queen's international observer vol.8 issue 4

Summer 2012 - Vol. 8 No. 4

PLUSA LETTER FROM THE INCOMING EDITORS

GERMANY: A PHOTO ESSAY

RESTROSPECTIVE: A YEAR IN REVIEW

QUEENSINTERNATIONALOBSERVER

US HEGEMONY & THE SECURITY COUNCIL

CANADA & OAS: THE FIRST TWO DECADES

MONSANTO SOILS THE WHEAT ECONOMYJOSEPH KONY: INCONTEXT AND FACT

FEATURING

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

To the reader,-

-

-

-

)5207+((',725

9 R O XP H 1 XP E H U

&217(1764

5

6

8

12

16

17

20

From the Incoming Editors

Will Israel Attack?

Kony in Context

Hegemony & the Security Council

Canada & OAS: The First 20 Years

Campus Forum

Bavaria & Beyond: A Photo Essay

Monsanto & The Wheat Economy

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

Dear reader,

It is with a tremendous amount of honour and excitement that we accept our posi-tions as the incoming editors for the Queens International Observer, 2012-2013 edition. As students of political studies, we are thrilled to !nd a place at Queens to channel our passion for all things media and foreign a"airs related. Above all, we want to be able to provide Queens students with the opportunity to see their editorials, essays and photographs published in a dynamic and growing campus-wide publication.

During the transitional summer months, well be cooking up unique and engag-ing ways to continue doing what QIO does best - that is, to create campus-wide dialogue about foreign a"airs! We will be working hard to inform ourselves on the ever-changing environment of international politics, and arming ourselves with fresh new ideas for strengthening the magazines presence on campus.

So, whether this is your !rst time reading QIO, or if you are a regular contributor, we invite you to continue to build this magazine with us! #ere are so many ways to get involved. Did you attend an inspiring guest lecture or conference on cam-pus? Consider sending us an editorial to be published in our Campus Forum. Are you bursting with opinions about the latest developments in the American presi-dential race? Have them published as an op-ed piece in our current events section. Did you write an essay worthy of a wider audience than just your TA? Send it to us as a feature article! Do you love QIO so much that you want to join our team of amazing reporters, writers, editors, Tweeters, graphic designers and all around political junkies? We are hiring right now! Email your resume and cover letter to [email protected], and lets talk.

Have a blissful summer and well see you next fall!

Stephanie Rudyk, Editor-in-Chief Vol. 9Brenna Owen and Natasha Mukhtar, Assistant Editors Vol. 9

FROM THE INCOMING EDITORS

Joanna Plucinska

Editor-in-Chief

Idrees Ali

Assistant Editor, Content

Tristan DiFrancesco

Assistant Editor, Layout

Alexandra Petre

Marketing Director

Malvika Dasani

Solicitor of Submissions

Wenhan Chen

Public Relations Director

Maria Rodriguez

Sponsorship Director

Daniel Hershkop

Discussion Coordinator

Miriam Bart

Staff Reporter

Taylor Anderson

Staff Reporter

This publication is licensed & distributed un-der a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer-cial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) Printed thru Dunning Hall Printing services. All im-ages in public domain except otherwise noted.


WILL ISRAEL ATTACK?

will want to avoid drawing America into a war, keeping well away from American tar-gets. Oil prices may soar dramatically, but this wont last for long as the Saudis can increase their output. In the end, the world may thank Israel for solving a problem they did not have the guts to face head on. I personally doubt many of these predictions. If attacked, the unpopular Ira-nian regime will certainly respond likewise to avoid appearing weak and inept. Iran has a solid arsenal of long-range missiles, and Hezbollah hasnt shied away from attacking Israel before. Indeed, it might be the perfect distraction from the troubles of the Arab Spring. And any attack on Israel will be seen as an attack on an American target. Certain-ly in an election year with pressure from the right, Obama will be forced to play his hand. An Israeli strike could end badly. But as Israeli Defence Minis-ter Ehud Barak remarked, Whoever says later may !nd that later is too late.

tures, including international threats and attacks on Israelis, proves that the regime has been a"ected and is trying responding. Still, Obama has not ruled out military in-tervention. His accomplishments over the past three years seem to prove he is serious. Yet to the United States, this is only a strategic problem. To Israel, its ex-istential. By June, many believe that Iran will have moved enough materials to fa-cilities deep underground, so that only the US will have the capability to attack. While America is Israels closest and most power-ful ally, Netanyahu cannot be complacent. Israel was founded on the premise that the worlds persecuted Jewry cannot leave its fate in the hands of others. #is ethos clear-ly weighs heavily on the Prime Minister. Indeed, the apocalyptic visions of a third world war may be exaggerated. Many Israeli o$cials claim Iran is a paper tiger. It has only limited capability to directly attack Israel. Its control over Hezbollah and Hamas has weakened since the Arab Spring. Iran

#ere is a strong likelihood that Israel might attack Iran before June. Once the Director of the CIA believes an attack is imminent, it is hard to deny that the threat is real. Washington-Tel Aviv plane routes have been clogged for weeks with high-ranking Israeli and American o$cials. #e Americans are presumably saying, Yeah, we got this. #e Israelis are not so sure. Obama says that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is pro-foundly in the security interests of the United States. Regardless of what those on the far right might claim, he has backed those words up with harsh action. He has steadily hardened the sanctions regime over the past three years. He has also ex-panded its international backing, gaining commitments from the European Union and other rich-world nations while slowly pushing others to play along. #e sanc-tions are taking their toll, with the Iranian economy su"ering from trade and !nan-cial problems. A %urry of aggressive ges-

YKONykonykonykonyKONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk

YKONykonykonykonyKONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykonyko ny KONYKONykonykonykony KON YKONykonykonykony KONYKONy kony konykony KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykonyko ny KONYKONykonykonykony KON YKONykonykonykony KONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykony

(IN CONTEXT)

YKONykonykonykonyKONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk

YKONykonykonykonyKONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykonyko ny KONYKONykonykonykony KON YKONykonykonykony KONYKONy kony konykony KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykonyko ny KONYKONykonykonykony KON YKONykonykonykony KONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykony

,GUHHV$OL$VVLVWDQW(GLWRU

RETROSPECTIVEa year in review

Perhaps the most pivotal event of the year was when Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself

on fire and sparked the Arab Spring.

