The Hill 6.3

The Hill

Chapel Hill Political Review Volume VI, Issue III

unc.edu/thehill

March 2007

AFRICA

New hope for a troubled continent Capital punishment on trial

Marijuana: New cash crop?

The Hill

From the Editor To our readers: Everyone from prime ministers and celebrities to student activists and SBP candidates seems to be talking about one region — Africa. The horrific genocide in Darfur rightly captures the attention and outrage of the world, but this is a continent with a rich and multifaceted political story.

In this issue, The Leah Szarek, Hill delves into a Editor few of the political issues confronting African nations. Our cover writers analyze Somalia’s role in the War on Terror, the consequences of China’s economic interests in Africa and the fledgling African Union’s attempts at unity and peacekeeping. We also look into the more positive stories from the region like the stabilization of formerly troubled nations and the success of some international aid programs.

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.

On U.S. soil, we explore the economic argument behind legalizing a controversial crop. We tackle the complex dynamics at work in the newly elected Democratic Congress and in the newly threatened Detroit auto industry. We also examine the escalating debate over the ethics of execution by lethal injection.

Our spring semester columnists from the left and right present two sides of another escalating debate — the president’s plan to deploy more troops to Iraq.

Finally, guest columnist Stephen Largen teases out a troubling trend in American politics, arguing that our tendency to elect family dynasties threatens the vibrancy of American democracy.

As always, we invite you to join in the conversation. Send us your comments by letter or e-mail. And consider joining our staff—we are recruiting in every department. Thanks for reading.

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 Hunter Gray Ellis Lilly Lampe Jordan O’Donnell Sam Perkins Ben Piven Will Schultz Alex Smith David Zoppo COLUMNISTS Stephen Largen Sean Reed Love Juliann Neher SECTION EDITORS Melissa Brzycki Lilly Lampe Sam Perkins COPY EDITORS Melissa Brzycki Juliann Neher Jordan O’Donnell Sam Perkins HEAD OF DESIGN Allison Evans ART & DESIGN Bella Shelley Fullwood Lilly Lampe Taryn Mahoney David Zoppo PUBLIC RELATIONS Alex Smith 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 March 2007

Volume VI, Issue III

Domestic Coverage 4 The economics of marijuana

Could legalization boost U.S. economy?

6 A lethal debate

Recent developments stall executions in many states

8 100 hours

Moderates and margins temper Democratic Congress’ agenda

10 Detroit’s challenge

Can U.S. automakers compete in era of biofuel?

FROM THE COVER

13 Product Red

Bono’s business venture changes landscape of philanthropy

14 Africa’s success stories

Some war-torn nations find stability

14 Somalia in the spotlight

Nation plays key role in War on Terror

16 Attempts at unity

African Union faces challenges

17 Big help from micro ideas

Microfinancing shows promise as international aid strategy

18 Trade-offs of trade with China

Protectionism gains traction in Africa, U.S.

Opinion 20 Left/Right

More troops or more trouble?

22 American dynasties

Select families dominate politics and threaten democracy The Hill 3

DOMESTIC

Grassroots economics Legalizing marijuana might be smart for the U.S. economy

By Will Schultz Staff Writer

P

roponents of marijuana legalization often frame the issue as a question of liberty, the freedom to smoke what you want unmolested by the government. Recently, the debate over marijuana has focused on another green substance — money. The role of economics in the debate over decriminalization is becoming impossible to ignore.

TAX INCENTIVE The economic case for legalization has been bolstered by several recent studies. One survey undertaken by Canada’s Fraser Institute valued the marijuana crop of British Columbia at $7 billion. According to the study, the legalization of that harvest — the product of almost 17,500 “grow-ops” located within the province — could net the government $2 billion in taxes. The study reported that nearly one-

IMPORTANT NUMBERS: FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE DRUG WAR

on ati c du &e g & n nt din e h tio n c n n r fu tm ve sea tate ea litatio r e Pre T R i S 1% 6% ehab 4% 5% r

84% Enforcement

Source: President’s Committee on Organized Crime

4 The Hill

quarter of the Canadian population has used marijuana at one time; 7.5 percent are “regular users.” The institute argued that growth and use of the drug were far too widespread to be completely stamped out.

The study’s author, Stephen Easton, concluded that the monetary benefits of legalization outweighed the costs of continued prohibition.

In America, the potential profit from legalization could be even larger. Jeffrey Mirron of Harvard estimated that the government could rake in $10 to $14 billion from a legal marijuana crop. About $6 billion would come from taxing the harvest; the other $8 billion would be the windfall from relaxing drug enforcement laws.

Mirron’s study was made the centerpiece of a recent petition calling for a “regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods.” The letter was signed by more than five hundred prominent economists, including the late Milton Friedman.

Other studies have come to similar conclusions about marijuana legalization in America. In the 1990s, Dr. Dale Gierenger published an analysis of the economic effects of legalization. Gierenger determined that although legalization of cannabis would depress its price by “100 to 300-fold” due to a surge in supply, the government could prevent massive substance abuse by imposing a “harmfulness tax.” A tax of roughly $1 per joint could yield $2.2 to $6.4 billion in government revenue, assuming marijuana use remains constant. A similar survey conducted by the California branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws came to the same conclusion. The state of California stands to gain as much as $13 billion from legalization, thanks to the rapid growth of the newly legal marijuana business. The evidence is over-

whelming: legal marijuana would be a cash bonanza for any nation.

No country has fully decriminalized cannabis due to international guidelines put in place by the 1961 Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics. However, the Netherlands has taken steps to loosen drug laws.

Dutch citizens can legally purchase up to 5 grams of marijuana from government-operated coffee houses, despite the fact that distribution of the drug is still technically illegal. The coffee shops that supply marijuana are subject to numerous laws that, among other things, prevent them from selling to minors and ban advertising the drug. The city of Amsterdam alone is home to 300 such establishments. Currently, the marijuana trade in the Netherlands takes in about 1 billion guilder each year, roughly equivalent to $500 million.

COSTS OF A DIFFERENT SORT Despite the economic benefits of legalization, many are still opposed to any loosening of America’s drug laws.

Ironically, they often point to the drugpermissive country of the Netherlands as evidence. A 2000 report by the Dutch government concluded drug use was spiking as a result of government control of the drug trade. Since the experiment with legalization began, marijuana consumption among Dutch 18-20 year olds has skyrocketed from 15 to 44 percent. The report also found that some government-run coffee shops were resorting to organized crime to acquire marijuana. Drug rings, far from being pushed out of business, were flourishing in the more permissive climate.

As drug prevention expert David Raynes observed, “illegal traders who pay no taxes of any sort can always undercut legitimate traders.”

The easing of drug laws has had similar effects in other nations. Switzer-

DOMESTIC

Taryn Mahoney

land’s experience with legalization was cut short after Platzspitz, a drug-tolerant park in Zurich, was overrun by more than 20,000 addicts. Since the push for decriminalization in Canada began in 1994, use of injectable drugs has risen from 132,000 to 269,000, while marijuana use has doubled. Closer to home, legalization critics note Alaska’s failed experiment with decriminalization. During the 15year period in which cannabis was legal, Alaskan teenagers used the drug twice as frequently as their continental peers. In 1990, the voters of the state chose to ban the drug.

HEALTH CONCERNS Opponents of legalization also raise health concerns related to marijuana. Although the science is not settled, marijuana is alleged to cause damage to the brain, decreasing memory and problem-solving skills. Furthermore, heavy use of cannabis has the same effect on the respiratory system as tobacco does. According to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, five marijuana joints a week is the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Lab tests on rodents have also shown marijuana can be harmful to the immune system in large amounts. These health hazards, associated with the dramatic increase in drug use and abuse, have led many to

question whether the intangible costs of legalization outweigh the potential income.

Currently, the debate is a moot point in the United States. U.S. drug policies are nowhere near as lenient as those of the Netherlands. Recreational use of cannabis, permissible in that nation, is universally prohibited in the U.S. However, 11 states have passed laws allowing the possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Patients suffering from diseases such as cancer, AIDS and glaucoma are permitted to grow and use their own marijuana plants. Additionally, 18 other states have a more mild policy that accepts the medicinal value of cannabis without permitting its use. Although the federal government does not recognize these laws, most drug users go unpunished as the vast majority of law enforcement is carried out by state police.

Recent years have seen a renewed push for full legalization. In 2006, citizens in Colorado and Nevada voted on a ballot measure that would decriminalize the possession of less than 1 gram of marijuana.

Both bills were voted down, but each garnered more than 40 percent of the vote.

South Dakota voters also narrowly rejected a bill that would legalize medical marijuana. Early in 2007, the Vermont state senate began considering a bill that would

expand the list of diseases legally treatable with medical marijuana. Public opinion has shifted vastly since 1972, when a Gallup poll found that only 15 percent of Americans favored the legalization of cannabis. Now, upwards of 70 percent of the nation favors allowing the use of medical marijuana.

Marijuana’s road to public acceptance has been a long one. In the early 20th century the drug was legal, albeit limited to a small subculture of users. In 1937, Congress passed the Federal Marijuana Tax Act, one of the more peculiar bills in recent history. It kept cannabis legal, but required prospective growers to apply for a marijuana tax stamp. To apply for the stamp, the grower was required to provide a sample of their own marijuana.

However, in doing so they would incriminate themselves as having raised unlicensed cannabis. This catch-22 remained in place until struck down by the Supreme Court in 1969. Three years later Congress approved the Controlled Substances Act, under which marijuana remains illegal to this day.

In the past few months federal and state governments have been cracking down on medical marijuana facilities.

