March Issue 14.5

The Hill Carolina Political Review Vol. 14 Issue 5 March 2015

R2P tURNS 10 THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND MORAL Dilemmas OF LEADERSHIP 1

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

The hill Carolina Political Review Vol. 14 Issue 5

people of the hill:

Editors-in-Chief: Jon Buchleiter, Brian Bartholomew Faculty Advisor: Ferrel Guillory

Online Managing Editor: Nikki Mandell International Editor: Carol Abken National Editor: Richard Zheng State & Local Editor: Caroline Fite Online Editors: Jacob Johnson Chase Johnson Matt Wotus Distribution Manager: Clay Ballard Treasurer: Tess Landon

Director of PR: David Pingree

Columnists: Clay Ballard, Derrick Flakoll, Nancy Smith Staff Writers: Kurtis Brown, Parker Bruer, Keenan Conder, Connor Cooke, Drew Foster, Allyesha Hall, Henry Hays, John Hess, Jamie Huffman, Chase Johnson, Colin Kantor, Chloe Karlovich, Bobby Kawecki, Tess Landon, Andrew Levine, Henry Li, Meghan McGrath, Sylvia Roper, Taylor Slate, Zach Williams, Matt Wotus, Javier Zurita.

Design Editor: Meaghan McFarland Art Staff: David Wright Ngozika Nwoko

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 Fee at a cost of approximately $2.00 per copy.

Cover art by David Wright

The Hill Political Review

Our March issue takes a look at the UN’s R2P mandate and examines other moral dilemmas of leadership and burdens of responsibility around the world. From the debate over the naming of Saunders Hall to the persecution of the Rohingya people in Myanmar today’s leaders face ethical quandaries.

Leaders must delicately balance political, economic and social interests as they attempt to resolve these problems.

We have attempted to highlight a few of these dilemmas and challenges and provide context for the current questions facing policymakers. We hope you enjoy this issue and as always we welcome your comments and engagement.

-Jon Buchleiter and Brian Bartholomew

Send us comments:

As part of our mission to promote political discussion on campus we welcome your comments and thoguhts. 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 o faccessible content designed to engage the campus in political discussion.

Nonpartisan explained:

general information:

January 2015

From the editors:

2

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 14 15

16 17 18 19 20

international:

Riyadh vs. Tehran Cracking Down on Carbon Another Frozen Conflict?

The Big, Lean Greek Exit?

Pacifist No More?

Persecution of Rohingya R2P Turns 10

national:

A Budget Too Far? Capital Punishment in U.S. A Prickly Debate

state and local:

Google Fiber to Triangle Renaming Saunders Hall NC Opportunity Scholarships President Ross departure NC State Transportation Budget

perspectives: 20 21 22 23

Two Cents Terrorism Today Theory in Practice Battlegrounds of Net Neutrality 3

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

international

Riyadh Andrew Levine Staff Writer The Middle East has experienced numerous wars and rebellions since the Arab Spring that began early in 2011.

These protests across much of the Arab world initially reflected a desire for change, at least in the minds of the Middle East’s religious and political moderates. However, many Islamists, both Shia and Sunni, have used this tension to further their own designs, especially in the nations that have a significant minority presence. Syria especially has experienced a horrific civil war that has devastated large areas of land and displaced millions of people.

It has become a battlefield for religious proxies, similar to the German lands in the Thirty Years War between Catholic and Protestant factions in the 17th century. Saudi Arabia and Iran have emerged as the respective champions of Sunni and Shia extremism.

Iran has long been the most powerful Shia state, and they have supported Shia militias across the Middle East, ostensibly to counter Israel but also to maintain and expand their own power. Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon, has been its most successful group; it fought Israel to a stalemate in 2006. Hezbollah has recently become involved in the Syrian Civil War on the side of President Basher Al-Assad, which has diminished its popularity among Sunni Muslims who see Israel as the real enemy.

vs

Tehran

Saudi Arabia is the largest of the petro states, and it sends money by the billions to various causes, charitable or otherwise, in the name of Islam. The Saudi state follows the Salafi branch of Islam, which is by nature more conservative and strict than other Sunni branches. Many of the Mujahedeen who fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s were from Saudi Arabia, and some of these men would go on to found Al-Qaeda. The Islamic State (ISIS) follows the most conservative of the Salafi teachings, under their self-appointed caliph they claim to be following the “pure” path of Islam. The kingdom exports its teachings through madrassas where boys are trained in the Salafi school of Islam. Many of these madrassas have been accused of being terrorist recruiting centers.

Iran has concentrated its resources upon countries that have a significant Shia minority. Yemen, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, and Syria fit the bill, and Iran can be judged to have had at least a decent measure of influence in these SOURCE: WIKIMEDIA

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

4

international

THE UNDERLYING GEOPOLITICAL STRUGGLE BETWEEN IRAN AND SAUDI ARABIA

Tehran

SOURCE: WIKIMEDIA

Riyadh

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia will attempt to win the Syrian war through proxies 5

areas. Sanaa’, the Yemeni capital, fell in January to the Houthi, a group of rebels who follow a Shia path of Islam. Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon have long been under the influence of Tehran due to Hezbollah and the other Shia militias that Iran empowers. The uprising in the tiny Shia-majority country of Bahrain was crushed by the Sunni ruling family with help from the Saudis.

The sectarian conflagration that has enveloped the Middle East shows no signs of slowing down over the next few months. While manpower has become a problem for both sides of the Syrian conflict, money is also starting to become an issue. Oil prices, which provide massive incomes for many of the Arab states, have fallen drastically over the past few months. Some analysts believe that Saudi Arabia is intentionally keeping prices low in order to hurt Iran and Russia, two of the major backers of Assad’s regime.

ISIS, which opposes every state in the Middle East, is currently on the decline in Iraq and Syria. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia will attempt to win the Syrian war through proxies, while the American-led coalition strikes ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra targets in Iraq and Syria. Salman, the new king of Saudi Arabia after the death of his half-brother Abdullah, must decide whether he wants to continue to expand the influence of Saudi Arabia through Salafism or try to curtail global Islamic jihadism, which would decrease the power of the kingdom.

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

national

$

a budget tOO far?

David Pingree Staff Writer The 2015 budget President Obama proposed to Congress last month reflects many of the themes that the president has highlighted in his State of the Union address and other cross-country speeches, whereby the president hopes to strengthen the American lower and middle classes through social programs largely funded through taxes on the wealthiest of Americans.

President Obama’s $3.99 trillion budget requests almost $1 trillion in tax increases over the next decade that will fund a variety programs, including health care, education, child care and job training. The president has also addressed the need for revamping the nation’s infrastructure. “We’ve got to put politics aside, pass a budget that funds our national security priorities at home and abroad and gives middle-class families the security they need to get ahead in the new economy,” President Obama told media sources.

While the proposed taxes will target the most prosperous financial institutions and individuals, the taxes are largely designed to encourage economic growth, according to The New York Times. The Times focused on a proposed capital gains tax that could feasibly mitigate tax sheltering while also promoting more productive investments.

As expected, the president’s budget was not without its critics, with many politicians and analysts claiming that this year’s proposed budget was dead in the water when it reached the Republican-controlled congress February 2.

House Speaker John Boehner told the media that the president’s budget “contains no solutions to address the drivers of our debt, and no plan to fix our entire tax code to help foster growth and create jobs.”

Other Republican critics argue that President Obama’s budget fails to address the budget deficit. Under his proposed budget, the federal government would see the national deficit cut to $474 billion, the lowest figure since 2008, while also reducing discretionary spending to 1962-levels. Nonetheless, Republicans in congress argue that the best course for balancing the budget is through a reduction in domestic spending without tax hikes.

