The Hill Volume XI, Issue II
November 2011 Chapel Hill Political Review
Social Progressivism in the Arab World Alternate Routes to Reform
Gradual Reform & the ARAB SPring
Rock Concerts in afghanistan
Palestine’s Bid for Statehood
Section From the Editor
To our readers: Last October, The Hill focused on “The Changing Face of the Middle East,” in which we discussed the winds of change in the Middle East, before the Arab Spring sprung. In April of this year, we entitled our issue “Feet in the Street” and concentrated on the Arab Spring and popular protests. Now, in November, we can’t help but focus on another aspect of the changing Arab world, the ideas which we call “gradual reform” and “social progressivism” in the Middle East and North Africa. For, while the depth and breadth of change in the region is astounding, we notice related trends within this larger movement. Popular protests, movements led by the people from the street, are certainly prevalent. However, gradual, calculated reform is another significant trend, one which is not getting much discussion. Thus, in this issue, we discuss the gradual reform strategies undertaken by Morocco and Jordan (p. 12-13). We also look at how rock n’ roll is changing
Afghanistan (p. 15 ), the women’s right movement in Saudi Arabia (p. 14), and examine the Palestinian bid for U.N. recognition of statehood (p. 16-17). We don’t ignore the domestic political arena, however, as we examine United States criminal trials in two aspects. First, we analyze the Troy Davis trial and why it garnered so much attention (p. 6), and, more generally, we examine the effect of media on criminal trials (p. 8). We also look at the nebulous Occupy Wall Street movement (p. 7), and we discuss the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s legal battles (p. 9). Thank for picking up (or downloading) this issue of The Hill. We hope our articles strike your fancy, and we hope you continue reading in the future. Sarah Wentz & Siddarth Nagaraj
thehillpr@gmail.com http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill We’re proud to share our work with you, http://chapelhillpoliticalreview. wordpress.com and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or email (no more 208 Frank Porter Graham Student Union than 250 words, please) and tell us what UNC-CH Campus Box 5210 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210 you think. Send us your comments!
Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national, and international politics. This publication is meant to serve as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus where people can present their beliefs and test their ideas. A high premium is placed on having a publication that is not affiliated with any party or organization, but rather is openly nonpartisan on the whole. Hence, the purpose of The Hill is to provide a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events, and trends. This means that, on the one hand, the publication will feature articles that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. These articles might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape. On the other, The Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues. 2 The Hill
MANAGING EDITORS Siddarth Nagaraj Sarah Wentz SECTION EDITORS Amanda Claire Grayson Sam Hobbs WRITERS Eric Eikenberry Brian Godfrey Amanda Claire Grayson Sam Hobbs Kelly Kessler Krishna Kollu Radhika Kshatriya Siddarth Nagaraj Ismaail Qaiyim Christian Rodriguez Chris Smith Stephanie Shenigo John Son Avani Uppalapati Sarah Wentz Daixi Xu Richard Zheng BLOG EDITOR Eric Eikenberry DESIGN Amanda Claire Grayson Jenna Jordan Radhika Kshatriya Sarah Wentz PHOTOGRAPHY Sarah Wentz HEAD OF ART Connor Sullivan ART Daniel Kolev Connor Sullivan TREASURER Christie Blazevich FACULTY ADVISOR Ferrel Guillory This magazine was paid for, at least in part, by Student Activities Fees at a cost of approximately $1.00 per copy.
Contents Section
Volume XI, Issue II November 2011
Contents Cover 12
Gradual Reform & the Arab Spring
14
Saudi Women: A Drive to Vote
15
Afghanistan: Punk Rock Style
16
An Application for Statehood
Alternate Routes to Reform
An examination of the rights of Saudi women
Popular culture and liberalization in Afghanistan
Palestine’s UN bid for statehood
Features 7
Occupy Wall Street
8
Criminal Trials & the Media
9
Healthcare Hits Supreme Court
The future of the movement
Relations between media and criminal trials
Universal healthcare examined in court
Legality of Drone Strikes 19 The Are drone strikes against US citizens legal?
November 2011
3
Sectionfrom The Hill Notes
Hill-O-Meter
Who’s on top of the heap now? Who has fallen far? We track the up-andcomers and the down-and outs.
1
Herman Cain—Ever been to an alternative ice cream shop? After going through a list of unappetizing choices, each more nauseating than the last (ooh, chocolate-pineapple-mocha, let’s get that one!), it’s forgivable to settle on the one about which you know the least (hmm, goat-cheese sherbet can’t be that bad, can it?). That’s the only way any observer can understand Cain’s current popularity; the GOP has been coaxed into eating at this questionable new joint by an adventurous girlfriend—let’s call her Tea Party—and is just looking to buy anything that won’t come back up later.
Occupy Wall Street Protests—After being dismissed for weeks as a rag-tag group of hippies and rabble-rousing college students (gasp! The nerve of them), the rag-tag group of unemployed college grads (with a fun number of hippies in tow) is finally getting some serious looks, as unions bolster protest participation and media outlets rush to document the latest excesses of the NYPD. No, the nascent movement doesn’t have a coherent message, but protesting against bailed-out financial institutions that are raking in record profits seems, at the very least, as legitimate as packing the National Mall to hear Glenn Beck be Glenn Beck.
3
Barack Obama—9.1 percent unemployment persists, his jobs bill is going nowhere, he’s locking into campaign mode before the GOP has even narrowed down its pageant contestants, and worse, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell keep sticking ‘kick me’ signs on his back every time he gets up to go to the bathroom while all the cool girls point and laugh. Man, my fifth grade year was awf—I mean, Obama’s seen better days.
War in Afghanistan—The bad news: the Afghani central government is weak and the Taliban are as pervasive as ever. The good news: October 7th marked our tenth anniversary! And to think, those stupid commie Soviets could only last nine. USA! USA!
Eric Eikenberry is a sophomore majoring in global studies. 4 The Hill
2
4
Notes from The Section Hill
The Development of the Nobel Peace Prize By Siddarth Nagaraj
The winners of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize were announced in October. This year’s award was shared by three women from developing countries who have all fought for gender equality in deeply unstable societies. Here’s a brief profile of the new laureates and how the esteemed prize they will receive has changed over time.
