Since the Cold War, the world has evolved into a wildly different world than it used to look like. Perhaps one of the most notable advancements in modern society is the development and integration of the internet. We can now say almost all of mankind is connected thanks to cyber technology innovation, however with that,“we’ve created [a] perfect platform of evil.” (David Dewalt)

There is an increasing dependence upon the Internet, specifically; social networks, websites, personal portable devices, and databases. This dependence is far reaching given 90-95% of cyberspace is privately owned, and the threshold to entry is relatively low (Paul Meyer). Further, cyberspace is no longer dominated by Western, developed countries, as the Global South is quickly eclipsing the Global North in terms of internet users. David Dewalt, a chief executive officer of FireEye Inc., says, “you throw all that in a petri dish with no governance model, complete anonymity and a lot of intellectual property one click away. That creates a very interesting model for attackers to use to get into systems that we now completely rely on – our critical infrastructure, our smart grid, our transportation industry, our financial systems, our military.” Because of how reliant society has become on internet, cyber security has become a global issue.

Given international reliance upon cyberspace and the limited agencies regulating, governments are now faced with cyber security concerns including; espionage, hacking, illegal sales/transfers, etc. to which many governments are choosing to invest heavily in cyber security technologies. In fact since 2010, the United State’s Cyber Command budget has quadrupled to approximately $447 million (USD) (Paul Meyer). The US is not the only government to engage in this proactive behaviour, which by turn has resulted in a 21st century cyber arms race.

“An arms race denotes a rapid increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military power by rival states in peacetime.”

Those who pose a threat to cyber security are constantly changing their methods, thereby making continued development and implementation of cyber security programs paramount. This constant need for improvement and innovation however is forcing governments to engage in a global cyber arms race, in attempts to create a strong defense, but also develop potential offensive technologies. The director of intelligence at the U.S. Cyber Command, Rear Admiral Samuel Cox says, “it’s not proceeding at a leisurely or even a linear fashion but in fact is accelerating.”

So what can be done about this quickly rising threat?

The most effective way to protect from cyber security threats for Canadians is to first pass legislation into law, making data breach reporting mandatory as it is in the U.S. This will provide more information to agencies and companies seeking to build and improve their cyber security systems. “At this moment there are 770 live cyberattacks happening in the United States, [and in Canada, 50 attacks ongoing.” This however is likely only a fraction of the actual number given the diverse and complex ways in which cyber attacks are perpetrated. This past year in Canada, there was a 46% increase in cyber security incidents attributed to competitors. Often in circumstances such as these, Canadian companies have failed to report incidents by way of avoiding scrutiny and further attack. By requiring companies report this data, the government and cyber security agencies will have a more realistic picture of what the potential risks are, who they are most likely to target, and hopefully plan how to avoid future incidents. Although this may be one part of what will surely be a transformative battle we are fighting, reporting information is the necessary first step.

“It’s all about control.” – Cobus Claassens (Security Contractor)

The Shadow Company presents a wide arrangement of information involving the history of mercenaries, their purpose, and roles they have played in recent middle eastern conflict. All of this information serves to show the other side of the debate on the topic of mercenaries, specifically how they have developed from soul-less “guns for hire” to a modern day asset in the war on terror. This documentary, and interview with Global Risk CEO Allan Bell, demonstrate how private military companies (PMC’s) can be a great asset, so long as the proper controls are exercised.

Allan Bell of Global Risk and The Shadow Company both explain how it is the few PMCs that are poorly run with little control, and a lack of consideration for their role besides a paycheck, that give PMCs like Global Risk and Blackwater a bad rap in the international community. So many people associate PMCs with failure (Fallujah, Iraq 2004) and criminal action (Equatorial Guinea March 2004), but there is one thing everyone can agree on; PMCs rely on control to be a positive influence in volatile situations. As previously stated, Allan Bell credits the controls he places upon the hiring and directives of his employees for the continued success of his company. Global Risk requires a minimum of 10 years military/tactical service experience from their recruits, (preferably ex Canadian or British Special Forces) who are looking for long-term commitment with realistic expectations. The PMC managers and employees interviewed in The Shadow Company all stress how it is the responsibility of the PMCs to instill ethical mandates and exercise proper precautions before accepting contracts that place people in danger. In fact, Allan Bell discussed how private military contractors can only shoot if:
1. their lives are in danger or
2. who/what they are protecting is in danger.
Granted this is a very broad mandate to be operating under in war-torn areas with lethal firepower capabilities, but in combination with strict controls on hiring practices, this is certainly a step in the right direction to avoid international incidents with PMCs. These factors along with controls placed upon accepting/brokering private security contracts may be the answer to avoiding international incidents involving PMCs, and eliminate those who are in the business for the wrong reasons.

