Berkeley Political Review Winter 2014 by Berkeley Political Review

Berkeley Political Review

The Fuss About Fracking In California

HOW COUNTER TERROR CAUSED POLIO IN PAKISTAN

THE INVENTION OF THE ADHD EPIDEMIC IN AMERICA

POLICE DRONES AND THE POLITICS OF PRIVACY

volume xiV, nO. 1 WINTER 2014

PIPE DREAMS

EDITOR’S NOTE

A Good Time for Politics

MASTHEAD

Dear Reader,

BUSINESS MANAGER Nikhil Kotecha

I can’t say that it’s a good time for policymaking, but it’s certainly a good time for politics. Politics is about action, reaction, perception, identity, momentum, reversals, messaging, and framing - in a word, strategy. I want to draw your attention to a certain dimension of political strategy – timing. Considering what happened before, during, and after a major policy announcement can reveal as much as the announcement itself. Take President Obama’s recent executive action on immigration revealed on November 20th. There’s obvious sense in announcing the policy post-midterm elections. If announced before voting began, and the Republicans won, politicos could develop a narrative that the election was a referendum on the White House’s lawless abuse of power. Post-election, many of the complaints about constitutionality overreach remain, but the onus remains squarely on the Republican majority in both chambers of Congress to exercise its own authority to legislate immigration policy. In a similar vein, the president has escalated criticism of the Keystone XL pipeline extension post-election, an issue examined by our cover story, “Pipe Dreams.” Next, consider the state of emergency Governor Jay Nixon ordered in Missouri on November 17th. What’s interesting is that the timing of the declaration was not legal, but strategically necessary. The order was in anticipation of unrest in the wake of a grand jury verdict on whether to indict Officer Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. Missouri law requires that a state of emergency be declared in the wake of an emergency, not in anticipation of one that might happen. By declaring a state of emergency before unrest emerged, Nixon sent a message that shaped subsequent coverage of Ferguson. Less focus was placed on why Officer Wilson shot an unarmed black man, and more on how dangerous unrest could get, a narrative that credits law enforcement and discredits criticism of authority and procedure. Waiting to mobilize the Missouri National Guard until after riots broke out would be a reaction instead of a plan. It would also draw attention to the grievances of the rioters who caused the state of emergency. Seizing the moment requires preparation and alertness. Now more than ever we invite you to read through this edition of the Berkeley Political Review to better understand the issues that affect you, and the strategy shaping the issues. Sincerely,

Matthew Symonds Editor-in-Chief

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Matthew Symonds

CALIFORNIA EDITOR Allison Arnold DEPUTY CALIFORNIA EDITOR Rebecca Berman U.S. EDITOR Claire Kaufman DEPUTY U.S. EDITOR Arshia Singh WORLD EDITOR Abhik Pramanik WORLD CO-EDITOR Alex Durán OPINION EDITOR Carrie Yang DEPUTY OPINION EDITOR Lindsey Lohman ONLINE EDITOR Anna Bella Korbatav DESIGN TEAM Haruko Ayabe Xiao Li TECHNICAL DIRECTORS Vikram Baid Griffin Potrock EDITORS EMERITUS Elena Kempf Niku Jafarnia Hinh Tran Jeremy Pilaar STAFF Adora Svitak, Anthony Carrasco, Ben Choi, Daniel Ahrens, Gloria Cheung, Griffin Potrock, Jackson Rees, Jae Ho Li, James Yixuan Zheng, Jeffrey Kuperman, Jing Wei Angel, Jordan Ash, Julia Konstantinovsky, Kevin Yao, Lani Frazer, Leah Daoud, Lucy Song, Madeleine Ayer, Madison Chapman , Manahil Shah, Mekhala Hoskote, Merrill Weber, Michael Clark, Mina Abdullah, New Members, Nitisha Baronia, Priyanka Mohanty, Quinn Schwab, Rouchen Huang, Sharon Licht, Sophie Khan, Suleman Khan, Wendie Yeung, and Yun Ru Phua. ASUC sponsored. The content of this publication does not reflect the view of the University of California, Berkeley or the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC). Advertisements appearing in the Berkeley Political Review reflect the views of the advertisers only, and are not an expression of the editorial opinion or views of the staff.

www. bpr.berkeley.edu

Berkeley Political Review Volume XIV, No. 1 / Winter 2014

Gyu Hyung Choi

Julis Konstantinovsky

Lead Daoud

Ruochen Huang

Sharon Licht

Michael Clark

Anthony Carrasco

Mina Abdullah

Merrill Weber

Daniel Ahrens

Griffin Potrock

Jeffrey Kuperman

Madison Chapman

Nitisha Baronia

Suleman Khan

Yun-Ru Phua

Hanna Haddad

Yixuan Zheng

Jordan Ash

Lani Frazer Quinn Schwab

24 25

Adora Svitak

Priyanka Mohanty

CALIFORNIA Bored Voters Why many Californians consider voting a waste of time. Let’s Talk About Sex A new law redefines consent on California campuses. These Are Not the Drones You Expected The politics of police drones and privacy in California. High Speed Rail: Need for Speed? California’s transportation revolution. The Fuss About Fracking Why California should ban hydraulic fracturing. U.S. Do Not Feed The Animals The dehumanization of the homeless in American cities. The Echo That Can’t Be Ignored Delaying immigration reform didn’t save the Senate. America Incorporated The privatization of war in America Right Wing Convergence The recent courtship between mainstream Republicans and the Tea Party. Don’t Put All Your Eggs in One Farm Bill America’s overloaded agricultural policy. (COVER STORY) Pipe Dreams The White House continues to drag its feet on Keystone XL. WORLD Forging a Response Vietnam’s strategy for combatting the rise of China. The Selectively Remembered Continent Drug crime and state non-intervention in Peru threatens social stability. Britain De-Unionizing Political pressure is pushing Britain further from the European Union. The Viral Consequences: Pakistan’s Polio Crisis How American counterterrorism policy has led to the rise of polio in Pakistan The Afghan Honeymoon An increasingly positive outlook for Afghan politics. OPINION Teaching to Transfer The importance of credentialed professors in California’s community colleges Plastic Over Paper Why the plastic bag ban might not be as green as you think. The Art of Intervention The ISIS threat to China The Evil Politics of Wild Horse Roundups Humanitarian Intervention A proactive approach to solving immigration. Children Left Behind The United States is creating the ADHD epidemic. Why We Are to Blame For The Ebola Epidemic Inequality and corruption in the international arena. Cover design by Haruko Ayabe. Protestors block an oil train in Everett, Washington. Source: Associated Press

www.bpr.berkeley.edu

CALIFORNIA

Bored Voters

WHY MANY CALIFORNIANS CONSIDER VOTING A WASTE OF TIME

n August of this year, the city of Los Angeles proposed a plan to make voters eligible for cash prizes as a way to boost voter turnout in municipal elections. The proposal didn’t fare too well, speaking legislatively. Critics regarded the plan as practically a joke, listing countless reasons why the proposal should not be taken seriously: government can’t bribe voters to lure them to voting booths, voting will become a special form of lottery under the city’s plan, citizens with no political knowledge or interest might cast a vote for unqualified candidate for the sake of cash prize, and so forth. Is this the best solution? Perhaps not. But the reason why the Los Angeles government might have proposed such an unconventional plan is noteworthy. After all, LA has the right intent— trying to increase voter turnout. It’s bad enough that the United States is behind any other Western industrialized democracy in terms of voter turnout rate (calculated by the number of voters divided by the number of eligible voters), but California’s ninth ranking as the state with lowest turnout rate raises even more serious questions about democratic efficacy in California. For example, general consensus exists among political scientists and other scholars that the higher the turnout, the closer the election (Source: Calderia et al., “The Mobilization of Voters in Congressional Elections”). On the other hand, the lower the turnout, the more easily the incumbent is reelected. Without close elections, competition decreases among incumbents and challengers. In turn, more and more Americans no longer feel the need to cast their vote, losing their enthusiasm for politics and elections. Californians’ lack of political interest in terms of elections is evident in 2014 primary elections, when the turnout of registered voters was at 25.1%, a record low in history and a decrease from 33% in 2010.

Source: Getty Images.

So, the question has to be asked: why California, the former leader of the nation with some of the highest turnout rates in 20th cen3 | Berkeley Political Review

GYU HYUNG CHOI

tury primary elections? First, the two-party system in the United States is a major culprit. To be sure, there are more than two candidates on almost every ballot in U.S. elections. It’s just that there are only two candidates, one from the Democratic Party and the other from the Republican Party, who can actually win. The plurality system creates “winner-take-all” politics in which one candidate with the most number of votes carries all the votes in a district or a state with him. As a result, only two parties survive. Perceiving a lack of a diverse choice of candidates representing a wide range of political ideologies, many potential voters feel their exact needs and interests are not satisfied by the two viable choices given to them. But the two-party system is present in the other 49 states as well. What makes California voter turnout particularly low is that California is a non-battleground state that has been a solid blue state ever since the 1992 election. Even when Republicans won a majority in both the House and the Senate in the 2014 midterm election, only 15 out of 53 House seats went to the hands of Republicans in California (Source: California Secretary of State). A closer look at the gubernatorial election between Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Neel Kashkari also points to the lack of competition in California. Before the election, the Los Angeles Times-USC Dornsife poll predicted that Brown would beat Kashkari by a 56% to 37% ratio. The poll was incredibly close, considering that actual result came out to be 59.4% of voters supporting Brown and 40.6% of them voting for Kashkari. A difference of 18.8 points in gubernatorial election is enormous compared to other states. For example, Republican Charlie Baker won the governorship of Massachusetts only by a 48.5% to 46.6% ratio, with a difference of 1.9 points. After studying the chasm between Brown and Kashkari, Brown’s choice to visit his class’s 50th Yale Law reunion in Connecticut rather than campaign in California was not worth criticizing after all. Today, California is controlled by a Democratic governor, two Democratic senators, and a predominantly Democratic House, once again making it one of the bluest states in the nation. As a result, more and more Californians see voting as a waste of time.

Source: Ted Roll.

Research shows that radical changes in electoral institutions, such as adopting a multiparty system, would be helpful in boosting voter turnout, but there is almost no chance of such a change (Source: Martinez, “Why is American Turnout so Low, and Why Should We Care?”). It is also unlikely that freedom-sensitive Americans will adopt compulsory voting, which, according to its critics, is a violation of the freedom not to vote. California and other non-battleground states must investigate new and practical ways to improve voter turnout to lessen the burden of time for voters and mobilizing potential voters through micro-targeted contacts and advertisements. The Pulitzer Prize-winning author William Faulkner once described California as the state where “the sun shines and nothing happens.” This has never been truer than in today’s noncompetitive electoral market, where Californians continue to lose incentive to vote. To make something happen, to guarantee the democratic principle of one person, one vote, and to reflect the diverse population of the Golden State to its electorate, we ought to do something about voter participation. ■

Californians wait in line to vote. Source: Damian Dovarganes, Associated Press.

Let’s Talk About Sex A NEW LAW REDEFINES CONSENT ON CALIFORNIA College CAMPUSES JULIA KONSTANTINOVSKY

Yes, let’s talk about sex, because for collegiate young adults with raging hormones, we don’t talk about sex nearly enough—or not positively, at least. The White House has declared sexual assault an epidemic on college campuses. The reality of sexual assault and rape on college campuses strikes close to home, as UC Berkeley is one of three California universities under investigation for its responses to sexual violence cases. “These crimes often go unreported on college campuses; in large part due to the victims believe that authorities will not take action,” California Assemblymember Das Williams announced at the Higher Education Committee Roundtable on September 24, 2014 at UC Berkeley. “We must ensure that our campuses are offering support and resources, investigating crimes, and prosecuting perpetrators in order to get the true magnitude of the problem.” According to seven student panelists at the roundtable discussion of the issue, the university has inadequately dealt with perpetrators, which prevented the majority of assault victims from stepping forward and seeking justice. In fact, as Assemblyman Williams restated to administrators, “[the] students are unaware of a single rapist who has been expelled.” This is an unacceptable issue, which is all too familiar to universities nationwide. The prevalence of sexual violence is certainly not new according to a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study asserting that twenty percent of women and six and one tenth percent of men experience some form of sexual assault during their college years. Rallying cries across United States universities have been echoing since the 1980s, when Jane Clery was raped and murdered in her dorm room at Lehigh University, an event that led to the passage of the Clery Act in 1990. This law required colleges and universities to make information on campus crimes public (rather than obscure the facts to maintain their reputations), and to follow through with investigative procedures in cases of sexual crimes. This remains an issue today, and the lack of proper administrative practices at universities has led to the passage of Senate Bill 967, informally known as “Yes Means Yes.” Many consider “Yes Means Yes” a turning point in how California colleges and universities deal with sexual assault. While it will not necessarily deter attackers, this bill limits the definition of consent to a point that holds attackers liable. Critics disapprove of this aspect of the bill because it considers attackers guilty until proven innocent, and even then, the “he-said, she-said” argument typically associated with assault cases would remain an obstacle. However, the way SB 967 redefines consent is exactly what makes it the first law of its kind. It states that consent is an “affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity”. By shifting the emphasis of consent from requiring the potential victim to say “no” to both parties’ clear agreement, the bill elevates sex to a mutually active decision. Proponents of the bill assert that this makes sex both safer and more enjoyable. Furthermore, the bill does not accept silence or lack of ability due to drugs or alcohol as consent, clarifying that the absence of a “no” does not imply consent. What makes this bill critical in terms of handling sex crimes is that it sets up a uniform standard which current campus investigations lack: that the only kind of consent is affirmative consent, or an explicit “yes.” Previous reliance on the need for a “no” to actually consider assault as criminal muddled the idea of what exactly constituted a “no”—

CALIFORNIA silence? Inhibited mental states due to drug and alcohol influence? What if a victim, for some reason or another, just couldn’t say “no”? None of these instances be considered rape without SB 967; in fact, a victim would probably have been reprimanded for exaggerating the situation, for leading on his or her attacker by dressing a certain way or “being too drunk.” The blame for assault too often landed (and still lands) on victims. This seems to bother opponents of “Yes Means Yes,” who fear the justice of the accused might be lost within the vague terminology of the bill, such as “expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions,” which they say leaves room for confusion and possibly resulting in unfair charges on the accuser. However, the main point of the bill is for the parties involved in the sexual activity to both seek a straightforward “yes.” This eliminates confusion from the situation and effectively places blame on the guilty party if the affirmative consent is not stated. The political significance of “Yes Means Yes” is that it addresses victim-blaming as a critical issue. Although the bill will not necessarily discourage sexual aggression, it will fundamentally redefine the way in which assault cases are prosecuted in order to give victims proper justice. In fact, it is already working by inspiring us to talk more about sex—this bill requires people to establish that they’ve talked about sex before actively deciding to engage in it. Though opposing arguments consider this bill to be too controlling over young adults’ sexual endeavors, the fact remains that without that “yes,” a sexual act is assault. Consent is sexy, and it is also mandatory at every stage of sexual activity. This is the basis for a sex-positive culture. Still, the modern populace appears trapped within the abyss of rape culture, where joking about rape is okay and unconsciousness paired with reeking of vodka is tantamount to an invitation for sex. “Implied consent is so evasive that women who walk by a construction site with too much cleavage deserve catcalls, [and] women who wear short skirts in a club earn a grope,” sex and relationship expert Marrie Lobel writes. The root of the problem is, as Lobel elaborates, the idea of “implied consent,” or that a woman (and while the effects of rape culture are not limited to women, women are used as the example to continue her argument) actually “deserves” or “earns” to be treated in such a way. There is a reciprocity of actions implied, as if the woman’s decision to wear a certain outfit is subject to acts of sexual assault, and she should be accepting of these consequences as something she deserves. Unfortunately, rape culture has similarly infiltrated colleges and universities beyond student life and up to an administrative level, which has led to the shocking disparity between the widespread presence of sexual assault and the limited extent of punishment. The passage of “Yes Means Yes” on September 28, 2014 serves as a significant step towards changing this. The potential scope of this law on college campuses aims to discard the idea of “implied consent” that promotes rape culture and foster a sex-positive culture of mutual agreement instead. This would make sex a desirable activity for two, rather than a consequence for one. ■

Sex is sexy if we do it right, and that includes talking about it first. Source: flickr.

