Author: Milan

In the spring of 2005, I graduated from the University of British Columbia with a degree in International Relations and a general focus in the area of environmental politics. Between 2005 and 2007 I completed an M.Phil in IR at Wadham College, Oxford. I worked for five years for the Canadian federal government, including completing the Accelerated Economist Training Program, and then completed a PhD in Political Science at the University of Toronto in 2023.

Human security

Keble College

This evening, I have been thinking about ‘human security.’ This is the idea – very hot right now in international policy circles – that the object of security should be the individual, rather than states (which are arbitrary) or governments (which can be selfish or non-representative). “Protect the Human,” as the Amnesty International campaign asserts. Given the atrocities committed against individuals in the quest to assert higher ideals, a moral system based around preventing such abuses has intuitive appeal.

What I am wondering about is the basis upon which the claim can be made that human security is the important sort. There is the possibility that the realities of human life make human security a valid perspective in a deep way that transcends trends in thinking and the present character of the international system. At the other extreme is the idea that this is just a concept cooked up in some reports and boardrooms that is being applied universally by those groups who have accepted it, despite it not having any fundamental validity. The third and most sensible possibility is that the idea of human security has emerged as the product of a lengthy deliberation among states.

That said, the state consensus view has problems of its own. In particular, the manner in which transgressors are dealt with becomes important. When African states and regional organizations fail to condemn Zimbabwe and Sudan for egregious violations of human rights, are they doing so because the think continued integration is the best way to forward a human security ideal they have already internalized (this would be akin to the supposed ‘sunshine policy’ of South Korea in dealing with the North), or do they remain wary of outside impositions, having been at the sharp end of too many in the past?

The present American administration has, in some ways, made this whole debate more difficult. On the one hand, they assert certain moral values as though they have absolute validity: democracy is good, tyranny is evil. At the same time, they are willing to compromise on fundamental moral questions, ostensibly to serve higher ends. Guantanamo Bay is one embodiment of this attitude. To champion both moral absolutes and a huge level of moral flexibility is enormously problematic. Taking a universal stance and then acting in a way that seems hypocritical leads people to question whether there are moral truths with a strong claim to validity. It also profoundly diminishes the ability to that particular moral actor to act as a model to others, or exert moral pressure. Arguably, situations like the inaction of the international community tars all other states that champion a human security agenda with a similar brush.

One of the more stirring things Michael Ignatieff ever wrote relates to just this issue of universal assertions and hypocritical failures to act:

The liberal virtues – tolerance, compromise, reason – remain as valuable as ever, but they cannot be preached by those who are mad with fear or mad with vengeance. In any case, preaching always rings hollow. We must be prepared to defend them by force, and the failures of the sated, cosmopolitan nations to do so has left the hungry nations sick with contempt for us.

That possibility – that the states of the developing world reject ‘human security’ and similar concepts because of the manifest lack of commitment from the developing world – is another potential solution to the puzzle of the status of such concepts in the world today.

Citable citation

Tree and blue sky

My congratulations go out to my friend Lindi Cassel: the first person who I know personally (as in ‘used to make stick figures out of kneadable eraser while in biology class with’) to get cited on Google Scholar:

Cassel, Lindi and Peter Suedfeld. “Salutogenesis and autobiographical disclosure among Holocaust survivors.” The Journal of Positive Psychology. Volume 1, Number 4 / October 2006. p.212-225.

While the subject matter is certainly sobering, the publication is extremely impressive, like so much else about Lindi. Bravo.

Defining state failure

Empty garden

From writing about foreign aid, I have moved on to failed states. I am meant to discuss who defines states as ‘failed’ and what consequences it has for sovereignty. It seems to me that there are three general ways in which a state can be considered to have failed:

  1. States can lose their integrity, as viewed from the security perspective by outsiders.
  2. Alternatively, they can fail to maintain other characteristics that are considered essential in a modern state, such as a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
  3. Finally, they can fall below some moral threshold, below which their government or leadership is no longer seen as legitimate.

Of course, the relevance of a state being ‘failed’ or not failed lies primarily with how this changes the behaviour of other states and non-state groups towards it. If being a failed state suspends the traditional rights afforded to states – from territorial integrity to diplomatic immunity – being thus categorized could very significantly affect the treatment of both individuals and territory by outsiders.

In the first instance, a ‘failed’ state might be one that has lost control of what passes in and out of its territory, to the point where it endangers neighbouring states. This is a situation very specifically addressed in the United Nations Charter. Chapter VII specifically empowers the Security Council to “to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Generally, serious measures such as sanctions or interventions need to be justified as responses to such a threat. While the issue is sometimes fudged – for instance, by saying that possible refugee flows from an internal conflict threaten international peace and security – this is still quite generous amount of space to give states, in which to manage their own affairs.

