The Hill 6.2

The Hill

Chapel Hill Political Review Volume VI, Issue II

unc.edu/thehill

December 2006

U.S. population tops 300 million Democrats take over Congress

North Korea goes nuclear

The Hill

From the Editor To our readers: Thanks for taking an exam study break to catch up on politics with The Hill.

A new nuclear threat challenged international diplomacy, and a new Democratic majority regained control of Congress after a dozen-year hiatus.

With artist Lilly Lampe’s artistic rendering of Kim Jong-il’s quest for nuclear power, you might think we at Leah Szarek, The Hill take the Editor threat of nuclear holocaust lightly. But our in-depth cover section on the implications of the North Korean missile test takes a serious look at everything from the role of economic sanctions in halting nuclear proliferation to Japan’s nervous chatter about its own military buildup.

We turn from the Far East to the Middle East with an exploration of the misconceptions surrounding Afghanistan,

Send us your comments We’re proud to share our work with you, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or email—no more than 250 words, please.

Include your name, year and major.

the forgotten front in the War on Terror.

On the domestic front, we re-examine the midterm elections, evaluating the emergent Democratic leaders and forecasting a new body of legislative priorities. We also investigate the consequences of our recent population milestone and the quality of our international education.

CP Helms and Sam Perkins start a cafeteria food fight in the opinion section, debating the merits of regulating junk food in public schools. New columnist Pablo Friedmann predicts a bumpy road for students and their families if current economic policy doesn’t undergo substantial change.

As always, we welcome your feedback.

Send us a letter or e-mail. Better yet, apply to join the staff—we are always looking for new writers, artists and designers to fill our nonpartisan pages.

Enjoy!

Leah Szarek is a junior majoring in journalism and political science.

thehillpr@unc.edu 208 Frank Porter Graham Student Union UNC-CH Campus Box 5210 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210

www.unc.edu/thehill

The Hill Chapel Hill Political Review

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 the university community with a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events and trends. This means that, on 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

The Hill Staff EDITOR Leah Szarek WRITERS Melissa Brzycki André Durham Hunter Gray Ellis Elizabeth Held Lilly Lampe Juliann Neher Will Schultz Alex Smith COLUMNISTS Pablo Friedmann CP Helms Sam Perkins SECTION EDITORS Melissa Brzycki André Durham Lilly Lampe COPY EDITORS Melissa Brzycki Juliann Neher Sam Perkins André Durham HEAD OF DESIGN Allison Evans ART & DESIGN Lilly Lampe Taryn Mahoney Ashley Zammitt PR & MARKETING Rebecca Calderara Hunter Gray Ellis TREASURER Hunter Gray Ellis FACULTY ADVISER Ferrel Guillory

Want to join the staff?

E-mail Leah Szarek at thehillpr@unc.edu.

This publication was paid for, at least in part, by Student Activities Fees at a cost of approximately $0.50 per copy.

The Hill

Contents December 2006

Volume 6, Issue 2

Domestic Coverage 4 Democrats take Congress

After a dozen years in the background, new leaders emerge

6 The state of international education

North Carolina leads states in revamping curriculum

8 U.S. population clock hits 300 million

A host of environmental and immigration concerns dampen festivities

International Coverage 10 Operation Afghanistan

Americans view the effort a success, but many challenges remain

FROM THE COVER 12 North Korea goes nuclear

Fallout from missile test challenges international diplomacy

14 Japan’s military buildup

Peaceful nation confronts new threat with tough talk

16 Members only

Many countries are ready to join the nuclear club

18 Pocketbook politics

Can sanctions effectively halt nuclear proliferation?

Opinion 20 Left/ Right

Should government regulate the sale of junk food in schools?

22 Econ 101

The policy mistakes of today’s leaders will hurt our generation

The Hill 3

DOMESTIC

New kids on the Hill

Democrats take control of Congress after intense campaign

By Will Schultz Staff Writer

W

ith control of both houses of Congress up for grabs, Republicans and Democrats campaigned hard into the final stretch of Election 2006. Nov. 7 brought high numbers of voters to the polls and a new Democratic majority to Washington.

Perhaps the only expected event of the night was the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, something predicted by all but the most optimistic Republican supporters. Democrats needed to gain fifteen seats to take control; by midnight they had left that number far behind as Republican seats across the nation turned blue. As of Nov. 13, the Democrats officially picked up 28 formerly Republican seats, and that of the lone Independent in the House. There were still 10 seats left to be decided due to narrow vote totals, but of these, seven were Republican-held seats positioned to fall to the challenging Democrat. The Democratic victory essentially guaranteed that Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, currently the House minority leader, would be wielding the speaker’s gavel come 2007.

RIGHT-WING WOES Trouble signs for GOP incumbents emerged early in the night as the results began to trickle in. Rep. Johnny Hostettler of Indiana, one of the more intractable members of the Republican majority, was easily toppled by challenger Brad Ellsworth, becoming the first casualty. Soon joining him were fellow Hoosiers Chris Chocola and Mike Sodrel, as well as Kentucky Congresswoman Anne Northup. As polls began to close in other races on the East Coast, the Republican hemorrhage of seats continued to accelerate.

Republicans outperformed expectations in the state of Ohio by retaining nine of their 13 contested seats, with two yet 4 The Hill

to be determined. Unfortunately for the GOP, this was one of the only bright spots east of the Mississippi. Democrats picked up four seats in Pennsylvania, three in New York and two each in Connecticut and Florida. Although the tide of blue was somewhat stemmed in the heartland, it was far from stopped. Democratic candidates captured seats in Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Texas and Arizona. The night was capped for the GOP by the loss of Rep. Richard Pombo of California, considered safe until the past month.

Pombo was not the only incumbent considered safe to be upset. Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania, touted as a future Republican Party star, was ousted by political newcomer Jason Altmire. In Iowa, 15-term incumbent Jim Leach suffered the same fate, as did former track star Jim Ryun in Kansas. Ironically for Republicans, the voters were not so unkind to some of the incumbents considered sure losers: Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania and Jean Schmidt of Ohio fell into this category. Many of the losses came from incumbents who underestimated Democratic strength and grew complacent.

EMERGING LEADERS The new House will see more changes than just a switch in party control. The large class of Democratic freshmen lean more toward the middle than the current crop of representatives. The media has focused much attention on conservative Democrats like North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, the former Redskins quarterback who campaigned as a foe of abortion and gun control. Assuming he performs better in Congress than he did on the gridiron, Shuler may be one of the most high profile freshmen. Other first-termers who ran as moderates include Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and Tim Mahoney of Florida.

The Democratic takeover has sparked a spirited leadership battle on both sides of the aisle. Although Nancy Pelosi was a shoo-in for the position of speaker, the race for majority leader was heated. Pelosi supported her friend John Murtha of Pennsylvania for the post. Murtha is known for his staunch stance against the Iraqi War. However, the post went to current Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, a moderate Democrat.

On the right, former Speaker Dennis Hastert announced his intentions to quietly retire from the spotlight. Former Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio faced a stiff challenge for minority leader from Idaho’s Mike Pence, a “dyed-in-thewool” conservative. Pence has been a vocal critic of current Republican policies, assailing the “runaway federal spending” in Washington. Further down the ballot, Roy Blunt of Missouri earned the minority whip spot over Arizona’s John Shadegg, an ideological ally of Pence and a former candidate for majority leader.

SURPRISE SENATE The shake-up in the Senate was even more dramatic than that in the House.

Many pundits predicted a split Congress: a Democratic House and a narrowly Republican Senate. Voters instead opted for a completely Democratic Congress, as Senate Republicans lost six seats and control of the chamber. Among the defeated Senators were Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the number three Republican in the Senate, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a first-termer and the Senate’s most liberal Republican.

As in the House, many Democratic victories were propelled by decidedly nontraditional candidates. James Webb, the newly elected Senator from Virginia, served as Secretary of Navy during the

DOMESTIC a bloc of moderate Democrats that currently includes Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tom Carper of Delaware. The ranks of these centrist Senators have been swelled by the results of Nov. 7. Although it will certainly be easier for Reid to work in the majority than in the minority, he will probably have to face opposition from within his own party.

Taryn Mahoney Reagan administration and is an ardent admirer of the 40th president. Webb also holds some socially conservative views, as do Senators-elect Jon Tester of Montana and Bob Casey, Jr., of Pennsylvania, both of whom have come out as critics of gun control, among other issues.

Among the Democrats re-elected was Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, a strong proponent of the Iraq War, was ousted by political novice Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary; however, Lieberman chose to run as an Independent candidate and decisively defeated Lamont in the general election. Although almost certain to caucus with Democrats, he may prove one of the new majority’s more recalcitrant members.

