2013 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference

The 2013 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference took place at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Centre, Washington D.C. on April 8-9, 2013. This conference brought together 800 nuclear experts and policy makers from 46 countries to discuss emerging trends in nuclear nonproliferation, disarmament, and nuclear energy. It was a great learning experience for me to attend this conference and meet experts, scholars, and policy-makers with diverse backgrounds.

Yukiya Amano, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was a keynote speaker in the conference. He outlined the contributions as well as challenges of the IAEA. He described Iran, North Korea, and Syria as the biggest challenges for the agency but at the same time he was optimistic about the greater role of the agency in coming days. He described how the IAEA safeguards evolved with the passage of time and emphasized the greater role of advanced technology in the verification process.

The next session was about “deterrence and disarmament in Obama’s second term” in which speakers from the USA, Russia, and China participated. Yao Yunzhu from the Academy of Military Science, China emphasized that the US and Russia have the biggest nuclear arsenals and should first disarm themselves to the level of China before China can join the disarmament process. Alexei Arbatov (Carnegie Moscow Centre) argued that China is the only country with small nuclear arsenals that can build nuclear weapons quickly to the level of Russia, therefore, China has an important role to play to make sure that China will not benefit from the situation if Russia and the US reduce their nuclear weapons. Rose Gottemoeller (Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security) highlighted the initiatives taken by the Obama Administration to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national security and emphasized the need for further negotiations with Russia.

In the “Humanitarian Dimension of Nuclear War, Deterrence, and Disarmament” session, the role of nuclear weapons from a moral perspective was discussed. In the 2010 NPT Review Conference, countries agreed to comply with international law, including humanitarian law. This was an important development, which shifted the state-centric approach to nuclear weapons towards a human security approach, but the question of how using nuclear weapons in self-defence can be reconciled with humanitarian law remained unresolved.

The “Too Little Disarmament, Too Much Nonproliferation?” session discussed the balance between nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Christopher Ford (US Senate Committee on Appropriation) argued that nonproliferation is the base of the regime and without a strong base we cannot build other pillars. Herald Muller (Peace Research Institute Frankfurt) was in favor of the right balance between nonproliferation and disarmament.

In the “Proliferation Implications of New Fuel Cycle Technologies” session, the debate focused on the impact of new fuel technology, like laser enrichment and processing, on proliferation. Advocates argued that safeguards could prevent proliferation while critics emphasized the adverse affects of this technology for nonproliferation if commercialized.

In the “Deterring Cyber and Space-Based Threat” session, use of cyber attack and capability to destroy objects in space was discussed with the relevance of nuclear deterrence to these threats.

“Are Treaties like FMCT and CTBT Still Vital?” was a question asked in the next session. The Conference on Disarmament (CD) cannot start negotiations on FMCT unless Pakistan joins the consensus. Maleeha Lodhi (Former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States) defended Pakistan’s position in the post India-US Nuclear Agreement and pointed out that Pakistan can join the consensus if offered the same nuclear agreement or is willing to negotiate a FMCT treaty that includes existing fissile material.

Group photo with Maleeha Lodhi, former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United
States (fourth from the right)

In the next session, “Whither Nuclear Power?” was discussed with the relevance of the use of nuclear power after the Fukushima accident.

The second day of the conference was started with the keynote speech of M. J. Chung (Member of National Assembly of the Republic of Korea). He explicitly argued in favor of South Korea’s nuclearization against the North Korea nuclear threat.

In the “Managing Nuclear Power Post-Fukushima” session, the safety of nuclear power was assessed in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.  The panel agreed on the sovereign right of states to develop nuclear power but Fukushima forced us to focus more on cost, security, and safety.

“The Arab Spring and a Middle East WMDFZ” was next, in which implications of the political changes in the Middle East were assessed for implementing a WMD-Free Zone. Dore Gold (Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs) rejected the possibility of the zone in an unstable political situation. Representatives from Egypt and Iran argued that if Israel has nuclear weapons there is always incentives for other Middle Eastern states to pursue a nuclear path, therefore, Israel has a more important role to play in negotiating the zone.

“Is there an ‘Emerging Power’ Agenda?” was a session in which representatives from India, Brazil, and Turkey explored a common nuclear agenda. They agreed that ‘emerging powers’ are in favor of the nonproliferation regime but demanded a greater role.

It was an interesting discussion in the next session, “Extended Deterrence: Defining the U.S. Reassurance Requirement”, examining how the United States could have a balance between reducing the role of nuclear weapons and fulfilling its extended deterrence commitments.

The last session “Proliferation and Regime Change” assessed how nuclear proliferation caused changes in regime policies.

