The Hill
Chapel Hill Political Review
December 2007
http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill
Volume VII, Issue II
Face off
The historic conflict between democracy and authoritarianism rages on
Race for campaign dollars heats up
Republican field has room for Fred
From the Editor To our readers: Nonpartisan does not mean antipartisan. We at The Hill are proud to serve as Carolina’s only student-produced source of nonpartisan political analysis, but we don’t try to insulate ourselves from the reality of party politics. That’s why we jumped at the opportunity to join forces with UNC Young Democrats and College Republicans to host an open discussion of the role of media in politics. Part of YD’s series of “Carolina Conversations,” this talk brought a diverse group of students together to share ideas about how the media cover politics and how they can do it better. We look forward to co-sponsoring the next Carolina Conversation, which will tackle immigration policy (see Political Agenda, p. 4). While we’ve been having this con-
versation with the good folks of YD and CR, we promised another campus political group the Last Word. The UNC Roosevelt Institution, a branch of the national network of nonpartisan student think tanks, provided a thought-provoking guest column for The Hill’s newest department. The Last Word will feature the work of non-Hill staffers on the last two pages of each issue, plus an online discussion board to keep the conversation going. For details on how you can have the Last Word, see p. 23. Also in this issue, we take a look at the overall trend of democracy’s declining popularity worldwide, the controversy surrounding N.C.-based Blackwater, whether steroid use warrants the intrusion of Congress into America’s favorite pastime and much more. Thanks for reading. Enjoy! Leah Szarek is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.
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.
thehillpr@unc.edu 208 Frank Porter Graham Student Union UNC-CH Campus Box 5210 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210 http://studentorgs.edu/thehill/
The Hill
Chapel Hill Political Review
Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national and internationl 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 the one hand, the publication will feature articles that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. These articles might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape. On the other, The Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues.
2 The Hill
The Hill Staff EDITOR Leah Szarek WRITERS MJ Curtiss Hunter Gray Ellis Caroline Guerra Ryan Kane James Knable Ryan Morgan Jordan O’Donnell Michael Parker Will Schultz Clayton Thomas COLUMNISTS Josh McCrain Matt Tucker ASSOCIATE EDITORS Juliann Neher Sam Perkins Alex Smith COPY EDITORS Beatrice Allen Samantha Guss Nicole Watts HEAD OF DESIGN Shaina Ayers ART & DESIGN Jessica Lin Taryn Mahoney Rachel Moltz Juliann Neher Lindsey Stutzman ADVERTISING & PUBLICITY Andre Durham Ryan Kane Juliann Neher Ryan Kane TREASURER Hunter Gray Ellis FACULTY ADVISER Ferrel Guillory The publication was paid for, at least in part, by Student Activities Fees at a cost of approcximately $.50 per copy.
Contents December 2007 Volume VII, Issue II
Features 16
The money race Presidential candidates score big with donors
18
See Fred run The wide open Republican field makes room for different voices
Cover
12
13
Cover art by Taryn Mahoney
15
Democracy’s decline Authoritarian governments seem to be outpacing democracies in the hunt for new converts How democratic is Asia? Democratic activists meet with violent suppression Plus: Un cambio alarmante Latin America’s populist leaders break free of the global economy
Departments 9
10
War Zone N.C.-based Blackwater stirs up heated controversy Capitol Hill Congress gets involved in pro sports’ drug scandals
Left/Right 20
Surfing the Net Is Net Neutrality good for the Web?
In Every Issue ❖ Notes from The Hill ❖ The Last Word: A Tale of Two Chinas December 2007 3
Notes from the Hill
Notes from *New AG’s resume,
The Hill
*North Carolina’s bid for primary
attention,
*A warning to Colbert Nation, *An update on Burma and *Dealing justice to drug
dealers
*Not to mention our exclusive ranking of some of this month’s top newsmakers Political Agenda
Nov. 19
Mark your calendars UNC Young Democrats and The Hill present CAROLINA CONVERSATIONS: IMMIGRATION Join us for an open discussion of immigration’s political, economic and cultural impact 8 pm, Gardner 209.
Nov. 26
UNC YD’s MOCK PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE Students will be representing the Democratic candidates. Contact Sarah Shah at srshah@email.unc.edu for more information. 8 p.m. Hanes Art Auditorium
Want your political event included on The Hill’s political agenda? E-mail thehillpr@unc.edu with event details.
