January Issue 14.3

The Hill Carolina Political Review Vol. 14 Issue 3 January 2015

Picking Up the Pieces The Hill Political Review January 2015

1

The Hill Carolina Political Review

Vol. 14 Issue 3 EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Jon Buchleiter Brian Bartholomew

COLUMNISTS/BLOGGERS Clay Ballard, Derrick Flakoll, Nancy Smith

ONLINE MANAGING EDITOR Nikki Mandell

STAFF WRITERS Randy Adams, Patrick Archer, Kurtis Brown, Parker Bruer, Keenan Conder, Connor Cooke, Marty Davidson, Caroline Fite, Allyesha Hall, Henry Hays, John Hess, Jamie Huffman, Chase Johnson, Colin Kantor, Chloe Karlovich, Bobby Kawecki, Tess Landon, Andrew Levine, Hank Li, Meghan McGrath, Hinal Patel, David Pingree, Sylvia Roper, Taylor Slate, Zach Williams, Matt Wotus, Javier Zurita

INTERNATIONAL EDITOR Carol Abken NATIONAL EDITOR Richard Zheng STATE & LOCAL EDITOR Caroline Fite ONLINE EDITORS Emily Foster, Matt Wotus DISTRIBUTION MANAGER Clay Ballard TREASURER Tess Landon

DESIGN STAFF Taylor Slate ART STAFF David Wright Ngozika Nwoko

DIRECTOR OF PR David Pingree

FACULTY ADVISOR Ferrel Guillory

The Hill - Chapel Hill Political Review 3514E Frank Porter Graham Student Union Chapel Hill, NC 27514 thehillpr@gmail.com This publication was paid for in part by Student Activities Fees at a cost of approximately $2.00 per copy

Cover art by Jon Buchleiter

2

From the Editors Our cover story this month looks at the impact of the Wainstein report on our university and identifies some of the key steps that the University may take to move forward from this episode. Across our nation and the globe there are a number of issues where policymakers and governments are working to pick up the pieces and address issues moving forward. We hope you enjoy this issue and as always we welcome your input and feedback!

Jon Buchleiter & Brian Bartholomew

Send us your comments As part of our mission to promote political discussion on campus we welcome your comments and thoughts. Send us an email at thehillpr@gmail.com - no more than 250 words, please include your name, year and major for students or name and department for professors.

Mission Statement The Hill is the University of North Carolina’s only nonpartisan student political review. Our aim is to provide the university community with a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events and trends.

We publish both print issues and maintain a website composed of in-depth feature stories, opinion columns, and plenty of accessible content designed to engage the campus in political discussion.

Nonpartisan Explained The Hill is a medium for analysis of current affairs. Its primary mission is to analyze current events, trends, and phenomena happening within North Carolina, across the United States, and around the world. While it reserves some space for opinion and commentary, almost all work for The Hill avoids prescribing public policy solutions or advancing any ideology. Its articles are primarily concerned with explaining and contextualizing current affairs, rather than engaging in public policy debates. However, The Hill also accepts that its writers will bring their own unique experiences and viewpoints to their work, and encourages its writers to write colorful, engaging, and even controversial pieces while protecting the magazine’s reputation as a source of reasoned and well-researched analysis.

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

SOURCE: JON BUCHLEITER

Table of Contents State & Local

International Around the World

4

Picking Up The Pieces

12

Managing Migration

6

BOG Democratization

18

Putin’s Playbook

7

Responses to Wainstein

19

Rousseff’s Woes

8

German-Israeli Relations

9

In the Shadow of Sars

9

Perspectives

National Affirmative Action

Cold War 2.0

20

Compensating Student Athletes 11

Theory In Practice

21

Making the Grade

14

Terrorism Today

22

The Final Frontier

15

Wit and Witlessness

23

Safer Shopping

16

Prioritizing Privacy

17

The Hill Political Review January 2015

10

3

International

Destination Countries

Around the World

United Kingdom The United Kingdom is one of four countries that have received the largest number of refugees. The British government has stated it will not fund future search and rescue operations, but instead supports targeting and prosecuting human smugglers putting migrants lives in danger.

France France has been another target destination for refugess seeking asylum in Europe. Illegal immigrants in France have spawned tent cities in places like Calais as they continue their journey across Europe.

Germany Germany is another of the four main target countries for asylum seekers entering Europe. The influx has led Chancellor Angela Merkel to lead an effort to crack down on fraudulent claims for benefits in the country.

Sweden Sweden is the final of four main destinations in Europe for migrants from the Middle East and Africa crossing the Mediterranean in large numbers. Sweden has one of the world’s highest net migration ratesat 5.46/1000 people.

Italy Italy has been struggling to respond to the massive influx of immigrants trying to cross the Mediterranean. They are in the process of scaling back a large-scale, sustained rescue operation to save people from thewater. The operation is being replaced by a broader EU effort known as Triton.

4

90,000

Estimated number of people rescued by the Italian navy from the waters off of the Italian coast this year

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

International

European Immigration

By Carol Abken

160,000

Estimated number of migrants who have crossed the Mediterranean this year

Countries of Origin Syria In 2014 Syria had the lowest estimated net migraton rate in the world at -113.51/1000 people. A large proportion of these people have sought asylum in neighboring Turkey and also throughout Europe.

Iraq Instability in Iraq, particularly in the face of the advance of ISIL has recently driven increasing numbers of refugees to depart the country. Many of these attempt to gain asylum in Europe.

Somalia Somalia has another of the worlds lowest net migration rates losing -9.51/1000 people which gives it the 11th lowest net migration rate in the world. A significant portion of these refugees have sought to cross the Mediterranean and seek asylum in Europe.

Sudan Sudan also has a low net migration rate of -4.36/1000 people, though this pales in comparison to Syria it is still one of the lowest rates in the world. Continued violence in the country has driven large number of people to leave their rooms and seek to resettle elsewhere.

Libya Libya itself does not have a particularly low rate of net migration but Libyan ports serve as transit points for many migrants seeking to cross the Mediterranean.

The Hill Political Review January 2015

5

International

Managing Migration

The ongoing debate over the EU’s influx of migrants

By: Carol Abken

“The European Union struggles to process refugees and time equitably distribute the heavy cost of rescue programs and border patrols.”

increasing support based on their fierce anti-immigration campaigns.

EU policy requires that refugees be processed in the country where they first arrive. However, most migrants do not seek refugee status in Italy, and Italian officials often allow migrants to continue unhindered to northern Europe. Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France receive the largest number of requests for asylum and grant the most migrants protection status.

Those opposed to Mare Nostrum believe that it encourages more migrants to attempt to cross the Mediterranean. More migrants have arrived this year in Italy than ever before, though this may also be attributed to increasing chaos in migrants’ home countries, particularly Syria. Britain has criticized the EU’s planned operation Triton, claiming it will encourage illegal immigration similarly to Mare Nostrum rather than deter it. The U.K. has said it will not fund any future search and rescue operations. The British government instead supports targeting and prosecuting the human smugglers that put refugees’ lives in danger, and advocates a plan for receiving countries to set up external processing camps. Such external processing camps are being considered by the U.N. refugee agency and are gaining support in Italy and Greece. These would be set up in heavy transit zones in North Africa and the Middle East to screen migrants before they attempt the dangerous sea crossing.

The debate over how to manage illegal immigration from failing states comes down to whether the European Union places more value on search and rescue missions to aid migrants or border management to reduce refugee flows. As reported

by The Guardian, the chief executive of the British Refugee Council, Maurice Wren, stated that “People fleeing atrocities will not stop coming if we stop throwing them liferings; boarding a rickety boat in Libya will remain a seemingly rational decision if you’re running for your life and your country is in flames.”