The Democrats’ pickups will have drastic effects on the leadership of the Senate. The retirement of Bill Frist leaves a vacancy in the position of Republican leader, a gap likely to be filled by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Most likely to replace McConnell as minority whip is Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, although former Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has publicly considered running for the post.

On the Democratic side, Nevada’s Harry Reid, who is the minority leader,

has become the first Democratic Senate majority leader since 1994. Dick Durbin of Illinois was unchallenged in his campaign for majority whip. The Democratic takeover also means a change in the president pro tempore, who is usually the most senior member of the majority and fourth in line for the presidency. One titan of the

NEXT TWO YEARS How will President Bush interact with this new Democratic majority? His administration has already shown conciliatory signs, most notably the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A Democratic Congress will also allow Bush to pursue one of his long-term goals, comprehensive immigration reform. It should be noted, however, that Bush and the Democrats in Congress are far more likely to be in argument than in agreement.

The Democratic Senate of 2001-2003 frustrated Bush by blocking several of his high-profile judicial nominees; they will likely do the same for the next Congressional term. A key test will be the renomination of U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

While the minority, Senate Democrats filibustered his nomination. It remains to be seen how they will act now that they are the majority.

Many of the losses came from incumbents who underestimated Democratic strength.

Senate will be replaced by another as Ted A Democratic majority is hardly an Stevens of Alaska is shifted out in favor aberration. The party controlled the House of West Virginia’s Robert Byrd. of Representatives for an unbroken period between 1954 and 1994. During the same OPPOSITION FROM WITHIN 40-year span they held the Senate for 34.

It remains to be seen how much Yet the new Democratic leaders were control Reid will have over this new, backbenchers during this time, their leadmore moderate Democratic caucus. His ership skills untested. Only time will tell relations with Joe Lieberman have been if they can carry out the promises made frosty; Reid endorsed Lamont, Lieber- during Election 2006. No matter what, it man’s Democratic opponent, and Lieber- is likely to be an interesting two years. man declined to accept a congratulatory Will Schultz is a freshman phone call from Reid on the night of the majoring in political science. election. Reid may also have to deal with The Hill 5

DOMESTIC Lilly Lampe

Local schools start thinking global

North Carolina works to improve international education

By Melissa Brzycki Section Editor

A

n American education may not be as competitive today as in the past. According to a 2003 report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, the United States is not educating its young people as well as it used to, leaving a higher concentration of the collegeeducated population in the older demographics. While this is not terribly threatening news, it does mean the U.S. is beginning to lag behind other developed countries. Canada ranked number one, ahead of the U.S., ranked second, in terms of adults ages 35 to 64 who have completed at least an associate degree. In the 25 to 34 age demographic, the U.S. ranked even lower - seventh. In fact, compared with other countries surveyed for the report, the U.S. is below average in terms of percentage of students completing college, with only 17 percent of students who enroll in higher education actually earning a degree or certificate. Japan has the highest rate at 26 percent.

INSUFFICIENT CURRICULUM Many worry that Americans are also not receiving an education that will prepare them for life in a global era.

According to the National Commission 6 The Hill

on Asia in Schools, American students are not as aware of global issues as they should be, especially in regard to Asia.

The NCAS reports that as of four years ago, “25 percent of college-bound high school students did not know the name of the ocean that separates the United States from Asia. Eighty percent did not know that India is the world’s largest democracy.” American students trail behind in both world geography and current affairs. The educational system in many places has failed to adapt to the modern era of an increasingly interconnected and global community. The international education in most U.S. schools consists of nothing more than so-called “fluff” - “fun, food and festivals.”

NEW MEASURES Luckily, many states are beginning to realize the importance of international awareness. For example, Connecticut is establishing “sister schools” in the Shandong Province of China. Wisconsin created curriculum-planning guides for schools in order to incorporate international content into other subjects, such as the social sciences, at every grade level. North Carolina in particular has been trying to broaden the scope of its education program. According to

the 2005 report, “States Prepare for the Global Age,” North Carolina has been taking critical steps toward improving its international education, including conducting a statewide survey of international education and holding a statewide conference on the issue. In 2003 North Carolina received the Goldman Sachs Prize for International Education, in recognition for its work in tackling “educational isolationism.”

According to the BBC, Latinos surpassed African-Americans as the largest minority in the U.S. in 2003. North Carolina has seen its Latino population swell by 400 percent in the last 10 years. There is no denying that there are international connections even at the state level. UNC’s own Center for International Understanding, a statewide organization for enhancing North Carolina’s international education, leads the Latino Initiative to help both schools and communities adjust to the influx of immigrants. Currently 16 of the 20 districts with the fastest expanding Latino populations are participating. The Initiative coordinates such programs as workshops for community leaders and resources for teachers.

North Carolina has also answered the call for international awareness in

DOMESTIC its educational process with the North Carolina in the World Initiative. The initiative’s goal is to “strengthen kindergarten through twelfth-grade international education.” Gov. Mike Easley asked the Center for International Understanding to help with the enterprise.

The plan has five main points: improving teachers’ global knowledge, connecting North Carolina students with international students through sisterschools and study abroad programs, connecting North Carolina schools to institutions of higher education, incorporating international learning into the standard subjects and “expanding world language skills.” It outlines a multitude of specific objectives for each of these goals, such as having at least 10 percent of current teachers attend a study abroad program by 2010. Another goal aims for every school district to have at least one school with an international partner school by 2015. There is also a drive to build up the relationship between North Carolina schools and universities. By connecting the two phases of education, students in kindergarten through twelfth-grade have access to a wide range of resources.

MUTUAL BENEFITS According to Marty Babcock, the Director of Programs for the Center, the relationship between kindergarten through twelfth-grade education and in-

One of the objectives of North Carolina in the World is to connect college students studying abroad to public school pupils. This program is only in its second year but has already matched five North Carolina State stu-

North Carolina has been taking critical steps toward improving its international education. dents studying abroad in three different countries with four classrooms in Guilford County. Babcock also noted that UNC founded two programs to promote international education: a K-12 outreach program to bring resources to the classrooms and two annual seminars for teachers.

North Carolina in the World has three objectives for university-school relations. The first is for all school teachers to “participate in university-sponsored international programs” by 2012.

These include classes and workshops at any North Carolina university, whether public or private. The second objective is a joint effort between Duke University and UNC. The two universities are

American students trail behind in both world geography and current affairs. stitutions of higher learning is mutually beneficial. Schools benefit from the vast resources of the higher education system while helping universities accomplish their missions. Indeed, the UNC’s mission statement includes “[extending] knowledge-based services and other resources of the University to the citizens of North Carolina.”

also be extremely beneficial. The last objective is the program created last year with the ambition of uniting university students who are studying overseas with kindergarten through twelfthgrade classrooms. Students who are

working together to create a pilot program this year to help high school students obtain internships. These internships are in both the international and domestic spheres, as the over-arching goal of this program is to make North Carolina students more competitive in the global economy. The program recognizes that domestic internships can

studying abroad can share their firsthand experience and knowledge with school children.

LOCAL EFFORTS Here in Chapel Hill, Glenwood Elementary School has a Chinese-English immersion program that has become very popular. According to a recent article in the International Herald Tribune, the program is designed for children whose first language is either Chinese or English, as both languages are used to teach lessons. Of the school’s 460 students, 116 participate in the program, which is so popular that there is a waiting list. Interest in Chinese is very strong, not only here in Chapel Hill, but nationwide. The biggest obstacle to expanding Chinese education is not lack of parent or student support, but simply obtaining enough qualified teachers.

Just this summer, the North Carolina State Board of Education approved a new priority for the public school system: every graduating public school student should be globally competitive for work and higher education. Babcock believes that this will be a tremendous impetus for driving international awareness in North Carolina’s schools. North Carolina has the fortune to be a forward-looking state that is determined not to let its students fall behind.

Melissa Brzycki is a sophomore majoring in political science.

The Hill 7

DOMESTIC

The big 3-0-0

Environmental and immigration concerns accompany population milestone

By André Durham Section Editor

O

n the morning of Oct. 17, 2006 there were no celebrations, no banners, no historic speeches.

The 300 millionth American was received without pomp or circumstance, just a mere acknowledgement from the federal government as the population counter ticked over the monumental number. The reason for this may be the fact that the United States’ population is rising at a rate that outpaces any other developed country. Or that no one truly knows whether this newest member of our country was a newborn taking his first breath of life or an immigrant illegally crossing the border. Such a high (and ever rising) population has many implications for everything from housing to energy. The growing number of Americans prompts some serious consideration of current environmental and immigration policy.

1971. The U.K.’s fertility rate is 1.7, Canada’s is 1.4 and Germany’s is 1.3.

Not only does the U.S. have a relatively high birth rate, but immigration delivers over one million people to the U.S. annually. All things considered, according to the Economist, the U.S. will reach 400 million people within the next 40 years while the European Union and Japan will lose a combined 15 million people over the same period.