On March 6th, 2012, something extraor-dinary happened: the biggest social me-dia campaign in history was launched. #e issue? Joseph Kony. #e organizers? Invisible Children. In just 24 hours, there was not one person with a Facebook or Twitter account that wasnt getting their feed bombarded with people practically begging them to watch a 30-minute doc-umentary entitled Kony 2012. Now, a month a&er the campaign started, the video has over 85 million views. To put that into perspective: if the viewers of the Kony 2012 video were to start their own country, the population would be between Ethiopia and Vietnam, and it would be the 14th most populated coun-try in the world. #is kind of aware-ness has not been matched by any other campaign of any other charity, period. On March 13th, a week a&er Kony 2012 exploded, another video was posted. #is one was titled Kony screening provokes anger in Uganda, and it was released by Al Jazeera. #e video is two minutes and forty seconds long, and documents how a crowd of Ugandans practically rioted a&er watching the thirty-minute documen-tary, saying things like We wanted to see our local people who were killed. #ese white men, these old white men, are di"erent from northern Ugandans.#e views on that video? About 550,000. If viewers of this video were to populate a country, it would be 168th on Wiki-pedias most populated countries list. #e Kony 2012 campaign has come under signi!cant !re, even in the West, since it has been posted. Articles claiming that Invisible Children are propagating the White Mans Burden, or are solely interested in military in-tervention, rose up in droves a&er Kony 2012 exploded. Even more criticize the documentarys simpli!cation of the is-sue, or plain misstatement of the facts. One of the most informational articles about the entire issue of the LRA and the countries it has a"ected came in the form of a International Crisis Group docu-ment, which was written in November of last year. Even then, the writers of the document were calling for swi& and im-mediate action to bring down the LRA. #is leads to an interesting ques-tionhow long has this been going on? #e LRA formed in the 1980s, as a rebel group against the government and Ugandas leader, Yoweri Museveni. When they were forced out of Uganda, they became a proxy army for the Khar-toum government in the Sudanese civil

of the issues in that area. Indeed, al-though the Kony 2012 campaign strives to make Joseph Kony famous, in many ways he already is. #e e"orts to stop him have been half-hearted thus far, but there is hope for the future. #e U.S. military now knows the strengths and weaknesses of the Ugandan army, the most capable army in that region to take down the LRA. Strengthening evidence of Joseph Konys whereabouts is beginning to come to light as well. #e e"orts to !nd and kill Joseph Kony are ongoingthe US government is assisting, the Ugandan government is putting in its e"ortsbut the issue at home is, what was the e"ectiveness of the Kony 2012 campaign? Although the organization behind it is anything but trustworthy, the movement in it-self has been an e"ective one to say the least. Without it, countless people would live their lives without knowing of Joseph Konys deeds. If you need a more reliable charity to donate to that is guaranteed to help the e"orts to stop Kony, look to Africare, Children of the Nations, or the African Medical and Re-search Foundation. Alternatively, you can look to CharityNavigator.org to help you !nd reliable charities to donate to.

war. When that con%ict ended, the LRA negotiated with Kampala for the end of the Ugandan con%ict. But neither sides fully committed, and Joseph Kony never showed up to sign the dra& agreement. Now, the LRA is a dangerous, causeless, lethal band of soldiers just trying to stay alive. #e reasons that the group, and Kony himself, have not been brought to justice are complicated, but result mostly from a lack of political initiative from governments of South-ern Sudan, the Central African Republic (CAR), or the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRA). Since the LRA operates on the outskirts of all of these countries, their leaders see no reason to concern themselves with the group, especially since Kony is so di$cult to capture. #e most dedicated attempt was Operation Lightning #under, initiated in 2008 by the Ugandan government. Using U.S. intelligence, they launched a ground and air strike against LRA camps in the DRA, but their e"orts were in vain. Four years later, and Kony still isnt captured. In October of 2011, Obama sent one hundred combat-ready troops to try and capture him, due to the e"orts of Invisible Children and other NGOs to raise awareness

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

tions debates for decades. With origins in the Zionist project of the 1920s and 1930s, con%ict and security threats on both the Israel and Palestinian sides have resulted in perpetual unrest in the Jewish and Arab communities. #e orig-inal goal of the Zionist-Israelis was the creation of the state of Israel as a Jewish state and the liberation of the Palestin-ian peoples within what they believe to be rightful Israel territory. In 1916, un-der the covert Sykes-Picot Agreement, Britain and France divided the region and furthered existing tensions under the Balfour Declaration in 1917, when Britains Foreign Minister dedicated Britains work to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. A&er the British rule of Palestine was handed over to the UN in 1947 in order to deal with con%ict be-tween Israel-Arab peoples, the UN split the territory into separate Israel and Pal-estine states. #e uneven split of territo-ry meant the solution was only support-ed by the Israeli side. #e problematic relationship of the UN with this con%ict therefore begins at its origins. To further the issue, Israels admission to the UN in 1949 as a peace-loving state under UN General Assembly Resolution 69 ar-rived. With constant con%ict between the two sides and numerous attempts at a solution, the UN released a de!n-ing resolution for the Israel-Palestinian con%ict in 1967: Resolution 242. Reso-lution 242 came in response to the Six-Day war between Israel and a handful of Arab states that resulted in Israel seizing the Golan Heights from Syria, as well as Gaza and Sinai from Egypt. #e reso-lution was titled, #e Situation in the

the United States pursues their self-in-terest. As such, the Security Council has o&en become a supporter and protector for control regimes. #e chronological actions of the United States in the Secu-rity Council will be followed, which are rooted in the eras of bipolarity, unipo-larity, and the beginnings of multipolar-ity as characteristics of the international system. First, it will discuss the Cold War era where a bipolar international order characterized the actions of the Reagan administration as well as the beginnings of George H.W. Bushs administration. Second, the actions of the H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations in the con-text of a unipolar international system will be discussed. Finally, the role of the George W. Bush and the Obama admin-istrations in Security Council resolu-tions in a transition towards multilater-alism will be discussed.

THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT: #e Israel- Palestine con%ict has been at the centre of international rela-

0LULDP%DUW6WDII:ULWHU


I think the most signi!cant part of the school year was when the United States de-clared the end of the War in Iraq. #is has been an ongoing war for several years and with it !nally coming to an end, hopefully peace in the Middle East is something that

the United States can contribute to.

HEGEMONY & THE SEcurity council

#e United Nations Security Council is perceived as a universal international entity that undertakes primary respon-sibility for the maintenance of interna-tional peace and security. Operating under the assumption that the UN is a neutral, peacekeeping body, the role of the Big Five for determining the agen-da and decisions of the Security Coun-cil, and the UN at large, is o&en neglect-ed in theories surrounding international institutions. Despite the UNs priority shi& towards resolving the Israel-Pales-tinian con%ict, it is clear that the US use of the Security Council for the pursuit of state interests has played a fundamen-tal role in supporting and protecting the control regime in Israel. #is is impor-tant to the study of managing treatment of minorities, as it evaluates the realist claim that rationality of states cannot be curbed by the international system. With a focus on the case of Israel and the UN goals in Resolution 242, I will argue that the United Nations Security Council is a mechanism through which


Middle East and become the reference point for peaceful goals of the UNs role in the con%ict. Six years later in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the UN imple-mented resolution 242 and demanded compliance, in addition to the passing of Resolution 338 under which the US, So-viet Union, and the UN called for cease-!re for a just and durable peace in the Middle East. In 1987, mass uprisings against Israels occupation of Gaza lead to the proposal of a two state solution by the Palestinian National Council and a Palestinian goal of settlement based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

UN PARALYZED IN A BILATERAL WORLD:

As Sarsar argues, the bilateral world order of the Cold War turned the UN into a pawn in the game of su-perpower politics. As he discusses, dur-ing the Cold War era, the US took on de facto responsibility for the promotion of a liberal ideology and the function-ality of a free world. Under the Reagan administration during the Cold War, the US strived to assert its ideological dominance over the Soviet Union and thus, consensus among the !ve perma-nent members of the Security Council was rendered unattainable. During this critical period and the shaping of a new world order, the Reagan administra-tions common label as the most pro-Israel presidency within the US set the precedent for US-Israel relations hence-forth. Under Ronald Reagan and George Shultz, the US invoked their veto in the Security Council a total of 18 times to protect Israel. Of these vetoes, half put an end to attempts to condemn Israels invasion of Lebanon as well as refusal to surrender territory in Lebanon. he other nine vetoes protected Israel from inter-national criticism for individual acts. Notably, in the majority of these cases, the voter count was 14-1, meaning the US was the sole state responsible for the resolutions failure. One example of this is the US veto on Feb. 1, 1988 for a Reso-lution that Called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian upris-ing that violate the rights of the occu-pied Palestinians as well as to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.Such blatant disregard for the protection of human rights exposes the self-interested motivations of US decisions within the Security Council. US demographics, popular opinion in support of a pro-Is-

rael government in Washington, as well as funding and support provided by Jew-ish and Protestant interest groups that identify more closely with a Jewish state. From an international relations perspec-tive, the United States also bene!ts from the military and economic dependency of Israel. As such, the US can be said to have abused their veto power within the Security Council for the maintenance of US-Israeli relations, and notably at the expense of human rights protection and con%ict resolution. US decisions within the Security Council during bilateral-ism in the Cold War era were pivotal for the in%uence of the US on Middle Eastern decisions for the future. By pro-viding a set of narrow options to the Soviet Union, the US e"ectively called for a reduction of power within the Se-curity Council, unless they gave Israeli

support. Evidently, both options would result in contradictions and failures for the Soviet Union; thus the United States emerged as the central voice within the Security Council.

UNIPOLARITY & DECISIONS:A&er the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, United States interest and agenda became a central concern for all inter-national actors. With the emergence of a unipolar international order in the post-Cold War era, Glennon argues that the Security Councils credibility was gradually eroded as the US rose to become a hegemonic power. I argue this has implications for the function of the Security Council as a mechanism for furthering state interest as US goals and interests- through the use of the veto- in-hibited the e"ectiveness of the Council.

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

relevant in the examination of the US role within the UN Security Council on the topic of Israel. In many ways we see this transformation taking place in the dynamics between the !ve permanent members. Because the US has existed as a hegemonic power for so long, it is clear that their foreign policy strategies still re%ect their place in a unipolar world. Under the Obama administration, it has been argued that US-Israel relations are deteriorating as the US struggles to jus-tify their biased support of the Netan-yahu governments human rights viola-tions against the Palestinians. Striving to maintain its hegemonic superiority in the international system, the United States found itself in a fragile situation with regards to a recent Security Coun-

Gore ran for the presidency.In addi-tion to a large contribution of military and economic aid to Israelduring his term, Clinton mediated talks between the two parties in Washington, but later announced the failure of this endeavor. Nonetheless, these actions by the US ad-ministration are indicative of a unipolar world order, and the US mentality that their government, as opposed to the Se-curity Council, was the most e"ective forum for peaceful negotiations and a solution to the Israel-Palestine con%ict.

