No.1 - February 2016
AGORA
A Collection of Opinion Articles from Skidmore College http://agoramagazine.club
Table of Contents: Decline of the Commons
3
By Matthew Marani
Sanders’ Socialism? A Linguistic Quandary and Opportunity for the Left
6
By Jack Schreuer
Spin and Sensationalism in the Democratic Primary Debates
10
By Nate White
How the Oslo Accords Have Failed
13
By Luca Mobilia
Stability Over Chaos
17
By Matthew Marani
More Than a Chess Game
20
By Kevin Wang
The Consequences of Aiding Dictators
24
By Jack Schreuer
Empires are Gone, but Empire Exists
27
By Beckett Rueda
When Cops are Robbers By James McArdle
31
SPECIAL THANKS TO Skidmore Print Services Publius Barbara McDonough
SUBMIT SUBMIT SUBMIT SUBMIT TO AGORAMAGAZINESKID@GMAIL.COM
!
2!
In an age of increasingly dogmatic and divisive political debate, the college campus has become an ideological battleground. Places of higher education have become partisan breeding grounds
in which minority or controversial opinions are drowned out by the chants of the prevailing political conscience. Agora Magazine is a neutral platform in which intellectually curious students can exchange ideas.
It is our hope that all discourse will be well informed and respectfully responded to.
3! !
The Decline of the Commons By Matthew Marani The birth of agrarian society fostered the establishment of the city-state, linking an urban center to a surrounding agricultural ring. Crucial to the development of this relationship between town and country, was the establishment of commercial routes leading to the heart of the polis. Standing proudly in the center of the Greek city-state was the agora, a public sphere for economic, cultural and political exchange. In this geographical commons, members of differing social classes and political ideologies engaged each other in payments of goods and services as well as exchanges of political thought. This spatial egalitarianism serves as the lifeblood of a functioning democracy, without it a society decays into ignorance and apathy. However, this is not to say that the wealthy and poor resided in the same neighborhoods, but that they shared public spaces. Regardless of the relative separation between economic classes, they were thrust together, walking on the same pedestrian boulevards, riding the same public transport. Over the course of the last six decades, America has lost its once abundant public spaces due to the unrepentant scourge of suburban development. Ushering this era of unprecedented development and transformation was a coordination of federal, state and local authorities to encourage migration to the suburbs through the guaranteeing of mortgage loans by the Federal Housing Authority and thee easing of lending regulations. Additionally, states and local government could rely on considerable federal funding for ‘urban renewal’ programs,
!
4!
which dissected cities with ribbons of highways and gutted their vitality by demolishing long-standing lower income neighborhoods in favor of towers in the park modernist constructs. With 53% of Americans living in self-proclaimed suburbs, and 26% claiming to live in urban areas (which for all intents and purposes are cities in name only), we have entered what James Howard Kunstler has termed a “geography of nowhere,� a conglomeration of sprawl with no discernible centers or landmarks. In order to navigate this false utopia, replete with cul-de-sacs and strip malls, the American citizen is wholly reliant on the automobile to travel from their cookie cutter home to their equally monotonous place of employment. In Christopher Lasch’s The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, he blames the growth of suburbia for the decline of the third place and subsequently the concept of shame in American society. Akin to the agora, the third place is an economically accessible area in which individuals and families can congregate to meet fellow members of the community. Prior to the destruction of American cities, they were comprised of distinct neighborhoods with unique commercial avenues. In essence, each neighborhood formed a distinct social unit akin to a town. These neighborhoods and towns are tied together through the existence of social institutions such as the local pub, the barbershop and most importantly well-trafficked pedestrian boulevards. Being in constant contact with members of your community serves as a check on licentiousness and promotes civic virtue. Tower blocks and suburban developments, both promised as solutions to supposed social decay, now dominate the visual
5! ! landscape of the American Republic. In our efforts to alter human nature, we have created unnatural environments in which citizens are increasingly isolated from society and their neighbors. The commons has been replaced by privately owned ‘public’ spaces, but a mall is no substitute for an established center of discourse and economic exchange. While the millennial migration to urban centers does provide a glimmer of hope for the dismantling of suburbia, there must be fundamental return to the city and town as bastions of American democracy.
!
6!
