Explaining Net Neutrality

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 to open the debate over net neutrality to the public. The fundamental question at hand is whether or not companies can pay to have Internet Service Providers (ISPs) deliver their information faster than other Internet users, including bloggers, new businesses and independent online media. The implications for ending net neutrality are far reaching, which address key issues regarding the democratic nature of the Internet as a socio-political, cultural and commercial space.

Internet map 1024 - transparent

A partial map of the Internet from 2005 based on lines drawn between nodes. Each node represents an IP address; the length of the lines represents the delay between them. December 1, 2006 (The Opte Project/Wikimedia Commons).

If one accepts that the public has a right to send mail using a common carrier that does not discriminate, then a natural extension of those rights is the right to send information over the Internet without any kind of discrimination. Basically, if I send mail from my local post office in South Central Los Angeles, then I will get the same quality of service as the rich and famous at their local Beverly Hills post office. On the Internet, this translates to content from Bloomberg News being delivered just as fast as the content from the independent blog I follow to stay up to date on French Politics.

Proponents of net neutrality maintain that the Internet was intended to be an open, free democratic space. In the US, supporters appeal to civil liberties such as the freedom of speech. Those arguing against net neutrality in the US, such as Viacom, Verizon and Time Warner, make the case that net neutrality laws place an undue regulatory burden on their industry. They also argue that being able to allocate bandwidth would help spur innovation and help recoup investments in developing networks. However, companies such as Amazon, Facebook and Google stoutly reject these notions. Google has even begun providing network neutral Internet Service with Google Fibre which currently exists in select American cities.

Where does the US compare to other countries when it comes to net neutrality? The debate internationally has taken place over a similar timeline. Chile was the first country to pass laws explicitly upholding net neutrality in 2010. Shortly thereafter, most of Europe followed suit as well as Brazil, Israel and Japan. Brazil went as far as to enshrine net neutrality in an “Internet Constitution” – a Bill of Rights for citizens on the Internet, the first of its kind.

The two countries that do not uphold net neutrality are the Russian Federation – on the grounds of “security” – and the People’s Republic of China. China has always tightly controlled the flow of information within its borders to preserve political stability and authority. So, even if the US ends up striking down net neutrality in the interest of private telecommunications companies, the “City on the Hill” would join a list of countries that, quite frankly, it should not be on.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

Over the Top: the Emergence of Arctic Ocean Trade

The view of the world from the North Pole is not a common perspective. Most of us may only recognize it from the white-on-blue flag of the United Nations. However, this view of the world may become increasingly common as climate change opens new opportunities for Arctic trade routes. Scientists predict ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean by the end of the decade and navigable winters by the mid-21st century. Regardless of how one may feel about environmental politics, the question of the polar caps melting is not one of “if” but “when.” The opening of these trade routes is of particular interest to certain actors and nations and has the potential to change the face of global trade.

Polar Routes

The Polar Paths for Shipping (via The Globe and Mail)

A dream of the 17th century explorer Henry Hudson, the fabled Northwest Passage over Canada was first navigated in 1906 by the Norwegian Roald Engelbregt Gravning Amundsen. The other Arctic Sea route, the Northeast Passage over Russia’s northern coast, more commonly called the Northern Sea Route (NSR), is a Russian-legislated shipping lane. The Russian Federation has already started developing infrastructure to service the NSR. Between 2009-2013 maritime traffic has improved from a handful of vessels to several hundred per year. While most are vessels conducting research, several trade voyages have been made. Thus far, Norway and Russia have been the primary navigators. However, in the past few years, Chinese shipping giant COSCO has turned its eyes northward. This past fall, COSCO’s Yong Sheng became the first container-transporting vessel to make a journey from Dailan to Rotterdam via the NSR. Huigen Yang, Director General of the Polar Research Institute of China, announced in 2013 that as much as fifteen percent of China’s maritime trade may travel via the NSR by 2020.

Most data estimates suggest that roughly 90% of mercantile trade is maritime. For China, the potential of Arctic routes could represent savings in the magnitude of hundreds of billions of dollars. According to Qi Shaobin, a professor at Dalian Maritime University: “Once the new passage is opened, it will change the market pattern of the global shipping industry because it will shorten the maritime distance significantly among the Chinese, European and North American markets.” Moreover, China’s traditional route to European ports passes through pirate-infested waters that the Arctic Route would bypass.