4 The Hill
Notes from the Hill On Captiol Hill Despite his hesitancy to comment on whether waterboarding constituted a type of torture in confirmation hearings, Michael B. Mukasey was confirmed as Attorney General on Nov. 9. Mukasey, the Bush administration’s first choice to replace former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, enjoyed enough bipartisan support to make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 6, despite the
reservations of committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont. The full Senate was split 53-40. Republicans expressed their confidence that Mukasey will uphold White House policies on national security. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who led the campaign against Gonzales, was also a strong supporter of Mukasey. — Juliann Neher
Michael B. Mukasey Education o o
Columbia University, A.B., 1963 Yale Law School, LL.B., 1967
Experience o o o o o o o
Partner, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, 2006 Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2000-2006 Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York Nominated on July 1987 by Ronald Reagan, confirmed by Senate Nov. 6, 1987 Private Practice, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, New York City, 1976-1987 Chief, Official Corruption Unit, Criminal Division, Southern District of New York, 19751976 Assistant U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Southern District of New York, 1972-1976 Private Practice, New York City 1967-1972
Awards o o
Federal Bar Council’s Learned Hand Medal for excellence in federal jurisprudence, 2004 Honorary degree, Brooklyn Law School, 2002
Go Figure
The primary dating game
With all the hype surrounding the presidential primaries, which are inching closer and closer, some North Carolinians are asking, “What about us?” Many states have already secured dates early in January. The Iowa caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3, the Wyoming caucuses for Jan. 5 and the Michigan primary for Jan. 15. New Hampshire, which has held the first primary for the past 31 years, is threatening to schedule its primary no later than Jan. 7 and
possibly as early as December if Michigan does not back off. A bill that would move the primary to the first Tuesday in February was proposed in the North Carolina General Assembly by Sen. Andrew Brock, a Republican who represents Davie, Rowan and Yadkin Counties. So far, the measure has not been passed. Unfortunately, the good citizens of North Carolina will have to wait until May 6 to voice their preference for each political party’s presidential nominee. - James Knable December 2007 5
Notes from the Hill On the Docket
War on drugs reaches Court
Is crack cocaine 100 times worse than its powdered cousin? That’s one piece of a complex legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court in October. Sentencing guidelines for the possession of crack cocaine were established by the United States Sentencing Commission in 1986 and are at a 100 to one ratio compared to possession of powder cocaine. That means someone caught with 500 grams of cocaine (more than one pound) would receive an identical sentence to someone arrested with five grams of crack cocaine. Congress established the 100 to one ratio as law. When Derrick Kimbrough was arrested with 50 grams of crack cocaine, federal sentencing guidelines mandated that he be sentenced to 19.5-22 years in prison. The presiding judge, however, deUp to Date
cided that these guidelines were ridiculous and sentenced Kimbrough to 15 years in prison. The decision was appealed, and the 4th Circuit Court of U.S. Appeals overturned the decision, claiming that a sentence cannot disagree with federal sentencing policy. This case presents two large questions to the Supreme Court. First, are the courts allowed to impose sentences below federal sentencing guidelines set by the United States Sentencing Commission for cocaine possession? Also, are the courts allowed to waive the 100 to one ratio set by Congress for cocaine possession sentences? Kevin McGuire, UNC political science professor and the author of the textbook, “Institutions of American Democracy: The Judicial Branch,” told The Hill
A turn for the worse
Despite continued human rights violations by the government of Myanmar, Buddhist monks in the country have not stopped their protests. As recently as Oct. 31, hundreds of monks were marching in the city of Pakokku, demanding national reconciliation, lower commodity prices and the release of political prisoners. The monks have been the leaders of Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement, which has drawn harsh crackdowns from the Myanmar junta. Only the highest ranking regime officials know how many have been killed, and it does not look like they will be talking any time soon. Efforts to stop these outstanding human rights violations have been largely unsuccessful. The international community is looking to India and China, nations that wield great influence in the region, to pressure Myanmar. Although China 6 The Hill
that the case could go one of two ways. According to McGuire, if the justices focus only on the sentencing guidelines set by the United States Sentencing Commission, he believes it would be a 7-2 decision, with Breyer and Kennedy dissenting. However, if the justices were to focus instead on the 100 to one ratio in sentencing guidelines, which were set by Congress, McGuire said he believes the case will be decided by a 5-4 decision against Kimbrough, with Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter dissenting. McGuire said the conservatives will not want to overturn Congressional law, as they believe Congress, unlike a sentencing commission, can restrict judges. — Michael Parker
needs to maintain a positive image as the world looks forward to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, the country has not taken any substantial action against Myanmar’s human rights violators. India also has remained fairly inactive, despite its status as the world’s largest democracy. So the question remains, “Who will stand up for human rights in Myanmar?” The United States, along with Australia, has imposed banking restrictions on top regime officials and corrupt businessmen, but Europe has yet to follow suit. Many activists have called for an arms embargo against Myanmar, but the international community’s reaction has been hesitant at best. No one knows what the next step will be. With the junta ordering the expulsion of Charles Petrie, the top U.N. official in the country, on Nov. 2, the situation looks grim. — James Knable
Notes from the Hill Political Review
Colbert book not up to snuff
“There’s an old saying, ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.’ Which means a lot of knowledge must be a really dangerous thing,” blusters Stephen Colbert in his recent release, “I Am America (And So Can You!)”. That sentiment befits the faux pundit, who broadcasts The Colbert Report weeknights at 11:30 p.m. on Comedy Central. (His act follows The Daily Show, where Colbert got his start in satire.) Colbert often derides intellectualism, saying he is “not a fan of books. They’re all fact, no heart.” Which begs the question: why would a character who hates books write one? Written in Colbert’s habitual bombast, “I Am America” covers topics like homosexuality, religion and immigration — all of which shape presidential platforms. Meanwhile, it retains an apolitical feeling. The Colbert Report’s writers have worked in
1
Hill-o-Meter
Stephen Colbert
With his new book ‘I Am America (And So Can You)’ at the top of the New York Times Bestseller list, the late night talkshow host is getting easy advertising for his show. The inventor of truthiness is on top of The Hill.
2
the odd inflammatory nugget, but the book’s boldest statement is a perfunctory inclusion of Colbert’s address to the 2006 White House Press Correspondents’ Dinner. Read out of context, even that YouTube hit loses its panache. The writers try to offset the dearth of substance with wisecracks about sex, Hollywood and old people (“they look like lizards”). The book contains a few passages worthy of the show’s satiric brilliance, yet the most familiar jokes fall flat. Even to a fan, the book that professes to encapsulate Stephen Colbert is a pale reflection of the real thing. Its chief use seems to be making money, although it also resembles a ploy to accentuate Colbert’s bogus presidential run in South Carolina. “I Am America (And So Can You!)” is little more than an extended advertisement that’s not worthy of Colbert Nation. — MJ Curtiss Ryan Morgan
Al Gore
After winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the environment, rumors are flying about a possible candidacy for the former Vice President. Gore is movin’ on up.
3
Recep Tayyip Erdogan
4
Sam Brownback
2
1 3
With both the lira and attacks on rebellious Kurds across the Iraqi border on the rise, Turkey’s Prime Minister is in a delicate position. Is Turkey becoming the next Pakistan? As the future of Turkey lies in the balance, Mr. Erdoğan is in limbo on The Hill.
The first major casualty of the ‘08 campaign, Brownback will break the fall for a long line of little-known candidates who will bite the dust at the bottom of The Hill.
4 Taryn Mahoney Cover art by Taryn Mahoney
December 2007 7
Capitol Hill
‘roid Rage Should Congress play referee for the major sports leagues?