There is a problem here, when it comes to states that have strong governments, and possibly even democratic legitimacy, but nonetheless either passively submit to or actively encourage activities that threaten international peace and security. Supplying weapons to illegal groups, for instance, is an activity that a very great many states have engaged in. It may be possible to be a criminal state without being a ‘failed’ state. If so, the difference in terms of treatment is worthy of consideration.

A definition of state failure based on the maintenance of certain characteristics by the state under consideration necessitates a setting out of what the essential characteristics of statehood are. In The Neutrality of Great Britain during the American Civil War, Montague Bernard explained it thusly:

a Community or number of persons permanently organised under a Sovereign Government of their own, and by a Sovereign Government we mean a Government, however constituted, which exercises the power of making and enforcing law within a Community, and is not itself subject to any superior Government. These two factors, the one positive, the other negative, the exercise of power and the absence of superior control, compose the notion of Sovereignty and are essential to it.

Here, non-failed states need to do more than control their borders; they also need to maintain the capacity to enact and enforce laws. Probably, this requires more resources than just maintaining territorial integrity, though it is hard to imagine a state with impeccably policed borders and a largely lawless interior. The bigger issue with this expanded definition is that it begins to subject the internal structures of a state to external scrutiny, in a way closely tied to the ability of that state to maintain international legitimacy and recognition.

(I know we discussed a formal definition of statehood in international law, in the class I took at UBC on that subject. I can’t remember which specific document was involved, however. Anyone who does is very much encouraged to comment. All my notes and textbooks from the course are back in Vancouver.)

The definition of state failure with the widest scope is some kind of affirmation of moral codes that non-failed states must obey, even in the conduct of their internal operations. This is, of course, a conception that arises hand in hand with the idea of human security. The idea that governments that either actively engage in crimes against humanity or allow them to take place unchecked have foregone their sovereignty is one that can be easily justified within a liberal tradition of political theory. Of course, it is a step beyond that to affirm the right of other states, or of the international community, to intervene in such circumstances.

Other problems arise when the above criteria are considered in combination. Take the example of Pakistan. By many measures, it is a strong state. There is an organized central government with a clear structure. There is an organized military and police forces. The state is externally recognized by the international community. At the same time, Pakistan either cannot or does not control the flow of materials and individuals across its northern border with Afghanistan, despite a recent and bloody effort on the part of the army to take control. Also, Pakistan has been shown to be involved in international illicit trade in nuclear materials and information on making nuclear weapons. While few would call Pakistan a failed state, it does demonstrate characteristics associated with state failure.

In the end, it isn’t clear to me that the failed / non-failed dynamic has much usefulness, when it comes to states. It is too simple to allege that a right to intervene arises from failure to comply with one or another set of requirements. Some kind of more sophisticated moral and legal conversation is necessary, making this binary distinction just one point of discussion in a broader dialogue.

GMail security hole

Path to Marston

As people who read techie news pages like Engadget and Slashdot already know, a somewhat serious security flaw in GMail has recently been uncovered. Specifically, when you are logged into GMail in one browser window or tab, any other site you visit can grab your entire contact list. Whether that is a serious leak or not is a matter of perspective. Certainly, it exposes all of your friends of even more spam than they already receive.

Read the following carefully before you click anything. If you want to see the script that grabs contact lists at work, follow this link. Engadget says it’s “non-malicious,” but the risk is yours. The bug arises from the way in which GMail stores your contacts as a JavaScript file that can be requested by other websites. Google claims they have fixed the bug but, as the link above will prove, they have not.

Plausible attacks

A site that wanted to be really sneaky could exploit this information in many ways. At the very least, it could be used to very easily identify many of the people who are visiting. Knowing someone’s contact list might help in the launching of phishing attacks. It could, for example, make it easier to work out what company someone works for. You could then find out who does their information technology and send spoofed emails that seem to come from the IT department, asking for passwords or other sensitive information.

If it is a site that contains content that many people would not want others to know that they view, it could grab the email addresses for people with the same last name as you and threaten to send them information on your surfing history. A less complicated ploy would be to use emails that seem to come from people who you know to get through spam filters. Because of email spoofing, it is very easy to make messages seem to be coming from someone else.

Implications

As someone with 1037 MB of data in my main GMail account – including 14,410 emails and more than 1500 instant message conversations – I am naturally very concerned about GMail security. There is tons of stuff in there that I would be profoundly opposed to seeing on a public search engine, as has already happened in at least one case with private GMail data.

Contrary to their own assertions, Google had analysed and indexed all e-mails processed through their mail service. Due to a mistake made by an administrator, a database of the highly secret project was mirrored onto the external index servers, and as a result, the private mails of thousands of GMail users could be accessed via the search front-end for at least one hour.