6

January 2015

T

he year 2014 marks the first time since World War II in which the total number of refugees worldwide surpassed 50 million. A small part of this surge is due to increasing turmoil in many Middle Eastern and North African states.

Hundreds of thousands of people from fragile and failing states such as Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, and Afghanistan have already fled from the political turmoil, violence, and poverty, seeking asylum in Europe. The flow of migrants seems unlikely to abate soon. Refugees pay exorbitant amounts to human smugglers in an effort to reach Europe by crossing the Mediterranean Sea. They make their way to North African seaports, primarily in Libya, where human smugglers ferry them across the Mediterranean Sea in overcrowded and unsafe boats. More than 160,000 people have successfully made the desperate trip across the Mediterranean this year alone, not including an estimated 3,000 migrants who died while attempting the journey. The Italian navy is responsible for rescuing more than 90,000 people from the water, averaging up to 500 people a day.

Following an incident in October 2013 where 366 immigrants drowned off the island of Lampedusa, Italy launched the rescue operation “Mare Nostrum” to respond to the flux of immigrants. This operations is now being gradually shifted

into a smaller scale operation known as Triton under the auspices of the European border control agency Frontex. While Mare Nostrum rescued asylum-seekers in international waters well beyond Italy’s maritime borders, Triton will only patrol 30 miles off the Italian coast.

Human rights activists warn that reducing search-and-rescue missions in favor of Frontex’s border management will likely lead to increased migrant deaths. Beyond this Italian effort, the European Union will launch a new satellite and drone-based surveillance system, Eurosur, which intends to police the Mediterranean to locate migrant boats. Critics are concerned that the system will be used to prevent migrants from ever reaching Europe.

The European Union (EU) struggles to process refugees and has had a difficult time equitably distributing the heavy cost of rescue programs and border patrols, which disproportionately fall on receiving countries. Italy and Greece, already facing severe economic woes are receiving the largest number of African and Middle-Eastern refugees. Both countries have called for aid from the EU to deal with the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean. As the Eurozone already faces economic troubles evidence of increasing frustration over the influx of immigrants can be seen in the rising popularity of xenophobic populist parties across Europe..

Both Italy’s Northern League and Greece’s Golden Dawn have seen

The Hill Political Review

International

Putin’s Playbook

Viktor Orbán wages war on democracy in Hungary

By: David Pingree

D

emocracy appears to be unwinding in Hungary as the conservative, populist government continues to suppress opposition while also attacking non-governmental organizations and institutions.

Since returning to power in 2010, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his right-wing party Fidesz have re-written Hungary’s constitution to limit the representation of rival, liberal political groups across the country.

In addition to securing a twothirds majority in parliament last April in elections that have been deemed “free but unfair” by Foreign Policy, the Fidesz party has altered the constitution to allow Orbán to appoint 11 of the 15 members of Hungary’s supreme court, essentially transforming all branches of the Hungarian government into a rubber stamp for the party.

The political situation is further complicated by the disorganization of the liberal opposition. In the latest round of elections, the leftist coalition was able to capture only 19 percent of the electorate. The only party that can realistically compete against the Fidesz party is neo-fascist Jobbik party, which accounted for 20 percent of the vote in the last election.

Orbán has gone further in suppressing opposition by cracking down on media outlets that are critical of his government. New media laws and intimidation tactics have essentially turned the country’s media sources over to the state’s hands.

Taking a page out of Russian President Putin’s playbook, Orbán has begun to attack non-governmental organizations such as Transparency International and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, claiming that these and other institutions are infected with “foreign agents” from “Western” powers.

Freedom House, an independent, international watchdog organization, is considering expelling Hungary from its Consolidated Democratic Regimes category as early as next year unless government counterbalancing mechThe Hill Political Review January 2015

anisms, such as electoral and media reform, are installed. The Community of Democracies is also thinking about removing Hungary from its organization, which Hungary joined in 2011.

Despite significant financial investments from Western European nations and organizations, including a $25 billion bailout from the International Monetary Fund in 2008, Orbán plans to strengthen political and economic ties with Hungary’s ally Russia. He secured a 30-year economic alliance with Russia in January, and consequentially agreed to cut off gas to Ukraine in the wake of its recent civil war.

In retaliation, numerous international organizations, including the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, have scolded the autocratic Hungarian government, although it should be noted that there is very little weight behind these outcries. The United States has gone further by blacklisting ten top Hungarian officials that are believed to be close to Orbán.

Orbán, 51, began his political career in 1989 when he joined the Fidesz party, which was then an anti-communist youth movement. In 2002, Orbán and his party were voted out of office and replaced by the Hungarian

Socialist Party. Economic fallout from the 2008 global economic crisis, which saw the Hungarian economy shrink by 7 percent, spurred the Fidesz party back into power in 2010. He is now in his third term as prime minister, will not face another election until 2018.

Opposition to the Orbán administration has been active at times.

Mass protests to the government’s attempts to establish the first-ever Internet tax were successful, and protests against corruption continue.

Peter Sherwood, a retired UNCCH professor who specializes in Hungarian language and culture, said that Hungarian opposition groups must unite and form a common platform.“They really have to do some major thinking and talking amongst themselves to agree on well-grounded policies, and to persuade the electorate of their viability, in time for the next elections, [which] alas [are] not due for another four years,” Sherwood said.

Sherwood also believes that it is unlikely that the European Union would take proactive steps against Hungary because it must deal with more important issues on its “western and southern peripheries.”

Hungary’s democratic institutions are slipping and there is little indication this trend will reverse soon.

SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA 7

International

Rousseff’s Woes Brazil’s President Struggles to keep the economy on track By: Javier Zurita

O

n October 26th of this year, the Brazil’s Workers Party (PT) saw the opposition mount the greatest election challenge since the party took power in 2003. In that year, Lula da Silva arrived to the presidential palace to implement social programs that eventually strengthened the country’s economy and lifted more than 40 million citizens out of poverty. But a decade later, critics have argued that the same government-led development has backfired through slow growth, and rampant corruption that has put the country into recession.

Brazilians no longer believe that the 2008 worldwide economic slowdown halted the economic boom experienced under the early administration of Lula da Silva. Opponents of the regime have pointed to the PT’s intrusion into the private sector as a contributing factor in Brazil’s financial troubles. Consequently, Dilma Rousseff—the re-elected President who was formerly Lula da Silva’s Chief of Staff—will have to combat a sluggish economy through a tough process of adopting market-reforms while maintaining the social programs that have cemented the PT’s support among the lower social strata.

The PT’s interventionist policies have exacerbated Brazil’s economic woes. When Brazil responded resiliently to the global meltdown of 2008—reaching 10 percent growth three years afterward—economists in financial markets further mythicized the country’s miracle story of acceding into emerging world markets. In effect, Brazil enticed international investors by boasting it as a place of “smart social policy that has boosted consumption at home.”

Brazil’s history of financial success began in the late 1990s.

Concurrent with a neoliberal turn throughout Latin America, Brazil embraced privatization of previously state-owned companies.

8

Under the presidency of Henrique Cardoso, Brazil received large amounts of foreign investments, which the country allocated towards developing a local industry rich in natural resources.

