Issue 7 - Junior Issue

The Horace Mann

GLOBAL PRESSURE POINTSREGIONS IN CRISIS

ReviewTHE HORACE MANN

Volume XXII - Junior Issue

INSIDE A SPECIAL REPORT ON RACE IN AMERICA

2

Daniel ElkindEditor-in-Chief

Spencer E. CohenExecutive Editor

Jacob Gladysz-MorawskiNicholas McCombe

Managing Editors - Design

Charles ScherrSenior Editor - Features

Ben DavidoffHead of Middle Division

Treshauxn Dennis-BrownSenior Editor - Domestic

Lizzy RosenblattSenior Editor - International

Nathan RaabSenior Editor - Economics

Vivianna LinSenior Editor - Science and Technology

Maurice FarberPhilip Perl

Sam RahminSenior Contibuter

Will EllisonCatherine Engelmann

Ben GreeneDavid HackelSam Henick

Jennifer HeonCaroline Kuritzkes

Isaiah NewmanSahej Suri

Jonah WexlerJunior Editors

Daniel BaudoinHannah DavidoffMihika KapoorMohit Mookim

Kelvin RheeJacob HabermanHana Krijestorac

Associate Editors

Henry LuoNamit SataraJacob ZuritaJunior Contibutors

ReviewTHE HORACE MANN

Gregory DonadioFaculty Advisor

The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Opinions expressed in articles or illustra-tions are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. Please contact The Re-view for information at [email protected].

Alex PosnerStephen PaduanoManaging Editors - Content

Letter From the Editor

Daniel Elkind Editor-in-Chief Volume XXII

This final issue of the year includes both a traditional features section on “Post-Racial America” and five

special “flashpoints” sections focused on re-gions in crisis around the world. The “glob-al pressure points” we chose to highlight are Southeast Asia, the Korean Peninsula, Central and Northern Africa, the Middle East, and the Eurozone. I am incredibly im-pressed with how our writers responded to the challenge of writing about foreign pol-icy issues that are often overlooked in the headlines we read every day. Once again, they have produced thoughtful and well-researched articles which are informative, interesting, and engaging.

This issue of The Review, our Junior Is-sue, exmplifies the tremendous amount our Junior Editors have learned and improved over the course of the year. I am immensely proud of how this year’s Juniors have grown as writers, researchers, editors, and leaders and of how they have come together not only with each other, but with the younger writers on the magazine as well.

This has been a tremendous year for The Review. Not only have we recieved a far larger volume of submissions than ever

before, but the quality of the articles in the magazine has continued to improve. In ad-dition, we had the unique opportunity to publish a special election issue detailing the candidates’ positions on a wide range of key issues. The Review now has the largest staff of any publication at Horace Mann, and I am constantly amazed by how the members of our staff come together in the production of each issue.

I know I speak for the entire Senior board in saying that my experience on The Review has been one of the most valuable and meaningful of my career at Horace Mann. It has been a privilege to work with everyone on our staff, as well as with Mr. Donadio, our faculty advisor, who has put more time and effort into the magazine than anyone else in its twenty-two years of existence. I would also like to thank Dr. Kelly and the administration for their tre-mendous support over the course of The Review’s history.

I hope you enjoyed this year’s volume, and I look forward to seeing what our cur-rent Juniors (now rising Seniors) do with the responsibility of leadership next year.

Happy reading!

Alex PosnerStephen PaduanoManaging Editors - Content

3

Middle East

Eurozone

North and Central Africa

Southeast Asia

Korean Peninsula

Samuel FischIkaasa SuriMitchell Troyanovsky

The Government’s Responsibility 4Euroskepticism in Germany 6Here to Stay 8

Matthew HarpeSam SternAdam Resheff

Morocco’s Ancién Regime 10The Villanous Leader of a Vital Ally 13The Rush for Ivory 16

Neil AhlawatLaszlo HerwitzBrett Silverstein

The North Korean Nuclear “Threat” 18Obsessed with Power 20Shattered Relations 22

Jenna Barancik From Iraq to Syria 36Robert Hefter Black Gold 38Emily Kramer The Eyes of the Innocent 40Nathaniel Tillinghast-Raby The Perils of False Democracy 42

James McCarthy The Necessity for Governmental Reform 24Lauren Futter An Unpublished Genocide 26Edmund Bannister Trans Pacific Partnership 30Harry Seavey The Fight Against Piracy 33

Sci-Tech

Domestic

International

Economics

Features

Natasha MooljiHarry SeaveyJonah Wexler

The Importance of Background Checks 44Liberty & Security 46America’s Terror Dilemma 48

James McCarthyElizabeth XiongNeil AhlawatBrett Silverstein

A Peaceful Nuclear Iran 50The Rape of Nanking 52Bangladesh: Built Beyond Its Capacity 55Sectarian War in Iraq 56

Edmund BannisterKenneth Shinozuka Ikaasa Suri

Separate and Unequal 58Prep School Minorities 60Post-9/11 Islamophobia 62

Timothy Hoang The iPhone Empire 72Anna Kuritzkes A New Avian Flu in China 74

Jenna Barancik Conservative Fiscal Flaws 64Jacob Zurita The UK Credit Solution 66Mitchell Troyanovsky The Money We Lose Is Not “Renewable” 68James Megibow European Disunion 70

4 The horace Mann review | vol. XXii

THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY

http://www.nytimes.com/

Most everyone is familiar with the dire economic crisis in the Eurozone, specifically in the countries of Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Italy, and Portugal. However, many do not realize that the economic crisis and related austerity measures have also contributed to an array of

societal problems including an increase in depression, suicide, disease and other health problems in these struggling countries. It is imperative that the governments of these European nations under-stand that the impact of financial crisis extends past economic issues and has serious societal ramifi-cations. While austerity measures may help reduce spending and avoid defaults on the debt of these European governments, these temporary solutions also have potentially long lasting consequences that may prove more harmful than the default on the countries’ debt. It is the government’s responsi-bility not only to ensure economic prosperity for its country, but also to meet the social welfare needs of the people.

By Samuel Fisch

Eurozone

5The horace Mann review | vol. XXii

Since 2008, many European countries have implemented severe spending cuts in an attempt to help reduce their national debt. Most countries have reduced or eliminated significant health, welfare and social ser-vices, cut medical treatments and imple-mented hospital user fees and other mea-sures. Mental Health Europe has speculated that the significant unemployment in these countries experiencing economic hardships has contributed to the declining physical and mental health of the citizens. Statistics reveal that these measures have caused an increase in the incidence of alcohol, sub-stance abuse, depression, anxiety, and re-quests for abortions. As the health of their citizens further deteriorates, the European governments continue to cut spending. In Greece, austerity measures have lead to serious health problems and other societal ramifications. In 2012, as part of their broad-based austerity measures to re-duce spending, the Greek government re-moved needle exchange programs. Needle exchange programs allow syringe users to exchange used needles for new needles in order to reduce the risk of using contami-

nated needles that may have been improp-erly discarded. Without this program, the number of HIV cases among drug users skyrocketed due to drug addicts’ sharing contaminated syringes. In addition, as part of the spending cuts, the Greek government eliminated spraying programs for a variety of insects. Following the reduction in these spraying efforts to kill mosquitoes, Greece has faced outbreaks of hazardous diseases not usually native to Europe, including ma-laria, West Nile virus, and dengue fever. The pattern continues in Spain. Hospital patients complained of being treated unsuitably in Spanish hospitals. Patients criticized that they were not being washed and cleaned properly by nursing staff. Other patients were discharged too early. Not only have many people expe-rienced a wide range of health issues be-cause of a decrease in social services, but the European debt crisis has also been cited as the cause for a marked increase in suicide rates. According to a recent study in the British Medical Journal, more than 1,000 people in the United Kingdom may have

killed themselves because of the impacts of the recession. In Greece, Italy, and Ireland, the suicide rates have also increased dra-matically. Although suicide frequently has multi-faceted causes, including depression, the British Medicine Journal reported that suicide is most likely directly linked to dire economic circumstances. In order to re-duce suicide rates, the European countries must invest in helping people keep their jobs or getting them back to the workforce. As social services continue to be reduced, the mental and physical health of European citizens continues to suffer. Since social services have been reduced, those in dire need of mental health services do not receive help, and this in turn can lead to depression and suicide. Countries experi-encing economic crisis must take a broader view when analyzing the ultimate efficacy of austerity measures in relation to the long lasting societal harm they can cause. Healthcare programs must remain a prior-ity of the country. The members of the gov-ernment are responsible for the welfare of the people, something they would do well to not forget.


“According to a recent study in the British Medical Journal, more than 1,000 people in

the United Kingdom may have killed themselves because of the impacts of the recession.”

Eurozone


Eurozone

Imagine this: you’re stranded in a hot, sunny, barren desert. You’ve been wandering across the sand and

amongst the dunes for a couple days now, without sufficient supply of food or water. You know you can get to a point of safety; you know the general direction. Or, at least, you think you do. Little do you know, you are moving blindly, taking what seems like the easiest route, rather than stopping to think and reassess your path. Unfortunately, what seems like a hypothetical, unrealistic situation can easily be related to a multitude of international conflicts at hand today. In our fast paced world dominated by economics and clashing fiscal policies, overloaded with technological advancements, and open to new and revolutionary social and political movements, several centers of our global

Euroskepticism

By Ikaasa Suri

In Germany

http://sushigokart.net/

The Alternative Party

in Germany to tip the

Political Balance

blanket have fallen into the “broken-road map” that is the Eurozone crisis.

If the euro fails, so does Europe. These words echoed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, arguably one of the most powerful leaders of the modern world, are presently being challenged by an emerging political faction, the Alternative for Germany. Created specifically to downplay the euro and return Germany to its principle monetary and civil ideals, the party is driven by a coalition of elitists, many of whom have specifically targeted the chancellor’s actions in the past three years. Bernd Lucke, an economics professor and prominent member of the alternative party, publically critiqued the capital breach of democratic, legal, and fiscal principles the current German government has routed, claiming, “The

euro is dividing Europe, rather than uniting it.” While more stable nations continue to complain about diktats and grumble about costs, Chancellor Merkel claims there is no other option but to continue with the euro. Mr. Lucke openly belies her rationale arguing, “Now it is here: The Alternative for Germany.”

Although most pollsters and political analysts argue that the party will attract only 5% of the vote in September, Wolfgang Nowak, a fellow at the North Rhine-Westphalia School of Governance in Duisburg, contests that a mere 5% is all that is necessary to make re-election tight for the Chancellor. With images of demonstrators in Athens, Madrid, and now Nicosia waving swastikas, and pictures of Merkel dressed as Hitler amassing in the city of Berlin, there is no doubt that the people of Germany

1795: The Naturalization Act

is passed, restricting U.S. citizenship to

“free white persons”.

A History of Immigration in the United States

1945: War Brides Act

1948: Displaced Persons Act1952:

Immigration and Naturalization Act

1953: Refugee Relief Act

1954: Closing of Ellis Island Immigration Center

1959 :Beginnings of significant

immigration of Cubans .1980: The Refugee Act is enacted, largely in response to the arrival of “boat people” fleeing Vietnam

2003: Creation of the Department

of Homeland Security. Operating within the

department is the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration

Services (BCIS).http://www.excelsior.edu


Eurozone

http://www.shutterstock.com/

“The European Central Bank’s policy created what Robert Sinche, a

macroeconomic strategist, believes is an ‘artificial

environment of low interest rates for high-growth and

high-risk countries, such as Ireland and Greece.’”

are beginning to lose their patience with both the euro and their government.

The main issue lies at the base of each party’s platform: whether or not the euro should exist. While the Free Democratic Party argues the euro unites European nations, the Alternative claims the euro is the sole reason for dissention throughout the continent. While Merkel argues Europe will dissemble without a single, central currency, Lucke insists Europe will prosper. While the traditional government in Germany would like to continue the euro, modern opinion wants to eradicate it. Despite her power, legacy, and strong influence in the international community, Chancellor Angela Merkel is wrong. The future of the 27-member European Union is not tied to the success of its common currency; in fact, advocates of the Alternative for Germany Party believe that if the euro fails, it will actually be the policies of Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schäuble, the chancellor’s finance minister, that fail.

The Free Democratic Party is addressing neither the faults of the euro nor the necessity for individual currencies. The specie itself denigrates the notion of national sovereignty and infringes upon personal rights. Voters must have the power to question economic-decision makers and to be well informed in their actions. Granting the European Central Bank the authority to administer interest rates and policy guidelines renders those directly affected powerless. Furthermore, despite intentions to unify and stabilize prosperity in Europe, the policies of the European Central Bank do not and cannot address the needs of every nation’s economy. Blanket policies of the European Central Bank only accentuate

the disparities between nations that are more affluent or politically established and those that are weaker.

Originally, European economic integration seemed plausible. Leaders were able to apportion profits equitably; the plan appeared to be uniquely successful. This dynamic changed with the euro crisis: now nations must share burdens and cover one another in times of economic downfall or political imbalance. The European Central Bank’s policy created what Robert Sinche, a macroeconomic strategist, believes is an “artificial environment of low interest rates for high-growth and high-risk countries, such as Ireland and Greece.” In July of 2012, the benchmark interest rate in the Euro Area was a record low of .75 percent, compared to the averaged 2.61 percent from 1998 until 2011. These low interest rates led to excessive borrowing and investments in what

proved to be unproductive ventures, such as property rates in Ireland and Spain. Given the individual needs of nations across Europe, it is an absurd notion that the European Central Bank can develop policies for a “one monetary policy fits all.”

Lack of mobility in use, disproportionate distribution of wealth, and absence of trust among European nations dooms the euro to failure. The currency poses more problems to the European continent than solutions. Whether this means electing a different party into office or reevaluating modern solutions in politics, Germany should take the first step in initiating an end to the single currency. It will be challenging, but sometimes it’s best to stop and reassess one’s route instead of blindly continuing. Take a leap of faith, Chancellor Merkel, rewrite your map, and pull your nation out of this hot, barren desert.


Domestic

In 1999, 11 nations adopted the Euro and scrapped their old cur-rencies. Since then 6 more nations have decided to get on the Euro bandwagon and adopt the Euro as well. The large usage

of the Euro has made it the second most important international currency behind the dollar. For almost a decade the Euro facilitated economic prosperity and monetary cooperation within the Euro zone. However, since 2011, the Eurozone has been in a recession catalyzed by the fact that many member countries lied about their fiscal health and forced stronger more fiscally responsible countries such as Germany to bail them out. However, because each nation is still independent the conditions for bailouts of many nations have been, extreme austerity. The Eurozone fell further into recession because of the decrease in spending and the increase in taxes that came as a result of the austerity. As the Euro crisis continues on its rollercoaster of recovery, many critics have claimed that the entire Euro system is unstable and that the member countries should re-vert back to their previous currencies. Critics argue that tying every nation together forces the larger responsible nations such as France to help the smaller irresponsible nations such as Greece. These crit-ics are absolutely correct, except for the fact that they do not pres-ent the entire picture. By lying about fiscal health and forcing larger countries to assist them, countries such as Italy and Greece went into very large recessions and had many changes in leadership. The notion that Greece does whatever it wants and then gets bailed out

by Germany with no consequences is inherently false. The people of Greece were punished for their expensive habits because their economy was held down by large austerity measures that included tax hikes on all classes. The leadership of Greece was punished be-cause many of the ministers who caused the crisis have now been replaced. Smaller nations cannot do whatever they want and not bear responsibility for it. When Critics point out all the weaknesses with the Euro, they fail to mention the plethora of benefits that the Euro provides to Europe and the international community.

The Euro is imperative to Europe’s political stability given the history of the region. For thousands of years there have been hun-dreds of wars seemingly between every single nation in Europe. The amount of conflict in Europe that peaked during the two world wars is seemingly impossible to replicate in this day and age be-cause of the Euro. The Euro forces every nation to be so closely tied to one another that, war between any Euro member states would be disastrous for both sides. If a nation that used the Euro attacked another Euro nation then the attacking nation’s economy would plunge so far and so swiftly that they wouldn’t even be able to fund the war. Hyperinflation would take over and war wouldn’t even be feasible. This economic “mutually assured destruction” is incred-ibly important to the regional stability of the Euro. Considering that many Euro nations have some of the largest militaries in the world a conflict between any two would devastate the region and

Here to Stay

By Mitchell Troyanovsky

The Euro’s Imperitive Role in European Stability


Eurozone


Domesticthe entire international community. This makes the Euro irreplaceable as a tool for peace in one of the most important regions in the entire world.

After World War 2 and during the Great Depression there were two other wars that were fought. These wars were not fought with guns and tanks, but with the printing press. During the two aforemen-tioned time periods Europe went off of the gold standard and participated in competi-tive devaluation. Each country was trying to lower the value of their currency to make their exports and products look cheaper rel-ative to another countries products and ex-ports. Almost every major European power participated in this and it was devastating for the region. To combat another country’s devaluation, a country like France would devalue their own currency and raise tariffs to protect their own domestic industry. This “currency war” put a halt to inter-regional trade and made many European economies stagnant. The high inflation created from this war made investors lose complete faith in European currencies and partially de-stroyed the European economy during both time periods. By creating one currency that each European nation shares, the Euro en-sures that free trade is not abridged by tar-iffs and devaluation. No Euro using coun-try can artificially make their exports more competitive because every European coun-

try shares the same currency. All printing is controlled by the ECB, making sure that no single country jeopardizes the monetary stability in the region.

One central bank also means that there is centralized monetary policy for the entire region. The conduct of the single monetary policy by the European Central Bank has been successful. The euro is as stable as any currency and this has established an envi-ronment of price stability in the euro area, exerting a moderating influence on price and wage setting. As a consequence, infla-tion expectations and inflation risk have been kept low and stable. Price stability and

low inflation risks makes sure that faith is continual in the Euro as an international currency. The importance of price stability cannot be overstated and the Euro system makes sure that price stability is accom-plished.

Another key benefit of the Euro is Price transparency. When almost every nation in the Eurozone uses the Euro, pay-ments can be made with the same money in all countries of the euro area, making traveling across these countries easier. This increases tourism by decreasing confusion and increasing the efficiency with which tourists purchase European products. Price transparency is also good for consumers since the easy comparison of price tags makes it possible for consumers to buy from the cheapest supplier in the euro area. This makes sure companies will actually compete to make cheaper products because consumers won’t be confused by differ-ences in currency. With increased competi-tion in sectors such as auto manufacturing, the quality of cars will go up and the price will go down. By increasing competition, price transparency also helps the Eurozone to keep inflation under control. Increased competition makes it more likely that avail-able resources will be used in the most ef-ficient way, spurring trade within the Euro-zone and thereby supporting employment and growth.

One currency throughout the majority of Europe provides another key benefit to consumers and travelers. With the absence of multiple currencies comes the lack of an exchange rate commission. Before the Euro, consumers and travelers had to pay hefty fees just to exchange currencies. With the introduction of a one currency system, this fee is now gone, leaving more money in the pockets of the travelers who will be buying products in the respective country that they are visiting.

With the introduction of the euro, ex-change rates fluctuate and foreign exchange risks within the euro area have disappeared.

In the past, these exchange rate costs and risks hindered trade and competition across borders. Besides the aforementioned “strategic devaluation,” normal market forces have previously created large fluctua-tions between European currencies. This not only hinders trade, but it also creates confusion among consumers and increases inefficiency between competing companies. The Euro rids Europe of this problem by es-tablishing one currency.

The Euro also helps investment into countries within the EU. The lower trans-action costs of investment will incentiv-ize investment into the EU, bolstering the economy of all member states. Even the chairman of Nissan recently said “the UK would lose inward investment if it stayed out of the Euro.” Investment is incredibly important for an economy and if Eurozone nations reverted back to their old curren-cies then transaction costs will go up and investment will go down. The lack of invest-ment will contract Europe’s economy, prov-ing once again that the Euro is imperative to Europe’s success.

Using one currency for the majority of Europe makes conducting banking and in-surance a lot easier. The Euro makes it easy to trade German shares on in French stock markets because they share the same cur-rency. The increased efficiency of financial transactions also increases investment. It is

important for the financial sector of Europe to remain strong and the Euro goes a long way in accomplishing that goal.

By making transactions more transpar-ent, increasing trade, limiting inflation, and stimulating competition, the Euro is imper-ative to the financial stability of the entire region. Since the EU has the largest share of the world’s GDP, the fiscal health and mon-etary stability of the region is vital to world economy. While the recession in Europe is very real, the notion that the Euro should be discarded is wrong. The Euro is necessary for the future prosperity of the Europe and the entire world.

Here to Stay

“This economic ‘mutually assured destruction’ is incredibly important to the regional stability of the Euro...the Euro irreplaceable as a tool for peace.”

The Euro’s Imperitive Role in European Stability


Eurozone

Morocco’sAncién Regime

By Matthew Harpe

The Coming End of King Mohammed VI’s Reign



Mr. Benkirane, who was so adamant in promising to lead the country towards real change, is often found pledging allegiance to the king and reassuring the health of their relationship. Furthermore, protestors and ac-tivists are being more frequently incarcerated and the United Nations recently confirmed a surge in the use of torture. These are all steps back from the precedent King Moham-med set at the beginning of his reign, when he condemned the inhumane actions of his predecessor and father, King Hassan II, and set up a commission to recognize, apologize, compensate, and rehabilitate victims of these atrocities. As the hollowness of the new con-stitution become more apparent to Moroc-cans, who two years ago where so keen on bringing about tangible reform, the future of Morocco, and its stability, is anything but certain.