Federal agents raided 11 medical marijuana clinics in Los Angeles in late January. Their timing coincided with the California assembly’s decision to increase the price of a medical marijuana ID card by more than $100. In Washington, state police searched the offices of the marijuana dispensary CannaCare, confiscating medical records and marijuana plants. The organization was charged with exceeding the legal limit of marijuana reserves.

Whatever the benefits of legalization, it is apparent the government is not going to accept it quietly.

The legalization of marijuana, although a hotly debated issue, has usually simmered on the backburner of the national scene. New information on the economics of legalization may bring it back to the forefront. Whether new facts about the benefits of decriminalization will overwhelm the longstanding arguments against it, only time will tell.

Will Schultz is a freshman majoring in political science.

The Hill 5

DOMESTIC

Capital punishment on trial

By Jordan O’Donnell Staff Writer

A

ngel Nieves Diaz began grimacing, later licked his lips and was blowing air. He appeared to move for 24 minutes after the first injection. AP reporter Ron Wood had seen many executions before and knew something was wrong.

Diaz, a convicted killer in Florida, received a lethal injection as part of his execution on Dec. 13, but problems arose, resulting in a death that took 34 minutes instead of the usual 13-18 minutes.

LETHAL INJECTION FACTS In most lethal injections, there are three chemicals used: • Sodium Thiopental, which renders the subject unconscious; • Pancuronium or Tubocurarine, which both stop all muscle movement (except the heart) in order to prevent pain; • Potassium Chloride, which stops the heart and causes the inmate’s death.

Currently, 38 states, the federal government and the military have capital punishment statutes.

6 The Hill

Several states re-evaluate lethal injection Taryn Mahoney

Diaz’s eyes widened, his head rolled and he appeared to speak, another witness said. “He was in pain,” said Neal Dupree, Diaz’s lawyer, who also witnessed the execution. “His face was contorted, and he grimaced on several occasions. His Adam’s apple bobbed up and down continually, and his jaw was clenched.”

The drugs administered in lethal injection did not go into Diaz’s veins but into his muscle, which meant the execution required two injections instead of one. Diaz was found to have 12-inch chemical burns on his arms. Although prison officials promised to investigate, they insisted Diaz felt no pain. They also claimed his liver disease necessitated a second dose of chemicals. His family claims Diaz did not have liver disease.

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL? Diaz’s botched execution is part of a recent trend that has challenged the legality of lethal injections in the United States. Many feel that it violates the Eighth Amendment’s provision against cruel and unusual punishment. If the practice stops, it may mean a severe blow to capital punishment in the U.S. Since the first lethal injection on

Dec. 7, 1982, in Texas, the practice has grown in popularity. It began replacing other methods of execution such as electrocution, hanging and firing squads that were deemed inhumane. Every execution in the U.S. since 2005 has been done by lethal injection, which involves three separate injections to create a supposedly painless death.

Mounting evidence and a growing concern about the suffering the recipients undergo has put the brakes on lethal injections in several states.

Many new challenges arose after a British medical journal, Lancet, published an article called “Inadequate Anesthesia in Lethal Injection for Execution” in April 2005. The article studied the protocols of lethal injections in Texas and Virginia, where almost half of lethal injections occur. It criticized a lack of training, monitoring, data-keeping and peer-review. In fact, it found that “toxicology reports from Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina showed that post-mortem concentrations of thiopental in the blood were lower than those required for surgery in 43 of 49 inmates (88 percent); 21 (43 percent) inmates had concentrations consistent with awareness.”

DOMESTIC STATES RESPOND Florida Gov. Jeb Bush issued a moratorium on the death penalty on Dec. 15. He has created the Governor’s Commission on Administration of Lethal Injection to study the process in the state. The Governor’s Commission plans to release its results in February and March.

As tensions rise in Florida, California has seen its own controversy regarding lethal injections and the court system.

A federal district court decision by Judge Jeremy Fogel on Dec. 15 found lethal injections to be technically constitutional but poorly administered. On these grounds, he delayed the execution of Michael Morales.

Fogel’s decision also declared administering the potassium chloride to a conscious subject illegal and to be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Fogel took several steps to arrive at his ruling. He visited the execution facilities at San Quentin State Prison, talked to the execution team, reviewed the group’s paperwork and studied the group’s methods for training its workers. He found the practices to be “broken” and urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to act and address the issue quickly. However, the state attorney general called the practice “rational and humane” and said that “all reasonable measure are taken.”

The situations in Florida and California involve objections long made by opponents of lethal injections. Some say that the entire three-chemical process is unnecessary and is done to create the appearance of a serene, humane death. One of the chemicals used may not be humane at all, as Human Rights Watch says it is banned for use on animals because it is believed that it only masks pain, but does not actually relieve or prevent any agony.

The moratorium in Florida and court decision in California have inspired others to take their cases to court, protesting the constitutionality of lethal injections. A 2006 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hill v. Crosby stated that death-row inmates may challenge the procedures of the lethal injection process to be cruel and unusual outside of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

for Marcus Raymond Robinson issued a federal lawsuit to try to prevent his execuYPES OF XECUTION tion on these same grounds. The lawsuit SINCE 1976 claims “the N.C. Department of Corrections does not ensure its execution staff is 893 by lethal properly trained and the execution chamber injection is poorly designed for administering lethal injections,” according to the Fayetteville Observer. A state judge stayed Robinson’s execution on Jan. 25 and again on Jan. 26.

A debate continues to brew over the legali153 by electrocution ty of lethal injections and until these issues 11 by gas chamber are resolved it is unlikely any execution will occur.

3 by hanging North Carolina has seen this type of controversy before. The state purchased 2 by firing squad a brain-wave monitor in 2006 to observe the conditions of the prisoners being executed. This could be a problem in future Source: Death Penalty Information Center lawsuits, as the state has taken measures to ensure there is no suffering during the execution. lenge is part of a national debate,” said Richard Rosen, a law professor at UNCDOCTORS’ ETHICS Chapel Hill. While Rosen said it would be Maryland has also seen legal action naïve to speculate on the outcome of currecently in its state court. The Maryland rent and potential cases, he said a national Court of Appeals said the state must ruling is a possibility. “I think it would not develop protocols for injections with be surprising for the Supreme Court to take oversight by the attorney general and this up at some point.” a legislative committee, as well as pubWhile the future of lethal injections in lic comment. The challenges come from the U.S. remains uncertain, Rosen said it several groups against capital punishment illustrates the major issue regarding capital interested in replacing executions with punishment. “I think it is hard to find a way life imprisonment without parole. In ad- to kill a person humanely,” he said, noting dition, a pending federal case in the state that there is something simply brutal about has shown evidence of improper medical intentionally killing someone, which is and staff work. In early December, a fed- why over the past century, every mode of eral judge in Maryland asked the state to execution has been challenged. check the practicality of using medically If lethal injections are deemed to be trained workers in executions. While this inhumane, it could end capital punishment may seem like a good way to prevent in the U.S. There is no other method of medical mistakes, it creates ethical dilem- execution currently available that involves mas about administering drugs. less pain and suffering; replacing it would Last summer, the president of the be difficult. Life imprisonment without paAmerican Medical Association, William role could become the most severe punishG. Plested, III, M.D., said that it is unethi- ment in the country. Supporters of the death cal for medical personnel to participate in penalty say this will cost states much more lethal injections because of their strict duty money, continue to overcrowd prisons and to preserve life, not help take it. This cre- lead to the possibility of convicted killers ates difficulties for any doctors or nurses escaping and endangering the public. But who may want to assist with executions. if the Supreme Court deems a violation of the Eight Amendment, that may be a risk A NATIONAL DEBATE citizens will have to take.

As more and more court challenges NORTH CAROLINA CASE arise, it is possible that the U.S. Supreme Jordan O’Donnell is a junior majoring Recently in North Carolina, lawyers Court will get involved. “The strong chalin journalism and political science.

The Hill 7

T

E

DOMESTIC

Party on, Dems Slim majority in Senate and moderates in House shape Congressional agenda

By David Zoppo Staff Writer

N

ov. 7, 2006, marked the first time that the Democratic Party assumed majority control in Congress since the Republican takeover in 1994. Democrats hailed this year’s midterm election as a sign of voter discontent with corruption in the Republican Party, the war in Iraq and an ultimate desire for policy change in Washington.

With their newly acquired power, Democrats wasted no time pursuing their agenda.

In an effort to show voters that they would follow through on campaign promises, Democrats rushed their “First 100 Hours” agenda through the House. The 100 hours legislation—which included a minimum wage hike and Medicare prescription drug reform— was passed in a scant 42 legislative hours, a fact the Democrats point to as a sign of their competence, authority and accountability.

“Today, Democrats stood united to say that we have kept our promise to the American people,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

However, the initial progress of the Democratic agenda has not been without its criticism —first of all, they did not allow Republican amendments to any one of the six pieces of legislation that were passed. In fact, Democrats stifled debate on the “100 Hours” bills in order to pass them quickly. More importantly, the bills must now make it through the Senate, a chamber where the Democrats technically do not even have a majority, though Independents Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont will caucus with the Democrats. If the “100 Hours” legislation makes that hurdle, then the prospective laws will still require the signature of President Bush, who could choose to exercise his veto power.

So what does this mean for the Democratic agenda? It is certain to travel much slower through the Senate. Traditionally, in the House, anything that is opposed by the leadership is not likely to be considered. House leadership has strict control over debate, amendment consid8 The Hill

eration and general House processions.

In the Senate, debate on legislation is not nearly as tightly controlled by majority leadership as it is in the House. So long as 41 of the 49 Senate Republicans caucus together, the Democrats will be unable to put together the majority needed to break a Republican filibuster. With this in mind, Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged that the House bills will undergo significant revision if they are to be passed.

