CPR Summer 2021 (XX,2)

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

INSIDE: AMERICA NEEDS TO OWN UP TO SLAVERY, STARTING IN THE CLASSROOm [pg. 3]

Fauci and the Failing of Trans Healthcare: The legacy of HIV/Aids and COVID-19 in the Trans Community [pg. 11]

FUTURE FRONTIERS OF WARFARE: THE PROMISES AND PERILS OF WEAPONIZED A.I. [pg. 17]

EDITORIAL BOARD

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Olivia Choi

PUBLISHER

Rachel Barkin

MANAGING EDITORS

Janine Nassar

Heather Loepere

Chloe Lowell

CHIEF-OF-STAFF

Sarah DeSouza

PITCH MANAGER

Caroline Mullooly

POLICY 360 EDITOR

Ashley Tan

DESIGN EDITOR

Blake Jones

PUBLICITY EDITOR

Eleanor Yeo

STAFF

SENIOR EDITORS

Aditya Sharma

Raya Tarawneh

Adam Kluge

Oliver Niu

Daniel Kang

Eleanor Katharine Yeo

Kaili Fortich Meier

Annabel Kelly

Sarah Howard

John David Cobb

Timothy Kinnamon

Zachary Becker

Cameron Adkins

Jasmin Butler

Ellie Gaughan

Rachel Krul

Annie Tan

Roshan Setlur

Serena White

Leena Yumeen

Charles Wallace

Virginia Lo

Brian Perlstein

Carina Layfield

JUNIOR EDITORS

Deepa Irakam

Eli Baucom-Hays

Elina Arbo

Geena García

Haley Chung

Jaime Gomez-Sotomayor

Roel

James Hu

Jeffrey Xiong

Katerina Kaganovich

Kevin Jiang

Kiran Dzur

Matt Braaten

Natalie Goldberg

Nicolas Lama

Olivia Hussey

Renuka Balakrishnan

Robert Gao

Roopa Irakam

Ryan Safiry

Samuel Braun

Sarah Wang

Sebastian Preising

Tatiana Gnuva

STAFF WRITERS

Adam Szczepankowski

Aili Hou

Aishlinn Kivlighn

Alison Kahn

Alyssa Sales

Amalia Garcia

Anushka Thorat

Benjamin Eyal

Benjamin Waltman

Bernadette P Gostelow

Camila Guerra Fox Braga

Carmen Vintro

Christian Rodríguez

Claire Schweitzer

Colby King

Colby Malcolm

Collin Woldt

Denver Blevins

Emmanuelle Hannibal

Eriife Adelusimo

Ghazwa Khalatbari

Gustie Owens

Hannah Walsh

Ian Springer

Jason Park

Jenna Yuan

Jocelyn Fahlen

Julia Chang

Julia Shimizu

Kaitlyn Saldanha

Kayla Leong

Lucie Pasquier

Luiza Diniz Vilanova

Luke Seminara

Marissa Aaronson

Nathalia Tavares

Niharika Rao

Noa Fay

Olivia Deming

Olivia Mitchell

Olympia Francis Taylor

Panu Hejmadi

Priya Sagar

Rohil Sabherwal

Sarah Doyle

Serena Tsui

Shruti Verma

Stefan Hopwood

Tamar Vidra

Tigidankay (TK) Saccoh

Tim Vanable

Tomas Taaffe

Tyrese Thomas

Yaniv Goren

Yasmine Dahlberg

DESIGN TEAM

Blake Jones

Brynn Hansen

Christina Su

Elijah Knodell

Helena Busansky

Margadbileg Bold

EDITOR’S NOTE

This fall, Columbia University will reopen its doors after more than 17 months of lockdown. Students across America, of all ages, are expected to return to fill empty classrooms.

For our summer issue, the staff writers and editorial team at the Columbia Political Review have produced commentary on a rich diversity of topics. In this issue, Olivia Hussey examines nuclear energy as an avenue to address the climate crisis, Sebastian Preising assesses the promises and pitfalls of weaponized artificial intelligence, and Benjamin Eyal explores Taiwanese semiconductor technology in the context of a global technological arms race.

