The Bowdoin Globalist – Issue 7 May 2014 by Bowdoin Globalist

Volume III, Issue 4, May 2014

The Ethics of Keystone XL

CONTENTS

Volume III, Issue 4, May 2014

Limits of the Obama Doctrine by Nick Tonckens

The Struggle to Create a New Libya by Camille Wasinger

Modern Slavery in Senegal by Katherine Churchill

The Northeastern SJP Case by Serena Taj

Keystone XL: Our Politics Must Catch Up To The Science by Evan Gershkovich

The Politics of Pouring Concrete by Kate Herman

Band-aid Solutions for Venezuela by Adam Hunt

France’s Hateful New Gesture by Madeline Cole

Reforming Maine’s Human Trafficking Laws by Haleigh Collins

A Tale of Two Countries by Drew Van Kuiken

Homophobia in American Sports by Chase Savage

How New is the New Pope? by Dylan Devenyi 3

Letter from the Editors Dear Reader,

Editors In Chief Dylan Hammer Mark Pizzi Christiana Whitcomb Associate Editors Evan Gershkovich Kate Herman Jin Niu Nick Tonckens Photography Editor Hannah Rafkin Layout Mark Pizzi Staff Writers John Branch Daniel Castro Madeline Cole Haleigh Collins Katherine Churchill Dylan Devenyi Adam Hunt Aaron Ng Chase Savage Kaylee Schwitzer Serena Taj Drew Van Kuiken Camille Wasinger

“Good Governance” is a term generally used in international development circles and by organizations like the World Bank to establish how governments are supposed to work. A government that doesn’t provide services to its citizens, embezzles funds, and presides over broad lawlessness is normatively judged as a bad government. Likewise a government that oversteps its bounds by ruling with an iron fist of coercive power, abridging rule of law, or suffocating space for the functioning of the private sphere is also given this label. International development looks at how institutional qualities inhibit economic and human growth, but we can expand this concept of good governance to looking beyond development trajectories. This issue of the Globalist features several articles that encourage us to consider the role of governments and when they do and don’t work “well.” Katherine Churchill skewers the Senegalese government’s failure to implement legislation targeting modern day slavery, and its inability to support human rights advancement alongside its relative economic achievement. In Maddie Cole’s examination of the Quenelle gesture sweeping France, we consider the role of state limitations on free speech, and whether silencing hate is a defense of or a threat to liberty. Adam Hunt’s report on developing unrest in Venezuela presents Exhibit A in bad governance: Chavez and Maduro as runaway populists shortselling their country’s social and economic resources. Lastly, Evan Gershkovich argues for government’s moral and declaratory role in his case against the Keystone XL pipeline. These are joined by articles on several of the most pressing topics in the world today. We hope that you enjoy our writers’ thought-provoking treatment of these issues and, as always, welcome any comments or ideas you might have for us at our email thebowdoinglobalist@gmail.com or on twitter @bowdoinglobal. Christiana, Dylan, and Mark Editors in Chief Special Thanks to the Office of the President of Bowdoin College.

ery.

Obama drew an explicit “red line”—the use of chemical weapons—that would trigger US involvement. In retrospect, he clearly expected this threat to act as a deterrent. This aligned with a long US policy tradition of opposing the proliferation of chemical weapons. The issue with deterrents is that they disintegrate if they can be revealed as bluffs. When the Assad regime crossed the President’s “red line,” it triggered a storm of indecisive bluster. The Obama Administration made a series of grave mistakes. First, it decided to seek broad international support for a strike against Assad. When Mr. Obama drew the red line, he promised swift American action, not a deliberate, multilateral negotiation process. This slowed down the speed of response, and effectively put American policy in the hands of other nations. Saudi Arabia and France risked considerable political capital by declaring support for a US strike, but the British parliament’s failure to approve UK involvement in the conflict alongside the United States killed momentum for multilateral involvement. Instead of going ahead anyway and demonstrating American resolve, President Obama made his second mistake. He decided to copy the failed British approach, and punted the decision to Congress. He thus outsourced one of the most critical foreign policy decisions of his administration to the least reliable and efficient decision-making body in the United States government. This again slowed down the response and delegated responsibility. But it also embarrassed the leaders voicing support for a US strike, including the aforementioned American allies and Secretary of State John Kerry. Just as Congress looked set to further continue humiliating President Obama and his allies by voting down military action, Russia swooped in with a compromise solution under which Assad would surrender his chemical weapons, and there would be no foreign military action. This deus ex machina saved President Obama from an even more devastating outcome, but it came at the price of Russian President Vladimir Putin briefly stealing the mantle of world’s leading statesman. This episode had three dangerous consequences. First, it undermined the United States’ perceived willingness to make good on its threats. This alienated American allies, like Saudi Arabia, which cooperates with the United States largely to secure protection against Iran. Perceiving a violence-averse, irresolute, and apathetic administration, Saudi Arabia has begun distancing itself from the

Limits of the Obama Doctrine: Counterterrorism, Syria, and Ukraine by Nick Tonckens

Two tendencies define the Obama Administration’s approach to armed conflict: retrenchment from inherited wars and minimal military involvement in new crises. Since taking office, President Obama has tried to readjust American foreign policy to reflect new political and fiscal constraints. Seven years of war under the Bush administration wore down the electorate’s patience for foreign adventures and sapped the federal government’s ability to continue financing them. This pragmatic adaptation dovetails well with President Obama’s worldview, an imperfect blend of idealistic liberalism and cautious realism. At once a true believer in the value of international institutions and cognizant of America’s declining relative influence, the President inclines toward conciliatory rhetoric and multilateral action. But his motives are patriotic, not humanitarian. He has opted for a restrained, multilateral approach in order to maximize American influence in a time of budget shortfalls and war fatigue. This explains why Obama shows such tremendous caution in risking American blood and treasure overseas. While this prudent approach has kept us safe at home and out of new quagmires abroad, President Obama has taken his caution too far. His timid and indecisive handling of the Syrian Civil War has shredded America’s credibility with its allies and rivals alike in the Middle East, not to mention enabled Bashar al-Assad’s butch5

United States. Last year, Prince Turki al-Faisal attacked the President’s Syria policy as “lamentable” and the Russian-brokered deal a “charade.” Meanwhile, the Kingdom’s intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised a “major shift” in US-Saudi relations in response. Indecisive policy has thus undermined our leverage and influence over a critical actor in the region. The Syria fiasco also revealed that the administration was unclear on its own priorities. President Obama and his advisors have never been able to reconcile their nominal support for the opposition with their fears that rebel success could empower radical groups like Jabat al-Nusra, and that indecision showed through in the President’s waffling. This has further contributed to the loss of faith in American foreign policy, particularly from Persian Gulf allies, like Saudi Arabia, who have heavily backed the Syrian rebels. Finally, President Obama surrendered the diplomatic initiative to Russian President Putin at a critical time. President Putin was pressuring then-President Viktor Yanukovich of Ukraine to forgo closer ties with the European Union in favor of an agreement with the Kremlin-sponsored Eurasian Union. The Syrian agreement helped President Putin portray himself, both to his subjects and to the world, as the great leader who would finally return Russia to the center of the world stage. The Sochi Winter Olympics, which followed soon after, further boosted his stature. In light of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, the outcome of the Syria agreement looks particularly dangerous. It made America’s careful drawdown in the Middle East look like the flailing retreat of a declining power, and Russia’s strategic opportunism the triumph of a resurgent power. Forced to divert his attention to this most unwelcome of potential battlefields, President Obama will surely want to avoid a European conflict at any cost. But he must heed the lesson of Syria. There, his fears of worsening the conflict proved laughably misplaced, as the country descended into a grinding, bloody stalemate that the United States might have broken. Had he stuck to his red line, he would have provided the Assad regime with a tangible incentive to dial back its attacks on civilians, and preserved American credibility. A strike would have served both strategic and humanitarian goals. If President Putin is not deterred from invading the Ukraine again, he will have successfully conquered portions of two democratic neighbors (it happened in Georgia in 2008). This may very well embolden President Putin to annex the breakaway Russian enclave of Transnistria, in eastern Moldova, or even the NATO-aligned Baltic countries. By demonstrating that America is still willing to back up its words with actions, President Obama could restore American credibility and check the conquests of a tyrant. He must make the costs of illegal action so clear and grievous for Russia that President Putin has no choice but to return to diplomacy and international law. Whether President Obama does this through sanctions or the threat of military force depends on President Putin’s next steps. When and if the Russian bear advances, America must retaliate swiftly, and, if necessary, unilaterally. For all its cynicism, the free world still follows America’s lead in times of crisis. President Obama must remember this and act accordingly. It is time to stop reacting to the Bush years. New crises increasingly put American allies at risk in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. In those places, we have an obligation to act decisively and assertively in the name of our shared interests. That, Mr. President, is true multilateralism. ■

