It has been a year since Ukraine’s February Revolution, or Euromaidan, began in Kiev’s Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti), which resulted in over 100 deaths and the ousting of Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovych. Whatever moments of celebration enjoyed by Ukraine were short lived. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and sponsoring of the pro-Russian separatist movement in the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk followed shortly thereafter. The war in eastern Ukraine, which has already claimed over 5,000 lives, has overshadowed the positive events of the Maidan.

Paris based French-Swiss photographer Loïc Fontanel, 21, happened to be in Kiev during the 2014 Orthodox Christian Celebrations. His photos, taken from the nights of January 1-7, 2014, provide an uncommon perspective on the revolution: the popular occupation of the Maidan square prior to the outbreak of violence. His photos, which were shown at the Ukrainian Cultural Center in Paris last week, will be displayed on February 28 in Paris alongside those of Oskar Dumitrashchuk, a photographer and friend of Loïc’s from Ukraine. I recently interviewed Loïc about his series of photographs, Kyiv. Below is an edited translation of that interview from French:

GLIMPSE: Why were you in Ukraine during the revolution?

Loïc Fontanel (LF): I was in Kiev to meet the family of the love of my life and so I found myself at the heart of this revolution.

GLIMPSE: What was your general experience taking these pictures?

LF: I was struck by the mood and calm atmosphere of the [Maidan] square. The Ukrainians were so welcoming and happy to see a photographer taking pictures during their revolution. There were few other photographers or journalists present at that time and very little information was being relayed to the outside world.

GLIMPSE: Are there any shots in particular that you want to talk about?

LF: There are several in which I found myself facing a grandmother with her grandson and she was taking a photo of him in front of a barricade and I couldn’t help but think about this youngster who will find that photo in the future.

GLIMPSE: Did you have a specific goal in mind while capturing these images?

LF: My thought was to take pictures that will remain timeless without any pretense—photos that will go down in history, of course. While taking these pictures, I felt, for the first time practicing photography, the importance of the photograph in history and in memory.

GLIMPSE: Your photos straddle the domains of photojournalism and art-photography, no? That being said, what role do you feel they play both as art and testimony?

LF: Yes, these are indeed photos that will be testimony for the future of what happened and for that I am particularly proud of this series. One must absolutely not forget the current situation in [Ukraine], and that the revolution led to the current war.

GLIMPSE: Why the choice of black and white?

LF: I now work in nothing but black and white. I prefer the composition, the subject and the shapes [in black and white]in respect to color.

GLIMPSE: How would you describe the subject of your photos? I am curious about the partially hidden figures we see in a few of them.

LF: It is true that there are not that many people in my pictures as I was focused on the barricades and other impressive structures. I wanted to capture the atmosphere of waiting and calm. While on the square, one could feel a sort of sensation like being transfixed. This is what I am showing in my exposition. The photo with the AK-47 is definitely ambiguous, but it is not real. You can see this on the photo where the focus is pulled on the background—it is just a target-shooting game that was set up at the square and it is my girlfriend that is holding the fake weapon. It is a very symbolic picture when one knows what happened on the square a few weeks later.

GLIMPSE: I notice that many of your photos put a striking emphasis on the barricades of the Maidan square. What effect do you feel they had? What was important about them in your experience?

LF: As I mentioned, I really wanted to concentrate on the transfixed atmosphere of this square at this very precise moment. It must also be known that there are many symbols like the watch advertisement, the big statue of the angel that protects the city, the flags and also the written Ukrainian phrases. These are not just barricades; they are above all a very powerful symbol of the revolution.

GLIMPSE: Thank you for your time, Loïc. Is there anything else you would like to add?

LF: To conclude, I hope that it is clear that things are not over in Ukraine…

To see more of Loïc’s work click here.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post A Photographic Retrospective of Ukraine’s February Revolution appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Arctic politics concern the geopolitical, economic, resource and environmental interests in the arctic region, in particular the governance of the Arctic Ocean. The only inter-governmental institution that explicitly governs this region is the Arctic Council (AC). Originally conceived to promote scientific research, the AC is comprised of the states that intersect the Arctic Circle: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Canada, the US (by virtue of Alaska) and The Kingdom of Denmark (by virtue of Greenland). The AC’s directive is as both a governance institution for the creation of treaties and protocols relating to the environment, search and rescue, and more recently, shipping and resource exploitation.

In recent years, the AC has expanded its membership to 12 non-Arctic states by granting them observer status. These states are China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Spain and the United Kingdom. Their interests lie primarily in the potential for trans-Arctic Ocean shipping routes and the extraction and exploration of the Arctic’s vast resources of oil (13% of the world reserves) and natural gas (30% of world reserves). The Arctic’s economic potential has attracted many actors who prioritize exploiting the land over preserving the environment via cooperative governance.