In the cover story for this issue, Nathalia Tavares calls attention to inadequacies in the American education system and argues for comprehensive curricula addressing the legacy of American slavery. Likewise, Colby Malcolm brings a critical eye to a celebrated figure of the moment, Dr. Anthony Fauci, asking us to revisit Dr. Fauci’s treatment of the transgender community during the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Aishlinn Kivlighn examines the Framers’ constitutional questions in a call to implement the Senate secret vote.

In this edition of Policy360 , writers tackle tensions in the Iran nuclear agreement. Returning for the roundtable’s second edition, writers Jenna Yuan, Kaitlyn Saldanha, Rohil Sabherwal, James Hu, Adam Szczepankowski, and Samuel Braun unpack the conflict from various perspectives.

Furthermore in the global arena, Luiza Vilanova identifies incongruities in Brazil’s cultural identity, examining how a nation celebrating a rising tide of transgender officeholders may simultaneously maintain the world’s highest rates of transphobic violence. Tamar Vidra discusses Russian anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny’s innovative usage of the internet and the newfound threat it poses to historically oppressive regimes. Benjamin Waltman addresses the ongoing human rights crisis in Myanmar and repeated failures of the International Court of Justice.

As these articles demonstrate, the Columbia Political Review remains a community dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, intellectual inquiry, and political discourse. We hope that you enjoy reading.

— OLIVIA CHOI, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this magazine belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Columbia Political Review, of CIRCA, or of Columbia University. Cover photo credit: José Alejandro Carrillo Neira.

CONTENT

DOMESTIC POLITICS

AMERICA NEEDS TO OWN UP TO SLAVERY, STARTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Nathalia Tavares CC '23

THE CASE FOR A SECRET SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL VOTE: A REFLECTION ON DONALD TRUMP'S SECOND IMPEACHMENT

Aishlinn Kivlign CC '24

FAUCI AND THE FAILING OF TRANS HEALTHCARE: THE LEGACY OF HIV/AIDS AND COVID-19 IN THE TRANS COMMUNITY

Colby Malcolm CC '24

NUCLEAR ENERGY: A KEY PART TO FIGHTING THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND A POTENTIAL POINT OF UNITY

Olivia Hussey CC '22

FUTURE FRONTIERS OF WARFARE: THE PROMISES AND PERILS OF WEAPONIZED A.I.

Sebastian Preising CC '22

POLICY 360: IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

WITH THE UNITED STATES’ TRANSITION FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN, REASSERTING THE UNITED STATES’ POSITION ON THE JCPOA IS CRITICAL

Jenna Yuan CC '24

THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL AND SAUDI ARABIA’S QUEST FOR REGIONAL DOMINANCE

Kaitlyn Saldanha BC '24

WHEN IT COMES TO A NUCLEAR IRAN, ISRAEL IS A LOOSE CANNON THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

Rohil Sabherwal CC '24

HOW HEZBOLLAH SYMBOLIZES THE DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN IRAN’S NUCLEAR ACTIVITY AND PROXY WARFARE

James Hu, CC '24

UNCERTAINTY REGARDING IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL GIVES RUSSIA A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE

Adam Szczepankowski, CC '24

CHINESE ENGAGEMENT WITH IRAN HINTS AT BEIJING’S FOREIGN POLICY MINDSET

Samuel Braun, CC '24

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

ALEXEI NAVALNY SENDS A WARNING SHOT TO CHINA

Tamar Vidra CC '22

CRISIS AND CARNAGE IN MYANMAR: WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR THE ROHINGYA PEOPLE?

Benjamin Waltman CC '24

TWO BRAZILS: TRANSPHOBIA AND TRANSGENDER POLITICIANS

Luiza Vilanova CC '24

SEMICONDUCTORS AND TAIWANESE SECURITY: A BLESSING OR A CURSE?

