Sweden has had intrusions into their airspace and waters over the last month and tensions are mounting between the East and the West once again. Ever since the outbreak of the Ukraine Crisis, the West has been sceptical of the Russia and their involvement with the separatists and the annexation of Crimea. Russia is becoming a pariah in western media of recent and with the unidentified intrusion into Sweden’s waters and air, the West is again growing suspicious of Russia. Currently all that is being done in regards to invasion of airspace and waters is a substantial amount of finger pointing. No Swedish officials have confirmed that any of the intrusions were Russian vessels in any capacity. The current question is to what level do foreign militaries need to announce their presence in non-aggressive manoeuvres? If the submarine was a Russian vessel that diverted into Swedish waters by accident should they be forced to divulge their military practices to the Western powers?

This past week Sweden released documents to the public depicting sonar images confirming that a submarine entered Sweden’s territorial waters in October. Sweden had earlier released to the press that they were in search of a submarine vessel that entered their water, yet promptly left the scene. The search was called off after one week with the Swedish military stating “the bulk of ships and amphibious forces have returned to port“, continuing that a couple of ships would remain at sea to patrol the area. Allegations quickly arose that the incident was caused by a Russian submarine. Swedish officials have been careful not to place the blame of the incident on any country in particular, yet the rhetoric has seeped into the public.

The question that this incident poses is to what level are military powers obliged to share military operational knowledge with one another? If the vessel truly was a Russian vessel it has no obligation to inform Sweden of all their military manoeuvres. Especially since Russia is no doubt wholly aware that if they take responsibility for the intrusion, even if it was a mistake, Western countries will chastise their incursion as Russian military negligence. Russia holds such a perilous position in global politics which commonly makes it target of scrutiny for any movement on their part. In fact, just this last week an unidentified plane entered Swedish airspace and the Russians were blamed almost immediately. When in actuality it was later released that it was a French plane that entered their airspace without proclaiming their presence.

With the unidentified intrusion into Swedish waters, it is clear that the media is keen on placing the blame on Russia. This issue has created the issue of the level of military transparency between states that is expected. Currently there is no accountability for states on their military actions and that is what is currently causing the increasing suspicions of Russia infringing on state sovereignty. In actuality the notion of military transparency is new to the international sphere and is not ready to be accepted by many states. Military secrecy is cherished by Russia and many other states and they are not willing to accept transparency to other states.

With the onset of the Iraq and Afghanistan war the world has seen a spike private security companies, expanding from seven to near 700 companies in existence. The documentary Shadow Company, directed by Nick Bicanic and Jason Bourque, analyzes the phenomena and addresses the common misconception regarding PMCs. Shadow Company takes a rather, though not wholly, unbiased approach to the use of PMCs in conflict in comparison to government militaries. Shadow Company does seem to portray more strongly the negative aspect of PMCs and their practices. Through the use of interviews and historical outlook, the directors frame their film to express the positive and negative qualities of private militaries and uses this focus to portray the role that PMCs play in modern conflict. While many of the interviewees regarded PMCs in positive light, the bias of the film came through regarding their concerns over PMCs acting in conflicts.

The main issue that the film introduces to the viewer is the role of private security firms in a global context and what role they should play in security and conflict. I think that the concern of private security firms being active in conflict situations is a valid response to security problems. The film even relates that private military was an active part of conflict basically until the Napoleonic times as the introduction of a state military. As such, I believe that PMCs are a fact of warfare, and the concept of state military is still in its renaissance. Yet the rhetoric of the private military as unconventional and unethical persists, despite the fact that PMCs have been the primary fighting force throughout history.

The bias against PMCs is commonly derived from the concern of the ethical ramifications of a non-state armed force and also the concern that they are merely “soldiers of fortune”, or in other words a corporation focuses primarily on profits. I believe that these concerns are shortsighted and do not accurately reflect the role that PMCs play in global conflict. Firstly, I do not believe that ethics can really apply to the use of PMCs. Condemning PMCs on the grounds of ethics presupposes that state militaries have a greater ethical standing and thus their actions can be justified. These concerns seem to derive from the fact that a private company cannot command the same ethical standing as a government based agency. I would concede that a state military is no more justified in action than a private military, assuming that state is more ethical than private elevates the state to an omnipotent level. A PMCs inclusion in a combat situation does not provide any ethical concerns in conflict, and stating otherwise promotes that a state has more justified in action.

