QIO Volume 9 Issue 3 by The Observer

Volume 9 Issue 3

QUEEN’S

INTERNATIONAL

OBSERVER

Featuring: Interview with Matthew VanDyke Focus on Gender: Why IR Needs Feminism LGBT Legalization in the Commonwealth Photo Essay: Modern China’s Many Faces

MIST

Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey

FROM THE EDITOR Hello Dear Readers, Welcome to the pages of QIO Volume 9 Issue 3. We are so excited about the theme of this installment of QIO: MIST! As four of the most promising emerging markets, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey all have unique political and economic climates which have helped them rise and compete with the BRIC countries. In this issue, we provide a snapshot of each individual state, with the intention of highlighting either the reasons for its success, or the challenges it faces to truly realize its full economic potential. Beyond the MIST feature, this issue takes a look at the intersection of sexuality, gender and international relations in articles by Alexander Cisneros and Tazrian Alam. Andriana Hnatykiw provides a glimse into the fascinating development of China’s cities, in her photo essay entitled Modern China’s Many Faces. Matthew VanDyke also gave a fascinating interview with QIO’s own Daniel Bodirsky about his life as a rebel fighter in both the 2011 conflict in Libya, and the current Syrian uprising. As always, you can find Queen’s International Observer on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter @ queensobserver. Visit our website at www.queensobserver.org for monthly updates, submission information, as well as links to the online version of our publication. Happy reading, Stephanie Rudyk Editor-in-Chief Queen’s International Observer 2

Stephanie Rudyk

Editor-in-Chief

Natasha Mukhtar Brenna Owen Assistant Editors Idrees Ali Daniel Bodirsky Deborah Chu Staff Writers Sara O’Sullivan

Social Media Director

William Leung Layout Editor Photo credits:

Cover photo: South Korean temple by Imtiyaz Basharat Page 20: Lijiang, China by Stephanie Rudyk Page 21: Hong Kong boats by Stephanie Rudyk Page 22: Mexican flag by Rico Garcia Page 24: Indonesia lansdcape by Lauren Fenato Queen’s International Observer

INSIDE THE ISSUE 4

Obama’s Resport Card: Left Wing Expectations vs. Pragmatism in Washington by Natasha Mukhtar

Gender in International Relations: Why Women Should Matter by Tazrian Alam

Foreign Policy and the Home-Grown Fight for Global LGBT Decriminalisation by Alex Cisneros

11 14

The UN Security Council: Illegitimate or Inefficient? by Megan Harris Adventurer, Rebel, Filmmaker: An Interview with Matthew VanDyke by Daniel Bodirsky

Modern China’s Many Faces: A Photo Essay by Andriana Hnatykiw

MIST: Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey by Stephanie Rudyk, Brenna Owen, and Natasha Mukhtar

Dragon Mart Cancun: Colonialism Redesigned by Rico Garcia

The Ascent of Indonesia: Assessing the Potential of Southeast Asia’s Island Power House by Deborah Chu

Kim vs. Park, Round 2: Renewed Tension in the Korean Peninsula by Daniel Bodirsky

Return of The Empire: Benefits of Adopting the Turkish Model by Idrees Ali

Volume 9 Issue 3

Obama’s Report Card Leftwing Expectations vs. Pragmatism in Washington by Natasha Mukhtar

During his first term in office, Barack Obama attempted

to fulfill his campaign promise of leftist reform. Yet, He received criticism from the left for not living up to the high expectations for change he generated, particularly during his primary campaign. Reform, they maintain, was slow and ineffectual, partly because of Obama’s inability escape the polarization of partisan politics in Washington and act as a transformational president. However, if judged using different benchmarks of success, the Obama administration’s major reforms were pragmatic and substantial. Obama faced considerable contextual obstacles to change, notably the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The Obama administration’s ability to manoeuvre such obstacles while implementing considerable reform is indicative of success. The economic stimulus package and passing healthcare reform in particular make it clear that Obama successfully fulfilled his promise for change. Obama’s presidential style of negotiating with the opposition surely facilitated reform, as Obama was able to navigate and transcend hostile politics in Washington, without having to change the way it works. Measuring the Success of Reforms The Obama administration is criticized by the left for not going far enough in its reforms, particularly regarding the healthcare and stimulus bills. Leftists viewed the supposedly slow pace of reform and bipartisan compromises as indicators of lack of success. Given that he was elected on a mandate of change, the left expected Obama to be a transformational president with reforms as far-reaching as those of heralded former president Franklin D. Roosevelt. However, Obama was placed in adifficult position where the expectations of the left for radical reform conflicted with the president’s necessarily strategic style of bipartisan negotiation in order for reform to pass in a highly polarized Congress. Contrary to the left’s expectations for a transformational

Democratic president, Obama instead placed pragmatic negotiation above ideological loyalty to strictly leftist concerns. Indications of success according to the left, namely immediate and far-reaching reform, clashed with Obama’s political cooperative political strategy. Criticism from the left using such benchmarks, although probably inevitable, is also unfair. There are other measures of the success of Obama’s first term in office than those used by the left. Resources or procedural advantages, such as majorities in Congress, and contextual problems and opportunities, such as economic crises, are important metrics of success. Obama manipulated both the advantages and disadvantages of each form with substantial success. However, the way in which his “change-hungry” partisan base framed his platform as one of radical change prematurely limited the success of his policies by creating expectations that were at odds with his more pragmatic strategy. Criticisms originating from the implementation process of reforms were, in fact, sometimes transplanted onto the policies themselves, delaying the process and preventing them from fulfilling their potential. Contextual Obstacles: the Economic Crisis and Party Polarization Obama came into office amidst an economic crisis, which his administration viewed as an opportunity to satiate the public with leftist reform and to demonstrate bipartisan policymaking. The economic situation was framed by the administration to appear less serious and threatening than it really was, despite soaring unemployment and wreckage on Wall Street. Framing the crisis in this way helped to create an atmosphere of optimism among the public and faith in Obama’s ability to rejuvenate the economy. At the same time, however, this intensified unrealistic expectations for immediate

Queen’s International Observer

and effective solutions to the quavering economy. By affirming the public’s mandate to tackle the economic crisis, Obama inadvertently created obstacles to the success of his economic plan. When Obama entered office, he had the opportunity to make an impression on public opinion and reverse the negative image applied to the presidency itself by his predecessor George W. Bush. Obama’s agenda appeared ambitious, if only because it addressed pressing and monumental issues like the economy and ideological polarization. The latter presented the second major obstacle to reform after the economic crisis. The right has moved further away from the center to become more homogenous in its policies. Right-wing conservatives also constituted more of the GOP than liberals

did of the Democrats, making the opposition more solid and coherent than Obama’s support-base. Democrats were similarly polarized, but “ideological sorting,” by which party views echo off each other and homogenize, disproportionately affected Republicans. Polarized Republicans, branding Obama as a socialist, fed public doubts about his presidency and alienated him from the largely centrist masses. Obama’s opposition was more adamant in its views than were his supporters, which made reaching across the aisle even less probable. Implementing Substantial Change: Healthcare Reform and the Stimulus Package Despite the contextual obstacles of party polarization and the economic crisis, the Obama administration succeeded in passing substantial reform with the healthcare bill and stimulus package,while facing an opposition keen to trample his efforts to enact reform. Given the difficult context for policymaking, passage of the stimulus package was a success in itself. Obama failed to persuade the left and the public of the positive effects of the package despite some clear evidence of its success. The way in which the bill was framed and communicated constrained its capacity for appearing successful to both his opposition and support-base. The package was monolithic and wide-ranging, combining many different reforms. This gave it the effect of appearing as a panacea for all of the various economic problems resulting from the recession. A single all-inclusive package, while beneficial in passing multiple reforms at once, seemed to clumsily bunch together solutions to the numerous economic problems facing the country. The public and Obama’s supporters had been fed vicious media reports and Republican commentary on the bill during its long and frustrating legislative passage, only to receive one poorly framed package as a result. The public was left with much more media coverage of the bill’s contested formulation than its actual implementation and effects. The task of swaying public opinion in favour of the bill thus met with already well-established doubts about its success. Along with its nasty design process, the stimulus package received criticism from the left for being adulterated by Republican priorities and preferences. The Obama administration played to concerns of the right by including, for example, tax cuts, in order to facili-