The above-mentioned conference proceedings show that the conference focused on deterrence, nonproliferation, disarmament, and nuclear industry. This conference examined these four themes through broader analytical lenses such as multilateral nonproliferation measures, sanctions, humanitarian law, and the implications of regime-change policies for the regime.  For me, it was a unique learning opportunity to familiarize myself with scholars from around the world who share an interest in my research topic. It was beneficial for me to discuss my topic with them, and was helpful in setting the stage for formal interviews and contacts with respect to my research.

— Saira Bano, PhD Candidate

Bad Powerpoint Presentations?

An opinion by Boris Trnavskis, MSS student.

I have heard some CMSS students and the occasional professor disparage PowerPoint presentations. So what is worse than a bad PowerPoint presentation? In my humble opinion, it is a presenter who undermines his outstanding analysis, ideas, and insights by reading his paper or script, word-for-word, in a monotone using an allegro tempo. At least with a lousy PowerPoint presentation, I have something to look at while the presenter reads his script.

But all kidding aside, I see two important advantages of using PowerPoint or some equivalent visual medium when presenting ideas. By using PowerPoint slides I am engaging two of the audiences’ senses – hearing and seeing.  I recall reading somewhere that the more senses you can engage, the more likely the audience will absorb and retain what you have to communicate.

But more importantly, if I am clicking away my slides instead of burying my nose in the paper I am reading, I can read the visual feedback and cues my audience is sending me.  Am I connecting and communicating or are people checking their tweets, text messages, emails, surfing the net, etc.? Am I using jargon, acronyms, or terminology they are unfamiliar with? Do I need to re-phrase or re-state a point I just made because it is not clear? Am I droning on too long on a particular point?  Are they all tired after a big lunch and about to fall asleep unless I raise my voice or energize them? etc. etc.  I also like to give the audience a copy of my slides in advance so they can jot down questions next to the relevant slide, while the question is still fresh in their minds, or they can make their own notes and comments in the margins.

If at all possible, try to engage a third or fourth sense.  Here is a crazy example: I brought in some mountaineering gear and placed one piece of equipment in front of each student, while delivering a PowerPoint presentation on mountain warfare in Dr. Huebert’s Strategic Studies class.  Students were encouraged to look at and touch the specialized climbing gear.  It helped me to emphasize the point that conventional infantry soldiers are not trained to use even the most basic mountaineering gear, which is used routinely by mountain infantry like the Gebirgsjäger.  If the students got bored and were a bit twisted, they could smell my old, beat-up, leather climbing boots with attached crampons.

Just my opinion.

 

Another contingent in Halifax

Once again, a CMSS contingent made the trek across Canada to attend the Political Science Graduate Symposium at Dalhousie University in Halifax. As a wonderful opportunity to share research and ideas with graduate students from around the country, the eighth instalment of this academic assemblage did not disappoint!

2013 CMSS Halifax Contingent

Five students and one professor from the Centre were able to make the journey this year, contributing to discussions on a diverse range of issues and problems. Stephen Hayes and Bill Carruthers – two members of the CMSS Arctic Working Group (affectionately referred to around here as ‘Arctic Friends’ or the ‘Meeting of the Arctic Minions’) – started the conference off with presentations for the Arctic Sovereignty panel.

Bill and Steve on the Arctic Sovereignty Panel

While Stephen disputed claims that the militarization of the Arctic is evidence of inter-state tension, Bill presented an informed view of Radar Sat procurement here in Canada, specifically the role of SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and AIS (Automatic Identification System) functionalities.

They both impressed the audience with their arguments and seemingly boundless knowledge of all things Arctic, while their panel chair Commodore Darren Hawco – currently in Command of the Atlantic Fleet and an Arctic aficionado himself – provided an enthusiastic and very welcome addition to the panel discussion. We’re hoping the Commodore will consider a trip out to the prairies some time soon to continue that discussion here at the Centre!

Commodore Hawco and the ‘Arcticians’

The rest of the CMSS students – Tim Wright, Maria Robson, and Katie Domansky – gave their presentations on the second day of the conference after some last minute re-shuffling and re-branding saw them take over the Defence panel in an all-CMSS effort. A rather eclectic take on “defence”, this panel featured presentations on security issues pertaining to all corners of the globe.

The Defence Panel

Tim focused on Chinese strategy for gaining a foothold in the Arctic, noting that China is already in Canada’s Arctic resources sector, while Maria discussed issues of intelligence sharing, specifically how middle powers leverage their intelligence capabilities to maintain political relationships. Katie rounded out the panel with her views on the re-professionalization of the Canadian Forces, in both practical and normative terms, after the significant changes wrought by the post-Somalia reform process of the 1990s. Each of these presentations were informative and succeeded in generating some significant debate amongst audience members and the panelists themselves. Mission accomplished!