The Struggle to Create a New Libya By Camille Wasinger

October 20, 2011: The world watched, transfixed, as Libyan rebels violently ended the life of Muammar Qadhafi, dictator of 42 years, whose reign of censorship and oppression drove the Libyan people to civil war and revolution. Violence and bloodshed aside, there is something irrationally romantic about Libya’s revolution and those others that materialized throughout the Arab world in 2011: a Tunisian fruit vendor immolated himself in protest of his unjust government, Egyptians rallied to take Cairo back from the hands of corrupt officials. The narrative of people rising up to throw off their oppressor is one that we universally respond to – it speaks to the indomitable human spirit, the ability of people to stand up for their fundamental human rights and to triumph. There is an optimism inherent to nearly all revolutions—and Libya’s is no exception—that once the revolution is won, once the dictator vanquished and the nation freed from his iron fist, the hard work is done and the country can finally be the paradise it would have been sans autocrat. Global media coverage echoes this pattern. The outside world is fed minute-by-minute updates until the revolutionary overthrow, at which point the media’s happy ending has been achieved and the public eye turns elsewhere to find its headlines. This “happily ever after,” however, is rarely a reality, and in Libya, rebels and citizens alike came to realize that Qadhafi’s death marked only the beginning of a long, difficult, and painful chapter in Libyan history. Libya’s transitional government was left with a blood-soaked country lacking political structure, a nearly non-existent military and police force with questionable, shifting allegiances, and a population waiting hopefully and expectantly for the post-Qadhafi utopia. 6

“I’m not sure growing ‘anti-Americanism’ is the issue—most Libyans have a great deal of hope in our ability to ‘make things right’ here.” Despite these hopes, outside governments’ early efforts to provide assistance in Libya were hindered soon after the revolution when NATO’s Operation Unified Protector, which had helped arm and organize the Libyan rebels, ended just a week after Qadhafi’s death, and the transitional government rejected the presence of United Nations support troops. The U.S. and several EU nations have offered their assistance in organizing the security sector and maintaining order in Libya, but any attempts are hamstrung by the lack of decision-making power at the heart of Libya’s governing structure. Government efforts to create a national army drawing from the variety of rebel militias that fought during the revolution have largely failed, leading to an amalgamation of murky, shifting allegiances and confusion over who the perpetrators of violence are actually working for. Although it is unclear how effective outside help could actually be in Libya, under the present circumstances, the GNC has become vulnerable to both fallback into Qadhafi-era patterns of political thought and organization, and governance through reactionary, revenge policies. So far, the political landscape in Libya has mirrored the Qadhafi regime’s inefficient configuration of local, direct people’s congresses with little actual bearing on political decisions. Even revenge policies meant to distance the new administration from the old regime’s patterns have echoed Qadhafi-era authoritarianism. In May 2013, the GNC passed a law banning anyone with connection to the old regime from office for 10 years. Though later annulled, the GNC initially also made passage for a censorship stipulation prohibiting criticism of the revolution, the Libyan state, or Islam, or any expressed nostalgia for the old regime. These efforts reflect, as Ambassador Jones states, that “[the Libyans] have a lot of work to do to change ingrained patterns of thought and behavior following 42 years of Qadhafi. And they will have to find a formula that works for them, not necessarily our way of doing business.” The Ambassador’s words also highlight the limits on how much outside states can actually do to help Libya resolve its internal struggles, especially at a time when Middle Eastern governments are particularly sensitive to being perceived or labeled as “puppets of the West.” With public service provision still faulty and functional infrastructure lacking, tensions rising among militias, and persisting political inefficiency, the ability of the Libyans to construct a new, post-revolutionary state without further civil conflict is increasingly uncertain. It appears that Libyans are reaching the limit to their patience with the GNC’s inefficiencies and failure to implement a functioning security apparatus. The host of conflicting opinions and rival militia groups vying for military and political influence make consensus nearly impossible and violent confrontations common. In eastern Libya, whispers of a Federalist movement are spreading, and all the while, Libyan civilians suffer the consequences of diminished oil exports and a struggling economy. Libya’s experience reveals the multitude of complex challenges a nation faces after the initial excitement and momentum driving a revolution has worn off. The reality of revolutionary success is far less romantic and far more short-lived than the common narrative, and should thus be seen less as an everlasting triumph and more as the first step on a long and difficult road to a new state and a new way of life. ■

After weeks of waiting became months, and months have become years, it this utopia not been forthcoming. Libya’s current governing body, the General National Congress (GNC) still struggles to organize the complex multitude of conflicting opinions and rival camps that comprise it into the decisive leadership necessary to pave a positive path forward for the country. The newly elected Council of 60 has yet to begin writing the constitution that will replace the flawed constitutional declaration issued by the transitional government in August 2011, and the state still lacks an effective army or police force to maintain security. Qadhafi provided Libya’s disparate local rebels, tribal groups, and militants with a common enemy, uniting them, and giving the revolution its tremendous momentum. With their common enemy defeated and no unified government security mechanism to keep order, political chaos reigns and violence has picked up across the country. Libya’s current situation is dominated by an acute security problem. The attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi in September 2012 that killed American Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens and three of his staff members was followed in October 2013 by armed militants’ brief abduction of former Prime Minister Ali Zeidan. Further violence has included the January 2014 assassination of the Deputy Industry Minister and abduction of five Egyptian Embassy officials, and in March 2014, the storming of parliament and a tense showdown over the fate of a North Korean oil tanker. Anti-Western, or even anti-foreign sentiment is not necessarily to blame. As U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Deborah Jones, states,

Modern Slavery in Senegal by Katherine Churchill

Western media often cites Senegal as a beacon of democratic hope and stability in West Africa amidst a slew of violence-ridden, deeply impoverished neighbors. Senegal boasts one of the highest GDP’s in the region with a steady growth rate, more than a decade of peaceful turnovers of power, and a balanced, moderate Muslim society on a continent where faiths of all sorts are frequently used as excuses for violence. However, despite Senegal’s economic and political promise, a recent report from the Human Rights Watch revealed a blemish on Senegal’s development record: the continued prevalence of forced child begging in Quranic schools in and around Dakar. This domestic problem exemplifies a larger issue pertaining to regional modern slavery. As Senegal shows, individual economic and democratic success cannot immunize a nation against the pervasive and under-addressed problem of slavery—a compelling warning for the West. The 40 page Human Rights Watch document evaluated the progress (and lack thereof) in persecuting the schools and teachers guilty of forced child begging, a criminal offense under Senegal’s human trafficking laws, and in regulating the Quranic schools that often serve as a front for this modern child slavery. Teachers lie to poor families that they will educate their children in the teachings of the Quran and instead force them to beg on the streets. The teachers give children quotas of donations to fill on threat of brutal physical abuse. The schools have no academic curriculum, and actually contribute to the dearth of education among populations of impoverished young people. Furthermore, religious leaders have repeatedly condemned the schools as illegitimate. Despite clear evidence against the Quaranic schools, Senegal’s current human trafficking laws, which could be used to crackdown on this form of slavery, are going unused. Since a horrific fire in one of these schools killed eight boys last year, legislatures have been developing laws to regulate these schools. Yet only one school has been prosecuted since the tragedy, as law enforcement continues to turn a blind eye to child slavery, despite the fact that Senegal

