Chapel Hill Political Review September 2008
http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill
Volume VIII, Issue I
The state of nature The future of U.S. foreign policy
Is there a liberal bias in the liberal arts?
Diane Esson
The Hill Staff
From the Editor To our readers:
It’s a new school year, and The Hill is shaking things up. We’ll always be Chapel Hill’s premier nonpartisan political review, but we’re taking a step off of our own well-beaten path with our first ever environmental issue. In this issue, The Hill takes a look at the state of nature both in the U.S. and internationally. We seek to answer questions on a range of issues, from the environmental implications of China’s growth to the pros and cons of buying locally. The Hill also gives you the run-down on what presidential candidates are saying about the environment and delves into a refueled debate on offshore drilling (see our cover section, p. 12). We also want to hear your views on today’s political issues. Send us an email, post a comment on our Web site or submit a guest column with your thoughts on today’s political trends or
how we at The Hill could better cover them. As a new editor, I’m alway eager to hear how our readers feel about their world and this magazine. Leah, our editor of the past two years, left us quite the legacy to live up to. The staff and I plan to continue to expand The Hill’s mission to engage the campus and broader community in a thoughtful, nonpartisan discussion of modern politics and policy. If you’d like to be a part of this ongoing effort, contact me at thehillpr@unc. edu. We still offer a mix of content, from our beloved Hill-O-Meter (Notes from the Hill, p. 6) to examinations of international ongoings and what precedents these events might set (International section, p. 10). We hope our issue brings you enjoyment, inspires thought and fires up your political conversations. Thanks for reading. Enjoy! Juliann Neher is a junior 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 e-mail - 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 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 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
EDITOR Juliann Neher WRITERS Melissa Brzycki John D’Allisandro Andre Durham Caroline Guerra Harrison Jobe Ryan Kane Michael Parker J. Pattishall Will Schultz Yash Shah Alex Smith Clayton Thomas COLUMNISTS Ryan Collins John Derrick Elizabeth Held ASSOCIATE EDITORS Melissa Brzycki Alex Smith COPY EDITORS Stephanie Bullins HEAD OF DESIGN Samantha Deal DESIGN Bitsy Kopp HEAD OF ART Diane Esson HEAD OF WEB Ryan Kane HEAD OF CIRCULATION Andre Durham TREASURER Kendall Law FACULTY ADVISER Ferrel Guillory The publication was paid for, at least in part, by Student Activities Fees at a cost of approximately $.50 per copy.
Contents Features
September 2008
8
The characters of the liberal arts Two books offer opposing viewpoints
10
Guantanamo Bay History’s role in the War on Terrorism
11
Zimbabwe tells its tale A look at one country’s struggle with sanctions
Volume VIII, Issue I
Cover 12
Local food The good, the bad and the questions that remain
13
The state of nature China and the international environmental struggle and more . . .
International 18
Trade negotiations The end of the Doha Round signals a bigger change
Left/Right 20
Foreign policy Diplomacy v. military strength
In Every Issue
v Notes from The Hill v The Last Word: The role of diversity September 2008 3
Notes from the Hill
Notes from
The Hill
Want your event included on The Hill’s political agenda? E-mail event details to: thehillpr@unc.edu Diane Esson
College Republicans Contact Taylor Holgate at holgate@email.unc.edu for information on membership, events and meetings.
Get involved on campus
Young Democrats Contact George Drometer at drometer@email.unc.edu for information on membership, events and meetings.
Roosevelt Institution Interested in public policy? Contact Melissa Brzycki at mbrzycki@ email.unc.edu for more information.
4 The Hill
The Hill does not endorse any of the above organiztions unless otherwise noted.
Notes from the Hill Update
The other November election After winning the Democratic primary in convincing fashion, State Senator Kay Hagan must overcome one more opponent in order to represent North Carolina in Washington—incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole. This will be no small feat for Hagan, as Dole is an experienced politician. Aside from being the Tar Heel State’s first woman senator, Dole’s resume includes two Cabinet positions, Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Labor, making her the first woman to serve as head of two separate departments, as well as an eight year term as president of the American Red Cross. However, Hagan is no stranger to politics; she has served five terms in the North Carolina State Senate, representing Guilford County, including Greensboro. A visit to Hagan’s website will
Update
quickly reveal that she is keeping in line with many other Democrats trying to break into Washington, proclaiming that she will bring a change to the status quo of Congress. Emphasizing her background in business, Hagan says that she is eager to work to fix the economic difficulties plaguing North Carolina and the country as a whole. Dole highlights her extensive experience and connections in Washington; one of her television commercials ends with, “That’s clout. That’s Elizabeth Dole.” After jumping to an early lead following her primary victory, Hagan fell behind the incumbent senator in the polls. As of July 30, Dole had a 50 percent to 42 percent lead over Hagan among decided voters, according to Pollster.com. However, Hagan worked hard to close that
gap, narrowing it to eight points after being down by double digits early in July. Hagan has a lead among Black voters, but Dole leads among unaffiliated voters, as well as among both genders, according to Rassmussen Reports. When Libertarian candidate Chris Cole recently entered the race, the gap between Dole and Hagan narrowed to a statistical tie (Dole 43.3 percent, Hagan 41.4 percent in an Aug. 23 poll from pollster.com). However, many pollsters believe that Cole’s support and influence on the race are overstated. While most polling agencies have already given the race to Dole, all of them agree that Hagan is capable of pulling off an upset. Andre Durham is a senior majoring in psychology.
By the numbers: the economy
5.7% the unemployment rate in the U.S, its highest in four years 20.3% the unemployment rate for teenagers age 16-19, its highest since 1992 463,000 the number of American jobs lost since January $482 billion budget deficit for 2009 fiscal year, the highest ever 87.0 index of national prices compiled by the Institute of Supply Management, the highest since 2004 Michael Parker is a junior majoring in political science and history.