Almost certainly, as Moroccans be-come increasingly frustrated with the nation’s progress and stagnant position, a renewed de-mand for democracy will mount. Protestors will once again gather in the streets, and King Mohammed will once again be forced to de-vise a solution. The pivotal factor, of course, is whether or not he will choose to give in to demands again or follow a path similar to that of many of his fellow Middle Eastern rulers. For many Moroccans, a new compro-mise with the king would most likely entail an amended constitution that involves a mul-titude of reforms. First, it would require that the king completely remove himself from the political system and hand all legislative and executive authority over to the Prime Min-

Over the last two years, the Arab world has been rattled by continuous politi-

cal, social, and civil unrest. Dictators have been overthrown, countries have erupted in civil war, violent riots have broken out on the streets, and decades-old institutions and laws have been overturned. Yet despite all of this, Morocco, which is ruled by the most tenured royal dynasty in the Arab world, has managed to get by seemingly unscathed. A few years ago, when some started question-ing the king’s unchecked power and others had taken to protesting, a pledge by King Mohammed VI to share his power quieted most protesters and reinforced the image of Morocco as a stable, peaceful, and progres-sive state. The swift democratizing action that followed drew praise from many West-ern nations, including the United States, and left many pointing to Morocco as a successful example of peaceful reform that many other countries in the region could learn from.

The government reform began in the spring of 2011 with the introduction of a new constitution. This document distributed ex-ecutive powers more democratically between the king and elected officials, criminalized torture, arbitrary detention, inhumane and degrading practices, and guaranteed freedom of the press, expression, and opinion. The constitution was almost unanimously passed in a referendum in July 2011 with 98% of the voters behind it. Many Moroccans cheered, played music, and waved the national flag through the streets late into the night. A suc-cessful election later that November further cemented the reforms, confirming that the new constitution would be adhered to and marking an important step in the transfer of power. Abdelilah Benkirane, the leader from the winning Justice and Development Party, emerged as Prime Minister, promis-ing to bring power to the people and ensure a transformation to an efficient and effective government that answers to the people.

Nonetheless, ever since King Moham-med II announced his plans for reform, the

reforms have had many opponents. While very few were actually against the king’s pro-posals, his critics argued that the measures were not nearly enough; despite the revised constitution, the king still held too much power and everyone else too little, in their minds. Their arguments were numerous. First, the opponents posited that even though the people voted for the ruling party, the king was responsible for choosing the Prime Min-ister. Second, they contended that the king still maintained complete control over the military and religious bodies. Third, they maintained that the king still had the power to pass his own decrees and could even over-rule the Prime Minister on political affairs.

Upon closer examination, the reforms are in many ways superficial, allocating far less power to the people as it was made to seem. Governmental affairs are still largely carried out by the king’s deputies and advi-sors, who often interfere in Prime Minister Benkirane’s efforts and sometimes circum-vent him all together. At many public events,

“Morocco, which is ruled by the most tenured royal dynasty in

the Arab world, has managed to get by seemingly unscathed.”


11

http://www.atacmag.com/

“[For] any meaningful and

lasting change to be accomplished,

reforms are necessary to ensure that the King isn’t able to unlawfully exercise his power

as he does now.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/

http://africajournalismtheworld.com/


12 The horace Mann review | vol. XXii12 The horace Mann review | vol. XXii

ister and Parliament. Second, it would most likely call for the king to relinquish his power as Commander-in-Chief of the Moroccan military. Third, it would involve a significant cut to the king’s royal budget.

The easiest demand for the king to cede would be a cut to the royal budget, which currently stands at $300 million. He is al-ready one of the wealthiest monarchs in the world, topping Queen Elizabeth and all other monarchs in the Arab world outside of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A cut to his enormous annual allowance would ne-cessitate a far smaller sacrifice than any of the other reforms. In the past, however, the king has refused to curtail his lavish lifestyle in any way, despite the pay cuts many other govern-ment officials have taken and the poverty that is quite prevalent in Morocco: the average cit-izen earns 65% of what the average citizen in neighboring Algeria makes and half as much as the average inhabitant of nearby Tunisia. In fact, taking a pay cut would seem to be the first step the king should have taken two years ago in the initial uprising, as it would appear to be a selfless action and presumably would have brought him into high favor among the Moroccan people. The fact that the king has yet to take a pay cut, in spite of the dimin-ishing economic situation, is disconcerting for Morocco’s future, as it demonstrates the how stubborn the king truly is. Considering how little the king actually relinquished in the compromise he orchestrated in 2011 and how unwilling he has been to do more since then, it seems highly unlikely that the king is

prepared to forgo any significant power, like a complete devolvement of political power or a resignation from his religious or military control.

Bringing any of the above reforms to fruition would mark a significant accom-plishment in democratizing and reshaping Morocco, but for any meaningful and last-ing change to be accomplished, reforms are necessary to ensure that the king isn’t able to unlawfully exercise his power as he does now. At the moment, however, none of the reforms seems to be on the table, and evidently, it is going to take considerably more pressure to force the king to enact fundamental reform.

Nonetheless, organizing protests to persuade the king to relinquish power will be exceedingly difficult. Even though social media has made organizing protests easier, coordinating tens of thousands of people requires a lot of planning. Furthermore, the prospect of being arrested or tortured by the government for protesting makes protesting a risky venture, especially for its coordinators. Organizing a mass protest will also undoubt-edly take time, especially when taking into consideration the fact that almost half of the country is illiterate and uneducated, and that there are many who still support the king. Once there are large, organized protests in the streets, however, the Moroccan radicals will have more leverage, and King Mohammed’s future as a monarch will be in jeopardy. So by the time serious protests begin to take shape, the king will probably be forced to try, once again, to appease the people with another compromise.

Given the difficulties involved in rais-ing a mass protest, we most likely will not see much action in the very near future. While King Mohammed has certainly been stub-born recently, unless he chooses to neglect rationality entirely, over the course of the next few years, he will probably introduce a new set of reforms to reinforce the nation’s stabil-ity. Morocco probably won’t become the next Syria (it probably couldn’t anyway seeing the relative weakness of the Moroccan military and police), but depending on how long King Mohammed elects to wait for another set of reforms, a rocky future could be in store.

Protests in Morocco foreshadow a possible revolution as people become more aware and discontented with King Mohamed VI’s reign. Some groups such as the February 20th Youth Movement are clamoring for greater rights and democracy

THE VILLAINOUS LEADER OF A VITAL ALLY

By Sam Stern

How the United States Should Approach Relations With Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta


13The horace Mann review | vol. XXii 13The horace Mann review | vol. XXii

Within the last year, while the Arab Spring, a wave of pro-democratic revo-lutionary protests and violence, spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa, Kenya has maintained relative stability. However, its stability, consti-tution, and democracy are now being tested with the election of President Uhuru Kenyatta. On April 9th, Kenyat-ta, Kenya’s fourth president, was sworn into office, winning 50.07% of the vote against seven other candidates, includ-ing Raila Odinga, former prime min-ister of Kenya. On the surface, the new president appears a solid choice: he is promising pro-business policies, im-proved healthcare, and an end to ethnic rivalries. Nevertheless, a look into his past reveals that Kenyatta has Interna-tional Criminal Court (ICC) Charges of inciting violence following the last presi-dential election. Additionally, his father, the first president of Kenya, instituted policies of corruption and political as-

sassinations. So, the question emerges, does this president, who appears to want to help his country, have a dictatorial or autocratic role in mind, and will he provoke violence during his presidency as he did following the 2007 vote? Ad-ditionally, how should the United States, which hoped to avoid the election of this convicted criminal, continue its re-lations with Kenya: should our nation’s primary concern be of the human rights violations committed by Kenyatta, or rather, should we have our own interests in mind? The recent election has spurred thoughts of the 2007 election, during which Kenyatta was believed to have committed his crimes. The 2007 election revolved around ethnic rivalries. There are over seventy distinct ethnic groups within Kenya, with the most significant being the Kikuyu, Luo, Luhuya, Kamba, and Kalenjin. The Kikuyu are the larg-est and most dominant tribe in terms

of politics and commerce. For Kenyans, national politics and tribal politics are closely intertwined, with ethnic groups pledging complete loyalty to candidates from their tribe, regardless of the candi-date’s policies.In the 2007 election, Kikuyu tribe mem-ber Mwai Kibaki was elected president. Numerous individuals, primarily from the Luo tribe, who opposed Kibaki and believed that he had rigged the election formed in opposition. Within the fol-lowing months, a brief ethnic civil war ensued, as the Luo, representing defeat-ed candidate Raila Odinga, and Kikuyu and Kamba, representing Kibaki, bat-tled. During the chaos, over a thousand people were killed and thousands more fled from their homes. The fighting con-sisted of spontaneous killings, the burn-ing down of houses, lynching, and other violent acts. Regardless of the conflict, Kibaki did emerge as president upon the creation of a peace agreement with Odinga. In of-fice, Kibaki’s policies included an eco-nomic recovery strategy, called Vision 2030, created to transform Kenya into a middle-income country. He also worked to improve agricultural sector, educa-tion, and infrastructure. According to the State House of Kenya, Kibaki worked to “entrench democracy and the rule of law, [and create a] new constitution…there is now greater freedom of expres-sion, assembly, and association than at any other time in the country’s history.”Kenyatta, the recently elected president, is charged with ICC charges for help-ing to orchestrate violence against the Luo, the opposition tribe, during the 2007 tumult. Kenyatta was charged by the ICC for being an “indirect co-perpe-trator [accused of ] murder, deportation rape, persecution, and other inhumane acts.” As the New York Times explained, “These are the first serious charges sought against Kenya’s political elite for the violence, and are intended to address one of Africa’s glaring weak spots — dis-puted elections — which have led to turmoil in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Nigeria and, most recently, Ivory Coast.” How then, should the US act towards Kenya when Kenyatta has been convict-ed of crimes similar to those of President Omar al Bashir of Sudan or President Bashar al-Assad of Syria? If Kenyatta were committing these crimes today, the US would be supporting a reelection or



“We must watch the Kenyan president closely and must not engage in negotiations specifically with him. We must remember that while he appears on the outside a harmless politician who has promised every child a computer, he is in fact a criminal.”

the rise of another president and would try to restrict economic activity with Kenya. The problem is that while Ke-nyatta denies committing these crimes, he is in fact cooperating with the ICC investigations. Additionally, Kenya is a critical partner for the US in the region. In a continent torn by demonstrations, dictatorships, and rebels, Kenya offers a source of stable reliability for the US. Kenya is a major economic partner of the US; apparel, coffee and tea are im-ported into the US from Kenya, and the US has substantial business investment in Kenya in the commerce, light manu-facturing, and tourism industries. More importantly is Kenya’s loca-tion and military relationship with the US. The East African country, borders Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, and Tanzania, and is hence situated in a criti-cal area. One of the largest threats in this area is Somalia, the source of the infa-mous Somali pirates and the home of al-Shabaab jihadists, a Somali based sect of al-Qaeda. The al-Shabaab’s most re-cent attack was on April 14th, when nine terrorists (all of which were eventually killed) exploded a bomb near a court in Mogadishu, Somalia, causing the death of 29 civilians. This is just one of the many incidents of bombings on civilian hotspots that have occurred within the last few years. Al-Shabaab has also tried to enter Ke-nya, and the Kenyans have blamed them for a series of kidnappings, including the abduction of a British woman, a Ke-nyan driver and two Spanish aid workers seized from a refugee camp near the bor-der of Kenya and Somalia. The Kenyans

have fought off al-Shabaab insurgents, engaging in battles since 2011. The Ke-nyans, then, are our allies in fighting war crimes, even though their president is a criminal himself. So, what must we do? We must watch the Kenyan president closely, and must not engage in negotiations specifically with him. We must remember that while he appears on the outside a harmless politician who has promised every child a computer, he is in fact a criminal. Since any criminal in a position of power is not a good match (a criminal in power leads

to dictatorship and leads to the people’s abuse) we must monitor his activity. And yet, we cannot cut off our trade with Kenya because of its problematic president. We must continue to support the people’s economy, and we must not stifle relations because Kenya is a stable country helping us to fight the war on terror in a continent of radical ones. We must watch Kenyatta: if he begins to in-stitute any dictatorial policies, we must begin to take steps towards eliminating his power.





The Rushfor Ivory

Adam Resheff

The New “Scramble for Africa”

The desire for ivory in Asia and elsewhere abroad has reinvigorated

a poaching epidemic in the Central region of Africa, intensifying the violence and crime associated with this ruthless trade. A international ban on the importation ivory had kept elephant poaching relatively in-check for the past 20 years, but with the decision by the CITES to allow countries such as China and Japan to start importing limited amounts of ivory, poaching has surged, as the availability of the product has only increased the demand for it. Numerous deaths of rangers and military personnel assigned to protect the animals, the imprisonment of impoverished people desperate for food and money who had been convinced to turn to poaching by crime syndicates, the funding of criminal and terrorist organizations such as al-Shabaab and Joseph Kony’s LRA, and the endangerment of elephants in the central African region have resulted from of this recent increase in poaching. The international ban had worked when the region last faced an epidemic of this

proportion; the U.S. and other countries need to put pressure on the CITES and China to re-implement the ban on ivory, so the resulting conflicts in Central Africa can come to an end.

Ivory poaching’s resurgence over the last five years has created its fair share of problems, with rates of poaching increasing in central African countries such as the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Chad. Conservationists in these areas have long fought against elephant poaching, an activity where hunters illegally kill elephants in the wild. Poachers kill the elephants to ascertain their ivory tusks, a highly valued commodity throughout the world and then sell the tusks so they can be trafficked and made into religious and household objects for enormous prices around the globe. Ivory poaching creates a quandary, though, where the poachers are increasingly incentivized to poach. For practical reasons, poachers need to kill the elephants in order to cut off their tusks; as the rate of poaching

starts to outpace the rate at which they can reproduce, the elephant population begins to decrease. With fewer elephants, the supply of ivory available on the market decreases, raising the price of ivory. As poachers kill more elephants, the ivory they ascertain gains value, giving them more incentive to kill the elephants, even if it means in the long run that there will not be ivory available at all. Reports from the Wild Migrations Project estimate that poaching has decimated as much as 90% of the elephant population in Central Africa over the last 50 years; in the last 5 years, poaching has increased in countries such Kenya upwards of 700%.

Correlating with this recent surge in poaching is the price of ivory in China. Referred to as “white gold”, ivory can sell for $1300 a pound in China, up from $71 in 2008. This price growth, according to the New York Times, began at the time when the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species or CITES allowed China to break the international ivory ban, permitting them to bid on a



“Ivory poaching’s resurgence over the last five years has created its fair share of problems, with rates of poaching increasing in central African countries such as the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Chad.”

one time quota of 102 tons of ivory from Africa. With a rising Chinese middle class that could now afford the ivory, its demand soared. Coupled with a border that had become more open to ivory’s importation, smugglers began bringing illegal ivory with greater ease. The New York says further that experts believe that as much as 70% of illegal ivory goes to China. For criminal and terrorist organizations, the demand for the good and the money to be made draws them in and brings out the worst of them.

Crime syndicates and warlords in Central Africa alike see the ivory trade as a way to fund their operations, fueling violence as rangers and conservationists attempt to prevent the poaching. Joseph Kony, the leader of the militant group the Lord’s Resistance Army, finances his operations through ivory poaching. According to the New York Times, Kony uses the profits of his ivory poaching to buy weapons and stock his child army, essentially enabling him and his followers to conduct mass murders, abductions, and child-sex trafficking in the areas encompassing the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, where he is rumored to be hiding. Further, groups such as Al-Shabaab, a branch of the terrorist organization Al-Qadea, and the Janjaweed in the Sudan, a guerilla organization that contributed to the genocide in Darfur, have begun to rely on the poaching as a source of income, in attempt to take advantage of the skyrocketing prices. Activists and local park rangers have responded to the poaching activity of these organizations, but their response only creates conflict. In wilderness reserves and jungles throughout Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic, rangers have begun heavily army themselves to combat the poachers. The desire for ivory in Asia and elsewhere abroad has reinvigorated a poaching epidemic in the Central region of Africa, intensifying the violence and crime associated with this ruthless trade. A international ban on

the importation ivory had kept elephant poaching relatively in-check for the past 20 years, but with the decision by the CITES to allow countries such as China and Japan to start importing limited amounts of ivory, poaching has surged, as the availability of the product has only increased the demand for it. Numerous deaths of rangers and military personnel assigned to protect the animals, the imprisonment of impoverished people desperate for food and money who had been convinced to turn to poaching by crime syndicates, the funding of criminal and terrorist organizations such as al-Shabaab and Joseph Kony’s LRA, and the endangerment of elephants in the central African region all have been consequences of this recent increase in poaching. The international ban had

worked when the region last faced an epidemic of this proportion; the U.S. and other countries need to put pressure on the CITES and China to re-implement the ban on ivory, so the resulting conflicts in Central Africa can come to an end.

For practical reasons, poachers need to kill the elephants in order to cut off their tusks; as the rate of poaching starts to outpace the rate at which they can reproduce, the elephant population begins to decrease. With fewer elephants available, the supply of ivory available to the market decreases, raising the price of ivory. So as poachers kill more elephants, the ivory they ascertain gains value, giving them incentive to kill more elephants, even if it means in the long run that there won’t ivory available at all.

http://www.businessinsider.com/

The North Korean Nuclear “Threat”By Neil Ahlawat

Conflict in the Korean Peninsula is not new. Nor are hyperbolic North Korean threats of war, rhetoric, or

symbolic moves. What is new, however is the intensity and persistence of those threats and rhetoric. Whether or not North Korea will make good on its threats is obviously questionable, but doubtful. The amount of times North Korea tests its missiles or makes an empty threat does not constitute its being an eminent threat to the United States. After all, North Korea is a bizarre little country in the center of a self-developed complicated situation. The bottom line is that North Korea does not have the necessary firepower to successfully attack the United States.

North Korea has been in the news as of late for several reasons. In December, North Korea launched a rocket that they claimed successfully carried a satellite into orbit. However, it was suspected that this was just a missile test, which at this point in time seems to be a usual occurrence. Then, in late March, they outlandishly declared war on South Korea, even

though the two Koreas have technically been at war since the 1950’s. In early April, North Korea restarted a nuclear plant and shut down a joint North-South industrial zone, where North Korean not only worked, but were also being paid by South Korea. Finally, just a few weeks ago, North Korea threatened to pre-emptively nuke Washington. As much as Pyongyang has been known for its provocations, its threatening to nuke the U.S. warrants the question: can they pull it off?

The United States and other Western nations know for a fact that North Korea is in possession of nuclear weapons.

The question that remains is exactly how strong are these missiles? An April Pentagon assessment indicated that the Asian country has a nuclear weapon small enough to mount on a ballistic missile and aim at a target abroad. However, the reliability of these weapons seems to be the obstacle North Korea still faces. North Korean missiles have the necessary range to reach the coast of the United States, but lack the necessary accuracy and reliability. North Korea has been in the business of showcasing their apparent aeronautical “prowess” since 1998 with the Taepodong-1 rocket, which failed to reach orbit. North

The bottom line is that North Korea does not have the necessary

firepower to successfully attack the United States.

18

Korean Peninsula

The horace Mann review | vol. XXii

The North Korean Nuclear “Threat”

Korea’s second attempt in 2006 ended after the Taepodong-2 rocket exploded 40 seconds after liftoff. For its third attempt in 2009, North Korea created an advanced version of the Taepodong-2 rocket known as the Unha-2, but one of its engines failed to ignite, causing the rocket to crash into the Pacific Ocean. And, as of April last year, the Unha-3 rocket also failed to reach orbit, bringing North Korea’s total to four failed missile launches. Not only did these launches fail, but the missiles used were among best North Korea had. If that’s the best they can do, then there is almost no need to worry. It will be years before North Korea will be able to guarantee a direct hit on the United States, or any other country. As one should be able to tell by now, these nuclear threats are not tangible. Even if North Korea did have the capability to nuke the U.S., it is highly doubtful they would do so. The United States has thousands of nuclear warheads, with the means to deliver them with pinpoint accuracy. We have deterred countries with far more nuclear weapons and missiles than North Korea has and ever will have, including the Soviet Union and China. Moreover, attacking the U.S. would be suicidal; even attacking a U.S. ally would be extremely risky. And with China looking at North Korea as a badly behaving child recently, it looks like North Korea could be left to fend for itself.

Another thing about North Korea that concerns the West is leader Kim Jong-Un, as every member of the Kim dynasty has been extremely unpredictable. The recent barrage of moves made by North Korea have come under the leadership of Un. Part of the reason North Korea has been successful in creating such a militarized state is through deceiving its people. After taking over, Kim Jong-Un’s father, Kim Jong-Il, lost no time in announcing that the country was under an unprecedented threat from the Untied States. As such, he decided that he would have to focus on strengthening the military to defend Korea from the West, rather than concentrating on the country’s failing economy or starving population. As a result, the people of North Korea blame the U.S. for what happened. This military-first policy established by Kim Jong-Il serves as productive propaganda in North Korea, strengthening the country and unifying its people under the false

umbrella that North Korea is a powerful state. It is important to know all of this, as every move North Korea makes (whether it be missile launches, nuclear threats, or rhetoric) is essentially just propaganda for its people rather than materialistic threats.

As of today, it is safe to say that Kim Jong-Un does not want war. With North Korea being in such a poor situation- poverty, famine, and a failing economy- war with superior military powers the U.S. and South Korea would be the end to the North. Even in the failing state that

the country is in, it is unlikely that North Korea will be able to suppress its pride and ask western nations for aid anytime soon. North Korea wants to continue to further its nuclear, and will continue to bluff and hide behind threats until it does so. The United States and the UN must recognize that North Korea is not the threat it has been made out to be. Lacking superior weapons technology, North Korea does not have much to back its threats with. If they do sometime in the future, mutually assured destruction is the perfect argument as to why they would still not be a threat. This doesn’t mean that we can sit back and let North Korea reach the point of actually being in possession of powerful, able, and accurate nuclear warheads. What Washington must do is lay off on the multitude of UN sanctions and embargoes, and hold meaningful bilateral negotiations with North Korea. Defusing the tension is the first step. North Korea is an annoying problem, but not an overwhelming threat.

The United States and the UN must recognize that North Korea is not

the threat it has been made out to be.

19

Korean Peninsula


OBSESSED WITH POWERBy Laszlo Herwitz

20

Korean Peninsula


One could say North Korea is the favorite subject of two different types of individu-als: military strategists and

comedians. The former brings up the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the context of the nuclear threat it poses and the latter mentions it in the context of a pointed joke about its leaders and their absurd habits. In reality, these two contexts are highly interconnected. The emphasis that the current North Korean regime places on power, the way it elevates its leaders to a god-like status, and its attempts at perfection all play a role in its current nuclear diplomacy policy.

