Queen's International Observer Issue 12.2 by The Observer

QUEEN’S INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER December Issue 12.2

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

QUEEN’S INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER

Dear Reader,

ISSUE 12.2

Welcome to issue 12.2 of the Queen’s International Observer, “Allies & Enemies.” An entirely student-run magazine, the QIO has been in publication on campus since 2003, recently incorporated as an initiative of the Queen’s International Affairs Association. We seek to be a creative outlet for students to provide a wide range of critical perspectives on topics in world politics. “Allies & Enemies” aims to provide an overview of global alliances and conflicts, whether they be military, economic, or ideological. To begin, Matthew Scoon discusses the implications of the recently approved Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for the geostrategic relationship between the United States and Japan. While Yonatan Belete takes part in the debate on the theorized “Anglo-American special relationship,” Casey Coleman gives her predictions on whether the election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals will generate a shift in Canadian foreign policy vis-à-vis the United States. Furthermore, Madeline Ciuffetelli calls for coordinated efforts among participants at the G20 Summit in Turkey to pursue stability amid the conflict between the Turkish government and the country’s Kurdish minority, and Rachael Tung points to the need for a more cohesive policy among European Union member states in addressing Europe’s refugee crisis. Meanwhile, Kiran Waterhouse examines the political role that Pope Francis has undertaken amid declining religiosity in Western Europe. Finally, Kayla Maria Rolland reflects on the state of Northern Ireland’s paramilitary organizations after the Troubles. The QIO is also pleased to feature the work of external writers. Garrett Milne provides a defence of whistleblowers in an era where the debate over surveillance and civil liberty has intensified, while Jeremy Rogers offers an alternative perspective on Europe’s refugee crisis. “Allies & Enemies” is merely a glimpse of the diverse insights and creative ideas that the QIO team has to offer. If you share our passion for journalism and world politics, consider writing for the QIO–external submissions are always welcome. Until the next issue, we hope that “Allies & Enemies” leaves you wanting to learn more. Sincerely, Emerson Murray, Editor-in-Chief, Vol. XII Georgina Giannopoulos & Julia Milden, Assistant Editors, Vol. XII

THE TEAM EDITORIAL Emerson Murray Editor-in-Chief Political Studies 17’

Julia Milden Assistant Editor Medicine 20’

Georgie Giannopoulos Assistant Editor Political Studies 17’

Raine Storey Layout Editor Fine Arts 17’

WRITERS Yonatan Belete Political Studies 16’

Casey Coleman Political Studies 17’

Kayla Maria Rolland Political Studies 18’

Rachel Tung Political Studies 18’

Madeleine Ciuffetelli Applied Economics 16’

Alexander Green Political Studies 18’

Matthew Scoon Political Studies 15’

Kiran Waterhouse Political Studies 16’

EMAIL: CONTACT@QUEENSOBSERVER.ORG The views expressed by the WEBSITE: WWW.QUEENSOBSERVER.ORG authors are their own, and do

not necessarily reflect those of the editorial board or the Queen’s International Affairs Association.

DECEMBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ISSUE 12.2

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: PUTTING THE ‘P’ IN ‘PIVOT’ Author: Matthew Scoon

Anglo-American Special Relationship: TIES THAT BIND Author: Yonatan Belete

Federal Election 2015: A NEW CANADA-U.S. RELATIONSHIP? Author: Casey Coleman

Whistleblowers: FRIEND OR FOE? Author: Garrett Milne

G A O A C

Page: 6

Page: 8

Page: 10

Page: 11

G20 Summit: AT THE CENTRE OF VIOLENCE Author: Madeline Ciuffetelli

Refugee Crisis: THE E.U.’S LOSS OF DIRECTION Author: Rachel Tung

The End of an Exodus: HOW FIXING SYRIA WILL SOLVE THE MIGRANT CRISIS Author: Jeremy Rogers

Religion and Secularism in Europe: THE POLITICAL POPE Author: Kiran Waterhouse

After the Troubles: PROGRESS AMID A DARK LEGACY Author: Kayla Maria Rolland

Page: 13

Page: 15

Page: 16

Page: 18

Page: 20

DECEMBER 2015

The Trans-Pacific Partnership:

PUTTING THE ‘P’ IN ‘PIVOT’ Matthew Scoon, Political Studies 15’ AFTER NEARLY a decade of negotiations, twelve countries agreed to the drafting of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) this October. Once the American Congress gives its approval, the six thousand page agreement will be put into motion. The explicit goals of the TPP are to promote trade through the reduction of protective barriers while also facilitating transparency, good governance, improvements in living standards, and environmental cooperation. For some of the low and middle income member countries, such as Vietnam, the economic benefits are tremendous. For example, Vietnam stands to gain nearly $96 billion by 2025, 28 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). On the surface, the TPP will have an immediate impact on states’ domestic operations. Examples of such impacts include minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property, labour, and environment. However, for the United States and Japan, both of whom are the two wealthiest states in the agreement, the TPP has a greater purpose than simply the harmonization of policy or an increase in economic growth. Observers argue that the TPP serves as a significant geopolitical tool for the United States to address the growing security concerns produced by China’s ever-apparent rise.