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Liberia)
2011 Peace Prize Laureates
Tawakkull Karman (Yemen)
Leader of Women Journalists WithPresident of Liberia since 2005, first out Chains, which campaigns for and so far the only elected female head women’s rights and press freedoms in Yeof state in Africa men, a country where both are severely Promoted efforts at post-conflict reconrestricted. ciliation and economic development Leymah Gbowee At age of 32, will be the youngest inas president of Liberia following (Liberia) dividual and the first Arab Nobel two bloody civil wars Cofounder of Women of Liberia Peace Prize laureate Mass Action for Peace, a movement which used a variety of measures to pressure Liberian leaders and rebels into ending conflict and seeking reconciliation, including lobbying politicians, a sex strike, and public sit-ins
Notable Information
Controversies The first Nobel Peace Prize was In February 1939, a Swedish given in 1901 to Henri Dunant of Switparliamentarian nominated Adolf zerland, who founded the International Hitler but withdrew his nomination. The Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC committee did not reveal the nomination at the has since won three Nobel prizes as a single time, as the list of nominees is kept secret for years organization. after they are awarded. The United Nations has also been honored multiple times. Eight U.N. affiliated agencies have Mahatma Gandhi infamously never received the prize. won the prize, as have two Secretaries General. Upon his death in 1948, the Nobel Committee acknowledged its failure to honor him by refusing to grant a Four U.S. Presidents (Theodore Roosevelt, prize that year, stating that there was “no suitable living Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and candidate.” Barack Obama) have won the Nobel Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam (chosen in 1973) is the Peace Prize. only Nobel laureate to refuse the prize. In 2009, President Barack Obama was awarded the priz, a move many called premature saying he had not held the office long enough to claim significant The Nobel Peace Prize has changed from an award achievements. given almost exclusively to European and American diplomats to one that is much more globally encompassing. Throughout its history, the Nobel Committee has also honored non-governmental organizations, particularly those which serve medical humanitarian causes. More recent recipients have included environmental and huSiddarth Nagaraj is a senior majoring man rights advocates, acknowledging a broader range in global studies and political science. of activism. November 2011 5
Section Domestic
A Criminal Execution Captures Media Attention
M
By Daixi Xu
any death penalty executions occur in the United States every year (46 in 2010), but few instances have garnered the media attention and public outcry as the Troy Davis case. The case began in August of 1989 when Davis was arrested on the suspicion of shooting an off-duty Savannah police officer in a Burger King parking lot. Two years later, a jury in Chatham County, Georgia sentenced Davis to death. The case continued for 22 more years until Davis’s execution on September 21st, 2011. Within those years, Davis’s case navigated through the U.S. justice system with a series of failed appeals. He was scheduled to be executed three times prior to his final execution date, but was granted a stay each time. He appealed one last time to the Supreme Court the night of his execution but was denied. He maintained that he was innocent through his execution, stating moments before his lethal injection, “I am innocent. The incident that happened that night is not my fault.” Though the jury found him to be guilty, many of those who followed his trial did not believe that he was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Some cited inadequate evidence as the basis of their criticism of the fairness of the trial. There was no physical evidence to connect Davis to the crime; investigators found no DNA evidence or trace of a murder weapon. Seven out of nine people who testified against Davis later recanted by affidavit or contradicted their original testimonies. Some of those recantations cited police coercion as the reason they initially stated that Davis was the shooter. U.S. District Judge William T. Moore, who upheld Davis’s conviction, 6 The Hill
The Troy Davis Story
found these recantations to lack credibility and to be “largely smoke and mirrors.” Additionally, many opponents of his execution believed the case was handled unjustly because Davis was a black man who shot a white officer in a Southern state where historic racial tensions may continue to perpetuate racial discrimination in the justice system. On the other hand, some dismiss this claim of racial injustice because seven people in jury that convicted Davis were black. Lawrence Russell Brewer, who was convicted of dragging a black man to his death, was executed the same day as Davis, but there was only a murmur of media coverage over his execution. In contrast to Davis’ case, there was no doubt raised over if Brewer committed the crime. Davis’s case was likely brought to national attention as the result of individuals who closely followed the case and held serious doubts over the evidence used to convict him. UNC Philosophy Professor Iskra Fileva explained, “In general, such cases get media attention when supporters of the victim are very active and contact the media and human rights organizations.” Additionally, many high-profile figures expressed doubt over the fairness of the trial and spoke out on behalf of Davis, courting the media to draw public attention to the case. Both Pope Benedict XVI and former President Jimmy Carter questioned the credibility of the evidence used to convict Davis. The former director of the FBI William S. Sessions wrote an editorial to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution objecting to Davis’s execution by arguing, “When it comes to the sentence of death, there should be no room for
doubt.” High Representative Catherine Ashton spoke on behalf of the Europe Union urging the State of Georgia to reconsider Davis’s death sentence. Organizations such as Amnesty International and the NAACP also stood behind Davis and publicized the case. Others voiced their objections to Davis’s execution through social media. Celebrities used Twitter to raise awareness for the case and encouraged their followers to intervene, including rapper P. Diddy and actress Mia Farrow. On the day of his execution, several key words related to the case were trending topics on Twitter. Those who did not have the star power made their message visible by taking to the streets. Protests occurred from Georgia to the White House to Paris. Many protestors adopted the slogan, “I Am Troy Davis” and placed a photo of Davis over their faces to show solidarity with his pleas for clemency and unite in their opposition to what they believed is a flawed Georgia justice system. Although the Troy Davis case has concluded, the astounding amount of attention it generated will not soon be forgotten. The case has certainly renewed a national reexamination of capital punishment and could alter the public discourse surrounding future death penalty cases where doubt is expressed. Daixi Xu is a junior majoring in political science and art history.
Occupy Wall Street: A Mob or a Movement?
O
Domestic Section
By John Son
ccupy Wall Street, an organization protesting economic and political inequality between the richest 1 percent and remaining 99 percent of Americans, has grown into a burgeoning movement that has resonated with many in the United States. Amidst economic stagnation and fears of a double-dip recession, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has grown from a few hundred to thousands of protesters. It has drawn criticism from both ends of the political spectrum; the New York Times described it as having a “lack of cohesion and [an] apparent wish to pantomime progressivism” before shifting to a less critical tone as the movement grew, while Republican presidential candidates have called it a movement promoting “class warfare.” But as many observers have asked: who are the protesters of Occupy Wall Street? Protests have spread from New York to Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Boston, in addition to college campuses and cities around the world. The movement, still young, has garnered the support of labor unions, helping to swell its numbers. However, Occupy Wall Street is a diverse movement, with demonstrators coming from a variety of backgrounds, from union workers to students to professionals. Leaderless, and without specific demands, so far Occupy Wall Street’s potential (and present) impact is unclear. Observers won-
der about the movement’s cause, direction, scope and significance. The movement also seems to focus more on general dissatisfaction with the current state of the U.S. economic system than Wall Street. Furthermore, the general lack of specific demands brings into question whether it can be an effective movement able to cause significant change. Merely screaming loudly may attract attention, but it is unlikely to cause real reform. Even if the noise does cause change, the resulting change may not be what Occupy Wall Street desires if the protesters don’t make clear what they want. At the same time, this lack of specific demands seems to lend the movement a certain resonance with the public. Many have praised this lack of specificity, calling it a way to prevent politicians from hijacking the movement and shifting the debate away from its current focus on inequality. As of yet, the lack of demands doesn’t seem to be a detriment to the movement, but has served to give it wider resonance, expressing general dissatisfaction with the current state of American affairs. This resonance has facilitated the movement’s growth, helping to increase the number of protesters and sympathizers from the hundreds to thousands in addition to bringing it further into the public eye. This vagueness in demands, however, may prove to be hurtful in the long run (assuming there is a long run) as the group’s diverse members argue over the direction the movement should take. None-
theless, the group’s surprising resilience and broad appeal has allowed it to spread to over 900 cities around the world, albeit with varying levels of intensity. Should Occupy Wall Street become a large enough movement, however, its lack of demands may be irrelevant. And that seems to be the goal of the movement: a relative lack of organization that forces change on account of its sheer size and voice, similar to the Arab Spring protests in the Middle East (which is describes as its inspiration). But the protesters’ importance and relevance remains contingent on if they grow large enough to be more than a few thousand unemployed dissenters. The Occupy Wall Street movement is young, and it has yet to be seen what its impact will be on the nation, just as there was widespread debate during the initial forming stages of the Tea Party about its potential impact on American politics. The Tea Party served to give Republicans the House of Representatives, but can and will Occupy Wall Street, with its lack of any demands (let alone a manifesto) make as big an impact? By the end of the year, Occupy Wall Street could have either sputtered and died or continued to grow. Nonetheless, it is a movement that to a large degree reflects Americans’ dissatisfaction with the national state of affairs and worth attention. John Son is a first year majoring in political science.
this lack of specific demands seems to lend the movement a certain resonance with the public November 2011
7
International Domestic
T
Justice and Journalists
By Stephanie Shenigo
oday we live in a world where the media is a constant presence in our lives. We have become so used to its persistent intrusion that we scarcely make note of it. Some of the biggest stories focus on the coverage of criminal trials. Just in the past year we have been bombarded with sound bites from the trials of Casey Anthony, the West Memphis Three, Troy Davis, and Amanda Knox. All of these trials have been judged against the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder case, which has been coined the most publicized trial in American history. Most Americans watch these proceedings with fascination and analyze every detail of the case. To them, it is like having a popular crime drama played out in real life. However, it is not often that we consider whether the onslaught of media attention may actually harm us. One effect of the constant media attention is that the character of important persons within the trial is often more hotly debated than the evidence itself. Instead of questioning whether the evidence proves the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the media promotes the character of the defendants, victims and witnesses as the most important factor in determining guilt. This can influence jurors to disregard evidence that does not support their pre-conceived notions of the person’s character and thus guilt. Jurors for trials where actual celebrities play important roles, whether as defendants or victims, are even more likely to be influenced by the media due to what is known as the parasocial interaction theory. This theory states that when people are constantly exposed to media personalities, they tend to feel as though they 8 The Hill
How media affects criminal trials
are “friends” and thus are more likely to believe in their innocence and honesty. As a result, a juror on a trial for a well-known celebrity can be more likely to believe their innocence and disregard evidence to the contrary. In this way, it can be said that media coverage is threatening the impartiality of jurors. However, it can also be argued that media attention can have a positive effect on criminal trials. Often in court, prosecutors and police can present evidence as a solid indicator of the guilt of the defendant when in fact the evidence may be completely circumstantial. However, media coverage can keep the public skeptical of such evidence, and by doing so can help enforce the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, media attention can also help cut down on racism and discrimination in court proceedings. Professor Issac Unah of the UNC Department of Political Science believes that media attention has had a positive effect on criminal trials, remarking, “Notice how the number of capital charges
has dropped as are the number of death sentences nationwide. Media and academic scrutiny of prosecutors’ decisions has led to more careful decision-making by court officials including prosecutors, judges, and juries.” The media has drastically changed the way the American judicial system operates. Whereas court proceedings were once something of a private affair that few observed, today media coverage ensures that the entire world can sit in judgment of someone’s perceived wrongs. The debate is currently divided, with one faction adamantly maintaining that increased coverage can undermine the foundations of the criminal justice system by focusing the attention of the public on the wrong aspects of the trial, while the other side contends that public scrutiny can help enforce the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and can counteract racism and bigotry. Only time will tell which one of these sides will prevail. Stephanie Shenigo is a senior majoring in political science.