The Economist reports that demographers traditionally observe decreasing birth rates in advanced nations. Women in these countries tend to be more educated and accustomed to a dual-income lifestyle that can be threatened by maternity leave and additional children to support. However, the Economist believes that the religious beliefs of Americans counteract this. The Lakewood Church, the church of famous pastor Joel Osteen, says that the faith UNUSUALLY HIGH GROWTH and hope emphasized by religion gives The U.S. Census Bureau estimates people confidence in the future, which that a new baby is born every eight seconds, one person dies every 12 seconds and an immigrant enters every 30 seconds. These figures helped determine the arrival of the 300 millionth American. The bureau sets the U.S. growth rate at one person every 13 seconds, roughly one percent of the population per year. This is faster than any other industrialized nation. According to Negative Population Growth (NPG), an organization that highlights the det- in turn promotes bigger families. Polls rimental effects of overpopulation, the support this theory. Americans tend to U.S. average fertility rate is currently be more optimistic than those in other 2.1 births per woman, its highest since countries.

Socialists at UNC and Duke believe that societal structure plays a bigger part in the equation. “Birth rates are lower in more patriarchal rich countries, such as Japan and Italy, than in places where the sexes are more equal, such as America and Scandinavia,” according to The Economist. “Perhaps the knowledge that Dad will help with the housework makes women more willing to have children.”

Also, as babies are born and families are formed, space becomes limited.

There seems to be a correlation between density and birth rate. The U.S. is unique in that there is still an abundance of land despite its large population.

But not every new American is a newborn. MSNBC says that about 40 percent of the population growth in the U.S. is due to immigration.

LESS ENTHUSIASTIC WELCOME In 1967, 52 years after the population hit 100 million in 1915, Life

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that a new baby is born every eight seconds.

8 The Hill

magazine profiled the 200 millionth American, Robert Ken Woo, Jr. of Atlanta, and President Lyndon B. Johnson participated in a celebration of

DOMESTIC

Lilly Lampe the milestone. The unidentified 300 millionth American did not get such a welcome. This person’s arrival was hailed with environmental concerns.

The BBC notes that while cities have become slightly less crowded, their suburbs seem to be ever growing. The BBC also says that population density is highest along coastal counties and cities, referring to Edgar Springs, Missouri, as the center of the U.S. “population bagel.” MSNBC confirms this, saying that about half of the population lives along either of the oceans, the Gulf of Mexico or one of the Great Lakes. MSNBC notes the concerns that this high density creates. Despite what one might guess, those in the suburbs have a higher individual impact on the environment than city-dwellers. In these areas, cars are necessary modes of transportation, creating more air pollution than the public transit systems found in cities. Also, homes are growing in size, which means that they require much more energy. And as the BBC stated, the suburbs remain a popular destination for families to live.

MSNBC calls this love of the suburbs and all that comes with it (strip malls, large homes, large yards) an addiction to sprawl. It is this addiction that has many demographers and environmentalists worried about what the 300 millionth American represents.

In Maine, Arcadia National Park has become the fifth most polluted national park. In Vermont, many forests, especially in the northern part of the state, are feeling the effects of increased air pollution. Even scarier than the impending effects of pollution are the impending shortages of resources. As the population continues to boom, people are slowly moving to the South and the West. The Boston Globe reports that Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and

per, “A population of at least 300 million by 2000 will, I now believe, threaten the very quality of life of individual Americans.” Many environmentalists believe we are indeed headed down the path of poverty in this country as consumption levels continue to rise.

CURBING THE GROWTH NPG argues that the U.S. should enact new policies to restrict population growth. However, the catch is that to

Many environmentalists believe we are indeed headed down the path of poverty.

Utah, the four fastest growing states in the nation, have all experienced water shortages and predicts that this problem will spread to other regions.

A pervasive worry among environmentalists is that the U.S. will not be able to continue to consume resources at its current rate.

When America hit the 200 millionperson benchmark, Glenn Seaborg, a former chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, warned the New WILL THE RESOURCES LAST? York Times that America needed to Environmentally, the increasing change its gluttonous ways to avoid population is straining already stressed deficiencies in water and energy and an areas, according to the Boston Globe. increase in poverty. He told the newspa-

accomplish this, lawmakers must confront both fertility and mass immigration. The first of which could require legislation limiting family size, and the second would have profound effects on how the U.S. is perceived on the international level. Both options would lead to significant opposition with resounding cultural implications. U.S. lawmakers will need to develop less extreme policies to curtail boundless expansion without entering the homes of citizens or sealing the borders.

André Durham is a sophomore majoring in psychology.

The Hill 9

INTERNATIONAL

Afghanistan: The forgotten front As the Taliban regains strength, the operation in Afghanistan soldiers on

Taryn Mahoney

By Elizabeth Held Staff Writer

S

everal thousand U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, hunting the Taliban insurgents who have forcefully reemerged since 2003. In the midst of the reconstruction, aid workers are being kidnapped and killed, and civilians, as well as soldiers, continue to become casualties of suicide, roadside and cluster bombs. Yet, during the past few years, the focus of the American public has gradually shifted away from Afghanistan. In an Oct. 20 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 51 percent of respondents called the war in Afghanistan successful, indicating that a majority of Americans fail to understand the long road that still remains to success.

Likewise, the government’s focus has shifted. James Dobbins, President George W. Bush’s former special envoy to Afghanistan, said that Afghanistan is “the least resourced American nation-building effort in our history,” receiving far less funds for reconstruction than almost all other recent efforts such as the former Yugoslavia, Haiti or East Timor. Over the last year, the U.S. cut aid to Afghanistan by 30 percent, according to the New York Times.

TRANSITION TO NATO Control of the country began to be handed over to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in August of 2003, and in July of this year, a NATO-led force, mostly comprised of troops from Great Britain, Canada, Turkey and the Netherlands, took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a U.S.-led antiterror coalition. While the U.S. continues 10 The Hill

to lead the search for Taliban and al-Qaeda members as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, NATO recently approved an expansion from 10,000 troops to 30,000 troops in eastern Afghanistan, placing NATO in command of the entire country.

The reconstruction and strengthening of Afghanistan will take substantial foreign aid—BBC reports that donors have committed $10 billion and still the Afghan government is asking for more—and the extended commitment of the international community, especially the U.S. Yet as Afghans watch the actions of “the Americans,” skepticism grows. They wonder, as the world wonders, about the seriousness of the American and NATO commitments to stay in Afghanistan.

TALIBAN, PAST AND PRESENT The Taliban, an organized group of Islamic extremists, first emerged as a movement in the autumn of 1994 amidst a war-torn Afghanistan, promising to restore peace and security to the country.

By 1998, they had set up an authoritarian administration that controlled almost 90 percent of Afghanistan and tolerated no opposition to their policies. The Taliban openly hosted Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda movement within the country, repeatedly refusing demands by the U.S. and the U.N. to expel him and his terrorist operatives after the Sept. 11 attacks.

This refusal led to the regime’s 2001 overthrow in Kabul by NATO and U.S. forces. But that was only the beginning of Afghanistan’s struggle.

In the past few years the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies have reasserted their presence. Bin Laden still evades capture, and Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah claims to have 12,000 men and control of 20 districts in the southern provinces of Kandahar, Helmand, Zabul, and Uruzgan—the former Taliban heartland—according to the BBC. NATO forces deployed 6,000 troops into southern Afghanistan this past summer to help the Afghan government extend its authority beyond the capital and aid the Afghan Army in bombarding Taliban fighters. As the NATO troops increased from 4,000 to 10,000, so did the roadside bombs and suicide attacks. Nearly 400 Afghans were killed, according to the New York Times. The southern part of Afghanistan and the eastern provinces bordering Pakistan, where the Taliban is strongest and its members most numerous, have become increasingly more volatile as insurgents unleash violent attacks on troops in the area.

Aleem Siddique, a spokesman for the U.N. office in Kabul, declared that a third of the country is now unsafe for U.N. operations, compared to only a quarter last year.

ADJUSTING TACTICS The situation is unsettling. Five years after U.S. forces toppled the Taliban government, drove most of al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and oversaw the legitimate election of the president and parliament; the country is facing a resurgent Taliban movement that is now threatening to over-

INTERNATIONAL whelm it. President Bush’s confident assessment of the current state of affairs in Afghanistan made during a joint White House press conference in late September alluded to success in future military efforts, but also to past military and reconstruction failures. “In recent months, the Taliban and other extremists have tried to regain control, mostly in the south of Afghanistan,” he said. “We’ve adjusted tactics and we’re on the offense to meet the threat and to defeat the threat.’’

