The Observer XIII.III - 2017 by The Observer

THE OBSERVER XIII.III

From the EDITOR Happy New Year from The Observer team! For issue XIII.III we decided to take a look at which regions, conflicts, countries, and issues we thought would be newsworthy in 2017. As our writers submitted their work, common themes emerged between even the most diverse topics: pragmatism versus idealism, the redefining and challenging of identities, and obstacles to meaningful representation on the local, national, and international levels. To begin, The Observer’s assistant editors, Kelley Humber and Nicole Toole, take a critical look at the United Nations under a new Secretary-General. Then, our Intern, Rebecca Frost, writes about emerging nationalism in French politics. Expanding on this theme, Sean Adessky outlines how a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit could influence the possibility of Frexit. On the economic front, Haleigh Johns makes the case for why oil prices will continue to fluctuate despite OPEC’s assurances and Gavrilo Randjelovic outlines the pros and cons of NAFTA. Climate change is sure to be a major issue in 2017 with Monique Sereneo writing on pipeline construction and the end of the Paris Agreement, and Sean Stead-Fecser explains how a Trump presidency will affect American climate change policy. Finally, the issue concludes with a rundown of some of the countries on our radar in 2017. Kayla Maria Rolland looks at the next four years of a Trump Presidency through the lens of the media; Spencer Belyea writes on Russian resurgence; Nick Pearce analyzes the opening of Cuban diplomatic relations with America; Jacob D’Souza shares his thoughts on the Colombia peace deal; Ryan Anderson outlines the stakes for the Kenyan election, and I write about the tragic continuation of the Syrian Civil War. We are excited to share three external submissions for this issue. Michael Molyneaux expands the range of topics through a look at data asymmetry. William Rooney talks about the importance of international policy coordination for assisted dying. Finally, Robert Conor Tomalty makes the case why Turkey is at a domestic and international tipping point. If you have any remarks or concerns please feel free to email contact@queensobserver.org. We encourage you to consider writing for our next (and last) issue of the year. Please follow us on Facebook (Queen’s International Observer) and Instagram (theobserver_qiaa) for updates on our activity. Happy reading! Georgie Giannopoulos Editor-in-Chief Political Studies ‘17

ISSUE XIII.Ill

OUR TEAM

The views expressed by the authors are in character for the issue theme and do not necessarily reflect their personal views or the views of the Queen’s International Affairs Association.

Editorial Team Georgie Giannopoulos, Editor-in-Chief

Nicole Toole, Assistant Editor

Rebecca Frost, Intern

Kelley Humber, Assistant Editor

Georgie Giannopoulos is a fourth year political studies major and history minor and is the editor-in-chief of The Observer for 2016/2017. Her academic research interests include minority rights, ethnic conflict, international security, and constitutional law. She is completing an honours thesis discussing next steps in solving the ‘Cyprus Question’. Outside of the academic realm Georgie enjoys playing violin in the Queen’s Symphony Orchestra, volunteering at Martha’s Table, and is the Vice Chair of the Alma Mater Society’s Board of Directors.

Rebecca Frost is in her first year at Queen’s. She hoping to take a medial in Mathematics and Economics with a certificate in Global Development Studies. Her eventual goal is to attend law school. Her research interests lie with the study of global economic systems and the impact of economic policies on contemporary development practice. Rebecca is very excited to begin her involvement in the Queen’s community as a first-year intern with The Observer.

Nicole Toole is a third year undergraduate student studying a medial in Political Studies and Global Development with a Certificate in Business. Her passion towards international relations and development studies led to her join The Observer. Nicole is excited to be one of the Assistant Editors for the 2016/2017 year! Alongside of her work with The Observer, Nicole is part of Queen’s Students for Literacy Prison Literacy Initiative, and a Supervisor for Helen Tuft Child Outreach Program.

Kelley Humber is a third year Political Studies and History medial, and one of The Observer’s Assistant Editors for 2016/2017. Her academic interests include Eastern European politics and Canadian ally relations. She spent her past summer as a Research Fellow with the Queen’s History Department working on a project about foreign aid to Soviet Russia. Apart from The Observer, Kelley is involved with Politicus Journal and is a member of the Queen’s Rowing Team.

Raine Storey, Layout Editor

Raine Storey is a graphic and visual artist who works in a variety of different mediums, specializing in illustration. Raine’s work features a range of visual narratives with a strong focus on realism. At fifteen, Raine began a custom illustration and graphic design business, Raine Storey Illustration. She is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Fine Arts (Hons.) as a Loran Scholar at Queen’s University.

Writers

Ryan Anderson, Spencer Belyea, Jacob D’Souza, Rebecca Frost, Haleigh Johns, Michael Molyneaux, Nick Pearce, Gavrilo Randjelovic, Kayla Maria Rolland, William Rooney, Monique Sereneo, Sean Stead-Fecser, Robert Conor Tomalty. March 2017

CONTENTS 6

THE UNITED NATIONS: A Pinch of Confidence Looking Ahead By: Kelley Humber

THE UNITED NATIONS: A Few Misgivings Looking Ahead By: Nicole Toole

LA PLUS NOUVELLE DROITE: Emerging Approaches to Nationalism in French Politics By: Rebecca Frost

12 14

SCHRODINGER’S BREXIT By: Sean Adessky

COMING TOGETHER ON ASSISTED DYING By: William Rooney

THE FUTURE OF NAFTA: Free Trade in a Trump World By: Gavrilo Randjelovic

A SLIPPERY SLOPE: The Price of Oil in 2017 By: Haleigh Johns

ISSUE XIII.Ill

SHORT-CHANGING CLIMATE CHANGE: Why New Pipelines mean the End of the Paris Agreement By: Monique Sereneo

20 22 24

IN A NOT SO SYMMETRICAL WORLD By: Michael Molyneaux

“HAPPY NEW YEAR TO All...” By: Kayla Maria Rolland

WITH RUSSIA IN 2017, IT’S ALL THE SMALL THINGS THAT MATTER By: Spencer Belyea

26 28

CUBA’S NEW COLD WARRIORS By: Nick Pearce

COLOMBIAN PEACE DEAL: A Model Forward or a Failed Act of Appeasement? By: Jacob D’Souza

TURKEY ON THE EDGE By: Robert Conor Tomalty

DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS IN KENYA By: Ryan Anderson

THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR (2012 – Date Unknown) By: Georgie Giannopoulos March 2017

THE UNITED NATIONS:

A Pinch of Confidence Looking Ahead By: Kelley Humber As New York City’s Times Square Ball dropped this January 1st it marked the official start date for the United Nation’s (UN) new Secretary-General, António Guterres.The news of his unanimous appointment came on October 13th, 2016. His swearing-in ceremony was held December 12th and took place in New York City as well, at the UN’s General Assembly Hall. Guterres is the ninth person to hold the post of UN Secretary-General in the organization’s 72year history. He takes over this position from the two-term, and now former, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of South Korea.

Interestingly, the many of the criticisms and short fallings of Ban Ki-moon seem to be recognized as personal strengths of Guterres. There were many remarkable new developments during Ban Ki-moon’s 10-year term that changed and expanded the power of international governance. Among them was the institutionalization of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, spearheaded by Ban Ki-moon himself, which is a global political commitment to prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. Further, he facilitated landmark developments in global governance agreements surrounding climate change action that culminated in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, coming into effect this past November. However, one of the major criticisms of the soft-spoken Ban Ki-moon is that he was far too hesitant to criticize major powers. This is a tragic downfall for some, since the position of Secretary-General can’t boast much in the way of formal economic or military power. Rather, their central mode of influence is the amount of persuasive power they hold over state and civil society leaders. In this way, the effectiveness of the UN Secretary-General is largely dependent on the willingness of other countries to listen to the UN at that particular moment in time. Now, although there are a plethora of factors at play during peace negotiations, Ban Ki-moon was the man at the helm of a series of peace talks in Syria and Yemen that disappointingly failed to bring about so-desired peace agreements. What remains is a varied success rate for the exiting Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

As Portugal’s Prime Minister between 1995-2002, António Guterres is the first former statesman to ever be appointed to the UN’s highest diplomatic post. He was a member of the Portuguese Socialist Party and is remembered domestically for his bold policy of all-out decriminalization of drugs during the country’s heroin overdose endemic. He entered the international stage when he became the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees is 2005. In this position, he gained the reputation of being an outspoken advocate for refugees. Mark Leon Goldberg, a journalist at UN Dispatch, reflected on Guterres’ time as UN Commissioner by explaining how “[he] constantly positioned himself as the voice of world refugees; a sort of moral who would put his own career prospects on the line by calling out powerful countries”.