International Domestic
Healthcare Heads to Court
T
By Ismaail Qaiyim
he Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a landmark piece of legislation that envisions both universal healthcare and an overhaul of the health insurance system within the United States. When President Obama signed the PPACA into law in March of 2010, the bill acted as the latest embodiment of healthcare reform. The PPACA is intended to address problems such as existing preconditions justifying denial of insurance coverage, the cost of insurance to the average family, and the declining state of overall health in the U.S. Despite the efforts of previous administrations to address issues related to reform, the current effort, deemed “Obamacare” by ideological opponents, has become a polarizing body of legislation with serious legal implications that invoke issues of constitutionality and states’ rights.
William Marshall, UNC Distinguished Professor of Law and an expert on constitutional law, in a phone interview with The Hill, underlined the individual mandate within the PPACA as its fundamental point of legal controversy. The individual mandate requires nearly all U.S. citizens to get some type of health insurance coverage, and according to Professor Marshall, opponents of the law maintain that this provision is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
Several federal and district courts have ruled parts of the PPACA unconstitutional while others have upheld its constitutionality. The end result is a near split over the law within states and a dire need for resolution due to practical issues of parts of the law taking effect as early as 2014. The political viability of the Obama administration is also at stake. It is likely a combination of these and other factors which led President Obama to ask the Supreme Court to effectively put the issue to rest by ruling on the PPACA’s constitutionality once and for all. Despite the seriousness of this move, there is a precedent for presidents seeking the decision of the Supreme Court through the Department of Justice, and it is rare for the Supreme Court to refuse such a request.
There are four potential lawsuits facing the Supreme Court and five legal challengers to the PPACA. These include a group of 26 states, the state of Virginia, the Thomas More Law Center, Liberty University, and the National Federation of Independent Business. Each of these challengers believes that it is unconstitutional to require nearly all Americans to have insurance coverage. In addition, the lawsuits challenge the expansion of Medicaid and a requirement for employers of businesses with more than 50 employees to provide insurance. The Commonwealth of Virginia is specifically seeking to challenge the PPACA on the grounds that federal legislation directly conflicting with state legislation is invalid; however, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will rule on this issue due to its far reach-
become a polarizing body of legislation with serious legal implications that invoke issues of constitutionality and states’ rights
ing implications. Despite legal challenges there is also the element of political reality that contextualizes the entire scenario. Even if the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional, the federal government believes that if it specifically eliminates provisions of the PPACA that require insurance companies to accept all applicants and apply “communityrates” then the rest of the law will still apply. This highlights the fact that the Supreme Court is not only tasked with ruling on the constitutionality of the healthcare law, but also whether striking down certain provisions of the law invalidates the entire body of legislation. Also, it is possible that the Supreme Court’s decision could prove to be entirely inconsequential. Unless the Democrats lose both the Senate and the presidency, it is conceivable that Republicans will be able to overturn the law altogether through the legislative process. In the 1930s, the Supreme Court ruled on the Social Security Act and resolved the challenges to it; similarly, President Obama wants the issue of healthcare to be firmly decided once and for all. Professor Marshall believes that if previous legal precedents are applied, then the Supreme Court will find the law to be constitutional. When all the factors are weighed, political partisanship and opportunism seem to be concrete realities that are driving the process forward. Consequently, it is likely that the PPACA will continue to be a point of controversy for years to come. Ismaail Qaiyim is a senior majoring in history and peace, war & defense. November 2011
9
International Section Domestic
Christie Abandons Tunnel Project
A
By Kelly Kessler
year ago, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey put an end to the Access to the Region’s Core, or ARC, tunnel that would have connected New Jersey to Manhattan under the Hudson River. The tunnel was projected to cost nine billion dollars and double the capacity of New Jersey’s transit trains to New York. Presently, New Jersey’s trains share a tunnel to New York with Amtrak; however, the tunnel is at-capacity. Last fall Governor Christie began taking a closer look at the project when he began to fear that costs would be much higher than expected. While officials in Washington thought it was improbable that he would stop the project completely, Christie eventually did make that call; but not before New Jersey received federal funds. After Christie put a stop to construction and workers began literally throwing dirt back into the hole, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood took action to demand the repayment of $271 million that the federal government had given New Jersey for the tunnel project. LaHood had good reason to be angry- Christie had expressed support for the project many times and had known that there was a possibility for cost growth. However, conditions had changed dramatically. As the economy worsened and tension over public spending increased, Christie opted to pull the plug. Christie initially refused to pay back the money, saying that the money would be used for other transportation projects in New Jersey. Because the money is considered overdue government debt, 10 The Hill
a one percent government interest rate was imposed, which was increasing the amount by about $50,000 every week. As LaHood and Christie feuded, lawyers were eventually involved. Penalties and fees grew to nearly three million dollars. In late September, Christie and the Transportation Department finally came to an agreement that would require the return of $95 million in funds. New Jersey will use $128 million of the remaining amount for transportation projects in New Jersey. It is unclear
how the rest of the debt will be earmarked or repaid. The turn of events that included the halt in construction of the tunnel and the scuffle over the use of the funds is representative of the gridlock and confusion affecting much of America’s transportation and infrastructure systems. The American Society of Civil Engineers uses a report card system to evaluate U.S. infrastructure, and in 2009, the country got a “D”. More specifically, the rail system got a “C-.“ There are many ways to improve infrastructure and rail, but they
depend on the investment of the federal government. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, in order to improve the rail system, there needs to be additional spending of $11.7 billion over the next five years. By increasing the investment, the rail system can become more efficient and benefit passengers, businesses, and the general public. While investing in infrastructure would improve the country’s transportation system and possibly create jobs, it does take money. The debate over spending to stimulate the economy goes much deeper than the ARC tunnel. The debate over the tunnel represents a philosophical divide separating those who believe in spending and those who think the market should be left to its own devices, especially since the national debt is ballooning. If history is any indication, there will not be a watershed moment for the debate; rather, it will be decided on a case by case basis. The effects this will have on infrastructure, and the future of the ARC project, remain to be seen. We may be keeping up with commuter demand in the present but as the population grows, congestion increases, and sprawl continues to reach outward, the need for efficient mass transit will become more acute. In the current economic climate, it may seem hard to justify large investments in seemingly unnecessary infrastructure. However, if the U.S. is serious about encouraging economic growth, the tunnels and tracks will have to be built. Kelly Kessler is a senior majoring in political science.