U.S. officials say the American effort in Afghanistan has been and continues to be a success, contending that the current violence is the result of the recent move by NATO troops and an increasingly strong Afghan central government to extend their authority into remote areas that Taliban fighters and drug traffickers have used as havens. Recent battles against Taliban fighters, though victories, highlight the original failure of the U.S. to deploy coalition forces to southern Afghanistan in sufficient numbers. Apart from a U.S. base for 3,000 troops in Kandahar and two fire bases, for four years there was virtually no military presence in three of the four southern provinces. In addition, the BBC reported that major cities and highways in the south were left unsecured. During this early post-Taliban period, there was also a failure to create a professional Afghan police force. Tens of thousands of officers outside Kabul received no systematic training until 2004 when the U.S. opened seven regional training centers. The Taliban took advantage of the lack of security during the interim and slowly began to rebuild its forces.

BOOMING DRUG TRADE U.N. development agencies and Western and Afghan aid organizations could not provide sufficient aid and reconstruction in the South due to the lack of security, leading to lasting economic problems. According to a June 2 BBC article, 70 percent of the Afghan population depends on agriculture, and without the rebuilding of the vital agricultural sector there was a massive return to poppy production by destitute farmers in the area. Poppy production quickly spread to the rest of the country.

Last month, the U.N. announced a record

6,100 metric ton crop, 50 percent higher than the 2005 yield. Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world’s opium poppies.

Southern Afghanistan needs to develop an entire alternative economy (a multi-billion dollar endeavor) to replace the drug economy, but drug smugglers offer much greater incentives to farmers than aid agencies. Opium traffickers provide improved varieties of poppy seeds, fertilizer, improved methods of cultivation, banking and loan facilities and organized large scale employment during the poppy harvest. The drug trade has fueled massive corruption among government officials, undermined the authority of the government and funded the Taliban. Furthermore, drug money has allowed the Taliban to acquire new weapons, provide salaries to fighters and offer larger sums to suicide bombers. The drug trade is crippling the country and undercutting reconstruction, yet the problem has not been seriously addressed.

INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT In a recent visit to the U.S., President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan blamed each other for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Both men, although outwardly “cracking down” on terrorist forces, have fostered them in many ways. Pakistani officials turn a blind eye to Taliban-linked activity in their territory because they see it as a useful tool to counter the growing influence of Pakistan’s greatest rival, India, in Afghanistan. The Taliban has been able to set up a major logistics hub and training camps, raise funds, recruit fighters and create alliances with other Afghan and Central Asian rebel groups. For the past five years President Hamid Karzai has tolerated warlords as governors, police chiefs and administrators in the South. These warlord-governors have been forced to resign by NATO, but the corruption of the Afghan government is a continual problem.

an estimated three million children now attend some form of learning. Although girls comprise less than half of the school population, that figure represents a huge increase even compared to the years before the Taliban banned them from schools.

Medical aid and other forms of foreign relief are reaching desperate Afghans. The New York Times reported that an estimated 4.7 million refugees have returned from neighboring Iran and Pakistan, bringing a broader and more open perspective of the world, as well as love for technology and education. Women have been voted into government positions through democratic elections. According to an aid worker living in Afghanistan, the quality of life for the average Afghan has improved significantly in the last four years that she has been in the country. There is some basis for the American perception of success in Afghanistan.

However, over three million Afghan refugees still remain in Pakistan and Iran and cannot return because they have no house or land to go to. The educational and medical system faces a shortage of teachers, doctors and supplies. According to the BBC, Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, a devastating consequence of decades of unrest as well as the current turmoil. This is the long road that must be traveled to lasting victory.

FUTURE U.S. ROLE American history is intertwined with that of Afghanistan—today more than ever. Sadly, most Americans do not know the history of either and are consequently unaware of the U.S.’s present and future role in Afghanistan. Many argue that missteps by the U.S. and its allies squandered an early opportunity to bring order to Afghanistan, but the U.S. has not completely lost its opportunity to help stabilize the country. The return of terrorist groups to Afghanistan cautions the U.S. against forgetting Afghanistan in pursuit of terrorists in other countries. The U.S.’s commitment to the costly and difficult War on Terror must continue to be a commitment to reMIXED REPORT CARD building the countries and people that terSince the fall of the Taliban in 2001, ror has devastated.

Afghanistan has seen a massive increase in school enrolment. The BBC reports that Elizabeth Held is a freshman.

The Hill 11

COVER

N U C LE A R North Korea’s bombshell The rogue nation’s nuclear test impacts international diplomacy

By Lilly Lampe, Staff Writer

T

he tremors on Oct. 9, 2006 may not live up to the “shot heard around the world,” but a rumbling uneasiness has been felt ever since. Nuclear testing in the far north of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea registered a magnitude 4.2 on the Richter scale. Though that only measures as a light earthquake, the social effects of these detonations threaten to reverberate on much higher levels.

Lilly Lampe

12 The Hill

POOR HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD There is global trepidation surrounding North Korea, one of the few countries still under communist rule. Its people are governed by a rigid state-controlled system that has been in effect since World War II. The totalitarian reigns of Kim Il-sung and his son and successor Kim Jong-il have created a country dependent on these powerful personalities.

Amnesty International has accused North Korea of having one of the worst human rights records of any nation. The U.S. Committee of Foreign Rights in Korea cites the existence of detention camps with an estimated 200,000 inmates that have reported torture, starvation, rape, murder and forced labor. In these camps, the annual mortality rate approaches 25 percent. It is estimated that up to two million people have died in North Korea since the mid-1990s because of food shortages caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement. Given these statistics, it’s no wonder the idea of North Korea usurping a larger share of global power is unsettling to the rest of the world.

COVER

INSIDE THIS SECTION

FA LL O U T BREAKING THE RULES In 2002, North Korea revealed to the United States that it had a secret and active nuclear weapons program, despite the 1994 Agreed Framework. The terms of this deal included an agreement by North Korea not to seek or develop nuclear weapons. When James Kelly, then-assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs, confronted North Korean official Kang Suk Ju about this, Kang replied, “Your president called us a member of the axis of evil… Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula…

Of course we have a nuclear program.”

A year after this confrontation, former President Jimmy Carter voiced his concern about another Korean war. In a 2003 editorial for USA Today, Carter made an appeal for increased diplomacy in talks between the U.S. and North Korea. “North Korea is an isolated country, poverty stricken, paranoid, apparently self-sacrificial and amazingly persistent in international confrontations, as is now being demonstrated,” he said. “North Korea feels increasingly threatened by being branded an ‘axis of evil’ member; deployment of anti-ballistic missiles in Alaska; Washington voices expressing military threats; interception of North Korean ships; ad hominem attacks on President Kim Jong-il; and U.S. refusal to negotiate directly with North Korea.”

The situation in 2003 ended in a

stalemate, with North Korea demanding a firm non-aggression commitment from the U.S., and the U.S. insisting first on a complete end to North Korea’s nuclear program. Carter said, “If neither side will yield or compromise, then an eventual military confrontation seems likely. The United States can prevail, but with terrible human casualties in both North and South Korea.”

14

Japan talks tough

16

Other members of the nuclear club

18

Economic sanctions

Peaceful country changes stance on military buildup

Proliferation abounds despite treaty

Diplomatic weapon has mixed record of success

rectly harming the U.S. by selling weapons to bin Laden or other U.S. enemies.

If North Korea is allowed to usurp nuclear power, the 1970 Non-proliferation Treaty, which was erected to deter countries from going nuclear, will be considered null. The nuclear club will expand exponentially in a revived and greater nuclear race. According to Time Magazine, nonnuclear countries in East Asia, like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, will feel pressured to go nuclear for self-protection. If no attempts are made to stop North Korea, countries in the Middle East like Iran and Pakistan will not recognize opposition to creating their own nuclear weapons. Egypt already has a nuclear program for energy needs, and though Ukraine, South Africa and Libya all willingly gave up pursuit of nuclear weapons, increasing world instability could induce them to change their minds.

U.S. Army General B.B. Bell, the top U.S. general in South Korea, said he did not believe North Korea’s new nuclear capacity would change the balance of force in the region. He revealed that intelligence agencies had believed for several years that Pyongyang had atomic weapons. Bell was confident that U.S. and South Korean allied forces can defeat any possible attack

FALLOUT FROM THE TEST Jump three years later to the current situation, and it seems President Carter was far from wrong. North Korea’s nuclear tests have effectively shattered the relative nuclear peace following the Cold War. Analysis of air samples collected on Oct. 11 indicates North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion. An intelligence official said the North Korean device was believed to be roughly the equivalent of 200 tons of TNT, which suggests a partial failure. Experts had anticipated a detonation of at least several thousand tons.

