The Observer XIII.II In A Labyrinth Of Theory by The Observer

THE OBSERVER

XIII.II

DEAR READER,

ISSUE XIII.II

Welcome to Issue XIII.II of The Observer,“In a Labyrinth of Theory”. We are incredibly excited to provide another set of thought-provoking articles written by our staff writers and to showcase our new look and name. Our new logo, designed by Michael Molyneaux, will be unveiled at our official launch party at Clark Hall on November 26th. As always, our own layout director, Raine Storey, brings to life our magazine in ways we could never image. We are grateful to have talented artists to help us convey our message and stories. My final thank you is dedicated to the assistant editors Nicole Toole and Kelley Humber, without their hard work, this magazine truly would not be possible. For this issue we tasked our staff writers with a challenge - to write about an international event or phenomenon through a theoretical lens. Often a requirement for academics, we added another level of difficulty, asking our writers to pen op ed style pieces that would be accessible to all readers, no matter their educational background.Taking our issue theme into account, I want to provide a disclaimer that the theory and/or event chosen by each writer does not necessarily reflect their personal views. Many thought creatively about the world, and put on an anarchist, marxist, liberal, or conservative hat to give you, the reader, a different way to look at international affairs. One of the most important skills in politics is to be able to see the world from all angles, and to understand how theories shape our perception of events. It is my hope that this issue of The Observer is a helpful tool in this regard. If you have any remarks or concerns please feel free to email contact@queensobserver.org. We encourage you to consider writing for our next issue, so 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

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, Carla-Maria Estrada, Haleigh Johns, Nick Pearce, Gavrilo Randjelovic, Kayla Maria Rolland, Monique Sereneo, Sean Stead-Fecser, NOVEMBER 2016

Populism, Anti-Intellectualism and the Politics of Donald Trump By Kayla Maria Rolland

The Black Flag Behind Bars By Nick Pearce

Contributors not pictured above: Sean Adessky, Jacob D’Souza, Raine Storey, and Spencer Belyea.

CONTENTS

6 8

Gluttonous Intentions: Feeding Global Food Trends By Monique Sereneo

The Economic Crisis in Venezuela: Taking a Page out of Marx’s Book By Sean Stead-Fecser

Even War Has Rules: The Incessant and Illegal Bombing of Hospitals in War Zones By Emilia Von Dem Hagen

Clinton Under Fire: Why the Media is Hillary’s Biggest Critic By Haleigh Johns 4

ISSUE XIII.II

Integrating Nationalism into the Modern Political Mainstream By Gavrilo Randjelovic

18 20 22 24

Neorealism: A Refugee Crisis By Carla-Maria Estrada

Why Turkey is an Important Ally to NATO By Ryan Anderson

A Dose of Realism: NATO in Libya By Jacob D’Souza

Structural Realism and the Nuclear Deal in Iran By Sean Adessky

Camouflaging Offensive Realism: Russian Aggression in Eastern Europe By Spencer Belyea NOVEMBER 2016

GLUTTONOUS INTENTIONS: Feeding Global Food Trends By Monique Sereneo

With a global population set to reach 9.9 billion by 2050, one of the major challenges of the 21st century will be meeting future food demands in a planet that is already increasingly resource constrained. A solution is needed and quickly. However, considering the current apathy of the capitalist world, timeliness is little more than wishful thinking. Take for example the Mexican city of Michoacán, where low-growing trees line vast stretches of land. With the idyllic climate and fertile soil, millions of pounds of crops are harvested year-round. Despite the abundant supply, local producers reap only a small portion of the benefits of these crops. Instead, these products have final destinations thousands of kilometres away in the neighbouring United States of America. There they are sliced, cooked or seasoned until proudly presented as a variation of the latest food trend - avocados. Some may argue that this scene is evidence of globalization and an increasingly interconnected world. It’s a claim that does hold some merit. However, if parallel scenes across Latin America are of any indication, what this situation also demonstrates is a global issue. There is a definite imbalance in the way that smaller countries are supplying the food trends of richer countries. With implications manifested in the form of high food insecurity and locals in these smaller countries unable to afford their own crops, it becomes an issue of reinforced systematic inequality. When Immanuel Wallerstein divided the world into a three-level hierarchy consisting of core, periphery, and semi-periphery countries, he was looking at over 400 years of capitalist influence. With the rise of neoclas-

ISSUE XIII.II

sical economics in the 1970s, it is apparent that capitalism had a role to play in socioeconomic inequalities of today. World Systems Theory, as Wallerstein aptly named it, suggests a global economic system where core countries exploit periphery or semi-periphery countries. It describes how these core countries are economically and politically dominant while those in the periphery receive an often minimal income from exporting raw materials. Given the current state of global food security, Wallerstein’s theory clearly has merit. The matter of food is dependent on economic, social, political, and environmental variables. Despite its multifaceted nature, research over the last few decades has identified one of the main challenges to be in production. Ideally, the world needs a system that balances the production of food with consumption on local and global levels. Furthermore, with the capitalist structure of markets today, there are limitations in a system driven mostly by demand. This is evident from recent examples such as the obsession over avocados. As a healthy and versatile fruit, its appeal makes sense. Unfortunately, as the relatively small market is hit with increased demand, countries turn to Peru, Mexico, Chile and other states to meet sales targets that their own agriculture cannot support. Moreover, due to the nature of the international economic system as described by World Systems Theory, these core countries intend to profit. Latin and South American countries are left in the devastation of heavy environmental costs, minimal compensation, and citizens that are under the poverty line at the expense of other countries’ gluttony. At this rate, it is likely that avocados will stumble down the same path as another healthy food mogul - quinoa. Before avocados gained popularity, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations declared 2013 the ‘International Year of Quinoa’. Previously a niche market internationally despite its status as a staple food in Peru, Andean farmers enjoyed a short-run benefit once demand increased. However, once large international competitors entered the market and supply increased, the price subsequently dropped, as did farmers’ wages. It is important to note that these periphery countries have little to say in this situation. Similarly, avocado consumers don’t necessarily hold responsibility for the exploitation of Andean farmers. As Wallerstein identified, the world is inherently interconnected and core countries use their structural and economic power to force periphery countries into a position of dependency. Like quinoa before it, and the next food trend after it, avocados demonstrate the inability of periphery countries to remove themselves from a parasitic relationship that does little to reduce inequalities. The strain on periphery countries and the environment stems from a system that unevenly distributes a depleting supply of natural resources. The World Systems Theory demonstrates the necessity of addressing food security, resource sustainability, and their interlinkages as part of the same equation. There is a need to improve both geopolitical stability and global resource management in order to achieve equality. Perhaps one day, there will be a new system of economic collaboration that does not leave any country on the periphery. In the meantime, new recipes for avocado toast will continue to dominate the food industry.