ISSUE 12.2

To better understand the true magnitude of the TPP, we must look at the recent developments in Sino-US relations. Late this September, American President Barack Obama hosted China’s General Secretary, Xi Jinping, to address regional and global challenges, international development cooperation, and strengthening bilateral relations (e.g. cyber security and counterterrorism). The genial atmosphere of Xi’s state visit ended quickly, as Obama authorized the American warship USS Lassen to sail within twenty nautical miles of the Subi reef, exactly where China has been franticly constructing artificial islands in the South China Sea. This action caused an uproar among Chinese officials, claiming the sail-by of the Lassen on October 27 was a slight against China’s sovereignty. Evidently, China’s construction of islands, and the subsequent antagonism by the United States, signals the true nature of Sino-US relations. China is casting an increasing shadow over the U.S.’s economic and military preponderance, indicating a possible threat to what Charles Kupchan labels as Pax Americana–peace of the international system under the rule of the United States. Many have criticized the inactivity of the U.S. in rebalancing China since the Obama administration launched the strategic “pivot” towards Asia in

2009. However, the TPP serves as the single greatest symbol of the Obama administration’s attempt to countervail China’s influence. The proposed Asian Investment Infrastructure Bank (AIIB) and One Belt, One Road (OBOR) are two institutions constructed by China to connect with countries in Central and Southeast Asia. These developments demonstrate China’s increasing global power, and they compete directly with the well established, Western dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB). As stated by Kupchan, global powers impose social norms and values in addition to their material assets (military, population, territory, etc.). The AIIB and OBOR would bring states into the sphere of China’s influence, acting as a beacon of Chinese norms and values. Conversely, the TPP offers the United States an opportunity to further entrench their liberal beliefs into an accessible framework. This would solidify America’s footprint in the South East Asian region. To challenge China’s global ascent, the zero-sum nature of the TPP excludes non-members from the benefits of the free trade agreement. In Obama’s State of the Union address, he stated that “China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region…we should write those

rules.” By establishing an economic composition in the Pacific Rim, the United States may continue to “write the rules”, ensuring their regional presence. The alliance between Japan and the United States, enacted by the drafting of the TPP, also gives legitimacy to the United State in increasing its Asian military force under the rationale of protecting economic interests. According to executive editor of The Strategist, Rod Lyon, by 2020, 60% of US air and naval forces will be based in the region. A sudden surge of naval and air forces in the pacific region would be difficult to justify without the existence of the TPP; America now has an excuse for the enormous transfer of military units. Upon the conclusion of the Cold War, political scientist Joseph Nye described the notion

of soft power as the power that states achieve through ideological attraction as well as rules of international regimes. The IMF, WB, TPP, AIIB, and OBOR are all important institutions and configurations for emitting values, culture, and norms. The soft power gained (or merely retained) by the United States through the TPP is why a fairly innocuous free trade agreement has such important consequences for addressing the rise of China. Hopefully, the Sino-US competition will continue to take place in the confines of international institutions. The alternative may involve naval and air forces slowly cruising towards the South China Sea.

DECEMBER 2015

Anglo-American Special Relationship:

TIES THAT BIND

“The British Parliament and Big Ben” by Maurice via Flickr. CLicensed underC BY 2.0. Yonatan Belete, Political Studies 16’

THE IDEA OF an “Anglosphere” has made its way through academic circles in recent years, finding its origins in assumptions about a “special” relationship between the English-speaking countries of the world. In particular, an “Anglo-American” special relationship has become the subject of much debate. Used to describe the unique alliance between the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States (U.S.), the Anglo-American special relationship typifies an inimitable friendship rooted in shared values and interests, as well as a common history and language. There are genuinely ties that bind Anglo-American relations, not only because they generate trust and affinity, but also because they encourage shared

ISSUE 12.2

interpretations of the world and how it should be. Nonetheless, the concept of ‘specialness’ warrants further scrutiny. What makes this transatlantic alliance truly special is that it “transcends the norms of conventional sovereign-state relationships.” The force of their collective identity prevails over their conflicts of interest, and unites them in the pursuit of a common objective. In this sense, the Anglo-American special relationship–forged by more than mere legal documents–has proven to be one of the most influential in history. It gives substance to claims by American Presidents, past and present, that the U.S. has no better ally than the U.K. But some scholars, such as Niall Ferguson, have argued

against the very existence of a special relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. In their view, the special relationship is little more than a Churchillian fiction. Is the special relationship merely imagined? For former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the Anglo-American special relationship not only existed but carried religious-like qualities. Churchill spoke of the alliance as if it was etched in the Holy Scriptures and, therefore, requiring not inspection, but simply revelation. Apart from Churchill, those who do believe in the existence of a special relationship, most notably former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, view it as purely functional. Alex Danchev, a Professor of International Relations at the University of St.