Berkeley Political Review | 4

CALIFORNIA

These Are Not the Drones You Expected THE POLITICS OF POLICE DRONES AND PRIVACY IN CALIFORNIA LEAH DAOUD

CineCopter II drones, such as the one pictured above, are valued by law enforcement for their easy manuverability. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

he conflict between liberty and security has once again reared its ugly head in Sacramento as privacy rights have come under heavy fire. On September 28, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed AB 1327, a bill that would have created stricter guidelines regarding the use of drones in law enforcement. The bill, which passed in both the Senate and the Assembly, would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before using an unmanned aircraft or drone, except in emergencies such as fires or hostage situations. It also would have prohibited police from using drones as weapons, required them to provide public notice if they purchased a drone, and made it illegal to keep photographs collected by drones for more than one year unless such photographs were pertinent to a legal action. In light of the bill’s widespread bipartisan support, Governor Brown’s decision came as quite a blow to privacy advocates throughout the state. “I am very disappointed by this democratic Governor’s decision to veto a bill that provided common sense protections to protect privacy rights and civil liberties,” said California State Assemblymember Jeff Gorell, one of the bill’s authors, in a press release on September 29. Governor Brown’s decision highlights the ever-growing tension over the role of law enforcement agencies in the public sphere. However, this is no justification to abandon attempts 5 | Berkeley Political Review

at stricter regulation of the police. After recent NSA scandals, Californians feel they have the right to demand stronger Fourth Amendment protections because unrestrained surveillance poses a serious threat to American liberty. As such, the veto of AB 1327 leaves Californians open to police misuse of drone surveillance and ultimately creates an unfavorable precedent for future legislative decisions. The case for drone regulation is strong. On September 4, 2014, over 40 law professors in the US reaffirmed the importance of warrant requirements for police drones. They wrote: “The warrant requirement is a time-honored, Constitutional principle, written into both the United States and California constitutions, and reflecting the simple principle that law enforcement should, absent genuine exigent circumstances, justify use of an invasive search to an independent judge.” Without limits on drone surveillance, the potential for abuse is strong. As recent NSA scandals have revealed, there is little holding back the government from actively spying on U.S. citizens and other allies. Without the safeguards provided by AB 1327, law enforcement officials can potentially track unwitting citizens, target marginalized communities, develop profiles on individuals, and use collected information out of context. The requirement that police obtain a warrant before using a drone would then be a crucial check on law enforcement.

But not everyone approved of AB 1327. Governor Brown vetoed the bill because he claimed that it placed too many restrictions on law enforcement officials. In defense of his decision, he issued a statement on September 28, claiming that the bill’s exceptions “appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.” As he sees it, the bill’s privacy protections would have created greater obstacles for police, beyond what the Constitution requires. However, this assessment conflicts with some of the bill’s stipulated conditions, namely that obtaining a warrant is not necessary in the case of a legitimate emergency. UC Berkeley Political Science Professor Alan Ross speculated on the political rationale behind Brown’s decision: “Because Brown is popular and faces no serious opposition, he doesn’t have to worry about backlash so we have to wonder who was lobbying him ... We’re pretty naive as a society as to what’s been going on. Where are we going to start drawing the lines? Who has our records? How much is being looked at and by whom?” Without further guidelines from the government, local authorities have interpreted state laws, with often controversial results. San Jose became the first Bay Area city to acquire a police drone earlier this year. After applying for federal funds to purchase the drone in May 2013, the San Jose Police Department quietly slipped the purchase into a November City Council consent agenda and subsequently received the drone this past January. As the purchase only became known this past July, the decision to acquire and use the drone was never open to public debate. Because the actions of the San Jose Police Department were deliberately shrouded in secrecy, the decision to acquire the drone without public knowledge, much like the decision to veto AB 1327, is the stuff of surveillance state rumblings. Because the Fourth Amendment protects privacy, drones and other surveillance technology should not be exempt from this Constitutional right. As AB 1327’s bipartisan support indicates, privacy is a right Californians hold dear and it’s a right that that the state government must protect. To ensure justice, law enforcemnt should not abandon due process and, as such, the veto of AB 1327 sets a disappointing precedent for future legislative decisions. ■

CALIFORNIA

High Speed Rail: Need for Speed? CALIFORNIA’S TRANSPORTATION REVOLUTION RUOCHEN HUANG

Computer rendering of the proposed California High-Speed Rail System. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

n November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A (Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century), which allocated funds towards a high-speed rail system (HSR). The train is planned to connect San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin, and would eventually extend from Sacramento to San Diego. Yet, skepticism, political gridlock, and a $55 billion funding gap has stalled preliminary construction. As Governor Jerry Brown ran for an unprecedented fourth term against Rep. challenger Neel Kashkari in the upcoming California gubernatorial election, HSR moved to the forefront of the political agenda. Consequentially, factors including ridership and economic implications must be considered in order to decide whether Jerry Brown’s high-speed rail is truly a feasible transportation solution or simply a derailed pipe dream. It is clear that transportation infrastructure in California needs to be modernized to accommodate increased congestion and to maintain economic competitiveness. High-speed rail is a potential solution. But like any other big infrastructure project, HSR is not without its naysayers. The main criticism against such a project in California is that it is too expensive. Indeed, it was only recently on July 31, 2014 that a lower court ruling was overturned to allow for the reselling of bonds to help fund the system. While it is true that the current total projected cost of $68 billion is perceived as wasteful spending, it is necessary to consider that expanding other forms of transportation, such as airports and highways, would cost approximately $171 billion. In fact, the implementation of high-speed rail would “lower the number of intercity automobile passengers on highways by up to 70 million annually” and would “cost less than half the amount of expanding freeways and airports to meet future intercity travel demand and would eliminate the need to construct 3000 lane miles of highways, 91 airport gates and five additional airport runways” according to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Comparatively, then, it seems that an investment in high-speed rail would not only fix the infrastructure issue, but it would also be more cost effective. A shift to HSR would enhance American rail manufacturing, reduce congestion, and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions through faster, greener, and less oil dependent energy.

The creation and expansion of high-speed rail would connect more than 830 miles of transit lines, catalyzing a revitalization of declining communities by linking small towns to economic centers. This linkage would not only spur commercial development, but also result in residential construction and job creation. It is projected that in the Central Valley alone, where the first leg of high-speed rail would be implemented, construction will result in over 160,000 construction-related jobs, which in turn will stimulate the overall United States economy. In 1956, the Federal Highway Act was passed and allocated more than $30 billion dollars towards the Interstate Highway System. Being the largest public construction project at the time, this legislation stimulated the growth of roadside towns and massively expanded the automobile industry. In effect, the Federal Highway Act of 1956 created modern suburbia. Similarly, high-speed rail has the potential to create new interconnected communities. Proponents of the system assert that data regarding the use of HSR in Japan and Europe prove that there will be a high demand for railroad innovation. Yet with the use of cars and airplanes as primary forms of transportation in California, it is rational to believe that there will be low ridership for HSR. Proponents do not take into account that Europe and Japan have communities centered around trains, while California is largely dependent on a network of highways. As a result, while projected analysis and models are useful to predict cash flows and revenue, it is difficult to decisively determine ridership at this early stage of conception. A large part of Governor Brown’s platform is premised on the construction and implementation of high-speed rail. Allocation of funds toward the project is not insignificant, and many voters may be opposed to this large increase in taxes and spending. There is no doubt that the benefits of extending lines between small towns and through cities will create new hubs for economic development throughout the state. The nexus question, however, is whether high-speed rail can generate enough ridership to replace and complement traditional modes of transportation, such as automobiles. Regardless, it is clear that the project has the potential to revolutionize the transportation industry and economy of California, and consequently the nation at large. ■ Berkeley Political Review | 6

California

The Fuss About Fracking WHY CALIFORNIA SHOULD BAN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING SHARON LICHT

Fracking near McKittrick, California. Source: David McNew, Getty Images.

f you enjoy drinking clean water and breathing fresh air, you should know about fracking. Fracking, formally known as hydraulic fracturing, is the process of pumping water, sand, and chemicals deep underground to break open reservoir rock and allow the oil and natural gas within to escape. Toxic waste, air pollution, public health issues, increased earthquake risk, climate destabilization via methane release, and groundwater contamination are among the many reasons Californians should be outraged at the proliferation of fracking throughout the state. Federal policy development in the early 2000s paved the way for the expansion of fracking in California. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that hydraulic fracturing did not pose any danger to underground drinking water resources. Soon after, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Proponents of the practice claim that fracking is key to unlocking domestic natural gas supply, which should increase US energy security, boost local economies, and produce clean, affordable fuel. Home to about two thirds of the country’s shale oil supply, California is a hotspot for companies seeking profitable sites to frack. The Monterey shale formation stretches 1,750 square miles from the Bay Area through Los Angeles, and off the coast to outlying islands. Estimates of removable natural gas stored in Monterey shale reach up to 13.7 billion barrels. However, the U.S. Energy Administration (EA) recently slashed that projection by 96 percent, confirming that just 600 million barrels could be extracted using current technology (which includes acid treatments, horizontal drilling, and fracking). John Staub, petroleum exploration and production analyst who led the EA’s research, said that the agency has “not seen evidence that oil extraction in this area is very productive using techniques like fracking.” Staub explained that the former, flawed predictions and estimates could be attributed to “a dearth of knowledge about geological differences among the oil fields” throughout the U.S. Despite this setback for the oil industry, “it is way too early to say that this is the death of fracking in California,” according to Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute. As oil companies invest millions of dollars in technology to circumvent the geo7 | Berkeley Political Review

logical challenges associated with extracting from Monterey shale, fracking will continue to spread across the state. Therefore it is important to consider the environmental implications of such an aggressive and resource-intensive extraction process. To reiterate: fracking is the high-pressure injection of a mixture of fluids and chemical propping agents into reservoir rock, which fractures the rock and leaves underground vertical cracks through which oil and natural gas can flow out. Chemical proppants keep the vertical fractures open long after the waste fluid, known as flowback, is removed. Flowback is a major concern for environmentalists and the general public alike. On October 6, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) obtained state documents revealing that nearly three billion gallons of oil industry wastewater have been illegally dumped into California aquifers. High concentrations of thallium, arsenic, and nitrates were discovered in water-supply wells close to wastewater-injection wells, which are used by the oil industry to dispose of fracking fluid and other contaminants. These aquifers, protected under the Safe Drinking Water Act, should provide Californians with clean drinking water and farming irrigation. Due to the expansion of fracking throughout the state, 1,552 active wastewaterinjection wells are compromising the quality of that water. This fact comes as no surprise after a federally commissioned report released in August determined that fracking in California happens at much shallower depths than previously realized. The report concluded that half the oil wells fracked in California are within 2,000 feet of the surface and close to aquifers. Vertical fractures through which oil and gas flow can extend up to 1,969 feet, allowing toxic fracking fluid to leach into drinking water. To give these numbers some context: most fracking occurs in Kern County, where drinking water wells lie just 600-800 feet below the surface. The contamination of key aquifers with carcinogenic pollutants is happening during the worst recorded drought in California’s history. Not only does flowback pollute drinking water sources, but the process of fracking itself requires large amounts of clean water. It is difficult to pinpoint just how much clean water fracking usurps, but voluntary data from oil companies points to an average of 166,700 gallons of freshwater per fracked well. The true amount is likely greater than that reported by oil companies. To add insult to injury, the vast majority of oil and gas wells—96 percent—are located in areas experiencing severe water shortages. In addition to using vast amounts of California’s scarce water supply and contaminating groundwater, fracking is also tied to air pollution, ocean dumping, and increased earthquake risk. Offshore fracking, mostly occurring in southern California, threatens coastal communities with hazardous air pollution. Further, oil platforms are permitted to dump nine billion gallons of wastewater, including fracking chemicals, into the ocean annually. At least ten of the most commonly used chemicals endanger a plethora of marine species, including fish and sea otters. Lastly, it is gravely concerning that all of Southern California’s offshore wastewaterinjection wells are within three miles of an active fault, because injecting fracking wastewater underground induces earthquakes. And yet, fracking enthusiasts (read: oil companies) still argue the extraction process will serve as a tool for bolstering domestic energy security. The state legislature still supports fracking and responded to growing public concern with Senate Bill (SB) 4 in 2013. This law requires oil companies to submit public notices, notify local communities, and offer to do groundwater testing before fracking a well. Also, within 60 days, the companies must provide to regulators (from the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR)) the amount of water used and chemicals involved in their fracking process. It sounds promising, but some oil companies have submitted incomplete reports to DOGGR, while others have failed to provide any information to the regulators. Further, DOGGR has struggled to post fracking information online in a timely manner, and claims they are short-staffed to process the reports. ■