“Some companies don’t particularly care.” – Allan Bell, CEO Global Risk

9-11 caused the demand for PMCs to skyrocket. Responding to the demand, hundreds of new, inexperienced PMCs were established, many operating under little/no ethical directives without proper preparation. So many people saw the drastic increased in demand for PMCs as a way to make millions with a single contract, and as such took advantage of the market without any control or consideration for their actions. It is these companies that would and should be eliminated through the implementation of industry-specific controls. This control however could most easily be implemented by the governments that hire PMCs for missions they are unable or unwilling to send their own troops to do. Allan Bell explained that his company has no need for advertising because he operates purely on word of mouth from valued and loyal clients. He refuses to work for people he is unfamiliar with or he is unable to substantiate their claims or role in a conflict. For legitimate clients, the process is as follows:
1. prepare a proposal after extensive research, weighing the costs, risks and requirements not just of Global Risk employees, but also the employing government/firm.
2. give homework to the prospective client. This involves giving them directives based on the information Global Risk has collected in order to ensure all precautions are taken to protect all parties involved.
If governments were forced to legitimately explore the competition before giving a contract to a PMC based on track record, ethics, and cost-effectiveness, international embarrassment for governments and PMCs could be avoided. Further, if all PMCs were required to adhere to a standardized screening process such as Global Risk’s they too would be better equipped and prepared before accepting a potentially dangerous contract.

No matter the opinion of private military companies or “mercenaries” as they are derogatorily called, one thing every side can agree upon is the need for controls upon this quickly growing industry. By exercising control over:
1. Hiring Practices – not hiring those without proper experience or ability to handle potentially dangerous situations effectively
2. Employee Directives/Mandates – ensuring private military contractors know precisely their role, what is expected of them, and what situations they are allowed to exercise lethal force in
3. Contract Screening – both on the part of governments giving out contracts, and PMCs in accepting them
PMCs could operate in international conflict effectively and serve to aid in situations in which governments are unable to act, but wish to do so ethically.

The Shadow Company, in corroboration with the Allan Bell interview, do a fairly comprehensive job of exposing most sides of the mercenary debate. The reference to history, recognizing past failures, and separating legitimate PMCs from amateur “guns for hire”, all serve to give the audience as much information as possible on the subject while still firmly defending “legitimate” private military companies.

How ever you get your news today, chances are there will be some new development about the terrorist organization known as ISIS. ISIS, also known as ISIL, is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Born from Al Qaeda in Iraq in January 2014, this terrorist organization has climbed the ladder of terrorist success, claiming the lives of thousands[1] and responsible for gruesome acts of violence including the video recording of Western citizen’s beheadings. Obviously with acts such as these added to their resume, the Western world is taking note, and now taking serious action to combat them.

But what makes them a terrorist organization vs. political ‘freedom fighters’?[2]

Although there is no exclusively agreed upon definition of exactly what a terrorist organization is, there are several characteristics that lend themselves to the scholarly definition.

1) Violent Attack – To first be labeled as a terrorist organization there must be violent acts perpetrated. In the case of ISIS, any of their actions ranging from genocide in Syria and Iraq, to the beheading of Western foreign aid workers and journalists, place them squarely in this category.

2) Deliberate Targeting of Civilians – To take this previous characteristic a step further, these violent actions must be directed towards non-military/political personnel.

3) Political Message/Objective – All terrorist organizations must have a clear political message or objective as their rational for their acts of violence. ISIS, born out of Al Qaeda, is striving for the creation of a solely Islamic state free of Western intervention, and instead focused upon religious fundamentalism. They are using this objective as a rationale for their terrorist activities, including the targeting of Muslims they deem “not devout enough” or “not extreme enough” in aiding the cause.[3]

4) Non-State Actor – Finally, to be considered a terrorist organization by scholarly definition, the attacks must be carried out by non-state actors, i.e. no government affiliation. Why is this important? Under international law, violent acts carried out by state actors against civilians are classified as war crimes. Given ISIS’s lack of political affiliation in Iraq, it is evident they meet all of the before-mentioned characteristics of a terrorist organization.