Volume 9 Issue 3

tate the bill’s passage. Though the left characterized this move as a concession to the right, such strategic decisions were necessary to pass the bill in Congress. The package was passed because three key Republican senators were persuaded, largely by the president himself, to vote for the bill. To sell the bill, Obama necessarily prioritized pragmatism over ideology. The bill was necessarily less leftist than past economic reforms that it is sometimes evaluated against, such as the New Deal. Similarly, healthcare reform was criticized by the left for not sufficiently realizing a leftist agenda. The bill revealed the need to appeal to a broad political base and a largely moderate public. While crafting major reforms such as healthcare, Obama demonstrated awareness of the need to project a “permanent campaign,” even while in office, in order to retain public confidence and cultivate a navigable policy environment in Congress by appealing to a broad range of policymakers. With 46 percent of the public agreeing that Obama should compromise with Republicans in order to pass legislation, appealing to the centrist public seemed to be an appropriate course of action. The moderate vote was crucially important to Obama’s election in 2008 and his centrist support base became his governing coalition. The weight of less liberal policymakers acted as an anchor to Obama’s desires for leftist reform by grounding them in the congressional reality of a hardly bipartisan policy environment. However, in moderating his reforms in order to defend the administration from rightwing and centrist backlash, Obama impelled criticisms from the left. Such criticism originated from the party’s inherently contradictory expectation of radical reform in a context of intense polarization and frequent Republican policy obstruction. The particular issue of healthcare also involved other actors, such as interest groups, which also required appeasement. Obama turned another obstacle into an opportunity by transforming pharmaceutical groups with considerable policy leverage into allies. He used their interest in keeping health insurance prices competitive with government reforms as a basis for negotiation. This helped Obama pre-empt their expected opposition to the bill and thus facilitated its implementation. Such negotiations, to the disdain of Democrats, necessarily moderated the bill. Yet the way in which Obama used such techniques to ultimately pass the historic bill facilitated his success in the face of contextual obstacles. 6

Presidential Style: Pragmatic Reform Using Negotiation Obama’s pragmatic presidential style has been criticized by the left for hampering the effects and reach of his major reforms. In contrast to the expectations of leftist critics, Obama’s platform was not in fact one of radical change. His fresh and different personal background is often confused and muddled with his actual platform of substantial, but bipartisan change. Assumptions about Obama’s mandate, then, clashed with his actual governing and policymaking style. Accordingly, Obama has been described as a “visionary pragmatist.” His ambitions after assuming office were to do what was immediately relevant and necessary. This consisted of putting the economy back on track and establishing healthcare reform while the Democrats had the congressional advantage. The Obama administration thus had a desire for change along with a realistic cognizance of potential impediments to change. To his own disadvantage, Obama’s campaign of change problematically promised leftist reforms without emphasizing the difficult environment Obama would face in government. His administration even offered optimistic forecasts about the institutional framework with which it would contend by assuring the public that it was determined to pass legislation using bipartisanship and negotiation. The left, as well as Americans in general, were due for some disappointment, mainly because of the difficulty of satisfying a partisan base that expected radical reform. Catering to the left resulted in criticism from the right, while attending to the right resulted in criticism from the left, leaving Obama with little possibility to score successes in the eyes of either party. From this, leftist criticisms of Obama’s pragmatic, but substantial reforms appear unfairly founded and dismissive of considerable contextual obstacles to success. The way in which Obama grappled with major obstacles to reform, in the form of the economic crisis and party polarization, involved strategic manoeuvring and bargaining. The strategic policymaking style used to enact substantial and ambitious change allowed Obama to transcend obstacles to success, but made him vulnerable to party criticism in the process.

Queen’s International Observer

Gender

in International Relations Why women should matter by Tazrian Alam

Feminist security studies offers a corrective to the real-

ist assumptions of international relations (IR) theory. Although many scholars have questioned the effectiveness of including a feminist analysis in IR, this essay aims to illustrate the intrinsic value of discussion of feminism and gender in security studies. I will critique realist assumptions using a gendered lens to demonstrate that a feminist approach to IR provides a more holistic understanding of security and broadens the scope of IR. First, a gendered lens can be used as a tool to deconstruct the epistemological inequalities in the study of international relations. Secondly, incorporating a feminist approach to IR helps deconstruct the realist assumptions that states are the central actors in world politics by including a human security perspective. Lastly, realism is specifically concerned with war and peace, but fails to address the security implications during phases of transition between the two. A feminist approach to IR thus provides a more holistic understanding of security by recognizing the phases between war and peace as a circumstance in which gendered violence occurs.

collapses femininity or masculinity into the term ‘human,’ which conceals the gendered underpinnings of security practices. The term ‘human’ is presented as though it is gender-neutral but, in practice, it expresses masculine ideals. The gender dimension is then overlooked and subsequent analysis provides only a partial understanding of security issues. Thus incorporating feminist approaches in IR, specifically emphasizing a feminist standpoint perspective, will arguably develop the study of IR based on the fact that women’s subordinate status in society, and the unique perspective that creates, would provide useful in the broadening of security studies. Critique of State-Centric Realism

The concept of national security according to realist theory enforces conformity to values that are often male-defined. The history of international relations is one in which women, for the most part, are absent. Little material is found on women’s role in war, and females are mostly conceptualized as victims and rarely as agents in conflicts. The exclusion of women’s expeFeminist Epistemology: Standpoint Theory riences and the lack of scholarship by female thinkers in the security field reveals the gender blindness that Feminist epistemology is concerned with the ways in ultimately generates a male dominant discourse in inwhich gender influences knowledge and its practices of ternational relations. inquiry and justification. It operates with the belief that the unique position of women in society has inherent In Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations he constructs value, and strives to recognize the traditional disregard a world without women. He claims that contact between for women’s experiences and their contribution to cul- individuals are engaged always results in a struggle for ture and knowledge. power. He argues that this tendency to dominate exists in all levels of human life: family, polity, and the interScholars such as Abigail Brooks have echoed the voic- national system. Since women do not traditionally hold es of other feminist scholars such as Sandra Harding dominant positions in any of these spheres, they are left in supporting the significance of feminist epistemol- out of the equation. Furthermore, Machiavelli, one of ogy in IR, and its role in bringing forth unrepresented first realist scholars, writes of the political world and its perspectives such as those from the Global South, like citizenry in a gendered manner. He considers women/ African American feminism. Hudson suggests that IR femininity to be a threat to the masculinity of the citizen Volume 9 Issue 3

warrior, a stereotype that still surfaces when assessing women’s suitability in fighting for the military or in foreign policy today.

Violence like marital rape is treated as a private matter; it is unrecognized by the realist assumptions of security and receives minimal attention in IR.

Incorporating a gendered lens into security studies would help overcome the limitations that realism places on understanding national security. Realism recognizes the state as the central actor in IR, however it fails to recognize that individuals require protection from the powers of the state. In contrast, feminist scholars assert the importance of intersectionality; the idea that oppression of minority groups can exist on multiple intersecting levels such as gender, race, or class. They suggest a critical feminist perspective to overcome the dichotomy between the dominance of masculine “universal” norms and values, and cultural relativism. Security studies must integrate gender as a unit of analysis to refrain from creating silences that ultimately reinforce such masculine universalism. Individuals should also be recognized as an object of security in addition to states, since gender-based security threats are often inseparable from other threats in conflict situations. The state-centric realist perspective is not inclusive since it does not recognize the security threats that women face.