Andrews, explains that, from a functionalist standpoint, “[the Anglo-American special relationship] did not arise naturally from an existential sense of community. It had to be nurtured and, above all, negotiated.” According to this perspective, the Anglo-American relationship is special but not invincible. While a special relationship may exist, it can only survive for as long as Britain’s utility coincides with American strategic interests. But Churchill, unlike Acheson, understood the special relationship as an unbreakable bond between two global powers, tied together by fate itself. Alan Dobson and Steve Marsh, Professors of International Relations at St. Andrew’s and Cardiff University, respectively, argue that the Anglo-American special relationship is real and exists as an enduring geostrategic institution. Although it had its fair share of conflicts and near-misses that almost resulted in war (most notably the Venezuelan Crisis, 1902 and the Suez Crisis, 1953), the relationship has weathered drastic changes in the international system. It has borne the test of time, and shows no signs of ending. Notably, the special nature of this relationship, in comparison to other alliances, was shown by the Venezuelan crisis of 1902. In December of 1902, British and German gunboats were deployed into Venezuelan waters in order to coerce the South Americans into paying their debts. Both imperial powers established naval blockades and began bombing Venezuelan ports. After hearing of the considerable use of force levied against Venezuela, the American press “exploded in condemning the action and induced the [American] government to re-

act.” The knowledge of European power exerting force in the Americas prompted President Roosevelt to dispatch a battleship squadron to the embattled shores of Venezuela. Less than two weeks into the blockade, the British and Germans agreed to resolve the crisis via arbitration. However, when German warships bombarded yet another Venezuelan port in January of 1903, the agreement fell through and tensions rose between the US and the European aggressors.

With guns at the ready, war between three continental powers looked to be inevitable. Miraculously, the U.S., via a second round of arbitration, forced the withdrawal of the European armies from the Americas, avoiding what would certainly have been a catastrophic war. What the near-miss in Venezuela illustrates is the strengthening of the ties that bound the Anglo-American special relationship. For many historians, the years 1902-1903 were a time of rapprochement between the U.K. and the U.S. that would later cul-

minate in the Great War alliance of 1917. A rapprochement, nonetheless, that originated from a collective identity. As Srdjan Vucetic, a professor of international relations theory and U.S. foreign policy at the University of Ottawa, explains, “Britain backed off in the Venezuelan crisis not because of a cold reassessment of its overall threat environment but because its elites could not explain to the British public why they should want to fight white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men like themselves.” What the Venezuelan crisis represents is a moment in Anglo-American relations in which identity trumped strategic interests and nationalism. A moment where both the U.K. and the U.S. “claimed the obligation to resolve disputes peacefully to claim the right to lead civilization forward, by example as well as by military might.” Therefore, the Venezuelan crisis is one example of a near-miss that resulted in the strengthening of the Anglo-American special relationship, where both English speaking countries placed their similarities, language, norms, values, religion, and shared fate above their patriotism. At varying moments in history, the U.K. and the U.S. have been both allies and enemies in their quest for global primacy. But the Anglo-American relationship is a special alliance that has endured through these conflicts of interests by focusing on shared values. As the great champion of this relationship, Winston Churchill, once declared, “if we are together, nothing is impossible.”

DECEMBER 2015

“Justin and Sophie Trudeau” by Renegade98 via Flickr. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Federal Election 2015: Casey Coleman, Political Studies 17’

THIS OCTOBER, Canadians formally announced their frustration with the former Conservative Federal Government and their desire for change. The liberal party of Canada won a decisive majority with 54% of the vote, successfully ending a decade of Conservative power led by Former Prime Minister Harper. Earlier this month, the new face of Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau, took office. He will begin to take action on several of the commitments he made to Canadian voters during the election period. Many ambitious and anxious Canadians are now left wondering, what will be top priority on this long to-do list of improvements for the new head of government? Some of the commitments Trudeau has mentioned include increasing student grants, ensuring employment insurance and developing environmentally clean forestry technologies. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has made several campaign promises he intends to fulfill, he repeatedly notes the crucial importance of Canada and US relations– one he says Harper strained and abused for years. During a campaign speech last June, Trudeau recounted the story of how a great Prime Minister once told him that a successful leader concerns themselves

ISSUE 12.2

A NEW CANADA U.S. RELATIONSHIP? with three major responsibilities once elected to office: growing the economy, unifying the country, and successfully managing our relationship with the United States. Being Canada’s largest trading partner, as well as a superpower ally with a booming economy and military, it is apparent why this relationship is of utmost importance to the new Prime Minister. Trudeau continued to say that he believes the “…root cause of these failures has more to do with Mr. Harper’s diplomatic approach than with a weakening of the shared interests that unite our countries.” He then accused Former Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Government of administrating power with a “hyper partisan” rule, which led to “important missed opportunities to cooperate with the United States and find solutions to major issues such as climate control.” The new Prime Minister has made it clear that rebuilding a strong relationship with the US will be priority on his agenda, as the alliance is crucial to Canada’s survival and growth. This comment made by Prime Minister Trudeau above was clearly in reference to the Keystone oil pipeline, first commissioned in 2008, which runs across both the US and Canada.

