November Issue 14.2

The Hill Carolina Political Review Vol. 14 Issue 2 November 2014

On the Edge The Hill Political Review November 2014

1

The Hill Carolina Political Review

Vol. 14 Issue 2 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 November issue profiles a number of areas where our world is On the Edge. In areas such as civil rights and energy policy, recent developments show us on the cusp of change. Other issues show the United States and other nations tottering on the brink, trying to come to grips with developments that pose economic and security challenges. Europe’s dependence on Russian oil, Beijing’s attempts to respond to protests in Hong Kong and the international effort to respond to extremist militants in the Syria and Iraq all show policymakers attempting to find balance on difficult issues. We hope you enjoy this issue, and as always we welcome your feedback and engagement.

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.

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

SOURCE: JON BUCHLEITER

Table of Contents State & Local

International Allies Against ISIS

4

On Second Thought

16

Mixed Motives 7

Education and Migration

17

The Not So Golden Prospect

12

Greener and Cleaner

18

Energy in Europe

14

End of Amendment One

19

US-Afghan Security 15 Western Women in ISIS

15

Perspectives

National Irrational Islamophobia

8

Partisan Politics 20

California Cap & Trade

9

Theory In Practice

After Greece v. Galloway

10

Terrorism Today 22

Tackling Domestic Violence

11

Two Cents 23

Debating the Minimum Wage

17

The Hill Political Review November 2014

21

3

International

Around the World Western Allies United Kingdom The United Kingdom has been heavily involved in combating ISIS. The U.K. has helped the Kurds in Northwestern Iraq with airstrikes, flown reconnaissance planes over Iraq, and provided humanitarian aid.

The Prime Minister David Cameron has said the U.K. will also help support Kurdish forces via arms, and that they will continue to work with the United Nations in battling ISIS and providing humanitarian aid.

However, the U.K. does not intend to send ground troops to fight ISIS

Netherlands

Other Nations

The Netherlands has committed airstrikes on ISIS targets since joining the coalition in late September, and has also provided 250 troops to help train Iraqi forces. They plan to continue their military operations and support in Iraq for six to twelve months.

Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Hungary and Poland have all been credited with providing arms and ammunition (some have also provided humanitarian aid) in the fight against ISIS. Georgia, New Zealand, Romania, and South Korea have been credited with providing strictly humanitarian assistance. State Department officials have noted South Korea has given over $1.2 million in their humanitarian efforts.

France France has been very involved in the fight against ISIS. France has participated in airstrikes, humanitarian missions, military operations, and reconnaissance flights.

Germany Germany has offered to train Iraqi forces, and also send military assistance in the fight against ISIS.

Australia Australia has mainly been conducting reconnaissance and surveillance missions in support of the U.S. and others in the coalition. However, Australia has aided in humanitarian missions and is one of the few in the coalition that have deployed ground troops to help Iraqi forces; around 60 special forces troops are now in Iraq to “advise and assist�

Iraqi forces.

Canada On October 7th, Canadian lawmakers voted to join the coalition against ISIS. Canada has committed both personnel and aircraft in the fight. Although Canada does not plan to commit ground troops, Canadian Special Forces are currently advising Iraqi security forces in the region.

4

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

International

Fighting ISIS

By Connor Cooke

Israel

Jordan

Israel is supporting the coalition by providing sound int elligence to the United States on ISIS and its movements. Israel has not been asked to participate in a more expansive role in the conflict.

Jordan has participated in air strikes, however the Jordanian government has stated it will most likely not commit ground troops to fight against ISIS

Regional Allies Turkey After initial hesitation, the government has now authorized the use of military force against ISIS and other groups. This comes after towns south of the Turkey-Syria border were taken over by militant fighters. Turkey has also allowed foreign troops to launch attacks from within its borders against ISIS. Also, Turkey has helped cut the flow of money and militant fighters destined for ISIS by denying entry or deporting several thousand foreign fighters en route to Syria to join the extremists.

Iraqi Kurdistan The Kurds have been fighting to protect their borders against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq, and are the primary infantry force in Iraq. If an international strategy was put into place, the Kurds would send their Peshmerga forces to fight beyond their borders.

Egypt Egypt has not engaged militarily, but U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated Egypt has a crucial role to play in countering ISIS. The grand mufti of Egypt denounced ISIS, stating their actions are not in line with Islam.

President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi stated Egypt is “completely committed to giving support” to the coalition.

The Hill Political Review November 2014

United Arab Emirates

Bahrain

The United Arab Emirates has helped launch airstrikes in Syria.

The Emirates also hosts an air base used by the coalition to conduct the airstrikes.

Bahrain has conducted airstrikes against ISIS targets, and has had a close relationship with United States for some time now; the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet is located in Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia Has engaged in airstrikes in Syria since joining the coalition in September, along with giving $500 million to U.N. humanitarian aid agencies. Saudi Arabia has now also offered to train moderate Syrian rebels who would fight ISIS.

Qatar Qatar has one of the largest U.S. military bases in the Middle East.

Qatar just recently joined the coalition, but has been flying humanitarian flights previously in support of the mission.

5

International

On The Ground Key Locations

6

1) Mosul Dam Initially captured by ISIS in early August, the Mosul Dam was retaken by Iraqi and Kurdish forces over the weekend of August 15th with the help of U.S. airstrikes The dam provides water to Iraqis as far Baghdad, and ISIS control could have been deadly. Furthermore, the dam is structurally unsound due to the soluble soil it is built on.

2) Mount Sinjar The U.S. provided air support—both military and humanitarian aid—to the Yazidis after it was learned that they were stranded on Mount Sinjar after the town of Sinjar was seized

by ISIS. The siege was broken August 14th, after Iraqi ground aid and extensive U.S. airstrikes.

3) Erbil, Iraq Erbil is the largest city of Iraqi Kurdistan, and is where the U.S. consulate relocated to after evacuating from Baghdad. After ISIS’s offensive into Northern Iraq on August 7th, the United States began authorizing airstrikes to stop ISIS from reaching Erbil. ISIS fighters were within twenty miles of the city before U.S. aid came.

4) Kobani, Syria Currently, Kobani is under siege in Syria. ISIS is attempting to gain control of the city from Kurdish forces in order to create a vast region of control anchored by Kobani and Raqqa.

The siege has been going on for over a few weeks now, and U.S. airstrikes and other coalition airstrikes have picked up in the last week in attempts to prevent the city from falling.

5) Aleppo, Syria Home to a terrorist group called Khorasan. Khorasan is made up of veterans from Al-Qaeda. Aleppo was one of the targets of coalition airstrikes after Obama announced on September 10th that airstrikes would expand to Syria.

6) Raqqa, Syria On September 23rd, the United States along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates bombed Raqqa, the proclaimed capital for the Islamic State, and surrounding areas. The airstrikes were targeting storage facilities, training compounds, supply trucks, and other strategic buildings in an attempt to weaken ISIS’s ability to coordinate and command.

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

International

Mixed Motives

Allies against ISIS have different reasons for fighting

By: Zach Williams

T

he United States is yet again at war in the Middle East, in a situation that has the potential to evolve drastically in a short period of time. The United States, leading “Operation Inherent Resolve,” has launched airstrikes against ISIS in an effort to stop the advance of the militants. The last time the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003 it took a mere three weeks to capture Baghdad, though that short-term successful offensive proved to be a far cry from winning the war. A hard look at the criteria for determining American and international success in attacking the Islamic State is essential for understanding the course of U.S. involvement in the ISIS conflict. While domestic security is an obvious goal of U.S. and European involvement, the geopolitical implications for Middle Eastern actors are murkier.

In justifying the latest war effort, President Obama has repeatedly invoked variants of the phrase, “degrade and destroy,” to describe America’s coalition’s intentions against ISIS. Degradation likely refers to undermining the Islamic State’s jihadist power and prestige.