By Jordan O’Donnell
A
performance-enhancing drug scandal has been afflicting professional sports for years, forcing many to question the integrity of some of the world’s most popular games and most famous athletes. Tour de France winners, National Football League players, track and field stars and Major League Baseball superstars are just some who have been put under the microscope. Steroids in sports may be nothing new, but the perception that leagues are not doing enough to combat illegal usage may lead to something many once considered unthinkable: government intervention in professional sports. And baseball has been the primary target among the professional sports associations. The members of Congress who are threatening action say they want to protect young Americans. Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., chair of the Committee for Government Reform and one of the most powerful men in Congress, has been vocal on the issue. “Steroid use among teenagers is increasing rapidly, with some experts estimating that nearly half a million teens have used steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in recent years,” he said, 8 The Hill
according to the Clarion Online. Since professional athletes heavily influence their admirers, some fear rampant steroid use by professionals will lead to dangerous amateur use. Congress has threatened Major League Baseball the most, largely due to media reports of illegal performance-enhancer use by superstars such as Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. Baseball instituted a stricter testing policy in 2005 after an initial round of threats. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told the baseball players union in December 2004 that unless owners and the players agreed on a stricter testing system for steroids, government would step in. “I don’t want to intervene in a managementunion issue,” McCain told USA Today. “I hate to do it. I threatened them last March, and they didn’t do anything. I don’t know what choice we have unless we act now.” The new testing system led to the suspension of several players, including high-profile stars such as Rafael Palmiero. But as media pressure continued, Commissioner Bud Selig initiated an investigation in 2006 led by former Sen. George Mitchell, who has several ties to the game. Mitchell sought full access to players and executives. He warned team
Capitol Hill owners in January that a lack of cooperation could increase the chances for the government to take an active role. Mitchell has received sufficient cooperation, it seems. For example, he interviewed former American League Most Valuable Player Jason Giambi, who was frequently linked to reports of performanceenhancer use and has essentially admitted to using. The report is scheduled to be released by the end of 2007 and word circulated that it will name names, including big ones, and will include some that have been previously unmentioned in the scandal. Baseball remains a ripe target for members of Congress, and the report will have a huge impact on the future. “The use of steroids in professional sports continues to be an issue the committee is interested in, and we are looking forward to learning more about the progress Sen. Mitchell has made in his investigation,” Waxman said in January. McCain also said on the “Dan Patrick Show,” a radio sports program, that it is possible Congress will hold another hearing on steroids, similar to the one held in March 2005 that featured McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero and others. McCain also admitted that the intentions for this may not be completely noble; saying Congress usually goes in for headline-grabbing but has a short attention span. He also stressed the need to wait until Mitchell’s report was released.
Courson wrote that he and some of his teammates from that era used steroids heavily. Even today, some of the NFL’s best players are suspended for illegal performance-enhancing drug use. Last season, San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman was suspended four games. This season, New England Patriots safety Rodney Harrison was suspended the first four games for admitting to federal investigators that he obtained and used human growth hormone. But Congress has not threatened other leagues nearly as much as baseball. Congress held hearings recently about the NFL’s retiree benefit program, which has been called inadequate and unfair. But there has been little action on steroids in the league.
POTENTIAL RESISTANCE If the government still intends to get involved in baseball, which has an antitrust exemption, it will likely be met with resistance. Bob Lanza, former chief counsel for the National Basketball Association Players Association, said at the time of McCain’s 2004 threat that the government cannot override a sport’s collective bargaining agreement. “Politicians ... cannot force the union to make changes it does not want to make,” he said to USA Today. “As long as there’s a union protecting the players’ rights, they can’t force it to capitulate.” But Selig at the same time said he would welcome government intervention. FOOTBALL’S PASS So while the nation awaits Mitchell’s report, all Other leagues have been able to avoid the scrutiny the parties involved may have to start preparing for from government due to either a lack of suspicion a showdown about government’s role in professionin regards to steroid use or a much firmer steroid al sports. policy. The National Football League has long had issues with steroids, dating back to members of the Jordan O’Donnell is a senior majoring in journalism. Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s. In his book, Steve
December 2007 9
War Zone
Troubled waters N.C.-based private security firm Blackwater draws fire for its actions in Iraq By Ryan Kane
N
orth Carolina is “the most military-friendly state in America,” or so claims a red, white and blue crop of billboards that has sprung up beside the state’s highways. Longtime home to major military installations such as Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina has recently become the centerpiece of another type of military activity entirely. Private security firm Blackwater has maintained a 7,000-acre training facility in rural Currituck and Camden counties for 10 years, where over 50,000 civilians, law enforcement and military personnel have been
Carolina have gone to Iraq, where Blackwater employs nearly 1,000 guards as part of a contract to protect the U.S. State Department. Although the majority of Blackwater employees are ex-military, the role of the firm in Iraq is not to assist in combat operations but rather to serve as a supplemental security and logistical force. Even so, these heavily armed and welltrained guards are not immune to conflict, and a recent incident involving the deaths of 17 Iraqis spurred widespread criticism and prompted the State Department to begin monitoring convoys protected by Blackwater. Similar
ter employee. Opponents of the firm are enraged by the fact that the guards involved in these confrontations operate under what is essentially legal immunity. Under an edict issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the former American occupation government, all such private military employees are immune from prosecution by the Iraqi government. Critics contend that incidents like these are a result of the guards’ “shoot first, ask questions later” attitude and that private military firms can impede rather than serve military objectives in Iraq. “The contractors caused problems that the Iraqi leaders… expected the U.S. [military] to solve,” said retired Army Major General John Batiste, in an interview with Time magazine. Criticism has come from as high up as Defense Secretary Robert trained for various security roles controversy was raised last year Gates, who at a recent Pentagon around the world. over the shooting of an Iraqi vice news conference asserted that the Many of those trained in North presidential guard by a Blackwa- mission of the contractors was “at
“N.C. is ‘the most militaryfriendly state in America’...”