Now that we know Why ISIS can be classified as a terrorist organization, it is also important to know how they came to be, and how they have escalated so quickly.

ISIS is the new kid on the block, how are they already this popular?

Perhaps the most concerning issue of ISIS, is the speed in which they have been able to form their organization and perpetrate the large scale damage they have inflicted.

1) Territory – Already, ISIS has been able to seize and control more territory than Al Qaeda ever did.[4]

2) Ties to Al Qaeda – As mentioned earlier, ISIS was born out of a terrorist cell in Iraq. Given their roots to Al Qaeda, their political message and loose framework of organization was largely already in place prior to January 2014. Because of this, they have been able to fast-track their plans and give the world something to pay attention to.

3) Self-Funding/Self-Sufficient – ISIS is striving for the creation of an Islamic state. Already, they have claimed large amounts of territory in Syria and Iraq, and in doing so have implemented a government style ruling order. They collect taxes, to fund their mission and act in an organized military style when claiming territory.[5]

4) Recruiting Capabilities – ISIS has found itself more appealing to the recruitment of Western combatants than Al Qaeda ever has. Already, hundreds of citizens from more than 50 countries have gone to Iraq and Syria[6] to join ISIS in various capacities, further concerning Western powers.

What is being done to combat ISIS?    

Clearly, ISIS is a force to be reckoned with, and the Western world is taking the fight against them very seriously. The United States has pledged to lead a coalition named, “Operation Inherent Resolve” meant to signal their willingness to “degrade and ultimately destroy the group.”[7] The United States has been involved militarily with ISIS in Iraq since August 8 2014[8], and has recently begun strategic air strikes. Canada has pledged their support for air-combat only, with the promise to re-evaluate in 6 months.[9] Although Canada’s involvement is limited for the time being, many other countries have pledged their support to the US for Operation Inherent Resolve.

Okay so there’s action, why should I be worried?

With so many countries signing on to aid in this coalition against ISIS, and ISIS’s continued barbaric behavior, there seems to be no signs of the conflict ending any time soon. Further, Western powers now fear the possibility of Western citizens, who have pledged their support to ISIS’s fight, re-entering their home countries with plans to launch terrorist attacks on home soil. Should this be the case in the future, it is uncertain how coalition partners will be able to fight both abroad, and at home.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/isis-iraq-numbers_n_5659239.html

[2] Aden Dur-e-Aden October 16 2014 POL360 lecture

[3] http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/09/world/isis-explained/

[4] http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/09/world/isis-explained/

[5] http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/09/world/isis-explained/

[6] http://time.com/3270896/isis-iraq-syria-western-fighters/

[7] http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-finally-names-isis-campaign-operation-inherent-resolve-1.2799669

[8] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/isis-mission-canadian-advance-team-leaves-for-kuwait-next-week-1.2796144

[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jordan-benadiba-/canada-war-isis_b_5983110.html

In the global age of technology and communication, news can travel the globe in an instant via countless channels including social media. This fact alone may be the only thing keeping the protests in Hong Kong from devolving into another Tiananmen Square. Regardless of this, tensions are still high on both sides of the conflict in China.

Slow Down, What is Happening in Hong Kong?

On August 14 2014, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, “demanded procedural barriers for candidates for [Hong Kong’s] leader that would ensure Beijing’s influence.” Since this announcement, protestors have descended upon the city and throughout the country, in peaceful civil disobedience, demanding the resignation of current Beijing-backed leader, Leung Chun-ying. All of this has happened in an effort to establish a more democratic election practice in Hong-Kong, which was promised by the Chinese government in 2007.

What is Being Done in Response to the Protests?

Yesterday, Mr. Leung addressed the protestors, saying his government would be happy to facilitate talks with student leaders, however these talks would be done through his deputy, Carrie Lam. In addition to the Committee Executive’s apparent political brush-off, he has also announced he will not be resigning his position, despite the protestor’s demands. Reportedly, protestors are not pleased with this announcement, however several student leaders have voiced their concerns for the safety of fellow protestors, calling for continued peace and respect.