ISSUE XIII.Ill

This being said, Ban Ki-moon came into the position with very little background in Middle Eastern and African conflicts. In contrast, Guterres has been intimately involved with these communities, regions, and conflicts throughout his past 10 years as the UN High Commissioner on Refugees. Therefore, he is presumably better equipped to oversee the variety of crises and conflicts in these regions. Paired with his regional conflict knowledge, Guterres has cemented a reputation for being an eloquent speaker and negotiator, and being outspoken about human rights specifically. Considering the necessity of using the UN Secretary-General post as an international norm pulpit to be effective, Guterres’ strength of voice will prove essential to maximizing the UN’s persuasive power. This is vital moving forward into 2017 because the new UN Secretary-General faces an international refugee crisis, the seeming rise of global terrorism, continued regional conflicts, and a slow freezing of relations between Russia and the West. What may be most pertinent to the functioning of the UN is the widening gulf between Russia and Western countries. This can be problematic for UN effectiveness because a divided Security Council significantly impairs the capabilities of the entire organization. Further, the UN receives considerable criticism about its perceived bureaucratic glut. Yet, what has been most remarkable about Guterres’ past experience is the exceptional management skills he brings to the organization. He was able to reduce, by half, the operation costs of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) while improving its responsiveness and capacity to help refugees and migrants. This was accomplished by moving staff out of the UNHCR head office and closer to crisis hotspots. With all of this in mind, what should be most refreshing for the international community about the next term Secretary-General is his clear commitment to insisting on the humanity of those who are struggling. In a Times article last year, António Guterres wrote, “We can’t deter people fleeing for their lives. They will come. The choice we have is how we manage their arrival, and how humanely.” In an era marked by the tendency towards inward-looking states and xenophobia, a loud voice of dissent from the UN pulpit may be the reminder we need that indifference is the crutch of inhumanity.

March 2017

THE UNITED NATIONS: A Few Misgivings Looking Ahead By: Nicole Toole

The founding of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 embodied a new era of optimism for world peace and development. This optimism was essential to international society upon the tragedies of the world wars. However, the idealistic opinions surrounding the UN have faded during its 72 years of operation. The institutions’ framework enables uneven power dynamics to influence its decision-making processes. The core Security Council members – China, Russia, France, the United States (U.S.), and the United Kingdom - are privileged with veto powers. These veto privileges give the states leverage in the decision-making process, a superior status compared to the remaining 188 nations. Such undemocratic practices of the UN have been brought to light upon the recent appointment of the new Secretary-General, António Guterres. The Secretary General is appointed in an undemocratic process, granting the Security Council ultimate control of deciding who is appropriate

for the position. The Security Council members discuss possible candidates in closed meetings. Upon consensus of candidates, the Security Council recommends them to the General Assembly, where a vote is held. The lack of equitable global representation within the Security Council enables bias and internal politics to control the recommendations of candidates. The UN grants core members of the Security Council, especially Russia, the U.S., and China, immense power and control within the international sphere. These states’ veto powers eliminate the possibility of UN sanctioned actions against China’s human right violations, Russia’s undemocratic practices, and the U.S.’s unsanctioned invasions of countries, such as Iraq. A double-standard is deeply apparent within the institution. The undemocratic procedures and absence of action are apparent in the contemporary Syrian crisis and the ongoing Israeli-Palestine conflict. The Syrian government’s alliance with Russia has stopped the UN Security

The UN office never openly condemned the actions of their peacekeepers

ISSUE XIII.Ill

Council from taking actions towards conflict reduction. Similarly, Israeli ties with the U.S. have prevented sanctions and further actions from being employed. These asymmetric power dynamics and the stark lack of conflict prevention demonstrated within the UN, are not contemporary problems. For example, shortly after the establishment of the UN, a resolution was passed stating that the only state able to own and test nuclear weapons was the U.S. In 1970, a non-proliferation treaty was signed by 190 nations, including five states (France, England, Russia, China, and the United States) that had admitted to owning nuclear weapons. This example speaks to the organization’s double standard and lack of enforcement of passed resolutions.The lack of enforcement has contributed to perception of the UN as a figurehead rather than a governing body. Similarly, from 1983 to 2009 Sri Lanka experienced one of its bloodiest civil wars. Then-Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, expressed how appalled he was with the situation, yet no action ensued. The war displaced of over 196,000 citizens, and killed over 6,500 civilians in a four-month period. Finally, and perhaps most shockingly, child prostitution drastically rose in regions where UN peacekeepers were present during the 1990’s. These regions included Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia, Haiti, and Mozambique. The UN did not have a strict code of discipline, accountability, or transparency, thus enabling these horrific actions to occur. The iconic blue helmets of the peacekeepers are supposed to represent safety and trust. Yet, soldiers often rewarded children with candy or small sums of money in exchange for sexual service. Soldier’s often tried to claim a ‘relationship status’ with the child to deterred the notion of rape or prostitution. The UN office never openly condemned the actions of their peacekeepers due to the fear it would adversely impact the organization’s reputation and prevent further states from joining. These are only a few of abundant critiques and flaws of the UN. There is no doubt the international institution, to a certain extent, positively impacts the global community and nations where missions are employed. However, it is time to discuss a restructuring of the organization to better reflect modernity and our ever-evolving international society. The organization should transition to more democratic practices, and hold each member equally accountable for human rights violations. Politics has too greatly influenced the decision-making processes harming numerous global citizens, including those in Aleppo, Sri Lanka, and the victims of sex trafficking. António Guterres’ high regard for human rights brings optimism for the elimination of the UN’s deeply rooted double standards, and for victims of human rights atrocities to receive peace and justice rightly deserved. As citizens, we should continue to discuss the flaws of the UN, and seek reform by pressuring for an inquiry into the organization’s undemocratic practices.

March 2017

LA PLUS NOUVELLE DROITE:

Emerging Approaches to Nationalism in French Politics

By: Rebecca Frost

ISSUE XIII.Ill

France’s impending election promises to once again test the resilience of long-standing Western political norms. The Brexit vote, along with the election of Donald Trump, and the backlash against the forces of globalization that helped bring them about, signal the potential demise of modern political and diplomatic goals of economic liberalization and international cooperation. France’s decisions at the polls this April could represent either hope for their continuation or the further erosion of decades-old political and economic realities. The current French President, François Hollande, has decided not to run for re-election due in part to his extreme lack of popularity. He’s had little success reviving the country’s economy, which many critics argue has been stifled by decades of socialist regulation. By OECD estimates, France’s GDP grew only approximately 1% in 2016, and the unemployment rate was 10.2% in 2016. Despite promises of economic reform in the last election, the socialist government has failed to significantly reduce the number of regulations in place. In addition to contending with a sluggish economy, France has also faced a string of deadly terrorist attacks in the last two years, significantly undermining public confidence in Hollande’s leadership. This perceived failure of the socialist political establishment has left the door open for the right wing factions of French politics to capitalize on the frustrations of the French people. Marine Le Pen of the Front National is the voice of the far right. Similar to President Trump and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), Le Pen’s campaign has tapped into anxieties regarding the recent influx of immigrants, as well as the feeling of national decline surrounding the poor economy, which she blames on the rampant forces of globalization. There is, however, a second and compelling voice competing for the minds and votes of the right-wing base. This voice belongs to François Fillon. Fillon is the French Republican Party’s presidential nominee. Fillon presents a fascinating challenge to Le Pen’s campaign. He served as Prime Minister from 2007 to 2012 and is a staunch social conservative, pro-business, and an open admirer of Margaret Thatcher - a peculiar anomaly given that the term “Thatcherism” has historically been used as a derogatory term in France due to the dominance of socialist economic thought in the country. Importantly, he is gaining popularity among the dejected rural demographic that Le Pen relies so heavily on, winning up to 89% of the vote in some rural areas during the Republican Party primaries.

In order to understand Le Pen’s initial appeal to her voter base, and how Fillon may snatch the presidency from her, the history of the Front National, and of France’s broader sense of national identity merits a closer look. Marine Le Pen and the Front National are appealing to a wavering sense of national pride and an overall feeling of national decline in France. Their outlook and strategy is grounded in decades of political history. The Front National, founded by Le Pen’s father, grew out of the Nouvelle Droite movement in the 1970’s. In similar fashion to today’s alt-right movement, it drew popularity from public anxieties surrounding a rising immigrant population. In the early 1900’s, the strategy of the Nouvelle Droite movement and the Front National shifted towards a fight against globalization. Instead of maintaining their argument that the presence of foreigners was damaging to France’s national unity and identity, their focus shifted to promoting a fear of the socio-economic challenges brought about by both globalization and American hegemony. The rejection of American-style policies and influence has been a source of defiance and strength in the French political tradition since the end of the World War II. France’s recent left-leaning economic policies in particular has in part been a deliberate rejection of the neoliberal shift in global economic orthodoxy. France’s historically hostile view of globalization and right-wing American-style economic values makes Francois Fillon a curious counter to Le Pen’s populism. Given the floundering economy, Fillon’s promise of a more globally competitive France may have a powerful appeal to the nationalist passions of the French electorate. For Fillon, freer engagement with the forces of globalization does not represent submission to American economic and cultural domination, but rather the opening of an avenue to renew national pride and to garner economic might. Fillon’s campaign will be a critical front in the fight to preserve progressive ideals of inclusion, globalism, and diversity in modern political life. Alt-right movements thrive on a lost sense of national identity, and they pin much of the blame for this on interference, both cultural and economic, from the wider world. Fillon’s approach offers the French people a new avenue for national pride, one based in economic might and influence within the global economy, not based in tribalism and exclusive notions of nationhood. Fillon seems to represent an effective challenge to the tide of populism rising over the Western world, and as 2017 issues further obstacles to meaningful modern democracy, it a challenge worth paying attention to.

