TRANSFORMING THE WORLD THROUGH THE NEW DIGITAL AGE – By Philip Petraglia

Published just this month, “The New Digital Age” by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, two executives at Google, is a must read for anyone trying to understand the implications of living in the Digital Age, especially for future generations. As the authors point out, the internet is not a phenomenon that most citizens or policymakers truly understand. It is, they maintain, the largest experiment involving anarchy in human history. Whether it will be used for good or negative purposes will depend on how citizens, companies, and states use it.

WHY THE DIGITAL AGE MATTERS

Considering the importance of the internet in our daily lives, it remains the largest ungoverned space, with policymakers and politicians rushing to keep up with technological change they don’t fully understand. Old institutions and hierarchies will have to keep up or risk becoming obsolete or ineffective. In the end, the authors argue that most of us will live in two worlds: The physical and the virtual. Everyone will benefit from connectivity but not equally. Nevertheless mobile phones will help level the playing field, allowing citizens from across the world to access unlimited information in their own language.

The world will experience a data revolution as every individual will be represented in multiple ways online, something which has already started. In addition, the authors stress that commerce, education, and the Rule of Law will all become more efficient, transparent, and inclusive as major institutions opt into the Digital Age. What does all this mean for governments across the globe? The answer varies according to whether we are dealing with democratic or authoritarian systems, but certain commonalities exist. In sum, governments will find it more difficult to manipulate citizens as they become more connected. Citizens everywhere will be able to compare themselves and their way of life with the rest of the world. We saw this in the Arab Spring as young people by the thousands took to the streets demanding the end to authoritarian rule.

THE FUTURE OF STATES

Unfortunately most of today’s government officials do not truly understand the internet and the changes about to occur. Their attempt to regulate the internet remains a constant struggle: A sort of cat and mouse game where the government is continuously attempting to keep up with those on the internet they see as a threat to their rule. Governments do however have power over the physical infrastructure that connectivity requires. Internet Service Providers are one example. States will attempt to regulate the internet and to shape it in its own image, whether democratic, authoritarian, or totalitarian as in the case of North Korea. The authors give some good examples of this starting with China, a nation which blocks access to both Facebook and Twitter, not to mention any reference over the internet to the Dalai Lama. Michelle Obama on a recent trip to China even criticized Chinese authorities for placing tight restrictions on internet access, bringing home the point that China is far from being a free and democratic country. Turkey also has had an uneasy relationship with the internet. This phenomenon was recently seen with Prime Minister Erdogan’s decision to block all access to twitter because of perceived insults and misinformation regarding allegations of corruption and financial wrongdoing. In contrast, countries like South Korea and Germany engage in selective filtering around very specific content like security and public well-being. South Korea, for example, blocks any information presented on the internet showing support for North Korea. Germany, meanwhile, has strong anti-hate speech laws. These laws rightly make Holocaust denial and Neo-Nazi propaganda illegal, whether in the physical or virtual world, a clear example of how laws from the physical world are projected onto the virtual one.

But conflict won’t only be between citizens and states. Expect increased cyber warfare between states as was recently witnessed when American and Israeli officials launched a virus crippling Iran’s nuclear installations. Cyber warfare will intensify in the future as nations seek to contaminate other nations’ water supplies or shut down power grid stations, to take just two examples. The authors point out that while only a small number of states currently have the capacity to launch large-scale cyber-attacks, more will have the capacity to do so in the future as technology becomes cheaper and more readily available.

THE FUTURE OF REVOLUTION

The authors deal with the future of revolution, terrorism, and conflict in separate chapters and discuss the dangerous situations awaiting future generations of citizens. They point out that virtual space allows new channels for dissent and participation, not to mention fund-raising, while benefiting from a certain amount of anonymity. Revolutionaries will be able to communicate through Twitter, cell phones, Facebook, and any other new digital format that may emerge, allowing for increased forms of mobilization. We can thus expect more youth participation in the political process as they are more likely to be connected to the digital world. But as the authors point out, in the end the hard work of revolutionary movements will still have to be done on the ground, in the physical world. In addition, they are correct in saying that technologies have nothing to do with creating first-rate leaders. Technology, in sum, only serves to communicate and unite. It does not create policies or legal constitutions. The drafting of laws will still have to be done as they always have: With policies in mind. What changes is how they’re transmitted to citizens once they’re drafted.