is better equipped politically and financially to address the problem than any of its neighbors. Disturbingly, slavery is endemic to much of West Africa. Mauritania, Senegal’s direct neighbor, ranks number one in prevalence of slavery among the population as a whole according to the Global Slavery Index and has a system of hereditary slavery. Also included on the top-ten list for prevalence of slavery are Benin, Cote D’Ivoire, and Gambia—all West African countries. One of the most common forms slavery involves the kidnapping or misleading of children by promising jobs in order to take them to plantations as labor. Slavery in West Africa targets the society’s most marginalized people, specifically the poor and children, so politicians have little incentive to address the problem. The Global Slavery Index ranks Senegal number eleven, just escaping the top-ten. Senegal illustrates that democratic and economic advantage do not necessarily remove a country from the specter of human rights violations. Analogously, despite their own economic advantage paired with geographic distance, Western countries share guilt in the problem of modern slavery. Slavery persists in industries around the world (especially agriculture) at the knowledge of profiting Western corporations. Consumers, either unknowing or apathetic, repeatedly cite the institutionalization and inevitably of “bad labor practices” as a reason to ignore them. Globalized markets and Western hegemony directly implicate corporation and consumers in developed countries. Only a few miles off the coast of Dakar sits La Gorée, an island where centuries ago slaves were sold into the Atlantic slave trade. Despite this monument, now a World Heritage Site and a necessary reminder of the horror of slavery, the Senegalese government, the West, and the world at large continuously turn a blind eye to modern slavery. Forced child begging is only one example among many. As Senegal shows us, slavery threatens the human rights of all countries, even those with high economic and political achievement. ■

The Northeastern SJP Case

students publicize Israel’s war crimes and human rights violations against the Palestinian people, US universities accuse those students of being intimidating, disruptive and anti-Semitic. Students for Justice in Palestine, a grassroots Palestinian solidarity organization whose goal is to promote the self-determination of the Palestinian people and their liberation from occupation, is far too often the target of such smear campaigns by Zionists who disapprove of its mission. Max Blumenthal reports that shortly after the distribution of the mock eviction notices, “all Northeastern students received an email from Robert Jose, Northeastern’s Associate Dean for Cultural and Residential Life. ‘We do not condone any behavior that causes members of our community to feel targeted and/or intimidated,’ Jose wrote.” In the same email, Jose also implored students to express their concerns about the leaflets to school administrators and the Hillel House, which in Northeastern’s case is explicitly pro-Israel. Labeling students who criticize Israel as anti-Semitic is a means of stifling discussion and perpetuating Israeli hegemony, and banning those views outright is an alarming abuse of power on the part of university administrators. Northeastern is influenced by several vocally Zionist donors, among them Robert Shillman and Seth Klarman. These men, along with other wealthy alums, are linked with the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and Americans for Peace and Tolerance (AFPT)—groups which have issued statements accusing SJP, because it calls for the basic human rights of the Palestinian people through nonviolent boycott, of “seeking to justify a second Holocaust” and “the mass murder of Jews.” Many who disagree with the administration’s decision—not just members of Northeastern SJP but a much larger coalition of students and activists—have suggested that the reasons for suspension are financial and political in nature. If these accusations are correct and pro-Palestinian voices are being silenced on US university campuses for political reasons, it is not just Palestinian solidarity groups who should be concerned but all students, parents and faculty alike. Northeastern University’s decision regarding SJP designates certain political sentiments as uncivil and therefore deserving of disciplinary action automatically. Rather than promoting dialogue and the free exchange of ideas, Northeastern, along with Washington University of St. Louis, Columbia College, and others, has attempted to silent student speech due to political pressure. This is a direct threat both to the First Amendment principles of free speech and to the academic integrity of the American university. Frustration over the administration’s decision has been widespread, and in response to public backlash, the expulsion charges against two members of SJP have been dropped—although they still face the possibility of “deferred suspension” and the group remains suspended. Nonetheless, Branagan and Northeastern Students for Justice in Palestine refuse to accept the administration’s dogmatism: “I think there’s a clear message being sent to the administration: SJP is not alone in caring about justice in Palestine, free speech on campus or social movements. Singling us out is not only wrong, but futile. The administration will not stop our organizing, nor will it stop free speech. We will fight this unjust attack with every fiber of our being until victory, and we’re never going to stop until our university completely divests from Israeli apartheid.” ■

by Serena Taj In a motion that has incensed free speech advocates across the country, Boston’s Northeastern University has suspended its chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) until 2015 after the organization engaged in a leaflet campaign around school dormitories. The university has also pursued disciplinary action, including expulsion proceedings, against two group members. The leaflets were replicas of eviction notices which are routinely posted on Palestinian homes scheduled for Israeli demolition—since 1967, over 26,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed in order to clear land for Jewish-only settlements. Although the leaflets stated that these notices were replicas and that Northeastern SJP had no known plans to actually demolish student residences, the Northeastern administration opted to ban the organization in response to what they described as a campaign reliant upon the intimidation of their fellow students. If Northeastern SJP plans to petition for reinstatement in 2015, group members will have to attend mandated “civility trainings” and current board members of the group will be prohibited from serving on the inaugural board of the new organization. The Northeastern incident is one of several university-led attempted suppressions of pro-Palestinian speech in recent weeks. At Columbia College Chicago, a course on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was canceled by the administration after the professor screened the Oscar nominated documentary 5 Broken Cameras for his students. The film, which depicts the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian village of Bil’in, challenges what Chris Hedges terms “the official Israeli narrative” because it shoulders the responsibility of reporting Israel’s violations of human rights and international law and thus, according to Columbia’s administration, constitutes bias. Washington University in St. Louis also censored pro-Palestinian speech when acclaimed slam poet Remi Kanazi—who performed at Bowdoin last April—was forced, shortly before a scheduled event at the college, to entirely alter the content of his speech on the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel. And, in response to the growing support surrounding the decision of the American Studies Association to boycott Israeli universities which participate in the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, legislation is being proposed in several states to, ironically, boycott universities that might support the ASA’s resolution. According to Ryan Branagan, a member of the now suspended Northeastern SJP, in an interview with The Nation, “Northeastern SJP’s suspension comes at the end of a long line of differential treatment, academic sanctioning and censorship of our student organization on campus.” Northeastern SJP was put on probation in May 2013 after staging a silent walkout of an event featuring representatives of the Israel Defense Forces, a military body that has been noted for its human rights violations and war crimes by organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. In addition to the probation, which SJP disputed during their hearing and subsequent appeal, the organization was also required to issue a “civility statement” and attend “leadership trainings.” The Northeastern administration claims that the group’s suspension was issued because of both the leaflet campaign as well as violations of the earlier probation—violations which, according to Branagan, SJP “had already been cleared of or found not responsible.” The recent assaults on pro-Palestinian speech, particularly the events at Northeastern, demonstrate a disturbing trend. When

Following widespread support from the advocacy community, the Northeastern administration has reinstated the student chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine as of April 22, 2014. The student group will continue its work in the coming fall semester.