The last phase of three in the Keystone oil pipeline system was a proposal to manufacture the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have been the largest yet, carrying oil on a shorter route directly from the Alberta oil sands to refiners throughout the U.S. The first two phases of the project proved to be efficient, and financially beneficial as the US was able to import an average of about 7.5 million barrels of oil per day. As Keystone XL was being discussed, many environmentalists raised concerns about the project, ultimately pushing President Barak Obama to postpone the third phase until the pipeline could be manufactured in a more environmentally sustainable manner. Tension was created between the two leaders when former Prime Minister Harper, with the help of the Republican Congress, attempted to veto president Obama’s vote to forgo the building of the pipeline. Ultimately, they were unsuccessful. Prime Minister Trudeau noted that Harper had more than six years to build that opportunity into real progress, but he refused to cooperate with Democrats and environmentalists. As he begins his time in office, Prime Minister Trudeau has already begun strengthening the relationship with these two parties by promis-

ing that he will not go forth with the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline until there is a strong environmental policy put into action. Many scholars argue that Canadians can expect to see a shift from a Conservative to a more Liberal ideology in several areas of policy making. In addition, Prime Minister Trudeau’s new position could impact the US federal election next year. Most crucially, several scholars predict that Prime Minister Trudeau’s win in Canada could lead to the termination of the Republican Party in the US. In his book, The Presidential Pulse of Congressional Elections, author James Campbell notes that political leaders are supposed to maintain allegiances while sustaining and fueling further inter-

ests of the people. He continues by arguing that Prime Minister Trudeau’s liberal victory could be the final blow to an already weak US Republican party. In a campaign speech last June, Justin Trudeau admitted that in past circumstances, the president and prime minister haven’t always been on the best terms, pointing to his own father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and President Richard Nixon as a candid example. He assures, nonetheless, that with understanding and cooperation, this relationship

can be amended and strengthened. The question remains: will the new “Trudeau Era” save the crumbling relationship between Canada and the US, and will it withstand the potential for a new conservative leadership five years from now?

“Obama Loving the Electorate” by Steve Jurvetson via Flickr. Licenced under CC BY 2.0.

Whistleblowers: FRIEND OR FOE? Garrett Milne, History 16’

WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE been integral to the exposure of illegal activities that governments and organizations have committed but would rather keep hidden. While these illicit activities take place in secret, whistleblowers create transparency where none existed. From Jeremy Sterling to Chelsea Manning to the newest ‘lifter of files,’ ex-HSBC employee Hervé Falciani, whistleblowers are global countercultural heroes. Those who ‘blow the whistle’ on stories of this nature are often left to take on an angry set of lawyers and pros-

ecutors with little legal or media support. Treated as criminals, whistle blowers–and the crimes they uncovered–make their way once again into the annals of history. These individuals face the full force of the justice system for exposing the truth. They sit in jail for years, even decades while their character is picked apart and destroyed, and the secrets they uncovered are left for the public to discuss. Whistleblowers are treated as enemies while the criminals remain free. There’s almost no great-

er example of this than the case of John Kiriakou. A retired CIA agent, Kiriakou was the man responsible for revealing to the world George W. Bush’s torture program conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency. Through a number of interviews, Kiriakou exposed the true nature of the CIA’s “Enhanced Interrogation Program.” The use of waterboarding by the CIA was one of the torture techniques Kiriakou shocked the world with; no one in the public knew it was being used. The specific case the Kiriakou was discussing was that

DECEMBER 2015

of Abu Zubaydah, one of the first high-profile al-Queda members to be caputured post 9/11. He was interrogated at a “black site” in Thailand and at the Guantanamo Bay prison, being water-boarded eighty-three times. After publically discussing and condemning the torture techniques used by the CIA, Kiriakou was charged with illegally providing the names of C.I.A. officers and other classified information to two journalists: Scott Shane and Matthew Cole. Although charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, many believe it was political retaliation for exposing the well-liked ‘Enhanced Interrogation Program.’ After pleading guilty, he served 23 months in a federal penitentiary. For his role in the leak, he’s the only person to have been charged in relation to the United States’ torture program. But this form of repression isn’t unexpected from President Barack Obama. Since 2009, when Obama took office, eight individuals have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act, 1917. This excludes Edward Snowden, the most well known whistleblower in the current era but whose future is still undetermined. While many believe they’ve done a service to their country by exposing government illegalities, state officials believe otherwise. So why is this topic important now? As mentioned before, Edward Snowden is still residing in Russia because a return to the U.S. would mean the same treatment for him as Chelsea Manning: a 35 year sentence for leaking a trove of documents on