There is an undeniable economic advantage to Arctic Trade Routes that connect China to both Europe and the East Coast of the United States. Currently, the typical shipping time from Shanghai to Rotterdam is 25 days, Shanghai to Los Angeles is 13 days, and Los Angeles to New York is seven days by rail. Rotterdam to New York is another nine-day sail. However, a Northern Sea Route to Rotterdam from Shanghai would shorten the journey to 10 days, making a sail from Shanghai to New York via Rotterdam last only 19 days. Without any time lost with stopovers and putting cargo on rails, the current route to New York from Shanghai is twenty days, an Arctic route would be nineteen days at most.

Northern Sea Route vs Southern Sea Route

A visual comparison of the NSR (Blue) to the Suez Route (Red). The Northern Sea Route is 40%, or 12-15 days shorter than the traditional Suez route (Wikimedia Commons)

Commercial traffic over the Arctic would most profoundly affect the maritime route through the Suez Canal. Ports along the Suez route would see reduced cargo traffic from China to Europe. Singapore, one of the busiest ports along the route, has already signaled its awareness of this threat by applying for permanent observer status in the Arctic Council, a regional governance institution. Singapore isn’t the only observer nation that seems out of place in Arctic Council. China, France, Germany, India, South Korea, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom – many of the world’s largest economies – are also permanent observers.

As the Arctic’s pristine environment becomes accessible, commercial shipping is not the only encroaching human activity. Reduced sea ice is making an estimated 30% of the world’s natural gas and 15% of the world’s oil accessible. The combined potentials of Arctic shipping and resource extraction may tilt the scale in favor of developing economic infrastructure over environmental preservation in the Arctic. Professor Lassi Heininen, an expert in Arctic issues at the University of Lapland, describes this problem as a paradox by which less sea ice means better access and thus more human activities, which leads to less ice. Professor Heininen stressed the question: “Are we willing to lose the Arctic’s beauty, or do we try to keep it for our grandchildren?”

IMG_0996 copy 2

“Are we willing to lose the Arctic’s beauty, or do we try to keep it for our grandchildren?” A baby Polar Bear at Ranua wildlife park in Finland. June 2012 (Photo by the author)

The Arctic region is governed by a combination of international agreements including the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) and multilateral governance institutions such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN agency, and The Arctic Council (AC). The AC is comprised of the eight nations that intersect the Arctic Circle: the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and the Kingdom of Denmark (by virtue of Greenland). In recent years, the AC has passed agreements on search and rescue protocols and the IMO is finalizing a shipping ‘Polar Code‘ that is expected to be codified by 2016.

Infrastructure is still the key obstacle to the expansion of trans-Arctic trade. There are few ports in the Arctic and they are critically underdeveloped. Missing too are extensive maritime charts as well as search and rescue capabilities. While the AC has passed a search and rescue agreement for cooperation between Arctic States, investment in these capabilities remains minimal. Icebreakers are expensive and the largest fleets number in the tens. Additionally, maritime laws and insurance standards in the draft of the IMO’s Polar Code need to be finalized before any substantial shipping would occur.

Thus far, Russia has been the only player to make significant commitments to development by reopening dormant research stations and Arctic ports. Canada has done little aside from accepting a legal framework for multilateral cooperation on paper. Notwithstanding, there has been an increase in maritime activity through Canada’s Arctic waters:

trans

Recorded Northwest Passage Transits 1903-2013 (via Globe and Mail)

Gustaf Lind, the Swedish ambassador to the AC, accepted the possibility of Arctic Ocean trade. But, he noted: “I don’t think we will see much shipping for quite some time.” Mike Keenan, an economist at the Port of Los Angeles, explained: “You need long stretches that are regularly free of sea-ice and right now you don’t have that.” With regard to how a port can respond to the dramatic effects of climate change, Keenan continued: “there’s a limit to what [the port] can do if you have a serious time advantage…the priority should be to focus on climate change and sea level rise.”

