-seeking corruption where only those at the very top reap the benefits and it does not tend to trickle down. Instead of investing the revenues gained from their natural resources and rents into proper infrastructure, social benefits, and education, these corrupt politicians usually pocket a lot of the resource revenues into their own pockets. Some officials also have special dealings with certain mining and oil companies to collect money for rents and permits to be able to mine or drill in that particular region. There is a lack of political accountability because these countries are not democratic and in another sense, since the people don’t pay taxes to the government they really can’t demand anything in return. This blend of resource abundance and poor governance is a lethal combination in resource-rich Africa.

In most cases countries that have abundant natural resources coupled with weak governance and unaccountable institutions are prone to armed violence. Sudan is a country riddled and divided with civil war. For example in Sudan oil rents are equal to more than 18% of GDP and Nigeria where oil rents make up almost 30% of GDP and both countries have had their fair share of conflict. The borders of Sudan have been redrawn to divide the country into northern and southern Sudan, with southern Sudan having about 75% of the natural resources and oil of the state according to our guest speaker Charles Okumu Lomudak. Luke Patey further argues that, “the governance at national, regional, and local levels has largely failed to manage the damaging political, and economic effects of the resource curse.”

I would argue that resources do not always have to be a curse. Africa could be quite prosperous only if it had proper institutions that practiced good governance and if the government was more transparent and accountable with its exchanges with oil and mining companies, and implemented anti-corruption legislation and ensured that its politicians did not just put the revenues from resources into their own pockets.

This blog entry was actually inspired by one of our classes this week when Professor Sinpeng asked us what is Canada’s role in the world? It really got me thinking on what actual impacts Canada had in the International community in a larger scale and how other people perceive Canadians because I know there is more to being Canadian than just friendly people up North who love hockey and poutine.

There is a significant difference between the way Canadians and Americans are perceived. Even when it comes to travelling around the world, Canadians are often received with more hospitality than our American counterparts. When backpacking Canadians are advised to put a Canadian flag on their backpacks because this little flag has a huge symbolic difference than the stars and stripes. General international opinion perceives Canada, as a diverse nation that is more neutral in the political scene and rarely is it that there is hatred shown towards Canada unlike our American neighbors. Canada is not seen as a threat or a hegemon trying to control the world and impose western values rather it is perceived as “middle power” and a leader in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. However Canadian foreign policy seems to be largely aligned for the most part with that of the United States.

The relationship between Canada and the United States is quite an interesting and unique one. We have two sovereign states, constituting the huge bulk of North America and sharing the world’s longest undefended border with each heavily dependent on the other for trade, mutual continental security, and prosperity. Is it possible for Canada to maintain an independent foreign policy despite its strong economic and political ties with the United States?

The security relations between the United States and Canada are quite typical of that between a large power and a smaller power. However the foreign policy of a small or middle power like Canada would be fundamentally different from the foreign policy of a larger superpower like the United States. According to Barry and Brat, Canada and U.S. security is quite interdependent. Since the Canada and the U.S. are in such close proximity with each other, the United States actually serves as a deterrent to external threats to Canada’s safety and therefore Canadians benefit from the fact that our neighbors have the strongest and most powerful military in the world. It is also in the best interest of the United States to ensure Canadian security because any outside security threat to Canada is also a potential threat to the US because any long range missile for example that has the capability to hit Canada also has the capability to attack the U.S. If the U.S. feels that Canada cannot defend itself, then they will act unilaterally to protect it, not just for Canada’s security but for their own as well.

Canada is not just tied with the U.S. for its protection and security; the U.S. also has a huge stronghold on Canadian economy by being the largest economic trading partner of Canada. An example of how closely linked the Canadian economy is with the United States was when the borders were temporarily closed after September 11 and Ontario suffered from a small mini-recession because Canada-US trade was halted.