However, some political analysts see potential compromise in the president’s new budget, particularly in military funding.

The president’s budget requests $612 billion in total military

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

6

spending, this includes funds for the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the war against ISIS as well as $14 billion for cybersecurity.

New military funds would also remove the across-the-board caps on military spending that resulted from the 2013 budget sequestration, an issue both President Obama and Republican leaders mutually disdained.

“This development, along with a surge in spending on infrastructure and an expansion of the earned income credit for the working poor, should muster some approval from Republicans,” said Doug Schoen, a contributor for Forbes.

Although many critics, such as Schoen, continue to argue that the president’s budget is nothing more than a “litany of liberal talking points” that were crafted to frame the issues that both political parties must address in the 2016 presidential election. Schoen and others argue that President Obama’s budget is simply a legacy-defining strategy, in that President Obama’s budget would possibly allow future historians and political scientists to honor the president’s vision for the United States.

In the mean time, Congress will set about designing its own budget, which Republicans say will balance the federal budget within the next ten years, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Although, the Wall Street Journal also noted that deficits are expected climb again in 2018, with interest payments on the national debt reaching 13.5 percent of government spending.

The federal government currently pays 6.5 percent of its total spending on the national debt.

“You have strategic alignment in some very important areas,” Jeffrey Zients, the director of the White House National Economic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “We’re hopeful we can get some stuff done.”

Quick facts about the budget: • $3.99 Trillion total requests • $1 trillion tax increases • $474 billion projecteD deficit • $612 Billion For defense • $14 billion FOr cybersecurity

international

Cracking down on Carbon Henry Hays Staff Writer

“When the U.S. and China are able to work together effectively, the whole world benefits,” said President Obama following a joint announcement with Chinese President Xi Jinping about a landmark agreement between the two superpowers to limit their greenhouse gas emissions on November 11, 2014.

Both nations agreed to double their efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Obama announced that the United States would emit up to 28 percent less carbon emissions in 2025 than it did in 2005. Xi pledged that clean energy sources, namely wind and solar power, would account for 20 percent of China’s energy production by 2030, thereby making China reach its peak carbon emissions sooner. This agreement, if successful, would have tremendous impact on reducing worldwide emissions, as these two nations produce more than half the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

This collaboration demonstrates a improved relations between the two nations on climate issues, but on the same trip other areas of contention simmered under the surface. Both governments expressed aspirations for economic influence likely to fuel further competition. President Obama and President Xi each promoted conflicting free-trade agreements throughout Asia during a conference of the Pacific Rim economies. China received approval for its Asia-Pacific Free Trade Area, which would allow for free trade among 21 Asian countries, while Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) includes 12 countries but notably does

SOURCE: INTEL FREE PRESS

not include China. Negotiations for the partnership have progressed further than for the China’s Asia-Pacific Free Trade Area, yet both remain stalled for the time being.

In addition to disagreements over free trade, the issue of cybersecurity and the protection of intellectual property continue to drive disagreements between the two countries.

Cybersecurity is an emerging vulnerability, and the United States has been vocal in its criticisms of Chinese actions to undermine private U.S. government and commercial information in cyberspace. Last year the United States indicted five Chinese military hackers for economic espionage. And in the fall of last year the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a report detailing Chinese hacks of key U.S. defense industry firms.

Such actions have driven U.S. businesses to lobby Congress for further cybersecurity measures following Chinese efforts as well as the hack7

ing of Sony Media conducted by North Korea.The Chinese government has vowed to keep American cyber networks in China secure, but these public statements have done little to assuage companies’ fears.

The U.S.-China climate agreement may bring about improved relations between the two vying powers through working towards a common goal. However, Obama may also simultaneously face difficulty upholding United States’ pledge to reduce emissions due to opposition from a Republican dominated Congress, which may seek to undermine his plans for reducing carbon emissions. Although the future of this deal remains to be seen, it appears as though China and the United States may be able to lead the world in preventing global temperatures from rising more rapidly in the coming years. Such an accomplishment would be a major historic event of this century and could set the stage for many more to come.

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

international

another conflict?

Why Putin and RussiA Will Not Just let It Go Colin Kantor Staff Writer Despite the efforts of European nations, Russia, and the United States to create a lasting proposal for peace in war-torn Ukraine, the fighting has only seemed to intensify in the New Year. In late January, Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, claimed “There will be no more attempts to speak about a cease-fire on [the rebels’] part.” The next day, a new rebel offensive was launched on the port city of Mariupol. Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it clear there is no Russian involvement on behalf of the rebels, it is widely suspected Russian supplies and military expertise are nevertheless assisting the anti-government forces. What then, with Russia at the bargaining table but the rebels remaining adamant in their insistence on fighting, could the strategy be for this recent uptick in violence?

For some observers, the key to the latest offensives is the newly targeted city of Mariupol, which lies on the road between Russian-occupied Crimea and the territories currently outside of government control. In addition to its economic importance, Mariupol is also a symbolic target, as Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko named it the provisional capital of the Donetsk region in June 2014, since Donetsk itself has been largely under separatist control throughout the war. Seizing Mariupol could have far-reaching consequences, especially because of the strategic importance of a possible land corridor from Russia into Crimea. Even though the eastern tip of the Crimean peninsula is separated from Russia proper by only a narrow strait, plans to build a bridge to cross this body of water have faltered.

Many of Crimea’s supply lines continue to run in a north-south orientation allowing the Ukrainian government to cut

January 2015

off the peninsula. It would be easier for Russian supplies to reach the territory if they passed through friendly terrain.

Military strategists maintain this idea is still theoretical, and it is unlikely even if the rebels took Mariupol that they would be able to advance further into Ukraine.

The more likely answer, it would seem, is that Russia is trying to create a situation resulting in a frozen conflict, a state of tension and sporadic fighting weakening Ukraine and allowing Russia to keep the eastern regions in its orbit.

Even in the period directly following the annexation of Crimea last year, comparisons were made between Ukraine and the brief 2008 Russian-Georgian War, in which Russian troops invaded Georgia to protect the breakaway province of South Ossetia. Both South Ossetia and another breakaway province, Abkhazia, have remained under de facto Russian control since the war’s end. A similar situation exists in Moldova, where Russian support for the breakaway region of Transdnistria has kept Russian troops there for over two decades following a brief war, administering the region as virtually independent from the Moldovan government. If such comparisons are valid, it is likely the Russian strategy

The Hill Political Review

8

SOURCE:WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM

is to keep the conflict in Ukraine limited in scale but with an open-end state.

Proponents of this view point to rebels attempting to seize economically vital locations as proof the separatists understand they must find ways for their quasi-state to be able to provide some economic enticements to Russia. Examples of such locations include the port of Mariupol, the major railway hub between the separatist centers of Donetsk and Luhansk, and the country’s largest city for the production of coke, a key commodity used for making steel. As Russia looks to expand its economic ties with neighboring states in the post-Soviet orbit, utilizing the rich industrial potential of Eastern Ukraine would signal to the West that Russia intends to stay.

Ironically, it was debate over whether Ukraine would enter an economic agreement with the European Union or opt for closer ties with Russia that precipitated the beginning of the crisis in November 2013. Now, it would appear, with a pro-Western Ukrainian government firmly in power, President Putin’s strategy is to deprive this new perceived adversary of key territories in order to maintain Russian influence through both military and economic means.

international

the big, lean greek exit?

