-
Summer 2012 - Vol. 8 No. 4
PLUSA LETTER FROM THE INCOMING EDITORS
GERMANY: A PHOTO ESSAY
RESTROSPECTIVE: A YEAR IN REVIEW
QUEENSINTERNATIONALOBSERVER
US HEGEMONY & THE SECURITY COUNCIL
CANADA & OAS: THE FIRST TWO DECADES
MONSANTO SOILS THE WHEAT ECONOMYJOSEPH KONY: INCONTEXT AND
FACT
FEATURING
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
To the reader,-
-
-
-
)5207+((',725
-
9 R O XP H 1 XP E H U
&217(1764
5
6
8
12
16
17
20
From the Incoming Editors
Will Israel Attack?
Kony in Context
Hegemony & the Security Council
Canada & OAS: The First 20 Years
Campus Forum
Bavaria & Beyond: A Photo Essay
Monsanto & The Wheat Economy
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
Dear reader,
It is with a tremendous amount of honour and excitement that we
accept our posi-tions as the incoming editors for the Queens
International Observer, 2012-2013 edition. As students of political
studies, we are thrilled to !nd a place at Queens to channel our
passion for all things media and foreign a"airs related. Above all,
we want to be able to provide Queens students with the opportunity
to see their editorials, essays and photographs published in a
dynamic and growing campus-wide publication.
During the transitional summer months, well be cooking up unique
and engag-ing ways to continue doing what QIO does best - that is,
to create campus-wide dialogue about foreign a"airs! We will be
working hard to inform ourselves on the ever-changing environment
of international politics, and arming ourselves with fresh new
ideas for strengthening the magazines presence on campus.
So, whether this is your !rst time reading QIO, or if you are a
regular contributor, we invite you to continue to build this
magazine with us! #ere are so many ways to get involved. Did you
attend an inspiring guest lecture or conference on cam-pus?
Consider sending us an editorial to be published in our Campus
Forum. Are you bursting with opinions about the latest developments
in the American presi-dential race? Have them published as an op-ed
piece in our current events section. Did you write an essay worthy
of a wider audience than just your TA? Send it to us as a feature
article! Do you love QIO so much that you want to join our team of
amazing reporters, writers, editors, Tweeters, graphic designers
and all around political junkies? We are hiring right now! Email
your resume and cover letter to [email protected], and lets
talk.
Have a blissful summer and well see you next fall!
Stephanie Rudyk, Editor-in-Chief Vol. 9Brenna Owen and Natasha
Mukhtar, Assistant Editors Vol. 9
FROM THE INCOMING EDITORS
Joanna Plucinska
Editor-in-Chief
Idrees Ali
Assistant Editor, Content
Tristan DiFrancesco
Assistant Editor, Layout
Alexandra Petre
Marketing Director
Malvika Dasani
Solicitor of Submissions
Wenhan Chen
Public Relations Director
Maria Rodriguez
Sponsorship Director
Daniel Hershkop
Discussion Coordinator
Miriam Bart
Staff Reporter
Taylor Anderson
Staff Reporter
This publication is licensed & distributed un-der a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommer-cial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC
BY-NC-SA 3.0) Printed thru Dunning Hall Printing services. All
im-ages in public domain except otherwise noted.
-
9 R O XP H 1 XP E H U
WILL ISRAEL ATTACK?
will want to avoid drawing America into a war, keeping well away
from American tar-gets. Oil prices may soar dramatically, but this
wont last for long as the Saudis can increase their output. In the
end, the world may thank Israel for solving a problem they did not
have the guts to face head on. I personally doubt many of these
predictions. If attacked, the unpopular Ira-nian regime will
certainly respond likewise to avoid appearing weak and inept. Iran
has a solid arsenal of long-range missiles, and Hezbollah hasnt
shied away from attacking Israel before. Indeed, it might be the
perfect distraction from the troubles of the Arab Spring. And any
attack on Israel will be seen as an attack on an American target.
Certain-ly in an election year with pressure from the right, Obama
will be forced to play his hand. An Israeli strike could end badly.
But as Israeli Defence Minis-ter Ehud Barak remarked, Whoever says
later may !nd that later is too late.
tures, including international threats and attacks on Israelis,
proves that the regime has been a"ected and is trying responding.
Still, Obama has not ruled out military in-tervention. His
accomplishments over the past three years seem to prove he is
serious. Yet to the United States, this is only a strategic
problem. To Israel, its ex-istential. By June, many believe that
Iran will have moved enough materials to fa-cilities deep
underground, so that only the US will have the capability to
attack. While America is Israels closest and most power-ful ally,
Netanyahu cannot be complacent. Israel was founded on the premise
that the worlds persecuted Jewry cannot leave its fate in the hands
of others. #is ethos clear-ly weighs heavily on the Prime Minister.
Indeed, the apocalyptic visions of a third world war may be
exaggerated. Many Israeli o$cials claim Iran is a paper tiger. It
has only limited capability to directly attack Israel. Its control
over Hezbollah and Hamas has weakened since the Arab Spring.
Iran
#ere is a strong likelihood that Israel might attack Iran before
June. Once the Director of the CIA believes an attack is imminent,
it is hard to deny that the threat is real. Washington-Tel Aviv
plane routes have been clogged for weeks with high-ranking Israeli
and American o$cials. #e Americans are presumably saying, Yeah, we
got this. #e Israelis are not so sure. Obama says that preventing
Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is pro-foundly in the security
interests of the United States. Regardless of what those on the far
right might claim, he has backed those words up with harsh action.
He has steadily hardened the sanctions regime over the past three
years. He has also ex-panded its international backing, gaining
commitments from the European Union and other rich-world nations
while slowly pushing others to play along. #e sanc-tions are taking
their toll, with the Iranian economy su"ering from trade and
!nan-cial problems. A %urry of aggressive ges-
-
YKONykonykonykonyKONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk
YKONykonykonykonyKONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk onykony
KONYKONykonykonyko ny KONYKONykonykonykony KON YKONykonykonykony
KONYKONy kony konykony KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykonyko ny
KONYKONykonykonykony KON YKONykonykonykony KONYKONy konykonykony
KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykony
(IN CONTEXT)
-
YKONykonykonykonyKONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk
YKONykonykonykonyKONYKONy konykonykony KONYKONykonyk onykony
KONYKONykonykonyko ny KONYKONykonykonykony KON YKONykonykonykony
KONYKONy kony konykony KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykonyko ny
KONYKONykonykonykony KON YKONykonykonykony KONYKONy konykonykony
KONYKONykonyk onykony KONYKONykonykony
,GUHHV$OL$VVLVWDQW(GLWRU
RETROSPECTIVEa year in review
Perhaps the most pivotal event of the year was when Tunisian
street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself
on fire and sparked the Arab Spring.