Benjamin Eyal CC '24

Education plays a critical role in public understanding of slavery.

AMERICA NEEDS TO OWN UP TO SLAVERY, STARTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Photo by Nicola Tolin.

Nathalia Tavares // Columbia College ’23 March 14, 2021

On November 2nd 2020, President Donald Trump issued an executive order creating a special committee with the responsibility of building a patriotic educational curriculum. While school systems would be highly encouraged by the administration to adopt this curriculum, it would not be forcibly implemented. The “1776 Commission” responsible for constructing the curriculum, named in honor of the year the Declaration of Independence was signed, would enlist the guidance of select cabinet members such as the Secretaries of State, Defense, Education, and Housing and Urban Development.

While the contents of this curriculum are not thoroughly detailed, the executive order claims its main purpose is to teach a U.S. history that is “accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling” so that students can embody “the honest patriotism” needed for the American polity to thrive. According to President Trump, the need for such a curriculum comes from rising criticisms of the Founding Fathers for their role in perpetuating and participating in the institution of slavery. By implementing this educational initiative, Trump aimed to contradict any notion that the United States is a systemically racist country.

Under President Trump’s “patriotic” education, Americans would be encouraged to see racial injustice and oppression as things of the past, rather than issues we grapple with daily. Although President Joe Biden has already overturned this executive order, the near-existence of the “1776 Commission” raises the question: what are the implications of a historical education that underscores or completely

removes the severity of past injustices from public memory? What dangers lie in a polity that overlooks its own wrongdoings and distances itself from any form of criticism?

To better answer these questions, we must examine the ways in which slavery is taught today across the nation, and the implications of that education in present society.

The Failure to Address the Severity of the Living Conditions Faced by Enslaved People

Present history curriculums fail to highlight the severity of the atrocities faced by enslaved people. According to a study conducted by the Southern Law Poverty Center in 2018, only 49% of high school seniors across America understand that enslaved people resisted slavery. Several states like New Jersey, Washington, and Virginia don’t even raise the topic of enslaved resistance in their textbooks. With over half of high school students believing that enslaved individuals were passive in the face of their oppression, these history curriculums dangerously endorse the belief that slaves were content with their enslavement. By believing in this contentment, one could assume that slavery was not life-threatening, completely erasing the violence, sexual abuse, and trauma caused by enslavement.

By overlooking the horrors of this institution, our nation fails to explicitly condemn slavery. This failure is particularly evident in Section 1 of Amendment 13 of our Constitution where it states that slavery is permitted as legal punishment for a crime. This clause sets the precedent that slavery is not completely immoral, allowing citizens to believe that slavery is jus-

tifiable. We saw these beliefs come to fruition most recently on November 3rd, 2020, when Nebraska voted on a statewide amendment that would remove slavery as a potential punishment for a crime. While the amendment thankfully passed, it should not be overlooked that 280,898 individuals voted to keep slavery. While we may not presently have data explaining why these people voted this way, possible reasons could either be that they undermined the trauma induced by slavery, or, that despite learning about its history in school, they did not find the concept of ownership over another human being as immoral. When our nation fails to discuss the torturous conditions of slavery and the immorality of the practice itself, we do not denounce injustice, but rather, create room for others to

defend it. As such, we risk allowing these injustices to be repeated in the future. For example, according to her documentary “13th,” filmmaker Ava DuVernay argues that America is already practicing a new iteration of slavery through prison labor.

With an inadequate education on slavery, votes like the ones seen in Nebraska become a fundamental reflection of whether our society believes that each human being is warranted equal rights and freedoms.

The Minimization of Slavery’s Role in Securing U.S. Power and Stability

Another startling finding from the SLPC study was that only 46% of students recognized slavery as directly responsible for the growth of the U.S. economy during its early years. Without slavery, the United States would

have never generated enough wealth to stabilize itself as a new nation, engage in international trade, and impose its power on other nations. Therefore, in disassociating slavery from the growth of the economy, current education omits the fact that slavery is the very reason the United States was capable of amounting to the global power it is today.