A win for greece’s anti-austerity

By Zachary Williams Staff Writer Five years removed from a bailout agreement with the IMF, European Commission, and European Central Bank, Greece seems to want out. Although the deal alleviated Greece’s debt crisis, balancing its budget for the first time in forty years and keeping the country financially solvent, Greek voters have decided that the agreement’s terms are unacceptable. The country’s gross domestic product, employment rate, and average income have declined markedly in recent years. Heavy tax increases accompanied by decreased state spending have contributed to widespread discontent with the Greek government and spurred a regime change.

SYRIZA, a left-wing anti-austerity party, won a plurality of seats (149) out of 300 in Greek parliament in January, relegating the more conservative New Democracy party to second. This election victory placed Alexis Tsipras as the country’s new prime minister. To achieve a majority in the legislature, the party has established a coalition with the right-wing Independent Greek party, which controls 13 representatives.

The parties are strange bedfellows; the Independent Greeks sit at odds with Syriza on most social issues and some fiscal issues. Their fundamental traits in common are an opposition to austerity measures and a distrust of the European banking powers they call the “troika.”

As of mid-February, the new Greek coalition has expressed only a highly conditional willingness to continue the bailout agreement. The current deal expires at the end of February, though the coalition claims to seek a “bridge agreement” in the meantime. Syriza’s requests for a revised deal include a raise of their debt cap to increase investment and spending, the right to profit from the sale of their treasury bonds by the troika, and billions of dollars’ worth of World War II reparations from Germany. It has

movement could be a loss for the Euro

SOURCE: MARTIN SCHULZ

stopped short of demanding any quantity of face value debt forgiveness. However, the financial institutions that bailed Greece out have so far refused to alter the original terms of the deal.

President Obama seems to agree with Syriza’s Keynesian rhetoric, arguing that the Eurozone “cannot keep on squeezing countries in the midst of depression [because] at some point there has to be a growth strategy in order for them to pay off their debts.” Implicit in the scenario that Obama argues for, however, is that the troika will relax its standards even further than before and continue the bailout. This view does not account for the possibility that Greece and the European banks would not reach an agreement.

There is widespread concern that they will not agree on a new deal. Financial markets have responded unfavorably to the election results and subsequent demands. The value of Greek bonds has declined sharply and the Euro has dropped to its lowest worth versus the dollar since eleven years ago. Former

9

Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan is especially pessimistic on Greek debt and currency; he argues that the new Greek coalition will default on its debts and leave the Eurozone, contributing to an eventual collapse of the Euro.

In the event that Greece does leave the Eurozone and return to the drachma, its debts would not vanish. They would, however, shrink dramatically because the new currency would be worth less than the previous one, writes Forbes Magazine’s Tim Worstall. The consequences for Greece’s banking system would be severe, but the current independent-minded Greek regime might opt to take that risk. Worstall further argues that this method for decreasing debt via quitting the Euro could prove popular with other debt-afflicted European countries such as Italy. The EU and IMF have prepared contingency plans for a Greek exit since 2012 or earlier, but the exit of multiple countries could be enough to sink Europe’s transnational currency.

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

international

PACifist no more?

ChanGing Sentiments on Security In Japan Keenan Conder Staff Writer This year, the Japanese Cabinet passed their largest defense budget in half a century, making 2015 the third straight year in which the Japanese have increased their defense budget. Many have interpreted the increase in spending to be a result of China’s aggressive maritime actions near the disputed and uninhabited Senkaku islands. While this is likely true, this year’s increase in spending is not by itself all that significant, but is important when taken as an indication of the change occurring within Japanese foreign policy as a whole.

Ever since the Japanese defeat in World War II, Article 9 of the Japanese constitution has specifically outlined that Japan will follow a pacifist doctrine. It states that the “Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation,” and that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.”

Although this seems ironclad, throughout the decades Japanese leaders have chosen to reinterpret Article 9. This happened first with the creation of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces in 1954

and then again in 1992 with the Inter- Japanese since WWII. Japan is home to national Peace Cooperation bill that al- thousands of American troops and the lowed Japanese soldiers to serve in U.N. massive 7th fleet, the largest and only peacekeeping operations. forward-deployed American fleet. The Current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe U.S. naval patrols ensure the freedom of has recently stretched Article 9 even fur- the seas throughout the world. This is ther, when in 2014 he and his Cabinet especially critical to Japan, an industribypassed Parliament to announce a re- alized island nation. According to UNC interpretation of Article 9. Abe declared Professor of modern Japanese histothat the Japanese military now has the ry Miles Fletcher, the United States is right to take military action against oth- open to Japan paying for and providing er countries if it directmore of its own sely or indirectly serves curity in the future, the defense of Japan. but it is up to Japan Hundreds of thousands to decide how much protested the decision, they will pitch in. including one of whom Japan is also cureven self-immolated, rently debating how but to no avail. It seems active its role should Abe and his supporters be in the protection are embracing the need its over one million — miles fletcher, unc of for change despite the citizens living abroad. professor of modern Recently two of these controversy.

The largest issue Japan ex-pats, Kenji Goto japanese history is struggling with during Jogo and Haruna Yuthis period of doctrinal change is how kawa, were captured and beheaded by large of a role the country will play in its the Islamic State. However, even with own defense and what its military rela- a larger military, Professor Fletcher has tionship will be with the United States. doubts about Japan’s capability to proThe United States has protected the tect its citizens abroad. He states, “I understand the emotional response, but it is unclear what exactly a larger military could do to prevent such an incident.”

Japan will have to determine if and what kind of protections they can afford their citizens abroad, given their means.

Japan has made one of the most remarkable comebacks in recent history.

From the ashes of WWII they became first an economic power and now a global power once again. As times change, given the rise of global terrorism and China’s growing ambitions, it seems that the Japanese government believes they can no longer be pacifistic in the 21st century.

“It is unclear what exactly a larger military could do to prevent such an incident.”

SOURCE:OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

10

international

Persecution of rohingya

Sylvia Roper Staff Writer Like the Palestinians and the Kurds, the Rohingya people are a nation without their own state. The United Nations has called them “one of the most persecuted minorities in the world.” Most of the 1.3 million Rohingya people reside in Myanmar (Burma). However, the Burmese government’s neglect and persecution has placed Rohingya in deplorable condistions. In December, the United Nations adopted a resolution urging the Burmese government to grant the Rohingya population “full citizenship rights,” a move prompting multiple rallies in Burma in opposition to the policy.

The government of Myanmar is not only apathetic to the Rohingya’s plight, but actively enforces an oppressive system treating the Rohingya as second-class citizens. Following an explosion of violence between the groups in 2012, for instance, no Rohingya person is allowed to go into downtown Sittwe, a Burmese city that contains the area’s main hospital, effectively excluding the large Rohingya population nearby from medical care by the threat of arrest and even death. The Burmese government does not acknowledge the Rohingya as a people, and instead mislabels the group as Bengalis in order to perpetuate the notion that they are illegal immigrants.

The primary reason for conflict between the Rohingya and other ethnicities in Myanmar are religious differences.

The majority of the population in Myanmar is Buddhist, while the most Rohingya’s are Muslim. Although they have resided in Myanmar for centuries, the Rohingya were deprived of their citizenship in 1982 by the past military junta.

Today, most Rohingya in Burma live in guarded camps without numerous basic services such as education and medical care. “The government has denied the Rohingya of education, right to work, freedom of movement within their own country, physical security, and nation-

SOURCE: AUSTCARE

ality—essentially acting as an aggressor rather than a protector,” explained Madelyn Usher, a UNC student writing her senior thesis on Burmese refugee policies.