Sanders’ Socialism? A linguistic Quandary and Opportunity for the Left By Jack Schreuer Socialism has historically been cast as enemy of the United States. The great geo-political struggle of the second half of the 20th century was between neo-liberal capitalism and the Reds, communist and socialist alike. I remember that my conservative high school peers would use socialist as a derogatory term. I was never the least bit hurt because I was and am a socialist so much to their dismay it came across of a snide statement of fact not an insult. But their point remains, that socialism was perceived as radical and unacceptable in American politics. This is also clear in the charges that President Obama is a socialist, made by Conservative pundits, like Glenn Beck. These indictments paint the President as horrifically far left and usually come with a claim about his plot to destroy America. Now Obama is obviously not a socialist, but the appearance of one has transformed the linguistic geography of American politics. In 2015 the unthinkable happed, an avowed socialist has risen to be a legitimate challenger to Hilary Clinton. Bernie Sanders has a chance, although a long shot, at the democratic nomination. Recent polls have placed his support between 3740, some polls placing him within 10 points of Clinton; he has a lead in New Hampshire and is in a statistical dead heat in with Clinton in Iowa. I’m not here to make a case from Bernie’s electability but even the most cynical have to admit that this is an astounding achievement and would have sounded preposterous before the primary began. So, how the hell is a
7! ! socialist doing so well? The answer lies in linguistics, for the greatest challenge and achievement of the Sanders campaign has been to redefine Socialism. Although this has been a surprising political success, it has provoked concern within socialist circles, for socialism has a long historical tradition, an established definition, and a group of ideological disciples stemming from it. This raises the question, should the socialist community accept this new definition and its political viability or reject it as a hollow shell of high-minded ideals? Is Bernie Sanders really a socialist? Before this can be answered it is imperative to define both classic socialism and Bernie’s democratic socialism. Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist which at first sounds distinct from the socialism but the democratic refers to the political structure and socialist to the economic system. One can be an aristocratic socialist or even a monarchic socialist, while still prescribing the same socialism economic system. It would be the same as Republicans referring to themselves as democratic conservatives. Making sure to say democratic before socialist is politically savvy but doesn’t distinguish Bernie’s controversial policies from most America socialists, So how is Bernie’s socialism different from classic socialism? Although Sanders’ socialism has similar policy implications as reformist socialism (universal healthcare, ending money in politics, free college education, and the breaking up of big banks), it has abandoned the basic premise. Socialism at its core is the collective ownership of the means of production, major industries and the dominant forces of the economy. It’s the idea that a capitalist society in which economic power is
!
8!
concentrated in the hands of the few can never be just. The unequal distribution of economic power, translate into unequal political, notable in the dominance that special interest and campaign donors have on the political system. Only by society sharing economic power can it best achieve the social welfare for all not just the few. You will never hear Bernie Sanders advocating to seize the means of production, to use the classical terminology; that would end his campaign faster than a sex scandal or insulting 47% of America. Whether or not down deep in his red little heart, Bernie believes in the core of socialism, it has no place in his campaign or established ideology. Sanders’ Socialism has gutting the quintessential ideal of socialism, popular ownership of the means of production, while keeping its policy prescription. Now that we have that down we can address the real question; whether or not the socialist community should accept or reject Sanders’ transformation. The answer lies in history, a history that makes us socialists cringe; I need not run through the abhorrent list of failed leftist universal projects. A focus on utopianism has lead to overly extremist polices, which have had dire consequences in human life. In a post-soviet world, socialism should focus on the ethical implication of specific choices, being guided but not blinded by our principles. We must move to of a policy “imperfect improvement upon unsatisfactory circumstances” rather than utopian projects. This requires patience, which is hard when we see the world suffering and think we have the solutions, but it is our only and the necessary path to revolutionary change. Bernie Sander’s policies would greatly improve the lives of the people, decrease the rich’s control over politics, and over time start transferring
9! ! the socially necessary means of production from the few to the many. Yes it will take time but it could happen, whereas the endless nights we spend ranting about the never-coming revolution are just pipedreams. Even if you believe that Bernie’s’ policies or a later incarnation of them will never be implemented, he has drawn Hilary to the left as well as bringing campaign finance reform and inequality to the front of the debate. Bernie Sanders and his new brand of socialism has made the world a better place and has the opportunity to do so much more.
!
10!