10 The Hill
War Zone
Rachel Moltz
cross-purposes to our larger mission in Iraq.” According to UNC international relations professor Navin A. Bapat, the relationship between governments and private militaries can be turbulent since the goals between the two groups are rarely perfectly aligned. “The government’s goal is to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, but if that happens, there will no longer be a need for the contractors,” said Bapat in an e-mail to The Hill. “Therefore, the contractors have incentives to stabilize to some degree, but also do not necessarily want the conflict to end.” Adding to the problems inherent in such a relationship, the cost-effectiveness of private contractors has recently been called into question. A new congressional committee report puts the cost of a Blackwater guard to the U.S. government at $445,000 a year – six times the cost of an equivalent U.S. soldier.
With recruitment stagnating at almost every level of the military and American troops already spread thin, many view the hiring of outside contractors as a matter of practical necessity. Support from these contractors “enables the United States to continue operations [in Iraq] without bringing back the draft,” Bapat said. And despite any incidents in which it may have been involved, Blackwater has succeeded in its mission to protect the State Department – not a single fatality or injury has been recorded among diplomats under the firm’s protection. In an Oct. 17 press conference, President Bush voiced his support for Blackwater. “A firm like Blackwater provides valuable service,” he said. “They protect people’s lives, and I appreciate the service and the sacrifices that Blackwater employees have made.” Still, pressure to maintain tighter control over pri-
vate military contractors is rising, with both the State and Defense Departments recently announcing stricter oversight and regulations. Although support for Blackwater is still strong around its home base in eastern North Carolina, plans to open a new facility outside of San Diego have been met with widespread resistance. Whatever the future may hold, Blackwater’s role in Iraq and its relationship with the U.S. government promise to remain a source of friction and debate. Ryan Kane is a junior majoring in political science.
December 2007 11
Cover
Alex Smith
Taryn Mahoney
It’s deja vu all over again as democracy and authoritarianism battle for ideological supremacy
“
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Winston Churchill’s famous line has not halted experimentation with alternative modes of governance. Despite attempts to spread democracy around the globe, many nations recently ready to cross the political threshold into democratic governance seem to be developing authoritarian habits. Besides Russia, many nations of the former Soviet Union now appear immune to the “color” revolutions that partially opened Ukraine, Georgia and Kirghizstan. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is flirting with dictatorship through his constitutional revisions, while Zimbabwe is choking under the 12 The Hill
iron clutch of Robert Mugabe. And there appears to be no end to the political oppression in capitalist China, which is rapidly gathering wealth and influence. According to The Economist’s 2007 Democracy Index, which takes into account conditions like the efficiency of government, voter participation and civil liberties, 55 nations are ranked authoritarian, while 84 have governments somewhere in between democracy and authoritarianism. The community of nations has cast its vote against full democracy.
ian states have learned enough economic lessons from the past to give modern democracies stiff competition, especially in encouraging developing nations to promote political freedoms. The conclusion of the Cold War may have proven that an economy with some free market basis is superior to one that is almost completely planned, at least in the long run. But according to historical evidence, it has not been shown that democracy is a more successful form of government than authoritarianism, at least in terms of promoting national interests AUTHORITARIANISM abroad or providing stability at STRIKES BACK home. After all, an authoritarian In an essay written in For- state can allow free markets to eign Affairs, Azar Gat points out maintain material progress while that the new major authoritar- keeping a tight control on politi-
Cover cal freedoms. Russia and China exemplify this, as they consistently exceed annual GDP growth of 5 and 9 percent respectively. Perhaps there’s more to authoritarianism’s success than material growth. Democracy’s proponents sometimes claim that free gov-
ernment encourages greater economic equality among citizens. But again, governments with an authoritarian bent are no less capable of satisfying their left-behind citizens. Putin’s popularity, reflected in approval ratings consistently over 70 percent, indicates
the public’s faith in his ability to improve economic conditions. The democratic experiment in 1990’s Russia was a well-known economic fiasco. Shock therapy, or the immediate implementation of free markets during this period, not only failed in the short run
An Eastern promise unfulfilled Pro-democracy activism in eastern Asia brings to mind several prominent figures. Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for promoting democracy and human rights in the region. South Korea’s former President Kim Dae-jung, also the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts against authoritarian rule. Chee Soon Juan, who has protested the power of the Singapore’s People’s Action Party. Thanks in part to these highly visible activists, authoritarian governments, particularly those in eastern Asia, have once again been placed in the global spotlight. The systematic purging of Myanmar’s pro-democracy protesters by the State Peace and Development Council the nation’s military junta, attracted significant media attention. The SPDC has detained some 3,000 pro-democracy demonstrators as of Oct. 17. “By mowing the spiritual leaders down with gunfire in full view of the world, the military regime has laid bare to the world its real nature – that they are nothing but a bunch of armed thugs, holding the nation hostage with threats and with violence,” Tun Nyein, a Burmese interim dean of the University College at N.C. Central University, told the Daily Tar Heel. Ibrahim Gambari, the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, visited the country as part of a six-nation tour to seek a resolution to Myanmar’s violence. Gambari met with both General Than Shwe and Aung San Suu Kyi but has yet to bring about dialogue between the two parties. “The first obstacle is that there is no dialogue,” said Gambari in Singapore’s The Straits Times.
“Efforts have been made to remove that obstacle.” India, one of Myanmar’s geographical neighbors, is currently balancing its condemnation of the regime’s brutal treatment of protesters with encouragement that the regime hasten the creation of the nation’s new constitution and include those opposed to the regime in this process. Further complicating the democratization of authoritarian regimes is the support these regimes enjoy from outside powers. One of the main obstacles to democracy in Asia is Chinese support to oppressive governments, perhaps the result of authoritarianism within the nation itself. China will not allow Western nations to impose U.N. sanctions on Myanmar. Fortunately, change is possible. Canadian philosophy professor Daniel Bell, a 42-year-old from Montreal, has managed to infuriate Chinese censors by attempting to publish his ideas for a Confucianstyle political legislature in the country. Bell’s controversial idea is to implement a system not at all foreign to China’s storied past – “a modern Confucian democracy.” The main component of the system lies in a bicameral house where members would be selected based on exam results. “One reason I like to be in China is that the political future is open,” said Bell in an article published last December in The Globe and Mail. “Nobody thinks the political status quo will remain the same in 20 or 30 years. It’s stimulating for political theorists to be here.” Perhaps this means democracy could someday take hold in East Asia. — Hunter Ellis
December 2007 13
Cover and left millions in poverty, but also allowed well-placed Russians and foreigners to grab the nation’s assets for dirt-cheap—plunder in the eyes of many citizens. Russia’s case shows that authoritarian governments are not just capable of reducing inequality, but can also make a persuasive argument that they are more effective at this task than democracies. Allowing individuals with immense wealth and political ambition to run loose in a nation of destitute people is dangerous. Putin followed this reasoning when he pulled the plug on oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky and sent him to Siberia after the billionaire was arrested for fraud.