ISIS-affiliated terrorists have beheaded prisoners of war, journalists, and other civilians, and flaunted this violence by video through the media. The Islamic State has severed its ties with al-Qaeda, in part to strike an even more extreme ideological chord. In spite of, or even helped by this barbarism, ISIS is recruiting many more foreigners to the Islamist cause than its more established counterpart.

The Islamic State has proven to be a media-savvy entity in its recruitment efforts, successfully luring young Europeans and Americans to fight against the West and other enemies. By weakening ISIS and the perverse allure of its recruiting efforts, the threat of homegrown terrorism presumably decreases.

To “destroy” ISIS, however, will The Hill Political Review November 2014

prove exponentially more difficult than degrading it. The unrecognized country straddles the borders of two failed states, Iraq and Syria.

Extinguishing the group will likely require bringing some degree of stability to both of these countries.

This is a tall order; eight years of occupying Iraq brought no lasting stability to the region. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta estimates that to defeat ISIS will require thirty years of war, spanning not just Iraq and Syria, but a whole host of unstable countries where the Islamist movement is likely to gain a foothold. If the destruction of ISIS is indeed the goal, escalation of the war effort will be necessary.

Kurdish enemies of ISIS testify that the American-led airstrikes are insufficient to defeat Islamic State forces, which have adapted to the air-only offensive. Republican legislators agree, arguing that ground troops are necessary both to evaluate the efficacy of the air strikes and to win battles. The GOP is favored to take control of the Senate in the upcoming election, thus increasing the possibility that the United States could become involved in a ground invasion against ISIS. Western countries, besides being traditionally aligned with the United States, oppose the spread of organized terror and the global consequences of civil war. However, the

difficulty of assessing the new war’s success is increased by the muddle of Middle Eastern interests among the 40-nation coalition against ISIS. Iraq and Syria, as internationally recognized, want to preserve their regimes. Vice President Joe Biden has publicly questioned the motives of coalition members Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates for arming radical jihadist groups fighting against Assad in Syria. Oil-rich countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates may be reluctant to restore Iraq because doing so would lower oil prices.

Turkey has demonstrated the most obvious conflict of interest thus far, as the nation indirectly aided ISIS by bombing the Kurdish rebels, who have demanded independence from Turkey for decades and are fighting ISIS on the Turkish border. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are problematic sources of private funding for a myriad of terrorist groups, though claims that either supports the Islamic State are unsubstantiated.

As difficult as it might be to assess American success in regards to ISIS, the regional picture in the Middle East is even more complex.

The West wants to undermine and eliminate ISIS, but Middle Eastern allies mixed motivations may lead them to remain largely indifferent to or even oppose the international coalition in some respects.

“While domestic security is an obvious goal of U.S. and European involvement, the geopolitical implications for Middle Eastern actors are murkier.”

7

National

Irrational Islamophobia Persecuting Muslims is incompatible with American ideals of diversity By: Kurt Brown

I

slam is the world’s most practiced religion, with an estimated 1.9 billion adherents around the globe. Of those people, a violent, fear-mongering minority have drawn global headlines for their criminal actions committed in the name of Islam. The majority of Muslims, however, refuse to let these extremists define their faith and are crucial allies in the ongoing fight against terrorism.

American Muslims are no stranger to discrimination and have faced persecution due to their religious practices for years.

However, the actual numbers for civil rights violations against Muslims are on the rise. From 2000 to 2006 alone, the number of complaints filed with just one group that advocates for Muslims rose from 366 to 2,467. Opinion polls show a similarly alarming trend. Just a month after the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, only 47 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Islam. Due to the national prominence and exposure of the September 11th tragedy, it’s not unreasonable to think that less than half of Americans viewed Islam in a positive light because radical members of that religion had assumed responsibility for the attack. However, since then the number of Americans who view Islam favorably dropped to 37 percent in 2010 and just 27 percent in 2014. The figures illustrate a grim reality; anti-Muslim sentiment in America is growing, and there is nothing the peaceful majority of Muslims can do.

If terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS plant the seeds of Islamophobia, it is often the media that both cultivates and encourages it. A prominent example of this is Bill Maher, who on his HBO talk show has made sweeping generalizations about the religion of Islam, including this quote: “Vast numbers of Muslims want humans to die for holding a different idea.” Oklahoma Representative John Bennett shared a similar sentiment, calling Islam

8

a “cancer” that needs to be eradicated from America. Faced with discrimination, hate-crimes, and the slander of their religion, Muslim leaders in America nevertheless choose to condemn radicals like ISIS and promote peace. Nihad Awad, Executive Director and Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is like many Muslims in that he even objects to the use of the term “Islamic State”, claiming that it exploits the faith in an offensive way condemned by most Muslims.

The biggest irony in the persecution of Muslim Americans is that they are the most crucial potential allies in the fight against terrorism. For example, in California the FBI planted a fake extremist in a Muslim community with wires to attempt to gather evidence of terror plots and extremism. Instead, leaders in the Muslim community grew so concerned with his radical behavior that they took out a restraining order against him and reported him to the police. In fact, an official report published by the

Muslim Public Affairs Council has found that one out of every three terror plots since September 11th has been prevented with assistance from Muslim-American communities. Additionally, the report concluded that the vast majority of violent terroristic attempts were actually planned by people with no connection to the religion of Islam. While the media and extremists like ISIS continue to dominate the conversation concerning Islam, local Muslim communities are fighting to show the true nature of their faith. By painting all Muslims as dangerous radicals, non-Muslim Americans are alienating a powerful partner and limiting the effectiveness of current anti-terrorism programs.

Moving forward, it’s important for the public to realize that American Muslims have a strong sense of pride and vested interest in our nation. Bringing American Muslims into the fold strengthens America’s resolve against terrorism and upholds the country’s legacy as a strong, culturally diverse society.

“Bringing American Muslims into the fold strengthens America’s resolve against terrorism and upholds the country’s legacy as a strong, culturally diverse society.”

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

National

California Cap-and-Trade The Golden State’s step towards reducing carbon emissions By: Tess Landon

I

n June of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved forward on President Obama’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) with a new “common sense plan” to cut carbon emissions from the power sector by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. While the goal set at the national level, emission reduction requirements are state specific, and each state is responsible for designing and implementing its own approach to hit the new carbon emission levels. The EPA utilized a variety of parameters to formulate each state’s goal which keep in mind each state’s unique combination of emissions and power sources. Many states have pre-existing emission regulation policies to build upon. California, known for its green-innovation, is currently leading efforts to cut emissions with a carbon cap-and-trade program.

In cap-and-trade programs, the government implements a ’cap’ on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, restricting total emissions to a set level. The authorized amount of carbon emissions is divided into permits allowing one ton of CO2 (or it’s equivalence in other GHGs) to be emitted.

These ‘Emission Allowances’ are then and allotted to the cap-and-trade participants such as power plants. Use of the emission allowances is at the discretion of the current holder and can be used, auctioned, traded, or banked for later use. Any entity that exceeds the emissions permissible by their current stock of emission allowances is penalized. Cap-and-trade programs are preferable to other regulatory alternatives because they allow the market to price emissions. Businesses can decide for themselves if it is cheaper to reduce emissions or buy permits from others, leading to an efficient distribution of carbon allowances.

California launched their carbon capand-trade program in 2013 as a part of the Global Warming Solutions Act. While its cap-and-trade program has received notable criticism , California’s program has operated relatively smoothly. Its counterparts in the

The Hill Political Review November 2014

THE HILL/DAVID WRIGHT

THE HILL/DAVID WRIGHT

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the US Northeast and the multi-nation program in the EU have had a bumpier ride. Those programs were wracked by lack of regulation and an influx of emission allowances from the government after unhappy businesses put on the pressure.