September 2008 5
Notes from the Hill
An outstanding warrant Action is being taken to end the genocide in Darfur. In July, the International Criminal Court’s lead prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, issued an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The arrest warrant marks the first time the ICC, established six years ago, has charged anyone with genocide. Despite the issuing of the warrant, few expect al-Bashir to be arrested anytime soon, as Sudan has promised to resist the charges and two previous arrest warrants issued for Sudanese officials have been ignored. Al-Bashir’s arrest warrant was fiercely debated at the U.N. Sudan’s ambassador to the U.N. accused the
Court of trying to destabilize the country. China, Russia and the African Union spoke out against issuing the arrest warrant, arguing that it endangered U.N. personnel in Sudan and that it could damage the fragile peace process between Sudan’s rebels. The EU and the U.S. argued in support of the warrant, favoring an independent judiciary. Many Sudanese support alBashir, who mounted a public relations tour against the arrest warrant, hosting mandatory pep rallies throughout the country. Al-Bashir also softened his usual hard-line tone during the rallies, expressing condolences for recently killed U.N. peacekeepers and pledging Sudanese cooperation. Some experts think that
Hill-O-Meter
1 Bobby Jindal
By Will Schultz
A star is born on the bayou. The Louisiana governor stole the GOP’s heart with a blend of charisma and conservatism. Has the GOP finally discovered the long sought-after reincarnation of Reagan?
2 Nouri al-Maliki
Last year they called him a puppet. Now he’s a power broker. And all it took was his sort-of endorsement of Barack Obama’s Iraq policy. But what does the PM really want?
Who’s on top of the heap right now? Who has fallen far? We track the up-and-comers and the down-and-outs. 6 The Hill
the arrest warrant could spur positive change in Sudan. Al-Bashir may reopen peace talks with Sudan’s rebel groups in an attempt to remake his image as a man of peace. In the end, the ICC’s arrest warrant may accomplish little in Sudan. Libya and South Africa proposed a measure before the U.N. that would delay the prosecution, to which both Russia and China have given support. The debate will soon reach the U.N. Security Council, and it remains to be seen whether the U.S. or EU will fight hard against delaying al-Bashir’s arrest warrant. Michael Parker is a junior majoring in political science and history.
3 Manmohan Singh
India’s prime minister and his government barely survived a vote of no confidence. But don’t fret, Manmohan. After all, you can’t spell “no confidence” without “confidence”!
4 Ted Stevens
Alaska’s senior senator excelled in bringing home the bacon. But the only bacon he’s concerned about now is his own—namely saving it.
Fighting an indictment on the one hand and a fierce election opponent on the other, it won’t be easy.
Notes from the Hill
In their own words
The most captivating, comical and aggravating things politicians say “Let’s remember: Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. So, it’s not as if she doesn’t understand what’s at stake here.” --Cindy McCain, referring to Sarah Palin, the vice-presidential pick and governor of Alaska
“Boats out rescuing people either take the lowest castes last, or do not take them at all.” --Anuaradha Maharishi, spokesman for Save the Children, on what the NGO calls ‘relief discrimination’ during the flood crisis in Bihar, India.
“We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionares we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off and look after a sick kid without losing her job, an economy that honors the dignity of work.” --Barack Obama in his acceptance speech at the DNC.
“Ahead of time, I want to thank all my fellow Republicans as we take off our Republican hats and put on our American hats.” --John McCain, instructing his party to focus on the Gulf Coast region during Hurricane Gustav , which hit the area durng the RNC
“What do I care if Bush is visiting? I’m still trying to get my house back together from Katrina.” --Flora Raymond, a New Orleans resident, on President George W. Bush’s visit to the area Wednesday
“I’d probably call Gustav, instead of the mother of all storms, maybe the mother-in-law or the ugly sister of all storms.” --Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans, assessing the impact of Hurrican Gustav
www.time.com was used as a source for these quotes
“In 10 or 15 years, Russia will be the leading force in world agriculture, just because of its mass.” --Michel Orloff, an investor specializingin converting Russian collective farms.
“We can’t do anything about the loss of lives.” --San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre after announcing that improperly maintained utility lines were the cause of three wildfires that killed two people in the area last fall and destroyed 1,347 homes
September 2008 7
Book Review
The People’s Republic of Chapel Hill?
Two books on bias and education might strike close to home When the UNC-Chapel Hill Summer Reading Program was embroiled in controversy in 2003 over the assignment of a book by socialist author Barbara Ehrenreich, David Horowitz stepped in. A conservative media pundit and founder of the Campaign for Academic Freedom, Horowitz thought the incident constituted a form of indoctrination and was an indicator of “an academic culture unhinged.” He used the controversy to highlight the need for his campaign, which he says aims to take politics out of the classroom.
blind eye on professors who harass students based on their political beliefs and who discuss contentious issues in class that are outside their fields of expertise. Second, Horowitz maintains that when academic organizations, academic departments or even entire schools take specific positions on an issue over which there is “substantive disagreement,” they are violating the condition of political neutrality that is crucial for higher education’s mission of a disinterested pursuit of truth. Finally, Horowitz states that conservative ideas and methodologies are underrepresented in universities due to exclusionary hiring practices, leading to a lack of the intellectual pluralism required for knowledge to advance.
Horowitz is the author of “Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom”. Roughly half of the book consists of Horowitz promoting his “Academic Bill of Rights,” a document he drafted to Horowitz’s critics claim his comensure that “political and religious ments on academic freedom and takbeliefs would not affect students’ ing politics out of the classroom are a grades or determine the hiring or cover for his real goals—limiting the firing of faculty,” though many of his mobility of liberals in academia and other proposals are less innocuous. The “When people tell me I should foother half examcus my teaching on ‘literature’rather ines what Horowthan on personal, social, cultural or itz sees as the leftpolitical questions, I always stop to wing opposition to ask them what, exactly, they imagine his Bill.
literature to be about.”