all, the regimes in Russia, China and many of their client states have governments decentralized enough so that direct and bloody confrontation is not necessary if the people want full democracy. Putin is not a dictator; he still faces organized opposition and a relatively free (albeit indifferent) public. UNC Professor Michael Tsin points out that the next ten to fifteen years will be a critical time for changes and refinement in the institutional structure of the Chinese government. The reach of the central government and party control over the implementation of policies at the local level have further receded in the last decade, as the market and other informal networks providAXIS OF EMPTINESS ed local leaders with alternative Fortunately for democracy, sources of support and resources. the current authoritarian threat Corruption, often a by-product could just be an illusion. First of of the absence of codified procedures and established institutional channels for the distribution of resources, is rampant and could impede economic growth. And Communist Party leaders in Beijing know full well that material inequality both between and within urban and rural areas is the root cause of much social unrest. They will have to redesign or in some cases create institutions and policies that address these issues, as they have already started doing, or risk the destabilization of the system or even lose power.
Rachel Moltz
14 The Hill
bar “Eastern promises” on p. 13). China and Russia have responded by erecting a geopolitical fortress in the form of an economic pact and budding military alliance— the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The guiding principles of the SCO’s external relations include “non-alignment, non-targeting and openness.” A better interpretation is that Russia, China and Central Asia will ignore or embrace the forms of governments in other nations on the condition that those nations unconditionally accept their governments. It’s a proposition that’s gaining wide appeal from the developing world. China is pouring wealth into Africa with no strings attached—according to the Council on Foreign Relations, China has trained militaries of oil-rich nations like Sudan to protect its own supply. And Iran is begging to join the SCO. In 2002, the BBC reported that Chavez claimed to have received a warning from OPEC’s president of an impending U.S.-backed coup. Needless to say, after that episode, Latin America and the U.S. have not seen eye to eye on democratic issues (see sidebar “Un cambio alarmante” on p. 15). The irony is that as that if the United States’ military and economic lead is reduced, or if its foreign policy softens, democracy will probably become more prevalent. Glory-seekers like Putin BAD NEIGHBORS MAKE and Chavez will lose their appeal, GOOD FENCES as citizens will be more concerned However, the current tur- with using their governments to moil in international politics is solve economic, social and envialso preventing democracy from ronmental problems. flourishing worldwide. The U.S. campaign for democracy has Alex Smith is a sophomore majoring in been met with hostility (see side- economics.
Cover
Un cambio alarmante By Caroline Guerra
T
hough the many personalities, changes and issues of the various Latin American countries could never be reduced to one political trend, the growing prevalence of populism and anti-neoliberalism in the region is noteworthy. From Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, several South American presidents are leading their countries in directions out of line with the interests of the United States. This has led some to challenge the legitimacy of those nations’ democracies. Some countries are heavily resisting globalization, while others are limiting what Americans believe to be basic civil rights. For example, Morales nationalized Bolivia’s gas industry last year, and Chavez is seeking extensive emergency powers. Exemplified in the tension between Bush and Chavez, the region’s new populism is simply not what Washington wants to see. Ironically, UNC professor Jonathan Hartlyn maintains that “the one key facilitating condition” of this Latin American populism is something the Bush administration has been pushing across the world—democracy. Unlike those that hold power without necessarily holding the popular mandate, Chavez and others have been democratically elected. To understand their public backing, one must look to the economic crises of the 1990s. In the late twentieth century, many Latin American countries implemented neoliberal market reforms, only to be faced with extreme inflation and other problems. Discredited by such instability, these new reforms lost what popular support they had, and populist movements strengthened. When populist leaders began winning the majority of votes, the new sense of authority given to democratic elections cemented these candidates’ positions, preventing the military coups that normally thwarted a populist’s path to political power. Another factor in the trend towards populism lies
in many Latin American countries’ abundance of exportable natural resources. With such wealth, the financially deprived masses of countries like Venezuela see neoliberalism as much less attractive than the uncontrolled possibilities—land redistribution, free health care—of populism. Having funded opposition parties and backed political coups in the region, the U.S. has upheld a policy of intervention and must now decide whether to continue such a tactic. If the Latin American struggle against globalization is indeed a severe threat to U.S. national interests, new trade agreements could be developed that would assuage their fears of the global market. Human rights infringements could also be approached more diplomatically. Nonintervention is an option that would delight supporters of state sovereignty and would probably lessen the tension between the two regions. The U.S. faces tough choices in how it conducts relations with the populist brand of democracy embraced by its southern neighbors. Caroline Guerra is a freshman majoring in political science.