So it seems like it is nearly impossible for Canadian foreign policy to be significantly different or contradictory to the United States and our policy decisions shift from Unilateralism to that of Cooperation according to Barry and Bratt. It seems like it is in the best interest of Canada to cooperate with the United States. Not only is our economy tied with our trade relations with the United States, Canada is also in multiple trade agreements and alliances with the United States such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and NATO. So in this sense Canadian foreign and economic policy has to be aligned with that of the United States.

Canadian and American defense relations have been officially solidified since the Ogdenburg Agreement signed in 1940 which was designed to provide a framework for closer continental defense cooperation between Canada and the U.S. in the wake of World War II. What ultimately further solidified the Canadian and American security and air defense cooperation was the establishment of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) in 1958 which joined the air defenses of the two countries under a single unified command structure. In 1968, Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s external affairs minister Paul Martin talked about the importance of the defense against help strategy in Canadian policy and stated, “it would tend to erode our sovereignty as well as any influence we could otherwise have on the development of air-defense polices which would have significant impact on us” (Barry 77). But on the other hand this also did not mean that Ottawa was willing to go along with all of U.S. projects at that time.

The United States and Canada’s foreign policy and security relations were also brought to the forefront during the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Canada played a huge role against the War on Terror by sending troops to Afghanistan. However Canada also showed its independent foreign policy decisions by declining to support the U.S.- led invasion of Iraq and not sending troops to Iraq at that time.

This has become a relevant issue of debate today as to whether or not Canada should send its military into Iraq to fight ISIS. The U.S. has been in war with Iraq for more than 10 years now, and Canada did not initially support the war in Iraq. However with the recent terror attacks of ISIS, Prime Minister Harper is now sending Canadian soldiers to Iraq. Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird stated that, “support for U.S. President Barack Obama’s coalition must be robust and global… this is not a test of our government, or one of our allies. This is a test of our generation.” It seems like the Harper government is defending that they are not necessarily sending troops to Iraq because our American allies have asked for our support but that it is Canada’s duty to respond to this threat. Canada should not just stand in the sidelines in the face of these atrocities committed by ISIS and Harper argued that this isn’t a political issue but a moral one.

Although Canada-U.S. relations are strongly linked and interdependent with one another it is evident, with even the recent deployment of troops in Iraq, that Canada still maintains some degree of sovereignty over our foreign policy despite U.S. interest. Canada chose not to get involved in Iraq the first time and for various other reasons our foreign policy towards Iraq has changed, independently of the US, since the Harper Government have chosen to send troops to Iraq to fight ISIS just recently.

All eyes have been on Ukraine since the start of the violent protests, the shooting of Malaysian Airlines, the involvement of the “little green men”, and the annexation of the Crimea. Some argue that the “little green men” may not have official insignia that connects them to a particular country but it cannot be denied that Russia is in fact supplying weapons and artillery to the Ukrainian rebels. Criticisms of Russia’s military action have been coming from the international community with various economic sanctions placed on Russia.

What are Russia’s true motives behind the Ukrainian crisis and taking over the Crimea? It can be argued that President Putin has behaved irrationally when deciding to annex the Crimea and aid the Ukrainian rebels. It also seems like an impractical foreign policy decision especially since Russia’s actions in Ukraine ultimately ruined the goodwill recently generated from the recent Winter Olympics that they hosted.

I would argue in a similar position as our guest lecturer Yana Gorokhovskaia that there are some actual rational explanations behind Russia’s motives in Ukraine. Russia may have actually been provoked by NATO expansion, as Mearsheimer would argue. The Western viewpoint is that the Ukraine crisis can be blamed on Russian aggression and that Russia may be trying to be imperialist and get their old Soviet Empire back hence annexing the Crimea and might actually go after the rest of Ukraine. However this may be false, because the United States and its European allies under NATO may also be blamed for the crisis

One of the reasons for Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian crises is because of NATO enlargement and encroachment around Russia. Initially there was an agreement that Ukraine, East Germany, and the Eastern bloc countries would not be a part of NATO as a sort of buffer between the West and Russia but that promise was completely disregarded with Ukraine and various eastern bloc countries attaining membership under NATO. Russia sees this expansion as NATO’s strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s influence and integrate it into the west and the European Union. The EU is also trying to create a “sphere of influence” in Eastern Europe along with NATO.