This drove down emission allowance prices and removed incentives for industries to innovate with new emission-reduction technologies. California was proactive about combatting these challenges. California placed a price floor on the cost of a single emission allowance and set strict guidelines for interactions in the carbon market. Of the five successful emission allowance auctions to date, 11 out of 20 allotments sold above floor price – a good indicator for growing confidence in the strength of the market. Not only has the carbon market been successful, but the CA economy has been resilient to the emission re-

duction. The cap-and-trade program remains viable economically, but the true measure of the environmental effectiveness will be revealed when the CA Air Resources Board posts the figures of GHG gas emissions for the past 2 years. Although the information has yet to be released, the Environmental Defense Fund is confident the environmental progress will mirror the good economic indicators.

California’s cap and trade program is still in the beginning stages. Expansion of the program will include the transportation sector in 2015, which may raise gas prices and have a more direct effect on consumers. CA already has plans to alleviate certain negative economic impacts, but there is always the possibility of unforeseen problems arising. While ultimate success of California’s program is anything but certain, the state is setting the standard for environmental policy and paving the way for other states to follow.

9

National

After Greece v. Galloway

SOURCE: PETE JORDAN

By: Bobby Kawecki

T

The First Amendment includes two provisions protecting religious freedom: the Establishment Clause prohibits establishment of state religion while the Free Exercise Clause guarantees the right to practice whatever faith one chooses.

However, the Supreme Court has recently issued a ruling bringing these protections into question.

Last term, the Supreme Court ruled that the town council of Greece, New York could begin their meetings with a prayer, regardless of whether it was inclusive of religious minorities.

Dr. Randall Styers of the UNC Religious Studies Department sat down with your correspondent to discuss this decision and the dangers it entails for religious minorities in the United States.

Dr. Styers said that the Court’s ruling in this case was actually not surprising because of how the Court’s conservative justices have reinterpreted the First Amendment in recent decades.

They have pulled back enforcement of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, leaving these issues to other branches of government or simply to social majorities. This relaxed stance on the Establishment Clause has allowed government to accommo10

date the majority religion, which to some seems like a violation of the “Wall of Separation” between Church and State proposed by many of the founding fathers.

Kennedy’s majority opinion in Greece v. Galloway approved of the religious majority bringing its beliefs into the public square without providing the same protection for minorities. Breyer’s dissent, on the other hand, allows more government acknowledgement of religion as long as it is neutral, which he believed the policy in Greece was not.

Since this case was first decided in May, Justice Scalia has spoke publicly of his desire to use Greece as a stepping stone for more government endorsement of the majority religion, mainly by overturning Engel v. Vitale and allowing prayer in public schools again. Justices Scalia and Thomas hold a view of the Establishment clause in which they think it is constitutional for the government to show special favor to monotheistic religions.

In the months following the Greece decision, there have already been many incidents in which the religious majority attempts to assert power over minorities in a public sphere. One notable example unfolded in Orange County, Florida. There, a Christian group sued to be al-

lowed to distribute Bibles in public schools. Once granted permission, however, they inadvertently opened the door for other religious organizations to do the same, presenting students with literature on Atheism and Satanism.

The religious minorities in Orange County (FL) were not intimidated by the Christian majority and made sure that they received the same benefits as the majority. However, it is likely that religious minorities can’t be so vocal where the religious majority is overwhelmingly dominant in public areas and the bounds of the Establishment Clause are blurred. This presents the potential for dangerous favoritism and divisiveness in our public realms that should be supporting inclusivity and tolerance.

Dr. Styers summed it up well when he told his students on the first day of his Religious Freedom course that he is glad that many of them are enthusiastic about their religion, but that his classroom is not the place to spread their personal beliefs or persuade classmates.

He went on to say that there are plenty of places in Chapel Hill and in the United States to share your beliefs with others in that way, but a government institution is not one of them.

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

National

Tackling Domestic Violence

Leagues must take initiative to address the issue By: Richard Zheng

O

ver the summer, the NFL was embroiled in a storm of criticism and scrutiny over its handling of domestic violence. Beginning with Baltimore Ravens’ Ray Rice’s two game suspension for assaulting his wife Janay, Commissioner Goodell has come under fire for not taking the matter seriously and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Since then, numerous other domestic violence cases have surfaced, such as Minnesota Vikings’ Adrian Peterson’s charges of child abuse. Although the NFL has received the most flak recently, various other professional sports organizations have a history of similar problems. Examining handling of domestic abuse in other major league sports reveals that each sport handles these cases of violence differently. These differences illuminate issues surrounding the failure to properly address these incidents.

Searching for domestic violence cases across major league sports reveals numerous incidents in recent years. In 2013, NHL goalkeeper Semyon Varlamov was arrested and charged with assaulting his girlfriend. MLB Phillies pitcher Brett Myers drew the same charge in 2006, while nine NBA players have been accused of some form of domestic violence in the past three years. Compared to Rice’s initial two game suspension, most of these players were barely penalized by their respective sports leagues. Myers pitched for the Phillies less than two days after charges surfaced, and Varlamov supported his team on the ice in their next game as well. As for the NBA, no player has been suspended by the league due to domestic violence since 2007 (Ron Artest), and the next most recent suspension was in 2004 (Eddie Griffin). Many of these charges are dropped or pleaded down for lesser misdemeanors, and most players continue to play unhindered despite ongoing criminal cases. In light of these other leagues’ past handlings of domestic violence, it’s almost understandable why Commissioner Goodell was perplexed by the public backlash against his initial two game suspension of Rice.

The majority of such domestic violence cases go undisciplined, and closer examination reveals an appalling lack of structured policy within each league’s

The Hill Political Review November 2014

handling of player discipline. Between the NBA, NHL, and MLB, only the NBA has clearly defined penalties for domestic violence. Under the NBA’s “Unlawful Violence” section in its player conduct policy, players convicted of violent felonies are immediately suspended for 10 games. In contrast, the MLB’s collective bargaining agreement with players allows the commissioner or a team to discipline players charged with crimes “involving the use of physical force or violence,” but does not define punishment specifics. The NHL (and the NFL prior to Ray Rice’s assault) has a similar policy of reviewing domestic violence incidents on a case-by-case basis, without any clearly outlined procedures. In this regard, the NFL’s new domestic violence initiative announced in August represents significant progress. In addition to expanding player training and increasing community outreach, new disciplinary procedures ensure first time offenders will be suspended without pay for six games, while second time offenders will be banned from the league for a minimum of one year.

However, simply clarifying disciplinary policy does not properly address the issue of domestic violence within professional sports. Even though the NBA specifically mentions domestic violence in its player conduct code, a reli-

ance on criminal conviction in court has limited disciplinary action meted out to accused players. Domestic violence prosecutions can be incredibly complicated; oftentimes, the victim refuses to testify out of fear, which leads to charges being dropped. Even after court proceedings have started, the accused can plead down the felony in exchange for a promise to begin counseling, as Rice did; NBA players can also choose this option to dodge the felony conviction necessary for the league to discipline its players. Because domestic violence cases rarely result in convictions, assuming innocence and waiting for due process typically leads to inaction and passive tolerance for players’ violent actions off the field.

While major league sports’ shortcomings remain unacceptable, the NFL controversy has ignited discussion and started turning existing policies in the right direction. The MLB has recently announced that it will meet with violence prevention and support groups to reexamine its own policy, while NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has begun to focus on enhancing existing educational programs for players and their spouses on violence prevention. By taking the initiative and tackling the issue head on, major league institutions can uphold high standards for its players and help change the existing culture of violence.