ISSUE 12.2

the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars to Wikileaks. In his book Surveillance After Snowden, Professor David Lyon wrote, “Knowing all too well he [Snowden] could not assume the availability of legal protection for whistleblowers in the U.S. climate, he chose self-imposed exile and was eventually given refuge in Russia.” Indeed, many have called Snowden a ‘defender of human rights’ for leaking the information about NSA surveillance. Revealed by Snowden were a number of huge privacy breeches, namely the rubberstamp Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that gave permission for the FBI to collect the phone records of millions of U.S. Verizon costumers, and BOUNDLESS INFORMANT, which was a program that the NSA used to count all the telephone calls and emails collected every day. The breadth of Snowden’s leak showed the world the truly invasive nature of the American surveillance network, and for that many have called him a hero. But Snowden’s treatment by the U.S. government and a number of American media outlets has been much harsher. His current charges could lead to thirty years in prison. Media outlets from the United States and around the world refer to Snowden as a “fame-seeking narcissist” and a “grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison.” Whistleblowers are seen as enemies to be cut down, discredited, and destroyed in order to discredit them and render their releases invalid. In the public eye, however, whistleblowers are allies. Daniel

Ellsberg, for instance, is one of the most well known whistleblowers for his role in the Pentagon Papers. Shortly after he leaked the Pentagon Papers, a massive document detailing America’s secret expansion of the Vietnam War, many within the U.S. government called him a traitor. Ellsberg was also suspected of espionage and charged with theft, conspiracy and violations of the Espionage Act. Nonetheless, the case was dropped in the end–he’s now seen as a brave hero and ally. A recent European Union ruling called for the prosecution of Edward Snowden to stop. Whether any country will offer Snowden a safe haven without fear of extradition back to the U.S. is yet to be known, however, and time will only tell. But this is a step in the right direction, and might signify a change in the tides on the matter of whistleblowers. In his book No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, The NSA, and the U.S Surveillance State, Glen Greenwald wrote, “The theory of a “fourth estate” is to ensure government transparency and provide a check on overreach, of which the secret surveillance of entire populations is surely among the most radical examples.” To ensure that the state functions properly, there has to be a method to keep the government and its officials in check. For such a check to be possible, whistleblowers must be protected rather than demonized–an attack on whistleblowers is an attack on the very function of democratic states. Whistleblowers are allies, not enemies.

G20 Summit:

AT THE CENTRE OF VIOLENCE Madeline Ciuffetelli, Applied Economics 16’

Note: This article was written before the actual G20 Summit took place November 15-16, 2015 102 PEOPLE were killed following a double suicide bombing in the Turkish capital, Ankara, this October. It’s now known that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) was responsible for this incident—the largest atrocity of this nature to ever have taken place in Turkey. The international implications of the bombing are especially significant, as the G20 is set to take place in Turkey this month. Violence in Turkey is not new; the relationship between the Turkish Government and the Kurdish minority living has been strained for decades. The southeast region of the country has consistently been plagued by war, as the Turkish military has fought against the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), who seek self-determination for Kurdish people living in Turkey. Although the two sides reached a ceasefire in 2013, violence once again escalated last July when the Kurdish town of Suruc was attacked. The suicide bomber who perpetrated the at-

“G20 Summit” by Number 10 via Flickr. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

tack killed himself and 32 others at a left-wing rally. Following this incident, the PKK killed two Turkish police officers they blamed for the Suruc bombing. This altercation occurred at the same time ISIL fighters and Turkish troops battled along the border, leading to the death of one Turkish soldier. The Turkish Government then stepped in, arresting over 1300 people who it claimed to have ties with either the PKK or ISIL. Given the violence that has plagued Turkey for the past five months, the October 10th double suicide bombing in Ankara doesn’t seem to be out of place. Yet, this horrific act is, in fact, different than the conflict that took place before. The attack marks the first time violence in Turkey has spread to major cities. Until this point, conflict was contained in the south-east region where Kurdish-Turkish relations were most strained. It also is the first of the bombings caused by external conflict, rather than internal Turkish-Kurdish friction. In this sense, the October 10th incident, as well as its aftermath, demonstrates

how Turkey is plagued with both internal and external discontent. While the Turkish government blamed the attack on the ISIL, it also attempted to blame the PKK to paint Kurdish citizens as terrorists. This accusation was purely political, an attempt to suppress support for pro-Kurdish parties in Turkey’s November 1st election. ISIL continues to act as an external factor exacerbating the violence within Turkey. Therefore, the magnitude of the double bombing should not be ignored, nor should the proximity of the attack to Turkish government buildings. Both demonstrate the ability of ISIL to use its power to create fear. Considering the ongoing violence in place, it seemed possible that some world leaders would be hesitant to attend the G20 summit in Turkey this month. Not only would safety be a matter of concern, but, in addition, the transparency of the Turkish government brings into question whether Turkey is a legitimate host. Surprisingly, all world leaders from G20 member countries are expected to attend the summit