Taryn Mahoney
December 2007 15
Domestic
By Clayton Thomas
See Fred run
Thompson’s candidacy muddies the waters of the 2008 Republican presidential campaign
I
n the run-up to the 2008 presidential contest, Republicans, as it has so often been noted, are acting like Democrats. Republicans are known for falling into line behind a candidate very early in the nomination process, while Democrats are usually divided well into the primary season. And while the nomination of Hillary Clinton is far short of a sure thing, it appears that the Democratic race is not nearly as close as that of the Republicans. The dynamics of the already crowded GOP field became even more complex after the entry of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson in mid-September. Thompson’s candidacy is significant for more reasons than because he places second in most national polls, after Rudy Giuliani. It also illustrates the fractious and vulnerable position of the current Republican Party, re16 The Hill
vealing the significant challenges the GOP faces going into 2008. Fred Thompson, Tennessee senator from 1994 to 2003 and afterward a successful television and film actor, first appeared on the presidential campaign radar in March, when he discussed the possibility of a run on Fox News Sunday, spurring the creation of several grassroots ‘Draft Fred’ movements. Thompson officially announced his intention to seek the nomination on Sept. 5, and his poll numbers have remained consistently high since, both nationally and in key primary states. Besides the grassroots response, there were many other factors at play in Thompson’s entry. One is his wife Jeri, described by Politico’s Jonathan Martin, in a phone interview with The Hill, as a “shrewd political player in her own right.” Another is the tradition of successful Tennessean
politicians, two of whom, former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker and Bill Frist, encouraged Thompson to enter the race. Most importantly, however, is what Martin called “the vacuum for a mainstream conservative.” Many GOP voters have serious doubts about the conservative credentials of the three top candidates, Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain. All three have, either presently or in the past, espoused views seriously out of line with the beliefs of many conservative voters. Thompson has capitalized on these concerns, portraying himself as the “consistent conservative,” or the “true” conservative. Since his entrance, Thompson’s campaign has done reasonably well, due in part to extremely and probably unreasonably low expectations (Newsweek’s cover story on his candidacy was headlined
Domestic “Lazy Like a Fox,” a reference to Thompson’s reportedly less than strenuous work ethic, especially in the Senate). His first debate performance was a case in point. His failure to trip while walking onto the stage, fall asleep or forget the Prime Minister of Canada was hailed as a successful debut. While it remains to be seen if Thompson can overtake Giuliani, it is clear that he is a viable candidate. The reason for the continued success of his campaign is the view that his nomination would not cause an exodus of conservative voters from the GOP fold in the way that a Giuliani or Romney candidacy might. The “Reagan coalition” is a fractious group, and most of the top tier candidates alienate a significant portion of it. Thompson does not, and the high hopes many conservatives had for Thompson have been, for the
As Martin puts it, “people in the party...want to like him.”
to portray himself as the most conservative candidate, but he is still struggling to break into the top tier. Thompson’s candidacy seeks to address the two major and interrelated concerns of Republican voters: whether their candidate is truly conservative, and whether that candidate can compete on a national level. His campaign has not faltered in the manner that some observers predicted; after all, as Martin put it, “people in the party…want to like him,” referencing the continued hopes conservatives have for a likeminded candidate. Only a few months away from Iowa, it remains to be seen if Thompson can persuade GOP primary voters that his brand of conservatism will unite the party and lead it to victory.
most part, sustained. 2008 is shaping up to be a very challenging year for Republicans. For some, Giuliani, with his fairly liberal views, is the most nationally competitive candidate. Thompson’s supporters argue that, to defeat the Democratic nominee, Republicans must stay true to their conservative roots and remain truly in opposition to Democrats, rather than trying to be more like them. Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkan- Clayton Thomas is a freshman majorsas, has tried, with some success, ing in history.
Rachel Moltz
December 2007 17
Domestic
The money race The Internet and “bundling” help candidates raise money like never before
$
By Will Schultz The fundraising records set by the 2004 presidential candidates had barely settled before they were shattered once again. The 2008 contenders, both Democrats and Republicans, are currently raking in astronomical sums. At the root of this largesse is a potent combination of big-check bundlers and small Internet donors. The fundraising numbers from 2004, as paltry as they may seem today, were staggering at the time. Howard Dean, the candidate from Vermont, raised more than $25 million by the end of September 2003. Dean appeared to have tapped into a bottomless well of Internet donations; his online fundraisers, with their memorable baseball theme, brought in millions. His $25 million more than doubled the Democratic record set by Bill Clinton in 1995. Although the other Democratic candidates could not match Dean’s success, they still raised prodigious amounts of money. John Kerry, the eventual nominee, pulled in nearly $17 million, while John Edwards, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman all raised more than $10 million. 18 The Hill
$
These numbers now seem almost laughably small. Dean raised $25 million in the first nine months of 2003; it took Hillary Clinton only 90 days to raise $27 million. Her campaign coffers hold more than $90 million, almost as much cash as the entire Democratic field raised in 2003. Barack Obama follows close behind with $80 million. John Edwards may trail far behind the two frontrunners, but his $30 million still exceeds Howard Dean’s funds from 2003. Even minor Democratic candidates have benefited. The combined fundraising of Bob Graham, Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton totaled $12 million in 2003. In 2007 Senator Chris Dodd, who averages less than 2 percent in national polls, has raised $13 million. The Republicans have also been enjoying a prosperous 2007, even if their fundraising falls short of the standard set by the Democrats. Mitt Romney has accumulated more than $60 million in campaign funds, some of which comes from his own personal fortune. Rudy Giuliani’s funds total
$47 million, while John McCain takes third place with $32 million in cash. Unlike their Democratic counterparts, many of the minor Republicans have struggled. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo have both failed to break the $5 million mark. The one exception is the libertarian-leaning Ron Paul. Paul, with a fanatic Internet constituency, has raised more than $8 million; in the most recent quarter, he out-raised onetime frontrunner McCain. At its heart, this financial bonanza is an Internet phenomenon. Candidate Web sites have been drawing record numbers of viewers. The most popular site, Ron Paul’s, ranks among the top 2,000 in the United States. Other major candidates, such as Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, appear in the top 20,000. Visitors cannot miss the “Contribute” tab prominently displayed on each and every candidate’s home page. On Fred Thompson’s Web page, the Contribute button is highlighted in red, while Edwards’s home page offers no less than three opportunities to contribute. These features make it easier
Domestic
$25 million
$
$90 million
$
$80 million
$
$17 million
$
$
$
$
$12 million
$
Edwards
Dean
Kerry
$
$
$
$
$
$
$60 million
$
$
$
$
$
$
$47 million
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$32 million
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Obama
Clinton
Giuliani
McCain
$30 million
Edwards
Fundraising Dollars in 2004
$
Romney
Fundraising Dollars in 2007
than ever to donate through the Internet. The Obama campaign claims to have reeled in more than $500,000 through their Web site in one day. In the first six months of 2007, Obama raised $6.9 million via the Internet, while Clinton raised $4.2 million. Internet donors alone cannot account for the revolution in fund-
$
$
Jessica Lin
proceeds are then “bundled” and deposited straight into the campaign’s coffers. This strategy was developed by George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign, which cultivated an elite group of bundlers dubbed “Pioneers.” These Pioneers raised millions for Bush’s campaign. The practice of bundling has been embraced by the major 2008 candidates; there are now more than 2,000 bundlers affiliated with different candidates. As the sums involved in campaigns grow more and more outrageous, candidates have tried to show a more human side to their fundraising. Many have turned to fundraising gimmicks aimed at getting positive publicity. The Obama campaign invited four low-income donors to enjoy a dinner with the senator. Clinton’s campaign ran a contest that gave three donors the chance to watch a debate in the company of Bill Clinton; the former president promised, ‘’We will sit down in front of a big TV with a big bowl of chips.’’ John McCain’s 95year-old mother held a fundraiser for her son at her Washington home. As bundlers pour millions into the campaign, candidates are anxious to show they are still in touch with middle-class, smallamount donors. Will the cost of campaigning continue upwards indefinitely? There is no reason it shouldn’t. As more and more people donate through the Internet and as the number of bundlers rises, campaign tabs may run into the hundreds of millions. Who knows? Within the next two decades, a new breed of politician may appear: the billion-dollar candidate.