On March 6th, 2012, something extraor-dinary happened: the
biggest social me-dia campaign in history was launched. #e issue?
Joseph Kony. #e organizers? Invisible Children. In just 24 hours,
there was not one person with a Facebook or Twitter account that
wasnt getting their feed bombarded with people practically begging
them to watch a 30-minute doc-umentary entitled Kony 2012. Now, a
month a&er the campaign started, the video has over 85 million
views. To put that into perspective: if the viewers of the Kony
2012 video were to start their own country, the population would be
between Ethiopia and Vietnam, and it would be the 14th most
populated coun-try in the world. #is kind of aware-ness has not
been matched by any other campaign of any other charity, period. On
March 13th, a week a&er Kony 2012 exploded, another video was
posted. #is one was titled Kony screening provokes anger in Uganda,
and it was released by Al Jazeera. #e video is two minutes and
forty seconds long, and documents how a crowd of Ugandans
practically rioted a&er watching the thirty-minute
documen-tary, saying things like We wanted to see our local people
who were killed. #ese white men, these old white men, are di"erent
from northern Ugandans.#e views on that video? About 550,000. If
viewers of this video were to populate a country, it would be 168th
on Wiki-pedias most populated countries list. #e Kony 2012 campaign
has come under signi!cant !re, even in the West, since it has been
posted. Articles claiming that Invisible Children are propagating
the White Mans Burden, or are solely interested in military
in-tervention, rose up in droves a&er Kony 2012 exploded. Even
more criticize the documentarys simpli!cation of the is-sue, or
plain misstatement of the facts. One of the most informational
articles about the entire issue of the LRA and the countries it has
a"ected came in the form of a International Crisis Group docu-ment,
which was written in November of last year. Even then, the writers
of the document were calling for swi& and im-mediate action to
bring down the LRA. #is leads to an interesting ques-tionhow long
has this been going on? #e LRA formed in the 1980s, as a rebel
group against the government and Ugandas leader, Yoweri Museveni.
When they were forced out of Uganda, they became a proxy army for
the Khar-toum government in the Sudanese civil
of the issues in that area. Indeed, al-though the Kony 2012
campaign strives to make Joseph Kony famous, in many ways he
already is. #e e"orts to stop him have been half-hearted thus far,
but there is hope for the future. #e U.S. military now knows the
strengths and weaknesses of the Ugandan army, the most capable army
in that region to take down the LRA. Strengthening evidence of
Joseph Konys whereabouts is beginning to come to light as well. #e
e"orts to !nd and kill Joseph Kony are ongoingthe US government is
assisting, the Ugandan government is putting in its e"ortsbut the
issue at home is, what was the e"ectiveness of the Kony 2012
campaign? Although the organization behind it is anything but
trustworthy, the movement in it-self has been an e"ective one to
say the least. Without it, countless people would live their lives
without knowing of Joseph Konys deeds. If you need a more reliable
charity to donate to that is guaranteed to help the e"orts to stop
Kony, look to Africare, Children of the Nations, or the African
Medical and Re-search Foundation. Alternatively, you can look to
CharityNavigator.org to help you !nd reliable charities to donate
to.
war. When that con%ict ended, the LRA negotiated with Kampala
for the end of the Ugandan con%ict. But neither sides fully
committed, and Joseph Kony never showed up to sign the dra&
agreement. Now, the LRA is a dangerous, causeless, lethal band of
soldiers just trying to stay alive. #e reasons that the group, and
Kony himself, have not been brought to justice are complicated, but
result mostly from a lack of political initiative from governments
of South-ern Sudan, the Central African Republic (CAR), or the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRA). Since the LRA operates on the
outskirts of all of these countries, their leaders see no reason to
concern themselves with the group, especially since Kony is so
di$cult to capture. #e most dedicated attempt was Operation
Lightning #under, initiated in 2008 by the Ugandan government.
Using U.S. intelligence, they launched a ground and air strike
against LRA camps in the DRA, but their e"orts were in vain. Four
years later, and Kony still isnt captured. In October of 2011,
Obama sent one hundred combat-ready troops to try and capture him,
due to the e"orts of Invisible Children and other NGOs to raise
awareness
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
tions debates for decades. With origins in the Zionist project
of the 1920s and 1930s, con%ict and security threats on both the
Israel and Palestinian sides have resulted in perpetual unrest in
the Jewish and Arab communities. #e orig-inal goal of the
Zionist-Israelis was the creation of the state of Israel as a
Jewish state and the liberation of the Palestin-ian peoples within
what they believe to be rightful Israel territory. In 1916, un-der
the covert Sykes-Picot Agreement, Britain and France divided the
region and furthered existing tensions under the Balfour
Declaration in 1917, when Britains Foreign Minister dedicated
Britains work to the establishment in Palestine of a national home
for the Jewish people. A&er the British rule of Palestine was
handed over to the UN in 1947 in order to deal with con%ict
be-tween Israel-Arab peoples, the UN split the territory into
separate Israel and Pal-estine states. #e uneven split of
territo-ry meant the solution was only support-ed by the Israeli
side. #e problematic relationship of the UN with this con%ict
therefore begins at its origins. To further the issue, Israels
admission to the UN in 1949 as a peace-loving state under UN
General Assembly Resolution 69 ar-rived. With constant con%ict
between the two sides and numerous attempts at a solution, the UN
released a de!n-ing resolution for the Israel-Palestinian con%ict
in 1967: Resolution 242. Reso-lution 242 came in response to the
Six-Day war between Israel and a handful of Arab states that
resulted in Israel seizing the Golan Heights from Syria, as well as
Gaza and Sinai from Egypt. #e reso-lution was titled, #e Situation
in the
the United States pursues their self-in-terest. As such, the
Security Council has o&en become a supporter and protector for
control regimes. #e chronological actions of the United States in
the Secu-rity Council will be followed, which are rooted in the
eras of bipolarity, unipo-larity, and the beginnings of
multipolar-ity as characteristics of the international system.
