Canada’s unique model for solving the crisis in Ukraine – By Philip Petraglia, B.A., LL.L.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is illegal under international law and could set a tragic precedent for other nations with authoritarian leaders like Putin to follow. Canada’s response has been to transport a plane load of guns to Ukraine. We can do better.

It is true that for any believer in the rule of law the situation looks apocalyptic. Russian troops are pouring into Ukraine by the thousands, well over two million Ukrainian civilians have fled to neighbouring countries, and events are in a state of a downward spiral. But is there cause for hope for lasting peace? This commentary suggests there is, and that the start of the answer is found in how Canada found a way to accommodate similar types of nationalistic challenges within its borders; specifically with its construction of a constitution that protects its distinct and significant French speaking citizens in Quebec.

This is not to say that Ukraine has necessarily to adopt our federal system. But by giving Ukraine’s Russian speaking areas local autonomy, such as Quebec currently enjoys, Ukraine would achieve two important goals. The first would be to bring the secessionist regions of Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk back under Ukrainian jurisdiction. The second would be to end the war by guaranteeing Russian speakers linguistic and cultural protections.

What then are some of the laws protecting the rights of Quebec’s French speaking minority? The first, and by far the most important, are linguistic guarantees. For example, Quebec passed Bill 101 in 1977 making French Quebec’s official language. This law not only gave francophones the right to work in French, but also encouraged anglophones living and working in Quebec to learn French. Local parliaments in Russian speaking areas of Ukraine could do the same. This would, in effect, keep Ukrainian nationalists from destroying Ukraine’s Russian speaking identity.

Other legal guarantees abound. Quebec, like every other province, has jurisdiction over education, administration of hospitals, natural resources, agriculture, land use, local waterways, and the creation and management of towns and cities. Similar jurisdiction could be passed to parliaments in Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk.

But more importantly, Quebec has its own legal system. Known as Civil Law and based on the Civil Code of Quebec, this legal system regulates private affairs such as contracts and property rights. Thus unlike the rest of Canada, where the Common Law applies, Quebec was given the right to keep its own legal system upon entering Confederation in 1867.

In sum, these protections, which every Canadian province enjoys, mean that the lives of most Canadians are regulated primarily by provincial laws. The Federal government, in contrast, has jurisdiction over matters such as banking, intellectual property, criminal law, immigration, citizenship, income tax, and customs and borders.

This is not to say, however, that a unitary state like Ukraine should adopt Canada’s division of powers word per word. But it is a good starting point. Ukraine is a big country with twenty-seven regions. It could then, like other large countries, choose to adopt a federal system. Or it could, given the current situation, keep its present system while providing for local autonomy in the break away regions.

This takes us back to the current crisis in Ukraine. The two main antagonists, Russia and Ukraine, both have leaders with law degrees. And while neither Vladimir Putin nor Volodymyr Zelensky practiced law, both leaders at one point studied constitutional law. This is where Canada can help find a solution to the current crisis. Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Melanie Joly, is also trained as a lawyer. Perhaps Canada’s role should be to encourage Putin and Zelensky to look at the constitutional guarantees enjoyed by Quebec’s French speakers, and to urge them to amend Ukraine’s constitution to provide similar guarantees for Ukraine’s Russian speaking minority.

What I am suggesting is an example of what the American scholar, Joseph Nye, calls soft power. The current policy of imposing severe economic sanctions on Russia, while arming the Ukrainian army and boasting NATO’s presence in Europe, should no doubt continue. This is an example of hard power. But destroying the Russian economy and fighting Putin’s army in Europe will not be enough to avoid a human tragedy of epic proportion. In the end, both sides will eventually be forced to the bargaining table, hopefully sooner than later, and Canada’s unique contribution can be pivotal in finding a long term solution that is fair to both sides.

Editor’s Note: A member of the Quebec Bar since 1991, Philip Petraglia is a Canadian freelance legal researcher and editor based in Canada. The views expressed are strictly his own.

Avoiding a global catastrophe in Ukraine through strategic diplomacy by Philip Petraglia, B.A., LL.L

There’s a lot going on in the world as 2022 unfolds. Concerns over the pandemic and global warming are foremost among them. We worry about such issues because they pose an existential threat to our (we humans) very survival as a species. This is as it should be, but it also keeps us from thinking about other global disasters looming around the corner.

The current conflict between Russia and Ukraine is one which the average citizen doesn’t think much of. And neither do our politicians. Here are some facts: Russia is currently amassing thousands of troops close to its border with Ukraine. Is Russia planning an imminent attack on Ukraine? Is Vladimir Putin, Russia’s autocratic and nationalistic president, merely bluffing? And why should the West, led by the United States and to a lesser extent, the European Union, even come to Ukraine’s defence?

The big issue has to do with Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, a military alliance established during the Cold War to deal with the threat of Soviet aggression in Europe. The alliance worked brilliantly. In short, it avoided going to war with the Soviet Union (USSR) by applying a doctrine known as deterrence or the fear of mutual destruction. No wars were fought and major skirmishes between NATO and the Warsaw Pact (Soviet counterpart to NATO) never took place. And yet the Cold War came to an end in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall and the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 into 15 independent nation states, Russia and Ukraine chief among them.