Keystone XL: Our Politics Must Catch Up To The Science by Evan Gershkovich

The Problem On May 4, 2012, TransCanada Corporation sent an application to the State Department for a proposed pipeline that would run from the Canadian border to Nebraska. Keystone XL, if approved, would be the fourth phase of the Keystone Pipeline System (three phases are already in operation). When completed, the pipelines would carry up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta, Canada to Texas. The crude oil that the pipelines would transport is tar sands oil, a dirty form of oil containing bitumen—a thick form of petroleum—which must be extracted and refined. Producing one barrel of the crude oil takes up to four barrels of water, and, as The Economist explains, “20 percent of Canada’s natural gas (a clean fuel) is used to produce oil (a dirty one).” Mining the sands also results in deforestation and “vast ponds of toxic byproducts.” Moreover, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), producing Canadian tar sands oil produces 82 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than does the average barrel refined in the United States. The State Department’s responsibility, as explained on its website, is “to determine if granting a permit for the proposed pipeline would serve the national interest,” which involves “consideration of many factors including: energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations and issues.” But as President Barack Obama explained in a speech on climate change on June 25, 2013, these factors of national interest can only come into consideration once the environmental ones are satisfied: “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest, and our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

The Debate tentially disastrous results mining tar sands would bring for both Alberta’s environment and the global climate. Burton Richter, the Paul Pigott Professor in the Physical Sciences, Emeritus at Stanford University, and Director Emeritus of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, argues similarly, also in an op-ed for The New York Times. He writes, “The anti-Keystone movement is fundamentally about politics and building support for the ‘anti-something’ organizations.” Bill McKibben, who is the founder of one such “anti-something” organization, 350.org, which works to build a global climate change movement, and is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar in Environmental Studies at Middlebury College, explains that proponents of Keystone XL miss the point: the anti-Keystone movement is about making sure that preserving a viable biosphere for ourselves and for future generations takes priority over national energy security. “If we burned all the economically recoverable oil in Alberta overnight, then the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would rise from 400 [parts per million (ppm)] (already too high) to 540 ppm,” McKibben wrote in an email to The Bowdoin Globalist. “There are a dozen or so deposits of carbon this size around the world, and they all have to stay in the soil (just as the Amazon rainforest has to stay standing). Otherwise, you can’t begin to make the math work.

Since the submission of the proposal, there has been much protest against Keystone XL regarding the effects the pipeline would have on climate change. During a 30-day public comment period, which ended on March 7, 2014, the State Department received over two million comments against the proposal, and prior to the close of the comment period, seven Bowdoin students were arrested in a student-led protest opposing Keystone XL. Thirteen Bowdoin students attended the 1,200-person protest along with students from 79 other colleges, 391 of which were arrested. There are, however, many American proponents of Keystone XL, who argue that the pipelines would allow the United States to increase its energy security and reduce its dependence on foreign oil. “With Keystone XL, our crude imports from Canada could reach 4 million barrels a day by 2030, twice what we currently import from the Persian Gulf,” wrote Cindy Schild, a senior manager for oil sands and refinery policy programs at the American Petroleum Institute, in an op-ed for The New York Times. “Building the pipeline is an important step toward the ability to supply 100 percent of our liquid fuel needs from stable North American sources, a milestone that could be reality within 10 years.” For Schild, Keystone XL was never really a climate issue, but instead, political. But in prioritizing American energy security, Schild overlooks the po-

require political action. According to the report, “Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger.” The final State Department environmental impact analysis statement on Keystone XL released in January 2014, however, argues that if we do not tap into Canada’s tar sands, someone else will; thus, we might as well be the one to do so. The statement reads: “approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States.” President Obama echoed this argument in a 2012 interview with Rolling Stone: “it’s important to understand that Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do.” However, John Broome, the White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford, and a lead author on Working Group III of the IPCC, helps us understand why this kind of argument is flawed. Consider a version of Broome’s response: a man—let’s call him Barry—is traveling through the desert and comes across a soldier who is about to execute a peasant. When the soldier sees Barry, however, he offers Barry to pay him, Barry, a fee to kill the peasant. True, the peasant will die whether or not Barry takes the fee and executes the peasant. Still, Broome argues, Barry should not kill the peasant, because then Barry, rather than the soldier, will have committed the injustice. Even though Barry cannot prevent the injustice from occurring, he can withhold from committing the actual injustice. Similarly, even though TransCanada could build a pipeline to the Canadian coast instead of through the United States, exploiting its tar sands whether we want them to or not, we ought not commit the injustice of actively exacerbating climate change.

The Decision

And given that climate change is already well underway, there’s no margin any more.”

The State Department’s review to determine if building Keystone XL is in the national interest is expected to wrap up in early May, allowing President Obama to make a decision on the pipeline. In his acceptance speech in 2008, President Obama spoke of a “planet in peril”; we know today, in 2014, the peril has come much sooner than we expected back then. President Obama, knowing what he does, cannot issue a Presidential Permit for the building of Keystone XL. Moreover, after rejecting TransCanada’s application in a few weeks, he ought to step up as a global leader and call for Canada to not tap into its tar sands regardless of what we do. As Dr. James Hansen, former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, put it in an op-ed for The New York Times: “If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.” Returning to Broome’s analogy, we can even extend the story further. If we don’t accept the soldier’s fee, we do not commit an injustice by executing the peasant; however, if we do not do anything to stop the soldier from executing the peasant, eventually we will play a role in our own execution. Game over for the climate means game over for us. Our politics must catch up to the science. ■

The Ethics To put the effects of a rise in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 540 ppm in perspective, it is important to note that the pre-industrial value of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 280 ppm, according to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations panel that periodically summarizes the current state of climate science for world governments. In the second part of the most recent edition of the report released on March 31, 2014 (Working Group II), the panel found that with current levels already at 400 ppm, the world’s food and water supplies are at risk, many animals and fish are migrating or going extinct, sea levels are rising, and storms are intensifying. Moreover, the Working Group II report provides evidence that environmentalists like McKibben clearly understand what the political effects of exacerbating climate change would be. To be sure, then, Schild and Richter are correct in claiming that Keystone XL is a political issue; however, what they miss is that it is a political issue primarily because the disastrous effects of climate change will

The Politics of Pouring Concrete by Kate Herman

Following the 1947 War of Independence, the establish-

ment of the state of Israel was predicated on the removal of the Palestinian population. Referred to as the Nakba, or the catastrophe in Arabic, the expulsion and displacement of the Palestinians has become the focal point for the call to a political solution to the conflict, particularly through the status of the refugees themselves. In light of the increasing normalization of Israel’s military occupation, the millions of Palestinian refugees both in and out of historic Palestine are a poignant reminder of the cost of the creation of Israel. Traditionally, the refugee maintains a certain role in politics, particularly when refugee status is the result of such a conflict. A refugee without a state is the embodiment of the ramifications of such conflict, and therefore represents, to those living within the state system, a matter yet to be resolved. The presence of a refugee population therefore wields political leverage for the refugees themselves, allowing those without a state to retain a form of political voice. However, as a symbolic role, the refugee must maintain certain signifiers of this status in order to preserve the political weight it entails—tents and food ration cards have become potent symbols emphasizing the transitory nature of their camp. The insurers of such a status are the humanitarian agencies that provide for their perpetuated, yet provisional state. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that was created following the Nakba, has become the primary caregiver for the Palestinian refugee population. Tailored to fit the conditions of the conflict at hand (read: refugees stripped of any political influence), UNRWA began its services as a temporary relief agency and has since evolved into a pseudo-development agency. As noted by recent ethnographic research, the relationship between the refugees and their benefactors is fraught, dependent upon the legitimacy that a UN refugee service provides, yet straining against an institution that is structurally inhibited from politically representing the interests of the refugees in any capacity. This tension is similarly evident in the progression of their programming. For decades now, UNRWA has been contorting its programming through rhetoric and policy adaptations to maintain its impossible directive to remain apolitical. From passing out rations and tents to the evolution of UNRWA as an administrative body, nearly governing its camps, the movement towards development projects has pushed forward haltingly. Early on, these attempts to urge resettlement were quickly rebuffed. The public

works initiative, as well as a “shelter program” for permanent housing in the early fifties, lasted only a couple of years, and it was only until the micro-financing programs of the nineties that UNRWA’s repeated arguments for self-sufficiency and empowerment through economic development began to take hold. Capitalizing on this foothold, in 2006 UNRWA began implementation of its Camp Improvement Program. Overall, the program seeks comprehensive rehabilitation by encouraging and solidifying the community within the camp, primarily through the construction of community centers like educational or recreational compounds. Though relatively ambiguous in its intention, the actual implementation includes erection of concrete structures among the tents and shanties of the camp. Although these UNRWA camps have, by merit of their continued existence for over 60 years, instigated a new conception of a refugee camp, there are limits to which this evolving definition can be pushed. Pouring cement represents a significant disjuncture from the fundamental, temporary nature of refugee camps, quite literally concretizing the displacement of Palestinians and actualizing resettlement in the very camps themselves. These forays into development interventions plainly play into the refugees’ fears that the right of return will never be realized, but entering the 67th year after the Nakba, calls for pragmatism are gaining more ground than ideological arguments. Though such appeals for ameliorating the quality of life in the camps are valid, there is also political incentive for the partial resolution of the issue – resettlement is literally the settlement of the refugee issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, silencing their political claims and removing the them from consideration in the peace talks. In articulating such a criticism, the intent is not to problematize the necessary reality of refugee camps that have existed for decades, but to call attention to the final removal of political voice of the Palestinian refugees. The leverage of refugee identity only extends so far as the tents and rations that they are provided. In pouring concrete, the camps are scrubbed of their significance and resettlement becomes a political maneuver in and of itself. Such programs are pushed by the UN to strengthen their statement “living with dignity is a human right,” but fail to understand that for refugees demanding their right to return, dignity necessarily encompasses the political life as well as the social and economic. In many ways the effects of these development programs comprise a pivotal juncture in the normalization of the conflict, further silencing of the Palestinian people as peace talks continue. ■