Source

Clearly, it would be preferable if GMail started using durable encryption on their archived messages. This would both protect the messages from hostile outsiders and keep Google from doing anything undesirable with them. Even a passphrase based symmetric-key encryption system (perhaps based on AES) would be an improvement. I bet all the students at Arizona State University, which had turned to GMail to provide all their email services would feel likewise, if they knew.

[Update: 8:30pm] This article by Brad Templeton, the Chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, makes some good general points about GMail and privacy.

[Update: 11:00pm] According to Engadget, this hole has been fixed. It’s good that it was dealt with so quickly, but there are still reasons to be concerned about GMail security in general.

[Update: 2 January 2007] The mainstream media has caught up with the story. CBC News: Teen exposes Google security flaw.

[Update: 18 July 2008] GMail just added a very useful ‘Activity on this account’ feature. It tells you (a) whether any other computers are logged into account and (b) when and where the last five logins took place from. This is excellent.

Poetry in high school

I didn’t want any phase of my life to be gone forever, to be over and done with. I preferred beginnings to endings in books, as well – it was exciting not to know what was lying in store for me on the unread pages – but, perversely, I couldn’t resist sneaking a look at the final chapter of any book I was reading.

“My Last Duchess,” a story in Margaret Atwood‘s Moral Disorder, strikes me as an unusually successful discussion between literary Canadians. Reading a story about the classroom contemplation of Robert Browning‘s poem is an odd experience, for someone who has had exactly the same sorts of classroom discussions about poems by the author of the story. I am pretty sure “Disembarking at Quebec” was even tested on my grade 12 literature exam, though the memory of that test is almost entirely overshadowed by that of the far more challenging advanced placement literature test. (I remember the sight reading passage was the description of a wolfish Satan jumping into paradise (PL: IV, 172-192))

For those who are not Canadian, it is worth mentioning that Atwood is a kind of national literary representative. Along with Timothy Findley, she is probably the person who first comes to mind for most people, when they consider the content of Canadian literature. As such, it is interesting to see the author humanized: taking on the form of a young Canadian as they probably first experience her work, writing down lists of contrasting elements in a poem to rattle off for ten or twelve marks on a governmental exam sheet.

2006 conclusion

Antonia Mansel-Long with Canon dSLR

The fact that it is now the last day of December is vaguely amazing to me. The time that has passed since returning from Turkey on the 16th has been the extended equivalent of deciding to have a nap after lunch and waking up at 8:00pm.

I suppose the winter break last year was similar, though two differences stand out as significant. Whereas last year, I spent a good amount of time getting to know Louise, this break has been characterized by almost universal solitude in Oxford. More importantly, whereas last year’s break involved little necessity of getting anything academic done, I have felt constant pressure this time, and hence constant disappointment. Kate pointed out, quite rightly, that an essential element of being a success in graduate school is being able to do your own planning and marshall your own energies; in the absence of a social climate, this is not a thing at which I succeed well.

While the post-Turkey period has been largely lacking in lustre, the year has generally been an unusually good one. I travelled to Malta in March, Scotland in July, Ireland in August, Vancouver and Barrier Lake in September, and Turkey in December. I met some new and interesting friends, gained some local and international correspondents, and did a lot of good photography and academic work. Publication of the eternal fish paper was secured, if not accomplished, and I did my first serious teaching. I had my first photograph published, albeit without my permission being asked.

2007 will be the most unscripted year of my entire life to date. If you had asked me to bet, at the age of twelve, what I would be doing at the age of 23, I would have suggested four years as an undergrad, followed by graduate school somewhere. Where the road leads from here is profoundly unclear – a reality that almost anyone would find somewhat daunting. It will be interesting to see what my summing up on 31 December 2007 will involve.

A bit heavy on the mascara

Having just made my last stir-fry of the year, I realized that my relationship with spices is much like that of a curious ten-year old with her mother’s cosmetics. Most things are in essentially the right places, but often in the wrong amounts and positioned there without gracefulness of natural effect.

As with the makeup example, this is reasonable enough when you are staying inside, but not the sort of thing you ultimately want to offer the world.

Review: MEC Aegis jacket

About once a week, someone finds my blog while searching for a review of this jacket. As far as I can tell, there are none on the internet so far. The following is meant to serve as a correction to that.

Today has given me a good opportunity to try out the Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) Aegis jacket that I got this summer in really severe rain conditions. People who remember Dennis Nedry’s attempted escape to the dock in Jurassic Park will have some idea what I am talking about, though this is cool temperate rain rather than the lukewarm tropical variety. As in the past, it has proved both exceptionally weatherproof and quite breathable, especially with ventilation flaps open. A waterproof jacket in which you can cycle vigorously without getting drenched or steamed is a valuable thing, especially in a place that does such a good job of combining cycling as the major form of personal transport and rather wet winters. As far as I can tell on the basis of three months’ usage, this is the finest technical jacket I have ever owned.