raising. A new technique known as bundling has allowed candidates to raise unheard-of sums of money. Bundling is a clever circumvention of the $2,300 cap on individual donations set by the McCain-Feingold Act. One fundraiser—the bundler—taps family, friends and coworkers for Will Schultz is a sophomore majoring the maximum donation. These in political science.
December 2007 19
Column From the Left
Net Neutrality protects the consumer By Josh McCrain
I
magine a world where your Internet service provider can charge you more to visit certain sites. Imagine being forced to pay $20 more per month just to access eBay and Google, or $50 more for the incredibly popular Facebook. This distasteful view of the future is the will of telecommunication companies, and without government intervention — in this case through a policy coined Net Neutrality — they’re going to get it. Many conservatives try to incorporate the Net Neutrality argument into the free-market-can-do-no-evil doctrine. But the words “telecommunication companies” and “free market” should not even be in the same sentence. The telecommunication lobbying power in Washington is undeniable, as is evident by their recent success in securing immunity for the questionable legality of their role in the Bush administration’s wire tapping program. This influence translates into favorable legislation — or a favorable lack thereof — for telecoms. Thus the need for Net Neutrality. According to SavetheInternet.com, “Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.” Without ensured Net Neutrality, telecommunication companies will have free reign over the Internet, charging outrageous prices for something we currently take for granted as free, ultimately hurting consumers. A free market economy typically relies on competition to eradicate the bad companies and regulate prices. If a consumer doesn’t like what they receive from one company, they can simply choose to stop buying from it and buy from another. Net Neutrality would probably not be necessary if this were the case for ISPs. However, in many areas of the country, ISPs have a government-sanctioned monopoly. If one of the ISPs decided to charge more money for access to certain Web sites, consumers would not have the capability of switching to another provider who does not do this. Without this necessary com20 The Hill
petition, the telecommunication companies could easily decide to charge exorbitant prices for access to the most popular Web sites. Let’s look at an example of what the Internet would be like without Net Neutrality. For $30 a month, you can access 50 popular Web sites, such as AOL, MSN and eBay. At $40 a month, you get Google, Wikipedia and Yahoo, along with 100 other Web sites. The top package, for $50 a month, provides you access to streaming video Web sites such as YouTube and popular social networking Web sites like Facebook, along with 200 other Web sites. What if you want to access whatever Web site you want? That will be $100 a month. The absence of ensured Net Neutrality leaves this scenario very plausible, essentially turning the Internet into cable television. An Internet like this would stifle innovation and creativity while hurting you, the consumer. A fundamental flaw with the free market argument is that Net Neutrality does promote a free market. Giving a few mega-corporations control over the Internet market is not practical. Google’s vice-president, Vinton Cerf, said, “Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success.” The Internet has grown exponentially over the last decade due to the ease with which individuals and companies can get started. Anybody can decide to create an online company. However, without a guarantee of a neutral Internet, this could all be a thing of the past. This competition leads to innovation and lower prices for everyone. Giving the individual Web sites control over their prices provides a greater stimulant to the economy than giving it to the telecommunication companies ever would. Josh McCrain is a freshman.
Want Josh’s job? E-mail a 500-word sample of your persuasive writing to thehillpr@unc.edu and you could be The Hill’s next columnist from the left!
Column
Let competition rule the Web
From the Right
By Matt Tucker
L
ittle would be more disruptive to our society and our economy than Net Neutrality, a plan that would increase regulation of the telecommunication industry and set a precedent of Internet regulation that would eventually lead to Internet taxation. Net Neutrality proponents are essentially begging for the Internet to be taxed and regulated by advocating federal control. It is no secret that lawmakers want to tax the Internet — and it would be easier for them to do so if the federal government had its hand in Internet access. Indeed, just recently, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana tried to revive an amendment that would have allowed for Internet taxation. Luckily, Facebook-dwellers, business people and gamers alike were saved by Sen. John Sununu, R-NH, who submitted an amendment that bans Internet taxation for the next seven years. Proponents of “Net Neutrality” presume that the only way to maintain the status quo in Internet access (that is, equal access for all users and equal treatment of all content) is to forbid telecommunication companies from creating different service tiers. One of the sponsors of the Net Neutrality bill, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said that the bill’s reintroduction “marks another step toward ensuring the fate of the Internet lies in the hands of its users and not the hands of a few gatekeepers.” But there is no better way to ensure that the fate of the Internet lies in the hands of the users than to let users choose from a broader array of providers. Therefore, those who wish to preserve free flow of information on the Internet ought to advocate deregulation of the telecommunication industry instead of advocating “Net Neutrality.” Regulation has allowed for the monopolistic grip that telecommunication companies enjoy in many areas today. By deregulating and allowing for more competition, worrying about companies blocking off certain parts of the Internet will be irrelevant, as the censoring companies will be beaten by their more liberal competitors. Those who are most active on
the Internet are those who like to delve into blogs, forums and other interactive sites. These people are generally young, and their numbers are growing. This constituency will not tolerate uneven treatment on the Internet and will always be a solid market for liberal competitors in the telecommunication industry. One of the worst aspects of “Net Neutrality” is its potential impact on innovation. By regulating the services telecoms are allowed to provide, the Net Neutrality movement could effectively neuter any innovation in Internet service, which is desperately needed here in the United States (currently ranked 15th in access to broadband Internet). As our economy becomes increasingly globalized, technology and communication are vital to keeping up in the world. If we allow short-sighted legislation to damage our ability to develop faster methods of information sharing, we might cause irreparable damage to our already weak economy. Why would anyone advocate placing the freest, most open and most innovative environment in history into the hands of a gargantuan government whose ability to mismanage is staggering (read: Katrina, Iraq, etc.)? If “Net Neutrality” is enacted and a movement for censorship grows within the government, instead of simply being able to switch providers, citizens will have to lobby and petition the monolithic federal government. The key here is less government involvement, not more. Government regulation has created an oligopoly in which existing telecommunication giants are essentially immune to competition. Deregulation would change the face of the industry for the better and preserve the integrity of the Internet in the process. Matt Tucker is a freshman majoring in international studies.