Despite the small scale of the test, uneasiness pervades the rest of the global community. The rogue state already has short-range missiles capable of reaching Tokyo. There is an emerging fear of North Korea eventually putting a nuclear warhead on a missile that can reach the U.S. There is also a possibility of North Korea indi- See NORTH KOREA, page 15

The Hill 13

COVER

Japan talks tough

Peaceful nation discusses nuclear technology and increased militarization

By Hunter Gray Ellis Staff Writer

A

fter 61 years of peace, the land of the rising sun is issuing a call to arms. Japan’s newly-elected government has been fostering uncharacteristically “hawkish” attitudes toward nuclear development.

Foreign Minister Taro Aso met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in mid-October, promoting the need for open discussion about Japan’s nuclear situation.

“The reality is that it is only Japan that has not discussed possessing nuclear weapons, and all other countries have been discussing it,” Aso said. He then reassured Rice that Japan has no intentions of pursuing nuclear weapons technology. “The government has no position at all to consider going nuclear,” Aso said, “There is no need to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons.”

These mixed comments were in response to the Oct. 9 nuclear test by the North Korea. This test prompted the U.N. to implement sanctions against North Korea. It also prompted Japan, the only nation in the world to suffer casualties from nuclear weapons, to slowly begin to change its national stance on war.

PACIFIST PAST Talk of nuclear development has long been a taboo in Japan ever since the two atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. As recently as 1999, Deputy Defense Minister Shingo Nishimura was forced to resign after he voiced his opinion that Japan should consider nuclear weapons, according to the New York Times.

Recently, Asashi Shimbun, one of Japan’s oldest and most read newspapers, reported that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made it clear in interviews that he plans to revise the article of Japan’s consti14 The Hill

tution that renounces war. Abe said, “I believe this article needs to be revised from the viewpoint of defending Japan, and also in order to comply with the international expectation that Japan make international contributions.”

Japan’s constitution has not been changed since it went into effect in 1947.

Abe said to Financial Times of Britain, “My term is three years, and the president of the Liberal Democratic Party can sit for up to two terms. Within that term of office, I shall strive to achieve the revision.”

Abe has confirmed that no one in his cabinet or the Liberal Democratic Party currently opposes the three non-nuclear principals that set Japan apart: not possessing, not manufacturing and not allowing nuclear warheads to be brought into the country. However, it is difficult to advance a program of military buildup without raising the nuclear question.

Ichiro Ozawa, leader of the LDP opposition party known as the Democratic Party of Japan, has attempted to connect Abe to the comments made by Foreign Minister Taro Aso and LDP Policy Chief Shoichi Nakagawa. Ozawa said, “I think you should instruct your Cabinet ministers and top party executives to be more careful about such comments. The public and the international community honestly will not accept your statement that Japan will stick to its three non-nuclear principals.”

Japan’s military force was left with a severely restricted military prior to their surrender to the Allied forces at the close of the Pacific Theater during World War II. Today, Japan has a generous military budget of $45 billion, yet the nation has no aircraft carriers, bombers, long-range missiles and a military force of only 250,000

military personnel due to constitutional restraints, according to CNN. RECENT BUILDUP Currently, the Bush administration has proven supportive of Japan’s military modernization, even fostering its growth through further integration of American commands in Asia. Ex-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi helped out in the War in Iraq by deploying troops and working with the U.S. in its efforts to develop a joint missile-defense shield. In 2004, Howard Baker, ex-U.S. ambassador to Japan, was optimistic about the prospect of Japan acquiring a nuclear program in the near future.

NUCLEAR POTENTIAL Japan is home to one of the world’s largest nuclear energy programs and has more than 10 tons of plutonium stockpiled, according to CNN. Experts agree that Japan could have its own nuclear program running in a matter of mere months if it chooses to pursue this course of action. If Japan does decide to join the Asian “Nuclear Club,” it could add fuel to the fire and spread to South Korea and even Taiwan, an action that would likely create much anger with China.

Rice has pledged that the U.S. has the ability to ward off any incoming threat to its ally. The major issue is whether this reassurance is enough to counteract the threat of another bomb being dropped upon their country.

U.S. PROTECTION Japan is aware that while the U.S. has pledged to protect the island nation from nuclear attack, it can no longer directly

COVER threaten North Korea. It can be argued that North Korea, likely realizing the blunder of Saddam Hussein and his regime, has discovered the importance of nuclear arms as the method of obtaining the “status quo” in contemporary diplomacy. If Saddam Hussein had waited for his nuclear program to be completely finished before invading Kuwait in 1990, it is highly unlikely President George H. W. Bush would have gone to war with Iraq over the issue of liberating Kuwait.

JAPAN AS MEDIATOR As Japan weighs its anti-war principles with its growing concern over North Korea, the country continues to play the role of mediator in the nuclear proliferation crisis.

“Without friendship, without strength and determination of Japan, we will be powerless to almost to meet a challenge intelligently and peacefully,” Baker said.

Japan is not only legally tied to its policy of pacifism, but it is also the model for al-

most every other nation in the world, demonstrating that economic success and diplomatic prowess do not have to be directly related to military strength.

Japan must evaluate whether a nuclear arms race or a diplomatic approach will better serve its national interests and those of the international community.

North Korea

radically in Beijing for several years. The last meeting was almost a year ago, but as of Oct. 31, the talks are set to resume. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.N. sanctions prove the world is united in opposing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Rice said this opposition should be a warning to Iran. Yet despite these predictions, U.S. spy satellites have detected suspicious activity near the site of North Korea’s nuclear test that may signal preparations for another test.

The U.N. resolution on North Korea has called on countries to block North Korea from receiving equipment or materials to build weapons of mass destruction and other advanced weaponry. It demands that North Korea eliminate nuclear weapons, but also rules out military action against the country, as Russia and China demanded. The U.N. also wants to regulate travel for North Koreans involved in the weapons program and freeze many of the international assets of people or businesses connected to that program. “I am not concerned that the Chinese are going to turn their backs on their obligations,” said Rice. “I don’t think they would have voted for a resolution that they did not intend to carry through on.”

Others are not so certain. Russia and China, though shocked by North Korea’s actions, have convinced the U.S. to withhold from using military force against the country, according to CNN. Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “We have a common position with China on the need to follow a balanced approach, to retain a sense of proportion, and not to resort to extremes such as sanctions.” China joins Russia in insisting that measures taken

against North Korea must not be overly tough, but should aim to denuclearize the country and ensure stability in Asia. Liu Jianchao, official spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, said China was seeking good neighborly relations with North Korea and would not cut off economic assistance to Pyongyang. “China’s economic assistance to North Korea is improving the living standards of its people,” Jianchao said. Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed diplomacy, not military force, should be the only way to dissuade North Korea from further nuclear tests.

The U.S. is making an effort to better relations with North Korea. There have been negotiations with South Korea to transfer wartime command of forces on the peninsula to give Seoul more responsibility for its own defense and reduce antagonism between the U.S. and the North.

This switch of command should occur sometime between 2009 and 2012. Details will be decided in 2007.

Nuclear power in the hands of Kim Jong-il is unsettling to other world leaders, but despite his own threats, it will be important not to make him feel North Korea is threatened. Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric seems to only further damage the possibility of a diplomatic solution to the conflict. Foreign powers China and Russia are emphasizing the need to build diplomatic relations with North Korea, and are strongly urging against military force in North Korea. The “make love, not war” approach seems to be winning out.

continued from page 13 from the North. However, he did voice a wish that, “North Korea would not only stop testing these devices, but stop making them and come back to the bargaining table.” He added that the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” continues to protect South Korea.

DOMESTIC PRESSURE On the home front, many members of the Democratic Party believe Bush has made a mistake in not responding more forcibly to North Korea. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez issued a statement saying the Korean nuclear test “illustrates just how much the Bush administration’s incompetence has endangered our nation. We invaded Iraq, the country that didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, and ignored Iran and North Korea, the two that did.” Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin denounced Bush for using the six-nation talks involving China and Japan to dissuade North Korea from its nuclear ambitions.

The nuclear test showed “the weakness of the six-party approach as well as the danger of this Administration’s hands-off approach to North Korea,” said Feingold.

“The stakes are too high to rely on others to address the North Korean crisis.”

SIX-PARTY TALKS Despite the criticisms, the U.N. is continuing with the six-party talks. The talks among the nations of China, North Korea, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States have been going on spo-

Hunter Gray Ellis is a sophomore majoring in journalism.

Lilly Lampe is a senior majoring in English, economics and art history.

The Hill 15

INTERNATIONAL

The nuclear club

Membership expands despite non-proliferation efforts

By Juliann Neher Staff Writer

W

ith all the latest nuclear news pouring in from North Korea, it’s easy to forget about the rest of the players in the global nuclear game.