This October, India’s head of state, Pranab Mukherjee, made a historic first visit to the Arctic states. While he claimed that India’s interest in the AC “at the moment is scientific,” he never stated that the interests are not also resource, trade and geopolitically oriented. The Times of India, a leading Indian daily, had no reservations reporting the following about Mukherjee’s visit to Norway:

“India also does not want to be left out in the cold in the ongoing race among different countries to explore and exploit the vast reservoirs of oil and gas present in the region.”

This quote underlines the common thread of the top priorities states have in the Arctic—and the environment is not one of them. The mentality of seeing the melting Arctic as an opportunity rather than an ecological catastrophe is insidious on many levels. As the sea-ice melts, the exposure of dark ocean water that absorbs more solar radiation than white, reflective, ice will accelerate the melting process. Conservative models predict no Arctic Ocean summer ice by the end of the decade. Greenland’s freshwater ice sheet has undergone record melts for many consecutive years, and when it disappears, the ensuing sea-level rise will displace some 80% of the human population. Arctic permafrost will also continue to melt into rotting peat, thereby releasing additional greenhouse gases into the air, which may result in a runaway greenhouse effect. If observer states to the AC all have “scientific” interests in the Arctic, then why is climate science science seldom discussed?

While there continues to be a lack of meaningful, legally binding international treaties on climate change, the AC has passed a treaty on search and rescue operations in Arctic waters, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recently finalized its Polar Waters Operation Manual (PWOM). These steps, made in response to shipping vessels crossing the Arctic Ocean, will at least set a minimum standard for safety, navigational procedure, reporting and vessel specifications. Rather than protecting the Arctic from heavy ship traffic, policy-making institutions seem to be preparing for it. Is there irony in the fact that the European Space Agency (ESA) Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellite mission to map Arctic sea ice is to better understand climate change as well as to ease trans-arctic maritime navigation?

Oil and gas prospects have attracted international oil companies from several nations to descend on the Arctic. STATOIL, Gazprom, Rosneft and Lukoil, Exxon, Total and Royal Dutch Shell are just a few of the big oil industry players in the region. Sometimes, as with France’s Total, it is unclear whether it is the state or the company that dictates policy. Indeed a report from French Daily Le Monde points to how Total plans on shifting the majority of its operations to Russia by 2020. Also, upon the accidental death of Total’s CEO, Russian President Vladimir Putin extended sincere condolences, reportedly writing: “We have lost a true friend of our country.”

Table: Oil Companies Exploring in the Arctic (partnership with Russian Oil Company †, AC member *, AC observer **)

Considering that for many of these states energy security is tied to national security policy (like in the US) it is to be expected that corporate interests have significant leverage in policy making. It is the link between oil and security that is taking precedence over the link between environmental preservation and security in Arctic Policy. The National Strategy for the Arctic Region, an opaque 11-page US State Department policy document, includes this paradox as a key item of the first section of the US “Lines of Effort” portion:

“The Arctic region’s energy resources factor into a core component of our national security strategy: energy security. The region holds sizable proved and potential oil and natural gas resources that will likely continue to provide valuable supplies to meet U.S. energy needs.” (National Security Strategy, May 2013).

The document also claims environmental stewardship as a high priority, leaving one to wonder: how could both priorities realistically coexist in a policy document for the US government that is only 11 pages long? Given that the US is scheduled to take over AC chairmanship from Canada in 2015 (chairmanship rotates after each 2-year term), the prominent narrative is that the AC will continue to be an institution plagued by identity crises and a lack of meaningful leadership.

Among the AC states, Russia is the most aggressive. The reasons for this are manifold. For one, Russia has the longest coastline on the Arctic Ocean. Additionally, the Russians claim, under UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) Article 76, that a significant portion of that ocean is theirs by geological right. The ability to project power rests Russia’s large, albeit outdated, icebreaker fleet.

There is very little to prevent Russia’s aggressive moves in the Arctic; they are filling a power vacuum. Suddenly, the menaces made by Russian military aircraft, such as simulated bombing, against neutral Arctic states, like with Sweden in October, take on a new light. Can Russian Foreign Ministry assurances that the re-militarization of the Arctic region is nothing to worry about, as well as promises to resolve disputes through dialogue, be taken at face value?

If the geopolitical situation remains unchanged, then Russia will continue to name oil fields “Victory” and the pressing environmental issues will continue to be ignored—especially considering that the US’s current voice in the AC, Alaska, “identified its top Arctic Council priority as “creating jobs,” followed by “suicide prevention.” Climate change did not make the list.