First, it will discuss the Cold War era where a bipolar
international order characterized the actions of the Reagan
administration as well as the beginnings of George H.W. Bushs
administration. Second, the actions of the H.W. Bush and Clinton
administrations in the con-text of a unipolar international system
will be discussed. Finally, the role of the George W. Bush and the
Obama admin-istrations in Security Council resolu-tions in a
transition towards multilater-alism will be discussed.
THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT: #e Israel- Palestine con%ict has
been at the centre of international rela-
0LULDP%DUW6WDII:ULWHU
RETROSPECTIVEa year in review
I think the most signi!cant part of the school year was when the
United States de-clared the end of the War in Iraq. #is has been an
ongoing war for several years and with it !nally coming to an end,
hopefully peace in the Middle East is something that
the United States can contribute to.
HEGEMONY & THE SEcurity council
#e United Nations Security Council is perceived as a universal
international entity that undertakes primary respon-sibility for
the maintenance of interna-tional peace and security. Operating
under the assumption that the UN is a neutral, peacekeeping body,
the role of the Big Five for determining the agen-da and decisions
of the Security Coun-cil, and the UN at large, is o&en
neglect-ed in theories surrounding international institutions.
Despite the UNs priority shi& towards resolving the
Israel-Pales-tinian con%ict, it is clear that the US use of the
Security Council for the pursuit of state interests has played a
fundamen-tal role in supporting and protecting the control regime
in Israel. #is is impor-tant to the study of managing treatment of
minorities, as it evaluates the realist claim that rationality of
states cannot be curbed by the international system. With a focus
on the case of Israel and the UN goals in Resolution 242, I will
argue that the United Nations Security Council is a mechanism
through which
-
9 R O XP H 1 XP E H U
Middle East and become the reference point for peaceful goals of
the UNs role in the con%ict. Six years later in 1973, the Yom
Kippur War, the UN imple-mented resolution 242 and demanded
compliance, in addition to the passing of Resolution 338 under
which the US, So-viet Union, and the UN called for cease-!re for a
just and durable peace in the Middle East. In 1987, mass uprisings
against Israels occupation of Gaza lead to the proposal of a two
state solution by the Palestinian National Council and a
Palestinian goal of settlement based on UN Resolutions 242 and
338.
UN PARALYZED IN A BILATERAL WORLD:
As Sarsar argues, the bilateral world order of the Cold War
turned the UN into a pawn in the game of su-perpower politics. As
he discusses, dur-ing the Cold War era, the US took on de facto
responsibility for the promotion of a liberal ideology and the
function-ality of a free world. Under the Reagan administration
during the Cold War, the US strived to assert its ideological
dominance over the Soviet Union and thus, consensus among the !ve
perma-nent members of the Security Council was rendered
unattainable. During this critical period and the shaping of a new
world order, the Reagan administra-tions common label as the most
pro-Israel presidency within the US set the precedent for US-Israel
relations hence-forth. Under Ronald Reagan and George Shultz, the
US invoked their veto in the Security Council a total of 18 times
to protect Israel. Of these vetoes, half put an end to attempts to
condemn Israels invasion of Lebanon as well as refusal to surrender
territory in Lebanon. he other nine vetoes protected Israel from
inter-national criticism for individual acts. Notably, in the
majority of these cases, the voter count was 14-1, meaning the US
was the sole state responsible for the resolutions failure. One
example of this is the US veto on Feb. 1, 1988 for a Reso-lution
that Called on Israel to abandon its policies against the
Palestinian upris-ing that violate the rights of the occu-pied
Palestinians as well as to abide by the Fourth Geneva
Convention.Such blatant disregard for the protection of human
rights exposes the self-interested motivations of US decisions
within the Security Council. US demographics, popular opinion in
support of a pro-Is-
rael government in Washington, as well as funding and support
provided by Jew-ish and Protestant interest groups that identify
more closely with a Jewish state. From an international relations
perspec-tive, the United States also bene!ts from the military and
economic dependency of Israel. As such, the US can be said to have
abused their veto power within the Security Council for the
maintenance of US-Israeli relations, and notably at the expense of
human rights protection and con%ict resolution. US decisions within
the Security Council during bilateral-ism in the Cold War era were
pivotal for the in%uence of the US on Middle Eastern decisions for
the future. By pro-viding a set of narrow options to the Soviet
Union, the US e"ectively called for a reduction of power within the
Se-curity Council, unless they gave Israeli
support. Evidently, both options would result in contradictions
and failures for the Soviet Union; thus the United States emerged
as the central voice within the Security Council.
UNIPOLARITY & DECISIONS:A&er the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991, United States interest and agenda became a central
concern for all inter-national actors. With the emergence of a
unipolar international order in the post-Cold War era, Glennon
argues that the Security Councils credibility was gradually eroded
as the US rose to become a hegemonic power. I argue this has
implications for the function of the Security Council as a
mechanism for furthering state interest as US goals and interests-
through the use of the veto- in-hibited the e"ectiveness of the
Council.
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
relevant in the examination of the US role within the UN
Security Council on the topic of Israel. In many ways we see this
transformation taking place in the dynamics between the !ve
permanent members. Because the US has existed as a hegemonic power
for so long, it is clear that their foreign policy strategies still
re%ect their place in a unipolar world. Under the Obama
administration, it has been argued that US-Israel relations are
deteriorating as the US struggles to jus-tify their biased support
of the Netan-yahu governments human rights viola-tions against the
Palestinians. Striving to maintain its hegemonic superiority in the
international system, the United States found itself in a fragile
situation with regards to a recent Security Coun-
Gore ran for the presidency.In addi-tion to a large contribution
of military and economic aid to Israelduring his term, Clinton
mediated talks between the two parties in Washington, but later
announced the failure of this endeavor. Nonetheless, these actions
by the US ad-ministration are indicative of a unipolar world order,
and the US mentality that their government, as opposed to the
Se-curity Council, was the most e"ective forum for peaceful
negotiations and a solution to the Israel-Palestine con%ict.
