The events that led up to the eventual rule of the Grand Jury in Missouri are many, complex, and arguably factually incomplete. The accumulation of these events lead to dangerous protests not only in Ferguson, but all across the US by those who feel that the ruling was influenced by racial prejudice and justice was not served. A shameful light is shed on the ubiquitous issue of race relations within the most influential country in the world. For our Security Study interests there also are possible implications on a global scale. One of the most striking things about these developments however was the efficient mobilization of civil unrest nationwide after these incidents occurred. I argue that technology and social media played an important role in the rather successful deployment of social activism.

In addition, this quick engagement may be a result of other related incidents that occurred within a short time period. One also wonders whether there is an influx of race fuelled crimes by law enforcement on minority civilians. Regardless, the unprecedented increase in their reporting on the news and social media allowed for people to be readily informed about them and act. To draw similarities from the Arab Spring, information was quickly available for people to consume via Twitter and Facebook – albeit with more obstacles – and it eventually led to a successful ousting. Seeing similar outcomes of this phenomenon in two starkly different states is a true testament to its impact.

To extrapolate these occurrences on an international level, if racism is still so prevalent in fundamental American domestic adjudication, then what of those regarding external affairs? By no means does this event directly reflect executive policy procedure, but it does hint at a lingering issue that, while very difficult to address and remedy, will still innately influence legislation. It begs the question, are politicians aware of these underlying impetuses, or are they somehow accepted as status quo? But more importantly, these events once more demonstrate the crucial effect that news and social media have on contemporary politics. The facts aired can be easily skewed or simply not given to their audience, depending on the ideals of the broadcasters. Indeed, an already sensitive issue is given more fuel when people’s understandings of what had happened are different. But a positive to be taken is that activism is still alive and people are still inspired to speak out against oppression. Once more, social media is the mechanism in which individuals coordinated and planned themselves to take their respective actions. The media adds a new dimension to democracy that, for all its pros and cons, can create change for the better.

The ‘localized’ event of the shooting of Michael Brown has made waves across the country, and consequently all over the world. It is a paragon of our interconnected world, both across a vast country and all over the world.

Our ever-changing world is tremendously interconnected and will only continue to become so, thanks to the evolution of technology and globalization. This does not come without consequences, both advertent and otherwise. One of these is the blurring of lines and addition of dimensions that make traditionally held beliefs either inconsistent or obsolete: this occurs in the realm of security. I argue that the security of a nation’s citizens should be a governmental responsibility, though it most certainly will come with obstacles.

I believe that Mr. Bell’s work is phenomenal, and that his efforts alongside Global Risk International are, on the whole, positive. The pursuit of security in frightening territory for the sake of positively intended exploration is to be lauded. So too is the ‘hacktivism’ mentioned in the documentary, for out of an obscure (and sometimes highly treacherous) cyber world came some of the greatest activism of our generation.  However, the nature of these are both inevitably highly politically charged and in need of regulation. This is what is brought on by technological breakthroughs in a globalized world: unchartered and unprecedented waters that, since there is no existing legal framework, are taken into the hands of individuals and upon which incongruent laws are applied.  Both of these actions lead to dissatisfaction from all parties in place of the potentially great outcomes that could occur.

There is a real requirement for legislation to be created on these matters. There needs to be preemptive action now, rather than a case-by-case basis. This is because, as our two subjects have exemplified, the presence of these phenomena are both very much ubiquitous and in need of legal attention. While the courts should fight for this, there must also and always be the call towards government transparency. The degree of which varies of course, as the ongoing debate regarding men like Assange and Snowden demonstrate. The Anonymous activists have without doubt effected great change, from its sizeable influence in the Arab Spring, to continued protest against the ‘1%’. It is also a prescription on the ideas of democracy, yet how much transparency is still up in the air, and would also benefit with judicial clarification.

As mentioned, I believe that the safety of a citizen should be in the hands of their government. It may seem an antiquated realist perspective that conjures a picture of large cavalries against a foreign enemy. But this protection should also apply to things less grandiose, such as virtual security and job security whether on home soil or abroad. It is one of the things a nation should prioritize for its people. Perhaps it is the abstract nature of these particular safeties, which are not on domestic terrain and are in the intangible dominions of the internet, which make solidification hard to come by. In the pursuit of foreign business in particular, I strongly believe that necessarily providing safety to expatriates creates more burden of responsibility on governments when corporations choose to expand beyond borders. As a result, predatory investment in developing or vulnerable nations can be avoided.

