The US Needs to Stand With Canada

By Saira Uttamchandani

November 30, 2024

Last summer, the news of Canadian Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s murder in Surrey, British Columbia, shocked the world. He was shot in his truck outside of the the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara (a Sikh temple), sparking an uproar in Canada’s Sikh community. Nijjar was known for being a prominent activist for the creation of Khalistan, an independent Sikh state. This led the Indian media and government to label him a terrorist, while he gained a large following in the Sikh community.

This situation escalated when Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, asserted in September of 2023 that there were “credible allegations” that the Indian government was connected to Nijjar’s murder. 

These accusations have sparked a wave of disputes between Canada and India, culminating in the expulsion of six Indian diplomats from Canada. 

The United States has been pulled directly into this affair, with the Department of Justice announcing in November the thwarted murder of Canadian-American Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, an associate of Nijjar who was also an advocate for the Sikh separatist movement. U.S. prosecutors are asserting that the accused, Nikhil Gupta, was directed by an official of the Indian government, Vikash Yadav.

As each others’ “closest allies,” the United States has a moral obligation to support Canada in this dispute, despite the US’ growing financial and strategic ties with India. Additionally, the legal and ideological ramifications of not condemning these extrajudicial killings threatens American interests as well.

India is not only a major trading partner for the United States, but also a key ally in the security sphere. It’s proximity to China has also helped counterbalance and deter the latter’s influence and promote democracy in the region, a cause that is incredibly important to the United States.

However, the importance of the Canadian-American alliance cannot be understated. They share the longest border of two countries in the world, trade hundreds of billions of dollars between them, have close military relations, and similar cultures. The partnership strengthens both nations on a global stage in multiple sectors. A lack of condemnation towards India regarding this issue not only sends a signal to Canada that their shared values of due process and democracy and close relationship are less important than placating India, but also sends a global message of acceptance of India’s actions.

The United States and India have a strong partnership that is founded upon the shared ideal of democracy. Extrajudicial killing contradicts the core of democracy, and violates the fundamental right to life that all individuals have, leading the United States to explicitly condemn it. A supposed democratic institute such as the Indian government must protect this right and punish those who violate it, and an ally of the United States should share such a cardinal value.

Not only does the Indian constitution protect the right to life in Article 21, but the Indian government has signed numerous international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which the United States has also signed) that affirm that the right to life is protected. Specifically, the ICCPR affirms individuals’ rights to a fair trial and due process, both of which were violated in the case of this extrajudicial killing. 

The fact that the government of an American ally is acting in such discordance with our fundamental values is a huge ideological concern. Not standing with Canada in this dispute sends a conflicting global message about what the United States stands for, weakening its position as the leader of the free world and a powerful global player overall. Furthermore, failing to condemn India’s actions sends a message that these extrajudicial killings are acceptable, suggesting to India—and potentially other nations—that there are no foreign relations consequences for such breaches of international law, thereby emboldening them to continue.

This is an incredibly slippery slope of injustice. It is imperative that the United States makes it known that they stand by their foundational values.

Nuclear Fears: The Death of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the Future of Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By: Luke Crafton

In 2015, Iran, the US, and several other world powers entered an agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This agreement attempted to restrict the revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which ultimately proved successful, with Iran agreeing to in-depth investigations of their nuclear facilities and a subsequent dismantling of their nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. 

This agreement remained in effect until 2018, when President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the deal, claiming it was one-sided. Iran initially claimed that they would continue to honor the agreement, but as the Trump administration’s sanctions increased, Tehran began to violate the deal. This started with stockpiling stores of low-enriched uranium at levels above the established limits and escalated to a complete abandonment of uranium enrichment restrictions. 

Iran worked to develop the use of nuclear power with the assistance of the United States Atoms for Peace Program from the 1950s continuing into 1970s, even becoming one of the original 62 signatories of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NTP), intending to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. However, following the Iranian revolution of 1979, nuclear projects were mostly halted, and US support ceased. 

In the late 1980s and early 90s, following a costly war with Iraq, Iran resumed its nuclear program with the help of China, Pakistan, and Russia. However, concerns quickly arose regarding undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran, reinforcing US skepticism that Iran was using its civilian nuclear program to hide its nuclear weapons development. 

