After land, sea, air and space, warfare had entered the fifth domain: cyberspace. Cyberspace is arguably the most dangerous of all warfares because of the amount of damage that can be done, whilst remaining completely immobile and anonymous.

In a new book Richard Clarke, a former White House staffer in charge of counter-terrorism and cyber-security, envisages a catastrophic breakdown within 15 minutes. Computer bugs bring down military e-mail systems; oil refineries and pipelines explode; air-traffic-control systems collapse; freight and metro trains derail; financial data are scrambled; the electrical grid goes down in the eastern United States; orbiting satellites spin out of control. Society soon breaks down as food becomes scarce and money runs out. Worst of all, the identity of the attacker may remain a mystery. Other dangers are coming: weakly governed swathes of Africa are being connected up to fibre-optic cables, potentially creating new havens for cyber-criminals and the spread of mobile internet will bring new means of attack.

The internet was designed for convenience and reliability, not security. Yet in wiring together the globe, it has merged the garden and the wilderness. No passport is required in cyberspace. And although police are constrained by national borders, criminals roam freely. Enemy states are no longer on the other side of the ocean, but just behind the firewall. The ill-intentioned can mask their identity and location, impersonate others and con their way into the buildings that hold the digitised wealth of the electronic age: money, personal data and intellectual property.

Deterrence in cyber-warfare is more uncertain than, say, in nuclear strategy: there is no mutually assured destruction, the dividing line between criminality and war is blurred and identifying attacking computers, let alone the fingers on the keyboards, is difficult. Retaliation need not be confined to cyberspace; the one system that is certainly not linked to the public internet is America’s nuclear firing chain.

Although for now, cyber warfare has not spiralled out of control, it is only a matter of time, before cyber warfare becomes the most prominent type of attack, and the most deadly because of its scope and anonymity.

*All of my opinions in this blog post were formed through the watching of “The Shadow Company” film, and the Skype call with Allen Bell. All the ideas are also extracted from these two sources, so I apologize if I do not directly mention them at certain points.

Private security in my opinion, is moral and ethical when it is used by the right people. These instances include the protection of People, Places and Things (as Allen bell calls it, ‘nouns’), for the greater good of the community, or by a justified international organization such as the U.N.  It is however unjustified when used in bad intention.

Allen Bell, the CEO of Global Risk presented an enlightening point of view which I feel many people don’t get the chance to witness.  When most people think of private security companies, it seems unethical because of the conclusion they draw from it. It is almost always shed in a violent, abusive light, in which private security companies are cause of death and destruction. In reality, this is often times not the case. Bell elaborated on a project that his company was a part of, in which his company was hired to protect the Dalha Dam in Afghanistan. To date, there have been no casualties on site throughout the duration of this project. This proves that Private security companies can also be beneficial in more than just an arms and weapons way, making it more ethical than it is thought to be. ‘The Shadow Company’ is also a great resource for thoroughly outlining the traditional perspective of private security companies, and unraveling what these companies actually do and why they do so.

Building off this, Private security companies are also highly beneficial to governments in several ways. They provide risk and security management in times of crises, additional military support, and enhanced security and protection. Another way these companies benefit governments, is that as mentioned in “The Shadow Company”, these mercenaries that can be hired through these companies represent no country, meaning that if I were to pass away, it would not be a massive uproar in the home country. Bell specifically brought up the instance of the Ottawa shootings, in which the deceased soldier was mourned for through a massive parade, where as numerous mercenaries who have passed away have not had the same influence. This is a good thing for governments as they are less liable in that sense. Additionally, because these mercenaries are so highly paid, as mentioned in the film, they are more loyal and better equipped for combat.

Adding to the points of not fighting under a particular flag and being highly specialized, this aids international organizations that find it essential to remain synchronized. For example, during the Rwandan Genocide crisis, the U.N sent in Belgian troops which caused a lot of tension in Rwanda because of the divide the Belgians had previously created between the Hutus and the Tutsis, escalating the issue further. If the U.N had chosen to send in a more neutral military support, it would have been more beneficial for the situation. If international organizations were to employ these private security companies, they would be able to create a more neutral foreground when coming into high-tension situations, and no particular country would feel obliged to ‘sacrifice’ troops in combat. Also this way, civilians do not feel like they are being intruded by a certain country or culture, as well as better overall military support.

This transitions into my last point that private security companies reduce the likelihood of self interest. Especially pertaining to international organizations, in many instances of UN humanitarian aid missions around the world, there has been great interference from personal interest, that have been detrimental to certain missions. With the use of private security councils, there would be no reason to not aid a situation that calls for attention. It automatically reduces the tension and debate over who will send how many troops to either protect or serve, creating a more efficient process of protection.

All in all, Private security companies are often seen for their violent side, but do not consider the benefits that Private security companies can actually reap. When used by the right people, such as government or international organizations, Private security companies can not only help with crisis management and military support, but they also protect expensive projects, reduce the likelihood of self interest and so on. Therefore it can be concluded that Private security companies can in fact be justified, moral and ethical.