Common rhetoric surrounding PMCs is also that they are soldiers of fortune and that their inclusion in conflict scenarios is all based on profit. I contest that this concept of being a highly capitalist and engaging in conflict just for the profits is misunderstood by the populous. I do agree that certain private military firms exist that concern themselves only with profit, however it is common knowledge that corporations that do not take other factors (risk, morals, etc) into account are not likely to remain in business for long. As such, private militaries that do not take into account all possible factors when considering a contract and merely look at the dollar amount, are less likely to conduct their affairs well and will ward off future business. Just as with companies in other fields, PMCs have to take into account more than just profit in order to keep their company in business.

In conclusion, I would contest that private militaries will play a role in future conflicts and that common bias against such firms is unjustified. PMCs have played a role in conflict throughout the most part of history, yet the stigma of the “for profit” military agencies is still prevalent in society.  I contest that the major concerns the populous has against private militaries, especially in regards to ethics and profiteering, are not rooted in fact. I believe that the world will see a greater role for PMCs in future conflicts and bias against them derives from false logic.

On October 4^th the Asian Games came to a close in the city of Incheon in South Korea. More notable than the games themselves is the North Korean team participating in the games. Though this is not unprecedented, in fact the North Koreans have participated in the games for many years, due to South Korea hosting the games it is being heralded as a monumental thawing of tensions between the two nations. This is not an uncommon trait in history as many nations have managed to ease tensions through sport, or at the very least managed a façade that convinced other nations that political tensions were absolved.

The Korean Peninsula is still currently residing in an armistice that has lasted over six decades with waxing and waning tensions of aggression. The question of North Korea has all but augmented with Kim Jong Un succeeding his father Kim Jong Il in 2011. With new leadership in place, North Korea has constantly been a focal point of journalism. Though news outlets prefer to speak of their nuclear weapons program and threats towards the United States, what is important to note is that North Korea is becoming more and more isolated in the international community. Now having faltering relations with Russia and China, North Korea is in need of creating ties with other nations. The most recent Asian Games have helped end a diplomatic deadlock between the two nations and helped pave way for further high-level talks in late October or early Novmeber.

Historically speaking, this is not unprecedented that a sporting event has helped ease tensions between two nations. We have seen this with America strengthening their ties with China through table tennis, Hitler showcasing the “splendour” of fascist Germany though the 1936 Munich Olympics, and Russia’s Boris Spassky and America’s Bobby Fischer at the chess tournament in Iceland in 1972. Sport has been a way for nations to be able to put aside their opposing diplomatic ideals to hold friendly competition.

Now we can hope that the positive attitude brought forth from the Asian Games will allow for the same trend as the examples above and allow for the relaxing of diplomatic tensions. This is not to say that the process will be quick, in fact it may still take several years, if not decades, for any headway to be made. However, one can always be optimistic. Choe Ryong of the North Korean sports chair has praised South Korea for their support of their athletes and has been quoted saying that he has high hopes that sports can be a forefront of affairs leading to reunification.

Though Choe may be a little lofty in his viewpoint, it is not to say that the Asian Games are not a factor in getting the ball rolling for diplomatic discussions. Sports are a simple unifying force that can aid in eroding the bad blood between the two nations, even if it is only for a short period of time. Only time will tell if the Asian Games acts as a precursor to the strengthening of ties between North and South Korea.

Recently Scotland had voted no on the referendum for Scottish independence, however this vote has not scared of the Catalonian government from issuing their own referendum for the future of Catalonia. With the genesis of the referendum in Scotland, it was little surprise that other regions seeking full autonomy would use this wave of self-determination ideals to reach their goal. However, the notion of self-determination in Catalonia is utterly unrealistic goal and both Spanish and Catalonian government must recognize the implausibility of self-determination at this time. Though the concept of an independent Catalonia is possible at a far later date, the idea full autonomy is impossible with the current political situation.

The announcement of the Scottish independence referendum has created an atmosphere of self-determination. Prior to the vote, Catalonia, Basque Country, Veneto, and South Tyrol were watching the vote closely to see whether independence ideals where strong enough to merit an attempt to secede from their respective countries. As of September 30^th 2014, only Catalonia has issued a vote to take place on November 9^th, 2014. The Spanish government responded to the proposed vote by stating that the vote for independence was only put forth to Catalonians and thus was not in conjecture with the law. Soon after the Spanish government took the referendum to the constitutional court to determine the legality of the vote. The most recent news is that Catalonia has officially suspended the vote, though some Catalonians are calling for an informal vote to happen on the 9^th of November anyway.