As is the way with many small un-stable countries, North Korea attempts to give off an image of complete power. In order to demonstrate its so-called might, North Korea holds large mili-tary parades in which thousands and thousands of soldiers march by in per-fect unison. Its leaders always dress in military uniform and are normally pho-tographed next to displays of guns and artillery. This obsession with power sheds some light on its current nucle-ar policy. North Korea will not agree to nonproliferation and arms reduc-tion because to do so would hurt its so-called powerful image. The nation will continue to authorize construc-tion of nuclear weapons not because it will use them but because it needs them to maintain what it sees as a powerful reputation. Another reason North Ko-rea will not discontinue its nuclear pro-gram is because to do so would be to lose media attention. The DPRK enjoys the publicity and sense of control it gets from having the world media focusing on its every move. For example, recently Kim-Jong Un gave a New Year’s day ad-dress, unlike his father Kim Jong-il who did not address the public once during his entire rule, in which he praised the country’s nuclear program and vowed not to bow to pressure from Western nations. Jong-Un broke step with his father because he felt that North Korea was in fear of losing the attention of the Media and thought that a declaration of continued proliferation would swing the spot –light back onto his country. After this declaration North Korea was

once again, like the DPRK government predicted, pushed back into the media limelight. North Korea wants to put on a powerful show for the Western nations and South Korea, not destroy them.

North Korea, like most other past and present communist regimes, uti-lizes a large volume of propaganda in an attempt to brainwash its citizens and maintain political stability. This pro-paganda ranges from wall paintings of rotund, ruddy-cheeked North Korean families to the radios that are kept on in every household, which broadcast a

continuous stream of propaganda about the glory of the DPRK and its leaders. Much of this propaganda is focused towards the glorification of North Ko-rea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong-Un. Not much is known about the DPRK’s rela-tively young leader but after listening to North Korean media, one would believe that Kim Jong-Un attended prep school where he mastered 6 languages and achieved all A’s when in reality school records show that his grades were me-diocre at best and his classmates report that he was more interested in basket-

ball than in his studies. This propa-ganda is meant to make the people of North Korea believe that their leader is more deity than man, an attempt to build a cult of personality around Kim Jong-Un. This attempt to make Kim Jong-Un a personification of divine power extends into North Korea’s nu-clear strategy. Jong-Un is present at all major nuclear unveilings and seems to be the one in command of the program’s course. This is done in an attempt to tie together nuclear missiles, which some see as weapons of almost divine power, with Kim-Jon-Un, who wants to be seen as a wielder of divine power. This com-bination has contributed to North Ko-reans’ desire to continue their nuclear program; they do not wish to take away a major symbol of their leaders power and divinity.

As demonstrated through the way all their government officials dress alike and the way their soldiers march in perfect unison, North Korea places particular importance on achieving perfection in any way it can. The DPRK and its leaders wish to project an air of infallibility to the rest of the world in an attempt to divert attention from its obvious instability and poverty. Like its copious use of propaganda, North Ko-rea’s nuclear program is another way for it to try to maintain its image of perfec-tion. To give up on its production of nuclear missiles would be to take away some of its so-called perfection, some-thing that the regime feels it cannot af-ford to do. North Korea has invested too much into achieving a “perfect” im-age to do anything to jeopardize it, in-cluding nuclear disarmament.

The emphasis that the North Kore-an regime places on power, the way that it idolizes its leaders, and its attempts to broadcast an image of perfection all in-fluence its current nuclear policy. The DPRK will not discontinue its nuclear program because to do so would be to, in its eyes, strip it of its “powerful im-age.” North Korea is also worried, like many other small nations like it, of los-ing the attention of the world media be-cause, as much as it cares about power and authority, world attention is, in some ways, the thing North Korea can-not afford to lose.

21

Korean Peninsula


As is the way with many small unstable countries,

North Korea attempts to give off an image

of complete power. In order to demonstrate its

so-called might, North Korea holds large military

parades in which thousands and thousands of soldiers

march by in perfect unison.

shattered relationsSHATTEREDRELATIONS

By Brett Silverstein

As North Korea inundates the Unit-ed States and its allies with threats, it would be easiest to give in to

North Korea’s demands in order to resolve the crisis. However, the United States must not back down to North Korea. North Ko-rea has repeatedly sponsored terrorism in the past, whether tacitly or explicitly, and many times it has reneged on its compro-mises with the U.S. and international com-munity. Given North Korea’s blatant disre-gard for international law, the U.S. should not recognize North Korea’s demands.Former North Korean dictators Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-Il both precipitated acts of terror. There is no reason to believe that current dictator Kim Jong Un will do any differently. Under North Korea’s founder Kim Il-sung, North Korea was responsible for the kidnappings of at least 13 Japanese citizens between 1977 and 1983. Then in 1987 the Il-Sung regime was responsible for the bombing of Korean Airlines Flight 858.

According to Slate Magazine, this was in re-sponse to the International Olympic Com-mittee’s decision to stage the 1988 Olympic games exclusively in Seoul rather than also including North Korea. North Korea used the bombing as a tactic to scare people from going to the games.

Under Kim Jong-Il, North Korea re-mained relatively quiet in terms of direct attacks up until 2010, but has been accused of proliferating ballistic and nuclear missile technology to countries on the U.S.’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list. In 2005 the U.S. government announced that North Korea had transferred nuclear technology to Lib-ya. According to Reza Khalili, a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC), North Korea has also abetted nuclear and ballistic technology transfer to Iran. According to Khalili, in 2009 China finalized an $11 billion deal with the IRCG to provide them with ICBMs and DF-31 missiles, which have a minimum 4,300-

mile range and can carry nuclear warheads. However, when the project failed to come to fruition the IRCG turned to Pyongyang. Khalili said that the North Koreans agreed to provide the “hardware, installation and launch of the technology and the necessary training for the project” in exchange for $7 billion.

The last explicit terrorism act occurred in 2010 toward the end of Kim Jong-Il’s reign. South Korean Intelligence revealed that a North Korean submarine was respon-sible for the March sinking of the corvette ship Cheonan, which killed 46 South Kore-an sailors. The ship was sailing in disputed waters and this was possibly an attempt by North Korea to force South Korea to aban-don claim to those waters. Tensions would escalate further in November of 2010 when North Korea shelled the disputed island of Yeonpyeong, which is a part of South Korea but claimed by North Korea. In the shell-ing, two South Korean Marines were killed.

http://www.travelimg.org/

http://www.picstopin.com/http://jungart.deviantart.com/

22

Korean Peninsula


RELATIONS

Since then there have not been any more direct acts of terror, but the present situation is the newest flare up of tensions. The crisis started when on February 12th North Korea carried out an underground nuclear test and in response the UN Se-curity Council passed tougher sanctions against North Korea. What has followed has been North Korea’s spitting out belli-cose rhetoric against the U.S. and placing a ballistic missile on its East Coast.

Many believe that the recent test was a show of force by Kim Jong Un to secure control of his regime. According to The UK-based Independent newspaper, Kim Jong Un is using the nuclear test to see of challengers from within the military and to draw the people’s attention away from their terrible standards of living and toward the threat of “foreign imperialists.” The North Korean preconditions for talks with Wash-ington and Seoul further indicate the goals of the regime. Amongst the numerous North Korean demands are the removal

of UN sanctions against North Korea and the permanent cessation of joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises. Almost all of North Korea’s million-man army is sta-tioned near the Demilitarized Zone. North Korea knows that in a protracted war the U.S. and South Korea’s more advanced technology would ultimately defeat North Korea’s larger army, thereby bringing an end to the current North Korean govern-ment. Thus North Korea hopes that having nuclear weapons will make the cost of a war too great for the U.S., thereby bringing se-curity to the North Korean regime.

As part of its bellicose rhetoric North Korea said it “will exercise the right to a preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors and to defend the supreme interests of the country.” CNN reports that analysts believe North Korea is years away from having the technology necessary to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile and to aim it accurately at a target. Moreover, as previously stated, it would be

unlikely for North Korea to want to get into a direct military conflict with the U.S.

Thus North Korea’s threats come down to extortion. This was no more evident than in the Six Party talks between 2003 and 2009. In 2007 the U.S. and North Ko-rea agreed on a plan for denuclearization. As part of the plan the U.S. agreed to ease sanctions, including releasing Banco Delta Asia funds, which Macao had frozen on behalf of the U.S., suspecting that the bank had laundered millions of dollars for the North Koreans. The Council on Foreign Relations reported that the cooperation seemed to be gaining momentum when later in the year Pyongyang began disabling its Yongbyon plant, removing thousands of fuel rods under the guidance of U.S. ex-perts. In response, the U.S. removed North Korea from its State Sponsors of Terrorism list in 2008. However, North Korea failed to provide a verification protocol for its nucle-ar program and by the end of 2008, the re-gime had restarted its program and barred

nuclear inspectors.North Korea’s failure to fulfill its agree-

ments illustrates a formula that it and other rouge countries and groups have used time and time again. In the past, North Korea and Iran have delayed sanctions for months by promising to the U.S. to undo their nuclear programs and by making small concessions such as the shutting down of a reactor. However, as we has been the case with Six Party talks, in the end they violate the conditions of the agreement and con-tinue their nuclear programs.

The Six Party talks show that the North Koreans cannot be trusted to honor any agreements they sign. It would be bad enough if all the U.S. lost was the money it used to bribe the Iranians and North Kore-ans into signing off on the denuclearization agreements. However, even worse is that while the U.S. has wasted time negotiating with the Iranians and North Koreans, they have continued to advance their nuclear programs in other places. North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism and continues its

nuclear and missile program in the face of international condemnation and sanctions. Not only would negotiating with the North Koreans prove futile, but it also would re-ward North Korea for its extra-legal activ-ity.

U.S. has one of two options. The U.S. could choose to do nothing and hope the crisis dies down. While the North Koreans may still test-fire a missile, it seems unlikely that the North Koreans would risk attack-ing American or South Korean forces, which would invoke a much stronger re-sponse than test-firing a missile. If they do test-fire a missile, the end-result may actu-ally help the U.S. China is starting to tire from North Korea’s provocations and thus would be more likely to sign off on further sanctions. If the North Korea does nothing and lets the crisis die down, then obviously the U.S. has attained a favorable outcome.

The U.S. could also respond to North Korea with force. While threatening North Korea with further sanctions or conduct-ing more military exercises would seem to

risk further intensifying the crisis, it would likely cause North Korea to back down. In 2003 and 2004 Libya disbanded its nuclear program. While there were other factors that played a role in Libya’s decision, the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003 most certainly played no small part. Moreover, North Korea wants to be left alone. If it sees that sanctions are immanent, then North Korea will have to back down or else face the consequences.

North Korea does not pose a sub-stantial threat to the U.S. To concede in to North Korea’s demands for negotiations in order to resolve the current crisis is foolish and shortsighted. The North Koreans are not going to be placated and will create fur-ther demands if we give into their current ones. We should be the ones setting precon-ditions to negotiation. If history is instruc-tive, then North Korea will never listen to the U.S. unless the U.S. stands behind its re-solve and refuses to give into North Korea’s demands.

Ultimately North Korea’s threats come down to extortion.“

”

http://www.travelimg.org/

http://www.picstopin.com/http://jungart.deviantart.com/

23

Korean Peninsula



By James McCarthy

A 1962 coup d’état has since placed a military dictatorship in con-trol of the Burmese government. This coup d’état was led by General Ne Win and resulted in the establishment of the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) as the sole political party in the country. The BSPP is notorious for its brutal and oppressive tactics in quelling protests, as well as for its role in impoverishing the nation. The BSPP remained firmly in power until the Saffron Revolution in 2007. The movement, although suppressed by the government, reconnected the Bur-

mese conscience with figures such as Aung San Suu Kyi, who emerged as a prominent and revered proponent of anti-government rhetoric. The Saf-fron Revolution also placed the Bur-mese government within the cross hairs of global powers, who in turn levied crippling sanctions against Burma. By 2008, the Burmese gov-ernment was unable to continue its brutally suppressive tactics in face of growing popular discontent. The government held a constitutional referendum with the hope of creat-ing a “discipline-flourishing democ-

racy”. The election for this democracy was held in 2010, and placed the mili-tary-backed Union Solidarity and De-velopment Party in power. The group, however, was dissolved in 2011. The Burmese government then released Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest and unbarred her party’s participa-tion in the 2012 elections. The gov-ernment freed 200 political prisoners, enacted labor protection laws, and es-tablished the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). In the 2012 elections, Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD party won 43 of the 45 seats avail-

THE NECESSITY

GOVERNMENTAL REFORM

FOR

Southeast Asia


“There can be no negotiation or exchange of ideas if people do not

feel secure.”

able. Burma appears to be a nation progressing towards democracy and liberty. However, there is still much that needs to be done in order for Burma to achieve a truly free society.

While the new Burmese govern-ment is slowly undoing the damage caused by half a century of military dictatorship, international powers are cautiously analyzing Burma’s inten-tions rather than assisting the coun-try in the facilitation of much need-ed reforms. While still a contentious topic, the permanent lifting of sanc-tions has been generally perceived as an important step in Burma’s recov-ery. While certain sanctions had been temporarily lifted by most nations in 2012, there still remain sanctions that block Burma’s economic progress. The most forceful American sanction still in place blocks all imports from Burma. This has made it very difficult for Burmese exporters to do business and has greatly inhibited the devel-opment of commercial ties between the United States and Burma. Addi-tionally, while Burma has abundant natural resources and a strong la-bor force, the government’s financial mismanagement of entire industries has placed the populous in poverty. Therefore, the removal of sanctions that weaken the Burmese economy and restrict foreign investment will in turn promote the strengthening of

the private sector and give enterpris-ing citizens more access to capital.

While there are steps that the international community must take to help Burma, the Burmese govern-ment must prioritize freedom in soci-ety and secure future prosperity. The greatest problem facing the Burmese economy is the absence of financial trickle-down. Foreign investments in the nation are operating solely to exploit the nation’s natural resourc-es, without plans to remain a force in the nation’s development perma-nently. Yet, these companies are reti-cent on the promise of the Burmese economy and are often reluctant to invest substantial capital in the na-tion. This is due to Burma’s unstable investment laws and paucity of devel-oped infrastructure. If the Burmese government wishes to appeal to for-eign investors, it must expedite and conclude its debate on the allowance of foreign interests in the economy. Additionally, it is the government’s responsibility to improve its fail-

ing infrastructure. Once substantial initiative is taken in improving both the government’s capital management and legislative efficiency, Burma will become a more secure and promis-ing investment for foreign companies.

It is imperative that the govern-ment addresses another considerable problem, rule of law. Aung San Suu Kyi has said, “There can be no nego-tiation or exchange of ideas if people do not feel secure.” Burma has been plagued with ethnic violence through-out its history under military dictator-ship, most recently anti-Muslim kill-ings and riots. The absence of law and government prioritization of ethnic groups has and will continue to inhibit Burma’s liberation. If the government cannot effectively address inter-eth-nic violence and minority targeting, it will see a relapse to the same mili-tancy that had plagued it for the last half century. The government must make the establishment of equality a priority, and not continue to use the fractured society to remain in power.

The Burmese government is tak-ing the right steps towards reform, yet the many problems that still belea-guer the nation must be solved so that the government does not experience the recidivism which many activists fear. The international community re-mains hesitant to assist Burma, fear-ing the misplacement of funds and reemergence of radical factions. Yet in order to insure political stability in South East Asia and the protec-tion of Burmese human rights, it is the responsibility of global powers to assist in the nation’s development. The transitional process facing Burma now will define the next century of its progression to come. Thus it is essen-tial that these global powers remain involved in supporting the Burmese government as it slowly heals from the wounds inflicted by 50 years of oppression, corruption, and poverty.

THE NECESSITY

GOVERNMENTAL REFORM

FOR

Southeast Asia


Throughout Myanmar’s entire existence, the nation has struggled beneath crippling dictatorships and colonial leaders, but harsh authoritarian rule has not adversely affected Myanmar as much as the declining sociopolitical and eco-nomic deterioration of the country. Since the 1970’s, the government has barred the Rohingya Muslims citizenship

and has actively persecuted them; however, as the country begins to transition to a less autocratic society, hostilities between Buddhists, who constitute 89% of the population, and Muslims (who represent a mere 4%) have increased. In 2012, a group of sectarian Buddhists murdered and raped thousands of Muslims. But how can an increase in democracy lead to an increase in oppression? The development of democracy has actually given the Buddhist majority the advantage by allowing Bud-dhists to leverage their numbers in order to harm the Muslim minority who has traditionally travelled throughout Myanmar in search of jobs. As a result, the solution to the genocide in Myanmar should be to slowly increase democracy while also

ANUNPUNISHED

GENOCIDEon the path to

modernity, myanmar’s

newfound democracy

has failed its

muslim people.

By Lauren Futterwww.indiatvnews.com

Southeast Asia


ensuring more rights and protection for Rohingya and redistributed wealth. In 1988, the military, led by Defense Minister General Saw Maung, seized control of the Burmese government. Maung promised to continue isolation-ist foreign policy and strict protection-ist economic policies. With the rise of the military controlled government came the rise U Thein Sein, who be-came president in 2011. As president, Sein has supported the launch of eco-nomic interaction with other Asian countries. While Western countries such as the United States have seen the beginning of trade liberalization as an encouraging sign, it has paradoxically encouraged more outbreaks of violence. Despite their small numbers, Muslims have generally had success economi-cally to the resentment of Buddhists. While Buddhists envied Muslims for their success in the past, the hardline colonial government or dictator was able to suppress any attempt at large-scale attacks on the Muslim popula-

tion. With the slow democratization of Myanmar, Buddhists fear that the Mus-lim community will control more of the country’s resources. Many Buddhist extremists have even argued in distrib-uted pamphlets that Muslims secretly control the economy of Myanmar. Bud-dhists argue for a pure Burmese state devoid of Muslims, and using a slightly more democratized press, members of the extremist Buddhist organization 969 have been able to easily distribute these pamphlets through the mail and news. Similarly, the drastic change from a military controlled government to a more economic and politically liberal one has lead to severe strains on the economy through refinancing of debt and attempting to quell historical rates of inflation of up to 30%, leading to the economic scapegoating of Muslims. The increase in inflation leading to economic scapegoating, the dis-tribution of xenophobic pamphlets, and increasing outbursts of attacks all point to key signs of an eventual eth-

nic cleansing or genocide unless action is taken. First, Myanmar’s government must recognize the citizenship of Ro-hingya Muslims. Currently, though Ro-hingya Muslims have been a presence in Myanmar for centuries, they do not have official citizenship in Myanmar. This measure is not only an official government policy, but has seeped into the mindset of Burmese citizens. Many members of Burmese society consider Muslims to be outsiders or illegal. Be-cause this attitude is part of the culture of Myanmar and has been for over half a century, it has only reinforced xeno-phobic sentiment. Now that Burma is coping with the growing pains of dem-ocratic transition and liberalization of the press, Buddhists can easily spread their xenophobic sentiments. Offering citizenship, however, would set in mo-tion the first step in showing Myanmar that Muslims are equal to Buddhists in a manner that is upheld by the law. Slowly, this ideology can become part of the society that once repudiated it.

Southeast Asia


However, accepting that the govern-ment will easily accept this policy change is naïve; most of the members of Burma’s political system are Bud-dhists who would not even recognize the existence of the Rohingya as human beings let alone citizens of their coun-try. That is why foreign intervention in Myanmar is necessary to prevent the impending genocide by encourag-ing President Sein to sign policies rec-ognizing the Rohingya as citizens of Burma possibly in exchange for aid. Considering the desire of the Burmese government to liberalize and the eco-nomic distress it has caused, foreign aid

to offer aid, it could jeopardize their military positions within the country. Despite that, the repercussions could be far worse for western countries if they do not act now. After the 2012 at-tacks, the Human Rights Watch found that despite praise from the interna-tional community, the Burmese gov-ernment actually forced Rohingya out of their homes, burned their mosques, conducted mass arrests, and called for them to be deported to different coun-tries. Western countries can help facili-tate a peaceful transition from military rule to democracy that otherwise may not have occurred if the country were

British colonial government encour-ages Arab, Indian, and Bengali im-migration to present-day Rakhine, Myanmar, then a colony of the British Empire.

would provide a much needed relief. In exchange, foreign countries can gain a possible political ally once the country stabilizes; although, Myanmar cannot stabilize if there is genocide, providing further incentive for bargaining using Rohingya citizenship. While aid is a crucial component to relieve tensions in Myanmar, western countries have shied away from taking this necessary step for fear that it would lead to more armed conflict. The Bur-mese government has also offered west-ern countries such as the United States key strategic military positions within Myanmar. If western countries were

The Japanese conquer Burma; British rulers are forced to retreat. Inter-eth-nic clashes erupt between Buddhists and Muslims. The Arakan region of Burma undergoes an ethnic split that still exists today, with Buddhists in South Araka and Muslim Rohingya in the North.

1890s

1942

1948The independent union of Burma is created. U Nu becomes first prime minister. Burma’s 1948 Union Citizen-ship Act is passed.

1962General Ne Win overthrows U Nu government in a military coup; the new Burmese government begins a campaign of violence against Rohing-ya militants fighting for self-determi-nation.

1978

The Burmese government, labelling the Rohingya as illegal settlers from Bangladesh, conduct “Operation King Dragon” to expel them. Widespread cases of summary execution, rape, and brutality targeted specifically at the Rohingya population ensues, and 250,000 Rohingya seek refuge in Ban-gladesh.

1979

Pressured by the international com-munity, Burmese leaders temporarily halt “Operation King Dragon” expul-sions. Burma and Bangladesh sign an agreement facilitating the reentry of nearly all the Rohingya refugees back to Burma.

1982

800,000 Rohingya Muslims are denied citizenship in the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law.

1991

“Operation King Dragon” begins anew. International pressure comes more swiftly, and the Burmese lead-ership quickly halts the operation again.