International Domestic Section
Monopoly Mania Manipulates Merger
A
By Sarah Wentz
proposed merger between Duke Energy & Progress Energy has created a furor throughout the Carolinas. The merger between the two companies would create the country’s largest utility company by number of customers, retail revenue, and generating capacity. The new company would serve 7.1 million power consumers in the Carolinas, Florida, Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio, but it is only competition in the Carolinas that is considered endangered. An order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on September 30th conditionally approved Duke Energy’s purchase of Progress Energy, demanding the companies propose solutions to protect competition in the Carolinas within 60 days. According to the FERC, remedies could include selling power plants, virtual dives-
titure (maintaining ownership of the plant while selling the rights to the electricity), building new transmission lines, or joining a regional transmission authority. But what is a regional transmission authority? A regional transmission authority administers the grid, sending electricity where and when it is needed. By joining a RTA, the company would be open to more electric capacity and revenue but also more competition, and could furthermore encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy. It appears that this solution might be the most favorable option to both parties, but Duke’s response remains to be seen. Obtaining approval from the FERC, however, is not the end of the battle. The merger also
requires approval from North Carolina regulators. The North Carolina Utilities Commission must ensure the public’s benefits from the merger outweigh the offsetting costs and risks. The commission has the power to levy conditions as well, such as limits on electricity rates, pollution cuts, and promises for contributions to social welfare programs. The merger was intended to be completed by the end of the year, and both companies have stated they hope to meet that time table despite the FERC’s order. Regardless, the Duke-Progress merger will not occur until fears of a utility-monopoly are soothed. Sarah Wentz is a senior majoring in political science and global studies.
By the Numbers: Raleigh Bonds On October 11th, Raleigh voters approved two bonds, despite its significant existing debt. Here, The Hill analyzes these bonds by the numbers.
40
million: amount of Transportation Improvement Bond
60 million: cost of transportation bond approved in 2005
16 million: amout of Housing Bond
5.9
million: amount for the completion of the Raleigh greenway program
13 billion: the total debt of the city of Raleigh
5
dollars: cost of transportation bond per household per year
54 million: total funds approved for affordable housing between 1990 & today
12 dollars: cost of housing bond per household per year November October 2011 11
Section Cover
Methods of Reform in the Arab Spring
T
How many ways are there to create lasting change?
he first sparks of the Arab Spring began in December 2010, but the fire is still going strong. While states such as Egypt, Tunisia and Libya (whose dictators have all been deposed) have attracted much of the media’s attention, theirs are not the only stories of the Arab Revolution. Social change is happening in other North African and Middle Eastern nations through similar uprisings, though it is being brought about in a manner of gradual (and some might argue, limited) reform. While in states such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, the beginning of change seems to have been signified by the expulsion of reigning leaders, other countries have sought alternative paths towards reform. In nations such as Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, widespread demands for political change have not led to a regime collapse as experienced elsewhere. Instead, as protests began to sweep the region, Kings Mohammed VI and Abdullah II (of
By Sarah Wentz Morocco and Jordan respectively) sought to placate their citizens with promises of reform early on. In early March, King Mohammed VI created a constitutional reform commission, while King Abdullah created a “royal commission” to consider constitutional amendments in late April. While these measures did not quell protests, it appears that both kings recognized the way the wind was blowing, and their quick responses may well have saved their jobs.
it seems incredible that uprisings so inextricably linked could create such different outcomes. It is the difference of stories in the Arab Spring (such as that between Tunisia and Morocco, or Libya and Jordan) which is so compelling. Each state has had its own distinct experience within this pervasive, unified movement. Uprisings have been seen in nearly every Arab nation, but no two states have had significantly similar experiences. Tunisia experi-
This sign could be seen everywhere in Morocco this summer, telling Moroccans to “say yes to the constitution.” 12 The Hill
enced a revolution culminating with the successful election of a constituent assembly in October which will charter a new constitution. Egypt deposed its dictator, but unrest still abounds in the state, and many doubt whether lasting change will be seen. Libya’s uprising resulted in a civil war, the death of the nation’s leader for over forty years, and the country is currently in a nebulous state of transition. Morocco passed a new constitution in July though many
continue to clamber for reform. Months after it was formed, Jordan’s royal commission continues to assess constitutional amendments while Saudi Arabia granted women the right to vote, though they still may not drive. Attempting to explain the rationale behind the different situations is a problematic task. With different histories, political structures, and popular sentiments, one would expect that no two states would see the exact same changes. Yet it seems incredible that uprisings so inextricably linked could create such different outcomes. Even more incredibly, it appears that large scale uprisings (commonly attributed to stem from Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation) can create “gradual reform” through peaceful, popular protests and constitutional changes with minimal bloodshed. So, why the difference? How are some states with long-reigning monarchies able to begin reform without regime change while au-
Section Cover
This Moroccan referendum sign says “yes equals the wants of the king and the people.” This sign illustrates both the desire Moroccans have for reform and their love for their king. thoritarian “republics” only begin to see reform after the ousting of their long term leaders? At this point in time, the reforms in these states are being hailed internationally. However, many Moroccans, Jordanians, and Saudi Arabians claim that new reforms do not go far enough and these are merely small peace offerings which do not adequately address the demands of the people. The Hill spoke with Andrew Reynolds, associate professor of political science and chair of the curriculum of the Global Studies department at UNC Chapel Hill, on the matter. Professor Reynolds has served as a consultant on issues of electoral and constitutional design for Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia, and other nations during his career, and recently visited Egypt and Libya both to offer expertise during their periods of transition. Professor Reynolds was kind enough to speak with us on the subject of this alter-
nate route of reform in the Arab Spring, and outlined the two sides of the evaluation of this strategy of gradual reform. One response to the strategy of gradual reform states that yes, it is a successful strategy. The existing regime, Professor Reynolds explains, gives a little power, but is able to maintain power as well. As a result, the government is perceived to be more liberal, but they do not have to abdicate their positions. It is for this reason that many claim the reform is “limited,” as anything but the destruction of the incumbent regime is on the table. As for those who argue this strategy is not successful, there are two schools of thought. Some state that the reform is, as Professor Reynolds describes it, “not enough to assuage the angst” of the people. People will continue to demand reform as long as the post-reform regime resembles the former regime. Also arguing against the successfulness of the
it appears that the measures taken by the governments implementing gradual reform are not appeasing all citizens.
“slow reform” strategy, are those who claim that the reform will “open space for small competition,” and that it may be enough where power slips away from the existing leaders and leads to a fall of the regime, a theory Reynolds compares to the experience of South Africa in the 1980s. So far, it appears that the measures taken by the governments implementing gradual reform are not appeasing all citizens. In Morocco, protests continue weekly, just as they did prior to the constitutional referendum. Conditions are similar elsewhere, with unrest remaining in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as other Arab nations. The future of these states is far from certain, but it appears that the Arab Spring has not yet halted, despite the nearing anniversary of its conception. Protests continue, unrest remains, and gradual, limited reform may not be enough to appease citizens. Sarah Wentz is a senior majoring in political science and global studies. November 2011 13 13
Section Cover
To the Polls!
A
...But How?
lthough Saudi Arabia has a highly modernized economy and infrastructure, the country still lags behind in the area of women’s rights. That may change, however, due to protests against the country’s female driving ban. The fatwa or religious edict that bars women from driving has been in place for years, but after a young woman named Manal alSharif was arrested for publicly defying the ban, the movement to legalize driving for women has garnered widespread attention and support. In 2011, Manal al-Sharif, an internet security consultant, gathered a group of women and started a campaign entitled Women2Drive on Facebook. Women’s rights activist, writer, and journalist Wajeha al-Huwaider learned of the campaign and expressed her support for it, contributing to the movement’s prominence. However, the campaign drew global attention in late May, when al-Sharif posted on YouTube a video of her driving in the streets filmed by al-Huwaider. In the film, al-Sharif expounds on the reasons why women should be allowed to drive. Specifically, she speaks about the financial costs associated with paying a driver, the social disturbances women face by being dependent on someone else, and the inefficiency that arises due to this restriction. Soon after posting the video online, al-Sharif was arrested and detained for ten days. She was released at the end of May after agreeing to not drive again. However, the Women2Drive campaign still continued and encouraged women to start driving on their own beginning June 17. The 14 The Hill
By Avani Uppalapati
movement and its leaders are subject to much censure. People have criticized many of the leaders of the campaign for being divorced and Shiite – a significant issue in a conservative, Sunni majority country. Such attacks do not surprise UNC professor of Political Science Andrew Reynolds, who notes, “You can always disparage any group’s leaders. You’re not going to get conservative women leading this.” A counter-movement, entitled “My Guardian Knows What’s Best for Me,” exemplifies Saudi con-
servatism. Rawdah al-Yousif, the leader of the movement, argues that Islamic laws and Saudi customs require that women have a male guardian’s permission to perform what many consider to be basic activities, such traveling, studying, working, or visiting physicians. The organization is headed by two Saudi princesses who argue that leaving men with the responsibility for these tasks makes life simpler. Reynolds explains, “They are just parroting what the males say. I don’t think the movement would necessarily change a lot of minds. You’re always going to get proxy façade movements sponsored by the state – maybe they’re doing it themselves. You’re always going
to get women arguing against women’s rights.” But it is not just women who are in the fight. Some businessmen and economists argue that having chauffeurs drive women around is expensive and that the money spent goes to chauffeurs’ families in foreign countries, thereby not benefitting the Saudi economy. It remains clear that the ban on female drivers not only limits mobility but also affects the other rights of women, including those recently afforded. Although Saudi women recently received the right to vote, their inability to drive legally creates a logistical roadblock that prevents them from easily reaching the polls. Al-Huwaider agrees that the right to vote for women is a significant achievement but maintains that other barriers, such as the restriction to driving, must be removed to allow women to function independently and lead a life without male guardians. Without the male guardian’s permission, a woman may not be able to exercise her right to vote though the government allows it. This may lead one to question the government’s rationale for granting certain rights while restricting other seemingly basic ones to women. While this announcement is a new milestone for Saudi Arabia, one must wait to see whether it will cause a marked difference in furthering women’s rights and allowing women to lead independent lives in Saudi Arabia. Avani Uppalapati is a sophomore majoring in political science and public policy.