THE FUTURE OF TERRORISM

The future of terrorism will not be tied to planes crashing into tall skyscrapers but they will be much worse, affecting millions of people worldwide. Examples given by the authors include cyber-attacks threatening a city’s transportation system and electricity grid. The developed world’s increasing dependence on its own connectedness makes it vulnerable to cyber terrorism. Terrorists will hack into user data and computer systems and manipulate them for nefarious reasons. And as the authors point out, it isn’t always easy to know where the attacks are coming from. Retaliation consequently becomes a problem. What state or group do you retaliate against if the source of the attack remains unknown? The concern for terrorism also has other consequences. Democratic countries in a Post 9/11 world, led by the United States and the NSA, are choosing to prefer homeland surveillance over civil liberties, like privacy concerns. The push-pull between privacy and security in the digital age will become more prominent in the coming years, and we can thus expect more political backlash from concerned citizens and groups. There will no doubt be cases fought in the courts as citizens in democratic states attempt to protect their constitutional rights and reign in excessive state intervention into their private affairs. But what recourse before the courts do citizens living in authoritarian states like Russia or Egypt have? Speaking recently with Charlie Rose at the Ted Conference currently being held in Vancouver, Larry Page, co-founder of Google also discussed the privacy versus security issue, and expressed how disappointed he was that the American government was spying on its own citizens. He added that there should be a serious conversation between the government and its citizens with regard to what constitutes proper and acceptable surveillance. The Google executive concluded that people must be shown what data is being collected on them. He also stressed that large amounts of personal data could be used for performing effective medical research but only where shared anonymously, something which both states and companies have yet to understand.

THE FUTURE OF CONFLICT

The digital age will present oppressive states with new methods for harassing religious, ethnic, and tribal minorities. In a future world where the Digital World will quite possibly be as important as the physical one, autocratic states will be able to oppress minorities online by erasing all content with regard to their identity. States can, in other words, pursue a policy of technological exclusion or virtual apartheid. The authors might have presented Burma as exhibit 1, where a small minority Muslim group known as the Rohingya are discriminated and even denied citizenship status. What’s to keep the Burmese state from denying them any online existence as one of the country’s many ethnic and religious minorities? Imagine that in a future Burma all citizens entitled to medical services are registered online by the government. What would happen to the Rohingya in such a situation if the government excluded them from online registration? But conflict won’t exist solely between states and its citizens. Expect online intimidation by hate groups or extremists, made all the easier by the anonymity provided by virtual disconnection. You can have your cake and eat it, in other words, by being able to spread hatred towards a religious minority without having to reveal your identity or confront your victims on a personal level. Groups will compete online as they seek to conquer hearts and minds. Evidence collected online of atrocities can be sent to the international Criminal Court in the Hague. But there will also be plenty of misrepresentations as competing groups seek to win the propaganda war.

THE FUTURE OF RECONSTRUCTION

Led primarily by the telecommunication industry, the internet will be used for reconstructing societies devastated by natural disasters and civil strife. Networks in post-crisis societies are thus required for preserving the rule of law and facilitating aid efforts. The absence of such networks likely explains why reconstruction efforts in Haiti were difficult as there was no virtual world to back up the physical one destroyed by the earthquake. The authors point out that states will eventually be able to place records on the cloud and provide services from online platforms. They also argue that technology will help protect and promote property rights by creating online cadastral systems and by allowing local courts to access evidence coming from mobile phones, something which the International Criminal Court is less likely to accept.

THE FUTURE OF THE DIGITAL AGE

The authors are realistic enough to conclude that despite the universal benefits of living in a virtual age, the virtual connection will not be uniform, whether between states (developed states versus emerging states) or within states (haves versus the have-nots). They describe it as a digital caste system with a tiny minority at the top insulated from the less enjoyable consequences of technology. But above all, they rightfully conclude that technology is no panacea for the world’s ills. How technology is used will remain the purview of humans and their laws, and the virtual world will not overtake the world order, but simply complicate almost every aspect of it. They conclude by describing the future as a Tale of Two Cities: One physical and developed over thousands of years, and the other a virtual one, and still very much in formation, with the physical world imposing rules and laws that will hopefully contain the anarchy found in the virtual state.