NOVEMBER 2016

THE ECONOMIC CRISIS IN VENEZUELA: Taking a Page out of Marx’s Book By Sean Stead-Fecser Venezuela is currently going through a devastating economic crisis that is leaving its civilians without access to basic necessities such as food and medicine. Some might wonder how this is happening to Venezuela, given that the country sits on the world’s largest oil preserve. Unfortunately, the price of oil in the last two years has been devalued by half, and considering oil is Venezuela’s largest export - raking in 96% of their total exports and accounting for over half of the government’s revenues - this presents a undeniable problem. Currently, over 70% of Venezuelan citizens want President Maduro out of office.This statistic reflects the citizens’ deep distrust of their leader. President Maduro has control of the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, which is now practically broke, as well as the import system, which gave him economic control. Further, Venezuela currently has $127 billion USD in international debt. This has created problems for its citizens as they have to wait for hours in long lines for a chance of getting basic food items (i.e. bread, milk, eggs) and supplies (i.e. toilet paper, medicine, soap). Unfortunately, they often come out empty handed. As a symptom of the lack of basic necessities and their economic downturn, Venezuela’s crime rate remains high. For example, the capital of Venezuela, Caracas, has earned the title of the most homicidal city outside of a declared war zone in 2015, with 119 homicides in every 100,000 people. Indisputably, Venezuela is suffering a terrible economic crisis and the consequences that come with it have resulted in a humanitarian crisis for the people who call the streets of Venezuela home. Marxist theory would identify capitalism as a primary reason for Venezuela’s troubles. Marx explains in his book, The Communist Manifesto, that capitalism “has resolved personal worth into exchange value”. Essentially, saying that capitalism has reduced an individual’s worth to a number, as money has become what humans constantly strive to attain. This fight of attainment has created different ranks of social classes in society; the two main classes being the proletariat (production workers) and the bourgeoisie (production owners). The bourgeoisie often exploit the proletariat, as they search to expand their production globally using whatever means necessary to ensure maximum profit.This selfishness leads to deterioration of natural resources and abusive workplaces, where workers get paid little money for long hours. Marx explains that conditions such as these will eventually lead the proletariat towards revolution. Since the proletariat constitutes the majority of society, they have the power and numbers to do be successful in such a revolution. Marx explains that the end form of government will be communist, a system which prioritizes the reclamation of private land to public, equal distribution of wealth, and government run factories and businesses.

ISSUE XIII.II

Through this lens, one can see how capitalism has harmed Venezuela and been one of the main factors in creating this economic crisis. In fact, Marx predicted how capitalism could bring economic downturn as factories continue to create their product to the point of overproduction. Clifford Krauss concurs, writing in his article titled “Oil Prices: What’s Behind the Volatility? Simple Economics,” that the recent fall of the oil prices stems from overproduction of oil, which has brought down the price of oil to the lowest since the 1990’s. Marx also talks about the labour theory of value and the exploitation of workers. He says that workers are not paid for the value that they produce through their labour, but rather for what it costs to reproduce their labour. So, workers don’t get the value they create, making it an unfair system. Patrick Gillespie interviewed a supervisor in an oil company in Venezuela who said “We are practically working for free”. Since there is so little money in the oil business in Venezuela, they can hardly afford to pay their employees. Many of the workers can only afford one meal a day while still keeping up with their physical labour. As a consequence, workers are often seen fainting on the job and many have lost a considerable amount of weight. If workers don’t have any money to spend, companies will stop making and shipping products for them to buy, causing the companies to lose business. This creates a cycle of economic downturn created by capitalism. Considering the capitalist system has been integral in creating Venezuela’s economic downturn, Venezuela could benefit from principles of Marx’s communist system. Had Venezuela been under a communist system with the power spread out among the working class, they might’ve avoided this situation. In communism, the government also controls many of the businesses and factories within the country. If the workers at the oil company had more political sway through a communist system, they could’ve seen the drastic plummet of the oil cost, and taken measures to lower their production of oil. They could’ve alerted the government sooner to build up other businesses that aren’t oil-oriented, to retain some profit while oil prices are so low. Looking at the Venezuelan economic crisis through a Marxist lens, you can see many of the theorized pitfalls of capitalism brought to life. Communism, in theory, is an alternate form of government where the wealth and power is spread amongst society, and not just the elite. This form of government is especially appealing after the economic and humanitarian crisis Venezuela has been through. The Venezuelan Government has a lot of work ahead of them, but they might want to consider taking a page out of Marx’s book.

NOVEMBER 2016

It’s 2:08 am in the Kunduz Trauma Center, Northern Afghanistan.

EVEN WAR HAS RULES: The Incessant and Illegal Bombing of Hospitals in War Zones By Emilia Von Dem Hagen

ISSUE XIII.II

Some patients sleep in their beds; newborn infants are cradled by their mothers; one doctor is mid-surgery, while nearby another is getting some much needed rest. It’s a seemingly normal night, as normal as can be for a hospital in times of war. Suddenly, everyone is awoken by the sound of a nearby explosion. Facial expressions show confusion and fear, but before anyone can process what is happening, the bombing begins again, this time directly overhead. The rooms catch fire as shrapnel punches through the windows. Patients, caretakers, and staff frantically try to seek refuge, many of them severely wounded and covered in blood.The sounds of screams and cries for help fill the collapsing buildings. One patient lays motionless on the operating table. As people flee the burning scene, a gunship shoots at them from above with automatic fire. “There are no words for how terrible it was,” recalls nurse Lajos Jecs, “In the ICU six patients were burning in their beds.” The U.S. military-led Kunduz airstrike of October 3rd, 2015 killed 42 people, all of whom would later be referred to as “collateral damage” and the “inevitable consequences of war.” Further, tens of thousands of people in the region could no longer receive the medical care they so desperately needed. It was not the first time that a centre run by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) came under attack, and it certainly wasn’t to be the last. The U.S. government has since apologized for their “mistake,” disregarding the fact that MSF had repeatedly provided the exact GPS coordinates of the medical complex just days before. MSF’s request for an independent investigation of the attack by the International Humanitarian Fact Finding Commission has since gone unanswered. The year 2015 saw a total of 106 attacks on 75 MSF and MSF-supported hospitals. This year has been no different. Most recently, on September 27th, 2016, two hospitals in East Aleppo faced indiscriminate bombing. There are only 7 surgical doctors remaining in the area, serving an estimated population of 250,000. These repeated attacks on medical facilities and personnel have been an especially disturbing feature of the war in Syria. In fact, Physicians for Human Rights, a U.S. based non-governmental organization, has documented more than 400 attacks on 269 different hospitals since the war began. But, there is a scarier reality to these assaults and their perpetrators’ lack of accountability; they show that the rules of war have become optional.