Spin and Sensationalism in the Democratic Primary Debates By Nate White MIT linguist and longtime radical activist Noam Chomsky once said that he agrees with conservatives on the point that liberals control the media. The liberal media plays an important role in American politics: setting the bar for how far to the left Americans are allowed to be. Nowhere was this function of the media more apparent (and yet, more insidious) than in the first Democratic primary debate on CNN. After Hillary Clinton responded to the 'controversy' surrounding her State Department emails, Bernie Sanders declared that he wanted to talk about substantive issues and not Clinton's "damn emails." The crowd cheered, and Sanders stole the limelight from Clinton on a question that CNN set up for her to hit out of the park. Clinton, vying to recapture America's attention, then parroted Sanders' comment, claiming that she too only wanted to discuss "the real issues." The crowd cheered again, although not quite as robustly as they had after Sanders' comment. Just as she had done before on the Keystone XL pipeline and Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal issues, Clinton piggybacked on Sanders' populist platform–a platform that has garnered considerable support. In sum, Sanders won the exchange. Sanders deftly coopted the moment from Clinton, and Clinton's follow-up comment came off as derivative. Or at least this was the case until CNN replayed the exchange after the debate ended. In CNN's "replay," the exchange was edited so that Clinton's follow-up appeared to come anterior to Sanders’ comment.
11! ! Clinton was shown saying that she wanted to debate "the real issues," and then Sanders was shown making the same comment, apparently only regurgitating what Clinton had just said. In the replay, CNN cut out the ovation that followed Bernie's speech. In reversing the order of the comments, CNN made Sanders' comment seem derivative of Clinton’s, whereas in reality it was Sanders who first made the point. The actual content of the debate was obscured, and to the untrained eye– I am an aspiring art historian, so visual analysis is what I do– Clinton appeared victorious. This visual 'spin' was compounded by the rhetoric of the CNN commentators, who, only moments after debate ended, declared that Clinton had indubitably won. In the month or so since that first democratic debate, the liberal media has latched onto this exchange, citing it as an example of Sanders' failure to satisfactorily attack and differentiate himself from Clinton. Thus, the real winner of the debate was CNN. The slanted narrative put forth by CNN's replay has come to dominate the discourse surrounding the Democratic primary. This is the case to the extent that Sanders now says that he will interrogate Clinton about her emails in the debate this Saturday. Bernie's refusal to attack Clinton on petty issues–a move that the crowd at the debate applauded–has been spun into an attack on Sanders. Backed into a corner, Sanders sees attacking Clinton on issues that he considers to be distractions as his only chance at the presidential candidacy. CNN's coverage of the debate contributes to the ongoing tabloidization of American politics, wherein politicians are
!
12!
forced to mount polemical and often personal attacks against their opponents at the cost of debating serious issues in a nuanced manner. CNN has a vested interest in sensationalizing the debates, because the company believes that the only way to engage Americans is to feed us lurid drama. If this is true, we know that CNN, with its slew of reality-television shows, is in part responsible for our deadened faculties. But the crowd's ovation following Bernie's comments–which, again, CNN censored in the replay– suggests to the contrary, that Americans are not the docile and deadened public that the media makes us into and out to be. Perhaps Americans really do want to hear the issues that matter. After all, and at risk of tautology, it is "the issues that matter" that matter most to our daily, material lives: lives that exist beyond, but are constantly interloped by, media representation.
13! !
How the Oslo Accords Have Failed By Luca Mobilia As those of you reading this probably know, the UN General Assembly met at the end of September. The meeting included the usual political posturing of the world’s political elite. Dominating the conversation was the hottest new international conflict, the battle against the Islamic State. Russia and the United States, two of the currently most active members of the Security Council, spent their time on the floor criticizing the other state’s strategy concerning the group. However, there was one issue that was noticeably absent from their speeches, an issue that has persisted for decades: the conflict between Israel and Palestine. In the leaders’ defense, the situation is not yielding any particularly new results. The most recent attempt to change the status quo, the 2013-2014 talks organized by US Secretary of State John Kerry, proved fruitless. However Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, made an announcement that could shake the foundations of the conflict. President Abbas stated that due to Israel’s continued violations of the terms of the Oslo Accords “We therefore declare that [the Palestinian people] cannot continue to be bound by these agreements” and that Israel must “assume all of its responsibilities as an occupying power.” This threat, essentially to dissolve the Palestinian Authority which coordinates with Israel, would have huge implications if carried out. Will the Palestinian President carry out this threat? It is unclear, though the general consensus appears to be that this declaration was more to appease the two-thirds of voters at
!