So Why Is This Like Tiananmen Square?

There are many similarities between Hong-Kong’s Umbrella Protest, and Tiananmen Square. This is perhaps the most alarming fact for those directly involved, given China’s handling of Tiananmen Square in 1989.

1) Both movements have been largely student-led.
2) Protests have been in the form of civil disobedience with minor protestor brutality.
3) The iconic images of Tank Man, echo footage of the symbolic Umbrella Revolution.
4) Police brutality has been exerted – though not as harshly in Hong-Kong – in the course of both protests.

Sounds Like Tiananmen, Looks Like Tiananmen, But its Not?

Despite the apparent similarities between the two protests, many have faith the situation will not become an international incident like 1989. Why?

1) One Country – Two Systems
Hong-Kong, although part of China legally, operates under a one country, two systems regime. This fact alone guarantees certain freedoms and practices for Hong-Kong within their “mini-constitution.” These include rights the Tiananmen Square protestors were never granted. Additionally, Article 45 of the Basic Law (1990) states, “Hong Kong’s chief executive should eventually be chosen “by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”

2) “Hong Kong is China’s financial window to the world” 
As a result, any violent actions taken by the Chinese government would drastically damage the Chinese economy and have adverse effects on financial markets.

3) Protestors Remain Patient and Peaceful
This truly is a protest like no other.

4) Globalization, Communication, and Technology
In 1989, although the world was outraged by the violent actions of China’s government, they have since done a remarkable job of suppressing the memories. Today, the global exchange of information is instantaneous. Unfortunately for those who lost their lives or were injured in 1989, this freedom and speed of information exchange was not readily accessible by those who would have spoken out about the injustice. Because of China’s continued communist regime, access to information is limited, especially anything to do with Tiananmen Square. Citizen’s are unable to access any physical or digital information about Tiananmen Square, its protests, or the fateful events of June 4 1989. Additionally, every year around the anniversary, dissidents and those who may remember or speak out about the incident are rounded up and silenced. Despite China’s efforts to erase these painful memories, people still remember. Students learn of the events online, by travelling abroad, or studying on exchange. With the entire world remembering the injustice of June 4 1989, world powers will be watching closely and prepared to intervene should China chose to pursue a similar course of action. A decision that would most certainly cause China more harm than these protestors ever could.

Thursday September 18th, 2014, 86% of Scotland’s eligible voters came out to voice their opinion on the future independence of Scotland. “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

Well 55.3% of voters said “no” to Scottish independence. A slim majority with a even more surprising fallout.

Socio-political outcomes from this event are still in the forefront of international news. Surprisingly this referendum has resulted in little to no scandal or public backlash to report on. Instead of riots and angry speeches,  we are being bombarded with statistics and comparisons; that for some, may hit close to home in Canada.

How Does Scottish Independence Failing Bode for Quebec?

For Canadian’s, hearing Scotland would be heading to the polls to determine its union with the United Kingdom, has sparked some déjà vu. Quebec separatists have held, and failed in, two referendum votes to determine Quebec independence from Canada in the past thirty-four years.

Of course without all of the riots “the attitude of the Yes campaigners in the Scottish independence campaign could [have] lead to” to report on, instead we turn to comparison and predictions.

Voter Turn Out

First of all, we have to examine the numbers and raw data.

Scotland’s voter turnout on September 18 2014, was a whopping 86%. This is “one of the highest in the democratic world for any election or any referendum in history.” Quebec separatists still see a light of hope however when comparing Scotland and Quebec’s referendum turnouts.

86% as we said earlier, is incredible. However this wanes in comparison to the 1995 Quebec independence referendum, which boasted a 93% voter turnout.

Who Got to Vote?
Yet again, Scotland’s surprising the world with their peaceful and highly democratic practices!    For the first time, 16 and 17 year old Scottish citizens were able to vote. Did this tip the scales in favour of either camp? At this point it is too early to tell. However it can be verified that those in the 60 and over age demographic voted solidly in the “no” campaign’s favour.

Who got to vote in the Quebec referendums?

Well Quebec residents of course, but unfortunately only those who were of age of majority (18) in 1980 and 1995. In the instances of Quebec separatism however, the demographics voting in favour of separatism were largely those in the older age demographics.

So Really, the Scottish and Quebec Referendums are Similar?