THE HILL/ NGOZIKA NWOKO

11

International

The Not So Golden Prospect

T

he Golden Week of October, an official Chinese holiday commemorating the founding of the People’s Republic, marked the peak of retail sales and tourism in Hong Kong from 1997 to 2013.

Consumers and travelers flocked into this special administrative region from all parts of China to spend their renminbi on duty-free Prada handbags, meals at Michelin three-star restaurants, and roller coaster rides in the country’s only Disney Land.

For shop owners and gourmet chefs, the first week of October 2014 may be different. The recent pro-democracy protests demanding universal suffrage and free elections and led by students, professors and impoverished Hong Kong residents, kept away the usual crowd. In many

By: Henry Li

12

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

International

Mainlanders’ eyes, mob violence and street barricades rendered the traveler’s paradise dangerous and uninviting. Those uninterested in the pursuit of democracy encountered another obstacle– the Chinese government suspended the issuance of internal travel visas to the region, an ironic hallmark of Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy” within China’s authoritarian system.

If the protests continue for much longer than expected, the weak service and retail sectors could have a significant negative impact on Hong Kong as a global financial hub. Retail sales and tourism account for roughly 30 percent of the territory’s GDP, and a prolonged decline in either one signals the possibility of growth in the unemployment rate and a drop in sovereign credit rating. Moreover, intensification of the protests could potentially deter foreign investment. Hong Kong branches of the big four audit firms, whose livelihoods depend directly on the territory’s attractiveness to investors, warned in June that civil disobedience “could lead investors to consider moving their regional headquarters from Hong Kong.”

For some protesters, the struggle for democracy also serves as a venue to voice their concern for Hong Kong’s economic status within China. The post-colonial Hong Kong is increasingly worried about losing its status as a gateway to the Mainland.

Domestic Chinese alternatives – headlined

by Shanghai and Shenzhen – could move the auditing firms closer to factories, technology start-ups, and other Mainland Chinese clients. The central gove r n m e n t has consistently used both Shanghai and Shenzhen to exper-

The Hill Political Review November 2014

iment with free-trade zones and other favorable policies in an effort to boost their global competitiveness. Beneficiaries of such developments – the new middle class – marveled at Hong Kong with their insatiable consumption of luxury goods and somewhat unrefined etiquette.

According to Xi Chen, Assistant Professor of Political Science at UNC, many in Hong Kong were nostalgic of the days when they “financially assisted the mainland,” and find it emotionally challenging to accept the reversal of roles.

Protestors also question the Chinese government for encouraging the creation of monopolies in Hong Kong’s market. In today’s Hong Kong, real estate projects, convenience stores and gas stations are all under the grip of several wealthy and well-connected families. The business elite enjoy great sway over leaders in Beijing and benefit from their business activities in the Mainland. Their capability to dominate markets in Hong Kong relies heavily on the capital acquired from the Mainland. While the wealth gap continues to widen, the younger generation also finds it challenging to compete for decent paying jobs.

According to the Hong Kong government’s University Grants Committee, average starting salaries for university graduates have risen only 1 percent annually since 1997. The skyrocketing price for housing has forced young adults to live at home and eat with their parents. As indicated by Hong Kong’s widening Gini coefficient, the city is now more unequal than the U.S., the U.K., or Singapore.

This widening disparity has potentially threatening overtones for the cuture of Hong Kong.

Despite the bleak backdrop, some remain enthusiastic about Hong Kong’s future as a premier destination for global investments. According to Dr. Xi Chen, Hong Kong remains more attractive than Shanghai by virtue of Hong Kong’s robust enforcement of the rule of law as well as its more liberal social and economic environment. He highlights Hong Kong’s proximity to both Western and Oriental cultures, and suggests that the Chinese government has little interest in draining the city economically. Hong Kong financial workers definitely share Chen’s enthusiasm.

They bypassed street barricades with the help of the internet and coordinated with clients and colleagues via Skype. Yet their employers might think otherwise; and decide to direct their capital elsewhere. Goldman Sachs has already slashed its growth forecast for Hong Kong, and it is still very possible that more evaluators and investors could lose fai th in the regional financial hub.

SOURCE: LEUNG CHING YAU ALEX

13

International

Will the lamps go out?

Europe’s dependence on Russian oil puts it in a sticky situation By: David Pingree

O

n the eve of World War I British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey remarked “The laps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.”

Grey was alluding to the massive geopolitical ramifications of the boding conflict and its threat to the all of Europe. Today, energy dependence on Russia has put the continent in an increasingly difficult position that threatens to dim the lamps of Europe.

Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its alleged support of Ukrainian rebels in the Ukrainian civil war have ignited a diplomatic controversy throughout the international community this year, leading the European Union, NATO and other international coalitions to impose economic sanctions on Russia. In addition to Russia’s removal from the G8 and the creation of visa restrictions for top governmental officials, European leaders are looking to apply pressure on Russia in its most vial industry: oil.

While the European Union has sanctioned the importation of energy technologies that would aid Russian energy companies, such as Rosneft and Gazprom, harsher sanctions have been out of the question due to the continent’s heavy dependence on Russian oil. On average, 30 percent of the European community relies upon Russian oil to fuel their energy sectors, while several nations in Eastern Europe are almost completely dependent on Russia for their energy grids. Many diplomats from Bulgaria, Finland and other countries close to Russia are fearful of a gas crunch this winter, which previously occurred during the stop-gate measures Russia imposed on Ukraine in 2006 and 2009.

“Recent events in Ukraine and the Middle East have served to highlight the vulnerability of our energy supplies and the political straitjacket that results from our over-dependence on fossil fuel imports from these volatile regions,” Rear Admiral

Neil Morisetti, the United Kingdom’s former climate and energy security envoy, told The Guardian. “The quickest and most effective form of energy security is to use less.”

Short-term solutions for reducing dependency on Russian oil include new drilling and exploration plans in Bulgaria and Croatia as well as increasing access to oil from the Middle East and the United States. However, some European nations remain reluctant to import liquefied natural gas from the United States. In addition to the logistical complications— liquefied natural gas would not be available until next year—the United Kingdom, France and other nations are firmly opposed to the hydraulic fracturing methods that are employed

by American energy companies. “[American liquefied natural gas] is only a partial solution because the liquefied gas will arrive at European sea ports,” Thomas Renard of Egmont told The Deutshe Well. “Then it still has to be supplied to the most vulnerable countries to Russian gas supplies.

Many of them are landlocked. It’s not that easy to transport gas there.”

Plans have been proposed to construct pipelines across central Europe that would connect eastern

countries to western ports, including the expansion and upgrading of the Southern Corridor pipeline. Conversely, the E.U.’s proposal to construct the Nabucco pipeline, which would have given Europe greater access to the Middle East’s oil resources, fell apart due to political differences.

Long-term resolutions include capitalizing on alternative energy sources. France has invested in nuclear energy programs and Spain has made headway into wind and solar energy. Germany has demonstrated the most promise by using renewable energies to power 28 percent of its electricity, and has set an ambitious goal to make itself the first nation to use solely alternative energy by 2050.

Other analysts have argued that it will remain necessary for the European Union to continue importing oil from Russia. Revenues from Russia’s oil industry are chiefly responsible for maintaining economic and political stability within the former superpower. “If it wasn’t for energy one could wonder whether the relationship with Moscow would be as stable as it is now,” Renard said. “If it wasn’t for all this energy dependence and all the dialogue, it could have a destabilizing effect on the whole of Europe.”

THE HILL/ NGOZIKA NWOKO 14

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

International

U.S. - Afghan Security Agreement By: Andrew Levine

T

hough American and NATO forces quickly toppled the Taliban government, they have yet to create a secure environment. The general perception in the West is that the war cannot be won, and the goal now should be to minimize further loss of NATO forces. However, as most NATO troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan at the end of 2014, the Taliban may be able to make gains against what is perceived to be a weak Afghan army.