ETHICS REFORM Ethics reform was the first legislation to be considered in both Houses of the 110th Congress. The House passed ethics and lobbying reforms, which prevent members from accepting gifts, free meals and travel from lobbyists. The legislation also requires that all earmarks attached to bills be publicized.

The Senate bill essentially mimics the House version, with a few exceptions.

First, it prohibits former Congressmen from lobbying their onetime colleagues until they have been out of office for two years.

Secondly, it prevents spouses of Congressmen from lobbying the institution. Finally, the measure requires lobbyists to disclose “bundled” Congressional contributions--or contributions that are consolidated when they come from close relatives, friends and clients.

This measure passed 96-2, with the only nay votes coming from two Republicans— Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Orrin Hatch of Utah. Coburn would have rather the bill addressed the issue of excessive Congressional earmarking. “Earmark abuse was at the center of the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals,” said Sen. Coburn. “This bill will not change how Congress and lobbyists interact.”

Despite its overwhelming support in both Houses of Congress, the ethics reform bill nearly died in the Senate. Republicans demanded a vote on a measure that would

give the president a modified line-item veto on certain spending bills, but the Democrats were reluctant to allow for this. The deadlock was broken when Democrats agreed that they would give the latter proposal a vote when debate came up on the minimum wage bill.

MINIMUM WAGE Democrats have been pushing for a minimum wage hike since the summer of 2006. At that time, the Republican-controlled Congress tacked the hike on to a proposal that would have eliminated the estate tax. Democrats, however, would not accept this compromise. For the past six years, they have been committed to preserving the estate tax, claiming that its elimination would benefit only the richest portion of taxpayers.

The new Democratic legislation is free of any measure that would eliminate the estate tax. Their minimum wage hike raises the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over a period of 36 months. The bill was passed by a vote of 315-116, with 82 Republicans signing on to the measure and no Democrats dissenting.

Despite its strong support in the House, the bill faltered in the Senate; Republicans refuse to give the measure an up or down vote unless it has legislation attached that would give tax relief to small businesses, which they claim will face higher labor costs. The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Montana Democrat Max Baucus, has voted to add $8.3 billion in such tax breaks to the bill in an effort to garner the support of both the president and Senate Republicans.

Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was initially opposed to any tax breaks being attached to the bill. However, he has since decided to move ahead with the legislation; however, the House version of the bill contains only about $1.5 billion in tax breaks for small businesses, a small amount in compari-

DOMESTIC piece of legislation that is debated on the Senate floor in the coming weeks.

“The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country ... We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures ... to ensure a full and open debate,” read a letter the seven Republicans sent to Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnel.

Taryn Mahoney

son to the Senate package.

Sen. Baucus recognizes this discrepancy but was still relieved that Rangel allowed for the tax breaks to be included. “I’m pleased that Chairman Rangel is moving forward in the House,” said Baucus. “The Senate-passed package is larger, of course, than what he’s proposing, so we’ll still have to work that out between the two chambers.”

THE POLICY IN IRAQ Iraq is perhaps the only policy area where Democrats will have relative ease in pursuing their agenda. As a result of declining public support for the war and an increase in sectarian violence in Iraq, Congressmen from both sides of the aisle have voiced their opposition to the president’s troop surge. Sens. Chuck Hagel, John Warren and Susan Collins are among the prominent Republicans who have voiced dissatisfaction with Bush’s new plan.

“We can’t change the outcome of Iraq by putting American troops in the middle of a civil war,” Hagel said.

As a result of this unified opposition to the president’s plan, Democrats in Congress have been trying to find ways to exercise more direct control over the president’s strat-

egy in Iraq. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that Congress will consider legislation revising the 2002 mandate it gave to President Bush to use military force in Iraq.

Bipartisanship in the Senate has led John Warren and Carl Levin to craft a resolution opposing Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more soldiers to Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid believes that public opposition to the war will lead Senators across party lines to support such a resolution.

Forty-seven Senators (all Republican except Joe Lieberman) recently blocked debate on the latter resolution. They insisted that the Senate also consider a vote on two other Republican resolutions: one from John McCain, which offers support for the president’s plan, and the other from Judd Gregg, which simply offers support for the troops.

Reid accuses the Republicans of being complicit with the Bush’s war policy. “Republicans have given the president a green light,” he said.

However, several days after Republicans blocked debate on the Warren/Levin resolution, seven Senators broke from the ranks, saying that they would attach a measure protesting the president’s plan to any

EMBRYOS AND ENERGY Funding for embryonic stem cell research is a another measure that has considerable support from members of both parties in each House of Congress; nevertheless, last year Bush vetoed a bill that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He promises to veto the measure if it should reach his desk again. This could kill the bill, for the House does not have a veto-proof majority to pass the bill into law without Bush’s signature.

The last piece of legislation passed as a part of the Democratic 100 Hours agenda was the Long-Term Alternative Energy Act, which would repeal the previous tax breaks that oil and gas firms received. Further, the measure would set aside the $13 to $15 billion in the revenue it generates for appropriations and incentives toward renewable energy resources.

Bush has said the he is opposed to raising tax rates on oil and gas industries, and the bill is likely to be tempered in the Senate.

Another thing that Democrats must consider is that their freshmen House members were elected by running a campaign that embraced more moderate stances than those of the Democratic leadership. This could significantly reduce their majority on contentious social issues that may come up for a vote.

No matter what the issue, it’s apparent that the election euphoria that many Democrats experienced after Nov. 7 is wearing off.

They are faced with a newly elected conservative wing in the House, a paper-thin majority in the Senate and—above all—a Republican president who is notorious for his stubborn, tough-guy attitude. The test for the Democratic leadership is to moderate legislation so that it is acceptable to all of these parties and at the same time fulfill the campaign promises that swept them into power.

David Zoppo is a freshman majoring in political science.

The Hill 9

DOMESTIC

Big Oil and the Big 3

Political, popular support for alternative energy threatens Detroit automakers

By Hunter Gray Ellis Staff Writer

D

uring his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush said America was “addicted to oil.” This year, Bush has made it clear that his focus is still on attaining energy independence. To accomplish this objective, Bush is calling for a mandatory increase in the production of ethanol and other alternative fuels for cars and trucks while facilitating a nearly 20 percent cut in the production of gasoline over the next decade.

The ultimate goal is to increase fuel efficiency four percent by 2010 for cars (2012 for trucks.

As with any plan, however, there are plenty of kinks — financial, technological and environmental — to work out.

Ford’s massive shortfall is representative of catastrophic American industrywide losses. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. While the event showcased cuttingedge designs by Chrysler and Ford, the recent losses by GM, Ford and Chrysler have people wondering how much longer Detroit will remain the automotive capital of the world.

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION For international manufacturer Toyota, the present could not be any brighter. Toyota is about to surpass Ford Motor Co. with profits of $28 billion this year. Analysts believe the company will become the world’s largest automotive manufacturer by the 2007 calendar year.

With a sales juggernaut, the gas-electric hybrid Toyota Prius and the second-best fuel efficient car lineup after Honda at 28.9 miles per gallon, Toyota has effectively edged out Ford and GM. “We didn’t appreciate the image value of hybrids,” said Larry Burns, GM’s research and development chief, concerning the last ten years. “We missed that.”

In mid-December, Toyota’s chairman, Fuijo Cho, and Ford’s Mulally met to discuss talks of a possible alliance. It was stressed that these talks did not result in any specific details but are a sign that Toyota is seeking to make peace with the U.S.’s second-biggest automobile manufacturer. A senior Toyota executive said of the meeting, “I don’t know if Mr. Mulally realizes this, but if he asked for help or suggested a way to collaborate, knowing Mr. Cho, he would go out of his way to be responsive.”

DETROIT’S CRISIS These governmental policy changes occur amid a crisis in the American automobile industry. Ford Motor Co. reported a record $12.7 billion in losses for the 2006 fiscal year. William Clay Ford, Jr., Ford’s chief executive officer, announced in September 2006 that he would become executive chairman to make room for Alan Mulally, former Boeing Co. executive, as Ford’s CEO. “We are at the bottom,” Mulally told the Free Press. Ford will close 16 plants and cut 44,000 jobs as it attempts to downsize production. Ford hopes to win Americans over with a 70 percent new lineup of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury models in 2009, when the company expects to start turning profits again.

J.D. Power and Associates, the industry quality guru, defended U.S. automakers, saying, “Big Three [GM, Ford and Chrysler] vehicles are more reliable than European-made cars, and the gap relative to Asian vehicles has GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS almost disappeared.”

In light of better technology power10 The Hill

ing today’s cars and a tightening gap between brands, Bush has also proposed government regulations to increase fuel economy. At last year’s State of the Union address, Bush asked for the authority to change the average fuel economy, but Congress rejected his request.

The current rules and regulations for car mileage, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, were set in 1975 to set a standard fuel economy following the Arab oil embargo. Unfortunately, the CAFE has been frozen at 27.5 miles per gallon since 1990.

In those 17 years domestic oil production has declined by almost a third, from 7.4 to 5.2 million barrels a day, and imports have risen from 5.9 to 10.1 million barrels a day to fill that gap.

Nicole Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has pleaded for the outdated standards to be changed. However, strong opposition within the government has forced the issue to a standstill.

The Transportation Department has offered the idea of adding a new set of guidelines that shift the focus from average fleet mileage onto creating standards for each vehicle model type.

These standards would be created based on the vehicle’s “footprint,” the distance between the wheels.

Critics opposed to changing the current system argue that increasing fuel efficiency would lead to more vehicular deaths in automobile accidents as companies would meet the new goals by switching to smaller cars. Democrats foresee several technical loopholes that could be exploited with this model-based system.

