blogPatel

In august of 2014, Michael Brown, an 18 year old African American male was shot and killed by Darren Wilson, a 28 year old Caucasian Police Officer. Wilson had fired almost 12 rounds, with 7 bullets hitting Brown and fatally wounding him. Brown, a Ferguson resident. had just been shoplifting and walking home with his friend Dorian Johnson when Wilson pulled up next to the pair in a Police car and a struggle ensued whilst he was still seated in the vehicle, wherein Brown was shot once. Wilson then pursued Brown, and killed him with 6 more shots to the body. This sparked a wave of riots, protests and violent mobs mobilizing against the “white-on-black crime,” as according the Johnson’s testimony Brown had his hands up and told the officer not to shoot and was unarmed. According to Wilson’s testimony, Brown was advancing towards him and he had to take the fatal shot in self-defence. In November of 2014, Wilson was acquitted of all charges. With cases such as the Trayvon Martin shooting, wherein George Zimmerman shot and killed an African American teenager and was acquitted as well,  in the rearview, this decision set off a fresh wave of protests and riots in Ferguson that is ongoing.

Now, there are many things to take away from here, foremostly the fact that the Police, specifically in the US, have a rapidly declining reputation. However, I argue that the advent of body cameras for Police officers is a positive move for the reputation of the police force, and laud the $75 million body camera initiative for law enforcement employees that Obama has unveiled in the wake of this tragedy. This initiative will directly increase accountability for police officers, thus directly addressing the declining trust in America’s police force by minority communities. Moreover, it will add transparency to an opaque system, thereby increasing trust and bolstering the relationship between police officers and minority community. Attorney General Eric Holder also said in a TIME Magazine interview on how pivotal this moment is for race relations:

“I think the seeds are there for a movement that could have a very positive impact on that relationship, again, between law enforcement and communities of color. That you could have the basis here for a reexamination of that relationship, for a reforming of that relationship, and an injection of a great deal of trust that does not necessarily exist there now. I think that out of the tragedy that was Michael Brown’s death, some very positive things could happen. That’s could happen, and the question is what is going to happen with all of these people who are at least at this point very committed, very moved by what they have seen, what they are demonstrating. Will these protests coalesce into a movement?….I think yeah, the possibility exists that what we have seen in Ferguson, or that what happened in Ferguson, could be one of those seminal moments that transforms the nation.”

This event was extremely momentous, as was the death of Eric Garner in the same vein, however this was completely caught on camera. Garner had broken up a fight and was being questioned by police on the sidewalk for selling cigarettes illegally. One of the NYPD officers placed him in an illegal chokehold, and Garner’s head was pushed into the sidewalk by many police officers subduing him. Garner died, and the officer in question was, unsurprisingly at this point, acquitted. This is introduces an element of comprehensiveness to the body camera debate. Both sides need to be acknowledged to have a comprehensive argument, and although I am a proponent of body cameras to increase security, accountability and transparency, this incident is an argument against the effectiveness of them. The entire incident was caught on video by a bystander, with Garner’s pleas of “I cant breathe,” being heard clearly. This did nothing to sway the jury, as the officer in question was acquitted. For body cameras to be effective, the structural embedding of racial profiling and discrimination needs to be addressed in the first place. However, it is still a big step towards police accountability, albeit a somewhat superficial step. Nevertheless, it would increase trust, which is something that the force badly needs from its minority, communities.

The time for change has come and these events are catalysts for it. “Ferguson was the spark, but Garner was “it.”

References:

1.http://time.com/3617369/eric-garner-grand-jury-protests/

2.http://time.com/3613058/obama-ferguson-police-body-cameras-funding/

3.http://time.com/3617425/ferguson-garner-eric-holder-attorney-general/

4.http://time.com/3132635/ferguson-coming-race-war-class-warfare/

War is rapidly changing in the modern world, and with it the actors, means, and methods of war shift with equal speed.  The documentary “The Shadow Company”  takes a closer look at the shift in actors, in this case the issue of Private Military Contractors (PMC). One of the worlds’ oldest professions, labelled and rebranded names such as “soldier for hire,” “dogs of war,” or “hired guns,” these mercenaries play an interesting role in modern warfare. It seems like an extremely antiquated concept, indeed the rebranding of mercenaries has been done so well that I had not even thought that Private Military Contractors of the world today were like the mercenaries of old. I had not expected the modern day mercenary to be such a big part in war in the modern world, as it does not garner sufficient media attention. The documentary takes an in-depth look at this old-new sector, with interviews with political analysts, contractors, CEO’s of private military companies and first person testimonials. It effectively employs a three pronged approach to dealing with the issue at hand, that is first person testimonials in the form of letters from James, interviews and questions with prominent figures and footage of mercenary operations on the ground. The gritty feel of the documentary clashes well with the information presented through a variance of characters, professionals, and contractors. The technique of raising questions and showing the question text on the screen as it answered those questions was also extremely well done, as it conveyed the information in a succint and accurate manner.  However, both the film and the Skype interview with Alan Bell, CEO of Global Risk, did raise questions in my mind, some that were answered in part and others that left me wondering.

Chief amongst these issues was that of morality and ethics. I could not reconcile the notion of a group above the law that broke the state’s monopoly of violence whilst still acting as the authoritative body. I believe that this phenomenon operates within a grey area morally, as there is no comprehensive “code,” or governing body that can oversee and hold Private Military contractors accountable. This brings the main issue that I have with this-accountability. The mercenaries operate with near impunity. In the documentary it is stated that if a soldier transgresses, they get thrown out of the country right away. Moreover, it is further stated that there is no international standard, no internationally binding laws for these mercenaries. Human rights codes are the nearest thing there is to this, but there needs to be a specific set of rules, laws and codes for mercenaries’ operations. I believe it is still unethical, as mercenaries have no perceived legitimacy, which is another contentious issue in my mind. Soldiers and armies are operatives of the state, extending the state, which for better or for worse has political legitimacy. Thus it hypothetically legitimizes the military’s actions. That is not to say that everything that the army or state does is correct, far from it, but it raises the point that ideally the state is accountable to the populace, and by extension the military would be too. Private companies have no such legitimacy, yet they extend their reign of force and impose it heavily upon the citizens. In the documentary they outline the standard procedure in dealing with civilians, and it is quite shocking to see how brutal it is. If a car does not move out of the company’s way, it gets a verbal warning, followed by pointing a gun at the civilian in question. From there it escalates to firing the weapon in the air, then into the engine bay, and finally into the civilian himself if he does not comply. This lead me to questioning the root of this authority, and contrasting it with a state-based army’s. An army would be using force to extend its will, but ultimately it would be the state acting through the military, and thus would have to answer to the people, whereas the mercenaries would not. Small wonder that citizen cooperation is low and hostility is through the roof, as they are seen as outsiders not only breaking the state’s authority, but imposing their own will through force when they are seen as outsiders. This would build resentment not only for the PMC itself, but for the perceived nationality of the company.For example a citizen in Iraq would be mistreated or treated violently, and would blame the West or America for it as that would be the perceived nationality due to the lack of transparency in the company.

This leads to the next issue; that of transparency . The army does background checks, and maintains strict disciplinary standards. Moreover, it even has its own court in many countries, a separate one that entails much more comprehensive sentencing for soldiers. This means that it is apart from the citizen courts, and as such can evaluate the cases in a more holistic way without using the same standards for soldiers as they do for civilians. In these companies, there is no transparency, and a variance of characters. Ranging from ex-military to men wanting to fight for money, there is no proper, standardized hiring criteria. Although the heads of the PMC’s in the documentary talked about hiring practices, they outlined vague criteria without convincingly mentioning how to test for this criteria, or how they differentiate between who is capable of being in a position where their actions could result in death and violence, and who is not. For example. one of the leaders talked about how during the interview, if they talked about money being the motivation, it would raise a red flag and would not be a positive trait for them. Yet this seems like a very rare occurrence where someone would admit that money is the only motivation for being in a position of violence.

Another issue I had with this concept portrayed in the documentary, was the lack of personal investment and variety of motivations. Now, I am not arguing that there needs to be an ideological basis for every conflict, far from it. What I am saying is that when the basis for conflict is money, the issue becomes much more complex. An army fights to extend the state’s will and keep the peace, supposedly and ideally atleast. However there is no ideal peace situation here, as war and conflict benefit the PMCs and result in employment, resources and pay. This base motivation is something integral to a body utilizing violence as a means to an end. Furthermore, this plays into the perception and legitimacy of it as well, as civilians would see the army using force, and it could be construed as keeping the peace as they are of this nation and supposedly have its best interests at heart. This is an extremely idealistic view on it, but for the purposes of public perception it is about the superficial aspect more than anything. However, when a foreign PMC uses violence in a state, effectively making it seem alot more dangerous in the area as armed men who are seen as sadistic and foreign are firing, it is not seen as merely keeping the peace. Perception is important when discussing this issue.