2012

Rohingya in Rakhine rape and murder an ethnic Ra-khine Buddhist woman. In retaliation, Rakhine Bud-dhists kill ten Rohingyas. The 2012 Rakhine State Riots begin. Burmese leaders enact emergency mili-tary measures in Rakhine. Thousands of Rohingyas disappear, are killed, or flee the country. In response, Myanmar announces its intention to expel the Ro-hingya from the country.

HISTORICAL TIMELINE: BUDDHIST-ROHINGYA CONFLICT IN MYANMAR

Timeline from www.exiledtonowhere.com

www.geopoliticalmonitor.com

Southeast Asia


must be broken up. The government should expect backlash from the Bud-dhist population, so it should encour-age bordering countries of Bangladesh, China, Laos, and Thailand to offer the Rohingya asylum if necessary and pro-vide extra border protection. Through immediate responses to the conflict, Myanmar can begin to assuage the tensions between the Buddhists and Muslims; however, long-term eco-nomic investments in Myanmar must be made as well to allow for sustainable change. The capital of Myanmar, Yan-gon, is situated on the mouth of a river leading to the ocean, making it well located for shipping goods. Another economic hub of Myanmar, Mandalay, is located further inland and is the sec-ond most populated city in Myanmar. Currently, Mandalay is used as a com-munications capital. While both cities have the potential to grow and become more powerful economically, neither one has the infrastructure required to do so. In order to increase equality between Buddhists and Muslims, the government should commission public works projects to build infrastructure to connect Mandalay and Yangon. Be-cause part of the tension is the result of Buddhists’ scapegoating of Muslims, if the economic source of the scapegoat-ing is removed, the government will be able to relieve some of this tension. Additionally, infrastructure has the po-tential to attract foreign investors who might then build factories in Myanmar.

left to its own devices. If the government is able to initiate the first step of response to the Buddhist- Muslim conflict, the next step is enforc-ing the law. During the Rakhine State Riots of 2012 in which Buddhists mur-dered Muslims and burned mosques, President Sein did not issue any orders to help stop the violence. According to a police officer at another riot in Meik-tika, Myanmar, they “received an order to do nothing but extinguish fires.” Even political activist Aung San Suu Kyi, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for her work in Burma, has not directly spoken out against the violence. The government must not only condemn the attacks but also launch investigations to find the people who initiated them in order to prevent further bouts of violence. Simi-larly, the government must ensure sup-port for the Rohingya by permitting the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to repeatedly report progress within Myanmar and make suggestions for aid when needed. The domestic government can also increase security within the region and encour-age police officers to be on the look out for possible xenophobic situations that

Currently, Burmese citizens or the gov-ernment employ most of the workers in Myanmar, so that discrimination is common throughout the workplace. Through improving the economy, Myanmar can become more attractive to foreign investors who might not have a bias against the Muslims of Myanmar, leading to further equality. Diversify-ing foreign investment in Myanmar prevents Muslims from only having one employment. With wages in China increasing and the newly liberalizing trade in Myanmar, Yangon is a prime location for manufacturing goods. Manufacturing can help to improve the struggling economy of Myanmar, speed trade liberalization, and suppress dis-crimination. Burma can then use Man-dalay as an information technology capital. Currently, Mandalay is the edu-cation and health care capital of Myan-mar, offering the nation’s best universi-ties. With new graduates in Mandalay, foreign companies can offer graduates jobs in call and research centers similar to the developments in India. Trying to bring Myanmar into the 21st century while dealing with persistent conflict has led to further economic, social, and political hardships within the country. Though while this fight has been difficult, through domestic and foreign government intervention and economic development, Myan-mar can make that leap into the future, abandoning the Buddhist-Rohingya conflict.

Rohingya Muslim village recently torched by Buddhistswww.opnionmaker.org

www.exiledtonowhere.com

Southeast Asia

O n May 18 of this year, ambas-sadors, trade representatives, and other dignitaries from

each of the member states of the Trans-Pacific Partnership will gather in Lima, Peru. The formidable coalition of gov-ernments, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Peru, Chile, and Vietnam, is meeting for the 17th time since 2010 in order to negotiate, write, and polish one of the most important free trade agreements in world history. At Lima, the TPP is welcoming Japan, its newest and perhaps most important

member besides the United States. The Japanese economy is the third larg-est on earth after the U.S. and China and if the Japanese Government signs the TPP upon the treaty’s expected completion at the end of this year, the member nations of the partnership will account for over 40% of global GDP.

Clearly, the TPP has vast impli-cations for the United States both eco-nomically and politically. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) of this size and scope indeed, have the potential to transform the geopolitical landscape of a region, in this case Asia and the Pa-

cific. The Obama Administration has presented the TPP as a groundbreak-ing document that will bring hun-dreds of billions of dollars in annual revenue to the U.S., while improving diplomatic relations with all the par-ticipating members of the treaty. Due to the sensitive and complex nature of multilateral talks, the trade agree-ment has thus far been discussed be-hind closed doors. As a result, details about the treaty have come in a trickle. However, using both general press re-leases by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and leaked information

TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

THE BRIGHT FUTURE OF AMERICAN TRADE

By Edmund Bannister

www.nippaku.wordpress.com


Southeast Asia

about the treaty’s content, journalists and economists have been able to con-struct a relatively clear picture of the TPP and its implications. From all this evidence, official and otherwise, it is clear that the Trans Pacific Partnership is indeed the transformative, innova-tive, and pragmatic agreement that has been promised.

The first and perhaps most benefi-cial aspect of the treaty comes in the form of relaxed trade tariffs, also re-ferred to as customs duties, between the member states of the TPP. While final reports have yet to be released it is estimated that the United States will lower import tariffs dramatically and that other participating nations will do the same. The standard tariff imposed on industrial products, a category that constitutes 96% of U.S. imports, is cur-rently set at 2% of a product’s value. The Obama Administration is offer-ing to soften these rates considerably. These relaxed customs duties are cer-tain to encourage economic growth, generate employment, and increase standard of living. This is clear be-cause reduced tariffs lower the price of imported goods, thus making those goods cheaper for American consum-ers. Retail businesses and their em-ployees will also benefit from being able to buy and sell their merchandise at a reduced cost. Although, some parts of the U.S. manufacturing sector may be negatively affected, heavy industry has been declining for forty years and is nowhere near as valuable as the ser-vices sector, which encompasses retail, financial services, and technology. But of course, the treaty will also re-quire all the other participating coun-tries to loosen trade restrictions on U.S. exports. This is a game-changer for the U.S. economy because collec-tively the other members of the TPP account for the 3rd largest market for U.S. goods and the 4th largest for ser-vices. Therefore, if and when the treaty is signed and ratified by Congress, the U.S. will see a surge in exports in the years following. This factor more than makes up for the effect reduced import tariffs will have on American manu-facturers. The agricultural sector may also benefit, as the Japanese are seri-

ously considering lowering protective tariffs for Japanese produce. Japanese rice growers are protected by a 777% tax on imported rice, a desperate at-tempt by farmers to sustain a business model that without the tariffs simply would not work. Japan is densely popu-lated and its landmass is approximately the size of California, making agricul-ture completely impractical. If Shinzo Abe’s government agrees to lower these astronomically large trade blocks, U.S. farmers (who do have a viable business model) will benefit by being able to sell their corn, wheat, rice, and beans to 127 million hungry Japanese customers. While the Partnership may harm the Japanese agricultural industry, each of their industrial sectors will benefit tre-mendously from looser trade tariffs, as will property buyers who will benefit when farmland is repurposed.

Changes in customs duties are not by any means, the only measures on the table that encourage economic growth and promote prosperity. Also included in the treaty are standardized finan-cial regulations and intellectual prop-erty protections. The first of these will be extremely beneficial to the United

States’ 1.3 trillion dollar financial sec-tor. Simpler rules governing foreign in-vestment will allow U.S. banks, hedge funds, and investors to allocate capital more quickly, efficiently, and in greater volume to the emerging markets of East Asia and South America. The second of these improvements will revolution-ize the way intellectual property issues are dealt with between member states. The U.S. will benefit because increased protections for U.S. patents will ensure that Americans reap the benefits of their ingenuity and hard work. Intel-lectual Property theft denies the U.S. economy of 250 billion dollars and 750,000 jobs each year according to figures from the Department of Com-merce. The treaty will sizably reduce the money and jobs taken by compa-nies and individuals based in the other member states of the TPP.

The treaty will by no means harm the other members of the TPP, particularly Southeast and East Asian members. Critics of the agreement cite the nega-tive effect the lower trade tariffs will have on the agriculture industries of Malaysia and Vietnam. It is true that cheap U.S. foodstuffs may negatively

“Free Trade Agreements of this size and scope

have the potential to transform the geopolitical

landscape of Asia and the Pacific."

www.nippaku.wordpress.com

www.china.org.cn


Southeast Asia


impact the Malaysian and Vietnamese agriculture sectors. However, the in-dustrial growth that will come from in-creased manufacturing exports to the U.S. will more than counteract the loss in agricultural production. The Malay-sian manufacturing sector accounts for over 30% of total GDP, while the agri-cultural sector provides a meager 6%. In Vietnam the gap is also immediately apparent since manufacturing and ag-riculture make up 40% and 18% of the economy respectively. The fact that manufacturing is a higher priority for the Malaysian and Vietnamese govern-ments is one of the reasons they agreed to sign the treaty in the first place. In-creased trade with the United States also makes a wider range of products available to Malaysian and Vietnamese consumers at a cheaper price. This will boost the standard of living in the rela-tively impoverished nations of South-east Asia by increasing the purchasing power of the average citizen. Malay-sian and Vietnamese businesses will also reap the benefits of increased U.S. investment that lower trade restric-tions and tighter economic integration will undoubtedly cause. Indeed, the economic benefits associated with the agreement extend to all the parties in-volved, not just the U.S, by facilitating increased industrial growth, lowering consumer prices, and providing easier access to the capital resources of North American banks.

The Trans Pacific Partnership of-fers geopolitical opportunities, as well as economic ones. The U.S. State De-partment is also using the treaty as an effective tool to contain China’s dip-lomatic power in Southeast Asia. By cementing economic ties with Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, and others, the treaty will draw these na-tions further into the American sphere of influence. China is threatening to upset the global balance of power by making diplomatic overtures to South-east Asian countries. One of the tools China is currently employing to in-crease its pull on Southeast Asia is, in fact, a Free Trade Agreement. ASEAN or the China Free Trade Area is a for-midable coalition of Southeast Asian

governments including, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singa-pore, and Indonesia, three of whom are also at the TPP negotiating table. The United States cannot afford to be outmaneuvered by the Chinese in a region so crucial to both our economy and security. Whereas military allianc-es were the key to Cold War era pow-er struggles between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Free Trade Agreements and close economic ties seem to be the weapon of choice in newly emerging rivalry between China and the States. Therefore, Trans-Pacific Partnership is one of the most powerful and viable options the U.S. has if it aims to con-tain ever increasing Chinese influence in global affairs.

Last April in the Rose Garden of the White House, President Obama proclaimed that, “Trade has been the cornerstone of our growth and global development.” The President is com-pletely correct in his assertion. Poli-ticians, Diplomats, and Economists from both sides of the aisle agree that

Free Trade Agreements, when execut-ed and implemented correctly, boost the economic prosperity of our na-tion while strengthening diplomatic relations with our trade partners. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is one of the largest FTAs ever proposed. It comes at a critical point in U.S. history both economically and strategically. Eco-nomic hardships, coupled with Chi-na’s rise as a global superpower, have made America’s position in the world unstable and uncertain. The TPP is a step towards our country regaining its footing. The treaty will be an invalu-able asset for facilitating GDP and job growth by toppling trade barriers that have harmed both U.S. companies and consumers. It also places important checks on China’s regional power in Southeast Asia, and supports friendly diplomatic relations with all the other participants. As a result it is of para-mount importance that the President speed the negotiation process and that Congress ratify the treaty when it is fi-nally completed.

“The TPP will be an invaluable asset for facilitating

GDP and job growth by toppling trade barriers that

have harmed both U.S. companies and consumers.”

Southeast Asia


The shipping vessel Zafirah, heading for the shores of Eastern Malaysia, had been sailing the Vietnamese

waters for days. Nothing was out of the ordinary, the water remained calm, and the crew went about its regular course of action. However, a very different and un-expected fate awaited the crew when on one November night, more than 10 pirates orchestrated a hostile takeover of the ship. Armed with knives and firearms, the pi-rates forced the crew into lifeboats and left them for dead. And yet, this is no 17th cen-tury tale of swashbucklers, cutlasses, and privateers. This is the story of a Malaysian oil tanker that was captured by pirates look-ing to turn a profit on November 20, 2011, an event representative of one of many that have popped up all along South East Asia this year. Of the 22 pirate attacks that have happened so far in 2013, nine have hap-

pened in South East Asia, compared with only one in Somalia, totaling 40% of all pi-rate attacks globally. If these events seem inconsequential or distant, think again. The Strait of Malacca, a South East Asian hotspot for pirates, functions as the shortest route between the Persian Gulf and indus-trial giants such as China, Korea, and Japan. Seventy thousand merchant vessels carry-ing a fifth of all oceanic trade and a third of the world’s oil shipments pass this im-portant junction between the eastern and western worlds annually. And just a mere seven years ago, the International Maritime Bureau declared it a war zone. Today, the nations of South East Asia, along with Japan at the helm, have dramatically increased security in the Strait of Malacca, deterring most pirate attacks and effectively restoring order to the Strait. However, South East Asia still remains one of the world’s deadliest pirate areas. The in-creasingly important nature of trade pass-

ing through South East Asia means that if piracy is not properly managed, it could be lethal to the state of global trade, especially that of the ever growing Asia. Such a vital area for the global economy must be regu-lated and managed properly, and while a variety of Asian nations have already taken steps to end piracy, more is needed. South East Asia must continue to increase its mili-tary expenditures, as it has in the past, in order to improve its defenses against pi-racy. Secondly, South East Asia must, col-lectively, not only continue its already es-tablished anti-piracy maritime coalition, but also seek to improve communications between its subsidiary nations. Thirdly, due to the nature of the Strait of Malacca and its immeasurable importance to the state of global trade, the burden of maintaining the stability of the region does not just lie with South East Asia, but with the world. Other foreign powers, including the United States, must assist South East Asia in dealing with

The Fight Against Piracy

globalpost.com/

By Harry Seavey

Southeast Asia

34

Southeast Asia


a problem that, although a local one, has global implications. Southeast Asia, historically a re-gion that has never adopted large military budgets, now stands amongst military co-lossi in the Eastern hemisphere. Out of the five countries that top the list of military expenditures, two of those are in Asia—and South-East Asia collectively has been quick to realize it. The region increased its defense spending by 13.5% in 2011, to $24.5 billion. Indeed, by 2016, analysts have concluded that this number is scheduled to skyrocket to $40 billion. From 2005 to 2009, weapons deliveries to Malaysia increased eightfold, and Indonesia’s military spending grew 84%. Most of this spending has gone into the region’s naval power: Indonesia is now buying submarines from South Korea and coastal radar systems from China, and Vietnam is now receiving submarines and combat jets from Russia. This military buildup in South East Asia has been in no small part due to the growth of rampant piracy seen in the early years of the last decade. Piracy statis-tics have reflected South East Asia’s recent military splurge by significantly decreas-ing over the past ten years. In 2000, half of piracy events occurred in South East Asia. Nine years later, only 11% of piracy events happened in South East Asia. However, the most recent growth of piracy in South-East Asia reflects a scarier reality: that the re-gion is now becoming softer on piracy. It is absolutely necessary to continue South East Asia’s extensive anti-piracy campaign that had been so successful in reducing the amount of piracy attacks in the mid 2000’s. This must accompany an increase in mili-tary expenditures to be successful in com-bating a more modern and professional piracy force in the Strait of Malacca. It is crucial, in the future, for South East Asia to maintain its high military spending in or-der to fend off pirates that seek to disrupt maritime trade. Investing in modern na-vies and air forces, as well as technologies that help to spot pirates, like coastal radar systems, will prove to be most beneficial in combating piracy. It was a decade ago that pirates ruled the waters of South-East Asia, or-chestrating takeovers of vessels from small fishing boats to gigantic commercial ships. Tens of pirate attacks took place each year, and leading analysts declared that the Strait of Malacca was on the brink of war. One Indonesian naval officer declared that the region “didn’t stand a chance” against pi-

rates. A mere two years later, this attitude evaporated. The change between 2004 and 2012 was striking, causing the pirates to be the ones “unable to stand a chance” against the formidable defenses and coastal patrols of South East Asia. However, with the turn of 2013, the lucky streak of stability in the Strait of Malacca has changed. Pirates again have gained the upper hand, leading many to question what changed between the late 2000’s and today. The question is not easily answered. However, we are certain of one thing: South East Asia is failing to do what it did so successfully a mere five years ago. Now, it seems as if the ability for South East Asia to tackle piracy as a single unit has fallen apart. The ability for the nations of South East Asia to work together in orga-nizing military operations, disseminating information to each other effectively, and accurately coordinate sea patrols was the key to success five years ago. The continua-tion of this policy, and its necessary adjust-ment based upon changing pirate maneu-vers, is where success lies in the future. So far, South East Asia has failed to do this, and every month the countries of South East Asian lie in inaction is another month the region moves towards the dangerous brink-of-war situation it was in a decade ago. The Strait of Malacca, although a relatively small body of water locked be-tween Indonesia and Malaysia, has been no stranger to foreign influence. Having much

of its shipped contents originate in nations outside of South East Asia, it is easy to un-derstand why most of the world would be concerned about its stability. Arguably no country has as much invested in the region as the United States. The Strait of Malacca is crucial to the commercial interest of the region, particularly China. It must remain calm and free of pirate activity, meaning that it is above and beyond what the U.S. should consider a chief foreign policy con-cern. Understanding this, it is crucial that the United States provide in some way, shape, or form, its resources to be at the disposal of South East Asia. Such an ap-proach would provide a much faster end to the string of pirate attacks in the Strait of

Seventy thousand merchant vessels carrying a fifth of all oceanic trade and a third of the world’s oil shipments pass this important junction between the eastern and western worlds annually

It is absolutely necessary to continue Southeast Asia’s

extensive anti-piracy campaign that had been so successful in reducing the amount of piracy

attacks in the mid 2000’s

wikipedia

35

Southeast Asia


Malacca. Due to the United States’ amazing propensity to involve itself in the activities of foreign nations, one would think it a no brainer that United States involve in the wholly good cause of reducing South East Asian piracy. However, the United States has not taken major action in aiding South East Asian countries to stop the recent string of pirate attacks this year. And yet, a decade ago, the U.S. was quick to the gun in aiding South East Asia with its piracy epi-demic. The results? A severe reduction in piracy attempts over a five year period. It is clear that with successful foreign influence, piracy can easily be reduced or all together halted. So why is it then that South East Asia has hesitated in requesting American or otherwise foreign assistance? Better yet, why has such an important maritime trade region, functioning as the veritable nidus of all trade in Asia, been empty of American or otherwise foreign presence whilst it is ter-rorized by armed pirates? In fact, in 2002, the United States declared South East Asia as a “second front on the war on terrorism” in response to the region falling onto the brink of war. This notion was resulted in major actions taken to reduce piracy over

the course of the 2000’s. However, now, in 2013, South East Asia does not fall far from what it looked like in 2002. So where is the U.S.? The current failure of many foreign countries, including the United States, to act in its own best interest, as well as in the best interest of South East Asia, is permit-ting the growth of a gigantic illicit maritime terrorism operation in the Strait of Malac-ca. And it looks nowhere near ending if the Western hemisphere continues to sit on the sidelines. The story of the Zafirah is one of many that are being told in 2013. The re-cent resurgence of pirate-related activity in the Strait of Malacca and around the shores of South East Asia is disturbingly similar to the situation a decade earlier, when one of the most important trade regions in the world was on the brink of all out war. To-day, it stands to reason that if nothing is done to prevent further pirate attacks in South East Asia, the damage done to local and global trade could be catastrophic, far more so than would could have been done in 2003. However, this catastrophe is not a foregone conclusion. It is crucial that South East Asia maintain the military expenditures needed

to be successful in deterring pirate attacks. The recent spending activity of South East Asian countries is promising, yet more needs to be done with regard to modern-izing and increasing the size of their re-spective militaries and navies. Additionally, maintaining amiable relations between the countries of South East Asia so as to be able to properly coordinate maritime operations and transfer information is crucial. The whole of South East Asia working togeth-er to fight piracy is far more effective and efficient than if each country functioned as a lone actor. Finally, drawing upon the resources of foreign powers such as the United States is vitally important. A mere decade ago when South East Asia faced the very same problem it faces today, the assis-tance and knowledge of the United States was a major factor in bringing the region away from the brink of war. Today, the very same assistance and knowledge is needed. The end of piracy in South East Asia is not unimaginable, yet it remains something that will prove to be immensely difficult. However, with a controlled, de-tailed, and sound plan, the success of the anti-piracy campaign of the mid 2000’s may very well return for the new decade.

Indonesian Navy during a training excersise to prevent piracy in the Malaccan StraitPhoto: AP/Ed Wray


Science and Technology

FROM IRAQ

TO SYRIAJennaBarancik

How Past U.S. Wars in the Middle East Have Bankrupted the Country and Generated Widespread Anti-War Sentiment Among the American Populace

Since protests began in Syria in March 2011, nearly 70 thousand people have perished while over

one million people have become refugees. The United States has recently promised to double its “nonlethal” aid to the Syrian rebels but has not yet met the rebels’ pleas for military aid. Certain things the rebels ask for should not be controversial: the establishment of no-fly zones to thwart aerial attacks on civilians by the government and the implementation of humanitarian corridors to protect civilians as they receive humanitarian aid or migrate from unsafe or no longer habitable areas. After all, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed no-fly zones in Libya two years ago, even though Gaddafi’s inhumane

acts against citizens were less severe than Assad’s are now. Why then does the United States not extend the same help to the Syrian people as it did to the Libyans? Opposition from Russia and China has not only prevented UNSC action, but has also dissuaded nations from taking unilateral action that would allow Russia and China to act unilaterally on future issues. However, Russian and Chinese opposition is not the largest contributing factor to the lack of American intervention in Syria. Imagine foreign relations as a game of poker and the U.S. as a famous player. Recently, the U.S. bet big and lost big on two bad hands, namely the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, the U.S. finally has been dealt the chance to fight for liberty and democracy in Syria, but it

is all out of chips and willing sponsors. Regardless of whether the U.S.

invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was justified (and I believe it was), no one can say that operations over the past twelve years have been ideal. For one, after twelve years, the U.S. is still in Afghanistan. Admittedly, the U.S. succeeded in removing the Taliban from power; however, the Taliban insurgency is far from crushed. The U.S. cannot and should not stay in Afghanistan forever, so the possibility exists that the Taliban could once again ascend to power. The weak and corrupt nature of the Karzai government (that the U.S. supported in the Taliban’s place) only strengthens the Taliban’s chances of reclaiming Afghanistan. Similarly, it is unclear

Middle East


Middle Eastwhether the U.S. succeeded in weakening Al Qaeda. Yes, the U.S. drastically reduced Al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan. Losing Afghanistan as a base was a major blow to the organization; however, Al Qaeda is currently recovering and making significant gains in North Africa. Finally, after ten years in Afghanistan, the U.S. found Osama bin Laden next door in Pakistan. In essence, the War in Afghanistan has not eliminated Al Qaeda or solved the U.S.’ problem with terrorism.