Our faculty contribution to the conference came in the form of Dr. Rob Huebert, who provided an informative look at “the power of ideas” during his keynote address.

Dr. Huebert

As the Centre’s favourite Realist who usually presents his expertise on the Arctic and security issues, Dr. Huebert surprised the attending CMSS students with his thoughtful discussion on the role that ideas and inquiry can play in changing the world. Yes folks, grad students and the work they do, does matter… even when they are social scientists! His personal experiences at Dalhousie during his doctoral studies, and the role of Dalhousie academics and others in fundamentally altering the way in which the world considers the use and governance of international waters, provided a case in point to support his argument. As did the question and answer period, which turned into a debate amongst all in attendance that demonstrated the value of academic inquiry and exercises such as this conference.

All CMSS members in attendance were very thankful for the opportunity to interact with and learn from the other student presenters from universities across the country. With topics ranging from immigration policy, to aboriginal rights, to health care, and conceptions of peacekeeping/peacemaking, this conference fostered discussion on security issues affecting Canada, while also allowing us to interact with scholars studying outside of our usual ‘security bubble’. A highlight was the keynote address given by NDP Environment Critic Megan Leslie. A frank, open, and engaging speech delivered with enthusiasm, Megan’s view of environment issues in Canada managed to captivate all those in attendance, no matter where on the political spectrum they usually tend to dwell.

Besides the conference itself, something must also be said for Halifax and Nova Scotia, which welcomed our Calgary crew with open arms (not to mention full pints and lively music!). Visiting the Halifax Citadel, Canadian Immigration Museum at Pier 21, the Keith’s Brewery, Peggy’s Cove, Mahone Bay, Lunenberg, and – of course – the many pubs that have led to the cliché that “every second building in Halifax is a church, and every one in between a bar,” made the trip even more rewarding. We defend the old grad student adage that just as many good ideas are formed outside the classroom as in…. especially in the pub over a cold pint of Keith’s!

Storming the Citadel

 

Journalists and Research Methods

— A Rant by Boris Trnavskis, MSS student

Taking a research methods perspective, my rant questions the value of the writings of journalists like Bob Woodward and Ron Suskind, on matters of public policy, people, and historical events.  I don’t have any answers and maybe my question isn’t even valid. That is because I am writing as a new MSS student with only a superficial understanding of how research and analysis is conducted in political science and history.  So I apologize in advance.  My perspective and bias comes from specializing in research methods in my previous grad studies in an unrelated field, using a wide variety of research techniques over a 31-year working life, and teaching research methods to undergrad and grad, business and engineering students.

First I want to distinguish between research techniques and research methods.  Using inferential or descriptive statistics or probability theory, building mathematical or econometric models, applying operations research techniques such as linear and dynamic programming, using sampling survey or interview techniques, conducting archival research using primary sources, and using case analysis to investigate a specific situation, are examples of research techniques – research “tools” in your research “toolbox.”  Research methods refers to the process of deciding and selecting the “tool” best suited or most appropriate for the problem in hand.  [And parenthetically, as Dr. Maurice Scarlett stressed over and over, the term “research methodology” means the “study of different research methods” and not what I am going to do to answer a research question.  Finally, paraphrasing Russell Ackoff, if you have only a hammer and a saw in your research “toolbox,” then all problems are hammer and saw problems.]

Recently, I read three “non-fiction” books by journalists, Bob Woodward (State of Denial and Plan of Attack) and Ron Suskind (The One Percent Doctrine) to gain a better understanding of U.S. security policy.  The jacket on Woodward’s book states, “Plan of Attack is the definitive account of how and why President George W. Bush, his war council, and allies launched a preemptive attack to topple Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq.”  The jacket on Suskind’s book claims, “Suskind tells us what actually occurred over the next three years by tracing the steps of the officials who oversee the “’war on terror’ and the men and women who are actually fighting the fight.”  The rest of the text on both jackets implies these authors will provide the reader in-depth knowledge and understanding using inside information on the people and events they are discussing.

Before I start my rant I want to acknowledge that Woodward and Suskind are respected, best-selling, Pulitzer Prize winning journalists and authors, and I do not wish to imply any intentional mischief.   However, as a student of research methods, I am troubled by how journalists present factual information.  I think they blur the distinction between creative speculation and verifiable “facts.”  For example, Woodward might have a passage in which he says Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld held a private, SECRET [my emphasis] meeting in the White House on a particular day to discuss WMD.  Woodward then provides very detailed dialogue between the participants, complete with expletives and descriptions of their body language during that meeting.  I presume Woodward is doing this to help me understand the interpersonal dynamics and decision making process within the Bush White House; and to make his book fun to read.  Or if you are a conspiracy buff or cynic, he just wants to sell books.  What is that saying, “the facts and nothing but the facts please?”  Regardless, as a researcher from an unrelated field, I find this troubling on several levels.