On the whole, I believe that both private security firms and widespread internet activism are, and have amounted to, good things. But it is such an unknown and unparalleled battlefield that is capable of both great and evil doings. Because of this, there needs to be a call for legitimization and regulation, from national governments that (perhaps naively hoped for) pursue it without outside agenda.

Once more, our guest speaker has spoken powerfully and evocatively to the class. Charles Lomudak’s account of his personal experiences of the Sudanese civil war was both a rude awakening and a call for action. I argue that, from what I gained from his lecture, there are three things that must be considered to help curtail intrastate wars.

First regards the issue of environmental extraction. For some warring states, the resource curse (Sinpeng, 2014) is an affliction that is commonly seen, particularly in poorer nations. The harsh quest for these raw materials can be the cause, effect, or a factor for elongating bloody civil conflict. And though there are some who profit (largely not the citizens of the state in which it occurs), the destruction and despair that follows could never justify the act, and as such there must be more restriction when pursuing these ventures.

Secondly, the power of external interests and internationalization of civil conflicts (Sinpeng, 2014) must be curbed. Specifically in instances of poverty-stricken states, obtaining arms and support occurs with, often illicit, trade. While difficulty lies in prohibiting the influence of non-state actors such as drug cartels and rebel groups, nations should stop funding any faction of a civil war. Regardless of alliances and vested interests, this clearly only perpetuates the warfare. The only way any external actor should be involved in civil conflicts, if at all, is with humanitarian aid, and not with any means of battle.

Finally, as Charles very ardently maintained, our generation has a lot of power to help alleviate the suffering brought on by civil war (Lomudak, 2014). The young people of today have great power to spur on change in the world, along with the tools to achieve it. One of the strongest of these is the ever-growing power of technology and social media, which now more than ever allows an individual to have their opinions or actions spread globally in an instant. If only the potential is realized, then positive change of boundless magnitude will be seen.

These are three things that I garnered from Charles’ speech. It is disgusting that civil wars, of which have existed for many years, are still a reality. But whether with these or any other factors, there is hope for a solution.

Sources:

Sinpeng, Aim. “Contemporary Civil Wars and Ethnic Conflicts.” Poli 360. UBC, Vancouver. 9 Oct 14. Lecture.

Lomudak, Charles Okumu. “Living through War: A Refugee’s Journey from South Sudan.” Poli 360. UBC, Vancouver. 14 Oct 14. Lecture.

It was such a pleasure to hear Captain Lisa Haveman speak on Wednesday. Her lecture was not only insightful, but powerfully provoked me to think about a topic I normally do not pay attention to. It dawned on me how crucial and under-appreciated our military’s works are. I argue that our troops’ peacekeeping efforts are necessary and should be more supported by the government and population.

It is elementary that states must strike against blatant security threats, such as the proceedings of September 11.  For example, the efforts to clear ground obstacles which included Taliban footholds in Kandahar province (Haveman, 2014) were vital missions that the Canadian troops undertook in the fight against terrorism. Furthermore, it is not only a token of sovereignty, but a necessity for a state to be well equipped in anticipation of conflict, no matter how unlikely it may seem. It is largely understood that the US will defend Canada against enemies because it serves as a threat to American security as well (Sinpeng, 2014). So with this in mind, Canada must continue to develop a military that is proportionate to its needs; high conscription and overly expensive state of the art weapons are unnecessary, but a Canadian force that is prepared to carry out its designated missions will suffice.

According to Cpt. Haveman, her tour of Afghanistan included a lot of development and aid for the locals, such as medical services and educational support. This aspect of peacekeeping is what I believe to be imperative work that Canada – and other states – must constantly be involved in. As a preemptive and humanitarian act, targeting the structural issues of sensitive developing states is a lesser-used but potentially highly effective tool in international relations. Creating more livable and less hostile environments is not only something that I believe states should all partake in to preserve universal human rights, but it could also curb the growth of radical extremist groups that very often spring from such conditions.

Though military actions are not something that dominate the political agenda and media coverage in Canada, there must at least be a heightened recognition of it. These men and women risk, and in some cases ultimately lose, their lives when they deploy. Because these actions are necessary for a state’s sovereignty and security, our government must be more active and transparent in developing strategies for combat as well as providing a wider range of services to veterans after their tours. The public, too, should be provided with more coverage of our military’s actions, and not just when there are high casualties to report (Haveman, 2014).