The Just War Theory posits that the attacking of civilian zones which include no legitimate military targets – like hospitals, in this case – is unjustifiable. The bombings of medical facilities is thus in stark violation of this principle and the very notion of Just War. The Fourth Geneva Convention protects hospitals in war zones, and as MSF’s Dr. Joanne Liu put it when remembering the brutality of the Kunduz onslaught, “This was not just an attack on our hospital – it was an attack on the Geneva Conventions.” These rules are meant to bring a bit of humanity into entirely inhumane circumstances. We must be weary of what happens when they disappear. Whether these attacks are intentional or prompted by apathetic negligence is still up for debate. One thing is certainly true, they have to stop. Historically, with few exceptions, medical facilities and staff have been respected as neutral and “off limits” by parties involved in conflict.This is no longer the case. At the time of the attack, the Kunduz Trauma Center had government soldiers lying in patient beds beside Taliban fighters. This neutrality to political affiliation is central to MSF’s humanitarianism. This value is part of what makes the organization so fundamentally important. #NotATarget is a recent social media campaign launched by MSF to stand in solidarity against the targeted killings of civilians and humanitarians. It promotes a simple message about our shared humanity, especially in times of war. It has been a year since the Kunduz assault, and MSF is still fighting for an independent investigation into what really happened. With petitions, protests, speeches, and pleas, they are refusing to allow this horrific incident to go unpunished. But the lack of political will to allow the investigation – especially since the one being tried is the U.S. – is setting a dangerous precedent for war crime culpability. MSF’s fight and its accompanying social media campaigns are of vital importance to highlight the danger of the attacks and the necessity of accountability for such offenses. Sadly, attacks on hospitals have become the norm, not the exception and they are becoming more commonplace partly because their perpetrators know that the world will look the other way. This cannot be the case. Those responsible must be held accountable, no matter how powerful they are; the possibility to receive impartial medical care by victims of war depends on it. As MSF’s Jason Cone put it, “Enough is enough. Even war has rules.”

NOVEMBER 2016

CLINTON UNDER FIRE: Why the Media is Hillary’s Biggest Critic By Haleigh Johns In a society still ruled by the will of the patriarchy, being a woman is difficult. Although we are fortunate enough to live in a part of the world where women are not legally barred from holding the same jobs as men, society as a whole is still extremely critical of women who become successful in male-dominated arenas. Whether this is in the science and engineering fields, the trades, or politics, powerful and successful women are feared, ridiculed, and belittled. The current American presidential race is a glaringly obvious example of such discrimination. As current President Obama has stated, there is perhaps no person more qualified to become President of the United States than Hillary Clinton. Clinton has experienced American politics from almost every position imaginable, from being First Lady, holding a seat in the Senate, to serving as Secretary of State. However, when compared with Donald Trump, the only candidate in the history of the Republican Party to never have held political office or served in the military, Clinton is often portrayed as the weaker, less desirable candidate.

ISSUE XIII.II

This biased and gendered media attention is not due to mistakes made during Clinton’s campaign, as Trump has arguably made many more inflammatory comments. It all boils down to one simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a woman. American politics has long been an “old boys club” so to speak, and many female politicians have been targeted in the past for threatening this tradition of male dominance.Take Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State under George W. Bush. During her tenure, Rice was criticized for her appearance, her clothing choice, and even her posture. Clinton has been the subject of media attacks since she entered the political sphere almost 40 years ago. She has been criticised by journalists for the tone of her voice, her wardrobe choices, and for being a grandmother.These characteristics do not relate at all to Clinton’s political abilities, but rather they target female-identity related characteristics. To highlight the inherent sexism in the media’s portrayal of Clinton, one need only to look back to the Democratic primary race a few months ago. While candidate Bernie Sanders’ constant yelling at rallies was portrayed as passion, Clinton’s similar style of speaking was described as shrill and irritating. Sanders’ manner of speaking was portrayed in a very masculine way – passionate and firm – while Clinton’s nearly identical mannerisms were met with resistance and criticism. This unfair media attention given to Clinton is evidence of a much larger problem inherent in the field of politics as a whole. In an area that has long been dominated by men, women struggle to attain positions of power and influence within the public sphere. With so few women politicians, it becomes difficult to overcome barriers such as biased media attention. Until there are more women in the political sphere, the unfair media attention towards Clinton, Rice, and other prominent female politicians will continue. Without prolonged exposure to women in politics, the public and the media will continue to unconsciously assume that a woman is not capable of being successful in politics. Until the number of female politicians increases, the tone of media coverage towards women in politics will not change. It’s undeniable that in today’s world order, the United States is still a powerhouse of global influence. Thus, if such a powerful state cannot even portray a female Presidential candidate in an unbiased, fair, and equal way in the media, it becomes difficult for women in politics all over the world to overcome the same barriers. Perhaps if Clinton succeeds in winning the Presidency, the amount of unfair media attention will decrease slowly as the idea of a woman sitting in the oval office becomes more and more palatable to our patriarchal society. However, a Hillary Clinton Presidency would only be a small step towards gender equality in the political sphere. It is only by increasing the number of women in politics that we will begin to see real change in the way the media portrays these politicians. Gender parity in politics is long overdue. It’s time to see women pursuing political office without fear of being torn to pieces in the media. After all, to quote one of today’s most prominent, young politicians, it’s 2016.

NOVEMBER 2016

“MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING”: Populism, Anti-Intellectualism and the Politics of Donald Trump

THE BLACK FLAG BEHIND BARS By Nick Pearce

By Kayla Maria Rolland

This past August, the American Department of Justice made a landmark decision — the death of private federal prisons.

