One of the key factors that influenced my decision to attend UBC, along with the amazing campus and the chance to attend one of the leading universities in the world, was the opportunity of joining the CAP program for my first year. Sharing much of my first year at university with a community of like-minded students was a very attractive option for me, and I am happy to say that I have benefited greatly from the community of CAP and the friendships that I have made in the program, friendships that would have been much more difficult to come by if I had applied for conventional classes. However, from an academic standpoint, the aspect of CAP that has impressed me the most is the level of connectivity between all of the classes, which has been at times both explicit and subtle, but as a whole the relationship between the courses in my stream has greatly reinforced and compounded my understanding of the various facets of law and society, and has led me to identify three major themes of the program: national identity, human rights and the marginalization of different groups by the state.

National identity is a major theme of the course that was discussed in many of our classes, but the two class discussions concerning identity in the CAP program that stood out most to me occurred in Poli 101 and ASTU. In Poli 101, which focused on Canadian politics, we discussed exactly what it means to be Canadian, and different forms of Canadian nationalism. Professor Kopas highlighted something that I found very interesting and hadn’t really considered at the time, which is the argument that Canada, as an artificially created country with no longstanding homogenous ethnicity, derives much of its national identity from deciding what it is not, rather than what it is. An example of this would be Canadians defining themselves as “not American,” a distinction that is woven subtlety into the national identity of many Canadians, myself included. This idea, however interesting, remained in the back of my mind until we discussed What We All Long For in ASTU, particularly Dawson’s article, where one of her key arguments is that Canada should not be the sum of its ethnic and social exclusions, which are particularly present through What We All Long For. This related directly to our discussion in Poli 101 concerning the source of Canadian identity in defining different ethnic and social exclusions, and the relationship between these two classes impressed upon me the dangerous nature of defining oneself by excluding others. This was of course not the only discussion throughout CAP of national identity and exclusion, but it was one of the most recent and significant interrelations that I have encountered between our CAP courses.

Another key interrelation between the CAP courses that has impacted me greatly was our various discussions surrounding the UDHR in ASTU and History 104 in first semester. In ASTU we used the UDHR as a lens through which to consider basic human rights in a number of different situations that we were continually introduced to throughout the year. In History 104 we also discussed the significance of the UDHR for what it represented as an internationally endorsed document setting various ideals and standards for the proper and basic treatment of human beings. The discussions of the UDHR in ASTU and History 104 complimented each other, giving me a valuable background and lens through which to consider the actions of different entities in society, and whether their actions constituted a breach of human rights or not. I was able to practice this throughout the year, as the rest of our courses, such as Anthropology 101 and History 105 in second semester, continually presented different situations and case studies that I could judge, explore and interpret using my knowledge of the UDHR. This is undoubtedly a perspective and exercise that I will carry with me into the future, and I plan to use the interrelated and complimentary knowledge of the UDHR that I gained from courses such as ASTU and History 104 and put into practice throughout the rest of my courses to consider new situations and interactions within society.

A final major theme that was imparted to me through the interrelation of our CAP courses was the marginalization of minority groups and relationship between these groups, the state and society as a whole. In second semester all three of our CAP courses, Anthropology 101, History 105 and ASTU discussed indigenous issues, both in Canada and around the world. For most of my life, I was ambivalent and ignorant to the desperate situation and cultural genocide that many indigenous groups experience, particularly in Canada, a country that I always considered to be a beacon of justice and freedom from oppression. Throughout the three CAP courses this semester, I was continually made aware of the experiences that indigenous groups have endured due to colonialism, and it was made dramatically clear to me that the actions of past governments and colonization continue to cripple and oppress the indigenous peoples of many countries, and Canada is one of the foremost examples of this tragedy. The interrelation between these courses forced me to consider the perspective of indigenous peoples and the marginalized, and it has forever altered the way that I will perceive the relationship between law and society, but I feel that this is for the best. These three interrelated courses have greatly informed and enlightened me as to the issues currently facing the many marginalized groups of society, and this has transformed me into a far more aware and conscientious citizen.