CONCLUSION

These two authors are serious thinkers who understand the potential impact the Digital Age will have on future societies. Eric Schmidt is currently Executive Chairman of Google, while Jared Cohen is Director of Google Ideas and an Adjunct Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition, he served as an advisor to Secretary of States Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. The authors are essentially recommending that citizens, business people, academics, politicians and policymakers all start to seriously think about how the digital age is transforming societies and international relations for better or worse. They correctly worry that most of us don’t really think about this issue in any meaningful way. And they rightfully worry that a lack of participation and understanding on this issue is not good for any democracy, especially where privacy rights are violated.

In the end there are severe limits to what the Digital Age can accomplish. Examples abound all around us. For example: The Civil War in Syria continues, and no amount of connectivity will keep the rebels and the Assad regime from massacring one another. The Digital Age is not bringing Israelis and Palestinians together. Those two groups are as far apart today as they were when the state of Israel was created decades ago. States like Russia remain authoritarian despite being digitally connected. Russia also remains a country with a weak legal system and with few press freedoms or civil rights for its ethnic and religious minorities. Russia is, in short, what it has always been: An authoritarian country ruled from Moscow. The Digital Age is also not keeping states like Uganda, Russia, and Malaysia from enacting homophobic laws, nor is it providing a religious minority group like the Rohingya with citizenship rights. Armenians will never get back part of their homeland currently found in Turkey no matter what kind of a virtual state they create. States divided by religion, ethnicity, and race will not be served by the Digital Age. Sectarian strife may one day end, but only through compromise rather than anything the internet can offer to warring parties. There are numerous age old conflicts that the Digital Age can do nothing about. Groups will continue to fight over scarce resources like water, food, energy resources, and land. Geography will continue to matter. Lebanon will continue to suffer from being next door to Syria. What happens in Syria will continue to spill over into Lebanon as we currently see by the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees fleeing to that tiny country. The Digital Age cannot lessen the tensions existing between India and Pakistan over who owns the Indian part of Kashmir. And the Digital Age can’t keep Russia from invading the eastern part of Ukraine. It certainly didn’t keep Russia from invading Crimea. History means more to some than technology, as any Russian nationalist might argue with regard to Crimea.

In the end there are countless questions one can ask about the digital age. What sort of jobs will be created in the Digital Age? Are our schools properly training students for future employment in a digital world? What regions of the world will these jobs be located in? Will every US state and Canadian province one day have its own mini Silicon Valley? Will ethnic and religious minorities share equally in the new Digital Age? How will income be distributed in the upcoming Digital Age? Will the income gaps between the rich and the middle class narrow or widen?

How will technology change the way we live? What will the effect of technology have on urban planning, architecture, and the local environment we live in? What will it mean to be human once technology has significantly replaced our involvement with the natural world? Will humans be less human in a Digital World? How will relationships between humans change? Will countries still be relevant? What effect will technology have on our schools? Will virtual schools one day be the norm or just an accompaniment to physical ones? And how will literature, music, and cinema be transformed in the Digital Age?

The Digital Age has changed the way we entertain ourselves and the way we communicate with one another. It will be up to sociologists, psychologists, and other academics to study the pros and cons of such a phenomenon. Will this make us happier as a species or create more loneliness and detachment from society? In the end, we need to ask who the Digital Age serves. Will there be winners and losers? Who will control it and how is that good for society? Will the Digital Age influence policymaking in any meaningful way, or will policymaking still be made by what many see as clueless politicians and unseen civil servants?

These are all questions that future thinkers on the subject need to tackle with before it’s too late. But at least they have a good start with this timely book.

