QIO 12.3 - After Westphalia? by The Observer

QUEEN’S INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER

“After Westphalia?” ISSUE 12.3 MARCH 2016

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

QUEEN’S INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER

Dear Reader,

ISSUE 12.3

Welcome to issue 12.3 of the Queen’s International Observer, “After Westphalia?” 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. “After Westphalia?” seeks to provide an overview of contemporary challenges to the Westphalian sovereign state system. Yonatan Belete discusses the significance of non-state armed actors in undermining the legitimacy of the sovereign state, which Kiran Waterhouse applies to the ongoing conflict between the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and the Colombian government. Matthew Scoon argues that China is capitalizing on the founding principles of Westphalian sovereignty to deflect international criticism of its actions, while Alexander Green brings to light the tension between state sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Kayla Rolland examines the role of state based solutions in addressing global climate change, and Casey Coleman uses the global extractive industry to show how a state-centric framework is insufficient for understanding modern forms of colonialism. Finally, the QIO is pleased to feature the work of a guest writer, Michael Molyneaux, who explores the implications of the Internet for state sovereignty. “After Westphalia?” 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 “After Westphalia?” 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’

Kiran Waterhouse Political Studies 16’

Madeleine Ciuffetelli Applied Economics 16’

Alexander Green Political Studies 18’

Matthew Scoon Political Studies 15’

Michael Molyneaux Applied Economics 17’

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.

MARCH 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS “Globe” by John Tornow via Flickr. Under CC BY 2.0.

Westphalia in Historical Context

ISSUE 12.3

Non-state Armed Actors: Beyond the View of Westphalia?

FARC peace talks: The ‘Colombian’ Question

Kelley Humber, Political Studies & History 18’

Yonatan Belete, Political Studies 16’

Kiran Waterhouse, Political Studies 16’

Page: 6

Page: 8

Westphalia Out East: China and Its Commitment to State Sovereignty Matthew Scoon, Political Studies 15’ Page: 9

“United Nations COP21 climate change conference” by Province of British Columbia via Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

The Responsibility to Protect: Intervention and State Sovereignty Alexander Green, Political Studies 18’ Page: 11

COP21: The State and Global Climate Change Kayla Rolland, Political Studies 18’

Page: 15

The Global Extractive Industry: Colonialism is Alive and Thriving

Westphalia on the Net: Beyond State Control

Casey Coleman, Political Studies 17’

Michael Molyneaux, Applied Economics 17’

Page: 16

Page: 18

MARCH 2016

WESTPHALIA IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT Kelley Humber, Political Studies & History 18’

THE TREATY of Westphalia is central to the way that we conceptualize the modern state system today. In 1648, two towns in the West German region of Westphalia served as the site for the negotiation and eventual signing of this fundamental document. The Treaty would mark the end of the Thirty Years War, a religious and territorial conflict between the imperial powers of Western Europe, namely France, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, and the Holy Roman Empire. The Treaty rendered states as the highest level of authority in the international system, meaning that no Emperor or Pope could interfere with the domestic affairs of their counterparts. The concept of “state sovereignty” would emerge

from this arrangement. The Westphalian state system – which prevails today – may be characterized by state sovereignty, along with domestic non-interference and the pre-eminence of state borders. This understanding of the world is foundational to how scholars of international relations investigate global politics. States often serve as the primary point of comparison, whether it be different forms of government, GDP, military capabilities, or population size. For realists, the international system is one of anarchy in which states act autonomously, rationally, and in their self-interest. For liberals, states may engage with one another through international institutions to pursue com-

mon goals, rather than playing an endless game of ‘power politics.” While realism and liberalism differ in their outlook on the international system, the state remains a crucial unit of analysis. But “globalization” – or the increasing political, social, economic, and cultural integration of the world - poses a challenge to seeing world politics merely in terms of sovereign state actors. Consider, for example, the growing influence of non-state actors such as multinational corporations or terrorist groups. As the articles in this issue will show, the Westphalian State System can no longer be taken for granted.