In 2003, during the transfer of power to the PT, Brazil convinced the world that stable political-economic institutions had finally become a reality for the South-American giant. Luiz “Lula” Da Silva, a long-time workers’ union leader and advocate for improved working conditions, promulgated social programs that are considered a model for developing nations. Most prominent among them is “Bolsa Familia”—a cash-transfer program awarded to low income families to maintain their children in school.

Such social opportunities lifted millions out of poverty; however, the expectations of the rising middle class have changed by demanding improved public services. In the process, they have exposed the state’s negligence on reforming a burdensome tax code and a poor educational system.

Furthermore, to the chagrin of the PT leadership, domestic manufacturing has lost its appeal to national consumers, who have opted instead for foreign products, particularly American ones. This has exacerbated the

state’s deficit, and debilitated a local workforce that now mostly resorts to the service sector for employment. Consequently, Roussef ’s administration has interfered more with the private sector in an effort to cut costs while maintaining a grip on the industries that have provided the state with the cash to support popularly favored social programs. Thus, in 2012, the state only renewed operational licenses to electricity utilities that slashed spending. Most recently, Rousseff had to refute accusations of appointing state supporters to important offices inside PETROBAS, Brazil’s oil industry.

Brazil’s needed economic restructuring is also important for the improvement of diplomatic ties with the United States. The relations between the two countries have taken a sharp turn ever since the PT’s rise to power. Lula decidedly aligned Brazil with other leftist governments of the region, particularly Venezuela’s Chavez. Rousseff embracing market-reforms could help the regime find more common ground with the United States, which wants Brazil to focus on economic development instead of other issues that have sidetracked cooperation in the region, such as the U.S.-imposed Cuban embargo.

“Dilma Rousseff—the re-elected President who was formerly Lula da Silva’s Chief of Staff—will have to combat a sluggish economy.”

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

International

German-Israeli Relations By: Henry Hays

T

he Holocaust cast an indelible mark on international relations, leaving the relationship between post-Nazi Germany and the new state of Israel delicately linked based on Hitler’s atrocities. As stated by Amy Schwartz in Moment, “History hangs as a heavy cloud over any relations between Israel and [Germany], the nation bound up most tragically in its rebirth.” However, recent history indicates a weakening of German’s historic positive attitude towards Israel as memory of the Holocaust has faded.

Only 14 percent of Germans have a positive view of Israel, according to a January 2014 poll administered by BBC. Israel’s former ambassador to Germany and the European Union, Avi Primor, attributes this decrease in popularity to Germans’ growing discontent over Israeli policy toward Palestine and numerous failed attempts at peace. As reported by Deutsche Welle, Israelis like Primor “were really impressed by the generation of Germans [those attending college in 1968] who demanded their parents and teachers tell the truth about their

Nazi past and the [1952] reparations agreement.” This reparations agreement resulted from talks between the Israeli Foreign Minister and Konrad Adenauer, Germany’s first postwar chancellor, who believed that reparations — which would highly benefit an economically stagnant Israel — were the only path to national legitimacy for West Germany. Strong ties between the two nations continued throughout the remainder of the twentieth century, but new factors have begun to tarnish this relationship.

This past January, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier visited Israel and strongly denounced its settlement policy in the West Bank, saying that the construction of new settlements is harmful to the delicate peace process between Israel and Palestine. Further strains in their relationship manifested themselves in several right-wing Israeli politicians’ abrupt exit from Israel’s unicameral legislature, the Knesset, after Martin Schulz, the German President of the European Parliament, gave a speech that criticized inequities in water distribution. In perhaps the most obvious point of discord, An-

gela Merkel and Benjamin Netanyahu have reportedly had several shouting matches over the telephone while discussing Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Tensions between these two nations could potentially have far-reaching consequences for Israel, who has largely benefitted from Germany’s support in recent years. As Israel’s third-largest trade partner, Germany has significant leverage over Israel and could attempt to influence the outcome of future peace talks. The fact that Germany exports to Israel three times as much as Israel exports to Germany may force the former to start importing more from other countries. Since Germany holds the most power in the European Union, relations between it and Israel have even greater significance. Although Germany will continue to publicly support Israel due to its complicated history with the Jewish people, their governments’ ability to cooperate behind closed doors is now rather murky. Future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will continue to test Israel’s relationship with Germany.

In the Shadow of SARS By: Randy Adams

T

he ongoing Ebola epidemic in West Africa has claimed over 5,000 lives, and the citizens of the world are competing to find ways to slow its spread. From Google stepping in with donations, to USAID pledging over $100 million to combat the disease, to the EU’s staggering billion-Euro pledge, the response to Ebola has been vocal and broad-ranging. Media outlets have run dozens of stories about Ebola, while in the political arena, debate over quarantines and responses has been fierce. Recently returned aid worker Nurse Kaci Hickox was the focus of national controversy over how to properly quarantine her upon her arrival in the United States. All this being said, the question remains as to just how great a threat the Ebola outbreak is to America, and how it measures up in comparison to previous disease scares.

The truth is fairly grim – but not for the United States. Best case CDC projections for Liberia alone, for inThe Hill Political Review January 2015

stance, predict between 11 and 27 thousand cases by January 20th, while worst case scenarios have an upper ceiling of close to 1.4 million. The best case scenarios assume that 70% of patients are treated in proper conditions, with the real numbers being closer to 18% in Liberia and 40% in Sierra Leone. With these numbers, Ebola has surpassed the 2003 SARS outbreak, and its death toll is already several times as great and Ebola continues to spread well after the two-months it took to contain SARS. Likewise, when compared to the most recent outbreak of Marburg virus in Angola, Ebola far outpaces its competitors; while Marburg had a higher fatality rate, the sheer scale of the Ebola epidemic is orders of magnitude beyond the 2005 Marburg outbreak. Even though Ebola has relatively low transmission rates, the high rate of fatalities and its almost uncontrolled spread has resulted in an epidemic almost unprecedented in recent memory.

However, outside West Africa the story is different. The abundance of

medical infrastructure and awareness of the problem have allowed most of the world to prepare; of the few people to arrive in the United States infected, only one has died; and of the 700 aid workers sent by Doctors without Borders, only three contracted the illness. In that light, the relative uproar over domestic risks has more precedent than the West African epidemic itself. America’s domestic response mirrors the furor brought with the Swine Flu pandemic of 2009; this pandemic, while comparable to a seasonal flu outbreak in severity and even weaker in terms of fatality rate, prompted months of fear and hysteria. Although Ebola’s presence in the national spotlight compares similarly to other past epidemics, the severity of its threat in America remains minimal.

Ebola in America shows little risk of escalation, while in West Africa it rages on. With all the media and political energy spent spreading panic about Ebola’s presence in America, the true horror in West Africa continues.

9

National

Attitudes about Affirmative Action Race based affirmative action being reconsidered By: Nikki Mandell

F

reshman year I volunteered to take part in a psychology student’s experiment. I sat nervously in the waiting room across from an African-American girl about my age, clearly the other subject in the study. We signed the release for the experiment to be filmed and entered a small room where we proceeded to ask each other questions on tape like, “What made you come to UNC,” and “What’s your favorite class?”

Then, she asked something that immediately tapped me into “PC” mode. “Do you think affirmative action at UNC is fair, why or why not?” It turns out the girl was a hired actress, and I the perennially oblivious freshman. However, the study seeking to gauge my comfort with race-based affirmative action programs illustrated a larger movement of wavering social support, with court case after court case taking cracks at the lasting values of the program’s 1960s structure. Recently, some supporters of affirmative action’s principles have moved away from a race-based program and toward class-based.

