Breaking news! Today, the United Nations General Assembly passed the first ever global arms trade treaty that aims to introduce regulations on the $70 billion international arms industry. With 154 votes for, 23 abstentions and only 3 against (Iran, Syria, and North Korea… no surprises here), it seems likely that this treaty will easily locate the 50 signatories it needs to be ratified once it is open for signatures on June 3rd.

The treaty specifically deals with cross-border transfers of conventional weapons (everything ranging from hand grenades to tanks and warships), creating binding standards of trade, including requirements for states to review any cross-border arms contracts so as to prevent any trade facilitating human rights abuses, terrorism or violations of humanitarian law. Read more about the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty here.

U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, characterizes the treaty as “a strong, effective and implementable Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that can strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade.” I agree with his assessment; this is a step in the right direction for the promotion of sustainable international peace. It’s a pity that gun control reform measures undertaken by the U.S., domestically, have failed to make it through the dysfunctional halls of Congress unscathed. The tragedy at Newtown, Conn. was supposedly a wake-up call, but it appears that the U.S. government has decided to press the ‘Snooze’ button. 

A lighthearted title for the content of this article on CNN highlighting the North Korean leader’s questionable behaviour since his assumption of power last December. There has been a perceptible warlike undertone to his recent undertakings: nuclear and missile tests, the annulment of the 1953 Korean War armistice, and threats against the U.S. and South Korea. His antagonism has inspired a number of different spectators to try to explain his behaviour. Currently, the four prevailing explanations appear to be: 1. He is trying to boost his public support/ image domestically; 2. He is trying to consolidate power; 3. He’s insane (pretty convincing…); and 4. He’s  actually preparing to initiate war.

Interestingly, my South Korean friend brought this issue up at lunch yesterday. While she’s been at UBC the past four years, her parents both live in South Korea. She mentioned that her mother has expressed anxiety towards the situation, and that, while many believe that Kim Jong Un’s war rhetoric is nothing more than a political stunt (think explanations 1 and 2), others, her mother for example, are starting to become fearful of a potential conflict (4). What do you think? Is Kim Jong Un simply trying to strengthen his leadership and bolster his domestic support or is he reckless enough to actually initiate war against South Korea?

Chavez’s death leaves Venezuela in a critical state; the response in Washington was quick and almost too eager. According to CNN, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Robert Menendez views Chavez’s death as having  “left a political void that we hope will be filled peacefully and through a constitutional and democratic process, grounded in the Venezuelan constitution and adhering to the Inter-American Democratic Charter.” Basically, he is hoping for Venezuela to return to its ‘once robust’ system of democracy’ by calling for free and fair elections to occur in the aftermaths of the dictator’s death. This is a sentiment shared by many, including Venezuelan citizens and expats, not just U.S. politicians. However, there appears to be an equal number of mourners among the celebrators; despite any disagreements with his leadership style, Chavez was truly committed to improving the lives of his fellow countrymen, with a particular focus on the poor and the disenfranchised. In his time in office, it is estimated that he has cut the country’s poverty rates in half.

These mixed reactions to Chavez’s death, whereby some are critical of his presidency, saying it was “characterized by a dramatic concentration of power and open disregard for basic human rights guarantees” (Human Rights Watch), and others are mournful of a man who was a ‘champion of the poor’ bring to light questions about the inherent value we seem to attribute to democracy. This is obviously something that has been discussed, and rehashed repeatedly in class; I think there is a general consensus that authoritarian regimes demonstrate greater efficacy and effectiveness in enacting any substantial changes. This makes sense because power is concentrated in one, a select group of, person/s, as opposed to the diluted, separation of powers democratic approach. Evidently there is the incentive to abuse power when it is left unchecked, but, in the cases of those like Chavez, who, according to some at least, had truly noble intentions, perhaps there really is some merit to the idea of the ‘gentle, benevolent dictator.’ What do you think? Should the people be excitedly calling for ‘democracy, democracy, democracy’ to be reinstated in Venezuela?

Came across a story on CNN that is very relevant to the aims of this seminar. Mbaku gives an overview of the tumultuous road Africa has been on in the past two decades in their transition to democratic governance, which has resulted in successful overthrows of authoritarian regimes, but some major reversals as well. His overview is largely a positive one; despite briefly remunerating the instances where transitions have not been successful and setbacks have occurred, Mbaku is much more focused on the “significant and spectacular achievements in the continent’s struggle to deepen and institutionalize democracy.”

What I find most memorable about his piece are his evaluation of and prescriptions for the Arab Spring countries, most specifically Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt. He views the problems there as “symptomatic of what needs to be done throughout Africa to deepen and institutionalize democracy.” The only real solution, he says, is to engage each stakeholder group in the nation (i.e. Morsy and his Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt) to work together in a democratic fashion to create a system wherein all population groups can coexist peacefully. How is this supposed to be carried out? That he is not so clear about. Mbaku’s solution is oversimplified, and, altogether, too optimistic. What he fails to recognize is the possibility that the traditional (Western) approach to democracy may be inapplicable in the case of the Arab Spring; fixing the problems there now would require measures that extend far beyond peace talks he envisages.

There’s been lots of talk surrounding the situation in the U.S. with the sequester being enabled. The sheer irony of the situation is clear: a fiscal doomsday device, whose consequences were damaging enough  ($1.2 trillion in government spending cuts over 10 years) to supposedly force Congress to find a less painful solution, failed to do so and was, thereby, detonated today. Foreign Affairs magazine lays out a straightforward graphic to demonstrate where the automatic cuts will take place:

Sequestration as illustrated by Foreign Affairs

So what is going to happen now in light of these automatic spending cuts? CNN says that the real impact will be perceptible not only in the fields highlighted above but also in the education sector, as well as the IRS and border patrol. What kind of implications does this have on the state of American democracy? The sequester is a paradigm of Congressional dysfunctionality that leaves me wondering, where do they go from here?