This should have ushered in a golden age of great relations between Russia and the West. After all, the Cold War was over and the Warsaw Pact had officially dissolved in 1991. Yet something strange happened. Led by the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, NATO would eventually expand from 15 member states to 30, including 10 states from the former Warsaw Pact. The worse part for the Russians was the admission of these three Baltic states bordering Russia. To make matters worse, all three states have sizeable Russian speaking minorities.

But why is NATO expansion up to Russia’s border a problem for Russia? Seen from a Russian perspective, it’s equivalent to Russia signing a military alliance with either Canada or Mexico and then stationing troops near the US border. Or to use a better analogy, imagine if the Russians tried to install nuclear warheads in Cuba? Come to think of it, the Soviet Union did try in 1962, and the world’s two nuclear superpowers almost came to war. Known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, a nuclear holocaust that would have wiped out humanity was only avoided at the last minute when Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, gave the order for the ships to turn back.

This takes us back to the current conflict on Russia’s Border with Ukraine. Imagine a situation where Ukraine formally joins NATO. All scenarios point to Russia likely invading Ukraine. What would be the ramifications for humanity should Russia choose to invade its neighbour? Essentially every member state in the alliance, including the United States, would be obliged by article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to come to Ukraine’s defence. In other words, we would have a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia, the world’s two biggest nuclear powers.

Optimists might think this would be a minor affair, that reasonable minds would agree to a truce, and that a long term peace arrangement would be arrived at after a few thousand casualties. But history suggests otherwise. Much the same was argued by politicians in 1914 when the First World War broke out. It was believed by all sides that the war would last perhaps six months and with minimal casualties. Instead, the war lasted four years and took millions of lives. Imagine then if Russia and a US led NATO were to take the same approach over Ukraine, should Ukraine choose to join NATO. How long would such a war last and how may human beings would be killed given 21st century technology? Would the US and Russia choose to use nuclear weapons? Why even take the chance of having the world’s two largest nuclear powers militarily confront one another?

To understand Russia’s obsession over Ukraine requires an understanding of Russian history, and the academic writings of John J. Mearsheimer, arguably America’s wisest political scientist.

Let’s start with Russian history. For Russian nationalists, Ukraine is where much of Russian civilization had its early beginnings. More specifically, nationalists and non-nationalists alike point to Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital. This city is to Russian nationalists what Jerusalem is to Jews and Arabs. In addition to ancient history, there’s modern history to consider, namely, the fact that Russian nationalists never accepted the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 into 15 states, despite Russia remaining the world’s largest nation-state.

As for Professor Mearsheimer, his seminal book, “Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, published in 2001, explains why great powers behave the way they do, especially when feeling threatened. More importantly, he has over the years correctly predicted that NATO’s expansion would antagonize Russian nationalists. Known as the father of offensive realism, Professor Mearsheimer has been encouraging US presidents to pursue pragmatism in foreign affairs and has been doing so for the past 25 years at the University of Chicago as a political scientist and international relations scholar. His central thesis is that all great powers have geopolitical interests and ambitions, and that America’s ignorance of this fact can lead to catastrophe and avoidable conflicts. In addition, Professor Mearsheimer makes the point that America has been trying to remake the world in its own image by attempting to spread liberal democracy, regardless of whether foreign nations with differing cultures are ready for it or even desire it. These two points no doubt explain why he was so critical of America’s intervention in both Vietnam and Iraq. Professor Mearsheimer’s fear is that any attempt to antagonize Russia would have even greater catastrophic results for humanity.

How then can we reduce the chance of an outright war between the world’s two superpowers? By far the best way would be for the West to re-assure Russia that Ukraine’s future membership in NATO is completely out of the question. This does not mean abandoning Ukraine. Rather, there are several pragmatic and safe steps the West can take to minimize any attempt on Russia’s part to invade Ukraine while not fuelling a major military showdown.

By far the most important one is to use the Finland model which worked magnificently during the Cold War. Situated in northern Europe, this Nordic country, like Ukraine, shares a long border with Russia but never joined NATO. Yet it was never absorbed by Russia during the Cold War that lasted from 1947- 1991. Russia and the West simply agreed to keep Finland neutral. And to understand why Russia respected Finland’s independence is to understand that Russia’s biggest concern is with defending its borders. Russia won’t attack any state bordering it if it doesn’t feel threatened. Bordered by 14 land neighbours, Russia’s borders are easy to access and difficult to defend. This explains why Russia seeks to defend what it calls the “near abroad”. For Russian nationalists, it’s a question of survival. Expanding NATO all the way to its borders is consequently seen as a threat to its national security.

Would Russia ever invade Ukraine if it felt necessary? It certainly did so in 2014 when it invaded and annexed Crimea in addition to Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, not far from Russia’s border, where many ethnic Russians live and work.