At its conception, affirmative action aimed to “level the playing field” for those who applied to jobs and universities from a disadvantaged background, especially racial minorities.

The programs were constantly whiplashed between praise and criticism, culminating in a 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the University of Michigan’s race-based affirmative action policies, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stating the 5-4 majority that universities have “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”

Three years later 58% of Michigan voters approved an amendment that would ban affirmative action in the state, using the reasoning that such policies were racially discriminatory. In April of this year the Supreme Court ruled that the ban itself was not an act of

10

discrimination, and thus constitutional. Seven other states – Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington – have also banned acceptance policies that prioritize one candidate over another because of race. Ginsburg’s definition of diversity and its “compelling interest” to students seem to be losing traction in the minds of the American public.

This change in thinking has led to the implementation of new programs. Three state universities with a ban on a traditionally conceived race-based affirmative action policies are now transitioning to class-based admissions, an acceptance process that considers the socioeconomic diversity of the student. A 2012 study by The Century Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, argued that classbased policies are “an affirmative action that is attentive to racial and ethnic diversity, but begins to address, at long last, deeper issues of class inequality.” The study cites research published in 2011

by Stanford professor Sean Reardon who found the standardized testing gap between affluent and low-income students is now twice the size of the gap between African-American and Caucasian students.

Researchers have pointed to a wide range of causes behind this potential achievement gap from the 2008 recession to lack of time

and resources of single, low-income parents. Instead of racial disparities proponents of class-based affirmative action argue that the primary hurdle on the playing field now is that of financial inequality.

Opponents say they’re missing the point.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is an outspoken supporter for traditionally race-based affirmative action; a policy she says opened many doors for her. Sotomayor explained on a segment of ABC’s “This Week” that a racially diverse student body is important for the successful education of its members. She also dismisses the notion that a socioeconomic alternative would provide this kind of diversity, leaving the lasting racial inequalities in American society unanswered.

Sotomayor’s associates on the Supreme Court don’t all seem to agree. In the 2013 Fisher v. University of Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, saying it’s not implied and must be verified that “it is necessary for a university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.”

Because race-based affirmative action’s status is in jeopardy, we can expect states to continue testing new theories as the “laboratories of democracy;” while graduate students continue to test theirs on a gullible freshman.

“Class-based policies are ‘an affirmative action that is attentive to racial and ethnic diversity, but begins to address, at long last, deeper issues of class inequality.’”

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

National

Compensating Student Athletes University of Texas explores supplemental funding for student athletes

SOURCE: PHIL ROEDER

By: Meghan McGrath

I

n August 2014, federal judges overturned the law that prohibits NCAA athletes from receiving compensation from their respective schools.

This law has prevented athletes from receiving additional income beyond academic scholarships despite institutions profiting off their image.

In fact, some athletes are in need of extra funding that cannot be provided under the strict NCAA guidelines governing scholarships. A particularly interesting indication of this was when University of Connecticut star Shabazz Napier told reporters that he could not afford to eat when the school did not provide food for him.

This statement came in the midst of a debate at UConn that suggested that student athletes be compensated as faculty. Although many college athletes are supported by scholarships, further compensation appears justified and feasible for the college institutions based on the benefits these schools derive from their talents.

Current estimates show that there is a discrepancy between funding provided from scholarships and actual living expenses of a college athlete. In fact, an average cost of $3,222 per year is not factored into The Hill Political Review January 2015

expenses for full-scholarship athletes by universities. The National College Players Association also estimates that 85% of full-scholarship athletes living on-campus and 86% of off-campus college athletes would otherwise live below the federal poverty line if supported solely by their family and personal earnings. This discrepancy is coming to the forefront of discussions concerning the rights of NCAA athletes who seem to be losing money in their contracts despite the huge revenues that college athletics provide schools. For example, Duke University brings in the most revenue in college basketball, 160% more than the average revenue schools gross from basketball programs.

This means that the revenue generated by the Duke basketball program outpaces the already tremendous revenue of over $10 million dollars per year that is usual for Big Ten, SEC, and ACC conference schools.

Currently, the University of Texas athletic director Steve Patterson is considering spending roughly $6 million dollars per year to initiate a trend of compensation for student athletes. If approved, the plan would simply cover expenses for athletes not typically covered by scholarship, like the average discrepancy between

scholarship and expenses of $3,222 per year, as well as a $5,000 stipend to compensate athletes for use of their names and images by the university. This extra expense would not break the bank for the UT athletic department, but would mean that the revenue generated by the department would no longer be apportioned to making improvements to university facilities. Athletic directors are arguing that this extra expense will unfairly engage schools with prestigious athletic programs in a war of outrageous spending for top athletes. In addition, funds traditionally used to hire staffing and coaches would be tied up in trying to recruit top athletes.

For college teams like UT where currently only 17% of revenue contributes to scholarships, compensation for athletes would not devastate the athletic program. However, if laws evolve from restricted compensation of athletes for licensing purposes into paying NCAA athletes as a semi-pro league, it may take valuable revenues away from facility improvements and force schools to over-spend on their athletic programs in order to stay competitive against higher-grossing schools to recruit the best players.

11

International

Picking Up the Pieces By: Carolina Fite

T

he University has been reeling the wake of the Wainstein Report released in October, profiling incidents of academic fraudulence spanning 18 years and involving just over 3,000 students enrolled in “paper classes.”

Private investigator Kenneth Wainstein con-

ducted a thorough investigation that revealed grim evidence of an academic scandal. The report implicated UNC-CH in a two-decade long scheme of fake classes that were created in order to help athletes maintain academic eligibility.

These “paper classes”

SOURCE: JON BUCHLEITER 12

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

International

were focused in the Department of Afro and African-American Studies. Wainstein found clear evidence that advisors of the football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball team encouraged the athletes to take these classes to boost their GPA to meet elligibility requirements.

So soon after the initial shock of the findings, members of the Carolina community have only just begin to gauge its impact on the future of UNC-CH. The most pressing concern is the impact that this scandal will have on UNC-CH’s reputation. As a school that prides itself on its strong academic integrity, the mistakes of a few misguided individuals could potentially discourage bright and talented individuals from choosing UNC-CH. In the long run, students are concerned that UNC-CH may suffer in its ranking as a top public university, and also that their degrees may lose value as they enter the job market.

One of the most tangible changes following the report comes from the increased regulation and oversight within all academic departments at UNC-CH. Professors are now required to document the beginning and end of each class and report to their department chair whenever there is a class cancellation. The department chair also has to file a detailed copy of the course syllabus that extensively describes all classroom requirements.

Professor of English and American Studies Ruth Salvaggio said, “Some oversight is always wise. But there’s also the possibility that excessive regulation simply becomes a bureaucratic undertaking.”

This type of oversight, while an important step to rebuilding academic credibility, could lead to drawbacks associated with excessive paperwork. Certain classes are being forced to conduct more standard final exams even if that type of testing does not necessarily match the culture of the course. For example, the English Department is required to meet for a final exam, even though final papers are often a more useful way to evaluate a students understanding of literary topics. While it is important to maintain classroom accountability, it could prove to be difficult to strike an appropriate balance between a suitable and excessive amount of regulation.

Further, professors are being limited on the number of independent studies they are able to advise. While it is important for professors to keep track of the students they are advising, limiting the number of independent studies has the potential to prevent students from having the opportunity to conduct their own research. The fake paper classes could potentially prevent oth-

The Hill Political Review January 2015

er students from having the enriching experience that independent study courses often provide.