Both the documentary and the guest speaker Alan Bell present this new phenomenon of modern day mercenaries. The documentary especially highlights some issues and problems and showcases just how complex of an issue this really is. The style of the documentary and the choice of interviewees and professionals was extremely beneficial for its message, as it gives it a much more informed feel. However, due to the fact that leaders and members of PMCs were represented alot more than the unbiased professionals, it feels a little imbalanced. In my opinion, there could have been more critique of the concept and a more thorough and comprehensive coverage of the ethics of it as well. However, it accomplishes its task of informing the general public about this very real and relevant phenomenon, and leaves the public pondering and making their own decisions on mercenaries in the modern world.

Security issues have always been prevalent in the world, and most of them strike fear into the hearts of citizens. Governments scramble to reduce these threats, and quickly mobilize resources and initiate programs in order to restructure the way that these threats are responded to. War is the most obvious security threat, and in the modern world terrorism and intra-state conflict have quickly risen to the fore-front of security issues in the public and governmental eye. However, a key concept of international security often gets overlooked, that is disease and epidemics. These are undoubtedly huge threats to international security, and may even be more dangerous due to their pervasive nature than intra-state conflict and violence. Panic and fear are still present, as is the case with other security threats, but I argue that in the case of international diseases and epidemics there is insufficient appropriate governmental response, mobilization of resources, and proper awareness with coverage.

Today, Ebola is the newest threat to sweep the globe. Over 4,400 victims have fallen to this disease in Western Africa, and the number is still increasing. Ebola is an enormous threat to international security, but due to the non-urgent perception that the Western world has about it, it was not treated as big of a security threat as other more obvious examples. This mismanagement and misinformation is one of the main reasons for the disastrous spread of this disease, as even the World Health Organization (WHO) took almost five months and over 1,000 deaths before the WHO even declared Ebola as an international health emergency.  As a WHO internal document states, “Nearly everyone involved in the outbreak response failed to see some fairly plain writing on the wall.” The co-discoverer of the Ebola virus, Peter Piot states “I called for a state of emergency to be declared in July and for military operations to be deployed.” It is clear from this that the WHO have not acted appropriately and in a timely manner for this. One reason for this that is suggested is that WHO are in a once-bitten-twice-shy situation, where they were wary in creating a panic over this epidemic as was the case in 2009 when they were criticized for creating a panic over the swine-flu epidemic. Yes, sensationalizing an event or phenomenon is almost always disadvantageous as it hampers critical and analytical thinking from the public over it as they give in to mass fear and hysteria. However, with an issue like this where the borders are so porous for diseases, there could have been increased preparation and more stringent measures and procedures for limiting the spread. It has gotten so out of control that WHO is projecting 10,000 new cases per week if it is not controlled. This has far reaching implications, as economies are crumbling due to this and airlines stocks are plummeting.  According to the World Bank, the economic impact could be over $30 billion worldwide if Ebola does not get controlled: “When you don’t have confidence in your government and the stories that are coming out or confidence in the healthcare system that they’re not prepared, you’re going to have a cocooning effect in the United States, which means everybody’s stays home, they don’t go out, they don’t travel,”  Smith, Moore, and Company financial analyst  Juli Niemann posits.

Fingers are being pointed left and right over this, as the WHO admits that they are to blame for not catching this earlier but also state that it was mainly the African front office department that improperly reported it and did not have the appropriate response. “The UN health agency acknowledged that, at times, even its own bureaucracy was a problem. It noted that the heads of WHO country offices in Africa are “politically motivated appointments” made by the WHO regional director for Africa, Dr. Luis Sambo, who does not answer to the agency’s chief in Geneva, Dr. Margaret Chan.” The president of the World Bank, Jim Kim criticized the international community for not responding appropriately as well, proposing a 20 billion dollar emergency health fund that would combat these emergency epidemics. “We should have done so many things. Healthcare systems should have been built. There should have been monitoring when the first cases were reported. There should have been an organised response,” he criticizes. The WHO have maintained that it is the responsibility of the countries’ governments to control the spread, but it is a lot more complicated than that and a state’s infrastructure is the main variable in this thus they can not blame the states wholly. The state should not only be responsible in curbing these diseases as the WHO says because: “the rise of infectious diseases is directly related to the lack of basic public-health infrastructure in the poorest states on earth where they thrive. Beyond poverty, both of these epidemics are fuelled by human rights violations…such as stigma, discrimination, and lack of access to safe water, sanitation, healthcare, essential drugs, education and food. Both epidemics are occurring in countries with long histories of brutal dictatorships and civil war, combined with either the deliberate destruction or neglect of healthcare infrastructure. “