NON-STATE ARMED ACTORS: Beyond the View of Westphalia? Yonatan Belete, Political Studies 16’

TO THIS day, the principles of Westphalia underpin the international system. The state continues to be the dominant player while sovereignty has become integral to international law. But as James March and Johan Ol-

“Mexico DF Skyline” by Jose Carlos Soto via Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

ISSUE 12.3

sen argue, the state has become centerless or, at least, multi-centered. In the Global South, they describe how people increasingly coalesce around ethnic, religious, linguistic, and regional groups rather than the nation-state.

This rejection of state centrality has created “solidarities that do not coincide with the nation-state boundaries” and has made the state “less coherent and a less tightly coupled unit.” The effects of rapid technological advancements and globalization pose a host of challenges to the Westphalian order. As our world becomes even more interconnected, challenges such as transnational criminal networks and cyber hacktivism bring the longevity of this order into question.

the Zetas intervene. The group offers individuals and their families’ employment opportunities and protection from violence. All of this occurs in direct opposition to the state, yet with similar principles of solidarity to the nation-state. A state’s sovereignty rests on its ability to monopolize – through armed actors such as the police and the military - the use of violence to protect itself from both internal and external threats. But as David concludes, “In the contemporary era, transnational crime networks are as visible – and almost as legitimate – as national states.”

The second way would be a systems change: the replacement of the Westphalian order itself. Unlike systemic change, systems change is fundamentally transformative. As Davis argues, non-state armed actors could create the necessary conditions for this type of change, in challenging the state’s pursuit of power and legitimacy. The rise of non-state armed actors has ultimately led to the weakening of the state. In cases where states are losing their ability to uphold the rule of law, citizens have bypassed the state in search of protection from nonstate armed actors in particular. The changing structure of the current Westphalian order has not occurred without consequences. The rise of non-state armed actors has opened an entirely new set of security challenges that jeopardize the integrity of the international system.

Simply put, if non-state armed actors like the Zetas can challenge the state’s control over the means of violence, the state’s own grasp of sovereignty and security is under direct threat. In their pursuit of power, non-state armed actors have undermined the rule of law, reinforced corruption within their own communities, and have left citizens questioning the very legitimacy of the state. Robert Gilpin, a professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, explains that there are two ways in which the international system can change. The first can be identified as systemic change. Systemic change occurs when the international system transitions between bipolarity, uni-polarity, and multi-polarity transitions of primacy and power.

So how do we counter the rise of these non-state armed actors?

But if territorial state sovereignty is an order in decline, So what’s the iswhat is its greatest threat? More impor- sue? Why does contantly, what might trol over the use of states do to counter violence matter? it? One of the foremost threats to today’s state - and by extension the nation-state order - is the rise of non-state armed actors. Diane Davis argues that non-state armed actors are struggling for alternative forms of sovereignty within the rigid state system. She explains that these actors “co-exist and overlap with the modern state, and by so doing have a feedback effect on the national state and their relationship to society, by virtue of their capacity to de-legitimize, weaken, or challenge political allegiance to the nation-state.” Davis points to the Zetas drug mafia in Mexico, which openly recruits ex-military men to support their illicit activities. Where the Mexican state is weak or is unable to provide security and opportunity for their citizens,

Davis suggests that we advance “creative new ways of strengthening states, [and] of forging new citizen-state relations…” while “remedying the political and economic conditions most correlated with state fragility.” As non-state armed actors vie with the state for resources and legitimacy, we must continue to discuss the broader challenges to the Westphalian order and the implications thereof for international peace and security.

MARCH 2016

“Marcha Contra las FARC en Medellin Colombia 4 de febrero 2008” by medea_material via Flickr.