The new system has also been criticized for placing great burdens on automotive companies that produce larger vehicles,

DOMESTIC namely American companies.

MAKING BIOFUEL COMPETITIVE President Bush faces many obstacles with his current plan for combating America’s “oil addiction.” Corn is the only real alternative to cellulosic ethanol, or switchgrass.

Ethanol and biofuel manufacturers certainly see the plan as beneficial, although one of the primary obstacles is that cellulosic ethanol is synthesized from switchgrass, a crop still not grown at anywhere near competitive prices. An additional 40 million acres of switchgrass would be required along with the infrastructure to allow for the shipment, storing and transforming of this feedstock into fuel.

Problematic steps will be required to cultivate the necessary amount of ethanol at market competitive prices. Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, was a longtime advocate of alternative fuels but now worries about the environmental repercussions of a mass scale operation of ethanol. “There is not much thought given to the impact it will have on land, wildlife, water pollution, the food supply, trade or anything else,” he said. “It’s unfortunate, because biofuels deserve better than that.”

Expanding the nation’s ethanol use up to 35 billion gallons a year sets in motion nearly two decades of new technologies, unexpected environmental problems and politics. Former Senate Majority Leader and Bush adversary Tom Daschle was an early advocate of supplementing gasoline with ethanol.

Daschle is a senior scholar at the Center for American Progress and believes that the growing popularity of ethanol is centered on four factors: global warming, national security implications of complete or near-complete dependence on foreign energy, rising gasoline prices and the desire of farmers to gain more income.

Arguments for ethanol have been strengthened by the discovery of methyl tert-butyl ether in thousands of public and private water wells. MTBE is a noxious chemical used in the petroleum industry to enhance octane ratings of gasoline.

Bob Dinneen, president of the

ALTERNATIVE FUEL DEFINED Biofuel is any fuel that is derived from biomass, or recently living organisms or their metabolic by-products (like manure from cows).

This is a renewable energy source unlike other natural sources such as petroleum, coal and nuclear fuels.

CAFE is a set of regulations enacted by Congress in 1975 to regulate and improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the U.S. after the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo.

Cellulosic Ethanol is a type of ethanol that includes cellulose, the primary material of green plants. It is produced from a number of biomass sources including switchgrass.

Switchgrass

is a hardy perennial prairie grass that is considered a good candidate for biofuel. It has a huge biomass output, or the raw plant material used to make biofuel, of 610 tons per acre.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

Renewable Fuels Association, said of the current state of the ethanol industry, “We’re going to blow past the 7.5 billion figure sometime next year.” The group states that there are currently 112 active ethanol factories in the United States with another 77 under construction.

Bush envisions that most of the additional ethanol would come from materials such as grass and wood fiber — two noncommercial sources — instead of corn. Financial analysts and company executives warn that shortages of corn could have great effects on the supply of food for livestock in this country. “We fully support efforts toward renewable energy,” states Richard L. Bond, chairman and chief executive of Tyson Foods Inc. “However, as the food versus fuel debate unfolds, we must carefully consider the negative and unintended consequences of overusing grains.”

President Bush’s proposals on alternative fuels have not gone unnoticed by his critics. From expanding ethanol production to abolishing the CAFE number system, it is apparent that Bush seeks to help the U.S. become less dependent on foreign oil and to combat the effects of a changing world climate. All of this news arrives as Ford announced massive profit losses for the fiscal year 2006, while Toyota continues to close the gap on America’s automobile industry. The effects of hybrid vehicles and ethanol fuel are setting the pace for a global effort to prevent the disastrous scenarios linked to an global warming.

The major question left to be answered is whether America will possess the resolve to increase ethanol production as intended, or if the nation will still be debating the issue years later.

Hunter Gray Ellis is a sophomore majoring in journalism.

The Hill 11

Africa:

Striving to overcome a continental divide On a continent riddled by war, disease and distrust, signs of hope are emerging.

Several new approaches to international aid funnel money and support where it is most needed, and nations have joined together for peacekeeping and unity. Still, many challenges remain. The Hill explores Africa’s promise and problems in this special cover section.

ney

aho

nM

y Tar

PRODUCT RED: AID AS BIZ

What’s Inside 14 Africa’s success stories 14 Somalia: Front in War on Terror 16 AU seeks unity and peace

By Lilly Lampe Domestic Editor

17 Aid programs that work

W

18 China’s economic presence

Lilly Lampe

ith millions of lives on the line, Bono is putting all his money on Red. Red, that is, as in his new global brand Product Red, an effort to raise money and awareness in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Almost 5 million people became infected with HIV last year—the largest number since the disease was discovered in 1981, according to the Joint United Nations annual AIDS report. Sub-Saharan Africa, though home to just 10 percent of the world’s population, accounts for more than 60 percent of people living with HIV. The infection rate in eastern and southern Africa is so high that up to 60 percent of today’s 15-year-olds will not make it to 60. Though funding for AIDS prevention and treatment has increased from $300 million to $5 billion, it is still less than half of what is needed in developing countries. It seems traditional philanthropic models are not enough.

In response to this problem, Bono, headliner of the multiplatinum rock band U2, launched Product Red with partners American Express, Gap, Converse and Giorgio Armani to generate a “sustainable” flow of money to support the Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria. On average, these companies have pledged 40 percent of their profits to the Global Fund.

Bono stresses this is a commercial venture, not philanthropy. Product Red wants to draw on the branding expertise of its corporate partners, while these partners gain through the broadening of their customer base and betterment of their public image.

Celebrity-endorsed charities are often met with suspicion by the public. “Some cynicism is justified,” said singer Peter Gabriel at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “There will be celebrities who fall for the wrong cause, and those who jump on a bandwagon trying to revive their flagging careers.” Though it seems celebrity action has culminated in battles to adopt children from the most obscure country (ahem, Madonna) this is not to say celebrity status can’t be used for good. This phenomenon is called the “Diana-effect” for the late Princess Diana, whose public acceptance of AIDS inspired stars to use their influence on an otherwise apathetic public. Without Queen Rania of Jordan and Oprah Winfrey, “Women for Women,” a charity that helps women in war zones, would have gone unheard and women raped by soldiers in Rwanda would have gone without help.

Bono has the backing of the world’s most powerful leaders. Oprah has called him “Ambassador to the World.” He has also made strong ties with philanthropic billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates. The three were named Time Magazine’s Persons of the Year in 2005 for their charity work. Retired Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, whom Bono recruited to his cause, bears testimony to the “Bono-effect.” “After so

many years in Washington, I had met enough well-known people to quickly figure out who was genuine and who was there for show,” said Sen. Helms. “I knew as soon as I met Bono that he was genuine. He has absolutely nothing to gain personally as a result of his work. In fact, he has opened himself to criticism because he has been willing to work with anyone to find help for these children who have taken his heart.”

Of his new brand, Bono has said, “Philanthropy is like hippy music, holding hands. Red is more like punk rock, hip hop, this should feel like hard commerce.” Although not everyone may understand the rock star’s jargon, his message is clear. Bono is changing the trend from celebrities getting into charity’s business to charity becoming a business.

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

COVER

Stable nations offer hope

By Sam Perkins Opinion Editor

W

hile it is sometimes difficult to gauge the situation in Africa due to a lack of attention, progress has been made and stability has emerged in countries that have spent years engaged in bloody wars.

Liberia — America’s project in Africa — had seen decades of civil war until about the past year. The removal and subsequent exile of brutal dictator Charles Taylor in 2003 provided a window of opportunity the citizens of Liberia, in conjunction with the international community, did not let slip by.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf won the presidential election in October 2005 to become the first female leader in Africa. As a Harvard-trained economist, she is giving full focus to developing Liberia’s economy.

Next door to Liberia, the Ivory Coast is still pushing for such peace, although it is getting closer. Again, like most West African nations, the Ivory Coast has been engulfed in civil war. The various parties involved have had difficulties obeying agreements in recent years. However, since the exodus of the international community in 2004, the warring parties have calmed down.

The United Nations and South African government have mediated talks, and in 2005, the parties agreed upon a ceasefire and disarmament plan, which remains effective today.

Presidential elections have been delayed, but raging street battles, Continued on page 19 14 The Hill

Somalia revisited

African nation is new front in War on Terror

By Ben Piven Staff Writer

H

eadlines have been few and far between, but Somalia has exploded onto the world stage once again. The implications of this newest conflict could redefine the War on Terror that characterizes U.S. foreign policy. For Somalis, it means more dislocation and disorder, a life they have become accustomed to in the nearly decade and a half that warlords and armed militias have run this volatile nation.

A TRADITION OF INSTABILITY Somalia has been virtually without a functioning government since 1991.

Most recently the fundamentalist Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) sought to institute Islamic sharia law and unite the fractious clan-based Somali society under the banner of Islam—and it was largely successful.

In 2006, the UIC consolidated its power through alliances with local militias and threatened to overtake authority from the warlords who have traditionally held power, threatening to destabilize the entire region by installing a radical Islamic regime.

In an uncharacteristic move, the warlords joined forces with the transitional government authority and (with military support from Ethiopia) drove the UIC fighters into submission in late December 2006.

The battle may be over, but not the war. Somalia’s transitional government faces continuing questions about its legitimacy and ability to govern. A report by the Council on Foreign Relations says Somalia has a full-blown “terrorist infestation,” with the U.S. military conducting several targeted assassinations in January on what it says are al Qaeda members responsible for the 1998 East African embassy bombings. Somalia’s weak law enforcement and proximity to the Arabian Peninsula—it lies just a short boat ride away from Yemen— have made it a hotspot for terrorists in tran-

sit or seeking refuge, the UIC even offering sanctuary to international terrorists when it was in control. Ethiopian troops began their withdrawal on Jan. 23, but it remains to be seen whether the transitional government will lose its grip on power, like so many governments before it.