A gendered analysis of violence in the war/peace dichotomy is also relevant because many scholars have developed statistical evidence that domestic gender equality is an independently significant variable in predicting which states refrain from wars. Violence begets violence, the domestic behavior of a state both legitimates and reflects the nature of the state’s international behavior. Therefore, countries characterized by gender inequality are more likely to be involved in interstate disputes and more likely to rely on violence to settle those disputes, whereas societies with values of gender equality, are more likely to resolve international disputes with diplomacy and compromise. Given this knowledge, the study of IR and security would benefit from using a gendered lens.

Critique of the Realist Focus on War and Peace The war/peace dichotomy as defined by realist assumptions limits the study of various forms of violence that occur in between periods of conflict. Women’s concerns, as victims of human rights violence, are not integrated into realist security concerns, thereby extending the notion that human security is essentially masculine. The realist focus on war and peace and state-based security neglects to take into account the politics of everyday violence, because it does not fall into the categorical time frames of ‘wartime’ or ‘peacetime’. Thus, violence against women, which occurs independently of these categories, is overlooked in the study of security. Material violence is experienced differently depending on where individuals are situated in society. Through material acts of violence, discourses of gender are given physical form. The Afghani prisoners in Abu Ghraib were forced to perform humiliating acts that undermined their masculinity and reinforced power relations that privilege masculinity over femininity. Ideas about masculinity and femininity, dignity and sacrifice, display a clear hierarchy between the sexes, which is internalized in discourses about the nature of conflict. 8

Failing to integrate gender as a unit of analysis creates silences in the study of IR and ultimately reinforces the dominance of existing masculine “universals”. There is strong evidence that the feminist approach to IR provides a more holistic understanding of security. Feminist scholarship has attempted to deconstruct the realist assumptions in IR by incorporating a gendered lens in the analysis of security, as well as to demonstrate the various limitations of realist assumptions that can be overcome by incorporating feminist approaches in security studies. Using gender as the unit of analysis promotes integration across various levels and dimensions of the study of international politics. Scholars must recognize the complex and equivocal roles that women and men assume in security studies, and remain mindful of intersectionality which exists within both of these identity categories. Failing to integrate gender as unit of analysis, creates silences in the study of IR and ultimately reinforces the dominance of existing masculine “universals”. Realism, as a dominant intellectual framework for IR, would benefit by broadening its scope and integrating feminist perspectives to further security studies and theoretical progress.

Queen’s International Observer

Foreign policy and the home-grown fight for global

LGBT DECRIMINALISATION by Alex Cisneros

“As men and women of conscience, we reject discrimination in general, and in particular discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Where there is a tension between cultural attitudes and universal human rights, rights must carry the day.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

ecent efforts to declare anti-homosexuality laws in Belize unconstitutional represent a shining light of hope for the prospect of decriminalization across the international community. According to a 2012 report by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), at least 78 countries around the world criminalize homosexuality, with punish-ments ranging from fines to death. The recent case of Caleb Orozco and UNIBAM (United Belize Advocacy Movement) v. The At-torney General sought to establish that section 53 of the Belizean Criminal Code - which defines an ‘unnatural crime’ as ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal’ - was unconstitutional. It is a

Volume 9 Issue 3

particularly important case because arguments in favour of decri-minalization came from within the country rather than from international actors. Moreover, these voices relied on deep-rooted provisions already entrenched in the country’s constitution, includ-ing human dignity, equality, and privacy, making the whole case seem much more organic to the country. Belize is a member of the Commonwealth, an organization that usually seeks to promote human rights, the rule of law and individual liberty. However, institutionally, the Commonwealth - an intergovernmental organization composed of 54 independent states that were formerly part of the British Empire - has found itself in a difficult position when its member states do not comply with its values. The principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of a state dominates con-temporary foreign policy, requiring that the Commonwealth tread carefully in affairs involving its sovereign states. Furthermore, despite the fact that most anti-LGBT laws are an import from the 19th Century British criminal code, this former colonial association is the main limit on the Commonwealth’s capacity in the area. Given its colonial history, the Commonwealth, more than any other supranational body, must be careful not to promulgate the idea that the international community has a right to impose its views upon member countries.

Roman Catholic Church of Belize, the Belize Church of England Corporate Body, and the Belize Evangelical Association of Churches supported the government. This high-profile case was in some ways a ‘last-ditch’ effort to decriminalize same-sex relations in Belize. In 2000, the Political Reform Commission Report recommended that Belize’s constitution include protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and that section 53 be repealed. The 2009 Universal Periodic Review of Belize included recommendations that the country take steps to end consensual, same-sex sexual activity, including repealing the criminalizing law. Despite these recommendations, the government has taken no action to address these human rights concerns. It is in this administrative vacuum that UNIBAM submitted its case to the high court.

Although the case garnered widespread international attention, UNIBAM was removed earlier this year from the case due to a lack of standing. Though the court exhibited a lack of pragmat-ism in this decision and perhaps a lack of support for the cause, the case continued on with Caleb Orozco, the Executive Director of UNIBAM, listed as the claimant. Finally, when countries like Belize question the constitutionality of laws prohibiting LGBT behavior, it sets a precedent, en-couraging other similar countries to do the same. Therefore, in the case of Belize, it is important that the This gives hope to all LGBT individuals suffering in a parties on each side of the issue were only supported, country that criminalizes their very existence. and not driven, by international bodies. The Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the Human Dignity Trust (HDT), and the International Commission of Jurists appeared as interested parties for one side whereas the

Queen’s International Observer

The United Nations Security Council Illegitimate or Inefficient? by Meghan Harris

Recent inaction in Syria on the part of the UN Security

Council has, not surprisingly, generated public criticism regarding the legitimacy of the Council. However, such claims have been made seemingly without knowledge of the true definition of the word. The situation in Syria exemplifies the fact that questions pertaining to the efficiency of the Security Council are mistakenly posited on the basis of compromises to its legitimacy. Further, the Syrian case reveals a misconception about the means of collective security established in the UN Charter, and the ideal form of collective security by which critics of the UN Security Council base their judgments. Considering these claims, I will first argue that the UN Security Council exercises legitimate authority; secondly, I will assert that claims of illegitimacy are wrongly based on an ideal and comparatively more efficient form of collective security, which may, in fact, be unattainable.

to carry out this purpose. The purpose of the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security, implying the existence of a collective security community. Collective security is a system whereby states agree to respond as a collective force to threats to international peace. Under an ideal system of collective security, “when an act of aggression occurs, corrective action is to be taken regardless of who the aggressor is or who the victim is, and the system is to respond automatically.” Though this ideal system is the basis of most criticisms against the UN Security Council’s approach to collective security, it has never been realized in practice.

The most effective method of collective authority is not, in fact, the ideal system. Rather, it is “an attenuated system of collective authority that emphasizes engaging the most militarily powerful states.” The Security Council was created for this purpose, becoming henceThe UN Charter gives the Security Council formal forth responsible for decisions involving the possible authority by establishing its purpose and the means use of military force. Importantly, the Security Council Volume 9 Issue 3

was formed “so as to reflect the special interests and responsibilities of the principal contributors.” Thus, the UN Security Council “founded itself on a concept of relating responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security to the self-interest of major powers.” The concept of legitimacy, as it applies to an international organization such as the UN Security Council, must be defined. In its most basic form, legitimacy refers to the recognition of the right of an authority to rule, by the ruled. In other words, legitimacy implies the presence of consent of those who are governed. However, this definition of legitimacy is not sufficient on its own; there are many other factors at play in the legitimacy of an international institution. Without delving into the subjective realm of what can be considered “just” or “fair”, whether an organization or institution is legitimate or not can further be determined by how it acts in accordance with the governing process set forth by its constitution. Based on this understanding, claims of illegitimacy must be based on an absence of consent from the ruled, and a breach of the institution’s constitutional framework. The Security Council fulfills the requirements of exercising legitimate power, yet it consistently faces criticism on the basis of illegitimacy. This is a result not of the Council’s illegitimate use of power, but rather its inefficiency in achieving the ideal form of collective security that is mistakenly assumed to be the very purpose of the UN Security Council. Two criticisms arise from this misconception: first, critics point to the underrepresentative nature of the Council, and second, to the veto-wielding power of the permanent five (P5) members of the Council. These criticisms developed from dissatisfaction with the efficiency of the Council, which