Many of the marginalized Rohingya have been driven to leave home. Thousands of Rohingya refugees fled in late 2014 hoping to reach Malaysia. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees estimates there are also more than 230,000 refugees currently in Bangladesh. The Rohingya refugees’ treatment does not improve significantly when they reach a new country. According to Usher, the circumstances the Rohingya people face make them susceptible to “abuse and exploitation at the hands of traffickers,” and they still “primarily live in camps.”

In addition to the United Nations, President Obama has appealed to the Burmese government to change their policies towards the Rohingya population.

Last year, the persecution of the Rohingya population had an effect on relations

11

between the United States and Burma.

President Obama acknowledged that the Burmese government’s mistreatment of the Rohingya played a factor in continuing economic sanctions on Myanmar.

For those who can prove ancestral citizenship in Myanmar since 1948, there is hope to escape the camps but not the discrimination; under the Rakhine Action Plan, the Rohingya would be labeled as Bengalis and still live as second-class citizens. Usher believes the Burmese government’s “preferred solution would be the mass deportation of all Rohingya to Bangladesh, while maintaining control of Rakhine State’s territory.” Many have asked if the Burmese government’s increasing persecution of the Rohingya should be considered a form of ethnic cleansing. Although the majority of the Burmese public opposes improved treatment for the Rohingya, the global community is taking notice of the Rohingya’s plight.

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

international

r2p celebrates ITS Savannah Wooten Staff Writer

The United Nations’ “Responsibility to Protect” mandate (often referred to as R2P) will turn ten years old this October. R2P, which was unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly at the U.N. World Summit in 2005, outlines the duties held by both states and global actors to protect civilians from mass atrocities. As the clearest guiding mandate on this subject to-date, R2P has dominated the discourse of humanitarian intervention for the last 9 and a half years.

The endorsement of the R2P mandate denotes a historical rhetorical shift within this discourse. The need for this shift became clear in the mid-1990s when genocide and ethnic cleansing claimed the lives of over 100,000 people in both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The international community publicly condemned these atrocities but failed to take significant protective action for fear of violating state sovereignty or acting outside of international norms. On the other hand, international actors that did act on humanitarian grounds during this time frame, for example, the case of NATO’s airstrikes in Kosovo in 1999, were criticized twofold: both for using protective auspices to veil Western self-interest and for failing to obtain U.N. Security Council approval for their actions.

On the whole, states and global actors were deterred by the lack of formal processes for humanitarian intervention and by the lack of specific qualifications about what delineates humanitarian intervention from an unjustified invasion of a sovereign state. The R2P mandate filled many of these pre-existing gaps.

R2P clarifies that if a state is not appropriately protecting its citizens from war crimes, crimes against humani-

January 2015

Evaluating the Record of the UN’s Responsibility to Protect Mandate

**david art - long r

ty, genocide, or ethnic cleansing, an individual citizen’s inherent “right to protection” against these crimes can supersede a state’s assumed “right to protect” its citizens. Thus, if a state is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens, it forfeits its authority to do so to the wider international community.

Prior to R2P, this prioritization had never been explicitly established.

Since its endorsement in 2005, the language of R2P has been directly invoked over 30 times in U.N. Security Council Resolutions. It has been employed to spur greater action on many global conflicts, ranging from Sudan to Syria to the Central African Republic to Myanmar. It has worked its way into the permanent dialogue of Heads-of-State and high-ranking humanitarian intervention officials, and is invariably called into any

The Hill Political Review

12

deliberation on atrocity prevention or mitigation policy.

That being said, R2P is not unconditionally lauded as a cure-all for global persecution. In fact, R2P has faced significant opposition since its inception.

As time passes, this scrutiny is only getting progressively deeper. R2P’s critics cite the continued existence of massive, festering world conflicts as evidence of the mandate’s failure.

Many of these critics argue that the R2P mandate’s failure to successfully prevent, or even mitigate, the atrocities of the last decade is due to its faulty, idealistic construction. R2P, they claim, was designed by hopeful elites for a world made up of static conflicts and altruistic actors. This world, however, is vastly unlike reality. In the current international sphere, “humanitarian interventions” are not only spurred by

international

10th anniversary

rectangle??

SOURCE: DAVID WRIGHT

ethical obligations but also by market forces, binding political alliances, and individual state self-interest.

Thus, R2P is not universally or impartially applied but rather used instrumentally to mask selective, self-interested state behavior. These critics argue that states only intervene in situations that somehow directly benefit them. Citing the U.N. intervention in Libya as an easy example, critics emphasize that when leaders who are not supported by international allies commit atrocities in strategic world regions, they are infinitely more likely to receive R2P-backed action than those committed by either internationally favored regime leaders or those committed in strategically negligible regions.

While many claim that R2P’s main weakness lies in its potential for subjective and inconsistent use, others

claim that it lies in the veto power of the five permanent United Nations Security Council. The “Permanent 5,” consisting of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China, currently hold the authority to veto any proposed R2P-stemmed resolution, essentially blocking the efficacy of the mandate. Quite simply, powerful, established alliances between nations prevent any state strongly allied with a Permanent 5 member from facing R2P-related punishment. This deterring effect can be seen most clearly in the cases of the Syrian civil war and Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Eight potential Security Resolutions concerning these two conflicts have been vetoed since 2005, with four including actions addressing the Syrian conflict and four addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Russia and China have

13

consistently vetoed any action on Syria, and the United States has consistently vetoed any action on Israel-Palestine.

If the Permanent 5 did not or could not exercise this veto power, many argue, R2P could function more effectively.

Finally, a third school of R2P critics take issue not with the construction of the mandate itself but with its lack of specificity. These critics fear that R2P does not adequately detail what actions should be undertaken by the international community in cases where R2P is invoked. They fear that R2P has “written a blank check” for military intervention by failing to specify what actions are appropriate and when such actions should be enacted. Syria again emerges as an example of this critique. Although there has not yet been a case in which R2P has released unfettered military might, many fear that Syria could become that case. As the multi-faceted conflict deepens and a fifth year of civil war begins, international actors are considering the idea of “boots on the ground.” While this may be justifiable under R2P as war crimes and crimes against humanity have undeniably occurred in Syria, critics worry that the mandate may provide the justification needed for interventionist powers to begin an exploitative war in a strategic region that has already experienced its fair share of imposed force in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These skeptics call for a clearer outline of R2P-stemmed actions that are effective, yet reasonable and proportionate.

Anti-atrocity rhetoric has risen at an unprecedented rate from 2005-2015 thanks to the emergence of the Responsibility to Protect mandate. Although its rise is not without controversy, the concept has now permanently entered the humanitarian intervention discourse. It will remain a salient and relevant point of discussion for years to come.

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

national

the future of capital punishment in the u.s.

Taylor Slate Staff Writer Recent issues with executions in the United States have drawn concern and attention from society on how the death penalty is implemented. Last year there were multiple incidents of death row inmates suffering during their execution, which many critics believed violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause. Most controversial was the case of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma, who reportedly grimaced and kicked until finally dying from a heart attack about forty minutes after the drugs were injected. The incident caused for attorneys of other Oklahoma death-row inmates to ask that their executions be stayed until the Supreme Court investigated current drugs used for executions. The recent incidents along with the changing nature of capital punishment have forced society, including the Supreme Court, to reevaluate how capital punishment is implemented.

First, it’s important to take a look at the lethal injection process, which is the most popular form of capital punishment. The Supreme Court last ruled on the death penalty in 2008, where it ruled that lethal injection did not violate the constitution. Traditionally, lethal injection included three drugs: an anesthetic, a paralytic, and a drug to stop the heart.