March 2017

SCHRODINGER’S BREXIT By: Sean Adessky The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s marked the beginning of a newly integrated Europe, one defined by more open borders, increased free trade, and a more cohesiveness continent. However, the rise of terrorism and backlash from the effects of globalization have begun to reverse this process because a growing segment of the population has come to believe that greater independence and increased protectionism is more conducive to safety and productivity. The first real sign of this change came with the Brexit vote, as one of the European Union’s (E.U.) biggest contributors seems destined to leave. But what exactly does “leave” mean, and what can we actually expect to see with regards to Brexit in 2017? The main question to be answered is whether Britain decides to go for a ‘hard Brexit’ or a ‘soft Brexit,’ as this will essentially dictate the extent to which Britain is going to separate from the E.U. on multiple levels. An early clue came in the New Year, when, in her first press conference of 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May said that an independent Britain would do what “independent, sovereign countries do”. Namely, “We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration. And we will be free to pass our own laws.” For Brexit supporters, the free movement of people was the principal issue that drove the debate, was consistently railed against, and was ultimately one that successfully convinced 52% of the population that restrictions needed to be imposed. It remains unclear exactly what will happen, but we can expect an increase in tougher immigration laws to limit the number of immigrants that enter the country.

ISSUE XIII.Ill

Economically, the main issue is whether or not Britain can remain part of the E.U. single market. Perhaps the biggest benefit of being part of the E.U. has been the absence of tariffs on the flow of goods that facilitated the encouragement of free trade between Britain and the other members of the EU. Should Britain truly choose to leave this market, it could have damaging effects on local manufacturers that would no longer be protected, making it much harder for them to sell their goods outside of Britain. Indeed, Sir Andrew Cook, one of the Tory’s biggest supporters, has repeatedly asserted that leaving the single market would force him to move his business elsewhere. He noted that one of his factories is entirely dependent on trade with France, Germany, and Italy, and that he would not be trading with them were it not for the single market. Likewise, consumers would find that foreign goods will become much more expensive, particularly as the pound plunges in value. At the same time, Britain could find herself losing her spot as the financial center of Europe. Likewise in December, Lloyd’s of London became the first major financial institution to put a timetable in place to move some of its operations outside Britain, while several Japanese financial institutions said they would follow suit as well. The obvious response to this would be to pursue a ‘soft Brexit,’ allowing Britain to remain part of the single market while eliminating the free movement of people. May herself stated that the goal of the finalized Brexit deal would be to “addresses the concerns of the British people about free movement, while getting the best possible deal on trade in goods and services”. British politicians have repeatedly claimed that a deal must restrict the movement of people, but Brexit secretary David Davis recently acknowledged that single market membership was “very improbable” if it meant “giving up control of our borders”. Indeed, we have already seen numerous European politicians pushing back hard on this option. French President Francoise Hollande has been among those who have stated that for the United Kingdom to enjoy access to the single market, they must keep open borders. Moreover in 2016, then Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said they would not tolerate giving Britain more rights than other members. Trade and immigration are thus the two clear issues to be addressed as part of Brexit in 2017, and it remains to be seen what type of deal Britain will be able to secure. At present, her desire to remain part of the single market, while closing her borders, does not seem to be supported by European counterparts. As Oliver Letwin observed, Britons’ wish list seems to be a situation of wanting to have cake and eat it too. A related issue will be the potential domino effect of Britain’s decision to leave the E.U. French President Marine Le Pen has already stated that a ‘Frexit’ would be on the table should she win the upcoming election. Likewise, the rise of the farright parties such as Alternative für Deutschland in Germany and the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) has shown that further fracturing of the E.U. could very well be in the cards. For now, there is not much to do but sit, wait and see. Political quotes are helpful to assess intentions, but as can be seen, there are very few issues that both Britain and Europe seem to agree on. Essentially, it remains to be seen if Britain will be able to have her cake and eat it too.

March 2017

COMING TOGETHER ON ASSISTED DYING By: William Rooney

cademic and legal debates on assisted dying in the last two years have shaped the lives and deaths of thousands. In February 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously declared Canada’s antiquated ban on physician assisted suicide to be unconstitutional. It granted the then-Conservative government a year to draft new legislation, and awarded the current Liberal government an additional four months to compensate for turnover. Later that year, Dr. Udo Schuklenk and Dr. Suzanne van de Vathorst published a piece arguing that medical assistance in dying (MAID) should be accessible to competent individuals with severe treatment resistant depression (TRD), on the grounds that their suffering, low rate of treatment success, and loss of dignity is analogous to the situation faced by terminally-ill patients.Their argument is rooted in Western legal tradition, which emphasizes individual freedoms and demands that restrictions of those freedoms be justified by demonstrable harm. Critics respond that this understanding of individual autonomy is very clearly an ideal, and one that, without nuance, seems to fit quite poorly into the contemporary debate on assisted dying. Severe TRD often presents with comorbidities – other problematic disorders and neuroses – that undermine the decision-making abilities of those afflicted. The concern is then translating between judgments about these abilities (which are assessed on a gradient) and a final judgment about legal competence (which is categorical). This translation is difficult, and opponents of MAID for psychiatric patients point to potential error, and even abuse. Recent opposition to medical assistance in dying, then, has advocated for separate legal standards for vulnerable persons. One suggestion is the “foreseeable death” clause, popularized by the recently passed Canadian Bill C14.This measure restricts access to assisted dying to those who are terminally ill. It claims to safeguard vulnerable people who are suffering and dying from unmet needs. Regardless of the position one takes on this spe-

ISSUE XIII.Ill

THE FUTURE OF NAFTA:

Free Trade in a Trump World By: Gavrilo Randjelovic

cific issue, it is only one of many present in the debate on assisted dying. This debate is further complicated because it transcends Canada’s borders; other countries have had permissive assisted dying regimes since the early 2000’s. For instance, Belgium and the Netherlands have no end of life requirement. Both allow psychiatric patients to access MAID and feature retroactive oversight rather than prior approval. As these features are in line with recommendations made by supporters of a liberal MAID regime in Canada, objectors to such a regime have demanded individuals defend documented abuses in these countries. In this way, reforming Canada’s health care system in a responsible manner requires policy-makers to look to the systems of the rest of the world. Moreover, it is also unclear whether prohibition would be effective at preventing access for all psychiatric patients. Other states, such as Switzerland, have long had assisted suicide for foreign nationals (sometimes criticized as “suicide tourism”). Local prohibitions in Canada would only serve to further privilege those who can afford international travel and private medical care. Insofar as patients may seek assistance in dying in another country with particularly loose legislation, inconsistent policy across countries risks magnifying the problems present in any one assisted dying regime. This final concern highlights the need for international cooperation on assisted dying policy. Legitimate concerns about abuses would be best addressed by introducing international guidelines. Of course, there ought to be room for some differences, it is hardly inconceivable that the doctor-patient relationship differs in the Netherlands versus Canada - let alone in a private versus a public system like the United States and Canada. Whatever 2017 brings, it will certainly involve further discussion of this contentious issue in contemporary medical ethics. Let us hope that this discussion reaches across domestic borders.

In an era of declining American industry and heightened levels of income inequality, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has come under significant scrutiny from populists on both the left and right. These critics have jointly denigrated the pact and those who originally championed it as acting in the interest of American multinationals at the expense of workers and national sovereignty. NAFTA was developed in the early 1990’s and was implemented in 1994, following joint efforts by the United States (U.S.), Canada, and Mexico. Superseding the Canadian-United States free trade agreement, it sought to create a common market across the entirety of North America’s three most populous and economically powerful states. Since its inception, American trade with Canada and Mexico has approximately quadrupled, creating net GDP gains in all three countries.The U.S. is the largest trading partner of both Canada and Mexico, and continued free trade is tremendously important to both state economies. In America, however, President Trump has not shown reservations in expressing his distaste for the agreement; an agreement that he describes as a ‘disaster’, promising to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA during his tenure. This rhetoric could be broadly described as protectionist, as it seeks to prioritize and support domestic industries, despite potential efficiency losses. As such, it lent weight to an intellectual critique of Trump, primarily by economists most of whom have fairly positive thoughts about NAFTA’s effect on American trade. Trump’s denouncement has also created unease among Canadian and Mexican businesses, especially those possessing strong trading relationships with the U.S.