First, how would Woodward know (a) if that “secret” meeting was even held; (b) if it was held, who were the participants; (c) what did they discuss; or (d) how did they behave toward each other during that meeting?  But even if one person attending that meeting “leaked” to Woodward “on the record” about a secret meeting, what is the probability the “leaker” could recall the exact words, gestures, etc. – especially when “movers and shakers” are in meetings almost non-stop, every day.  Heck, I didn’t remember my wife asking me to pick up some milk and bread on my way home today!

But even if a meeting participant had no moral or ethical issues revealing publically what took place during a SECRET White House meeting, and that person had a photographic memory, how can we be sure that that person will report the conversation accurately and honestly, without being selective or self-serving?  I mean, who would not want history to record him as a wise and influential, advisor or leader?  So much of the journalists’ writing strikes me as fiction and creative speculation – of questionable validity.  Which is fine, if it is acknowledged as fiction or an editorial position.  But from a research methods perspective, is it a reliable way to gain information or insight?  That is, how much weight should I give to books and articles written by journalists because it is hard for me to distinguish fact from fiction?

It is also troubling on another level.  In the U.S., the media and freedom of the press guarantees exist, to allow the media to be “fair and balanced” (© Fox News) in the performance of its “due diligence” responsibilities on behalf of American citizens, so those citizens can give their “informed consent” to their leaders.  Most non-partisan, news media watchdogs point out that the majority of journalists select and report events through a left-of-centre, liberal lens.  Is the process further corrupted if these journalists can make up stuff and publish it as non-fiction?  What if a journalist wants to demonize, marginalize, or ridicule a person they don’t like or agree with – like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others?  Books written by journalists are ideal vehicles for selective presentation of facts, misrepresentation, spin, and character assassination.  Why, because if I can make up conversations or take words out-of-context, I can make anyone look out-of-touch, insensitive, extreme, imperial, or almost anything I wish.  Of course, the opposite is also true if journalists like the person they are writing about, like Obama.  Bernard Goldberg’s book, “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True and Pathetic Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media,” talks about that side of the coin.

But back to the research methods issue, should we rely on books written by journalists on public policy issues simply because there is nothing better?  If yes, how much weight should we give their accounts?  Are there other sources we can use to check the “facts?” I understand that these journalists often get it right but isn’t that an “ends justify the means” kind of justification?  I don’t know the answers.  All I know is I need a glass of single malt when I read Woodward telling me exactly what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, or whoever said in confidence, behind closed doors.

Graduate Strategy Conference This Week!

The 15th Annual Graduate Strategic Studies Conference will be held this week on            1-2 March 2013 in the Rozsa Centre at the University of Calgary. All are welcome to come join our audience and enjoy presentations on past, present, and future security issues and challenges.

This year’s conference will kick off with an opening address by Dr. David Bercuson, the Director for the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies. Keynote speaker Dr. James Boutilier, the Asia-Pacific Advisor for the Maritime Forces Pacific Headquarters, will then deliver a talk titled Alarming Uncertainties: 21st Century Challenges for Students of Global Security. After his presentation, Dr. Boutilier will chair a panel on Pacific Security in the 21^stCentury. The next panel – International Organizations – will be chaired by CMSS Associate Director Dr. Rob Huebert.

Other key-note speakers include: J. William Galbraith, Executive Director, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner; Dr. Eric Grove, Director, Centre for International Security and War Studies, University of Salford; and, Chief Superintendent Everett Summerfield, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Other panel discussions on the conference’s first day include: The Making of the Modern Canadian Special Forces; Unconventional and Modern Threats; Human Security: International Relations Theory and Strategic Studies; and, Nuclear Weapons: Cold War and After. The final day will wrap up with panels discussing: The Canadian Military; Maritime Security Issues Through History; Contemporary Dynamics of Civil Unrest; Food and Resource Security; and Domestic Dynamics of Global Security. For a complete conference program and further information regarding our exciting two days of presentations and discussion, please visit the conference website: strategyconference.ca

This annual conference is organized by the graduate students of the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (CMSS) for graduate students from around the world to showcase their academic work. The conference is multidisciplinary and aims to stimulate discussions on a range of issues, both domestic and international. The conference acts as an open forum for public debate on topics ranging from terrorism and conflict prevention and management to arctic security and defence policy. The audience has also expanded to include students from all backgrounds and disciplines, current and retired military personnel, corporate representatives, and the general public. The conference draws individuals from various professional and academic backgrounds while providing a stimulating and well-grounded exploration of contemporary and historical, and traditional and non-traditional security issues facing Canada and the world. By raising awareness of the most pressing and potentially pressing issues of the day, the conference empowers graduate students to inform, educate, and create continued interest in the strategic, defence, and security considerations shaping our national policy.