Perhaps it is too early to quantify the effect of Arctic Sea Routes on global shipping trade. Polar Codes and Arctic governance institutions can provide limited solutions to the challenges facing the Arctic, a region on the front line of climate change. What is clear is that climate change will affect more than global weather patterns. It will have an impact on all human activities. Understanding these changes and ensuring that governments address the fundamental problem of a changing environment is ultimately the best way forward.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

The Italian Job: Operation GLADIO

In the final years of World War Two, Partigiani – the Italian resistance fighters who were largely left leaning, openly socialist, or communist – liberated Northern Italy. This struggle, known as the Italian Civil War (8 September 1943 – 25 April 1945), ensured that the once vilified Marxist political ideologies would become central to post-war republican Italy.

An Italian partisan in Florence, 14 August 1944. TR2282

An Italian partisan in Florence three days after the Liberation of Florence orchestrated by the Italian Resistance, 14 August 1944. (Captain Tanner, British War Office official photographer/Wikimedia Commons)

In the context of the Cold War and the Truman Doctrine, the popularity of communism and socialism in Italy represented an expansion of Soviet influence, and thus an existential threat to the United States. One of the first covert actions approved by President Harry Truman was ordered out of fear of a communist victory in the April 1948 Italian elections. In addition to overt diplomatic support for Italy’s government, the National Security Council recommended that a covert program be implemented to “actively combat Communist propaganda in Italy by an effective U.S. information program and by all other practicable means, including the use of unvouchered funds” (NSC 1/1). This covert action was the precursor to NATO’s formal clandestine operation in Italy known as Operation GLADIO (1948-1990).

Operation GLADIO included a combination of propaganda, political action, and paramilitary action. Starting with the 1948 general elections, the CIA funneled money to political parties that opposed the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and Italian Socialist Party (PSI) in every election for 24 years. This aid was largely to help cover the costs of campaigning, posters, and pamphlets. The CIA also forged letters discrediting party leaders on the left. The paramilitary aspect of Operation GLADIO was to train anti-communist clandestine networks, which often recruited former fascist hardliners. The most direct political action took place in 1964 when Operation GLADIO supported a silent coup in which the socialist ministers were forced out of government.

Operation GLADIO is inextricably tied to Italy’s “Years of Lead” (1960s-1980s), the period of Italian history in which extremist groups on the left and right committed domestic terrorism and targeted killings. Among these were the neo-fascist groups Ordine Nuovo and Rosa dei Venti, which carried out multiple bombings. Both of these groups allegedly had GLADIO-trained operatives among them carrying out bombing operations. GLADIO-trained operatives have also allegedly carried out “false flag” operations. Consider the case of the 1972 Paetano terrorist attack. The communist group Red Brigades was originally blamed until, in 1984, Vincenzo Vinciguerra – a fascist terrorist who claimed to have been supported by the GLADIO network – confessed. It is suspected that the Red Brigades’ assassination of Christian Democrat Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978 was also a “false flag” – the evidence being an alleged threat to Moro from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the involvement of the Banda della Magliana, an Italian criminal organization tied to GLADIO and the 1980 Bologna Massacre.

Stragedibologna-2

The ruins of the Central Railway Station of Bologna after the Bologna Massacre, 2 August 1980 (Beppe Briguglio, Patrizia Pulga, Medardo Pedrini, Marco Vaccari/Wikimedia Commons)

Ultimately GLADIO was successful in ensuring that a socialist or communist government never held power in Italy until 1996. The strategy of tension employed by GLADIO’s intervention was effective in allowing the US to influence Italian politics by creating instability through polarization. However, the operation caused the deaths of many innocent Italians and arguably denied the country its right to national self-determination. Additionally, Italy’s politics remain highly unstable and volatile to this day. In terms of upholding the principles on which the United States was founded and preserving the long-term stability of a democratic Italy, this operation was a failure.

Il 25 aprile a Milano

Italian Liberation Day Celebration in Milan 25 April 2007 (Paolo Bellesia/Wikimedia Commons)

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board. 

The Correspondents Weigh in: Crisis in Crimea

The Crimea Region is highlighted in Red on this map of the Ukraine (via Wikimedia Commons)

This piece will be the first of a special “Weigh In” series that is going to be started on Glimpse, which will focus on momentous current events.