The aforementioned positive view of NAFTA, predominant amongst economists, relates to the idea that the free trade agreement, and others like it, usually create efficiencies and are overall beneficial for the parties involved. However, they are careful to describe their benefits as being ‘Kaldor-Hicks’ efficient, an obscure but intuitive economic term essentially describing a type of outcome where there are net gains but individual parties may be negatively impacted. In the case of NAFTA and similar agreements, that party tends to be the industrial workers who find themselves outcompeted by a greater availability of highly affordable outsourced labour. The solution, economists argue, is for those that benefit from the agreements to compensate the ‘losers’ such that everyone involved experiences benefits. Herein lies the devil that Trump has positioned himself as a vanquisher of; this sort of compensation would require a significant and meaningful action by the government that has so far been absent. However, criticisms of NAFTA have been expressed by influential economists, including Nobel Laureate and academic economist Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz has been a prominent critic of free-trade agreements including NAFTA and the far more comprehensive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Stiglitz critiques these agreements for the inequality in gains they create, as well as their alleged subversion of national judicial systems through dispute resolution provisions that allow multinational firms to sue governments for lost revenues. Nevertheless, Stiglitz belongs to a group of left-of-center economists who, despite understanding the flaws many free trade agreements possess, emphasize their potential and have spoken out vehemently against Trump’s economic nationalism. They have derided the President’s

President Trump has not shown reservations in expressing his distaste for the agreement; an agreement that he describes as a ‘disaster’

March 2017

protectionism as regressive and ultimately harmful to overall prosperity, citing evidence of output gains from freer trade policies within the U.S. and abroad. Following Trump’s election as President, markets reacted strongly in a manner that would suggest a complete catastrophe for North American trade – Mexico’s Peso slid a record 13%, and corporations that conduct extensive transnational trade started to prepare for the worst. However, when President Trump released his 100-day plan of policy changes he would put forth immediately upon assuming the presidency, NAFTA was conspicuously absent, with no mention of an intended scrapping or even renegotiation. Pulling the plug on TPP remained a priority, as expected, given the very substantial general opposition to the agreement both amongst citizenry as well as many economists – but NAFTA remained untouched. Could it be that, heeding the calls of pragmatism and orthodox economic thought, he has decided to spare NAFTA from destruction? In December of 2016, it was hinted strongly that President Trump would appoint conservative commentator Lawrence Kudlow as his Chief Economist. A devout free-market capitalist, Kudlow has expressed his support for NAFTA in the past and is not likely to change his position, especially as President Trump continues to staff his cabinet with more typically Republican pro-trade candidates.

The potential for President Trump to negotiate changes to NAFTA still exists – most specifically surrounding the provisions within NAFTA which allow Canadian and Mexican companies to challenge U.S. courts and regulations. President Trump’s nominee for commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, has explicitly stated his desire to analyze such amendments. Although this sort of revision is very much in line with President Trump’s ‘America First’ rhetoric, it sets a strong precedent for the other involved parties and for future trade deals, potentially curbing the threats to sovereignty that have been at the center of trade-deal criticism. Thus, there is a certain ray of light to Trump’s controversial views on TPP and NAFTA; the direction he is taking may pave the way towards more generally acceptable trade agreements between America and other countries. Of course, there are an additional plethora of concerns with the direction in which U.S. trade is headed. Although President Trump has brought to the forefront of discourse the sovereignty-specific criticism of trade deals, he has not touched on the topic of worker compensation and the manner in which free trade agreements may be leveraged to benefit the maximum number of involved parties. This lax approach to inequality may roughly be contiguous with President Trump’s visible tendency towards supply-side economics and may reflect poorly on his promises of better prospects for American workers. In the end, it will be up to President Trump and his administration decide the future of NAFTA as well as American trade in general – the only thing we can be sure of is that it will be radically different from the direction free trade taken thus far.

ISSUE XIII.Ill

A SLIPPERY SLOPE: The Price of Oil in 2017

By: Haleigh Johns

ear after year, the price of oil is discussed, projected, and estimated – and 2017 is no exception. Projections from multiple sources are expecting that the price of oil in this coming year will hit somewhere between$50 USD and $60 USD per barrel. Although the price of oil has reached this in the past, what is different about this year’s prediction is that this is expected to be a constant price. In other words, oil is expected to hit the $50 USD per barrel mark and stay there. However, if this past year is anything to go by, the price of oil is anything but stagnant. 2016 began with the price of oil at a startlingly low $30 USD per barrel and ended with oil reaching $55 USD per barrel, the latter being a 17-month high. This recent spike in oil prices can be attributed to a new deal by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to reduce the output of oil being put on the market in order to push the price per barrel upwards, a move that OPEC hopes will bring new life to a struggling global oil and gas industry. This deal requires nearly all OPEC member countries to cut their oil output for the first six months of 2017. If these constant high oil prices projected for 2017 do indeed end up happening, the oil industry as a whole would experience a deficit-free fiscal year for the first time since the economic downturn of 2008. This would result in increased drilling and job creation that the oil industry has desperately sought for the past nine years. In particular, a steady price of oil above $50 USD per barrel would revive the North American oil and gas industry, which has struggled for nearly a decade following the 2008 financial crisis. With the economic downturn decreasing the energy consumption of the middle class, the North American oil industry, and especially the fracking industry in Texas in the United States (U.S.), has suffered. Although the thought of the price of oil sitting at above $50 USD per barrel for an entire year brings hope to the oil industry, it becomes hard to justify when looking at

the recent history of oil prices. In the past five years alone, the price of oil has fluctuated between highs of above $115 USD per barrel and lows of below $30 USD per barrel. With such a large range of prices in recent history, it seems unlikely that the price of oil will suddenly plateau within a $10 USD per barrel range, regardless of the recent OPEC deal. The OPEC deal itself, while aiming to cut output and raise the price of oil, may in itself be counter-intuitive. Member countries of OPEC located in the Middle East may be tempted to cheat the deal. Iraq is still caught in a costly battle against the Islamic State, and will presumably need as many petrodollars from domestic oil as they can get in order to fund their ongoing military operations. Saudi Arabia, the state usually behind the OPEC pushes to raise the price of oil, may be wary of losing oil exports to rivals such as China and India. Finally, Saudi Arabia’s main regional rival, Iran, may as a result feel as though they must continue to increase oil output in order to best Saudi Arabia. The OPEC deal is further complicated as two member countries are actually exempt from the imposed cut in oil output. Libya, which has experienced a tumultuous past few years, has not been required to decrease its oil output. Similarly, Nigeria has been fighting the terrorist organization Boko Haram and requires petrodollars to keep this military operation ongoing. All in all, it’s hard to believe that the price of oil will remain at a steady $50 USD per barrel in 2017. Although the recent OPEC deal may raise the price of oil initially (as we saw in the last month of 2016), the complications faced by several member countries of OPEC call the effectiveness of the agreement into question. Therefore, the deal may in fact result in the price of oil declining, or fluctuating at the least. With political unease, ongoing military operations, and regional rivalries at play, the price of oil will most likely continue to constantly change throughout 2017, as it has done for the past five consecutive years.

March 2017

SHORT-CHANGING CLIMATE CHANGE: By: Monique Sereneo

Why New Pipelines mean the End of the Paris Agreement

When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that they would temporarily halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline in the Northern United States (U.S.) last November, the collective commendation the world gave itself was not entirely without merit. After all, it was a victory in terms of Indigenous land rights and the power of public pressure activism in a world where the global temperature has risen 0.8 °C since 1880. The announcement represented hope; perhaps, this victory would usher in a new era of environmental stewardship and increased governmental action on climate change. However, as celebrations shrouded the inevitably temporary nature of the pipeline’s halted construction, fourteen new U.S. pipeline projects were being planned and eight Canadian pipelines were set to move through the approval stage. At this rate, 2017 appears to represent little improvement where the environment is concerned. It isn’t entirely a problem of pipelines, but rather, the structure of the economies in which they are being built. In both the U.S. and Canada, the oil and gas sector constitute a large portion of the economy. While the Dakota Access Pipeline created environmental and Indigenous land rights concerns, the government viewed its construction as the safest and most cost-effective way to transport a major commodity. Similarly, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faced strong public dissent when he approved the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project in November of 2016. Nevertheless, the predicted $4.5 billion revenue to the federal and provincial government took precedence over increased carbon emissions and any risk of oil spills. Given the current status quo, it’s difficult to address the fact that Arctic ice is shrinking at a rate of 13.3% per decade when governments cater to the needs of large corporations and booming natural resource industries. This notion is depressingly clear amid the one-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. 123 countries ratifying an international agreement to strengthen the global response to climate change is a promising concept. However, the disparity between ratifying the Paris Agreement and subsequently