As Canadians, we know that we are not an aggressive country, and it is (jokingly) acknowledged worldwide that our troops are nothing to brag about. But I believe that our military is doing great and important things overseas that all Canadians should know about and be proud of.

Sources:

Haveman, Lisa. “Serving in Afghanistan: Perspectives from the Canadian Forces.” Poli 360. UBC, Vancouver. 2 Oct 2014. Lecture.

Sinpeng, Aim. “Canada at War: Afghanistan.” Poli 360. UBC, Vancouver. 30 Sept 14. Lecture.

Guest speaker Yana Gorokhovskaia’s talk was incredibly informative and has inspired me to write about the Ukraine crisis and the Russian relationship with the West in particular. Having always had a generally ‘Western’ viewpoint on the matter (pro-Ukraine and EU integration, anti-Russian aggression), Yana’s insights as well as the article by John J Mearsheimer have provoked me to pursue the other side of the story. It will be an interesting exercise on seeing a different perspective on something about which I’ve had a relatively solid opinion. In this post, I will argue in favour of Russia and their actions regarding Ukraine and their foreign policy. Geopolitical issues are often very complicated and difficult to resolve, and Russia-Ukraine is no exception to this. The fact that there are many active pro-Kremlin Ukrainians coupled with the sizable population of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine and support joining Russia shows that there really is a desire for at least some reform to occur. If it is at all possible, large regions of pro-Russian Ukraine should somehow be annexed or allowed to maintain alignment. The offensive into Ukraine has been said to be at the aid of Russians who legitimately called out for help, so there is some cause to believe that Putin is genuinely reaching out to people who depend on this. Mearsheimer used the analogy that if China formed strategic alliances with Canada and Mexico, the US would possibly act in a similar, if not even more belligerent, manner as Russia did. There is historic precedence in the reason why Russian is acting to powerfully maintain their territory, and I believe that the international community needs to be more sensitive to this reality. It can be argued that the link between Russian and the West has not necessarily been resolved; not in the way, comparatively, that German WWII attitudes have all but disappeared and international relationships are stronger than ever. If NATO and EU were to pursue anything forcefully, it would be to try to resolve, repair, and renew their relationship with Russia. Maybe then there could be a fresh start for new policy and foreign affairs discourse between two parties that are more level with each other. It is always important to try to see the two sides of a story, regardless of whether or not you believe it. And though I am not convinced that such aggressive military action is necessary, these are the reasons why Russia’s actions should be tolerated and understood.

Yesterday’s much-anticipated Scottish referendum on independence has come to a close, and the No side has won. But it has certainly not yielded definitive answers. In fact, many questions and points of contention have come to the forefront, and mark the beginning of new terrain for Scottish politics.

There was only one question on the ballot for Scots who, as early as 16, were to vote on whether or not Scotland should be an independent country. The referendum came to fruition when the Scottish National Party won a majority in the last Scottish election and sought to pose this question to the electorate. The results were, of a very high 84.6% turnout, 55.3% voting No and 44.7% voting Yes.

David Cameron has since introduced a new devolution plan for Westminster to transfer more sovereignty to Scotland. As the current distribution of power has Scotland already holding a fair amount, this could mean an almost-working definition of Scottish independence.  Subject to the magnitude (or lack thereof) of Cameron’s upcoming policy, there could be some change in Scotland’s favour, irrespective of a No vote.

42% of a very high voter turnout choosing in favour of Scottish independence is not something to ignore. It shows that a considerable amount of people, at the very least, believe that there are benefits to being a sovereign state, and at most have deep seated qualms about how the current state of government is working.

As Canadians, we shared a similar experience with the 1995 Quebec referendum. There is, was, and will always be a current of nationalism in Quebec, as well as Scotland, because of the intrinsic differences they have with Canada and England, respectively. The presences of cultural, lingual, and historical traditions that perpetually clash or misalign are an inevitable cause for future dispute.

However, the length in which both entities (Canada and the United Kingdom) have been in existence show that, in one way or another and in varying degrees over time, it is possible for such coexistence to occur. But the fact remains that Scotland has a long road ahead of them in order to achieve the independence they desire.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!