Afghanistan: Punk-Rock Style
O
Section Cover
By Chris Rodriguez
n Saturday, October 1st, 2011 the pounding of bass, the rhythm of percussion, and the smooth sound of electric guitars vibrated through the streets of Kabul unchecked. The exception was for two breaks in the music to allow local mosques to carry out the traditional calls to prayer undisturbed. As over 400 young Afghan men and women (and even some elders) watched, hopeful Afghan bands and others from around the region who had already enjoyed moderate success played to an enthusiastic crowd for the first time in 30 years, when the last modern music festival of this sort took place in the country.
A few years ago Travis Beard, an Australian photojournalist who moved to Kabul in 2006 and started his own Kabul-based group, thought that was quite long enough. Sound Central, the name of the punk rock music festival which was held in Kabul’s Babur Gardens Square, was first conceived by the Australian four years ago, and he has spent the last two years preparing for it. With violence at its worst in Afghanistan since the United States ousted the Taliban from power in 2001, security was a top concern, but the noise of rock music was a welcome change to the people of Kabul, who are used to the sounds of explosions and gunfire. For six straight hours, bands from around the region played. These included a number of recently formed Afghan groups such as White Page (of which Beard is a member), Kabul Dreams (who consider themselves to be the first true rock band in Afghanistan), and District Unknown. Other bands from outside Afghanistan, such as the Uzbek group Tears
The growth of modern music in Afghanistan is just one avenue through which the country’s youth will be able to express themselves, but it is a vital one. of the Sun also performed at the festival. As many of these groups haven’t written much original music, the set lists were filled with covers by Western bands such as Green Day, Linkin Park, and System of a Down. A landmark event in Afghanistan, the festival reflects a growing trend in the country today, specifically the increase in number and political importance of Afghan youth. Currently, 42 percent of the population is 14 years of age or less, and the median age in Afghanistan is 18. As Afghanistan continues its transition to democracy, it must account for not only the economic demands of its younger citizens, but also their need to find ways in which they can express themselves. As Beard puts it, youth in Afghanistan need an “outlet…or they will feel as if they are being shut out.” Modern music is one such medium of self-expression that could appeal to young Afghans. Music in Afghanistan has long been under the heavy restrictions of a largely conservative country and the presence of war. A decade of Taliban rule (during which the recording and performance of live music were banned) and another decade of conflict have prevented the growth of music and other cultural forms of youth expression in the country. Even today, long after the toppling of the Taliban, musicians are often harassed and music stores at-
tacked. Yet Beard’s music festival may mark a step toward cultural liberalization for young Afghans. It is worthwhile to note that many women attended the festival. Even at traditional cultural events, the presence of women has been a rare sight for some time in the religiously conservative country. Their attendance at a festival shaped by Western liberal influences is demonstrative of the rise of a more progressive culture in Afghanistan. The growth of modern music in Afghanistan is just one avenue through which the country’s youth will be able to express themselves, but it is a vital one. Although Sound Central was a unique event, its success indicates that future festivals may follow and that the growth of rock music in Afghanistan is a trend set to continue. Many attendees and performers expressed their wishes to return if a similar festival occurs and affirmed the belief that, in the words of Nikita Makapenko, guitarist of the band Tears of the Sun, “Rock music will change the world, and we hope it will change Afghanistan too.” Chris Rodriguez is a sophomore majoring in political science and global studies.
November 2011 15
Section Cover
The Palestinian Application for Statehood...
I
By Amanda Claire Grayson
n November 1974, Palestinian Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat stated quite prophetically to a summit conference of 18 prominent Arab leaders: “Palestine is the cement that holds the Arab world together, or it is the explosive that blows it apart.” Almost forty years later, Mahmoud Abbas, PLO chairman and President of the Palestinian Authority, made historic steps when he announced plans to call for UN recognition of a Palestinian state and full membership in the international body. Not unsurprisingly, both pro-Israel and proPalestine advocates including a number of presidents, diplomats, and even actors (okay, do rumors about George Clooney advising Obama to be more “pro-Palestine” really count?) have taken up arms to express support or derision for Palestine’s bid for statehood. The American position seems to have been expressed, as President Obama cut $80 million of funding for UNESCO on October 31 after the UN agency voted to recognize Palestinian statehood. This development may have solidified the international support for statehood, forcing the United States to consider using its veto in a future Security Council vote. Regardless of anyone’s personal opinions on Palestinian statehood, there undoubtedly are a number of important policy and procedural considerations going through Abbas’ and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s heads right now. Negotiating the UN Security Council—including the vehement-
ly pro-peace talks United States and a few sharply divided European Union countries—may be as difficult as walking on eggshells. Several options exist: First, the Palestinian leadership has presented the issue for vote before the UN Security Council and began a sweeping diplomatic campaign two years ago to shore up support among the 15 members. With support from eight of the nine needed members, Palestine must convince either Colombia (tied in a security relationship to Israel) or Bosnia (filled with Serbs still bitter about Kosovo’s successful application) to vote in its favor. Not likely. And even if Palestine gathered such votes, an almost guaranteed veto from the United States would derail the entire process. As for now, a standing Security Council committee will consider the Palestinian application until they reach unanimity, which could stall the application indefinitely. Next, Palestine could pursue the “Uniting for Peace” procedure designated under U.N. General Assembly Resolution 377, which allows the General Assembly to consider cases left unresolved due to lack of Security Council unanimity. The procedure would require a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly and carries a symbolic rather than legal weight. The Palestinian Authority has decided against this aggressive (and procedurally ineffective) option in favor of a simpler resolution. The third option, should the Se-
regardless of anyone’s personal opinions on Palestinian statehood, there undoubtedly are a number of important policy and procedural considerations 16 The Hill
curity Council approval inevitably fail, lies in a simple majority of the General Assembly, which would grant Palestine recognition as a “nonmember state,” along with Kosovo, the Vatican, and Taiwan. This procedure would grant Palestine observational privileges within the UN despite its nonmember status as well as entitle the Palestinian Authority to legal mechanisms through the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice associated with recognized statehood. A less aggressive fourth option, advocated by many worried about Palestine bringing Israel before the ICC, would be a General Assembly resolution acknowledging Palestine’s right to statehood but not its status as a nonmember state. What would be the benefits? Perhaps a moral victory, but little else. Many international law experts argue that Palestine already meets the four criteria for statehood—a permanent population, a specific territory (along the 1967 lines drawn), a government, and a capacity to enter into international relations. And then there’s the final option, where Palestinian leaders resign back to the West Bank and attempt to restart peace negotiations with Israel. If such inaction occurs, perhaps President Barack Obama’s warning that “efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure” will have indeed come true. With the current international opinion (as of publication date), Palestine will likely receive nonmember status via the General Assembly and nothing more. Amanda Claire Grayson is a junior majoring in political science and peace, war, & defense.