TRANSITION TO MULTIPOLARITY: #e transition of the interna-tional system from unipolarity to mul-tipolarity is hotly debated among IR scholars today. #is debate becomes

Under the H.W. Bush administration, the veto was used four times in order to insulate Israels control regime from international pressures as a result of its heinous human rights abuses against the Palestinians. In total, 68 of 100 resolu-tions condemning Israel passed, and it became obvious that the UN in a post-Cold War world could not be e"ective if states chose to make reckless use of veto power. #erefore a&er 1990, the US be-came more cautious of using the veto; thus, other powerful means of support-ing Israel were adopted. In this regard, it is clear that the Security Council is a forum designed for debate and resolution in the best inter-est of states, and does not provide limi-tations for the promotion of a dominant state interest in a unipolar international order. #rough an examination of the US main goals under H.W. Bush and the Clinton administrations, it is clear that a partiality towards the newly elected La-bour coalition in 1992, in conjunction with a US foreign policy of moral inter-ference, prompted a focus on reaching a peace agreement between the Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. #is is es-pecially prevalent in the actions taken by the Clinton administration with a re-establishment of dialogue with the PLO and the signing of the Interim Agree-ment between Israel and Palestine. In-terestingly, Clinton was less vocal about the Palestinians when Vice President Al


In my opinion, some of the most prevalent news in the past year has been the ousting

of long-time standing political dictators. This includes Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and

most recently Yemen. All of these countries have seen transitions into a more demo-cratic nations and in the case of Tunisia especially there is great optimism for the

countrys move towards democracy.

0DULD5RGULJXH]6SRQVRUVKLS'LUHFWRU


cil resolution against new Israel settle-ments. Use of the veto power against this resolution would have negative af-fects for US- Palestine relations that past administrations have focused on repair-ing, whereas abstaining from voting would anger Israel. Within the debate on this issue, the Obama administration also faces criticism from Democratic and Republican supporters of Israel in Congress for trying to avoid a veto. #e Obama administrations enactment of the veto against all other permanent member states condemnation of Israeli settlements is a primary example of the use of the Council as a mechanism for pursuit of state interest. With individual state interests placed before the com-mon goals of peacekeeping and secu-rity under the Council, it is clear that the decisions made are not necessarily those that are the most e"ective for the collective international system. Rather, decisions are based on what is best for the individual permanent members. In a unipolar world, the interests of the United States are central. However, in-formation suggests that the US may be required to yield this central power and a lack of consideration for others actors in an emerging multipolar system. Arguably, this shi& is already occurring as China (notably a permanent member of the Security Council) is becoming a leading economic power. #is is re-%ected within the Security Council itself with China and Russia leading an initia-tive to combat piracy in Somalia and its joint initiative with France and Russia to oppose the Gada$ regime. It is clear that with an increased presence on the economic world stage, China is being granted a more central role within the Security Council. Indeed, this is highly problematic given the ongoing human rights abuses within China today as Ti-bet, Taiwan, and minority groups such as the Zhuang, Manchu, and Uyghur minorities face human rights abuses and vertical accountability within gov-ernance is largely absent. According to Freedom House, #e Chinese govern-ment is hoping to enjoy the bene!ts of the global economy without jeopardiz-ing its political control. Interestingly enough, this issue rarely appears on the agenda of the UN Security Council. Within a global context that is arguably moving towards multipolarity this is unsurprising. It is clear that amongst the Security Councils !ve permanent mem-

seeable accountability within UN legal structures and codi!cations. In the case of Israel, UN resolutions have o&en been non-binding, or simply disregarded by Israel with no visible consequences to follow. With this in mind, one may spec-ulate as to the relevance of a discussion surrounding the UN Security Council as an e"ective institution for moderating the Israel-Palestine con%ict. Regardless of the lack of practical power and in%u-ence of the UN Security Council, how-ever, this paper has argued that the UN as an international body is signi!cant for the study of international relations within various international orders. Ad-ditionally, because of the power of the !ve permanent members, the UN Secu-rity Council has proven an ideal body in which to examine support or condem-nation of an international con%ict by key state actors in the international system. To this e"ect, it has been argued that the Security Council di"ers from other UN organizations as its decisions focus on political considerations as opposed to international law. It is important to note that the UN Security Council has the distinct ability to in%uence the actions of the UN at large because all members of the UN are entitled to carrying out the decisions made by the Security Council. #is means that the veto power of the !ve permanent members carries criti-cal weight for the decisions made by the UN, and its support or denunciation of individual states. It is for these reasons, that the Security Council is exemplary for the demonstration of the UNs par-

bers, the importance of state relations with China as a leading economic actor are too precious to push for serious ac-tion against human rights violations by the Security Council.

EFFECTIVENESS OF A REALIST APPROACH

A central criticism to these argu-ments is that a realist explanation of a state-centric international order where states have security as their principle interest, doesnt account for the signi!-cant role of sub-state actors in shaping foreign policy decisions regarding Israel and Palestine and China. Critics of real-ism o&en use Israel as an example of a state where a realist explanation is insuf-!cient due to the religious dynamic of the con%ict taking place. Upon an ex-amination of the domestic factors such as interest group support for pro-Israel policies in the US, this paper has begun to address anti-realist concerns over a state-centric theoretical framework for the study of international relations. Un-fortunately, addressing all factors that shape US foreign policy is not possible within the parameters of this essay. As such, this paper will discuss in greater detail, a more general criticism sur-rounding the analysis of the Security Council.