History curriculums further undermine the role of slavery in America’s foundation by minimizing its importance in our nation’s history. For example, only 8% of students correctly identified slavery as the central cause of the Civil War. In allowing nearly 48% of students to believe that tax protests were the central cause of the war, our education systems are not adequately teaching students the extent to which slavery

Education plays a critical role in public understanding of slavery. Photo by Ian Koski.

was indoctrinated in American life. The fact that the decision on whether or not to abolish slavery caused a war within our country demonstrates that slavery (and thus, racism) has always been embedded in the history of America.

When America undermines slavery’s impact in shaping our nation and securing its financial and international power, America attempts to distance itself from slavery. The danger in this distance is that America perpetuates the narrative that slavery was merely a lapse in judgement and that in spite of its occurrence, the U.S. rose to power fairly and independently.

However, the truth is, America is not innocent. In fact, it owes its entire success to the oppression and labor of enslaved people. In not teaching this point, educational systems are designed to prevent their students from realizing that this nation was never meant to serve every race equally. As such, white students in particular can potentially continue to live in this country completely ignorant of who this country benefits and harms. Without providing students the knowledge to critically examine our nation, America allows itself to continue perpetuating injustice without any accountability.

The Omission of the Lasting Impacts of Slavery (Including Those We See Today)

Lastly, the SLPC study found that only 39% of students understand slavery as foundational for shaping

present beliefs regarding race and white supremacy. In other words, the majority of students at the end of their high school career do not believe that slavery has influenced the way racism exists in society today. In considering slavery and current race relations as mutually exclusive, students are encouraged to assume that

of Americans do not believe that white people hold privilege or specific advantages in society. In other words, almost half of Americans do not believe that Black Americans experience greater obstacles or hurdles in society than their white counterparts. Even with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement

slavery holds no weight in our daily life because it happened in the past. Instead of addressing the ongoing legacy of slavery, such as racist policies limiting access to financial loans or quality education for Black Americans, present history curriculums are only connecting racism to the single event of slavery.

By drawing this conclusion, students fail to recognize that racism is not only acts of discrimination on an interpersonal level, but rather, an entire system devised to prevent persons of color from succeeding to the same extent as their white counterparts. The consequence of this belief is that many students graduate from high school believing that the absence of slavery means that racism no longer exists. For example, during January and February 2019, the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans’ perceptions of racial injustice in the United States. According to the study, 41%

highlighting the ways Black men and women are disproportionately targeted and/or murdered by police officers, almost half of the country still believes that racial inequalities do not exist. This division in our nation’s understanding of race relations allows members of our society to occupy two very different realities: one where everyone is treated equally, and one where vast inequalities occur. There are consequences to this divide—namely, that the inability to agree on the existence of injustice makes it impossible to effectively address it.

By failing to draw the connection between slavery and continued legislative actions taken to prevent Black communities from receiving equal opportunity and treatment, present education encourages students to believe that racism is no longer an issue. As such, students are taught to not feel a responsibility to address racism. The dan -

“In order to adequately tackle the disease of racism, our education systems have a duty to openly acknowledge its continued existence.”

ger in this belief is that it prevents students from both perceiving and being critical of present injustices. The truth is that slavery was only symptom of a larger injustice: white supremacy. In the same way that killing a bug is not the same as ridding yourself of the infestation that allowed the bug to be there in the first place, the elimination of

world we live in came to be. However, what is perhaps less emphasized, is its role in teaching us what the world could and should become. Currently, states have jurisdiction over their own regional school curriculums. As such, there are major discrepancies in education on slavery across the nation.