Do Not Feed the Animals THE DEHUMANIZATION OF THE HOMELESS IN AMERICAN CITIES MICHAEL CLARK

90 year old WWII veteran has been cited four times for feeding the homeless on public property after an ordinance banning the activity went into effect in Fort Lauderdale on October 31st. The city’s anti-food-sharing ordinance is just the latest example of a growing trend of homeless criminalization proliferating across the nation. A new study by the National Coalition for the Homeless shows an increasing number of cities are passing “quality of life laws,” further marginalizing an already extremely marginalized community. According to the October 2014 report, 21 U.S. cities have enacted regulations on feeding the homeless since January 2013, with further measures considered in an additional 10 cities. These measures often take three forms: restrictions on public space, enforcement of food safety regulations, or relocation of services. Restrictions on public space typically force food sharing organizations, like churches, to acquire permits or the city’s permission to operate within a public space, such as a park. In Houston, organizations must obtain the city’s consent to feeding the homeless on public land, or face upwards to a $2,000 fine. In Hayward, California, organizations must obtain a permit and $500 dollars of insurance to feed the homeless, but are only allowed one feeding per month. Other cities have also imposed stringent food safety regulations on organizations feeding the homeless. St. Louis, Missouri, requires food sharing groups to only serve prepackaged food unless they obtain a permit. In Salt Lake City, organizations must obtain a food handler’s permit to prepare and serve food. Permits to operate in public spaces and food safety requirements are often too high an entry for food-sharing groups like Food Not Bombs, which operate on shoe-string budgets, relying on volunteers and donations to function. Increased marginalization of the homeless has also occurred through relocation of services. In some cities, residents of particular communities have complained vociferously enough to compel officials or the charity groups themselves to cease or move their operations. In Charlotte, North Carolina, organizations can no longer feed the homeless outside; instead, they must use a building provided by the county. Homeless individuals must also deal with the increasing proliferation of sit-lie laws, which prohibit sitting or lying down in public spaces. A 2014 report by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty found that 53% of cities surveyed have sit-lie ordinances, a 43% increase from 2011. Many of these cities are on the West Coast, including San Francisco, Palo Alto, Seattle, and Santa Cruz. In early October, Monterey joined this Pacific wall of ignominy, enacting a regulation banning “obstructions” from certain city sidewalks. These prohibitions on food-sharing and sit-lie regulations appear to be based on fundamental misunderstandings of poverty and fears of negative economic consequences. Critics of food-sharing often argue that giving to the homeless perpetuates homelessness. Last March, Houston mayor Annise Parker claimed “making it easier for someone to stay on the streets is not humane,” adding that organizations that feed the homeless merely “keep them on the street longer.” Her statement is identical to common arguments against welfare and government “hand-outs,” echoing the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality commonly found in conservative circles. Such statements assume that social safety net programs or services like food, welfare and food stamps make the conditions

U.S. of poverty and homelessness for otherwise perfectly capable individuals not just bearable, but preferable to employment. But the actual realities of poverty in America do not reflect this self-help credo. According to a study by the United States Conference of Mayors, in 2013, 30% of homeless adults in America’s cities were severely mentally ill, 17% were physically disabled, 16% were domestic violence victims, and nearly 20% were employed. These statistics demonstrate the devastating effects of a minimum wage with a real value 12.1% less than its 1967 value, cuts to public health and mental services, the slashing of public assistance programs, and a 13% loss in low-income housing concurring with rising rental costs. In fact, a study by Goldman School of Public Policy professors Stephen Raphael and the late John Quigley found that higher rents in “housing markets are positively associated with higher levels of homelessness.” Fears regarding the economic consequences of food sharing as well as sitting and lying are also unwarranted. Proponents of such regulations often claim that the presence of homelessness drive customers away from businesses, resulting in weaker local economies. Berkeley mayor Tom Bates, discussing the ultimately rejected sit-lie ordinance Measure S, claimed “people who sit in front of stores are discouraging people from coming in.” However, a survey conducted by Boalt students examining this claim found “no meaningful evidence to support the arguments that Sit-Lie laws increase economic activity or improve services to homeless people.” Similarly, a study by the City Hall Fellows on the efficacy of San Francisco’s sit-lie regulation discovered no deterrent effect, with officers ticketing the same “older homeless population, many of whom suffer from both mental and physical health conditions” and collecting no money from fines. Ultimately, sit-lie laws fail to fix a problem that doesn’t exist while diverting police attention from more serious crimes. This is not to deny that homelessness causes aesthetic problems for businesses and residents. On the other hand, sequestering the problem to the edges of the city will not make the deeper issues disappear. The failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, decreases in available public health and mental services, cuts to public assistance, and cities’ inadequate supplies of housing are problems created by the general public and the state. Such problems are far beyond the capabilities of individual actors, churches, charities, or even single municipalities to address. Housing supply, in particular, has been limited by the obstruction of a wealthy elite: Manhattan today has a lower population density than in 1910, while San Francisco residents have rejected multiple attempts to build additional affordable housing. Resolving these issues will require a concerted effort involving the full capacity of the federal government with state and local cooperation. Piecemeal legislation, like regulations against food-sharing and sit-lie laws only further dehumanize an already dehumanized population and pass the buck to another residential or commercial zone. ■

Feedings like this one have become illegal across the U.S. Source: Jim Hubbard.

Berkeley Political Review | 8

U.S.

The Echo That Can’t be Ignored DELAY OF PROMISED IMMIGRATION REFORM DIDN’T SAVE THE SENATE - IT’S TIME TO LISTEN

he words “We need relief now!” echoed through the ballroom and made President Obama pause mid-sentence. Open heckling, shouts, and insults greeted the President when he attended the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Awards Gala for the first time during his second term on October 2nd. The very demographic President Obama had once been proclaimed a “champion” of were at their wits end. Due to what some called “political maneuvering” - the delay of promised executive action on immigration reform until after the Senate midterm elections - the President’s approval rates have plummeted. Among Latinos and Hispanics in particular, Obama’s approval ratings haved reached record lows. The demographic that many thought was the Democrat’s key to victory in past elections is now starting to grow disenchanted with a party that offered too many unfulfilled promises. These promises are now perceived as mere echoes: empty and heard far too many times before. The promise of immigration reform has been heard for decades from a multitude of political figures in both parties. Immigration reform has been called an agenda priority by President Bush during his administration, by John McCain during his 2008 presidential candidacy, and even after the government shutdown by House Speaker Speaker John Boehner. In fact, in an Univision interview, Barrack Obama said, “I cannot guarantee that it’s going to be in the first 100 days, but what I can guarantee is that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support.” This guarantee was made five years ago. Most recently, the reason that mere executive action, not to be confused with lasting official legislation, on immigration reform had been postponed past the promised date was primarily believed to be due to the Senate midterm elections. Senators in close races such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina had made it clear that they did not want the President campaigning on their behalf, due to his low approval ratings. Kay Hagan went as far as to remain in Washington during President Obama’s visit to North Carolina in January of this year. Moreover, these Senators want President Obama to delay or drop any executive action on immigration altogether for fear of backlash from their conservative electorates. This alleged political strategizing in the face of daily deportations has enraged many powerful Latino political groups and reduced 9 | Berkeley Political Review

ANTHONY CARRASCO

Latino voter participation dramatically. Cristina Jimenez, director of United We Dream, has called the President’s “latest broken promise” another “slap in the face of the Latino and immigrant community.” Because of this delay, Jimenez added, many Latino people have had family deported who otherwise could have stayed if executive action had been declared sooner. According to Jimenez, cousins, parents, and even grandparents have been deported not only due to the broken immigration system, but also because politicians have failed to provide a legislative solution, of which the President had promised over half a decade ago. President Obama’s approval ratings dropped from 75% in 2012 to 52% in 2013, according to Gallup Polls, the most recent of which puts the “#DeporterinChief,” as Jimenez calls the President, at a record low of 48%. The fact that a majority of Latinos disapprove of Obama as a President reflects heavily in voter registration numbers. Mi Familia Vota, an organization dedicated to registering Latinos to vote, has had an unprecedented amount of trouble in their work. One activist, Leo Murrieta, said “the President has not helped us” as he had promised he would a long six years ago. The Latino people who Murrieta has been working to register are disappointed and feel disrespected by President’s failures to provide promised long term change. President Obama has lost the Hispanic people’s trust. “They wanted action,” Murrieta added, “they wanted activity and they wanted movement,” and all they have gotten are broken promises. Although some perceive the President’s delay on immigration reform as an attempt to look out for his own party, many within the Democratic Party were discontent with the move. Illinois Democratic Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez, a critic of Obama’s work, or lack of work, on immigration, claimed that people would not have had to “wait until after November if it was an issue affecting the gay and lesbian community…[if the issue was] about women’s reproductive rights… the minimum wage, [or]… a series of other issues, the Democratic Party would come together.” Gutierrez is not the only member of the Democratic Party who has taken issue with

Obama’s delay tactics. Texas Congresswoman Joaquin Castro of the Democratic Party stated that Americans have “suffered because [President Obama] didn’t act”. Some have defended President Obama and still call him a loyal advocate for the Hispanic and Latino communities. They explain this delay as a mere precautionary step in keeping his promise of passing lasting legislation, the real answer to our broken system. Tony Cárdenas, a Democratic Congressman from California, made it clear that he disagreed when he went on the record as stating “of course [the delay of executive action on immigration reform] is politics!” and added that all of this was to help avoid hurting Democrats in the midterms. However, it seems that Obama’s delay tactics have backfired—a strategy intended to protect Democrats at the polls has done anything but. The night that President Obama was greeted with distrust and feelings of betrayal, from a group of people he had made so many promises to, was a somber one. Yet, he had one more promise to give. The President looked into the eyes of the indignant crowd and reminded them that six years ago they had believed in him and that that night all he wanted was for them to “keep believing” in not only his abilities but also their own. Belief and patience, however, have run dry. In the silence of the crowd, only an echo could be heard. The echo of the shout “What happened to the change we can believe in?” as a fed up “undocumented activist” was escorted out. ■

Source: Haruko Ayabe.

America Incorporated The Privatization of War in America MINA ABDULLAH

s of today, more than 3000 private companies have been assigned to do the jobs Americans believe are exclusive to U.S. agents and James Bond lookalikes: special operations. The recently released “Remote Control Project” report reveals how the American government is now using private corporations for special operations like surveillance, “psychological operations,” and interrogation. This outsourcing of highly volatile and sensitive missions absolves the U.S. government from a huge portion of the responsibility but is still a tricky maneuver, as these corporations still represent America on foreign soil. The United States Special Operations Command (USSOC) is responsible for carrying out secret special operations, which often times are missions in foreign countries. The USSOC is now falling prey to a bug that has bit the majority of businesses across America: outsourcing. The report by the “Remote Control Project,” published in September 2014, reveals that the USSOC now delegates special operations, like surveillance and interrogation, to private contractors. In the last five years, USSOC spent almost $13 billion on receiving the service of private contractors. This $13 billion only includes the amount that could be assessed based on public record. This overhead is for services such as: surveillance of targets, interrogation of prisoners, and drone operations. Perhaps the most shocking service that USSOC is being billed for is “psychological operations.” “Psychological Operations,” classified under the all-encompassing expression of “Intelligence and Information Operations,” is a masked term for apparent propaganda campaigns. According to the report, the main aim of these operations is for contractors to provide “military and civilian persuasive communications planning, produce commercial quality products for unlimited foreign public broadcast, and develop lines of persuasion, themes, and designs for multimedia products.” This essentially means that contractors were given the duty of investigating foreign public opinion of the US, as well as the task of figuring out the best possible way to manipulate it. Propaganda is not the only thing the U.S. government has outsourced. Interrogation of suspects has also been subcontracted to private corporations. Notably, $77 million, the largest traceable transaction in the report, has been given to an Alaska based company, “Shee Atika,” for ‘interrogation services’.Many critics believe that delegating contentious tasks like interrogation and surveillance to private contractors allows politicians and those answerable to the public to claim plausible deniability, while others feel that it is just another step towards the ‘privatization’ of the military. A researcher for the report, Crofton Black said, “Remote warfare is increasingly being shaped by the private sector.” This may be true considering the fact that in 2010 there were 94,413 contractors being used for U.S presence in Afghanistan, compared to the 91,600 U.S. troops on the ground. Another disturbing factor for some people is the constricted nature of the market for these contracts. The $13 billion spent by the USSOC over the past five years has been allotted to over 3,000 companies, which might indicate a free and competitive market. However, further analysis of the documents revealed that more than 50% of the $13 billion went to just eight companies. These companies include giants such as Lockheed Martin, L-3 Communications, and Boeing (who notably donated $800,000 to President Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012).

U.S. Even though liberal circles are making claims about the detrimental effects of the military industrial complex and President Obama’s defense spending (President Obama has spent more on defense than President Bush), public opinion is very disjointed from this rhetoric. A Pew Research Center poll published on August 28, 2014 revealed that 54% of Americans believe that President Obama is “not tough enough” in his approach to national security. Professor Terri Bimes, Assistant Director of Research at Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, believes that this disconnect exists because of the simple fact that “people worry.” Professor Bimes explains that in her opinion “defense spending is very complicated because it is very hard for people to evaluate [what is the right amount] and they want to make sure the country is safe.” This may be an explanation for the puzzling public opinion of President Obama’s handling of defense spending– the fear of not spending enough and leaving the country unsafe overshadows the problems Americans have with too much government spending. Compounding private contracts and increased defense spending may be the result of a culture that has been established in Washington. “Once a precedent is in place, it is hard to go back, especially with war power” says Professor Bimes. This would indicate that a newly christened President could only expand upon his predecessor’s war and defense spending, as the alternative would not be well accepted. Privatization of special operations appears like just another ‘precedent’ that has been set and as recent data have shown, this trend seems to be on the rise. The implications of this trend, however, are still unclear, but it only takes a public mistake by one of the many corporations representing America abroad to create a full-blown international incident and diplomatic crisis. The responsibility of handling that diplomatic crisis would fall to our government; diplomacy is one thing we haven’t outsourced quite yet. ■

Military seals. Source: usmilitary.com.