We hope to see you there!

Dark Souls – Gamers living dangerously under anarchy

One of the most interesting debates in international relations theory regards whether in an anarchic world – where there is no supra-national authority above the state – states will choose to cooperate or enter into conflict. Cooperate or prepare to take somebody’s lunch before they can bully you out of yours? Gamers in multiplayer Internet games are quite familiar with the cooperate/prepare-to-defend-your-lunch dilemma. If you dare to venture into a multiplayer game of Halo or Call of Duty, you can expect that, within 30 seconds, a fierce 7 year-old with a game controller surgically attached at birth will exterminate you and taunt you back to the single player mode.

For the past year I’ve been playing a game on Playstation 3 that offers an interesting case study about cooperation or conflict under anarchy amongst gamers. The game is called Dark Souls, by Bandai Namco Games. Dark Souls is a medieval-style fantasy action game set in an undead, post-apocalypse world. It is also arguably one of the most difficult games ever made for a console. If your idea of gaming feels like a kids’ soccer ‘festival’ where the points don’t count and nobody loses, this is not the game for you. As the site’s name for the game implies, you will die. Often. The game doesn’t cuddle you or take you by the hand for two hours of colourful tutorials with talking animals in a sunny meadow. This is Japanese imagination at work to challenge and humble the foolish and masochistic alpha-types of the gaming world.

The game’s multiplayer concept reflects its general leaning towards the cruel and unusual. By connecting their game to the Internet, players can choose to enter the game’s anarchic world. Unlike other online games where server administrators can act as a supra-gamer authority, in Dark Souls the players operate in a self-help environment within the structure determined by the game. Basically, the game lets you invade other players’ games to eliminate his/her character for a reward, or allows you to post an on-line mark where another player can summon your character to cooperate in beating bosses in his/her game (or join forces to defend against other invading players). When some nasty player invades your game just before you can reach the next save point, this tends to cause severe anguish and frustration in the real world. Players can join clans within the game that reward you for either disrupting or assisting other people’s games. There is even a clan that seeks out those nasty invading players to dish out much deserved reprisal.

So, what about cooperation or conflict under anarchy as applied to Dark Souls as a case study? The game would support the neo-realist view that if you enter into the online world, you’d better have sufficient material capabilities (level, weapons, and armour) to survive against invading players. On the other hand, the game also lets you form punctual alliances to defend against invaders. These alliances can even lead to prolonged cooperation between players who help each other beat the game. The game itself is neutral about conflict or cooperation. The anonymity of the Internet removes any interpersonal or social stigma or reward of choosing between invasion or cooperation, thus eliminating social variables from the players’ individual choice of becoming a cooperating player or a complete troll.

It would be interesting to have Bandai Namco publish statistics to peek at the proportion of gamers who invade or offer to assist other players. In about a year of playing the game, my own empirical data would suggest that conflict is more frequent than cooperation in this game. The majority of on-line interactions I have encountered in Dark Souls tends to be of the invading troll kind. Maybe Hobbes was right (on average) after all.

Patrick Michel Ulrich, PhD Student

A Strategic Studies Student Explores Israel

Existential threats. Israeli settlements. The Jordan River. Winter. I thought I understood these concepts, until December 2012, when I had the opportunity to travel to Israel. Now I have much more patience with the potentially off-putting statement “you don’t understand; it’s much more complex.” After taking the week-long educational Israel Young Leaders Program and comparing my impressions now to when I began, I realized that the Israeli-Arab situation and the Middle Eastern security environment are indeed much more complex. As one of my CMSS classmates concluded after taking the same trip last year, “if you want an accurate understanding of anything in life, you need to experience it.” This was what I found in Israel.

The program, which took twelve Canadian students to Israel for a week during the winter break, included touring the country and meeting with political commentators, civil servants, students, and the Canadian ambassador. In addition to the individual elements of the program, the experience was immeasurably enhanced by our tour guide. Israeli tour guides go through rigorous training, and Michael Bauer is one of the best. (He’s so good there’s a parody of him on CBC.)

Riding camels near the Dead Sea.

An immediate surprise was the safety and peace prevalent in all the areas we visited. We witnessed calm interactions between all types of nationalities in Jerusalem, and one of the most striking aspects of the environment was all the children running around the largest city in the country with no adult supervision. Parents generally don’t let kids play soccer unsupervised in random alleys in Toronto. I also hadn’t expected to drive calmly into settlements (some of the older ones) and through the West Bank (on Israeli-controlled roads, but still). While I recognize all these phenomena would not be present during periods of heightened hostility and violence, it was eye-opening that this level of peace is possible, in a region that we understand from outside reports to be in a perpetual state of hostility and insecurity.