However, recently, drug companies ceased to provide these drugs to prisons in states allowing the death penalty. Many of the drug companies selling these drugs to the United States were in Europe. The European Commission placed a ban in 2011 on the exportation of drugs that would be used in execu-

January 2015

tions due to ethical reasons.

This has caused a shortage of these drugs and has led to prisons experimenting with other drugs in executions. Unfortunately, many of these new drugs have not been scientifically tested for this purpose and have caused some problems. The drug getting the most attention is Midazolam. Midazolam is a sedative used in executions usually used along with two other drugs used to stop breathing and the heart. Unfortunately, there have been issues during executions using this drug where people have experienced pain and/or regaining consciousness. The Court is currently only ruling on cases involving this drug, as it was used in the recent c o nt rov e r s i a l executions. Its decision on the use of this drug could have an impact on capital punishment in the US. There is potential for states to experiment with other drugs should the court find the use of Midazolam problematic.

Additionally, some states have considered turning to alternative methods of execution such as, gas chambers, hanging, firing squads, etc. While reverting to alternative methods of execution may seem likely, only eight states cur-

The Hill Political Review

rently allow for other methods to be used besides lethal injection. Even the states that allow alternative methods still mostly adhere to capital punishment by lethal injection. This is important to the future of capital punishment, as precedent shows that the Supreme Court rules on appropriateness of punishment based on the social and societal norms of the time.

An example of how the court rules in these cases is found in Roper vs. Simmons. The court ruled that the death penalty for juveniles is cruel and unusual due to a majority of state legislatures prohibiting this practice. If other methods were to be challenged, it is possible that the court would find them cruel and unusual since so few states allow the practice of such methods.

As drug companies refuse to ship drugs to prisons using the death penalty, prisons have turned to other drugs. This has generated concern and attention from the Supreme Court. The decision of the Court may cause even more shift away from the death penalty in America. The steady decline of the use of the death penalty, coupled with a Court ruling against the use of Midazolam has the potential to further discourage the use of the death penalty or even the complete abolition.

while reverting to alternative methods of execution may seem likely, only eight states currently allow for other methods to be used besides lethal injection.

14

national

A Prickly Issue

InDividual Freedom and the Vaccination Debate Jacob Johnson Staff Writer Measles has made a comeback recently. Currently, there is ongoing minor epidemic in the US originating from Disneyland where dozens of people became infected with the virus in December.

The number of measles cases in 2014 skyrocketed to 644. In early February, The Washington Post reported that the virus has spread to 17 states and a total of 121 reported cases so far in 2015. Due to outbreaks like these, mandated vaccination has reentered the political sphere as a controversial topic.

tion of a community. Known as “the cause mental disorders while demherd” effect, the CDC estimates that ocrats Hillary Clinton and Barack if 92% of a community have vacci- Obama have come out as vigorously nations for viruses such as measles, pro-vaccination. But even beyond they end up protecting the remain- the health concerns, many politiing population that chose not to get cians view mandated vaccinations vaccinated. In other words, enough as an infringement on civil liberties. people have the vaccination that by In a recent interview with CNBC, sheer numbers they can protect those Kentucky Senator Rand Paul statwho don’t. Unfortunately, in some ed, “the state doesn’t own your chilpockets of California, the vaccina- dren.” Later on in the interview he tion percentage is lower than this so further remarked, “Parents own the many more people are susceptible. children and it is an issue of freedom Still, there is a precedent for an- and public health.” However, some The outbreak is not due to some ti-vaccination sentiment. In Britain Republicans took a different side new vicious strain of the disease. In- in the early 2000s, the media false- on the issue. Republican strategist stead, vaccinations are facing a PR ly portrayed vaccinations as hav- Matt Mackowiak tweeted, “Vaccines problem. The growing number of ing the potential to cause autism in are not a freedom issue. They are a cases can be parchildren. A media public health issue. It’s not a hard tially attributed to storm ensued and concept.” Other potential 2016 presia growing distrust vaccination rates dential candidates have also weighed of vaccinations by in Britain plum- in with their opinions. Chris ChrisAmericans. Notameted. Luckily, tie commented that the government ble leaders of the they have since should “balance” parental choice anti-vaccine cammade a full recov- and the interests of the overall pubpaign have been ery. lic health. On the other hand, SenaJenny McCarthy, The center of de- tor Ted Cruz and others offered their best known for her bate is now what support for vaccinations but they did work in Playboy role the U.S. gov- defer to states to consider any issues 20 years ago, as — Kentucky senator rand paul ernment should on vaccination choice. well as Alicia Silverstone who will be play in all of this. Currently, all 50 The issue over vaccinations has forever linked to her popular movie states require vaccinations for kids clearly caused dissent within the “Clueless.” According to more reli- entering public school but there is Republican party. It will be interestable sources (the Center for Disease no federal law mandating vaccina- ing to see if the GOP can muster any Control), vaccinations can provoke a tions. Some politicians believe vac- sort of party unity or the issue may life threatening allergic reaction. But, cinations should be mandatory for continue to be relevant going into the odds of this occurring are literally everyone while others feel that peo- the primaries. one in a million. ple should have the right to choose.

In fact, widespread vaccination Rand Paul is troubled over vaccinacan lead to almost complete protec- tions because he believes they may 15 The Hill Political Review January 2015

“the state doesn’t own your children...

Parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom and public health.”

state & local

Raising the Bar Google Fiber Coming to the Triangle

SOURCE: JARED ZAMMIT

Javier Zurita Staff Writer The average internet speed for North Carolina households lags behind with the rest of the nation, according to Akamai’s “state of the internet” report.

Most students at UNC-Chapel Hill can attest to the importance of highspeed internet. And, for many outside the university community, this technology opens many opportunities. Perhaps, the absence of competition among the major internet providers is to blame for the low levels of connectivity. The internet supplier companies that operate in today’s market sometimes face zero competition, and thus embolden themselves by extracting higher payments on a low-quality product.

The introduction of Google fiber to the Triangle region and Charlotte promises a break from the current structure of the internet market towards a new, competitive system—where customers actually get what they pay for. Google recently announced that it will expands

its services of ultra-fast internet connection (in gigabits per second) to these areas. According to Google’s statement, the high presence of university and biotech institutions allowed the company to choose the Triangle over more than twenty metropolitan areas that made a bid for Google fiber.

Although Google has not yet offered an exact timetable of fiber’s release, Google did say that they will start working on the blueprints of the specific areas where they will lay the fiber that will empower the Triangle. Further, building a vast fiber-optic network requires manpower, including construction crews handling enough fiber to fill an entire stretch from Raleigh to London and back.

During the announcement, Google cited the progress that fiber brought to the other areas that are already in service. In Provo, Utah, medical researchers take advantage of the fast internet to transmit data for critical care. In Kansas City, Google fiber has helped the

The introduction of Google fiber to the Triangle region and Charlotte promises a break from the current structure.

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

16

city become a new leading center for tech start-ups. There is no doubt that the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area will benefit from Google fiber, because of the research-intensive universities and institutions here.

In the other cities, Google charges $80 dollars monthy? for the standard internet service; and $120 for the internet and TV bundle. The company organizes fiber communities into “fiberhoods”, and once Google finalizes its entrance into the Triangle, communities will be able to request service if enough people show interest. AT&T now offers a gigabit internet connection, in a move that ratchets up competition among internet providers in the face of Google’s efforts to expand nationwide.

Whether Google fiber will revolutionize internet connectivity remains to be seen, only a handful of cities have been chosen to participate in the program.