Consider that: “climate change did not make the list.” This week, world leaders are meeting in Peru to address the global threat of climate change. Reporting on the negotiations, the New York Times quoted concerned climate scientists: “At stake now, they say, is the difference between a newly unpleasant world and an uninhabitable one.” For two decades, the UN has failed to create a pact on climate change. If negotiations fail on a global level, then it is imperative to create policy on a regional level.

The Arctic is a ground zero for climate change. There, the effects are more sharply observed: consider a 5°C average temperature rise versus the global average of 1-2°C. The AC has the potential to set an example for international environmental stewardship, and the ability to create informed policy due its scientific research arm. It is up to the AC states to set aside geopolitical and resource-driven interests; if this cannot happen in the Arctic, then whatever happens in Peru may be inconsequential. The Arctic is simply too important to the regulation of the global climate.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post “Suicide Prevention,” or Why Arctic Priorities are Misaligned appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Jack Anderson

The view from abroad is that President Obama has further lost credibility to represent the interests of the American public. Obama will find it extremely difficult to get his chosen ambassadors appointed by a Republican Senate, which won’t help diplomatic efforts overseas. His upcoming trip to China, Myanmar and Australia will be rough. He is meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, then attending the East Asia Summit and the US-ASEAN Summit in Myanmar, followed by talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G-20 Summit in Australia. He needs to publicly get bipartisan support on foreign policy issues now in order for this trip to be effective. Without re-establishing his weight in Washington, Obama will be in no position to display leadership on East Asian or Eurasian issues. Recent leaks, such as his secret letter to Ayatollah Khameini and Robert O’Neill coming forward as “The Shooter,” serve to further undermine his leadership credentials. In short, Obama will be the biggest loser talking to a lot of winners. Those conversations will not be easy, and if interactions in Washington are any indication, then negotiations are not Obama’s strong suit.

Alessandro Marazzi Sassoon

Now that the GOP controls the Senate, it is likely that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will push the FCC to strike down Net Neutrality. The issue, which was hanging in the balance before the election, may now sway in the favor of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which want to make profits from tiering internet service. Technically, the FCC has the deciding power on policy. Additionally, three of its five commissioners are Democrat-appointed; however, the legislative power the GOP now controls can significantly alter the debate. The end of net neutrality would continue to make the United States an outlier among developed countries in maintaining the open and democratic nature of the Internet. The glimmer of hope is that President Obama has officially endorsed the position of defending Net Neutrality championed by Fight For the Future (FFTF) this past week.

Benjamin Jury

Climate change deniers rejoice: Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the new Chairwoman of the Senate Committee for Energy and Natural Resources, claims that “emissions that are being put in the air by [a]volcano [in Iceland]are a thousand years’ worth of emissions that would come from all of the vehicles, all of the manufacturing in Europe.” The causal link between climate change and increasing unrest around the world is still a hotly-debated topic, but new research in the field shows at least tangential connections between the two. With the Peru and Paris UN Climate Change Conferences fast approaching, division and denial of climate change by ranking members of the US Senate will unquestionably delay any universal agreement on climate change for the near future.

Nathaniel Haas

In the spirit of finding a silver lining in light of Jack, Alessandro, and Ben’s pessimism, one issue of both national and international importance that will move forward because of the midterms is comprehensive immigration reform. The reasons why are two-fold. First, GOP obstructionism — which blocked reform in 2013 and also shut down the government — will not be tolerated by a 2016 electorate that will feature a younger and more diverse and liberal electorate than the anomalous and abysmally low 2014 midterm turnout. Republicans’ feet are now being held to the fire, and they will likely succumb to pressure to produce legislation. It will be more moderate than the bill they killed in 2013, and likely not include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants who currently reside in the United States, but it will likely include important visa and border security reforms. The second reason to be optimistic on immigration is simple: as his second term winds down, President Obama is no longer in reelection mode, he is in legacy mode. He knows that failing to take executive action on immigration over the summer, like he promised, was a grave mistake, and that Latinos are an ever expanding and powerful political bloc who won’t blindly follow the Democrats. Look for executive action in the near future on a pathway to citizenship. It will both cement Obama’s legacy, and pave the road for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Luke Phillips