Thomas D. Armstrong:

Recent op-eds have labeled Putin as a mastermind or a megalomaniac fool. I am of the opinion that Putin is a megalomaniac mastermind exploiting a disempowered US. However, debating Putin’s psychological profile is less constructive than analyzing the economic foundation of his regime. Putin and his Russia survive on energy revenues, and war is only making him richer. Unlike 2008, when Putin invaded Georgia, oil prices have held steady. In fact, the threat of sanctions on Russia have only driven oil prices marginally higher, up $2 dollars to $110.8/bbl as of writing. Putin is financing expansionist dreams (and his own savings account) thanks to his near-monopoly on Russia’s energy industry. Therefore, the best way to rein him in is to drive global energy prices down. The US can accomplish this quite easily with a reformed national energy policy. Currently, the US is sitting on an unused 727-million-barrel underground cache of crude oil, and is producing more and more natural gas by the day. If the US were to supplant Russia as Europe’s primary natural gas provider, and flood the global market with American oil exports, energy prices would plummet. A decrease from $110/bbl to $80/bbl would cost the Russian oil industry alone an estimated $120 billion, plus billions more in foreign exchange earnings. Putin is a deft leader, but even he could not survive such a sustained economic collapse.

Nick Kosturos:

Russia’s move to deploy soldiers in Ukraine is indicative of feelings of insecurity rather than confidence. Putin knows that such a large loss of influence in Ukraine, a critically important country in economic, cultural, and geopolitical terms, would be devastating to Russia’s ultimate goal of increasing its regional sphere of influence and international prestige. Putin’s domestic considerations and tensions can also shed light on these aggressive actions. If a small country like Ukraine can successfully stand up to the Kremlin by ousting its man from Kiev, what will Russians think of a leadership unable to control their “Small Russia?” Russia is acting out of desperation, not strength. Putin’s clownish justifications for Russia’s military actions do not hold up to scrutiny and are made under a façade by what I recently labeled an “imitation democracy.”

While the West has multilaterally condemned this act of aggression, which is a positive first step, it should now increase pressure on Russia to relent. In order to force Russia to withdraw and accept Ukraine’s sovereignty and a chance at a peaceful political transition, the West must maintain a multilateral and wide-ranging coalition of rejection, isolating Putin via sanctions on both his allies and competing oligarchs (including their overseas funds and visas), and by supporting Ukraine’s new government through assistance and advisement. At this point, conventional military power projection against Russia is not a viable option – no matter how tempting – as it could spark an unintended military provocation leading to conflict. The current situation is very difficult to manage, although the international community should know that the West ultimately has the upper hand. Russia’s desperate authoritarian strategy based on oppression is doomed to fail in the long-run.

Luke Phillips:

The situation in Crimea is nothing more than the Russians managing their own geopolitical periphery, and so far as it has to do anything at all with expansion, it is only due to the fact that Russian power is presently contracted to levels far below what Moscow would like. America would do and has done the same thing in the event of revolutionary unrest in our neighbor states, as is evidenced by our interventions in Mexico a century ago and in Cuba a half-century ago.

The question here, I think, is what the United States is going to do about it. Part of our grand strategy since the end of the Cold War has been to keep the Russians from establishing formal or informal dominion over the former U.S.S.R. Another part has been supporting the thin veil of liberal international order that girds the power politics flowing subtly underneath in an effort to at least grant a semblance of order and harmony in international affairs. These imperatives have come under increasing pressure in recent years, but in 2013 and 2014 more than ever before. I don’t know what the proper policy response should be, but I hope it isn’t more of the lectures, gestures, and silences with which President Obama responded to the Russians in the Snowden and Syria affairs.

Jacob W. Roberts:

America is in no position to intervene nor should it.  To the western world, Putin’s actions appear nefarious, but from the perspective of many Russians he is acting well within the parameters of international law.  Professor Tatiana Akishina of USC argues that, since the prime minister of Ukraine’s semi-autonomous Crimea region has called upon Putin for military support, his intervention is in accordance with international law.  Moreover, America has intervened with greater frequency and intensity over the past century, thus it is highly hypocritical of US authorities to castigate Russia for meddling within its region.  That being said, it is somewhat disturbing to witness Russia fail to respect the sovereign rights of an independent nation.  One can only hope that Putin’s intervention into the region will be short lived.