14!
home who said they wanted Abbas out of office; Abbas has served eleven years on a four-year term due to the dysfunctional political situation in Palestine. But should observers be so quick to consider Abbas’s statement a bluff? And if it is a bluff, should exiting from the Oslo Accords be an option that the Palestinian Authority should take more seriously? Most people would say no, arguing the Oslo Accords are the foundation of the beginning of the peace process and the two-state solution favored by most international actors. But has the Oslo Accords taken real steps towards the goal of stable statehood for Palestine? I would argue that it has not. To understand why, one must look at the definition of the state. Michael Mann, in his work The Autonomous Power of the State, says there are four criteria that define an autonomous state. Those criteria are differentiated set of institutions, centrality of political power, territorially demarcated area, and a monopoly of authoritative binding rule-making that is backed up by a monopoly on physical violence. Under the Oslo Accords, all of these criteria are unfulfilled or only partially fulfilled. The Palestinian Authority is given sole authority over the smallest of three areas and has civil control over a second area where Israeli forces control security. The largest area, the one currently occupied by Israeli settlements, is governed solely by Israel. Also under the general “Oslo umbrella” is the Paris Protocol which grants Israelis the authority to collect taxes on the Palestinian’s behalf. The agreement outlined above, while simplified for the sake of brevity, does not describe a true Palestinian state. This can be seen by examining each of Mann’s criteria individually.
15! ! First there is the necessity for a differentiated set of institutions. One of the most vital operations of the state is the collection of taxes and the spending of the collected revenue. However under the current agreement this institution is under the control of Israel and not the Palestinian Authority. While the Palestinian Authority does perform some basic civil functions, it cannot be considered a true state while this pivotal institution is under another state’s control. The second criteria is the centrality of political power. It is true that political power in Palestine is theoretically, putting aside for now the conflict with Hamas, centralized in the Palestinian Authority. The Authority does exert influence over Area A as designated in the Oslo Accords. But it is forced to share its influence in Area B, which leads to the violation of the third criteria of a territorially demarcated area. Putting aside at this time the Palestinian claims that Israel has violated the borders of the area designated as being under the sole control of the Palestinian Authority, the accords specifically grant Israel access to an area under the control of the Palestinian Authority. A state must have clear borders in order to be considered as such, and the Oslo Accords have not afforded this to the Palestinians. Most concerning is the authority granted within this shared area, which is the Israeli control over security. This violates the fourth, and possibly most widely acknowledged, criteria of statehood which is a monopoly on physical violence. The presence of Israeli security forces within Palestinian territory is the ultimate sign that Palestine has not been brought close to statehood by the Oslo Accords.
!
16!
The reason the Oslo Accords failed is not difficult to grasp; in fact most people acknowledge the agreement’s biggest fault even when singing its praises. The Oslo accords were ultimately supposed to be a temporary agreement, the terms of the agreement were based on a timeline of five years, while a more practical solution of Palestinian statehood was ironed out. In the end this solution never materialized. It is easy to blame aggressive Israeli policies on this, but there is an argument that the Palestinian leaders misjudged what they had gained with the Accords, viewing the agreement as an end not a beginning. Because of this misunderstanding social and political capital that could have been used to solidify the creation of a Palestinian state was wasted and the timeframe of the original agreement expired. What was left after this “temporary” agreement was the barely formed beginnings of a state in Palestine. So should President Abbas relinquish the paltry gains his country enjoys from the Oslo Accords and take on the role of an occupied territory? Ultimately, the faux state functions given to the Palestinian Authority are better than nothing. But Abbas’s declaration is reminder to the international community that the Oslo Accords do not assure any form of real statehood to Palestine. More than a challenge to Israel, Abbas is challenging the international community to once again prioritize the creation of a true Palestinian state.
17! !
Stability Over Chaos By Matthew Marani During the Cold War, the United States primarily jostled with the Soviet Union to maintain a global balance of power. This policy of containment manifested itself in the support of both democratic and authoritarian states that would align their nation’s interests to that of the United States. As was the case in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the United States was also willing to deploy its own military to prevent a state from enacting their own communist governments. The collapse of the Soviet Union has brought both advantages and disadvantages to the American security policy. Indeed, the loss of America’s chief geopolitical rival removed the largest existential threat to American national security, but also inexorably altered a high-risk, while simultaneously rational global political order. Upon the loss of 3,000 American lives on 9/11, George W. Bush enacted a global War on Terror to both target those responsible for this heinous attack on American civilians as well as states deemed to be sponsors of terrorism. In this respect, President Bush was “authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided” in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. At the heart of this sweeping military policy was the idea of nation building as a key component of the War on Terror. Through the destruction of regimes, and the creation of viable democracies, the Bush administration hoped to essentially construct new allies in troubled regions such as the Middle East. However, in acting with such unilateral brashness, the
!
18!