TRANSITION TO MULTIPOLARITY: #e transition of the interna-tional
system from unipolarity to mul-tipolarity is hotly debated among IR
scholars today. #is debate becomes
Under the H.W. Bush administration, the veto was used four times
in order to insulate Israels control regime from international
pressures as a result of its heinous human rights abuses against
the Palestinians. In total, 68 of 100 resolu-tions condemning
Israel passed, and it became obvious that the UN in a post-Cold War
world could not be e"ective if states chose to make reckless use of
veto power. #erefore a&er 1990, the US be-came more cautious of
using the veto; thus, other powerful means of support-ing Israel
were adopted. In this regard, it is clear that the Security Council
is a forum designed for debate and resolution in the best inter-est
of states, and does not provide limi-tations for the promotion of a
dominant state interest in a unipolar international order. #rough
an examination of the US main goals under H.W. Bush and the Clinton
administrations, it is clear that a partiality towards the newly
elected La-bour coalition in 1992, in conjunction with a US foreign
policy of moral inter-ference, prompted a focus on reaching a peace
agreement between the Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. #is is
es-pecially prevalent in the actions taken by the Clinton
administration with a re-establishment of dialogue with the PLO and
the signing of the Interim Agree-ment between Israel and Palestine.
In-terestingly, Clinton was less vocal about the Palestinians when
Vice President Al
RETROSPECTIVEa year in review
In my opinion, some of the most prevalent news in the past year
has been the ousting
of long-time standing political dictators. This includes
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and
most recently Yemen. All of these countries have seen
transitions into a more demo-cratic nations and in the case of
Tunisia especially there is great optimism for the
countrys move towards democracy.
0DULD5RGULJXH]6SRQVRUVKLS'LUHFWRU
-
9 R O XP H 1 XP E H U
cil resolution against new Israel settle-ments. Use of the veto
power against this resolution would have negative af-fects for US-
Palestine relations that past administrations have focused on
repair-ing, whereas abstaining from voting would anger Israel.
Within the debate on this issue, the Obama administration also
faces criticism from Democratic and Republican supporters of Israel
in Congress for trying to avoid a veto. #e Obama administrations
enactment of the veto against all other permanent member states
condemnation of Israeli settlements is a primary example of the use
of the Council as a mechanism for pursuit of state interest. With
individual state interests placed before the com-mon goals of
peacekeeping and secu-rity under the Council, it is clear that the
decisions made are not necessarily those that are the most e"ective
for the collective international system. Rather, decisions are
based on what is best for the individual permanent members. In a
unipolar world, the interests of the United States are central.
However, in-formation suggests that the US may be required to yield
this central power and a lack of consideration for others actors in
an emerging multipolar system. Arguably, this shi& is already
occurring as China (notably a permanent member of the Security
Council) is becoming a leading economic power. #is is re-%ected
within the Security Council itself with China and Russia leading an
initia-tive to combat piracy in Somalia and its joint initiative
with France and Russia to oppose the Gada$ regime. It is clear that
with an increased presence on the economic world stage, China is
being granted a more central role within the Security Council.
Indeed, this is highly problematic given the ongoing human rights
abuses within China today as Ti-bet, Taiwan, and minority groups
such as the Zhuang, Manchu, and Uyghur minorities face human rights
abuses and vertical accountability within gov-ernance is largely
absent. According to Freedom House, #e Chinese govern-ment is
hoping to enjoy the bene!ts of the global economy without
jeopardiz-ing its political control. Interestingly enough, this
issue rarely appears on the agenda of the UN Security Council.
Within a global context that is arguably moving towards
multipolarity this is unsurprising. It is clear that amongst the
Security Councils !ve permanent mem-
seeable accountability within UN legal structures and
codi!cations. In the case of Israel, UN resolutions have o&en
been non-binding, or simply disregarded by Israel with no visible
consequences to follow. With this in mind, one may spec-ulate as to
the relevance of a discussion surrounding the UN Security Council
as an e"ective institution for moderating the Israel-Palestine
con%ict. Regardless of the lack of practical power and in%u-ence of
the UN Security Council, how-ever, this paper has argued that the
UN as an international body is signi!cant for the study of
international relations within various international orders.
Ad-ditionally, because of the power of the !ve permanent members,
the UN Secu-rity Council has proven an ideal body in which to
examine support or condem-nation of an international con%ict by key
state actors in the international system. To this e"ect, it has
been argued that the Security Council di"ers from other UN
organizations as its decisions focus on political considerations as
opposed to international law. It is important to note that the UN
Security Council has the distinct ability to in%uence the actions
of the UN at large because all members of the UN are entitled to
carrying out the decisions made by the Security Council. #is means
that the veto power of the !ve permanent members carries criti-cal
weight for the decisions made by the UN, and its support or
denunciation of individual states. It is for these reasons, that
the Security Council is exemplary for the demonstration of the UNs
par-
bers, the importance of state relations with China as a leading
economic actor are too precious to push for serious ac-tion against
human rights violations by the Security Council.
EFFECTIVENESS OF A REALIST APPROACH
A central criticism to these argu-ments is that a realist
explanation of a state-centric international order where states
have security as their principle interest, doesnt account for the
signi!-cant role of sub-state actors in shaping foreign policy
decisions regarding Israel and Palestine and China. Critics of
real-ism o&en use Israel as an example of a state where a
realist explanation is insuf-!cient due to the religious dynamic of
the con%ict taking place. Upon an ex-amination of the domestic
factors such as interest group support for pro-Israel policies in
the US, this paper has begun to address anti-realist concerns over
a state-centric theoretical framework for the study of
international relations. Un-fortunately, addressing all factors
that shape US foreign policy is not possible within the parameters
of this essay. As such, this paper will discuss in greater detail,
a more general criticism sur-rounding the analysis of the Security
Council.
WHY THE SECURITY COUNCIL?#e authority and applicability of the
UN amongst a changing international order is o&en questioned by
state and non-state actors due to a lack of fore-
$OH[DQGUD3HWUH0DUNHWLQJ'LUHFWRU
RETROSPECTIVEa year in review
The most important issue facing the world today is global
migration, along with the psychological impact of globalization.