ISSUE XIII.Ill

implementing policy or rejecting lucrative pipeline projects is only exacerbated by such an agreement’s aspirational language and vague promises. It’s what makes the apparent victory over the Dakota Access Pipeline all the more dismal. Months of media attention and protests culminating in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ announcement demonstrate that this was a success belonging not to policy, but to the public. It is a realization so apparent that Native Americans in Texas are using the events of Dakota Access as a model to protest the construction of the Tran-Pecos pipeline. With several pipeline projects being approved for 2017, this is likely to spur a movement of Indigenous-led activism and environmental battles against the government. Arguably however, it is not sustainable. Where the Paris Agreement failed to enforce stringent policy requirements for signing members, it also failed in regards to Indigenous rights. Intrinsically, the intersection of Indigenous land rights and environmental activism means that the fight against climate change, pipeline protests, and the recognition of Indigenous ancestral lands are one and the same. Though the Paris Agreement contains Indigenous references in the preamble, countries were encouraged to merely consider their human rights obligations rather than comply and recognize Indigenous rights when addressing climate change. Likewise, it has been argued that the agreement does not go far enough to achieve the aims of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. With superficial representation and lofty ambitions, governments lack the incentive to create meaningful policy and enforce tangible responses to climate change. While the protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline validate the power of public pressure in garnering the government’s attention, ideally, governments would not approve these projects in the first place. If the eight Canadian and fourteen U.S. projects are of any indication, the shifting nature of public interest cannot be relied on to prevent every future pipeline or environmentally dubious activity. With carbon dioxide air levels at their highest in over 650,000 years, 2017 will be as good a time as any to find a solution.

TRUMPING CLIMATE CHANGE

By: Sean Stead-Fecser

onald Trump’s presidency has not only changed the political sphere in the United States (U.S.), but has also swayed the international realm. During the race for the presidency, various critical issues were overshadowed by Trump’s radical and childish behaviour, including the imperative matter of climate change. Trump has famously tweeted, “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”. This is an ambitious claim without any supporting evidence. Trump has denied the validity of climate change, with statements like “nobody really knows” when asked if climate change is real. Having a world leader, who doesn’t believe in climate change, when 97% of climate scientists have agreed that climate-warming trends over the past century are linked to human activity and are detrimental to our planet, is very dangerous. The Earth’s surface temperature rising 1 degree Celsius has shifted environmental patterns dramatically. Brutal heat waves have been experienced in Europe and India, severe droughts have been endured in California, and 50-year record high temperatures have been observed globally. Moreover, the melting of polar ice caps has risen sea levels triggering flooding. The effects of climate change are devastating internationally and they’re continually growing. Trump’s lack of ambition in combatting the changing global climate has the future of humanity looking grim. Considering humanity is already experiencing the detrimental effects of the changing climate, it is imperative to take action immediately. Since the U.S. is a global leader, it is vital for the government to acknowledge the veracity of climate change. Furthermore, ac-

tions combating it must begin immediately. Unfortunately, with Trump’s decision to appoint Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it can be assumed climate change will not be a priority in Trumps administration. Pruitt is a notorious climate change denier, having said, “[the] debate [of climate change] is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” Considering 97% of climate scientists confirmed climate change is real, his statement seems ludicrous. In the past, Pruitt has been an ally to some major oil companies. In 2014, when he was attorney general, Oklahoma oil companies drafted a letter to him to send to the U.S. Government and the EPA concerning opposing safeguards against the pollutant methane. Pruitt edited the letter and proceeded to send it using his official government stationary. He has also sued the EPA for its protections against mercury, even though it is a hazardous air pollutant associated with neurotoxins that cause severe brain impairments. Clearly, Pruitt is a friend to oil corporations, and will prioritize the well being of the local economy over the environment. In choosing Pruitt to head the EPA, Trump did not have the protection of the environment in mind. He knows Pruitt has previously fought against the EPA, so it seems his purpose will be try to decrease the power the EPA has against businesses in adhering to environmental regulations. Furthermore, Trump’s will to cancel the Paris Agreement, along with clean energy funding and climate change aid to developing nations has caused additional concerns. The signing of the Paris Agreement was a March 2017

huge step towards collective global action combating climate change. In 2015, 194 countries have signed and 122 have ratified the agreement, which entails “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”. It is vital for the U.S. to uphold the Paris Agreement, as they have significant political and economic influence among the international society. If the U.S. were to dismiss the agreement, it may influence other countries to follow suit. The emergence of an “eco-right” movement has brought optimism for those whom care about the future of humanity and the environment. The “ecoright” are people who consider themselves on the

right side of the political spectrum, yet still care about environmental protection. Bob Inglis, a republican congressmen and spokesperson for the “eco-right” movement, is skeptical about making environmental regulations, but has hope in carbon tax as an environmental policy. Considering the issue of climate change wasn’t brought up in the 2016 U.S. presidential debates, it is an issue both parties and the American public need to start taking seriously. Since climate change is an issue that affects the entire world, and the U.S. is the second highest producer of global CO2 emissions, they need to take responsibility for their actions. It is time for Trump to place environmental issues at the forefront of the conversation, as it will soon become too late to deal with irreversible effects of climate change.

IN A NOT SO SYMMETRICAL WORLD By: Michael Molyneaux

lthough this magazine’s theme is about looking forward, I think it is important that after a tumultuous 2016, we take a step back and understand what has happened. Over the past year, a lot of our preconceptions changed. For instance, the next thought is something I thought to be inconsiderable; President Trump is correct in the following statement: “I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what’s going on.” He is correct to the extent that computers have changed the nature of information asymmetry. Information asymmetry used to be the advantage one party might have had over another when negotiating a deal. If one party had better, or more information, the power was imbalanced, and the party with more information would have higher odds to win the contest. Computers have changed that, and we have very little idea of how this will impact power balances, whether economic, financial, or political. Information asymmetry has changed in two key aspects. First, there are increasing amounts of data at an ever-decreasing cost to store, share, and edit. Second, most of that data is passive, meaning that we unconsciously build up the dataset. Whether that means sending emails or posting something to Facebook, humanity must no longer work hard to keep a record of what it has done. For instance, the most important resource on the Internet could be considered Wikipedia.The image below depicts what it would look like if you downloaded all of Wikipedia and printed it.

ISSUE XIII.Ill

In the context of espionage and security, this idea is even more troubling. During the Cold War, it was much harder to collect passive information on someone. Instead, you had to actively put resources into finding this information, whether it be tapping their phone or following them. This was labour intensive and the cost was quite high. Indeed, there was also no way to collect past information unless it too was created by people from previous work. Today, it is quite different. Much of information collection is passive, which is both a blessing and a curse. Essentially, it means that there is a record of everything for yourself, but it also means that there is a record of everything for others. This is problematic when the record is exposed to others such as foreign governments, corporations, or individuals. When Russia wants to influence an election, it is much easier than when other governments tried to influence elections during the Cold War. Back then, it was boots on the ground, bribing officials, and stuffing ballot boxes. Today, it is simply liberating private information. Because intelligence agencies and foreign powers no longer need to be proactive in their meddling, they can hack the other party and release the stolen data anonymously as they see fit. The information asymmetry that was, is no longer. The Watergate scandal during the Nixon Administration and the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee serve as great examples. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has been breached before and information has been liberated. During Watergate, the DNC rooms were bugged when people, ordered by Nixon, attempted to achieve information asymmetry. If successful, this proactive intelligence-gathering task would have changed what type of policies Nixon focused on and how the Republicans ran their campaign. In the end, they were discovered. Today, it is much different. Instead of using liberating information as Nixon planned on using it, the Russian state-sponsored hackers passed it to Wikileaks who published it for anyone to view. As well, It is much less risky to hack a server than to break into a hotel room from a failure standpoint. Hacking is a very common practice and the majority of the time the effort fails and the hacking party moves on. When breaking into a hotel room, you generally only have one chance, and failure is much more likely and dangerous. I am not saying that you should live in fear that the Russians will put your digital byte-trail online for everyone to see. Humanity has had this information gap before but, instead of information it was currency, and before currency it was food. After every leap forward humanity takes, there have always been opportunists who exploit the advantage for their own gain.They are thieves. Data is such a new idea that it is only now that we, as a society, are figuring out how to protect our data, just like we had to figure out how to protect our food and money. The hacking of the DNC by Russia was opportunism. My guess is as humanity becomes more comfortable with the concept of Big Data, we too will become better at protecting it.