Section Cover
O
... And Reactions from Around the World By Richard Zheng
n September 23rd, the Palestinian National Authority threw down the gauntlet in a bold move to bid for official statehood from the United Nations. Tired of waiting on endless debates and unsuccessful negotiations with the Quartet on the Middle East, Palestine has decided to push for a more direct and, they hope, swift resolution of its claim for international recognition. Initially, the Quartet (made up of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and the United States) had set September 2011 as a deadline for a two-state negotiation with Israel. However, this deadline has come and gone, and with the dramatic improvements to its government and security infrastructure, Palestinian officials feel they are ready for self-government. The important question to ask, however, is how the rest of the world and the U.N. view this political power play. The United States and Israel, as expected, are staunch opponents of this move. Israel argues that this is a violation of the Oslo Peace Accords, signed in 1993, where both sides agreed to work out differences together. Attempting to apply for statehood with the U.N. is seen as breaking this deal, as Palestine looks to be appealing to a higher power. The United States agrees with Israel’s view. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “[The U.S.] believes strongly that the road to peace and two states living side by side does not go through New York, it goes through Jerusalem and Ramallah.” Both Israel and the U.S. contend that negotiations about borders and disagreements over Jerusalem should be resolved first before statehood is given to Palestine, while the Palestinian Authority evidently
analysts are divided as to whether or not recognition by the UN will even make a difference in peace talks believes these negotiations can wait until they’re granted official recognition. Support across other nations varied widely. According to a poll conducted by BBC and GlobeScan, the Muslim countries of Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia showed strong support for Palestinian statehood. Support was strongest in Egypt, where 90 percent of the population was in favor and only in 9 percent in opposition. China showed surprising support for Palestine as well, with 56 percent favoring statehood and 9 percent opposed. However, in the big three European states of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, polls showed about 50 percent of people in each of these states were in favor of Palestine and about 20-25 percent opposed. Surprisingly, Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was strongly opposed to Palestine’s bid for statehood. Not only does he believe that this application for statehood will fail, Khamenei vehemently opposes any two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Khamenei states, “Our claim is freedom of Palestine, not part of Palestine. Any plan that partitions Palestine is totally rejected. Palestine spans from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] sea, nothing less.” This unyielding declaration against negotiation with Israel stems from a refusal to recognize Jewish claim to any land in their current territory, which falls in line with Iran’s historical anti-
Israeli sentiment. In the U.N., Palestinians enjoy the support from many of the nations on both the Security Council and the General Assembly. However, although a majority of countries in the 15 member Security Council support Palestine’s bid, the United States has affirmed that it will veto the bid, which would deny the Palestinians full membership. Instead, the Palestinians can achieve partial membership, where they are not allowed to vote but can still participate in discussions. This seems to be a probable likelihood, as 120 out of the 193 General Assembly members support the statehood resolution. Ultimately, the repercussions of the decision to grant or deny Palestine statehood recognition with the U.N. will be felt for years to come. Analysts are divided as to whether or not recognition by the U.N. will even make a difference in peace talks. Without support from the United States and Israel, this will largely be a symbolic move without much real political effect, as Israel will still demand direct peace negotiations. However, recognition as a part of the U.N. could secure Palestine the international support and the aid it needs to stand toe to toe with the U.S. backed Israel. Regardless of the outcome, Palestine’s push for recognition as a state will likely effect Israel-Palestine negotiations. Richard Zheng is a first year majoring in business. November 2011 17
Section International
The War on Drugs: From Mexico to Puerto Rico
A
By Chris Smith
capulco, Mexico has long been a favorite vacation destination for Americans, with over 100,000 American youth descending on the beautiful resort town every year for Spring Break. Today, however, Acapulco is plagued by violence due to the ongoing Mexican drug war. In September, thousands of teachers went on strike to demand more security and an end to the violence. There have been widespread reports of kidnappings, car thefts, and extortion attempts made by drug gangs. Ciudad Juarez, just across the border from El Paso, Texas, is another city that has been ravaged by drug violence. Many estimates claim that as many as 200,000 people have fled the once bustling city of over a million. In an Associated Press article from December 29th, 2010, Will Weissert writes that over 6,000 businesses closed, and over 3,000 people were murdered last year in Ciudad Juarez, where massacres, beheadings, and tortures have become commonplace. According to the Mexican government, over 34,000 people were killed between December 2006, when the drug war began, and January 2011. The murder rate, while still lower than other Latin American countries such as Brazil, Colombia, and El Salvador, is definitely troubling given Mexico’s proximity to the United States. The Mexican government has put more troops on the ground but this has failed to create a drop in violence. The Mexican government has blamed the U.S. for not doing enough to stop the flow of American guns to the cartels. A re18 The Hill
cent scandal has emerged over an ATF sting called “Operation Fast and Furious” in which the federal government purposefully allowed 2,000 weapons to flow freely to the cartels. Congress is currently investigating and issued a subpoena to Attorney General Eric Holder on September 12th regarding this matter. The current U.S. policy toward the Mexican drug war involves providing training and high-tech equipment, including surveillance drones and Black Hawk helicopters, to Mexican troops. It is estimated that anywhere from $10 to $30 billion per year in revenue makes its way to the Mexican cartels from the U.S. through the sale of illegal drugs. In contrast, the U.S. spends only a fraction of that assisting the Mexican government. The rise in drug violence is by no means isolated to Mexico. One of America’s own territories, Puerto Rico, has seen a sharp increase in drug crimes. Murders are already up 16 percent from last year’s numbers. Approximately 1,000 National Guard troops were activated last year to patrol alongside police officers in an effort to curb the violence. The recent surge in drug violence across Latin America has renewed calls for an end to the war on drugs. The U.S. has been engaged in this fight since 1971 when President Richard Nixon
publicly declared a “war on drugs.” Others have called for expanding the war, including GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Perry, who has openly advocated sending American troops into Mexico to fight the cartels. Either way, every policy the U.S. has tried so far has failed. The cartels have inhibited business and education in Mexico affecting millions. In some cases they have even managed to wipe out entire police stations. The U.S. has been primarily focused on Islamic terrorism and this has meant that fighting narcoterrorism in Latin America has become secondary. Some have argued that Islamic terrorist groups are seeking to collaborate with the cartels and have pointed to the strong ties between Venezuela and Iran as evidence. Regardless, it is definitely not in the interests of the U.S. to have a failed state on its southern border, and it may be time for a change in policy. Chris Smith is a senior majoring in global studies and religious studies.
Targeting Citizens or Terrorists?