The inability of sovereign
states to regulate and integrate the number of newcomers each
year, paired with the increas-ing desired of people to move for the
purpose
of human security or economic gain, represents the most powerful
demographic time-bomb we currently face. The shifting discourse
around the
idea of home and what that means, as redefined by a new group of
digital nomads and existential
migrants, is bound to challenge the idea of national borders
even further.
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
has discussed the decisions of the United States, and the !ve
permanent members of Security Council through the chrono-logical
progression of a changing inter-national order. #rough the actions
of the Reagan, H.W. Bush administrations and a bilateral Cold War
period, the UN became a paralyzed international entity. During the
Clinton administration, in a unipolar world order, the interests of
the United States played a signi!cant role in determining the
priorities of the Security Council. Finally, this essay has
explained the criticisms of the Obama administrations treatment of
Security Council resolutions viewed as unipo-lar which
multi-polarized of the inter-national system. #is is signi!cant not
only for an analysis of the UNs response to the treatment of
minorities, but also to provide a framework of analysis of
in-ternational institutions at large.
tionality of international institutions at large into question.
#erefore a greater signi!cance must be placed on states as opposed
to international bodies in an analysis of the international system.
As such, the role of the United States in the maintenance or
denunciation of control regimes has implications for the way in
which power is allocated in the study of international relations.
As previously acknowledged, state-centric analysis of international
relations risks neglecting fundamental sub-state actors that play a
signi!cant role in shaping foreign policy. With a focus on the case
of Israel and the UN goals in Resolution 242, I have argued that
the United Nations Se-curity Council is a mechanism through which
the United States pursues their self-interest. As such, the
Security Coun-cil has o&en become a supporter and protector for
control regimes. #is paper
tiality as a forum through which states pursue their
self-interest.
UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL GROUPS:
Within the chronological dis-cussion on the role of the Security
Council for the promotion of US inter-ests, the UNs lack of
applicability in a changing world order becomes a key issue. It
would seem that the collective goals of peacekeeping and security
that the Council is designed to uphold are nave in a unipolar
international order. #e power of US politics and ideology in
relation to other states has, as seen in the case of Israel, warped
the impartial-ity Security Council decisions, as states abuse their
veto power in order to en-sure international support for their
al-lies and interests. #e applicability of this issue extends
beyond the United Nations, however, and brings the func-
#e Organization of American States (OAS) is basically the
Western Hemi-spheres version of the EU. Little known to Canadians
outside of economists and policy makers concerned with Latin
American issues, the OAS has, since its inception in the immediate
wake of World War II, stood as the main forum for multilateral
negotiation between the thirty-!ve countries comprising the world
on this side of the Atlantic. #e in%uence of the OAS on all
socio-political matters in the Americas has in-creased dramatically
in the last two de-cades that is, when Canada the middle power,
a&er years of reluctance to for-mally join the OAS family,
!nally sat down to the OAS table in 1990 as a full-%edged OAS
member. Over the course of the Cold War, Canada oriented itself
largely toward European and Asian alli-ances; unwilling, according
to outsiders, to put itself in the position of opposing Washington
on particular Latin Ameri-ca issues or else become a U.S. puppet.
Yet the close of the eighties saw the fall of a number of
dictatorships and the stabilization of economies south of the Rio
Grande. #is ultimately prompt-
ed Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to search for new horizons for
Canada by placing priority on enhancing Canadas relations with its
hemispheric neigh-bours. #e enormity of Canadas con-tribution to
the OAS in its !rst twenty years of formal participation is not
sur-prising given Canadas position as one of the only two countries
in the Americas with G8 status. But Canada has endured its share of
OAS-related criticism too. Particularly in the context of the
signi!-cant changes to the world order since 9-11 (heightened
international security, increased globalization, shi&s in the
balance of global socio-political power, etc.), this criticism
demands re%ection on Canadas potential future OAS role.
CONTRIBUTION TO OAS From the moment it joined, Canada has been
largely successful in getting the OAS to respond to Ottawas
priorities (Torres 2007; GoC 2006). #e most immediate of these was
OAS ad-ministrative, !scal and technical reform. Under the
stewardship of Jean-Paul Hu-bert, Canadas !rst ambassador to the
OAS, Canada demanded that existing
OAS member-states pay any outstand-ing membership dues; the goal
being enhancement of OAS credibility on the world stage (Belanger
and Mace 1999: 168). With this done, Canada then pushed OAS members
to shore up the organizations capacity to respond to potential
hemispheric crises, social, eco-nomic or otherwise. #e result was
the revitalization of OAS structures initially set up to provide
non-governmental organizations with a more formal role within the
OAS, and indeed Canada working closely with Chile and Mexico to
implement via the Managua Protocol a new Inter-American Council for
In-tegral Development (Tittemore 1995), an OAS body concerned with
economic development and poverty reduction throughout the Americas.