To better remedy this misinfor -

ry and legacy of American slavery. This project has even developed a history curriculum of its own for educators to refer to free of charge. With a curriculum like this federally institutionalized in schools across the nation, all students could learn about slave resistance and the individual stories of enslaved people. In this way, students could tackle their ignorance, better understand the severity of the institution, and finally realize how its previous existence still impacts our present.

slavery does not mean that racism (i.e. its source of power) no longer exists. Therefore, in order to adequately tackle the disease of racism, our education systems have a duty to openly acknowledge its continued existence.

Conclusion

As seen through President Trump’s refusal to denounce white supremacy, or newly-appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s past ruling underscoring the negative impacts that employing the n-word against Black employees can have in the workplace, America needs to do a better job at denouncing racism. If we don’t take proper responsibility for our past actions and collectively confront our past wrongdoings in the classroom, why would any individual feel inclined to do the same?

Education is often understood as our means for learning how the

mation, our nation should develop a standardized curriculum in regards to slavery. Rather than omit history like President Trump’s 1776 Commission, the “1619 Commission” (recognizing the year the first ship of enslaved Africans arrived at the English colonies in North America) would highlight all the aspects of slavery that are currently under-taught. To create this curriculum, the 1619 Commission could enlist the expertise of Black historians and call upon multimedia resources such as primary documents, podcasts, documentaries, museum visits, and more to give students a greater breadth of knowledge. Journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones has already begun developing this work through her Pulitzer Prize-winning 1619 Project. Published by the New York Times in August 2019, this project uses articles, photo essays, and podcasts to provide detailed explanations of both the histo -

A polity is only as strong as the people it is made up of. As such, it is our duty to learn and acknowledge the pain and suffering our nation has imposed on communities of color. This doesn’t mean only focusing on slavery, but also extending education to include the narratives of other marginalized groups. Only then will we be capable of bringing justice and peace to our nation.

The 1776 Commission claims that acknowledging the legacies of racism and slavery in this nation is unpatriotic. However, the truth is, patriotism is not about loving our nation unconditionally to the point that we see both it and its history as exempt from criticism. Rather, it is about taking accountability and being willing to correct past injustices. Doing so demonstrates that we care enough about this nation to make it better for every individual who is a part of it. By practicing accountability in the classroom, students will be able to enter the world feeling more capable of keeping both themselves and those around them accountable for tackling injustice.

“TO BETTER REMEDY THIS MISINFORMATION, OUR NATION SHOULD DEVELOP A STANDARDIZED CURRICULUM IN REGARDS TO SLAVERY.”

THE CASE FOR A SECRET SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL VOTE: A REFLECTION ON DONALD TRUMP’S SECOND IMPEACHMENT

In the lead-up to former President Donald Trump’s first Senate impeachment trial, former Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona caused controversy in conservative circles for his claim that “at least 35 senators” would vote to convict Trump if the vote were to be cast in secret. In the wake of Trump’s second impeachment trial, Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts shared a similar sentiment, posting to Twitter that “Republicans would convict Trump without question” if conviction was by a secret vote. The call for secret votes during Senate presidential impeachment trials is not new: spanning from the Clinton impeachment back in 1998 to Donald Trump’s second trial this February, the argument in favor of allowing senators to vote in secret has been gaining traction. Those in favor of the secret vote argue that although it would lack the transparency Americans have come to expect from their governing institutions, it would relieve senators of possible political ret-

ribution if how they wish to cast their vote is incongruous with what their constituents want.

A Changing Senate

The United States Constitution lays out the impeachment process: the power to impeach is left to the House of Representatives, while the power to try and convict an impeached official is left to the Senate. Conviction requires a ⅔ majority of senators, or 67 senators, and would result in immediate removal from office. The Senate can then vote to disqualify that individual from holding public office in the future by a simple majority.

Alexander Hamilton explained the Framers of the Constitution’s choice to host the impeachment trial in the Senate in Federalist Paper 65, arguing the Senate would provide the “necessary impartiality” to adjudicate cases of public officials who violate the public trust. Yet, it is important to realize that today’s Senate is not the Senate the Framers originally designed. Hamilton’s assessment of the Senate when writing Federalist

Paper 65 in 1788 was reasonable at the time; senators were originally appointed by state legislatures to insulate them from public opinion more than the popularly elected House of Representatives. However, with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, the United States began electing senators by popular vote. This change has subjected senators to the same external political pressures from constituents, media, and political parties as members of the House of Representatives.