Berkeley Political Review | 10

U.S.

Right-Wing Convergence

WILL THE RECENT COURTSHIP BETWEEN MAINSTREAM REPUBLICANS AND THE TEA PARTY BE SUSTAINABLE? MERRILL WEBER

Not your grandma’s tea party. Source: Fabius Maximus.

he Mississippi River divides Mississippi from New Orleans just like the Tea Party divides the Republican Party. After incumbent Thad Cochran dealt Chris McDaniel a losing hand in the June runoff election, Tea-Party candidate McDaniel turned to the Mississippi G.O.P. for redemption. Unsurprisingly, the G.O.P. dismissed McDaniel’s circumstantial accusations, leaving the Mississippi Supreme Court as McDaniel’s only avenue to challenge what he perceived as a corrupt election. McDaniel’s frustration over the results reflects a serious chasm within the right-wing as the Tea Party pokes a thorn in the Republican Party’s side. Why would the GOP hear McDaniel’s version of events, when this Tea Party candidate represents the conservative faction that has caused so much trouble in both Washington D.C. and nationwide campaign grounds? Republican Speaker John Boehner told the public that the faction had “lost all credibility” after it caused a bipartisan budget bill to be rejected. While more moderate Republicans may be open to negotiating compromises on issues like immigration and budget reform, catering to the Tea Partiers’ demands pulls the centrists further right. These demanding conservatives put Congress in a bind: they can lean further right on legislation to appease the Tea Partiers for votes. However, this attempt to move legislation through Congress risks alienating constituents whose votes are crucial come reelection. Thad Cochran’s campaign against Chris McDaniels illustrates one example. As Tea Party-endorsed McDaniels champions the “true” spirit of Republicanism, Cochran’s electability as a comparatively moderate Republican is threatened. Professor Bertrall Ross, an associate professor at Berkeley Law commented “Cochran has had to move further right to 11 | Berkeley Political Review

make himself more palatable to that set of voters.” Professor Ross cautions that once Cochran “gets reelected and is back at Congress, he’s not going to all of a sudden go back to the center because he knows his every move is going to be monitored by a Tea Party challenger.” The concern with this “increasing polarization,” Professor Ross notes, “is that it creates less accountability to the median voter.” The Tea Party’s vice grip on the Mississippi electorate ensures one more vote against bipartisan legislation, and continues to contribute to gridlock from afar. Another manifestation of this phenomenon exists in Kansas. This year, career Senator Pat Roberts ran for reelection. In a state dominated by agriculture, Roberts succumbed to Tea Party pressures and voted against the farm bill in January 2014. He continued to vote against his constituents’ interests as he opposed another bill containing funds for a project at Kansas State University, hoping that moving further right in his voting pattern would help eliminate both Tea Party competition in Congress and competition from his political opponent, Tea Partier Milton Wolf. Roberts made no effort to hide his conservatism during his campaign in Kansas, saying “our country is headed for national socialism,” a comment that surely endeared him to the far right, but potentially alienated himself from the more moderate constituents he should be courting. Roberts managed to defeat his opponent for the primaries, radiologist Milton Wolf. Though Wolf ’s character had been defamed after posting patients’ x-rays on Facebook, Roberts still outspent Wolf by 1.8 million dollars. Recently the Republican Party has been particularly successful in winning a majority of primaries, with the exception of Eric Cantor’s stunning loss to David Brat. Still, this may be in part because Republicans have been funneling millions of dollars into primary elections

to defeat the troublesome faction’s candidates. Reinforcing the connection between funds and winning, the Republican donors have drained copious resources into the primaries that could have been reserved for future campaigns. Perhaps realizing that creating excessive gridlock in Washington would not make them popular, Tea Party Congressmen have shown a willingness to cooperate in recent weeks. In discussing a spending bill, Alabama’s Republican representative Mo Brooks said, “We need to pass whatever funding necessary to prevent a government shutdown,” showing colors of compromise not typically associated with Tea Party hardliners. Republicans also sang a tune of camaraderie as Congress delayed its escape to summer recess in order to come to a conclusion on immigration. New House Majority Whip Steve Scalise approached Idaho’s Raul Labrador for assistance saying, “I understand you’re an expert [on immigration]; I really need your help.” These could be signs of a new relationship between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. Professor Ross speaks of a future with the “coordination, but separation of lead roles” amongst the Republican leaders and Tea Party members. A situation in which the Tea Party is “taking on lead roles on certain issues and they are advancing with approval of the mainstream Republicans who are concerned about broader appeal.” In turn, Professor Ross argues that these moderate Republicans would be “incorporating and infusing their ideas and their policies and their actions without labeling it as such.” Though it would be conducive to all aspects of government if this were the case, have the Tea Partiers given up the fight just yet? “A lot of it depends on how these next elections play out,” says Professor Ross. If the Tea Party can integrate itself into the Republican Party in a constructive manner, it would serve both Republicans and Democrats. While the Mississippi River won’t be changing its course any time soon, the division the McDaniel-Cochran case represents can be redirected into something positive with proper coordination. If both the G.O.P. and the Tea Party continue to show signs of amiability, the two could work together to keep the Republican Party true to its traditional values while maintaining a spirit of progress. ■

Don’t Put All Your Eggs in One Farm Bill AMERICA’S OVERLOADED AGRICULTURAL POLICY DANIEL AHRENS

he Agriculture Act of 2014, this year’s farm bill, faced a difficult road to passage. After the 2008 bill expired at the end of 2012, it suffered a stunted nine-month extension as part of the fiscal cliff deal. Then, after six months of debate and a limited extension, the bill expired, and its new replacement was signed into law on February 4, 2014. Like most legislation in Washington, it became nothing more than a drop box for special interests and partisan fights. As its most recent iteration proved, the farm bill is proving an ineffective and blunted tool to reform America’s agricultural and nutrition policy, with little moxie for reform. The concept of a farm bill originated as a provision for crop subsidies as a part of the New Deal program. Excess agricultural supply lowered prices, putting farmers at economic risk. To lower these hazards and to prevent over-farming, the government enacted crop subsidies. At the time, the subsidies were enacted yearly, creating income uncertainty for farmers who were not sure if and when the bill would be renewed. The Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, widely considered the first farm bill, sought to remedy that uncertainty by providing multi-year rates for these crop subsidies. Thus began the tradition of the five-year omnibus bill to ensure America’s food supply. Over the decades, the nature of the farm bill has changed. The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 was the first farm bill to expand its role beyond crop subsidies. It included disaster payments for farmers and also included the first incarnation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. The Food Security Act of 1985 constructed enduring conservation programs for the agriculture industry. However, despite its complex content, the bill almost always passes. All of these issues have tremendous implications for the food Americans eat, the strength of our agribusiness sector, and the nutrition of our poorest citizens. However, the belief that they should all be addressed in a one size fits all bill that requires a timestamp is misguided. Congress might consider delinking the subsidies, food stamp program, and agricultural oversight provisions. This approach has many advantages. The only issues that the farm bill shouldto address on a regular basis are crop subsidies. Agricultural subsidies are passed as multiple year programs to inform farmers when and how know to plant. Considering the changes in scope and intention of the bill, it may no longer serve as the most effective legislative tool. Of the 11 bills passed in the last century considered by the Congressional Research Service to be farm bills, the delay of the 2014 farm bill was by far the longest. The delay allowed for critical disaster relief and rural development programs to expire. The overwrought debate on the farm bill created the very uncertainty that it was designed to avoid. Food stamps are renewed along with the crop subsidies every five years. However, the major change in food stamp policy necessitated this year could have been solved earlier if the policy was delinked from the farm bill. An error enabled citizens who did not meet federal requirements to become eligible for food stamps. This loophole was opened up in between farm bills, but could not be solved until it came time to renew the farm bill, leading to significant government waste. Allowing these policies to be passed together does have its benefits, though. It enables representatives of the urban poor to protect the food stamp program by forcing its passage with food subsidies, and vice versa for rural legislators. This protection is only necessary because of a shift

U.S. in the makeup of the Agricultural Committee. Michael Pollan, prominent food critic and Professor of Environmental Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley, notes, “The constituency for food stamps doesn’t bother to serve on the Agricultural Committee.” After the creation of the program, the urban legislators responsible for its construction migrated from the agricultural committee. “So they kind of left the store without a manager. And we’re perhaps more vulnerable to these cuts than if they had stayed on the committees.” Political will for change are few and far between, especially for a bill as entrenched in special interests as the farm bill. For Prof. Pollan, change will arrive when America aligns the interests of our agriculture policies with the health of consumers, rather than the health of the agricultural industry. He notes that the success of the anti-tobacco movement in building a coalition with the health insurance industry was based on the cost of insuring lung cancer. Currently, the agricultural industry does not have an opponent willing to fight the status quo. Prof. Pollan thinks a coalition could arise through a change in the way Americans perceive the health effects of food. “If you see a lot of type II diabetes, people don’t always assume that’s because of a bad diet, because of a lack of exercise, all these other things.” As the haze lifts on the links between industrial ag and health, there may be a heightened opportunity for a renewed conversation. “[With] Type II diabetes, there’s a lot of research connecting it to increased sugar consumption. That’s all you need to explain it.” The healthcare industry, in Pollan’s estimation, may prove to be an important ally as it did in the anti-tobacco movement. A nuanced agricultural policy frees itself to discuss pressing agricultural issues that were once taboo. Prof. Pollan hopes to see a renewed attempt to reconcile our agricultural industry’s goals with environmental ones. “We now reward overproduction, consolidation, overuse of fertilizer, and, in fact, maximum contribution of greenhouse gases by farmers.” Because the global climate plays an increasingly important role in agriculture, it will become increasingly important to regulate the interaction of the two. If the structure is eliminated, and representatives are not afraid of jeopardizing their pet programs, both crop subsidies and food stamps open themselves up for loud, passionate, and public debate. The 2014 bill was the first time that a farm bill was debated for more than a year. These conversations meant nothing after Congress forced itself into passing a bill, regardless of the quality. An inability to target debate on specific issues effectively led to a continuation of the status quo. While direct payments to farmers were ended, the crop subsidy program was expanded. While SNAP’s funding was reduced, food bank funding was increased. A desire to create certainty pushed important policy issues out of the national conversation. America needs to move past an antiquated agrarian ideal and start developing pragmatic policy solutions through sharpened legislative tools. ■

A cotton field in Phoenix, Arizona. Source: Jennifer A. Johnson via Wikimedia Commons.

Berkeley Political Review | 12

U.S.

Pipe Dreams The Obama Administration Continues to Drag its Feet on Keystone XL GRIFFIN POTROCK

trains, although some contend that pipeline spills that do occur tend to be larger, complicating the analysis. Oil trains also have a significant impact on local economies. The high demand for trains to ship oil crowds out their use by farmers and other businesses. In North Dakota, some of the railroads have order backlogs over 1000 cars long. Losses due to distorted prices and rotting product are expected to be in the $10s or $100s of millions. Rail traffic carrying oil increased 166% from the first quarter of 2012 to the first quarter of 2013. However, grain deliveries were down 21.8% and metallic ores and minerals were down 10%. Along with significantly damaging agriculture, this is also a problem for the nation’s food producers, who will suffer from an inconsistent supply of foodstuffs. The Canadian oil fields that would be primarily served by Keystone XL are sources to bitumen, also known as oil sands or tar sands, which have well-to-wheel emissions 14-20% higher than the average fuel. An analysis done by Maximilian Auffhammer of the University of California, Berkeley concludes that not constructing Keystone XL would cause a shortage of transport capacity by 2024, leaving at least 1 billion barrels in the ground by 2030, approximately equivalent to 50 days of US consumption. This amount is neither insignificant nor staggeringly large. Dr. Auffhammer furthers in his paper Keystone XL and the Development of the Alberta Oil Sands that, “This scenario [where all proposed pipelines are built and rail capacity is expanded] also has plenty of spare capacity until 2030 and would minimize the need for railway transport until the end of the period.” Therefore, constructing Keystone XL and other pipelines would reduce dependence on oil trains.

A section of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System ferries crude oil across Alaska. Source: Wikimedia Foundation.

n April 18, 2014, the Obama administration indefinitely extended the review period of Keystone XL, leaving the controversial pipeline in regulatory purgatory for the foreseeable future. The pipeline, proposed to extend from Alberta, Canada through the central US, has met fierce opposition from environmental groups. Environmental activists decry the increases in carbon emissions and form an important constituency for Democrats. For TransCanada, one of North America’s largest energy companies, the administration’s decision represents yet another setback for the much-maligned pipeline, whose delay will only exacerbate the problems in America’s energy infrastructure. Without additional pipeline infrastructure, oil companies have increasingly begun shipping oil by rail, a potentially dangerous practice. While the administration drags its feet, the issue presses on. The lack of a pipeline to support oil production has led to more direct problems. Oil companies have routed around the lack of pipeline infrastructure by buying up ever-increasing shipping capacity. About 400,000 carloads of crude oil were shipped in 2013, up from 9,500 in 2008. “Pipelines-onrails” have generated significant problems in oil-producing regions of the United States and Canada. Shipping oil by rail is considerably more dangerous than shipping via pipeline. In 2013, 47 people were killed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, after a train derailed and subsequently exploded. A State Department analysis showed that increased traffic due to trains shipping oil that would have gone through Keystone XL would cause 189 additional injuries and 28 additional deaths per year. The New York Times further noted that these derailments and accidents have led to more than 1.15 million gallons of oil being spilled last year, compared to 800,000 in the entire period from 1975 to 2012. Faced with the prospect of increasing oil train derailments and spills, the environmental argument may actually lean towards Keystone XL. Pipelines are a less carbon-intensive and more energy efficient way to ship oil, and most analysts agree that pipelines are more reliable than oil 13 | Berkeley Political Review

Route of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and connecting sections of pipeline Source: U.S. State Department.

U.S.

Pipe Dreams, continued

The Canadian town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, burns after an a train carrying 72 carloads of oil from North Dakota derails and several cars explode. The disaster killed 47 people and leveled 40 buildings. Source: Wikimedia Foundation.