Keeping with the poker analogy, the Iraq War was even more embarrassing for the U.S. than the War in Afghanistan was, partially because the U.S. got called out on a bluff: Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Other pretenses for invading Iraq included the claim that Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda. Not only was this accusation never proven, but the Iraq War diverted resources from Afghanistan, where the U.S. actually needed them to combat Al Qaeda. In fairness, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless tyrant, notorious for human rights violations and genocide. While it is difficult to regret his removal, the American people will view the Iraq War as pointless and ill conceived for years to come. The war was pointless because the U.S.’ initial and most prominent reasons for entrance turned out to be fallacies. The war was ill conceived, as the U.S. did not realize how long and costly the war would be or how poverty and violent unrest would afflict Iraq post U.S. withdrawal.

What is the relationship between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to current U.S. policy on Syria? Trillions of dollars of debt and widespread anti-war sentiment among the American populace. The U.S. can now never unilaterally enter Syria. The last two large-scale U.S. military interventions in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) bankrupted the U.S. It does not have funds left to enter Syria, and no American politician or citizen

will ever advocate deficit spending or tax hikes to make up the difference. Two unsuccessful wars have jointly soured American opinion on interventionism.

This is evident when examining the Obama administration’s consistently hesitant and lenient responses to the Assad regime’s heinous crimes. Obama campaigned in 2008 and 2012 by promising to withdraw troops from the Middle East and cut defense spending. Americans, dismayed with George Bush and his militaristic party, easily took to the presidential candidate’s plans and ensured an Obama victory. Obama, who kept his word in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, is now struggling to abide by the same principles as the Syrian crisis escalates.

Recently, evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons emerged. Although Obama stated last August that the use of chemical weapons would precipitate “enormous consequences,” and studies by the United Kingdom, France, and Israel corroborate the evidence, Obama has not yet made good on his threat. The administration is calling for firmer evidence to avoid duplicating Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction” mistake in Iraq. In reality, the Assad regime’s unwavering tendency to increase its brutality makes foreign intervention in Syria inevitable. It may not be the U.S. that sends troops or weapons to Syria, but Turkey, Jordan, or another nearby country. However, the U.S. would most likely support any of these countries’ decision to provide military aid.

Therefore, the Obama administration’s hesitancy is actually a strategic means of protecting itself and making sure the American public sees the necessity of U.S. military intervention should it arise.

Americans do not realize that Syria would not become another Afghanistan or Iraq should the U.S. assist the rebels. Unlike the case in Iraq or Afghanistan, many Syrians are begging foreign nations to intervene. The international community must not only condemn the Assad regime’s actions, but also denounce the regime’s claims of legitimacy. The people of Syria have spoken and started not an uprising but a revolution. If nations address the Syrian crisis in this light, intervention seems like a welcome and righteous course of action as opposed to an infringement of national sovereignty. Furthermore, it is only a matter of time until the Assad regime falls to the rebels, who are already organizing a new democratic coalition government. Syria does not need the U.S. to be its great savior or bearer of democracy; however, how many people must die while the Syrian rebels struggle to overthrow a tyranniwcal dictator on their own?

Due to the United States’ past indiscretions in the Middle East, it appears as though many people will die. Still the U.S. must do all that it can to help: pressure Russia to stop aid to the Assad regime; continue humanitarian aid to civilians; support the Syrian coalition government; persuade NATO allies to act similarly; and, when the time comes, intervene militarily.

If nations address the Syrian crisis in this light, intervention seems like a welcome and righteous course of action as opposed to an infringement of national sovereignty.

The Assad regime’s unwavering tendency to increase its brutality makes foreign intervention in Syria inevitable.


Middle East

38

It’s a fact: oil runs our society. Without it, buildings wouldn’t be powered, cars wouldn’t run, and America would remain in a state of physical despair. So the question remains, why does the United States rely so heavily on Middle Eastern oil—one of the most unstable regions in the world?

http://www.foundmyself.com

BLACK GOLDBY ROBERT HEFTER


Middle East

http://www.eia.gov

In 2012, 781,774 barrels of crude oil were exported by countries in the Persian Gulf, and 1,470,832 barrels

were exported by OPEC members (Or-ganization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). And, in 2012, the number of barrels of crude oil imported from Saudi Arabia increased yet again.

It is simply illogical to rely on Mid-dle Eastern oil in this day and age. It just isn’t “common sense.” Think about it: the Middle East is more than 9000 miles away, and the mere fact of distance makes it more expensive to purchase Middle Eastern oil and ship it here, than purchase it from Canada and domestic producers. If we were to buy oil from near-by producers, the oil will enter the American market in a matter of hours, rather than days. Our current system proves to be nothing more than incon-venient.

In addition, most countries in the Middle East that export oil are unstable. In fact, several of these countries are in open conflict with America. If an oil-trading partner of ours suddenly be-comes an enemy, we, in turn, lose a vital source of energy. Oil has been a major part of our society for over a century—

since John D. Rockefeller founded Stan-dard Oil—and will continue to be until the government incentivizes research into alternative energy. But until that occurs, the most logical way to sustain a stable and profitable oil market for the US is to halt procuring Middle Eastern oil.

In the recent past, the United States has begun to question why we export oil from the Middle East, rather than obtain it from domestic producers in the first place? Since a time of great oil instability in the US starting in the 1970s, Middle Eastern oil has seemed like a rational solution. However, while seemingly rational 10, 20 or 40 years ago, obtaining oil from the Mid-East in the present is foolish. Currently in the US, there is a rapid increase of oil and natural gas production from unconven-tional shale resources, and, in fact, the US is on track to become energy-self-sufficient by 2016. And, the U.S. shale-oil boom might even roll back the clock to the 1960s when a U.S. oil boom put Washington State, not Riyadh, as the world’s swing producer. In December, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Ohio together produced 1.5 million barrels of

oil. This even outmatched Iran. Not only does it make financial

sense to rely more on our own oil and gas deposits, but it will further result in increased oil production. Due to new drilling techniques, the US managed to surpass several large oil exporters on the quantity of oil produced per year. In addition, it would be economically beneficial, given our new oil reserves, to export the highly valuably commod-ity in addition to using it for our own purposes.

And, as United States is on the road to oil independence, it will free itself from a clearly potential threat: Iran. Iran is a major exporter of oil but also recently has had strained relations with the United States due to its rising nucle-ar program. Although not yet attained, oil independence and freedom from re-liance on Iran is still not far out of the picture. One of Iran’s claims is that if the US tried to interfere with the nuclear program, oil would be embargoed. If the US were not reliant on Iran’s oil surplus, there would be no issue in interfering in the nuclear program.

That’s a win, win for the US.


The Eyes of the Innocent: Education Reform in Afghanistan

By Emily Kramer

www.bp.blogspot.com

Middle East


On October 7th, 2001, as a direct response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, United States

forces invaded Afghanistan and put an end to Taliban rule. The collapse of the Taliban regime, which had taken control of the country in 1996, brought hope for a period of change and reform in Afghani-stan: reform that never came. The rights that Afghans desired—the rights that we, as Americans, are fortunate to have—were never fully provided by the government. And Afghan women, who crave equality under Afghan law, have only remained op-pressed.

The rise of the Taliban in 1996 had an extremely detrimental impact on the women of Afghanistan: access to medical care for women was restricted; dress codes were enforced through brutal means; and women’s education was halted. And, the Taliban is now reassembling and almost fully recovered from the United States’ at-tempt to halt its control. The Islamist ter-rorist group is currently targeting women and children who violate their interpreta-tion of Islam, specifically those who at-tempt to access education, a right they be-lieve is restricted to the male population. Between 2007 and 2009, the Taliban at-

tacked more than 640 schools in Afghani-stan, well over 70% of which were schools for women. Furthermore, four attempts to poison girls craving a formal educa-tion were made in Takhar, a province of Afghanistan, between the months of May and June of 2012. Despite the reforms that have been made since 2001, opportunities for women clearly remain restricted due to traditionalist Islamic ways of thinking. In order for significant change to occur that will allow women to access educational opportunities, a middle ground must be formed between the Afghan government and society: An educational system must be created that embraces gender equal-ity while respecting the Islamic religion. In order for these changes to succeed, women’s rights must remain a topic at the forefront of the Afghan government’s at-tention; efforts must be intensified to pro-

mote female access to education. Afghan women’s inability to access

education originates from the religious traditions of their society. However, Islam is too prevalent to merely be disregarded during the process of democratization in Afghanistan. Rather, the Islamic religion must be used as a stimulus of women’s education; a pluralistic form of educa-tion must be implemented that encour-ages gender equality and the making of decisions based upon the independent ex-amination of an idea or a belief (a process known as Ijtihad in the Islamic religion). The creation of such an educational sys-tem will confront the barriers that tradi-tional Islamic ideology have prevented—especially women from accessing such a fundamental right.

Aside from the barriers that conser-vative Islamic ways of thought have pre-sented, a lacking of physical and personal security further restricts women’s oppor-tunity to access a formal education. Safety concerns incited by the attacks perpetrat-ed by the Taliban have prevented many schools in Afghanistan from reopening. Since 2001, the security situation in vari-ous parts of the country has deteriorated. This is not to say a level of success has not

been achieved. Afghan women have been granted more participation in political affairs, and have gained a greater voice nation-wide. However, with deteriorat-ing security and the rise of the Taliban, these gains remain fragile and reversible. The development of women’s rights in Af-ghanistan is contingent upon the creation of strict laws supporting gender equality, and the complete elimination of the Tali-ban regime from Afghan society; as long as the Taliban hold a level of power in Afghanistan, the precarious situation of women will only worsen.

The implementation of women’s education is imperative in Afghanistan’s transition into a Democracy. Women in Afghanistan have been denied basic rights—including access to education—for years; educational opportunities for women will not only allow for the growth of a more stable, secure environment, but will improve living standards in Afghani-stan. Educated women have proven to be more capable of providing for themselves and their families as well as have proven to be essential to the economic and politi-cal stability of a nation. The United States’ declaration of success over the Taliban in 2001 seems quite premature; issues that existed in Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks remain prevalent in the nation today. Providing educational opportuni-ties for all individuals in Afghanistan will break down a barrier that must be elimi-nated in order for true political and social reform to succeed.

The implementation of women’s education is imperative in Afghanistan’s transition into a

Democracy.

http://spreadlibertynews.com

Middle East


THEPERILS OF FALSE DEMOCRACY

NATHANIEL TILLINGHAST-RABY

Why Egypt Faces A ReturnTo The Days of Mubarak

Middle East


It began with the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, in 2010. He was pro-testing the confiscation of his goods and the harassment by government officials, but like dominos, coun-

tries began to fall. Previously stable autoc-racies like Egypt, Syria and Libya all expe-rienced the wave of civil unrest that toppled governments and made nearby countries fear for their very existence. This was sup-posed to be the difficult part. The people, after all, now knew how to make their opin-ions felt, so surely there would be little trou-ble in establishing new governments. Sadly, that belief was misguided, and these coun-tries once again face a turning point in their history between autocracy and military rule versus democracy and the will of the people. America, and indeed the world, should work to ensure that the latter results.

A good example of this is Egypt, which was ruled over by Hosni Mubarak for thirty years under the guise of a permanent state of emergency and a one – party system. His government was supported and financed by America simply because it was convenient to have an ally other than Israel in the Middle East. During his reign he ruthlessly censored and oppressed his people, imprisoning thou-sands indefinitely and without due process. Protests, unapproved political organiza-tions and activists were all forbidden under Mubarak’s regime. The country was rife with police brutality and corruption, with hun-dreds of first-hand cases of torture and abuse being documented by human rights orga-nizations. But in 2011 the people had had enough and started a revolution that forced Mubarak from power on February 11, 2011. A plan was laid out for the transition to de-mocracy, and Egypt looked forward to a brighter and better future with Muhammad Morsi as its first president.

Two years later, however, the country hardly seems better off. Unemployment has risen by 4%, the tourism trade has dried up, there is monumental inflation and currency reserves have fallen by more than half versus before the revolution. A black market has emerged to supply people with basic goods such as food and petrol, forcing people to pay exorbitant sums for basic necessities. Egypt is facing an economic crisis and de-pending on other countries for aid, while the country’s politicians are unwilling to act for fear of upsetting voters.

All this could be dismissed as the typi-cal growing pains of a newly created gov-ernment were it not for the worrying lack

of true democracy in Egypt. Many opposi-tion comics and satirists of the Morsi gov-ernment have been arrested and warned to censor their comments while the right wing religious commentators have been able to mysteriously slip past the radar of the thin-skinned Muslim Brotherhood.

But even this is not the true problem at the heart of Egyptian democracy. Instead, as ever, it is the military that poses the biggest threat to the voice and vote of the common man of Egypt. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has issued a declaration cur-tailing presidential authority and given itself authority over legislation and the national budget, the ability to draft a new constitu-tion, immunity from any democratic over-sight and the power to veto declarations of war. Civilians are subject to military trials, and military and intelligence officials once again have the right to detain civilians. This is because it is by and large the same people in power as before: the army commanders and key government ministers are complete-ly unchanged.

Despite these civil and human rights abuses, the Executive Branch has once again opted to restore diplomatic ties with Egypt by restoring military aid. In doing so, it has disregarded a Congressional requirement linking military support to the protection of civil liberties in a country. Once again con-venience has been chosen over ethics; we would prefer to turn our backs on those that seek to emulate us rather than attempt to en-courage change for the common good, such as by cutting off aid until a proper democ-racy is established. As a country, we cannot allow these abuses to continue if we still wish to stand by the principles we espouse so much.

January 25, 2011:

The Day of Revolt, when

thousands and thousands

of protesters gather to

protest the rule of Hosni

Mubarak.

A Timeline of the Egyptian Protests

January 29, 2011: A curfew is initiated and military presence increases in Cairo.

January 31, 2011: The March of Millions

takes place in Tahrir

Square.

February 1, 2011: Mubarak appears on television and offers concessions to appease the protesters. This fails. February 2,

2011: The Battle of

the Camel occurs,

with pro and anti-Mubarak

supporters clashing

in Tahrir Square.

February 8, 2011: Another large protest takes place, pressuring Mubarak to step down.

February 9, 2011:

Four killed and several

wounded in a battle in

New Valley, south of

Cairo.

February 11, 2011: The Friday of Departure: There are protests throughout the country and, at 6 pm, Mubarak’s resignation is announced.

The military poses the biggest threat to the voice

and vote of the common man of Egypt. Civilians are subject to military trials, and military

and intelligence officials once again have the right to

detain civilians.

Middle East

ChecksBackground

Stronger gun legislation should have been called for long before Sandy Hook. Since Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold killed 13 people at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, there have been approximately 61 mass murders. In the United States, people are 19.5 times more likely to be subject to gun-related violence than in other high income countries around the world. Stricter gun laws were finally called for after the tragedy of the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings. Gun control movements have increased and have recently been gaining both influence and recognition with the American public. These outcries have led to greater Congressional discussion about restricting gun

By Natasha Moolji

The Importance of

44

Domestic


Background

By Natasha Moolji“Twenty children were murdered at Sandy hook. Twenty families lost children and still feel the after-

math of those losses today. “

purchases . Although bills have been intro-duced, none of them have been passed. The most recent failure was the rejection of a bi-partisan plan to expand background checks for gun purchases on April 17. There are two key reasons for the lack of success of gun control legislation. The first is the increased polarity between the Democrat and Republican parties. The parties have become so extremist that they cannot agree with each other on any is-sues. Republicans have become associated with advocating for loose gun control and the rights granted to citizens by the second amendment. Also, politicians face the pos-sibility of losing the support of citizens in their districts if they support legislation contrary to the popular opinions in their towns. This was a specific issue with some democratic senators voting down increased background checks. Politicians from each of the parties usually do not support leg-islation that strays from the viewpoints of their parties. If they do take these actions, they risk losing the support of their par-ties. The gun debate is more about politics than it is about the nation’s views or what is right for the country. Additionally, gun laws have not be passed because of the power of the Nation Riffle Association. The NRA is on the offensive. The organization has more support and members than any of the gun control movements. The strength of the NRA is unparalleled and it has been a better advocate of its cause. Because gun control movements do not have such orga-nization, they cannot be effective in gaining the support of senators to pass stricter gun control laws. While there has been much suc-cess on the side of gun control, it is still im-perative that stricter laws be imposed. Gun violence is a national epidemic and has af-fected the lives of many families. Twenty children were murdered at Sandy Hook. Twenty families lost children and still feel the aftermath of those losses today. At the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, James Holmes killed twelve and injured fifty-eight. Such incidents indi-

cate that gun violence is the cause of an immense amount of deaths and has im-pacted the lives of many loved ones and friends. Gabrielle Giffords, a former con-gresswoman from Arizona, is a prime ex-ample of the dangers of unregulated gun sales. She was shot in the head in a Tuscon parking lot, along with 18 other people. She was forced to withdraw from politics and is still on the road to recovery. If guns are not kept out of the hands of citizens who are medically considered to be dan-gerous to themselves, then the American public will be left at the mercy of the in-sane. The NRA actively fights any who propose stricter gun laws. One of their main arguments is that owning a gun is a constitutional right. NRA members be-lieve that any restrictions on the purchase of guns is unconstitutional. They also state the U.S. has larger societal issues than guns. Restricting the purchases of guns will not stop mass murders. They also believe that gun control supporters have animosity towards them. In reality, many gun control ad-

vocates do not hate guns. Much of the time, their legislation does not infringe upon constitutional rights. Giffords, founder of Americans for Responsible Solutions, is a gun owner. Her organization pushes for “common sense” legislation that most Americans agree with. Background checks, limiting the size of ammo magazines, and a ban on the sale of assault weapons are all reasonable proposals. Each of these will help to keep arms out of the hands of the clinically insane and criminals. No piece of this legislation stops American citizens from owning and purchasing guns. Even though the second amendment was created in order to provide citizens with the ability to form militias in the event of a tyranni-cal government, it is not being taken away from anyone. The demands of the gun con-trol supporters are not unreasonable. They simply will protect the lives of American citizens from gun violence. Seeing that such legislation is fea-sible, gun control groups should continue to fight for its implementation. The Ameri-can people should make their opinions known and communicate with their sena-tors so that they understand the impor-tance of passing these laws. It is time to put aside politics for the well-being of our citi-zens. We cannot let any more massacres oc-cur. Background checks and restrictions on magazines will not stop anyone from visit-ing the shooting range. They will, however, keep weapons away from the future Seung-Hui Choi’s and Adam Lanza’s.

45

Domestic


The events that occurred on Sep-tember 11, 2001 left the world stunned. So momentous were

the 9/11 attacks that many refer to the era we live in today as the “Post 9/11 World.” And leaving its stain upon that era is Bush’s, and partially Obama’s, failed “War on Terror.” In the ten years after 9/11, American society has found itself more and more in likeness to an Orwellian dystopia, with government ever more eager to rescind 222 year-old constitutional liberties in the name of homeland security. From the Patriot Act

to Guantanamo Bay, the sanctity of free society in the United States has been un-der direct threat from no one else but the people designed to protect it: the Gov-ernment. Now, in the wake of the Bos-ton Bombings just last month, many are once again calling it into question the state of liberty in the United States, and to what degree freedom is jeopardizing the lives of Americans everywhere. The very dialogue is ludicrous: freedom nev-er has, and never will, jeopardize Ameri-can safety. It is time, after ten years of a slow assault on personal liberties, for

the people of the United States to halt the government’s encroachment upon our constitutionally guaranteed person-al liberties. The issue of terrorism is very rarely put into perspective: between 2002 and 2006, 0 Americans died from terrorism. Compare that to 400,000 Americans who died last year from obe-sity, and 430,000 who died from ciga-rettes. The problem? The United States currently spends twice as much on na-tional defense as it does on health, and has foregone health spending to protect

“Anyone Who Trades Liberty For

Security Deserves Neither Liberty Nor Security”

- Benjamin Franklin

By Harry Seavey

46

Domestic


Americans from a non-existent or in-significant threat. And that protection (against something that is dwarfed by almost every other health or otherwise related concern) entails the restriction of liberties guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th amendments. What many who see freedom as a threat to security don’t understand is that the price of liv-ing in a free society is not a police state.

In theory, we could prevent every ter-rorist attack on U.S. soil by instituting a police state, with privacy as a thing of the past. But how many benefits would society reap from that system? When, on average, the number of Americans who die from terrorist attacks every year is insignificant, while hundreds of thousands die from health related issues, is there re-ally any incentive to do any-thing, especially when it has such negative consequences, to halt terror? Of course, it would be great if all forms of terror would put to an end in the United States, but when the costs greatly outweigh the gains, why go to such ends to stop terrorism? A month after the at-tacks on September 11, Presi-dent Bush signed into law the Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Ap-propriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Ter-rorism Act of 2001, or simply known as the Patriot Act. And amazingly enough, the Patriot Act has managed to violate not one or two, but three of the ten amendments included in the Bill of Rights. Of those three are the first, fourth, and sixth amendments. Within the first amendment is the guar-

antee of freedom of association. How-ever, the Patriot Act gives the govern-ment the right to monitor religious and political institutions if it suspects them of criminal activity, a clear violation of the “freedom of association” clause of the first amendment. The fourth amend-ment protects American citizens from unlawful search and seizures, however, the Patriot Act gives the government the

right to search and seize American’s pa-pers and effects without proper cause, an obvious violation of the fourth amend-ment. The sixth amendment gives Amer-icans the right to a speedy and public trial, legal representation, and freedom. However, the Patriot Act gives the gov-

When liberty is taken away, it affects 310 million people.

