My op-ed published last week in Canada's National Post, was picked up and published today in the Windsor Star. I feel my op-ed is even more prescient now, given that the U.S., UK, and Canada went ahead with unilateral sanctions against Iran's central bank, just as Israel has conspicuously gone silent about the threat posed by Iran. The unwillingness of Russia and China to further sanction Iran, or contemplate additional Security Council resolutions, may ultimately force Israel to act alone. If you haven't read the full version of my article, check it out below here. -R.O.
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/death+truth/5776603/story.html
"The Death of Truth"
By: Robert D. Onley
Published in the Windsor Star: November 28, 2011
Fallout from the misleading intelligence that led to the 2003 war in Iraq is now leading the international community into dangerous, reactive skepticism of the IAEA's damning report on Iran's now exposed nuclear weapons program.
Despite the wide-ranging report, Russia and China have already rejected the possibility of increasing sanctions against Iran, arguing on disingenuous grounds that the U.K., France and U.S. will use sanctions as an "instrument for regime change in Iran." Major news outlets are similarly casting complete doubt on IAEA claims that Iran is actively working on nukes.
While the IAEA report was indeed preceded by loud sabre-rattling from the American and Israeli political establishments, the supposed "leak" of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's readiness to conduct unilateral airstrikes certainly was no accident.
Designed to spark global discourse on Iran prior to the report's release, the leaks underscored Netanyahu's long-standing fears about the truth of Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program.
Thus the sabre-rattling should not discredit the catastrophic implications of the report, which sets out in unprecedented detail the extent of Iran's nuke program.
Some skeptics dismissively claim that Iran's research into the design of nuclear weapons is not a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is a signatory state and internationally bound not to "manufacture" or otherwise "acquire" nuclear weapons. However, this suggestion completely misses the point, highlighting the dangerous naivety of reactive skepticism.
The indisputable facts about Iran's nuclear weapons research are as follows. Since 2003, Iran has:
. Conducted extensive research into bomb designs and detonators
. Continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles
. Covertly constructed numerous weapons-related facilities, notably the Fordow uranium enrichment facility - built inside of a mountain, itself inside of a military base.
Iran did so while repeatedly claiming its nuclear program is "peaceful." This blatant stall tactic deliberately impeded progress during years of nuclear negotiations with the West.
Russia and China have dismissed the IAEA report as a manufactured casus belli to attack Iran, and have painted Yukiya Amano, the IAEA head, as a pro-western dupe. Russian FM Sergei Lavrov obliquely warned the West that attacking Iran would be "a very serious mistake."
The tragic casualty in all of this misguided skepticism is the truth itself. The fact that a 25-page report from the IAEA - the one global institution tasked with preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons - can so blithely be dismissed as a lie, emphasizes the abject depravity of the international community's moral core.
A country - the Islamic Republic of Iran - with a president who openly and callously denies that the Holocaust occurred, is now at the threshold of possessing the very weaponry that could cause the Second Holocaust.
In the face of this utterly malignant, horrifying historic juncture, the world's instinctive reaction is to render the IAEA's years of painstaking intelligence-gathering not as a terrifying truth, but rather as an unremitting lie.
Beset with widespread protests, a faltering global economy and a Middle East already in turmoil, hesitation to greenlight another conflict in the region is wholly understandable and with merit.
However, for these same nations to then simply ignore the threat of another country's obtaining nukes, out of fear of causing temporary instability in the Middle East, is to abandon the world's future to the enemies of peace, destroy the NPT and spark a nuclear arms race.
Israel, the one nation most directly threatened by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, is today at its gravest geopolitical crossroads since coming into existence.
If Israel decides to undertake unilateral military action against Iran, Netanyahu must convene with the UN Security Council and reveal all of Israel's intelligence on Iranian nukes. Israel must irrefutably prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and thus represents a threat to the peace of the world under UNSC Article 39.
The truth on this matter cannot be left in any doubt, because the truth - about Iran's nuclear weapons program and the threat from Iran's theocratic Shia "Twelver" leadership - is Israel's only ally in the long-standing fight for its very survival as the world's sole, immovable, Jewish state.
Robert D. Onley is vice-chair of YouthCan for International Dialogue and president of the Students' Law Society at the University of Windsor's Law School.
© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star
Monday, November 28, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
"Israel's only ally is the truth" - Published in the National Post
Today I was published for the first time in a Canadian national newspaper, the National Post. The op-ed, "Israel's only ally is the truth" is a shorter version of my original op-ed "The Death of Truth" which was first published here on my blog. It is an honour to be published on the pages of the National Post. Thanks for reading. - R.O.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/21/robert-d-onley-israels-only-ally-is-the-truth/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/21/robert-d-onley-israels-only-ally-is-the-truth/
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Death of Truth: Dangerously Doubting the IAEA Report on Iran's nukes
By: Robert D. Onley
Fallout from the misleading intelligence that led to the 2003 War in Iraq is now leading the international community into dangerous, reactive scepticism of the IAEA's damning report on Iran’s now exposed nuclear weapons program.
This ill-founded scepticism extends to American allegations last month of an Iranian government-backed plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States.
Despite the comprehensive, wide-ranging IAEA Report on Iran’s covert nuclear arms research, Russia and China have already rejected the possibility of increasing punitive sanctions against Iran, arguing on disingenuous grounds that the UK, France and US will use sanctions as an “instrument for regime change in Iran.”
Major news outlets across the world and particularly in the Middle East are similarly casting complete doubt on American and Israeli claims that Iran is actively working on nuclear weapons. 'The Americans are lying once again,' is the commentators’ chorus.
There is no arguing that the release of the IAEA Report was preceded by loud sabre-rattling from the American and Israeli political establishments, with leaked pronouncements that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is allegedly preparing Israel for unilateral air strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites.
The timing of the release of these statements was certainly no accident, designed both to spark global discourse on Iran prior to the IAEA Report and concurrently to intentionally expose the Israeli government’s willingness to undertake military action.
But since his election in 2009, Netanyahu has repeatedly stated Israel’s deep existential fears about the Iranian nuclear weapons program. As such, none of his recent statements should in any way discredit the catastrophic implications of the IAEA Report, which sets out in unprecedented detail the extent of Iran’s covert nuke research and experimental nuclear detonator testing.
Some critics have been quick to point out that Iran’s research into the design of nuclear weapons is not in-and-of itself a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory state and is thus internationally bound not to “manufacture” or otherwise “acquire” nuclear weapons. However, such a suggestion completely misses the point, and highlights the dangerous naivety of the international community’s reactive scepticism toward intelligence on Iranian nukes.
In contrast, the indisputable facts about Iran’s covert nuclear weapons research are as follows. According to the November 8, 2011 report by the IAEA, since 2003 the Government of Iran has:
1. Repeatedly, openly claimed its nuclear program is for “peaceful” purposes only, while it simultaneously…
2. Conducted covert research into nuclear weapons designs
3. Continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles
4. Covertly constructed numerous weapons-related facilities, notably the Fordow uranium enrichment facility – built inside of a mountain, itself inside a military base – revealed by US President Obama in September 2009.
Finally, and most importantly, the Government of Iran did all of the above while blatantly obfuscating and lying about its nuclear intentions, in an obvious effort to stall for time and thus deliberately impede all hope of progress during years of nuclear negotiation efforts with Western powers (namely the P5+1).
Apparently burned by the botched intel that justified war with Iraq, Russia and China (and many in the West) have dismissed the IAEA report as a manufactured casus belli to attack Iran, and have painted Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, as a pro-Western dupe.
Fallout from the misleading intelligence that led to the 2003 War in Iraq is now leading the international community into dangerous, reactive scepticism of the IAEA's damning report on Iran’s now exposed nuclear weapons program.
This ill-founded scepticism extends to American allegations last month of an Iranian government-backed plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States.