How then should the West react if an agreement to keep Ukraine out of NATO is reached and Russia still invades? Would Russia face a heavy price? The answer is clearly yes. Numerous measures could be taken against Russia. For example, the global community could place heavy economic sanctions on Russia while also imposing diplomatic ones. On a more local level, NATO could choose to beef up its military presence in Poland and Germany. Russia would become the old South Africa and treated with global sanctions.

More importantly, Putin understands that the average Russian citizen would not view an invasion favorably. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would be met with stiff resistance from 40 million Ukrainians, and heavy Russian casualties might destroy Russia much the way the war in Afghanistan helped destroy the Soviet Union.

Wendy Sherman, the current US Deputy Secretary of State, recently stated that it was up to Ukraine as an independent state to decide whether it wished to join NATO. Incredibly, Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general since 2014, who as an experienced diplomat should know better, recently said the same. Irresponsible comments such as these suggest both individuals have no understanding of either international relations or worse, history.

International relations is a profession requiring individuals who have at least some understanding of history and realpolitik. As Professor Mearsheimer recently pointed out, both the US and NATO are encouraging Ukraine to pursue an unrealistic course by provoking Russia. In sum, the desire for alliances and altruistic principles should never supersede the need to keep human made catastrophes like avoidable wars from occurring.

FIXING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH THE RULE OF LAW by Philip Petraglia, B.A., LL.L

As leaders of the world’s biggest polluters meet in Glasgow, Scotland, many worry it may be too late to reverse global warming. We’re even told this may be the last chance we get to save the human species. This message of gloom and doom is usually transmitted by a depressing and ominous voice, followed by a television advertisement selling us a product that will likely add to carbon emission. Yet it’s Friday morning as I write this essay, and there doesn’t seem to be any panic or despair in the streets of Victoria, British Columbia. What does this tell us about human nature?

Basically, what it tells us is that people don’t take doomsayers seriously. What people expect, instead, is for their leaders to come up with positive and realistic solutions that won’t put a serious bent in their standard of living or compromise their children’s future. This is something leaders meeting at the COP26 climate conference don’t seem to understand.

As a member of the Quebec Bar since 1991 with a specialty in legal research, my interest lies in how we use the Rule of Law to deal with complex problems. I’m also interested in how the Rule of Law is communicated to the average citizen. People expect guidelines rather than apocalyptic premonitions, and unless politicians meeting in Glasgow come up with practical and legally binding solutions, the issue of global change will never be appropriately dealt with.

Proselytizing, attempts to make the average worker feel guilty about his or her level of consumption, and David Attenborough’s concern with some obscure insect most people don’t care about, will likely not get the average citizen to take global warming seriously. Nor will Greta Thunberg’s heart wrenching speeches get suburbanites to put down their leaf blowers and fight for meaningful change.

This is where the Rule of Law comes in. Leaders meeting in Scotland need to come up with a blueprint for passing environmentally friendly laws at all levels of government worldwide that are easily enforceable and binding. Such a mechanism would allow concerned citizens and organizations to have legal standing to sue where governments fail to meet their legal obligations. This would amount to world governance rather than the creation of some ominous world government. Countries would, in essence, come together to sign binding treaties and accords with clear and impartial rules with as few loopholes as possible.

So how would a system based on a global Rule of Law work? Ideally, there would be a harmonization of laws at all levels of government within countries and between countries. For example, the rule regarding greenhouse emissions for the state of California would be the same as in coal burning West Virginia, but in addition, the rule would also be the same with regard to the Netherlands and other foreign countries. The idea is simple: No one gains an advantage. And in case of non-compliance, the Dutch government would be able to sue either California or the United States government.

There are two issues: The first issue deals with what states can expect to realistically agree on, and what the enforcement mechanism will look like. My own preference is for an impartial court to be set up at the United Nations that would hear cases dealing exclusively with carbon emissions. It would be staffed by experts, and its sole role would be to examine conformity with regard to international treaties willingly signed by independent and sovereign countries. Human rights, gender equality, and trade would not be up for discussion.

Countries would agree to harmonize laws with regard to building codes, land use, pesticides, agriculture, forestry, transportation, manufacturing, energy, and urban sprawl. No two laws would be exactly the same. The building codes in China would no doubt be different than those in the EU or the United States, but at least there would be similar provisions for limiting harmful emissions.

The idea is simple: Applying the Rule of Law evenly throughout the world would force countries and regional governments to go beyond simply making pledges that may or may not be met. Citizens could point to specific national or regional laws passed pursuant to these international treaties, and force their respective governments to act responsibly, not because it’s the right thing to do, but because of a legal requirement to do so.

In sum, countries, companies, and citizens behave responsibly when the rules are clearly spelled out in legislation. Applying these rules fairly on a multitude of areas at a global level is merely an effective way of fighting climate change. Secondly, there’s the issue of legal standing. Namely, who would have legal standing to sue in case of nonconformity? Would it be a country? A concerned citizen? An organization? Ideally, countries would bring suit, but standing would also be given to organizations and citizens where countries fail to bring suit.

