North Korea’s partnership with South Korea in the Winter Olympics has been perceived as a possible détente between the two Koreas amidst escalating tensions. Michelle Cho, a Korea Foundation Assistant Professor in the Department of East Asian Studies at McGill University, interprets North Korea’s participation as an attempt to step away from isolation towards integration with the international community. “The motives for joining this Winter Olympics are pretty straightforwardly to reduce tensions. […] It’s an effort on the part of North Korea to maintain its autonomy but still integrate itself a bit more. The image [of North Korea as an isolated country] is overstated, [and comes] from the North American perspective,” said Cho.

Among the North Korea delegation was supreme leader Kim Jong-un’s younger sister Kim Yo-jong, and North Korea’s elder figurehead Kim Yong-nam. Cho believes that North Korea made an important gesture in choosing a delegation of officials that spanned old and new generations. “I think [Kim Yong-nam’s] presence is meant to inspire feelings of fraternity, and [cater to] the older generation in South Korea, who care more about reunification because they have memories of a unified Korea, or they have family members [in North Korea],” said Cho.

However, North Korea’s participation in the Olympics could also be interpreted as an attempt at political gymnastics to increase international approval for its regime, according to T. V. Paul, a McGill University professor of International Relations: “North Korea did a very smart thing […] [It] did what other countries have done, which is charm offensive, diplomatic offensive, soft power […] so it’s a very clever, calculated move. But it may not last long.” He added that another important aspect of the Olympics is personal contact: “It is an extraordinary show, because here you have people-to-people contact, [which is usually] very poor; you don’t have families visiting [..] so it’s an extraordinary symbolic act.”

Responses to the North Korean delegation are mixed among the people of the host country. Although many enthusiastically welcomed the hundreds of performers, athletes, and cheerleaders in the North Korean delegation, some were wary of possible hidden motives and remain unconvinced of a North-South rapprochement.

A reason for such jadedness could be that North-South relations have always been dependent on the political climate. In 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung announced the Sunshine Policy towards North Korea, which aimed to mitigate the gap in economic power and to restore lost communication between the two nations. However, some criticised South Korea for maintaining a cooperative policy towards the North while provocative acts such as nuclear and missile tests occurred.

The Sunshine Policy was formally abandoned by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in 2010, and throughout his and Park Geun-hye’s presidency, North-South tensions deteriorated to those of the Cold War-era. Since the 2017 presidential election, newly elected President Moon Jae-In has been actively pushing for denuclearization by conducting joint US-Korea military exercises and supporting United Nations Security Council sanctions against North Korea for its nuclear program. At the same time, he has promised reconciliation and dialogue with the North. His decision to allow athletes from both sides of the border to march under the Korean Unification Flag and to play as a joint women’s ice hockey team has been criticized as “pandering” to North Korea.

North Korea’s participation in the Winter Olympics has been controversial from the start. Initially, international news outlets such as CNN, BBC, and ABC reacted positively to the arrival of the North Korean delegation, but that reaction was immediately met with backlash from other media outlets, who accused them of adding fuel to North Korea’s media campaign. Others have criticized the International Olympic Committee for allowing a nation rife with human rights abuses to compete.

“I think that it’s pretty characteristic of the function that North Korea plays in Western media because they’re always being reported on in these extreme terms. It’s very hard to find a moderate perspective on North Korea; although those kinds of stories exist, [they’re] in specialist papers or in academia. So if you just go by North American mass media, it’s very polarized,” said Cho.

Historical amnesia also plays a part in the common depiction of North Korea as the ultimate evil in media, without regard for the responsibilities of other countries in creating this standstill. According to Cho, those who see the United States as a benevolent superpower forget that the United States’ previous attempts to contain North Korea had left behind a blazing trail of problems, including great loss of Korean civilian lives and the creation of a military dictatorship in South Korea. She explains, “A lot of Americans think of North Korea as fickle; or they don’t understand the motivations behind North Koreans’ animosity towards the U.S. And it’s because they don’t know anything about the Korean War; they don’t realize that the American military […] bombed North Korea for three years and destroyed everything and all the existing infrastructure, and killed many people.”

Recent North Korean diplomatic relations have been as unpredictable as before the Olympic Games, if not moreso. In his New Year’s Day speech, Kim Jong-un announced suddenly that he was ready to “melt the frozen North-South relations.” However, this in no way suggests a positive development in international relations. The Trump administration’s lack of commitment to diplomacy is also not conducive to building a trusting relationship. Threats of military strikes, isolation tactics, and diplomacy often come at the same time, sending mixed messages to North Korea. Paul believes that there is no quick solution to rising tensions.