By proper definition, I would say that Terrorism is never justified, but when stepping back to look at past dubbed ‘terrorist attacks’ or ‘terrorists’, it can be seen that maybe at times, Terrorism is what is needed. You might read this and think that I’m crazy, but stick around till the end and you’ll understand. In Lecture, Aden outlined that Terrorism must encompass all of these to be considered a terrorist act.

• Violent Act
• Non-State Actor
• Deliberate targeting of civilians
• Political Message/Objective

From this definition, I am extremely against acts of terrorism and terrorist. No matter how terrible the situation, the harming of civilians to convey a message is completely wrong. Not only is the harming of civilians completely illegitimate, Terrorism also often creates a perpetual state of poverty and anxiety. People are less likely to want to carry out their daily tasks, if they are afraid of attacks against them. People are also less likely to plan for their futures if they are unsure where this future will be. Often times, people tend to save less and take less risks because of this, meaning that less businesses will open up and so on. Similarly, international organisations and companies are less likely to set up in this country if it is politically or socially unstable. This would only harm the country’s economy, and the insecurity of local economy will only emphasise this never ending cycle of poverty and anxiety. Lastly, a great point against terrorism would be that often times, the governments which stem from terrorist occupations end up being corrupt. Nothing is achieved to improve the lives of the people in whose name terror has been used. These people will also likely appoint people who will abide to their power, who may be ignorant towards the political processes. This will only make the entire political system inefficient and biased towards a minority or a fringe interest. An example of this would be Iraq. It started as a westernising one and shifted to an islamic one, and is now hostile to its dissidents.

On the other hand, Terrorism can both attract attention to an issue, and create a dialogue about it. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate with them and make concessions to them. Where governments have not been willing to concede to rational argument and peaceful protest, terrorism can compel recognition of a cause. In some cases, people who were previously named Terrorist, became world changing leaders. Nelson Mandela moved from terrorist to President. In many other countries we see this trend too – in Israel, Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka, and in the Oslo peace process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause such as the hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s that brought publicity to the Palestinian cause, helping to bring it to the attention of the world.  The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view – the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified.

A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars – all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.

The more narrow definition of Terrorism as mentioned above, is by not means justified under any circumstance, but the broader definition may be in certain situation.

The United Nations, in my opinion, has done more wrong than good to our global community, and like the League of Nations that it stemmed from, it is failing, and slowly lacking purpose.

The United Nations was created after WW2, seeking to maintain security and peace, whilst developing the relations amongst nations. It currently has 192 members and has been extremely successful in some of its endeavors, both in conflict and war. However, the amount of success they have had clearly does not measure up to the number of preventable catastrophes that they have witnessed and are accountable for. Here are 5 (of many) of these preventable catastrophes and other situations that the UN is not handling well that I am talking about.

5. Nuclear Proliferation

In 1945 when the United Nations first started, the United States were the only nation to own and test Nuclear Weapons. As a safety precaution, 190 nations sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1970, including the five nations (France, England, Russia, China and the US) that admitted to owning nuclear weapons. Despite this treaty, nuclear stockpiles are increasing and remain extremely high, and a number of countries continue to develop these weapons . This purely present the ineffectiveness of the UN and their inability to enforce crucial regulation on offending nations.

4. Child Sex Abuse Scandal [This one truly sickens me]

In times of desperation and war, many nations have looked to the U.N for assistance, and the U.N. peacekeepers in blue helmets are meant to represent safety and stability, but instead they have only caused greater internal problems. In cases such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia and many others, there was a trend of child prostitution where the peacekeepers were. Soldiers would reward children with candy or even money to claim that the sexual nature of their relationship was prostitution instead of rape… Senior Officials in the U.N haven’t condemned this in fear of public shaming.. If the U.N can’t do this simpler task, why bother having a U.N? Especially If they can’t own up to their own mistakes.

3. The Veto Power

The U.N security council holds 15 nations. 5 permanent seat (France Russia, China, US and UK), and the other 10 are elected to serve 2 year terms. These 5 permanent members have veto power to overrule any of the voting that is done within the Security council. Even if all 14 of the other members voted yes for something, the veto vote would rule and the Council resolution will not be adopted. How is that fair in any way? One, clearly not enough countries have a say if the security council is only 15 members. Two, why have the Veto power? The big 5 could technically just act in their own interest and out rule everyone any way.. Why bother having a security council then?

2. Khmer Rouge

In 1975-1979, The Khmer Rouge (an extreme form of Communism) was ruling Cambodia. Finally in 1979, the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia to oust the Khmer Rouge and end the massacre of Ethnic Vietnamese, Chinese and Christians. The Leader Pol Pot was forced to exile and a new government was put in place in Cambodia. Shockingly, the U.N refused to recognize the new government of Cambodia, purely because it was backed by Vietnam, and Vietnam had just ended a decade long conflict with the U.S. It is extremely unreasonable that up till 1994 (almost 15 years after), the U.N recognized the Khmer Rouge as the true government of Cambia, despite the fact that they killed 2.5 Cambodians, which is about 33% of their population.

1. Rwanda

And Lastly, but definitely not leastly, the most devastating (in my opinion) failure of the U.N. – The Rwandan Genocide.