I actually feel a lot more positive about the recent elections than do my colleagues, which probably has something to do with the fact that I’m a moderate Republican and a whole ton of moderate Republicans just got elected. Oh well, I never claimed objectivity anyways. I think the new class of Republican Congressmen and Senators will actually prove more willing to work with President Obama than did their Tea Party predecessors who swept Congress in 2010. The Tea Party Caucus and its allies, committed as they were to rigidly ideological conceptions of the purpose of government and the sacredness of austerity, could essentially do nothing but block legislation. Their libertarian leanings do not easily reconcile with anything inside the Beltway. But the new class of moderate main-street Republicans has less ideological baggage, less vehement antipathy against the President and a much more powerful incentive to work with Democrats on such critical issues as immigration reform, the Keystone Pipeline and the TPP. Obama, for his part, can expect a lot more support from GOP moderates, and has no choice but to trust them–his legacy needs action if it is to transcend his currently shattered reputation. I see, then, an active, stable and forward-moving two years leading up to the 2016 elections, and we are all the better for it.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post The Correspondents Weigh-In: 2014 Elections appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

I discovered the app while keeping in touch with a dear friend who currently resides in Israel. I downloaded it out of curiosity and thought it would allow me to know whether or not someone I knew was in danger. I experienced, as many users have reported, a range of emotional responses with Red Alert: anger, sadness, fear, anxiety, or a sense of control or solidarity. Despite not being physically in Israel and experiencing rocket fire first hand, this application solicited an empathic response by solely providing me with the knowledge of the attack. The emotional effect of this app, regardless of design, may set a new precedent in the application of communication technology in times of war.

Red Alert has received over 1 million downloads with users all over the world. The original app was only available in Hebrew until Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the US, was testifying before a congressional subcommittee and his phone went off. Subsequently, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) asked if the app was available in English and so Dermer contacted the app’s developers. The app has been popular in the US and worldwide, as well as in Israel where the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) encourages its installation. Though the app is developed independently, it gathers data from IDF intelligence. Therefore, there is no perceived intermediary between the information and the people.

Some observers have questioned whether or not the app simply creates “unneeded hysteria” considering that those under the threat of rockets are warned by sirens and the app does little to change one’s ability to find cover in 15 seconds. As it was explained to me by a friend: “even with the Iron Dome intercepting a rocket the sirens still go off and you need to find cover… the falling debris is still dangerous.” Furthermore, the app does not give precise locations and in that regard is no more informative than existing channels of information.

The comment section provides a relatively unfiltered look at how other users feel with the ability to comment on each individual rocket attack. The majority of comments are positive displays of solidarity and hope for an end to the conflict. However, there is certainly a persistent minority of users whose comments reflect the vitriol that can only perpetuate the cycle of violence that has plagued Israel for decades.

As summer drew to a close, the conflict between Hamas and Israel seemed intractable. In the final week of the conflict my phone went off constantly. I would awake to dozens of notifications of rocket attacks. Just before the ceasefire, my friend informed me: “I had to switch off Red Alert. It was making me miserable. I figured I would notice the siren anyway.” I too felt miserable and helpless since every notification reminded me of what I knew already: the situation is awful for all involved.

The recent rise of the Islamic State, specifically the videotaped beheadings of three British and American journalists, showed the world how the evolution of social media and mobile technology can effectively be used for (repulsive) propaganda. With Red Alert,the technology has entered the political domain of war in a unique way by successfully managing to reduce the emotional distance, albeit in a limited fashion, between those living in a conflict and those who are observing it. The consequences and future applications of social media and mobile apps in warfare are hard to foresee at this point. Will a renewed connection to war and the common space for sharing reactions spark pacifist sentiments or increase acrimony and aggressive behavior?

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Living in a Siege State: There’s an App for That appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

These are the words of Edward Snowden from his interview with The Guardian on July 17, 2014. They were spoken not in reference to his own experience with whistle blowing, but in reference to the government’s harassment and prosecution of former NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake after he exposed agency malpractice in 2006. Drake had turned to journalists only after his attempts to use internal oversight mechanisms failed. In 2007, the FBI raided his home and he was subjected to extensive questioning and threatened with life imprisonment. Drake’s experience exposes a frightening psychology that exists within the National Security apparatus of the United States Government. It is a psychology that is antithetical to democracy and reflects the conflict between national security and freedom of the press to report on government policies and practices pertaining to national security.

The Reporters Without Borders (RSF) 2014 “World Free Press Index” saw the United States drop 13 places to 46^th among all sovereign countries. The accompanying report cited the cases of Chelsea (Bradley) Manning and Edward Snowden as “warnings to all those thinking of assisting in the disclosure of sensitive information that would clearly be in the public interest.” Furthermore, the United States remains an outlier among developed nations for not having a “shield law” to allow journalists to protect their sources especially when they are within the US Government. The need for such a law was made glaringly evident when the CIA seized and destroyed phone records belonging to the Associated Press to identify sources used by the news agency.