Yet, what’s certain is that the Triangle area will benefit economically by taking advantage of faster internet to sprawl opportunities across many educational and public sectors.

state & local

RENAMING saunders hall Namesake’s Record on Race Sparks Controversy Chase Johnson Staff Writer Pressure intensified on the university administration after more than one hundred protesters gathered at the Silent Sam statue and called for Saunders Hall to be renamed because the building’s namesake was once the leader of the Klu Klux Klan.

The Real Silent Sam Coalition, a group of student and community activists that aims to create a dialogue about the racial legacy of UNC’s past, organized the protest and works in accordance with the “Kick Out KKK” movement, which has fought since at least 1999 to get the name of the building changed.

The building, which houses the geography and religious studies departments, was erected in 1922 and is named after William L. Saunders, an 1854 UNC graduate. A document in the university archives in Wilson Library from the 1920 UNC Board of Trustees meeting lists the numerous reasons why the building deserved Saunders’ name. Among those reasons were Saunders’ various titles such as Colonel in the Confederate Army, North Carolina Secretary of State, UNC Trustee, and editor of two state newspapers. Saunders is also credited with compiling historical state documents from the colonial period.

The 1920 document also lists Saunders as the head of the North Carolina KKK, which proponents of the renaming use as proof of his involvement in the racist organization.

When renaming advocates brought their case, along with a petition signed by more than six hundred and fifty people, before the current Board of Trustees last May, chairman Lowry Caudill stated that the Board would look into the issue and follow the building renaming policy in deciding on any changes.

SOURCE: ALFRED BROPHY

That policy states that “if the benefactor’s or honoree’s reputation changes substantially so that the continued use of that name may compromise the public trust, dishonor the University’s standards, or otherwise be contrary to the best interests of the University, the naming may be revoked.” However, the policy also cautions that the historical context of the building naming should also play an important role when looking at renaming; the policy states “namings should not be altered simply because later observers would have made different judgments.”

The Board’s inaction since hearing from advocates was what motivated organizers to fire the campaign back up and to call once again for UNC-CH to no longer honor a person with such a controversial past.

“It’s not just a name of a building.

There is a reason why that name is up there. If it was just the name of a building it would be called Building A. So, for someone to be up there, it’s an honor. It’s something that the university is backing. They’re saying this person has done something and we are backing his views and what he has done; we [the university] are honoring his contributions,” said Ashley Winkfield, a senior and Real Silent Sam member.

17

For activists like Winkfield, naming the building Hurston Hall would act as a counterpoint to Saunders and would emphasize the role of African Americans in the history of the university and the state. Author Zora Neale Hurston was the first black student to study at UNC before integration, though she did so briefly and without official admittance.

The controversy over Saunders Hall also further highlights the overall racial problems and tensions at UNC-CH. The university’s racial history, racial undertones in the Waisntein report, and a lack of minority representation in student government are just a few of the things that African American students say make their experience at UNC-CH different.

“The biggest question we have been dealing with is what does it mean to be a person of color in a historically white space. I think it has gotten to the point where people are realizing that there is a difference, even in an inclusive place like Carolina. There are still things that students of color have to deal with— like going into a building named after a KKK leader— that other people don’t have to deal with. So, I think its creating a discussion; it’s creating enough buzz where people have to talk about these issues,” said Winkfield.

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

state & local

opportunity scholarships in north carolina Tess Landon Treasurer After nearly a decade of ranking last in education funding, North Carolina state government has begun taking steps toward radically changing education policy at the state level. The Opportunity Scholarship Program Act was passed by the NC General Assembly in the summer of 2013, but was halted a few months later due to controversy over the constitutionality of the program. The Opportunity Scholarship Program was created as a means of providing economically disadvantaged students in K-12 public school districts the option to “upgrade” schools. Families with a student who fits a specific set of criteria are eligible to receive up to $4200 per school year to attend a charter or private school of their choice.

The central idea behind this structure is to give economically disadvantaged students the opportunity to directly change their learning environment, rather than relying on the public school system to provide an adequate learning environment.

According to the National Education Association’s Ranking of the States 2013 report, NC ranked 47th in education funding from state and local governments yet saw the largest growth in public school enrollment nationally in 2013. Similarly, average teacher’s salaries have declined 15% over the past 10 years, the greatest decline nationally, which resulted in high teacher turnover rates. The consequences of these statistics are echoed by markedly poor performance in lower socioeconomic districts. The North Carolina Department

January 2015

of Public Instruction reported that economically disadvantaged students had a 30% lower passage rate of End of Grade exams than that of economically advantaged students. The Opportunity Scholarship Program Act was passed as a means to close that performance gap.

Supporters of the Act believe it will significantly improve education performance for economically disadvantaged students by granting students the ability to change their learning environment. Supporters believe the premise to all productive education begins with an appropriate learning environment. The Center for Research on Education Outcomes conducted a performance report of charter schools nationwide in 2013 which validates these claims. Their findings show that students in poverty of all ethnicities who attended charter schools showed significant positive performance ratings compared to those in regular public schools.

The effect was even greater for Blacks and Hispanics in poverty, as well as Hispanic English Language Learners which is a growing demographic.

However, there remain many citizens and education organizations opposed to the Opportunity Scholarship Program. All aspects of funding the Act are under the most scrutiny. The budget initially devoted $10 million to the Act,

The Hill Political Review

which delves into the already limited pubic school funding. Even though the vouchers are intended to help underprivileged or disadvantaged students, not every student who is technically qualified will receive a voucher. Many argue that the very demographic the Act aims to help will be hurt in the long run as less money is channeled into the public school systems. Another critique of the program is the plausible violation of the separation of church and state.

Nearly two-thirds of NC private schools have a religious affiliation, and the Act doesn’t limit which private schools each pupil may attend, thus it could be argued that taxpayer’s money is being used to fund religious affairs. Several lawsuits were filed against the Opportunity Scholarship Program Act from prominent education organizations, such as North Carolina Association of Educators and the NC School Boards Association, questioning the legality of the program.

As a result of the allegations, the Act is currently immobilized and no future vouchers will be allocated unless it passes in the NC Supreme Court. The first wave of vouchers (applicable for the 2015-2016 school year) were honored, however, thus the outcome of the first year could influence the decision of whether or not to continue the program.

even though the vouchers are intended to help underprivileged or disadvantaged students, not every student who is technically qualified will receive a voucher.

18

state & local

president ross’ departure John Hess Staff Writer With a somewhat wry smile, University of North Carolina System President Tom Ross ended one of the most contentious press conferences in his relatively short tenure as the leader of the 17-campus system. Asked by the Board of Governors to tender his resignation early this year, the man who promised to “embrace the challenges and opportunities ahead, and…with all of my heart, soul, and fiber to do my best to serve each of you—the people of North Carolina— and our great University,” the former law graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill, and former President of Davidson College did indeed face challenges. Budget cuts, partisan shifts in the state legislature, and an academic scandal at the flagship institution of the state—to name only a few issues—played exceptionally large roles in his time in office from the very beginning. Though in reality, the roots of Ross’s tenure and belief in the strength of a public education were founded long before his abrupt departure.

Born and raised in North Carolina and a graduate of both Davidson and UNC-Chapel Hill, Ross has always been well-versed in the soft-touch needs of the State. He has served as an assistant professor, political aide, North Carolina Superior Court Judge, and executive director of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation—a historically left-leaning group dedicated to civic engagement and K-12 education. A recipient of countless civic awards—including the Order of the Long Leaf Pine, North Carolina’s highest civilian honor—Ross’s life in public service was anything but controversial before beginning his tenure as UNC System President. Quoting former President Bill Friday in his own inaugural address, Ross said, “Today is a day of faith and hope. Today, we look at the record to reassure ourselves that we have kept the faith with the dreams of the founders. Today, we look ahead—we hope,

we dream, we have great ambitions for a more distinguished Consolidated University respected in the educational world for the excellence of its teaching and research, and loved by its people for its devoted service.”