March 2017

All...” “HAPPY NEW YEAR TO By: Kayla Maria Rolland

As millions around the world prepared to usher into 2017, many turned to social media to share well wishes. At the time, President-elect, Donald Trump took to Twitter to share his own New Year’s message writing, “Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!” The use of Twitter by politicians in the United States (U.S.) has become a norm. The social media platform has proven to be an effective and revolutionary tool for politicians to interact directly with citizens. At the same time, it is Trump’s brash, unconstrained use of 140 characters that has raised many anxieties surrounding his use of the social media platform as President. Trump’s use of Twitter to address foreign policy has been widely criticized; a tweet rarely provides the space needed to address complex diplomatic issues. Trump’s thank you tweet to Taiwan’s president, subsequent to receiving a congratulatory call for winning the presidency, lead to much debate. Controversy arose whether the President’s tweet was meant as a signal of the end of the United States’ One-China policy under a Trump administration, or an unintentional blunder by the soon-to-be President. Commentary in the state run Xinhua news agency expressed China’s displeasure with Trump’s use of Twitter to conduct foreign policy, arguing “diplomacy is not a child’s game.” On the security level, President Trump’s Twitter exists as a worrisome target for online hackers. With over 19 mil-

ISSUE XIII.Ill

lion followers, many of whom are deeply loyal to him, President Trump’s Twitter is a powerful platform that can cause real damage. For example, after criticizing Toyota for planning to build an auto plant in Mexico, the car brand’s stock fell 0.7%. If hackers were to access President Trump’s account, they could use the presidential platform to launch an assault on any individual, company, foreign leader, or country of their choosing. Moreover, President Trump’s heavy reliance on Twitter has come at the expense of engagement with the media. President Trump did not hold a press conference from July to December 2016, choosing instead to interact with the public through social media. During the presidential election, he experienced a hostile relationship with the press, often vilifying media outlets that criticized him as dishonest and biased against him. This strategy hampers the media’s ability to act as a check on political decisions. By circumventing traditional media, President Trump is able to craft his own message, limiting opportunities for outside criticism. Following an angry stream of tweets against actress Meryl Streep, comedian Stephen Colbert joked that President Trump “was too focused on defeating ISIS and creating jobs to pick a fight with a celebrity... just kidding!” While Colbert’s statement was to be taken as irony, after January 20th, 2017 many will be hoping that it’s true.

March 2017

WITH RUSSIA IN 2017, IT’S ALL THE SMALL THINGS THAT

Matter

By: Spencer Belyea No third country (i.e. not Canada or the United States) has dominated our news cycles over the past year quite like Russia has. In 2016, Russia, with its coordinated and targeted interference in the United States (U.S.) Presidential election, has shown that it will go to great lengths – lengths that perhaps have no boundaries – to regain what it sees as its rightful place atop the world’s hierarchical power structure. The point of this article is not to re-litigate the extent or the effects of Russian involvement in the election, or whether Julian Assange is a Russian agent, or whether Putin and Trump have some sort of dark compact to work together. For the rest of this article, all that matters is: (1) Russia, largely through cyber warfare, interfered with the U.S. presidential election; (2) that interference was done to help Donald Trump become President; 3) Donald Trump is now President and brings with him a drastically different worldview and perspective on Russia than that of any President before him. This article will explore, at a very overarching level, what Russia’s plans and goals might be for 2017. Unfortunately for this article, but fortunately for the world, it seems unlikely that Russia will make one drastic, major move, something that can be pinpointed as an ‘a-ha!’ moment. There are multiple reasons for this. First and foremost is that Russia, and specifically President Vladimir Putin, does not work this way. Putin is a very methodical person, not necessarily cautious but meticulous, doing everything for a reason and with a long-ranging plan for any scenario. This trait can be traced

ISSUE XIII.Ill

all the way back to childhood, where, from an early age, Putin planned on joining the KGB, a good reminder that he made a career out of being an intelligence agent. He did just that, thriving in the Soviet Union’s most notorious agency. One example of something small, rather innocuous, and not front-page news is the distribution of Russian passports to people living in other countries. This creates instant citizens, giving a pretext for Russian military action to defend them against any perceived threats. Russia utilized this practice in the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Moldovan region of Transnistria, and the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in eastern Ukraine. Something to look for in the upcoming year is if Russia attempts to utilize this strategy elsewhere; the most likely target is the heavily-Russian eastern region of Estonia. Military action of some form, either full-scale invasion or more covert action, has followed passport distribution in each of the other locations over the years, so its occurrence in Estonia or elsewhere would be a sign of Russia preparing to take action. The most insidious Russian plan is one that we already know about. Having already interfered with and influenced the results of the American election, Russia will now try to do the same in the upcoming elections of key allies and NATO members Germany and France, both of whom are holding elections in 2017. While these countries will obviously be on high alert because of what happened in the U.S., Russia’s cyber warfare capabilities are highly advanced, and it seems likely that they will have developed more than one way to achieve the same goal. Additionally, there are other ways that Russia can have a hand in these elections – by actively cooperating with willing parties such as France’s Front National and Germany’s AfD. By giving them money or strategic political help, Russia can advance the cause of politicians that it sees as, at worst, unconcerned with Russian foreign policy and, at best, supportive of it. This brings up an important point in Russian relations with the West; unlike other major threats such as Islamic terrorism, Russia does not seek to destroy the U.S. or “the West”. Russia is connected in the international marketplace and the downfall of its enemies would hurt it economically as well. What Russia seeks is to change the direction of the West, lessening its influence, tilting the balance of power, and eroding its foundational norms. What the West stands for and promotes – democracy, human rights, cooperation through existing international institutions – is what Russia sees as an existential threat to its existence. It cannot, and has no interest, in defeating the West as a whole; it just is not possible with the numbers at play on each side. But, if Western countries change internally, and, as a result lose (or voluntarily give up) power, Russia is there to fill the void. By supporting nationalist, isolationist, anti-NATO, anti-free trade politicians, Russia is attacking the West in two ways. First, they are making it easier for those who align with their views to take power, paving the way for international norms to be eroded. Second, they are creating significant internal discord within those countries themselves, meaning more attention has to be focussed on domestic issues instead of international ones, the consequence of which is a more divided country and likely some pull-back from the international community. Of course, Russia will do more in 2017 than just meddle in elections. Look for it to draw closer with Turkey to consolidate power in Syria and provide a strong alternative to the U.S. It will also not back down from its attempt to unite ethnic Russians – or “co-patriots,” as they term them – living in Eastern European countries with Mother Russia.One can be assured that everything Russia does in 2017 will be done with a purpose and, no matter how egregious it might seem, will be positioned as Russia merely doing what is necessary to protect itself. That is, if Russia even acknowledges responsibility. It has been said that Russia is looking to restore its empire, and 2017 will see that continue, with complex, multi-faceted operations designed to weaken the West and create room for Russia to be a superpower once again.

March 2017

P CUBA’S NEW COLD WARRIORS By: Nick Pearce

On November 25th 2016, 90 year-old Fidel Castro died after years of declining health and several failed assassination attempts. Castro headed one of the most robust communist regimes in history, entailing human rights abuses and mass political killings. However, his supporters lavishly praise the immensely increased literacy rates and access to healthcare. Due to the controversial regime that made him infamous domestically and internationally, his death was followed by both mourning and celebrations.

ISSUE XIII.Ill

resident Trump took to Twitter a few days after the news of Castro’s death, stating “if Cuba is unwilling to make a better deal for the Cuban people, the Cuban/American people and the United States (U.S.) as a whole, I will terminate deal”. This tweet represented, the President’s first statement regarding Cuba and their recently renewed diplomatic relation. However,Trump’s return to an isolationist foreign policy is contradictory at best. U.S. engagement with other communist regimes like China has yielded stronger results. Meanwhile, the embargo on Cuba has never had the effects its proponents have claimed. The U.S., particularly post-revolution Cuban exiles in Southern Florida, constitute most of the latter. These voters fled Castro’s rise to power and have continued to come ashore in Florida ever since. They tend to oppose Castro’s regime and Florida’s status as swing state encourages Republicans and Democrats to resist overtly pro-Cuban policy as an appeal for support. After more than five decades, the mutual hostility between the U.S. and Cuba is obstinately over. The thaw is unlikely, considering a laundry list of confrontations: Castro’s initial revolution and its fallout, a failed coup in the Bay of Pigs, a U.S. and Soviet Union nuclear standoff in the Cuban Missile Crisis, multiple assassination attempts, and a trade embargo dating back to Kennedy’s administration. It is no wonder that resolutions proved illusive. The Obama administration contributed to calming this heated rhetoric of the ten preceding presidencies. Travel, cigars and finance restrictions were loosened and diplomatic relations are likely to proceed. Notably, Cuba was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. But, with a new leader in office, Obama’s legacy may yet prove to be temporary. Trump’s attempt at a statement marks a return to an outdated Cold War logic that has more appeal with right-leaning Cuban-Americans in swingstate Florida than ever. However, much of the hardline stance characterizing the past 20 years is a Clinton legacy. Following a period of heightened bilateral tensions, Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act in 1996. This

act mandated that Cuba must become a free-market liberal democracy in exchange for U.S. trade, while also expanding penalties on foreign companies trading with Cuba. However, the end-of-history jingoism never materialized. Cuba never met the act’s standards, and is unlikely to in the near future. Essentially, Trump’s “better deal for the Cuban people” would only occur through calling on the Republican congress to deny their programming and lift the embargo. Moreover, Trump’s “better deal” and the general U.S.-Cuban policy playbook are profoundly ignorant of the needs of Cubans. As reported by Vox, The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act limited medical and health supplies which Stanford researchers Paul K. Drain and Michelle Barry argue contributed to a marked increase in Tuberculosis cases and deaths in the early and mid nineties. Since then, Cuba has not received increased medical supplies despite the appearance of life threatening diseases. Likewise, the main thrust of the embargo — democratization through economic pressure — was curtailed long ago through Cuban state policy. This pressure might have worked when Cuba was wavering after the fall of the Soviet Union and Helms-Burton could capitalized on this weakness. However, despite the odds, the island nation’s communist regime survived. Cuba traded on the U.S. dollar; Cuba allowed for mild economic liberalization and limited small business; Cuba weathered a major challenge to Castro’s rule, staving off U.S. encroachment. If the American intention is to expand its market economy and liberal democracy, creating these conditions for relative Cuban economic autonomy is counter-intuitive. If the U.S. hopes to better the lot of the Cuban people, perhaps it should provide health and education resources and create opportunities for economic mobility instead of propounding on the recurring failure of conditional trade in Latin America. There is one sure thing, 2017 will be a repeat of decades-long failed policy unless Trump and his congressional counterparts leave rhetoric in favour of reality.