Band-aid Solutions for Venezeula by Adam Hunt

Today in Venezuela, citizens are in the streets protesting what they see as a corrupt, mismanaged, misguided government. Broad discontent has been brewing in the country for years, beginning largely in the Chavez presidency and intensifying in fury since the 2013 election of Nicolás Maduro—a younger and taller, but ideologically identical version of his predecessor. Recently, tension finally came to a boiling point. The first of the protests began in January and early February of this year, following the roadside robbery and murder of a famous Venezuelan actress and the rape of a university student on San Critobal campus. The protests called for increased security and governmental accountability; Venezuela has one of the highest crime rates in the world and a murder rate that is similarly chart-topping, now quadruple what it was when Chavez was elected in 1999. In response to the protest in San Cristobal, the police detained and allegedly beat a number of students, providing the spark that transformed a potentially isolated event into a full-blown and wide-spread cry for revolution. Since then, demonstrations have broken out across the country, including the capital of Caracas, where protests have brought thousands to the streets, often in militarized conflict with the government. The movement has also broadened in focus, addressing a range of issues across all aspects of Venezuelan society. One of the more immediate concerns voiced by protestors is Venezuela’s increasingly dire economic state. Chavez’s vision of industry was like the sales pitch of a closing electronic superstore —“Leave nothing on the shelves, nothing in the warehouses… Let nothing remain in stock!” Chavez once declared on Venezuelan television. With this intensely populist vision, Chavez slashed prices to the lowest common denominator, which helped the consumer for a brief moment but ultimately increased inflation radically and suffocated national industry, limiting international trade potential and ultimately hurting the Venezuelan consumer. Today, basic goods such as eggs, milk, and flour are scarcely available anywhere in the country. In response to questions about food and toilet paper shortages, the current president, Nicolas Maduro joked that Venezuelan people “eat too much.”

Venezuela’s crumbling economy has facilitated the rampant growth of a black market, to which people have no choice but to turn, and which has worsened the already considerable problem of corruption. Profiteers who feed off the deteriorated system—buying on the regular market and selling on the black market—push Venezuela further into disarray. As Venezuela’s economy turns more into a free-for-all, so does the country’s social structure. A particularly vivid example of this shift has been the country’s housing policy. In 2011, Chávez delivered a speech inviting all of the countries homeless to come inhabit the innumerable abandoned warehouses, galpones, scattered across Caracas: “I invite the people…Look for your own galpón and tell me where it is. Everyone should go find a galpón. Let’s go get us a galpón! There are a thousand, two thousand abandoned galpones in Caracas. Let’s go for them! Chávez will expropriate them and put them at the service of the people.” Unfortunately, there was no organizational structure in place to facilitate such a major migration. Coming in huge numbers, the homeless filled every vacant nook and cranny of the city. Without proper governmental supervision, the new neighborhoods have come to be ruled by armed and violent slum-lords whose claims to power are threatened only by those who are as ferocious and lawless as they. Venezuela’s social and economic problems are inextricably linked; neither will be solved unless they are addressed in conjunction with one another. Ready for meaningful relief, the people of Venezuela have finally called their government’s evasive bluffs of empty populism and come to realize that the current trend of providing quick-fix, band-aid answers to society’s fundamental, gaping challenges only intensifies them. The Venezuelan government must hold itself responsible for its problems before it can fix them. Up until this point, Maduro, like Chavez before him, has blamed his country’s problems on what he calls an economic war being waged against Venezuela. By whom, he has never specified. ■

France’s Hateful New Gesture by Madeline Cole

A new gesture called the “quenelle” has been making its way into the pictures of French adolescents, writers, and footballers alike. The quenelle is almost militaristic in appearance, and unlike typical poses such as the thumbs up, it carries an implicit political message, though the meaning of that message is still unclear. It has been adopted by a vast swath of French society, posed in pictures with right arms pointing directly at the ground, fingers outstretched, elbow fully flexed, and with the left elbow bent at a forty-five degree angle, fingertips resting on the shoulder. Some find the gesture eerily reminiscent of an inverted Nazi salute, while many (including the gesture’s inventor) claim that the bent arm is simply to indicate the length of the straight arm that would be inserted into the behind of the “establishment.” The quenelle was conceived and made famous by the controversial French comedian Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, borrowing its name from the traditional French dumpling. The actor, comedian, and political activist is known for his anti-Zionist stances, which often overlap with full-fledged anti-Semitism. Many of his comedy routines reference and make light of the Holocaust, as well as speak hatefully against prominent French Jews, such as his vitriolic comment, “Me, you see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself: ‘Gas chambers ... too bad (they no longer exist).’” Dieudonne’s anti-semitic views contribute to the controversy surrounding the quenelle, and his well-established beliefs may be part of what has led to its apparent use in targeting of Jewish segments of French society. Indeed, although the gesture is often 16

defended as being “anti-system” or “anti-establishment,” there has been an unmistakable trend in the photos featuring the quenelle with people performing the symbol in front of synagogues, along with other prominent Holocaust landmarks, Jewish institutions, and Auschwitz. Inevitably this leads many to interpret the quenelle as an undeniable expression of anti-Semitism. Although the people in these photos are creating a clear context for the anti-Semitic connotation for the quenelle, its “true” meaning remains ambiguous. After all, when a gesture is invented out of thin air, its connotations are inherently vague, and there is a lot of space for interpretation regarding exactly what it may represent. In fact, the very people who are employing the quenelle don’t seem to have come to a consensus. While in some photos the background or subject of the photo seems to have specifically Jewish connotations, others view the sign to be a revamped expression of the ever-present sentiment “up yours,” no more offensive than a middle finger and certainly not tied to any manifestation of religious hatred. This ambiguity surrounding the quenelle makes it difficult for the French government and other governments across Europe to respond. Increasingly, however, in official contexts the quenelle is being deemed an inappropriate and disallowable expression. The Football Association’s regulatory commitment recently declared that the West Bromwich Albion player Nicolas Anelka would be banned for five matches as a punishment for performing the quenelle after scoring in their match against West Ham United on December 28, 2013. Dieudonne’s notoriously anti-Semitic comedy performance has been cancelled in France, and Britain’s Home Office has even gone so far as to ban Dieudonne from entering the country, claiming that for “public policy and public security,” he is forbidden to step foot on British soil. The question facing public officials is where to draw the line. As Simon Jenkins states in his Guardian opinion piece responding to the British decision, “A robust community can handle the stresses of pluralism. It can take on board, challenge and defeat odious opinions without having to take refuge in law or state authority.” Free speech advocates throughout Europe contend that the established strength of these countries should be able to endure prejudice. Others insist that it is the role of the government of a democratic nation to prevent these kinds of hateful intolerances. Without a well-defined meaning or intention, the possibility for misappropriation of a new symbol or the chance of its connection to a hateful cause is far greater. This begs the question: when does the association with anti-Semitism make the gesture a pointed and venomous sign rather than a perhaps distasteful but harmless motion? How often does the quenelle need to be performed in front of a Holocaust memorial before it becomes irrevocably bound to religious and cultural intolerance? ■