The constitutional and sociopolitical structure of the Senate has changed while constitutional impeachment proceedings have remained the same, creating a tension between how the Senate is intended to operate during impeachment and our current reality. Today, public opinion plays a formative role in how senators cast their votes to convict or acquit; they must consider how their votes may affect their political standing and ability to get reelected. Senators, and particularly senators from the party of the impeached president,

Aishlinn Kivlign // Columbia College ’24 March 24, 2021

are often driven—or restricted—by their own political agendas and reelection goals to vote a certain way given the visibility their vote has. This may be at odds with the true spirit of their beliefs.

This reality is illustrated by the discordant words and actions of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the wake of this year’s January 6th insurrection. On February 13, 2021, Senator McConnell stated on the Senate floor that “there is no question—none—that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.” Soon after, however, he voted to acquit the former president.

Senator McConnell claimed his vote to acquit was a matter of jurisdiction: he argued that since the former president had already left office by the time of the trial, he was a private citizen and thus could not be tried by the Senate, despite the Senate voting 56 to 44 earlier that week that it is within the Senate’s jurisdiction to convict an official that has already left office. However, the fact that Senator McConnell represents a state that has reliably voted for Republican senators for the past two decades and had voted for Donald Trump 62.1% to 36.2% in the 2020 presidential election suggests his constituents’ preferences likely played a key role in determining his vote choice. If this tension exists for one of the leading members of the Senate, it is probable, and even

to be expected, that the same tension exists for his fellow Republican members representing pro-Trump states.

History and Constitutional Rationale of Secret Votes

Logistically, members of the Senate can fairly easily hold an impeachment vote in secret. A secret vote would need to be established in the Senate’s rules for those specific impeachment proceedings, which are confirmed by a simple majority. In the context of February’s impeachment vote, this

means all Senate Democrats, including Vice President Kamala Harris casting a tie-breaking vote, could have voted to conduct it in secret.

A constitutional argument against the use of secret ballots is a clause in Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states 1/5 of present senators can request for a vote to be recorded in the journal of proceedings. However, considering the Republican Senators who may have desired the political cover to secretly vote to convict Donald Trump, and the Democrats’ desire to convict the former president (all 50 Senate Democrats voted to convict), it is plausible that fewer than 20 senators would have opposed voting in secret. Furthermore, while the clause requires

the journal to be periodically published, it qualifies this as “excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy.” With a lack of precedent on how this clause may be interpreted in the context of secret Senate impeachment trial votes, it is possible that even if 20 senators called for the vote to be entered into the journal, it could still be made secret from the public. By and large, the clause is a constitutional safeguard for both transparency and maintaining secrecy in cases where it is deemed necessary. As we reflect on February’s impeachment trial and the apparent dissonance between Republican Senators’ beliefs and voting decisions, the Senate’s vote to convict impeached presidents has become one such case of necessity.

The secret vote today

A secret final vote on conviction is a reasonable and plausible solution to the tension senators face during impeachment proceedings: it would create the kind of insulation from popular opinion that has been corrupted by new political pressures placed on senators and would provide them with the political cover they need to act fairly and objectively without fear of retribution. The secret vote has already been used in our own government: the House of Representatives decided the 1800 and 1824 presidential elections by secret vote. Furthermore, secrecy is not new to Senate presidential impeachment proceed-

A secret final vote on conviction is a reasonable and plausible solution to the tension senators face during impeachment proceedings.

ings. Deliberations during President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial were closed and unrecorded, and the Senate held several days of closeddoor deliberations before the final vote of President Bill Clinton’s trial.