Perhaps there is reason to give credit to certain parallels being drawn between the two “wanna-be-independents.” However perhaps the most important aspect when comparing these two territories is, would their independent state survive?

When comparing Scotland and Quebec in regard to their referendums, we must also consider their abilities to support themselves financially and provide for their people socially.

Scotland: Land of the Free (From London)

“Scots are already free to eat haggis, drink Irn-Bru, and toss poles. They have their own parliament and courts. But they can’t escape London’s orbit, and they aren’t happy about it.” The reality of Scotland’s situation, is many are voting not for independence from the UK, but from the city of London specifically. London, which is the financially draining overlord to Scottish economic prosperity.

So long story short. Yes, Scotland could survive as an independent state from the UK.
Could Quebec survive independently from Canada?

Quebec: We Can Still Use Your Military and Commerce, Right?

Not so much. If Quebec were to separate from Canada, majority of businesses have voiced intentions to leave the province and move production to the US or other parts of Canada. Without business investment and the use of the Canadian dollar, Quebec would quickly fail economically and cause a “liquidity crisis” in Canada as a whole, “as foreign investors [would] stop buying Canadian bonds until the confusion settles.”

In Conclusion

For as many articles that aren’t written about riots and political controversy surrounding Scotland’s referendum, there are just as many drawing parallels to Quebec separatism. Whether these parallels mean hope or discouragement to Quebec separatism, time will tell. In the mean time, the world will continue to follow this story closely. And this is surely not the last we will hear of separatism in Scotland or Quebec in the future I suspect. But then again, not everyone agrees.

The United States (US) has long been recognized as the world’s hegemon thanks to its economic, military and political power. Recently, many have theorized about the inevitability of a drastic change to the international order; the world without the US calling the shots.
Would this be a bad thing? Who would take their place at the helm?
Many believe the answer is China, and there is a lot of speculation of what this new world order would look like.

Hit Me With Some Talking Points

Political affiliation and ideologies aside, this debate generates a lot of controversy, but these facts are irrefutable.
The US has the three major characteristics of a Great Power:
1) economic might
2) military might
3) political influence/diplomacy

So the US is Top Dog, Why?

Despite all the money and guns in the world, it is the last of these three characteristics that makes the US a power that will be overthrown by none.  “The U.S. wields a power of influence, persuasion, and leadership on the international stage that no other state comes close to. She sets international law, ignores international law, and is accountable to no one.”

Say what you will about the US and their political history, but the US has manoeuvered the social-political minefield of the last 50 years surprisingly well, and made quite a few friends along the way. These alliances the US has made have then been used in what is a contemporary example of ‘collective security.’ The US uses collective security as well as its own arsenal of Great Power might, as a socio-political, economic and military trump card daily. How you ask?

USA, Ukraine vs. Russia

The current military and political climate in Eastern-Ukraine – where there is disputed territory between Russia and Ukraine – has been an international headache for months. In recent news however; Ukraine and Russia seem to be cooling off for the moment with a tentative ceasefire agreement. This cooling off period is following some major political and economic might from the US towards Russia, and might call for further intervention if Putin proves to be a problem in the future.

In recent months, the US has implemented economic sanctions against Russia for violating the sovereignty of Ukraine. Using their political might, the US has also convinced other countries to give Russia the cold shoulder as well. For example, on September 12, 2014 the European Union imposed their fourth round of sanctions against Russia. These sanctions are just the most recent example of global powers uniting to limit and punish Russia for their actions in Eastern-Ukraine. These particular sanctions further limit Russian banks from readily accessing credit, which is expected to have negative impacts upon the Russian economy. The US imposed sanctions on Russia beginning in March 2014, leading the global community, along with the EU, in pressuring Russia to end its involvement in Eastern Ukraine.

Gotcha, So Go Team USA?

In the global community, there is always a struggle for power be it in one form or another. There are so many factors and players, Realists believe this to be a global system of anarchy and chaos. The state of the global community aside, the one indisputable fact is the United States’ position as world hegemon. Their economic, military and political might have them so well insulated from outside threats to this power, such as China, their position as leader in the global community is secure. Despite any blow to their economic or military stability, the US still has created a weapon perhaps more powerful than its own military; a web of collective security and political alliances. So long as the US continues to play the role of world leader and maintain these alliances, the US is virtually unstoppable.

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