ENDING THE CONFLICT IN UKRAINE THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - By Philip Petraglia

As the world watches events unfold in Ukraine one sees much finger pointing, especially towards Russia. But maybe there’s a better way of approaching this conflict. While Russia’s military takeover of Crimea is certainly reproachable, the question everyone should be asking is how to resolve this dispute between Ukraine and Russia in a way that satisfies all parties involved. For in the end, it’s in everyone’s interest to find a peaceful solution that makes it feasible for Ukraine to remain intact as a political and legal entity. Everyone in this scenario means not only Ukraine and Russia, but also the EU and the United States. Let’s now look at the different perspectives before suggesting a realistic solution through constitutional reforms.

Ukrainian Perspective

Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe, second only to Russia, with a population approaching 45 million. Close to 77% are Ukrainian speakers. Russian speakers hover around 20% with various other minorities making up the remaining population. Most Ukrainian speakers are found in the western and central part of the country, while Russian speakers are found in eastern and southern cities. In addition, there are 300,000 Muslim Tatars in Crimea (southern region) with their own language and culture. Describing one as a Ukrainian speaker is another way of saying that person is an ethnic Ukrainian. So language and ethnicity seem to go hand in hand as it does in so many other countries.

Ukraine was for 3 centuries part of the Russian Empire, a vast empire that would crumble in the 1920s and reinvent itself as the Soviet Union (USSR). The Soviet Union would in turn eventually dissolve in the early 1990s, leading to the creation of over a dozen new countries, with Russia and Ukraine being the largest. Ukraine became officially independent in 1991 much to the chagrin of Russia which sees it as an extension of the Russian state. In fact, Russian culture had its early beginnings in the Ukrainian city of Kiev. Russia’s ties to Ukraine are thus both historical and geographic.

What do most Ukrainians want? The answer is simple: to leave the Russian sphere of influence and eventually join the European Union (EU). And this is how the whole dispute started back in November 2013 when then Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, rejected a pending EU association agreement and chose instead to pursue closer ties with Russia through a Russian loan bailout. Yanukovych is a Russian speaker from the eastern part of Ukraine. His refusal to sign the agreements with the EU was seen by Ukrainian speakers as a ploy to bring Ukraine back into the Russian sphere. Thousands took to the streets in early 2014, with close to 100 demonstrators killed by government troops loyal to the Russian backed government. This event would eventually lead to Yanukovych fleeing Ukraine and seeking refuge in neighbouring Russia. The opposition is now in charge and calling for Yanukovych to be tried by the International Criminal Court for committing crimes against humanity. Russia, meanwhile, sees the opposition takeover of the government in Kiev as illegal, and still considers Yanukovych to be the rightful President of Ukraine.

Russian Perspective

Russia like Ukraine seceded from the USSR in 1991. It’s the largest of the new states to emerge from the dissolution in terms of territory and population. It also has nuclear arms and a wealth of natural resources, including oil and gas. 80% of the population is Russian, with ethnic and religious minorities comprising the other 20%. Russia is essentially bordered by former Soviet states, many of which have large Russian speaking minorities. Vladimir Putin has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as a 20th century tragedy, something which most in the West consider absurd, considering the millions of people who perished in Soviet labour camps during the Stalinist era. But for Putin, the Soviet Union was dominated by Russia, and hence a way for Russian nationalism to exert its influence in the region. As it now stands, Putin is seeking to control these former Soviet states through economic and military ties.

The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred in 1991. Up until then the Cold War pitted two alliances against one another. The West was represented by NATO and led by the United States, while the WARSAW PACT was led by the Soviet Union. Many thought the Cold War had come to an end with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. This did not however prevent NATO from bringing in new members that were either once part of the Soviet Union (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia) or the WARSAW PACT (Poland and Hungry to name a few). This naturally angered the Russians who saw it as a provocation and insult, especially since the WARSAW PACT was formally dissolved.

To understand what Russia wants one should seek to understand what it is and what it fears. There are many sides to Russia. Many of its young people would like for Russia to become a liberal democracy. But Russians who believe in liberal democracy tend to be young urbanites. Most Russians however live in the countryside, and like Vladimir Putin, many are hard core nationalists seeking to revive Russian glory in the region. Many are also what we in the West would call social conservatives who see the West as morally decadent.