Horowitz has three major points of contention with the current state of higher education: the lack of professionalism, political neutrality and intellectual diversity. First, Horowitz accuses colleges of lax enforcement of professional standards, turning a
8 The Hill
implementing an affirmative action program for hiring conservative professors. Michael Bérubé, a prominent English professor at Penn State and an active member of the American Association of University Professors,
Reviewed in this Article: “Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom” by David Horowitz “What’s Liberal About the Liberal Arts?: Classroom Politics and “Bias” in Higher Education” by Michael Bérubé addresses these issues in “What’s Liberal About the Liberal Arts?”, a response to the Campaign for Academic Freedom. Bérubé writes to debunk the campaign’s attack on universities and to provide an overview of two classes that he teaches, both of which he thinks could be unjustly accused of left-wing political bias. In this respect, Bérubé’s book is more than twice the length of Horowitz’s. Bérubé responds to Horowitz’s claims about professionalism and intellectual diversity by pointing out that Horowitz only provides anecdotal—not statistical—evidence that such problems are widespread or institutional. Similarly, Bérubé notes that Horowitz and his supporters have so far only proven that liberals are disproportionately represented in humanities departments, and not that this results from the exclusionary hiring practices that Horowitz identifies. Regarding professionalism, Bérubé argues that in targeting literature professors for addressing controversial political matters out-
Book Review side their areas of expertise, Horowitz dramatically misunderstands the study of literature. “Literature professors have exceptionally wide range in this regard, since their subject matter covers
most of the known world,” he writes. “So when people tell me I should focus my teaching on `literature’ rather than on personal, social, cultural or political questions, I always stop to ask them what, exactly, they imagine literature to be about.” Others at UNC-CH agree with Horowitz in thinking the university is guilty of left-wing political bias. Derek Belcher, chair of the UNC College Republicans, points out instances of potential bias by faculty and administrators such as the wellknown 2004 “Tim incident” during which a Christian student, expressing his views on homosexuality, was
publicly chastised by his professor outside of class. Belcher also mentions the lesser-known administrative censure of the Daily Tar Heel in 2006 for publishing a cartoon deemed offensive to Muslims. As for the Summer Reading Program,
As for literary merit, Bérubé appears to be the tough, open-minded, truly liberal professor Horowitz believes is so rare today. His book not only provides a range of answers and explanations from the left regarding the Campaign for Academic Freedom,
Belcher says he thinks the selection committee definitely has an agenda.
but also alternative conservative approaches to the problem. Oppositely, Horowitz represents his opponents unjustly. He tends to use confusing quotations when he is not actually quoting sources, seemingly putting words in their mouths. Similarly, he paraphrases opposing ideas insufficiently. While both books serve as worthwhile introductions to opposite sides of the debate over political bias in the classroom, Bérubé’s has more to offer.
Alternately, Carl Ernst, president of the UNC-CH chapter of the AAUP, thinks that Horowitz’s claims of professorial misconduct are extremely deceptive. Ernst maintains that UNC-CH uses “expert peer review and genuine student feedback” to evaluate the performance of professors. As a result, he claims that far from being politically biased or professionally irresponsible, UNC-CH faculty members are actually “among the best qualified and most talented academics in America.”
J. Pattishall is a sophomore majoring in English and German.
September 2008 9
International
Before Gitmo
Can history dictate current policy? Declared by Fidel Castro to be a “knife stuck in the heart of Cuba’s dignity and sovereignty,” U.S.-held Guantánamo Bay in the southeast corner of the island epitomizes Cuba’s long struggle against American influence. But Guantánamo is no longer just a problem for Cuban national pride. Its current use as a detention center for enemy combatants from the War on Terror has incited enough controversy, some would argue, to cut into the dignity of the U.S., as well.
declared the Guantánamo detainees—many of whom are allegedly linked to al-Qaeda—to be ineligible for POW status. In this situation, the Geneva Convention mandates that the unlawful combatants be treated “humanely.” That is the only clear requirement, as opposed to the carefully outlined privileges accorded to POWs. Put another way by National Public Radio’s Barbara Bradley in 2002, “an unlawful combatant...receives whatever rights the U.S. government gives him.”
There is the issue of torture, lent extra gravity by presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s own experience in Vietnam. The detainees’ right to habeas corpus has also been contentious, with the Supreme Court deciding in June to overturn the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and allow Guantánamo detainees to challenge their detention in court. The first case to be tried, that of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan, raised new protests concerning the legitimacy of the military tribunal system.
What rights, then, have been granted to unlawful combatants in the past? A 1959 U.S. Army treatise on the subject provides examples dating back to General Cornwallis ordering snipers outside of the official opposing army to be executed. In the 19thcentury Peninsular War, a general declared that uniform-less French guerillas that refused to “take arms openly” would face hanging and that their villages would be burned to the ground. When trials were granted to illegal combatants, such as in French-controlled Mexico, the treatise notes they were often sham trials with prearranged guilty verdicts and death sentences.
The distinction between prisoners of war and unlawful enemy combatants must be understood, however, before matters of detainee rights. Four criteria are stated in the 1949 Geneva Convention to distinguish candidates for POW status: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; and (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. The Bush administration has
10 The Hill
At times, such as in the British Boer Wars and after the 1990’s conflict in Somalia, some combatants who did not meet POW criteria were granted that privileged status regardless. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. decided to treat most of their Viet Cong captives as POWs—a stance that some, including the South Vietnamese, believed to be misguided. According to U.S. Army veteran Michael Russell, the South Vietnamese were “very
brutal” to their Viet Cong enemy captives; he remembers transferring a Viet Cong captive over to a South Vietnamese ally who immediately struck the prisoner in the head with his .45. It is difficult to glean any historical precedent from past conflicts, as nations’ decisions about unlawful combatants have varied from generous to recklessly unmerciful. The U.S. government must choose for itself
which example to follow as the fight against terrorism continues. To that end, it would be useful to remember an observation made fifty years ago by the U.S. Army itself: “the fact that irregular combatants [have] sometimes been harshly treated by custom of nations in the past [does] not establish a positive rule of law that they must be so treated.” Caroline Guerra is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.
International
The consequences of economic sanctions Zimbabwe’s story
Zimbabwe’s economy is currently in ruins. Racked by hyperinflation, the informal economy is estimated to be larger than the formal economy. High unemployment and political turmoil have driven many Zimbabweans into neighboring countries, particularly South Africa, causing added conflicts. The U.S. and EU recently tightened sanctions on Zimbabwe, in an effort to pressure incumbent President Robert Mugabe to make a deal with his rival, Morgan Tsvangirai. Previously, the U.N. Security Council, led by the U.S. and the U.K., tried to impose U.N. sanctions on Zimbabwe’s leaders. Their effort was thwarted by the double veto of Russia and China, who thought the move was outside the scope of the U.N.’s mandate and disruptive of the current dialogue. The diplomatic disagreement brings forth an underlying question that has plagued peace-seeking nations for some time. Is applying external sanctions, specifically economic channels, an effective method of inducing political change? Or are sanctions just a symbolic gesture that often ends up bankrupting a country and hurting its most vulnerable constituents? The state of Zimbabwe’s economy is not necessarily a direct result of economic sanctions. Only recently have sanctions tightened to include more businesses. Many foreign businesses are being pressured to leave, and government-owned businesses have come under specific sanctions from the U.S. According to a July 21 arti-
cle in The Economist, many Western mining companies are being pressured to leave. Some are hesitant, as there are other foreign—notably Chinese—companies willing to fill the gap. Implementing economic sanctions means putting pressure on the leaders of a country to implement change without resorting to harsher forms of intervention. According to an August 10 article in The First Post, withholding foreign trade can be even more damaging to a country whose domestic economy is broken and dependent on foreign trade, like Zimbabwe’s. Sanctions often hurt the wrong groups—vulnerable workers in particular. These people are forced into unemployment when foreign businesses leave and the economy experiences a downturn. The article also points out that crippling sanctions often make the citizens of a country dependent on its government for support, giving the presumably corrupt or oppressive government more power.