Sports events have long been an outlet for international relations. From serving as propaganda for the Nazis in 1936 Germany, to playing a part in dismantling apartheid in post-war Africa, to fostering diplomacy between the U.S. and China through ping-pong, major sports events have been an important diplomatic tool, for better or for worse. Cho believes the Winter Olympics have been beneficial in alleviating international tensions.

“I think that it’s been very helpful to have this event to occur at this moment of escalating tensions. Who knows what will happen with the U.S., but I think the U.S. needs to step back a bit because the global public opinion has been swayed a bit, even though there are still a lot of skeptics […] It happened at a good time, and it has been reassuring for a lot of people, myself included, that North Korea is interested in de-escalating,” said Cho.

While a thaw in relations can be encouraging, one-off events like the Olympics can only benefit international relations if countries are willing to follow up with peacemaking efforts, according to Paul: “It is an important step, if it is followed through, so that is the sub-clause you have to put there. It has to be followed through with steps, concrete steps, which will mean more engagement with other forms of official and non-official NGOs, people-to-people contacts, and trying to have a diplomatic engagement.”

The post Diplomacy at the Olympics appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The “boomerang effect” of Islamophobia

Abdelshamy began by explaining the “boomerang effect” of Islamophobia,  which occurs when people label those who do not share their privilege as ‘dangerous,’ without acknowledging that they, as privileged people, are the ones threatening the marginalised.

“White supremacy taught white people that all people of colour are threats, regardless of their behaviour,” said Abdelshamy. “The white person who has been educated and moulded by all those thinkings and all these privileges, looks at the other and perceives them as a threat, when in reality, they are the threat.”

She continued to explain that the term “Islamophobia” itself is problematic. By removing agency from the person responsible for it, the perpetrator is portrayed as the victim. In fact, Islamophobia is not merely fear; it masks irrational hatred towards Muslims.

“We coin these terms, like Islamophobia, as if it is a fear and it is something that can be cured; it’s an illness, right? It’s something you cannot control,” said Abdelshamy.

Islamophobia in academia

According to Abdelshamy, academia is inherently colonial and designed to exclude those from whom academia does not benefit. She compared academia to the prison-industrial complex, pointing out similarities between the two concepts.

“If we think of prison as an institution, in this case an educational institution like McGill, the prison only inflicts violence on prisoners, but not all prisoners are criminals and not all criminals are prisoners. If you’re Muslim, you are a prisoner even if you’re not a criminal. White folks are part of the prison, but [are] not prisoners. They’re part of the prison as the infrastructure, not as individuals. And they might be criminals, but they will never be prisoners,” said Abdelshamy.

During the discussion, Baharun pointed out that Western-directed initiatives to study Islam fail to acknowledge the real-life experiences of those who practise it. As a result, the rich life experiences and human capacity of Muslims are neglected, in the name of academic objectivity.

“If we think of prison as an institution, in this case an educational institution like McGill, the prison only inflicts violence on prisoners, but not all prisoners are criminals and not all criminals are prisoners.”

Islamophobia and mental health

The two speakers also  discussed the effects of Islamophobia on mental health. Abdelshamy pointed out that anger is a common emotion that Muslims feel, and can be both troubling and rewarding.

“There is no way you can walk through McGill without feeling that rage,” said Abdelshamy. “Our anger is always going to be read as something that is violent, something to be censored and eradicated because our anger is ‘unjustified.’ […] I think we forget what anger is. […] Anger is our ability to feel, and I think that’s necessary because one, it’s a reminder that you are alive, and two, [it’s a reminder] that you are humans and thus [shows that] we are refuting the idea of dehumanizing Muslims and […] others.”

Possibilities of white allyship

To Abdelshamy, white allyship should not be seen as the panacea to Islamophobia. She maintained that it is dangerous for Muslims to rely on others, especially those who are responsible for marginalizing the Muslim community, to seek social justice, especially concerning an inherently violent cause.

“What I want is for people of colour to walk out of this room and say, ‘I am allowed to be angry’ because anger is sacred; it’s important and it’s needed. […]  I want white folks to walk out of this room and be like, ‘She’s angry because of me,’ and that’s fine because [white folks]  can also stop the apparatus of anger,” said Abdelshamy.

As for Baharun, she thought that students could start being allies by inspecting their own internalized Islamophobia, and by speaking up in the classroom.

“It’s up to each and every one of us to unpack our own biases, and understand what [we] have internalised already and what [we]  have yet to internalize,” said Baharun. “I have been in a classroom where students talk about, or write articles, on how much of an ally they are, they stand in solidarity with people of colour. But when it comes time to allowing problematic rhetoric to go on in that classroom space, they are nowhere to be found. Even just [in terms of] offering some [emotional] support they are often absent. Being present and communicating [are] absolutely fundamental to being an ally.”