Want Matt’s job? E-mail a 500-word sample of your persuasive writing to thehillpr@unc.edu and you could be The Hill’s next columnist from the right! December 2007 21
The Last Word
A Tale of
Two Chinas guest column by Wilder Bullard
M
ade in China. Made in Taiwan. These could be on the label of one of the United States’ greatest contemporary political and strategic problems. Since 1972, the United States has recognized the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate government of China, leaving the official status of the Republic of China (Taiwan) dangerously ambiguous. The U.S. continued “unofficial” relations with Taiwan throughout this period and continued to be a central trading partner with the government-in-exile, which lost power in mainland China to the Communists in 1949. In 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act made the strategic partnership even closer between the U.S. and Taiwan, according to The China Quarterly. Arms sales experienced sporadic increases and Taiwan became a political buzzword in Congress. Flash forward to 1992. President George H.W. Bush sells 150 F-18 fighter aircraft to Taiwan, according to Asian Survey. This set the precedent for the arms race, even though the sale was partially rationalized by the PRC’s purchase of fighter aircraft from Russia. In 1996, in response to the PRC’s military exercises off the coast of Taiwan, the U.S. deployed two carrier groups to the region, according to the journal 22 The Hill
International Security. Currently, the U.S. has 16,601 troops afloat in the region, twice the number of troops that are deployed independently of NATO in Afghanistan, PBS reported. To warrant such a large deployment of American troops and military supplies, this region must be of huge strategic significance to the U.S. Or is it? Since 1979’s Taiwan Relations Act, there has not been any largescale review of American policy to Taiwan presented to the public. For 11 years the U.S. has had at least two carrier groups deployed to the region. Since 1993, the U.S. has been the chief supplier of arms to Taiwan. All of this seems to point to a signifi-
American rhetoric and military support seems discontinuous, if not ambiguous. As Taiwan seeks a more modernized defense force to counter the People’s Liberation Army, the political climate has changed. The period in the late ‘90s of tense but peaceful coexistence has devolved into our current situation. The leadership in Taiwan has said that it will call for a referendum on independence before elections in 2008. In 2005, the PRC passed the AntiSecession law that states that “non-peaceful means” will be used if Taiwan declares independence, or even holds a referendum on the topic. And the U.S. is caught in the middle. Taiwan’s economy is
The period in the late ‘90s of tense but peaceful coexistence has devolved into our current situation . . . with the U.S. stuck in the middle. cant commitment to Taiwan in the event of a military showdown between the two Chinas. But the messages are mixed. While the U.S. has continued to arm Taiwan and has become one of the island’s chief economic partners,
largely dependent on information technology sales to the U.S., and Taiwan’s armed forces are largely dependent upon the presence of the U.S. Navy in the Taiwan Strait. Current American foreign policy initiatives have embold-
The Last Word
Taryn Mahoney
ened the political leadership in Taiwan to pursue independence and representation in the U.N. To counter this support that the U.S. ostensibly has for Taiwan, you only need to look at the nightly headlines to see political and economic bogeyman that the PRC has become to Americans. The trade deficit between the U.S. and the PRC shows no sign of slowing. The murky opacity of the PRC’s economy has led to a sense of hopelessness in dealing with the chief economic competitor in the region. While the might of the American military supports Taiwan, the strength of American
The Last Word on
The Hill
consumerism ties us to the PRC. While there seems to be no clear path for the U.S. to pursue, we should not continue the current strategically ambiguous program in the area. Congress should review the Taiwan Relations Act, discuss the level of commitment that the U.S. is willing to provide and clearly outline the goals of an American military presence in the region. Washington should also approach and engage the political leadership of Beijing and Taipei to maintain open lines of communication. The U.S. needs to make clear that any U.S. economic and strategic assets pro-
vided to Taiwan do not constitute a “blank check” to pursue any means toward independence. Multilateral engagement is perhaps the most important facet of an improved policy. The U.S. cannot afford to be the dominating international arbiter in this potential crisis. In order to “free up” some of the American strategic capabilities in the region, we should encourage the international community to take a vested interest in the potential for global economic destabilization should the conflict escalate. The U.S. should also shift the burden of monitoring the strait to other international observers through an incentive program for strategic cooperation. The international community should also be involved in halting the arms race between the two Chinas by implementing more transparency in military expenditures. While many other options are available to the United States, these suggestions would do away with the “Strategic Ambiguity” that has guided policy in the region until now. With recent events ratcheting up tension in the region, the U.S. should act now or watch the situation disintegrate. Wilder Bullard is a junior majoring in Russian language and literatures and Russian and Eastern European area studies. He is a policy fellow in the Roosevelt Institution Center on International Relations and Foreign Policy.
Want to have the last word? Send your guest column (750800 words, please) to thehillpr@unc.edu, or sound off on our discussion board at http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill. December 2007 23
Want to see your ad here? E-mail thehillpr@unc.edu