This past year, it was impossible for American voters to ignore the spectacle of Donald Trump. The Republican nominees’ campaign showed repeated disdain for experts and intellectuals. Trump briefly called for an end to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “Food Police”, scoffed at CIA intelligence experts, and denied the science of climate change. What the 2016 American election saw was a resurgence of populist politics. Trump’s success in populist politics lies in a larger phenomenon of anti-intellectualism. During the election, 65% of voters reported using digital sources such as news websites and social media to follow the election. These sources of information have revolutionized modern elections, and have contributed to the rise of anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism is not a complete rejection of intelligence or knowledge, but rather hostility and cynicism directed towards intellectual communities and their perceived superiority. Anti-intellectualism prizes elements such as personal character, instinct, and morality as superior to academia. The Republican Party is no stranger to this philosophy. From Eisenhower to Bush, Republican nominees have found political success by portraying themselves as no-nonsense champions of the average American. Every time a voter turns on their screen they access a unique world built around their personal ideological beliefs. From the Facebook friends voters add, to the media sites they choose to follow, unique Internet environments are built. Critics have called this phenomenon a “filter bubble” that limits individuals from seeing viewpoints that differ from their own. 14

ISSUE XIII.II

In a tech environment where information is being generated and spreading at lightning speeds, the adage “just because it’s on the Internet doesn’t make it true” can be easily lost. The Internet has the power to offer legitimacy to opinions or falsehoods. In 2013, the magazine Popular Science disabled their comment sections after studies found that uninformed comments on their articles could alter a reader’s response. Comments that could be written by any individual with a keyboard had the power to delegitimize scientific research. Trump’s own tweets highlight this phenomenon. He consistently referred to conspiracy theories and untruths, often using the phrase “many people are saying” to offer any legitimacy to his claims. The line between a reputable source and a discreditable one has become blurred to voters. When voters choose not to search out opposing sources or viewpoints they are further solidified in their own ideological bubble. These ideological bubbles are mirrored in the United States’ increasingly divided politics. This divided political field enabled a candidate like Donald Trump, whose rhetoric often made any idea of common goals or compromise impossible. As technologies have evolved and revolutionized our societies over the past decades, political scientists have struggled to define how these technologies have affected the health of our democracies. As debates rage over the use of algorithms on social media, the media’s role in fact checking, and distrust of the political elite, Trump’s 2016 campaign is sure to be studied for many years to come.

It was an overdue decision, as privately run correctional facilities and for-profit prisons have routinely been accused of overcrowding and grisly treatment of inmates in their pursuit of a strong bottom line. This model was built on bad foundations and deserves the same fate on the state level as it received federally. Starting in the 1980’s, these facilities grew into a multi-billion-dollar industry predicated on societal failures. This occurred simultaneously with over a 700 per cent increase of the prison population between 1970 and 2009. By 2014, American private prisons value skyrocketed to $3.3 billion USD. The Department of Justice’s announcement trailed already widespread cultural backlash against the controversial public-private partnership. Figures ranging from Bernie Sanders to producers of Netflix’s Orange is the New Black have warned against for-profit facilities and the dangers of mass incarceration. Further, in the policy realm, A 2014 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report described the woefully unethical treatment of inmates, saying that prisoners were “subject to shocking mistreatment and abusive conditions.” Emma Goldman, an early 20th century Anarchist leader and theorist, offers an alternative to an increasingly problematic justice system. Before discussing her alternative, popular misconceptions of Anarchism must be dispelled. Goldman’s vision describes a society free of domination that abolishes private property and state institutions in favour of community level social organization. “Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth,” Goldman writes: “[An] order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.” Anarchists believe that state justice system should be abolished. They argue that all prisons achieve “is the reproduction and inducement of more of institutionalized patriarchal (sexist/homophobic) and racist violence.” Private prisons won’t be mourned, but this shift in conversation offers a real opportunity. As the international community faces more social unrest surrounding law enforcement, we must honestly discuss the alternatives to the current prison model. Restorative justice and the empowerment of communities are meaningful, real alternatives to these failures. Furthermore, community-led justice challenges entrenched state-enforced power asymmetries that only serve to marginalize and degrade. A decentralized system, founded on direct democracy and community councils, can respond to systemic causes of recidivism, prisoner abuse, and discriminatory law enforcement. For example, the current prison system disproportionately incarcerates mi-

NOVEMBER 2016

nority groups. As of 2008, a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) report found that African American and Hispanics constituted 58 per cent of all prisoners, although these groups only account for a quarter of the U.S. population. Similarly, a Maclean’s investigation from February 2016 reports that 22.8 per cent of Canada’s inmate population is Indigenous, despite being only 4 per cent of Canada’s total population. In both Canada and the United States, the justice system’s racial biases expose the reality of marginalized communities. The situation only worsens when considering that imprisonment is often the result of “nothing but immigrant status, gang association, and non-violent drug-related activities.” According to Ohio State law professor Michelle Alexander, the discrimination

of ex-cons reaches far beyond the prison system. In the United States, ex-prisoners are denied access to numerous professional licenses and experience widespread housing and public benefit discrimination. These conditions are self-perpetuating. Communities and families are divided and subsequently prevented from improving their quality of life, driving them further into a cyclical justice system.This cycle of mass imprisonment is an ever-expanding, self-reinforcing process. Emma Goldman writes that exists so “society may be ‘protected’ from the phantoms of its own making.” Goldman’s words are no less radical now than they were decades ago. The aforementioned alternatives, community councils and restorative justice circles, are undoubtedly far from mainstream as they have yet to be tested in a wide contemporary context and are a tough sell for non-progressives. This process is clearly difficult. However, like with any solution, we must first admit the problem.

ISSUE XIII.II

INTEGRATING NATIONALISM INTO THE MODERN POLITICAL MAINSTREAM By Gavrilo Randjelovic

The rise of nationalism across the world has prompted both outrage and support, propelling the world into a state of uncertainty regarding the future. Although newspaper headlines such relating to Brexit and Donald Trump have catapulted nationalism into the international spotlight, its popularity is not limited to the Anglosphere. Nationalist movements are also gaining traction throughout Europe and Asia. In order to crack the nut of nationalism, we must first ask, what exactly is it? Nationalism does not have a grand theorist, but most scholars agree on the separation of two distinct forms of nationalism. The first is civic nationalism, a moderate classification which stresses involvement in the democratic process, an adoption of state behaviours, and a patriotic sentiment. In contrast, ethnic nationalism emphasizes a shared culture, history, and heritage of the primary ethnic group within a nation and often seeks to promote its unity through statehood. For most purposes, ‘nationalism’ in the modern parlance, including in this article, refers to ethnic nationalist movements. The historian Hans Kohn describes nationalism as the belief that nationality reflects the highest level of organized community and that it should be the foundation of government and political activity. Nationalism has its roots, like many ideologies, in the aftermath of the French revolution, eventually becoming a standard element of European and global politics. When then did nationalism become a dirty word? When did it come to be associated with racism and chauvinism? There is no one answer, but the extreme nationalism of the Axis powers throughout the Second World War and the horrific atrocities committed under their names have done much to alienate nationalism from the political scene in the War’s aftermath. Kohn, writing in the 20th century, characterizes ethnic nationalism as more commonplace in Asian countries, whereas civic nationalism was more popular in Europe – however, modern European nationalist parties have embraced ethnic nationalism, perhaps in response to an increasing level of multiculturalism across the continent. In Sweden, for example, the ethnic nationalist Swe-