Some may argue that even if the final vote to convict is conducted in secret, it will not prevent senators from being externally pressured to publicly share how they voted. Senators may also choose to publicly announce their vote to reap the electoral benefits of voting in line with their

constituents. These are fair points. However, the potential for even one senator to change their vote because they have the protection of a secret vote can carry enormous weight in impeachment proceedings. The Senate fell ten votes short of convicting former President Trump in February. We may never know if a secret vote would have been enough to turn ten votes, but it might have turned some.

If we truly want to have an impeachment process that is fair and that effectively checks public officials

who have committed crimes against democracy, we must provide senators with the security to cast their vote as they see fit. In an ideal political system and climate, votes to convict would be transparent—there would be no need for them to be conducted in secret. For now, a secret vote may be our best option for securing the Senate impeachment process as it stands today.

Today’s Senate is not the Senate the Framers originally designed. Photo by Aishlinn Kivlign.

FAUCI AND THE FAILING OF TRANS HEALTHCARE: THE LEGACY OF HIV/AIDS AND COVID-19 IN THE TRANS COMMUNITY

This is not Dr. Anthony Fauci’s first time in the national spotlight. In 1981, as HIV/AIDS started to run its disastrous course, Fauci and his team began researching a cure. In an attempt to understand the virus and develop a vaccine, Fauci examined patients at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Sadly, despite observation and attempted care, many of these patients died very early on due to the severity of their illness.

Cementing his presence as a prevalent public health figure, Fauci secured the position of Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984, a position he has held ever since.

Fauci’s rise began with a public health emergency of devastating consequences for queer communities, and, today, we are observing a similar reality. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, LGBTQ+ households and communities have faced disproportionately high rates of financial insecurities, problems with access to education and internet, and employment disruption. But perhaps the most troubling indication of

inequity is the fact that, for queer households, rates of inaccessibility to proper medical services are approximately double that of Non-LGBTQ+ households. These disparities have led to a heightened vulnerability of LGBTQ+ communities to COVID-19—much like HIV/AIDS. For these same com-

community is consistent across many societal contexts. And, for HIV/AIDs in particular, many of these marginalizations exacerbated not only each other, but the transmission of HIV/AIDs as well. As outlined in a 2014 National Center for Biotechnology Information article, conditions such as home-

munities, COVID-19 bears a tragic hint of familiarity.

While the HIV/AIDS epidemic was particularly harmful to the LGBTQ+ community at large, one of the groups most affected was the transgender community.

This vulnerability of the trans

lessness, economic hardship, and lack of access to education and healthcare collectively contributed to an increase in transmission of HIV/AIDs among trans women.

Despite this adverse impact, many of the socioeconomic disparities responsible were not initially addressed

“Although fauci’s work was integral to the development of treatments and therapies for HIV/aids, his oversights triggered severe repercussions for the trans community and other particularly marginalized groups.”

Colby Malcom // Columbia College ’24 March 9, 2021

or researched in the appropriate public health settings. Some of this failure can be attributed to Fauci. According to the NIAID website, Fauci’s responsibilities as Director of the NIAID include providing guidance in developing health policy and coordinating the overall public health response(s) of the federal government.

Although Fauci’s work was integral to the development of treatments and therapies for HIV/ AIDS, his oversights triggered severe repercussions for the trans community and other particularly marginalized groups.

One of the major shortcomings in the public health response to HIV/ AIDS was the fact that trans people were not given necessary inclusion in proper medical and public health research. As outlined in Understanding the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in the United States, a 2016 book on the crisis, the trans community was not included in early studies and reports of HIV/AIDS and its transmission. Despite the fact that trans individuals were experiencing some of the most severe impacts of HIV/AIDS, they were explicitly omitted from study by public health experts.

Although decades have passed since the height of HIV/AIDS in the US, this same oversight continues. Ac-

cording to an article from the National Institute of Health (NIH), of which the NIAID is a branch, COVID-19 data collection has failed to consider gender identity. Even though there is a history of severe health vulnerabilities among the trans community—especially during public health emergencies—the required data collection is still not occurring.