In late September, the United States signed a bilateral security agreement with the newly elected Afghan government providing a legal and political framework for U.S. troops to remain after 2014 for advisory and training roles.

It is expected that the Taliban will push against the Afghan army and police when the NATO troops and air support leave. The Afghan government is weak and corrupt, and may fall without support from the United States. The new

pact ensures U.S. involvement until at least 2024, and intends to prevent Taliban resurgence after NATO’s departure.

Afghanistan faces a myriad of problems that require the continued presence of U.S. troops. The Afghan state is decentralized and weak due to the ruggedness of the country’s terrain, the weak economy, and tribal systems that govern many aspects of social and political life. Agriculture is the only way for many Afghans to earn a living, industry is almost non-existent, and what could be a strong mining industry is crippled by corruption and instability. Afghanistan’s mountainous landscape helps insurgent groups develop in remote villages and retreat to mountain hideouts when necessary. The difficult terrain also hamstrings infrastructure projects and widespread agricultural production, both of which could bolster Afghanistan’s weak economy.

Divisions among various tribes and ethnic groups make the formation of political coalitions and unified armies difficult. Local militias separate from

the Taliban often control large swaths of land, sometimes with the U.S.’s implicit backing. The warlords who control these militias often have their own agendas and many of them are involved in the narcotics trade. Poppies, from which opium and heroin are derived, are a major source of income for poor Afghan farmers and warlords. The Taliban are also known to fund themselves through the narcotics trade.

The recent election ended in a power-sharing agreement between Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, with Ghani becoming president. The vote was relatively peaceful but there were allegations of fraud, the true scale of which is not known. If this fragile agreement unites the various ethnic groups of Afghanistan, economic growth and stability is possible. If it fails, the United States may be forced to ramp up involvement once again. The American public wants nothing else to do with Afghanistan, but such hopes rest on the new, unproven system holding its own against the Taliban.

Western Women joining ISIS By: Allyesha Hall

T

he phenomenon of young girls and women leaving homes in western countries to join the the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been highlighted in the media as an oddity among the overwhelmingly male Islamic militant groups.

These women leave countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Austria and the Netherlands to traveling to Syria in hopes of marrying jihadis, bearing their children and joining communities of fighters. There have been also been a small number of women taking up arms themselves. The Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium estimates that as many as 15 percent of ISIS’s foreign recruits are women, with possibly up to 200 different women from 14 different countries.

The highest number of female jihadi recruits come from France, with 63 in Syria.

According to The Guardian, many of these fleeing women appear compelled by the ideology of supporting their “brother fighters” and having “jihadist children to continue the spread of Islam,” said Louis Caprioli, former head of the French Direc-

The Hill Political Review November 2014

tion de la Surveillance du Territoire, “If their husband dies, they will be given adulation as the wife of a martyr.” However, the role of the women themselves often does not extend beyond that of motherhood.

Mia Bloom from the Center for Terrorism and Security Studies explains in Reuters that “ISIS is recruiting these women in order to be baby factories. They are seeing the establishment of an Islamic state and now they need to populate the state.”

ISIS has taken an interesting approach to recast the movement away from a singular type of fighters and called for doctors, engineers, and builders to join in the creation of a pure Islamic state. This new “state” also offers women several types of jobs and functions. In a jarring marriage of violence and domesticity, there are accounts of women carrying AK-47’s, wearing suicide belts and holding severed heads as active combatants as well as images of women cooking, making cookies, doing housework, meeting one another for coffee, and acting as mothers and caregivers. One female Malaysian medic tweeted in January: “Stethoscope around my neck and kalash on my shoulder. Martyrdom is my highest dream.”

Several push factors attract Muslim women to ISIS in addition to political drivers. Rahsaan Maxwell, Associate Professor of Political Science at UNC with a specialization in minority politics and immigrant integration in Europe, identifies the historical context that leaves second generation Muslims in Europe questioning their identity and acceptance into European society as an attributive factor to this movement.

The younger generation find it difficult to identify with the home countries of their parents and grandparents, but also fail to identify with contemporary European society, which emphasizes assimilation into the mainstream. The perceived failure of Western states to provide young Muslims with a sense of belonging and value is evident in the online accounts of these female jihadis. In an interview with Al-Monitor, a Dutch woman in Syria stated, “I always wanted to live under Sharia.

In Europe, this will never happen.” These women further speak about their perceptions of the shortcomings of Western societies, including restrictive regulations and policies regarding Islamic practices, and discontent with Western political systems.

15

State & Local

On Second Thought

Republicans reconsider Medicaid expansion By: Keenan Conder

L

ast year, North Carolina, like most of the southern states, opted out of the Medicaid expansion, a major provision of the Affordable Care Act. The expansion would have provided an additional 500,000 North Carolinians with the option to obtain affordable healthcare through the existing Medicaid program.

Governor Pat McCrory chose not to expand the Medicaid program because he believes the system is broken. This is due to an audit in 2013 that stated that North Carolina overspent its’ Medicaid budget by $375 million. However, following great controversy, he has since changed his tune saying in an interview with NPR’s Charlotte affiliate that after “we fix the current system, I have not closed that door as governor”. This is an issue affecting thousands of North Carolinians and will likely be the source of a brewing political battle in the next year.

The Medicaid expansion is a way of including more people in the existing Medicaid program.

Medicaid offers medical benefits to low-income households with the cost for care being split rather equally by individual state governments and the federal government.

States choose who can qualify for the program and North Carolina chose only to open the program to citizens below the poverty line.

The Medicaid expansion would allow citizens with a gross household income less than 138% of the poverty line and poor adults without kids to join the program for the first time. The federal government pledges to pay 90% of the costs for any Americans who become eligible for Medicaid due to the expansion.

Opponents of the expansion cite the additional costs as a reason to not expand the program.

These opponents cite reports that suggest as many as 87,000 North Carolinians, who are already eligible, will be drawn out of the woodwork by the expansion. The belief is that the increased public attention given to the expansion

16

and the consequences of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care act will prompt many to seek the benefits they didn’t know they qualified for. Since these people would have already been eligible, the state would have to pay a much larger percentage of their medical costs and therefore continue to strain the state budget. These people alone could cost the state $800 million over eight years. This along with the claim that Medicaid is broken provides the bulk of the argument against the expansion.

Proponents of the law, on the other hand, point to a state study claiming that the expansion not only would provide health care to 500,000 North Carolinians, but would also create 46,000 jobs and pump a billion dollars into the state’s economy. One such proponent is Professor Aimee McHale, a public policy professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. McHale explains that due to the great recession and our state’s declining textile industry, “a lot of people who did have benefits no longer do.” Because many workers lost their jobs in the declining

textile and manufacturing industry, they no longer have access to the health insurance that was previously provided by their employers. These people often still work, which brings them above the poverty line, but only barely. This means they cannot currently qualify for Medicaid, but also that they have trouble affording their own health insurance plans. McHale says this large demographic in our state is likely to fall through the cracks that an expansion could potentially fill.

Recently, Republican Senate candidate Thom Tillis joined Governor McCrory as a tentative proponent of the Medicaid expansion. This is despite Tillis’ role in defeating the expansion in the General Assembly as speaker of the North Carolina House.

Slowly but surely, shifting opinions could potentially lead North Carolina to accept the expansion in the future, though the issue will continue to be explored and debated.

Professor McHale, for one, believes that it might not be long before a bill confirming the expansion is passed on the North Carolina House floor.

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 November 2014 The Hill Political Review

State &Local /National

Education and Migration in North Carolina By: Sylvia Roper

R

ecently, Wallet Hub ranked North Carolina last in the United States in terms of teacher salaries compared to the cost of living. Low teacher salaries coupled with a decreasing allocation to education in the budget may affect migration to and from the state of North Carolina.