Even though North Korea ranks as one of the feistier countries possessing nuclear weapons, several other countries have long possessed considerably higher numbers of weapons as well as the capacity to launch them across greater distances. It is arguable whether attitude or ability poses the greater threat, and while that question lingers, concerns about both nuclear A-listers and possible up-and-comers are growing.

GOAL OF THE NPT Nuclear technology is a doubleedged sword, offering a power capable of both destruction and production. Keeping this relationship weighted on the side of peaceful energy utility remains the goal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) today, just as it inspired its inception in 1968. While certain countries stand in the way of the accomplishment of this objective, the 187 signatories continue to push for, and come closer and closer to, what they hope will be the end of the nuclear threat.

The United States, United Kingdom and the former Soviet Union immediately signed the NPT when it originally opened for approval. China and France also acceded in 1992, and together these countries form the circle of five acknowledged nuclear weapon states, according to the treaty. Under NPT regulations, these five powers are the sole countries permitted to possess nuclear weapons, and they may neither transfer nuclear armaments to other countries nor continue to build upon their previously developed supplies.

Accordingly, the other signatories 16 The Hill

agree never to receive nuclear weapons or to use technology for the purpose of noncivilian nuclear development. The treaty only permits the exchange of resources in the form of technology, equipment and materials for use in the development of peaceful nuclear energy. Additionally, all nuclear materials must be placed under the regulation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which regularly inspects the nature and behavior of work in the nuclear energy field, intending to detect possible deviations from the guidelines. So far, these parameters have done well in serving their purposes, with a few key exceptions.

The five nuclear weapon states have displayed continual efforts to disarm, lessening their weaponry counts annually.

Through inspections by the IAEA, these countries have also demonstrated their willingness to use technology and materials for the peaceful production of power.

Other nations have, with either help or pressure from the IAEA, successfully disbanded destructive nuclear programs.

Libya renounced any attempts to build nuclear weapons in 2003, and, according to CNN, Iraq’s nuclear program was dismantled by the U.N. after the Gulf War. UNINTENDED EFFECTS Unfortunately, the BBC reports that the treaty also enabled both Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear capability when they abused the privileges of membership that allowed them to gain nuclear technology. North Korea later withdrew from the treaty altogether, an act which eventually led to its aggressive position in the world today. Iran continues to claim civilian intents for its nuclear power, but Washington suspects otherwise. The loopholes in the treaty still remain, as there is such a fine line between the necessary compo-

nents of a nuclear power equation versus one for nuclear weapon production. However, the original problems in the policy responsible for today’s threats from North Korea and the possible threats from Iran have been addressed. According to the BBC, the U.S. and its allies have amended the original treaty to make it more difficult for other countries to stray down the same path.

NPT OUTSIDERS Three other known nuclear states have declined to join the NPT: India, Pakistan and Israel. Together these countries form a unique group that not only holds the capability and physical means necessary for waging a nuclear battle, but also fosters considerable resentment for the NPT provisions that permit certain countries’ possession of nuclear resources. India, Pakistan and Israel have jointly stated that the NPT creates a club of “‘nuclear haves’ and a larger group of ‘nuclear have-nots’ by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, [although] the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.” The British Sunday Times reported that India is rumored to possess enough material to have produced 150 warheads, while Pakistan allegedly has 60. While the Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of weapons, its capabilities were more or less asserted when Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear expert, was abducted and jailed by Israel after having revealed Israeli nuclear abilities to the Times.

However, the countries’ choices to forgo participation in the NPT do not necessarily signify plans of nuclear aggression. India, for example, has a “no first use policy” and also participates in

INTERNATIONAL

1",*45"/ India Arm Wrestling Club

I S R A TECH E L

Taryn Mahoney the trade of nuclear resources with the U.S. outside of the NPT. According to the BBC, the U.S. agrees to provide India with civilian nuclear technology so long as India classifies 14 of its 22 nuclear sites for solely civilian purposes. Suggestions have been made for the U.S. to attempt a similar contract with Pakistan, but the U.S. refuses to do so because of Pakistan’s questionable track-record regarding intentions for nuclear weapon production and use. These three countries, along with North Korea, are not the only threats in the world of nuclear weapons. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the IAEA, said that if they wanted to, 40 countries could develop nuclear bombs.

India, Pakistan, and Israel raise some reasonable objections to the NPT. U.S. and Russia still have substantial nuclear capability. The U.S. stands out because, while it has only half of the 20,000 warheads of Russia, it is the only country with nuclear weapons located beyond its own borders. At this time, the U.S. maintains warheads in seven other countries, as well as in 14 different states, giving its capabilities a range of more than 8,000

miles, according to CNN. Russia follows closely with a 6,800 mile range, but the country has been commended by the NPT for its drastic reduction and consolidation of its arsenal, which was once comprised of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in many other countries. The other three NPT-specified nuclear weapon states are much closer to the NPT goal of complete disarmament. France claims only 450 warheads; China has about 400 weapons; and Britain’s arsenal contains as few as 200 nuclear warheads.

Taking history into consideration, India, Pakistan and Israel find it difficult to trust that these five countries with nuclear bombs will follow the treaty’s provision to never use them on the offense. However, many skeptics believe that these three countries’ argument that they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves is a pretense for development of weapons with the intent to use them on the offense in the future. The telling factor would be whether countries like Pakistan would sign the treaty if the five nuclear weapon states dropped their weapons counts to zero. With such a long way to go before

complete disarmament, it is all but impossible to gauge these countries’ intentions.

PERSISTENT THREAT No matter what strength and reassurance the NPT has to offer, the fact remains that as long as nuclear production and possession continues, a nuclear war is possible. North Korea continues to dominate the headlines with its new gun-show and belligerent attitude. For most, this boasting poses a larger menace than the massive nuclear stockpiles claimed by the U.S., UK, China, France and Russia, if only because these states have been sitting on their diminishing numbers of weapons rather than threatening to deploy them. Regardless of size and strength of these various weapons programs, the most important thing to remember is that beyond North Korea there are plenty of other countries with nuclear power that are worth keeping an eye on.

Any presence of nuclear warheads poses a potential threat.

Juliann Neher is a freshman majoring in journalism and political science.

The Hill 17

COVER

Economic warfare

Sanctions may be the best defense against nuclear proliferation

By Alex Smith Staff Writer

A

n old Korean proverb reads as follows: “Power lasts ten years; influence not more than one hundred.” Perhaps North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, after testing a nuclear weapon on Oct. 9, 2006, should consider the proverb. After all, the test has sparked a confrontation between North Korea’s power and the international community’s influence.

SWIFT REPRISAL Just days after the test was conducted, the U.N. Security Council, in a swift reprisal, voted unanimously to impose sanctions on the communist nation. The sanctions block the sale of heavy military equipment and freeze the assets of companies connected to its nuclear and missile programs. Perhaps most striking is the ban on the sale of all luxury goods to the nation, designed to weaken Kim Jong-il’s support by the North Korean elite. According to his former sushi chef, the leader spends millions on expensive goods such as Iranian caviar and cognac for himself and his powerful supporters.

The renewed threat of nuclear proliferation from both Iran and North Korea will no doubt determine the future role of economic sanctions in preventative confrontation. Because the use of force to combat the threat is highly unlikely given the two nations’ geographical settings and large militaries, the nations opposed to their nuclear programs will have to rely on economic sanctions as a primary means of persuasion. In order for any of these sanctions to be effective, three critical components will have to be addressed.

support. Universal sanctions enhance the isolation of a wayward nation by both cutting off all available supply sources and establishing a common diplomatic ground among the nations imposing the sanctions. Persuading other nations to join multilateral sanctions is so far the greatest obstacle the U.S. faces in controlling nuclear proliferation in Iran.

Russia and China, both nations with the ability to veto U.N. sanctions, have strong economic connections with Iran; China obtains much-needed oil and Russia profits from selling arms.

Tied to the idea of universality in sanctions is the practical matter of enforcement. According to the BBC News, North Korea has warned that any inspections of its cargo for banned goods will be

The U.N. is attempting to inconvenience the leadership, which maintains total power, not the North Korean people.

considered an act of war. China takes the threat seriously; it has announced “reservations” against inspecting North Korean cargo. China fears that the sanctions might be too effective, either sparking a military retaliation or a refugee crisis caused by the implosion of Kim Jong-il’s regime.

Along with support and enforcement, a successful trade sanction must be properly targeted. Clearly, trade sanctions have to fulfill their purpose of presHOW SANCTIONS WORK suring a rogue nation’s government. Yet The first goal of the nations impos- nations imposing sanctions also have the ing sanctions is to garner international potential to unintentionally harm the ci18 The Hill

vilians of a rogue nation and themselves.