Reforming Maine’s Human Trafficking Laws by Haleigh Collins

Although many are familiar with the devastating affects of the sex trafficking industry, it is easy to disassociate ourselves from the issue, and see it as an international problem on which we can have little impact. Sex trafficking is the international, national, and local trade in humans for the purpose of sexual slavery. The victims are coerced into selling sex, whereas prostitutes sell sex by choice. Most assume lawmakers and enforcers carry the burden of solving the problem; however, it seems Maine’s sex trade appears to be on the rise. As Portland Police Chief Mike Saschuck said, “I think the scary part is that it’s an unknown. It seems like once you start scratching at the surface, it gets deeper and deeper and deeper.” Calls to the National Human Trafficking Resource Hotline from Maine have increased 50 percent in the last few years and it is becoming increasingly evident that human trafficking occurs right under everyone’s noses and is extremely underreported. Many are well versed in the frightening global statistics of human trafficking—it is a 32 billion dollar industry and the fastest growing illegal trade in the world; second only to drug trafficking. These modern day slaves are not sold publicly as they were in 19th century slavery; they are illegal immigrants forced to work without pay under threat of violence and helpless citizens coerced to sell sex to benefit third parties. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, nearly 50 percent of victims of human trafficking are forced into prostitution, and the most common age to enter the commercial sex industry is 13-14. The industry taps into all groups, spanning socioeconomic levels and geographic areas. Although there are 30 million people enduring modern day slavery, it flies under the radar because of its covert operations, the widespread ignorance about the issue, and the lack of empathy for its victims. Despite the fact that many victims of sex trafficking industry are young, usually have a history of emotional or physical abuse, and are often drugged and threatened into prostitution, law enforcement, media, and the public seem to do little for these victims. Many women become dependent on their pimps, as they use their addiction to drugs to keep them hostage. Furthermore, pimps often use violence as a way to keep the women working for them. If they are “rescued” by law enforcement, they face criminal charges in addition to the extreme emotional trauma they’ve endured. As Maine House of Representative Amy Volk says, “Criminal records

inhibit the ability of some victims to move forward with their lives because they can no longer obtain certain jobs or loans, or go to school as a result of the stigma that is attached to having to report a conviction for prostitution,” Volk said. “I have also heard of women unable to secure housing because landlords perform background checks.” Meanwhile, criminal repercussions for johns is much more infrequent and less severe. Polling by ABC news suggests that about 15 percent of American men have bought sex and that there is about a 1 in 100,000 chance of being arrested while doing so. Additionally, johns looking for a prostitute can find one instantly online, through websites such as backpage.com, a particularly scathing classified advertising Web site that is used to sell auto parts, furniture, boats—and girls. Donna M. Hughes, an expert on human trafficking at the University of Rhode Island, notes that police are often tougher on men who download child pornography than johns who buy sex. Maine Representative Amy Volk is sponsoring a statewide bill, An Act to Assist Victims of Human Trafficking, which would aid victims in restarting their lives. The bill was taken up by lawmakers this past March during a public hearing of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee. Several groups, including law enforcement, women’s groups, advocates for domestic violence and sexual assault victims, social workers and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, spoke in support of the measure. No one opposed it. In it’s current state, the bill takes four actions. It creates a solid defense for victims facing prostitution charges in allowing victims of human trafficking who are forced into prostitution and convicted to appeal to the state to vacate their conviction. It makes victims of human trafficking eligible for the state’s victim compensation fund, which can be used to cover living expenses while the victims get back on their feet. Lastly, it makes dealing drugs to prostitutes a felony. These three measures aim to support and help arrested victims of sex trafficking, support them financially while they are looking for a better job, and defend victims and prostitutes against further coercion. While the bill is a major step in the right direction for Maine, much is left to accomplish for victims of human trafficking in other states and around the world. ■

A Tale of Two Countries by Drew Van Kuiken

The grim scenery of Stakhanov, Ukraine somehow fits the city in an appropriate way. The former industrial boomtown now plays home to a rapidly aging set of workers, where pensioners outnumber tax-paying workers three to one. The city relies on Russia to buy up to 90 percent of its industrial goods, with many factories barely staving off bankruptcy. Any thought of foreign investment is nothing more than a pipe dream. Yet citizens scoff when outsiders cast even a hint of doubt on Stankhanov’s allegiances; the struggling city folk see an unbreakable bond between their city and nearby Russia. Stakhanov’s residents can find kindred spirits in some of the larger cities in the region too. Pro-Russian activists recently made waves in nearby Luhansk, where a pro-Kiev politician named Oleh Lyashko assaulted a demonstrator—allegedly for his separatist views—and several hundred pro-Russian demonstrators seized several government buildings in Donetsk, one of east Ukraine’s largest cities, on April 6th. The demonstrators immediately called for a Russian peacekeeping force to be installed in the area and planned a referendum on secession from Ukraine for May 11th. The actions in Donetsk seem to be little more than a manifestation of what Stakhanov’s citizens and many more eastern Ukrainians want. The Ukrainians’ desires make sense, given the area’s historically close relationship with Russia. Yet the past 15 years seem to have brought the bond between Russia and Ukraine to an almost unbreakable level. The intensifying of the relationship began following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. The newfound freedom and democracy in Ukraine fell neatly in line with the Western picture of an ideal government, but rampant political corruption quickly crippled any hope of a better life for Ukraine’s citizens. The previously optimistic economic forecasts soon turned dark, as Ukraine lost 60 percent of its GDP between 1991 and 1999 and the government continuously handed out sweetheart deals to loyal oligarchs. By the late ‘90’s, Ukraine had entered a deep recession and the government had lost all credibility. In the meantime, Ukraine’s relationship with Russia also suffered and Russian investment in Ukrainian exports dropped to an all-time low. The Ukrainian recession ended in 2000 and Ukraine’s relationship with Russia quickly improved. Russia began to invest heavily in Ukrainian gas exports and Ukraine began to rely on Russia’s investment. 14 years later, it seems almost indispensable. Together with a shared cultural history and extensive propaganda, Ukraine’s reliance on Russian investment leaves little choice for many eastern Ukrainians: they feel they must be economically-tied to Russia, whether as a part of Ukraine or not. Eastern Ukraine’s attitude encapsulates Ukraine’s two biggest problems today: political corruption and unity. As the coun18

try approaches its first democratic election following the massive protests that deposed Viktor Yanukovich, both of these problems must be dealt with quickly and decisively (assuming Russia doesn’t invade with military force). The stakes could not be higher for Ukraine. The country has been considered the bellwether of change in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union and often heavily influences the political and economic landscapes of its neighbors. With the future of the country seemingly hanging in the balance, a collapse must be avoided. A stable Ukraine benefits the entire region and the United States should recognize the value of stability when approaching the country’s complex political landscape. The election, planned for May 25th, mainly features two candidates: Yulia Tymoshenko and Petro Poroshenko. Both candidates come from massively successful business careers—each earned over $1 billion in the gas and chocolate industries respectively— and offer a profound anti-Kremlin outlook. Yet the candidates could hardly be more different and even the quickest look into Tymoshenko’s past shows the unforgivable flaws in her candidacy. Tymoshenko is a familiar face for both Ukrainians and the international media, which may explain some of the good will afforded her. She first rose to prominence in the late ’90s, as a protégé of then-Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko. Typical of many Ukrainian politicians from that era, Tymoshenko emerged amidst allegations of corruption, supposedly bribing Lazarenko for official government preference towards her gas empire in return. Yet what might kill a political career in many nations gave Tymoshenko a platform to run on: by the early 2000s, she had established herself as the anti-corruption candidate in Ukraine. She retooled her image, adopting her now standard peasant braid and outfit, and refused to speak her native Russian at all costs. Just a few years later, she became an important player in the Ukrainian political sphere. Riding on the coattails of the Orange Revolution—a remarkably similar set of protests designed to reduce corruption in Ukraine—Tymoshenko was selected to be Ukraine’s Prime Minister in a supposedly new dawn. Her supposed partner in the new age, Viktor Yushchenko, became President of Ukraine and promised similar reforms. Ten years later, things look awfully similar. Tymoshenko, fresh off a four-year jail sentence (manufactured by Viktor Yanukovich with questionable basis in fact), appears once again ready to play a major role in deciding Ukraine’s future. Ukraine, following ten years of painfully corrupt mismanagement and decay, once again feels ready to break out. And while not likely to be elected President, Tymoshenko appears primed for a position in Ukrainian government and a full return to her prior influence. Put more clearly: Tymoshenko, who helped bring Ukraine’s first chance at honest and competent government to its knees only ten years ago, could very well do the same today. Former colleague and friend Dmitry Vydrin once referred to her as “nuclear power” in both her potency and volatility and her past is littered with illegal and immoral deeds, but much of the international media seems happy to give her yet another chance. The only obstacle between Tymoshenko and the Presidency is Petro Poroshenko, or the ‘Chocolate King.’ Endorsed by Vitali Klitschko, the country’s notable prizefighter turned politician, Poroshenko seems to have a grip on western Ukraine and its pro-Western tendencies. He’s the odds-on favorite to win the race, but few seem to know what he really stands for. Poroshenko first entered Ukrainian politics in the early 2000’s and never held on to