is called into question based on mistaken beliefs about an ideal collective security. In recent years, the Security Council has been accused of not substantively representing the modern state system. It has been suggested that, as the organization’s second-largest financial contributor, Japan deserves a permanent seat on the Council. Other potential reforms include allocating seats to the rising economic powers of India and Brazil, and replacing the permanent British and French seats with a single seat from the European Union. Critics of the current system argue that these reforms would increase the legitimacy of the UN Security Council by achieving a collective arrangement whereby all states would act automatically whenever a breach of international peace occurred. Though these reforms would help the Council more accurately reflect the power distribution of the international state system, they would not increase the legitimacy of the Council. Proponents of these reforms fail to realize that the UN Security Council was created as a “powerful executive committee capable of enforcing the peace in a binding manner.” In fact, reforms increasing the number of members could arguably compromise the legitimacy of the Council by risking the failures of legitimacy associated with the League of Nations. The League was extremely representative, requiring the principle of unanimity in which every member had the power to veto any decision. Compromising its effectiveness in favour of representation, the League lost the consent of its member states. Evidently, concern over underrepresentation in the Council is not a reflection of the UN Security Council’s illegitimacy, but rather a reflection of an unrealistic view of how the Council should achieve collective security.

Listen to Right of Reply, Kingston’s International Affairs Radio show. Tune in every second Wednesday at 6pm on CFRC 101.9fm to learn about the Egyptian Uprising, Iranian Revolution, Democratic Republic of the Congo and more. @rightoreply | rightofreply.podomatic.com 12

Queen’s International Observer

The veto-wielding power of the P5 is the next source of the UN Security Council’s perceived illegitimacy. When the Security Council was created in 1946, veto power was given to the five most dominant countries in international relations at the time. These countries, namely Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China are permanent members and retain veto-power almost seventy years later. Presently, however, the only countries that can still legitimately claim the title of global hegemon are the United States and China. Thus, the criticism has arisen that veto power impairs the legitimacy of decision-making because the P5 dictate the Council’s decisions based on their national interests, rather than the security concerns of the international community as a whole.

purpose to maintain international peace and security. It is not, as the Turkish Prime Minister stated, reacting with “blindness” to what is occurring in Syria. The members of the Security Council have recognized the disruption of peace in Syria, and have made proposals to intervene. However, in maintaining its legitimacy, the Council finds itself unable to act; two veto-holding powers, Russia and China, oppose intervention in Syria. The Council cannot act out of accordance with Charter authority, which includes veto-power.

Without the feature of veto power however, the Security Council would not be legitimate. Veto power is the primary way by which the Council maintains its legitimacy regarding its Charter structure, which calls on the Council to “reflect the special interests and responsibilities of the principal contributors.” Without the veto, the P5 would less readily be able to pursue their national interests and, therefore, they could potentially withhold their consent on important decisions. The reform for veto abolition would likewise undermine the legitimacy of the Council because it would result in the loss of consent from the ruling P5. Additionally, the Council would be acting outside the bounds of the UN Charter. The distinction between matters of legitimacy and inefficiency can be applied to the current Syrian crisis. Those who perceive that the inaction of the Security Council regarding Syria compromises the body’s legitimacy misinterpret the spirit and content of the UN Charter. The Council’s inaction is not a breach of its

illegitimate exercise of the Security Council’s authority. Turkey’s harsh criticisms against the Council for its inaction are, in fact, confirmation that the Council’s authority is still recognized and needed. The legitimacy of the Security Council has not been, nor will it be compromised in this situation, so long as the Council does not exercise authority outside the stipulations of the UN Charter.

Those who criticize the Council for adhering strictly to these measures neglect the very concept that they criticize it for: its legitimacy. Disregarding the Russian and Chinese vetoes and intervening in Syria would be an

The P5 unquestionably represent a bygone age in terms of the allocation of economic and military power on the UN Security Council. However, this does not compromise the ability of the Council to legitimately achieve the collective security outlined in the UN Charter. Criticisms against the UN Security Council are products of the Council’s perceived inefficiency in fulfilling misconceptions of collective security. The Syrian crisis indeed poses problems for the UN Security Council, none of which, however, will compromise its legitimacy.

Volume 9 Issue 3

ADVENTURER, REBEL, FILMMAKER

QIO: You have consistently rejected being labelled a “journalist.” In your own words, how would you describe your recent work in Syria? Can you give some background information on your documentary work?

An Interview with Matthew VanDyke MVD: My work in Syria was as an activist filmmaker. by Daniel Bodirsky

It is safe to say that very few people have had experiences similar to Matthew VanDyke’s.

Born in Baltimore in 1979, Matthew VanDyke received his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at the University of Maryland, followed by his Master’s in Security Studies from Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. He then embarked on a solo motorcycle journey across North Africa and the Middle East, spending four years travelling from Morocco to Iran. As the Arab Spring protests in Libya spiralled into a bloody civil war in February 2011, VanDyke found himself back in the country to join the fight against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. He took part in a number of battles in Libya before being captured by government forces. VanDyke spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in a Tripoli prison before being freed by rebel fighters. He then joined the opposition’s National Liberation Army and continued serving until the Gaddafi’s death and the end of the war in October 2011. Returning from Libya but not abandoning his revolutionary spirit, VanDyke has been actively involved with aiding opposition groups in the on-going Syrian crisis. He recently travelled to Syria, currently in the 22nd month of its own devastating civil war, to film a proopposition documentary. VanDyke views his documentary as a way to help influence international opinion in favour of multilateral international intervention, of which he is a strong proponent. QIO’s Daniel Bodirsky recently had the opportunity to speak with Matthew VanDyke on his role in the conflict, how he hopes to affect change on the ground in Syria, and his predictions for the outcome of this ongoing war. 14

I am not objective and I was not reporting. I was making a pro-FSA (Free Syrian Army) film that will help the FSA raise money to fight the Assad regime. The intention of the film is to have a tangible impact on events on the ground in Syria, to help the FSA recruit fighters, and to raise money that will help achieve victory on the battlefield. Journalists report what happens in Syria, but I am not a journalist - I am instead trying to actually affect what happens on the ground in Syria. I am still a fighter, however, and the only reason I chose a camera over a gun for these few weeks was because the rebels need more weapons and ammunition right now, not more fighters, and this film is the best way that I can contribute to their efforts to raise money so they can buy what they need to win. The film will be around 15-20 minutes and will be released free on the internet. It will feature Syrians talking about why they are fighting for their freedom. I have captured the essence of the revolution in one short film that I hope will be one of the most important films of the Syrian revolution, for a number of different reasons. I also advised rebels based on my educational background and my experience fighting in the Libyan revolution. One of the most significant contributions I made during this trip was advising doctors in Aleppo to disguise their ambulances to protect the ambulances from being targeted by Assad’s aircraft. Before I advised them, they were so afraid to use an ambulance again after having so many destroyed that they actually refused to accept a donated ambulance from abroad. Now they have followed my advice by painting ambulances black and are using the donated ambulance, and other disguised ambulances, to save patients’ lives.

QIO: President Bashir-al-Assad’s regime has persisted much longer than many analysts expected. Do you believe the government is nearing collapse? Should Assad be apprehended? Where should he be tried?

Queen’s International Observer

MVD: The regime may have persisted longer than QIO: You fought for the Libyan opposition

many analysts expected, but it has not persisted longer than I expected. The regime is strong and is not nearing collapse. Unfortunately, millions of Syrians still support the regime for a variety of reasons, and Assad has not even used his best military equipment yet - he has kept much of his arsenal in reserve for later, most likely because he is using it as a deterrent against outside intervention. Assad should be apprehended and tried in Syria. It would be offensive for the international community to demand that he be handed over to the ICC (International Criminal Court) considering that the international community has done nothing to help overthrow the regime. It is unlikely that Assad will ever face trial anywhere though - his fate is likely to be similar to, or worse than, that of Muammar Gaddafi, if he doesn’t escape into exile somewhere first.

against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime during the country’s civil war. Is the situation in Syria more dire than that of Libya?