den Democrats party has captured 13% of the vote in the last national election. This popularity has been met with significant controversy – the party has been the subject of cordon sanitaire, with other parties refusing all cooperation with them in voting blocks and inter-party meetings. The justification for this is the non-pragmatic and often xenophobic beliefs of the party’s followers, some of whom have been blasted for publicly making anti-Semitic or Islamophobic remarks. In the midst of an intense period of global interconnectedness, trade, and movement of people and capital, most nationalist parties have emerged from the political fringe, having only been rudimentarily developed throughout the 20th century and unprepared to deal with the sudden surge of popularity. They have capitalized on fears of pernicious immigration and the increased inequality created by globalization. In countries where governments emphasized real total growth at all costs, the ‘nationalist underclass’ of displaced workers and cultural traditionalists is emerging as a form of popular resistance – and it in turn has met with significant resistance. Indeed, commentators have criticized the perceived racist or chauvinistic attitudes of nationalists. Is that sort of alienation a good thing? By alienating nationalist parties and their supporters, mainstream political movements further fuel the anger that has created their newfound popularity. After all, modern nationalist parties have largely adopted the democratic tenets of civic nationalism and see themselves as attempting to promote cultural unity and nationalist thought within existing frameworks. Ultimately, exclusion slows the integration of these parties into the political mainstream, forcing them to embrace potentially radical ideologies in order to consolidate their support. It is not just the political mainstream that needs to accept nationalism. Nationalist parties are obligated to adjust their foundations to avoid radicalism and unrealistic promises. They need to compromise with modern economists to be careful around decisions that may hurt overall economic prosperity. They have an obligation as a movement to harken back to the actual definition of national-

NOVEMBER 2016

ism - promoting cultural unity - but they must not do it at the expense of minorities and other marginalized groups. Those nationalist parties that emphasize regaining historical glory at the expense of other nations (cf. Golden Dawn in Greece which expresses desire to “recapture Constantinople”) must understand that in the modern world, it is not acceptable to pursue imperialist ambitions and advocate for conflict. While the Golden Dawn may be viewed as an extreme example, they are the end of a spectrum which needs to reach a comfortable moderacy. Right wing nationalist parties must focus on fighting inequality and promoting interests of the common people, as opposed to supporting extreme ideologies.

Nationalism has been a powerful driving force in global politics over the past two centuries and, seeing its recent resurgence, it is unlikely that it will subside in the near future. Nationalist parties in countries across the world offer perspectives on global events that are usually fairly unique – they form a crucial part of modern democracy and debate, and other parties must accept them as such. However, if they are to move into the mainstream in the face of their newfound popularity, they must take steps to deradicalize their policies and supporters, work towards cooperation with other parties, and make their platforms more pragmatic and economically rational.

“In the past ten years, the number of refugees in the world has increased by 300 per cent, 65.3 million people, the highest level of displacement on record.”

NEOREALISM: A Refugee Crisis By Carla-Maria Estrada

Today, it is impossible to go a few hours without stumbling upon news regarding the current international refugee crisis. In the past ten years, the number of refugees in the world has increased by 300 per cent, 65.3 million people, the highest level of displacement on record. In attempts to escape war zones, persecution, and poverty, many refugees have journeyed by land and sea in what is known as the “Journey of Death” – from Syria to Turkey and the island of Lesbos- in hopes of “better futures”. Instead of a safe haven, they are often met with hostility and deplorable conditions. They are forced to sleep outside or in abandoned buildings as a result of overcrowding. Camps such as Idomeni, Greece has an outstanding 11,000 people living in recreational tents at months on end. However, despite all of this, refugees are still desperate to flee the conditions in their native countries. The instability and turmoil in the Middle East, specifically in Syria, paired with the ever-rampant rise of xenophobia, has created much controversy regarding appropriate action the international community should take. Only recently have states begun to respond with considerable thought and action to the refugee crisis. For example, the Canadian government, as promised by Prime Minister

ISSUE XIII.II

Trudeau, has welcomed 25,000 Syrian refugees since November 2015 and has created the Syria Emergency Relief Fund, raising $31.8 million CAD to support humanitarian relief. Unfortunately, despite numerous states partaking in helping displaced civilians, there remain countless refugees still in need of a home. Broadly, structural realism is a theory focused on state interactions making it highly relevant in the context of foreign policy. Two principles of structural realism are especially relevant when analyzing the refugee crisis – an anarchic world order leading to self-interested states, as well as constant competition between states to increase their power. To begin, Kenneth Waltz understands international relations as an archaic system, with states as the only governing power. This order, devoid of stability, pushes states to act self-interestedly and autonomous. An example of this self-interested behaviour is demonstrated through the United Kingdom’s aversion to opening their boarders to refugees. Many believe, out of fear, that allowing refugees in would put the state at risk of terrorist disguised as refugees to enter and threaten national security. Although, a 2011 census showed net immigration into Britain of 182,000 people a year, the British government aimed in 2015 to

accept a mere 20,000 Syrian refugees by the year 2020. Recent reports by Members of Parliament have demonstrated that this goal will unlikely be met because of lack of support. Sadly, Britain is not alone in this thinking. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 8 out of 10 European countries surveyed believe that refugees will be an economic burden and take away jobs and social benefits from citizens. In order to protect national security and citizen employment opportunities, anti-immigrant rhetoric of right-wing parties has become very popular. A second principle of structural realism argues that states are in constant competition to achieve further power through improved capabilities. Through each state building up their defense mechanisms to prepare for potential attacks, it creates a ‘security dilemma’. Waltz’s notion of capabilities assesses five aspects of the state; natural resource endowment, economic, military, demographic, and technological capacity. Based on this perception, the more criteria states meet, the more capabilities and power a state achieves. This thought is demonstrated in Europe’s efforts to tighten security measures after the recent terrorist attacks, which includes a rigorous screening process for refugees entering the country.

On the other hand, structural realism ignores the very idea that morality can be a factor in states foreign policy and the role of domestic politics in the development of foreign policy. As stated by S. Telbami, “Structural realism assumes that the national interest that one describes is the same that one prescribes”. This can explain why regardless of the dangers it may cause, some countries such as Turkey who have welcomed 2.7 million refugees. Turkey’s decision highlights the fundamental paradox created by structural realism. In a humanitarian crisis that has thrown a generation of people into disarray and deprived them of their basic needs, states cannot see past their own self-interest to help. The contrast between the United Kingdom and Turkey’s responses brings this paradox into reality. We have come to an impasse where countries must decide where they fall on the spectrum between morality and self-interest. Essentially, a decision if the distinction of ones’ nationality is more important than the idea that we are all one and the same.