When asked whether or not the quality of education was correlated to teacher salaries, Principal William Laine of Northern Guilford High School in Greensboro, NC stated: “I strongly feel that the lack of a competitive salary and benefits that public school teachers have been subjected to over the past seven or eight years has really had a significant impact on the field of education. We have suffered the loss of several young and talented educators who have either left the field entirely or moved to a neighboring state that offered a higher salary.”

Laine, like many educators, feels that the pressures of earning a living can outweigh other determinants of remaining at a particular institution. In the state as a whole, low salaries could cause North Carolina’s best teachers to emigrate. On the other hand, based on North

Carolina’s ranking in teacher salaries, it can also be expected that fewer teachers will migrate to the state, thus discouraging new talent from pouring in as well.

Unsurprisingly, North Carolina is also known for its low spending on public education. According to the most recent version of U.S. Census’ Public Education Financing data, North Carolina is one of the states that spent the least on public primary and secondary schools. The state legislature is not spending as much on public education as in the past. Over time, the percentage of the budget allocated to education in North Carolina has decreased. For the 2013-2014 school year, 37 percent of the budget was allocated to education, which is almost a five percentage-point drop since 1985, according to WRAL. According to Forbes, a high volume of people migrates to North Carolina for work-related purposes, compared to other states. However, these recent low rankings could potentially have a negative impact on this trend. If (specifically, non-teacher) migrants have children, then their children must enter North Carolina’s school system.

But, with the knowledge of the state’s low spending on education, the par-

ents may be unsatisfied about sending their children to North Carolina schools, particularly if they moved from a state with a better public school system. Additionally, current and future students may face obstacles in furthering their education as they attempt to compete against students from states with higher-quality school systems.

Ultimately, insufficient spending on public education could cause major problems for both parents and students.. If the state’s education ranking continues to fall, then families with the option to move to the state may refuse, halting talent in other fields from coming to North Carolina. At the same time, families that do live in North Carolina may choose to leave in order to place their students in higher-ranked schools.

Principal Laine stated, “the quality of education in any building heavily depends upon the teachers that we place in front of our students.” Teachers and their treatment will continue to be a newsworthy issue, one that the state Legislature will surely contemplate. It’s evident that the way teachers and public education are treated in this state has the potential to impact areas within and outside of the sphere of education in North Carolina.

Debating the Minimum Wage By: John Hess

W

ith the American economy slowly continuing its recovery from the depths of The Great Recession, unemployment numbers have decreased significantly. The national unemployment rate hit 5.9% in September 2014, a record low since topping 10% in 2010. Add to the recovery record highs in the stock market and the outlook for the economic future of the United States brightens a noticeable degree.

As the economy continues to rebound, the focus of national economic policy turns once again to protecting and increasing job security, income, and education. A major goal for The White House in President Obama’s second term is the “Raise the Wage” initiative, which is focused on raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour from the current $7.25. The Obama Administration argues that The Hill Political Review November 2014

the “real value” of the current wage is not enough for a family of four to escape the grip of poverty. In joining the President, many Democrats agree that raising the wage would benefit the labor force in the United States. Representative David Price (D-NC) was a co-sponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, an effort which would have boosted the wage to $10.10. The bill failed to make it out of committee.

Many experts disagree that an increase to the minimum wage would be beneficial for the majority of the American workforce. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this increase would result in a net loss of 500,000 workers [3]. It is argued that a minimum wage causes hardship for struggling small businesses and results in large corporations outsourcing jobs to cheaper foreign markets [6].

Two individual states provide more insight into the effects of a minimum wage. According to

Forbes, Washington tops the list in a ranking of the best states to make a living. Mississippi, on the other hand, ranks 48th. The state of Washington boasts an unemployment rate slightly below the national average, 5.6% in August.

The minimum wage is set currently at $9.32 per hour and is adjusted annually using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers. Mississippi, in contrast, has no set state minimum wage and has an unemployment rate of 7.9% as of August.

When comparing a state’s employment health, it is easy to see a positive correlation between minimum wage and employment.

Most observers will note, however, that--in reality--setting minimum wage policy is much more complex. It is up to government officials and economists across the nation to decide whether an increase would help or hurt the interests of an economy in a fragile recovery.

17

State & Local

Greener and Cleaner

Sustainable energy efforts at UNC-Chapel Hill By: Caroline Fite

T

he University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) is making great strides in sustainability and has plans in place to continue improving. This year, GreenMetric University Ranking ranked UNC-CH the eighth greenest University in the world and third in the United States out of 301 other universities.

According to the 2013 Sustainability Report, UNC-CH has been involved in numerous green initiatives throughout the past year. The biggest advances have been made in water conservation and energy reduction.

The implementation of a non-potable water utility system has cut water consumption by 60 percent per square foot since 2003. Additionaly, energy use has been reduced by 33 percent per square foot since 2003.

This effort has been accomplished through building more energy efficient, LEED-certified buildings and using heating and cooling schedules to regulate energy usage.

UNC-CH currently holds a $2.2 billion endowment to invest however the University determines, and the Sierra Student Coalition spearheaded efforts to direct this towards improving sustainability at UNC-CH. In September, the Coalition convinced the Board of Trustees to commit to targeting clean energy investments with the endowment. This decision also entails a decision to shift investments away from the coal industry.

Tait Chandler, president of the Sierra Student Coalition, believes this is a great victory because the school is no longer investing in companies that damage the environment through burning coal. However, eventually, the Coalition’s goal is to actually seek alternative energy sources and completely divest from coal on campus.

“There are other schools such as San Francisco State University and Stanford University that have committed to divesting [coal],” said Chandler. “I believe UNC will eventually decide to divest as well, but that is not feasible at this time.”

SOURCE: WILLIAM YEUNG 18

While UNC-CH has made significant progress in terms of sustainability thus far, it will take years to reach the two main goals the University has moving forward. First, by 2020, UNC plans to stop burning coal completely.

The University is looking into using alternative fuel sources such as natural gas and torrefied wood to meet this goal. In the mean time, the shortterm strategy focuses on energy conservation.

Secondly, UNC-CH has committed to being carbon-neutral by 2050. In order for net carbon emissions to be zero, it is necessary to simultaneously lower greenhouse emissions while offsetting any necessary carbon usage with more trees and vegetation.

This can be accomplished by designing buildings to be more efficient and investing in planting more plants and trees around campus.

Cindy Shea, director of the Sustainability Office, feels that these goals are within reach given the successful efforts thus far. However, she does note several obstacles associated with environmentally friendly initiatives.

“Because universities don’t receive tax credits, we are having to partner with private sector companies to bring down costs,” said Shea.

Luckily, the costs of energy efficient technologies are continuously decreasing, making it more affordable to invest in a greener UNC. Chandler says, “the cost upfront may be higher, but the long-term costs will be lower because there are less negative externalities associated with it.”

As the University continues to expand, new buildings will be constructed with environmental consciousness in mind in order to reach the 2020 and 2050 goals. The Sustainability Office and student groups like the Sierra Student Coalition plan to continue pushing UNC-CH to be a forerunner in clean energy usage.

“Certainly we have room for improvement,” said Shea. “But we are a leader both nationally and internationally.”

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

End of Amendment One

State & Local

Assessing the impact of the District Court’s decision

By: Matt Wotus

O

n Oct. 10, a federal judge struck down Amendment One, an amendment in North Carolina’s state constitution defining marriage between one man and one woman, paving the way for same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

With just his signature, U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn overturned the almost three-year-old amendment.

In his ruling Cogburn said the ban on same-sex marriage violated North Carolinians 14th Amendment rights of equal protection under the law.