FARC PEACE TALKS: The ‘Colombian’ Question Kiran Waterhouse, Political Studies 16’

FOR FIVE decades, the Colombian government has been embroiled in a vicious civil war with one of the world’s most famous groups of guerilla insurgents: the “Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia”, or FARC. The group, whose name translates to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, is infamous for its Marxist-Agrarian political ideology and its narcotics trade profiteering. Most of all, however, FARC is notorious for the enormous violence that is its modus operandi. Yet Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos recently asked the United States to remove the FARC from its terror watch list. The request was not received with enthusiasm, but there is a good chance that the United States will comply; they wouldn’t risk disrupting the landmark peace talks that are currently taking place in Cuba between the government and the FARC. This isn’t the first time that the government has brought the FARC to the negotiation table, but it is the first time that there is real promise for peace, something that would drastically change the country’s economic, social and political landscape. The peace process has been a fascinating case so far because it has revealed important truths about the FARC. The state has attracted criticism within the country for its negotiation tactics; people worry about its apparent

ISSUE 12.3

willingness to fulfill too many of the FARC’s demands in order to end the conflict. But to see why the state is willing to be lenient, one must understand the stakes at hand. The FARC poses a huge threat to Colombian sovereignty in being an antagonistic non-state actor that’s managed to successfully construct its own quasi-sovereignty in rural Colombia. The government’s desire to dismantle the organization isn’t just about ending the violence; it’s about regaining its own statehood. The FARC likes to brand itself to its members as a peasant uprising intended to take down a corrupt government, and goes so far as to promote itself as an ideological alternative to the Colombian state. The group was borne of legitimate grievances - it began as a reaction to the atrocities of “La Violencia”, a civil war between two political parties where most of the casualties were peasants. Since then, however, the FARC has expanded its activities. The FARC has maintained its physical power using small rural communities that are difficult to access, and it’s successfully engaged in Colombian politics, most notably through its participation in the founding of the leftist Patriotic Union party. It’s remained economically self-sufficient since the 1980’s by supplying the international drug trade with narcotics, and this revenue has made it relatively wealthy. Most importantly, the FARC has resisted all

efforts to demobilize and disarm its troops, which have historically ranged from 10,000-18,000 strong. With autonomous land regions, political representation, and income to employ and mobilize security forces, it could be argued that the FARC has created its own dispersed quasi-nation within the borders of the Colombian state. The greatest indicator that the FARC is not a proper state is not directly related to its own activities as much as from the international community’s total disapproval of its agenda. The conflict between the FARC and the Colombian government makes a fascinating case for how non-state actors can coopt state authority. The Colombian government should be held morally culpable for the perpetuation of conflict that’s made Colombia so dangerous for the last half-century as well; the FARC is not alone in its abuse of violence. The incursions made by both sides over the last half-century make the negotiations even more complex, with the FARC’s position more grounded than if they had been the sole perpetrators of the conflict. The negotiated peace pact is progressing as of the present. The Colombian government has agreed to avoid assigning jail time to FARC members who disarm and confess immediately. Nonetheless, this particular policy has been subject to a number of criticisms. Some members of the domestic and international commu-

nity protest that it is equivalent to amnesty. As with all negotiated conflicts, there are no “right” answers to the degree of leniency that the Colombian state should afford the

FARC. But the Colombian question does show the price states are willing to pay to regain territorial and political sovereignty. The Colombian government has demonstrated that the cost of negotiating

with terrorists and guerilla soldiers is not too high, should there be the hope for control over their country again.

“31st MEU Conduct Launch and Recovery Operations with Combat Rubber Raiding Craft” by U.S. Pacific Command via Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

WESTPHALIA OUT EAST: China and Its Commitment to State Sovereignty Matthew Scoon, Political Studies 15’

IN “Rethinking the Sovereign State Model”, Stephen Krasner challenged the long-established notion that states have the ability to exercise absolute sovereignty in domestic and foreign affairs – devoid of some form of intervention – as stipulated by the Treaty of Westphalia. One only needs to consider the emergence of supranational institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union, or the intensification of transnational communication and mobility. While the Treaty of West-

phalia established an international system on the basis of state sovereignty, the West has begun to drift away from its key principles. Indeed, the West now operates on a framework that includes the protection of human rights, the promotion of democracy, and the legitimacy of global institutions. But China, which was virtually forced into this framework by colonial powers in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has become one of the newest - and likely one of the last – champions of Westphalia.