COLOMBIAN PEACE DEAL:

A Model Forward or a Failed Act of Appeasement? By: Jacob D’Souza In 2012, Colombian President Juan Santos began negotiations with FARC leader Timoleón Jiménez, with aspirations of ending the violence inflicted by the rebel group. The government’s decision to enter negotiations is prudent, as 50 years of military operations have failed to decisively defeat the militia. And, in June of 2016, an agreement was reached between the two parties. The main features of the peace deal include: the FARC’s leadership and militias facing little or no jail time, the disarmament of all rebel fighters, and the inclusion of the FARC in the political process. The absence of violence within n December 1st, 2016, Colombia’s the region will encourage for greater tourism and government ratified a peace deal with foreign investments. Poorer, rural regions of the The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Co country where the FARC previously operated stand lombia (FARC). The agreement brought an to benefit in particular, as investors will no longer be end to the longest running insurgency in the West- deterred by the presence of FARC-related violence. ern hemisphere, lasting over 50 years and claiming However, A referendum on the deal was the lives of 220,000 people. The success or failure held, and against all predictions, voters rejected the of the deal in 2017 will be significant to the region’s peace resolution by 50.2%. Colombia’s Former Presgeopolitics. ident, Alvaro Uribe, led the ‘no’ campaign, arguing the The FARC was founded in 1964 as the deal was too lenient toward rebels. He and other armed wing of the Communist Party. Their mem- ‘no’ voters opposed clauses stipulating that ten parbership consisted of farmers and small landowners liamentary seats be reserved for the FARC in the who sought to fight economic inequality in Co- elections, lenient sentencing toward criminals, and lombia through a campaign of guerrilla warfare. At financial support for fighters not convicted of war their peak in 2002, they were thought to command crimes. The peace deal has numerous caveats and 20,000 militiamen. Currently, their strength is esti- cannot be instantly deemed a success. For example, mated at 7,500 fighters, in addition to 8,500 civilians the referendum turnout was only 38%. This lack of who support the FARC in non-combat roles. At the a turnout can reasonably be attributed to the fact height of their influence in the late 1990’s, the FARC Colombians do not trust the FARC to abide by the were considered to be the best armed and financed agreement, and do not see peace through diplomacy insurgent group in the world. as a viable option.

O 28

ISSUE XIII.Ill

In this regard, The Colombian Government’s greatest asset, optimism for a diplomatic resolution, could also be their greatest downfall.

To address the concerns of citizens, the government negotiated over 50 changes to the peace deal. The revised deal was approved by Colombia’s Parliament in December. It included provisions for the FARC to declare and hand over all financial assets, and provide information about its drug trade. The successful implementation of the deal is contingent upon the support of Colombian citizens. If support is lacking, Colombians in rural areas may arm themselves and form community-based militias as a defence mechanism. A similar outcome occurred in rural Mexico in 2013, when citizens united to protect themselves against drug cartels as the government failed to provide security. The FARC have left a fearful impression among numerous Colombians; families have lost loved ones due to FARC-fuelled violence, declining personal security, and an impaired economy. Colombian’s rejection of the peace deal may be due to the citizens will to seek justice, despite the possibility that it may prolong of the conflict for the foreseeable future. If the deal succeeds, it could set a precedent and a successful example for achieving peace via diplomacy. However, if the deal fails, it will be a blow to the concept of ‘the pen being mightier than the sword’, the notion that diplomacy can succeed where military action cannot. In this second scenario, The Colombian government will need to face the reality that often peace is not achievable, even if it is desirable. Therefore, the state government should seek alternative means to controlling or eliminating the FARC, even if it requires seeking international assistance.

March 2017

TURKEY ON THE EDGE By: Robert Conor Tomalty

Turkey is a highly influential, nuclear-equipped leader of the Muslim world, sitting right in the middle of the most unstable regions on Earth, and led by a rickety regime facing coup threats. It doesn’t take a great deal of insight to realize that Turkey is a country to watch in 2017. Turkey is one of the most populated countries in the Muslim world, standing right above an incredibly unstable region of the world in Syria and Iraq. While ISIS is far from the expansive military power that it was in 2016, Bashar al-Assad’s government has only increased the violence in Syria since January of last year. To suggest that the region will become stable in 2017 would be extremely optimistic. Instead, chances are good that the region, and Turkey’s position within it, will continue to be extremely tenuous. Turkey’s position as a major power in the region has led to involvement in the Syrian conflict by first condemning President Bashar al-Assad, and then working with various Syrian rebel groups. At the outset of the conflict, it seemed as though Turkey and the United States (U.S.) had shared interests in promoting the downfall of Bashar al-Assad. However, Turkey’s position in the war has shifted with the American-condemned heavy bombing of Kurdish forces throughout 2016, and the beginning of joint Turkish-Russian airstrikes against ISIS starting in the New Year. While Turkey’s official stance is opposed to Russian interests in maintaining al-Assad’s power, they seem more than willing to compromise if it means damaging ISIS, whom Turkey has been fighting on the ground in Aleppo.

ISSUE XIII.Ill

Regardless of how Turkey’s position in the region shifts over the next year, there is no doubt that it will remain a major deciding power in the struggle to determine the future of Syria and Iraq. Turkey’s position, as a major power harbouring U.S. nuclear weapons, would be significantly less likely to draw attention if the Turkish Government was unified and stable. However, last year, Turkey made major appearances in Western news outlets mostly surrounding the July 15th, 2016 attempted coup d’état by the Peace at Home Council faction of the Turkish Armed Forces. While the coup was ultimately a failure - ending in the purging of over 100,000 coup supporters at all levels of the government, including arrests of over 10,000 soldiers and 2,700 judges - tensions have not been alleviated. The supporters of the coup claimed their motivations were based in the perceived devolving of secular democracy within the Turkish state. On the other hand, the Turkish Government has claimed that the coup organizers were led by Islamic religious activist and businessman Fethullah Gulen. Regardless of their true motivations, the Turkish people showed a resilience to defend their democracy in the face of a military coup d’état with mass protests erupting across the country. Those sympathetic to the coup claim the popular uprising was a result of pro-government messages from major Turkish media outlets. Regardless of the cause, the Turkish people have shown that they will not easily allow an undemocratic takeover. However, resilient as the Turkish people might be, it’s important to note that the coup was dangerously close to successfully overthrowing the Turkish Government. Had a few Turkish intelligence agents not alerted the government of the coup ahead of time, had Erdoğan been successfully captured, or had military officials not turned against the coup en masse, then the coup could very easily have been successful.

The issue of stability, coupled with Turkey’s political and geographic position and importance, makes the country’s situation undoubtedly among the top stories to look out for in 2017. March 2017

DEMOCRACY AND ELECTIONS IN KENYA

By: Ryan Anderson he decade from 1990 to 2000 alone saw a total of seventy-eight notable elections take place in forty-three of the forty-eight sub-Saharan African countries, prompting many scholars to believe the ‘third wave’ of democratization that had just previously brought about democratic reform in Latin America, the Asia-Pacific, and Eastern Europe finally made its way to the region. However, the paths taken and the outcomes experienced during this period proved to vary quite considerably. Some were able to successfully oust their previous authoritarian regimes, while others had a much more difficult time replacing those in power. Despite what seemed to be a promising future for democracy in sub-Saharan Africa, the region has since been consistently ranked among reputable indices of democracy (e.g., Freedom House) as one of the world’s worst performers in categories such as the respect for human rights and freedom of the press – both of which are fundamental tenets to democracy itself. Nevertheless, there still remains to be a handful of countries in sub-Saharan Africa that have continuously been able to make gradual but distinct democratic strides, in hopes of one day achieving a consolidated democracy.