WHY THE SECURITY COUNCIL?#e authority and applicability of the UN amongst a changing international order is o&en questioned by state and non-state actors due to a lack of fore-

$OH[DQGUD3HWUH0DUNHWLQJ'LUHFWRU


The most important issue facing the world today is global migration, along with the psychological impact of globalization. The inability of sovereign

states to regulate and integrate the number of newcomers each year, paired with the increas-ing desired of people to move for the purpose

of human security or economic gain, represents the most powerful demographic time-bomb we currently face. The shifting discourse around the

idea of home and what that means, as redefined by a new group of digital nomads and existential

migrants, is bound to challenge the idea of national borders even further.

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

has discussed the decisions of the United States, and the !ve permanent members of Security Council through the chrono-logical progression of a changing inter-national order. #rough the actions of the Reagan, H.W. Bush administrations and a bilateral Cold War period, the UN became a paralyzed international entity. During the Clinton administration, in a unipolar world order, the interests of the United States played a signi!cant role in determining the priorities of the Security Council. Finally, this essay has explained the criticisms of the Obama administrations treatment of Security Council resolutions viewed as unipo-lar which multi-polarized of the inter-national system. #is is signi!cant not only for an analysis of the UNs response to the treatment of minorities, but also to provide a framework of analysis of in-ternational institutions at large.

tionality of international institutions at large into question. #erefore a greater signi!cance must be placed on states as opposed to international bodies in an analysis of the international system. As such, the role of the United States in the maintenance or denunciation of control regimes has implications for the way in which power is allocated in the study of international relations. As previously acknowledged, state-centric analysis of international relations risks neglecting fundamental sub-state actors that play a signi!cant role in shaping foreign policy. With a focus on the case of Israel and the UN goals in Resolution 242, I have argued that the United Nations Se-curity Council is a mechanism through which the United States pursues their self-interest. As such, the Security Coun-cil has o&en become a supporter and protector for control regimes. #is paper

tiality as a forum through which states pursue their self-interest.

UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL GROUPS:

Within the chronological dis-cussion on the role of the Security Council for the promotion of US inter-ests, the UNs lack of applicability in a changing world order becomes a key issue. It would seem that the collective goals of peacekeeping and security that the Council is designed to uphold are nave in a unipolar international order. #e power of US politics and ideology in relation to other states has, as seen in the case of Israel, warped the impartial-ity Security Council decisions, as states abuse their veto power in order to en-sure international support for their al-lies and interests. #e applicability of this issue extends beyond the United Nations, however, and brings the func-

#e Organization of American States (OAS) is basically the Western Hemi-spheres version of the EU. Little known to Canadians outside of economists and policy makers concerned with Latin American issues, the OAS has, since its inception in the immediate wake of World War II, stood as the main forum for multilateral negotiation between the thirty-!ve countries comprising the world on this side of the Atlantic. #e in%uence of the OAS on all socio-political matters in the Americas has in-creased dramatically in the last two de-cades that is, when Canada the middle power, a&er years of reluctance to for-mally join the OAS family, !nally sat down to the OAS table in 1990 as a full-%edged OAS member. Over the course of the Cold War, Canada oriented itself largely toward European and Asian alli-ances; unwilling, according to outsiders, to put itself in the position of opposing Washington on particular Latin Ameri-ca issues or else become a U.S. puppet. Yet the close of the eighties saw the fall of a number of dictatorships and the stabilization of economies south of the Rio Grande. #is ultimately prompt-

ed Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to search for new horizons for Canada by placing priority on enhancing Canadas relations with its hemispheric neigh-bours. #e enormity of Canadas con-tribution to the OAS in its !rst twenty years of formal participation is not sur-prising given Canadas position as one of the only two countries in the Americas with G8 status. But Canada has endured its share of OAS-related criticism too. Particularly in the context of the signi!-cant changes to the world order since 9-11 (heightened international security, increased globalization, shi&s in the balance of global socio-political power, etc.), this criticism demands re%ection on Canadas potential future OAS role.

CONTRIBUTION TO OAS From the moment it joined, Canada has been largely successful in getting the OAS to respond to Ottawas priorities (Torres 2007; GoC 2006). #e most immediate of these was OAS ad-ministrative, !scal and technical reform. Under the stewardship of Jean-Paul Hu-bert, Canadas !rst ambassador to the OAS, Canada demanded that existing

OAS member-states pay any outstand-ing membership dues; the goal being enhancement of OAS credibility on the world stage (Belanger and Mace 1999: 168). With this done, Canada then pushed OAS members to shore up the organizations capacity to respond to potential hemispheric crises, social, eco-nomic or otherwise. #e result was the revitalization of OAS structures initially set up to provide non-governmental organizations with a more formal role within the OAS, and indeed Canada working closely with Chile and Mexico to implement via the Managua Protocol a new Inter-American Council for In-tegral Development (Tittemore 1995), an OAS body concerned with economic development and poverty reduction throughout the Americas. It was Canadas early moves in support of OAS mechanisms for safe-guarding democracy through multilat-eral diplomacy, however, that have had the most lasting impact (Major 2007; Gosselin and #erian 1999; McKenna 1995; Mackenzie 1994; Tittemore 1995). Not only did Canada back all key OAS resolutions and declarations, including

Canada & OAS7KHUVWWZHQW\\HDUV

E\5\DQ+LJJLWW


1991s Resolution 1080, part of what has come to be called the Santiago Commitmenti, but it was also instru-mental in the development of working groups within the OAS mandated to ensure Santiago deliverables, a stand-out example being the OASs Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD). Between 1994 and 2004, headed by Ca-nadian Elizabeth Spehar, the UPD sent sixty observation missions throughout the Americas to ensure electoral fairness and transparency (CRS 2005: 4). #e ef-!cacy of the UPD was indeed strength-ened via resolutions proposed by Cana-da at the OASs 30th General Assembly in Windsor, Ontario, leading to the OASs Special Fund for Strengthening Democracy a kind of UPD !nancial reserve (GoC 2007a).ii And a year a&er Windsor, when political scandal struck the Fujimori government in Peru, Ca-nadian diplomats successfully worked to make the April 2001 #ird Summit of the Americas in Qubec City a de-mocracy summit (Major 2007: 85). #e Inter-American Democratic Charter found much of its structure in Qubec City deliberations (GoC 2007b: 2). To-gether with the UPD, it has now made free elections more or less a regional norm. One upshot of increased politi-cal stability throughout the Americas was the freeing up of OAS technical and administrative resources, subsequently allowing Canada to help the OAS cre-ate energy, bio-diversity, and pollution action plans at various ministerial