As a security student, I was particularly interested that we were able to walk right up to the security barrier and visit the Golan Heights, where we toured a bunker (I later discovered this is described as the “tourist bunker”, which explained the adjacent coffee shop). Standing in the Golan Heights and hearing distant explosions from Syria put into perspective the magnitude of some of the terms being proposed in the peace negotiations, such as the possible return of the Golan Heights. I had some understanding of how the region has changed hands in recent history; however, visiting the region underscored its immense strategic value, and the vulnerability of the strip of Israeli land between Lebanon and Syria without that elevated eastern position.

The trip had one element that invoked less recent strategic studies history. On our way to the Dead Sea, we toured Masada, Herod’s ancient fortress at the top of a plateau. From the top we were able to see remnants of the Roman siege of Masada (which was undertaken partly to give the soldiers something to do, to avoid idleness and disobedience). The siege remnants included walls built unnecessarily out of a strict adherence to orders and training. All of this took me back to the days of studying ancient strategy and warfare at CMSS with Dr. Cooper and Dr. Herwig.

At Masada. Israelis are refreshingly honest about historical restorations.

On a lighter note, I earlier mentioned the Jordan River. The stories and songs had led me to expect a majestic torrent of water. Instead I saw a stream. I mean no disrespect to either it or the Sea of Galilee, but they were a tad small. Nonetheless, it was neat to see them, and they illustrated the importance of fresh water in the region, reflected in their elevation to majestic status.

A concept that resonated throughout the trip to Israel was human resilience. We heard several stories about the strength of human determination in the face of considerable odds. One of the most unusual stories was in Pkiin, a Druze village, where we met Savta Gamila, who overcame considerable discrimination to found her own international soap business, still lives in her same village, and has a grade one education. The theme of human resilience was evident throughout the country, and it was powerful to see examples of how much the human spirit can withstand. I haven’t even discussed the trip to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum, and our meetings with Holocaust survivors.

We also had a chance to travel with Israelis our own age, which brings me to a quirky juxtaposition: the Israeli students embedded in our group talked to us one night about their initial reluctance to serve in the army, their exposure to security threats, in one case, being in the vicinity of a terrorist attack. This prompted the question: “why do you live here?” They responded that Israel is home and they could not imagine living anywhere else, and spoke of the sense of comradeship throughout the country (including examples of a mass movement to travel south to the city of Beersheva to kickstart business after security concerns had shuttered part of the city). There is an amusing contrast between this and an encounter by last year’s Canadian group (related by tour guide Michael) with elementary school kids in Sderot, near the Gaza border. Sderot has been a frequent target of rocket attacks, and these children have been trained in taking cover if they hear sirens. Meeting the Canadians, they asked about winter. After hearing about piles of snow, wind chill on your face, and being unable to feel your fingers, they responded with the instinctive, innocent question: “why do you live there?”

I didn’t want to put a photo of myself swimming, so here is “Johnny Depp” applying mud at the Dead Sea.

There were many lighter parts of the trip I haven’t gone in to – notably swimming in the Dead Sea, celebrating my birthday on a kibbutz, after a Golan Heights Winery wine tasting (they gave me free birthday wine!), and celebrating New Year’s Eve with exuberant Russian Jews who liked their dancing. In all, Israel is a fascinating country and worth visiting, both as a tourist and a student. In a nutshell, it is indeed complex.

Maria Robson, MSS Student

How a new job is like speed dating

“So kid, how does it feel to finally be in the real world?” “You’re actually working in your industry, how did that happen?” “Do you feel grown-up yet?”  “Are they being nice to you?” As of January 7, 2013, these are the questions I am bombarded with most often.

I will admit that exchanging my student card for a security pass was one of the most rewarding moments of my short 24 years of existence. However, without describing my state of mind prior to walking through the front doors of one of the world’s leading defence contractors, I would be painting a rather incomplete picture of my time here thus far.

The night before my first day of work I set three alarm clocks and (unintentionally) woke up every hour, on the hour. I am fairly certain that my body clearly understood the need to be punctual. Sure, some may say this is a bit obsessive, but arriving late on my first day of work was simply not an option (What’s that saying? If you aren’t five minutes early you’re 10 minutes late?) Although I do suppose there are worse ways to arrive on your first day…

I remember scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed at 6:30 am in the parking lot (mind you, the doors didn’t open until 8am… so perhaps I was a little more than five minutes early) and reading about how a friend of mine (who also happened to be starting a new job that day) pulled into work when all of a sudden his car engine starting smoking in front of a handful of his new co-workers and boss. He had to have it towed following his shift. Talk about nailing a first impression…

“First days” of any kind are mildly uncomfortable at best. Sure, some of you will argue that “first days” are exciting because you get to meet new people and experience something different.  However, one could apply that same logic to the world of speed dating.  You meet a number of interesting people and have less than 60 seconds to sell yourself. There is pressure and it can be awkward. But hey, unlike speed dating, the best thing about a “first day” at a new job is that it only happens once and you usually don’t have to repeat the process 60 seconds later…

I am three weeks in and so far I’m GREAT. G=growing up, R=regretting not taking more business classes during my undergraduate degree, E=excited for the future, A=amazed at how much I am learning, and T=thankful for the opportunity and the support I’ve received from CMSS.