The United Nations have warned that they have 60 days to beat Ebola, otherwise they will be facing an unprecedented security threat which they are completely unprepared for and would completely overwhelm them.  Another theory that has been posited in explaining the lack of proper response from the Western world deals with the western perspective and outlook on infectious diseases. In an article written by Annie Sparrow, she proposes that  “Western doctors tend to believe we have discovered, isolated and conquered germs, and have moved on to more difficult non-communicable diseases like diabetes and dementia.” Infectious diseases and epidemics are seen as more of a third-world problem, and are not given enough attention due to the Western world’s complacency. 

There is no quick-fix to this problem, as Ebola is an epidemic that is now taken even more seriously with cases in Texas and Spain. The Medecins Sans Frontieres is doing commendable work against Ebola, as they bravely combat it on the frontlines. Recently, nine medics even died due to the disease.The global community should spend resources combating this disease not only by increasing stringency of borders, mobility and transportation so as to curb the international spread of this disease, but also to target the source. Western African health infrastructure should be aided and reinforced, so they can effectively combat emergencies before they spread and have strength in public-health institutions. Sparrow proposes that the US government and military get directly involved, as “the US navy could offer impressive resources in terms of ships easily converted into hospitals, naturally quarantined by water, and offering a simple solution to the three-week isolation required for those who have completed their tours.” If Ebola and other infectious diseases were recognized as the true international security threats that they are, there would be alot more awareness. One just needs to look at the response and awareness that war and conflict get to see how the quick the response is. Governments fear these threats as they mobilize resources and even change laws to increase stringency, and media covers them thoroughly. The UN has quicker responses, whereas it’s institutions have failed to recognize the potential for the spread of this disease. Again, sensationalization is a negative outcome, but there should be recognizance of the potential of a threat, which wasn’t in place. Moving forward, this can be combated through governmental cooperation and aid to overwhelmed public health infrastructures in developing countries where Ebola is the most serious danger. Moreover, there needs to be proper education of disease and awareness, whilst simultaneously putting in place border and transport procedures that will stop the spread of this international threat.

Allegiances are what make the International System go ’round, they shape the system and build ties that not only lead to economic prosperity but are also designed to increase security.  In fact, the interdependence of states is one of the primary reasons for the decline of war in the modern world, as trade relations replace armed conflict and expansion as the primary method in achieving economic prosperity. Moreover, relations between countries, especially ones that include a transfer of financial resources, can be instrumental in shaping the international perception of a country, for example the giving of aid. However, sometimes these relationship and allegiances do more harm than good, and have a negative impact.

One example of this would be Israel-US relations, one of the strongest and nigh on unshakable relations in the international system today. Indeed, the US gives almost three billion dollars of financial aid to Israel every year, a country that is already extremely well off with one of the world’s highest incomes per capita. In fact, almost a third of the US foreign aid budget goes straight to Israel. This symbiotic relationship may seem one sided, with Israel reaping the benefits of American foreign aid and resources, but it is important to note that a large portion of this money is spent on arms, ammunition and on military costs, all provided by American companies. Moreover, Israel on paper represents a symbolic extension of the US’s goals and strategies for the Middle East.

Except that it is not working like that anymore. US foreign aid is not buying any political sway, atleast not  any effective and discernible political sway. Israel is conducting itself unilaterally, looking out for their own interests, and the US is the one who is now forced to support every move that Israel makes.