It’s been two years since the revolution that removed Egypt’s longtime dictator, Hosni Mubarak, from power, and the aura of hope for a democratic peace has slowly eroded into a restless uncertainty among the frustrated Egyptian public.

Violent civil unrest continues to ensue throughout the nation, with the most recent upsurge occurring on the two-year anniversary of the 2011 Egyptian revolution. This violence stems appears to stem from two sources: 1. the ruling a judge gave for 21 people to receive the capital punishment for their roles in the “massacre at Port Said” riot that occurred after a football game on February 1, 2012 and 2. the general dissatisfaction Egyptians now feel towards their first democratically elected leader, Morsy, viewing him as ‘power-hoarding’ and ‘slow’ at achieving any substantial progress towards a stable and functional democracy.

What happens now? Ahmed and Yan at CNN ask. The answer is unclear, Morsy is holding a meeting today with representatives from 11 different political parties to discuss and address some of the issues currently facing Egypt . The pessimist and the optimist in me are vying to give very different answers to the question being posed. To take the safer route, I will give my answer from a realist’s perspective: while I believe that Egypt will eventually be a peaceful democratic state, with properly functioning democratic institutions, I think that the path towards such an end is going to be a long and arduous one.

When contemplating the question Fareed Zakaria’s headline poses: Is this the start of India’s ‘Arab Spring’?  other questions immediate ensue: is this a relevant question to be asking? Moreover, do we even want an Indian ‘Arab Spring’? For many of its onlookers the Arab Spring has devolved from being idealistically perpetuated as a possible ‘fourth wave of  democratization’ to nothing more than a ‘false start.’ (Diamond, Larry. 2011 May 22. Foreign Affairs) Given its problematic status in the terminology of political science, I do not appreciate Zakaria’s phrasing of the issue at hand, but the substantive value of the implications he proffers pertaining to it is enough for me to overlook his semantic choices.

By now, I am sure the widespread protests waged throughout India in the weeks following the rape and subsequent death of a 23-year-old unnamed New Delhi woman is old news to most of you. What this story lacks in currency, however, it makes up for in the expediency of its subject matter. I hope that most of you have encountered, at some point in your studies, the topic of gender equality and the related challenges it presents, both historically, and in contemporary times. More disturbing than the well publicized New Delhi gang rape itself is the systemic problem it is representative of. In India, there were more than 24,000 registered rapes in 2011, probably  a gross underestimate when factoring in the number of unregistered rapes that undoubtedly occur. Rape is unfortunately only one symptom, albeit a horrifying one, of a much larger problem in the general attitudes of men and women alike throughout India and many of its Asian neighbour: the subjugation of the female gender.

When Zakaria writes “Now it’s asking for basic rights for women. In a way, this is India’s Arab Spring,” it brings to mind particular feminist strands of political thought. Those like Pateman have characterized gender equality as being not only indicative of democratic health, but also a necessary prerequisite for a true liberal democracy to exist. Normatively,  this makes sense to me: the exclusion and oppression of any members of a collective entity is enough to make that entity essentially non-democratic. Is a change in attitudes towards women a necessary precursor for democratic transitions or for the proper establishment of democratic institutions? In the Indian context, the answer appears to be a definitive yes. What do you think?

Mass civil unrest following the rape and subsequent death of a 23-year-old paramedical student in New Delhi

I was reading my morning paper while consuming a cup of the only substance that gets me through early mornings (coffee, obviously) when I came across this headline in the National Post:

Quebec to legalize assisted suicide;

Death a medical issue, health

minister says

It’s a headline that immediately caught my interest; ever since my preliminary studies of dystopian novels, along the veins of 1984, Brave New World, etc., in high school literature, the subject of euthanasia has become this eerie kind of fascination for me. I love getting into debates about the slippery slope that human morality supposedly starts to descend when we start making judgements like those related to a persons right to life or death. My take on assisted suicide, like my take on abortion, has always been a more pro-choice approach with a libertarian leaning. In this sense, I do not criticize those who are pro-life, but I do think that they should not be able to limit others’ rights to make their own decision on the matter, which, often, pro-life policies do. Thus, I view Quebec’s impending legalization of assisted suicide as a progressive move on the part of their provincial legislature, although it brings to the foreground questions concerning Canadian federalism that I am sure not all of you will find very exciting to address. In the well known Sue Rodriquez case (1993), wherein the aforementioned fought to have the ‘right to die’ via assisted suicide after being diagnosed with ALS, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5-4 against her. More recently, in 2010, when the topic was brought to the Canadian legislature, the ruling was upheld.

However, despite the federal government’s decisive opposition to legalizing assisted suicide, Quebec’s provincial legislature has done so. While this is not a policy matter that would, say, be a determinant in measuring the democracy, I cannot help but wonder what it says about the dynamics of Canadian federalism if Quebec, as a province, is unilaterally able to make a decision that violates a previous decision made by the federal Supreme Court. While I understand that health care has historically been under provincial jurisdiction, should exceptions not arise when the federal Supreme Court has set forth a legal precedent declaring the unconstiuttionality of this particular aspect of health care (if it can even be considered as such)? Any thoughts?