It was Canadas early moves in support of OAS mechanisms for
safe-guarding democracy through multilat-eral diplomacy, however,
that have had the most lasting impact (Major 2007; Gosselin and
#erian 1999; McKenna 1995; Mackenzie 1994; Tittemore 1995). Not
only did Canada back all key OAS resolutions and declarations,
including
Canada & OAS7KHUVWWZHQW\\HDUV
E\5\DQ+LJJLWW
-
9 R O XP H 1 XP E H U
1991s Resolution 1080, part of what has come to be called the
Santiago Commitmenti, but it was also instru-mental in the
development of working groups within the OAS mandated to ensure
Santiago deliverables, a stand-out example being the OASs Unit for
the Promotion of Democracy (UPD). Between 1994 and 2004, headed by
Ca-nadian Elizabeth Spehar, the UPD sent sixty observation missions
throughout the Americas to ensure electoral fairness and
transparency (CRS 2005: 4). #e ef-!cacy of the UPD was indeed
strength-ened via resolutions proposed by Cana-da at the OASs 30th
General Assembly in Windsor, Ontario, leading to the OASs Special
Fund for Strengthening Democracy a kind of UPD !nancial reserve
(GoC 2007a).ii And a year a&er Windsor, when political scandal
struck the Fujimori government in Peru, Ca-nadian diplomats
successfully worked to make the April 2001 #ird Summit of the
Americas in Qubec City a de-mocracy summit (Major 2007: 85). #e
Inter-American Democratic Charter found much of its structure in
Qubec City deliberations (GoC 2007b: 2). To-gether with the UPD, it
has now made free elections more or less a regional norm. One
upshot of increased politi-cal stability throughout the Americas
was the freeing up of OAS technical and administrative resources,
subsequently allowing Canada to help the OAS cre-ate energy,
bio-diversity, and pollution action plans at various
ministerial
meetings, including the Summit of the Americas, Miami, 1994, the
Pan Ameri-can Summit on Sustainable Develop-ment, Santa Cruz,
Bolivia, 1996, and Santa Cruz + 10 in 2006. Former per-manent
representative of Canada to the OAS, Brian Dickson, chaired the
OASs working group on the environment, and Ottawas current
Environment Com-missioner, Scott Vaughan, served as the
organizations Director of the De-partment of Sustainable
Development from 2003 to 2008. In turn, another upshot has been
greater OAS focus on human security and capacity-building, which
Canada now partitions a growing proportion of its total annual $11
mil-lion OAS contributions to.iv Canadas 1997 signing of the Ottawa
Convention against landmines, coupled with a series
of annual Canadian aid dollars totaling $7.6 million, has helped
see Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala and Suriname de-clare their
territories free of the impact of mines and unexploded ordinance.
$2 million grants by the Canadian govern-ment in each of 2006 and
2007 likewise supported OAS programs related to disaster
management, e-government, journalism and access to information. #e
overall package of OAS initiatives in these areas constitutes a
programmatic approach which responds to a number of commitments in
the context of the Sum-mits of the Americas process, noted for-mer
Canadian Ambassador to the OAS, Graeme C. Clark (OAS 2007). For OAS
Secretary-General, Jos Miguel Insulza, Canadas contribution is
clear evidence that development policies promoted by the OAS share
the perspective of the Ca-nadian government (OAS 2007).
CRITICISMS OF MEMBERSHIP But to what extent does this ap-parent
micro-management, if not the disproportionate !nancial resources
poured into the OAS by Canada, actu-ally embody hegemonic
institutional control? Despite McKennas (1999) the claim that there
is very little evidence for Canadas membership in the organi-zation
having eroded or compromised the OASs policymaking sovereignty or
independence, others see di"erently. Daudelin and Dosman (1998)
argue that Ottawas Department of Foreign A"airs and International
Trade has tended to exaggerate Canadian in%u-ence on the OAS while
simultaneously underestimating the damage caused by evident
political appointments. In fact,
RETROSPECTIVEa year in review
The most relevant news piece for the 2011-2012 school year for
me was the death of Kim
Jong Il in December. He had been so dominant in the Korean
theatre for so long, it was hard to really grasp that this powerful
figure was gone. He was an enigma: feared, reviled, mocked
but a political figure nonetheless. There is much uncertainty in
the wake of his death, and
I think the world may have lost a thorn in its side that it had
grown accustomed to, and had given up trying to take out. The
question now
is: where will the DPRK go?
:HQKDQ&KHQ
3XEOLF5HODWLRQV'LUHFWRU
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
they note, other OAS member-states are o&en surprised at
Canadas use of the OAS as a building-block for norm gen-eration at
regional level to project issues globally at the United Nations or
other forums a use not all in keeping with Latin Americans and
Caribbeans typical concept of the institution (p.4). Canadas
e"ectiveness in terms of the defense of human rights is anoth-er
point of concern, further suggesting that nations of the Global
North, Cana-da included, see !t to play by a di"erent set of rules
than a Global South they are putatively assisting. Canada
consistent-ly presents itself as a strong supporter of democracy
promotion in the region yet refuses to adhere to certain
inter-Amer-ican instruments established to protect human rights.
Despite being vocally critical of the human rights records of El
Salvador, Peru, Colombia and Nica-ragua, Canada, like the United
States, has itself yet to even ratify the American Convention on
Human Rights or agree to accept the jurisdiction of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. #is re%ects a clear lack of
political leadership in Canada given that it is possible for the
government to ratify the Convention without, contrary to Ottawas
insistence, contradicting the constitutional pow-ers of the
Canadian federation (#ede 2005). Indeed a 2003 independent study
carried out by a Canadian government appointed Standing Senate
Committee
ers see Ottawas foreign policy as aligned more closely with that
of Washington today than in any other point since Can-ada took up
full membership in the OAS and signed NAFTA. Neufeld (1999) for
example argues that the U.S. depends on second-tier core states
like Canada ful!lling their functions as legitimiz-ers; not to
mention taking a lead role in contexts where U.S. activism would do
more harm than good. Major (2007), in turn, contends that national
interests (domestic, regional and bilateral, nota-bly vis-a-vis the
U.S.) are indeed at play when Canada choses to take a front role in
bilateral or multilateral initiatives to defend, restore or
strengthen democra-cy in the region.
CANADAS FUTURE IN OAS Multilateral government insti-tutions
around the world became more complex places in the a&ermath of
9/11. #e OAS currently faces massive pres-sures over the future of
Haiti, growing concerns about social unrest in coun-tries such as
Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela, and of course the
insta-bility of Central American countries, particularly Mexico, as
a result of drug warfare. #ere is also the long-stand-ing question
of Cuba, which recently rejected an invitation by the OAS to at
long-last join the OAS family. In all this Canada is more than a
bystander. It can help tackle these and other challenges while
playing a more e"ective role in the OAS in the future. Canadas
current engagement in the Americas, as announced by Prime
on Human Rights found that there are in fact no compelling
reasons for Cana-da not to ratify (GoC 2003). For former Canadian
Ambas-sador to the OAS, Paul Durand, has stated that Canada is seen
at the OAS as a balanced participant, a reasonable player not
driven by the agenda of any country or region (GoC 2006: 8).