ASR

Thoughts of a 49ers Fan

As a lifelong 49ers fan, I have experienced the really good (five Super Bowls), the really bad (an eight year playoff drought), and the really ugly (the coaching carousel of the 2000s). It started with Joe Montana dominating the league and being Mr. Clutch during the playoffs. Then we had Steve Young, my favorite football player of all-time. He is from my hometown of Provo, Utah and is worshiped there as a sports god. If you thought the cult following of Jimmer Fredette was bad, you should have seen Utah in the heyday of Young’s pro-football career. It has been a long 18 years since my Niners have made it to the Super Bowl (it was the fifth longest current drought in the NFL) and my excitement is hard to contain. I debated watching the game alone, so that I could enjoy football in one of its purest forms, but my wife wanted to host a Super Bowl party and I essentially had little say in the matter.

I enjoy coming into the Centre, wearing my red Niners hat proudly, Kaepernicking (kissing my biceps), and taking the teasing from the CMSS professors who seem to all be Green Bay Packers fans. It has been a very long time since I could proudly “hang my hat” on a championship team. We won’t get into the other sports teams I cheer for.

The Read Option has changed the NFL. I’m not sure if you can credit its success to any individual coach, but I remember seeing its beauty under coach Urban Meyer while he was at the University of Utah. He ran the Read Option offense to perfection and dominated his way to a BCS bowl win, and a hefty pay offer from Florida. Using this offensive scheme in the NFL has happened on a large scale this season. The Redskins, Seahawks, Panthers, and my 49ers have all ran it with success this year (well, perhaps everyone except Carolina). The 49ers playoff win against the Packers showed how silly it can make defenses look. Clay Matthews often had no idea where the ball was, making it easy for Kaepernick to run the field. In the following week, the Falcons kept containment on Kaepernick, but this left the middle open for Frank Gore and LeMichael James to rush through. It creates a serious problem for defenses to cover, and if you have a quarterback who can throw the ball well and run (like RGIII and Kap) it’s a lethal combination.

The real unsung heroes of the Read Option offense, and most other successful offenses, are the members of the offensive line. If you don’t have a solid O-line, the Read Option can only go so far. The Niners have a dominate O-line, making it one of the primary reasons for the success this season. I was never an O-linemen, but I never underestimated their value. The Niners spent three first round picks for their O-line, and it has paid off in spades. Although they weren’t sexy picks, they were the right ones. Also, if you draft an O-tackle and it doesn’t work out then you are at least left with a decent guard. Now the Niners are one step away from achieving the greatest award in North American sports. As Lady Gaga would probably put it, San Francisco is on the edge of glory and hanging on a moment with me.

Tim Wright, MSS Student

A European Conference in Canada

It’s a new semester, which means I should report on an event from the previous one. As mentioned, some of us attended the International Society of Military Sciences (ISMS) annual conference in Kingston, 23-24 October 2012. Four years earlier, the defence academies and colleges of Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, and the Baltic Defence College created the ISMS “to build a network for the creation, development, exchange and diffusion of research and knowledge about war, conflict management and peace support efforts.” The call for papers made it clear that this year’s theme, “Balancing Domestic and International Security Requirements,” really meant “Security in an age of austerity.” While bituminous sands have kept things from going pear-shaped in Alberta, the hallway chats about Canadian and European budget cuts emphasized the accuracy of the unwritten theme.