In 2012, the pipeline was the subject of significant political maneuvering: Congressional Republicans set an early deadline to try to force the President to either alienate members of his own party by accepting the proposal or give Republicans a fresh talking point for the November elections by rejecting it. The President chose to reject the proposal; however, he allowed TransCanada to reapply with a new route that did not cross the sensitive Nebraska Sandhills. TransCanada refiled, but the pipeline remains under review. Many Republican politicians have made statements in support of the pipeline, citing the economic benefits of the pipeline as well as the jobs lost by blocking its construction. Democrats are split on the issue, with some hoping to strike a bargain and others wholly opposed. Opponents of the pipeline are primarily concerned with its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as environmental damage in oilproducing areas. GHG emissions have attracted the attention and ire of many environmentalists,

a typically liberal constituency. Keystone XL occupies an awkward position in American politics, one that has little to do with the pipeline’s merits and more to do with powerful interest groups. To Republicans, the pipeline represents energy independence and American business. To some Democrats, it represents the yoke of Big Oil, and a potential environmental disaster, both in terms of global warming as well as in terms of oil spills. In many ways, the pipeline has become a proxy for ideological battles in Washington. The decision on Keystone XL represents a lose-lose situation for President Obama. Reject it, and Democrats risks being painted as anti-business and anti-jobs in the midterms. Accept it, and environmentally-minded citizens, a key constituency, may stay home. Better to simply keep the pipeline in administrative purgatory. Unfortunately, President Obama can only punt this issue so far down the road. He avoided dealing with it in the 2012 election season and now he is delaying it until after midterm

elections. At some point, he must come to a decision and accept the political consequences. The political situation is admittedly difficult to navigate. But the risks associated with oil trains, supply constraints, and environmental issues must be addressed, and not just for Keystone XL. Until the President makes a move, U.S. energy issues will only grow. Updated: As BPR went to press, the Senate narrowly defeated a proposed measure to approve Keystone XL by a 59-41 vote (with 60 needed for approval). All 45 Republicans voted for approval. The vote is a major loss for Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who has largely staked her hopes of winning a runoff election on December 6 on the pipeline’s approval. Despite being defeated in the Senate, the vote does not prevent the pipeline from being approved in the future, particularly with Republicans in line to take control of the Senate. ■

14 | Berkeley Political Review

WORLD

Forging a Response

VIETNAM’S STRATEGY FOR COMBATING THE RISE OF CHINA JEFFREY KUPERMAN

“The South China Sea could easily become the stage of a major clash between some of the most powerful nations of the 21st century.”

ome to strategic military bases, vital trade routes, and valuable natural resources, the South China Sea represents some of the most sought after territory in the world. In terms of trade, about a third of global crude oil traffic and half of global natural gas exports travel through the South China Sea each year. Given the South China Sea’s strategic value, the countries around it—which include China, Taiwan, Vietnam, The Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia—all lay large and competing claims to it. China’s economic rise has further complicated this territorial dispute because as they look to increasingly assert themselves in the region, their actions draw in unwanted attention from outside powers like India, Russia, and the United States. In the midst of this international quarrel, Vietnam has found itself trying to oppose China’s claims to the South China Sea without overly antagonizing Beijing—a hard balancing act to maintain. This summer, Vietnam’s resolve to resist China was tested when Beijing deployed an oilrig 130 miles off of Vietnam’s coast in disputed territory. This move triggered massive public unrest in Vietnam and reignited tensions between the two nations, which have simmered since the late 1970s when the two nations last went to war. Despite Vietnam’s attempts to resolve this issue through diplomatic channels, China refused to budge. As General Fang Fenghui, Chief of Staff of the People’s Liberation Army, stated, China “cannot afford to lose an inch” when it comes to territorial issues. China’s response drew contempt in Vietnam and pushed Hanoi to file a suit against China’s actions at the United Nations. The dispute abated when China removed the exploratory oilrig, but future conflicts may not be as easy to resolve. Given the strategic value of the South China Sea, another conflict over economic resources and sovereignty is bound to arise and the time has come for Vietnam to craft a response. There are two approaches that a country in Vietnam’s position can take: either actively try to restrain Beijing’s expansion into the South China Sea or acquiesce to China’s claims of sovereignty. Under the first scenario, Vietnam risks escalating tensions with a nation they have extensive trade with and are militarily inferior to. In the second, they would lose valuable energy resources, cede control of key trade routes, and would have to swallow a significant amount of national pride. Given these possibilities, Vietnam has chosen to actively deter Chinese expansion in the South China Sea by creating strategic economic and military partnerships with countries like Russia and India. On the economic front, Vietnam has witnessed tremendous economic growth since it started adopting market-based reforms in the late 1980s. Since then, the percentage of its population living in extreme poverty, as calculated by the World Bank, has fallen from about 60% to 20%. Over that same period, Vietnam’s per capita GDP has more than tripled. Vietnam has achieved such rapid growth by creating extensive trade relationships with other nations. In fact, exports account for 80% of the country’s GDP. Vietnam has also become more integrated in the world economy, joining the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1995 and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2007. Vietnam’s economic growth has made it more willing and more capable of asserting its interests against a nation like China. 15 | Berkeley Political Review

However, Vietnam must consider the economic risks of escalating future tensions with China. If increased tension between the two nations arose, China would likely sever critical exports to Vietnam and decrease their imports from the country. Some fear Vietnam could not afford these losses, but these worries seem overblown. As David Brown writes for Foreign Affairs, most of the trade between the two countries “is not only roughly balanced, but both countries can also readily find other markets” for the goods they are trading. The only real harm Vietnam may experience could be in the areas of electronic parts, textiles, and shoe parts – which they import from China. If Beijing completely cut off Vietnam’s pre-existing supply lines, it could take the nation a year or two to find new markets to import these goods from. Nonetheless, these economic risks are not without their remedies. The Trans Pacific Partnership – between the United States, Vietnam and ten other countries – offers the potential to increase Vietnam’s exports by a third if the pact goes through. Perhaps even more significantly, Vietnam’s economic partnerships with other nations have in some cases turned into comprehensive partnerships, namely with Russia and India. Through these relationships, Vietnam has gained access to advanced military equipment, which they plan to use as part of an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy against China. At the center of Vietnam’s strategy are six Kilo-Class Submarines that the nation purchased from Russia in 2009. If deployed successfully, these submarines would help deny Chinese control of waters Vietnam also lays claim to. While it may seem hard to believe a country like Vietnam could deter a military giant like China, this strategy may actually be very effective at countering China’s current naval policy. Right now, Beijing’s primary naval force is built to defend against countries like Japan and the United States. This means they are actually rather ill-suited to conducting offensive maneuvers against a country that employs a submarine enforced anti-access/area denial strategy. Therefore, this strategy may allow Vietnam to deter future Chinese incursions, like the one last summer. Vietnam has also looked to India in its attempts to bolster its military and economic growth. In 2013, New Delhi extended a $100 million (USD) line of credit to Vietnam for the purchase of patrol vessels from India. Vietnam will likely use these vessels in conjunction with its new submarine armada to assert its own territorial claims in the South China Sea over China’s. A possible hindrance to Vietnam’s relationship with India is that in the past, India has been loath to provoke China given the extensive trade partnership between the two. However, India’s desire to increase its economic engagement with ASEAN nations and China’s increasingly friendly relationship with Pakistan might open the door for stronger future ties between Vietnam and India. In the face of a perceived maritime threat from China, Vietnam has greatly expanded its military capacity and forged strategic partnerships with powerful nations. This raises many questions for China and other regional and international actors. The South China Sea could easily become the stage of a major clash between some of the most powerful nations of the 21st century. Whether this clash will escalate militarily or manifest itself through a series of smaller diplomatic disputes remains unclear, but in the middle of this clash sits countries like Vietnam. How these relatively small Southeast Asian nations react to China’s economic and military rise thus has major implications for the rest of the world. Who these countries will eventually align themselves with is unclear, but for Vietnam, the choice appears to have been made and its resistance to China’s rise has only just begun. ■

The Selectively Remembered Continent

DRUG CRIME AND STATE NON-INTERVENTION IN PERU THREATENS SOCIAL STABILITY MADISON CHAPMAN

ost Fujimorismo Whiplash. It is a phrase that might describe the current state of affairs in Peru over a decade after the removal of authoritarian President Alberto Fujimori, who went to extremes to combat narcotics such as engaging in the systematic elimination of citizens associated with the narcotics industry and the Shining Path, a Maoist terror group that operated it. These activities would be used to later indict him before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity. Yet Peruvian gubernatorial candidate for the Ucayali region, Manuel Gambini—lauded as a “dynamic new partner” by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—was only recently accused of drug trafficking and money laundering on October 4th, demonstrating a profound resurgence of drug cartel activity in the country years after Fujimori’s departure. This is indicative of a new front of the “war on drugs” that America can no longer neglect. There is a reason that Michael Reid coined the term “Forgotten Continent” for South America, and there is a reason that the term stuck. While U.S. intervention once aggressively combated drugs by forming local partnerships with governments, promoting clean politics, and providing or withdrawing support for programs depending on democratic reform and the implementation of enhanced security measures, the military efforts and aid packages provided have come to an impasse. Peru has responded to this trend by once again falling into a routine of collusion and a resurgence of Shining Path activity. Understanding Peru’s historical relationship with drug activity provides important insight into the scope of drug collusion in Peru, and the U.S. role in abetting—and, often unintentionally and inadvertently aiding—cartel activity. In 1992, international journalist Stephen G. Trujillo authored a piece for the New York Times analyzing the government crackdown on the Shining Path, an internationally recognized, Maoist terrorist group notorious for cocaine smuggling. He recognized that much of the instability and violence instigated by the Shining Path was exacerbated by the fact that the government had little control over the military, and that top ranking military officials often collaborated with cocaine traffickers or let them continue operations without serious repercussions, often under the belief that cocaine posed only a minor threat to national security. Drug police were also corrupted by profits from cocaine sales at this time, leading to a narco-military complex aggravated by government violence against the Shining Path, including the military death squads that later became key evidence in the case against Alberto Fujimori for crimes against humanity. A crackdown on democratic entities under the guise of ensuring civil order and restoring democracy shortly thereafter also characterized this oppressive period of Peruvian history. However, after the 1992 capture of Shining Path leader Abimael Guzmán, much of this direct military and political intervention ceased. This may have been largely positive; indeed, much of the U.S. aid to the Peruvian military to crack down on the Shining Path had instead been redirected to traffickers due to military collusion with narcotics. Yet the decline of the Shining Path also led to a general decline in U.S. interest in Peru’s democratic reform. This has gravely hurt Peru. In 2009, 14 government soldiers were murdered in a resurgence of violent Shining Path activity. On September 4th, 7.6 tons of cocaine were discovered inside lumps of coal and stored within a Peruvian warehouse, intended to be shipped to Spain and Belgium, where drugs sell at higher prices than on

WORLD the U.S narcotics market. Furthermore, this stash was managed by Lee “El Duro” Rodriguez, a Mexican drug trafficker working remotely in Peru. This suggests a rapid globalization of the illicit drug industry and demands international attention and concern. For years, the U.S has provided aid to South American countries like Peru to eradicate drugs, often combining narcotics elimination strategies with greater development packages. Farmers have been encouraged to replace the production of the coca plant, used as a raw ingredient with cocaine, with cocoa production. Moreover, development caravans have partnered with the Peruvian military on the community level to engage in local support and provide healthcare, education services, and economic assistance to low income, rural, and indigenous groups. There is no doubt that Peru has been a beneficiary of these efforts. However, there is a lack of follow through on the aggressive action that was taken against the Shining Path and other Peruvian drug trafficking groups during the 1980s and 90s. For example, one current USAID “alternative development” program seeks to encourage communities historically captured by narco-interests to find new outlets for economic activity. According to one report, in 2012, nearly 47,000 of coca crops in Huáncao, San Martín, and Ucayali, Peru—where Gambini launched his gubernatorial bid—were replanted with oil palm, coffee, and cacao, leading to reduced drug cultivation in the region. These are laudable developments. But they address only the narcotics supply issue, and thus miss both the issues of international demand that drives production, and the effect the drug trade has had on the political sphere. Amidst reports of scenarios like that of gubernatorial candidate Gambini, we are faced with a humbling reminder that following through on multilateral aid programs is crucial to ensure that drug reduction continues. This follow through cannot exclude government reform and accountability and the potential use of foreign aid as a carrot to encourage clean elections and politics unsullied by trafficking gangs. It also includes tackling demand in the U.S., where insatiable appetites for drugs continue to fuel human rights abuses, gang violence, and poverty in the remote areas where drug kingpins control government affairs and economic development, at the expense of social stability and high human cost. The United States’ southern neighbors have the potential to significantly impact international politics as drugs continue to go global. Peru’s future again grows cloudy, but one thing has become increasingly clear: we cannot afford to selectively remember Peru for long.

Gambini supporters gather in support for his 2014 Ucayali gubernatorial campaign. Frank Bajak, Associated Press.