Despite the comprehensive, wide-ranging IAEA Report on Iran’s covert nuclear arms research, Russia and China have already rejected the possibility of increasing punitive sanctions against Iran, arguing on disingenuous grounds that the UK, France and US will use sanctions as an “instrument for regime change in Iran.”
Major news outlets across the world and particularly in the Middle East are similarly casting complete doubt on American and Israeli claims that Iran is actively working on nuclear weapons. 'The Americans are lying once again,' is the commentators’ chorus.
There is no arguing that the release of the IAEA Report was preceded by loud sabre-rattling from the American and Israeli political establishments, with leaked pronouncements that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is allegedly preparing Israel for unilateral air strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites.
The timing of the release of these statements was certainly no accident, designed both to spark global discourse on Iran prior to the IAEA Report and concurrently to intentionally expose the Israeli government’s willingness to undertake military action.
But since his election in 2009, Netanyahu has repeatedly stated Israel’s deep existential fears about the Iranian nuclear weapons program. As such, none of his recent statements should in any way discredit the catastrophic implications of the IAEA Report, which sets out in unprecedented detail the extent of Iran’s covert nuke research and experimental nuclear detonator testing.
Some critics have been quick to point out that Iran’s research into the design of nuclear weapons is not in-and-of itself a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory state and is thus internationally bound not to “manufacture” or otherwise “acquire” nuclear weapons. However, such a suggestion completely misses the point, and highlights the dangerous naivety of the international community’s reactive scepticism toward intelligence on Iranian nukes.
In contrast, the indisputable facts about Iran’s covert nuclear weapons research are as follows. According to the November 8, 2011 report by the IAEA, since 2003 the Government of Iran has:
1. Repeatedly, openly claimed its nuclear program is for “peaceful” purposes only, while it simultaneously…
2. Conducted covert research into nuclear weapons designs
3. Continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles
4. Covertly constructed numerous weapons-related facilities, notably the Fordow uranium enrichment facility – built inside of a mountain, itself inside a military base – revealed by US President Obama in September 2009.
Finally, and most importantly, the Government of Iran did all of the above while blatantly obfuscating and lying about its nuclear intentions, in an obvious effort to stall for time and thus deliberately impede all hope of progress during years of nuclear negotiation efforts with Western powers (namely the P5+1).
Apparently burned by the botched intel that justified war with Iraq, Russia and China (and many in the West) have dismissed the IAEA report as a manufactured casus belli to attack Iran, and have painted Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, as a pro-Western dupe.
Despite the fact that their own intelligence services likely also possess damning evidence of the Iranian nuke project, Russia and China are firmly backing Iran, with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warning the United States and Israel that attacking Iran would be “a very serious mistake.” The West can only guess as to what this warning could mean.
The most tragic casualty in all of this misguided scepticism is the truth itself. The fact that a 25-page report from the IAEA – the one global institution tasked with protecting the planet from the proliferation of nuclear weapons – can so blithely and reactively be dismissed as a lie, emphasizes the abject depravity of the international community’s moral core.
A country – the Islamic Republic of Iran – with a president who openly, repeatedly and callously denies that the Holocaust ever occurred, is now at the threshold of possessing the very weaponry that could cause the Second Holocaust.
In the face of this utterly malignant, horrifying historic juncture, the international community’s instinctive reaction is to render the IAEA’s years of painstaking intelligence gathering on this nuclear threat not as a terrifying truth, but rather as an unremitting lie.
Beset with widespread protests, a faltering global economy, and a Middle East already in turmoil, hesitation to green-light another conflict in the region is wholly understandable, and certainly with merit.
However for these same nations to then simply ignore the threat of another country gaining nuclear weapons capability, out of fear of causing temporary instability in the Middle East, is to abandon the world’s future to the enemies of peace. Moreover, if Iran develops the Bomb, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will effectively be destroyed, instigating a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region.
Israel, the one nation most directly threatened by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, is today at the greatest of geopolitical crossroads since coming into existence.
If Israel decides to undertake unilateral military action against Iran, Netanyahu must convene with the United Nations Security Council and reveal all of Israel’s intelligence on Iran's nuke program. Now is the time to irrefutably prove to the world that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and thus represents a threat to the peace and future stability of the world.
The truth on this matter cannot be left in any doubt, because the truth -- about Iran’s nuclear weapons program and the threat from Iran’s theocratic Shia 'Twelver' leadership -- is Israel’s only ally in the longstanding fight for its very survival as the world’s sole, immovable, Jewish State.
-------------------------------------------------------------
By: Robert David Onley
The most tragic casualty in all of this misguided scepticism is the truth itself. The fact that a 25-page report from the IAEA – the one global institution tasked with protecting the planet from the proliferation of nuclear weapons – can so blithely and reactively be dismissed as a lie, emphasizes the abject depravity of the international community’s moral core.
A country – the Islamic Republic of Iran – with a president who openly, repeatedly and callously denies that the Holocaust ever occurred, is now at the threshold of possessing the very weaponry that could cause the Second Holocaust.
In the face of this utterly malignant, horrifying historic juncture, the international community’s instinctive reaction is to render the IAEA’s years of painstaking intelligence gathering on this nuclear threat not as a terrifying truth, but rather as an unremitting lie.
Beset with widespread protests, a faltering global economy, and a Middle East already in turmoil, hesitation to green-light another conflict in the region is wholly understandable, and certainly with merit.
However for these same nations to then simply ignore the threat of another country gaining nuclear weapons capability, out of fear of causing temporary instability in the Middle East, is to abandon the world’s future to the enemies of peace. Moreover, if Iran develops the Bomb, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will effectively be destroyed, instigating a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region.
Israel, the one nation most directly threatened by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, is today at the greatest of geopolitical crossroads since coming into existence.
If Israel decides to undertake unilateral military action against Iran, Netanyahu must convene with the United Nations Security Council and reveal all of Israel’s intelligence on Iran's nuke program. Now is the time to irrefutably prove to the world that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and thus represents a threat to the peace and future stability of the world.
The truth on this matter cannot be left in any doubt, because the truth -- about Iran’s nuclear weapons program and the threat from Iran’s theocratic Shia 'Twelver' leadership -- is Israel’s only ally in the longstanding fight for its very survival as the world’s sole, immovable, Jewish State.
-------------------------------------------------------------
By: Robert David Onley
Friday, September 23, 2011
Published in UTSC's "Commons" Alumni Magazine
Very pleased to announce that my most recent article "The Socially Networked Future of International Diplomacy" was just published in the premier issue of my alma mater's new alumni magazine, UTSC Commons. The article can be read here: http://utsccommons.utsc.utoronto.ca/09-11/exclusives/onley
Enjoy! - R.O.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Published by the Prince Arthur Herald
Very pleased to report that my latest article "The Socially Networked Future of International Diplomacy" has just been published by the Prince Arthur Herald in Montreal. Click here to read it.
Always appreciate feedback. Hope you enjoy! - R.O.
Always appreciate feedback. Hope you enjoy! - R.O.
Friday, August 12, 2011
The Socially Networked Future of International Diplomacy
By: Robert D. Onley
In a world enveloped by unsolvable crises, national leaders of the Boomer Generation continue to practice politics and diplomacy using methods little changed over the centuries. Responding to their stasis, a new flock of 20-something student leaders – the “Facebook Generation” – are spearheading efforts that will forever reshape the dynamics of international diplomacy and global governance.
This stark contrast in methods was seen as one Middle Eastern government after another fell to popular uprisings this spring. Arab leaders who had viewed Facebook and Twitter as mere "websites" were blindsided by the organizing and unifying power of social networks.
But the inherent ability of these networks to mobilize people into action came as no surprise to the Facebook Generation, whose young leaders deployed the networks' tools as digital weapons and brought down the dictators.