Fortunately, it wasn’t all doom and gloom. For example, the panel on which I presented as part of the Security and Defence Policy and Strategy working group was only partially on grand strategy in austerity. I argued against terms like energy weapon, petro-diplomacy, gas wars or energy diplomacy, proposed the concept of hydrocarbon statecraft, which describes influence attempts relying primarily on oil and/or gas, examined its possible forms (either for use or for analysis) and gave a couple of examples from Soviet history. Then a PhD candidate from Reading argued that most definitions of grand strategy are more grand than strategic. Per his abstract, “the migration of grand strategy to the overcrowded fields of statecraft and policy undermines its utility through unnecessary duplication of concepts and dilution of the meaning of strategy.” Perhaps incorrectly, I see grand strategy and statecraft as linked.[1] The final paper was given by a Brigadier General from the National Defence Academy in Austria on the future of international crisis management after Afghanistan. Basically, states have opened their eyes after a ‘Yes, we can’ phase (2001-2006). Of course, UN interventions will continue but there will also be regional solutions for regional problems. Perhaps there will be a period of selective management (such as the use of air forces in Libya). Money will continue to matter. Especially in Europe, tight funds will be directed at other public services and the military may not be prepared for it. Possible solutions may include ‘smart defence,’ outsourcing defence, shared services within the EU, etc. Basically, he brought us back to security in austerity. By the way, here’s one lesson learned: research others on your panel before you present. Hypothetically, it could be useful to know if you will present on the same panel as someone supervised by Colin Gray. Opportunities lost…

One of the highlights for me was watching the relatively large audience, which included one of the keynote speakers, respond positively to the work of two of our own, Katie Domansky and Rebecca Jensen. They persuasively presented a theoretical framework to explain Canadian participation in international interventions in the post Cold War period. One of the other keynote speakers, who led stability operations in Congo and Afghanistan, observed the neglected distinction between acceptable representation of the citizens and representative democracy. A former Canadian diplomat also spoke about the ten international areas to watch in the near to mid-term and their influence on Canada. The MP for Kingston and the Islands gave the post-dinner keynote address on increasing Canada’s productivity by tapping into military research and development. Having worked at a regional development agency and examined the role of regional development agencies in strengthening business clusters, I found it interesting but I doubt others did. Most of his examples came from the US, such as Bell Labs or the declassification of GPS, so I wonder if the solution has less to do with his request for suggestions from the audience and more to do with either getting private industry to take bigger risks in investing in bold innovation and declassifying of existing military tech. Throw in the problem that governments are terrified of being seen picking winners and you’ve got a less than ideal situation. I wonder what our European guests thought of it.

I booked my flights before I knew that I would get cut from the second conference, so I was already planning to spend my week in Kingston. This gave me time to focus on coursework, attend some of the CDAI conference and buy some souvenirs (see photo). Walking between the hotel and RMC a few times caused me to agree with last year’s assessment that RMC is beautiful. It also seems that everyone jogs in Kingston. While I admire the consistency of joggers — there were as many joggers in the morning as there were in the afternoon — I go for a much a much simpler approach: bran, babies (they’re both cardio and weight training) and bicycles. For me, forced exercise is the only kind that happens and the good fitness regime that happens beats the ideal that doesn’t. Perhaps it all comes down to motivation.

I agree that it’s worth applying to more conferences than the typical three Canadian graduate security conferences including non-student (which one student calls ‘grown-up’) conferences. Admittedly, the CDAI, S3C and Dalhousie conferences are predictable, which makes it easy to slot them in your calendar. This means you may have to work harder to catch other calls for papers (try H-Net as a starting place). Plus, your subject/field might not get as many one-off conferences as others (I’m looking at you, naval history) which increases the pressure when you find out about a conference that fits perfectly.

Applying to conferences is a crap shoot. Some conferences turn out to be awesome and others are not spectacular. For example, you could be in a panel for new researchers in your subject area or could present to eight people in the basement of a library. Honestly, I think everyone at this stage gets rejected by student and non-student conferences. I’m not convinced that Masters students find better odds of getting into a conference by applying only to student conferences — as noted elsewhere organizing committees may favour a PhD student instead. So, if you’re going to apply for a conference, why not make it an interesting one? Plus, at least in my experience, ‘grown-up’ conferences have better rejection letters.

The most useful thing said at my undergraduate convocation (actually at my sister’s ceremony in the afternoon after mine) should excite every good constructivist: Not only is the reputation of your university in the next five years important in your career path but it’s something that each of us can help alter. The same is probably true of the Centre’s reputation. CMSS students presenting at bigger, including non-student, conferences should help all of us. At least, it can’t hurt.

[1] See Davis S. McDonough, “Grand Strategy, Culture, and Strategic Choice: A review,” Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 13, no. 4 (2011): 6 (http://jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/425/431); Harry R. Yarger, Strategic Theory for the 21st Century: The Little Book on Big Strategy (Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania: Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, 2006), 5 (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=641); David A. Baldwin, Economic Statecraft (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 9, 13-14. For those of you looking for extra reading, Baldwin (64-65) quotes extensively from Book Eight, Chapter Six, “B. War Is an Instrument of Policy” of On War (see pg 605 of the beloved Howard and Paret translation) to argue that “neither war nor economics can be divorced from politics.” Thus, it seems reasonable that grand strategy connects multiple forms of statecraft, such as Baldwin’s organization of propaganda, diplomacy, economic statecraft and military statecraft, to achieve one’s policy objective.