The question then becomes why is Ukraine such a big deal for Russian nationalists like Putin? As it now stands, Russia does not border any EU or NATO country. Were Ukraine to join the EU, Russia would find itself sharing a border with a European Union member state. Most EU states are also part of NATO. For Russia, there’s thus the added fear that Ukraine would inevitably join NATO. The idea of Russia bordering a NATO country is unacceptable and unimaginable for Russian nationalists.

Russian nationalists fear that liberal democratic values could well spill over into Russia. This probably explains why Russia has better relations with former Soviet states in Central Asia than it does with former Soviet states lying in Europe. These former Soviet states in Central Asia are ruled by autocrats, something that an autocrat like Vladimir Putin can appreciate and relate to. Many of these Central Asian autocrats were, like Putin, KGB men back when these states were part of the Soviet Union.

Russia has always been a country with a dual identity: European and Asian. Most of Russia lies east of the Ural Mountains, meaning in Asia, but most ethnic Russians live west of the Urals, on the European side. There’s a lot of Slavic history and mysticism involved which we in the West have trouble understanding. But the point is Russia has always been different from other European countries and cultures, and nationalists like Vladimir Putin continue to emphasize these differences by for example making it illegal to promote “gay propaganda”.

The end of the Cold War in 1991 led many scholars like Professor Francis Fukuyama to conclude that liberal democracy would eventually spread around the world. But perhaps the late scholar Samuel Huntington was more correct when he predicted a clash of civilizations. Vladimir Putin is clearly doing everything possible to make Huntington’s thesis come true, as are other authoritarian countries like China. Only time will tell which thesis wins out. But for now, we have a regime in Russia that has clearly said no to western values like liberal democracy. But what Russian nationalists really fear is encroachment. This encroachment starts with liberal democracies on it western borders (Baltic states and possible Ukraine), Muslim states in the south, and Chinese encroachment on its eastern border. For Putin, it’s not just a question of preserving Russia’s morality and soul, but also the country’s identity as a Slavic state build around Russian Orthodox values. Russia borders China to the East, a part of Russia that is relatively empty, and Russia rightly or wrongly fears the incursion of Asian immigrants. These fears are not wholly unfounded. Russia has a population of 145 million which pales in comparison with China’s 1.3 billion.

EU and US Perspectives

The EU stands nothing to gain from antagonizing Russia. Here’s a simple fact: Europe gets at least 25% of its energy reserves from Russia. It’s higher in the case of Germany, especially with regard to natural gas. Germany is Europe’s economic engine. Russia could choose to cut the flow of natural gas to Germany which in turn could cause a European recession or at least severe economic difficulties. Ukraine also gets most of its energy reserves from Russia. Russian gas however flows through Ukrainian soil before it reaches Germany and other EU countries. Call it mutual dependence.

The US concern is with making promises it can’t deliver on as seems to have happened with Syria. President Obama is a realist and realizes that there is no military option available and that involving NATO or any military action would be disastrous, something which some Republicans in Congress seem to have problems understanding. Take the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, another one of those former Soviet states that borders Russia. The Russian invasion led two regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, to secede from Georgia. Russian troops are still there, in essence, occupying an independent country. Obama rightfully understands that the only solution has to be a diplomatic one. President Obama is also a Constitutional Law professor and likely understands more than anyone else how constitutional changes to Ukraine’s Constitution can help create a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Ending The Conflict Through Constitutional Reforms

As mentioned earlier the only solution to the current impasse is a political one. Even Vladimir Putin seems to understand this, if his recent remarks are to be believed. But as usual he tends to make comments that are both threatening and conciliatory. For example, he recently stated that while Russia wasn’t intending to invade Eastern Ukraine, he reserved the right to do so if Russian speakers were somehow threatened or showed any inclination to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. There’s a problem with this. It would of course be in clear violation of International Law and would as well encourage separatism on the part of Eastern Ukraine’s speakers. As for Crimea, where 60% are Russian speakers, Putin has flatly stated that Crimean citizens have the right to hold a referendum and secede from Ukraine and join Russia if voters so choose. Crimea was part of Russia until 1954 before being transferred to Ukraine. This is often used as a justification on Russia’s part to reclaim it. But Putin is setting a dangerous precedent. Should ethnic and religious minorities in Russia also have the right to hold referendums and secede from Russia? And what about the 40% of Crimean citizens who wish to stay part of Ukraine?