The things I like most about the Aegis jacket:

  1. It is very waterproof, and works well as part of a layering system. 3-ply Gore-Tex XCR is about the best you can do, in terms of breathability, water resistance, and durability.
  2. It has lots of nice refinements: taped seams, a good adjustable hood, etc. The fact that even the under-arm zippers are of a very waterproof variety shows attention to detail. The hood works tolerably underneath a bike helmet, though at considerable cost of lost field of vision.
  3. The entire Gore-Tex membrane is lined on the inside, improving breathability and durability quite a lot.
  4. The pockets are waterproof enough that I do not fear for electronics inside, even in really awful conditions.
  5. Unlike my previous jacket, the elastic wrist cuffs do not seem to saturate with water.
  6. Capable enough for serious outdoor activities in very wet conditions, but also reasonable for wearing every day. That is, if you don’t mind announcing pretty loudly that you are from the west coast of North America.
  7. It is made in Canada, which is pretty amazing for a garment.
  8. Compacts well, for being carried around in a pack. (Weight: 730g)
  9. In my experience, MEC has an excellent record of dealing with any problems that crop up in their products. They replaced an MCR WhisperLite stove that had been used for more than a week (during the second Bowron Lakes trip), because it had a fuel flow problem.

And those I like least:

  1. Since it is just a shell, the fabric can feel a bit tarp-like, when it is worn without an insulating layer underneath.
  2. The rigidity of the collar takes some getting used to, though it really does keep out the rain, even when the hood is not being used.
  3. The bulges produced by gear in the four pockets are quite unflattering. At least, they are when you carry a wallet, a small digital camera, liner gloves, and personal audio gear in it almost all the time.
  4. There are no hip-level pockets. Sometimes, this forces me to put my least important electronics in enormously less waterproof pant pockets.
  5. The price is pretty high (C$340), though that becomes less of an issue if it lasts five years or longer, as I fully expect it to.

People with questions can feel free to contact me, or leave a comment. I will probably post some updates when I’ve had the jacket longer and used it in more varied conditions.

[Update: 31 October 2007] This is one tough jacket. Earlier tonight, I was thrown forward off my bicycle onto pavement. I scraped along for a little bit, bruising my arm and ribs. Upon inspection, the jacket shows no visible sign of having suffered from the incident.

After nearly a year of wearing this jacket almost daily and in all conditions, it is still in great shape overall. Buying it was a good choice

Debate Worlds ongoing

Apparently, the University of British Columbia is now hosting the world championships for intercollegiate debate. I remember being at the executive meeting where the idea of bidding was first proposed: back in the Beanery coffeeshop in the Fairview residence. That was in February 2003, during my middle year as the Debate Society treasurer. I still owe Meghan Mathieson many thanks for helping me get through the interminable paperwork associated with the position.

Sometimes, I regret not joining the Oxford Union. While it would have been about £180, it probably would have involved meeting some interesting people. I certainly did through UBC debate. Indeed, debaters seem to be an oddly cohesive group – they are far over-represented among people whose blogs I read, who I speak with online, and who I have generally kept in touch with since leaving Vancouver. Hopefully, if I do go on to do a PhD after working for a couple of years, the school I choose will have an interesting debate society that is not quite as outlandishly priced.

PS. I note with dismay that £180 is now $410.88 Canadian. Falling oil prices can be rough when you are living abroad and “there is a very, very strong positive relationship between movements in oil prices and movements in the value of the Canadian dollar.” (Source)

Another death in Iraq

The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.

Charlie Chapman – “The Great Dictator“

Saddam Hussein’s sentence, discussed here previously, has been carried out. I maintain that it was immoral to kill him, just as it is immoral to take anyone’s life in the pursuit of justice. It is not through the living or dying of individuals that just societies arise, but through the creation and maintenance of fair and impartial institutions. This is why Chapman’s statement, while stirring, is also profoundly naïve. Sadly, very little in the way of a just society seems to be emerging in Saddam’s former kingdom.

I am not sure whether it is legitimate to hope that this will bring some satisfaction to the families of those tortured and murdered by his regime. On the one hand, they deserve whatever kind of compensation can be provided. On the other, encouraging people to delight in the death of a fellow human being seems morally reprehensible. At the very least, let us hope that this action does not spur greater violence in Iraq, and does not cut short the investigation and documentation of the whole sordid history of Saddam’s regime.

[Update: 3:00pm] My friends Lee and Tim have also commented on this matter.