a single political party for too long. Still, he can only be considered the best candidate to bring the reform Ukraine seeks. While Tymoshenko’s record shows the incredible hypocrisy in her quest for power, Poroshenko’s record, instead, seems to leave room for trust. CHESNO, one of Ukraine’s non-profit organizations dedicated solely to examining politicians’ wealth, recently reported that they could not find any instances of corruption in Poroshenko’s past. Given the standard set by Yanukovich, a twice-imprisoned, violent criminal, and Tymoshenko, CHESNO’s revelation may warrant the Presidency alone. But Poroshenko also brings a wealth of business experience to the table and claims he has “experience in [building] up a new investment climate,” one that Ukraine so desperately needs. Given that his skill set corresponds so closely to Ukraine’s most dire needs—corruption reform and economic stimulus—Poroshenko should inspire hope in Western pundits and Ukrainians alike. Yet any success Poroshenko meets will come from his ability to control Tymoshenko and convince Ukraine’s populous of his— and its—economic potential. First and foremost, Poroshenko must keep Tymoshenko quiet, both for himself and the future of Ukraine. Commentators widely agree that Ukraine’s biggest problems come from its culture of corruption and the incredible extent of its influence, a culture that Tymoshenko seems to live, breathe and cultivate. Her naked desire for power and ruthlessly manipulative personality can both appeal to citizens and destroy the careers of those she faces in ways seemingly lifted from Frank Underwood’s playbook in the American political drama television series House of Cards, and Poroshenko must acknowledge her danger. While it will likely be a very long time before Tymoshenko truly fades into obscurity, Poroshenko must reveal the hypocrisy in Tymoshenko’s candidacy to the citizens of Ukraine. But Poroshenko’s true legacy—and the best indicator of his Presidential ability—will depend on his rhetoric towards Eastern Ukraine. The citizens of Stakhanov should not be satisfied with a few empty promises of stimulating investment in their slowly dying district—they of course deserve more than that—but Poroshenko has an attractive argument in his experience with business. He came about his money honestly, a truly inspiring feat in ’90s Ukraine, and brought extensive international trade to the country unlike many other Russia-focused Ukrainian oligarchs. Poroshenko made sure not to ignore Russia, but his empire’s ability to stay afloat despite Russia’s 2013 ban on importing his chocolates is a testament to the diversity of his exports. Still, looking forward, his economic background should hardly rationalize the seismic shift westward that the European Union seems to advocate. Ukraine’s citizens pine for increased cooperation with Russia and Poroshenko should honor that; a clear break with Russia makes almost no sense for a country as closely related to its neighbor. But by bringing in outside investment to take advantage of Ukraine’s industrious eastern half and ensuring that corruption stays out of any deals made, Poroshenko has an opportunity to help the east unlike any way Russia can offer. If Poroshenko can successfully bring international investment and business to Eastern Ukraine, he may have a chance at doing something truly great. With the specter of Yulia Tymoshenko constantly following him, this will be easier said than done. But if successful, Poroshenko should be able to accomplish what few Ukrainians dreamt of when the revolution began last fall: a unified and economically sound Ukrainian state. ■

Homophobia in American Sports by Chase Savage

The American sports world is abuzz with con-

versation about LBGTIQA athletes. Last May, Jason Collins, a journeyman NBA basketball player, announced in a Sports Illustrated article that he was gay, becoming the first male athlete to do so in any of the four major professional sports in America. Then, this past February he became the first openly gay athlete to ever play in a game when, after being signed by the Brooklyn Nets to a ten day contract, Collins played eleven minutes against the Los Angeles Lakers on February 23, 2014. While Collins’ announcement was certainly newsworthy, it was Michael Sam’s coming out that sent the sports world into media frenzy. Sam, the SEC Defensive Player of the Year out of Missouri, came out to ESPN’s Outside the Lines on February 9, 2014. While he had come out to his teammates in August 2013, this was the first time he had publicly acknowledged his sexuality. Sam’s decision was immediately noteworthy for one simple fact: he was an NFL draft prospect. No athlete had ever come out publicly before entering a professional league. This made Sam, who was a good but not great draft prospect, the talk of the upcoming May NFL draft. Days were spent covering anything from Sam’s impact in the league, to his skill on the field, and even to what it would be like to shower with him. Attention was drawn away from star prospects like Johnny Manziel and Jadeveon Clowney and instead focused on a mid to late round draft pick. Many viewed this as an opportunity

for the sporting world to begin accepting and acknowledging male athletes of all sexual orientations. What has come out of the debate, however, is nothing short of disheartening. While Sam has been applauded by many and shown his strength of character throughout the process, there are those who do not see it fit for an openly gay man to play football. One NFL player personnel assistant told Sports Illustrated when the Michael Sam story broke, “In the coming decade or two, it’s going to be acceptable, but at this point in time it’s still a man’sman game. To call somebody a [gay slur] is still so commonplace. It’d chemically imbalance an NFL locker room and meeting room.” To further go along the lines of a “man’s-man game”, Peter King of Sports Illustrated interviewed numerous NFL General Managers, all of whom agreed that Sam will suffer in terms of his draft prospects because of his sexuality. As one general manager told Mr. King, if a team is trying to decide between Sam and another player, “[Sexuality] will break a tie against that player [Sam]. Every time.” All of this comes in light of the tragedy coming out of the Miami Dolphins locker room over the past couple months concerning the bullying of Jonathan Martin by Ritchie Incognito, and to a lesser degree, Mike Pouncey. All of these incidences have been a direct condemnation of the NFL locker room, that is “still stuck in the ‘50’s”, as one NFL scout put it. A few bad apples have spoiled the whole batch. While many NFL and other professional athletes have