VIOLENT CLASHES Early 2005 saw the expansion of the UIC, as it formed alliances with militias and received financial backing from Somali business leaders. The UIC imposed sweeping social ordinances, forbidding of the use of the stimulant drug “khat” or cigarettes and prohibiting cinemas, soccer or the mixing of men and women in public.

For the most part, the UIC was successful in bringing some semblance of law and order to the areas it controlled.

In June 2006, the UIC extended its control south toward Mogadishu and wrested power from the warlords who controlled the city. In response to the power grab by the UIC, the warlords formed a coalition: the “Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism” (ARPCT). The ARPCT was unable to hold onto territory, and the UIC extended its control throughout central and southern Somalia. Fighting eventually broke out around Baidoa, the seat of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG). The TFG, a group of Ethiopia-supported secular warlords, is the only authority recognized by the international community but holds little power within Somalia, currently running its sessions of parliament out of a former grain warehouse.

Facing the prospect of a civil war on its eastern border, Ethiopia launched air strikes on Dec. 24 against UIC positions inside Somalia and sent in ground troops to support TFG forces. The result was a crushing defeat for the Islamists, who abandoned their final stronghold on Dec. 31. Ethiopia

COVER has made clear that it will keep troops in Somalia only as long as it takes for an African Union force to take over. The Islamists, many of whom have fled the country or simply shaved their beards and melted back into the population, have vowed to wage a guerrilla war.

FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT As if the conflict inside Somalia weren’t already confusing enough, the clash in Somalia has been framed as a proxy war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, two bitter rivals after a bloody conflict that ended in 2000. Ethiopia is also the mortal enemy of Somalia, the lingering effect of a border war in 1977. Even so, Ethiopia has a large stake in what happens in Somalia—with a population split evenly between Christians and Muslims, Ethiopia can’t afford the destabilizing effect of an extremist-controlled neighbor. Eritrea is eager to see Ethiopia bogged down with an intervention in Somalia and reportedly provided arms and soldiers to the UIC. A November 2006 U.N. report has accused Iran and Syria of having provided weapons and training to the UIC, possibly in exchange for uranium.

While the U.S. has been hesitant to get mixed up in Somalia after losing 18 troops in a 1993 firefight in Mogadishu to arrest a warlord, it has also thrown its weight behind the TFG and given tacit support for Ethiopian military involvement.

U.S. strikes within Somalia against what it says are al Qaeda operatives and a Feb. 1 announcement that the U.S. government-funded “Voice of America” radio broadcasts would resume in Somalia for the first time since 1994 might signal a renewed U.S. presence in the region.

According to a New York Times article, many U.S. government officials have been critical of a covert C.I.A. operation that has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to secular warlords with the goal of capturing al Qaeda leaders thought to be operating out of Somalia.

The plan, they charge, carried out without the knowledge of many Defense Department and State Department officials, has actually caused the resurgence of Islamic militias in the country—precisely the opposite of what it was designed to do. In

Lilly Lampe

any event, association with the U.S. and Ethiopia cannot be a positive for the already weak Baidoa transitional government and could undermine its tenuous hold on power in Somalia.

CONTINUING CHALLENGES UNC-Chapel Hill political science professor Andrew Reynolds, who has worked most recently with the fledgling democracies in post-war Iraq and Afghanistan, admits that the prospects look bleak for Somalia. He sees two similar scenarios playing out. In the first, African Union peacekeeping troops, a notoriously ineffective force, take over from the Ethiopians but are unable to rein in militant factions, and Somalia returns to the anarchy it has know since 1991. In the second, the Ethiopians stay but risk looking too much like an occupying force, leading to more support for a guerrilla insurgency against Ethiopian troops. Sporadic attacks

by Islamists occur even now against the Ethiopians. In either case, the TFG is simply unable to control the country.

Will the new government be able to

consolidate its power? “The TFG isn’t made up of academics or altruistic individuals” by any stretch, says Reynolds, and some of the warlords might have an economic stake in seeing the country simmer for a bit longer. “I don’t see any reason for [Somalia] not to revert to what it was before,” Reynolds says.

Despite this gloomy assessment, Somalia does have a beacon of hope. The break-away state of Somaliland, located in the country’s northwest and independent since 1991, has since achieved a good measure of stability in relation to the southern portion of the country—but will the rest of the country follow this model? The only real hope is that a robust peacekeeping force can stop the violence and that the competing clans and sub-clans that make up the Somali political structure will rise above sectarian squabbling to create a viable government. If not, the TFG will fail like the 13 previous clan-based governments before it.

Ben Piven is a junior majoring in international studies.

The Hill 15

COVER

The state of the African Union

Humanitarian crises test organization’s effectiveness

By Alex Smith Staff Writer

A

frican leaders, gathering in Addis Ababa for the 8th annual summit of the African Union, established the International Year of Football in anticipation of South Africa hosting the World Cup in 2010. In addition, they were hoping to focus on the potential for science in aiding development and the threat of climate change.

Unfortunately, instead of dealing with these issues exclusively, the African leaders were confronted with the horrors of Darfur and Somalia, conflicts that could shatter the fabric of African unity and bring suffering to millions of people.

TRIAL AND ERROR The AU was founded in 2002 after the former Organization of African Unity (OAU) was declared ineffective. As war, disease and poverty ravage the continent, hopeful leaders are building the supranational institution as a unified front to these grave threats. Resembling the EU, the AU promotes the idea of “unity in diversity,” believing that national differences can be turned into comparative advantages. One fundamental difference between the OAU and the AU is that the AU is less restricted by national sovereignty.

The AU peacekeeping mission in Darfur represents a critical test of African unity.

The peacekeepers have made little progress, and many observers criticize the mission as a failure. After stabilizing the region for months, the troops became the object of some attacks by the Janjaweed (allegedly backed by Sudan’s government), as reported by CBS News. Eric Reeves, a noted Sudan researcher, called the AU force “weak, undermanned, under-equipped and badly demoralized.” It is unfortunate that one of Africa’s first peacekeeping missions, financially hindered by poverty and the small 16 The Hill

size of African armies, was deployed in a region as large as France. Furthermore, Sudan restricted the ability of the AU to protect civilians by defining its role as an “observer.”

But the AU seems to be recovering.

The effectiveness of African peacekeeping troops rests on the motivation of the member states to contribute. According to BBC News, several African nations, including South Africa and Nigeria, have consistently participated in peacekeeping missions by providing troops. Rwanda and Uganda, nations scarred by genocide and tyranny, contributed thousands of troops to the Darfur mission and plan to help stabilize Somalia with over a thousand troops each. Their support legitimizes the peace missions since the presence of troops from a troubled nation represents the horrors of violence and gives hope to the civilians under attack. Other nations, including Malawi and Ghana, are also offering troops to Somalia.

CONTROVERSY OVER SUDAN Unfortunately, while the imperfections of AU peacekeeping troops may not harm African unity, the politicking of individual states might. During the AU summit, Sudan attempted to become the organization’s chair, which the nation voluntarily postponed last year due to concerns about Darfur. Although largely procedural, many groups across Africa expressed reservations about such a position, rightfully warning that a Sudanese presidency would diminish the neutrality of the African peacekeeping troops. Chad even threatened to leave the AU, BBC News reported. It was widely suspected that Sudan sought the position to shift focus away from Darfur.

The AU had promised Sudan the position for 2007, upon the condition that Darfur improved. Sensing an injustice,

Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali Sadiq told the International Herald Tribune that “African heads of states will have to stick to their word (and select al-Bashir), otherwise what is the point for the AU to hold meetings and reach agreements.” In the end, Sudan acquiesced and Ghana took the chairmanship. Sudan’s opportunity to assume the position was only based on the tradition that the nation hosting the summit gains it. But the formal procedure is by vote, and the Sudanese government knew that. The AU, voting for Ghana, gave itself credibility by adhering to its basic rules and showing flexibility at the same time. The point of the AU meetings is unity, but only through legitimacy.

While Sudan’s dubious maneuvering highlights the power struggles among African nations (one of the main problems of African unity), South Africa is working behind the scenes as an agent to further integration. Last October, “Africa’s superpower” won a seat on the UN Security Council. One of its first moves was to reject a resolution calling Myanmar to improve its human rights situation. The Economist reports that, although surprising, South Africa is sending a signal to Western nations asserting Africa’s independence. According to BBC News, Foreign Minister DlaminiZuma declared South Africa would “serve the peoples of Africa, the south and the world.” South Africa, timid in its relations with African nations after apartheid, will now speed and strengthen African unity because of its enormous economic and diplomatic clout.

DOMESTIC PROGRESS Further integration will depend not only upon the relations among its nations, but also upon the conditions within them.

It appears that the seeds of true democracy are beginning to sprout. At the conclusion

COVER of the AU summit, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer gave a positive assessment on the political climate in Africa with the statement: “We have … had good consultations on our partnership on regional peacekeeping, on economic development and on elections support.” She emphasized the importance of this by saying that West Africa alone would have over 11 elections this year. This is good news for integration, not only because democracy will reduce

violence within nations, but also because the Pan-African Parliament, a budding AU organ, will gain a firm foundation. In fact, the PAP will not function without democracy in its member states. The AU eventually plans to establish the PAP as the primary source of power within the organization, with its members chosen by universal suffrage. The Parliament could serve to quell conflicts between nations such as Chad and Sudan because it would serve the people of

Africa, not power-hungry individuals.

Next year, according to AngolaPress, it has been decided that theme of the 9th AU summit will be “An AU government: towards the United States of Africa.” African leaders, flush with the hope of a peaceful and prosperous continent, are recognizing that unity is a goal to shoot for.