Eventually, UNC-CH athletics could also suffer because the report implied several violations within NCAA standards. If the NCAA finds any infractions during their review of the report and decides to take action following the possible violations, the effects could hurt recruiting efforts and consequently, the future success of the team. Economics and exercise and sports science major Jacob Lozier fears the impact that negative NCAA attention could bring to the athletic programs and the school. He said, “This could weaken our fan base, and then tourism, ticket sales, merchandise sales, and donations could take a hit that will negatively impact UNC and Chapel Hill.” While these effects will not be felt until several years down the road, the possibility is especially worrisome for a school that relies so heavily on its athletic programs.

The University has attempted to correct for these negative impacts through its strong response following the report’s release. The theme going forward has been one of increased transparency. The university’s willingness to conduct the report and publicize the findings indicates the dedication to truth and reform.

In a letter to the Carolina community, Chancellor Carol Folt said, “we recognize that we will remain part of the broader national conversation on these issues. As the nation’s first public university, we also have a responsibility to lead it – both with words and actions.” Simply discussing the issues and seeking reforms indicates the administration’s dedication to providing students with the best academic experience it can. While the impacts will continue to be measured in upcoming years, initial steps indicate that the University is taking action to fix the problem, and guard against such wrongdoing in the future.

13

National

Making the Grade

Department of Education issues new regulations for higher education By: Hinal Patel

T

he Department of Education recently released new regulations concerning institutions of higher education.

While the new rules apply to all higher education institutions in the United States, for-profit colleges will be most directly impacted. The regulations, which build on Obama’s Gainful Employment initiatives, seek to promote transparency and accountability.

The Department of Education intends to require all higher education institutions to make public disclosures including information about job earnings of college graduates and education costs, and also include information concerning loan repayment rates and average student debt.

The new policy will also require schools’ gainful employment program to meet certain debt-toearnings benchmarks in order to receive Title IV funding. These benchmarks are intended to identify programs that rely heavily on taxpayer subsidies without providing adequate career training.

These new regulations are especially concerning for for-profit colleges because they normally face a much lower loan repayment rate than other colleges. Accord-

ing to data released by the Department of Education, students at for-profit colleges represent 13 percent of the total higher education population, however they represent 31 percent of all student loans and approximately 50 percent of all loan defaults in the country. Also, according to the most recent data, 22 percent of student borrowers at for-profit colleges defaulted on their loans in a three-year timespan. This is compared to 13 percent of borrowers at public universities.

Many proponents of this policy believe that these new standards will hold for-profit colleges accountable and ensure that they are providing a valuable learning experience for all students. In a press conference after the new rules were introduced, Education Secretary Arne Duncan stated, “Too many of these programs fail to provide students with the training they need, while burying them in debt they cannot repay.” He went on to say that the new rules and regulations would “eliminate the worst-performing programs that are poorly serving students and taking advantage of taxpayers.”

Other supporters claim that these news policies don’t go far enough. According to Steve Gunderson, president of the Associ-

“New regulations are especially concerning for for-profit colleges because they normally face a much lower loan repayment rate than other colleges.”

14

ation of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, these new rules will harm students more than they will help students. Similarly, Pauline Abernethy, vice president of the Institute for College Access and Success, claimed that the new guidelines fail to provide financial relief to students in programs that lose eligibility. This is supported by the fact that Federal student grants and loans account for around 90 percent of for-profit colleges’ revenue, according to an article by Bloomberg.

There is a small subset of people who are against the policy and claim that the rules and regulations are unrealistic. They believe that the rules should be coupled with policies that aid failing institutions in meeting the new guidelines as well as provide additional resources for students who may attend institutions with ineligible programs. The Department of Education announced that around 1,400 programs serving approximately 840,000 students would not meet the new standards. However, the government has made clear that failing institutions will be provided with an opportunity to meet the limits on student-todebt income ratios. Programs will also only become ineligible if they fail in two out of three consecutive years or if they are at the borderline stage for four consecutive years. These measures, however, have yet to convince people who are against the policy and who do not think institutions will be able to meet these higher standards.

The desire to promote equal education and opportunity for all students enrolled in higher education is admirable, yet there is much concern over whether or not these new regulations are the solution.

Nonetheless, because these guidelines don’t take affect until July 1st, 2015, there is still some time to sort out details of the program and ensure that all institutions are aware of the new standards.

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

National

The Final Frontier

Despite setbacks the future of commercial spaceflight is promising By: Colin Kantor

T

he allure of space travel has captivated the American public for the last half-century, perhaps now more so than ever with the steady rise in commercial space companies. Despite a pair of laws that opened up commercial space services passed in 1984 and 1990, respectively, only in the last decade or so have companies like Space Exploration Technology (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corporation been successful in launching space ventures to the private sector. Despite some initial setbacks, the commercial space industry seems to be expanding rapidly and has already proven to be competitive on a billion dollar scale.

Although NASA has been at the forefront of space exploration, multiple factors have led towards commercial companies replacing governmental initiatives. Much of the commercial sector’s progress can be attributed to a decline in the scope of activity for the NASA, whose 30-year Space Shuttle program was formally ended in 2011. Shifting its focus to unmanned exploration and scientific discovery, NASA has reportedly paid $70 million per astronaut to Russia to send personnel into space while they evaluate the safety and potential of American-led ventures.

Another factor that enhances this competitive market is funding. Following its successful fourth attempt at launching the Falcon 1 rocket in 2008, SpaceX received one of two NASA contracts to shuttle supplies to the International Space Station, the other of which went to Orbital Sciences. And NASA awarded further multi-billion dollar contracts to SpaceX and aerospace giant Boeing in September, in addition to its existing financial support for the Commercial Crew Program, which is testing the viability of craft designed for human transportation.

Yet another factor for the success of private companies is cost. SpaceX is revolutionizing what it means to be “cost-efficient” by charging over $4,000 less per kilogram of cargo per launch than its closest competitor, United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of aerospace giants Lockheed Martin

The Hill Political Review January 2015

SOURCE: STEVE JURVETSON

and Boeing. SpaceX is also close to five times cheaper per launch than NASA, who estimates their costs at $10,000 per pound of payload put into space.

The cost-cutting abilities of SpaceX are attributed to their willingness to manufacture parts in-house rather than paying premiums to contractors.

However, the viability of private space flights is still years away. The explosion on liftoff of Orbital Sciences’s Antares rocket in late October prompted concern about the age and effectiveness of American rockets that still use Russian-made engines from the Cold War era. The crash of a Virgin Galactic test flight that killed two people onboard only two days later prompted further concerns about safety and government regulation of this burgeoning private industry.

Despite these setbacks, few would argue the commercialization of space technology is really in any danger of declining or reversing. With huge financial contributions, successful technology entrepreneurs like Elon Musk,

originally of PayPal and Zip2 fame, and Sir Richard Branson have turned space into a chic industry of tech superstars. These moguls must also navigate the American political world, as a Congress already skeptical of NASA’s support for multiple commercial enterprises seems hesitant to appropriate any more funding for space.

What lies ahead for space companies is only limited by their CEO’s vibrant imaginations. In 2009, Musk promised that civilians would be able to fly to the moon by 2014. While that goal may not have been achieved, SpaceX’s founder maintains his dream of a human colony on Mars before 2040.

Mars One, a anon-profit organization, shares the same goal but promises to make it a reality by 2025. Whether or not this is feasible remains to be seen, but what is clear is that private companies are revolutionizing the dream of space travel, improving aerospace technology at a rapid rate, and setting goals that continue to push the potential of the commercial space industry.