meetings, including the Summit of the Americas, Miami, 1994, the Pan Ameri-can Summit on Sustainable Develop-ment, Santa Cruz, Bolivia, 1996, and Santa Cruz + 10 in 2006. Former per-manent representative of Canada to the OAS, Brian Dickson, chaired the OASs working group on the environment, and Ottawas current Environment Com-missioner, Scott Vaughan, served as the organizations Director of the De-partment of Sustainable Development from 2003 to 2008. In turn, another upshot has been greater OAS focus on human security and capacity-building, which Canada now partitions a growing proportion of its total annual $11 mil-lion OAS contributions to.iv Canadas 1997 signing of the Ottawa Convention against landmines, coupled with a series

of annual Canadian aid dollars totaling $7.6 million, has helped see Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala and Suriname de-clare their territories free of the impact of mines and unexploded ordinance. $2 million grants by the Canadian govern-ment in each of 2006 and 2007 likewise supported OAS programs related to disaster management, e-government, journalism and access to information. #e overall package of OAS initiatives in these areas constitutes a programmatic approach which responds to a number of commitments in the context of the Sum-mits of the Americas process, noted for-mer Canadian Ambassador to the OAS, Graeme C. Clark (OAS 2007). For OAS Secretary-General, Jos Miguel Insulza, Canadas contribution is clear evidence that development policies promoted by the OAS share the perspective of the Ca-nadian government (OAS 2007).

CRITICISMS OF MEMBERSHIP But to what extent does this ap-parent micro-management, if not the disproportionate !nancial resources poured into the OAS by Canada, actu-ally embody hegemonic institutional control? Despite McKennas (1999) the claim that there is very little evidence for Canadas membership in the organi-zation having eroded or compromised the OASs policymaking sovereignty or independence, others see di"erently. Daudelin and Dosman (1998) argue that Ottawas Department of Foreign A"airs and International Trade has tended to exaggerate Canadian in%u-ence on the OAS while simultaneously underestimating the damage caused by evident political appointments. In fact,


The most relevant news piece for the 2011-2012 school year for me was the death of Kim

Jong Il in December. He had been so dominant in the Korean theatre for so long, it was hard to really grasp that this powerful figure was gone. He was an enigma: feared, reviled, mocked

but a political figure nonetheless. There is much uncertainty in the wake of his death, and

I think the world may have lost a thorn in its side that it had grown accustomed to, and had given up trying to take out. The question now

is: where will the DPRK go?

:HQKDQ&KHQ

3XEOLF5HODWLRQV'LUHFWRU

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

they note, other OAS member-states are o&en surprised at Canadas use of the OAS as a building-block for norm gen-eration at regional level to project issues globally at the United Nations or other forums a use not all in keeping with Latin Americans and Caribbeans typical concept of the institution (p.4). Canadas e"ectiveness in terms of the defense of human rights is anoth-er point of concern, further suggesting that nations of the Global North, Cana-da included, see !t to play by a di"erent set of rules than a Global South they are putatively assisting. Canada consistent-ly presents itself as a strong supporter of democracy promotion in the region yet refuses to adhere to certain inter-Amer-ican instruments established to protect human rights. Despite being vocally critical of the human rights records of El Salvador, Peru, Colombia and Nica-ragua, Canada, like the United States, has itself yet to even ratify the American Convention on Human Rights or agree to accept the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. #is re%ects a clear lack of political leadership in Canada given that it is possible for the government to ratify the Convention without, contrary to Ottawas insistence, contradicting the constitutional pow-ers of the Canadian federation (#ede 2005). Indeed a 2003 independent study carried out by a Canadian government appointed Standing Senate Committee

ers see Ottawas foreign policy as aligned more closely with that of Washington today than in any other point since Can-ada took up full membership in the OAS and signed NAFTA. Neufeld (1999) for example argues that the U.S. depends on second-tier core states like Canada ful!lling their functions as legitimiz-ers; not to mention taking a lead role in contexts where U.S. activism would do more harm than good. Major (2007), in turn, contends that national interests (domestic, regional and bilateral, nota-bly vis-a-vis the U.S.) are indeed at play when Canada choses to take a front role in bilateral or multilateral initiatives to defend, restore or strengthen democra-cy in the region.

CANADAS FUTURE IN OAS Multilateral government insti-tutions around the world became more complex places in the a&ermath of 9/11. #e OAS currently faces massive pres-sures over the future of Haiti, growing concerns about social unrest in coun-tries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela, and of course the insta-bility of Central American countries, particularly Mexico, as a result of drug warfare. #ere is also the long-stand-ing question of Cuba, which recently rejected an invitation by the OAS to at long-last join the OAS family. In all this Canada is more than a bystander. It can help tackle these and other challenges while playing a more e"ective role in the OAS in the future. Canadas current engagement in the Americas, as announced by Prime

on Human Rights found that there are in fact no compelling reasons for Cana-da not to ratify (GoC 2003). For former Canadian Ambas-sador to the OAS, Paul Durand, has stated that Canada is seen at the OAS as a balanced participant, a reasonable player not driven by the agenda of any country or region (GoC 2006: 8). Oth-ers arent so sure. Rodriguez (2006) ex-presses concern that Latin America may perceive Canada as too dependent on the U.S. and thus vulnerable to pressure from Washington. And there may be some merit to this fear. Some observ-