what insulated from the direct and personal immiseration that sanctions cause,” he said. Economic sanctions can also bolster the ruling party if they can convince their constituents that their suffering is caused by foreign powers, said Byrns, citing Cuba as an example. He noted that the suffering caused by sanctions can motivate a populace to call for a change of power, but that “regime change may have been inevitable with or without external sanctions.” As Zimbabwe endures a state of turmoil, it does not seem likely that economic sanctions by Western countries will provide much motivation for Mugabe to step aside. The country has been troubled for a long time, and if Mugabe will not cede power according to the will of his people, his willingness to give up power because of their suffering is doubtful. Melissa Brzycki is a senior majoring in political science.
According to UNC-Chapel Hill economics professor Ralph Byrns, there are both costs and benefits to economic sanctions. “Ruling class plutocrats are invariably some-
September 2008 11
Cover
Pros and cons of local foods With recent spikes in transportation costs and food prices internationally, increasing attention has been given to buying local food. While proponents of environmental awareness largely promote local food, the results of increased local consumption vary. Pros When trying to go “green” by eating locally grown foods, people usually cite transportation distance as a key element in reducing their carbon footprint and with good reason. According to foodwatch.org, “120 million tons of C02 emissions are directly attributable to domestic food transport each year, and U.S. imports and exports likely account for an additional 120 million tons”. The Farmers’ Market in Carrboro understands this concept. “All items sold [must be] produced by the person selling it and within a 50-mile radius of the market,” said Kelly Clark, part-time staff member of the market.
12 The Hill
Also, understanding another benefit of eating local foods, Clark explained that the Carrboro market requires members to sell their own products so customers can ask them directly about how the crop is grown. By eating locally, consumers can make decisions to eat organically grown food, therefore avoiding pesticides and other chemicals that could be potentially harmful. Cons Of course, being a “locavore” comes with some drawbacks. By choosing to only eat locally grown foods, people often sacrifice eating their favorite foods due to climatic limitations. A less obvious drawback is the potential damage eating only local foods can have on economies of third world agricultural exporting nations. As many of these economies are heavily reliant on exporting crops, taking away key markets may mean even greater hardships for already struggling economies.
Gray Areas Due to many factors that go into of food production, cutting out the food-mileage does not necessarily guarantee that the total carbon footprint will be reduced. Because many corporate farms are extremely efficient cultivators, more carbon may be emitted in the production practices than those saved in transportation. Also, based on the same factors, local food is not necessarily cheaper or healthier. Because of the high number of variables that go into food production, it is hard to conclude that eating local food is always more environmentally friendly. However, it is safe to say that eating locally grown food coupled with good decisions by consumers can reduce the carbon footprint left by food production and consumption. John D’Alessandro is a senior majoring in international studies.
Cover
China’s Olympian environmental hurdles At the recent Beijing Olympics, Chinese air quality left some longdistance athletes struggling. Celebrated Ethiopian marathoner Haile Gebrselassie opted to skip his race entirely due to the smog, fearing the
pollution would further irritate his asthma and hurt his career as a runner. Jacque Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, said one year before the start of the games that “sports with short durations would not be a problem, but endurance sports like cycling are examples of competitions that might be postponed or delayed” due to pollution concerns.
The Olympics controversy was only the most visible of the recent concerns over the impact that China’s rapid industrial development has had on its environment. It also
marked one of the few times Chinese authorities have been truly committed to tackling the problem, mainly due to the negative publicity that pollution would bring during the games. China’s population boom and growth into an industrial powerhouse have given rise to the factories, sprawling cities and widespread consumer adoption of vehicles that have placed an ever-increasing strain
on the country’s natural resources. While some assert it is unfair for countries that underwent industrialization in the 19th century to impose modern standards on China, unmitigated development with little concern for the environment or natural resources is contrary to the country’s interests. Most important, environmental problems and a dearth of natural resources can lead to political instability and even war. If China fails to maintain environmental stability during its period of growth, the country may face the instability and conflict that have held back so many other countries. Conflict over the environment is nothing new and has historically happened in the form of a struggle over resources, or “environmental scarcity.” According to University of Toronto professor Thomas HomerDixon, an authority on environmental security and conflict studies, the three sources of environmental scarcity are environmental change, population growth and unequal social distribution of resources. Although these factors do not necessarily lead directly to conflicts, they produce several effects that do, including a decrease in agricultural production, population displacement and general economic decline. How do these effects lead to conflict? In his study “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict,” HomerDixon proposes that a decrease in the supplies of environmental resources such as clean water and arable land provokes “simple-scarcity” conflicts or resource wars due to the resulting
September 2008 13
Cover increase in demand. He also finds that population displacement caused by environmental stress can cause group-identity conflicts and ethnic clashes, and that economic decline consistently follows severe environmental scarcity and is accompanied by a disruption of social institutions.