15

National

Safer Shopping

Retailers attempt improve cyber security for payment data By: Tess Landon

I

n a world full of proliferating technology, cyber-attacks are gaining momentum as serious threats to homeland security. Cyber-attacks, defined as a deliberate exploitation of computer systems often resulting in identity theft, fraud, and malware among other things, are becoming increasingly prevalent in both the public and private sectors. Specifically, the retail sector has experienced a recent surge in cyber-attacks. Due to the high volume of payment card transactions retail stores process, they are a prime target for hackers.

In August, the Department of Homeland Security estimated the number of infiltrated firms to be at least 600, ranging in size from small brick-and-mortar businesses to national retail corporations.

Not only is cyber hacking expanding the scope of their territory, but the strategy of hacking itself is constantly evolving and becoming increasingly complex. JPMorgan, a cyber-attack victim with over 80 million customers affected by their most recent security breach, is facing “a likely never-ending battle” when it comes to defending the integrity of their system according to chief executive Jamie Dimon – and financial institutions are renowned for having formidable, well-developed systems when it comes to cyber security.

Cyber security was originally thought to be most important in financial and healthcare industries, as they are most likely to hold records of personal consumer information (e.g. social security numbers, addresses), but the retail sector has been hit particularly hard in recent years. In late 2013, Target Point-Of-Sale (POS) systems were compromised for nearly 3 weeks and some 40 million credit and debit card numbers were hacked. In August of this year, Home Depot discovered their self-checkout POS systems had been corrupt with the same malware for nearly 6 months – the investigation is ongoing but thus far

16

it is estimated that 56 million credit and debit card numbers were stolen. Historically, the retail sector is known for doing the bare minimum when it comes to maintaining security requirements when compared to other industries.

Ecommerce has surged in popularity over the past decade and combined with tough competition coming from online retailers such as Amazon.com, cyber security was put on the back burner to focus on expanding business and sales while keeping costs low. Retail establishments spent approximately 1.5% less, on average, on cyber security compared to the healthcare or banking sectors last year.

Since the Target fiasco of 2013, the DHS and industry leaders have realized the importance of building a strong cyber security network. In May of 2014, the Retail Industry Leaders Association

launched an independent organization called Retail Cyber Intelligence Sharing Center, a public space where retail IT experts and executives can share and analyze best practices and successful strategies for setting up and implementing cyber security. Collaboration is happening across sectors as well.

Visa and MasterCard are teaming up with major retail corporations to implement a new payment card network that stores information on computer chips rather than on traditional magnetic stripes making it harder for hackers to gain access to consumer information.

Although retail is taking the necessary steps to ensure a safer shopping environment, cyber-attacks remain an eminent threat.

Expansive security breaches, such as the attacks on Target and Home Depot will continue to have considerable economic ramifications.

Medicaid Expansion by the Numbers

46,000

Number of jobs proponents claim the expansion would create

$800 million

Cost over eight years according to opponents of expansion

500,000

Expected number of citizens who would become eligible January 2015

The Hill Political Review

National

Prioritizing Privacy

Tech firms taking consumer concerns over privacy into account By: Zach Williams

I

n October, Google executive Eric Schmidt asserted that the tech giant had dramatically improved the strength of its encryption after learning the full extent of the National Security Agency’s spying on its users.

This statement came in response to true allegations that Google had cooperated with NSA surveillance. In the wake of Edward Snowden’s NSA leak in 2013, many companies claim to have changed their behavior. This begs the question, have tech firms substantially changed their policies in response to the publicity surrounding mass surveillance, or are their claims just public relations fluff? Although a few firms have responded, evidence suggests that tech firms should continue to update their technology and policy in response to the NSA’s mass surveillance in order to ensure their own continued profitability.

Google and many others have responded to the NSA scandal by protecting user data with more robust

encryption algorithms. Improved technology, although it does improve security, does not preclude a cozy relationship between the government and tech companies. Declassified emails, as well as testimony by NSA counsel Rajesh De, suggest that some tech companies did cooperate with the NSA. For example, Google and Facebook did not provide the government with direct access to their servers, but instead voluntarily created channels for the government to access requested data.

Clearly, some policies must change for customer data to be secure. Microsoft has recognized this, and claims to have tightened its privacy policy in reaction to the NSA scandal. Its general counsel, Brad Smith, has promised on Microsoft’s behalf to fight government requests for customer data, to the full extent of the law. Although this promise implies that the company was perhaps too cozy in releasing information to the NSA in the past, it acknowledges that technology has not been the only barrier to privacy.

SOURCE: RILEY PORTER

The Hill Political Review January 2015

The prior set of spy-friendly policies, now public, appears dangerous not just to the customers exposed by it, but to the companies who comply with them. Google’s Eric Schmidt posited that the NSA could “break the internet” by dividing the World Wide Web into country-specific networks.

Chinese, Brazilian, and some European governments have or are considering banning certain American tech products and services in response to the scandal. Microsoft, Apple, and IBM, among others, stand to suffer internationally as a consequence of their vulnerability to and cooperation with NSA surveillance. Business analysts anticipate American cloud-based storage, in particular, to lose significant market share as viable foreign alternatives emerge. American firms will likely need to make information security a priority if they wish to continue to profit in international markets Former NSA lawyer Stewart Baker downplays the importance of protecting data, arguing that companies have bolstered their security to their own detriment. He claims that Blackberry has encryption to blame for its severe decline. It has adopted encryption technology sophisticated enough to slow down the NSA, but also advanced enough to be illegal and unsellable in some foreign markets like India. This argument is questionable because it overlooks that Blackberry has been lagging behind other smartphone manufacturers for years; the company has bigger problems than what kind of encryption it provides.

Businesses need consumer trust to stay profitable, regardless of how a particular company fails.

In addition to the concerns of spied-upon Americans, the security wishes of foreign governments and companies will pressure U.S. firms to reassure their customers. Regardless of whether tech companies have changed in response to Snowden’s revelations, market forces may eventually force them to make significant adjustments.

17

State & Local

Democratizing the Board of Governors Should the BOG be made more responsive to student input?

By: Sylvia Roper

O

n the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s campus, there has been much conversation lately about the UNC-system’s Board of Governors.

According to the Daily Tar Heel, a new student coalition, the UNC Board of Governors Democracy Coalition, recently formed on campus. As the Daily Tar Heel noted, the student-led coalition is aiming to make the UNC-system’s Board of Governors more democratic.

The coalition aims to democratize the Board by allowing both students and faculty to have easier access to the board meetings. They believe that the UNC-system’s Board of Governors’ members should have UNC email addresses to facilitate an accessible communication link between constituents and the Board. They are rallying to give Alex Parker, the President of the UNC-system’s Association of Student Governments, voting rights.

This initiative is particularly unique because most Board of Governors’ in the United States appoint their members, from Boards’ of other universities to the Federal Reserve. Appointed positions in the federal government, such as those of Supreme Court Justices, are those that attempt to neutralize politics, and attempt to keep politics and political opinions out of the position. The UNC-system’s Board of Governors is appointed by the North Carolina General Assembly, which is a part of the Board’s Constitutional Establishment within its Code. Thus, the student-coalition challenges the status quo with its goal of democratizing the UNC-system’s Board of Governors.

The UNC-system’s Board of Governors is intended to advise, implement, and propose policy.