The only political solution, in the end, is to turn Ukraine into a Federal state. As it now stands, Ukraine is a unitary state with all the political power situated in Kiev, the nation’s capital. Creating unitary states where power is centralized is the worse way to defend minority rights. A solution then would be to turn Ukraine into a federal state and have the central government and provinces share equally in legislative powers, as exists in Canada. There are various federal models for reformers to choose from, but Canada’s is perhaps best suited because like Ukraine, Canada is a bilingual country. The division of powers in Canada’s constitution is one that could easily be adopted by Ukraine, with some changes to suit local concerns. Ukraine currently has 24 provinces. Each one of these provinces would have a legislature similar to what Canada’s 10 provinces have. The federal government in Kiev would have jurisdiction over matters like customs and borders, national defence, banking and currency, and immigration, to name just a few. Ukrainian provinces would have jurisdiction over such important sectors as education and labour. Each province would decide on what the official language would be, but the Federal government would adopt bilingualism, with laws drafted in both Ukrainian and Russian, much as laws in Canada are drafted in English and French. Some might object that there exists a discrepancy in the size of Ukraine’s provinces. But the same is true for Canada, where population sizes very from less than 200,000 in Prince Edward Island to close to 14 million in Ontario. So here’s the point: ethnic Russians in Ukraine must be made to feel welcomed in any future Ukraine state. To do this, they must be given what French speaking Canadians have in Quebec: their own territory where they are free to live and thrive in their own language. Cynics might point to the fact that Quebec came close to separating from Canada in the last referendum when separatists took nearly 50% of the vote. But that situation was the perfect storm, and besides, the separatists had a charismatic leader in Lucien Bouchard. Keep in mind that both Ukrainians and Russians are accustomed to living in an authoritarian system. Canadian style federalism with all its liberties and protection for cultural groups might be seen a breath of fresh air. Ukraine can by adopting aspects of Canadian federalism reclaim control over its territory while preserving language and cultural rights for its Russian speaking minority.

Certain major events would have to occur before any new constitutional arrangement could be entered into. Firstly, all Russian land troops would have to leave Ukrainian soil. Russia currently maintains a naval base in Crimea’s Black Sea. The Russian fleet would be allowed to stay but this should not be an excuse for Russia to maintain a heavy military presence in Crimea. There are models to choose from that would allow Russia to keep its Black Sea Fleet while respecting Ukraine’s independence . The U.S., for example, maintains a naval base in Okinawa, Japan. This could be used as a model for any future Russian naval presence in Crimea.

The issue of Ukraine joining the EU which most Ukrainian speakers desire also has to be dealt with. This union should be permitted but only on condition that Russia is offered a free trade agreement so that it too can benefit from having closer economic ties with the rest of Europe. But equally important, EU membership for Ukraine should come with the understanding that Ukraine would never be permitted to join NATO. Finland is the perfect model. A country bordering Russia, it remained neutral throughout the Cold War.

Let’s now imagine a situation where Russia invades Eastern Ukraine. This would lead the EU and the US to impose political and economic sanctions on Russia. Everyone stands to lose economically, including Russia itself which needs a market for its raw materials. The West has already threatened to expel Russia from the G-8. There would naturally also be the loss of life, and Russia’s reputation as a pariah state would be assured for decades to come.

In conclusion, creating a federal state in Ukraine may be a long term solution for ending this crisis. Vladimir Putin can, for example, congratulate himself and placate Russian nationalists by pointing to a constitutional model that recognizes and guarantees the linguistic and cultural rights of Russian speakers, a model which can also be used in other European and Central Asian states where Russian speaking minorities reside. For Ukrainians, this is a model that would allow them to become truly free of Moscow’s iron grip. But to do this they need to be more realistic about their history and their geography and realize that Ukraine borders Russia while containing a large Russian speaking population of its own. Creating a federal system is the best way for Ukrainians to create a truly enlightened society where the rights of all minorities are protected. Russia, meanwhile, can decide at same later date whether it wishes to join Europe as a liberal democratic state or evolve into some mystical Russian Slavic state built around authoritarian lines.