While the Arab Spring will be remembered for the Internet’s effectiveness in instigating short-term ground-level political change, the long-term transformation of international diplomacy and the networked future of global governance was on display at the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit, held in Paris, France in early June.
At the Youth Summit, aspiring world leaders from the most economically powerful nations on earth met each other, exchanged ideas, and debated serious global problems in a professional, high-profile setting. Unlike the upbringings of their forebears, these young leaders are digitally connected, instantaneously communicating, and constantly updating each other on their personal, political and educational progress.
Critically, they have established permanent online networks of highly engaged, driven students who seek to bring change to the world, and who remain connected long after the Youth Summit is over. It is this transformative reality that is far more potent than the Arab Spring protests; a diplomatic sea change which will have deep ramifications for the future global order.
Renaissance
Paris, June 2011.
160 university students from all over the world gather at the École Supérieure de Commerce de Paris for the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit. The event, organized by a French non-profit initiative aptly called 'Youth Diplomacy', was planned entirely by undergraduate and graduate students.
The 5th annual Youth Summit sought to cultivate global dialogue between youth leaders through intensive negotiations over international affairs. Among the keynote speakers opening the event were the newly appointed Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, as well as an address by Christophe de Margerie, the President and CEO of Total S.A., one of the world's largest oil companies. Adding a layer of geopolitical credibility, Youth Diplomacy secured formal sponsorship for the Youth Summit from the Office of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy.
Beyond simply mimicking their respective national government's policies, the organizers encouraged delegates to propose their own innovative solutions. By week’s end the delegates had collaboratively drafted a consensus “Final Communiqué” of realistic proposals, a 54-page document which was then presented to the French Presidency and the actual leaders of the G8.
A Universe of Change
While international youth leadership events are nothing new, unlike any other era, social networking websites allow today's brightest youth to continue their dialogue, share their knowledge, and interact together on a daily basis. All of this is happening now, well before any of them enter into positions of real political power.
Critically, these up-and-coming world leaders understand that the influence of street-level social unrest only goes so far. What is needed is the genuine decision-making authority that comes with political office. These aspiring statesmen and women recognize that combining the organizational capability of social networks with their global networks of fellow young leaders will altogether reshape the future of global power and diplomacy, by equipping leaders with extraordinary communication tools.
The result is that social networks will soon become, in and of themselves, an additional lever of diplomatic power to world leaders. Tomorrow’s leaders, who today are establishing genuine international relationships through simulated diplomatic environments, will be able to leverage relationships from their youth that they cultivated over the coming decades.
Think about that for a moment. What if Barack Obama and Muammar Gaddafi had met 25 years ago and had been Facebook friends ever since?
Knowledge as power
The likelihood of such a scenario may be slim, but the plausible by-products of a such a relationship are as follows.
Tomorrow's world leaders will know more about each other than ever before. Like no other time, regular users of Facebook are provided – free of charge – with a deluge of personal, social and educational information about anyone they have ever added as a friend on the network. In many cases, this information is available for everyone that they have effectively ever met. (If you have added someone on Facebook that you only met once, raise your hand.)
Whether it is the latest degree, achievement, or new employer, Facebook allows for the completely legal “monitoring” of friends’ professional developments. By using Facebook just as the typical user does, sharing periodic life updates, Facebook Friends can know effectively everything that you, and concurrently, they, are doing and have done.
Intelligence briefing notes, the product of exhaustive research and once an indispensable primer for international negotiations with rival diplomats, could wind up becoming redundant relics of the pre-social-networked era of diplomacy.
Accordingly, relationships will be nurtured outside of regular diplomatic circles. Delegates at the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit in Paris warmly greeted returnees from the previous year's Summit in Vancouver. Like old friends, they had kept abreast of each other’s latest news, published articles and global travels – all through Facebook and Twitter.
Many of today's young leaders, including almost all of those who aspire to political office, are members of the jet-setting, globe-trotting crowd. Some delegates in Paris had even met up in far-off locales during the year in between Youth Summits – yet another externality facilitated by cheap travel and immediate communication tools.
While other delegates had not physically seen each other in over a year, the steady communal, ongoing dialogue enabled by social networks helped create a comfort and familiarity that only deepened the genuineness of their now renewed personal interactions in Paris.
Mental, digital shift
Empowering all of this is the fact that Facebook is effectively hard-wired into the day-to-day existence of tomorrow’s future leaders. Teenagers and 20-somethings possess a fundamental grasp of how Facebook “participates” in their daily lives.
Facebook’s all-pervasiveness is manifest in the hyper-connected reality of perpetual communication with --and information from-- anyone they have ever known. The social networks’ infiltration into the lives of the 'Facebook Generation' is due primarily to that fact that the Generation has literally grown up with the unprecedented power of instantaneous digital interaction.
For today's crop of young leaders, Facebook launched at the beginning of their undergraduate studies, allowing the sharpest among them to utilize the Groups feature to great effect when organizing campus events, clubs and parties.
But it is the omnipresence and ease-of-use of these technologies that will also enhance international dialogue in the near future. Facebook and Twitter are apps on every smartphone, and this will increasingly be the case as smartphones inevitably become ‘normal phones’. Facebook’s recently released Messenger app for iPhone and Android allows any user, anywhere in the world, to immediately contact anyone they have in their social network. And unlike international text messaging, Messenger’s chat feature is completely free.
Beyond Facebook, Twitter’s unique ability to #hashtag ideas, Tweet @ other users and their followers (thus bringing the Tweet to the attention of the 'targeted' user) is an instant accountability mechanism that today’s Boomer leaders are late to recognize, but one that tomorrow's leaders innately grasp. As these websites evolve and expand, so too will their abilities.
Hacker's delight
There are undeniably serious concerns regarding the security and privacy of Facebook, the legitimacy of social news outlets like Twitter, and their overall vulnerability to hacking. Recent scandals and security breaches have emphasized this, most notably the abhorrent hacking by Rupert Murdoch's "News of the World" paper.
However, the social networks are no more vulnerable than any other website. In fact, neither has ever been publicly hacked or catastrophically exploited. Broadly, every website on the Internet is subject to potential attack. The ongoing efforts of the hacking group ‘Anonymous’ to knock out the websites of major transnational corporations emphasize this ruthless reality.
Except given that ‘Anonymous’ concurrently supports opposition movements around the globe by hacking “enemy” government websites, it seems unlikely that the world’s highest profile hacking group would target the very social networks that pump oppressed protestors with the lifeblood needed for their movements to survive.
Move Beyond Sharing, into Shaping
The challenge for Facebook and Twitter is to move beyond merely lumping people into an interconnected universe filled with massive Groups and Events. Simply providing pages with common interests does little to push regular users to do anything more than read articles, watch videos and look at photo albums.
But Facebook can and must create legitimate social change, simply because it has the capability to instigate genuine discussion on global issues. What is required is motivated thinking.
In order to evolve beyond merely 'sharing', users should have the ability to opt-in to a "Dialogue" channel, one where "Strangers" (not Friends) with similar interests all over the world can comment on identical articles, ideas and proposals which have been mutually shared by several different people.
Often incredibly insightful comments and ideas on shared articles are forever “lost” on the Walls of Facebook users, whose ideas will never escape the restrictive confines of their profile's individual security settings. These lost ideas represent a tragedy for the progression of collective global discourse, and are untapped resources in the pursuit of tangible, results-oriented dialogue.
OneMidEast.org is an excellent example of a platform for constructive cross-cultural debate, featuring opposing views on contentious issues, presented on equal footing. Google's recently launched "Ideas" think-do-tank (in Google parlance) is another effort at encouraging discussion on intractable, real world matters.
The great advantage Facebook has in developing a similar platform, of course, is that it can exploit its exponentially larger userbase. With so many deeply troubling global problems requiring immediate action (just read the news), Facebook's competitive advantage cannot be wasted by simply staying complacent as an outlet for sharing silly YouTube videos and gawking at friends’ party pictures. Future generations cry out that Facebook’s 750,000,000+ users do far better than this with their time.