DECEMBER 2015

at this time. Despite the safety and legitimacy concerns, this can be seen as the ideal outcome. The world leaders attending this conference can also use this as an opportunity to try and lead Turkey back toward domestic peace. While Turkish-Kurdish relations are likely to be a sensitive issue, they’re nonetheless worth addressing. The Turkish government has seemingly demonstrated support for the U.S. efforts against ISIL, but the PKK military might actually be a more powerful force in Syria. The PKK military is known to be one of the most powerful worldwide, and, since Iraq and Syria also have Kurdish populations, the PKK may be more successful in establishing bases in

these countries. At a time where the PKK and the Turkish government both have a common enemy, it would be illogical to be fighting both ISIL and each other. A G20 agenda, in which establishing peace is a primary goal, could assist in mending domestic violence within Turkey. Regardless of where the 2015 G20 summit is held, the role of Turkey in the fight against ISIL should be an agenda topic. Having the summit in Turkey itself makes this debate even more contentious, and will hopefully encourage Turkey to take its role in the war with ISIL seriously. It will also hopefully accentuate the role of other world leaders in facilitating more peaceful relations

between the Turkish and Kurdish populations–not only to help with military agendas, but also to quell the violence that has damaged Turkey since July. Fighting ISIL and establishing peace in Turkey will continue to be difficult, long-term goals. However, demonstrating a united international front at the G20 summit in Turkey is both simple and achievable in the shortterm. Nonetheless, beginning on the right foot will be necessary.

“Stop the Genocide” by Jonny Dickens via Flickr. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

ISSUE 12.2

Refugee Crisis:

THE E.U.’S LOSS OF DIRECTION Rachel Tung, Political Studies 18’

FOR A CRISIS described as the worst since World War II, one would expect international leaders–particularly those part of the largest Western alliance–to mobilize in the aid of the most vulnerable. All eyes are on European Union members like Germany, Greece, and Hungary, as they’ve faced the brunt of the current inflow of migrants, requiring cohesive policy to address it. Approximately 700,000 refugees have arrived in Europe this year, most escaping Syria in their flight from the Islamic State and other regional conflicts. More arrive each month, and the numbers are not expected to decrease despite the imminent arrival of winter. A spokesperson from the United Nations High Commission of Refugees simply describes the worsening situation as “beyond anything that could have been expected even a few months ago.” Amid these pressing concerns, the EU is facing its own internal crisis. Little comprehensive action has occurred among this powerful group of political and economic allies, who’ve taken divisive and ineffective stances on their treatment of refugees. E.U. institutions have failed to generate a clear and binding solution to the refugee crisis, especially those that are the very foundations of the alliance. Although member states have been allowed to enact autonomous policies in response to the inflow of migrants, moving

forward, they must agree on a collective plan of action. While a summit in Brussels saw E.U. states commit to welcoming 100,000 more refugees, it’s nowhere near enough to aid and settle all those who reach their territory. With members like Slovenia and Hungary closing their borders and Austria proposing harsher family reconciliation requirements for refugees, serious challenges remain. In contrast, Germany has opened its borders to migrants with great political consequence and an outpour of explicit racism. Chancellor Angela Merkel has lost public support while radical right-wing parties–likened to Hitler’s Nazis–have seen their numbers rise. E.U. members lack unity in their response to a situation that concerns them all– particularly from the very institutions that comprise their alliance. In 2011, the European Commission–the voice of the EU itself–published the Report on Immigration and Asylum, wrought with contradictions. On a more positive start, the first chapter of the report claimed that Europe required labour migration to fill its job vacancies–immigrants were an economic necessity in this sense. Yet in the report’s subsequent chapters, statistics suggested that the majority of asylum seekers and immigrants were deported to protect E.U. borders from “irregularly staying third

country nationals,” as a danger to national security. Coordinated efforts to address the migrant situation are impossible without a defined stance on immigration. The report allows excessive leeway for interpretation by members. So long as the highest commission in their alliance remains hesitant to take a firm approach, E.U. states may continue to act independent of collective interests–all while thousands of people are still seeking an escape from dangerous, life-threatening circumstances in their home countries. To determine its next course of action, the E.U. must go back to its very roots. Regardless of their divisive responses and internal contradictions, E.U. member states are still joined under the motto “united in diversity.” European nations of varying linguistic, ethnic, and religious backgrounds have joined together to work for peace and prosperity while also being enriched by each other’s differences. Why can’t they do the same with refugees? E.U. member states should not turn their backs against those who make valuable economic and cultural additions to their communities. To preserve the strength and integrity of their alliance, they must come together to address the refugee crisis that they have allowed to divide them. Indeed, reservations from smaller countries have merit

DECEMBER 2015

when their welfare systems are overwhelmed due to the influx of migrants. What is unacceptable is the exacerbation of refugees’ suffering by closing state borders, a move that merely serves domestic interests rather than those of the E.U. as a whole. There must be a collective response to the refugee crisis. A lot is required to do so: aid for frontline countries receiving the brunt of the migrants, like Greece; financial support for smaller economies that aren’t pre-

pared to support thousands more through social benefits, like Slovenia; infrastructure to help relocate migrants to countries that are able to welcome them, like Germany. It’s a large task, but they’re not in it alone. As part of the European Union, these states can employ their collective strength to pool the necessary resources for addressing the refugee crisis. It’s now only a question of whether they will open up to those who differ in ethnicity and language through equitable policy.