Fairness should no doubt be a primary objective. For instance, countries from the developed world might be required to provide substantial financial assistance to countries in the developing world, like India, for example, to ween them off coal as a primary source of energy. India would, of course, be given a realistic deadline for switching from fossil fuel to renewable energy during a certain period of years. This would then allow the international community to sue India before an international tribunal should India renege on reducing its coal consumption. The corollary of this is that India would have the right to sue the international community should it not receive the subsidies promised where in conformity.

The issue of global warming is no doubt complex. Everything from population growth, to transportation, manufacturing, construction, and agriculture will have to be examined and dealt with through international treaties. The goals have to be achievable and fair and clearly communicated to the public. Whether elected officials and autocratic rulers are willing or able to accomplish this through the Rule of Law will be the test for policymakers in the 21st century.

THE GLOBAL APPEAL OF DEMAGOGUES by Philip Petraglia, B.A., LL.L

The rise of global demagogues is no doubt the most troubling phenomenon confronting us as we proceed into the 21st century. These populists, intent on destroying liberal democracy or its emergence, are found everywhere: from developed countries to the emerging ones.

Creating a climate of fear is something that demagogues are good at. India’s Narendra Modi, Donald Trump of the United States, and the generals who rule Myanmar, are currently doing so with regard to their minorities. All it takes is a spark of some sort for our demagogues and would be demagogues to spring into action. The nation is at risk, they will argue, and something urgent and draconian must be done to assure peace, prosperity and harmony.

In the United States it’s the presence of 11 million undocumented immigrants, most of whom are law abiding and toiling at low wage jobs, that frightens the white working class. Add the fact that the white population is shrinking and millions of white working class voters suddenly feel they have a champion in a wealthy business man like Donald Trump. Other examples from around the world abound.

Let’s start with Europe, the birthplace of democracy. For the Hungarians, it’s the arrival of refugees from the Middle East. Never mind that most would eventually be diverted to Germany. As Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban famously remarked: Hungary is a Christian nation and it seeks to remain a Christian nation.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin, in contrast, rose to power promising to end the war in Chechnya and take back natural resources sold at bargain prices to a handful of oligarchs at the end of the Cold War. Putin did as promised, but has also created a climate of fear where journalists and lawyers are tortured and assassinated without accountability.

In Poland a new law recently drafted by the government makes it illegal to associate Poland with the holocaust. The holocaust was, Polish nationalists assure us, strictly a German affair. The government has, in addition, “reformed” the court system to meet its own political agenda while gravitating towards Putin’s sphere of influence. President Andrzej Duda is, like India’s Modi, a potential demagogue. Both countries would best be served if voters voted them out of office.

Asia no doubt has its share of demagogues. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte uses the drug trade and high crime rate to attack the rule of law. Why arrest alleged drug dealers and provide them with due process and a fair trial when you can just shoot them on the spot? Duterte is clearly intent on revamping the legacy of that country’s late dictator, Ferdinand Marcos.

In Myanmar, a majority Buddhist country that is at the crossroads of South Asia and East Asia, the generals continue to expel and torture Muslims with impunity and no thought to either the rule of law or international law.

But India’s Modi is probably the most interesting of our global leaders. In all fairness, he is at this point in history more of a potential demagogue. A Hindu nationalist and leader of the BJP party that came to power in 2014, Modi is an economic reformer heading a pro-Hindu sectarian party in a country that is religiously and ethnically diverse.

Modi in many ways resembles Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who upon taking power put in place badly needed economic reforms before attacking the nation’s fragile democratic institutions. Erdogan accomplished this by imprisoning journalists and lawyers, thereby effectively limiting freedom of expression and weakening the rule of law. Modi will likely not go as far but it is a risk for the world’s most populous democracy to elect a leader who shows no affinity for the country’s minorities, especially Muslims.

South America is clearly represented by Venezuela, where a corrupt political system incapable of meeting the social and economic needs of its citizens made it possible for demagogues like Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro to assume power. Both leaders would eventually suspend civil rights, weaken the rule of law, and essentially create a one party authoritarian state.

In the Middle East, meanwhile, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad remains president of a country mired in a civil war that began in 2011. Assad is a prime example of what happens when leaders fail to develop civil institutions and political values based on the rule of law, especially where that country is divided by religion and ethnicity.

What then, are the solutions to fighting demagoguery? For starters, we know that of the countries listed, at least five hold free elections. It is thus up to voters in these countries to vote their populist leaders out of office when given the opportunity. But for those less fortunate citizens living in authoritarian states, peaceful and continuous demonstrations will likely remain the most important method for reforming the political system. Pressure from the outside can help but military intervention must be avoided.

International law could be of assistance but only if the United Nations Security Council removes the right of any one member to veto proposed resolutions. This will not likely occur as states tend to ignore human rights abuses committed by allies where it is perceived in their national interest to do so.

How technology is used will no doubt have an impact. A case in point is the manner in which Trump’s supporters were able to manipulate Facebook. Russia’s meddling on behalf of Trump by manipulating social media as well as Trump’s ability to mobilize supporters through twitter also helped him to narrowly defeat Hillary Clinton.