Alessandro M. Sassoon:

There is a risk of ethnic cleansing. It starts with classification. Weeks before this conflict made the front pages of the New York Times, reports emerged that Russian-Ukrainians in Crimea were being given Russian Passports. Russians have lived in Crimea for some 200 years, and Ukraine has held the territory for half a century. Then there are the Tatars, the people for whom Crimea is an ancestral home dating back to the Mongol Khan Empire. The Tatar population, which accounts for 13% of Crimea’s inhabitants, is predominantly Sunni Muslim. Under Stalin’s Russia, the Tatars were accused of collaborating with Nazi Germany and deported en masse to other parts of Russia (read: Siberia). It should come as no surprise then that they are more keen on being governed by Ukraine than by Russia. As things stand, there are three populations with strong ethno-nationalist tendencies who inhabit a geographic area they all feel they have a historical, political, or legal claim to. Of the eight stages of Genocide, we’ve passed #5: polarization. That means preparation, extermination, and denial are next.

Sabrina Mateen:

Before this conflict, my knowledge of Ukraine consisted solely of “ex-USSR”. I assumed the region consisted of Russian natives, and that they were considered to be allies with their ex-country. However, with the news of an outbreak of civil war, it has become apparent that there are opposing nationalities, languages, and mindsets that are all helping to tear Ukraine into pieces. The conflict seems to be reaching increasingly dangerous heights as Russia begins to put pressure on Ukraine in the form of planned military drills and in one case, an unspecified military presence that looked to be Russians supporting Crimeans. Although the conflict is being called a civil war, it is beginning to seem like one of the many moves Putin has been making to restore Russia to its USSR-era square footage. It is important to see what the United States plans to do, as the Obama Administration is already under scrutiny after the ill-advised response to the crisis in Syria.  Any move from the newly war-shy United States will be seen as an escalation in a conflict that has all the makings of a new Cold War.

Kerry Collins:

Recent developments in the volatile Ukraine situation show the autonomous Crimea region voting to join the Russian Federation. Crimea has a Russian ethnic majority and is predominantly Russian speaking, so it might not come as a surprise that the region is in support of the secession. If it is what the people want, then perhaps the region should have never been a part of Ukraine to begin with. These recent moves that Crimea has made are violations of international law, which puts the United States in a tough response position. The President has been making frantic calls to Putin urging a diplomatic end to this crisis, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Putin doesn’t seem particularly concerned with US warnings. What the EU and the US bring to the table are economic sanctions, and it will be interesting to see if those “sticks” are enough to make Putin falter.

France’s “Day of Rage”

Front National posters pasted onto the trees that line the Avenue Bosquet in the 7° Arrondissement of Paris, France, January 2014 (Alessandro Marazzi Sassoon).

Front National posters pasted onto the trees that line the Avenue Bosquet near the author’s home in the 7° Arrondissement of Paris, France, January 2014 (Alessandro Marazzi Sassoon).

Following international headlines as of late, it would appear that the top story coming out of France concerns President François Hollande’s personal (read: intimate) life. Interestingly, none of the major American and British news agencies or papers mentioned France’s Jour de Colère (Day of Rage) demonstration that took place on January 26 in Paris. Numbering 17,000 according to the French police, and upwards of 120,000 according to other reports, the demonstration called primarily for the resignation of President Hollande. And the unrest had nothing to do with his personal life. Anger over unemployment, taxation, and a perceived infringement on civil liberties were just a few of the complaints levied by the demonstrators. The French media reported on the demonstrations, but the only substantial English-language news to be found was by VICE and consisted of a report by two eyewitnesses who left before the protests became violent.

The apparent media blackout surrounding this protest makes it hard to determine what the impact of the protest was and who the protesters were. According to the protest organizers, the demonstration does not endorse any particular political party or figure, but upon closer examination their poster design suggests alignment with the far-right Front National (FN) party. A YouTube report of the protest revealed that among the demonstrators were neo-Nazis, members of the FN, members of the right wing student group Union pour la Démocratie Française (Union for French Democracy) dressed in all black, and a large contingent of Catholic-royalists. Some protesters called for a putsch or military coup, claiming the French army was the only institution that has not been “corrupted.” Corrupted by what? It is not clear, but anti-Semitism, anti-gay, anti-European Union, and anti-Finance sentiments were strongly expressed.

The demonstrators, reminiscent of Tea Party activists, claim a deep love for their country as well as being defenders of “French identity.” It is unclear what that identity constitutes, but demonstrators made clear what it did not include. In addition to wanting to expel France’s Jews and immigrants – the government is already taking care of the Roma – demonstrators appeared to reject France’s democratic institutions. Cries of phony elections and a dictator president were just some of the sentiments expressed.