Over the past decade the idea of “smart sanctions,” banning certain goods to stop a nation’s actions without harming vulnerable groups of people, has gained repute in the international community.

The luxury sanctions on North Korea reflect the idea of smart sanctions.

The U.N. is attempting to inconvenience the leadership, which maintains total power, not the North Korean people.

Although economic figures for the secretive nation are both questionable and difficult to obtain, it’s clear that the majority of the North Korean population lives in extreme poverty. According to one report by the Economist in 2004, 70 percent of all households subsist on meager government-issued rations. This

population simply cannot afford “luxuries” such as televisions and cars. The impoverished North Koreans will thus receive little fallout from the luxury sanctions.

BLACK MARKET LOOPHOLE Unfortunately for the international community, pressure on the North Korean leadership by instituting luxury sanctions will be difficult to produce. According to a 2003 report by the Wall Street Journal, Kim Jong-il is thought to be directing a clandestine company called Division 39,

COVER

Taryn Mahoney which supposedly brings his regime billions of dollars through such illicit activities as counterfeiting and the sale of narcotics. The revenue from Division 39 is then used to purchase luxury items for North Korea’s elite. The U.S. has called for negotiations with North Korea and its four surrounding nations over the counterfeiting issue, perhaps with the goal of removing the nation’s luxury pipeline.

BACK TO THE TABLE In what appears to be an early concession, North Korea agreed in late October to return to the six-party talks the U.S. has demanded. The North Korean foreign minister released a statement, given to the BBC through the North Korean state news agency, claiming that the decision was a defense against the financial sanctions. If the U.S. can put enough pressure on North Korea through its neighbors to eliminate illicit activities, the ban on lux-

ury goods will probably work.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES North Korean sanctions can be imposed on the already isolated nation with relatively little consequences to the markets of other nations. If, however, the U.N. were to impose multilateral sanctions on Iran, the world economy could face serious repercussions. One CNN report estimated that, because Iran’s oil production contributes 5 percent to the world’s total production, the price of oil per barrel could rise to $130 if Iran stopped producing altogether. Although U.N. sanctions against Iran’s uranium enrichment program would not likely include a ban on oil exports, Iran could retaliate against the international community by slashing or eliminating oil production. And, despite the fact that the U.S. does not purchase petroleum products from Iran, any decline in Iranian production would force buyers

like the EU and China into demanding oil from nations selling oil to the U.S, thus raising the world price.

Of course, slowing oil exports would cripple Iran’s economy and increase the likelihood of the sanctions to succeed, assuming the people release their frustration on the Iranian government. Ironically, Iran’s economy is dependent on imports of refined oil. According to Gulf Daily News, in late October 2006 Iran’s parliament agreed to extra oil imports worth $2.2 billion, on top of the $2.5 billion already spent earlier in the year. In fact, around 40 percent of all Iran’s refined oil must be imported, because there is a shortage of refineries. Thus while Iran could retaliate by cutting crude oil exports, nations imposing sanctions could further retaliate by cutting their refined oil exports to the nation.

The Economist Intelligence Unit states that 40- 50 percent of the Iranian government’s budget is derived from oil sales. The proportion of this budget that isn’t spent on refined oil purchases is invested in public goods and services. The public sector employs a sizable percentage of Iran’s service workforce, which makes up 45 percent of the nation’s total workforce. Any cut in the budget would likely cause a backlash from this sizable population, which could force the government to reconsider its nuclear plans.

THE FUTURE OF SANCTIONS If Iran and North Korea manage to survive any ban on trade with the international community, then the reputation of economic sanctions as an effective strategy against nuclear proliferation will be severely damaged. But while general economic sanctions on Iran, including a ban on oil trade, would be difficult to initiate, they would ultimately be effective.

Though the sanctions on North Korea will be difficult to maintain, they already seem to be working. Kim Jong-il, isolated from the international economy, will have trouble building nukes. For, as another Korean proverb explains, “a hunting knife cannot carve its own handle.”

Alex Smith is a freshman majoring in economics.

The Hill 19

OPINION

School isn’t a convenience store

Government should regulate sale of junk food in schools

from the LEFT

By Sam Perkins Columnist

W

ake up on the wrong side of the bed? Early hours can dictate a day just as the early years can dictate a life. It is in our childhood that our behaviors are molded such that we become intelligent, healthy citizens of society. For well over a decade, children are dropped off at school for at least half of the day. During those eight hours or so, the school is fully responsible for the health Sam Perkins and well-being of the child.

There are plenty of facets of life where government is “not the mama” and should let parents raise children as they see fit. Schools, however, are an anomaly to this structure. Parents cannot accompany a child during a lunch period, much less for the entire day. This is a case where the government must be put in the position of parent. Part of being a good parent is ensuring that children are properly nourished. That means keeping the cookie jar— or school vending machines— out of reach.

The scientific community is now overflowing with research and data regarding diet and obesity. There’s no need to list it all here, but the point is clear and undeniable— candy, potato chips, pastries and soda do not make for a good diet. Yet, these are the products most abundant in our schools.

Big-name brands, such as Coca-Cola and Frito-Lay, sign contracts with schools to sell their products. Absolutely, it is a great way to bring in money for schools.

However, ceasing the flow of soda does not mean doing the same for the influx of money. There are plenty of healthy fruit juice and water options offered under the umbrella of the Coca-Cola company.

Other companies also have healthy alter20 The Hill

natives to potato chips and Ho-Ho’s. Why not sign a contract with Chiquita or Dole fruit companies? Kids and school systems can get their fill without filling out.

Fatty foods with no nutritional value whatsoever are beginning to replace tobacco as society’s big “no-no”. In fact, the Center for Disease Control figures that obesity, with poor diet and physical inactivity, will soon surpass tobacco use as the leading cause of death, as well as the most costly. The path of tobacco in schools is a striking parallel to the junk food dilemma.

There were designated smoking areas on campus when our parents were in high school, but as the health risks became evident, schools no longer provided an environment for such an unhealthy practice.

Ultimately, parenting is a freedom of expression— the right to raise your child as you see fit. But even expression gets regulated. Anyone can speak freely, peacefully assemble or petition the government, but there are certain laws in place to ensure that it is done fairly, such that no one is hurt and everyone has an equal opportunity to express themselves. Removing unhealthy foods from schools by no means infringes on a child’s right to junk food. It makes sure that a school is a center for education and not a convenience store.

Show me where in the Constitution it proclaims a right to convenience— especially for Pepsi, Doritos and Ho-Ho’s.

Adam Smith must be rolling in his grave, seeing the conservative right claim an overextension of government by removing junk food from schools. After all, the entire concept of the free market is contingent on rational citizens who will eventually make the right choice— something America has already proven it cannot do with subtly addictive junk food.

If a parent thinks his or her child should be able to scarf down a Twinkie

and Coke for lunch, so be it. That should be negligence, but for now it’s not and remains the rightful choice of the parent.

What must be realized is that there is nothing preventing a parent from purchasing food at a store beforehand (which is cheaper, too) and packing it for their overweight, malnourished child. Schools do not need to conveniently put a Twinkie and soda at Tubby’s fingertips.

Most children— especially the ones who abuse junk food— don’t have the self-discipline to consume in moderation.

Even if the Supreme Court were to decide that government entities can vend food and other products regardless of degradation to health, the Supreme Court has already determined in numerous cases that children do not have the full rights of adults.

After all, not only are children young and immature, they are often raised by parents with decision-making skills not all that advanced from childhood.

If you want to support parents who poorly feed their children, realize that you’re supporting them with your wallet, too. The obesity epidemic costs America $117 billion and 300,000 premature deaths annually, according to the CDC. That figures out to a cost of almost $400 for each and every of the 300 million Americans. The government doesn’t need to fuel that fire.

If allowed to continue, an obesity epidemic will disfigure youth and place an expensive, heavy stressor on health care — a cost burden we all unfairly feel from the consciously poor decisions of others. Removing unhealthy foods from schools is the pivotal first step towards quelling this epidemic. And don’t forget— it is simply a removal of an overly abused convenience, not some guaranteed right.

Sam Perkins is a senior majoring in journalism.

OPINION from the RIGHT

Let free market work

Government should stay out of school cafeterias

By CP Helms Columnist

T

hey’re at it again! The liberals of this nation are determined to save us from ourselves, one potato chip at a time. But before you jump on their bandwagon, please stop and think: Should we trust the federal government to make health-related decisions for America’s youth? Remember, this is the same Leftist Washington that supports abortion rights, which doesn’t seem CP Helms consistent with the goal of promoting children’s health.

In all fairness, perhaps the leftists do mean well. Perhaps they really want to promote healthy lives. Perhaps school and junk food really are the roots of all evil. Or, perhaps, the liberals are wrong, yet again.