MVD: I fought in the Libyan civil war against Muam-

mar Gaddafi. In that war we were well-equipped and had NATO air support. In Syria it is the other way around - the regime has all the air power and far better weapons than the Free Syrian Army does. The FSA struggles to even have enough ammunition for their AK-47s. It is a dismal situation, and although the FSA will eventually win, unless something drastic changes the war could drag on for a few more years.

QIO: There have been reports of the Assad regime loading chemical weapons (e.g. sarin) into bombs. Do you believe the government is preQIO: In your opinion, what would a post-war pared to use these weapons against its own peoSyria look like? Do you believe reconciliation ef- ple? Would this be the tipping point for internaforts between the Sunni majority and Alawi and tional intervention into Syria? Christian minorities is possible?

MVD: The regime is very unlikely to ever use chemiMVD: Post-war Syria will be an almost entirely Sunni cal weapons against its own people because it knows country. Reconciliation could have been possible if the international community had intervened to help overthrow the regime last year. At this point, Syria is probably passing the point of no return on the Alawi-Sunni conflict. There is a lot of bitterness on both sides, and although the vast majority of FSA fighters have told me that they want to reconcile and have Alawis, Christians, and Sunnis live in a united, peaceful country, I think that by the time this war ends (which could take a few years) most Alawis will have fled to Lebanon and Turkey and many of those who remain will be killed in the Lebanon-style civil war that is likely to follow the fall of the regime. This is a dismal assessment, and many Syrians would disagree with me, but based on what happened during the Lebanon civil war and my analysis of what is happening in Syria now, this is my prediction. It is unfortunate if there is no reconciliation, but I would rather see the 12 percent of Syrians who are Alawis leave the country and the other 88 per cent of Syrians be free, than have the regime stay in power. I believe most Syrian Christians will remain in Syria and be largely spared of sectarian violence after the fall of the regime.

that is the trigger for international intervention. The US and Europe have been very clear about this - if the regime uses chemical weapons it will trigger an international military effort to overthrow the regime, and if the FSA gets close enough to capturing any of the regime’s chemical weapons that could also trigger military intervention against the regime. However, if the regime begins to collapse, it is possible that individual Alawi commanders, convinced that they are fighting for the very survival of their people, will use chemical weapons on their own initiative. If the Assad regime is preparing any chemical weapons for use (which I doubt is happening; the intel on this is not good and there are conflicting reports), this would be done as a deterrent against international military intervention. They would not be preparing them for use against the Syrian people because any use of chemical weapons will trigger a military response by the USA and Europe that will eliminate the regime. They know that using chemical weapons is regime suicide, but they would use them against foreign militaries if attacked since they would have nothing to lose at that point.

Volume 9 Issue 3

Modern China’s

Many Faces

by Andriana Hnatykiw 16

Queen’s International Observer

In my first semester of my fourth year at Queen’s University, I travelled to Shanghai, China on the DEVS-Fudan

Study Abroad Program, with a camera in tow. Through presenting images from the three very different locales of urban Shanghai, political Beijing and rural Lijiang, this piece is intended to provide a glimpse into the complex and multifaceted country which is China. Despite its typification as being intimately immersed in the process of globalization, China’s modernization according to Edward Friedman, needs to be understood as “an endogenous process that will lead to a distinct form of Chinese modernity”. As the scale and size of China’s urbanization increases at an unprecedented rate, multiple socio-economic changes are occurring that impact both the domestic and global spheres. While unparalleled urbanization guarantees substantial new markets and investment opportunities, it also introduces many challenges to overcome. Growing urban populations will create increasing demands for funding for various social services, and will also effect the supply and demand of essential resources such as clean water, land and energy (McKinsey & Company). These are hurdles that must be overcome if China is to fully emerge from its impoverished past and take its place among developed nations. Shanghai in particular, is an amalgamation of the old and the new, commonly known as an archetype of modernity and a herald of the future. It was a pleasure to live and study there for the past four months, and I thank Queen’s for giving me this opportunity to experience and discover such a profound and unique city.

Volume 9 Issue 3

Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s International Observer

Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s International Volume 9 Issue 2Observer

MIST by Brenna Owen, Stephanie Rudyk and Natasha Mukhtar

he acronym ‘BRIC’ was coined in 2001 by Goldman Sachs analyst Jim O’Neill. It referred to the four major emerging economies of the time, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China. Over a decade later, O’Neill came up with another acronym for the latest emerging economic powerhouses: the ‘MIST’ countries include Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey, and are the focus of the remaining articles in Volume 9 Issue 3 of the Queen’s International Observer. The Goldman Sachs’ Next-11 Equity Fund was created in 2011 to invest in 11 of the fastest growing markets in the world; MIST encapsulates the most successful states on this list. Since the fund’s beginnings, investment has skyrocketed, suggesting that attention drawn to these states through the use of the MIST acronym itself has actually fueled speculative investment. Though they do not yet outpace BRIC countries in terms of output or population, the rate of growth of MIST countries suggests a momentum that will continue, despite downturns in the global economy overall. No doubt aiding the attractiveness of these markets, is the fact that each MIST state ranked higher for trade openness that the BRICS (with the exception of China), according to the World Economic Forum’s trade openess index for 2012. Each of the MIST countries boasts a significant characteristic that will drive development for years to come. Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey have strong foundations for economic growth, with large, youthful labour forces whose size exceeds the population of elderly dependants. It is also notable that in China, the average wage for labour in the manufacturing industry recently surpassed that of Mexico; with its close geographical proximity to the United States bringing down shipping costs, Mexico is uniquely placed to grow its manufacturing sector and share of international trade. Mexico 20

does face persistent political corruption and drug problems, however its position is arguably no more precarious than Russia’s was at the turn of the millenium. Like Mexico’s accessibility to the American market, Indonesia is also well-placed geographically to take advantage of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area, which Staff Writer Deborah Chu elaborates on in her article. Indonesia also stands out amongst MIST countries due to its strong levels of domestic consumption, which have allowed it to weather economic recession comparatively better than a number of other global economic powers. Turkey’s population of 79 million also represents a sizeable domestic market, and the country also boasts a relatively small debt-to-GDP ratio. These combined factors encouraged a record $22 billion in foreign direct investment prior to the 2008 global financial crisis. South Korea is somewhat of an anomaly amongst MIST countries. By most indications it is already a developed, export-driven economy with a system of institutional checks and balances aimed at limiting political corruption. What could stand to limit South Korea’s growth is a population significantly older than the other MIST countries and a comparatively small population in general. In conclusion, it is important to note that while the MIST countries, particularly Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey are similar in a number of ways including population demographics and geographical proximity to powerful consumer markets, the four countries should not be conceived as a cohesive bloc. They are unique in their political and economic situations and must be treated as such if they are to drive Goldman Sachs investment products.