It is important to note here, that I am in no way positing that the US cut ties with Israel completely, indeed economic trade and trade relations should be upheld. What I am arguing is that the American people are being quickly disillusioned by the relationship between the US and Israel, and that instead of cutting complete ties with Israel,  the US should  mend its relationship so as to avoid unequivocally supporting every single decision that Israel makes. Indeed this is reflecting extremely poorly on the US especially in light of recent events. Sweden had recently recognized the validity of the Palestinian State, being one of the first countries in the European Union to do so. Now, the United Kingdom has passed decision in Parliament regarding this issue, effectively recognizing the existence of a Palestinian State. Meanwhile, the US upholds its stance with vague and unfounded reasoning, stating that to recognize the authority of the Palestinian State on the basis that it would be “premature” and would be in some way detriment to peace talks and negotiations, which is the same line used by the Israeli government.This is a fundamental, and extremely basic step in solving the immensely complex problem with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed logically it makes sense that if a two-state solution is the answer that many countries have for this crisis, then recognizing that Palestine is a state is an integral step,  one that is not being taken by the US and Israel both.

Moreover, according to the recent IRmep Google Consumer Survey, Americans have overwhelmingly said that the US is giving too much aid to Israel. This shows the increasing disillusionment that is occurring in the American populace as 33.9% said that it was giving “much too much” aid, and 26.8% said “too much” aid was being given.

As of now, Israel is planning 2,600 more settlement homes in occupied land, even after US President Barack Obama was critical of settlement expansion plans. One can see the beginnings of divide within this relation, as even though Israel’s main political ally is pushing for a decrease of settlement, there seems to be no plan of slowing down. In fact, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the US criticizing these Jewish settlements is “against American values”. This has drawn flak from Whitehouse spokesperson Josh Earnest, who states that “it did seem odd for him [Netanyahu] to try to defend the actions of his government by saying our response did not reflect American values.”.  Netanyahu continues to be confused by American criticism of the settlement expansion projects, maintaining that their criticism is not only against American values but also detrimental to peace.  Israel’s “ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians” was called into question by Washington as these settlement plans are continually upheld.

The US needs to reevaluate its relationship with Israel. Due to their strong political ties, the US should have some sway in Israeli politics, especially with the amount of foreign aid that is being dealt every year. However, this is not the case at all as the US is not able to even criticize Israeli actions, such as the expansion of settlements, without backlash from the Israeli government. Sanctions and effective action would certainly go a much longer way than empty criticism , as this situation is reflecting poorly on them more than anything. Once again, the argument is not that the US should sever ties from Israel, as this relationship benefits both parties. Rather, it should be comprehensively reevaluated, the economic benefits could still be present without unequivocal support (action-wise) for all of Israel’s decisions, even those condemned by the international community. The first step that the US needs to take is to recognize Palestine as a state, so as to start peace talks and a viable solution for both parties involved.

1. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/10/sweden-recognise-state-palestine-2014103144745449229.html
2. http://news.antiwar.com/2014/10/01/israel-plans-2600-more-settler-homes-in-east-jerusalem/
3. https://news.vice.com/article/the-uk-has-voted-to-recognize-palestine-as-a-state?utm_source=vicenewsfb
4. http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2014/09/29/most-americans-say-us-gives-too-much-aid-to-israel/?
5. http://rt.com/news/193628-usa-israel-settlements-criticism/
6. http://www.wrmea.org/congress-u.s.-aid-to-israel/u.s.-financial-aid-to-israel-figures-facts-and-impact.html

The concept of a non-state entity that has broken the state’s monopoly on violence is now, moreso than ever, an extremely important component of international security in the modern world. A new, old phenomenon has burst onto the international scene, with the world’s spotlight almost exclusively settled onto its dark frame.  This phenomenon is the extremist group known as ISIS, and it is surrounded by a nebulous fog of misconceptions, ignorance and distorted religious views.  Due to this, hate and Islamophobia have permeated the international sphere even moreso than it did before.  Although this has caused much hatred from some, it has also sparked a variety of questions. Namely:

1.How was ISIS started?

2.Where does ISIS’s financial funding come from?