NOVEMBER 2016

WHY TURKEY IS AN IMPORTANT ALLY TO NATO By Ryan Anderson

Franklin D. Roosevelt once remarked of Nicaragua’s iron-fisted dictator, “Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” At the time in 1939, Anastasio Somoza García and his Nationalist Liberal Party held absolute autocracy over Nicaragua, often using violence and a freely amendable constitution to hold power. Whether or not García was seen as a dictator, Roosevelt and the United States (U.S.) was still willing to support his regime as a matter of realpolitik, since they were largely considered to be a non-communist power in Nicaragua. Although it is by no means an exact comparison, Turkey is to NATO what Nicaragua was to the U.S. – a partner that served to fulfill strategic self-interest regardless of undemocratic or humanitarian values. Turkey has been a member state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 1952, making them the first country (alongside Greece), to join the alliance post-establishment in 1949. As such, the relationship between NATO and Turkey is deep-rooted and rather complex, though not without challenges in part due to an extensive history of questionably undemocratic rule. Throughout this time, four successful military coup d’état’s have taken place in Turkey – two of which were conducted by military force (1960, 1980) and the remaining two being considered ‘coups by memorandum’, where the regime in power was ousted through decisions made at their National Security Council (1971, 1997). More recently, on July 15th, 2016 another military-led coup took place that aimed to oust their President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, along with several of Turkey’s state institutions. Although the efforts of many Turkish Armed Forces members failed to reach this objective, the attempted coup left over 300 Turkish citizens dead, and more than 1,400 injured. Consequently, these events have proved to further support the claim made by a handful of academics and politicians alike that Turkey is a politically unstable country plagued with undemocratic rule, values, and principles. Therefore, unsuitable to remain a NATO member. While many of these arguments against the democratic robustness in Turkey are legitimate and oftentimes true, using it as a justification to expel Turkey from NATO simply does

ISSUE XIII.II

not outweigh both the geo-political and security benefits that Turkey provides NATO as an alliance member. Put simply, it is not in their own self-interests to remove Turkey, and by keeping them as an alliance member, NATO is not only increasing their own power and security in a self-help international system, they are effectively balancing a lopsided power dynamic heavily monitored, and for the most part caused by, Russia. With regards to why Turkey plays such a vital geopolitical and security role to NATO, here are some points to consider. To start, the country is located just sixty miles away from the Syrian border. It has the second largest army in NATO itself after the U.S., and it serves as the only anchor to NATO’s southeastern flank into the Middle East – a region that has been the origin of undoubtedly the most pressing security challenges facing the international stage today. In addition, southern Turkey is home to the Incirlik Air Base. Being the only air base that is a part of the United States Air Forces in Europe, allowing surveillance drones and fighter aircrafts to have quicker and easier access to these areas. Much more importantly, however, a recent report from the Congressional Research Service showed that Incirlik has a current stockpile of some fifty B61 nuclear bombs, and under the NATO nuclear burden-sharing agreement, NATO has access to these nuclear weapons if needed. It should also be noted since the 2010 Lisbon Summit, Turkey now hosts an American operated and controlled X-band radar in the Malatya province, about 400 miles west of the Iranian border. This radar is a crucial military and security capability to NATO as it is able to detect the threat of early ballistic missile launches coming from Iran. All of the security benefits that Turkey brings to the table are not just for the purpose of stabilizing the Middle East; they act as a deterrent to Turkey’s almost neighbour, Russia, that simultaneously shifts the balance of power throughout the region. There is nothing more that Vladimir Putin would like see than a detachment between Turkey and NATO, especially after the relations between Russia and Turkey have steadily grown over the past few years. One of the most salient reasons for this is due to energy attainment. First, Turkey is the gateway to Caucasus, a region at the border of Europe and Asia that has many economically important minerals and energy resources (e.g., alunite, gold, natural gas), and to the Caspian Sea, the largest enclosed inland body of water on Earth. Second, the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, and the Bosphorus (which all make up the Turkish Straits), are sovereign territory of Turkey that is governed by the Montreux Convention. Why does this matter? The Bosphorus, for example, is one of the most important chokepoints for the transit of oil in the entire world. It is predicted that more than three percent of the global supply of oil passes through this 31-kilometer-long strait that either keeps Russia in, or out, of the Black Sea. If NATO were to distance themselves from Turkey, this could potentially allow Russia to try to claim sovereign territory that they are not entitled to, which has been a common foreign policy theme recently for Russia. While the continuation of undemocratic governance in Turkey should not be encouraged by NATO, it should also not be the reason to effectively cut ties with an ally of sixty-four years. The self-interests of NATO and its Western members that are fulfilled by Turkey’s geopolitical and security advantage greatly outweigh the current political situation in the country. Moreover, if NATO does indeed decide to expel Turkey as an alliance member, this will then set a rather daunting precedent to the democratic criteria needed to maintain NATO membership. Quite frankly, if this does indeed become the case, NATO has a lot more democratic assessments to do for their member countries in the years, if not months to come.

NOVEMBER 2016

A DOSE OF REALISM: NATO in Libya By Jacob D’Souza

In the early 21st century Somalia was recognized as the quintessential failed state. Libya is now challenging this notion. In February 2011, thousands of Libyans joined the Arab Spring movement to protest against their authoritarian leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had been the leader of Libya for 42 years. Gaddafi used aggressive military force in attempts to end these protests and as the opposition chose to arm themselves as well, the state descended into civil war. In March 2011, NATO launched an air campaign over Libya with the goal of enforcing a no-fly zone, in pursuance of a United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force to protect Libyan civilians. However, NATO’s role evolved to actively coordinate offensive operations with rebels against Gaddafi’s military. By October 2011, Gaddafi was killed and the opposition had captured the capital, Tripoli. NATO countries were initially pleased with the fall of Gaddafi as it proved that it was possible to undertake a successful U.N.-authorised military intervention without the use of ground troops. However, today, Libya is considered one of the most unstable states. Politically, there are two rival parliaments and three governments, in addition to 1,700 armed militias, each controlling different regions of the country. Militarily, Daesh has exploited the power vacuum and established a presence in the country. Economically, oil production has dropped by two-thirds, and the country entering its third consecutive year of recession beginning 2015. Given this political, military, and economic instability, most NATO countries have largely kept their distance from events in Libya since the death of Gaddafi. The United States (U.S.), France, and the United Kingdom reportedly have special operations forces in the country, and the U.S. has conducted