CAP has been an incredibly rewarding experience, both socially and academically. I have benefited immensely from the friendships that I have made with my like-minded CAP colleagues, but the interrelation between all of the courses in our stream has profoundly impacted me and done more to shape my understanding of the world, in particular law and society, than any conventional class structure would. I am convinced that the themes of CAP, spoken to by each of the courses of our stream in their own unique way, have turned me into a more conscientious and effective citizen, and I look forward to applying the knowledge and perspectives that CAP has granted me into the rest of my life.

Recently, Russia’s influence and projection of power over its surrounding states was ratified and granted new significance, at least apparently, by referendums held in Crimea, the results of which illustrate that 95% of Crimean voters support the reunification of their small but strategic peninsula with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Though the legitimacy of the referendum has been criticized and condemned as illegal by the Ukraine and Western powers, most notably the United States, the apparent vote count does indeed illustrate that the people of the Crimean peninsula overwhelmingly support a return to Russia.

To my understanding, the overwhelming support for reunification in Crimea is not unexpected. After all, though the Crimean peninsula is bound to Ukraine by land, the region shares very little historical, political and ethnic ties to the country of Ukraine. For example, the majority of the peninsula’s population (58%) is ethnic Russian, and, in total, ethnic Ukrainians only constitute 24% of the population. Even during the era of the Soviet Union, of which the Ukraine was a part, Crimea was never considered to be a part of the Ukraine, but, with the fall of the Soviet Union it was simply designated part of the Ukraine, one of the many new countries formed by the fracturing of the USSR. Crimea has only had ties to the Ukraine for just over 20 years, and the historical circumstances that saw it join the Ukraine and the demography of the region suggest that it cannot fully be considered Ukrainian, at least to the extent that much of the rest of the country is. While I may not personally condone Russian aggression and power projection in the strategic peninsula due to these inconsistencies between Crimea and the rest of the Ukraine, I can certainly understand why support for reunification is so high the peninsula.

Now that the referendum has passed overwhelmingly, I am compelled to speculate as to what the eventual outcome of the situation will be. Though I would be dismayed to see Russia reap the benefits of such aggression and violation of state sovereignty, I would not be surprised to see Crimea join Russia eventually. Western powers, including the Ukraine itself may have denounced the vote as illegitimate, and no doubt a level of corruption has festered beneath the entire referendum process, but no country or organization, notably the EU, the UN and NATO, will contest Russia militarily for the peninsula, and diplomatic and economic sanctions are scarcely a thorn in Putin’s side. Perhaps Crimea will not directly become a part of sovereign Russia, but it certainly will become a vassal to Moscow regardless.

This entire situation evokes the question as to what Russia’s true goals and motives lie behind their aggressive assertions into the sovereign nation of the Ukraine. Obviously Russia’s true motives are cloaked behind Moscow’s rhetoric stating that Russian troops have moved into the region to protect ethnic Russians from the violent protests that have consumed Ukraine. To my mind, Russia has two chief motives for projecting their power into Crimea. First, Crimea is an area of great strategic significance as, through the major port of Sevastopol, Russia would gain a large-scale foothold in the Black Sea, and control over many of the oil shipping lines that run from the Ukrainian interior to the Black Sea at Sevastopol. However, this motive is certainly subordinate to Russia’s largest motive, which I feel will guide its foreign policy throughout the 21^st century, which is the reestablishment and reassertion of Russia as a global power, particularly through the vassalization, if not direct conquest, of the former Soviet states. A past example of this brand of foreign policy may be noted in the situation of Georgia, which Russia invaded several years ago, and only agreed to withdraw if the Georgian government would follow the explicit instructions and will of Moscow. Russia wants its empire back.

The situation in the Crimea, particularly surrounding the referendum, is not entirely unexpected and indicates that Crimea may indeed renounce the Ukraine and reunify with Russia. Russia aggression in the area is not only based upon the peninsula’s strategic significance, but it also indicative of the guiding theme of Russian foreign policy. Russia will continue to assert itself over its former vassal states, attempting to gain the status of a global power. While we may not exactly be on the edge of a second Cold War, the situation in the Crimea indicates that Russia wants to be a key player on the global stage, and that it is back in the business of empire building.