Henry Kissinger notes in his most recent book World Order that for decades, China resented the presence of the West due to suspicions of colonial intentions. It was only until the establishment of a strong central government under Chaing Kai-shek in 1928 that China began to integrate, but it found difficulty in balancing traditional practices with global modernity. Kissinger emphasizes that while China was forced into the existing international system, it now strives to be a central member and creator of a new order.

MARCH 2016

However, until that new order is fashioned, China will continue to criticize the hypocrisy of Western powers in selectively adhering to Westphalia’s principles. While isolationist policies and rigid border enforcement have become increasingly unpopular in the developed world, they formed the basis of Westphalian sovereignty. China is actively leveraging this outdated – yet originally Western - framework to pursue its interests at the dismay of the international community. Westphalian sovereignty has become a way for China to reject international condemnation of human rights violations, put forth claims to the disputed Diaoyu Islands, construct artificial landmasses along the Spratly islands in the South China Sea, and pursue economic partnerships with African countries. While this list isn’t exhaustive, China could easily rationalize any of these actions under the auspices of Westphalian sovereignty. Sino-African economic relations are a poignant example of how China remains bound to the realpolitik of 1648. Africa has undeniably made tremendous gains on the economic front from Chinese trade and investment. Rather than accepting loans from Western institutions, authoritarian and democratic countries alike find China’s ‘no strings attached’ approach to foreign direct investment far more appealing. This comes at the risk of emboldening dictatorships and stimulating inefficient economic policies through huge sums of investment and revenue. Professor Ian Taylor from the University of St Andrews writes, “by advancing the theme of non-interference in domestic affairs and promoting a culturally relativist notion of human rights,

ISSUE 12.3

China has been able to appeal to numerous African leaders.” Along with the disregard of individual and human rights in Africa, China’s central government has been unable to quell the discontent, dissidence and social unrest that have arisen with the suppression of its own ethnic minorities and border regions. Xinjiang and Tibet have experienced severe political and social oppression since the Chinese Communist Party achieved control in 1949.

In 2009, 179 Uyghur protesters were killed and 1700 wounded. The event was given limited media coverage, leaving the general public in the dark. “Nature Islands from 35,000 feet” by stratman (2 many pixs!) via Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

The international community has urged China to address their mistreatment of ethnic minorities, but again, China maintains that the affairs within its borders are beyond the concern of external parties. In line with the treatment of Xinjiang, China has used aggressive policies and violence to keep Tibet under its official purview. To add insult to injury, China has maintained that countries wishing to engage in diplomatic relations must publically recognize China’s sovereignty over Ti-

bet. Furthermore, China’s claim to the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea has reignited tensions with Japan. China’s claim is tenuous at best, based on a portolan from 1403, but that hasn’t stopped it from using aggressive tactics. By sending aircraft and vessels to challenge Japan’s authority over these uninhabited yet resource rich - islands, China is altering the geopolitical status quo. Nonetheless, it doesn’t want external parties – particularly the United States - to become involved. The construction of landmasses on the Spratly Islands resembles the Daioyu dispute, except it involves Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, and China. Again, China is asserting its sovereignty and continues to show little leniency on the matter. In 1954, ‘The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence’ were signed between China and India to establish a peaceful foundation for future international engagement. The treaty was adopted by China to serve as further guide for conducting its foreign policy. The first principle of the agreement is: mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. With that in mind, it would seem that China is suffering from a bout of exceptionalism, an accusation it often applies to the United States when describing its ascent to power. Until a new international order – one that China has helped to shape - indeed emerges, the use of Westphalian principles to flout external criticism should be expected to continue.