Aside from statements by Manuel Valls, the Jewish Minister of the Interior who is often the target of anti-Semitic hate speech, noteworthy is the lack of condemnation from the French government. Valls condemned the violence and hate speech before the national assembly in a two-minute statement. He noted that a far-right rally of these proportions has not occurred in recent memory and the level of hatred expressed towards Jews was concerning. Valls condemned those who felt his deployment of law enforcement was excessive. He also passionately called for a unified rejection of the hate, anti-Semitism, and defamation of the French Republic the demonstrators represented. This message of unity is one seldom heard from French politicians. If the members of the National Assembly had any courage, they would do well to echo Valls’ condemnation of the protests. Instead, far-right deputies interrupted Valls thirty seconds into his speech and order had to be restored.

France is a vital country in the EU and the Eurozone; its depressed economy remains the 5th largest in the world. A protest of tens of thousands of citizens on the far right in Paris does not mean that France will go the way of Greece. Nevertheless, the trend towards nationalism and xenophobia coupled with economic downturn is not new – it led to the rise of Fascism in Europe and should not be taken lightly by anyone. If you can hear the people sing, you may want to listen, especially in a country that has a propensity for violent revolutions.

A Look Back at Snowden in the Press

National Security Agency headquarters, Fort Meade, Maryland

NSA HQ, Fort Meade, Maryland. NSA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Here’s a worthwhile thought exercise: considering China and the United States only, which state’s media would be the most aggressive in criticizing a foreign government for suppressing individual liberty and stifling free domestic press coverage? Before the Edward Snowden case, the United States would likely be the answer. Interestingly when articles from China Daily, People’s Daily, and New York Times are examined, a distinctly different narrative emerges. The Snowden Case has provided the Chinese media with a golden opportunity to champion individual liberties and criticize US surveillance policies. Conversely, the US press coverage has been more reactionary, framing the Snowden case as a statist US-China confrontation rather than a domestic political debate gone global.

The reaction of the Chinese press has focused on the controversial NSA policies illuminated by the Snowden files; US press coverage instead covered the reactions of the Chinese and Hong Kong governments’. “Surveillance programs reveal U.S. hypocrisy,” reads the headline of a June 14, 2013 article from the People’s Daily – the word “hypocrisy” is borrowed from a Snowden quote referenced in the article. Calling for a “serious self-examination” of US government policies vis-à-vis the NSA, the article deftly uses American voices to construct its argument citing comments from The New Yorker and USA Today. This stands in diametric opposition to comments from the American press that automatically regard Chinese press criticisms of American policies as party-line rhetoric, or as New York Times columnist Joe Nocera writes “another classic response.”

The dichotomy should be clear; Chinese media emphasizes the theme of liberty and ethics while US coverage of Snowden attempts to shift the debate to one of security. Nocera’s piece addresses the problem of US cyber espionage policy linking it to China’s own cyber espionage programs noting that the Snowden scandal will make it “far more difficult to force the Chinese to get serious about sopping their own hacking.” This commentary remains firmly grounded in the ideological camp which condones hacking behavior. Chen Wiehua of the China Daily takes a far more comprehensive view asking:

In the US, (…), the discussion in the mainstream media is often limited to whether the surveillance program has violated US citizen’s rights. Very few seem to question whether such invasive surveillance programs on governments, institutions and citizens of other countries are legal or, for that matter, ethical.

Mr. Wiehua’s article presents solid evidence to back this claim; evidence that is noticeably absent in Nocera’s discussion. Meanwhile, the US media response underscores the vast gulf in tone and substance between Chinese and American reporting surrounding the Snowden case. Indeed, rather than addressing the criticisms raised by their Chinese press, an article in the New York Times simply dismissed the Chinese media response as “snide.”

While both the US and Chinese press considered the Snowden imbroglio within the US-China diplomatic frame, US commentary has consistently played up a confrontational tone between the two states. The Chinese media response has not been beyond reproach in all areas. In fact, the Chinese have overlooked their cyber espionage capabilities by waving the bloody shirt noting, “the United States has a matchless superiority and ability to launch cyber attacks around the globe.” Fact: the United States has met its cyber match with China. Regardless, press coverage on both sides viewed the governments as having a monopoly on decision-making power.