Indeed, Ross’s tenure will be marked by his achievements in increasing outreach to non-traditional college students, refocusing international engagement efforts, and creating strategic plans for the longterm success of the University System.

A large majority of his efforts to leave a personal stamp on the System focused on improving University accessibility for military veterans. In testimony before the US House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs in 2014, Ross remarked, “The University of North Carolina can and should be a natural place of transition for veterans. They have earned an educational benefit, and that benefit can be the ticket to a brighter future. It is our duty to help make it happen.”

Ross’s belief in charting a new path for non-traditional students led to the creation of a ‘one-stop-shop,’ the North Carolina Military Educational Positioning System (NCMEPS), to centralize information in an easily accessible format for veterans. His vision to make education more accessible—whether through the NCMEPS or expanding online class offerings by the University—will stand as a

19

testament to the continuing adaptability and strength of the University System in the years after his tenure expires.

For each of his many accomplishments and accolades earned bringing the UNC System into the twenty-first century through technology and innovation, Ross will also be remembered for circumstances beyond his control.

His tenure was marked by a shifting political landscape resulting in millions of dollars worth of deep budget cuts to the University System, the athletic scandal that rocked UNC-Chapel Hill resulting in the dismissal of several high-profile University employees, and—perhaps most of all—an often tenacious and publicly strained relationship with the Board of Governors.

Despite his abrupt forced resignation as President, many will remember Tom Ross for his successes rather than the unforeseen complications associated with his position. While the underlying reasons behind the Board of Governors decision to “begin the process of leadership transition” in a trying time for the University may never be realized, Ross’s efforts on behalf of the State and the University System reflect a man with a passion for public service and the betterment of current and future generations of students at the University of North Carolina.

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

state & local / Perspectives

NC Transportation FunDing Meghan McGrath Staff Writer In recent years, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has made several attempts to reform the way transportation is funded and the types of projects that are pursued by decision makers. NCDOT discussed policy reform May 2014, spearheaded by the State Environmental Law Committee.

With gas prices falling steadily, and a rapid projected population growth, time is running out for NCDOT to devise more efficient resource allocation plans.

North Carolina drivers pay the highest state excise tax per gallon on gas, 37.5 cents to the gallon; when state tax rates are combined with the federal tax per gallon, North Carolinians pay the 6th highest taxes on gas. With falling gasoline prices nationally, however, legislators acknowledge the necessary decline in the motor fuel tax rate. By July 1st the motor fuels tax is projected to drop 6 to 8 cents per gallon to match the drop in fuel prices.

Although infrastructure projects are typically overlooked, proponents of trans-

portation spending claim that businesses will reap benefits from increased spending. In fact, January 28th of 2015, business leaders under the NC Chamber of Commerce called for legislative action to raise transportation expenditures. However, business leaders urge legislators to allocate more public funding to transportation without raising taxes on NC citizens.

Because NCDOT taxes in North Carolina are among the highest of all fifty states, business leaders argue that it would be possible for NC leaders to pass a budget that devotes more funding to infrastructure policies that will aid business leaders without a tax hike.

Most agree the DOT should find ways to use its funding more efficiently. Whether using public transportation to avoid parking problems, save money, or promote environmental consciousness, it is no question people in urban centers rely heavily on public transportation. Many citizens feel funding have been allocated toward highly disapproved and costly projects in the past, rather than funding the popular transit systems. In 1989, a $392 million

project was completed to widen a stretch of US-64, a project that made no contribution to statewide transportation. Business leaders and the SELC are frustrated by these sorts of projects and wish to remove them in favor of allocating funds toward more popular projects.

NCDOT has been moving forward in recent years. Pat McCrory signec the Strategic Mobility Formula in 2013 endeavoring to reduce wasteful spending, funding practical programs like NC transit instead.

Continued calls to action from businesses and citizens should prompt a very possible improvement in the NC transportation system, without necessary tax increases.

However, if the state government wishes to decrease taxes on motor fuel sales, legislators may need to consider further reforms in designing transportation budgets to accommodate tight revenue sources. The proposed reforms could potentially aid North Carolina in covering a larger range of areas with public transportation; the reforms may also have environmental implications and improve transportation matters for state businesses.

Nancy Smith Columnist Last week, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) released disturbing footage of Jordanian pilot, Moath al-Kasasbeh, being executed via immolation on Twitter.

While at first it appeared to be an elaborate play of smoke and mirrors, the Jordanian government confirmed al-Kasasbeh’s death on state television soon after.

The universal condemnation of such a heinous crime was immediate, Jordan responded furiously with a rising tide of nationalism and anti-ISIS sentiment. Kind Abdullah promised his people they would fight against the militants until they “run out of fuel and bullets.”

But no agent of American freedom and

diplomacy was more outraged than FOX News, who - like CNN with the downed Asian airliner last year - made time stand still to cover the story. While other media sources displayed only a picture of al-Kasasbeh alongside their story, FOX News was the only US media organization to broadcast all 22 minutes of al-Kasasbeh’s graphic death.

For this reason, ISIS PR Correspondent Mohammed Mohammed Hamed released the following statement.

“On behalf of my murderous brethren, I want to thank FOX News for their contribution to our terror campaign. Before they embedded it on their website, our video was getting fewer than a thousand hits per day on Twitter. Now, we get that in

an hour. We are confident that this proliferation of graphic material and the terror that accompanies it will prepare the Great Satan more fully for its inevitable end at the end of our swords, or petroleum soaked metal cages. So please, if you are interested in seeing our work, go to video.foxnews.com and search for the title “WARNING, EXTREMELY GRAPHIC VIDEO: ISIS burns hostage alive. We really couldn’t have come up with a better title ourselves.”

As a further expression of gratitude and goodwill, Mohammed Mohammed Hamed informed the press ISIS would be sending free ISIS t-shits and mugs to the FOX News crew and their affiliates.

TWO Cents isis pR Correspondent thanks FOX news

January 2015

The Hill Political Review

20

Theory In Practice

perspectives

When a choice is not a choice: nigeria and the persistence of unfree elections Derrick Flackoll Columnist Since the end of the Cold War and the wave of democratization that followed, elections have become a regular event all over the world. Unfortunately, in most of these fledgling democracies, fraud, violence, and voter intimidation have become as predictable as the ballot. Sometimes, in fact, these crimes against the electorate are more predictable than the elections themselves. For a case in point, look no further than Nigeria.

As this article goes to press, Nigeria is postponing its scheduled elections by six weeks. The government claimed it was to give the military more time to defeat the northern Islamic insurgency known as Boko Haram. International observers and the opposition think it’s more likely that the foundering incumbent Goodluck Jonathan is pushing the vote back to give himself time for a comeback. Nigeria is no stranger to electoral problems. Its ballots have been derailed by vote-rigging and electoral riots since its old military government fell in 1999.

The most distressing thing about Nigeria’s case is that it is as much the rule as the exception among fledgling, nominally democratic countries. Many countries that claim to have democratized have not—at least not all the way. Though multiparty elections are the nominal path to power in these

SOURCE: THE COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT CONFERFENCE

states, ruling parties often interfere in elections to maintain control. These half-breeds are neither democratic nor fully authoritarian, so they are known variously as “hybrid regimes,” “electoral authoritarian governments,” or “competitive authoritarian states.” These different labels have slightly different definitions, but they all capture the central idea of a country where the formal institutions of democracy are legal fictions.