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: Intervention and State Sovereignty Alexander Green, Political Studies 18’

THE CHARACTER of the Westphalian nation-state has undoubtedly changed. This system of state actors, founded upon a European model of the unified nation-state, faces stress both domestically and internationally. Given groups’ increasingly heightened loyalty to language, religion, culture, kinship, and national identity, the significance of state borders in the Westphalian system is in question. Indeed, some traditional criteria of the state stand somewhat immune to the changes of globalization – population, territory, and government. But internationally recognized sovereignty itself remains contentious, particularly in the context of war and breaches of international law. After the 1990’s, a decade rife with human rights violations and atrocities, the idea of a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was developed in Montreal. The International Commission On Intervention And State Sovereignty (ICISS) released an accompanying report in 2001. Canada played a unique role in developing this principle; indeed, Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff co-authored the 2001 report. The aim was for a mechanism by which the international community could prevent further atrocities such as the Rwandan genocide. The ICISS outlined two simple notions. First, the report asserts that state sovereignty implies responsibility. Just as the

state and the citizen have obligations toward one another, sovereignty is predicated on recognition by other states, from which responsibilities toward one another emerge. Second, the report contends that the failure of a state to prevent internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, obliges other states to intervene. In this sense, Westphalian norms of non-intervention are trumped by a responsibility to protect. While breaches of sovereignty are justifiable under state-sanctioned acts of mass atrocities, these should be a last resort. Without clear sovereign boundaries, hegemonic states may use interventions for ulterior motives. Consider the Libyan intervention in 2011, the first and most touted use of R2P. In a media address to celebrate NATO’s victory post-intervention, Obama stated, “This [intervention] marks the end of a long and painful chapter for the people of Libya”, while Vice President Biden called the intervention a “prescription” for the future. Indeed, the chronology leading up to this intervention was similar to many other countries in the turmoil of the Arab Spring. In February 2011, protests against Muammar al-Qaddafi’s regime grew violent, with civil war breaking out. By March 2011 a NATO-led coalition intervened, and by October, the intervention

ended in what NATO described as a decisive victory. The dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi was overthrown, with stability in both Libya and the greater Middle East region. Nonetheless, this so-called “model of success for R2P” warrants further scrutiny. Alan Kuperman, a political scientist with interest in US military intervention, challenges conventional wisdom on Libya. Despite the use of R2P as a justification to intervene, Kuperman argues that Qaddafi’s government did not explicitly target civilians, nor did it use indiscriminate force. Through empirical analysis, Kuperman argues that the engagement of R2P in Libya was catastrophic, NATO intervention was uninformed, and the primary aim of intervention was regime change, rather than the prevention of atrocities. Strikingly, he finds that the intervention lengthened the Libyan conflict six-fold, and deaths seven-fold. Recent attempts at substantial R2P intervention in the ongoing civil war in Syria have failed as a result of individual states’ self-interests. Director of the Al Hikma Middle East Advisory Agency, Minerva Nasser-Eddine, cites real-politik ideology as a driving force for countries like the US and Russia, and how the “national interests [of states] are

MARCH 2016

being pursued at the cost of ideological principles”. She argues that Libya caused a broadening of what would be considered by the UN to be “appropriate collective action.” It weakened the notion of intervention – and thus the infringement of sovereignty - as a last resort. What does this mean for military intervention going forward in a globalized world? Certainly R2P and globalization have many implications for sovereignty, intervention, and capacity of the international community to address mass atrocities. Domes-

tically, countries must put aside constructed ideologies of self-interest and pursue intervention earnestly in promotion of human rights and freedoms. It must be promoted and understood at the state-level before it can be advanced globally.

”The AustaWestland Apache” by Geoff Moore UK via Flickr. CC BY 2.0.

COP21: The State and Global Climate Kayla Rolland, Political Studies 18’

E N V I R O N M E N TA L THREATS do not know state boundaries. Pollutants transcend borders by water, wind, and air, and can travel far past their source. Environmental threats like biodiversity loss can envelop multiple states. Some threats, like a depleted ozone layer, exist outside national boundaries all together. Beginning in November 2015, over 190 sovereign countries came together to create a plan to mediate the most devastating effects of climate change. While environmental threats do not respect state lines, the collaboration of sovereign governments to me-