But the most effective method for fighting demagoguery remains the rule of law consisting of an independent judiciary and a written constitution, where no one is above the law, and where basic rights are protected regardless of who is in power. This will no doubt be the main challenge for countries fighting demagoguery in the 21st century, whether for a well-established democracy like the United States or emerging nations.

IS THE WEST IN DECLINE? – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

The issue of whether the West is in decline is one that many alarmists, especially economists, political scientists, and business leaders are obsessed with. The question is unfortunately both meaningless and incomplete. A more meaningful approach would be to ask the following question: Is the West in decline and if so, why and in relation to what?

China’s rise is no doubt the main reason why so many are concerned with the West’s supposed decline. China is set to surpass the United States as the world’s biggest economy sometime this century. Other emerging countries include India, Brazil, and Indonesia.

The rise of the West no doubt corresponds to the decline of Imperial China as a great super power, and to the conquest of Latin America by European powers. More colonial expansion on the part of European powers would follow in Asia and Africa. Europeans and Americans would with time come to dominate the economies and fates of most people living on the planet. This was an anomaly made possible by science and economic expansion as Europeans searched for both resources and markets. Add the desire & zeal for spreading Christianity and you had the perfect model for creating empires.

The notion that the West led by the United States would someday be forced to contend with competing superpowers was best articulated by the late Harvard political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who famously believed the world was heading towards a “clash of civilizations”. Unfortunately this term has become grossly distorted by pundits, most of whom have likely not read his book by the same title. Many for example erroneously equate the notion of a “clash” with wars and military conflicts worthy of a Star Wars sequel. Huntington instead argues that the West cannot expect to lead the world forever, and that other civilizations will seek their place in the sun. No one state or civilization can ever achieve total domination forever. History, to use an old adage, repeats itself.

Civilizations with competing values will thus seek to increase their respective spheres of influence by dominating geopolitically. And this brings us to Huntington’s subsequent book “Who Are We?” Huntington’s book basically asks whether Americans feel they have a nation and civilization worthy of protection and admiration. The same question however can be asked of every citizen living in a Western country, whether in North America or Europe. Namely, who are we and do most of us here in the West feel we live in a country and culture worthy of protection and admiration?

These are not questions that economists ever ask. A nation’s GDP and rate of annual economic growth are more likely to be their measuring stick. Civil rights, a clean environment, rule of law, right to free speech, gender and racial equality, not to mention the right to participate in multi-party elections… these are not factors that make their way into answering the question: Is the West in Decline?

Economists and political scientists worry that as China emerges as the world’s biggest economy it will try to spread its influence globally. The world’s biggest authoritarian state might consequently become a model for emerging states. And this is where they get it wrong. The biggest factor likely to influence geopolitics in the 21st century will be whether emerging states will be asked to choose between a confident and proud nation/civilization like China, or a self-loathing and politically and culturally divided West led by the United States. In short, will political, cultural, and economic decline in the West relegate the West to the sidelines? Will westerners feel they have anything to be proud of as the political and economic power of the top 1% of wage earners keeps rising?

For sure the 1% phenomenon is an American one and not reflective of what is taking place in other western countries. But the United States remains the West’s economic and military leader, especially now that the European Union seems more divided than ever.

Economic issues no doubt remain important. In sum, both the US and the EU need to confront the dilemma of how to raise sufficient revenue so they can adequately provide services for its citizens. These are internal structural problems tied to policymaking, taxation and social benefits that have very little to do with China’s rise, and instead point to a civilization that has become internally corrupt and divided, both socially and politically.

But economics is not everything. China and India both represent great civilizations that their citizens can be proud, but what of the West? Is Western Civilization something that we in the West should all be proud of? Is it worth fighting for?

Every country in the West is as divided today as it’s ever been since the end of the Second World. But the situation in the Unites States is especially dire. These divisions no doubt led to the election of Donald Trump as president. Political partisanship in the US means it’s almost impossible to get any significant legislation passed. The US political system is seen by most US citizens as dysfunctional and beholden to special interest groups. The nation’s increasing ethnic diversity is also perceived by many Americans as a threat to the nation’s identity and fabric. In essence, it’s not only about the economy “stupid” as the old adage goes. It’s about whether Americans feel united by common principles and cultural attributes.

For a country like the United States the challenges run deep. Can a country built along individualistic values ever develop a sense of the common good or feel there’s a collective entity worth preserving? What does it mean to be an American when you have racial and cultural divisions?

European Union states face similar problems, though not to the same degree as the United States, at least not with regard to economic disparity. But questions remain. What does it mean for example to be Scandinavian, German, French or British now that these societies have become multi-cultural? Is there still a national identity that citizens can be proud of? In sum, will Americans and Europeans ever come to appreciate that ethnic and racial diversity is an asset rather than a liability that countries like Japan could only envy?

CONCLUSION

History shows that all great states and civilizations deteriorate from within. They decay culturally and economically as finances and revenues fail to pay for benefits and services. But they also decay culturally as notions of the collective good gives way to individual selfishness and group identity.