Why bother with the charade in the first place? Why do autocrats keep up the pretense of democracy?

As pressure has grown over recent decades for authoritarian regimes to democratize, dictators have found that the best way to secure social cooperation with their government is to adopt represen-

dictators have found that the best way to secure social cooperation with their government is to adopt representative institutions like elections.

21

tative institutions like elections. But at the same time, these dictators are loath to give up any power in practice, so they manipulate and constrain these representative institutions in order to keep control of policy in their own hands. In the words of political scientist Andreas Schedler, these elections and other trappings of democracy represent the “last line of defense” for authoritarianism.

But as Schedler also notes, elections also provide a focal point for resistance against autocrats. The dissonance between formally accepted democratic norms and corrupt political realities breeds discontent and public backlash.

In Nigeria, this has too often taken the form of violence from political supporters of the losing party, who refuse to credit the dubious election results as legitimate. Jonathan’s electoral manipulations threaten to backfire, whether by boosting the poll numbers of the opposition, or by spurring its supporters to arms. The very tools that Nigeria’s pseudo-democratic regime uses to keep power may topple it – and may take down the whole country as well.

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

perspectives

Terrorism Today Tragedy in Chapel Hill Clay Ballard Columnist This February, Chapel Hill suffered a horrible loss when three students were killed in their apartment by neighbor Craig Hicks. In the ensuing coverage and an ongoing federal investigation, the incident has been described by many as an act of terrorism—the three victims were Muslim, and their killer an avid self-described “anti-religionist.” While many details remain under investigation, I argue the mainstream media was correct in not labeling this incident as terrorism.

After previous threats and an ongoing dispute over parking, Hicks went into his neighbors’ apartment and shot Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha in the head. Hicks is being charged with counts of first-degree murder in lieu of a domestic terrorism charge.

When determining whether or not an incident is one of terrorism, it is important to distinguish between an act of terrorism, a hate crime and general homicide. Terrorism is defined by the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) to be “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.” While this case fits the deliberate violence side of the definition, Hicks denies pursuing the action for a political goal.

The crucial factor even amidst the uncertainty in this case is the fact Craig Hicks is claiming the incident was not inspired by discriminatory views nor was it dedicated to achieving a political objective. If this case was in fact terrorism, it seems unlikely Hicks would

January 2015

opt to claim the incident occurred over a non-ideological issue such as a parking dispute. Such a motive is entirely counterintuitive to the goal of spreading a political message. Hicks would be subverting his own efforts by not using coverage of his arrest as a soapbox. Because Hicks is not spreading a political message or attempting to achieve a political or religious goal, the incident should not be labeled as terrorism.

Despite the incident not falling within the definition of terrorism that I have provided, the case may well fall under the categorical label of “hate crime”.

The FBI defines hate crimes as offenses, such as murder, with an added element of bias against a variety of identities such as race or religion. While this is not mutually exclusive of terrorism hate crimes do not tend to have the same broader political goals as acts of terrorism. Whether or not this incident was a hate crime remains under investigation—the fundamental motives surrounding this case are not apparent to investigators and it remains difficult to prove hate crimes without this evidence.

Finally, homicide is defined as “the willful killing of one human being by

another.” This definition does not link motives, but only clarifies intent to kill.

Hicks’ action was clearly a triple homicide, and the investigation remains into whether it was a hate crime, but Hicks’ disavowal of political goals seem to indicate this is not a terrorist act by these definitions.

While these distinctions seem trivial at best when coming to grips with the shocking unjustified murder of three aspiring students, they are important. These labels are used to prosecute criminals and assess policy that serves to protect citizens of the United States.

Therefore it is important to use these labels correctly and identify double standards – the same imprecision is evident the coverage of the recent attack in Copenhagen which is surrounded by equally uncertain factors yet is being referred to by most media outlets as terrorism.

Despite these comparisons made between the attacks in Copenhagen and in Chapel Hill, Craig Hicks’ actions and statements after his arrest seem to indicate that this case in particular is not terrorism. This tragedy was many things, but terrorism was not one of them.

When determining whether or not an incident is one of terrorism, it is important to distinguish between an act of terrorism, a hate crime and general homicide.

The Hill Political Review

22

perspectives

Debating Net Neutrality Will RUles Governing the internet be decided in the Courts or Congress?

Nick Neuteufel Guest Columnist Those debating the future of the Internet might learn more from Supreme Court case on healthcare than from the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) recent charge for net neutrality.

Net neutrality, the promise that data is treated equally when your Internet Service Provider (ISP) distributes bandwidth, depends on regulatory enforcement. The new FCC rules provide that the Internet will stay open on the customer side and that there will be no “fast lanes” or “priority services” for consumers; companies can’t pay for preferential speeds. These new rules also state that ISPs cannot deliberately slow down traffic for specific applications, websites, or services.

For the consumer, net neutrality means ISPs cannot arbitrarily slow down or speed up certain websites or apps. ISPs will be prohibited from the discriminatory practice of charging based on bandwidth requirements.

Those arguing against net neutrality see this as constraining ISPs, whose hardest job might be managing bandwidth demand at peak hours (when all of your friends and their mothers are watching House of Cards Season 3).

The implication is that ISPs won’t have as much of a profit incentive to invest in better Internet infrastructure, making it worse for the consumer in the long-term.

The Supreme Court meanwhile heard arguments on King v. Burwell Wednesday as a part of their process in deciding whether the Affordable Care Act’s

federal health exchanges actually align with the text of the bill.

How was this relevant to the future of the Internet?

The law and legal framework for the Internet is not written in stone. It is an evolving medium, and the rules and regulations still have yet to catch up. In fact, the new net neutrality rules came about by reclassifying the Internet under Title II of a 1934 law signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

That is not a typo. The Communications Act of 1934—“regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio”—is how the nature of Internet regulation changed this week. (The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the medium of change for FCC rules on state-level regulations that accompanied the net neutrality vote).

A gridlocked Congress only worsens these challenges of dated legal infrastructure. So far, Congress has spent more time debating one-week continuing resolutions to keep the Department of Homeland Security operating than it has on cyberspace policy.

This inertia on Capitol Hill is why the Supreme Court case on health care (King v. Burwell) is so important to the cause of a free and fair Internet. King illustrates that laws are only effective as long as they stand and they are enforced. With Congress effectively side-

lined, the courts—not the House and the Senate—are the next battlegrounds in the war for net neutrality. Once the new rules are officially written into federal guidelines, companies and individuals will have the opportunity to sue the FCC and challenge the rules in the courts. AT&T and other companies will probably sue the FCC, just as Verizon did in 2011. That lawsuit resulted in a loss for net neutrality advocates, providing the backdrop for the FCC’s most recent decision.

The new FCC rules change the legal debate by reclassifying Internet as a communications, rather than an information, service. The FCC is “very confident” that the new rules will withstand legal challenge.

But the FCC can’t be so sure the rules can withstand an oppositional Congress. The fight for net neutrality is not over.

Laws are fluid and can change quite quickly.

Elections matter because legislation is the bedrock of the legal and regulatory system. The FCC cannot do it alone, the courts cannot do it alone.

Congress ultimately shapes the course of policy, funding and binding the executive branch where it finds appropriate. FCC determinations and rules only go by the guidelines of law. The final frontier of net neutrality is Capitol Hill. It’s not over yet. Policy change is never that easy.

With Congress effectively sidelined, the courts—not the House and the Senate—are the next battlegrounds in the war for net neutrality.

23

The Hill Political Review

January 2015

The Hill January 2015

The Hill Political Review

24