T
International Section
By Radhika Kshatriya
he death of Anwar Al-Awlaki has been seen as another victory for the executive branch’s fight against terrorism. His September 30th death was due to an unmanned drone strike, run by the CIA and executed by the U.S. military over Yemen. These drone strikes, which have seen an increase in the Obama administration, have wreaked havoc on some of Al Qaeda’s top operatives. Although traditionally drone strikes only occurred in Afghanistan and Pakistan, operations have broadened to include Yemen and Somalia, and have helped overthrow a dictator in Libya without the use of ground combat forces. Al-Awlaki, of Yemeni descent but born in New Mexico, possessed American citizenship, which puts his killing in a legal gray area. He inspired at least one attack on American soil and may have played an operational role in the Christmas 2009 “Underwear Bombing” and the October 2010 cargo bomber plot. Critics say that as a citizen, he was owed due process under his Fifth Amendment rights. A release by the National Counterterrorism Center has called Al-Awlaki the “chief of external operations” for Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). He was added to the CIA list of approved targets for this reason. The list is vetted by CIA lawyers and White House counsel. Because Al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen, his placement on the list was also reviewed by the National Security Council and the Attorney
General. Critics believe that CIA intelligence is far from 100 percent accurate. Some believe Al-Awlaki was simply a radical preacher, not a chief of operations. The executive branch is also being criticized on the grounds that there was no imminent crisis to be averted, the killing was not done in self-defense, and these drone strikes are giving too much power to the president. Those who believe that the drone strikes are unwarranted say that Al-Awlaki should have been apprehended and brought to trial. In an email to The Hill, the American Civil Liberties Union’s Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said “The government’s authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the president – any president – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.” Based on its belief, the ACLU is requesting all documents, opinions, and evidence on the justification of drone strikes in Yemen under the Freedom of Information Act. The government’s views on the legality of drone strikes are somewhat mixed. The U.S. State Department’s Legal Advisor, Harold Koh, believes that the United States may only carry out drone strikes if acting under clear selfdefense, targeting active threats where the host nation is “un-
according to policy, the strikes will only target external conflicts, not internal ones
willing or unable” to address the threat (i.e., there won’t be any Predators over Paris). Koh’s equivalent in the Pentagon, General Counsel Jeh Johnson, believes that the members of any Al Qaeda group are fair game, even if they don’t have any specific future plans to target American citizens. Although the administration agrees with Johnson in its view of possible targets, it is currently following the policy put forward by Koh and only targeting those who offer direct threats to the United States. That being said, the fact that Al-Awlaki was in Yemen, not Afghanistan, where the U.S. is engaged in “active” conflict, is irrelevant. As long as the U.S. senses hostilities to Americans, those hostilities can be a legal target. Also, according to policy, the strikes will only target external conflicts, not internal ones. Quite alarmingly, even AQAP has criticized the United States for its policy on drone strikes. In a release, they said that the U.S. government “did not prove the accusation against them [AlAwlaki and Khan] and did not present evidence against them in their [the United States’] unjust laws of their freedom.” Either way, it may be time to revisit the authorization of the use of military force on September 18, 2001 and create clearer legal guidelines to make all of us safer. More oversight of the executive branch in order to build domestic legitimacy and a formalization of the process of ordering drone strikes appears to be in order. Radhika Kshatriya is a junior majoring in philosophy. November 2011 19
Section International
The Modern War on Terror
O
By Sam Hobbs
ver the past year, there have been some dramatic developments in the War on Terror. Strikes from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or drones, have increased drastically. U.S. forces have killed multiple high-ranking leaders in Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden. Relations with Pakistan are increasingly tense. Meanwhile, the spread of revolutions across the Middle East has dominated the agenda and pushed terrorist issues almost into irrelevance in the eyes of most Muslims.
frustrated Al Qaeda and disrupted its organization. Al Qaeda certainly appears weaker than it has in years. At the start of the Obama administration, the U.S. identified 30 terrorist leaders as top priorities – the U.S. has since killed or apprehended over 20 of those targets. The elimination of Osama bin Laden and more recently Anwar al-Awlaki, the charismatic American-born cleric in charge of Al Qaeda’s propaganda, were serious blows to the organization.
“Al Qaeda’s messageIslamic fundamentalismsimply does not resonate with the larger Muslim population.”
How do we make sense of these developments, which, though significant, may or may not have an impact on the War on Terror? Taken together, it is safe to say that these events bode well for the United States, but whatever America’s progress, there is still a strong sense that the U.S. is waging another unwinnable war. Nevertheless, these changes represent a turning point in the War on Terror and warrant a review of our strategy. An important trend recently in the War on Terror is the escalating use of drone strikes. Already, the Obama administration has ordered four times as many drone strikes as the Bush administration. The strikes have also become more effective. According to a report in the August 2011 issue of Foreign Affairs, drones have killed over 700 militants in the past two years alone with less than 5 percent of total casualties from civilians. Although the strikes are controversial, they reportedly have insurgents and terrorists living in fear of meeting outside or in large groups. At the very least, Obama’s aggressive approach seems to have 20 The Hill
However, Al Qaeda’s structure is notoriously difficult to penetrate. It operates mostly out of independent cells with only loose connections to the central apparatus, mitigating the impact of high-profile assassinations. Recent gains in Afghanistan have also put pressure on Al Qaeda. As a result of the 30,000 troop surge in 2010, NATO forces have managed to halt and reverse the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan. Although this point is often forgotten or overlooked, the U.S. is at war with the Taliban because they provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda and refused to renounce their support for terrorists. Accordingly, as the Taliban’s situation has grown more precarious, they have had less and less to offer in support of Al Qaeda. In a pronounced development, Al Qaeda’s isolation extends to the rest of the Arab world as well. In the Arab Spring, the youthful
populations of the Middle East and North Africa have taken to the streets from Libya to Iran and all the countries in-between to demand more rights and greater representation. Conspicuously absent from the revolutions is the ideology of religious extremism associated with Al Qaeda. Michael Cox, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, explained his views on the Arab Spring in an interview with The Hill. “Islam has played a remarkably small role in the Middle East revolutions,” Cox argues. “Al Qaeda’s message - Islamic fundamentalism - simply does not resonate with the larger Muslim population.” Al Qaeda depends on their message to attract new recruits. Cox’s observation could suggest that terrorism has lost its appeal – a long-term triumph that could be the most promising development yet. However, Cox was quick to point out that terrorism and religious extremism were never widely embraced among Muslims, although the secular nature of the revolution (so far) is still cause for optimism. Our objective in the War on Terror, as articulated by President Obama, is to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” Al Qaeda. Any terrorist expert would observe that terrorism is not a recent phenomenon that can be eliminated, but a military tactic that has been used for centuries, but it is still true that Al Qaeda is under enormous pressure. With its leadership decimated and its message antiquated, this may well prove to be a turning point in the War on Terror. Sam Hobbs is a junior majoring in history.
Putin’s Presidency: Part II
W
International Section
By Krishna Kollu
hile Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet Union for almost thirty years and Leonid Brezhnev, for about eighteen, Vladimir Putin has his sights set on more. After already serving as President of the Russian Federation from 2000 to 2008, he plans on serving another 12 years for a total of 20 years at the helm of state.
to America? Political Science Professor Graeme Robertson of the University of North Carolina stated in an interview with The Hill that he doesn’t expect many things to change and predicted a “continuation of the same regime we’ve had for a long time, though maybe the tone will be slightly different.”
In September 2011, Vladimir Putin accepted the presidential nomination of the United Russia Party, the major political party in Russia, making it virtually certain that he will be the next president. The current president, Dmitry Medvedev, plans to trade places with Putin, who stayed in government as prime minister for the last four years when presidential term limits prevented him from running again in 2008.
“The US and Russia don’t share values and interests in the way the U.S. and the UK do.” Professor Robertson continued, “Russia will always prefer a multi-polar world in which the U.S. is not dominant, and the U.S. is always going to prefer a unipolar world where the U.S. is dominant.”
The turn of events at the nomination disappointed many who were hoping that Medvedev, who has a reputation as a techsavvy, technocratic modernizer, would run for a second term as president. After all, Medvedev presided over the “reset” between U.S. and Russia, following the low point between the two countries in August 2008 when Georgia and Russia fought in a war. The reset has been marked by Russian approval of tougher sanctions against Iran, increased dialogue between Russian and U.S. diplomats, a new nuclear arms control START treaty, and logistical cooperation with moving U.S. troops across Russian airspace to get to Afghanistan. What will happen to U.S.-Russia relations now that the more conservative, nationalistic Putin is to be president again? Especially when he attributes the adjectives “hooligan” and “parasite”
Nevertheless, the U.S. and Russia have too many shared interests in mind to not cooperate with each other. For instance, both countries do not want to see a nuclear Iran. Both countries face serious threats of terrorism, Russia much more so than
the US & Russia have too many shared interests in mind to not cooperate with each other
the United States as it struggles with terrorist activity in Chechnya and Dagestan, as well as attacks in Russian cities, such as the suicide bombing in Moscow in January 2011. Cooperation with the United States is clearly crucial to preventing the harm of innocent civilians. Although Russian leaders are content with the U.S. militarily and financially mired in Afghanistan, they would most certainly not want the U.S. to leave too soon and leave an unstable mess right in
Russia’s backyard. Similar interests alongside the U.S. also exist with North Korea. Moreover, Professor Robertson says that a lot of stumbling blocks that may have impeded U.S.Russia relations are non-issues. For instance, he says the Bush administration’s plan to have a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe is dead. As for the issue of Georgia joining NATO, he says that no NATO country is seriously considering Georgia joining the military alliance and nuclear umbrella after its invasion of South Ossetia. Moreover, in 2010, the new Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, successfully campaigned to end the NATO aspirations of his predecessor, pro-Western president Viktor Yushchenko. Since Ukraine is no longer interested in joining NATO, another potential source of disagreement is off the table. Encouraging is Putin’s frank admission that he and Medvedev planned this new campaign for president. This lends further evidence to the Wikileaks Cables that say Medvedev “plays Robin to Putin’s Batman,” calling Putin the “alpha dog.” If Putin has truly been in charge behind the scenes and has consequently given his approval for Medvedev’s major foreign policy “reset” decisions, then U.S.-Russian relations are not likely to worsen. Speculatively speaking, Putin’s reputation as a hardliner may mean that it will be politically easier for him to push for better relations with the United States. Krishna Kollu is a senior majoring in economics and computer science.