Berkeley Political Review | 16

WORLD

Britain De-Unionizing

POLITICAL PRESSURE IS PUSHING BRITAIN FURTHER FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION, AND STRICTER E.U. DEMANDS AREN’T HELPING NITISHA BARONIA

British Prime Minister David Cameron lashed out against the new E.U. payment, arguing that the increased bill was indicative of a broken system. Source: Zuma/Rex, The Guardian.

fter narrowly dodging a political bullet when the 2014 referendum for Scottish independence failed to pass, British Prime Minister David Cameron found himself caught in yet another European political struggle, this time on a larger scale. Now, Cameron faces newfound political challenges with the European Union. This September, the European Union began implementing an annual payment revision process that requires the United Kingdom to pay the E.U. an extra £1.7 billion, or around €2.1 billion, by December 1st. The sudden demand, which would increase Britain’s contribution to the E.U. by nearly 20%, came as a surprise to London. In response, David Cameron delivered a fiery speech during the Brussels E.U summit proclaiming, “If people think I am paying that on Dec. 1 — no, that is not happening.” While the demand for additional payments was based on purely economic considerations, Cameron’s response seems to be driven more by the tumultuous state of Britain’s domestic politics than international economics. The increased payment comes as the result 17 | Berkeley Political Review

of the implementation of the new European System of National and Regional Accounts, or ESA 2010. The European Commission regularly revises its methods for calculating European economies and E.U. member payment dues through updated ESA systems. The ESA is usually revised to align with the broader global System of National Accounts, or SNA. Thus, the ESA 2010 was created by the European Commission in line with new guidelines for worldwide international accounting made in the SNA 2008. The ESA 2010 attempts to account for other aspects of the economy that systems like its predecessor, the ESA 1995, have traditionally ignored. The most prominent change is increased accountability of a nation’s underground economy, including prostitution and drug trafficking. Using these new measures, European Commission accountants discovered that nations like Britain have thriving underground economies that had never been accounted for. In fact, by one estimate, the underground economy generates nearly £10 billion for the British economy. Thus, these nations had, in effect, been “underpaying” into the system, while nations like

Germany and France were overpaying. The ESA 2010 was drafted in 2013 for implementation in September 2014, so the revisions have been in the works for nearly a year. After the new measures were used to calculate the size of each member nation’s economy, estimates of the updated accounts were released, with final payment amounts to be released in November. The changes reflected a system wide overhaul, and did not just target Britain. Nearly every member nation experienced some change in payments. Britain is paying €2.1 billion to make up for its cumulative underpayment; the Netherlands and Italy trail right behind, owing €0.64 billion and €0.34 billion to the E.U. respectively. On the other hand, France will get an approximately €1 billion rebate, and Germany will receive €0.78 billion. The new system is thus affecting a wide spectrum of European nations, with Britain taking the largest hit. The heated response comes during a particularly difficult time for Cameron, who has been trying to show support for the European Union despite calls from Britain’s conservative right to back away from the E.U. entirely. Cam-

WORLD

“Cameron has started down a road that he can no longer turn back on.” eron is the leader of the British Conservative Party, which threatens to be uprooted by the more right-wing UKIP, or the U.K. Independence Party. UKIP was founded in 1993 out of anti-E.U. sentiment, and argues that Britain would be better off independent of the European Union. As the more right wing version of Cameron’s Conservative party, UKIP has recently become a threat to Conservative rule. In October, UKIP won its first parliamentary seat after a Conservative party member defected and ran for the position as a UKIP member. Unless Cameron and his Conservative party can satisfy growing British nationalist sentiment, UKIP may continue to tear at its seams. Cameron has been trying to please his more right-wing constituency and compete with UKIP. He has promised that, if elected in 2015, he will hold a referendum vote in 2017 to determine whether the U.K. would stay part of the E.U. By doing so, Cameron has promised the British people the chance to walk away from the European Union entirely, just as UKIP proposes. However, when proposing the referendum Cameron also stated, “I don’t want Britain to leave the EU. I want Britain to reform the EU.” In order to stick to those words, Cameron needs to prove to the British people that the E.U. system and Britain’s place within it can be reformed. But the new E.U. demands make that vision nearly impossible to support, serving as fuel for the fire that is starting to singe Cameron’s political image. Cameron’s blunt refusal to pay the

E.U. bill, then, is more of a political move than an economic one, meant to answer angry taxpayers, growing anti-E.U. sentiment in Britain, and UKIP demands. Cameron’s promise to hold a referendum on the E.U. and his refusal to pay the requested £1.7 billion have embittered Britain’s relationship with the European Union. E.U. officials have stated that it would not be feasible to give Britain an extension on the payment deadline or renegotiate the payment. After all, the adjustments have been made after purely economic, not political, calculations. Britain can pay its dues, or leave the European Union. This could potentially cripple the British economy, as companies are unwilling to invest in Britain in the midst of such economic uncertainty, and moving away from the E.U. would disrupt European business and cost British firms valuable E.U. member state benefits. In fact, some banks are already considering moving to Ireland if Britain leaves the E.U. Additionally, leaving the E.U. would drastically decrease Britain’s influence on its European neighbors and the international economy as a whole, leaving it both economically and politically isolated from the heart of western Europe. Cameron has started down a road that he can no longer turn back on. By promising a national referendum on E.U. membership and refusing to fulfill hiked E.U. payments, he has embraced the conservative ideology that will keep his party afloat, at the potential risk of allowing a British economic system based on the E.U. to sink. ■

Britain is closer than ever to walking out of the E.U. Source: eureferendum.com.

Berkeley Political Review | 18

The Viral Consequences: Pakistan’s Polio Crisis

WORLD

HOW AMERICAN COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY HAS LED TO THE DRAMATIC RISE OF POLIO IN PAKISTAN SULEMAN KHAN

ith the world currently focusing on the Ebola outbreak ravaging through West Africa, it is easy to overlook an equally dangerous disease lurking behind global headlines: polio. Polio, a highly infectious disease that can cause irreversible paralysis in children, is entirely preventable if young children are frequently given vaccines. The poliovirus paralyzed hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. and Europe throughout the 1940s and 50s, yet the development of effective vaccines in the 60s drastically reduced its spread in the industrialized world. However, polio has never been eradicated globally and has begun re-emerging with a vengeance. In a twist of fate, it appears that the steps leading up to one of President Obama’s greatest foreign policy achievements may be to blame. Polio is primarily spread through contact with the feces of infected individual, and thus poor sanitary conditions found in many developing nations help facilitate polio’s transmission. In May 1988, 166 member states of the World Health Assembly launched a global mission to eradicate polio by the end of the year 2000 using vaccines, and with the support of the international community, polio’s global incidence decreased by 99%. By early 2011, polio was only endemic to Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Polio was never successfully eradicated in Pakistan due to widespread rumors claiming that the polio vaccine was a Western plot to sterilize young Muslim children and contained impure ingredients from pigs. Nevertheless, Pakistani public health officials made significant headway in the early 2000s to limit the incidence of new polio cases. On the night of May 2nd, 2011, however, a team of 79 elite US Navy SEALs slipped into Pakistani airspace onboard stealth helicopters,

“Given the risk that Pakistan’s polio crisis poses to the world, it is natural to question if the CIA-led fake vaccaniation drive held in 2011 was justifiable.”

with the mission of killing the infamous founder of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden. Wanted in connection to U.S. embassy bombings in the 1990’s and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, bin Laden topped the FBI’s of wanted fugitives. Within a few hours, Osama bin Laden and some of his closest relatives were dead at the hands of the SEALs in the city of Abbottabad, near Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. How did the U.S. armed forces know that Osama bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad? In August 2010, CIA analysts believed that they had identified bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, frequenting a three-story compound in Abbottabad. To prove that bin Laden was hiding in the compound, the CIA hired the surgeon general of Pakistan’s northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Dr. Shakil Afridi. Dr. Afridi was instructed to carry out a fake hepatitis B vaccination drive in order to collect DNA samples from children seen living in the Abbottabad compound, relying on the fact that governmental health workers had given polio drops to these children in the past. An unsuspecting nurse managed to enter the compound to “vaccinate” the children, but for unknown reasons, the CIA failed to extract any DNA samples and could not definitively prove that the children were related to bin Laden. Nonetheless, the CIA utilized further surveillance information and correctly presumed they had finally found their target.

An armed police officer stands guard as a health worker administers a polio vaccine in Pakistan. Source: Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty.

19 | Berkeley Political Review

WORLD

An armed police officer stands guard as a health worker administers a polio vaccine in Pakistan. Source: Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty.

Although the end goal of eliminating bin Laden was accomplished by the raid – to the joy of President Obama and the American public – one unexpected consequence of the failed, fake vaccination drive has been the dramatic rise of new polio cases in Pakistan. The progress Pakistani health workers had made limiting the spread of polio halted completely when the Pakistani public learned that the CIA had carried out a fake vaccination program as first reported by The Guardian. The initial mistrust that some Pakistanis had in vaccinations skyrocketed as their worst fears about vaccines being elaborate, foreign schemes were fully realized. A limited number of parents across the country have refused to let health workers administer polio vaccines to their children out of mistrust, and frequently hide their children whenever polio workers come around. Additionally, Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders forcibly controlling Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal regions bordering Afghanistan issued bans on polio vaccinations for children, threatening and killing more than 60 Pakistani and foreign polio workers since 2012. Consequently, the number of new polio cases has shot up dramatically in Pakistan, with 217 new polio cases recorded so far in 2014, breaking a 14-year record. 217 cases of polio may not seem threatening in comparison to the 10,000 individuals that have been infected with Ebola, yet if even one child remains infected with the poliovirus, children around the world remain at risk of contracting the debilitating disease. According to the World Health Organization, “Failure to eradicate polio from these last remaining strongholds could result in as many as 200,000 new cases every year, within 10 years, all over the world.” With Pakistan now accounting for 85% of world polio cases and strains of Pakistani polioviruses being traced to infected children in China, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Israel, the fight against polio in Pakistan has become a serious global health emergency. Given the risk that Pakistan’s polio crisis poses to the world, it is natural to question if the CIA-led fake vaccination drive held in 2011 was justifiable. Although it is impossible to know if polio’s incidence in Pakistan would have decreased if the fake drive were not carried out, the U.S.’s approach to killing bin Laden is reflective of American foreign policy’s emphasis on the ends justifying the means. The White House has only revealed this year that the CIA has established a policy against the use of

fake vaccination drives to target terrorists, but did not apologize for utilizing a humanitarian relief program as cover for a surveillance operation. Additionally, U.S. NGOs carrying out legitimate polio vaccination drives are now viewed with fear and anger by significant swathes of the Pakistani populace. In a single swoop, the CIA killed bin Laden, ending a decadelong international manhunt, but simultaneously destroyed the trust in vaccines that health care workers had spent years accruing. In the aftermath of the massive uptick of new polio cases in Pakistan, the United States has a moral responsibility to take concrete actions to limit the spread of polio across the world. The U.S. government has taken an important first step in establishing a policy preventing future fake CIA vaccination programs. However, it still has to tackle the mentality of eliminating high-value targets without regards to the means utilized that allowed the fake vaccination drive to occur in the first place. As the bin Laden raid demonstrates, the means the United States uses to achieve its foreign policy goals often results in long-term consequences that can be even more severe than the original problem itself. The U.S. government can resolve this dilemma by realistically considering how individuals in affected nations will perceive U.S. actions as well as any potential backlashes. In order to compensate for the damage the fake CIA vaccination drive has caused on the global effort against polio, the United States must first convince the Pakistani public that it can be trusted. The U.S. can accomplish this by providing monetary support to development and relief agencies in Pakistan that aim to improve sanitary facilities and infrastructure in rural areas plagued by polio, and by committing to avoid unilateral raids in violation of Pakistani sovereignty. Though whether the Pakistani public finds such assurances credible is another matter. After such constructive policies, the U.S. can expand its monetary aid to international NGOs carrying out legitimate polio vaccination drives, and in the process help shift the tide against this deadly but entirely preventable disease. ■

Berkeley Political Review | 20

WORLD

The Afghan Honeymoon DESPITE THE INCREASINGLY POSITIVE OUTLOOK FOR AFGHAN POLITICS, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ACTORS SHOULD TEMPER THEIR EXPECTATIONS YUN-RU PHUA

The international community has recently showered Afghanistan with praise. Yet, despite the handful of factors that call for celebration, the nation’s future is nonetheless littered with obstacles for both the Afghan government and its constituents. The Presidential election this June between Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah deteriorated into an acrimonious stalemate, as the latter accused Ghani of rigging an estimated 2 million out of the 8 million votes “cast.” Fortunately, the two contenders reached a power-sharing agreement before the crisis escalated: Ghani as President, and Abdullah as his Chief Executive Officer – the equivalent of a Prime Minister. This peaceful transition of power seems to usher in a new, hopeful era departing from the nation’s turbulent past. Worryingly, the electoral controversy almost bordered on ethnic violence and a military coup. As Abdullah drew his strongest support from the Tajik minority group, his grievances incited greater ethnic divisions when, according to the New York Times, “followers of two powerful former warlords on opposite sides of the campaign clashed on the outskirts of Kabul.” Additionally, Afghan officials closely tied to the security forces threatened to form an interim government, “amount[ing] to a coup – though no one is calling it that.” Those officials claimed that they simply wished to pressure both sides into resolving the impasse. Optimists perceive the successful resolution to the electoral crisis as the preface to more promising changes. Economically, even though the electoral controversy stalled growth, the people have placed their hopes for an economic jumpstart based on Ghani’s experiences as a World Bank official and as the previous finance minister. Socially, Ghani seems to be challenging the status quo, bringing his wife Rula into the public limelight as he declared his intention to give her, along with women and youth, “a wide participation in my government.” In contrast to the former first lady, Zeenat Karzai, Rula has taken on a national leadership role, encouraging Afghan women to “use [their] skills outside the home” during a speech on International Women’s Day in March. Nonetheless, doubts remain. For one, the Ghani administration began on the wrong footing. The widely broadcasted controversy of the ballot-box fraud immediately brings the legitimacy of the newly elected government into question. Is the new government well-equipped to undertake the mounting problems rife in Afghanistan? Not quite yet. The euphoria that the public and international observers currently experience is what political scientists like Robert Erikson and Kent Tedin call “the honeymoon phase.” During this phase of initial optimism, the President-elect enjoys a surge in popularity and confidence right after inauguration. The necessary corollary to this concept lies in the inevitable drop in support for the government, perhaps due to unfulfilled early expectations. Eventually, President Ghani, no matter how effective he is, will disappoint his people, giving this giddy euphoria a reality check. While power-sharing sounds like a good political compromise, the democratic system of checks-and balances between the executive and legislative branches will likely result in a stalemate between President Ghani and Prime Minister Abdullah. In fact, Abdullah’s allies already harbor intense suspicions toward Ghani. Besides, given the rocky start to the new regime, Ghani must now quickly reform the electoral system before next 21 | Berkeley Political Review

year’s parliamentary elections to reestablish the government’s democratic legitimacy and to avoid the same tragedy. Moreover, Ghani’s attempt to empower women has met substantial resistance from his people. His wife’s Lebanese-American Christian identity has lead many conservative critics to express skepticism over her social reforms. Hamida Asazai, a microfinance officer, commented, “A foreigner cannot feel the Afghan pain.” This resistance from the conservative segment of the population will likely limit Rula’s impact on liberalizing women. Additionally, because the electoral controversy sidelined the government’s priority of economic growth, Ghani must now restart the weak economy. His task isn’t easy: he must spur development, raise the average standard of living, and reduce the state’s fixation on foreign aid. His greatest problem – the plague of corruption – shackles him from implementing the policies needed to so. Indeed, corruption takes away a significant portion of the government’s revenue, which remains indispensible to development projects and economic reforms. Granted, Ghani responded to the state’s notorious level of corruption by ordering an investigation into the Kabul Bank’s prosecutions for fraudulent loans, a gesture meant to punish even the higher-ups for their misdeeds. However, keeping in mind the judiciary courts’ tendencies to avoid incriminating powerful, though guilty, elites, Ghani failed to signal his long-term commitment to corruption reform. The questions of whether the judiciary courts will expand the number of politically implicated defendants to impartially rule this case as necessary is still up in the air. Finally, can the Ghani administration handle the Taliban? In fact, the emboldened insurgent group has exploited the electoral controversy to vigorously pursue its agenda. Recently, it attacked vulnerable regions in Afghanistan and even orchestrated a suicide bombing near Kabul International Airport. Even though Ghani once worked on the transfer of military responsibilities from the U.S. and thus understands the inner workings of the Afghani military, the unyielding Taliban now regards the new government as America’s new “puppets,” preferring to fight rather than negotiate. Indeed, while optimists busy themselves with celebrating the unity coalition and other achievements of the new Afghan government, they have yet to take sufficient time for a reality check. Ghani has in fact taken several progressive steps, but it is still too early to celebrate: this is only the first chapter to an unraveling new story. ■

Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, the faces of the new Afghan coalition. Source: Wakil Kohsar, Stringer.