with The Hill. Brown said the German concept of lebensraum, which centers on “the idea that [a] people are unfairly constricted and need to expand their agricultural or other activities requiring more land or water, and if necessary will find an excuse to take over the land of their neighbors,” has played out in many A 1969 conflict between El Salvador scenarios over the years. Examples and Honduras follows the model for include Japan’s resource-oriented conflict caused by population dis- “East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” placement and environmental stress. and even the American concept of William H. Durham’s “Scarcity manifest destiny. While one part of and Survival in Central America” this can be attributed to pure lust for paints El Salvador as a classic case power, another factor is environmenof overpopulation. With a higher tal. With well-managed resources, population and more environmen- land-grabbing and the conflict that tal stress than its natural resources so often accompanies it become less could handle, severe environmental necessary. deterioration soon took hold in El Salvador, with soil erosion affecting China is almost beyond comparison 77 percent of the country. This led to due to its size, with massive stores widespread emigration to Honduras of natural resources and even bigger in pursuit of its resources and arable holdings of land. Certainly the counland, and conflict between the two try has the right to growth, and much countries quickly followed. of the criticism it receives is from established industrialized countries In this way, environmental stress can, that were once guilty of many of and often does, escalate into violence. the same environmental transgresA pressing contemporary example is sions. Yet given the pace and espethat of the Darfur region of Sudan. cially the scale of its growth, China While ethnic conflict is often cited must be even more wary than others as the root of this conflict, it has as of environmental degradation and much to do with the struggle for resource scarcity. A dilemma that is land, resources, and ultimately, pow- now merely an air pollution problem er. The majority of Sudanese have could evolve into a lack of arable land, historically been nomadic, but after resource shortages, mass migration recent climate change made rain- and widespread instability. Although fall less predictable, many nomads Beijing served well enough as a locacame to settle near long-standing tion for the 2008 Olympics, China’s agricultural communities. What re- possibility as the host for a second sulted was a grab for the remaining Olympics—and more importantly resources and incredible levels of its continued stable economic and violence—300,000 have been killed political development—are bound over the last decade. to its environmental future. Richard Brown, a former U.S. diplomat in countries such as Cameroon and Kazakhstan, discussed this common struggle for land, resources, and power in an email interview
14 The Hill
Ryan Kane is a senior majoring in political science.
Big spill in the Big Easy
The debate on offshore drilling gets new fuel New Orleans had an unpleasant awakening on the morning of July 23, 2008. Early risers were greeted by an obnoxious stink hovering over the city. People in the parishes upriver were startled by the sight of a slick, greasy sheen that covered the normally dull brown waters of the Mississippi River. Both the sight and the smell were byproducts of an accident earlier that morning. The oil tanker Tintomara was dawdling along the Mississippi River when, at 1:30 a.m., it collided with a barge carrying thousands of barrels of industrial oil. The Tintomara was unharmed, as was the tug pushing the barge. The barge itself? Not so lucky. The blow snapped it in half; within minutes it was at the bottom of the river. It was an environmental disaster: 400,000 gallons of the thick, foulsmelling oil spilled into the river, spreading over more than 90 percent of its surface. Authorities were forced to close 98 miles of the Mississippi to boat traffic for more than a week. The port of New Orleans was shut down, its sudden closure backing up 95 boats on the Mississippi. Communities that drew their water from the river were forced to shut their taps. Even out-of-town vacationers
Cover felt the spill’s effects. Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans, said that Carnival Cruise Line canceled nearly half a dozen boat trips to the Big Easy. The cleanup, thankfully, is already well underway. Three years ago Hurricane Katrina caught emergency responders flat-footed; this time, they were well-prepared. More than 800 people went to work spreading booms to contain the oil, rolling out 188,000 feet of the floating barriers. But even if the spill is mopped up— as most of it will be—the political consequences are sure to linger. The wreck of the good ship DM932 stoked the ongoing debate over offshore oil drilling. The issue of offshore drilling sat on the back burner for years. When gas prices were low, no one was particularly concerned about the U.S. fuel supply. Sky-high gas prices have changed all that. Now, offshore drilling has become one of the hottest issues in politics. Republicans, after months of playing defense on the economy, have seized upon drilling as a winning issue for November. For the moment, popular opinion is on their side. A new poll from Rasmus-
sen Reports found that 64 percent of Americans favored drilling for oil off the coast. For those who oppose offshore drilling, issues of safety have always been sticking points. In their eyes, oil rigs off state coastlines would be environmental disasters in the making—just add a hurricane. The Raleigh News & Observer opined “the oil spill on the Mississippi River contains a warning for us here in North Carolina: Offshore drilling is a threat to our coasts.” The very day of the accident, the Sierra Club sent out a press release proclaiming that “the risk for such spills—and far worse—would only increase if John McCain and George Bush get their way and allow Big Oil to begin the ‘exploitation’ of our coasts.” The spill has become a useful boogeyman for green groups, a stark reminder that oil and the environment do not mix. Proponents of drilling have returned fire, calling their opponents fearmongers. “Those who suggest that this spill means that all offshore drilling is dangerous are not familiar with the facts,” says Dan Kotman, spokesman for the pro-drilling organization American Solutions.
He cites figures from the Mineral Management Service which show that “for every 1 billion barrels of oil transported by tankers in U.S. waters there are 0.73 significant spills—less than one major spill per 1 billion barrels.” Indeed, there have been no spills from offshore drillings rigs since the 1980s. If there’s one thing the New Orleans spill teaches us, it’s that politicians can find ways to exploit any disaster. It happened last August when a bridge in Minneapolis collapsed into the Mississippi River. Liberals claimed that cost-cutting by the state’s GOP governor was responsible. Conservative pinned the blame on pork-barrel spending, which they said had diverted the funds needed to repair the bridge. From tragedy sprang political opportunity. The New Orleans oil spill is just the most recent example. It has become a proxy war in the struggle between left and right, liberals and conservatives, pro- and anti-drilling factions. Lost in the furor is any discussion of how this sort of accident can be prevented. No one is going to score political points by calling for tighter regulation of the tugboat industry. Not when the issue of offshore drilling offers such rich rewards. Will Schultz is a junior majoring in history.
September 2008 15
Cover
Where they stand
How McCain and Obama view the state of nature Newly announced presidential candidate Paris Hilton recently unveiled a seemingly excellent solution to the environmental and economic woes of the nation. Hilton proposed offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight and the creation of tax incentives for production of hybrid and electric cars. “Energy crisis solved,” said Hilton. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. With the 2008 presidential election rapidly approaching, environmental and energy policies have become a primary concern among voters. A recent poll has shown that 70 percent of Americans believe our energy policy is off track. Thus, both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama spent the summer addressing environmental and energy policy, at times through hostile rhetoric. However, there has been some substantive and refreshing dialogue on the issue. Both candidates acknowledge the significant threat of global warming, in stark contrast to the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, during which President Bush was skeptical of global warming. Both Obama and McCain agree that reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be the primary objective. Both candidates also support a cap-and-trade system, which would allow companies to buy and sell rights to emit these gases.