ISSUE XIII.II

three airstrikes against Daesh since November of 2015. Yet, there has been no substantial support from NATO in regards to military or financial aid. NATO’s current hands-off approach can largely be explained by Hans Morgenthau’s theory of classical realism. Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of humans that influences states and individuals to act self-interestedly. Realism centres around the principle that states always act in their own interest. Eliminating Gaddafi was in the interest of many NATO nations, who for decades considered him a sponsor of terror against the West. A Libya without Gaddafi yielded the potential for state governments to act more accepting to Western interests. In an oil-rich country located close to the borders of Western Europe, that prospect was enticing. A further important aspect of realism is that decisions are never made on a moral basis. Any action taken by Western nations in Libya for the sake of restoring a single unified Libyan government would come at a significant price. The county’s militias are armed with advanced weaponry in some cases. In July 2016, three French special forces soldiers died when a militia shot down their helicopter near Benghazi. Further casualties would be inevitable, even in another air campaign with no boots on the ground. It may be argued NATO launched its air campaign on the belief that in the face of inaction, tens of thousands of opposition fighters and civilians would have been killed. However, the alliance’s moral obligation ended with the fall of Gaddafi’s regime. After all, there was little appetite among Western domestic populations for a repeat of the Afghan mission, in which NATO forces have maintained a fighting and advisory role for 15 years, not to mention spending trillions of dollars on aid. Yet in some ways, the classical interpretation of realism fails to explain the inaction of NATO states. Over the past year and a half, Libya has played a central role in the mass migration to Europe. Libya’s short distance from Southern Europe, as well as its lawlessness, has attracted human smugglers who launch boats to Turkey, Greece, and Italy. Most NATO members in Europe are under domestic pressure from voters to reduce migration. If they examine events through a realist lens, taking action to stabilize Libya is no longer a matter of moral obligation for Europe, but a direct matter of national interest. NATO should apply the teachings of the Libyan campaign to its future endeavours by analyzing potential missions through a realist lens. Rather than seeking to fight all those it sees as morally undesirable, it must question the net effect of their removal. If such undesirable leaders can reasonably be foreseen to be replaced by something worse, than a military campaign against them should be considered undesirable.

NOVEMBER 2016

STRUCTURAL REALISM AND THE NUCLEAR DEAL IN IRAN By Sean Adessky

Academics are constantly seeking to define international politics in terms of specific theories that are used to explain the state of affairs. In an era of global modernization, fueled by technological and industrial advancement, these theories have had to advance and modernize as well, each wanting to out-do the other, in order to assert that their theory best answers questions plaguing international politics. In 1979, during the height of the Cold War, leading academic Kenneth Waltz advanced his own theory of international relations. What he coined as structural realism has become one of the dominant views today. Essentially, structural realism argues that the world is defined by anarchy above all else, and that at the end of the day, the only thing a state cares about is their own security and prosperity. Every state is a player in the world game, and worldwide security is achieved through a balance of power between the biggest players. When it came to Iran developing a nuclear bomb, most of the world, proponents and opponents of the eventual nuclear deal, seemed to agree, at a minimum, that the world was better off without a nuclear Iran. However, interestingly enough, in 2012 Waltz used his own theory to advance a position that the world would be better off with Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb. In his article “Why Iran Should Get The Bomb”, Waltz stressed the crucial idea that “power begs to be balanced”, pointing to a nuclear Israel as a reason why Iran would never cease to push forward with its own plans. Waltz pointed to Pakistan and India as a clear example that when rivals each obtained nuclear arms, it actually creates more stability in the region through the concept of mutually assured destruction. There is a certain logic to his position. Imagine the consequences if Iran were to be linked to a nuclear attack against Israel. Similarly, if Israel hasn’t attacked Iran as of yet, they will definitely think twice before attacking a nuclear Iran. That being said, if the proponent of the structural realist viewpoint believes Iran should get the bomb, why did Iran sign a deal curbing their nuclear capabilities a mere three years after Waltz penned his article? The answer, interestingly enough, lies within structural realism as well. While Waltz’s arguments explain how structural realism advocates in favour of an Iranian nuke,

ISSUE XIII.II

it ignores some of the political realities inside Iran as well as their relations with neighbouring countries other than Israel. If Waltz’ logic is correct in saying that an armed Israel requires an armed Iran, than what does an armed Iran say about Saudi Arabia, and Iran’s other regional enemies? Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy explains, “[Iran] acquiring nuclear weapons will encourage other states in the Middle East to follow suit”. Giving us a better time reference, Anthony Clement of Modern Diplomacy notes “With many devastated states in the region, should Iran acquire nuclear weaponry, Saudi Arabia would be forced to do likewise, seeking weaponry from Pakistan or China within a week or month” . While Iran would achieve their goal in getting the bomb, it would trigger a chain of events creating a much less stable Middle East than is currently the case with Israel being the sole country possessing nuclear weapons. Unlike 1979, the world is no longer defined by bipolarity, and power on one side cannot simply be matched with power on the other. Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all belong to vastly different poles, and this situation cannot simply be viewed within the prism of East vs. West relations. Another important point to note with respect to Israel involves the bombing campaigns of Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007) to prevent the abilities of rival nations to create nuclear weapons. While Waltz explains that this has made Israel’s enemies ‘anxious’ to be able to respond, Iran has to recognize that a situation where they have not signed a deal with world powers will likely result in Israel taking matters into their own hands and using similar measures to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Stephen Walt echoes this concern, noting how we have already seen in past years instances where Iranian scientists have been killed, with many believing this to be the work of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence organization. Simply put, structural realism dictates that Israel will do whatever it needs to secure its own interests, regardless of international laws, customs, or norms. Iran would be wise to avoid a situation where Israel feels it is forced to take matters into their own hands. Inside the country, crippling sanctions have rendered the Iranian state and its people desperate for economic freedoms that would allow them to prosper. As Jay Solomon of the Wall Street Journal explains “[Rouhani] was elected in 2013 on a platform to end the nuclear standoff

and build bridges to the West”, noting that the signing of the deal “fueled euphoria in Tehran among residents, students and business executives seeking greater freedom”. Structural realism requires power to be matched, yet if a government is unable to provide for its people, it will not be able to stay in power long enough to be able to challenge a rival’s military might. If you want evidence that the signing of the deal strengthens Rouhani’s reputation, look no further than the current efforts by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to minimize the influence the deal has on the upcoming presidential elections in February 2017. As Rouhani aims to use the effects of the deal as fuel to support his campaign, Khamenei is attempting to do the opposite. Solomon explains “Iranian academics close to Mr. Rouhani are increasingly concerned Mr. Khamenei will use

the money and diplomatic rewards to entrench hard-liner allies, at the expense of the president.” The dual nature of Rouhani’s struggle for political success exemplifies the difficult nature of ruling a country with strong traditional religious values occupying a position equal to or above desires for economic success and modernization. While structural realism fuels Iranian hardliners’ calls for nuclear weapons, it also requires that Iran be able to provide for its citizens. Unfortunately for Rouhani, he faces an election where he must ensure that he can provide for his people; show that he can match Israel’s power, and show his commitment to traditional Islamic values, a tough task to say the least.