Alex Smith is a freshman majoring in economics.

The future of aid Hint: It’s not in the (Red) marketing scheme

N

ot even half a century removed from colonization, many young African countries continue to strive to build a strong, stable economy.

Pakistan, African countries such as Kenya and South Africa are also seeing the program brought forth.

Microfinancing has proven particularly successful with women across the world. Even in regions where cultures deprive women of many rights and opOne key to that establishment is portunities, women have been able to utilizing foreign aid to its fullest extent. provide for their families.

For decades, the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund led the way “Today, there is little in providing financing for poor African nations. success to be found that Today, however, there is little success can be attributed to to be found that can be attributed to the WBG or IMF. But where some programs the WBG or IMF. But fail, others emerge and have even shown the success that seems to have eluded where some programs the African region for so long. fail, others emerge and Corrupt governments have long dehave even shown the fied efforts for economic improvement.

The key recent focus has been on providsuccess that seems to ing aid and incentives to individuals. have eluded the African Microfinance and microcredit programs have exploded onto the scene as region for so long.” credible, successful programs. Bangladeshi Muhammad Yunus developed miThe catch to such a program does crofinancing through Grameen Bank in not snag the people it helps but rather the 1970s, and in 2006, he was nominated the people who take the chance of headfor the Nobel Peace Prize. ing such a program. The industry is not This system of financial aid provides one for those seeking gargantuan—or small loans—just enough to start a small even marginal—profits. In addition, it is business or build within a small indus- a private sector program, something that try— with extremely low interest and ex- many claim takes away from the developtended time to pay off the loans. ment and self-sufficiency of poor counWhile the system is most popular in tries.

Asian countries such as Bangladesh and Nonetheless, the Grameen Bank has

issued more than $5 billion in loans since 1976 and thirty years later had only $4 million in outstanding debt.

The United Nations has quickly jumped aboard the microfinance bandwagon, going so far as to proclaim 2005 the International Year of Microcredit, setting various goals the implementation of the program.

Again, while mostly in South Asia, the Consultive Group to Assist the Poor estimates that half a billion of the world’s three billion poor people benefit from small loans.

Other small programs are also emerging with plenty of cases of success.

Fair trade organizations certify products where the people responsible for their manufacturing. The Fairtrade Labeling Organizations (FLO) puts forth standards for certification that include using safe and permitted materials, operating under certain human and labor rights, and promoting social, economic and environmental development.

Direct foreign monetary aid still flows into Africa, but it can by no means be the solution. Programs such as these, however, are sustainable.

These programs indicate that the tools with which Africa can be fixed are out there. The key is assembling a complete tool box.

Sam Perkins is a senior majoring in journalism.

The Hill 17

COVER

Checking Chinese ambitions

China poses similar challenges to African nations, U.S.

By Melissa Brzycki International Editor

T

he United States and Zambia have more in common than one might guess. Both countries are facing domestic pressure to stop the negative effects of globalization. In the Zambian presidential election last September, there were two main contenders: the incumbent President Levy Mwanawasa and his opponent Michael Chilufya Sata. In this subSaharan country where more than half the population lives on one dollar a day, Sata gained a following by emphasizing a protectionist message — promising to cut off ties to China.

GROWING PROTECTIONISM China has been exporting its own cheap manufactured goods to Zambia.

Conversely, China has been importing copper from Zambia, a major source of revenue for the country. The Chinese have been running many of the copper mines and have opened up other factories. In doing so, Sata contends that the Chinese have been exploiting Zambian workers, reports the Canadian National Post. Sata says the Chinese provide poor, unsafe working conditions. He went so far as to propose breaking off all diplomatic ties with mainland China and recognizing Taiwan instead, something that would be a grave insult to Beijing.

Sata may have lost the election to the Sino-friendly incumbent, but the fears that fueled Sata’s popularity have not vanished. These concerns are very similar to the ones that are currently stimulating protectionist inclinations in the U.S., too.

The newly elected Democratic Congress consists of many members who are not comfortable with free trade. Their constituents include former manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs to Chinese factories. The rise of this economic populism, as the Economist terms it, has 18 The Hill

serious implications for U.S. foreign policy. American lawmakers have the power to cut back on the liberalization of trade. A law to normalize trade relations with Vietnam was almost defeated in the House this past November, before the influx of even more protectionist representatives.

FREE TRADE’S COSTS, BENEFITS Though the benefits of free trade are enormous, costs are present as well. The U.S. must expend about $1 billion per year to allay the cost to unemployed workers whose jobs have been cut because of international competition; however, the U.S. economy as a whole gains approximately $1 trillion per year from free trade, according to a Jan. 18 article in the Economist.

The benefits to Africa are not so easily identified. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development averaged the entire continent of Africa’s economic growth at five percent last year, with expectations for faster growth in the future.

Angola’s economy grew at an astounding 15.5 percent last year, though its relative prosperity is much more closely tied to its oil resources than any sort of growth in domestic firms or manufacturing. In fact, this is one of many criticisms leveled at China in regard to its relationship to Africa.

China has been voraciously consuming Africa’s resources. The price of oil is up 90 percent since 2000; similarly, the price of minerals and metals has risen 70 percent. China alone has caused oil demand to rise 40 percent between 2000 and 2004. According to the Economist, this demand for commodities may be keeping Africa’s economies from diversifying.

Oil extraction and mining do not bring many jobs to the labor market, either.

Many Western leaders also charge that Africa is attempting to hold up its end of oil consumption by any means. The Chi-

nese have been noticeably apathetic about the human rights records or corruption of the regimes they support. When the U.S. and Canadian oil companies left Sudan in the wake of its genocide, China filled the gap. It supports the Sudanese government against United Nations intervention in Darfur. It has backed Zimbabwe’s government against the U.N. Security Council in much the same way. Of course, the Chinese assert that they are just doing business, and surprisingly, some Africans prefer this approach. In many countries, the strings usually attached to Western aid and investment can seem like heavyhanded condescension.

African countries are not uniformly benefiting from relations with China.

Countries without precious commodities like oil have suffered. One notable industry that has been decimated by Chinese competition is Africa’s textile industry, much like in the U.S. According to the Economist, the domestic textiles industries of Lesotho and Mauritius have particularly endured hardship as a result of cheaper Chinese products. Many argue that the Chinese have an unfair advantage over both African countries and the U.S. Besides allegations of dumping in Africa, the Chinese yuan is widely acknowledged as undervalued. This means that its exports are cheaper in the international marketplace. Some even label this a government subsidy, leading the U.S. to consider filing a World Trade Organization case against China for this practice.

This value distortion has contributed to China’s enormous trade surplus with the rest of the world. China also owns the largest amount of foreign exchange reserves in the world, which, according to the BBC, both economists and policy makers are concerned could lead to upsets in the global economy.

COVER IMPORTANT NUMBERS $1 billion

$1 trillion

Continued from page 14 The costs to the U.S. from international trade from lost American jobs The yearly gains to the U.S. economy from international trade

70 percent

The rise in prices of metals and minerals since 2000

90 percent

The rise in oil prices since 2000

5 percent

Stability

African economic growth last year Source: The Economist

INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE While China has clearly benefited from free trade, these gains have not come without a price. Some firms are beginning to look elsewhere, especially to neighboring Asian countries. Because of its economic success, China has seen the prices of production rise. Wages in particular have grown, in some places faster than productivity. There is also little guarantee of intellectual property rights in China. The U.S. raised this issue at the Sino-American conference which took place in Beijing this past December. This semi-annual conference, called the Strategic Economic Dialogue, aimed to mediate the major economic disputes between the two countries. The main issues were the undervalued yuan and the related enormous trade deficit. Despite the dialogue, the trade disparity does not look as if its resolution will come in the near future.

The U.S. and African countries that are currently engaged with China must be wary of rising protectionism as a response to international competition. Though trade with China is not perfect, perhaps not even particularly fair, the benefits which arise from it can not be ignored either.

Melissa Brzycki is a sophomore majoring in political science.

which primarily claim civilian lives, have at least stopped.

Sierra Leone is yet another one of the small West African nations engulfed in civil war throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium. Today, however, stability reigns.

These three nations — Liberia, Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone — all have something in common aside from geography. When locked in a state of civil war, the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) stepped in to aid the U.N. with peacekeeping.

Nigerian troops lead ECOMOG operations. While most of the world focuses on the emerging presence of oil and Islam in Nigeria, the country’s military has been a major factor contributing to peace and stability in the traditionally volatile West African region.

Central and Eastern Africa are the two other regions often engaged in war.

The now-infamous 1994 genocide in Rwanda still resonates, but the people are steadfast in their commitment to ensure that it never happens again.

Rwanda adopted a new constitution in 2003, and the new government elected soon after has committed itself to governance without discrimination based on race, ethnicity or religion.

Gender equality has emerged, too, with as much as half of parliament represented by women — that on top of a law requiring at least one-third female representation under the belief that women would not permit genocide to recur.

Perhaps most promising for Africa is the fact that its GDP growth rate continues to increase, sitting at 5.4 percent in 2005. Only two nations in Africa — Seychelles and Zimbabwe — saw a regression in growth rate, and only Central Africa saw a significant regression from 2004.

This does have mixed results.

While the monetary implications are positive, the implications for the people

may not be. Agriculture is quickly being replaced with mineral and oil industries, thereby putting citizens in a less stable situation. However, should countries be responsible with the additional cash flow, it can mean great progress. Botswana, once one of the poorest countries in the world, has done just that in developing an economic state up to which all other African nations can look.