To start, only six years after gaining independence from the British, Kenya effectively became a quasi-single party state dominated by ethnic elites as the major leftist opposition party (Kenya People’s Union) was expelled from political participation following the 1969 assassination of a well-regarded government minister. However, after the death of Kenya’s first President, Jomo Kenyatta, in August 1978, the then-Vice President Daniel arap Moi assumed the role of Kenya’s second President. Suddenly, a new era of Kenyan politics had begun. As Moi’s power continued to become further centralized and institutionalized within the state, the National Assembly officially declared the regime to be a single-party state in 1982 via Constitutional amendment. Nevertheless, the political landscape in Kenya under Moi’s grip drastically pivoted in the early 1990’s towards a process of political liberalization that in many respects, restored hope for the prospect of subsequent democratization in the country. After extenuating pressures, rooted both internally from civil society and externally from postCold War donor-states, President Moi reluctantly agreed to open Kenya’s political arena and repeal Section 2(A) of the Of these countries, Kenya’s ongoing transition towards 1982 constitutional amendment that had made Kenya a de democratization best exemplifies this complex and multifac- jure one-party state. This was the first of many steps toeted process despite the array of barriers and setbacks it has wards liberalization in Kenya, and the decision immediately transformed the country into a genuine multi-party state. faced since its early beginnings in the 1990s. Since then, Kenya has held five multi-party elec The robustness of Kenya’s democratic process will tions (1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2013). Although each were face yet another telling test later on this year. On August 8th, undoubtedly competitive and made several unprecedented 2017, approximately twenty-two million registered Kenyan steps towards achieving a much more democratic model, voters will elect a new President and Deputy, members incumbent parties often adopted a number of strategies of both the Senate and National Assembly Parliament, and during these elections that undermined their overall freedevolved government members (county governors and ness and fairness. Consequently, this delegitimized much of ward representatives). However, in order to fully under- the progress made in this new multi-party system. stand what is at stake in this upcoming election, and why it is so important to Kenyan citizens and the international This still begs the question, why does this election matter then? community, it is imperative to first review the country’s po- Well, even though peaceful and non-violent transilitical history. tions of power have taken place in the past few elections,

ISSUE XIII.Ill

inevitably making democracy ‘the only game in town,’ today, Kenya’s process of democratization is still on-going. Current allegations of corruption, restraints on individual freedom and human rights, and recent shortcomings with the rule of law have prevented a consolidated democracy from taking form in the country. Therefore, this election will serve to see just how robust Kenya’s process of democratization currently stands. Will the current ruling party backslide into authoritarian practices or will this election be conducted in a competitive, evenly sided, and free and fair manner? Furthermore, ethnic conflict and tribal-differences still continues to divide the country. This itself is a major reason why Kenya’s 2017 election is worth noting to international observers. In the 2007 election, when it was announced that the Presidential incumbent Mwai Kibaki had just narrowly won after numerous claims of electoral fraud, civil conflict and ethnic violence between supporters of the various candidates erupted. More than two thousand people were killed, and as many as 300,000 were displaced from their homes during this time. As such, this precedent of post-election civilian violence has casted a rather daunting shadow for many of the latest Kenyan elections. In the past several decades, Kenya has increasingly become an important country in the international arena due to its strong economic development and geopolitical security advantages, particularly to the United States (U.S.). Kenya is a strategic partner in the realm of counterterrorism and intelligence in East Africa and the Horn of Africa as al-Shabaab and Boko Haram continue to terrorize the region and international sphere. As such, a stable Kenya is a strong priority for American interests. Furthermore, a stable Kenya is advantageous to the persistence of international trade that the two sides participate in. In 2016 alone, the U.S. exported a total of $372 million USD worth of goods to Kenya, and imported nearly $510 million USD in return. While this may not seem like much compared

to the numbers of other developed countries, at the rate Kenya’s economy is developing, they will be a major African economic player in the years to come. Nevertheless, while American foreign policy, security, and international trade contribute to the importance of this election, there is one fundamental reason that should underscore the rest. Put simply, it is always encouraging to see democracy and humanitarianism succeed in a country where much of its history has been marred by violence, political repression, and human rights violations. As such, it will be worth keeping a careful eye on three main areas during Kenya’s 2017 election: the lead up and campaign trail, the results themselves, and the post-election reaction from both politicians and citizens. Given Kenya’s steady yet gradual process of democratization since the early 1990’s, many are still at odds with expecting a consolidated democracy to unfold in the country following the election. But for now, only patience and time will tell.

THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR

(2011 – Date Unknown) By: Georgie Giannopoulos

What can be said about Aleppo that hasn’t already been said?

ore than anything, Aleppo represents a microcosm of the human situation: power, inequality, violence, compassion, empathy, bravery, chivalry, destruction, fear. But, it is not as simple as right and wrong, winner and loser. In mid-December, the news headlines read, “Aleppo is falling.” In a final, violent push to retake the city, Syrian regime forces, backed by Iranian and Russian airstrikes, rejected peace deals negotiated by Turkey and Russia to retake the last rebel strongholds of Aleppo. This offensive was significant not only for its obliteration of rebel troops, but also for the mass atrocities inflicted on the civilians who were trapped with no escape. Some who could not escape tweeted or live streamed their final moments, a tragic attempt to tug at the heartstrings and illicit help from all who were watching. What has resulted from this significant display of force from Assad is an invitation for peace talks between the rebels and his Government. Assad clearly stated, “We are ready to negotiate about everything”; however, when questioned whether this included the will to negotiate about his position as head of state, he more coyly answered, “If they want to discuss this point, they must discuss the constitution.” The war in Aleppo is also significant for the coalitions it created; Iran, Russia, and the Assad regime on one side with Turkey, the coalitions of Syrian rebel forces, and parts of the international Western community on the other. As the peace process continues, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, the power politics surrounding these states’ involvement will undoubtedly affect the future of Aleppo. The election of President Trump has already, and will continue to, affect United States’ (U.S.) policy on the

ISSUE XIII.Ill

screening and acceptance of refugees. As the world superpower, any changes in U.S. policy will surely affect the thinking of others states. Finally, the European refugee crisis has demonstrated the impact that conflict in Syria has made on the international community; it is almost impossible to turn a blind eye to those arriving on the shores of Europe in search of a better life. The acceptance of refugees has further challenged the Westphalian concept of a nation-state and has revealed cleavages between world leaders who lean towards isolationism or globalization. The European refugee crisis has also become entangled with terrorist plots, further entrenching the view of refugees as ‘dangerous’ or ‘unstable’ sects of the societies they enter. While it is unclear whether those leaning toward acceptance or denial of refugees will prevail, the escalation of the refugee crisis in Europe, revitalization plans of northern Aleppo, and the necessity of giving back the ability of return and safe passage for those who want it will all be crucial factors affecting the international community in 2017. Syria represents a sometimes incomprehensible State of Nature where bombs fall from the sky deciding who lives and who dies, where sites of human preservation such as Syria represents a sometimes incomprehensible State of Nature where bombs fall from the sky deciding who lives and who dies, where sites of human preservation such as hospitals are no longer sanctities, and where a man who was looked to for leadership and protection watched as his citizens were attacked by chemical weapons. It is this chaotic State of Nature that contributes to an inability to concretely predict what will happen in 2017.

I cannot predict which party the peace talks will favour, nor whether the rebel forces will even negotiate with Assad. I cannot predict whether the revitalization plans for Northern Aleppo will be sufficient in providing humanitarian relief and stability to stranded populations in the city. I cannot predict how public opinion and the mass media will continue to see refugee populations around the world. However, I can definitively say that in the future Aleppo will be studied as an example of how power can corrupt when it does not have sufficient counterbalances. Aleppo will be studied as an example of the constraints of international community and its capacity to compound crises. Most significantly, Aleppo will be studied as a failure of humanity to preserve human life and history.

March 2017

O The Observer Metric

72.2: Voter turnout in the Brexit referendum

16,913: Number of civilians killed in Syria in 2016

72: Number of years of operation of the United Nations

50: Years of conflict between the Colombian Government and the FARC

22,000,000: Number of Kenyans registered to vote in the country’s upcoming election

34,400,000: Number of tweets on Donald Trump’s Twitter account as of January 5th, 2017

88: % of the American public aware of the claims that Russia was involved in election hacking

59: % increase of aid received when a country is elected to a UNSC non-permanent member

37: % of Pew study respondents who are drained by the quantity of political social media posts 1,000,000: Barrels of oil per day to be transported by the Line 3 and Trans-Mountain Pipelines 131: Number of Turkish media outlets closed by an emergency decree on July 27th, 2016 60: Percentage of global military expenditures attributed to the UN Security Council P5 277: Number of executive orders issued by Obama in his tenure as President 66: % of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for at least a decade 69: Percentage of Americans who use at least one social media platform 9: World leaders attended Fidel Castro’s funeral in Havana $17,000,000,000,000: NAFTA’s combined output