16 The Hill
From there, differences in policy emerge, especially concerning alternative energy sources. McCain favors nuclear energy, proposing the construction of at least 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. Obama more heavily supports the expansion of wind and solar energy, because of concerns of the disposal of nuclear waste. Obama has more ambitious goals than McCain for the reduction of America’s greenhouse gas emissions. He called for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 80 percent (of 1990 levels) by 2050 while McCain has called for a 60 percent decrease in emissions. Obama has also attempted to tie environmentalism to job creation, proposing an investment of $150 billion in green energy projects to create five million new “green” jobs. According to the League of Conservation Voters (which endorsed Obama), McCain has missed every major vote on environmental issues in 2007. However, both candidates have expressed concern for environmental issues. With a recent poll indicating that nine out of ten voters say that high energy prices will influence their vote in November, it is clear that winning over supporters to their specific energy and environmental plans will be essential to victory in November. Harrison Jobe is a sophomore majoring in political science.
On the issues Global Warming:
McCain: Supports cap-and-trade policy for emissions, would initially distribute some allowances for free Obama: Supports cap-and-trade policy for emissions, polluters would have to buy allowances in an auction *Allowances refer to the right to emit a specific amount of greenhouse gases
Offshore Drilling:
McCain: Supports offshore drilling, except in environmentally sensitive areas Obama: Opposes offshore drilling, unless support was necessary to pass sweeping energy reforms
Alternative Energy:
McCain: Opposes subsides for ethanol production Obama: Supports tax incentives and subsides for wind, solar and biofuel technologies
Nuclear Energy:
McCain: Supports creation of 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 Obama: Opposes until a safe and long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste is developed
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: McCain: Decrease of 60% by 2050 (from 1990 levels) Obama: Decrease of 80% by 2050 (from 1990 levels)
International
The Indian supernova India’s explosive entrance into the world marketplace went seemingly unnoticed until the late 1990s when it defiantly crashed the gates on an otherwise exclusive club of nuclear powers. However, the persistent image of India as a cheap labor market for venturing multinationals is long past expiration. Even while India’s debut passed by without much attention, the nation is quickly transforming into a major player on the world stage. In particular, the groundbreaking U.S.-India nuclear deal will have serious implications on the balance of power in Asia, and ensure the energy security necessary for India’s continuing economic boom. The international backlash against India for pursuing nuclear weapons came to a climax in 1998 when the U.S. threatened to impose economic sanctions through the U.N. Since then, India has turned to civilian uses for nuclear fuel as an alternative energy source for economic development. In a move which completely reversed decades of uncooperative diplomatic and trade policy, the U.S. reached out to India through a nuclear agreement. Bruce Reidel of the Brookings Institute wrote in an article that the treaty will foster a new era in U.S.-India relations as it appeases security concerns over nuclear proliferation, which contributed to tense bilateral relations in the previous decade. The terms of the treaty require India to meet International Atomic Energy Agency standards on its civilian reactors, open up these facilities to U.N. inspectors, commit to strengthening security on military reactors and discontinue testing. In
return, the U.S. has agreed to supply nuclear fuel and technology for energy purposes while allowing U.S. nuclear energy companies to begin constructing plants in India. For the U.S., India has strategic geopolitical importance as a check to China’s ambitions and a resurgent Russia. Furthermore, Jayshree Bajoria of the Council of Foreign Affairs explained in an interview with The Hill that the deal “will keep the oil flows intended for Americans away from the mammoth specter of a one billion strong consumer base” by establishing nuclear power as a viable alternative. Select U.S. energy companies will make $150 billion in projected revenues over the next decade according to their own estimates. For India, this is a ticket to nuclear legitimacy, but the long term economic and political effects will drastically change the trajectory of India’s future. In the global oil hunt, India and China are in competition for energy markets to sustain their fantastic rate of economic growth. Recently, India has made up ground by striking exclusive deals with Iran and Russia, which have some of the last major remaining untapped fields, for construction of a direct pipeline into the country. China, banking on similar deals from Iran and Russia, will now have to buy at least some of its oil from India. Additionally, the Chinese offered India a nuclear deal that would enable it to become a customer of Indian nuclear power. This energy advantage may give India the final trump card in its tenuous relations with China. The deal also gives India one benefit with regard to its relationship with Pakistan. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated
that Pakistan will not receive a similar deal, a move which suggests that its nuclear legitimacy will not be recognized. Furthermore, as one of its most reliable weapons and energy customers, India can exert leverage on Russia, a service which the U.S. may wish to employ in situations such as the Georgian crisis. Essentially, the nuclear deal sets the stage for India to become the regional superpower in Asia. Meanwhile, rural India seems frozen in time while many urban centers have modernized beyond even Western standards. Rural India has been held hostage in backwardness by shabby infrastructure, a sense of resigned complacency, and a sort of religious mysticism which still protects traditions such as child marriage. However, the sprawl of urban centers, a growth which India plans to support with energy from nuclear plants, will slowly bring socio-economic reforms such as public education. In the process, India’s once immobilized masses will become productive participants in the global economy. Although the nuclear deal faced tremendous criticism in India, its potential to help fuel the modernization of impoverished areas is a definite selling point. These poor areas, once developed, are lining up to be the motive force of India’s persistent push into the global economy. Although it is left to be seen how it will manage its new world position, we have not yet witnessed the best that India has to offer. Yash Shah is a sophomore majoring in economics and political science.
September 2008 17
International
Death of the Doha Round Are trade negotiations in jeopardy?
On July 31, 2008, the Doha Round of trade talks, initiated with the aim of boosting development of poorer nations through trade, fizzled out. Ultimately, India could not accept the terms of the so-called safeguard mechanism proposed to protect its destitute farmers from falling prices. The U.S. wanted the safeguard price to be low to allow India protective tariffs; India wanted it to be high. Some pundits, including The Economist, claim that the trade negotiation system itself is in jeopardy. They fear that nations will lose faith and patience in multilateral trade and seek bilateral trade agreements. After all, the Doha Round, beginning in 2001, took seven years to fail. However, a
18 The Hill
bilateral trade environment may not be the best scenario for development, as it could allow powerful nations to pressure weaker nations into signing unfair agreements. This prospect could spark protectionist outcries from concerned citizens, potentially hampering any future trade talks. Perhaps the failure of the negotiations is not a big deal after all. Some say the proposed reduction of tariffs would only benefit select groups of farmers in the developing world by raising commodity prices through subsidy drops and reducing tariffs. Non-farming citizens in these nations might have even been hurt in the short run by higher food prices.
What is clear is the failure’s symbolism. China, India and Brazil, representing the bulk of the emerging world economy, have sent a clear signal to their developed counterparts; they are playing in the big leagues now, and will not tolerate being pushed around. The cost of such a statement for the world economy remains to be seen. Alex Smith is a junior majoring in economics.
For more on India, see page 17.