A protected free press can only strengthen the United State’s diplomatic position in the community of nations. So long as the United States imprisons, subpoenas and threatens journalists, the State Department has no leg to stand on when criticizing the suppression of journalists in other countries. In January of 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech that enshrined freedom of expression, among others, as seminal to United States diplomacy. Clinton remarked: “Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21^st century.” Yet, this sentiment does not reflect the actions of the US government considering the mass surveillances practices as well as legal actions taken against American journalists and whistleblowers.

In 1971, the executive branch of the United States attempted to block The New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, brought to light by Daniel Ellsberg, on the grounds that doing so violated the Espionage Act. The New York Times Company brought the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the newspaper. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote the following words in his opinion:

“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. (…) The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security.”

There is no reason for these words to not hold true 43 years after their writing.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post “Invoked to Abrogate:” National Security and the Press in America appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The post-modern era we currently live in is in large part defined by the ubiquitous presence of technology. For better or worse, identity and human interaction have been altered by the rise of social media, the accompanying information industry “Big Data” and government practices of mass surveillance of digital communication, as revealed to us by leakers including Edward Snowden. Absent from the policy debate is the assessment of what mass-surveillance and Big Data mean for the psychology of a society. Enter the self-described “paranoid electronic pop” sound of new band Big Data.

Their four track debut EP “1.0” explores themes regarding the use or misuse of information, isolation and connection in the digital age, and the relationship between man and machine. The track “The Stroke of Return” asks the audience to consider the effects of Cloud computing on society, suggesting that changes in how information is stored will affect the way it is treated. Meanwhile the song “Big Dater” (it’s a pun) explores how technology has changed the significance of ‘connecting’: “it’s not that typical// connection, it’s something digital.”

“Big Data” is a collaboration between producer Alan Wilkis and musician Daniel Armbruster. But these aren’t Brooklyn hipsters ‘sticking it to the man’ with their tunes. As the lead vocalist of the band Joywave, Armbruster provides the vocals for Big Data and Joywave features on all the tracks of “1.0”. Wilkis is a Harvard graduate and worked with Facebook early in the company’s history. While in art the persona is separate from the person, Wilkis’ résumé certainly adds credibility and seriousness to their music, if not tragic irony.

Where Big Data really breaks ground is with the single “Dangerous,” which takes on issues of mass surveillance and the mass collection of personal information. The track features a heavy synthesized sound backed by an unrelenting beat that encapsulates the feelings of fear and paranoia, which arise from the thought of being constantly watched.

How could they know, how could they know
What I been thinking?
Like they’re right inside my head because they know
Because they know, what I been hidin’
They’re right under my bed, they’re on patrol (Big Data ft. Joywave, “Dangerous”)

At first listen the lyrics may seem hyperbolic. Is it really fair to equate government spying to the monster under the bed of a childhood nightmare? Consider then the revelations of Edward Snowden’s leaks: the government has the ability to tap into our digital communications, especially on social media. The government can remotely turn on your cell phone and turn it into a spying device, as well as watch your computer screen as you type, effectively knowing your thought process. These practices constitute clear violations of the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th amendments. These practices are not only meant for preventing threats to national security; the FBI is using them to prosecute domestic crimes. Furthermore, under the NSA’s own “three hops” rule, the odds are that the government can spy on you without a warrant.

“Here they come, yeah here they come
Out of the shadows
To take me to the court because they know
Gotta shut this down, cause they been watching all my windows
They gathered up the warrant cause they” (Big Data ft. Joywave, “Dangerous”)

The fear that the government will come after you for discussing classified information that has been leaked in a journalistic setting is evidenced by the Barrett Brown case. Brown, a journalist, was charged with hacking for posting links to hacked information. Although charges were eventually dropped, the case is unsettling to defenders of a free press. As a result, the necessary national discussion on mass surveillance has been muted in contrast to the 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers. This is not to say that reporting of government policy has been absent – what is lacking is a meaningful analytical discussion of government policies and programs and their implications for individuals and society. Big Data’s music is a bold new reflection on the psychology surrounding society’s relationship with new information technologies and surveillance policy.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Big Data: A Musical Expression of the Digital Age appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

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.

The post Explaining Net Neutrality appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

A dream of the 17^th 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.

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?”

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:

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 post Over the Top: the Emergence of Arctic Ocean Trade appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

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.

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

The post The Italian Job: Operation GLADIO appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

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.

The post The Correspondents Weigh-In: Crisis in Crimea appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.