United States isolated itself and squandered hundreds of billions of dollars without any large tangible gains. In order to confront the security challenges that face the United States, we must dismantle the concept of fighting an unwinnable War on Terror but instead focus on global stability through the maintenance of a US-led political order and the advancement of regional partner’s capabilities to subdue their indigenous insurgent organizations. Given that America’s relative economic and military power is declining, it is imperative that future presidential administrations rely on greater multilateralism in unison with smart diplomacy that alters the American grand strategy to fit into regional power politics. While the United States is pivoting to the Pacific to open new markets for American businesses, curb nuclear proliferation and keep sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, the politics of the Middle East and Europe will still remain key components of U.S foreign policy. Currently, the Middle East is embroiled in multiple civil wars, in which Iran and allied Sunni states are utilizing proxies to determine outcomes to the conflicts that will suit their national interests. Humanitarianism aside, the key interests of the United States in the region is energy security, halting the growth of terrorist networks and the defense of the State of Israel. To ensure the flow of oil to the United States, and the global economy, a general balance of power must be restored in the Middle East. However, this mission should not be based on the widespread use of American military power in the region, but a threat of force from the last remaining hegemon if a Middle Eastern state expands its influence and power at the expense of its neighbors. Seeing as terror networks thrive in
19! ! anarchical environments, such as that created by the Syrian Civil War, a restoration of stability is perhaps the greatest tool against organizations such as the Islamic State. Additionally, the implementation of democracies in the region, although well intended, is a foolhardy endeavor that is detrimental to both American national interests and the maintenance of order. It may be politically unpopular, but the United States should support moderate authoritarian rulers who can promise internal stability, and amiable diplomacy with neighboring states.
!
20!
More Than a Chess Game By Kevin Wang A recent essay published by Alfred McCoy in The Nation hails Obama as a “foreign policy grandmaster.” The author, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor, portrays Obama as a cunning strategist whose diplomatic efforts gives the U.S. a “fighting chance to extend its global hegemony deep into the 21st century.” McCoy believes that Obama has gained allies from around the world and distanced them from Beijing’s influence, pointing to Obama’s restoration of relationships with Iran, Burma, and Cuba as well as his push for the TransPacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. While provocative, McCoy exaggerates the consequences of Obama’s diplomacy and oversimplifies the complexities of international politics. Writing at the tail end of Obama’s presidency, McCoy’s prediction of Obama’s legacy deviates from the liberal disappointment and conservative disparage of the president. Mitt Romney, for example, was quoted last month calling Obama’s performance a “disaster,” citing his inability to maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the Middle East and helplessness in the face of Russia’s support for the Syrian regime. Disapproval ratings for Obama’s foreign policy have consistently been higher than approval ratings since mid-2013, with disapproval currently at 49.3%. McCoy’s view of Obama as a defender of U.S. hegemony, then, is a refreshing deviation from mainstream criticisms. On the other hand, there are serious flaws in McCoy’s argument. He omits present and potential future tensions between the U.S. and Russia in his
21! ! essay. Instead, McCoy points to Beijing as Washington’s sole greatest foe. The methods used by Obama to contain Beijing as described by McCoy also warrant questioning. McCoy’s two main arguments involve Obama’s courtship of “rogue states” and his economic diplomacy. Of the three countries McCoy cites as having restored relations with the U.S., Burma and Cuba have tiny shares in the global economy. For oil-rich Iran, détente rather than rapprochement characterizes its relationship with the U.S. as disagreements over regional issues persist. McCoy may also be giving Obama too much credit for some of these diplomatic advances. While U.S. relations with Cuba were hostile from disastrous CIA intervention, the Cold War has ceased for over two decades and diplomacy has been a long time coming. While focusing on Obama’s minor diplomatic victories, McCoy overlooks the President’s financial and military support of Syrian rebel groups and Afghan warlords. These decisions appear to be justifiable countermeasures against ISIS and the Taliban, but the interests of rebel groups and warlords will not always align with those of the U.S. Backing these violent groups will likely undermine future efforts to achieve stability in the Middle East. McCoy’s second argument is that Obama has pulled Eurasian countries away from China toward American influence through the TPP and the TTPI. While McCoy portrays the TPP as a plan devised by Obama to contain China, he does not mention the trade agreement’s long history and broad range of goals. McCoy also leaves out the fact that the China could actually join the TPP, and that Beijing has been debating whether to do so at the cost of reform. McCoy
!