The West will have to make structural changes before it can ever get its economic house in order. But it’s not just about economics as economists and politicians would lead us to believe. The situation, in other words, may not be as dire as we think. We in the West must instead ask ourselves whether we have a civilization worth preserving, while continuing to respect other cultures and civilizations. What for example are our advantages in comparison to the challenges faced in countries like China and India? Would we ever want to live in a one party authoritarian state like China regardless of how wealthy it becomes? Are India’s religious and caste divisions something we could ever live with?

From literature to cinema the West has developed an extraordinary society that most living in the West should be proud of. The Italian Renaissance, political liberties, separation of church and state, and the Industrial and high tech revolutions were all created by the West. Is there a way of giving a monetary value to freedom and liberty so that we can add it to our GDP? Of course the system is not perfect; no great civilization ever built a perfect system, but it is one worth preserving and improving on. From equal rights for women and same sex couples to religious equality, the West has a lot to offer the rest of the world. These great achievements must be acknowledged and appreciated by those of us living in the West while appreciating there is still much work to do. Self-loathing however is not the way for the West to spread the more positive aspects of its civilization to the rest of the world.

In the end emerging states will only seek to emulate the Chinese model if they see the West in a state of internal decay, whether economically, culturally, or politically. Emerging states will not, in sum, look to the West for inspiration if internal divisions and partisanship here in the West continue to fuel the selfish needs of individuals and special interest groups.

Joseph Nye, a colleague of Huntington’s at Harvard, is associated with the notion of “soft power” which can be contrasted from “hard power”. The former pertains to a nation’s cultural and intellectual attractions as opposed to hard power which makes reference to a nation’s military might. The West led by the United States has plenty of soft power. Its universities lead the world in research, its high tech and social media companies are admired around the world, and its cinema is watched by young people everywhere regardless of race or ethnicity.

Whether the West maintains its geo political influence will depend on getting its financial house in order, building a cohesive culture that includes diversity while striving for common values, and finding a way to be proud of its institutions and culture. China can grow its economy as much as it desires and put as many naval ships in the South China Sea as it can. Emerging states will still look to the West’s political, legal, and cultural institutions for inspiration but only if the West is able to deal with its internal divisions and challenges. Invading countries like Iraq, disrespecting foreign cultures, demonizing migrants, and electing compromised leaders like Donald Trump to the White House will only lead to the West’s decline.

A WORLD IN DISARRAY - BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

Published in 2017, “A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order”, is Richard Haass’s treatise on the current state of global relations. His thesis is clear: Populism and nationalism are on the rise, and globalization and international involvement are under threat across the globe.

Professor Haass begins with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which many experts agree marks the end of the Cold War. Experts and pundits were quick to proselytize that no longer would we be living in a bi-polar world, a world in which the United States and the USSR would continue to fight for global domination, both on the political and cultural front. A whole new world order, they maintained, would eventually be created.

Historians and political scientists would prove to be right, but not in the way they imagined. We are now living in an age where power is distributed in more hands than at any other time in history. Or as the American author Ian Bremmer reminded policy makers in 2012: It’s every nation for itself.

The Cold War had its advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage was mutual self- destruction as the US and the Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons at an alarming rate. The advantage: fear of mutual self-destruction meant both sides agreed to mechanisms assuring no conflict would ensue. And of course, there were only two main actors involved, with each side in a position of keeping smaller allies in place. Hence the lack of nuclear proliferation among smaller state actors.

The other advantage which Haass doesn’t significantly explore is the lack of animosity that existed between these two superpowers based on tribal affiliation, race, ethnicity, or religion. In short, there was no intense hatred between the US and Soviet Union, a phenomenon which usually characterizes states experiencing sectarian violence. The current conflict in the Middle East between Shias and Sunnis is a good example. The Cold War simply pitted a largely non-emotional belief in capitalism and democracy (led by the US and its western allies), against a belief in Communism, led by the Soviet Union and its allies, many of which were states located in Eastern Europe and the developing world. There were also non-aligned nations, but they remained for the most part unarmed and geopolitically insignificant.

Haass does a good job of synthesizing the issue of global politics from an historical prospective. The end of the Second World War in 1945 saw the coming together of European states to form what would eventually evolve into the European Union, the creation of liberal democracies in Germany and Japan, the creation of new states in the developing world with the collapse of colonial powers (notably those of France and the UK), the creation of international institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, various treaties on non-proliferation, and the creation of international norms, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The post-cold war in contrast is characterized by the rise of China and to a lesser extent, India, increase in global trade, mass migration from the countryside to the cities, the emergence of technology and its ability to take power away from states, and lastly, the rising importance of non-governmental states like Doctors Without Borders that seek to improve the human condition. But it’s not all positive. The world has also seen the emergence of non-state actors like so-called Islamic state that are capable of destabilizing countries and whole regions.

Richard Haass is what we might call a dying breed: in essence, a moderate Republican! An American diplomat for much of his career, Haass has been president of the Council on Foreign Relations since 2003, and received the US State Department’s Distinguished Service Award for his role in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. But more importantly, he remains a voice of reason and caution in a country (America) that seems all too eager to use force to end major global conflicts.