International
PM’s resignation complicates Israel’s political situation After a tumultuous two and a half years in office, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced July 30 that he will not be a candidate in his party’s leadership elections in September. Until then he will remain in office, though attention will surely be upon his potential successors, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, as they jockey for position within the Kadima Party. Just how this surprise development will affect the delicate ongoing talks with the Palestinians and Syria, or the future of Israel’s recent political stability, remains to be seen. An active figure in the right-wing Likud Party since the early 1970s, Olmert was one of the first to join then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s new, more centrist Kadima party in 2005. Olmert took over as acting Prime Minister after Sharon’s debilitating stroke in January 2006. From the very outset, Olmert was plagued with scandals which damaged his credibility and hindered his effectiveness at the negotiating table. The most prominent was a criminal investigation launched against him in January 2007, though the final report did much to disprove many of the accusations. The final straw came in May, when it was revealed that Olmert was the subject of yet another investigation— this time for accepting bribes from an American businessman totaling $150,000. Still
maintaining his innocence, Olmert unexpectedly resigned at the end of July, throwing the perpetually fragile Middle East peace process into even greater confusion. Some, however, question the relevance of Olmert’s resignation to the issue of negotiations. Amir Oren, a correspondent for the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, said in an email to The Hill that “peace…should be based on a true convergence of interests and a broad national consensus. It is not a diplomatic hocus-pocus performed by a Kissinger-like magician. If it is solid, any Prime Minister would be able to negotiate it.” Oren’s implication, that such a “convergence of interests” does not presently exist, is largely supported by the realities
of the situation, perhaps most significantly that Israel’s Palestinian negotiating partner, Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, exerts no control over the 1.5 million Palestinians who live in the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip. Of the two Kadima politicians currently running to succeed Olmert, Livni is better known and more popular than Mofaz. However, Kadima’s current legislative majority is largely a product of Sharon’s popularity; it remains to be seen whether any Kadima politician can capture his successes. Some in Israel are calling for early elections (currently scheduled for 2010). Presently, the two other major parties’ candidates for Prime Minister have already had the job: Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud, 1996) and Ehud Barak (Labor, 1999). Amotz Asa-El, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post and a former member of Israel’s U.N. delegation, said in a telephone interview with The Hill that he foresaw early elections with Netanyahu emerging victorious. Asa-El was skeptical about whether Kadima, which squandered any national goodwill after Sharon’s incapacitation, could remain the governing party, and as for Olmert, Asa-El predicted he will leave “hardly an impact on the history of the country.” Clayton Thomas is a sophomore majoring in political science and history.
September 2008 19
Opinion
from the Left
Diplomacy first Ryan Collins
After five years of war in the Middle East, thousands of dead American troops (to say nothing of the numbers of foreign civilians) and a foreign policy that has tarnished the image of the U.S. across the globe, it is safe to say that the American people are looking for a new strategy based on something more than a parody of a Beach Boys song. Although John McCain’s witty play on the lyrics to “Barbara Ann” may have garnered a few laughs, it is a troubling insight into the Arizona senator’s overly aggressive approach to dealing with the rogue state of Iran. Like Bush, McCain is looking to use the American military presence in Iraq to counter threats from the neighboring Islamic republic. Similarly, this dynamic duo appears eager to flash Uncle Sam’s sword in the face of another troublesome nation, North Korea. However, with a military spread thin and waning public support for war, it is time we return to the abandoned practice of diplomacy.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 73 percent of Americans favored the use of economic and diplomatic efforts rather than military action to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. On the North Korean front, Newsweek reported a majority of Americans favored direct negotiations with that country, outside the stalled six-party talks, while most would disapprove of any direct military involvement. Clearly this indicates that U.S. citizens favor open diplomatic relations with these wayward nations, so why doesn’t the administration answer the call? The answer is simple. The Bush administration and much of the conservative base simply refuse to acknowledge these nations with any sort of respect. Sure, it seems crazy to offer anything resembling respect to countries (well, their leaders anyway) with such a ferocious hatred of the U.S. However, officials like President Bush treat these nations with an immense sense of inferiority to America or any of its allies. Such treatment is sure to be met with resentment from anyone, particularly figures
20 The Hill
like Kim Jong Il and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Absurd as it may sound, we must treat the leaders of rogue states as equals if we hope to make any diplomatic progress. After all, no argument can ever be resolved if one party feels it is being looked down upon. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, stated that he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea and other anti-Western countries in an attempt to establish diplomatic relations. Bush and McCain, in response, have called Obama’s notions “naïve.” Yet the true naiveté lies in their unwillingness to put diplomacy before hostility. Should the U.S. engage Iran or North Korea in combat, it would surely do nothing to lessen their intense hatred of the Western World. While our relations with Iran and North Korea are unlikely to significantly improve significantly anytime soon, the use of military force against either state would be a step in the wrong direction. Only with economic and diplomatic pressure through the United Nations and, more importantly, on our own, can we hope to peaceably resolve the conflicts with rogue states. It is time to stop sacrificing American lives, end the senseless war mongering and let other forms of negotiation move forward. Whoever the next president may be, we can hope that he realizes that the American people are weary of war, especially unnecessary ones. Moreover, he must understand the importance of showing respect for all nations, even our enemies. Finally, let’s hope that our next president can, in his position as chief diplomat, do something more constructive than “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” Ryan Collins is a sophomore majoring in political science and economics.
Opinion
Military gives strength to words
from the right
Elizabeth Held
The world stage is constantly evolving: new leaders come to power, populations shift in size and character and countries gain or lose global influence. With these transformations, threats to the security and prosperity of the U.S. multiply. Nuclear proliferation in nations that are hostile to the U.S. and its allies, specifically Iran and North Korea, is among the threats the Bush administration is addressing and will remain an issue of importance for the next administration.