Facebook has already invaded the entire Internet, allowing users to log-in on practically every website imaginable, letting users "Like" pages and comment publicly on news articles using their personal profile. Such an unrivalled, ever-present platform for constructive communication with strangers can be taken a full step further, through the establishment a permanent think-tank structure for global dialogue, one that is operated within and populated by the entire Facebook universe and all of its shared content.
Only then can the overwhelmingly inane, narcissistic nature of Facebook today, be overhauled into a substantial, altruistic vehicle for shaping solutions to the myriad issues plaguing the planet.
Start now
Indeed with great power comes great responsibility. Possessing the largest, most influential websites in the world, Mr. Zuckerberg and his friends at Twitter and Google are burdened with, and challenged to begin, establishing a positive, lasting legacy using the very behemoths they now control.
Tomorrow's future leaders are ready to join them in this effort, today. Indeed, as the G8/G20 Youth Summit showcases, they have begun this dialogue by establishing influential networks of student leaders who are already initiating change. These young minds have been raised in an era where technological limits simply do not exist.
One spark and one Tweet started a revolution that is still sweeping the Middle East. The capacity to achieve has never been greater. Let’s get to work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Onley represented Canada as the Minister of Defence at the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit. Robert is a UTSC graduate (Honours Bachelor of Arts, 2009) and a freelance writer in Toronto. He is the President of the Students' Law Society at the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law. Follow @RobertOnley on Twitter.
In a world enveloped by unsolvable crises, national leaders of the Boomer Generation continue to practice politics and diplomacy using methods little changed over the centuries. Responding to their stasis, a new flock of 20-something student leaders – the “Facebook Generation” – are spearheading efforts that will forever reshape the dynamics of international diplomacy and global governance.
This stark contrast in methods was seen as one Middle Eastern government after another fell to popular uprisings this spring. Arab leaders who had viewed Facebook and Twitter as mere "websites" were blindsided by the organizing and unifying power of social networks.
But the inherent ability of these networks to mobilize people into action came as no surprise to the Facebook Generation, whose young leaders deployed the networks' tools as digital weapons and brought down the dictators.
While the Arab Spring will be remembered for the Internet’s effectiveness in instigating short-term ground-level political change, the long-term transformation of international diplomacy and the networked future of global governance was on display at the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit, held in Paris, France in early June.
At the Youth Summit, aspiring world leaders from the most economically powerful nations on earth met each other, exchanged ideas, and debated serious global problems in a professional, high-profile setting. Unlike the upbringings of their forebears, these young leaders are digitally connected, instantaneously communicating, and constantly updating each other on their personal, political and educational progress.
Critically, they have established permanent online networks of highly engaged, driven students who seek to bring change to the world, and who remain connected long after the Youth Summit is over. It is this transformative reality that is far more potent than the Arab Spring protests; a diplomatic sea change which will have deep ramifications for the future global order.
 |
| Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Paris |
Paris, June 2011.
160 university students from all over the world gather at the École Supérieure de Commerce de Paris for the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit. The event, organized by a French non-profit initiative aptly called 'Youth Diplomacy', was planned entirely by undergraduate and graduate students.
The 5th annual Youth Summit sought to cultivate global dialogue between youth leaders through intensive negotiations over international affairs. Among the keynote speakers opening the event were the newly appointed Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, as well as an address by Christophe de Margerie, the President and CEO of Total S.A., one of the world's largest oil companies. Adding a layer of geopolitical credibility, Youth Diplomacy secured formal sponsorship for the Youth Summit from the Office of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy.
Beyond simply mimicking their respective national government's policies, the organizers encouraged delegates to propose their own innovative solutions. By week’s end the delegates had collaboratively drafted a consensus “Final Communiqué” of realistic proposals, a 54-page document which was then presented to the French Presidency and the actual leaders of the G8.
A Universe of Change
While international youth leadership events are nothing new, unlike any other era, social networking websites allow today's brightest youth to continue their dialogue, share their knowledge, and interact together on a daily basis. All of this is happening now, well before any of them enter into positions of real political power.
Critically, these up-and-coming world leaders understand that the influence of street-level social unrest only goes so far. What is needed is the genuine decision-making authority that comes with political office. These aspiring statesmen and women recognize that combining the organizational capability of social networks with their global networks of fellow young leaders will altogether reshape the future of global power and diplomacy, by equipping leaders with extraordinary communication tools.
The result is that social networks will soon become, in and of themselves, an additional lever of diplomatic power to world leaders. Tomorrow’s leaders, who today are establishing genuine international relationships through simulated diplomatic environments, will be able to leverage relationships from their youth that they cultivated over the coming decades.
Think about that for a moment. What if Barack Obama and Muammar Gaddafi had met 25 years ago and had been Facebook friends ever since?
The likelihood of such a scenario may be slim, but the plausible by-products of a such a relationship are as follows.
Tomorrow's world leaders will know more about each other than ever before. Like no other time, regular users of Facebook are provided – free of charge – with a deluge of personal, social and educational information about anyone they have ever added as a friend on the network. In many cases, this information is available for everyone that they have effectively ever met. (If you have added someone on Facebook that you only met once, raise your hand.)
Whether it is the latest degree, achievement, or new employer, Facebook allows for the completely legal “monitoring” of friends’ professional developments. By using Facebook just as the typical user does, sharing periodic life updates, Facebook Friends can know effectively everything that you, and concurrently, they, are doing and have done.
Intelligence briefing notes, the product of exhaustive research and once an indispensable primer for international negotiations with rival diplomats, could wind up becoming redundant relics of the pre-social-networked era of diplomacy.
Accordingly, relationships will be nurtured outside of regular diplomatic circles. Delegates at the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit in Paris warmly greeted returnees from the previous year's Summit in Vancouver. Like old friends, they had kept abreast of each other’s latest news, published articles and global travels – all through Facebook and Twitter.
Many of today's young leaders, including almost all of those who aspire to political office, are members of the jet-setting, globe-trotting crowd. Some delegates in Paris had even met up in far-off locales during the year in between Youth Summits – yet another externality facilitated by cheap travel and immediate communication tools.
While other delegates had not physically seen each other in over a year, the steady communal, ongoing dialogue enabled by social networks helped create a comfort and familiarity that only deepened the genuineness of their now renewed personal interactions in Paris.
Empowering all of this is the fact that Facebook is effectively hard-wired into the day-to-day existence of tomorrow’s future leaders. Teenagers and 20-somethings possess a fundamental grasp of how Facebook “participates” in their daily lives.
Facebook’s all-pervasiveness is manifest in the hyper-connected reality of perpetual communication with --and information from-- anyone they have ever known. The social networks’ infiltration into the lives of the 'Facebook Generation' is due primarily to that fact that the Generation has literally grown up with the unprecedented power of instantaneous digital interaction.
For today's crop of young leaders, Facebook launched at the beginning of their undergraduate studies, allowing the sharpest among them to utilize the Groups feature to great effect when organizing campus events, clubs and parties.
But it is the omnipresence and ease-of-use of these technologies that will also enhance international dialogue in the near future. Facebook and Twitter are apps on every smartphone, and this will increasingly be the case as smartphones inevitably become ‘normal phones’. Facebook’s recently released Messenger app for iPhone and Android allows any user, anywhere in the world, to immediately contact anyone they have in their social network. And unlike international text messaging, Messenger’s chat feature is completely free.
Beyond Facebook, Twitter’s unique ability to #hashtag ideas, Tweet @ other users and their followers (thus bringing the Tweet to the attention of the 'targeted' user) is an instant accountability mechanism that today’s Boomer leaders are late to recognize, but one that tomorrow's leaders innately grasp. As these websites evolve and expand, so too will their abilities.
 |
| Gala dinner at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris |
There are undeniably serious concerns regarding the security and privacy of Facebook, the legitimacy of social news outlets like Twitter, and their overall vulnerability to hacking. Recent scandals and security breaches have emphasized this, most notably the abhorrent hacking by Rupert Murdoch's "News of the World" paper.