Tensions between the US and Iran were high during the early 2000s and escalated further following the US withdrawal from the JCPOA. Longtime US ally Israel published a report in 2018 detailing previous Iranian nuclear activities, which US President Donald Trump cited as justification in the US’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, and no meaningful reconciliation were made during the remainder of Trump's term. 

When Joe Biden was elected president, he began making attempts to salvage the JCPOA. In 2022, Tehran and Washington made significant progress, but Iranian demands for changes to the agreement, coupled with US concerns regarding the suppression of domestic protests in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of Iran’s morality police ultimately led to a collapse in dialogue.

Following the outbreak of war in Ukraine, Iran began supplying Russia with weaponry and has continued to do so into the present day. Exacerbated by growing hostilities between Iran and Israel following the October 7th attack by Hamas on Israel and subsequent Israeli bombardment of the Gaza strip, little to any hope remains of renewal of the JCPOA. 

The death of the JCPOA has become increasingly relevant as Iranian nuclear advancements continue to accelerate. In April of 2024, it was believed that Iran’s “breakout time”—the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb was close to zero. Slowing Iran’s equipment to produce nuclear weaponry was one of the JCPOA’s primary goals, explaining the strict caps on the amount of uranium Iran could stockpile that were part of the agreement.

In December of 2024, reports announced that Iran’s enrichment of uranium has reached levels that are near bomb grade, a likely sign that Iran is approaching capability of constructing nuclear weaponry. While the previous reports from April had indicated 60% purity, reports released in December point towards 90% purity, an amount that most believe can have no civilian justification. While Iran insists its nuclear development has been primarily in the pursuit of energy production, these recent developments question the validity of these claimed motives.

It is unclear what Iran’s purpose in developing nuclear weapons would be. While it is plausible that Iran is shoring up its defenses toward US-Israeli joint opposition following the onset of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian region, it is also possible that Iran intends to create a bargaining chip in the face of Donald Trump’s return to office in the US. As Trump was the one to initially withdraw from the JCPOA, his return to office potentially poses an opportunity for renegotiation, although Trump has pledged that if he were ever to enter an agreement with Iran, it would be far more strict than the one initiated by the Obama administration.

At this time the future of Iranian Nuclear Weaponry is unclear, and heightened tensions in the Middle East between US-backed Israel and Iran-backed Lebanon continue to complicate the path forward. As the US prepares for Donald Trump’s re-entry into the white house and Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, the U.S. and its Western allies must weigh the choice between making concessions to Iran to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and confronting the potential consequences of refusing to do so.

Lethal Autonomous Weapons: What Are They and How Do We Address Them?

By: Charlotte Sparling

November 25, 2024

What used to be a myth is now a reality. Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs), at their core, are weapons that act and make lethal decisions without human intervention, effectively thinking on their own. They are similar to drones but lack the crucial element of human oversight. However, not even the international community has a clear definition of what they are, contributing to the challenge of how to adequately address them. 

The development of these weapons poses several major concerns that must be addressed.

First, there are serious questions about LAWs violating international law. UN Secretary-General António Guterres argues these weapons are morally concerning and violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Two of the core elements of IHL are distinction and accountability. LAWs act without human oversight; there is no human verification of targets. Facial recognition is one method to identify targets but opens the door to ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, like any other technology, LAWs will inevitably malfunction, resulting in the question of who is then accountable. If a robot accidentally kills the wrong target, is the machine accountable?

Second, the question of regulation is uncertain and pressing. There is no clear regulation of LAWs, yet their potential to cause such sweeping impacts makes their regulation imperative. To prevent crises, standards must be established. The international community has recognized the importance of discussing this issue, but what exactly those steps would be is unclear. 

Despite this pessimistic outlook, regulation is possible. Land mines, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons were all regulated in some manner. There is no reason why the same could not be done for LAWs, but such regulation must first be preceded by establishment of a solid definition. 

The truth is that LAWs are here. We must move forward, acknowledge, and act accordingly. In the Russia-Ukraine war, there has been talk of Russia deploying weapons with some autonomous capabilities. Turkey, Israel, Russia, and South Korea have reportedly deployed similar weapons. Both the US and China are also investing heavily in this technology. No one wants to be the one without the newest and shiniest toys.