Before I continue, I feel I must reveal the deep-rooted bias I have on this issue. I was quite fond of chicken nugget (aka chicken product) day when I was in grade school. To be honest, school lunch

Lilly Lampe

was pretty exciting every day. You never knew how the meat-like substance would be cooked… that might be too strong a word; warmed is more accurate. It would be wrong to steal this experience from our youth. Nobody is going to remember fondly organic, nonfat, sugar-free, high-fiber, 100 percent of your daily value-day.

However, I will agree with my friends on Hillary’s side of the fence in one criticism of most school and junk food: much to everyone’s surprise, soda, chips, candy and the infamous school meals do not promote healthy living. They are (dare I say) unhealthy. Despite this striking information, I am not inclined to believe it is a cause demanding government intervention for one key reason: The laws of supply and demand permit self-regulation.

The beauty of living in a relatively free market like America lies in the consumers’ ability to dictate what goods suppliers produce. As mighty as corporations may be, even the great emperor Wal of the Mart would have to file for chapter 11 if people stopped importing the empire’s products.

Now I know some people are thinking that many children can’t stop buying school food (without adopting anorexia), but they must understand that corporations are not immune to public opinion. If enough demand arises for a new product, the company will benefit from producing it.

Economic arguments like this are often rejected with the “it’s just theory” line, but changes are occurring right now in the market for these very reasons. Former President Clinton has recently spent time discussing health concerns with major snack food companies. According to Clinton, companies “…recognize the challenge we face, and they are helping us take the first step.”

Clinton was referring to five major suppliers, Kraft Foods Inc., Mars Inc.,

Campbell Soup Co., Dannon and PepsiCo Inc. All five have agreed to begin promoting healthy snacks that meet the new nutrition guidelines backed by the American Heart Association. Not only are these companies making changes, they are actively promoting their actions. John Compton, CEO of PepsiCo North America, discussed this new direction. “As one of the leaders in the food industry, PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay division has a long-standing commitment to healthy lifestyles built around a sensible diet and exercise,” he said in a press release. These companies see the potential profit and are seizing the opportunity.

Some skeptics will try to write this off as cheap talk, but these changes aren’t superficial or insignificant. MSNBC ran an article discussing some of the changes these companies will be making. “Under the rules, snacks marketed to schools wouldn’t get more than 35 percent of their calories from fat and more than 10 percent from saturated fat. There will be a limit of 35 percent for sugar content by weight… students in participating schools would have to say goodbye to the regular-sized Snickers bar.”

Despite the difficulties posed by these guidelines, change is happening. It’s happening without any legislative bodies forcing it. And, guess what? It’s being well received by the public. Imagine that, when the government allows people to think for themselves, change happens and is appreciated!

So before all the newly empowered Democrats further regulate our lives, please say “no thank you” to their seaweed wrap and tofu burger mandates. They have enough problems at hand. Allow us common folk to deal with Little Debbie.

CP Helms is a sophomore majoring in business.

The Hill 21

OPINION

Looking forward by looking back

The economic missteps of our parents profoundly impact our generation

By Pablo Friedmann Columnist

E

very time I turn on the television at six in the evening, I find myself glued to the screen watching Lou Dobbs on CNN. I often question the objectivity of his reporting and his slightly (to say the least) biased reporters blasting away at so-called “special interests.” Indeed, the whole show has this sort of populist tinge to it. Yet, I now find myself also analyzing the current and future Pablo state of this country’s Friedmann economy—albeit with a slightly different lens than Mr. Dobbs. While today’s economy is quite “robust” and “strong” (to use President Bush’s words), the long-term impact of our current federal government’s policy decisions combined with negligence to tackle pressing fiscal issues are threatening to undermine our generation’s future prosperity.

and simultaneously ignores the ballooning federal budget deficit and skyrocketing Congressional earmarks, one can not help but scream hypocrisy. Especially for a president who seeks to symbolically defend—in theory if not in practice—the idea of fiscal conservatism.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the fiscal year 2006 federal budget deficit came in at a lower than expected, but still astronomical $248 billion. The president has defended the deficits by unequivocally stating that these deficits are a) an increasingly small percentage of this country’s GDP and b) decreasing in size each year. To think that the political calculus has changed from avoiding deficits altogether to celebrating the negative slope of the deficit curve says a lot about the president’s willingness to chart this country on a path of financial insecurity and highlights his utter disregard for this country’s future financial health.

BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY FISCAL CONSERVATISM? Right now, wealthy investors and the When President Bush talks about business community are reaping enorthe strength of the economy and his tax mous tax savings from the president’s cuts, he sees the economy from a moral capital gains tax cuts and other demand-

home mortgages and children’s college tuition amid stagnating wages, rising energy costs and growing inflationary pressures. The year 2006 is starting to look more and more like the 1980s picture of New York City where many bond and stock traders began to take home huge paychecks while the rest of the country was left to deal with inflation and unemployment.

WAGE STAGNATION Students have lived through a period of dramatic gains in productivity and economic growth. The Dow recently eclipsed the 12,000 point landmark and has sustained itself above that level for quite some time. On face value, the economic picture is rather rosy for those who have capital invested in the markets. For those living paycheck to paycheck, however, the situation is rather dire. Economic gains are not translating into real wage growth at the lowest end of the pay spectrum. In the case of college students, the stagnation of real wage growth is most greatly felt in the flat, hourly wages paid by employers and the increasing credit card debt many are graduating with. It seems

The rising debt burden of many families compounded by heftier mortgage payments has transformed us into a society of debtors. point of view. This, of course, is not surprising considering that his party has become dominated by social conservatives who have alienated Goldwater Republicans. Yet when Bush defends his tax cuts 22 The Hill

oriented economic policies. It is fair to say that these people have seen nothing but bright and clear skies. On the other hand, you have working and middle class families who are struggling to pay their

that for the last few years six dollars an hour has been the dominant entrylevel wage for most college students.

The $10 an hour baby-sitting job is an exception, rather than the rule. A quick

OPINION UNC students are paying substantially less. Still, it does not excuse the amount of debt future college first-years will be shouldering in the years to come.

Taryn Mahoney

walk on Franklin Street reveals starting hourly wages at six dollars an hour.

One can only hope that recent action in Raleigh by lawmakers to raise the minimum wage and proposed legislation under a Democratic-controlled Congress might bring about substantial changes to workers’ paychecks.

GROWING INFLATION Adding to the economic burden for students and families is the fact that inflation is rising- and rising at the higher end of Ben Bernanke’s inflation targets.

Economists are divided on whether the Federal Reserve has reacted with sufficient gusto to stamp out inflationary concerns. Some have criticized the Fed’s reluctance to raise the federal funds rate

closer to six percent than its current rate of 5.25 percent. Many are worried that without more aggressive measures inflation will continue to grow unchecked and purchasing power will decline proportionately.

INCREASING TUITION The rising costs of tuition and fees are not helping the situation either. Compared to our parent’s generation, we are paying a substantial premium for higher education even with inflation factored in. Luckily, UNC students can take some solace from the fact that administrators and legislators in Raleigh have placed a high priority on accessibility and affordability. Compared to the cost of elite colleges like Harvard and Princeton,

SOCIETY OF DEBTORS Many students face either the prospect of higher interest rates on federally guaranteed loans or more stringent terms for privately secured loans. This past Congress had completely misguided priorities when it decided to extend President Bush’s capital gains tax cuts by two years but raise interest rates on federally subsidized college loans. The former favored the upper-middle class and wealthy Americans who stood to gain from these tax savings, while the latter hurt the working and middle classes who are struggling to pay for their children’s college education.

Yes, it is true that home-ownership is on the rise and that the last few years of refinancing have given many families greater financial freedom. This, however, has come at a deep cost to Americans.

Many families have taken on enormous home equity loans to pay for their children’s higher education. The rising debt burden of many families compounded by heftier mortgage payments has transformed us into a society of debtors.

A more startlingly statistic is the mere fact that our nation’s debt and federal deficit are being purchased by the Chinese Central Bank and other foreign investors—including governments in Brazil and India. The long-term impact of these actions threatens to impair our government’s independence in foreign affairs. Any American criticism towards alleged human rights violations or press censorship in China may someday come at the threat of dollar instability.

Our generation needs to start thinking critically about the decisions elected leaders are now making in Washington.

For better or worse, we are bound to inherit our parents’ mistakes and the longterm fiscal effects twenty years down the road.

Pablo Friedmann is a sophomore majoring in international studies.

The Hill 23

GOT SOMETHING

TO SAY?

SPEAK

UP The Hill wants to know what you thought about this issue!

The Hill

Shoot an e-mail to thehillpr@unc.edu or write us at

Chapel Hill Political Review

208 Franklin Porter Graham Student Union UNC-CH Campus Box 5210 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210