On matters of social diversity, member states rarely come to an agreement, but the nature of the current crisis has gone past the point where they can continue to stall. The European Union is an alliance for a reason. “Parliament’s officials newsletter: MEPs mark the most salient items” by European Parliament via Flickr. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

The End of an Exodus:

HOW FIXING SYRIA WILL SOLVE THE MIGRANT CRISIS Jeremy Rogers, Political Studies 17’

BY THE END of September, a new actor has entered the political theater of Syria: Vladimir Putin’s Russia. On Wednesday 30 September 2015 Russia began their airstrike campaign within Syria, raising fears of an increase in the number of migrants fleeing the Middle East with their trajectory set towards Western Europe. With the world’s great powers already descending upon Syria, there should be one objective in their minds: stopping the mass migration from the Middle East by ending the Syrian civil war. There’s no long-term solution to the current migrant crisis that does not include ending this conflict. Syria is a failed state. Every day this remains true, and thousands of civilians will continue to die or lose their homes as the

ISSUE 12.2

conflict persists. The current conversation on migration has drifted from the people who are truly bearing the brunt of the conflict, Syrians, toward the domestic impact of migrants. No matter how many asylum seekers Europe accepts, at the end of the day, this will leave the Syrian crisis unresolved. Sunnis continue to fight Shias, Assad continues to try and re-gain his country through force, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) continues in their quest to impose a global caliphate. The focus needs to return to the parties vying for control of the region, not how Europeans and migrants must get along. Why is it then that the world looks to change European immigration policies as a solution

to the existing power structures and struggles within Syria? Regardless of one’s opinion on the effect of migrants within their host country, it’s apparent that asylum seeker quotas will be difficult to impose. From the 100 Years’ War to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to the Shengen agreement’s border control clause of 1985, European culture, and subsequent legislation, has always been built on the basis of national sovereignty. Attempting to force the acceptance of massive numbers of migrants onto European states will not fix Syria. It has only shifted the global spotlight onto Europe. What began as a conversation about helping Syrians has manifested into a debate on the E.U. and assimilation policies.

“p-GRC0234” by International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ Photostream via Flickr. Licensed under CC BY- NC-ND 2.0

There’s a second effect to the Eurocentric spotlight: every incident in Europe involving a migrant damages the public’s view of their plight. While some European countries jumped at the chance to sponsor migrants, many political parties like England’s UKIP and France’s National Front are using the fear of migrants and ethnic strife as a platform. Such platforms, if successful, would not include a policy to help the Middle East. At present, Lebanon and Jordan have taken in the majority of Syrian immigrants. Millions of Syrian migrants head towards their borders, but neither country can support the sheer quantity. They need help. Money must go towards UN rebuilding programs in Syria,

as well as aid to countries in the region willing to take migrants. Those who fear asylum in neighboring countries – for instance Kurds, Christians, and Sunnis – should apply as refugees through proper channels or be refused entry. Claimants of refugee status may only do so through verified centers. Refugee flows are inherently volatile, therefore, some semblance of order is needed. After the humanitarian dimension of the crisis has been dealt with in the short term, the long-term process of Syrian rebuilding can begin. The EU, US, and Russia must work together to stop the conflict within Syria. The first step would be removing President Al-Assad; Russia’s renewed presence allows for dialogue with his Ba’ath party. While the Ba’ath

party could remain in power, rebel groups would not stand for Assad at its helm. Coordinating Assad’s retirement, mitigating regional conflict, and establishing a functional state within the country represent a checklist for rebuilding the region and stopping the flow of migrants. The solution to the current migrant crisis lies not on the shores of Europe, but in a cooperated effort by the great powers to fix Syria. Instead of focusing solely on migration policy we must solve the migrant crisis from its source: Syria.

DECEMBER 2015

Religion and Secularism in Europe:

THE POLITICAL POPE Kiran Waterhouse, Political Studies 15’

French Catholicism, lovingly referred to as the “eldest daughter of the Church”, is showing her age. THE ONCE ROBUST and deeply rooted Roman Catholic community is fading from the fabric of French life. According to The Economist, as recently as the 1950’s, France had 40 000 active priests; soon, the number under the age of 65 will be one tenth of that. This sense of emerging frailty has not been limited to France. The Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy are just a few examples of Western European countries experiencing a significant decline in Catholicism. While church-going populations age and decline, younger generations are repelled by the scandals currently plaguing the religious community’s image. The many deplorable instances of sexual abuse in particular have tarnished the Vatican’s international reputation. And yet – in what would seem to be a study in contrasts – the Pope, Christianity’s most enduringly powerful icon, has never been more popular. Since his assumption of the papacy in 2013, Pope Francis has shaped a public image that projects progressive values capable of