Minister Stephen Harper in Santiago, Chili, July 2007, is based on three key objectives: promoting and enhancing (i) prosperity, (ii) security, and (iii) the fundamental values of freedom, de-mocracy, human rights and the rule of law (GoC 2007c). But, as #rrse Bouchard (2008) of the Center for In-ternational Studies and Cooperation, Montral, says, Canada needs to be es-pecially attentive to social justice given its privileged situation; not necessarily exercising the most power or having the strongest voice, but simply support-ing national initiatives whether those of Brazil or other countries to !ght poverty and exclusion. #at Canada actually backed out of negotiations on the Dra& American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2008, a documented supported by Canadas own First Nations peoples, brings Bouchards concerns into sharp relief.v #e environment remains an-other hemispheric priority to which Canada can make a more signi!cant contribution. Groups such as the Sierra Club have expressed concern that the eagerness of OAS member-states to pur-sue economic prosperity too o&en sees the organization direct all its political and technical energy towards trade lib-eralization at the expense of rigorous en-

vironmental impact analyses. McGills Philip Oxhorn (2008) is optimistic that Canada can help deal with the environ-mental impacts that go hand-in-hand with the regional search for economic prosperity, pointing toward Canadas ef-forts to deal with the oil issue as some-thing it can share and invest in vis-a-vis Latin America. But, it must be said, greening the economy has in the past decade not been an evident strength of either the Canadian or U.S. Govern-ment. As the U.S. makes moves to re-inforce its battered !nancial infrastruc-ture, Canada, the largest of the potential


As evidenced by the article I wrote for this issue of the QIO, I believe Kony 2012 was the most captivat-ing story to emerge in the 2011-2012 year. The huge amount of support and attention it received through

social media was nothing short of astonishing. It almost acted as a case study of how to make a suc-

cessful social media campaign.

7D\ORU$QGHUVRQ6WDII:ULWHUregional counter balances to U.S. power, can pressure Washington to make more assertive environmental moves in the Americas, not to mention halting the southward %ow of guns and laundered money to Central America. Canada can also place itself at the forefront of collective e"orts deployed to protect democracy when a governance crises erupts in a member state of the OAS, as it did in Honduras in 2009, where a Congress and Supreme Court-backed military coup overthrew the Presidency of Manuel Zalaya; provoking the OAS to suspend the country from the organiza-tion until order in Honduras is restored.

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

/news /events /opinionCAMPUSFORUM


%UHQQD2ZHQ,QFRPLQJ$VVLVWDQW(GLWRU

I am particularly interested in the rise of Rick Santorum as a popular candidate for the Republican nomination. That Santorums

unwaveringly socially conservative and often controversial values have garnered support

indicates Barack Obama will face a frustrated and changed electorate in November 2012.

6WHSKDQLH5XG\N,QFRPLQJ(GLWRULQ&KLHI

1DWDVKD0XNKWDU,QFRPLQJ$VVLVWDQW(GLWRU

I think the robo-call scandal of the 2011 Canadian federal elections is one of the most important sto-ries this year. While technically not in the realm of 'foreign affairs', this attempted sabotage of Cana-dians' right to participate in free and fair elections

has wider implications. Canada cannot be an example of democracy for other countries if it can

not meet democracy's most basic tenets itself.

The world watched when citizens in Egypt of different socio-economic statuses, backgrounds, and religions united in protests against an undemocratic govern-ment at Tahrir square. The protest was partly organized using prominent social

networking sites. The revolution is part of the Arab Spring, a series of events among the biggest international news stories of the year. Though Egyptian Presi-dent Mubarak and his regime have been overthrown, it remains unclear in which direction the state is headed. The Egyptian revolution opens important questions about transitions to democratic regimes and the stability of other repressive gov-ernments in the region. The waves of protest have also spread to Tunisia, Libya and Syria among other countries. On a lighter note, its also the mark of a new era when individuals can decide whether or not they are attending a revolution

by joining an event on Facebook.

Volume Eight of the QIO is drawing to a close, but next years team is already in place; were all excited to hand the magazine over to an extremely capable group. As you may have no-ticed, we have scattered our thoughts on the most critical events of the past publishing year. This issue of campus forum presents the incoming editorial staff and their thoughts on past year in international affairs. Dont hes-itate to the new QIO staff, as always, at [email protected]

/news /events /opinion

Nowhere is so quintessentially German as a Biergarten on a sunny afternoon. The place is worn, handsome and immortal,but everywhere, new life works its way through the cracks of age. Cold beer is brewed just inside, and has been for six centuries; for a dime less than water,

why not have three with lunch?

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

Leaving the state of Rhine-land-Palatinate, a train travels along the rails that played a pivotal role in shaping Ger-many. Since unification and the economic integration that rail systems in the Zollverien facilitated, this has remained the most affordable and com-prehensive transportation.

Lovers and loners alike em-brace the juxtaposed natural and architectural beauty of

Nurnberg, a modern city that has overflown medieval walls. The castle keep once held the

Imperial crown jewels and other riches, but following the de-

struction of the city and the Al-lied occupation, many of Nurn-

bergs treasures were lost.

TRAVEL


Wind power in Oberfranken, as in the rest of Germany, is growing. Alternative energy will continue to grow as the entire German nuclear pro-gramme was halted follow-ing the Fukishima meltdown. While the northern coast is best suited for wind ventures, solar, geothermal, and hydro-electric resources are being harnessed everywhere.

The infamous speed and danger of the Autobahn is out of sight and mind as kilome-tres of highway stand still at rush hour. Constantly un-

der repair, and consistently busy, the core of European

infrastructure is undeniably hindered by such an ineffi-

cient system, not to mention the environmental burden of thousands of idling engines.