In its 40-plus years of independence from Britain, Botswana has been the anomaly of Africa — a true democracy able to grow economically and peacefully under a government free of corruption. In fact, it has been ranked as both Africa’s least corrupt government and best credit risk.

While much of its economic success has come from the mineral industry, Botswana is pushing for reliance on more stable industries such as tourism.

Economic stability and a credible system have certainly allured foreign investment.

Botswana’s strong infrastructure has also allowed it to respond positively to U.N. goals. It is expected to meet six of the seven U.N. Millennium Development Goals. That means achieving targets aimed at addressing issues such as poverty, child malnutrition, education, maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS and environmental sustainability. The last hurdle for Botswana is combating its HIV/AIDS epidemic — one of the worst in Africa — although even that is seeing progress.

There are success stories in Africa.

They may not look like success stories in America with glamorous skyscrapers, nice cars, expensive clothes, tiny cutting-edge electronics and a general presence of luxury goods. Problems, especially HIV/AIDS, still linger.

Nonetheless, there is progress. International attention and efforts do make a difference, and countries like Botswana prove that where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Sam Perkins is a senior majoring in journalism.

The Hill 19

ww

OPINION

Bush’s new plan for Iraq: Scourge not surge

from the LEFT

By Sean Reed Love Columnist

D

uring his recent State of the Union address, Bush received applause from both sides of the aisle when he called for reducing gasoline consumption in the U.S. by 20 percent and balancing the federal budget.

But who supports the president’s new plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq?

Congress opposes it. Sean Reed Love ABC News reports 61 percent of Americans oppose it. Many Republicans are audibly skeptical, and even high-ranking military officials say raising troop levels will have only a temporary effect on security.

The previous war strategy of “stay the course” was a failure, but is this new “surge” method really going to make a difference? The situation in the streets of Baghdad, the sentiment of most Iraqis, the conclusions of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the Army’s own counterinsurgency field manual do not lead me to believe so.

The war in Iraq has already claimed the lives of more than 3,000 American troops, and a 2006 Lancet survey estimates the U.S. occupation will cause more than 650,000 Iraqi deaths. Despite efforts to eliminate insurgents, stabilize the government and train Iraqi troops, these numbers are still on the rise.

American troops clearly are no longer welcome. The Iraqi people want them out, and the national government must prepare to oversee Iraq autonomously and begin to govern on its own authority. The general ineffectiveness of coalition forces to stop marauding death squads has caused many Iraqis to turn to local militias for protection.

20 The Hill

Despite deep internal divisions made evident by the February 2006 bombing of the Al-Askari mosque by Sunni extremists and the differing reactions of Sunni and Shia factions to the execution of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis are united in their opposition to the U.S. occupation.

The Economist reported in January that 61 percent of Iraqis now approve of attacks on coalition forces, while 71 percent say they would like to see the withdrawal of American troops within a year.

It is clear that America has failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people — something that our military agrees is absolutely critical if we are to succeed.

Based on this alone, increasing the scope of the occupation by deploying 17,000 more troops to Baghdad and 4,500 more to Anbar Province is ludicrous. This is something Bush and Co. should have learned from the history books on Vietnam, a painful lesson that demonstrates more troops do not necessarily lead to success — just more death.

In December, the Iraq Study Group released a 142-page report outlining a new strategy for the war in Iraq. Most prominent among the report’s 79 recommendations is a proposal that the U.S. “should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq” and should begin to withdraw by early 2008.

Also, instead of the prolonged military involvement Bush now seems to favor, the Iraq Study Group advocates a more diplomatic approach in which the U.S. establishes a dialogue with insurgents and local militias and gives the Iraqi government a list of goals, or “milestones,” such as holding local elections and centrally controlling provinces.

If the U.S. is to realize some level of success in Iraq, then the policies sug-

gested by the Iraq Study Group must be implemented. Placing greater responsibility on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and challenging his government to become more independent is what will ultimately lead to decreased violence.

Although Bush said he would take the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group “very seriously” (and by now it is very clear that he has not), what he should take into consideration is his army’s own field manual on counterinsurgency.

The manual recommends a minimum troop density of 20 soldiers per every 1,000 civilians to maintain effective counterinsurgency operations. Do the math, and the U.S. would need at least 535,000 troops in Iraq — a number so extreme that even the addition of 21,500 troops would only bring total U.S. troop deployment in Iraq to just 153,500. Add to that the small multinational force of mostly British soldiers, as well as the large though poorly trained Iraqi security forces, and the number still comes up short at 473,000.

How can Bush account for the difference? The military is already overstretched — equipment is breaking down and troop rotation lags far behind Pentagon guidelines. It will take too long to recruit and train additional units, and Bush can’t expect to be able to call on the international community for support.

Unless he wants to start a draft, it is virtually impossible for Bush to attain the minimum troop level necessary to meet the counterinsurgency manual’s recommendation. Bush should implement the policies proposed by the Iraq Study Group and plan for a withdrawal, not a surge.

Sean Reed Love is a junior majoring in political science.

OPINION from the RIGHT

President’s vision for Iraq: Surge for success

By Juliann Neher Columnist

W

hen a CNN reporter remarked on President Bush’s low approval rating due to the war in Iraq, the Commander in Chief firmly replied that he would rather be right than popular. Exhibiting this same resolve in his State of the Union address in January, our president asked skeptics to give his new plan for Iraq a chance to succeed.

CNN’s report that Juliann Neher 61 percent of Americans oppose Bush’s plan for a troop surge hardly surprises me because I feel most Americans aren’t looking beyond the death toll and reading between the lines written by the liberal news media. With honest information and deeper consideration, the majority opinion would quickly change.

Opponents of the new plan question the decision to send more soldiers into a dangerous situation without much alteration in political strategy. What they do not realize is that there is barely room for political strategy in Iraq at this time. On Feb. 2, the White House stated that the opportunity for political strategy in Iraq is quickly fading. The current number of troops is not sufficient to stabilize the area, so the government cannot gain a firm foothold.

Troops must be added to defend the new government against insurgencies until it grows strong enough to develop a military and police force capable of functioning independently of U.S. assistance.

Regardless of whether it was correct for our military to enter Iraq in the first place, the U.S. is responsible for the overhaul that has transpired in Iraq. This makes us responsible for further assisting the Iraqi people not only because it means finishing a job we started but also because if we leave Iraq the way it is now, the country will col-

lapse. There are very useful economic and political resources to be gained by having a democratic ally in the Middle East. Opponents of Bush’s new plan should realize that the collapse of Iraq would result in the loss of those resources and Iraq’s transition into a massive breeding ground for extremists who would wreak havoc on the U.S. I hope that Americans would choose fighting this war in Iraq until it’s finished over the risk of another Sept. 11.

A brand new government full of new officials and backed by a new military needs a chance to learn and become independent. Barely a year removed from the passage of its constitution, Iraq is not yet at the weaning stage. Looking back at history, the U.S. needed French aid throughout its revolution, too. CNN recently reported that a group of Iraqi soldiers showed up an hour late to a search assignment and couldn’t execute their duties efficiently, so U.S. troops took over. The Iraqi troops need a paradigm military force like ours in action in order to develop an exemplary force of their own.

This is a matter of teacher to student ratios; a higher ratio of U.S. to Iraqi troops would expedite the teaching process. Iraq is struggling through a multifaceted transition — militarily, governmentally, economically and technologically — and it needs all the help it can get. Increasing troops by 21,500 will give that help, but not so much as to inhibit the Iraqis from taking control of their own country. Only with a temporary increase in troops will Iraq be stable enough for our troops to eventually pull out.

Meanwhile, this is all a game for Democratic Congress. The 2008 Democratic hopefuls are blinded by the prospect of controlling government and will do anything to ensure success. The Democratic Congress promised to serve the majority’s interests, which include pulling out of Iraq. Congress has the numbers to ensure withdrawal, so

why hasn’t it happened? Because no one knows for sure what will happen. By passing good for nothing (aka “symbolic”) resolutions condemning the president’s actions in Iraq, Democratic Congress is saving face. That way, no matter whether the situation is hopeful or disgraceful, come election time (which may or may not be enough time to determine the success of Bush’s policy), the Democrats will look good. Rather than stand up and accomplish something in the name of freedom, which is what our president is attempting to do, Democrats are hovering like vultures. According to CNN, 63 percent of Americans are happy with the domestic situation in America, so Democrats’ hope lies in failure in Iraq. What a horrible thing to hope for!

In the end, I know all Americans share a goal of a stable Iraq and a safe America.

We all want to be free from attacks on our homeland and to have our soldiers home.

What 61 percent of Americans don’t understand is that these goals will be achieved by Bush’s decisions — not by the inaction of a Democratic Congress.

Whether the history books will record the war in Iraq as a Vietnam or a World War II for America remains to be seen. My prediction is the latter; with Sept. 11 we saw our Pearl Harbor, with the war in Iraq we see a fight against a new Holocaust. With the troop surge, we will see a turning point.

The troop surge will not end the war in Iraq, but it will definitely help to do so. After the end of World War II, it took a 10-year occupation of Germany to stabilize the area, as well as a final bill of what would amount to $12 trillion dollars today and nearly 500,000 military deaths. Those are serious losses. But just like the war in Iraq today, the end result is well worth the fight.

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

The Hill 21

OPINION

A family affair

Small core of powerful families dominate American politics

By Stephen Largen Columnist

P

rominent American political families have dominated American democracy since its inception.

The familiar names of Adams, Long, Roosevelt and a myriad of other families of similar stature have left an indelible mark on American political traditions. Mentioned less frequently, however, are the emerging Bush and Clinton political Stephen Largen dynasties.