OPINION

Teaching to Transfer

THE IMPORTANCE OF CREDENTIALED PROFESSORS IN CALIFORNIA’S COMMUNITY COLLEGES

HANNA HADDAD

n 1960, the UC Board of Regents established the Master Plan of Higher Education in California. This plan established a topdown three-tiered system of higher education, with the intention that it would increase ease of access and fluidity. California’s Community Colleges (CCCs) would serve as the most basic level of institution, allowing those interested to transfer into either the CSUs or the UCs. Because of this system, thousands of students at the community college get preferential admission into a UC, promoting the high standards of education that the system helped to promote. However, this system faces one small problem with rippling effects—community college professors do not need to have teaching credentials. In California, individuals intending to teach primary and secondary school must obtain some degree of certification before they can teach. This is truly critical—schools can be ensured that teachers have a base set of pedagogical skills, and as a result, can be assured that students will be taught in accordance with, at least, the minimum pedagogical skills enforced by the credential. This, however, is not the same for professors at California Community Colleges. Other than a Master’s degree, there are no additional teaching credential requirements for professors who pass through this system. The only credential that did exist, the California Community College Teaching Credential, was terminated in 1990. This wouldn’t be a problem if a postgraduate degree automatically bestowed knowledge of teaching. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. At both CCCs and UCs, it is not an uncommon occurrence to encounter professors with deep understanding of the material who convey this material in an obscure and cryptic fashion. However, unlike the CCCs, the UCs provide supplemental graduate student instructors (GSIs) for most classes, employed with the intention of ensuring that students understand the material being taught. Most GSIs can help translate the mythic garble of a professor into a clear and understandable set of information. Students at a California Community College, however, do not have luxury of the safety net that a GSI and discussion seminar provide. And while individual success derives from a myriad of factors, perhaps the most pivotal and central to success is the integrity and standards of the professor. Ultimately, professors are tasked with the burden and responsibility of ensuring an effective education. Professors at this level should, simply put, be held to a higher standard than now—to teach classes in ways that serve to reinforce and support student learning. A class that becomes more about securing an “A” grade than learning circumscribes the true purpose of education within that institution. Students shouldn’t need to navigate labyrinthine teaching and grading methods, rather they should expect a reasonable level of clarity and integrity from their classes. It is not outrageous to demand that community college professors spend that extra year or so required to secure a teaching credential. For most professors the attainment of a teaching credential strengthens and reinforces pedagogical skills and can only better serve students. In making the process more difficult, some may worry that potential professors would be dissuaded by “steep” job requirements. That is debatable, and currently there is substantial demand for jobs at the community college level. Fixing this problem, then, is simply a matter of priority. ■

Plastic Over Paper

WHY THE PLASTIC BAG BAN MIGHT NOT BE AS GREEN AS YOU THINK

YIXUAN ZHENG

overnor Jerry Brown signed California’s statewide plastic bag ban into law on September 30th. But instead of showing how progressive and environmentally friendly California is, it shows that people simply believe that words like “green” and “paper” indicate environmentally friendly policies without doing further research. Although hailed as a revolutionary landmark in environmental protection, the ban actually does more harm than good. Contrary to popular belief, plastic bags are much more environmentally friendly than their paper replacements. According to Franklin Associates, a Life Cycle Assessment and Solid Waste Management consulting service led by engineers and physical scientists, per 10,000 equivalent uses, paper bags create five times more solid waste, three times more atmospheric emissions, and seventeen times more waterborne waste than plastic bags. In addition, the relatively large size and volume of paper bags compared to plastic bags means that it takes much more gas to transport the same number of bags – seven times the amount, to be precise. Although it is easier to recycle paper than plastic, the sheer production costs of paper bags outweigh the recycling benefits they may have. Additionally, some stores have opted for selling “reusable” bags instead of providing disposable paper ones, but these are not a viable option either. These reusable plastic or cotton bags require much more energy to produce, and are usually not recyclable either. Furthermore, many reusable bags are still thrown away or left unused after just one use. These environmentally costly reusable bags came about as a result of the plastic bag ban, showing yet another negative consequence from the seemingly green policy. Although the plastic bag ban in Berkeley is but a small sample, it has adequately shown that the plastic bag ban is largely ineffective in terms of being more environmentally friendly. People still buy grocery bags from stores and then leave them around or throw them out on the streets, only now those bags are paper instead of plastic. And instead of recycling thin plastic shopping bags as trash bags, many have to specifically buy trash bags. We have not gotten any “greener,” as paper bags are just as much of an environmental problem as plastic bags. The plastic bag ban, hence, has achieved nothing except inconveniencing people and giving Berkeley’s denizens a false sense of satisfaction at being “environmentally friendly.” Well-intentioned people are misguided by attractive words, and so Californians threw all their support towards the ban without considering the other side of the argument. Instead of this excessive measure, we should find ways to encourage limiting plastic bag use, rather than replacing them with paper bags. We could have added a small surcharge on plastic bags, or used other means to limit excessive bagging practices. But we should not spread this misguided policy in the name of environmental protection, as things that sound good on paper don’t always work that way in practice. ■

Paper bags are much worse for the environment than plastic bags. Source: Elmhurst.edu.

Berkeley Political Review | 22

OPINION

The Art of Intervention THE ISIS THREAT TO CHINA JORDAN ASH

Despite China’s non-interventionist foreign policies, ISIS is one neighbor it can’t ignore. Source: Xiao Li.

hina’s foreign policy has traditionally revolved around a belief of non-intervention. Their so-called Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence was codified in 1953 and later added to the Preamble of the Chinese Constitution. China’s primary objective is stability, and from their perspective, the surest way to destabilize a region is by intervening militarily. However, despite its best efforts to do otherwise, China will soon find itself entangled in the messy international struggle against Islamicfundamentalist movements. The rise of ISIS and its ongoing conquest of huge swaths of Syria and Iraq poses a significant threat to the political and economic stability of the Middle East. Because of its economic interests in the region, China has deviated slightly from its non-interventionist policies by expressing support for anti-ISIS military activities. However, threats to its economic interests should be the least of China’s concerns. ISIS is currently the greatest actual security threat China faces in the world. Chinese Muslim Uighur separatists have been joining ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Eventually (if not already) these battlehardened Uighur separatists will begin to make their way back into China and begin a campaign of terrorism on a scale previously unimaginable in China. In order to stem the flow of training, support, and weaponry coming back over its borders via the ISIS-trained Uighurs, China will have to take unprecedented military action in the Middle East. As a result, China’s largely untested military will gain needed combat experience and China as a whole may begin to feel more comfortable with the idea of military con23 | Berkeley Political Review

frontations. China has tens of billions of dollars of oil investments at stake in Iraq. Like any good investor, there is no doubt that the Chinese will work to protect their investments. Despite the threat ISIS poses to its investments, it is still believed that China will stay true to its noninterventionist roots, sit back, and allow the UN to take on the militarily active role. However, China is already showing uncharacteristic support for foreign military actions against ISIS. In July, a Chinese special envoy met with Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki to make an anti-terror support pledge. Perhaps even more unusual is China’s open support for US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. These demonstrations of support represent a slight shift away from China’s traditionally strict adherence of non-interventionism. In spite of this unprecedented support, some still wrongly doubt that China will move beyond financial and political backing. This predicted “sit back” approach seems to be increasingly unrealistic, especially as it is becoming apparent that Uighur separatists are joining ISIS in the Middle East. The Uighurs come from a Western region of China called Xinjiang. Many of the Uighurs do not identify as Chinese and have long been resentful of China’s heavy-handed policies. It is known that there have been violent riots, clashes with police, and a surge of terrorist attacks in the past year including a car bombing in Tiananmen Square and deadly knife attacks. China has responded to what it sees as a domestic issue by starting a “year long campaign against terror.” This “campaign” includes increasing its police

and military presence in Xinjiang, and implementing controversial policies aimed at restricting Muslim Uighur cultural practices. The Chinese government may need to rethink the timeframe and scope of its “year long campaign”. Over the last few months, several Uighurs have been arrested in Iraq fighting alongside ISIS. Four militants have also been arrested in Indonesia trying to join ISIS branches. One West Asian scholar claims there may be hundreds of Chinese nationals who have joined ISIS. The Muslim Uighurs who have joined ISIS are receiving an elite education in terrorism and combat. They are building a valuable network of different Muslim extremist groups who can supply them with weapons, as well as logistical and ideological support. Perhaps the most significant lesson being taught to the Uighur extremists is in organization. So far the effectiveness of Uighur attacks in China have been limited because the separatist groups are largely unorganized and fractured. But as ISIStrained Uighur extremists begin to trickle back into China, the Chinese government will find itself battling an entirely different animal, one that is more experienced, unified, and more dangerous than ever. When this happens, the world can expect to see a China that is much more willing to involve itself in military intervention. Not only will there be more UNSC voting support on the part of China for actions against these extremist groups, but there will also be a more active military support. This military support will probably take the form of supplying and funding groups that are actively fighting against ISIS. Another perhaps more extreme (but still plausible) scenario is an actual fighting role for the Chinese. If the Chinese government begins to recognize the true extent of the threat posed by Uighur Muslims who are joining ISIS, it is possible we will see the Chinese military joining Western and Arab forces in their bombing campaigns in Iraq and Syria. If so, this would set a new and historic precedent for China. It would result in a China that may be more comfortable with the idea of deploying it’s military against its perceived foes. This willingness to use force will have profound implications on China’s ongoing territorial disputes with surrounding Asian nations. China has already been flexing its military might in this context, but these military actions have amounted to little more than empty posturing. However, the world can expect a new military superpower as China expands its military action. ■

The Evil Politics of Wild Horse Roundups LANI FRAZER

he mustang is an iconic symbol of the American West. The horses roam the protected mountains of ten U.S. states with a spirit that makes them legendary. You can even “adopt a living legend” yourself, courtesy of the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). What’s concerning, however, is the BLM’s roundups of wild horses, a miles-long helicopter chase that sends the horses into frenzied gallops. Though the BLM argues that growing horse populations and their negative ecological consequences make this program necessary, the BLM helicopters are driven by politics, and the program is not a necessary evil, but rather just plain evil. The BLM passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act in 1971 as a way to preserve a shrinking mustang population. These mustangs live on Herd Management Areas, or HMAs, which cover 31.6 million acres from Montana to California. Since horses constantly move to find food or water, to evade predators, and to bypass or find other bands of horses, there are no areas specifically allocated to mustangs because they are impossible to fence in. States like Wyoming and Colorado abide by “fence out” laws, an agreement made by ranchers that cattle can graze freely, and if individuals wish to contain their animals, it is their own burden to do so. Many ranchers choose not to fence in their cattle, leading to the mixing of wild horses and privately owned livestock. Public and private lands are thus difficult to distinguish. Since then, BLM programs have begun focusing on removal of mustangs rather than preservation, with the argument that there are excess horses that cannot be properly managed. According to a lawsuit filed by a powerful Wyoming corporation in 2011, one public rangeland use is providing grazing areas for privately owned livestock. The Rock Springs Grazing Association (RSGA) asked the BLM to remove wild horses from private grazing lands located along federal HMAs. However, half of the outlined area, which covers 2 million acres, is publicly owned, and thousands of RSGA livestock graze on these lands. The supposed conflict between the horses and cattle lies in resource scarcity, and ranchers, concerned with their cattle and the profitability of their businesses, falsely accuse horses of taking the valuable feeding resources. While it is true that mustangs enter privately owned areas, private livestock actually does most of its grazing on public land. Due to Wyoming’s “fence out” law, RSGA livestock owners should be responsible for fencing in their cattle. And mustangs are vastly outnumbered: the RSGA has up to 70,000 sheep and 5,000 cattle on Wyoming’s Checkerboard lands, while there are less than 2,000 horses. These statistics make clear that horses are easily a minority, invalidating claims that horses are taking resources. Throughout the other public grazing areas in the United States, horses are allocated just 17%, while livestock are given the remaining land. However, the BLM complied, and is currently in the process of removing the mustangs. The BLM has caved to the RGSA’s successful negotiation in the past, offering a lease on public lands for 1/12th of the market rate. Fur-

OPINION thermore, these actions benefit more than just the cattle industry; horses are also being removed from areas in Colorado that have natural mining resources. With private interests in mind, the BLM’s roundups are far from humane. BLM roundups occur from late summer to late fall. Helicopters descend into areas where mustangs are spotted with the aim of chasing the horses into the direction of traps. Most wild horses have not had direct contact with humans or machines, but even for those who have been caught before, the experience is no doubt terrifying. The mustangs are stampeded for miles and miles towards the BLM’s target area, and the frightened horses fall or run into each other, sometimes leading to fatal injuries. The advocacy group Wild Horse Education posted a shocking Youtube video in 2011 of a BLM helicopter physically pushing an exhausted horse with its skids. Trained horses are ridden into panicked herds to lead the mustangs to their fate: cramped metal pens that forever separate them from freedom and their families. But the anguish doesn’t end there for the mustangs: nearly 50,000 horses are permanently kept in BLM holding facilities, outnumbering the 32,000 mustangs that exist in the wild. Ideally, the horses would be trained and adopted out, but not enough people are adopting, and it is getting increasingly expensive to keep the horses in captivity. The program is clearly not only unsustainable, but also treats these animals with unnecessary cruelty. Options other than terrorizing horses do exist, but the more simple answer lies in rethinking the reason for the roundups. One viable option, encouraged by many wild horse advocates, is a reversible and temporary sterilization drug that can be administered without roundups. The process by which the BLM decides how many horses are excessive remains extremely vague. BLM claims its actions are necessary to maintain a balance with other public rangeland resources and uses. The BLM claims that horses are taking too much water and food, but it is virtually impossible considering the large number of privately owned livestock grazing on the same pubic land. As filmmaker Ginger Kathrens aptly stated, “it’s time wild horses are protected against big government-subsidized businesses.” If powerful corporations continue to push for more land, the BLM, which shrugged its shoulders and surrendered in the Checkerboard Lands case, may agree to let mustang land continuously shrink in the future. Under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, the government is obliged to protect the mustang population of the United States, and that’s how it should stay. ■

Source: Terry Fitch Photography.