Queen’s International Observer

DragonColonialism Mart Cancun: Redesigned by Rico Garcia

en minutes south of the Cancun International airport lies Puerto Morelos, a peaceful community of around 9,000 people whose main source of income is the tourism generated by the Puerto Morelos National Marine Park. This beautiful geographical location is home to part of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, the second largest reef in the world. Despite ecological and economic concerns raised by local environmentalists, the Mexican government recently approved a large-scale development project of Chinese origin called “Dragon Mart”. This project is expected to be an investment of close to $200 million dollars, resulting in 122,000 square meters of trade exhibition space, 3,040 square meters of retail space, 40,000 square meters of commercial warehouses, and 1,265 housing units. The project will mainly be a trade

platform that combines exhibition retail, wholesale, and warehousing of Chinese products. The project is expected to generate vast employment opportunities in Mexico. According to the Governor of the state of Quintana Roo, Dragon Mart will generate 2,500 jobs in the construction industry with its first stage of development, and up to 5,000 additional jobs upon completion. However, due to the exclusive sale of Chinese goods, and the expected influx of around 3,500 Chinese migrants to the region, it is easy to question which nation will truly reap the benefits. When completed, Dragon Mart Cancun will be the second largest retail complex for Chinese products outside of China – the largest one being Dragon Mart Dubai, which was built in 2004. Even while Dragon

Volume 9 Issue 3

Mart claims that it expects to attract approximately 1 million tourists and generate $700 million a year in revenue, the economic benefits to Mexico are still unclear as these stores will not only be owned and operated by Chinese citizens, but will also only sell imported Chinese manufactured products. These items of Chinese origin will compete with local, more expensive, goods and jeopardize thousands of Mexican small businesses and the incomes of millions. The Director of Dragon Mart Cancun on the Mexican side, Juan Carlos Lopez Rodriguez, has mentioned that the seaport in Puerto Morelos will require some improvements to be able to provide the vital maritime infrastructure needed to sustain the initial goal of importing 52,000 Chinese sea containers per year. This quantity equals the volume of trade Dragon Mart Dubai had in 2011, but the company’s real goal is to triple this amount. This unparalleled degree of trading could result in the importing of around 400 containers of Chinese goods per day. With the average container comprised of 25 tons of Chinese goods, many ships, trailers, and other industrial machinery will be required for the movement of these goods, resulting in increased pollution, waste, and most importantly, reef dredging.

is unsuited for the construction of this large-scale project. When completed, Dragon Mart will cause the main economic activities of the area, such as fishing, snorkeling on the reef, and ecotourism, to disappear – jeopardizing the livelihood of thousands of local Mexicans. It remains unclear which channels were used to elicit approval for this project, especially considering it violates official environmental standards set by the Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. What is clear though, is that a select group of Mexicans will benefit from the construction of Dragon Mart at the expense of thousands of others. Similarly, thousands of Chinese citizens will also benefit from this creative and modern style of colonialism.

As we embark further into the 21st century, it should be noted that colonialism has not been eradicated, but instead been redesigned to use increasingly integrated markets as means for the acquisition of power. Oxford Dictionaries defines colonialism as “the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.” It is hard to disagree that Dragon Mart Cancun fits this definition of colonialism As a tourist-fishing village home to the Puerto Morelos almost perfectly. National Marine Park, the town of Puerto Morelos Upon the completion of Dragon Mart, Chinese settlers will move into the once peaceful tourist-fishing village of Puerto Morelos, occupying the 1,265 housing units scheduled to be built within the next few years. Furthermore, while the local residents and merchants will not be directly economically exploited by China, Mexican merchants will now have to compete with a strong influx of cheaper goods, leading them to pay lower wages to local laborers in order to remain competitive. And finally, China will begin to slowly exert more political control over Mexico, thanks to the increased economic control it will have in the region. These last three points coincide with the three characteristics of “colonialism” as given by our previous definition. Amongst political circles, there seems to be a debate of whether the MIST countries (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey) will surpass the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). While this remains to be determined, by using the case of the development of Dragon Mart Cancun in Puerto Morelos, it seems apparent that, at least China, is not showing signs of slowing its economic ascent down anytime soon. 22

Queen’s International Observer

The Ascent of Indonesia

Assessing the Potential of Southeast Asia’s Island Power by Deborah Chu

An archipelago amidst the Indian and Pacific Oceans,

Indonesia is home to the fourth largest population in the world, as well as one of the most diverse – its 238 million inhabitants comprise more than three hundred ethnic groups and a diversity of languages.

The history of modern Indonesia is one uniquely shaped by the collision of internal and external forces. Between 1800 and the Second World War, the island chain was controlled by the Dutch Empire as a nationalized colony, known as the Dutch East Indies. The Japanese invasion of the Pacific dismantled the Netherlands’ colonial grip over the region, thereby allowing for the efflorescence of previously-suppressed independence movements. Two days after Japan’s surrender to the United States in 1945, nationalist leader Sukarno declared the independence of the newly-created Republic of Indonesia and became its first president. Once the glow of victory faded, political divisions were drawn and tensions climbed,

Under the Obama administration the relationship between the United States and Indonesia has become more intimate than ever. fracturing the political unity of post-independence Indonesia. A series of violent engagements between the military elite and those loyal to the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) led to the end of Sukarno’s leftist government and his exile from power by CIA-backed General Suharto in 1968. President Suharto’s “New Order” administration – once again supported by the United States – was characterized by the heavy-handed suppression of civil liberties and pervasive corruption; yet the political and fiscal stability of

Volume 9 Issue 3

Suharto’s regime encouraged foreign investment into Indonesia, and laid the groundwork for three decades of economic growth. The 1997 Asian financial crisis again thrust Indonesia into chaos when a spiraling economy forced Suharto to resign from his presidency, thus resulting in a power vacuum that led to major political instability until 2004. The end of Suharto’s authoritarian regime, however, was ultimately conducive to Indonesia’s gradual transition to democracy. The country’s first direct elections in 2004 were internationally commended as free and fair, and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, a former army general under Suharto, became Indonesia’s first democratically-elected leader. President Yudhoyono’s administration has since supervised the gradual decentralization of government, as well as a crackdown on government corruption – efforts that contributed to his re-election in 2009. Moreover, while many countries continue to feel the aftershocks of the 2008-09 global recession, Indonesia has been relatively unaffected by the economic downturn. In fact, the Indonesian economy has consistently grown at an excess of six percent annually, and smart government spending has kept public debt at a level below 25 percent of GDP. The world has taken notice of Indonesia’s rise in fortune: the country was recently ranked 25th out of 139 countries in the World Economic Forum’s grading scale for macroeconomic stability, a significant jump from 89th place in 2007. The McKinsey Global Institute projects Indonesia’s economic growth to continue into 2030 and eventually take its place as the 7th largest economy in the world. Thus, Indonesia’s inclusion in the new ‘MIST’ neologism – a grouping of the world’s four largest emerging markets created by Goldman Sachs’ Jim O’Neill – is hardly surprising.

religion is not a hot political commodity in Indonesia. Rather, the robust turnout for President Yudhoyono’s Partai Demokrat (PD) in both 2004 and 2009 indicates an overwhelming preference amongst Indonesians for secular-nationalist parties, which campaign on promises of religious freedom, economic growth and anticorruption. President Yudhoyono has openly declared his opposition to Islamic aggression, stating that such extreme professions of Islamism threaten the social cohesion of a country that professes Unity in Diversity as its national slogan. Indonesia has, therefore, long been regarded by the United States as a potential moderating influence between the Muslim world and the West, and a counterbalance to more militant expressions of Islam in the Middle East. Under the Obama administration, the relationship between the United States and Indonesia has become more intimate than ever. Aside from their countries’ mutual concern towards counterterrorism, the United States has long identified increased engagement with the South Asian market – and indeed the Asia-Pacific as a whole – as vital to its own economic recovery and success. Not only is Indonesia a key democratic state in the region, its island of Sumatra is located along the

What makes the Indonesian case even more interesting is that fact that its economic strength does not eclipse its growing political significance on the international stage. Indonesia is home to the largest Muslim population in the world, with 85 percent of Indonesians adhering to the Islamic faith. Since the end of Suharto’s reign, several fundamentalist Islamic political parties have attempted to galvanize the public towards their causes, which range from implementing Sharia law to formally turning the country into an Islamic state. The most recent elections, however, have proven that 24

Queen’s International Observer

Strait of Malacca, which links the Indian Ocean and South China Sea and through which passes a large percentage of the world’s trade. During his tenure as President, Obama has worked diligently to foster further opportunities for American exports to Indonesia, which currently account for 7.3 percent of Indonesia’s total imports. His efforts have culminated in the signing of a Comprehensive Partnership Agreement in 2010, which sought to bring the U.S.-Indonesia relationship to unprecedented levels of mutual aid. The Agreement details fifty-four goals that will define the future of this bilateral partnership including political, security, economic, and developmental cooperation. The growing warmth between the two countries is perhaps also aided by Obama’s personal connection with Indonesia, where he lived for four years as a child.