ISSUE 12.3

diate their effects may be the best possible solution. On 12 December 2015, cheers erupted as the Paris Accord was accepted. The goal of the agreement is to prevent a 1.5°C increase in global temperatures, which would hopefully mediate some of the most intense consequences of global warming including dramatic sea level rise, violent weather, and food shortages. Unlike previous negotiations that exempted developing states, the agreement was larger in scope, encompassing much more of the globe. Historically, some of the most effective tools available to

the international community are the ability to persuade and shame states to comply. The result of the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference (COP21) is consistent with this reality. The deal follows a hybrid legal structure, largely due to the Republican Senate in the United States that would have rescinded any legal emissions targets. While each country proposes a plan that is voluntary, countries will be legally required to publicize an emissions reduction target and reports regarding their progress. This system will rely heavily on states holding each other to account. A state based solution

may seem paradoxical for such a global problem. Indeed, the last attempt of world leaders to reach an agreement, the Copenhagen Accord created during COP15, ended in failure. Yet a shift in the domestic policies of the United States and China, combined with an increase in scientific evidence of global warming, provided the Paris Conference with a better foundation and chance of success. While critics may still dispel state based agreements as a solution for climate change, there is a precedent of success. The 1987 Montreal Protocol, which has

since been signed by close to 200 countries, was drafted to stop the depletion of the ozone layer. The treaty aimed to reduce the global emissions of several chemicals including CFC, a chemical commonly used in spray cans. Since then, the ozone layer has shown promising signs of recovery, and is projected to fully recover by 2065. The Paris Agreement is not without criticism. Some critics predict that the current emissions goals will result in a 2.7°C rise in temperatures by 2100, well beyond the 1.5°C goal. Critics also

are quick to point out that the agreement does not include any official mechanisms to penalize countries that do not meet their commitments. 2015 saw the hottest year on record. While critics may argue that state based agreements such as the Paris Agreement are insufficient to deal with such a colossal threat as climate change, they remain our best hope for our planet.

THE GLOBAL EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY: Colonialism is Alive and Thriving Casey Coleman, Political Studies 17’

COLONIALISM REMAINS a driving force behind the success of Western societies. The traditional definition of colonialism, however, refers to the acquisition of political control over another country, in many cases occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. But our greed now goes beyond the formal control of one state by another. Consider the case of Nigeria. In 1971, shortly after an abundance of oil was discovered in the region, Nigeria was invited to become a member of The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies (OPEC). Due to its redistributive, top-down government systems, the Nigerian federal government was now able to collect the majority of the oil revenue and only distribute a small

amount back to local communities and governments. The result was more power and wealth for the highest ranked officials of Nigeria and Western-run extraction companies, but widespread poverty for the rest of the country. What occurred in Nigeria may be attributed to what academics have deemed the “resource curse.” Coined by Richard Auty in 1993, the resource curse refers to a paradox where countries and regions with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources, tend to have relatively slow economic growth and poor development outcomes. States with extractive minerals become dependent on the price of commodities, resulting in a volatile gross domestic product (GDP). This often leads to unequal pay distribution, envi-

ronmental degradation, and state corruption. Crucially, Western states have a role in this inequity. Colonialism may take on a number of forms beside the formal control of one state by another imperial power. With such a high demand for extractive, non-renewable resources, our seemingly democratic societies in the West rely on the exploitation of resource-based economies in the Global South, a form of ‘modern colonialism.’ Mining companies have begun to outsource and hire skilled workers from other sectors in order to decrease the cost of training. This shift in production leaves a large percentage of the population with minimal employment opportunities. Furthermore, these mining practices also drive

MARCH 2016

down the national currency of the host state, negatively impacting other sectors in the region. After an area is stripped of all its valuable resources, the environmental damage is so colossal that it can take decades to recover and become useful to the community again. The optimal solution might be one that balances sustainability and social harmony with a fa-

vourable environment for foreign investors. But an agreement that satisfies state officials, large mining corporations, and local civilians is an almost impossible suggestion. Change has to start at the grassroots level. Because so many in the North are ignorant of the corruption in the global extractive indus-

try, and how they themselves are implicated in these relations of exploitation, the most basic starting point would be to raise public awareness. With enough pressure from civil society, our leaders may consider vying with the international community for regulation and reform.