Berkeley Political Review | 24

OPINION

Humanitarian Intervention A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO SOLVING THE IMMIGRATION CRISIS QUINN SCHWAB

Tens of thousands of children flee gang violence in Central America each year, using el tren de la muerte, or the Death Train, to travel thousands of miles. Considering the difficult circumstances at home, this dangerous trek is often considered worth the high risks. Source: John Moore, Getty Images.

ince last October, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended over sixty thousand children fleeing abysmal conditions in Central America. These numbers represent an exponential increase in the number of unaccompanied minors seeking refuge in the United States each year from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. While some politicians have labeled the situation as a pressing national security issue, others have used it as a platform to advocate for immigration reform. Both positions are irrelevant, as neither argument has offered any longterm solutions to prevent future developments. Washington must acknowledge that the state of affairs in Central America is a humanitarian crisis that demands a stronger commitment to proactively avert the regional violence that propels the surge of Latino children towards our borders. Let us first examine the factors that prompt individuals to abandon their countries of origin to seek residence in another nation. The two primary elements to consider are referred to as the push and pull factors: those that drive immigrants to vacate their homes, and those that entice them to reside elsewhere. While the United States undoubtedly attracts immigrants because of our country’s higher standard of living and the allure of the American Dream, in the case of children from these Latin American countries, the push factors are more prominent. Central America is infested with criminal activity, and the majority of the violent crime in the region stems from the lucrative drug traf25 | Berkeley Political Review

ficking industry, which transports illegal substances from South America to consumers in the United States. Two gangs, MS-13 and M-18, are the primary perpetrators of such violence. Both organizations expanded dramatically to become transnational crime networks that effectively dominate much of Central America. According to a study conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, nearly 2,600 of the children who crossed the border this past year had originally come from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, the focal point of gang violence in the region. Known as the “Murder Capital of the World,” San Pedro Sula boasts a murder rate of approximately 170 per 100,000 residents, the highest in the world outside of active war zones. To add some perspective, the murder rate in the United States rests at 4.7 per 100,000 residents, considered remarkably high for a post-industrialized country. In a report conducted by the U.N. Refugee Agency titled Children on the Run, hundreds of teenagers who had been apprehended at the border were interviewed. The majority of responses indicated that pervasive violence in Central America had pushed the children to flee their home countries. One seventeen-yearold boy from Honduras described the atmosphere: “If you don’t join, the gang will shoot you. If you do, the rival gang will shoot you, or the cops. But if you leave, no one will shoot you.” The dangerous trip to the United States is the lesser of two evils: children can either stay home, immersed in constant fear, or travel thou-

sands of unforgiving miles in search of refuge. It is true that the large influx of undocumented minors ensures real complications for the United States, and as such, the crisis must be addressed in a meaningful, long-term way. However, the emphasis that Congress has placed on immigration reform and national security has bred policies that are unsustainable. In 2008, President Bush signed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which specified that children who entered the United States illegally from Central America would not be deported immediately, but instead would appear at an immigration hearing to determine the extenuating circumstances of their arrival. As a result, tens of thousands of children are draining federal and state resources at detention sites, awaiting the slow but inevitable process of deportation. In order to respond to the crisis, President Obama asked Congress for $3.7 billion to deal with the current crisis, which was ultimately rejected. In comparison, the United States appropriated just $350 million in 2013 for foreign aid to the seven Central American countries. The current administration is far more concerned with addressing the destabilizing effects of immigration on our home soil than examining the causes and proactively taking action against the source of such mass emigration. It is clear that the appalling conditions in Central America are infringing upon the welfare of a vast number of children in the region, thus pushing them towards the United States. If we were to launch an extensive campaign to assist Latin American countries in controlling the spread of gang violence while providing further humanitarian assistance to the region directly through USAID (The U.S. Agency for International Development), we could reduce the financial strain that illegal immigration crises cause while simultaneously improving the lives of thousands of children. Though it is entirely necessary to allocate adequate funding to provide suitable hospitality for the thousands of children awaiting deportation, it is far more important in the long run to consider the real humanitarian crisis that has instigated such mass migration. The best way to secure our borders in the future is not to increase funding to the Border Patrol or to continue reinforcing physical boundaries along our southern border; rather, we must focus our attention towards Central America in order to address the regional tensions that consistently push children to seek refuge in the United States. ■

Children Left Behind

OPINION

THE UNITED STATES IS CREATING THE ADHD EPIDEMIC ADORA SVITAK

he morning of October 21st, 2004, a fourteenyear-old named Matthew Hohmann took an Adderall XR pill for ADHD symptoms. His parents saw him down the pill with a cup of water; the next time they saw their son, he was prostrate on the bathroom floor. His lips were blue. He was nonresponsive. Matthew Hohmann died before EMTs could save him. Sudden death, the official cause of death in Matthew’s case, is one of the more severe possibilities of a slew of potential side effects for stimulant drugs; others include nervousness, insomnia, agitation, seizures, hallucinations, and depression. Despite the potential risks they pose to adolescents’ health, prescription of these drugs is only increasing, especially to treat primary school children. As the US produces and consumes about 85 percent of the world’s methylphenidate (the Source: Stanler, The Cincinnati Post active ingredient in Ritalin), it’s worth considering why Americans need simply run around. The Wall Street Journal described results of multiple Ritalin and Adderall so much, especially at younger and younger ages. The studies and concluded, “Regular, half-hour sessions of aerobic activity answer has more to do with the structure of American schools than the before school helped young children with symptoms of attention deficit biological makeup of American children. Stimulant medication is seen as hyperactivity disorder become more attentive and less moody.” Currently the solution for all behavioral issues in a problematic educational system only 6 states require 150 minutes a week of physical education from stuthat has neither the willpower nor budget to give students adequate be- dents; worse yet, only three states make at least 20 minutes of recess per havioral therapy, compromises active learning for the sake of standardized day mandatory for elementary schools. As increasing numbers of kids are testing, and quashes children’s natural propensity for physical activity by growing up in environments where their natural desire to let off steam through physical activity is being circumscribed by long school days with titling it “hyperactivity.” Although many schools refer students to see doctors about the pos- few breaks, the real miracle may be that more kids aren’t diagnosed with sibility of an ADHD diagnosis, it is rare that they encourage follow-ups ADHD. Many Berkeley students themselves can probably attest to occasionwith professional therapists; 75% of students diagnosed with ADHD do not receive behavioral counseling therapy, meaning that for many chil- ally getting bored, distracted, or fidgety in a lecture; it’s almost inevitable. dren, medication is their only treatment when really it should be the last Like us, many elementary school students feel the same way in their classresort. Behavioral counseling therapy may not be a perfect solution for es; unlike us, they usually don’t have the luxury of planning their own ADHD, but it provides an alternative to a highly-addictive medication or schedule or occasionally skipping out on a lecture. So when a child is at least makes it possible to lower drug dosages. Yet the prevalence of confronted with an under-stimulating classroom experience, often one medication-only ADHD patients attests to the cost-and-effort barrier that rife with test prep packets and bullet-ridden PowerPoint presentations, prevents many patients from seeking further help and many doctors from they may engage in perfectly normal behaviors teachers label “disruptive” delivering it. The CDC’s National Survey of Children’s Health revealed to try to stay afloat in a sea of mind-numbing boredom. In addition, the that by the time high school rolls around, 10% of girls have been diag- children could be acting out due to problems at home or other underlying nosed with ADHD, and 1 in 10 boys are taking medication for it. Getting conditions, but instead of dealing step-by-step with the web of problems so many students access to behavioral therapy would require a gargantuan that may entangle a given student, we carpet-bomb the symptom with public investment in mental health—the kind of investment that isn’t al- medication. In small classrooms with only a few students, a teacher could luring in the short term, compared to the cheaper and more convenient afford to give more personalized attention to each student. But our large option of providing drugs. This should be where schools take a stand by classrooms perpetuate an industrial model focused on churning out inforproviding access to quality psychological care, whether through trained mation for students to regurgitate. This means the fastest way to deal with counselors or connections to community resources. But too many teach- repeated “disruptive” behavior is often through medication. We don’t need more legislation that calls for better scores on highers and administrators are content with the idea that a child, now medistakes standardized tests; we need legislation that puts students’ health cated, will no longer be a troublemaker in the classroom. Perhaps the most insidious challenge to the wellness of children di- and wellness first. Addressing student health holistically instead of feeding agnosed with ADHD comes from within schools. In the wake of budget them stimulants may be costly, time-consuming, and complicated, but it’s cuts and school closures after No Child Left Behind, many school districts the right thing to do. We should feel ashamed that we are turning a blind have cut opportunities for active learning like music, arts, occupational eye to the 6.1% of Americans aged 4-17 taking ADHD medication simply classes, or even lunch and recess in order to direct more money to test because we would rather send children to school jacked up on powerful preparation. This happened despite overwhelming evidence pointing out amphetamines than confront the difficult and systemic problems of our the concrete learning gains made by children after having the chance to education system. ■ Berkeley Political Review | 26

OPINION

Why We Are to Blame For The Ebola Epidemic INEQUALITY AND CORRUPTION IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA

ost headlines in most major news networks for weeks on end reported daily on the latest chapter in the story of the current Ebola epidemic. How many new people have been infected? Is there a vaccine? Will the virus ever be contained? There has been widespread panic in the United States, ever since Eric Duncan brought the first civilian case of Ebola to Dallas from Liberia. There have been a handful of highly publicized infections of people who came into close contact with those infected, and in some cases these people are fortunate enough to gain access to experimental drugs like ZMapp and Brincidofover and begin a pathway to recovery. However, while we continue to tout success in the host of experimental drugs and vaccines that are currently under development, not a single drug has gone to the region where the disease originated. In West Africa, the Ebola epidemic has been going on since March, and yet only a handful of medical outreach organizations have attempted to quell the situation, and even then, were unable to give people treatment outside of oral rehydration therapy. While the disease itself can be fatal, the inadequacy of the western response coupled with corruption has caused Ebola to escalate in the developing world. Since March, more than 4,000 people have died of the Ebola virus in Western Africa. Why have the health systems in these countries been unable to make any progress in halting the epidemic? First of all, many Western African nations lack adequate health infrastructure. Despite outside aid and medical volunteers, corruption in the host government’s practices as well as a lack of business infrastructure have diminshed meager health resources further. Moreover, this situation creates a cyclical problem: when previous aid programs and funding are unable to make a difference because of corruption, future aid is discouraged and diverted. What is left in African nations such as Liberia are poorly built, health and understaffed helath facilities unable to tackle the unfolding medical crisis unfolding. This corruption not only prevents the development of a viable domestic health system; corruption encourages a health model dependent on foreign aid and international relief organizations – a system that may produce short term good, but is ultimately unsustainable in the long run. However, these facilities can still be restored to their full potential. On the other hand,

27 | Berkeley Political Review

PRIYANKA MOHANTY

throwing even more money at these countries and expecting them to solve the problem themselves is unrealistic. Most of the countries in West Africa that have the current highest incidence of Ebola are also some of the most corrupt. While some would question why we should focus on health facilities in countries that have such high levels of corruption, cleaning up these systems is in our best interest. However, corruption is not entirely to blame. The reason that the Ebola epidemic became trans-continental is the lack of a strong international response when Ebola broke out initially in March. Moreover, as the world becomes increasingly integrated, it becomes the responsibility of the global community to take care of all of its citizens, and in certain countries in Africa this has worked. With assistance from the global community, Rwanda has drastically improved its healthcare system and now has a functioning and well-equipped healthcare systems to handle an epidemic. In the case of Ebola, there is also a moral quandary as to why American citizens had access to experimental drugs, while African citizens did not. Drugs like ZMapp have been proven to be effective in patients, though not officially approved by the FDA, so it begs the question why the drug was not distributed to Guinea during the first outbreak. If the United States had chosen to distribute these drugs to

Source: Simon Regis.

the infected nations, the disease may not have been spread transnationally. On an ethical level, there is the responsibility to protect nations in need. Allegedly, drugs weren’t given to victims from the West Africa outbreak because they were not officially approved; however, when Ebola made its way to the United States, the different drug therapies were readily used on citizens who were affected. What is needed today is agile funding for health systems, both public and private, funded by forward-thinking foundations bolstered with technology and strong management, as was the case in Rwanda. Moreover, there needs to be an increase in international pressure against corruption in poor nations. When corruption decreases, a more sustainable domestic health care infrastructure could be fostered and this would increase responsiveness to epidemics like this. Finally, we must remove the different standards when it comes to the distribution of drugs and vaccines; in times of epidemic, it is critical that we stop viewing ourselves as separate countries who receive different treatment, and begin to help each other to save human lives. ■

Join BPR Berkeley Political Review seeks students interested in art, layout design, and writing to apply to our staff. Check out these opportunities:

bpr.berkeley.edu/apply

Advertise With BPR If you run a: Student Organization Local Business Campus Department Political Organization you can advertise in print & online: bpr.berkeley.edu/advertise

bpr.berkeley.edu