November 2011 21
Section International
Bolivia: On the Road to Progress?
T
By Brian Godfrey
he election of Evo Morales in 2005 marked the historic ascent of Bolivia’s first person of indigenous descent to the presidency. Morales, an Aymara Indian who presides over a leftist alliance of trade-unions and the indigenous Bolivian majority, promised radical change to end historical marginalization of Indians and to respect Pachamama, or “Mother Earth”. As the former leader of the powerful cocalero movement, a collection of coca grower unions, Morales is a staunch supporter of socialist policies—often criticizing U.S. interventionism in Bolivian and Latin American affairs. Having led protests that helped to oust two of his predecessors, the president now finds himself uniquely confronted with a new opposition against his own administration.
the road will bring about uncontrolled settlement, the spread of coca farms, and encroachment upon their land. Sections of the reserve have already been illegally occupied by settlers seeking to grow coca. The TIPNIS region, which doubles as a national park, is an ecologically diverse part of the Bolivian Amazonian lowlands, and opponents of the highway worry about the road’s environmental impact. While many Bolivians have suggested the road can be rerouted around the reserve, some have speculated that the territory could potentially hold extensive oil and gas reserves.
the opposition. Morales himself has denied responsibility for the police actions. In the wake of the conflict, tens of thousands of sympathetic Bolivians (many of whom comprise the same unionindigenous base that helped bring Morales to power) have begun to demonstrate in La Paz against the TIPNIS road. In addition, the administration’s defense and interior ministers resigned alongside several other senior officers.
Neighboring TIPNIS is the Chapare region, from which Mr. Morales originates. It is generally comprised of Aymara farmers that support the proposed road. When police met the TIPNIS marchers outside of the town of Yucumo, their intended purpose was to prevent clashes between the opposing factions. After a several day standoff, police unexpectedly attacked the marchers’ encampment using tear gas and batons. Televised images of police brutality prompted outrage across the country, causing Mr. Morales to order a temporary suspension of construction. Videos of Amerindians with bows and arrows being beaten by riot police and a woman being muzzled with duct tape and dragged have stirred unrest from both sides of the road debate. Though the administration has promised a regional referendum on the issue, the government originally tried to blame U.S. and rightist undermining as the source of
Perhaps Morales, a self-proclaimed and internationally touted proponent of indigenous rights and environmentalism, may have taken the wrong approach to his development scheme. The fallout from the TIPNIS road scandal is causing his base of support to splinter and his popularity to fall. The issue at hand is characterized by the same age-old theme of indigenous sovereignty versus progress for the country as a whole; environmentalism versus development. Despite being a nation rich in natural resources, Bolivia has historically been mired in widespread poverty. Morales oversaw the strongest economic growth in 30 years from 2006 to 2009, and his leftist policies have helped to close the country’s income-gap. Morales is undoubtedly motivated to use infrastructure improvement to develop Bolivia as a whole, though his road may be at the expense of natives’ sovereignty and the Amazon forest. As the protests continue and the TIPNIS Indians vow to march onward, Evo Morales will certainly keep in mind the fleeting exits of his two predecessors at the hands of Bolivia’s often powerful and defiant social protests.
the issue at hand is characterized by the same age-old theme of indigenous sovereignty versus progress for the country as a whole
Brian Godfrey is a sophomore majoring in political science and geography.
In September, police violently broke up a several week march by several hundred Amerindian protesters on their way to the capital, La Paz. Comprised of three Amazonian Indian tribes from TIPNIS (Isiboro Sécure National Park and Indigenous Territory), the protesters oppose the construction of a new highway through their reserve. The road is backed by the Morales administration as part of a plan to integrate rural regions and boost development in Bolivia. Its completion, partly financed by Brazil’s development bank, would better connect farmers and ranchers to the market, while improving Bolivian trade routes between the east and west of the continent. The marchers claim the road violates their constitutional right to be consulted about reserve development—and that
22 The Hill
Best of the Section Blog
Relax: Tunisian Election Results
W
hen the Islamist EnNahda (Arabic for “Renaissance”) party won the lion’s share of Tunisia’s parliamentary elections, criticisms were leveled from all sides. Women’s rights would be hampered, EnNahda would push for the enactment of Sharia law, space aliens would come down from the sky and our country would be doomed without Will Smith’s heroics, etc. Now, I’m not saying that none of those events could happen in the future (I must admit that whenever I look up at the night sky, I worry that aliens are sure to invade our resource-rich earth now that Will Smith is past his physical prime), but the furrowed brows and loud harrumphs of those who think they have a lock on the spirit of democracy were a little much, especially when considering EnNahda’s forceful and repeated statements committing themselves to a liberal society. And today we have word that the new Tunisian constitution (taking a cue from our own, I might add) will greatly diminish the role of religion:
Originally Posted Nov. 7th, 2011
leader Rachid Ghannouchi, 70, a lifelong Islamist activist jailed and exiled under previous regimes, told Reuters…
Nahda’s headquarters, a six-story building abuzz with the excitement of open politics after decades of dictatorship.
All parties agreed to keep the first article of the current constitution which says Tunisia’s language is Arabic and its religion is Islam. “This is just a description of reality,” Ghannouchi said. “It doesn’t have any legal implications.
“There shouldn’t be any law to try to make people more religious,” said Ghannouchi, whose party has pledged to continue to allow alcohol and Western dress here and pursue economic policies favouring tourism, foreign investment and employment.
“There will be no other references to religion in the constitution. We want to provide freedom for the whole country,” said the Islamist leader, who will not take any official role in the new government. The new constitution is due in about a year.
The Islamist leader said he interprets sharia, the ill-defined and often confusing complex of Islamic teachings and laws, as a set of moral values for individuals and societies rather than a strict code to be applied to a country’s legal system.
In five years, if EnNahda imposes an Islamist dictatorship that rivals Iran’s in its backwardness, I promise that I will fire up this soon-to-be defunct blog and write a post titled “College Writer is Dumb,” wedging within the text the most awkward photo of myself that can be found.
If they can’t win you over with words, surely a beer or two will do the trick.
”
The government, due to be announced next week, will not introduce sharia or other Islamic concepts to alter the secular nature of the constitution in force when Tunisia’s Arab Spring revolution ousted autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in January.
Until that doesn’t happen, rest easy, concern trolls. Any Middle Eastern democracy will look markedly different from our own. Deeply religious societies working within a majoritarian framework (popular democracy) will find ways to ingrain their collective faith into their laws and politics. (If you don’t like it, then democracy is not for you. You might want to start advocating for liberal, enlightened dictatorships.) We shouldn’t be criticizing a moderate Muslim party for their imagined transgressions, especially when their leader makes statements such as:
“We are against trying to impose a particular way of life,” Ennahda
“Law by itself doesn’t change reality,” Ghannouchi said at En-
“
(Reuters) – Tunisia’s Islamistled government will focus on democracy, human rights and a free-market economy in planned changes to the constitution, effectively leaving religion out of the text it will draw up, party leaders said.
”
(As pleased as we should be to see a renewed commitment to pluralism with regards to Tunisia’s evolving constitution, we also must be aware that these matters are judged on a case-bycase basis. Now is not the wrong time to lower expectations for Egypt’s future as a liberal, pluralistic society.) ERIC EIKENBERRY
“
November 2011 23
Interested in being part of The Hill? We’re always welcoming new staff, so contact us to find out more.
The Hill publishes online content weekly. So make sure to check out our blog at: http:// chapelhillpoliticalreview.wordpress.com