The UNC-system’s Board of Governors is responsible for making decisions that affect the entire UNC school system. According to the Board’s UNC Policy Manual, it’s

their job to create and implement policies which “direct the University of North Carolina” and the rest of the schools within the UNC system. The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy noted that the Board is meant to represent the state legislature, but not necessarily meant to represent the University or the schools within the UNC-system. Board members are not supposed to explicitly support the schools that they graduated from, but instead the state legislature which appointed them as the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy noted.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is not only the oldest public university, but it is also the oldest university supported by taxpayers’ money in the United States. Because of this, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and all other UNC-system schools harbor a special relationship with the local government.

Students at these institutions may feel inclined to voice their opinions and call for greater representation since the system is funded by the General Assembly’s budget which comes from North Carolina taxpayers’ money, according to UNC’s Budget website.

The UNC-system Board is influenced by the State Legislature as well as its constituents within the UNC school system; whether or not it’s influenced equally is where controversy begins. Although democratizing the UNC-system’s Board of Governors’ may be a sign of progress, it may not be feasible given the extent of state support that comes from the Legislature and the citizens in North Carolina. Democratizing the Board’s positions may be effective in theory, however, in reality, it may be more pragmatic to stick to the precedent of appointing these positons.

SOURCE: WILLIAM YEUNG 18

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

Responses to Wainstein Report

State & Local

Students’ reactions to report on UNC-CH academic fraudulence

By: Chase Johnson

F

ollowing the release of the Wainstein report, which found that students, including a large proportion of athletes, were receiving high grades for classes that required very little academic effort, the student body experienced a wave of emotions.

Many felt that critics wrongfully used the report to attack and demean UNC and its current students.

Keith Whitley, an economics major, came to the school’s defense in a post on the Overheard at UNC Facebook group. “Yes, there was an academic scandal and yes, athletes AND students participated in this. But this report proved that this scandal stopped in 2011, and there is no evidence of its continuation since then. But don’t try to tell me the hard work I’ve put in both before and during my amazing tenure at this university is worthless. Regardless of the scandal, UNC is considered a top public university, and the course rigor here proves it,” posted Whitley. The post received over 2,700 likes and many of the comments on the post expressed agreement with Whitley’s sentiment.

There is also a prevalent belief that similar academic wrongs take place at other universities and that UNC is just first to be caught.

“I am almost certain that similar academic wrongdoings happen at other schools. They may not be as extreme as UNC’s transgressions, but given the intensity demanded of college athletes, it is nearly inconceivable that no other schools are giving athletes at least some excessive leeway in their studies. UNC was just the one to get caught,” said Kate Townsend, a freshman public policy major.

Further, a coalition of students and student groups expressed concern that the Wainstein report had The Hill Political Review January 2015

racial undertones. The Real Silent Sam Coalition, a community group that aims to create a dialogue about the racial legacy of the past, held a rally at South Building to highlight the racial implications of the report.

“This investigation has resurfaced the feelings of being undervalued at this university as a student of African American Studies and as a black person. The racial undertones of the investigation are best reflected in not only who is implicated, but who is not.

The athletics department and the AFAM department both invoke images in the social imagination of black bodies,” said Taylor Webber-Fields, a Real Silent Sam organizer and a senior African, African American and Diaspora Studies major.

In response to the many views that sudents had about the report, Student Body President Andrew Powell held a forum with a panel of students from different areas of the university.

In a school wide email announcing the forum Powell said, “the events of the past years and the accompanying public fallout have profoundly influenced the student experience at UNC. We have each been affected in different ways; some of us are angry,

some of us are confused and some of us are hurt. As a student body we must engage, unite and, in due time, move forward as a stronger Carolina.”

This attitude of “moving forward” seems to be what many in the university hope to accomplish.

Muttaqee Ahmad Ali, a junior Computer Science major, said, “We [the student body] are not letting the shadow of this problem be cast over us. This is something that has been closed now.”

The report highlights clear cases of misconduct, however, the revelation of these wrongdoings and the recent impact on the UNC community offers an opportunity to thoroughly address the problems laid out in the report and put in place safeguards against any such systematic academic fraud in the future. During the forum, panelist Jarrod James, a member of the varsity football team, said, “We are just ready to move on.”

The Wainstein report brings the score of academic fraudulence into focus, but how the UNC community moves beyond initial emotions and responds and reforms can attest to the character of this university. Student initiated actions to come to grips with the report are an important first step in this process.

“The revelation offers an opportunity to thoroughly address the problems and put in place safeguards against any such systematic academic fraud”

19

Perspectives

Cold War 2.0?

Characteristics of potential future conflict with Russia By: Dan O’Neill

T

wenty-five years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, on November 9, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev warned of a “new cold war.” Western leaders such as U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron had responded by stressing there is no military solution to Putin’s aggressive policies in Ukraine, instead responses would target Russia’s economy. With Russia effectively ignoring international law, Europe is edging towards a “new cold war,” and the Ukraine conflict may change Russia’s relationship with the West for years to come. Gorbachev did not say there would be a “repeat” cold war. Indeed, a new cold war would look very different than the one that dominated the second half of the last century.

Undoubtedly a new cold war would be costly for both sides. Russia depends on trade with the U.S. and Western Europe, particularly for technology and capital. Damaging these partnerships would force Moscow to rely on the less-modernized Beijing hampering Russian economic growth.

This points to one potential difference; a new cold war will not be bipolar. China, India, and a resurgent Europe will play a more prominent role in a new conflict against the Russians.

Whereas only two superpowers existed post-World War II, Russia is now considerably weaker than the United States economically and militarily. The U.S. defese budget is seven times as large as Russia’s according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and its economy approximately eight times as large. Russia’s tentative economic situation may not handle another protracted conflict like the Cold War. And yet, the U.S. has spread its resources globally and thinly. Russia, however, is a concentrated power, or, as President Obama said in The Hague earlier this year, a “regional power.” Obama intended to emphasise Russia’s inferiority, but being a

20

“regional power” has its benefits, including fewer international burdens.

As with the last war tension on the Korean peninsula threatens to turn into a “hot war.” North Korea has nuclear weapons albeit vastly inferior to the nuclear arsenals of most other nuclear powers. However, North Korea’s unpredictability and global isolation means it is a danger for both Russia and the U.S. Russia’s relationship with North Korea had deteriorated since the collapse of the Soviet Union and has only slightly improved recently. North Korea, once dependent on Soviet support was forced rely on China when under heavy nuclear program restrictions.

However, recently the DPRK has begun mending fences with the Russians. Increased Russian involvement may reduce China’s influence on North Korea and also hamper American attempts to isolate Pyongyang’s nuclear programs.

The advent of technological warfare will also change any future cold war. Hacking, cyber-attacks, and virtual terrorism have opened up new arenas for all powers to influence and attempt to control. Whereas proxy wars between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. cropped up in the Cold War the battlefields of a future conflict could by in cyberspace.

There will likely not be a nuclear arms race like there was in the twentieth century. Deterrence has been the most successful strategy in preventing nuclear war for nearly seventy years.

Instead, countries will hone technological warfare, cyber-warfare, and accuracy systems for conventional weapons. This is arguably more threatening to global security, as these three systems—unlike nuclear warfare, largely an all-or-nothing risk—may prove to be acceptable gambles precisely because they do not threaten world destruction. Perhaps the new cold war will prove a much more damaging conflict internationally than its predecessor.

This new cold war has not yet begun, but its would-be orchestrators are already engaging in menacing exchanges. David Cameron stated at the

Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London that Britain would continue to pressure Russia if it continues to disregard international law, recalling earlier examples of the disastrous consequences of uncontested aggression. In similar fashion, Vladimir Putin set out to challenge those that claimed his actions were aggressive in his 2013 Crimean speech—even though he claims not a shot was fired—and in doing so read perhaps the most aggressive statement in the crisis: “United States of America prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism that they can decide the destinies of the world.”