“It’s up to each and everyone of us to unpack our own biases, and undersand what [we] have internalised already and what [we] have yet to internalise.”

Islamophobia and McGill

During the Q&A session, participants discussed specific manifestations of Islamophobia at  McGill, and the different degrees to which it manifests on different parts of campus.

“[Islamophobia] is more superficially visible in the Arts faculty because it makes up parts of class discussions. […] People have more of a platform to express views that are Islamophobic. But in the Science faculty, Islamophobia is somewhat hidden. It’s hidden in the way that many scientists at McGill are personally responsible for aiding in the development of technologies that are used against people of colour,” said a participant who asked  to remain anonymous.

Participants also discussed  solutions to reducing Islamophobia and agreed that there are no easy solutions, since Islamophobia is based on irrational fear and hatred, rather than sound reasoning. However, a participant asserted that communication and education was a good starting point.

At the end of the event, Amy Darwish, the working group and community research coordinator at QPIRG McGill, expressed her support for the event:

“In the context of the one-year anniversary of the January 29th shooting at the Grande Mosque in Quebec,  the passing of Bill 62, and the climate of growing Islamophobia, I think it is very important to have a space for people to talk about Islamophobia and the way in which it operates.”

QPIRG’s Social Justice Days, with the theme “Coming In From the Cold,” started on February 7 and wraps up on February 19.

The post The effects of Islamophobia appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Fossil fuels, climate, and McGill

Scheer began their introduction explaining how fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, and coal, impact the environment, and why it is more important to target fossil fuel companies in their campaign than other industries.

“Sometimes you end up with revolving doors, where politicians sometimes become lobbyists, and back and forth like that,” said Scheer. “For example, Exxon spent millions of dollars on the U.S. presidential election in 2012. This shows that fossil fuel companies have a strong impact on democracy.”

According to Scheer, the wealth fossil fuel companies have generated can be attributed in part to large subsidies from governments, further emphasizing how fossil fuel companies have the financial capacity to regularly fund biased scientific research that serves their own interest.
“That is noteworthy, because as McGill [students], we would want to step away from that lack of integrity,” said Scheer.

“Exxon spent millions of dollars on the U.S. presidential election in 2012. This shows that fossil fuel companies have a strong impact on democracy.”

Divest has long campaigned McGill to divest from its holding in fossil fuel companies, in order to move away from a carbon-based economy. As of 2015, McGill received around eight per cent of its endowment from companies like Suncorp and Embridge.

Scheer believes that it is possible for McGill to cut ties with fossil fuel companies and invest in others. “It would not be a crazy barrier for them, logistically,” they asserted.

Institutional changes

During the discussion, Couture-Guillet, a U2 Sustainability, Science & Society student and organizer at Divest, explained the hierarchy of impacts for change, and how while individual efforts to mitigate climate change are useful, they might be too little too late if institutional shifts are not put in place.

“There are different levels of change,” Couture-Guillet said. “There is obviously the individual level, that relates to all the little things we can do. I can decide to bike to school, I can decide to not eat meat. But if that was a mathematical function, there would be an upper bound to what we can do with that. We need to move further, to governmental levels, and eventually to international levels”

“But there’s also this in-between level, that is institutional,” they clarified. “Institutional is where McGill fits in. It’s in using the fact that I’m a student in a university that has such a big reputation, hierarchy of impacts of power,” Couture-Guillet said.

Divest organizers shifted that discussion to Divest’s main goals, the main one being removing fossil fuel companies’ social license.

“It’s not about financially crippling the fossil fuel industry,” said Scheer. “It’s about putting people with political clout, ethical clout such as universities, at the frontline to make the shift to a cleaner economy happen faster. It’s more political and social than financial, as a tactic.”

“We really believe in intersectionality,” continued Scheer, commenting on Divest’s communications with other groups on campus that promote social, political and environmental causes. “Divestment is just one tactic in a huge problem that needs all kinds of solutions to happen at once.”

The Long Road to Divestment

Founded in 2013, Divest has sofar submitted two petitions to the McGill administration requesting that it divest on grounds of environmental and social responsibility, both of which were rejected by the university for what they felt was a lack of evidence. Since then, the student group has engaged in class demonstrations on National Divestment Day and during Ban Ki Moon’s visit to McGill in 2016, along the way garnering support and endorsements from SSMU, the Faculty of Arts, the School of Environment, and a myriad alumni. In 2015, twenty alumni symbolically returned their diplomas in protest of McGill’s second refusal to divest following a long sit-in in the administration building.