The Snowden Case has provided the Chinese media with the rare opportunity to levy ethical, moral, and policy criticisms against the United States. It is disheartening to see that the Snowden coverage in major American newspapers lacks the moment of national self-reflection that Snowden likely hoped to unleash by releasing the NSA files. Both China and the United States carry a clear policy bias, however, coverage of the Snowden case gets at the broader theme of how globalization does guarantee that no two international takes on one story are the same.

A Response to the Pentagon’s Arctic Strategy

Last month, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued an “Arctic Strategy” white paper along with a positioning statement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Major newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times ran stories summarizing the strategy, but the authors of this response feel that those analyses lacked context and stake. The Pentagon release on an Arctic strategy is not a hot news item, and the terms “Arctic security” do not figure much in public discourse. Arctic security encompasses the international agreements for search and rescue, environmental and ecological security, international agreements on border delimitation, Arctic military capability, as well as the economics resource extraction and the potential for trans-Arctic maritime trade. While a good start, the policy paper produced by the Pentagon is lacking substance. The authors of this piece seek to apply our diversity of knowledge studying Arctic politics – in the field – to provide context and recommendations in response to the Department of Defense. While we will discuss the politics of political and military security, the other issues of ecological security and Arctic governance will be addressed in kind.

International Security Cooperation Forum Proposal:

Although the Pentagon emphasizes the need for greater international cooperation as a way to prevent the Arctic from becoming a militarized zone, it falls short in identifying effective means of multilateral security cooperation. The Pentagon’s Arctic strategy document supports cooperative efforts via the Arctic Council as well as regional military training exercises as ways to maintain peace. However, there still does not exist a multilateral forum for the five Arctic littoral states to discuss hard security issues. The Arctic Council is prohibited from engaging in security discussions, and Arctic nations seem reticent to mention these sensitive issues. Given the fact that each littoral Arctic state is gradually increasing its military presence in the region, it is crucial for the U.S. to engage Arctic nations on hard security issues to prevent a conflagration that could result in an arms race – one the public would likely not notice. Although conversations on hard security issues have occurred bilaterally, it is time to discuss these issues multilaterally. A potential forum could be a recurring Arctic security summit where both civilian and military representatives from each Arctic state meet to discuss the role of each nations’ military in the Arctic. This summit would be a step toward preserving the Arctic as a peaceful zone through meaningful dialogue and addressing the sensitive issues head-on. Without an honest and recurring dialogue on both hard and soft security issues, the possibility of the Arctic becoming further militarized would increase dramatically.

The Arctic, a region that has only recently seen a spike in interest and development, requires fresh governing structures. The proposed security summit and other potential means of hard security cooperation could serve as models for existing international security governance structures that do not function as effectively. In this regard, the Arctic represents an opportunity for the international community to explore more effective and transparent ways to conduct international security cooperation.

UNCLOS and Arctic Governance

The decision by the US Congress to postpone, delay, and ignore the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) is beyond counterproductive. UNCLOS is de facto law in the Arctic Ocean since the US is the only state in the region that has yet to ratify the law. Ratifying UNCLOS will allow the US to make larger maritime claims in the Arctic. It will also allow the US to contest and petition Article 76, which allows nations to extend their maritime borders on the basis of how far their continental shelf extends. The Russian Federation currently has an outlying claim that would extend their claims as far as the North Pole. Considering an estimated 15% of the world’s oil and 30% of the world’s natural gas is in the Arctic region, it would be wise for the US to join other states in signing on to this international law. Furthermore, the potential opening of the Northern sea route to shipping means that the designation of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) now has expanded political-economic significance.

Arctic Claims

This map shows current borders in the Arctic as well as claims made by Russia. Recently, Canada made claims that extend as far as the North Pole. Map by Ahnode (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Ecological Security and why it should matter to the Pentagon:

In the twentieth century, global air temperatures rose an average 1-2°C. This is nothing compared to the Arctic where temperatures rose 5°C. This comparison illustrates the importance of the Arctic environment as a climate change barometer. In 2012, scientists measured a 97% surface melt of Greenland’s ice sheet. This exceeded most accepted models and scientists are re-evaluating at what point in this century we may expect no summer Arctic ice. The questions of whether we will witness the disappearance of the polar caps is not one of ‘if,’ but ‘when.’ Since Arctic ecosystems are impacted more rapidly by climate change, understanding these changes is crucial to managing the effects on the world’s interdependent ecosystems. While climate change might not affect the DoDs daily operations, a dialogue between scientific research and political-military objectives should inform the overall strategy. The Arctic Council is an institution that already seeks to bring dialogue to the vast array of information, scientific or otherwise, relevant to the Arctic region and climate change discussions in general. Heightened dialogue between the Department of State and the Arctic Council would be a good place to start.