Mearsheimer argues that the “West’s triple package of policies – NATO enlargement, EU expansion and democracy promotion” is what provoked Russia’s actions towards the Ukrainian crisis. So the West might be equally to blame with the crisis in Ukraine. Putin is a realist and would not accept further NATO expansion that seems to be threatening Russia and pushing them into a corner. NATO bombed Serbia but Russia did not react then because of state weakness and now they have chosen to react and intervene in the Ukrainian crisis because it is now a stable state that has the capability to react.

In Russian media, the United States and the West’s involvement in Ukraine is portrayed as American imperialism and would ultimately lead to the failure and civilian casualties like Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria therefore it has an obligation to ensure that this does not happen to Ukraine. It is also interesting to note that Putin’s approval ratings actually spike up higher during times of conflict. So the Russian public seems to be in favor of Putin’s foreign policy in regards to Ukraine.

Ukraine has a strategic importance to Russia and serves as a buffer state. The US and NATO should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer in between the West and Russia. As a result of NATO, EU, and overall Western expansion, the US and its allies unknowingly provoked a major crisis in Ukraine. All the blame shouldn’t just be put on Putin being crazy and irrational and trying to bring back Soviet dominance. The ultimate goal of the international community should be to allow Ukraine to have its own sovereignty over its own country and it shouldn’t be forced to choose to be on the side of the West or Russia.

China has long had territorial disputes in the South China Sea for centuries. The South China Sea is surrounded geographically by six states – China (including Taiwan), Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Vietnam, and the Philippines. There has been a recent spark in the tensions between the Philippines and China over the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal, which is believed to have valuable oil and gas reserves and is also a vital fishing ground and a major shipping route in that region. The Philippines claims that the Spratley Islands and the Scarborough Shoal lie in their jurisdiction because of their geographical proximity with the Scarborough Shoal being a little more than 100 miles from the Philippines and 500 miles from China.

The geopolitical situation in the South China Sea is quite complicated because it is a powder keg for conflict and future escalation because the Philippines is not willing to give up the Spratleys and China is not backing down either. Since the Philippines and the United States are allies the US has an obligation to interfere on the side of the Philippines if it gets into a military conflict with China. It would then extend the conflict to not just Philippines and China but the US and China as well. This would negatively impact the relations between China and the US if conflict does escalate.

Professor Evans, our guest lecturer this week, said that the disputes over the South China Sea is a actually a “Battle of Symbolism” in terms of whether it be US or China taking nominal control over the area and not necessarily just for the islands themselves. For comparison the Spratleys and the Scarborough Shoal can be compared to the significance the Caribbean played in the 19^th century for Britain and the United States. China has been trying to exert its power in South East Asia and extend its territorial grasp and influence on the South China Sea. While the US has already instilled their military might and influence in Asia with their various military bases essentially surrounding China.

I would argue that ultimately the costs for China to take over the various islands in the South China Sea greatly outweighs the potential benefits whether it be in terms of natural resources or exerting its power and influence over South East Asia. They would greatly off set the geopolitical stability of the region and in trying to exert more power they may actually relinquish some of its influence if Western forces intervene.

The Philippines sees China as a bully trying to take something that is theirs and is looking to its big brother the US to defend them. If China continues to play its role as the big bully in the playground then the rest of the other kids would not want to play or share their toys with him. China would not want to have this image as a bully because the other Southeast Asian countries might become more hostile towards China and this will hurt China’s relations in terms of trade and commerce with that region. The US might also be forced to intervene and some would argue that greater Western intervention would further destabilize the region.

I conclude that it is in the best interest of China to try and get along with the other kids on the block and to not be greedy and try and claim toys that don’t belong to them or else they will get shunned in the playground and might face disciplinary actions from the US.