Cogburn’s decision was seen as inevitable after the Supreme Court announced just days earlier that it would not review marriage rulings by lower courts in five states. One ruling, which came from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, had overturned Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. The court also has jurisdiction in North Carolina.

Amendment One was put on the state ballot on May 8, 2012. At the time, same-sex marriage was already illegal in North Carolina, but the amendment would add the ban to the state’s constitution. The amendment, which stated, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State,” passed by a 61 percent to 39 percent vote.

Same-sex couples across the state rejoiced in being able to get married and have it recognized by the state after the ruling by Cogburn, and those in the fight for equality expressed joy at the ruling.

Joey Hewell, of Charlotte, and his partner Scott Lindsley spent three days outside the register’s office in anticipation of the ruling. Hewell said in a phone interview that when they got there, they only planned on staying for a couple hours, but then it snowballed into staying there for three days.

Hewell said that it felt overwhelming to hold up a copy of Cogburn’s order outside the office once the ruling came down.

The Hill Political Review November 2014

“I don’t know how to put it into words,” Hewell said. “We fought for this for over a decade.”

Although Hewell said he and Lindsley had considered themselves married for many years, he still expressed excitement over the amendment being overturned.

“It’s incredible,” he said. “We’ve been together for a really long time.

We thought it was going to be another year, or two, or five [before the amendment was overturned].”

Chris Sgro, the executive director of Equality North Carolina, was also thrilled about the ruling.

“Today’s ruling allowing loving, same-sex couples to marry across North Carolina is a historic moment for our state,” he was quoted as saying in an article on the website Qnotes.

“With it, we celebrate with so many North Carolinians who have worked tirelessly over decades to change hearts, minds, and unequal laws in the state we call home. Love won and the barriers to it are done.”

While Hewell and Sgro were pleased with the ruling, some state and religious leaders weren’t so happy. “We take heart in knowing that marriage – that defined by God – can never truly be redefined,” Tami Fitzgerald, the director of The North Carolina Values Coalition, the main supporter of Amendment One, was quoted as saying in the same Qnotes article.

House Speaker and Senator-elect Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger expressed their displeasure at Cogburn’s ruling and vowed to fight to uphold the ban.

“While we recognize the tremendous passion on all sides of this issue, we promised to defend the will of North Carolina voters, because they – not judges and not politicians – define marriage as between one man and one woman and placed that in our state constitution,” a joint statement issued by the two leaders said, according to WRAL. While all leaders seem to be focused solely on the same-sex marriage

aspect of Amendment One, Cogburn’s ruling will also have an effect on heterosexual couples throughout North Carolina.

According to the website Everyone1Against1, the amendment to the state’s constitution didn’t only affect same-sex couples, but also heterosexual, unmarried couples. Because the law defined marriage as the only domestic legal union, the website said that the amendment didn’t allow parents in unmarried relationships to provide heath care benefits to children living in their household. It also stated that Amendment One interfered with child

“The amendment to the state’s constitution didn’t only affect same-sex couples, but also heterosexual, unmarried couples.” custody and visitation rights.

Everyone1Against1 went on the state that Amendment One interfered with protection for unmarried couples, such as hospital visitation, emergency medical and financial decisions, wills, trusts, etc.

In addition, domestic violence protection for unmarried women was unconstitutional, since Amendment One only recognized married couples as a family, experts at Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill law schools said.

While North Carolinians, as well as state and religious leaders, seem to be focusing exclusively on the same-sex marriage aspect of Amendment One, the ruling laid out by Cogburn has an impact on more than just same-sex couples in the state.

19

Perspectives

Partisan Politics The long-term dangers of lasting partyism By: Jon Buchleiter

B

y many accounts Hillary Clinton is a shoo-in to get her party’s presidential nomination if she chooses to run in 2016. Based on her past accomplishments her Democratic credentials appear sound. Yet, some readers including a number of her supporters may be surprised to learn that Mrs. Clinton has not always been true blue.

During her first year of college Clinton served as the president of her school’s College Republicans chapter and during a semester spent in Washington D.C. she interned at the House Republican Conference. Following the election of 1968, however, Mrs. Clinton left the Republican party and her greatest impact on American politics has clearly come through her time as First Lady, service in the Senate, and most recently in her tenure as Secretary of State under President Obama.

Evolving and adjusting worldviews following paths similar to Mrs. Clinton’s are necessary and beneficial for all politically engaged citizens. They need not always entail a shift from Republican to Democrat or vice versa, but personal growth and refining one’s political views is important for sound policymaking. Sadly, the current hyper-partisanization of American politics makes it increasingly difficult to attain experiential learning and shifts between parties are becoming exceedingly rare. This is damaging to democracy and it dims the prospects for future bipartisan cooperation and leadership.

Commentators across the spectrum decry political polarization and its implications for American democracy. The most visible manifestation of today’s polarization is the gridlocked 113th Congress, which has passed fewer pieces of major legislation than any of its predecessors. Yet, as partisanship has become more defined and increasingly rancorous it poses a greater threat than the temporary stalemate. It threatens to close off future opportunities for bipartisanship and it jeopardizes individuals’ ongoing political development.

20

Strident partisanship is nothing new in American politics. One need only look to the vicious battles between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to see that political conflict has been present since the birth of the republic.

Their political wars, waged while both served in the same cabinet under President George Washington, kicked off a strong tradition of partisan competition.

While parties may not have been formalized, battle lines were already forming even among the American founders.

Today, partisanship is evolving into something far more sinister. Cass Sunstein, a prominent Harvard professor and legal scholar, coined the term “partyism” to describe this political prejudice. Partisanship is the identification individuals with parties, while partyism is discrimination or prejudice based on perceived party affiliation. Sunstein references a study conducted by Stanford political scientists Shanto Iyengar and Sean Westwood, which found that party affiliation cues played a more powerful role than either overall qualifications or racial cues in determining who subjects awarded scholarships to. Attending a panel on professional development featuring young professionals in the policymaking sphere confirms that such political prejudice is already factoring into hiring decisions.

Millennials entering politics today must choose a team early on. Capitol Hill offices expect to see a demonstrated commitment to their respective parties and loyalty is often valued above overall qualifications. The desire to have staffers ideologically aligned with members is understandable; it makes sense to work with others committed to similar principles and legislative positions. However, such partisan litmus tests are becoming increasingly prevalent and binding in congressional offices and beyond.

Today’s aspiring policymakers face a catch-22. Many desire to gain policy experience first hand in a professional setting and they hope these positions will help them shape and refine their own political beliefs. However, these positions are increasingly looking for

applicants who are already “true believers.” It is not easy to see why working and learning in such a sharply divided political landscape is suboptimal both for young policymakers’ personal and philosophical development and for crafting moderate bipartisan policies.

Today’s increasingly pernicious political prejudice may prove even more damaging if partisan identities begin binding individuals to the positions they adopt at early stages in political life.

Those desiring to gain legislative and policy experience on both sides of the aisle must attempt to seek positions in offices that require loyal partisans. Being a moderate, or even worse an undecided or unaffiliated applicant, places them at a disadvantage.

These aspiring policymakers, still in the formative years of their political life, are compelled to choose a side. In a trend indicative of Cass’s partyism, this choice has increasingly becoming a permanent commitment rather than a starting point for further political development. Rather than permanently label individuals according to partisan typologies, it is necessary to constantly interact and engage with individuals regardless of their political stripe.

Trying to end parties and partisanship entirely is wrongheaded; parties serve as the building blocks for effective governance in modern democracy, both in two-party systems like our own and multi-party parliamentary systems around the world.

But, when these groups become binding for life and party loyalty supersedes national interest they become barriers to effective governance.