Firstly, the entire concept of a referendum in Catalonia is remarkably similar to the highly controversial Crimean independence referendum. The Spanish government has reacted justly to the claim that the vote would be illegal because it would only encapsulate the Catalonian region and not the rest of Spain. Scotland was only able to circumvent this rule of law through the Edinburgh Agreement with England, thus giving them full legal authority to cast the vote entirely within their country. The only justifiable reason that Catalonia would call an illegal vote would be to foster Catalonian pride for when the Spanish government proclaims their referendum illegal. Thus the idea that an independent Catalonia will be seen in the near future is not possible, as they now need to get the referendum accepted under the Spanish government.

The most important matter, that very few journalists seem to reiterate, in concerns to the Catalonian independence referendum is the Basque Country in north-eastern Spain. The international implications that could easily arise if Catalonia were to achieve independence are too great for the Spanish government to even consider in an option. This unwillingness derives from the Basque Country. The Basque Country has housed a separatist-terrorist organization known as the ETA, known for killing upwards of 800 people in violent attacks (ceasefire had been declared as of October 2011). The international concern now rests on the fact that if Catalonian independence is achieved, or even considered for that matter, The Basque Country will consider this their chance to gain independence. One of two situations could arise from this:

1. The Basque Country is denied their independence, the ETA is upset and resumes violent actions against the state.
2. The Basque Country is gains their independence, this signals to terrorist groups that terrorism is a functional modicum of achieving a goal.

Neither of these options are viable for Spain, the former of a domestic level and the latter on an international level.

The concern of Catalonia becoming a state is not being properly addressed to have a full understanding of the political situation. We cannot dismiss the fact that the vote was called illegally and that Basque separatist movements would gain momentum in Spain. Thus Catalonian independence would have terrible implications on both a domestic and international level and should not be attempted at a near future date

The state of Iran has had a turbulent past concerning economic sanctions with western countries. However these dodgy relationships seem to be thawing and Iran seems to be on course to join in the process of globalization. This marks a substantial increase in trade potential for business leaders as a previously untapped market of near 80 million people appears to be opening up to global trade. This has led to what is currently considered the “race for Iran”. Currently the question remains, should business leaders be racing to open their markets in Iran, or should they be wary of the vast loss that could occur due to the constantly changing political situation in and around the country?

To truly got a grip on the current economic situation in Iran we need to understand a brief history of modern Iran. In 1941, the Shah Reza Pahlavi took leadership of the country, in 1953 nationalization of the oil industry under the prime minister looked immanent. This resulted in a covert operation by CIA and British intelligence to force the prime minister out of office and issue full control to the Shah Pahlavi. The Shah held his position while westernizing Iran until 1979, when he was overthrown by the Iranian (Islamic) revolution. This revolution demonized westernization and effectively limited relations with the west. This coupled with the accusations of nuclear weapons programs in the 21^st century has limited Iran’s trade relations with the rest of the world.

Now with Iranian president Hassan Rouhani’s reform and gradual opening of the economy, business leaders are intent on strengthening ties with Iran to gain a amicable foothold in the country. Though it is understandable to try and be the first in an emerging market to have the advantage, is Iran a sound investment? Iran has already been involved in a coup that distanced foreign investment and, to an extent, internalized their economic system. In addition, it is clear that anti-western sentiment is not yet dead in Iran. Rouhani has already expressed that in a statement that it is the west’s blunders that has allowed IS (Islamic State) to generate such power in the Middle East. So with an already dodgy situation with western relations in Iran and also the poor score on the property rights index (currently resting a 10/100), Iran is high-risk investment to say the least.

Currently in Iran, foreign investment is resting at a meager 0.5 percent. Australia has already signed a trade agreement for livestock to be sold to Iran. Renault, a French automaker already invested in Iran, is currently exporting vehicles to Iran and hoping to resume production in Iran through a means of slow re-introduction into the country. Renault has expressed their keen interest in getting their foot in the door before new diplomacy opens the Iranian market to competitors.

With so many concerns surrounding Iran (property rights, past diplomacy, current distaste of the west) it is surely an extremely high-risk investment. Companies able to afford a loss of such an investment though are more than willing to take the risk to get their foot in the door for the “race for Iran”. Benefit certainly can be gained from being the first in Iran, though Iran is still unstable on international terms and business interest could see a situation reminiscent of the Iranian (Islamic) revolution in the

A quick test

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