22!
states that Obama has put a halt to Beijing bringing “parts of Africa, Asia, and Europe into a unified “world island” through infrastructural development. However, China’s reach is hardly as extensive or ominous. China’s only formal military ally is North Korea, while the United States has military partnerships with more than 60 countries. Countries around China often see Beijing as a greater potential danger than Washington given China’s proximity, and they are more likely to welcome an alliance with the U.S. Still greater skepticism should be directed at McCoy’s view of international relations as a geopolitical game of chess. States routinely provoke each other for resources or territorial control. No one wishes to be weak or to be challenged. Still, to imagine states as pieces gobbling each other up is both careless and amoral. Henry A. Kissinger, known for this vision of realpolitik, is implicated in the deaths of thousands of innocents from bombings in Cambodia as well as the wiretapping of colleagues. Such ruthlessness is ill-fitted for today’s world of global interdependence. The view of China as a threat and enemy is the kind of mentality that starts wars, yet such alarmism is all too common today. An article in the neoconservative The National Interest calls on the U.S. to put more pressure on China by increasing U.S. military presence in the South China Sea and punishing China’s cyber offenses with sanctions and diplomatic freezes in order to avoid a “cyber Pearl Harbor.” McCoy himself has envisioned an end to American dominance through cyber warfare with the Chinese in a fanciful scenario entitled “World War III” in another article from 2010. It is highly unlikely for this
23! ! scenario to come true – China and U.S. are too deeply embedded in a mutually beneficial economic order. One of the appeals in rhetoric like McCoy’s is sensationalism. His choice of words -“imperial domination,” “continued planetary dominion,” “ruthless global game -” invite needless enmity and a mental framework of “us against them.” Spinning international relations into a geopolitical battleground is not the right way to maintain peace, and the world is far more complicated than a medieval game.
!
24!
The Consequences of Aiding Dictators By Jack Schreuer The policy of funding dictators and oppressive regimes was forged under the shadow of the Cold War and normalized in that era of terror. These autocrats held back the threat of communist expansion and by doing so increased America’s geopolitical power. For proof of the one need only look at the US’s actions in Latin American, where democratically elected governments were overthrown by the violent extension of American paranoia. This policy’s objective has been achieved; the Soviet Union was defeated but the strategy remains and has disastrous ramifications. The people who live under the heel of these dictators face brutal oppression as a direct consequence of US policy. The support for autocrats takes many forms, one of which is the subtle guise of foreign aid. Foreign aid can of course be a vehicle for good, but when given to authoritarian states, it is often used to hurt, not help, the population. For example aid given to Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam was used to forcibly resettle his citizens. In Zimbabwe, aid intended for “land reform” has been used to consolidate wealth into the hands of the ruling elite. The US has turned a blind eye to these horrific acts. The US’s expected 2016 foreign aid budget is allocating $400 million to Ethiopia, which is still under the grip of tranny, and $1.4 billion to Egypt, where President Sisi’s rule is becoming increasingly autocratic. The US foreign aid budget has become a vehicle for supporting and stabilizing the regime of dictators.
25! ! If actions speak louder than words, what does the policy of propping up dictators say? It proclaims to the international community that the human rights of those who live under such regimes are expendable, that the US is willing to not only be ambivalent to their oppression, but to fund it. The US’s role as the only remaining superpower gives it’s actions weight, such that they substantially contribute to establishing international norms. Instead of ostracizing regimes that commit human rights abuses, the international community begrudgingly deals with them like a bad neighbour, with little more than a slap on the wrist, if even that. The America’s actions erode away the taboo regarding human rights abuses, making them less diplomatically costly and therefore more likely to be committed. Even the benefits that come from this great sacrifice of human rights are unreliable at best. Not only does the supporting dictators undermine international norms surrounding human rights but also results in capricious support. Saddam Hussein is the most infamous example of a highly supported but untrustworthy and oppressive ally. The Reagan administration provided major support for Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war of the 80s in both logistics and arms. But unfortunately the sponsorship did not end there; under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld America helped Hussein create and stock his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. Hussein proceeded to uses these chemical weapons to commit ethnic cleansing in Kurdistan. The fact that the US assisted in the development of the Iraq weapons program means that Hussein must have reached the highest level of trust. It’s beyond clear that this trusting relationship broke down with the two gulf wars and the
!