“On the Road to Abuja” by Andrew Moore via Flickr. Under CC BY-SA 2.0.

WESTPHALIA ON THE NET: Beyond State Michael Molyneaux, Applied Economics 17’

THE INTERNET originates nowhere, ends nowhere, and connects at every point in between. While connectivity is generally seen as a sign of progress and modernity, our leaders must also understand its implications for the Westphalian world order. Since 1648, the Westphalian system worked, more or less, until 1983 when three men turned it upside down. These men developed the TCP/IP protocol (Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol). It was the mechanism that made the Internet what it is today, allowing you to watch YouTube videos, do research, and waste infinite amounts of time. Moreover, an IP address became your virtual

ISSUE 12.3

postal code, determining where you are and how to get that data to you in the most efficient way possible. Up until this time, the integrity of sovereignty and territorial independence was relatively easy to uphold; the export and import of information was physical, in the form of books and newspapers. You could argue that the radio or telegram achieved what the Internet did, but even their adoption was not as ubiquitous as that of the Internet, nor was the information as vast and unfiltered. Nowadays, things are not nearly that simple. Sovereignty does not apply to the Internet, which neither has borders nor a contained population.

The borders on the Internet are essentially binary: you either have a connection or you don’t. Once upon a time, censorship was possible; certain types of information could be blocked from radio, newspaper or public places within a state. Now, unless you sever the entire connection, the information will find a way to get in regardless of borders. As technologist John Gilmore states, “The [Inter]Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” Censorship is a programming error. The Internet’s sole purpose is to spread information to whoever is requesting it, as fast as they want it, wherever they are in the world. It’s been 30 years since the

Internet was invented, yet Internet sovereignty is only a recent idea. Politicians claim ownership over the Internet, seek to control it, disable it for some, and enable it for others - but it doesn’t work like that. The notion that one could own and control the distribution of information died with the flick of a switch in 1983. The meaning of “domestic affairs” has also changed, now that every affair, regardless of its location, is accessible by anyone with an Internet connection. More importantly, governments and politicians fail to realize the role of the Internet in the breakdown of the Westphalian order. The most powerful resource humanity has ever known is information, and this resource does not fit within the boundaries of a state. Governments have tried to use the Westphalian system on the Internet, trying to carve up borders, exert powers, and pressure companies to let certain procedures in while keep others out. Consider, for example, the NSA and their blatant misuse of

power by attempting to collect information from companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. Or Republican candidates Mr. Trump and Ms. Fiorina, who seem to think that ISIS can be defeated through a social media war and specially designed algorithms. They fail to realize that the Internet goes beyond the purview of government control. During a Q&A at Carnegie Mellon, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google (now Alphabet), suggested that the only way to truly shut off the Internet is to do so by force. One would have to physically cut the Internet lines leading in and out of their country. Accordingly, the only way for ISIS to be defeated on the Internet would be for Syria and the region surrounding it to have no Internet either. Soldiers would have to physically cut the lines - a complete disregard of territorial integrity. It’s crucial that politicians understand technology and treat it with respect. The Internet is neither a political pawn nor a bargaining chip. In a mere 30 years,

this tool has become crucial to humanity. Tellingly, the United Nations (UN) has debated whether to include the Internet as a basic priority - alongside food, water, shelter and medicine - when responding to humanitarian disasters. We’re in a time where technology policy matters more so than ever before, yet we have people who are running for all levels of office who do not understand it at all. We have seen politicians’ lack of Internet literacy from bills that have been presented such as SOPA (The Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (The Protect IP Act). All of which, thanks to Internet activism, have mostly failed. If Mr. Trump were to attempt to cut off ISIL’s access to the Internet, not only would he be engaging in an act of physical war, but any gains would be short-lived. That’s because neither a single person nor a single country can control the Internet. And that’s the beauty of it.

“Internet Café” by Arrano via Flickr. Under CC BY-NC-ND2.0.

MARCH 2016