Amongst ASEAN members, Indonesia’s economy alone accounts for one third of GDP. Not only is Indonesia generating closer ties with the West, but it is fast emerging as a political and economic behemoth in its own region. Indonesia is a crucial player within the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), a coalition of Southeastern Asian countries dedicated to increasing economic growth, maintaining regional peace, and the promotion of social progress and cultural development amongst its members. Amongst ASEAN members, Indonesia’s economy alone accounts for one third of GDP. In addition, the ASEAN countries agreed to the establishment of a Free Trade Area between its member states, Australia, and New Zealand in early 2012. Furthermore, Indonesia played host to the East Asian Summit in 2011, an annual conference of 16 countries in that region, plus the U.S. and Russia, to discuss trade, political stability, and energy. Through its powerful position within ASEAN, Indonesia stands to profit greatly from these regional and international relationships.

ed into outright violence, most recently in the province of Papua. The government also faces international condemnation for human rights violations committed in East Timor, which was a province of Indonesia until it gained independence in 1999. Moreover, Indonesia is burning through its abundant supply of natural resources like wildfire: rampant deforestation and mining have been the driving forces behind the country’s prosperity, but the environmental cost has been very dear indeed. If Indonesia hopes to become a high-income economy, it must begin to search for cleaner means to sustain development. Indonesia must also re-invest into the country by placing a greater focus on human and physical forms of capital, such as education and infrastructure, which almost guarantees a return on their investment.

With an economy surging forward in leaps and bounds and a political stability hitherto unprecedented in its chaotic history, Indonesia is a country brimming with promise. Though skeptics doubt whether Indonesia’s progress is ultimately sustainable, it is an incontestable fact that traditional loci of power are increasingly gravitating away from the West. If Indonesia is able to prove cynics and skeptics wrong and overcome the challenges ahead, the country is optimally primed and positioned to take on a greater international significance than ever Many challenges still lie ahead for Indonesia. Despite before. its economic growth, the majority of the population continues to live below the poverty line. Separatist tensions simmer relentlessly below the surface of Indonesia’s diverse communities, and have occasionally eruptVolume 9 Issue 3

KIM VS. PARK: ROUND TWO Renewed tension in the

koreaN peninsula B

by Daniel Bodirsky

oth North and South Korea have seen leadership changes in the past twelve months. In the North Korean capital of Pyongyang, Kim Jong-un ascended to supreme leader, following the death of his father Kim Jong-Il. Nearly a year later, Park Geun-hye won South Korea’s presidential election to become the country’s first female president. While hopes for substantial improvement in inter-Korean relations accompanied each leader’s accession to power, it is becoming apparent that such hopes were largely misplaced. Observers of North Korean politics were deeply divided throughout 2012 over the direction in which the young Kim would take his country. Many had hoped that his youth and his education abroad would lead him to break from the son’gun (military-first) policy of leaders past, in favour of pursuing reformist measures. Reports of the dismissal of high-ranking military figures have trickled out of the country, lending further credence to this theory. However, with the recent upsurge in provocative moves from the North, this debate may finally be coming to a rest. Kim Jong-un’s foreign 26

policy has begun to crystalize as a continuation of his family’s legacy: seeking to produce a favourable balance of power by expanding strategic arms capabilities while using North Korea’s longstanding relationship with China as international leverage. In South Korea, conservative Park Geun-hye’s electoral victory in December 2012 produced similar hopes of détente. The daughter of former strongman Park Chung-hee, the authoritarian leader responsible for beginning South Korea’s enormous economic growth in the 1970s, a component of Park’s electoral promises centered on cautious rapprochement with Pyongyang. This follows years of isolation by her predecessor LeeMyung bak. The issue of North Korea was not nearly as salient as in previous elections - chief concerns among voters in 2012 were largely economic. Though lumped together with Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey as one of the rising “MIST” countries, South Korea’s economy has taken a battering in recent years amidst the global economic slowdown.

Queen’s International Observer

Plans for detente however, have been derailed by Pyongyang’s latest foray into the nuclear weapons game. North Korea’s rocket launch in December, widely regarded as a test of intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, was condemned by UN Security Council Resolution 2087. Consequently, Pyongyang has announced that it intends to conduct a nuclear test that will target “The US, the sworn enemy of the Korean people.” Most analysts believe that this will coincide with the birthday of the late Kim Jong-il on February 16, and will mark the third nuclear test by the reclusive country, which tested previously in 2006 and again in 2009.

Sabre-rattling between the Koreas has become a fact of life in Northeast Asia. Pyongyang further denounced the government in Seoul as traitors (a common charge, given South Korea’s relationship with Washington), pledging physical retaliation should South Korea participate in an upcoming round of sanctions. In an emergency meeting with top defence officials, Kim Jong-un reportedly placed the entire country under martial law and has instructed the Korean People’s Army to prepare for war. While similar threats have been issued in the past - many analysts, including Professor Victor Cha of Georgetown University, view the ratcheting up of North Korean rhetoric to be more serious than in the past. By explicitly naming

the United States as the target of its upcoming nuclear test, North Korea has set a worrying precedent. Park Geun-hye will need to hit the ground running to reduce this tension. In the wake of these moves, pundits in Seoul have become increasingly vocal in their calls for overhauling South Korea’s national security strategy. Current operational plans assume that North Korea possesses only basic nuclear devices that must be carried by bomber planes. Given North Korea’s rocket launch in December, policy-makers in Seoul are now confronted with the fact that North Korea can produce miniaturized nuclear devices. Overhauling the national security apparatus is, therefore, of paramount importance. The outgoing Lee administration had already begun to address this issue by purchasing $1.2 billion worth of American drone technology. Park has pledged to increase this effot. Her agenda calls for a strengthening of the US-South Korean alliance and the construction of new naval facilities. Introducing South Korean tactical nuclear weapons, an idea that enjoys broad popular support in the country, is also on the table. Park is expected to temper this overhaul with a renewed emphasis on reaching out to the North. In what she dubs the “Vision Korea” initiative, Park stresses economic cooperation projects with a goal of eventually building a trans-Korean economic community. She has outfitted her pragmatic foreign policy team with a number of veteran North Korean experts from across the political spectrum. The new administration will need to work quickly to entice Kim Jong-un back to the six-party denuclearization talks. The meetings, involving South and North Korea, China, the United States, Russia and

Volume 9 Issue 3

Japan, have been moribund for the past five years. With the September election of fellow conservative Shinzo Abe in Japan, Park may find herself with some allies of convenience. While Park has stressed the need for closer relations with Tokyo, South Korean popular opinion is not particularly favourable towards Japan as a result of lasting wartime grievances and an ongoing territorial dispute over the Dokdo/Takeshima islands. This has previously constrained bi-lateral relations and halted military agreements in recent years. Indeed, the election of nationalist politicians like Abe has traditionally resulted in a deterioration of Japanese-South Korean ties. Using the common cause of tempering North Korean provocations, however, may be enough to mend ties in the near future.

view the upcoming test as destabilizing and a potential threat to Chinese interests. Such a move should not be taken as a complete U-turn on previous policies, but it may signal Chinese desire to become a larger contributor to regional security and take a more active role in reining in its belligerent neighbour. In spite of positive early signs, the prospects of diffusing tensions on the Korean peninsula in the short-term are quite low. Pyongyang is as determined as ever to steam ahead with the latest stage of its nuclear program while the incoming Park administration may need to contemplate scuttling their conciliatory approach.