26!
eventual toppling of Hussein. If we ended up at war with a dictator we trusted so much that we were willing to share extremely dangerous military technology, how can we expect continued support from dictators who receive far less support. Even if one is heartless enough to be ambivalent to enabling war crimes, it is impossible to deny that our support for Hussein hurt long term US interests. In exchange for “unalienable” rights and billions of taxpayer’s dollars, the US gets the fickle support of the oppressive regimes. Does that sound like a good deal to you? The benefit provided from supporting these authoritarian regimes has vanished; leaving an archaic policy that sows the seeds of repression. Instead of providing funds to tyrants the US could tie its foreign aid budget to State Departments’ human rights report. Our nation should refuse to fund states, which we have just months before declared violators of human rights. I’m not proposing the United States charge forth to exterminate oppression wherever it’s found, but we must not be on the side of despots. If we continue in our current practices, history, but probably not US history, will look back and see the suffering wrought by our atrocious foreign policy, and America will be known as the great source of oppression in the post-soviet area. Let’s act in a way that makes us proud or at least not ashamed to be Americans and ensure that in fifty years or a hundred years we are not seen as complacent bystanders, complicit in the oppression of people throughout the world.
27! !
Empires are Gone, but Empire Exists By Beckett Rueda The Athenians were famous for their navy, and this was no accident. The navy was crucial in two ways: it provided defense, and it provided empire. The benefits of the former need no explanation, but the latter is less obvious. Why would Athens need an empire? The reason lies in the land: Attica, the territory surrounding Athens, was incapable of growing enough to feed a city whose population rested at around 300,000. To support their city, the Athenians imported food from abroad. While the navy initially had a defensive mission, it became central to the Athenian project of establishing an empire of coastal and island city-states that could offer Athens control of the seas and maritime trade, which would let them compensate for Attica’s food deficiency and increase Athenian wealth in general. Unsettlingly, the Athenian empire created prosperity for Athens, and is likely responsible for much of what we treasure about Athenian culture. The threat posed by the Persian Empire provided the initial impetus for Athens to create a navy. Evidently the Athenians did not realize the full extent of Persia’s power when they sent twenty ships to support Greek colonies in Asia Minor revolting against Persian rule. The Athenians actions so infuriated the Persian king Darius that he swore vengeance. After he crushed the rebellion, he prepared a punitive expedition against Athens. Outnumbered two to one, the Athenians narrowly defeated his army in the battle of Marathon in 390 BCE. Despite their victory, some Athenians, like the general Themistokles, knew Persia would send another army. It was
!
28!
clear Athens would be overwhelmed on land. Eastern Greece, however, has rocky terrain, and is not fertile. Persian armies were massive, and in Greece they would quickly exhaust the countryside. Therefore, they would rely on their navy for supplies. Realizing that the sea was key, Themistokles convinced the Athenians to build a fleet, and within ten years Athens had a fleet of 300 ships. In the next invasion, the Greeks destroyed Persia’s navy and in one stroke deprived its army of their supplies, forcing them to withdraw. Having defeated Persia, the Athenian fleet was suddenly the most powerful in the eastern Mediterranean. Athens also had a network of allies it had led during the war. Seizing the moment, Athens formalized its network into a league whose purpose was to defend against future Persian incursions. Every member of the league paid tribute to a war chest, and the Athenians directed operations. From the beginning, the league prioritized targets that were of interest to Athens. Byzantium, the gateway port between the grain rich Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean, was swiftly liberated. The league’s navy also targeted pirates, thus promoting trade. Finally, in 365 BCE, the league ended direct Persian intervention in Greece. The Athenians, however, did not disband it. Attempts to withdraw were blocked, and in the case of forceful secession the Athenian navy arrived to restore order. The league had become an empire with Athens at its head, and Athens’ allies had become not only trading partners, but subjects. The empire allowed Athens to finally take her grain supply into her own hands, and brought the city huge wealth.
29! ! Athens’ attempts to defend its borders and compensate for its grain deficit had developed into the pursuit of wealth through tribute and maritime trade. The resulting economic prosperity in Athens made the city desirable to foreign intellectuals, like Herodotus. It is difficult to imagine the construction of such a grand monument as the Parthenon without the tribute collected from the empire. Playwrights benefited from the financial patronage of wealthy elites, who funded their plays as a public service. Perikles, one of the most powerful politicians in Athens, funded The Persians by Aeschylus, which survives to this day. It is perhaps worrying that so many celebrated features of Athenian culture owe part of their existence to the empire. Should that change how we see them? It would certainly be wrong to censure these works for two their connections to injustice they, after all, have life of their own, and certain Athenian plays can be read as critical of empire but it would also be wrong to not be the least bit perturbed. What does it say about the majestic Parthenon that its budget was stolen? It is a pertinent question in a world that is becoming far more interconnected than the Athenians’. There are many opportunities for a person living in the United States to benefit at another’s expense, and the great distance that often separates winner and loser obscures consequences and eliminates guilt. It is a conundrum that the Athenians had to face: for us to have our way of life, must others suffer? Can we live with that? And if we choose to live with that, what will that do to our souls? For though it often seems to be ignored in
! our time, the fact remains true that there are always consequences.