However, the social networks are no more vulnerable than any other website. In fact, neither has ever been publicly hacked or catastrophically exploited. Broadly, every website on the Internet is subject to potential attack. The ongoing efforts of the hacking group ‘Anonymous’ to knock out the websites of major transnational corporations emphasize this ruthless reality.
Except given that ‘Anonymous’ concurrently supports opposition movements around the globe by hacking “enemy” government websites, it seems unlikely that the world’s highest profile hacking group would target the very social networks that pump oppressed protestors with the lifeblood needed for their movements to survive.
Move Beyond Sharing, into Shaping
The challenge for Facebook and Twitter is to move beyond merely lumping people into an interconnected universe filled with massive Groups and Events. Simply providing pages with common interests does little to push regular users to do anything more than read articles, watch videos and look at photo albums.
But Facebook can and must create legitimate social change, simply because it has the capability to instigate genuine discussion on global issues. What is required is motivated thinking.
In order to evolve beyond merely 'sharing', users should have the ability to opt-in to a "Dialogue" channel, one where "Strangers" (not Friends) with similar interests all over the world can comment on identical articles, ideas and proposals which have been mutually shared by several different people.
Often incredibly insightful comments and ideas on shared articles are forever “lost” on the Walls of Facebook users, whose ideas will never escape the restrictive confines of their profile's individual security settings. These lost ideas represent a tragedy for the progression of collective global discourse, and are untapped resources in the pursuit of tangible, results-oriented dialogue.
OneMidEast.org is an excellent example of a platform for constructive cross-cultural debate, featuring opposing views on contentious issues, presented on equal footing. Google's recently launched "Ideas" think-do-tank (in Google parlance) is another effort at encouraging discussion on intractable, real world matters.
The great advantage Facebook has in developing a similar platform, of course, is that it can exploit its exponentially larger userbase. With so many deeply troubling global problems requiring immediate action (just read the news), Facebook's competitive advantage cannot be wasted by simply staying complacent as an outlet for sharing silly YouTube videos and gawking at friends’ party pictures. Future generations cry out that Facebook’s 750,000,000+ users do far better than this with their time.
Facebook has already invaded the entire Internet, allowing users to log-in on practically every website imaginable, letting users "Like" pages and comment publicly on news articles using their personal profile. Such an unrivalled, ever-present platform for constructive communication with strangers can be taken a full step further, through the establishment a permanent think-tank structure for global dialogue, one that is operated within and populated by the entire Facebook universe and all of its shared content.
Only then can the overwhelmingly inane, narcissistic nature of Facebook today, be overhauled into a substantial, altruistic vehicle for shaping solutions to the myriad issues plaguing the planet.
Start now
Indeed with great power comes great responsibility. Possessing the largest, most influential websites in the world, Mr. Zuckerberg and his friends at Twitter and Google are burdened with, and challenged to begin, establishing a positive, lasting legacy using the very behemoths they now control.
Tomorrow's future leaders are ready to join them in this effort, today. Indeed, as the G8/G20 Youth Summit showcases, they have begun this dialogue by establishing influential networks of student leaders who are already initiating change. These young minds have been raised in an era where technological limits simply do not exist.
One spark and one Tweet started a revolution that is still sweeping the Middle East. The capacity to achieve has never been greater. Let’s get to work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Onley represented Canada as the Minister of Defence at the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit. Robert is a UTSC graduate (Honours Bachelor of Arts, 2009) and a freelance writer in Toronto. He is the President of the Students' Law Society at the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law. Follow @RobertOnley on Twitter.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
My Interview on CJAMFM in Windsor discussing G8/G20 Youth Summit
Interested in representing Canada abroad? This morning I was interviewed on Windsor Law's radio show Ipso Facto by my colleagues at Windsor Law on CJAMFM (99.1) in Windsor. I discussed my experience at the G8/G20 Youth Summit in Paris, France as the Canadian Youth Minister of Defence, and shared my thoughts on youth diplomacy and negotiations.
You can listen to the interview here, with the show intro starting at 2:40 and my interview at the 7:30 mark.
Direct link: http://cjamlog1.cjam.ca/mp3dirnew/290-Ipso_Facto-20110629-0800-t1309330800.mp3
Special thanks to Chelsea and Maddy for a great interview. Check out the Ipso Facto blog and CJAM.ca, the University of Windsor's radio station. Enjoy!
- R.O.
You can listen to the interview here, with the show intro starting at 2:40 and my interview at the 7:30 mark.
Direct link: http://cjamlog1.cjam.ca/mp3dirnew/290-Ipso_Facto-20110629-0800-t1309330800.mp3
Special thanks to Chelsea and Maddy for a great interview. Check out the Ipso Facto blog and CJAM.ca, the University of Windsor's radio station. Enjoy!
- R.O.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Canadian Defence Policy at the G8/G20 Youth Summit
Check out my position paper written for the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit which was held in Paris, France from May 29 to June 3. Using this paper as a foundation, I lobbied for Canadian defence interests in the G8 Ministers of Defence Committee. In my paper, I focus particularly on the nuclear proliferation threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the consequences if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
Full link: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B56cVZO3CDLXMmRkMWRlZDEtNWIwYy00NGU0LTk5MDAtZWViZWY3NDRhYmM3&hl=en_US&authkey=COLqmagJ
Also, for anyone interested in reading what the future youth leaders of the G8 and G20 think about the most pressing global issues, click here to read the entire Final Communiqué drafted by each of the respective Committees of the G8/G20. The Defence Committee's final consensus document starts at page 39, which greatly reflects my successful lobbying efforts on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Appreciate any feedback. - R.O.
Full link: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B56cVZO3CDLXMmRkMWRlZDEtNWIwYy00NGU0LTk5MDAtZWViZWY3NDRhYmM3&hl=en_US&authkey=COLqmagJ
 |
| Ministers of Defence Committee - Samuel Leval (France), Jeff Rohde (USA), Andy Johnson (UK), Leo Axthelm (Germany), during negotiations at the G8/G20 Youth Summit in Paris, France |
Also, for anyone interested in reading what the future youth leaders of the G8 and G20 think about the most pressing global issues, click here to read the entire Final Communiqué drafted by each of the respective Committees of the G8/G20. The Defence Committee's final consensus document starts at page 39, which greatly reflects my successful lobbying efforts on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Appreciate any feedback. - R.O.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Sitting Down to Negotiate – Day 3 of the G8/G20 Youth Summit
My third blog post on the intensity of negotiations in the Ministers of Defence committee, as published by the official University of Toronto Scarborough blog. - R.O.
Sitting Down to Negotiate – Day 3 of the G8/G20 Youth Summit
The G8/G20 Youth Summit offers an unparalleled opportunity for university students to enter a world known only to the highest ranks of global governments. Canada’s army may be small in direct comparison to our G8 friends, but within the context of the G8, Canada’s voice is equal, unlike the exclusive UN Security Council.
Given this influential role, I took a stance on defense policy that was arguably broader than the Canadian government can actually enact and represent in reality. Nonetheless, the Ministers of Defense bore the heaviest moral and consequential burden at the G8 Youth Summit. As the military leaders of the world’s strongest democracies, we are tasked with addressing issues which threaten the overall peace and stability of the world, while simultaneously possessing the overwhelming military capacity to intervene and defend the lives of innocent human beings, as recently seen in Libya.
Canada is a peaceful nation that is promoting and helping to create stability through a number of military and defense missions abroad. Canada is well-respected internationally with much global goodwill. These missions include the NATO-ISAF operation in Afghanistan, the NATO-led air campaign against the Gaddafi regime in Libya and the rebuilding effort in Haiti.