The sanctity of free society in the United States has been under direct threat from no one else but the people designed to protect it: the Government.

ernment the right to jail you indefinitely, prevent you from legal counsel, and bar you from having a public trial, negating the sixth amendment in full. The Patri-ot Act is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights, and stains the U.S. Constitution. And the worst part? The law doesn’t do anything to make us safer. Many, including President Obama, are beginning to, in the wake of 9/11 and the Boston Bombings, advo-cate for swinging the balance of security and liberty in favor of security. But the problem is that the scale doesn’t work like that. When liberty is taken away, it affects 310 million people. When we do the same thing with security, five or ten people are affected, and even then, that is only in theory. It is clear that the proper balance of securities and liberty lie in liberty, and certainly our founding fathers believed the same thing.

47

Domestic


By Jonah Wexler

Approaching America’s Terror Dilemma

Domestic

48

Domestic


A fter the smoke and dust had set-tled on the streets of Boston, the American people began searching

for the culprits of the attack. Originally, there were many different suspects, rang-ing from a Saudi nationalist living in the United States to a missing suicidal student in college. Liberals blamed conservatives for automatically jumping to the conclu-sion that the attack was an act of radical Islamic terrorism, while conservatives pinned liberals for hoping that the bomb-er was a radicalized conservative from the South. In the end, the attack should be a wake up call for many Americans in understanding that the War on Terror is still very real throughout the world. Our willingness and ability to fight terrorism is determined by the words we use to de-scribe terrorism and the narrative we tell about terrorism. We must understand and categorize the terrorist narrative in order to be able to effectively deal with this growing issue without jeopardizing civil liberties. Be-fore we do this we must understand the nuances of the actual definition of ter-rorism. Merriam-Webster’s definition of terrorism is “the systematic use of ter-ror as a means of coercion.” Today in the United States, this means any attack of in-nocent civilians for the “greater good” of

some cause. Three notable terror attacks, and many more, occurring over the last twenty years, have all been at the hands of radical Islamic terrorism. The first case of obvious terrorism was the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting in 1994 where Rashid Baz, a Lebanese-im-migrant, shot at a van filled with Chabad and Lubavitch Yeshiva students. Baz originally pleaded he shot at the van from post-traumatic stress due to the Lebanese Civil War, but he later pleaded in 2007 that “[he] only shot them because they were Jewish.” It was notable that Amir Abudaif, an Arabic mechanic, reported Baz to the police after hearing of the at-tack. The case was classified as road rage until in 2000 the Federal Bureau of In-vestigation (FBI) reclassified the case as terrorism after protests from the mother Ari Halberstam, an orthodox Yeshiva boy who was killed in the attack. The most impactful terrorist attack for any American is undoubtedly the attack on the twin towers September 11th, 2001. By this time, the FBI and Homeland Secu-rity were actively tracking and defending against terror attacks. This was the first time most Americans thought of and were affected by the War on Terror, something that had been occurring in the Middle East (especially in Israel) for many years

before. Two years after the attacks, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in order to take out terrorist threats overseas. The most recent case of terrorism was the Boston Marathon bombings carried out by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The bombing was quickly labeled by the FBI and Homeland Security as a terror attack carried out by radicals. Thanks to the many heroic first responders, there were only three deaths. However, many reporters and politicians refused to di-rectly address the attack as a “terrorist at-tack on innocent civilians.” Twelve years after 9/11, we still must actively deal with the terrorist threat in America. No war can stop radical ideol-ogy and attacks on innocent civilians. We must be more active in our effort to change the radical narrative against West-ern culture and promote one of peace. A key to this peace is the development of a better understanding of the psychology behind these terrorists’ upbringing. Most terrorists are brainwashed into hating Western civilization. By reporting and addressing terrorism without sugarcoat-ing any of these direct attacks on inno-cent civilians, we will be able to influence our next generation and that of the radi-cal terrorists in order to stop the violence and carnage.

49

Domestic


NUCLEAR IRANA PEACEFUL

By James McCarthy

The threat Iran poses to the security of the United States has never gone without mention, however it is im-

perative we understand the actual intent of the Iranian government.

Imperial Iran had been the most powerful Near-Eastern state in the 20th century; however, since the Islamic Revo-lution and Iran-Iraq war, Iran has seen the rise of many geo-political opponents, the first being Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Under the Shah, Saddam Hussein feared Iran’s military might; however, after the 1979 revolution, the tyrant Hussein attacked the nation at its weakest. The population, while unprepared, rallied to support its new government in fighting both the pry-ing eyes of Hussein and those of the West. During this war, Iraq utilized its chemical and biological weapon reserves; further-more, the Western powers ignored this blatant violation of the Geneva Conven-tion and turned their backs on the geno-

cide of 1.3 million Iranians and Kurds at the hands of their ally Hussein. Iran swore to be prepared to defend itself from any threats that may arise in the future, and had led to the increase in develop-ment of Iran’s nuclear program, military investments, regional alliance building (Syria and Lebanon), and policy of non-compliance. Due to the efforts of the United States, Iran has made much prog-ress in its bid to re-establish its regional hegemony, as two of its greatest enemies to the West (Iraq) and East (Taliban) have already been destroyed by the United States, making Iran’s path to dominance seem inevitable. However, there still re-mains Israel, a powerful nuclear armed state fully supported by NATO and the global powers of Western Europe. It is on these geopolitical tensions that the mod-ern condition arises.

The driving force for Iran’s develop-ment of a nuclear weapons program is

to deter a possible attack by Western na-tions or its regional rivals. Similar to the USSR in the Cold War, Iran seeks secu-rity through a mutually assured destruc-tion scenario and therefore is making the move towards the attainment of nuclear weapons. The government, fully aware of Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal of ap-proximately 200 warheads, is attempting to protect its people and hegemony from a demise resembling the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war. As a result, Iran will not easily surrender its nuclear ambitions and potential nuclear strategy.

Although the country desires nuclear capabilities, it would pose no threat to the United States and the rest of the World. The Iranian government, acknowledging the potential for mutual assured destruc-tion, would never use its arsenal unless similar weaponry was wielded against it. As Meir Dagan, the former Chief of Mossad, has stated, “The Iranian regime

50

International


is very rational.” With this being said the United States and the West must reevalu-ate their approaches towards establishing a non-hostile relationship with Iran.

This new approach must begin with the gradual reduction of sanctions, which have been the cause of much humanitar-ian distress. The results of such damag-ing sanctions have not only weakened the Iranian people but also strengthened the regime’s position. The all too capable government has proven its ability to cre-ate hostility between Iranians and the West, given the inhumane actions of na-tions like the United States. Additionally, the United States must resolve its con-flicts with Iran through the United Na-tions. The United Nations, of which Iran is a part of, has generally been judged as a fair jury in international conflicts. With the continuance of commercial and dip-lomatic ties with Iran, the pariah state will no longer assume a confrontational role, but rather support America in its regional endeavours as it had during the War in Afghanistan.

The upcoming Iranian elections fur-ther clarify the Iranian people’s resolve on the nuclear issue. The government and its people are set on the development of a nuclear program, whether peaceful or not, made evident by the consistency

in candidate’s rhetoric. America and the West must incentivise Iran’s development of a peaceful energy program through “outreach diplomacy.” This diplomatic approach must include a full recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear energy, a reduc-tion of sanctions non-compliant with the UN, and a genuine concern for the state of the Iranian people. America desperate-ly needs to improve the Iranian populous’ perception of its government, if it intends to build support for reform within the population. If America and the West con-tinue “to pressure” Iran, not only will the humanitarian circumstances of the na-tion deteriorate, but the result will be ei-ther a nuclear armed Iran or another war in the region.

The West can no longer neglect Iran’s position as a regional power, that is, if they intend to successfully deesca-late tensions. Iran has shown its willing-ness to make compromises, however with the memories of imperialist crimes, any reluctance on Iran’s behalf must be ex-pected. A strong relationship between Iran and the West can be built, but it is es-sential the governments of the West “give in” to the demands of sanction easing, so that they do not jeopardize their chances of building a permanent relationship with a growing power.

51

International


Although Iran desires nuclear capabilities, it would pose no threat to the United States and the rest of the World. The West can, and should, build a strong relationship with Iran.

A FORGOTTEN HOLOCAUSTTHE RAPE OF NANKINGAs covered extensively In Iris Chang’s acclaimed The

Rape of Nanking, the Nanjing Massacre involved the deaths of an estimated 300,000 victims, many of them

innocent civilians. While the approximations of the deaths generally range from 250,000 to 300,000, according to BBC, the horrors of the Nanjing massacre extended beyond just the killings to looting, rape, and torture. Over a six-week interval the Japanese continued to attack Nanjing citizens even after the city had fallen, subjecting them to brutal forms of assault. During Japan’s half-century of war and colonial expansion, some 20 million Asians died and millions more were oppressed, says Boston University professor Thomas U. Berger. Despite the atrocities, the Second Sino-Japanese War that later merged into the Pacific front of World War II, called the Pacific War, remains an almost untouched moment in history, rarely mentioned or studied in Western culture, contrasting with the widely studied genocide of the Jews in the Holocaust. The Nanjing Massacre also looms over China-Japanese relations, with Japanese revisionists trying to tone down or deny the mass murder of noncombatants and Chinese officials rebuffing any Japanese apologies as unsatisfactory or insincere. An inconsistent Japan and grudging China over the Rape of Nanjing will make solving further relationship conflicts, such as territorial disputes, impossible.

From a very young age American children learn of Anne Frank and Nazi concentration camps and gas chambers, as historians and teachers focus on the period of reversion in human social evolution called the Holocaust in an attempt to study what went wrong and learn from it. Here at Horace Mann, fifth graders read for English Number the Stars, a historical fiction about a Jewish family’s escape from Copenhagen during Nazi Germany’s occupation of Denmark. In high school history, students across the United States study extensively the factors that led to the rise of a Nazi Germany under the extraordinarily nationalistic and authoritarian Hitler. Meanwhile, students rarely learn about the Nanjing Massacre or Japan’s subjugation of China and South Korea with the same detail. Admittedly, the crime seems more devastating in light of the Jews, with their current population of 13.5 million according to the Jewish Data Bank versus China’s total population of over 1.3 billion according to the World Bank, but both the Jews and the Chinese withstood excessive monstrosities during World War II.

The number of Chinese victims during World War II highly varies depending on the scholar, another sign that the subject needs to be inspected more closely, in comparison to the widely accepted number of six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. University of Hawaii Professor Rudolph Joseph Rummel conservatively estimates the Japanese killed around 7.4 million

By Elizabeth Xiong

52

International


Chinese civilians while historian Werner Gruhl approximates 12 million. Even the lowest of the guesses outstrips the six million Jews killed during the holocaust by over a million. In terms of population percentage though, the 65% of European Jews killed differs vastly from the 2.4% of Chinese killed. As shown by the Nanjing Massacre, however, the number of bla

Again, many different races and the Jews endured brutal attacks during World War II—but a disproportionate amount of attention is paid specifically to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. During the Holocaust, the Nazis targeted not just Jews but also 1.9 million ethnic Poles, according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 3.1 million prisoners of war, 11.7 million Soviet civilians in Nazi occupied USSR according to the Cambridge History of Russia. Including the deaths of handicapped persons, homosexuals, gypsies, and Roman Catholic clergy during the Holocaust raises the number of Holocaust victims from six million Jews to a total somewhere between eleven million and seventeen million, according to Southern Methodist University history professor Donald L. Niewyk. Chalmers Johnson, professor emeritus of the University of California, notes that the Japanese killed at least 30 million Chinese, Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese. Still, American studies focus in almost a bullheaded manner on primarily the Jewish victims in the Holocaust, although the Holocaust victimized many other people distinguished by many other factors. Moreover, the Pacific War also massively annihilated many other Asian races but is not alluded to nearly as often.

Another example of the gap between the study of the European and Pacific fronts in World War II is the study of the torture methods used in two different regions. Students are

generally well acquainted with the starvation and dehydration of Jews in Nazi concentration camps, where they were subjected to various forms of manual labor, extermination, and medical experiments. On the other hand, they barely learn about the inhumane practices directed at the Chinese, highlighted by the abuse of noncombatants in the Rape of Nanjing. Japanese soldiers ripped out the fetuses of pregnant women, forced celibate monks to rape women, and buried and burned civilians alive. Two lieutenants raced to see who could kill 100 people with just a sword first in a competition openly documented by the Japanese newspaper Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun. Upon returning to his hometown, one of the lieutenants, Tsuyoshi Noda, said, “It was no big deal.” These crimes that almost seem impossible in their cruelty need to be studied because otherwise the six-week moment of terrifying disrespect for human lives and rights will pass away into history, forgotten.

The first time the Japanese tried to apologize formally was in 1952, when Emperor Hirohito personally came to the Allied Supreme Commander’s headquarters to present his apology to General MacArthur. General MacArthur, in turn, turned the emperor away without ever acknowledging him. The Chinese have followed suit, spurning the first Japanese apology in the 1970s because it did not contain the word “sorry” and because it was only a verbal apology, not a written apology. Chinese officials continue to nitpick at Japanese apologies to this very day, and many Chinese citizens still labor under the misconception that the Japanese government has never apologized for its war crimes.

The actions of Japanese officials play a part in the Chinese rejection of Japanese apologies. Although only a small sect of ultranationalist Japanese deny that the murdering and torturing

“AN INCONSISTENT JAPAN AND GRUDGING CHINAWILL MAKE SOLVING FURTHER RELATIONSHUP CONFLICTS IMPOSSIBLE”

These crimes that almost seem impossible in their cruelty need to be studied because otherwise the six-week moment of terrifying disrespect for human lives and rights will pass away into history, forgotten.

53

International


of noncombatants in the Rape of Nanjing outright, politicians often happen to publicly make denialist statements, infuriating the Chinese. The current Mayor of Nagoya said last year, while meeting with a delegation from Nanjing that the massacre “probably never happened,” sparking public anger. Others try to tone down the results of the massacre, with many Japanese historians’ estimates of Chinese civilian victims ranging from 10,000 to 200,000, the highest estimate being 50,000 less than the lowest estimate from BBC. Even while Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website acknowledges that that Nanjing Massacre “cannot be denied,” it immediately follows up that the “actual number” of victims is “difficult to determine,” raising Chinese distrust about the sincerity of Japanese apologies. Perhaps most infuriating is the Japanese version of teaching World War II to its students. Not until the late 1990s did history textbooks even mention the Rape of Nanjing, and many still try to whitewash the gravity of Japanese acts. For example, Shùsetsu: Nihonshi kaiteiban, the textbook

“Perhaps most infuriating is the Japanese version of teaching World War II to its students. Not until the

late 1990s did history textbooks even mention the Rape of Nanjing,

and many still try to whitewash the gravity of Japanese acts.”

used by 38% of high schools includes the Nanjing Massacre as a footnote and says only that “the Japanese forces killed many Chinese, including noncombatants.”

Mostly recently, however, is the long-standing practice of Japanese politicians in honoring war criminals by praying at war shrines. After World War II, American prosecutors charged over 5,000 Japanese with one of three types of war crimes: Class A, B, and C, crimes in order of most serious to least. Twenty-eight political and military leaders were charged with Class A crimes. Seven leaders were sentenced to death, including Iwane Matsui, who organized the Rape of Nanjing. The Yasukuni Shrine includes the names of those executed along with soldiers who died in past wars, grouping the executed leaders with soldiers who died for their country. This April, about 168 parliamentary members, including high-ranking officials such as the deputy prime minister and the finance minister, paid a weekend visit to the war shrine, continuing an annual tradition of Japanese lawmakers’ visits to the shrine. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sent a religious ornament with words “Prime Minister” on it in lieu of visiting. In response, China sent a “stern message,” said a spokeswoman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Chinese state-run news agency Xinhua said that such visits have become “a major obstacle for Japan to mend its ties with neighboring China and South Korea that suffered Japan’s invasion in World War II.”

The shocking events of the Nanjing Massacre bring to attention a sorely understudied topic in Western society. There is no doubt that the Japanese have suffered, as the only victims of the only atomic bombs to be used in combat, but it must drop its nationalistic act and wholeheartedly apologize and repent for its conduct. Additionally, China must learn to abandon its resentment and stop begrudging Japan for a past for which it has no control over.

54

International


55

International


Today Bangladesh is the second largest garment manufacturer in the world

(behind only China) with exports over $18 billion annually. Globalization has brought the garment trade into Bangladesh in the 1980’s, and the country has benefitted eco-nomically ever since. The poverty rate has plummeted from 80% forty years ago to 30% today. The GDP has grown 6% in the last couple years. This growth is due to the garment industry; with the lowest wages in the world, 4,000 factories with unenforced building codes, abhorrent factory condi-tions, and the use of what is essentially slave labor, Bangladesh’s economy is “flour-ishing.” However, the economic success of Bangladesh is not a sign of prosperity for Bangladeshis. Burning or being crushed to death is not an improvement over starving to death. The sweatshops of Bangladesh are not signs of advancement. The garment trade in Bangladesh is bringing about a 19th century industrial revolution during the 21st century. Before this year, the last time Bangladesh was prominently featured in the news was as a result of the Tazreen Fashions garment fac-tory fire, also known as the Dhaka Fire, on November 24, 2012 that killed over 110 gar-ment workers. With no fire exits and locked doors, workers were forced to either jump to their death, or burn in the flames. A clear comparison can be drawn to the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire of 1911, the deadli-est industrial disaster in the history of New York. It is absolutely appalling that one is able to make a comparison between 1911 and 2012 factory conditions. However, the Tazreen Fashions garment factory fire is now old news. On April 24th of this year, an 8-story commercial building, which housed a number of separate garment factories em-ploying around 5,000 people, collapsed. Af-ter two weeks of searching for survivors, the death toll stands at 1,127. The recent disasters in Bangladesh shed light upon the litany of chaos and misery in Bangladesh: corruption, murder, flash floods, landslides, death, and destruc-

tion. The collapsed building (called the “Rana Plaza”) and the Tazreen Fashions fire reveal the despair of the garment indus-try at the local level; the blame should be placed upon the corrupt society of factory owners, as well as the Bangladeshi govern-ment. There is no excuse for factories to house thousands of workers without fire escapes, or to ignore reports to evacuate the building due to imminent danger, as in the collapse of the Rana Plaza. The owner, So-hel Rana, was told that the building needed to be closed immediately due to cracks in the support pillars of the building. How-ever, this was ignored, and the next day, the building collapsed, taking the lives of over a thousand poorly paid garment workers. Unenforced building and fire safety codes and poorly paid workers are found all too much in the 4,000 factories of Bangladesh. Workers earn little as $40 a month mak-ing clothes for retailers such as J.C. Penny, Wall-Mart, H&M and many other Western companies; some of which were putting clothes on the rack from the now collapsed Rana Plaza itself. This does not go to say that retailers should pull out of Bangladesh. Nor is this to say that retailers are at fault for the factory disasters. There is no doubt that business has arrived in Bangladesh in search of cheap labor to keep profits high, and costs low. Maximizing on margins is a funda-mental ideal for retailers. Though retailers do take into account worker conditions, their inspectors usually check for safety factors and working conditions rather than inspecting the buildings themselves. The companies also have little control over the subcontractors doing the bulk of the work. As such, it falls upon factory owners and the Bangladeshi government to inspect these factories to ensure no disaster such as the Rana Plaza building collapse should ever occur again. In the way, however, stands criminality and politics. The apparent tragedy of the factory disasters in Bangladesh is the unnecessary greed that leads to such miserable results. If

it is able to get its act together, the Bangla-deshi government can easily enforce laws for the protection of workers without hurt-ing the industry, factory owners can afford to make sure their factories are not death traps, and buyers can afford to pay the extra cents that these moves might necessitate. Bangladesh’s garment industry must be re-formed rather than destroyed. The two un-thinkable tragedies of the past year cannot be replicated in the future, and Bangladesh’s economic advancement should not come at the cost of fundamental worker safety, because without a strong foundation, the prosperity will not last.

Bangladesh

The remains after the November 24 Dhaka Fire in 2012

The Rana Plaza after the collapse on April 24, 2013

Dhaka, depicted above, has outdated infrastructure; it is the responsibiliy of the individual factory owners to ensure that building are safe because of lax government controls

BUILT BEYOND ITS CAPACITY


http://i.huffpost.com/

http://www.metro.us/

By Neil Ahlawat

I R A QWhile Iraq has faded into mem-

ory, the reality is that Iraq is still unstable. While the United

States government currently deems it nec-essary to have over 30,000 troops in Ger-many, a very stable area, somehow it is un-perturbed by its failure to secure a status of forces agreement with a country in one of the most volatile regions of the world. A country, moreover, that the U.S. invested nine years, billions of dollars, and thou-sands of lives to bring democracy to. While it may be too late for the U.S. to obtain a status of forces agreement, our failure to do so will still haunt us into the future.