30!
31! !
When Cops are Robbers By James McArdle Criminal justice reform has incited much attention in the last few years. High profile shootings, large protests, and heavy-handed police responses have resulted in nationwide discussions of pressing issues that previously have skirted mass media attention. Headlines of major publications today frequently feature police militarization, institutionalized racism, and examples of police brutality. Rightfully so, many Americans are duly outraged about the disconcerting trends in law enforcement that plainly seem antithetical to American ideals. Social movements such as Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform coalitions comprised of unlikely allies, such as Van Jones and the Koch Brothers, are manifestations of the American zeal for equality under law and individual liberty. Still, the issue of civil asset forfeiture, a practice that has been in effect since the 1980’s, garners very little public discussion. If you told most Americans that law enforcement agencies could seize large amounts of cash and property from citizens not convicted of any crime, they probably would not believe you. Unfortunately, it is true; almost everywhere in this country the police can simply take cash, cars, or any other goods from citizens they merely suspect to be involved in criminal activity. Every day, innocent Americans get their property stolen by law enforcement agencies that are heavily incentivized to engage in a practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Consider the case of Anthony Smelley, a 22-year-old College student who had just received $50,000 in a car accident settlement. Smelley
!
32!
was carrying $17,500 on him when he was pulled over and had his car searched after a police dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, even though no narcotics were found, his money was seized. In most states, the police only need to suspect that money or property is being used for illegal purposes in order to seize it. The policy was enacted via RICO provisions and the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act with the purpose of enabling law enforcement to impede drug cartels through taking away their economic assets in order to support criminal prosecutions. Instead, most civil asset forfeiture cases deprive law-abiding citizens from their rightful property; in less than 20% of cases where civil asset forfeiture is used does a prosecution subsequently occur. Also, most examples of civil forfeiture, like Smelley’s, involve less than $25,000 worth of property being seized. These cases are technically not criminal proceedings, but civil ones if victims of forfeiture want their property back the onus is on them and they are deprived of normal legal rights bestowed upon those charged with a crime. Not only have victims already been deprived of their property without due process, but also they are not entitled to an attorney by the state (technically they are not even defending themselves) yet are legally considered third party claimants. The legal costs needed to appeal forfeiture cases are normally higher than that, making many victims, particularly poor ones, unlikely to challenge the seizure. State level legislative reforms to curb this clearly unconstitutional practice have been fruitless because of a tactic local police departments can use to effectively countermand state law known as equitable sharing. This refers
33! ! to the practice of the local police departments kicking up a percentage, usually about 20%, of the booty seized to the Federal Government in accounts in the Justice Department and Treasury in order to circumvent state restrictions on civil forfeiture. Many states have raised the threshold of evidence required to seize property from the low-level standard of a preponderance of evidence as currently required by the Federal Government. However, local police can skirt these restrictions by participating in equitable sharing. Essentially as long as the Feds are getting a cut, local police departments are allowed to ignore state law and seize the property of innocent Americans. Law enforcement agencies are incentivized to participate in this legal plunder because in most states it directly benefits their budgets. The system is also rife with abuse; police officials have been caught using forfeiture money to pay for parties and personal loans. Departmental “Wish lists� have been uncovered that allegedly guided officers on the types of cars and other toys they should attempt to seize. Since 2008, law enforcement agencies participated in 55,000 seizures, pulling in over $3 billion worth of bounty. Many police departments have become reliant on the cash flow civil forfeiture brings into budgets. What used to be considered supplemental income is now being normalized as a stream of income for police departments and town governments. Civil asset forfeiture, like other troublesome police trends, are mainly a result of legislation inspired by the War on Drugs; this war is a failed federal program that seeks to treat a pressing healthcare issue with handcuffs and has
!
34!
subsequently deprived hundreds of thousands of Americans of life, liberty, and property.
CONTRIBUTORS Matt Marani James McArdle Luca Mobilia Beckett Rueda Jack Schreuer Kevin Wang Nate White DESIGNER Izzy Gaw WEB EDITOR Matt Marani PRINT EDITOR Jack Schreuer For more information contact: jschreue@skidmore.edu or mmarani@skidmore.edu