The Western world is at the most dangerous crossroads of recent history. With revolutions sweeping the Middle East, arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden dead and the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran in the very near future, the Defense Ministers of the G8 are confronting the most uncertain future it has ever faced. The time has come for resolute decision-making. Rather than draft idealistic, unrealistic and far-out solutions that will only ‘kick the can down the road’, I believed in strong policy statements that were actionable, so that these issues are not still issues one day later in my life, should I end up working in a similar role.
When negotiations over strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) began, I opened by arguing that the very existence of the NPT was at stake, and called for policy that “Guaranteed the Survival of the NPT.” In line with the Canadian government, I stated that if Iran develops nuclear weapons in direct defiance of the NPT provisions, then the world faces the grave risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In a region that has seen so much instability in so many countries, the last thing the international community needs is the widespread development of the globe’s most deadly weaponry.
While agreeing to this ‘survival’ theme was simple, achieving consensus on how to actually “stop” Iran from developing nuclear weapons presented a massive hurdle for our negotiations. In reality, Iran and the Western powers have attempted several rounds of negotiations, designed to reach an understanding on the nature and extent of Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranian government has continually denied it is seeking nuclear weapons, while the Western powers, notably the United States, have viewed Iran’s program with deep suspicion, based on a variety of intelligence gathered by the IAEA in its inspections.
Deciding how to proceed with diplomacy was difficult, simply because the negotiation process has dragged on for decades. Some see a negotiated settlement as a dead end. However, on the flip side, no one at the G8 Youth Summit was arguing that the only solution is to use military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program.
Instead, the G8 Youth Ministers of Defense worked exhaustively on developing a “Grand Bargain”, designed to entice the Iranian government to come to the negotiating table with open hands and come clean about its nuclear intentions. In return, the G8 presented Iran with a massive package of economic, social and technological incentives to fully normalize relations with Iran and promote the creation of mutual trust, understanding and peace. This is the only path toward peace.
Through nearly two full days of negotiation, we, the G8 Youth, were finally able to reach consensus on this Grand Bargain. Along the way, nearly every possible realistic method of enticing Iran to negotiate was discussed, analyzed and critiqued. In the end, the G8 concluded that if indeed Iran was only developing peaceful nuclear energy, then they would absolutely have to come to the negotiating table, open up their nuclear program to full inspection, and in doing so, put to rest all fears that they are developing nuclear weapons. Any other response, even non-response, would be deemed conclusive evidence that Iran was in all likelihood covertly developing nuclear weapons.
This was the proposal set out in our final communiqué: whether or not the real G8 nations will present Iran with a similar offer remains to be seen. As the Youth Ministers of Defense, we can only hope that the real G8 is reading our work and taking note. The alternative — the death of the NPT — would represent the beginning of a dark period in world history, as other nations race to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
In my next post, I will assess the impact of the G8/G20 Youth Summit on networking and the influence of youth leaders.
Sitting Down to Negotiate – Day 3 of the G8/G20 Youth Summit
The Defense Committee (far right: Rob Onley)
The G8/G20 Youth Summit offers an unparalleled opportunity for university students to enter a world known only to the highest ranks of global governments. Canada’s army may be small in direct comparison to our G8 friends, but within the context of the G8, Canada’s voice is equal, unlike the exclusive UN Security Council.
Given this influential role, I took a stance on defense policy that was arguably broader than the Canadian government can actually enact and represent in reality. Nonetheless, the Ministers of Defense bore the heaviest moral and consequential burden at the G8 Youth Summit. As the military leaders of the world’s strongest democracies, we are tasked with addressing issues which threaten the overall peace and stability of the world, while simultaneously possessing the overwhelming military capacity to intervene and defend the lives of innocent human beings, as recently seen in Libya.
Canada is a peaceful nation that is promoting and helping to create stability through a number of military and defense missions abroad. Canada is well-respected internationally with much global goodwill. These missions include the NATO-ISAF operation in Afghanistan, the NATO-led air campaign against the Gaddafi regime in Libya and the rebuilding effort in Haiti.
The Western world is at the most dangerous crossroads of recent history. With revolutions sweeping the Middle East, arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden dead and the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran in the very near future, the Defense Ministers of the G8 are confronting the most uncertain future it has ever faced. The time has come for resolute decision-making. Rather than draft idealistic, unrealistic and far-out solutions that will only ‘kick the can down the road’, I believed in strong policy statements that were actionable, so that these issues are not still issues one day later in my life, should I end up working in a similar role.
When negotiations over strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) began, I opened by arguing that the very existence of the NPT was at stake, and called for policy that “Guaranteed the Survival of the NPT.” In line with the Canadian government, I stated that if Iran develops nuclear weapons in direct defiance of the NPT provisions, then the world faces the grave risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In a region that has seen so much instability in so many countries, the last thing the international community needs is the widespread development of the globe’s most deadly weaponry.
While agreeing to this ‘survival’ theme was simple, achieving consensus on how to actually “stop” Iran from developing nuclear weapons presented a massive hurdle for our negotiations. In reality, Iran and the Western powers have attempted several rounds of negotiations, designed to reach an understanding on the nature and extent of Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranian government has continually denied it is seeking nuclear weapons, while the Western powers, notably the United States, have viewed Iran’s program with deep suspicion, based on a variety of intelligence gathered by the IAEA in its inspections.
Deciding how to proceed with diplomacy was difficult, simply because the negotiation process has dragged on for decades. Some see a negotiated settlement as a dead end. However, on the flip side, no one at the G8 Youth Summit was arguing that the only solution is to use military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program.
Instead, the G8 Youth Ministers of Defense worked exhaustively on developing a “Grand Bargain”, designed to entice the Iranian government to come to the negotiating table with open hands and come clean about its nuclear intentions. In return, the G8 presented Iran with a massive package of economic, social and technological incentives to fully normalize relations with Iran and promote the creation of mutual trust, understanding and peace. This is the only path toward peace.
Through nearly two full days of negotiation, we, the G8 Youth, were finally able to reach consensus on this Grand Bargain. Along the way, nearly every possible realistic method of enticing Iran to negotiate was discussed, analyzed and critiqued. In the end, the G8 concluded that if indeed Iran was only developing peaceful nuclear energy, then they would absolutely have to come to the negotiating table, open up their nuclear program to full inspection, and in doing so, put to rest all fears that they are developing nuclear weapons. Any other response, even non-response, would be deemed conclusive evidence that Iran was in all likelihood covertly developing nuclear weapons.
This was the proposal set out in our final communiqué: whether or not the real G8 nations will present Iran with a similar offer remains to be seen. As the Youth Ministers of Defense, we can only hope that the real G8 is reading our work and taking note. The alternative — the death of the NPT — would represent the beginning of a dark period in world history, as other nations race to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
In my next post, I will assess the impact of the G8/G20 Youth Summit on networking and the influence of youth leaders.
The Start of Negotiations at the G8/G20 Youth Summit
Here's my second blog post from the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit, as published by the official University of Toronto Scarborough Blog last week. - R.O.
Youth International Dialogue – Negotiations Begin - 7 June 2011
As a political science graduate from UTSC, I often read of international negotiations about grave global issues throughout my studies. From the UN Security Council debates leading up to the War in Iraq, to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conventions, nation states seek consensus on serious issues. However divisions, mistrust and self-interested policy proposals often lead to failed talks that do not produce tangible results.
As the Youth Ministers of Defense began negotiations on Day 2 of the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit, the challenge was to reach consensus on arguably the most serious global peace and security concerns: stopping nuclear weapons proliferation; stabilizing Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea; and ending piracy on our global seaways. Complete reform of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s efforts was also high on our list of agenda objectives.