Lenetsky, a U3 Environment student and Divest organizer, believes that the endorsement from the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT), which encompasses professors and librarians, has been the biggest win for Divest so far.

“We were expecting more resistance, and there wasn’t any,” they explained. “It’s very difficult to find professors who would agree on anything, so the fact that there is so much consensus around this issue amongst our professors is really promising, and it’s testament to how far we have come along as a campaign. Not only is MAUT endorsing Divest, they are also calling on the professors’ pension committee to divest, and divesting their own money as well. So they are not just endorsing this, but leading by example.”

Balance in advocacy work

During the Q&A session, participants discussed Divest’s activism within and outside the system, and differences in their effectiveness. Scheer pointed out that Divest’s two-pronged method must achieve a balance between aggressiveness and diplomacy in order to achieve its goals.
“The whole point is to offer a way for the administration to say yes on their own terms,” they said. “After actively protesting, we go to meetings and persuade them to sign. Sometimes tensions can build when we’re singing and they’re trying to talk. It’s very important not to hurt any feelings the administration aren’t bad people; we just need to get somewhere together.”

“The administration aren’t bad people; we just need to get somewhere together.”

On December 12 2017, the McGill Board of Governors (BoG) met to discuss changing the terms of reference in the mandate of the Committee to Advise on Social Responsibility (CAMSR), the administrative body that ruled in 2015 that climate change, and by extension investments in fossil fuel companies, did not constitute, “grave social injury.”

The proposed change was to add a clause in the mandate to advise the university against using resources to advance specific social or political causes, with no community consultation prior to the meeting. It was proposed that the frequency of review of such terms be reduced from every three years to every five years.

To protest against such changes, Divest mobilized at the BoG meeting, forcing the meeting to adjourn and be postponed. Couture-Guillet argued that such proposed changes were problematic in many ways, and was a calculated attempted to rule out any attempt to divest.

“Anything can be political or social, and education arguably is,” she said. “It’s even more disturbing because they tried to pass that in the middle of finals, and if you look at the document, this change to the mandate was not listed in the beginning in the summary, so you really need to look through, in the details, to find out. Changing the review terms from three years to five years makes it even harder for student activists campaign to follow up.”

“They [The McGill Board of Directors] tried to pass that in the middle of finals, and if you look at the document, this change to the mandate was not listed in the beginning in the summary, so you really need to look through, in the details, to find out.”

Lenetsky added that the closed decision-making process of CAMSR adversely affected the whole student activist movement.

“Some members of CAMSR think divestment is too political, and they are allowed to think that, but when the individual opinions of members are enshrined into the mandate of CAMSR, it’s impossible for CAMSR to recommend divestment no matter what evidence we give them,” he said.
On February 15, the BoG will hold the postponed meeting to discuss the mandate, and Divest says they will be present as well.

Challenges on the horizon

“McGill is reluctant to push the boundaries beyond the really really status quo,” Lenetsky explained when the conversation eventually shifted to reasons why McGill’s progress on such issues is so slow. “We rely on government funding so much, and it’s a year-to-year thing, so they don’t want to get to political and jeopardize that in any way. McGill always gets a lot of money from the fossil fuel companies, but with the oil price crash, they are losing a lot of money anyway, because oil is a bad financial investment,” said Scheer.

“McGill is reluctant to push the boundaries beyond the really really status quo. […] We rely on government funding so much, and it’s a year-to-year thing, so they don’t want to get to political and jeopardize that in any way.”

Lenetsky, who uses his influence as a member of McGill’s Senate to lobby on behalf of Divest and follow up on the university’s promises, also thought that the biggest challenge so far was the McGill administration.

“The administration’s decision-making process is consistently biased against us and predetermines the outcome of not divesting,” he said. “For example they didn’t consult any experts on socially responsible investment, who would have addressed a lot of their concerns. A lot of experts they consulted were experts in their field of not divesting, and they offered their own personal opinion in contrast to where scientific literature is at. But I think once the administration makes the switch, McGill will divest.”

“The administration’s decision-making process is consistently biased against us and predetermines the outcome of not divesting. […]. For example, they didn’t consult any experts on socially responsible investment, who would have addressed a lot of their concerns.

Participant feedback

For participant Siubhan O’Donnell, an exchange student from Ireland, a country that has as a whole divested from fossil fuels, there needs to be more collective efforts in mitigating climate change.

“The reason big institutions need to divest,” Siubhan said, “is because right now the only significant things that are happening are individual efforts. To keep the global temperature down, we need to all make an effort.”

This article originally referred to the speaker as “Sheer” instead of “Scheer”. The article has been changed to reflect the author’s real name on February 1, 2018.

The post Divest McGill mobilizes students appeared first on The McGill Daily.