A realistic, effective foreign policy begins with an accurate understanding of the threat of terrorism and extremism around the globe. Radical ideologies manifest themselves in attempts of sabotage against individual, political and corporate freedoms. Therefore, the U.S. must aggressively expose and prevent the unrelenting agenda of radicals. If governments are unwilling to compromise, President Bush has refused to participate in direct negotiations with these countries in order to thwart their attempts to embarrass or corner the U.S. Yet presidential candidate Barack Obama has reduced the reason for the president’s refusal to engage in bilateral negotiations to a mere dislike of those countries. His statements exhibit a failure to understand the potential threat of such talks. Bilateral negotiations would undercut the U.S., weakening its power to make demands of denuclearization. The current administration has, however, engaged in six party talks with North Korea. The U.S. has capitalized on the shared interest China, Russia, Japan and South Korea have in a stable and peaceful North Korea to bring added leverage to its demands. The resulting push for denuclearization push has produced favorable results. North Korea shut down and sealed core nuclear facilities, invited monitoring agencies back into the country and is no longer able to produce weaponsgrade plutonium. Diplomatic actions with Iran have not proven as successful. Iran refuses to freeze enrichment and reprocessing despite three United Nations Security Council resolutions. Alternative measures like economic sanctions seek
to force Iran to agree to a program of denuclearization. The resulting inflation, loss of banking investments and obstacles barring Iranian businesses from accessing international markets are meant to force Iran to meet the demands of the international community. What becomes increasingly evident in the midst of the Iranian situation is that military action on the part of the U.S., though a last option, must remain a viable one. Otherwise, more desirable diplomatic instruments become hollow and ineffective. Through non-military diplomatic actions, the U.S. intimidates its enemies, but it must be ready to act if necessary. Demands and treaties can be made because of the strength behind the words. Although the U.S. must always seek such strength through the backing of international allies, ultimately its safety depends upon a capable American military. Therefore, a president who is committed to diplomacy must be committed to building up the military. In an August interview, Politico’s Mike Allen asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice how much she worries about an attack on the U.S. “Every day,” Rice said. “Every day. For us—for those of us who were in responsibility—the places of authority on September 11th, you have to understand that every day is September 12th. It’s your greatest fear.” For the average citizen—removed from this kind of intense and direct pressure—every day is not September 12th. Yet, the responsibility to keep the U.S. and the world safe is real. Citizens are called to act upon this primary responsibility during the presidential election. Although indirect, perhaps the most important investment individuals can make in the protection of their country and freedoms is in electing a president who recognizes that the nation must be secured from all threats in order to pursue all other matters of national importance. Elizabeth Held is a sophomore majoring in chemistry.
September 2008 21
The Last Word
Diversity’s priceless role The odd one out can often be most valuable Biological diversity is incredibly important. The same goes for diversity of opinions. I was an anthropology major, so I got to learn a lot about the former while putting up with a lot of the latter.
But that is not necessarily bad if that freaky antelope can run 150 percent faster than a four-legged one. Not all mutations are crummy. A lot of them are (just ask the world’s smallest bearded woman at the state fair), but once in a while mutation provides a new and needed flavor to a species’ gene pool.
one happily filtering up to 50 gallons a day of pollution and keeping our sounds clean of the sort the dirt, bacteria and gunk that makes raw oysters taste so good. (How much of an aphrodisiac is that now, eh?) By John Derrick The same goes for diversity in people. “There are some people who are not completely susceptible to HIV—people who are infected but survived—by studying what’s going on with those people, they may be able to help lots of other people,” said DeSaix. So diversity is important.
Closer to home, take the humble oyster. In the past, before we ate them, the waters of eastern North Carolina were filled with reefs of oysters, each
So I don’t mean to sound simultaneously liberal, conservative and the Counting Crows, but “don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what
Diversity gives a species the variety of genetic tools it needs to adapt to changing environments through “There are some people who are not evolution. “Evocompletely susceptible to HIV--peolution is about ple who are infected but survived--by survival and restudying what’s going on with those production of the ones that work,” people, they may be able to help lots of other people.” said UNC biology professor Jean DeSaix. All of this goes to create a diverse One of the foundational tenets of world that we are only beginning to modern biology, evolution works understand and exploit. Think about with four different tools: natural an acre of rainforest—how many of “If everybody’s just alike and someselection, gene flow, gene drift and those plants and animals do we re- thing comes through to wipe that mutation. Natural selection is lions ally understand? How complicated out, then the whole species is gone,” weeding out the slow antelopes and are these ecosystems, and how much said DeSaix. “Just look at the Irish leaving the fast antelopes to have toying around with the food web are potato famine—a blight in a onemore fast babies. Gene flow is genes crop agricultural getting passed around different popsystem with very You never know when some appar- little genetic variaulations of antelopes to share their ent whack job will come up with some tion in that staple fastness. Gene drift is isolated popumutant, enlightenment idea like de- food. lations getting the chance to develop mocracy. their own freaky, fast selves. And there is huge Maybe that’s why Australia, separatimportance in the ed for so long from other parts of the we doing? We could unknowingly pre-existing genetic variation within world, has so many weird animals, destroy species that could show us a species before the disaster hits…If and perhaps why Australians are so the way to lifesaving, nature-based the mutation arises afterwards you’re much fun at parties. drugs like aspirin and chocolate. probably already dead.” Then there is mutation, where some complicated genetic process goes horribly wrong and an antelope is born with six legs.
22 The Hill
The Last Word
you’ve got `til it’s gone?” Maybe we should try to cut down on meddling in God’s green turf when we don’t really know what we’re doing and be thankful for the diversity we do have and appreciative or at least tolerant of new developments. But this mantra doesn’t have to be restricted to biology. DeSaix thinks the same goes for diversity of opinions. Think about it, just as with genes, biological adaptations, and incarnations of rock music, lame ones die off, good ones get spread around, isolated ones get a little wild, and occasionally one comes out of nowhere.
The Last Word on
The Hill
This is one of the reasons we try not to restrict free speech—you never know when some apparent whack job will come up with some mutant, enlightenment idea like democracy. So we try to keep the nut bags from causing too much trouble and let them drift and flow with their notions of freedom and love and other stuff like that. These people are my extreme leftist friends who might consider me a Neanderthalic conservative because I go to church on Sunday. They are my very conservative friends who might consider me a pinko, flaming liberal because I go to an Episcopal Church—a denomination that has a gay bishop and a female bishop (but
so far no gay female bishops that we know of ). Or one of these people might be a columnist who is surprised you actually read this far. These people are the mutants, the six-legged chickens, the two headedturtles of the marketplace of ideas— we’re not really sure what to make of these ideological freaks of nature, but they have as much a right to exist as anyone else, and it is not our place to unnecessarily interfere. And you never really know when you’re going to need a monkey with four asses. And if you ever do, please keep it to yourself. John Derrick is a third year in the UNC School of Law.
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. September 2008 23
Like to blog? Want to copy edit?
WORK FOR THE HILL!
email thehillpr@unc.edu
Want to see your ad here? E-mail thehillpr@unc.edu