So what are his solutions for a world in disarray? To begin with, Haass stresses that even global powers like the United States have limitations. He gives as an example the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 which quickly led to the destabilization of the Middle East, and all but tore the Iraqi state apart, leading not only to a breakdown in law and order, but also to the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians. As Haass points out, today’s Middle East “is the result of local pathologies made worse by foreign policy action and inaction”.

Haass also correctly points out that what we are experiencing today is the emergence of weak states. Countries from around the world are unable to control what takes place within their borders, whether in regard to illegal drug trafficking (Afghanistan), fighting separatist insurgents (Philippines), or keeping peace between competing sectarian groups (Syria, Iraq, and Kenya come to mind, but the list is lengthy).

Just as importantly is the rise of what political commentator Fareed Zakaria calls “illiberal democracies”, with all the dangers they pose to regional stability. Russia, Turkey, and Iran are but three examples. These are states characterized by disrespect for the rule of law, few checks and balances, and disregard for minority rights.

Haass’s answer to the above situation is to remind his fellow compatriots in the US that America’s primary role for the immediate future should not be to promote democracy but to help other states reduce corruption, develop the rule of law, increase opportunity for girls and women, increase the space for civil society, promote education, and encourage economic reforms that reduce the role of government and energy sector. In other words, to promote liberty over democracy as the latter cannot develop without the former first laying the groundwork.

But more importantly, he argues the US needs to get its economic house in order by controlling the nation’s debt load, taming political discourse between Democrats and Republicans, avoiding needless and reckless invasions of countries (Iraq in 2003), and making certain that a near economic meltdown does not happen as almost occurred in 2008.

Haass is a realist and sees the Westphalian model, created in 1648, whereby independent states agreed not to interfere in one another’s internal affairs, as pertinent today as it was in the 17th century. But as he points out, the world is more inter dependent today than it ever has been, thanks to such pressing issues as global trade, the refugee crisis in Europe, climate change, and the fight against global terrorism.

In the end, Haass argues that sovereignty between and among states needs to remain at the core of any future global order, all while developing a definition of legitimacy that embraces not just rights but also the obligations of sovereign states in relation to one another. Haas concludes by adding that the lack of international standards and norms is at the heart of the problem.

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Haass is an American patriot, but unlike so many of his compatriots, a humble man who understands that the West led by the United States can no longer lecture the rest of humanity on what a future world order should look like. This means accepting the notion that not all international standards and norms will be reflective of western values. And here’s the problem: Are we in the West able to accept that no longer will the World Order be structured entirely around western values, including those tied to the belief in liberal democracy? Will the West, led by the US and the European Union, be able to put its economic house in order? Will Americans and Europeans agree to reform international institutions like the National Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, so that non-western states are given adequate representation?

The world is currently in disarray but the situation may grow worse if a new world order based on mutual respect between western and non-western states is not created. Regional instability, international trade and prosperity, climate change, tax evasion, money laundering, refugee crises, terrorism, and female empowerment, all require that international standards be created to deal with them.

Haass has good reasons to worry that a US in disarray will either lead to a future world in crisis, or one led by non- western actors, like China, which for all its economic might, remains an authoritarian state. Part of the solution, which Haas does not discuss, is the lack of interest which most American citizens show either in foreign affairs or in any attempt to understand foreign cultures, a topic which Political Scientist and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski discussed in “Strategic Order: America and the Crisis of Global Order”, published in 2012.

As Haass points out, we can expect a future where weak states continue to flounder, increased sectarian violence within states as we’re currently witnessing in Yemen, and continued de- centralizing of political power, as non-state actors, both good and bad, along with the rise of technology, all challenge state authority.

The rise of technology is especially important. Will technology be used as much for the good as for the bad? Will states be strong enough to control bad actors within its borders, such as terrorist groups, money launderers, separatists, sectarian groups vying for power, computer hackers, and criminals?

Haass is correct when he maintains that whether a new global order is created will depend on the ability of healthy societies with strong and competent governments to come together and create a global order that includes both western and non-western values.

Time will tell what new order will eventually be created. But the fact that current international statesmen include the likes of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is definitely a bad omen.

FINDING SOLUTIONS TO OUR DIVIDED WORLD – BY PHILIP PETRAGLIA (philpetraglia@gmail.com)

In a world with so much political, economic, and social division, it is easy to feel pessimistic about our future. The West, led by Britain, France, and the United States, seems to be coming apart. The idea of any political party winning 50% of the popular vote in any election has become a relic from the past. But is the situation as dire as it seems?

Britain in particular seems to be going through an identity crisis. Let’s start with the Scottish referendum. Scottish nationalists took 45% of the vote in the 2014 referendum. Not enough to assure Scottish secession from Britain but a good start. The referendum was followed by Brexit. Some 51% of participants voted to leave the European Union. Voting patterns in the Brexit vote showed divisions at every level of British society. Young versus old, college educated versus non- college educated, blue collar versus white collar, north versus south, and the great city of London versus the rest of the country. Wales and England voted to leave, Scotland and Northern Island voted to stay. Lastly, the recent British election saw the election of a hung parliament or what we in Canada call a minority government. Expect the Brits to be back at the polls within the next two years, especially if Prime Minister Theresa May fails to reach an agreement with Brussels for leaving the European Union.