Of these issues, the agenda was dominated by a comprehensive reassessment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the context of the Iranian nuclear program. In the real world, negotiations with Iran over possible military dimensions of their nuclear energy program have stalled repeatedly over the last eight years. Concerns about Iran achieving nuclear “breakout” potential are driving other nations in the openly express fear about the prospect of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
Each youth delegate’s position on the agenda topics had been discussed and debated online through Google Groups in the months leading up to the event. By analyzing the topics independently and critically examining each other’s proposals prior to the Youth Summit, we had narrowed down our potential agenda in an effort to avoid unnecessary arguing at the actual event in Paris.
As the Canadian Minister of Defense, I expressed a deep desire to see the G8 Youth extensively examine national policy on the counter-terrorism campaigns in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Given that the Government of Canada has already committed to a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011, I lobbied my delegate colleagues to agree to a comprehensive post-combat reconstruction plan. Generally we reached consensus on the best way forward for the people of Afghanistan and our respective governments.
As negotiations over Pakistan, North Korea and Iran progressed, I was surprised at how closely we began to follow our national government’s actual stated policies. While we were in no way required to mimic our governments’ positions, the youth delegates showed an obvious degree of pride by standing up for their own national policies. Nonetheless, numerous concessions were made in the interest of achieving positive consensus. NATO allies including Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the United States formed a bulwark within the G8 defence discussions, providing a strong, if not united front in reaching consensus.
Once the basic agenda preparations had been completed, we began to use Google Documents, connected via a laptop to a projector, to collaboratively draft our consensus decisions for the final communiqué. This process of simultaneous editing provided an incomparably efficient and transparent way of reaching an accord. All eight delegates could see each and every word as it was written, and likewise could object to any wording that they deemed controversial.
By infusing our confident grasp of modern communications and productivity technologies, the majority of our negotiations were rightly focused on the heart of the agenda issues. When talking about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, this was critical to ensure that we wasted no time on minor form and syntax issues.
In my next post, I’ll delve into to the most contentious aspects of our discussion and give an inside perspective on just what it means to ‘compromise’ in international negotiations.
Youth International Dialogue – Negotiations Begin - 7 June 2011
As a political science graduate from UTSC, I often read of international negotiations about grave global issues throughout my studies. From the UN Security Council debates leading up to the War in Iraq, to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conventions, nation states seek consensus on serious issues. However divisions, mistrust and self-interested policy proposals often lead to failed talks that do not produce tangible results.
As the Youth Ministers of Defense began negotiations on Day 2 of the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit, the challenge was to reach consensus on arguably the most serious global peace and security concerns: stopping nuclear weapons proliferation; stabilizing Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea; and ending piracy on our global seaways. Complete reform of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s efforts was also high on our list of agenda objectives.
Of these issues, the agenda was dominated by a comprehensive reassessment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the context of the Iranian nuclear program. In the real world, negotiations with Iran over possible military dimensions of their nuclear energy program have stalled repeatedly over the last eight years. Concerns about Iran achieving nuclear “breakout” potential are driving other nations in the openly express fear about the prospect of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
Each youth delegate’s position on the agenda topics had been discussed and debated online through Google Groups in the months leading up to the event. By analyzing the topics independently and critically examining each other’s proposals prior to the Youth Summit, we had narrowed down our potential agenda in an effort to avoid unnecessary arguing at the actual event in Paris.
As the Canadian Minister of Defense, I expressed a deep desire to see the G8 Youth extensively examine national policy on the counter-terrorism campaigns in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Given that the Government of Canada has already committed to a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011, I lobbied my delegate colleagues to agree to a comprehensive post-combat reconstruction plan. Generally we reached consensus on the best way forward for the people of Afghanistan and our respective governments.
As negotiations over Pakistan, North Korea and Iran progressed, I was surprised at how closely we began to follow our national government’s actual stated policies. While we were in no way required to mimic our governments’ positions, the youth delegates showed an obvious degree of pride by standing up for their own national policies. Nonetheless, numerous concessions were made in the interest of achieving positive consensus. NATO allies including Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the United States formed a bulwark within the G8 defence discussions, providing a strong, if not united front in reaching consensus.
Once the basic agenda preparations had been completed, we began to use Google Documents, connected via a laptop to a projector, to collaboratively draft our consensus decisions for the final communiqué. This process of simultaneous editing provided an incomparably efficient and transparent way of reaching an accord. All eight delegates could see each and every word as it was written, and likewise could object to any wording that they deemed controversial.
By infusing our confident grasp of modern communications and productivity technologies, the majority of our negotiations were rightly focused on the heart of the agenda issues. When talking about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, this was critical to ensure that we wasted no time on minor form and syntax issues.
In my next post, I’ll delve into to the most contentious aspects of our discussion and give an inside perspective on just what it means to ‘compromise’ in international negotiations.
The Start of Negotiations
Here's my second blog post from the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit, as published by the official University of Toronto Scarborough Blog last week.
Youth International Dialogue – Negotiations Begin
As a political science graduate from UTSC, I often read of international negotiations about grave global issues throughout my studies . From the UN Security Council debates leading up to the War in Iraq, to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conventions, nation states seek consensus on serious issues. However divisions, mistrust and self-interested policy proposals often lead to failed talks that do not produce tangible results.
As the Youth Ministers of Defense began negotiations on Day 2 of the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit, the challenge was to reach consensus on arguably the most serious global peace and security concerns: stopping nuclear weapons proliferation; stabilizing Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea; and ending piracy on our global seaways. Complete reform of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s efforts was also high on our list of agenda objectives.
Of these issues, the agenda was dominated by a comprehensive reassessment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the context of the Iranian nuclear program. In the real world, negotiations with Iran over possible military dimensions of their nuclear energy program have stalled repeatedly over the last eight years. Concerns about Iran achieving nuclear “breakout” potential are driving other nations in the openly express fear about the prospect of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
Each youth delegate’s position on the agenda topics had been discussed and debated online through Google Groups in the months leading up to the event. By analyzing the topics independently and critically examining each other’s proposals prior to the Youth Summit, we had narrowed down our potential agenda in an effort to avoid unnecessary arguing at the actual event in Paris.
As the Canadian Minister of Defense, I expressed a deep desire to see the G8 Youth extensively examine national policy on the counter-terrorism campaigns in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Given that the Government of Canada has already committed to a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011, I lobbied my delegate colleagues to agree to a comprehensive post-combat reconstruction plan. Generally we reached consensus on the best way forward for the people of Afghanistan and our respective governments.
As negotiations over Pakistan, North Korea and Iran progressed, I was surprised at how closely we began to follow our national government’s actual stated policies. While we were in no way required to mimic our governments’ positions, the youth delegates showed an obvious degree of pride by standing up for their own national policies. Nonetheless, numerous concessions were made in the interest of achieving positive consensus. NATO allies including Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the United States formed a bulwark within the G8 defence discussions, providing a strong, if not united front in reaching consensus.
Once the basic agenda preparations had been completed, we began to use Google Documents, connected via a laptop to a projector, to collaboratively draft our consensus decisions for the final communiqué. This process of simultaneous editing provided an incomparably efficient and transparent way of reaching an accord. All eight delegates could see each and every word as it was written, and likewise could object to any wording that they deemed controversial.
By infusing our confident grasp of modern communications and productivity technologies, the majority of our negotiations were rightly focused on the heart of the agenda issues. When talking about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, this was critical to ensure that we wasted no time on minor form and syntax issues.
In my next post, I’ll delve into to the most contentious aspects of our discussion and give an inside perspective on just what it means to ‘compromise’ in international negotiations.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Blogging for UTSC at the G8/G20 Youth Summit
My first blog post for U of T Scarborough is now live!
http://uoftscarborough.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/utsc-alum-has-experience-of-a-lifetime-at-2011-g8g20-youth-summit/
- R.O.
http://uoftscarborough.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/utsc-alum-has-experience-of-a-lifetime-at-2011-g8g20-youth-summit/
- R.O.
 |
| The 2011 Canadian Delegation at the Canadian Embassy in Paris, France, for the G8/G20 Youth Summit. |
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tweeting for UTSC at the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit
On Saturday I will be travelling to Paris, France for the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit, to represent Canada as the Minister of Defence.