With Hillary Clinton’s entrance into the 2008 presidential race, the names filling American presidential terms for the past 18 and perhaps many more years to come could very well be a sequence between the two families, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, assuming Jeb Bush eventually relents with his disingenuous denials of presidential aspirations.

The last time a Bush or a Clinton wasn’t on the presidential ticket was 1976. This inexorable convergence of presidential office holders has had fundamental and far-reaching effects for not only American politics but also American life. If a diversity of political heritage and thought is one of the yardsticks by which the health of a democracy can be measured, then—by that standard— American democracy is in serious trouble.

While ascending to the presidency remains the apex for prominent families, Congress and local governments are the typical breeding grounds for political dynasties. Both Congress and local governments have a strong history of electing progeny and kin of prominent leaders.

There have been more than 700 families that have had at least two members serve in Congress.

22 The Hill

What does all this mean? One could extrapolate hundreds of significant threads from the trend, but I will highlight some of the bigger ones.

WHAT CAME FIRST? Historically, our votes have exhibited a preference for white, male politicians. White (using the all-ethnicityencompassing definition here) families make up the vast majority of American political dynasties. This trend points to a monolithic system of government. Most of the political dynasties have also come from the upper-middle and upper class.

This trend might suggest that Americans largely prefer these wealthy, white families. However, it is legitimate to ask whether voters have really “preferred” these candidates or whether their social class, resources and family name slimmed down the political field enough to facilitate winning elections.

In essence, it becomes a matter of these political families being able to make themselves politically viable in elections—and that’s half the effort it takes to win.

In this vein, it seems the chicken/egg conundrum doesn’t apply only to nature.

It is maddening to try to figure out which came first in American politics. Did people first vote for political figures because of strong family histories? Or did these same candidates make themselves politically viable for mass blocs of voters before political dynasties became an obvious pattern?

The origins may be debatable, but the consequences are clear. If the political field is dominated by a relatively small group of people, there is a limited range of views or policy ideas that ever come to fruition. With the exception of the rare Independents who

drop a white dot or two on the map of Congressional seats, when was the last time you heard of a non-major party candidate winning a national or even local election?

American democracy is somewhat unique in its exclusive, two-party system.

In England for example, three political parties have significant power in government. The exclusivity of two largely corporate-funded parties in American democracy further limits the range of political viewpoints that are expressed.

Our third party candidates serve the ostensible purpose of fodder for late-night comedy television.

In an increasingly diverse country, the opportunity to win political office and the opportunity to legislate views remains in the hands of a select few who happen to have the commonly accepted personal characteristics and viewpoints.

The counter-argument to all this recognizes the pattern but asserts that these dynastic political figures are somehow part of an informal American royal class, an intelligentsia who rightly deserve to be in higher office. This theory dictates that these candidates are in fact the only ones intelligent or sophisticated enough to dominate politics. One current example — George W. Bush — throws a hitch in this theory.

FAMILY FEUDS One of the problems that the continued ascendancy of family members engenders is the often acrimonious attempts by later politicians to outdo the legacy of their other family members.

The closest most of us come to any family drama are the awkward conversations over Thanksgiving dinner, but these family disputes play out on the national stage

OPINION

A family affair

Small core of powerful families dominate American politics

By Stephen Largen Columnist

P

rominent American political families have dominated American democracy since its inception.

The familiar names of Adams, Long, Roosevelt and a myriad of other families of similar stature have left an indelible mark on American political traditions. Mentioned less frequently, however, are the emerging Bush and Clinton political Stephen Largen dynasties.

With Hillary Clinton’s entrance into the 2008 presidential race, the names filling American presidential terms for the past 18 and perhaps many more years to come could very well be a sequence between the two families, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, assuming Jeb Bush eventually relents with his disingenuous denials of presidential aspirations.

The last time a Bush or a Clinton wasn’t on the presidential ticket was 1976. This inexorable convergence of presidential office holders has had fundamental and far-reaching effects for not only American politics but also American life. If a diversity of political heritage and thought is one of the yardsticks by which the health of a democracy can be measured, then—by that standard— American democracy is in serious trouble.

While ascending to the presidency remains the apex for prominent families, Congress and local governments are the typical breeding grounds for political dynasties. Both Congress and local governments have a strong history of electing progeny and kin of prominent leaders.

There have been more than 700 families that have had at least two members serve in Congress.

22 The Hill

What does all this mean? One could extrapolate hundreds of significant threads from the trend, but I will highlight some of the bigger ones.

WHAT CAME FIRST? Historically, our votes have exhibited a preference for white, male politicians. White (using the all-ethnicityencompassing definition here) families make up the vast majority of American political dynasties. This trend points to a monolithic system of government. Most of the political dynasties have also come from the upper-middle and upper class.

This trend might suggest that Americans largely prefer these wealthy, white families. However, it is legitimate to ask whether voters have really “preferred” these candidates or whether their social class, resources and family name slimmed down the political field enough to facilitate winning elections.

In essence, it becomes a matter of these political families being able to make themselves politically viable in elections—and that’s half the effort it takes to win.

In this vein, it seems the chicken/egg conundrum doesn’t apply only to nature.

It is maddening to try to figure out which came first in American politics. Did people first vote for political figures because of strong family histories? Or did these same candidates make themselves politically viable for mass blocs of voters before political dynasties became an obvious pattern?

The origins may be debatable, but the consequences are clear. If the political field is dominated by a relatively small group of people, there is a limited range of views or policy ideas that ever come to fruition. With the exception of the rare Independents who

drop a white dot or two on the map of Congressional seats, when was the last time you heard of a non-major party candidate winning a national or even local election?

American democracy is somewhat unique in its exclusive, two-party system.

In England for example, three political parties have significant power in government. The exclusivity of two largely corporate-funded parties in American democracy further limits the range of political viewpoints that are expressed.

Our third party candidates serve the ostensible purpose of fodder for late-night comedy television.

In an increasingly diverse country, the opportunity to win political office and the opportunity to legislate views remains in the hands of a select few who happen to have the commonly accepted personal characteristics and viewpoints.

The counter-argument to all this recognizes the pattern but asserts that these dynastic political figures are somehow part of an informal American royal class, an intelligentsia who rightly deserve to be in higher office. This theory dictates that these candidates are in fact the only ones intelligent or sophisticated enough to dominate politics. One current example — George W. Bush — throws a hitch in this theory.

FAMILY FEUDS One of the problems that the continued ascendancy of family members engenders is the often acrimonious attempts by later politicians to outdo the legacy of their other family members.

The closest most of us come to any family drama are the awkward conversations over Thanksgiving dinner, but these family disputes play out on the national stage

Taryn Mahoney

OPINION

with far more significant implications.

Just look at the Bushes and the Clintons. George H.W. Bush tried to cement his conservative legacy in contrast to his moderate, Planned Parenthood leader father, Prescott Bush. A generation later, George W. tried to fix what he and his band of omniscient, neocon sycophants thought Daddy had screwed up in the first Gulf War. Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton will try to prove that her ill-received 1990s health care plan can succeed and move her legacy away from that of her horndog hubby. When presidents wield their power in ways that reflect more concern for their legacies than contemporary issues, American democracy is poisoned.

in American political office. Known in Washington as The Great Triangulator, she has already begun a pathetic and completely obvious tweaking of her political views in order to win the office. Then agian, her personal political ambitions have been about as secretive as Bill’s flings.

Nonetheless, building off of the leg-up she received from her husband’s presidency, Hillary has been shifting to the right in a laughable, intellectually insulting charade for the past few years. In attempting to turn herself into a friendly, focus-group tested soccer mom, she has tried to make political hay out of ineffectual issues like video game regulation and flag burning. And that’s not to mention her completely ridiculous attempt to HILLARY’S SHIFT have it both ways on the defining politiHillary’s seat in the Senate and bid cal issue of our time, the Iraq War. for the presidency demonstrate the conHillary and her Democratic Leadtinuance of the ever-declining diversity ership Council ilk, who we shouldn’t

forget were tripping over themselves to authorize the war in the first place, consistently attempt to say they oppose the “handling” of the war. But watch closely, they’ll never question the very premise of the war itself.

In addition, her first move upon entering the race was to bring back the trite and failed terminology of the Kerry campaign, saying “I’m pleased to be able to share this National Conversation.” Well, it worked so well the last time, so why not bring it back, right? Hackneyed rhetorical techniques like these are the cockroaches of American politics: They’ve been poisoned over and over again, but somehow they keep showing up, refusing to die off. In America, it seems the only difference between recent presidential nominees is the variety of platitudes that they choose to pluck out of the basket.

I don’t mean for this to be some sort of hateful screed against Hillary Clinton, though she undeniably deserves most of the criticisms leveled at her. I merely focus on her because she is the most contemporary continuation of a familial dynasty, and she can still be stopped. Just imagine it—15 years from now we’ll be watching Jeb Bush on our laser television holograms explain the “dire consequences of leaving Iraq.”

No family should dominate political office based on their name, but it is obvious that this has unfortunately been the case throughout our history. It has become abundantly clear over the past few decades that we are in dire need of some new ideas espoused by politicians from diverse backgrounds.

So take a look at Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, consider New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson or contemplate Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. As the last six years have proven, the old guard just isn’t getting it done anymore. Americans must demand authenticity and original thought.

For the sake of our democracy, let’s hope Hillary doesn’t run away with the presidency like—in the words of Dan Rather—“a hobo with a sweet potato pie.”

Stephen Largen is a junior majoring in journalism.

The Hill 23

The Hill

Chapel Hill Political Review Voice your opinion about this issue.

E-mail us: thehill@unc.edu

“

A tax of roughly $1 per joint could yield $2.2 to $6.4 billion in government revenue.�

Legalizing marijuana might be smart for the U.S. economy

Tax incentives Costs Health concerns