The United States fairs no better. Trump won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Of course many would argue it should not even have been close. In any case, if one looks at the political map one sees two countries: red states (Republican) and blue states (Democratic). The red states even possess a contiguous border: one could travel from red state to red state without ever stepping foot in a blue state. The situation resembles the sort of ethnic divisions one finds in the Balkans. Meanwhile gerrymandering has created a new kind of segregation: congressional seats that place like-minded voters in the same districts. In other words, safe seats everywhere, making it almost pointless to have elections. And of course, race is as usual, just beneath the surface. African Americans and Hispanics tend to vote Democratic; whites in contrast have stuck with Republicans, regardless of Trump. Race is thicker than common sense it seems.

Divisions also exist outside the Anglo Saxon world. No candidate in the recent French presidential election took anywhere near 50% of the popular vote in the first round, necessitating a run off between Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen. Macron won easily, but only because his opponent was worse than Trump. In Italy, a recent referendum on reforming that country’s constitution was rejected, forcing Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to resign. Expect a heated and divisive election between Renzi’s Democratic Party and Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement sometime in 2018. In the province of British Columbia where my wife and I live, voters recently elected a minority government likely to be led by the left leaning New Democratic Party and its smaller ally, the Green Party. No party took more than 43% of the popular vote. The vote came down to urban versus rural, a phenomenon which aptly describes voting patterns in Canada at both the provincial and federal levels.

Other divisions in our divided world include armed conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and the Taliban threat to re-take large portions of Afghanistan. China meanwhile is seeking to take possession of the China Sea, much to the consternation of its smaller and vulnerable neighbours.

But as hinted in my introduction, the situation is not as dire as it seems. History presents us with numerous precedents which could serve to end conflict and division wherever they exist. Each situation is different but they all have one common denominator: the parties in dispute agreed to cooperate in finding a solution after years of division and conflict. The problems these great statesmen and participants faced make our problems look minor in contrast. Here are a few historical precedents.

Exhibit One: Lebanon’s Civil War. A small country in the Middle East with a population of around 6 million, a civil war between Shiites, Sunnis, Christians, and Druzes raged from 1975 till 1989 as each side sought to gain more political power. Well over 100,000 Lebanese were killed. An agreement known as the Taif Agreement was agreed to in 1989, effectively assuring each side adequate representation in the country’s political system. The conflict would subsequently end in 1990. No longer would Lebanon be ruled by its Christian minority, but neither would it resemble any of the Muslim majority states in the region. The system isn’t perfect but the carnage stopped. Smart people came together to end a dispute in a complex country with complex problems.

Exhibit Two: Good Friday Agreement. Signed in 1999, it ended decades of civil strife in Northern Island between Catholics and Protestants. Divisions between Catholics and Protestants may seem absurd and trifle to millennials, but it still seems like a minor miracle to many of us who have been following this conflict for decades. Leaders on both sides understood that the havoc and mayhem caused by violence and discrimination had to come to an end. Both communities thus sent negotiators willing to cooperate for a bigger cause: peace and prosperity over continued violence and lack of economic opportunity.

Exhibit Three: Apartheid in South Africa. In place from 1948 until its abolishment in 1991, apartheid institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination between whites and non-whites. Two key personalities helped terminate this evil: Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress and F.W de Klerk, president of the republic. The former spent decades in prison on an island with no hope of escape or release, while the latter lived a life of privilege by reason of his skin colour and birth. Yet both leaders were able to set aside biases and subsequently come to an agreement based on a new Constitution that effectively transferred political power to the black majority while providing real securities for the country’s racial minorities.

Exhibit Four: Ending the Cold War. A conflict pitting the world’s super powers (America versus the former Soviet Union) against one another for global domination, it began in 1945 with the termination of the Second World War and ended in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Helmut Kohl, all cold war warriors to the bone, were able to set aside personal biases and cooperate towards ending a conflict that might eventually have led to a nuclear conflict.

Exhibit Five: Camp David Accord. Another key example illustrating the benefits of cooperation is Anwar Sadat (Egypt’s president) and Menachem Begin (Israel’s Prime Minister) coming together to sign the Camp David Accords in 1978, effectively ending military conflict between these two regional powers. Such an agreement was unthinkable but it occurred because both sides felt cooperation rather than conflict and uncompromising dogma would benefit both nations.

What all five of these historical precedents prove is that leaders able to fight personal prejudices and biases rise to the top. They cooperate for the sake of something bigger than themselves.

In the end cooperation does not mean compromising one’s values or goals. Rather, it means a willingness to stop demonizing the other side, and a willingness to keep an open mind for the greater good. The notion of compromise has a negative connotation. But cooperation and compromise are not synonymous. In the end, accepting the notion that one is not 100% correct shows wisdom, strength of character, and a practical way for finding solutions to complex problems.