TRAVEL

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

MONSANTO SOILS THE CANADIAN

WHEAT ECONOMY

dian Wheat Board went to court to !ght the introduction of this Bill. Ritz, how-ever, disobeyed the law due to the exclu-sion of grain from being sold through the CWB. Bill C-18 came into e"ect as of December 2011 and in August 2012, the Canadian market will open up for any buyers and conducting business with the CWB will be optional. Canadian farmers have voiced their message to the government yet no progress has been made. #e Canadian farmers advocate their stance on the is-sue: We will not sit back and watch this government steamroll over farmers. We are going to stand our ground and !ght for farmers. #e chair of the CWBs farmer-controlled board of directors clearly stated, For months, Minister Ritz has been claiming that the recent federal election was a mandate for the govern-ment to dismantle the CWB. Now we know otherwise. #ere is no mandate from farmers to strip away their market-ing power. #e National Farmers Union says that farmers should decide the fate

MNC capitalists in a way that will have lasting e"ects on Canadian farms. #ey are going to eradicate original and or-ganic seeds that Canadian farmers have developed and bred over decades to give Canada a thriving crop economy. #e freedom of these farmers will be lost if they buy Monsantos seeds. #e National Farmers Union of Canada continuously has vehement support of the Canadian Wheat Board because it is a monopoly; the countrys only buyer of wheat and barley. In October 2011, the conserva-tive government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Agriculture Minis-ter Gerry Ritz proposed Bill C-18: An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts. It gives grain farmers marketing freedom to choose to use the Canadian Wheat Board or other multinational grain com-panies. A group that supports the Cana-

Due to the death date of CWBs single desk authority in August 2012, the National Farmers Union is trying to prepare to !ght for what they, and the majority of Canadian farmers want. Di-anne Dowling is the president of NFU Local 316 which covers Kingston and the surrounding area. Dowling spoke at a !rst year global development lec-ture to discuss the crisis at hand for local farmers, such as those that take part in the farmers market held outside of the John Deutsch University Centre every Wednesday. Dowling shared her per-sonal a$liation with the NFU and pro-jected a message not only for the sake of the NFU, but for the best interest of people that will be a"ected by Monsanto getting involved with local business.Dowling outlined that farmers who are members of the National Farmers Union of Canada must !ght against the assaul-tive American multinational corpora-tion, Monsanto. Monsanto is aggres-sively escalating up the chain of ruthless


I wouldnt say its the most important, but one of the most underreported news stories has been Myanmars fast and peaceful transi-tion to democracy. People understandably doubted the military juntas sincerity when they announced a transition to civilian gov-ernment. But, over the year, Myanmar has

genuinely changed. What a positive story to come out of so much terrible news.

'DQLHO+HUVKNRS'LVFXVVLRQ&RRUGLQDWRU

of the grain marketing agency; not the MPs. #e CWB inquired amongst farm-ers and proved that a clear majority sup-port the single desk it holds. #e National Farmers Union outlines ten speci!c reasons why they do not want Monsantos genetically-modi!ed wheat. 1. Market loss. International customers buy 82% of Canadas wheat. #ey have said they will not be buying Canadian GM wheat. 2. #e end of organic agriculture. GM wheat threatens organic agriculture prominence in Canada. As can be seen in GM canola, it is impossible for or-ganic farmers to grow that crop due to seed supply contamination and pollen dri& mean that organic farmers cannot ensure their crops be free of GM seeds. GM wheat and the subsequent GM crops will reduce organic farmers and reduce crops. 3. Lower prices for farmers. GM wheat will decrease current Canadian de-mands for wheat. GM-free, high-quali-ty, organic Canadian wheat, on the other hand, could result in a competitive ad-vantage. 4. Health Concerns. People around the world question the safety of GM foods, so why risk it? Health regulations could

be enforced but the Canadian govern-ment promotes the GM food industry.5. Environmental damage. GM presence in the environment lasts forever, it can-not be recalled, contained, or controlled. GM canola cross-pollinates with non GM-canola. #ere are no known long-term ecosystem e"ects of genetically-modifying the planets food crops.6. Agronomic costs. GM Roundup Ready ensures that weeds die and wheat survives. Farmers will need to use extra chemicals to control the maintenance of this and the estimated annual weed con-trol cost accumulates to $400 million.7.Segregation wont work. Monsanto thinks the solution lies in keeping GM and non-GM wheat separate from !eld to customer. However, segregation

would fail because GM varieties will contaminate wheat seed supplies.8. Labelling. Monsanto and the Canadi-an government oppose labelling to hide that customers are eating GM food. Companies believe GM foods should be le& to the market. #e NFU disagrees, and !nd it illegitimate to introduce new GM foods without labeling and inform-ing the public about what they are buy-ing and consuming.9. Corporate control. Transnationals, such as Monsanto, are gaining more control, through patents and courts, of the food supply; not only through seeds, but through their building blocks, genes. 10. We dont need it. Wheat farmers do not need GM wheat to grow it. Con-sumers will see no bene!t from GM wheat; thus is seems to create problems rather than solve them.

48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5

We arent going anywhere.

But you are. The Queens International Ob-server will continue to solicit submissions all year. The summer is a time to experience new things outside your comfort zone. Why not share that experience with others? Whether through images or words, we hope to constantly receive stories

from around the world; we hope you will stay in touch at home or abroad. If a headline makes an impact, triggers a reaction, or somehow compels you to delve deeper, you have felt the call of jour-nalism. Dont resist it. Find your story and we will help you share it.


Want to try your hand at working at a radio station? CFRC's news collective is looking for members for this summer! Join of an amazing experience!

For more info, you can contact this summer's News Coordi-nator, Joanna Plucinska at [email protected]

Passionate about news?

Thank you for a great year! - Queens International Affairs Association Executive, 2011-2012

queen's international observer vol.8 issue 4

Documents

xp e h u

assistant editors

r o xp h

incoming editorsgermany

queens students

campuswide dialogue

security councilcanada

queens international