Following the Rwandan Civil war in 1990’s, tensions between the two ethnic groups, The Hutus and Tutsis, were at a dangerous high. In 1993, the U.N peacekeeping forces entered Rwanda to secure capital and enable humanitarian aid, but were not authorized to use military maneuvers to achieve these goals. In 1994 when Romeo Dallaire sent a cable to the U.N headquarters, detailing the imminent genocide of the Tutsi’s by the Hutus. They simply ignored these warnings, and completely refused to acknowledge it as a ‘genocide’. As the genocide continued and the world watched in disgust, the UN continued to do nothing, when they had the resources to help. Almost 1 million Rwandans were killed in this genocide, amounting to 20% of their population. How could an international peacekeeping body refuse to assist in something like this? Since then, the Right to Protect Doctrine (which enables the U.N to other countries to Intervene when another country is under to uphold sovereignty) has been put into place which will hopefully prevent this in the future, but it definitely does not forgive the damage they allowed.

The United Nations theoretically is an extremely valuable entity in our world, but the way it is being run needs to be reevaluated. If the U.N continues down this path, it will continually fail and end up as a potentially great promise, as the League of Nations was.

The Corruption Perception index, although extremely scientific, is not very accurate in my opinion. It doesn’t completely encapsulate what corruption entails, and could not possibly fully uncover all the corruption in a country.

Since the turn of the millennium, the Transparency international has published the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) annually ranking countries “by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.” Corruption can be hard to define, and in the perspective of the CPI, corruption is defined as the “misuse of public power for private benefit” and ranks 177 countries “on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). The way they measure or test corruption in a country is through a series of 13 surveys, from 12 different institutions, which include the World Bank and Freedom House. Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts. Early CPIs also used public opinion surveys.

This system has been greatly criticized for its validity due to it being a ‘percieved’ level of corruption, instead of an actual level of corruption.  Due to the fact that corruption is largely hidden, getting accurate results is impossible. The results of these also have a strong correlation between a countries gross domestic product and corruption in a country, which is unfair to relate. The Corruption Perception Index is also susceptable to perceptual biases, making it gravely inaccurate.

Alex Cobham in a Foreign Policy article in 2013 stated “CPI should be dropped for the good of Transparency International.It argues that the CPI embeds a powerful and misleading elite bias in popular perceptions of corruption, potentially contributing to a vicious cycle and at the same time incentivizing inappropriate policy responses. Cobham resumes: “the index corrupts perceptions to the extent that it’s hard to see a justification for its continuing publication.”

Transparency International attempted to create a less ‘elite’ based survey for corruption, and called the scale The Global Corruption Barometer. This surveyed 114,000 people within 107 different countries for their opinion, and ranked countries according to the result. Although this may seem more accurate as it consults public opinion, it is still swayed by bias, and the lack of awareness towards how corrupt a government could actual be.

In my opinion, no amount of surveying could ever fully expose how corrupt a country is, especially considering the hidden aspects of corruption and the biases that lie with it.

After 50 years of separation, South Korea and North Korea should remain two sovereign states. The gap in culture, economy and way of life has widened beyond reunification, and all attempts to reunify are futile, despite them once being the same country and stemming from the same values.

From 1910 till the closing days of World War 2, Korea was a colony of Japan. In 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and occupied the Northern part of Korea on the 38^th Parallel. In 1948, two separate governments had been set up (North and South), and in 1950, when conflict escalated, the Korean War began. The UN force led by the US, fought for the South and China assisted by the Soviet Union, supported the North. In 1953, after stalemate and attrition warfare, the armistice between North and South was signed, and a demilitarized zone was created between them.

50 years down the road, South and North Korea, which started as a united country, remains separated, and it seems are not as similar as they used to be. North Korea has completely different political views, economy, and cultural way of life. North Korea has an extremely repressive dictatorial regime, where as South Korea works on a democratic government. It is highly unlikely that either country would want to accept and function through the political values of the other, especially after 50 long years living the way that they have.

The North Korean economy is also mediocre compared to the vastness of the South Korean trading system alone. More is traded in South Korea in two days, than North Korea trades in a whole year! This too contributes to another factor of why they shouldn’t reunite; North and South Koreans over the years have also grown apart in physical features. North Koreans are 4.5 inches shorter than South Koreans, due to their lack of resources and trade, leading to food shortages throughout long periods during the year.

Also, as fellow Korean classmates have pointed out, it is not in the interests of Koreans to reunite anymore. Most of the older generations were in favour of the reunification of the two countries because families were split during the separation, and a united Korea was all that they knew. As this generation (put in the most respectful of ways) is dying out, the demand to reunite is slowly dying with them. For the younger generations, the South and North Koreas as separate states is all that they have ever experienced, and find no problem in the way things are. Thinking about what Korea would look like if they did reunite, it would be hard to distinguish where their alliances lie (the UN and US etc.. vs China), which political system to follow, and which economy to uphold.

Although many argue that North Korea is a failing state, and through war or other means, Korea will reunite, I strongly disagree, and truly believe that they are better off as separate states