Part of what makes LAWs of interest is their life-preserving abilities. Without having to send troops who are often clouded by emotions into risky situations, LAWs can be more accurate, mitigate the loss of life, and reduce damage to the surrounding areas. It is important to recognize these benefits as the march of innovation cannot be halted. 

Ukraine, recognizing these benefits, has invested heavily in autonomous drones and similar technologies. In a war that is not likely to end in a decisive Ukrainian win, any methods to minimize the sacrifice of Ukrainian lives are imperative. While Ukraine’s weapons still require human intervention, they are only one step off from LAWs. How the war develops with these weapons will likely serve as a turning point for the future of autonomous warfare.

On the global diplomatic scale, opinions are mixed. The UN and many countries support a full ban on LAWs or regulation at a minimum. The US supports regulation over a complete ban. China and Russia, meanwhile, have yet to clearly indicate their positions. 

Instead of an outright ban, the solution is to establish regulations. By embracing the reality that LAWs will likely play a crucial role in future warfare, guidelines can help shape the role this technology plays while simultaneously reaping its benefits. Ignoring these weapons could lead to their misuse and make humanitarian violations far more likely. The first step in regulation is to create a singular definition of what LAWs are. It is through these efforts that the international community can adequately address ethical concerns. 

ORIGINAL

What used to be a myth is now a reality. Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs), at their core, are weapons that act and make lethal decisions without human intervention, effectively thinking on their own. They are similar to drones but lack the crucial element of human oversight. However, definitions vary. Not even the international community has a clear definition of what they are, contributing to the challenge of how to adequately address them. 

The development of these weapons poses several major concerns that must be addressed.

First, there are serious questions about LAWs violating international law. UN Secretary-General António Guterres argues these weapons are morally concerning and violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Two of the core elements of IHL are distinction and accountability. LAWs act without human oversight; there is no human verification of targets. Facial recognition is one method to identify targets but opens the door to ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, like any other technology, LAWs will inevitably malfunction, resulting in the question of who is then accountable. If a robot accidentally kills the wrong target, is the machine accountable?

Second, the question of regulation is uncertain and pressing. There is no clear regulation of LAWs, yet their potential to cause such sweeping impacts makes their regulation imperative. To prevent crises, standards must be established. The international community has recognized the importance of discussing this issue, but what exactly those steps would be is unclear. Despite this pessimistic outlook, regulation is possible. Land mines, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons were all regulated in some manner. There is no reason why the same could not be done for LAWs. However, regulation discussions assume there is a clear definition to base discussion on. No definition, no regulation.

The truth is LAWs are here. We must move forward, acknowledge, and act accordingly. In the Russia-Ukraine war, there has been talk of Russia deploying weapons with some autonomous capabilities. Turkey, Israel, Russia, and South Korea have reportedly deployed similar weapons. Other countries, like the US and China, are also investing heavily in this technology. No one wants to be the one without the newest and shiniest toys.

Part of what makes LAWs of interest is their life-preserving abilities. Without having to send troops, often clouded by emotions, into risky situations, LAWs can be more accurate, mitigate the loss of life, and reduce damage to the surrounding areas. It is important to recognize these benefits as the march of innovation cannot be halted. Instead of hiding in the past, embracing the reality that LAWs will likely play a crucial role in future warfare, regulation can help shape the role they play while simultaneously reaping the benefits from this rising technology.

Ukraine, recognizing these benefits, has invested heavily in autonomous drones and similar technologies. In a war that is not likely to end in a decisive Ukrainian win, any methods to minimize the sacrifice of Ukrainian lives are imperative. While Ukraine’s weapons still require human intervention, they are only one step off from LAWs. How the war develops with these weapons will likely serve as a turning point for the future of autonomous warfare.

On the global scale, the UN and many countries support a full ban on LAWs or regulation at a minimum. The US supports regulation over a complete ban. On the flip side, China and Russia have yet to clearly indicate their positions. 

LAWs are not going away. Instead of an outright ban, the solution is to establish regulations. Ignoring these weapons could lead to their misuse and the humanitarian concerns opponents of LAWs fear will occur. The first step in regulation is to create a singular definition of what LAWs are. It is through these efforts that ethical concerns can be adequately addressed.