Need for Investment in Arctic Capabilities:

Although the Pentagon states its intention of increasing its presence in the Arctic, it also makes clear that the current fiscal environment may stunt further investment. Not asserting American interests would be a mistake insofar as an image of disinterest will be perceived as American weakness in the Arctic. Indeed, other Arctic nations already perceive a strong US disinterest in the region. The lack of an American presence in the region would also prevent US military and law enforcement entities such as the Navy and Coast Guard from protecting the integrity of territorial claims, carrying out search and rescue missions, executing law enforcement functions, and responding to environmental disasters. As of now, the US lacks sufficient dedicated Arctic resources for security and humanitarian purposes. While other US military equipment, such as nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, have the capability of traversing the Arctic, the US does not have Arctic-specific resources to effectively respond to a disaster or other threats.For example, the US possesses only 5 icebreakers in its fleet and has had to lease icebreakers from Russia and Sweden in the past.This small number of icebreakers stands in stark contrast to Russia’s 37 vessels. Even small Sweden outdoes the US with 7 icebreakers. Due to climate change, the region will likely see increases in resource extraction, shipping, fishing, and tourism. This increase in activity in the Arctic would likely be accompanied by an increase in emergency situations. The US currently lacks effective Arctic capabilities severely limiting the ability to respond to emergency situations or security threats.

In order to mitigate these threats and to enhance US military and rescue personnel in the region, the US needs to invest more in developing Arctic-specific technology and infrastructure. For starters, the US should build a dedicated Arctic icebreaker fleet to better navigate the frigid terrain. Additionally, the US should explore the option of pursuing joint search and rescue exercises with all of the littoral Arctic states, especially Russia. These search and rescue and/or environmental disaster relief exercises would not be as controversial as conventional military exercises and would allow each nation’s military/law enforcement services to become more familiar with one another. Actively working to break the divisions of yesterday by building collaborative relationships today could ameliorate the potential for conflict in the Arctic.

Concluding Remarks:

The US is faced with the enormous challenge of increasing its Arctic presence while convincing other Arctic states that its intentions are peaceful. The US cannot afford to see the Arctic escalate into a zone of conflict and thus must handle this situation very delicately. The DoD’s Arctic strategy is a welcome policy document to a country that has historically lacked a significant interest in the region when compared to the other littoral Arctic states. However, the Pentagon’s strategy needs to incorporate more pragmatic and effective means of international cooperation to accomplish its objectives. In addition, the current fiscal environment should not influence the US’ ability to help secure and develop a region that will likely see a heavy increase in activity due to climate change. Both US military and civilian units need to invest more resources into developing superior Arctic capabilities to better respond to disasters while protecting American interests in a region that is growing in significance and accessibility.

In the 19th century, the established nations of Europe met in Berlin to carve up Africa with the intent of extracting from it resources and riches upon which empires were built. The social, political, and human costs of this are still being felt today. In the 21st century, the established nations of the Europe, Asia, and North America are prepared to, and in certain instances already have, descended upon the Arctic for similar motivations: resource wealth, trade, and power. It would be foolish to think that because Arctic states are politically stable or economically developed that somehow this translates into regional stability. If history is any indication of what is to come, we should actually be all the more alarmed that “established” states are scrambling for the Arctic. Granted, the “Scramble for Africa” involved a large landmass and the intent of colonizing large populations, thus the forthcoming “Scramble for the Arctic” will not be a carbon copy of the past. In sum, there is an opportunity for the Arctic to be used to and for the benefit of all nations, and this begins with a sustainable governance regime.

Explaining the Kivu Conflict

A bloody, under-reported conflict that has taken place in central Africa for two decades is explained through the legacy of the Rwandan Genocide and the Conflict Mineral Trade.

Explaining The Kivu Conflict from Glimpse From the Globe on Vimeo.