The accommodations between the po-litical parties from 2008 after the U.S. led surge are unraveling. The Iraqi government is led by a man who seeks increasing power. According to Human Rights Watch, “the Americans had left behind a ‘budding po-lice state,’ with the country’s Shiite leader-ship increasingly ruling by force and fear.” As Mike Schmidt of the New York Times

reports, in January 2012, just after the U.S. pulled out, “Insurgent attacks have surged across the country, and security forces loyal to the Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, have pressed a cam-paign against Sunni politicians, arresting several in the past week.” The campaign has included an arrest warrant issued for the former Vice President Tariq Hashemi, a call by the Prime Minister for parliament to remove Deputy Prime Minister Saleh Mutlaq, and the announcement of a terror-ism investigation against Finance Minister Rafi al-Issawi. As Lieutenant Colonel Joel Rayburn of the Hoover Institute explains, despite Maliki and his party Da’wa’s signing an agreement to share power in 2010, they instead consolidated it in 2011, “steering the Iraqi government back toward the dis-concertingly familiar type of authoritarian regime that uses state power to intimidate political rivals and suppress popular oppo-sition.” The increasingly totalitarian actions by the government go back to the 2010 par-

liamentary elections. Then the Shia-dom-inated parliamentary de-Baathification committee barred hundreds of candidates from running before the election and at-tempted to unseat dozens of winners after the election.

This marginalization of minorities has had a number of important consequenc-es. L.C. Rayburn explains that our failure to stop the targeting of candidates from Ayad Allawi’s Iraqiyah opposition coalition meant that “the election was conducted un-der a dark cloud that has never lifted. The affair poisoned relations between Iraqiyah and Maliki’s State of Law coalition, mak-ing our later aim of organizing a majority government comprised of those two blocs exceedingly difficult.” He further explains that the Maliki government’s refusal to share power and the ongoing consolida-tion of Shia political power in Baghdad have alarmed Iraq’s Sunnis, “pushing them into the once-unthinkable position of de-manding a deep devolution of power that

By Brett Silverstein

56

International


amounts, in the minds of many Iraqis, to the soft partition of the state.” The likelihood that Maliki would agree to such a compromise seems highly unlikely considering that when there were “Arab Spring” style demonstrations in February and March of 2011, Iraqi security forces suppressed them by killing almost 30 protestors across the country. In the event that conflict between the Sunnis and Shias should escalate further, we may have a new civil war in Iraq.

As concerning is the influence of Iran on the Iraqi government. As Anthony H. Cordesman and Sam Khazai explain in a Center for Strategic & In-ternational Studies report, “Iran seeks to ensure that Iraq does not serve as a base for the US, serve US interests, or reemerge as a threat to Iran.” The report notes that “Iraqi imports of Iranian goods may reach $10 billion by 2012, and Iraq is increas-ingly dependent on Iranian energy imports.” In part due to the Iranian influence, the Iraqi govern-ment has opposed us on issues such as Bahrain and, unlike the U.S. and its allies, has not called for Syrian President Assad to step down. Further-more, “Iran now sees Iraq as playing a critical role

in its efforts to keep the Assad regime in power in Syria.” Thus Iranian Quds-force backed groups have poured into Syria from Iraq. One such para-military organization is the Abu al-Fadhal al-Ab-bas brigade, which one of its members says had over 500 fighters and helps President Assad to car-ry out “joint military operations side by side with the Syrian army to clean up areas seized by reb-els.” Iranian backed terrorist and militant groups would frequently attack U.S. troops while we were in Iraq, and now that we are gone these groups are moving into Syria to support President Assad. What is clear is that Iraq’s complicity with Iran has made it harder to crack down on these groups and has resulted in the further decrease of U.S. influence.

Iran has more influence over Iraq than ever. Rather than trying to share power with the Sunni majority Prime Minister Maliki has instead tried to grab more power for himself. Iraq is in no posi-tion to challenge the U.S. However, if Iran’s influ-ence or Prime Minister Maliki’s provocations lead to civil war or sectarian violence then our many years trying to build a sound state will have come to waste.

A SECTARIAN WAR“In the event that conflict between the

Sunnis and Shias should escalate further, we may have a new civil

war in Iraq.”

57

International


SEPARATE

unequalBy Edmund Bannister

The United States of America is one of the most diverse, tolerant, and progressive countries in the world.

It is widely believed that the days of dishar-mony and segregation are behind us and that the Civil Rights struggles of the 50’s and 60’s are nothing but distant memories of a bygone era. In some ways, this asser-tion is correct, given that overt discrimi-nation is practically non-existent and at the very least is considered taboo. Howev-er, racial segregation, while not purpose-fully implemented, is a very real problem that plagues our public school system and threatens to undermine the very purpose of an institution that is thought of as the great equalizer. The problem starts when bright new public school teachers first enter the job pool. When considering what school they apply to teach at, teachers naturally want to live and work in a nice area with well-read students at public schools with stellar reputations. Of course, they would prefer not to teach at a crumbling school in a dangerous neighborhood with poor graduation rates. Unfortunately, attrac-tive schools are almost always in well-off neighborhoods due to the high perfor-mance of students from advantaged back-

grounds. Therefore all the best teachers are drawn to high-income schools serving wealthy or middle class children, leaving impoverished neighborhoods and disad-vantaged kids to the remaining teachers who didn’t make the cut. Because poor children are exposed to lower quality edu-cational backgrounds and teachers, the achievement gap between rich and poor students has skyrocketed. In fact the dif-ference in average test scores between chil-dren in the 90th and 10th percentile family income is over 30%. Since the 1970’s this gap has grown by almost forty percent, creating a separation that is more similar to a yawning chasm than a gap. This massive educational inequality be-comes even more concerning when rec-onciled with the racial dimensions of the achievement gap. The median white family earns an average of $54,000 a year, while the median African American and His-panic families earn $32,000 and $37,000 respectively. This obvious income inequal-ity has several consequences. First, these racial groups become geographically sepa-rated by virtue of their wealth and their housing options. Second, African Ameri-can and Hispanic students have fewer op-portunities for employment and educa-

“EVEN AFTER ALL THE

PROGRESS MADE BY THE

CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

IN AMERICA, IMPOVERISHED

AND MINORITY CHILDREN

STILL HAVE FEWER

OPPORTUNITIES FOR A

DECENT EDUCATION

AND SOCIOECONOMIC

ADVANCEMENT.”

and

58

Features


tion in low-income areas. Third, private schools attract many affluent students, of whom an overwhelming majority is white. Therefore, due to both the geographical separation and difference of income, white students are more likely to go to better public schools. Most of these schools also happen to be in the suburbs, and not in the inner city where the highest minority con-centrations are located. But is the problem of racial segrega-tion in public schools so profound as to merit attention? By looking at New York City’s schools we can see that clearly it is. In the New York State school system, the largest in the country, 90% of children are Hispanic or African American, even though those groups make up only 35% of the total population. This shows the profound effect that private schools can have on the system, by drawing away af-fluent families from public institutions. Even the top public schools in New York are disproportionally made up of White and Asian students because higher income students score better on the placement ex-ams required to enter Stuyvesant, Hunter, or Bronx Science. In fact, only 44% of African Americans and 39% of Hispan-ics graduate from high school every year in NYC. Therefore, white students, white families, and white neighborhoods in New York and throughout the country receive a fundamentally higher level of educational

opportunities than African American and Hispanic students. If this gap is not dealt with effectively, many of the Civil Rights advances made over 50 years ago will be nothing but emp-ty laws, with no basis in reality. Indeed, what was the point of Brown v. Board of Education, if the public schools in this country remain separate and unequal? Furthermore, since education is the pri-mary tool for socioeconomic advance-ment, how can we expect incomes for dif-ferent ethnic groups to ever equalize if the school system remains so unequal? It is simple. We can’t. The solution to de facto racial segre-gation and disparate levels of opportunity in the school system is just as simple as the problem. School districts deny stu-dents the ability to attend better schools than those in their immediate neighbor-hoods and prevent whites and minorities, rich and poor, from attending the same schools. If children are soon eligible to at-tend the schools bordering their district, average incomes and racial demographics will become more consistent throughout the school system. With wealthy students distributed more evenly, the same will be true for the high quality teachers. Greater ethnic and socioeconomic diversity also creates a better school environment with higher expectations for achievement. This solution is particularly effective because in

densely populated areas school districts can often be only ten blocks or less in size. Therefore transportation for students be-tween the districts shouldn’t be a problem. Another possible solution is the creation of more special schools with high funding and excellent teachers similar to Hunter or Stuyvesant. However, instead of these schools only accepting particularly gifted children, students could be chosen at ran-dom from a pool of applicants, ensuring a fair selection process. Now, of course there need to be special public schools for gifted children, but other schools should also receive extra funding to provide average students with a chance. Random selection is the current practice in charter schools, and has proven to be particularly effective in fighting inequality. It is high time that public schools follow suit, or else risk los-ing even more students to charters schools. The public education system in its cur-rent state is an inept institution that has failed the children it is supposed to sup-port. The level of income inequality and ethnic segregation present in our school-ing system is harmful, disturbing, and worst of all, systemic. It demonstrates the painful reality that even after all the prog-ress made by the civil rights movement in America, impoverished and minority children still have fewer opportunities for a decent education and socioeconomic ad-vancement.

Civil Rights Protest lead by Martin Luther King Jr., 1968www.urbanhabitat.org

59

Features


BEYOND THE STATISTICSPrep School Minorities Still Feel Estranged from their Classmates

By Kenneth Shinozuka

60

Features


Even in our post-racial America, is racism still a present force in pri-vate school education? The answer

would initially seem to be no. The percent-age of minority students in U.S. private schools has increased by nearly 20 percent and by close to 30 percent in New York City alone over the past decade. Nearly a third of private school students in New York are minorities, a clear sign that stu-dent bodies in the city are becoming much more diverse.

Yet according to a recent New York Times article called “Admitted, But Left Out,” minority students from a poor background in some preparatory schools feel that they are separated from white stu-dents, who tend to be from wealthier fam-ilies. Differences in wealth, some say, are inextricably linked to differences in race. This connection is reflected by the fact that the majority of families who receive finan-cial aid are minorities. In Trinity School, located in the Upper West Side of Manhat-tan, financial aid spending skyrocketed from $2.7 to $5.7 million over the past decade, an indication of a growing minor-ity population that relies on financial help from the school.

These financial differences can also manifest themselves in the social lives of minority students. One such student at Trinity, Ayinde Alleyne, felt isolated and disconnected from the student body when

feel more included, Trinity and two other New York preparatory schools, Dalton and Calhoun School, have started a series of film projects that highlight the impact of race on the social life of minorities. However, some students feel that racism nowadays is manifested not in outright, obvious attacks and jibes, but in far more subtle and silent ways that are very hard to portray on film.

Some of these ways relate back to the separation of white and minority stu-dents by wealth. DJ Banton, an African-American girl who was accepted to Trinity in 7th grade after having attended a neigh-borhood public school, said she could al-ways act “blacker” as a way of being more included in her old school by changing what music she listened to or what accent she used while speaking. However, she could not change or control her family’s wealth as a way of becoming more inte-grated in Trinity. As a result, she struggled building friendships with the wealthier students in Trinity.

These feelings are encapsulated in a film called “The Prep School Negro,” which was made by an alumnus of an elite private school in Philadelphia and in-spired the Trinity film projects. The docu-mentary sheds light on the social conflict that many minorities face; as minority stu-dents find a new circle of white friends and are given access to a diverse array of new connections and opportunities, they feel they must separate themselves from their once intimate relationships with their old friends and even their family.

Sometimes the divide between minorities and whites is more apparent. In many preparatory schools, such as Trin-ity, white and minority students sit apart from one another, even though no one of

course directly segregates them. The ideal of beauty that had seemingly become per-vasive at Trinity – tall and white – even made one African-American feel that she was ugly because she obviously could not live up to that “standard.” The financial di-vide also impacts academics, as rich white students can hire expensive tutors, which many minority students simply cannot af-ford.

We live in an age where minority students are no longer directly segregated from their white peers. White students in prep schools no longer discriminate against people of color through physical abuse or derogatory remarks at the wide-spread level of intensity that they once did. Yet racism is still a highly prevalent force in many private schools in New York, and perhaps in schools across the nation as well. While it is true that minori-ties feel disconnected and isolated from white peers mainly due to differences in wealth, these differences are too often re-flected by race. Many minorities perceive that they cannot make friends with fellow white students because they simply cannot afford to attend private or even school-sponsored events where they have an op-portunity to interact with other students. When minorities do form friendships with their white peers, they feel that they drift away from their older relationships with other minorities. Certainly, racism is not an outward problem, but it is one that can manifest itself in subtle ways, such as the “standard” of beauty, and is therefore very difficult to address. However, we must ad-mit that racism still exists, even if it is not as pronounced as it was many decades ago. Only then can we begin to gradually pre-vent racism from negatively impacting the social and academic lives of children.

“While it is true that minorities feel disconnected and isolated from white peers mainly due to differences in wealth, these differences are too often reflected by race.”

his family was unable to afford a trip to the Bahamas that the richer white students could pay for. On a broader scale, many minority students who transfer to a prepa-ratory school in the 9th grade struggle to balance their old friendships and the new friendships with students from wealthier backgrounds.

In an effort to make minorities

61

Features


“Go back to your country, ‘ra-ghead’!” On June 18, 2010, these words were disturbing-

ly screamed across a softball field in Iowa. They were the same words that left an 18-year old Iraqi refugee with a broken jaw; the same words that rang in his mother’s ears after she, herself, was assaulted. The reason? Authorities classified it as a hate crime: an act motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice typically involving vio-lence. Rewind just a week earlier: June 13, 2010. An Islam American wearing a black skullcap and holding a Koran was left stranded with bruises and a slashed face after two Caucasian teenagers at-tacked him. A month earlier, on May 12, 2010 a man ran inside a mosque scream-ing, “End this blasphemy!” shortly before the temple itself was set on fire. And just recently, within the same month, a man standing outside a mosque was stabbed to death while an Islamic institution in Fremont, California was attacked in an attempted gun shooting. In what seems like a series of spo-radic hate crimes against Muslims, much

like any race, is actually unfortunately a chain of events caused by the accumula-tion of animosity and ignorance for the South Asian community post-9/11. At the center of a country that so proudly boasts its freedoms of religion, speech, and edu-cation, there are still many people and or-ganizations that refuse to open their eyes to reality, and instead hide behind a pro-tective layer of naiveté. The day itself, the day the twin towers were brought down, marked a devastating day for the entire nation. For the first time, our younger generation was able to witness the legiti-mate threat of the fundamentalist Arab leaders, supposedly plotting to destroy the United States of America. It brought the terroristic threat of Arab foreign policy within our domestic sphere, and therefore the fear of the Muslim religion. Days after the event, even weeks and months after the catastrophe, the number of hate crimes continued on an upward spike. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, anti-Muslim hate violence skyrocketed by more than 1,600%. Brown men were publicly beaten on, in front of their wives and children, while women were harassed

and exposed as well. After this traumatic event, the entire nation seemed to take what seemed like an appropriate re-sponse to Muslim terrorists. But despite how patriotic these acts seem, despite how much it feels like one is doing his or her American duty to defend this na-tion from the violent threat of terrorism, under no Constitution, no Declaration, nor any Bill of Rights does it say that an individual is allowed to take the matters of national security and defense into his or her own hands. Within the past three years, anti-Arab hate crimes have soared by 50%, accounting for more than 160 re-ported attacks in 2010, a year marked by the incendiary rhetoric of Islam-bashing politicians and activists.

Alluding to the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists is simply giving into the notion of ignorance and sheer falseness. Unfortunately, post-9/11, this is what our nation has come to. Under this veil of ignorance, many Americans have grouped all South Asian communities to-gether into one terroristic, anti-American group. Erika Menendez, a 31-year-old woman who pushed an Indian man she

Americas’ Post 9/11 IslamophobiaBy Ikaasa Suri

http://pakistanisforpeace.wordpress.com

62

Features


thought was Muslim onto subway tracks in New York City, was found during an interview claiming, “I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hin-dus and Muslims. Ever since 2001 when they put down the twin towers I’ve been beating them up.” In actuality, the man she killed was a Hindu. Needless to say, regardless of his religion, race, or appear-ance, he was innocent. He was like any other person that cold December day waiting for the subway to arrive so he could get on with his day.

The mass shooting at a Sikh tem-ple, otherwise known as a gurdwara, this past summer in Oak Creek, Wisconsin presents the epitome of American igno-rance. This attack took a toll of seven lives,

all because one man falsely associated the Sikh faith with that of Islam. Even so, de-spite his lack of knowledge and refusal to understand the faiths he so violently disapproves of, he was presented with no reason, personal or practical, to follow

through with his actions. The fact that a turban, brown skin, and heavy facial hair are now associated with the concept of terrorism is bizarre. In the past 12 years, there have been a multitude of attempted and successful attacks against the United States and not all of them relate back to Islamic extremism. For example, in De-cember 2005, Michael C. Reynolds was arrested by the FBI and charged with in-volvement in a plot to blow up a Wyoming natural gas refinery. In May 2007, the Fort Dix Plot was unveiled, and then the Kyle Shaw incident occurred in 2009, where the 17-year old set off crude explosive devices at a public Starbucks in Manhat-tan. The fact is, these attacks seem to get lost in the crowd of domestic events and forgotten months later, while any attack made by a fundamentalist Arab is expect-ed, remembered, and added to the pile of general Muslim hate. Take the recent Bos-ton shooting, for example. The Tsarnaev brothers were no doubt terrorists with fundamentalist backgrounds, but does it help that they were in fact Muslim? In the Sandy Hook shooting, an attack that killed significantly more children, Adam Lanza was never once called a terrorist, simply a social pariah who may have been mentally insane.

One hundred fifty years ago Abraham Lincoln set forth the precedent to end slavery, making the first step to-wards integrating black and white so-cieties. He lifted off the battlefield of the Civil War, only to begin the battle for equality to defend millions of Negro

slaves who had been burnt in the flames of withering justice. One hundred years later, Martin Luther King Jr. took a stand. He had a dream, he told the world, that one day Americans would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the con-tent of their character. And today, amidst a Black man’s second consecutive term in presidential office, integrated schools and water fountains, and equal oppor-tunity under the law, it would seem that America has entered its long awaited post-racial utopia – an era progressives could only hope for decades ago. Unfor-tunately, under this thin layer of gold that is an illusion of acceptance and egalitari-anism, the United States has proven to re-veal a racist, ignorant truth. Whether or not America’s bias toward Islam and ex-tremist behavior’s attraction towards the Muslim faith is just a coincidence of this era or something the United States will have to live with for decades to come is a pressing question the federal government faces now. While we have moved past the blatant racism under the Jim Crow laws of the South allowing for integrated so-cieties and facilities, a subtler and argu-ably as violent notion has taken its place. Fostered by the media and developed through American ignorance, Islam has become the new face of hate in this na-tion. Despite efforts to end this enmity across the nation, the power of bigotry still prevails. Until Americans can get past this inherent bias, a task executed with many complications, America will never enter its desired post-racial society.

“Fostered by the media and developed

through American ignorance, Islam has

become the new face of hate in this nation.”

http://pakistanisforpeace.wordpress.com

63

Features


Have you ever heard of Thomas Herndon? He is a twenty-eight year old graduate student at the

University of Massachusetts Amherst who recently shook thwwwe foundations of modern conservative, economic thought. To give you an idea of the ramifications of Herndon’s discovery, imagine you had an ideology. As scientific facts backed your beliefs, you and many others became ar-dent outspoken supporters. Then a young university student upends all the facts you thought you knew. Now you know how Paul Ryan, Olli Rehn, and George Osborne feel.

Although Herndon made his discov-ery last fall, his story began unbeknownst to him two years before. In 2010, two well-known and widely respected Harvard economists, Carmen Reinhart and Ken-neth Rogoff, published a paper: “Growth in a Time of Debt.” Reinhart and Rogoff col-lected data from twenty different countries on their economic growth rates and levels of debt over the past three hundred years. Their findings were monumental:

“When gross external debt reaches 60 percent of GDP, annual growth declines by about two percent; for levels of external

debt in excess of 90 percent of GDP, growth rates are roughly cut in half.”

In essence, a nation’s economy grows drastically less than a healthy economy does when that nation has a lot of debt.

Without believing correlation neces-sarily implies causation, someone reading “Growth in a Time of Debt” would have difficulty writing off Reinhart and Rogoff ’s conclusion as a mere coincidence. It logi-cally follows that high levels of debt slow economic growth, right? Fiscal conserva-tives certainly thought so. In fact, they relished in this thought; it supported what they already wanted, austerity measures.

“Growth in a Time of Debt” quickly rose to prominence in the hearts of ma-jor policymakers. Primary designer of the Republican budget plan, Paul Ryan; EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commis-sioner, Olli Rehn; and British MP George Osborne have cited it in speeches and pro-posals. The paper, also known as Reinhart-Rogoff, has played a key role in the U.S. aus-terity movement and in increasing austerity measures in Europe. Much to the dismay of liberal economists like Paul Krugman, Reinhart-Rogoff has precipitated austerity measures globally.

Reinhart and Rogoff ’s method of col-lecting data and thus generating ratios and averages was quite simple, thereby making their findings difficult to dispute. No one saw even the need to peer review Reinhart-Rogoff. Conservative policymak-ers never saw a reason to look further for better evidence. After all, “two well-known and widely respected Harvard economists” wrote it.

Human beings are funny creatures. When we want to believe something, we will. However, it takes only one lucky grad-uate student to prove to humanity that even the best of us are fallible. In an effort to re-produce Reinhart and Rogoff ’s results from the same data as an obligatory assignment for class, Herndon discredited the most influential study against deficit spending. Not only did he and his professors eventu-ally question Reinhart and Rogoff ’s meth-odology, but he found undeniable coding errors in the Harvard economists’ data spreadsheet.

Reinhart and Rogoff acknowledged the coding errors but denied allegations that their methodology was biased. They also asserted that the coding errors did not significantly affect their general conclusion.

http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com

CONSERVATIVE FISCAL FLAWSBy Jenna Barancik

64

Economics


However, when Herndon and UMASS Am-herst economists Michael Ash and Robert Pollin published their analysis of the data, they found the average decline of economic growth in debt-burdened countries to be drastically less severe. Herndon further stated on the Colbert Report that he be-lieves austerity measures restrict economic growth as opposed to enabling growth by curbing the rise of debt.

The controversy over Reinhart-Rogoff has caught the attention of American and European news sources, economists, and even mainstream political comedians. Fresh debate over fiscal policy during times of debt is growing among not just politi-cians, but also the rest of the populace. This new debate is good. It means people are se-riously considering the issues and looking for effective solutions, right?