NOVEMBER 2016

CAMOUFLAGING OFFENSIVE REALISM: Russian Aggression in Eastern Europe By Spencer Belyea

Since the ousting of President Victor Yanukovych in 2013, Russia has taken an active role in Ukraine, both officially and unofficially. It is widely accepted, even if it has not been admitted, that Russian troops are fighting the Ukrainian army in the breakaway Donetsk People’s Republic, and that the illegitimate Crimean referendum was Russia’s way of annexing the sovereign territory of another state. But how does Russia take what seems to be fairly blatant action in plain sight and come away generally unscathed, aside from some economic sanctions? Much of the answer lies in the rhetoric that Russia is publicly using to both justify their actions and to frame their stance in general. In what has essentially become an authoritarian country – at best it can be classified as an illiberal democracy – it is shocking that Russia is using established liberal logic to legitimize their actions. Espousing rationale that has been reasonably and successfully deployed in previous situations by the United States, NATO, and the West, Russia has used reasons that on their surface seem reasonable and rooted in liberal internationalism. Liberal internationalism is the theory of using es-

ISSUE XIII.II

tablished norms and institutions to find solutions to international issues. This theory includes the protection of minority groups, the ethnic Russians that inhabit the eastern part of Ukraine and Crimea, the right to self-determination, played out by the referendum in Crimea, and the protection of democracy from power-seeking authoritarians, as Russia has characterized the overthrow of the Yanukovych government and subsequent election of President Petro Poroshenko. In a theoretical vacuum, protecting minorities, ensuring the right to self-determination, and defeating power-hungry authoritarian rulers all seem like goals that would be amenable to much of the international community, and fall within the scope of liberal internationalism. But, given that none of Russia’s characterizations of the situations are accurate there is an ulterior motive behind their actions. The other side of the coin sees how ethnic Russians have set up illegitimate mini-states and are not being oppressed, the Crimean referendum was rigged, and the Ukrainian government may be corrupt and incompetent but certainly are not fascists. In this reality, Russia’s liberal justification is

just a cover for their own aggressive, self-interested actions, actions which can best be characterized not by any form of liberalism, but by John J. Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism. Offensive realists are power maximizers who seek to gain power and influence at the expense of rivals and become a hegemon within their region. They do this through taking advantage of situations where the benefits of aggressive action outweigh the costs. These regional hegemons do not want peers, and feel threatened by other powers or potential powers who seem to be challenging their dominance. As a result, offensive realism is a useful lens through which to view Russia’s actions in Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. They see themselves, rightly or wrongly, as the hegemon in the region, and are constantly looking to expand and consolidate their power. Russian actions in Ukraine from 2013 to the present are the most obvious and recent example, but definitely not the only one. Russia’s involvement in Georgia in 2008 and the sabre-rattling regarding the Baltic states are other examples. They saw a chance to seriously project their power in Ukraine by supporting and intervening on behalf of the Donetsk People’s Republic in the East and engineering the secession of Crimea in the South – actions that are highly ironic given their intensely offensive realist nature juxtaposed against their liberal internationalist rhetoric. Russia correctly assessed that the military infrastructure and political situation in Ukraine was insufficient to stop them from achieving their goals, and that NATO specifically, and the West in general would not take action strong enough to make their aggression unprofitable. It is important to remember that the catalyst for Ukrainian unrest was the Yanukovych government backing away from signing the European Union-Ukraine Association agreement, which would have led to closer ties and created a potential pathway to European Union (E.U.) membership. Under intense economic and political pressure from Russia, which sees Ukraine as squarely within their traditional sphere of influence, President Yanukovych declined to sign the agreement. This reversal triggered the Euromaidan protests, the eventual overthrow of his government, and the still-ongoing fighting in the country’s eastern region. Russia’s actions on this matter play out in a manner befitting of an offensive realist.

Russia sees itself as a hegemon, and wants no peers or challengers, so when one comes along – in this case the E.U. and NATO – it takes action to try to drive them away. In some respects, they have succeeded, as Ukraine is now firmly divided into three parts (the Ukrainian-controlled central and western regions, the Russian/rebel controlled east, and Russian-annexed Crimea) with the hope for a reconciliation or reunification exceedingly bleak. The next potential conflict spot is in the Baltics, where there is concern that Russia will try to do much of the same thing in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The dynamics on the NATO side are different, since those three states are full-fledged members and there would be an obligation to defend them if attacked.

So what can be done to stop Russian aggression?

Right now, Russia sees the benefits as outweighing the negatives – and since they will forever see NATO as a threat to their status in the region, the only way to change the narrative is to make the negatives outweigh the benefits. Since Europe is heavily reliant on Russian-produced energy, it seems that economic sanctions strong enough to change Russian strategy are highly unlikely to be implemented. This leaves the military option, one that NATO would certainly like to avoid. However, Russia has shown a willingness to fight, and the only way to stop that willingness is to have a clear opponent who is also willing to fight, one that is strong enough and cohesive enough to make it against Russia’s best interests to engage. This is what NATO was designed to be, and still has the possibility to be, recent rifts notwithstanding. But, Russia still does not seem convinced that NATO will hold up if put under pressure. And, until it is convinced, it will continue to be aggressive and maximize its power, trying to solidify its position as a regional hegemon, all the while justifying it in rhetoric that is familiar and appealing to the very people it is ultimately fighting.

NOVEMBER 2016

O THE OBSERVER METRIC 3,946: murders in Caracas, Venezuela in 2015

359: attacks on medical facilities in Syria since 2011 72: civilian casualties from NATO airstrikes in Libya

40: percent decrease in market price of quinoa from 2014 to 2015

13: percent of popular vote won by the Sweden Democrats in 2014 election

19.3: percent of seats held by women in the United States House of Representatives 65: percent of Americans using the internet as their primary source of election news

42: number of deaths due to U.S. airstrike on the Kunduz Trauma Centre in Afghanistan 400,000: number of people internally displaced by ongoing conflict in Libya as of 2015

75,000: increase in metric tonnes of avocados exported by Mexico from 2015 to 2016 7: percent of popular vote won by the Greek Golden Dawn Party in the 2015 election 3: percent of the World’s oil supply that pass through the Bosphorus Strait every year 50: number of B61 nuclear bombs stored on Incirlik military base in Turkey 97: Turkey’s rank on the Economist Intelligences’ Democracy Index 65,300,000: people displaced by conflict or persecution in 2015 53.3: Venezuelan public debt as percent of GDP in 2015 70: percent decrease in the price of oil since June 2014 730: medical workers killed in the Syria since 2011