Given all that is transpiring in the Middle East and internationally, this is an incredibly exciting time to be discussing global affairs with potential future leaders of the most powerful nations on earth. After my experience at last year's Youth Summit in Vancouver, I can confidently state that the delegates selected for the event are some of the most accomplished, intelligent and well-read people I have ever met.
It is an honour for me to be among these fellow student leaders, as we seek to reach consensus and compromise on the most pressing issues facing the world community. Further, as a graduate of the University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC), I am pleased to announce that I will be blogging and Tweeting about my experiences for UTSC while at the Youth Summit in France. I hope to provide current and future students an inside perspective on negotiations, and encourage these students to aspire to achieve their full potential.
The Canadian Delegation has been actively meeting and preparing over the last two months in the lead-up to the Youth Summit, and I look forward to meeting each of them. Check out my article published in the Windsor Star based on my experiences at last year's Youth Summit. Bon voyage everyone! - R.O.
Given all that is transpiring in the Middle East and internationally, this is an incredibly exciting time to be discussing global affairs with potential future leaders of the most powerful nations on earth. After my experience at last year's Youth Summit in Vancouver, I can confidently state that the delegates selected for the event are some of the most accomplished, intelligent and well-read people I have ever met.
It is an honour for me to be among these fellow student leaders, as we seek to reach consensus and compromise on the most pressing issues facing the world community. Further, as a graduate of the University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC), I am pleased to announce that I will be blogging and Tweeting about my experiences for UTSC while at the Youth Summit in France. I hope to provide current and future students an inside perspective on negotiations, and encourage these students to aspire to achieve their full potential.
The Canadian Delegation has been actively meeting and preparing over the last two months in the lead-up to the Youth Summit, and I look forward to meeting each of them. Check out my article published in the Windsor Star based on my experiences at last year's Youth Summit. Bon voyage everyone! - R.O.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Can America Block Iran's Drive for Regional Hegemony?
A profoundly straight-forward, sobering assessment of geopolitics by Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, in his article titled: "Can America Block Iran's Drive for Regional Hegemony?"
Blunt and to the point: this generation's war is between the United States and Iran, with Israel caught in the middle. Whether the West is successful in stopping Iran's nuclear program could very well determine the stability of the global order and the fate of this century. Meridor's assessment is spot on: Iran's nuclear program absolutely must be stopped.
Blunt and to the point: this generation's war is between the United States and Iran, with Israel caught in the middle. Whether the West is successful in stopping Iran's nuclear program could very well determine the stability of the global order and the fate of this century. Meridor's assessment is spot on: Iran's nuclear program absolutely must be stopped.
On that point, I am happy to report that I successfully lobbied to have "Stopping Iran's Nuclear Program" as the number 1 agenda item for the Ministers of Defence at the upcoming G8/G20 Youth Summit in Paris, France this May. The question is: can the real G8 leaders agree to the same agenda before it's too late?
-R.O.
-R.O.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Minister of Defence for Canada at the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit
I am very pleased to announce that I have been selected to represent Canada as the Minister of Defence at the 2011 G8/G20 Youth Summit being held this May in Paris, France. I am looking forward to representing Canadian interests at this international gathering of graduate student leaders from around the world, especially at such an interesting time globally.
Check out the Canadian delegation here.
After participating in last year's G8/G20 Youth Summit in Vancouver as the Minister of Finance, I know I will bring principled leadership experience to our discussion. I cannot wait to return to Paris after visiting last spring, and will be sure to write updates about my experiences there as it happens.
-R.O.
Check out the Canadian delegation here.
After participating in last year's G8/G20 Youth Summit in Vancouver as the Minister of Finance, I know I will bring principled leadership experience to our discussion. I cannot wait to return to Paris after visiting last spring, and will be sure to write updates about my experiences there as it happens.
-R.O.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Iranium - The Documentary
Check out Iranium, a documentary about Iran and its nuclear weapons program released today.
"In approximately 60 minutes, Iranium powerfully reports on the many aspects of the threat America and the world now faces using rarely-before seen footage of Iranian leaders, and interviews with 25 leading politicians, Iranian dissidents, and experts on: Middle East policy, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.
Iranium documents the development of Iran's nuclear threat, beginning with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the ideology installed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini.
Iranium tracks Iran's use of terror as a tool of policy, beginning with the 444 day seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, through Iran's insurgent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iranium details the brutal nature of the Iranian regime to its own citizens, and the Iranian people's desire to rejoin the international community.
Iranium outlines the various scenarios the greater Middle East and the Western world may face should Iran cross the nuclear threshold."
"In approximately 60 minutes, Iranium powerfully reports on the many aspects of the threat America and the world now faces using rarely-before seen footage of Iranian leaders, and interviews with 25 leading politicians, Iranian dissidents, and experts on: Middle East policy, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.
Iranium documents the development of Iran's nuclear threat, beginning with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the ideology installed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini.
Iranium tracks Iran's use of terror as a tool of policy, beginning with the 444 day seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, through Iran's insurgent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iranium details the brutal nature of the Iranian regime to its own citizens, and the Iranian people's desire to rejoin the international community.
Iranium outlines the various scenarios the greater Middle East and the Western world may face should Iran cross the nuclear threshold."
Monday, January 24, 2011
Tony Blair: West must be prepared to use force against Iran
Tony Blair: West must be prepared to use force against Iran - Haaretz.com, Jan. 22, 2011
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says what today's world leaders are too afraid to admit - that the West must be prepared to use force against Iran. As published by Ha'aretz, Blair "urged the West to be prepared to confront Iran with force in order to face the "looming and coming challenge" from the Islamic republic."
Blair continued, saying "[Iran] has to be confronted and changed. Iran is a looming challenge. It is negative and destabilizing. It supports terrorists," Blair, who currently serves as the Quartet envoy to the Middle East said at the Chilcot inquiry, the U.K. inquiry into the war in Iraq."
As yet another round of talks with Iran (predictably) stall and collapse in Istanbul, the West must ask itself: at what point will diplomacy be deemed to have failed? When will the line be drawn? When will Iran's leaders be held to account for their continued defiance of international law? These are grave questions that must be answered.
The United States recently deployed the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier into the Gulf off the coast of Iran, carrying over 6000 sailors and armed with 80 attack fighter jets. Certainly this is a sign that the U.S. is serious about its calls for Iran to come clean about its covert nuclear program, and Iran's likely ongoing production of nuclear weapons. But will U.S. defense planners match their words with action?
We may be about to find out.
- R.O.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says what today's world leaders are too afraid to admit - that the West must be prepared to use force against Iran. As published by Ha'aretz, Blair "urged the West to be prepared to confront Iran with force in order to face the "looming and coming challenge" from the Islamic republic."
Blair continued, saying "[Iran] has to be confronted and changed. Iran is a looming challenge. It is negative and destabilizing. It supports terrorists," Blair, who currently serves as the Quartet envoy to the Middle East said at the Chilcot inquiry, the U.K. inquiry into the war in Iraq."
As yet another round of talks with Iran (predictably) stall and collapse in Istanbul, the West must ask itself: at what point will diplomacy be deemed to have failed? When will the line be drawn? When will Iran's leaders be held to account for their continued defiance of international law? These are grave questions that must be answered.
The United States recently deployed the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier into the Gulf off the coast of Iran, carrying over 6000 sailors and armed with 80 attack fighter jets. Certainly this is a sign that the U.S. is serious about its calls for Iran to come clean about its covert nuclear program, and Iran's likely ongoing production of nuclear weapons. But will U.S. defense planners match their words with action?
We may be about to find out.
- R.O.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)