The start of a new cold war may signal solutions of the late twentieth century are now obsolete. This is not to say that leaders cannot learn from history.

Indeed, savvy strategists will push for similar arrangements successful in the twentieth century, such as those that opened up international verification and transparency, and improved communication between would-be adversaries. Mistrust and misinformation were the main causes of escalation in the first cold war. Hopefully, improved communication may help to avert similar miscalculations in the future.

The big question is whether this new cold war is as serious of a threat as the previous cold war was. Furthermore, with such instability in Asia and the Middle East, and with so many U.S. resources invested into those areas, would a new cold war in Europe be of great importance to the U.S.?

The answer should be yes. Only when all parties recognise the unacceptably high costs of such a new cold war could such a conflict be avoided.

In the Cold War, such a realisation only came following the near-suicidal standoff in Cuba 1962, and was only resolved in the early 1990s. With the doomsday clock stuck indefinitely at 11:55pm, one hopes that such an event would not be needed to end a new cold war.

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

Perspectives

Theory in Practice Issue Linkage, the United States, and Iran

Derrick Flakoll is a junior majoring in Public Policy and Peace, War, and Defense

I

t may not seem possible, but the Middle East has become even more complicated in the last year than it already was. The fight against the Islamic State (IS), formerly known as ISIS, has drawn the United States into a complex and fractious alliance consisting of many traditional enemies as well as allies. One of the most surprising enemies-turned-allies is Iran. Even as they remain rivals in almost everything else – particularly over the matter of Iran’s nascent nuclear program – America and Iran are quietly cooperating against the quasi-state that is trying to supplant Syria and Iraq. But this combination of loose alliance and ongoing disputes has required an unsettling balancing act from U.S. policymakers.

Entanglement between Iran and America has produced a golden opportunity for what the political science literature calls “issue linkage.”

In this diplomatic technique, two or more states negotiate two contested issues at the same time, and linking the resolution of one issue to the resolution of the other. Ideally, this can make advantageous cooperation

The Hill Political Review January 2015

possible for both sides, as one nation offers concessions on one contentious issue in order to gain accommodations on a linked issue. This way, both states can cooperate and “win” where they would not otherwise be able to. At least, that’s the theory; there is mixed evidence on how well issue linkage works in practice.

In reality, issue linkage may be used ruthlessly when one negotiating party has something the other needs.

In that case, one party has all the power, and can force the other to swallow quite a lot in order to secure cooperation. And right now, the United States needs Iran’s cooperation against the Islamic State. Not only is Iran a major regional power, whose money and troops would be valuable in any case; it is uniquely able to reinforce Iraq’s army from the east and push back the IS. Further, Iran can negotiate with the Syrian government, which is anathema to American diplomats after Syria’s recent war crimes but also a potentially necessary to combat the shared threat of the Islamic State.

Iran thus sees itself as operating from

a position of newfound strength in negotiations over its nuclear program and has pushed for greater concessions from the American government in exchange for help against ISIS. However, the credibility of Iran’s hardball diplomacy is doubtful; it needs America’s cooperation quite badly itself. Since the Sunni jihadists of IS threaten Iraq and Syria—Iran’s key Shi’ite-dominated client states— Iran is in no position to refuse to fight the Islamic State. Indeed, President Obama has himself pushed for concessions on nuclear security from Iran, gambling that Iran needs America’s military machinery—and relief from American sanctions—more than the United States needs Iran in the fight against ISIS. Therein lies the problem with using issue linkage as a weapon: rather than fostering cooperation, it merely breeds new conflict over which nation is more indispensable to the other. Both parties try to force concessions and refuse to give ground, and the whole messy process of negotiation goes right back to square one.

SOURCE: GREENSEFA SOURCE: WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM 21

Perspectives

Terrorism Today Trends of Terrorist Violence

Clay Ballard is a senior majoring in Peace, War, and Defense and Global Studies

W

hen looking at global trends of violence, there is good news and bad news. The good – global trends of violence have been exponentially declining as human rights movements have gained traction and interstate wars have become increasingly rare. The bad – terrorism has shifted in the opposite direction. From 2001 to 2013, deaths from terrorism have escalated over 150 percent. Looking solely at more recent data, between 2012 and 2013 there has been an unprecedented 61 percent increase in deaths from terrorism.

According to a new report released by the Global Terrorism Index, 80% percent of these increasingly deadly attacks occurred in five states: Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. The report coalesces this finding with US foreign policy throughout the 2000’s, suggesting, “The rise in terrorist activity coincided with the US invasion of Iraq.” Moreover, much of this period correspond-

22

ed with increasing international efforts to eliminate terrorism.

Why, then, does terrorism persist and how will terrorism end? These and other reports suggest that military intervention predominantly fails to halt terrorism while policing efforts are a leading cause of terrorist groups’ elimination.

The rise of terrorism, particularly within the 2012–2013 period, supports this analysis. The factors that correlated with this increase, as indicated by the Global Terrorism Index report, included higher levels of state repression, human-rights abuses, and extrajudicial killings. These findings entails that initial violence begets state repression which begets terrorism. Similar research within the Global Terrorism Database reveals that nearly 70 percent of terrorist attacks take place in countries with ongoing conflicts.

By looking at these findings, it can be concluded that more conflict leads to more terrorism. Additionally, an earlier 2008 report by the Rand Corporation examining how terrorism ends found that military intervention only eliminated terrorism in 7% of cases where terrorism activities were eventually halted. These findings are imperative towards crafting a worthwhile policy of ending terrorism.

Even though the report, “How Terrorist Groups End,” concludes that terrorism rarely ends as a result of a military campaign, most terrorist groups actually end due

to operations led by local police and intelligence agencies. In this study, 268 terrorist groups that have ceased operations were examined, 40% ended due to policing efforts spearheaded by local police intelligence agencies. By viewing terrorism as a criminal activity and by combatting it through prosecutive means, efforts are more effective and the terrorists’ view is deligimitized as arguments of a “holy war” are easily deconstructed.

While evidence revealing the United State’s involvement in Iraq as one of the lead contributors towards the increase in terrorism over the last decade is still surfacing, the consequences of this conclusion do seem to be impacting Obama’s strategy. Obama has affirmed a stance against boots on the ground while perpetuating the need to partner with local governments and build intelligence for target strikes, as defense analyst Stephanie Gaskell describes it. This strategy represents a growing shift away from direct military intervention towards soft-power policy instruments against terrorism.

This change and reports that indicate the effectiveness of these and similar policies are particularly attractive through the lens of an end goal of ending terrorism.

There is certainly room for optimism while observing this policy’s impact on terrorism trends and whether they unite with overall decreasing levels of violence.

“80% percent of these increasingly deadly attacks occurred in five states: Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Nigeria, and Afghanistan.”

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

Perspectives

Wit and Witlessness Reform “Any government that has a sincere desire for reform and progress should understand the benefit of objective and constructive criticism.”

- Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa “I know reform is never easy. But I know reform is right.”

- Julia Gillard

“You cannot reform your society or institution without opening your mind.”

-Bashar al-Assad

“Reform is not pleasant, but grievous; no person can reform themselves without suffering and hard work, how much less a nation.”

- Thomas Carlyle “To innovate is not to reform.”

-Edmund Burke

The Hill Political Review January 2015

23

24

The Hill

January 2015

The Hill Political Review