Monthly Archives: September 2014

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.