been supportive of gay athletes in sports, the media has latched on to a select few quotes portraying the environment as unfriendly and not progressive. The European sports world is also not immune to a perceived culture of homophobia. European soccer has been a bastion for examples of anti-LBGTIQA activism. Bayern Munich, for example, faces a fine upwards of $83,000 for a fan’s homophobic banner, displayed against Arsenal. The sign read, “Gay Gunners”, depicting Mesut Ozil, a member of the German national team and of Arsenal, with a cannon pointed at Ozil’s bare bottom. Another example of closed mindedness in soccer is FIFA president Sepp Blatter’s 2010 comments about homosexuality in regards to Qatar being named the host site of the 2020 World Cup. Qatar is one of many countries both in the Middle East and in the surrounding area that criminalize any signs of homosexuality, whether they are present or implied. Blatter’s comments for any LBGTIQA’s interested in attending the World Cup were callous: “[Gays] should refrain from sexual activity”, Mr. Blatter said with a smile in his FIFA news conference. Many viewed his comments as insensitive and derogatory and Mr. Blatter later apologized, but doubled down on his position when Qatar announced its policy toward homosexuality in May 2013 as one of a “moral or ethical issue”, stating that he did not see how it ran counter to FIFA’s policy of zero discrimination. His support for Russia’s 2018 successful bid for the World Cup was also viewed scornfully, given Russia’s anti-LBGTIQA policies. In addition, of the few athletes to come out in the world of European soccer, many have spoken of the fear they felt of living as non-out athletes. Robbie Rogers, now playing for the Los Angeles Galaxy, briefly retired in 2013 because he did not feel comfortable coming out as a current gay soccer player in Europe, specifically telling The Guardian that he wanted to avoid “the circus”. He spoke about his fears regarding the effects that extra scrutiny from the fans, media, and other players would have on him. Rogers’s case is serves as evidence that the number one sport in Europe may not be as open as it claims. The goal of universal acceptance of all LBGTIQA people in sports may be a distant one, and its current battle faces obstacles that it struggles to overcome. Currently, the faces of the movement are all either retired or journeyman athletes. While every person has their own story and has the right to come out when they please, their general irrelevance as actual players causes their message to center less on the acceptance they may have felt and more on the insecurities they may have felt coming out as an LBGTIQA athlete. The LBGTIQA community needs a star athlete to boost acceptance, much in the way Jackie Robinson helped push forward integration in professional sports. Robinson may not have been the most talented black athlete of his time, but he was a trailblazer because he was able to last. He was able to gain acceptance, albeit grudgingly from some, in baseball for his play. That in turn, lessened people’s fear of blacks playing professional sports with whites. As a future Hall of Fame baseball player, Robinson proved that blacks were just as capable as whites. The same is needed for the LBGTIQA community. Michael Sam may become a beacon to light the path to that goal, but it is entirely possible that that person is years down the road. Either way, Sam’s promise and his courage will inspire others to do the same, and help him show that one’s sexuality does not define one’s ability to compete. ■

How New is the New Pope? by Dylan Devenyi

On paper, the Pope is not a very powerful head of state. He rules over a tiny country, less than one square mile with fewer than one thousand residents. His influence and soft power, however, extend to well over one billion individuals throughout the world. Because Popes rule until they die or resign, the ascension of Pope Francis is an event of global significance, even for non-Catholics. The Papacy was losing influence in the beginning of the 20th century. Masses, still held in Latin, were alienating it from the modern world, where most religions performed services in the local vernacular. Pope John XXIII’s 1962-1965 Vatican Council helped bring the church into the modern era, modernizing prayers and services and switching to vernacular masses. The church was further invigorated by the innovative leadership of Pope John Paul II, who behaved much differently from Popes before him. He was the first pope to truly recognize the importance of Catholic constituencies in Africa and the Americas, travelling around the world and speaking to peoples who had never been visited by the Pope before. By canonizing nearly 500 saints, many from outside Europe, John Paul sought to bring new life and energy to the church. He also actively campaigned against communism in his native Poland, making the Pope relevant in secular politics. His death in 2005 marked the end of the longest Papacy in nearly 500 years. However, Pope Benedict the XVI, who followed John Paul II, received a much more lukewarm response from both the Catholic and secular worlds. He was involved in the cover-up of child abuse within the church, and his internal letter instructing church officials to avoid going to the police earned harsh criticism. This, in addition to the fact that Benedict drew skepticism for his childhood membership in the Hitler Youth, meant that he was hardly positioned to make great reforms for the church, and his scholarly attitude coupled with his lack of charisma kept him from reaching the masses. Despite this, Benedict’s decision to resign in 2013 came as a surprise, as no Pope had resigned since 1415. Pope Francis comes to the Papacy at a strange time for the 21

Church. The largest and most powerful religion in the world, Catholicism is growing much more slowly than other world religions such as Mormonism and Islam. Although it commands many believers throughout southern Europe, enthusiasm for the Roman Catholic Church is at a historic low in countries like Spain and Portugal, where many self-identifying Catholics rarely, if ever, attend masses. The Church’s largest and most devoted populations are now located in Latin America and Africa, as Western public opinion has moved against the Church in recent years. Its conspicuous wealth under Benedict was seen as hypocritical by secular critics. Increasingly liberal public opinion on issues such as condoms and gay marriage, as well as the continued controversy surrounding child sex abuse by clergy, has further alienated many from the Roman Catholic Institution. The College of Cardinals chose Pope Francis II to face these issues in perhaps the direst period in recent Catholic history. So far, his rule appears to be a resounding success. The US general public views him with a favorability rating of about 58%, up from Pope Benedict’s numbers, which were as low as 40%. He began by greatly simplifying Papal Regalia and the Pope’s throne. He earned praise for this display of austerity, and launched into a series of tours and statements that brought him much positive attention. His professed non-judgmental attitude towards gays have earned him much support amongst progressive groups in the US and Europe, and his rhetoric about poverty, charity, and capitalism has been radical enough to earn the criticism of Fox News. Focusing on eliminating poverty instead of condoms, Pope Francis’ message has been well received globally and has helped the Church experience a resurgence of popularity. The Church has also been the subject of harsh criticism for a lack of financial transparency over the years, leading to speculation of corruption. Pope Francis has helped address this issue by having the Vatican bank publish its accounts for the first time and beginning to root out bishops and other clergy perceived as corrupt. The most famous case of this involves the “Bishop of Bling,” a cleric named Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst of Limburg, Germany, who spent around $40 million dollars renovating his residence, and was

forced to resign in public disgrace. Pope Francis’ Bishop purging is not limited to issues of corruption. Two important Archbishops from St. Louis, Missouri were also forced away from positions on selection committees, greatly diminishing their power. Both of these clerics were very vocal on issues such as gay marriage and abortion, so it is speculated that Pope Francis removed them in an effort to tone down the church’s message on these very divisive issues. His rhetoric has reflected a desire to make the Church more “friendly,” famously saying “who am I to judge?” regarding gay priests. In another statement that drew global attention, he said that everyone has been redeemed by Christ, “even atheists.” Although these statements do not actually reflect any change in Catholic doctrine, they have nonetheless helped many liberals and humanists see the Catholic Church in a more positive light. Nor has Pope Francis in any way changed official church doctrine regarding the toxic issues of abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, despite his rhetoric. This reflects the rather conservative ideology that the new Pope espoused during earlier parts of his career. For example, he is vehemently opposed to the idea of women priests, saying “the door is closed.” Although his opinion on contraception is unclear, with many different groups claiming different positions for him, he vocally opposed the Kirchner government’s plan to distribute contraceptives in Argentina when the program began. He also strongly opposes gay marriage, and when the issue was discussed in Argentina in 2010, he said that, “This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God’s plan.” He also participated in a pro-life march in Rome in 2013, further aligning him with the views of Pope Benedict. It is fair to say, however, that Pope Francis has succeeded in revitalizing enthusiasm for the Catholic Church worldwide. His work on fighting corruption is an admirable and positive step beyond what his predecessors attempted. Secular observers have been torn over the new Pope, with many saying that he will bring the Church into the modern era and others saying that he represents a continuation of old trends. Time will tell what his long-term impacts will be. ■

Follow us on twitter: @bowdoinglobal and on Facebook: www.facebook.com/bowdoinglobalist Email us with comments, concerns, and questions at: thebowdoinglobalist@gmail.com

Photography Credits Front Cover: Photo by Kris Krüg, Page 5: Photo by Beth Wilson, Page 6 & 7: Photo by Iason Foounten, Page 8: Photo by Sam Phelps, Page 11: Photo by Kris Krüg, Page 12 & 13: Photo courtesy of Suncor Energy, Page 14: Photo by Ridvan Yumlu, Page 15: Photo by Andrés Azpúrua, Page 16: Photo courtesy of Alexandre Hervaud, Page 17: photo by Ira Gelb, Page 18: Photo courtesy of Sasha Maksymenko, Page 20: Photo by Keith Allison, Page 21: Photo courtesty of The Catholic Church of England, Page 22: Photo courtesty of The Catholic Church of England, Page 23: Photo by David Ohana, Back Cover: Photo by flickr.com user Mojomogwai