ISSUE 12.2

resonating with groups beyond his religious followers. He has tackled issues of fiscal corruption within the Vatican, rallied a call for action on climate change, and has been acknowledged for his diplomatic role in the thawing of Cuba-US relations. The adoration of Pope Francis has come so far as to even enter the discourse of popular culture. From his Rolling Stone Magazine cover to the number of ‘listicles’ written that extoll his reformer image, the current Pope has created a persona that appears fresh and progressive. The Pope’s agenda, however, is not borne of benevolence; it is actually centered on strategic image reform. As European society has secularized, the church’s ability to spread Christian religious teachings through explicitly religious frameworks like church communities has diminished. The Pope has recognized this, and has thus chosen to create a persona allowing him to spread the same core moral teachings through different channels. By combining the teachings of traditional Catholic morality and a new set of diplomatic relationships, the Pope has made his message more accessible to a secular audience. There are two distinct components that can be seen to fuel his strategy. First, the Pope

has been harshly critical of certain internal Vatican institutions. In particular, he has taken visible measures to change the Church’s opaque banking practices, and to foster a culture of greater fiscal transparency within the Holy See. These reforms are, in a way, ingenious; they have deflected attention away from some of the Vatican’s other bad press, improving its overall image. They have also given the Pope a source of moral authority separate from, and greater than, the church as an institution. The second component of Pope Francis’s political activity has been externally focused. He has established public relationships with political figures to form alliances that, in turn, bolster his authority and thus legitimize the Catholic doctrine. As one example, Pope Francis recently spoke at the United Nations about climate change, preaching that environmental justice is more important than the “boundless thirst for power and material prosperity” . The choice of venue, audience, and subject matter were strategic because his speech gave him a chance to marry moral and spiritual themes with political subject matter. To appreciate the Pope’s canny in the construction of his

public persona, one must recognize the purpose underlying the alliances he has created. The Pope is not a “progressive figure” in the Western-liberal understanding of the term. He does not believe in abortion, a woman’s right to birth control, same-sex marriage or adoption, among many other issues. He is, first and foremost, a figurehead for a huge and powerful religious institution. What his

political alliances have allowed him to do is proselytize to a secular audience, and help reform the image of the church to maintain its influence even as the world secularizes. It would be easy to try and frame the Pope’s strategies of alliance-creation within the normal parameters of the political spectrum. The best way to understand his strategies is by understand-

ing that his politics come from a unique place. The Pope’s image reform and his foray into the political world have been, at their core, about bringing the church back into the realm of the state.

“St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, England” by Treye Rice via Flickr. Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

DECEMBER 2015

After the Troubles:

PROGRESS AMID A DARK LEGACY Kayla Maria Rolland, Political Studies 18’

THIS OCTOBER, the independent report “Assessment on paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland” was published by the Secretary of the State for Northern Ireland. The report brought back memories of the paramilitary organizations in operation during “The Troubles”, three decades during 3,600 lives were lost and Ireland seemed eternally divided. With its publication, these organizations and their dark legacy reappeared under the media spotlight. During the tumultuous period of the Troubles, the most prolific paramilitary group was the Irish Republican Army (IRA), an organization with over a thousand personnel responsible for 1771 murders from 1969-1998. The IRA emerged in 1919, with its goals changing in 1949 (after the withdrawal of Ireland from the British Commonwealth) to the unification of Northern Ireland and the Irish republic. The geographic split between these two regions marked the religious divisions between a predominantly Protestant Northern Ireland and a predominantly Catholic Irish republic. Catholic minorities existed in Northern Ireland, yet remained fairly unsupportive of the IRA and its objectives until tensions rose and violence clashes began with the Protestant majority in the 1960’s during civil rights campaigns. These events marked the beginning of the Troubles, and were followed not long after by a significant split within the IRA. In 1969, the “Provisional” wing of the IRA emerged as separate from the “Official” wing. The provisional wing viewed violence as necessary for their objective, while the official sought more political avenues. The IRA’s campaign of terror–which included bombings, high profile assassinations, and murder–would continue until the signing of “The Good Friday Agreement” in 1998. Seventeen years after the Good Friday Agreement 1998, the British report states that the Provisional IRA remains “in a much reduced

ISSUE 12.2

form.” There’s little evidence that the organization is actively recruiting or that they’ve acquired new weapons in the past five years, but they do maintain access to weapons and have continued to influence the nationalist party Sinn Fein. While criminal activity is still reported within their ranks, the report boldly pronounces: “It is our firm assessment that PIRA’s [Provisional IRA] leadership remains committed to the peace process and its aim of conducting terrorist attacks against the state or its representatives.” Ten years after the IRA officially ended its armed campaign and committed itself to pursuing a united Ireland by peaceful means, the group appears to be making progress. This does not mean however, that threats to the current peace have been completely eliminated. The greatest threats to the security of Northern Ireland, as identified by the report, are dissident republicans: “paramilitary groups not on ceasefire and who reject the 1998 Belfast Agreement [Good Friday Agreement].” In the seventeen years since the agreement was signed, these dissident groups have committed notable acts of violence with worrisome frequency over the last six years. These include murders of police officers and soldiers, shootings, bombings, and other acts of terror and intimidation. This activity, with striking similarity to events during the Troubles, demonstrates the deep wounds from Northern Ireland’s past that have yet to completely heal. Northern Ireland remains a society with a complex and troubling history. The scars of the past still run deep, but this latest report serves as hope that the IRA and other former paramilitary groups will pursue their objectives peacefully. In a region plagued by violence for decades, there are signs of progress.

DECEMBER 2015