Oth-ers arent so sure. Rodriguez (2006) ex-presses concern that
Latin America may perceive Canada as too dependent on the U.S. and
thus vulnerable to pressure from Washington. And there may be some
merit to this fear. Some observ-
-
9 R O XP H 1 XP E H U
Minister Stephen Harper in Santiago, Chili, July 2007, is based
on three key objectives: promoting and enhancing (i) prosperity,
(ii) security, and (iii) the fundamental values of freedom,
de-mocracy, human rights and the rule of law (GoC 2007c). But, as
#rrse Bouchard (2008) of the Center for In-ternational Studies and
Cooperation, Montral, says, Canada needs to be es-pecially
attentive to social justice given its privileged situation; not
necessarily exercising the most power or having the strongest
voice, but simply support-ing national initiatives whether those of
Brazil or other countries to !ght poverty and exclusion. #at Canada
actually backed out of negotiations on the Dra& American
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2008, a
documented supported by Canadas own First Nations peoples, brings
Bouchards concerns into sharp relief.v #e environment remains
an-other hemispheric priority to which Canada can make a more
signi!cant contribution. Groups such as the Sierra Club have
expressed concern that the eagerness of OAS member-states to
pur-sue economic prosperity too o&en sees the organization
direct all its political and technical energy towards trade
lib-eralization at the expense of rigorous en-
vironmental impact analyses. McGills Philip Oxhorn (2008) is
optimistic that Canada can help deal with the environ-mental
impacts that go hand-in-hand with the regional search for economic
prosperity, pointing toward Canadas ef-forts to deal with the oil
issue as some-thing it can share and invest in vis-a-vis Latin
America. But, it must be said, greening the economy has in the past
decade not been an evident strength of either the Canadian or U.S.
Govern-ment. As the U.S. makes moves to re-inforce its battered
!nancial infrastruc-ture, Canada, the largest of the potential
RETROSPECTIVEa year in review
As evidenced by the article I wrote for this issue of the QIO, I
believe Kony 2012 was the most captivat-ing story to emerge in the
2011-2012 year. The huge amount of support and attention it
received through
social media was nothing short of astonishing. It almost acted
as a case study of how to make a suc-
cessful social media campaign.
7D\ORU$QGHUVRQ6WDII:ULWHUregional counter balances to U.S.
power, can pressure Washington to make more assertive environmental
moves in the Americas, not to mention halting the southward %ow of
guns and laundered money to Central America. Canada can also place
itself at the forefront of collective e"orts deployed to protect
democracy when a governance crises erupts in a member state of the
OAS, as it did in Honduras in 2009, where a Congress and Supreme
Court-backed military coup overthrew the Presidency of Manuel
Zalaya; provoking the OAS to suspend the country from the
organiza-tion until order in Honduras is restored.
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
/news /events /opinionCAMPUSFORUM
RETROSPECTIVEa year in review
%UHQQD2ZHQ,QFRPLQJ$VVLVWDQW(GLWRU
I am particularly interested in the rise of Rick Santorum as a
popular candidate for the Republican nomination. That Santorums
unwaveringly socially conservative and often controversial
values have garnered support
indicates Barack Obama will face a frustrated and changed
electorate in November 2012.
6WHSKDQLH5XG\N,QFRPLQJ(GLWRULQ&KLHI
1DWDVKD0XNKWDU,QFRPLQJ$VVLVWDQW(GLWRU
I think the robo-call scandal of the 2011 Canadian federal
elections is one of the most important sto-ries this year. While
technically not in the realm of 'foreign affairs', this attempted
sabotage of Cana-dians' right to participate in free and fair
elections
has wider implications. Canada cannot be an example of democracy
for other countries if it can
not meet democracy's most basic tenets itself.
The world watched when citizens in Egypt of different
socio-economic statuses, backgrounds, and religions united in
protests against an undemocratic govern-ment at Tahrir square. The
protest was partly organized using prominent social
networking sites. The revolution is part of the Arab Spring, a
series of events among the biggest international news stories of
the year. Though Egyptian Presi-dent Mubarak and his regime have
been overthrown, it remains unclear in which direction the state is
headed. The Egyptian revolution opens important questions about
transitions to democratic regimes and the stability of other
repressive gov-ernments in the region. The waves of protest have
also spread to Tunisia, Libya and Syria among other countries. On a
lighter note, its also the mark of a new era when individuals can
decide whether or not they are attending a revolution
by joining an event on Facebook.
Volume Eight of the QIO is drawing to a close, but next years
team is already in place; were all excited to hand the magazine
over to an extremely capable group. As you may have no-ticed, we
have scattered our thoughts on the most critical events of the past
publishing year. This issue of campus forum presents the incoming
editorial staff and their thoughts on past year in international
affairs. Dont hes-itate to the new QIO staff, as always, at
[email protected]
-
/news /events /opinion
Nowhere is so quintessentially German as a Biergarten on a sunny
afternoon. The place is worn, handsome and immortal,but everywhere,
new life works its way through the cracks of age. Cold beer is
brewed just inside, and has been for six centuries; for a dime less
than water,
why not have three with lunch?
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
Leaving the state of Rhine-land-Palatinate, a train travels
along the rails that played a pivotal role in shaping Ger-many.
Since unification and the economic integration that rail systems in
the Zollverien facilitated, this has remained the most affordable
and com-prehensive transportation.
Lovers and loners alike em-brace the juxtaposed natural and
architectural beauty of
Nurnberg, a modern city that has overflown medieval walls. The
castle keep once held the
Imperial crown jewels and other riches, but following the
de-
struction of the city and the Al-lied occupation, many of
Nurn-
bergs treasures were lost.
TRAVEL
-
9 R O XP H 1 XP E H U
Wind power in Oberfranken, as in the rest of Germany, is
growing. Alternative energy will continue to grow as the entire
German nuclear pro-gramme was halted follow-ing the Fukishima
meltdown. While the northern coast is best suited for wind
ventures, solar, geothermal, and hydro-electric resources are being
harnessed everywhere.
The infamous speed and danger of the Autobahn is out of sight
and mind as kilome-tres of highway stand still at rush hour.
Constantly un-
der repair, and consistently busy, the core of European
infrastructure is undeniably hindered by such an ineffi-
cient system, not to mention the environmental burden of
thousands of idling engines.