3. What is their mission?

4. How are they related to Islam?

5. As a Western nation/ Western power, what should our response be?

6. Are Al-Qaeda and ISIS one and the same?

These questions are constructive, as they are the first step in clearing misconceptions and to raise awareness. As a brief overview, ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, now just “The Islamic State,” It is a common misconception that ISIS is merely composed of rebels armed by the US against Bashar Al-Assad’s regime, however this is not entirely untrue as ISIS started in Iraq which actually shares a border with Syria thus they have been able to mobilize there and recruit heavily amongst the Syrian rebels already fighting their regime. At first ISIS was  a part of Al Qaeda, but now they are extremely separate despite both fighting in Syria. Al-Qaeda actually recently condemned ISIS’s actions, though whether it was for being excessively extreme or over the fact that ISIS holds an enormous amount of land now, which was Al-Qaeda’s ideal goal all along, is debatable. It even has alot to do with the Shi’ite-Sunni conflict, as ISIS is a Sunni group that arose after the volatility of having a Sunni regime (Saddam Hussein’s) get replaced by a Shi’ite one, to topple once again and leave a power vacuum. The West’s handling of Iraq had set the stage for instability and rampant civil unrest, and in this confusion a group like ISIS would be able to easily proliferate and gain support.

Their mission is to recreate the Caliphate, an Islamic regime based upon Shariah Law. The leader, or Caliph, would be the successor to the Prophet Muhammad, the core figure in Islamic history and theology. It is interesting to note that recently, hundreds of Muslim scholars have condemned ISIS and their Islamic State as counter-Islamic and outlined the points in a theological argument. This involves examining and cross-referencing ISIS’s methodology and actions with that of the original Caliphate. It outlines how it is forbidden to selectively quote passages from the Quran (the Holy Book) and the Hadith (actions of Prophet Muhammad), it is forbidden to kill emissaries, civilians, women and children as well as all their rights. Moreover, the torture and disfigurement of people is expressly forbidden. Additionally, the address includes a full legal argument, and is helpful in clearing misconceptions. This is extremely important to International Security, as by identifying and isolating the threat,  the perceived enemy shifts from an entire religion to a single group of individuals acting of their own accord.

Now, the US has allied itself with other nations, and started launching airstrikes. Even Arab nations such as Jordan, Bahrain,Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE have joined together with the US to strike against them in Syria. As these events unfold, it is important to put this conflict in terms of International Security, as more questions arise from this interventionism. The questions of what type of blowback this will result in and what this means further for countries in the West that have been targeted for infiltration based upon this intervention. Additionally and importantly, there has been a record of civilian deaths during intervention, especially with the US’s trigger-happy strategy of drone strikes; how to minimize civilian deaths whilst dealing with an issue of international security will be imperative. These questions and more will be asked, and answered as the events unfold.

(1) https://news.vice.com/article/muslim-scholars-make-the-theological-case-against-the-islamic-state

(2) http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2014/09/3qs-the-us-response-to-isis/

(3) http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/u-s-arab-allies-strike-isis-targets-syria-n209286

The modern world is obsessed with China. China frequently emerges as the main topic of conversation when discussing American hegemony and change in status quo, with good reason as the authoritarian giant seems poised to take over on paper. American and Chinese relations are ever the subject of microscopic scrutiny, but what is often neglected in the discussion is the relationship between Canada and China. With the onset of the age of multilateralism, especially as it applies to economics, trade relations have become the dominant form of multilateral cooperation and globalization. This particular issue has been extremely controversial in light of recent events, with the FIPA treaty that will come into effect on October 1st.  Essentially, the FIPA treaty, which is the China-Canada foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, protects foreign investments on foreign lands from being treated differently from local businesses and investments.This issue has been sensationalized and fear has spread like wildfire amongst the masses. Namely:

1.Will Canadian sovereignty be effectively compromised?

2.Does this mean that a country as powerful and wealthy as China will be able to effectively sap the resources of Canada?

3.Has Canada taken an extremely undemocratic step that completely undermines our tradition of transparency and democratic public participation?

4.Will this result in a sharp increase in judicial action against the Canadian government from foreign corporations and investments?

These are all valid questions and concerns, and on the face of it, FIPA does look like it could be a disastrous deal for Canada that would lock us in for 31 years, an amount of time so large that this much caution should not only be justified, but necessary. Indeed, this deal would long outlast the political party in power that inked it, and its effects will be felt for years and years as parliament has ratified it from October 1st.  The other side of the argument is that this is essentially, and merely a non-discriminatory agreement and would remove trade barriers between China and Canada. That being said, there were not many barriers in the first place between foreign investment in Canada and outside.  China-Canada Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement is different from the other FIPAs we have signed because other countries do not have the same level of resources and investment in Canada that China has, so China has the advantage here. Time will tell how this deal plays out for Canada and China both, with looming issues such as the Enbridge pipeline waiting in the shadows, as 31 years is a long legacy for Stephen Harper’s government to leave behind.