Alas, no. Since Herndon’s exposé of Re-inhart-Rogoff ’s inadequacies, it seems no one has increased his or her understanding of debt’s effect on economic growth. Now that the mysticism surrounding Reinhart-Rogoff has disappeared, the pendulum has simply shifted to the left. There is no good reason for this shift. Although economists and policymakers have long acknowledged the potential for austerity measures to re-strict economic growth, no one has pre-sented new or conclusive evidence that aus-terity must result in slowed growth or that debt’s effect on growth is negligible. So why has Herndon’s discovery had such a pro-found impact on the austerity movement?

Ironically, fiscally conservative poli-cymakers brought it upon themselves. They relied far too heavily on one study to back their beliefs. After being continu-ously cited by Paul Ryan, Olli Rehn, and

George Osborne, Reinhart-Rogoff ’s hype increased exponentially to the point of becoming the most important scientific source behind austerity. In hindsight, it is easy to criticize policymakers for not questioning Reinhart-Rogoff or looking further for more evidence from different sources. However, imagine the seductive power of “Growth in a Time of Debt.” Presented as cold, hard, scientific fact but embellished with the allure of Harvard prestige, Reinhart-Rogoff never gave Paul Ryan and the like a chance.

Nevertheless, when “Growth in a Time of Debt” came tumbling down, it started pulling the austerity movement down with it. As Paul Krugman so shrewdly surmised: “[T]he next time Olli Rehn, or George Os-borne, or Paul Ryan declares, sententiously, that we must have austerity . . . people in the audience will snicker.”

Let’s be honest; Rehn, Ryan, and Os-borne, along with Reinhart and Rogoff, kind of look like tools now. Not only be-cause they messed-up on such a large scale,

but because their mistakes were so simple and avoidable. Therefore, it’s tempting for even a fiscal conservative like myself to jump ship. After all, the “cool kids” like Herndon and Stephen Colbert are having a good laugh at the expense of austerity ad-vocates.

Do not be seduced by “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rog-off ” (Herndon, Pollin, and Ash’s recent paper). Do not fall prey to the same desire for certainty and simple understanding that ensnared Ryan, Rehn, and Osborne. What-ever you do, keep asking questions and broadening your understanding of debt’s effect on growth.

At the end of the day, high levels of debt are still bad. While austerity measures may result in unemployment and thus decreased purchasing power per capita, deficit spending is like watering a plant; a nation can drown in too much debt. An opponent of government spending and Reagan’s former budget director, David Stockman, compared deficit spending to a “narcotic.” It works so well at first, but now nations are addicted and the debt pile-up is having a negative impact. Perhaps an easy country to call out, Greece, is still a prime example. Submerged in more debt than the Greeks will ever be able to pay off, the Greek economy is flailing and foreign nations are disinclined to lend them more money. At some point, deficit spending looses its po-tency to create unnatural economic growth, and austerity measures become necessary. The U.S. now faces the decision of continu-ing towards a Grecian future, or sucking it up, cutting spending, and raising taxes to close the deficit.

While austerity measures may result in

unemployment and thus decreased purchasing power per capita, deficit spending

is like watering a plant; a nation can drown in too

much debt.

nytimes.com

65

Economics


The UK Credit SOLUTION

The downgrade of the United King-dom’s credit rating from an AAA to AA1 is a stark reflection of both the

UK’s expanding debt and its sluggish eco-nomic recovery in comparison to the rest of the world. As a result, the British govern-ment has less mobility in balancing its bud-get, coupled with the fact that the pound reached a seventeen-month low, leaving the economy vulnerable. Despite the lack of mobility and immediate consequences, the UK economy can still rebound with some

improvements to its fiscal policy.The UK’s fiscal policy should continue

to include spending cuts in areas, which create no economic bursts just as the recent austerity spending cuts did. The spending cuts have allowed the country to retain its AAA credit rating throughout the fi-nancial crisis and to borrow from foreign countries at low interest rates. According to the U.K. Office for Budget Responsibility, every 100-basis-point rise in gilt rates will increase net debt by 1.2% of GDP between

2014 and 2016. Meaning, in order to elimi-nate the budget gap, the U.K. will still have to borrow about 140 billion pounds each year, according to Barclays, at low interest rates for the following five years or so in or-der to eliminate the budget gap. However, it is crucial that the pound not collapse into a free fall, as it would significantly lower lending confidence and hamper this.

The pound has struggled to finds it’s footing as it has depreciated about 6% against the dollar and stands right at the

By Jacob Zurita

66

Economics


$1.50 line. If the pound continues to weak-en, it will drive up the cost of living in the UK and its weakening could become a catalyst for inflation. The prices of imports would continue to rise, most notably oil and food, and the average middle and low-er income families would be feel the brunt of the effects with heavy increases to their monthly bills. As a result, increased infla-tionary pressures would force interest rates up, while lowering household incomes. The cost of living in the UK has already risen 1.5% in the past year as of February.

Moody's, one of the three major credit rating agencies, stated despite consider-able economic strengths, Britain's growth was likely to be sluggish due to "subdued" growth prospects, a "high and rising debt burden", and the “ongoing domestic public and private-sector de-leveraging process." Moody's analyst Sarah Carlson said in an interview with Reuters "This period of slug-gish growth poses challenges to the govern-

“Rather than focusing on cutting spending at the cost of growth, Osborne needs to prioritize government spending in areas that are beneficial,

including infrastructure and education.”

ment's fiscal consolidation program." Even if the UK has eliminated its budget gap by 2016, the UK needs to generate growth, which it has failed at doing so in recent years. In the third quarter of 2012 GDP grew by 0.9 percent, but largely as a result of the Olympics. Then in the fourth quar-ter, the economy shrank .03% following the pattern of 9 months before the Olympics.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the UK and the man responsible for all financial and economic matters, imple-mented a spending cut program, which has left economic growth stagnant. Rather than focusing on cutting spending at the cost of growth, Osborne needs to priori-tize government spending in areas that are beneficial, including infrastructure and education. A tax cut, most impor-tantly a capital gains tax cut, would bring growth as taxes have overburdened many British people in a time when as much as one third of UK have only part time

jobs. Heavy taxes have also driven away companies and superstar athletes like Rafael Nadal from competing. The next step would be introducing a sustainable energy policy, which utilizes the country’s natural resource of shale gas. An accelera-tion of the exploitation of shale gas and the expansion of other renewable energy sources would lower the cost of energy attracting manufacturing industries and sparking job growth as it did in the United States. In the U.S. 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been added since the end of the recession partly due to lower energy costs “reshoring” manufacturers rather than “offshoring” to other countries. The abil-ity to extract gas from shale rocks, known as “hydrofracking”, has assisted in driv-ing the price down to about 20% of the equivalent price of oil as well, which is especially important since transportation costs have soared in fluctuation with oil prices in the past decade.

67

Economics


The Money We Lose Is Not“Renewable”

Green energy subsidies are the greatest threat to capitalism and energy independence in the

United States. The idea behind provid-ing subsidies to green energy compa-nies stems from the liberal consensus that the government must fund energy for the future. Based on this principle, we therefore give money either directly or through tax breaks to companies in the green energy sector. These subsidies are meant to assist the green energy companies in competing with other en-ergy sources.

However, Green energy subsidies are inherently unproductive and un-fair. The subsidies are unproductive for a couple of reasons. First of all, the subsidies cost the federal govern-ment north of 20 billion dollars a year. This money essentially goes to waste because it doesn’t fix the issue, but in-

“When the government gives companies billions of dollars, it is taking away the free

markets irreplaceable ability to weed out the bad companies.”

stead throws money at the problem. The reason green energy tends to cost more per unit of energy relative to non-renewable sources is because green en-ergy is less efficient. For green energy to truly compete with oil and nuclear power, companies have to improve their base technology and make the energy more efficient. Green energy such as solar and wind is very inefficient and the government should allow the free market to force these companies to in-novate so that green energy will become more efficient. When the government gives companies billions of dollars they are taking away the free markets irre-placeable ability to weed out the bad companies. If green energy companies cannot create better technology, the government will keep them alive. Green energy companies would have an incen-tive to innovate because more efficient

technology will produce higher profits. However, the companies don’t need to make this money if the government is just giving it to them. The subsidies giv-en by the government mitigate the free market incentive to innovate.

Another problem with green ener-gy subsidies is the inherent unfairness that stems from unequal subsidies to all companies in a certain sector. When the government hands out subsidies, they give it out to some companies over others. By creating an unequal play-ing field, the federal government goes against all principles of capitalism and free markets. It is unfair to give fed-eral funds to some companies and not others. The companies without money from the government are at an inherent disadvantage against ones who are sub-sidized. This means that government is picking the winners and losers in the

By Mitchell Troyanovsky

68

Economics


market. The subsidies finance compa-nies without merit consideration, while other companies might lose in the free market because the government doesn’t support them.

The last issue with green energy subsidies stems from the fact that sub-sidies are a bad investment for the gov-ernment. In the free market, investors choose companies to invest in on merit and they then take the loss if the com-pany fails. These investors may also receive tangible benefits from their in-vestment such as dividends or capital gains. However, handing over cash to a company yields absolutely no tangi-ble gains. Proponents of subsidies like to argue that these economic aids are necessary to keep the company afloat and profitable. If a company needs the government funds to keep their busi-ness running, then maybe they should

rethink the business. In the free mar-ket, nobody would invest in a company that yields such poor results. However, the government invests taxpayer money into companies that need the money. This means that the government is in-vesting the taxpayer money into bad investments that are bound to fail. In fact since the majority of these subsi-dies come in the form of grants or tax breaks, the government has no control over what the companies end up doing it. Since Green energy subsidies have been given out, the list of failed compa-nies continue to grow. Companies such as A123, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Ener1, and Solyndra are just a few ex-amples of the government-financed companies that went bankrupt purely because they were bad companies in the first place. However, the govern-ment invested taxpayer money in them

anyway and now bureaucratic organiza-tions pretend to be surprised with the result. These losses have accumulated to more than 5 billion dollars. In the private sector, when a company losses 5 billion dollars off of bad investments, it normally doesn’t continue investing in the exact same holdings. The gov-ernment doesn’t understand that com-panies that need federal money to ex-ist probably shouldn’t exist in the first place. The government has to stop wast-ing taxpayer money for faulty invest-ments that actually hurt the companies’ innovation. In the private sector, when a company posts a 5 billion dollar loss on investment, the head of the company is usually fired. Maybe its time we stop allowing the head of our government to continue taking our money and throw-ing it in bad investments. Maybe its time we fire our head.

69

Economics


European Disunion

Imagine a utopian union of peaceful na-tions, helping each other up when they fall and ensuring a greater equality of

life for all citizens within their coalition and the world. Now, observe the European Union: a group nations often highly dif-fering in their social structures and always featuring a new financial crisis. The nature of their union rejects all individualist eco-nomic, security-based, and social incen-tives and merely insures that each country places their exorbitant debt upon all other nations. With an uncontrollable currency, unstable differing social constructions, and a glaring lack of security, the European Union is simply unsustainable and will in-evitably fail.

The institution of the Euro simply

By James Megibow

cannot survive as it eliminates virtually all EU countries’ capability to engage in macroeconomics to promote growth. Ac-cording to Keynesian economic theory, when a country experiences an economic crisis, it should print additionally currency to “prime the pump” for demand and sal-vage growth from disaster. So, when one of the 17 Euro member states has an eco-nomic crisis, the European Central Bank “should” print many Euro bank notes in order to increase liquidity and monetary supply in that nation’s marketplace. The European Central Bank has the sole au-thority to print Euro banknotes, so no in-dividual nation has the right to print their own currency. Therefore, they are entirely reliant upon the Central Bank in times of

economic turmoil. However, countries that hold the majority of the monetary supply, such as Germany, suffer huge losses when others inflate their currency. So, Germany, France, and others often vote opposed to bail out legislation or inflationary policy as it merely redistributes wealth from such larger nations to smaller struggling nations like Greece or Spain. When the United States has credit crunch or fiscal contrac-tion, it can unilaterally print currency and inflate to stimulate spending and growth. Countries like Italy, however, cannot simply print new currency and often see crunches and contractions spiral down-wards into complete economic meltdowns while the government has its hands tied by the European Central Bank. Furthermore,

70

Economics


the actions of the European Central Bank are decided by a committee in which all Eurozone nations have an equal say, so if any single country wishes for inflation and liquidity, the likelihood that the other 16 nations will want to aid that country at the expense of their own is obviously quite low. The Euro cannot survive because it prevents nations from engaging in macro-economic policies that prevent meltdowns and downward spirals from occurring.

The enormous difference in demo-graphics and social structures also pre-vents the European Union from acting as a united whole and creates both internal and external issues that will inevitably contribute to its downfall. Two of the most differing member states in that regard are Bulgaria and France, and they serve as a powerful lens into why the demographics of these nations harm unity on both do-mestic and international policy. Bulgaria, and other similar nations, is suffering on an economic and political level from ram-pant brain drain. This is when the most intelligent and well educated members of the population emigrate causing a lack of them in the workforce. In fact, over 900,000 people emigrated from Bulgaria to other European Union nations from 1995 to 2005. France, on the other hand, enjoys

“The European Union will eventually dissipate, as individual nations are simply unable to deal with economic, demographic, or security crises as long as they are members.”

brain gain, a process in which the well edu-cated from other countries come to live in France for enhanced opportunity. Natu-rally, France wishes for looser immigration quotas for internal EU immigration, while Bulgaria wants the EU to further restrict immigration so that it can restore its econ-omy and intelligentsia. Neither country can make the decision that most benefits it as internal immigration is controlled by the EU not individual nations. So, one na-tion will inevitably lose the immigration battle, and in this case, Bulgaria’s brain drain has continued at an alarming rate. Additionally, as one would expect, Bulgar-ian social views differ greatly with French social views, so pushes by the EU to adopt socially liberal resolutions violate the na-ture of Bulgarian governance. Ultimately, the demographic and social differences between nations in the EU invite tyranny of the majority national demographic over the minority, and as a result, smaller and more distinctive nations are incentivized to withdraw.

The issue of civil and homeland se-curity will also play a major role in the dissipation of the EU. In the European Union, individual nations do not control international travel; passports and visas are given to citizens of the EU, not of in-

71

Economics


dividual countries. So, the security of one nation must be entirely reliant upon the se-curity of all other nations. A terrorist could potentially become a citizen in any EU country, and then easily move from state to state with little to no interference. So, a dangerous person admitted to citizenship in one of the Eastern bloc countries could easily travel to France or the United King-dom and violate their security. Naturally, some states have inferior security than oth-ers. Just as the United States is allied with Canada, but maintains complex border security to keep citizens safe from those wishing to immigrate through Canada, the United Kingdom or other member states are unlikely to trust all 27 other nations in the EU. So, on the basis of national secu-rity, if a series of attacks begin to occur on EU nations, they may choose to withdraw to reestablish their security and strengthen their borders.

The European Union will eventually dissipate, as individual nations are simply unable to deal with economic, demograph-ic, or security crises as long as they are members. Greece and Spain appear to be currently feeling the brunt of this, and will probably withdraw in the coming years. Expect to see the slow departure of EU na-tions as these crises continue to occur.


Despite the relatively re-cent release of the iPhone 5 in September, rumors of the iPhone 5S and even iPhone 6 have circulated.

According to the International Business Times the iPhone 5S would be more se-curity focused while the iPhone 6 would be the cheaper version. A cheaper phone would be a hit on the market because of the comparatively cheap prices of Apple’s many competitors. For example, the iPad mini has seem-ingly paradoxically had large sales de-spite its competitors’ cheaper tablets such as the Google Nexus 7 and the Amazon Kindle Fire. Forbes magazine claims that the iPad mini has proved a ma-jor factor for apple shares. Imagine a cheaper version of it; this would take Apple’s sales to the next level compared to prior years. The iPhone 5 manages to keep ahead of the Samsung galaxy because of its build quality as well as its multimedia content. iTunes is a huge attraction for most people because of its convenience. It allows you to transfer music between your computer and phone and its great organization aspects only add to the ap-

peal. Even though Samsung is gradually catching up to this standard, they aren’t quite there. Samsung Hub, their version of iTunes, does provide a lot of content similar to that of iTunes but Samsung still has some work to do. The final and per-haps most important factor contributing to Apple’s continued success is the sleek aesthetic appeal of the iPhone 5 when compared to Samsung’s galaxy. The iPhone’s aluminum and ceramic glass is more presentable while giving it the feel

of high-quality craftsmanship. Person-ally, I think that it’s the brand name that makes the iPhone sell so well. When looking at other aspects of a phone such as the camera, display, and battery life the Samsung Galaxy S4 has the upper hand, but consumers continually flock to the Apple’s brand. The recent release of the S4 will prove to be a hurtle for the iPhone 6, but I still believe that the brand name

will help Apple pull through. In the smartphone market, Sam-sung currently has an advantage when price is concerned. Despite this hurtle, the iPhone and Apple have managed to outcompete the Samsung Galaxy in over-all quarter sales. The new, inexpensive iPhone 6 should cost around $350 to $400 according to analysts Hariharan and Mos-kowitz. This is a huge price drop from the usual starting price of the iPhone, which is around $650. According to the

Global Christian Post, Apple will now have the potential to take 20-25 percent of Samsung’s shares over the next year if a price drop of this size becomes a real-ity. According to a survey done by ana-lyst Clare Hopping, 91 percent of cur-rent iPhone users will be upgrading their current phones

to the iPhone 6 or iPhone 5S while only 76 percent of Android users would up-grade their phones. That is a large differ-ence when considering the sheer amount of users belonging to either Apple or An-droid. According to different charts from different websites, Apple leads Samsung in all quarters except for one. This hap-pened with Apple’s higher phone prices but if they were to be lower, their sales would increase which would only further the gap between the two rival companies. There are a couple of new fea-tures that the iPhone 5S and iPhone 6 are rumored to have including Apple’s acqui-sition of AuthenTec, which allows for a possibility of fingerprint authentication rather than the traditional passcode. A 12-megapixel camera will be another fea-ture along with an A6X process like that of the iPad 4. In addition to these many features, there will be wireless charging and a larger screen with 4.2 inch Retina display. I’m sure that I won’t be the only one looking forward to this new innova-tion coming from Apple.

Despite this hurtle, the iPhone and Apple have managed to outcompete the Samsung Galaxy in overall quarter sales.



A New Avian Flu in ChinaBy Anna Kuritzkes

The H7N9 virus is the latest strain of avian influenza that poses se-rious threat to poultry workers

throughout China. H7N9 is a zoonosis that allows humans to contract it from birds, as a zoonosis is a disease that can be passed between species. Due to its ability to pass between mammals and China’s history of a lack of coopera-tion with international governments, scientists are concerned that the threat of H7N9 will only increase as time goes on. It is essential that the international community ask the Chinese govern-ment to share information about the H7N9 virus to ensure a cure can be dis-covered for this deadly virus.

An avian flu, such as H7N9, is an infection that is caused by a virus originally found in birds. Wild birds contract these flus regularly, usually

without passing them onto humans; however, with the industrialization of poultry farms, the danger that avian flu viruses pose to humankind has in-

creased. Large poultry farms like those in China are home to thousands of birds living in extremely close quar-ters. These conditions allow for the vi-rus to spread quickly through the bird population, and as viruses are subject to rapid mutation, allow the viruses that form among birds to mutate and infect humans.

People infected with the H7N9 dis-ease exhibit normal flu-like symptoms. More deadly symptoms include respira-tory failure, kidney failure, brain dam-age, septic shock, and pneumonia. In addition to these symptoms, there have been other major complications that vary from person to person.

Flu experts compare the H7N9 vi-rus to another avian flu named H5N1. H5N1 is a disease that has been in-fecting people for more than a decade.



“It is essential that the international

community ask the Chinese government to share information

about the H7N9 virus…”

A New Avian Flu in China

“Until a cure has been discovered for H7N9, the international medical community must continue to work together towards finding a solution.”

Prior to the discovery of the new H7N9 virus, there was a general satisfaction in the medical community, as the level of H5N1 infections had been decreasing. Though there is some debate concern-ing whether or not H7N9 is more dead-ly than its predecessor H5N1, scientists studying the virus fear that H7N9 has adapted so that it can be passed be-tween mammals, rather than only from birds to humans. Such an adaption would allow H7N9 to be passed be-tween humans; something which H5N1 could not do. A mutation allowing H7N9 to pass between humans instead of just from a bird to a human would create an increase in the infectiveness of the disease. A major worry in the international community is to what ex-tent China should be required to share information about diseases that appear within its boarders. In the past, China has not been willing to share informa-tion about diseases. During the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak, China refrained from sharing useful data. China’s reclusiveness has not been helpful in the past as it pre-vented the medical community from fully studying newly emerging infec-tious diseases. In the case of SARS, as a consequence of China’s refraining from sharing information, the disease spread to other countries and killed over 800 people.

China was initially secretive about the H7N9 virus. The first reported hu-man case of the virus dates from Feb-ruary 19th, although this case was not made public until over a month later on March 31st. Despite China’s initial reluctance, the country’s government has been more cooperative with regard to sharing research on H7N9 than it has been historically. Chinese authori-ties posted some of the virus’s genetic sequence and also sent samples to inter-

national labs. The CDC and the World Health Organization have commended China’s willingness to share informa-tion. This is an important step forward on behalf of the Chinese government towards cooperation with the interna-tional community.

Currently, there is no cure for H7N9. Poultry farmers in China have responded to the outbreak by killing of infected birds. The CDC asks travel-ers who are visiting China to exercise necessary caution through not eating uncooked poultry and refraining from touching birds or other animals.

The international community should

continue to commend China on its co-operative attitude. Such praise is helpful as it fosters a positive environment for sharing information about the disease. Until a cure has been discovered for H7N9, the international medical com-munity must continue to work together towards finding a solution. This would not be possible without the cooperation of China. As time moves forward, orga-nizations including the WHO and CDC should ask for updates about the status of H7N9, especially regarding how many people the disease has infected versus how many people have died as a result of the disease.



Issue 7 - Junior Issue

Documents

editor daniel elkind

horace mann school

junior issue

special election issue

tremendous year

special report

younger writers

largest staff