TRAVEL
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
MONSANTO SOILS THE CANADIAN
WHEAT ECONOMY
dian Wheat Board went to court to !ght the introduction of this
Bill. Ritz, how-ever, disobeyed the law due to the exclu-sion of
grain from being sold through the CWB. Bill C-18 came into e"ect as
of December 2011 and in August 2012, the Canadian market will open
up for any buyers and conducting business with the CWB will be
optional. Canadian farmers have voiced their message to the
government yet no progress has been made. #e Canadian farmers
advocate their stance on the is-sue: We will not sit back and watch
this government steamroll over farmers. We are going to stand our
ground and !ght for farmers. #e chair of the CWBs farmer-controlled
board of directors clearly stated, For months, Minister Ritz has
been claiming that the recent federal election was a mandate for
the govern-ment to dismantle the CWB. Now we know otherwise. #ere
is no mandate from farmers to strip away their market-ing power. #e
National Farmers Union says that farmers should decide the fate
MNC capitalists in a way that will have lasting e"ects on
Canadian farms. #ey are going to eradicate original and or-ganic
seeds that Canadian farmers have developed and bred over decades to
give Canada a thriving crop economy. #e freedom of these farmers
will be lost if they buy Monsantos seeds. #e National Farmers Union
of Canada continuously has vehement support of the Canadian Wheat
Board because it is a monopoly; the countrys only buyer of wheat
and barley. In October 2011, the conserva-tive government under
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Agriculture Minis-ter Gerry Ritz
proposed Bill C-18: An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board
and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts.
It gives grain farmers marketing freedom to choose to use the
Canadian Wheat Board or other multinational grain com-panies. A
group that supports the Cana-
Due to the death date of CWBs single desk authority in August
2012, the National Farmers Union is trying to prepare to !ght for
what they, and the majority of Canadian farmers want. Di-anne
Dowling is the president of NFU Local 316 which covers Kingston and
the surrounding area. Dowling spoke at a !rst year global
development lec-ture to discuss the crisis at hand for local
farmers, such as those that take part in the farmers market held
outside of the John Deutsch University Centre every Wednesday.
Dowling shared her per-sonal a$liation with the NFU and pro-jected
a message not only for the sake of the NFU, but for the best
interest of people that will be a"ected by Monsanto getting
involved with local business.Dowling outlined that farmers who are
members of the National Farmers Union of Canada must !ght against
the assaul-tive American multinational corpora-tion, Monsanto.
Monsanto is aggres-sively escalating up the chain of ruthless
-
RETROSPECTIVEa year in review
I wouldnt say its the most important, but one of the most
underreported news stories has been Myanmars fast and peaceful
transi-tion to democracy. People understandably doubted the
military juntas sincerity when they announced a transition to
civilian gov-ernment. But, over the year, Myanmar has
genuinely changed. What a positive story to come out of so much
terrible news.
'DQLHO+HUVKNRS'LVFXVVLRQ&RRUGLQDWRU
of the grain marketing agency; not the MPs. #e CWB inquired
amongst farm-ers and proved that a clear majority sup-port the
single desk it holds. #e National Farmers Union outlines ten
speci!c reasons why they do not want Monsantos genetically-modi!ed
wheat. 1. Market loss. International customers buy 82% of Canadas
wheat. #ey have said they will not be buying Canadian GM wheat. 2.
#e end of organic agriculture. GM wheat threatens organic
agriculture prominence in Canada. As can be seen in GM canola, it
is impossible for or-ganic farmers to grow that crop due to seed
supply contamination and pollen dri& mean that organic farmers
cannot ensure their crops be free of GM seeds. GM wheat and the
subsequent GM crops will reduce organic farmers and reduce crops.
3. Lower prices for farmers. GM wheat will decrease current
Canadian de-mands for wheat. GM-free, high-quali-ty, organic
Canadian wheat, on the other hand, could result in a competitive
ad-vantage. 4. Health Concerns. People around the world question
the safety of GM foods, so why risk it? Health regulations
could
be enforced but the Canadian govern-ment promotes the GM food
industry.5. Environmental damage. GM presence in the environment
lasts forever, it can-not be recalled, contained, or controlled. GM
canola cross-pollinates with non GM-canola. #ere are no known
long-term ecosystem e"ects of genetically-modifying the planets
food crops.6. Agronomic costs. GM Roundup Ready ensures that weeds
die and wheat survives. Farmers will need to use extra chemicals to
control the maintenance of this and the estimated annual weed
con-trol cost accumulates to $400 million.7.Segregation wont work.
Monsanto thinks the solution lies in keeping GM and non-GM wheat
separate from !eld to customer. However, segregation
would fail because GM varieties will contaminate wheat seed
supplies.8. Labelling. Monsanto and the Canadi-an government oppose
labelling to hide that customers are eating GM food. Companies
believe GM foods should be le& to the market. #e NFU disagrees,
and !nd it illegitimate to introduce new GM foods without labeling
and inform-ing the public about what they are buy-ing and
consuming.9. Corporate control. Transnationals, such as Monsanto,
are gaining more control, through patents and courts, of the food
supply; not only through seeds, but through their building blocks,
genes. 10. We dont need it. Wheat farmers do not need GM wheat to
grow it. Con-sumers will see no bene!t from GM wheat; thus is seems
to create problems rather than solve them.
-
48( (1 6 , 1 7 ( 51$7 ,21$/ 2 % 6 ( 59 ( 5
We arent going anywhere.
But you are. The Queens International Ob-server will continue to
solicit submissions all year. The summer is a time to experience
new things outside your comfort zone. Why not share that experience
with others? Whether through images or words, we hope to constantly
receive stories
from around the world; we hope you will stay in touch at home or
abroad. If a headline makes an impact, triggers a reaction, or
somehow compels you to delve deeper, you have felt the call of
jour-nalism. Dont resist it. Find your story and we will help you
share it.
-
9 R O XP H 1 XP E H U
Want to try your hand at working at a radio station? CFRC's news
collective is looking for members for this summer! Join of an
amazing experience!
For more info, you can contact this summer's News Coordi-nator,
Joanna Plucinska at [email protected]
Passionate about news?
Thank you for a great year! - Queens International Affairs
Association Executive, 2011-2012
-
,Q Q