Sabre-rattling between the Koreas has become a fact of life in Northeast Asia. Viewed in tandem with the Perhaps more surprisingly, China may emerge as a trouble brewing in the South and East China Seas howpowerful ally for South Korea; despite being North Ko- ever, it becomes apparent that the Asia-Pacific region is reaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s chief ally and benefactor, China is a signatory of in for tumultuous years ahead. the latest UN resolution that expands existing sanctions against the country. Beijingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s chief concern is stability, and while it has tolerated a number of actions by its Korean ally in the past, the new Chinese leadership may 28

Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s International Observer

RETURN OF THE EMPIRE

Benefits of adopting the turkish model by Idrees Ali

For over 600 years, the Ottoman Empire ruled large

parative analysis of Turkey and the Islamic Republic parts of Europe and the Middle East. At its peak, it con- of Pakistan, a state plagued by most of the problems trolled territory from Baghdad to Budapest, and was associated with a Muslim country, and which Turkey considered to be the seat of Muslim power (specifically itself has apparently solved. for Sunni Islam), with the Caliph residing in Istanbul. With the 1928 amendment to its constitution, Turkey Fast-forward to modern day Turkey, the former nexus officially became a secular country, virtually the only of Ottoman power, and things have changed. Remark- Muslim state in the world to do so. Since the year 1299, ably, the Republic of Turkey has transformed into a sec- the Ottoman Empire was by run by a Sultan who was ular country, a rare achievement in the Muslim world. also the Caliph, the highest religious authority in the It has redefined the military-civilian relationship; in the Caliphate, the state and ruling body of the Islamic Umpast the military controlled the politics of the country mah or community. A large part of the Sultan’s political and once threatened its democratic process. Turkey has power rested on his religious influence as the Caliph, also pursued a foreign policy that places an emphasis who was seen as God’s representative on earth. This all on peaceful coexistence with neighbouring countries, changed in 1923 when Turkish army officer Mustafa and cooperation rather than aggression. Interestingly, Kemal founded the Republic of Turkey, subsequently the more these changes take place, the closer the Re- becoming know as “Ataturk”, or “Father of the Turks”. public of Turkey comes to assuming the role of regional Ataturk laid the foundation for the new Republic on the hegemon, bringing it back to its Ottoman roots. Based idea of secularism, one of his “six arrows”, or princion its secular principles, military-civilian relationship ples. He believed that all aspects of the state, including and foreign policy, the Republic of Turkey provides an politics, economics and education, should be separated ideal example that other Muslim countries should try to from religion. He strongly believed that secularism faemulate. This argument will be made through a com- cilitated democracy. While the current Islamist Justice Volume 9 Issue 3

and Development Party (AKP) and President Abdullah Gül have challenged this principle, for the most part, Turkey is still considered to be one of the only secular Muslim countries.

Forces (TAF), NATO’s second largest army, has historically seen itself as responsible for protecting the secular Republic and the Kemalist ideology. For example, faced with the prospect of Ahmed Gül becoming the President of Turkey in 2007, TAF stated: “The Turkish Armed Forces are watching the [Presidential election process] with concern. It should not be forgotten that, the Turkish Armed Forces is party to these discussions and is the absolute guardian of secularism. Moreover, the Turkish Armed Forces ... will demonstrate its attitude and actions in a clear manner when the time comes. Nobody should doubt this”.

In contrast, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is an example of a Muslim country that has not embraced secularism; rather, Islamic principles govern its public sphere. When Mohammed Ali Jinnah founded Pakistan in 1947, he promised religious freedom to all. However, in the 1980s, the President of Pakistan, Zia ul Haq “Islamicized” the country and added to its draconian “blasphemy laws”, which mandated punishment by death for anyone taking part in blasphemy against The TAF was concerned that as a former Islamist, Gül, the Holy Prophet. Zia ul Haq was eager to bring Islam whose wife wears a headscarf despite it being banned

into the state, because it would ensure that Pakistan’s numerous religious parties would support his rule. However, while advantageous for a leader looking to maintain power, his efforts have led a country where policy decisions are born from political pressure exerted by the religious parties. While unlikely to change in the immediate future, Pakistan could avoid some of the problems associated with religious extremism if it followed the secular Turkish model while retaining its Muslim culture in the private sphere.

in universities and public offices, would seek to erode Turkey’s secular system. This strong statement by the TAF became to be known as an “e-coup”, because of the role played by the Internet in circulating the statement. In June of the same year, a group called the “Ergenekon network” was uncovered whose purpose was to create civil unrest in Turkey to justify the overthrow of the governing Islamist-leaning JDP party. Almost 200 people, including retired generals such as the former Chief of the Armed Forces General Basbug, are currently on trail for their membership in this network. Turkey has also been able to redefine the military-civil- More than half of Turkey’s admirals, and one in five ian relationship over the past few decades. Starting in Turkish generals are also in jail for dissent. the1960s and continuing throughout the 70s and 80s, the military carried out a series of coups demonstrat- Although the military has acted as an agent against the ing its interest in political power. The Turkish Armed current Islamist-leading government, in addition to the 30

Queen’s International Observer

imprisonment of prominent members of the armed forces, the post-Cold War era has dampened the influence of the military in Turkey. Mandated by the Truman Doctrine during the Cold War, Turkey was the recipient of millions of dollars in military and economic aid based on its geostrategic importance and proximity to the Soviet Union and Europe. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States no longer requires a militarily dominant Turkey. Instead, it now relies on the Turkey to maintain balance in the Middle East, which can be effectively achieved through a civilian and democratically lead government. Despite the power of the military waning, the Turkish people made sure that the decrease in support for the army did not allow for the secular system to be destroyed. On April 14th 2007, outside the mausoleum of Ataturk, over a million people took to the streets chanting “No sharia, no coup, [we want] a democratic Turkey.”Ahmed Rashid, author of Pakistan On The Brink, calls this phenomenon, whereby countries move from a military based regime to a democratic and civilian one, the “Turkish moment”.

Turkey has been at the forefront with its foreign policy based on the concept of “peace at home, peace in the world.” Once again, Pakistan as a country would benefit from the implementation of Turkish-style reforms. The state’s military budget in almost three percent of its total GDP, putting it in line with most developed countries, at a time when not even a fraction of the budget is devoted to healthcare and education. There is little political oversight of the military, as evidenced by the fact that no senior army general resigned in the aftermath of the Osama Bin Laden raid, which was a major embarrassment for the military establishment. It is also a country where the military often has a stake in politics: in 66 years of independence, Pakistan has spend 33 under military rule. What Pakistan, along with other Muslim countries, must learn is that a country is no longer judged by the strength of its military, but rather by the strength and legitimacy of its institutions and the poli-

cies that it adopts. This is a concept clearly illustrated by Turkey’s foreign policy. Turkey has recently been at the forefront of international relations due to its foreign policy, which is based on the concept of “peace at home, peace in the world.” This has allowed Turkey to be seen as not only a major player in the Middle East, but also globally. In 1949, Turkey was the first Muslim majority country to have relations with Israel. At the same time, it criticized Israel for the attack on its Gaza bound flotilla, which killed nine Turkish citizens. While this incident has impeded close ties between the two countries, they still continue to have diplomatic relations, illustrating the maturity of Turkey’s foreign policy. Rather than following the antiIsrael position of most other Muslim countries, Turkey was willing to take the bold step of recognizing Israel, leading to a mutually beneficial relationship. Turkey has also looked to stabilize relations between countries with which it does not share a border. In December 2012, Turkey brought together the President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai and the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari, in order to discuss the possibility of a Taliban-Afghanistan peace process. Conversely, Pakistan has viewed India, its neighbour to the east, as an enemy since the two countries gained independence from the British in 1947. At the same time, to the northeast in Afghanistan, Pakistan had previously propped up the largely unpopular Taliban regime and is currently bent on destabilizing the country. Many other Muslim countries, mainly in the Middle East, are guilty of using similar tactics. What they must learn from Turkey is the fact that the world is changing. Destabilizing neighbouring countries risks causing tensions and unrest with the local population, in turn risking destabilization at home. Turkey is by no means a perfect country, and has a number of problems it has yet to resolve, including its ongoing conflict with the Kurds and the limited freedom of expression in the country. However, it has met with relative success in solving three of the most fundamental problems faced by other Muslim countries. By becoming a secular state, reigning in the powers of its military and adopting a neutral foreign policy, the Turkish model is one that should be adopted in other Muslim countries facing similar issues.

Volume 9 Issue 3

syrian uprising QUEENâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S INTERACTIVE CRISIS SIMULATION 2013

March 8 and 9

More info at