Political and philosophical development is and should be a lifelong process. Rather than being “caught at 22” and bound to a particular party, aspirant policymakers should have the opportunity to experience life on both sides of the aisle. Refining political beliefs and party affiliations is central to American democracy, yet today’s partisan environment and rampant partyism threatens this opportunity for the next generation of leaders.

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

Perspectives

Theory in Practice Let’s Make a Deal

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

I

n the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the ensuing Eurocrisis, the world’s major economies are looking to boost growth by breaking down trade barriers.

From Brussels to Beijing to Washington, D.C., governments are deep into negotiations on multinational deals meant to invigorate global commerce. But the realities of the international political environment make any deal a Herculean task.

To begin with, the World Trade Organization’s negotiating rounds, the major driver of trade liberalization for the past several decades, have ground to a halt. The current Doha Round has been ongoing since 2001 and shows no sign of being concluded any time soon, if ever. This is partly because the WTO and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) became victims of their own success. The success of these institutions at eliminating trade barriers eventually attracted more and more countries wishing to join, expanding membership far beyond its initial base in Western Europe and North America. These new members were overwhelmingly developing countries with very different eco-

The Hill Political Review November 2014

nomic interests from the industrialized and rich founding members of the GATT. Even among these new members interests diverge: some are agricultural exporters, others service exporters, and still others semi-industrialized. The more states join the WTO, the wider the range of interests a trade deal would have to satisfy to be politically acceptable. With so many members of the WTO today, finding a deal that satisfies them all has become virtually impossible.

In the face of these problems, states have increasingly turned to regional and bilateral deals to facilitate trade growth. By negotiating with fewer partners that have more closely aligned economic interests, countries can eliminate trade barriers without having to choose between accepting more painful compromises and completely sabotaging negotiations. This is the logic that has propelled the United States into pursuing two “mega-deals” with Europe and the Pacific Rim – known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) respectively. But these deals too are stalling.

For one thing, while each trade deal is attractive because it represents

a possibility for opening many markets in one fell swoop, each is also problematic because of that. TPP involves far fewer countries than the Doha Round does, but the twelve parties involved are still enough to make coordinated negotiations tough. In the TTIP negotiations, the problems of multi-country negotiation are mitigated by the common regulations shared throughout the European Union, but countries still have particular concerns that threaten to tank the deal, such as the United Kingdom’s fear that one aspect of the deal may threaten its public health care system.

For another, trade deals are not made by diplomats alone. Bargaining is a two-step process, and anything agreed must be ratified by domestic legislators. This complicates the negotiations massively as domestic interests can put pressure on their representatives to veto any deal. This is already happening with TTIP: Europeans are mobilizing to protect their farmers from competing with American produce. With so many countries of different interests negotiating, and so many different interests within each country, even regional trade deals seem to be beyond the realm of possibility.

SOURCE: GREENSEFA 21

Perspectives

Terrorism Today Context of the Islamic Caliphate

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

T

o understand ISIL’s vast appeal, as evidenced by its ever-growing number of recruits, one must understand the historical narrative behind the caliphate ISIL has declared. ISIL views their caliphate as the successor of Islam’s historical superiority. This caliphate differs from the Islamic state that al-Qa’ida sought in several significant ways.

ISIL, like al-Qa’ida, is a jihadi terrorist organization. Similarly to al-Qa’ida, ISIL’s claim to power is dependent on a historical narrative rooted in the superiority and subsequent falls of the Muslim world from Islam’s birth until the post-colonial era. During each “peak” of Islam, the Islamic world was more advanced philosophically, scientifically, and militarily.

The historical narrative that these organizations believe also follows a pattern of crisis and response.

Each rise of the Islamic world and subsequent downfall was met with a response and mobilization

by Islamic scholars. The first, and most agreed upon, of these crises

22

was the Mongol Invasion of the Middle East that ended the Islamic empire during the Middle Ages.

In response, Islamic scholars led a resurgence of Islam through jihad against the Mongols. This paved the way for the eventual rise of the Ottoman Empire, the second resurgence of Islam. Near the beginning of the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire also declined until its death amidst the independence movements that pervaded the post-colonial period after World War I. This is the historical context under which al-Qa’ida and ISIL operate. Prior to these jihadist movements, few fundamentalist factions in the Islamic world were able to gain lasting political power despite anti-colonial grievances and competing secular independence movements. These modern organizations now see themselves tasked with driving a third and lasting peak of Islam through the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. This historical narrative serves as a core driver of the rise of both al-Qa’ida and ISIL, motivating these organizations to violently mobilize Muslims under the banner of restoring Islam to its former glory through the restoration of a caliphate.

Al-Qa’ida and ISIL’s visions of what a restored Islamic caliph-

ate would look like, however, are vastly different. To al-Qa’ida, the caliphate is less of a palpable state than a “conceptual destination” as a recent report by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) puts it. The caliphate exists as a distant future in which the world over will be governed by the al-Qa’ida interpretation of Islam. The caliphate exists more as a conceptual goal for al-Qa’ida rather than a concrete and achievable step in the process of jihad.

For ISIL, the caliphate exists as a concrete, achievable goal. This stance is embodied by ISIL’s recent declaration of a caliphate backed by territorial possessions and establishment of physical institutions necessary to sustain a society. The creation of a caliphate for ISIL therein exists as both a recruitment method, mobilizing individuals to join the Islamic State, and as a tangible restoration of a new Islamic empire. ISIL’s establishment of a concrete caliphate helps to explain their expanding recruitment.

Both ISIL and al-Qa’ida both compete for legitimacy amidst the Islamic historical narrative. Both ISIL and al-Qa’ida perceive themselves as the legitimate leaders of the third peak of Islam and use differing visions of a caliphate to achieve this status.

“The creation of a caliphate for ISIL therein exists as both a recruitment method ... and as a tangible restoration of a new Islamic empire.”

November 2014 The Hill Political Review

Perspectives

Two Cents America’s New Civil War

Nancy Smith is a junior majoring in Arabic studies

I

n recent months, Americans have become completely consumed with the ominous presence of Ebola, a virus from West Africa that causes severe and often fatal hemorrhagic fever in humans and other mammals. The virus, well known for its extremely painful symptoms, has claimed more than 5,000 lives in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea,

and the World Health Organization believes that this number may be low based due to unreported cases.

But the greatest trials still lie ahead, because Ebola still has yet to strike at the heart of America.

The virus has yet to sweep through the huddling, fearful mass of suburban tranquility. It has yet to take the lives of innocent soccer moms, ironic hipsters, and university basics. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has been drawn into a fierce battle with state governments over the right to oversee these individuals’ safety.

While the federal government has resisted issuing any travel or visa bans to the nations of West Africa, brave men like Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) are standing up for the safety of America, often through actions like tent-quarantining nurses who exhibit no symptoms and blaming the president for everything (Obama also kicked your dog, while you weren’t paying attention).

While the president has the Health and Human Services Secretary, Sylvia M. Burwell, and the CDC on his side, Governor Christie is guided by his broad background in healthy living, his girth of passion for the people of New Jersey, and his apparent gut instinct.

Esteemed media outlets have dubbed this a “civil war” between the president and conservative governors, the likes of which have not been seen since the bloody days of Lincoln’s presidency. Or the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Or the government shutdown in 2013. Or the current debate over how to address ISIS. But the message remains clear: despite the fact that the United States has provided some of the most monetary aid, health care workers, and military support of any developed nation, this activity must cease immediately. Because, unless there are Iraqi oil reserves involved, our boots should never hit the ground.

Wisdom and Witlessness Crisis & Opportunity “We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”

- Charles R. Swindoll “Accept the challenges so that you may feel the exhilaration of victory.”

- General George S. Patton “There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.”

-Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

The Hill Political Review November 2014

23

The Hill 24

November 2014 The Hill Political Review