Fauci and the NIAID must implement radical change in approaching COVID-19. The current reality is unacceptable.

An obvious solution would be to further incorporate the trans community into public health research. According to the aforementioned NIH article, gender identity data collection in COVID-19 data is vital to inform an appropriate public health response.

However, we need to do more than the bare minimum. Not only must the trans community be granted inclusion in formulating the necessary public health responses to COVID-19, but the lived experiences and hardships of trans individuals must be given particular focus. It is not enough for COVID-19 data collection to involve gender identity data. Research initiatives that are specifically targeted to issues of trans public health in the context of COVID-19 ought to be prioritized and expanded.

The road to achieving equity for the trans community is clear. America currently finds itself situated in a social context that is uniquely promising for necessary change. The convergence of post-COVID-19 reconstruction with the inauguration of Joe Biden and Ka-

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s inattention to the needs of trans individuals in the HIV/AIDS epidemic was detrimental to the LGBTQ+ community. Photo by NIAID.

mala Harris is a crucial factor in achieving justice for marginalized groups.

One of the Biden-Harris campaign’s LGBTQ+ policy initiatives is to address gaps in data collection and research with respect to LGBTQ+ health. The campaign cited a 2011 report in its discussion of this policy priority, but it neglects to mention the magnified severity that COVID-19 brings to this issue. Given that these inequities are especially relevant in the context of COVID-19, the necessary approach must be undertaken as quickly as possible. While this named initiative is a promising signal to the future of trans equality in the United States, it must be one of the administration’s highest priorities.

Despite apparent room for improvement, a further indication of promise presented itself in then President-elect Biden’s victory speech. After being declared the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election, Biden specifically thanked the trans community. This historic recognition of the trans community in a presidential acceptance speech reflects the potential held by

our current juncture.

Another sign of the Biden-Harris administration’s dedication to equity came just a day before the inauguration ceremony. On January 19th, then President-elect Biden announced that he would be nominating Dr. Rachel Levine, an openly transgender public health offical, as assistant secretary of health. Dr. Levine’s confirmation proves to be extremely momentous. She would be the highest-ranking transgender U.S. government official and first trans person to be confirmed by the Senate.

This course of action taken by the Biden-Harris administration is certainly reflective of a social and political climate that can facilitate the necessary change, but only if it persists. Dr. Levine must be allowed to operate in her position and promote greater equity for marginalized communities without obstruction.

On February 25th, during the first of her confirmation hearings, Dr. Levine faced harmful lines of questioning from GOP Senator Rand Paul. As Democratic Senator and Chairwoman

of the Senate Health Committee, Patty Murray, later communicated, the questions contained “harmful misrepresentations” of transgender medicine as a field. Senator Paul’s questioning is a clear example of the obstructive behavior that Dr. Levine should not be subject to. But the reality that precludes these perverse occurrences can only come to fruition when government officials, no matter their party or affiliation, are fully held responsible for their words and actions.

Similarly, in order to capitalize on this moment for the trans community, ensuring proper accountability is required. President Biden recently asked Dr. Fauci to continue serving as Director of the NIAID, and, while many Americans are confident in Fauci, we cannot allow for complacency to hinder vital change. If we are to achieve a more equitable future, Fauci must be held to a higher standard.

Holding Fauci responsible necessitates putting pressure on the Biden-Harris administration—especially in its early, formative days. But the necessary pledge for greater accountability extends beyond our government officials. Building a more egalitarian future necessitates the general public making a more tangible commitment to equality. To truly improve trans healthcare, we must also engage with and garner support from everyday Americans. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the status quo of pre-pandemic life is not something to strive for.

As particuarly evidenced by the trans community, significant marginalization and discrimination plagued the most vulnerable populations far before the pandemic. We cannot let our failures to address systemic disparities hinder a more equitable future.

Dr. Rachel Levine at a March 2020 press briefing. Photo by Governor Tom Wolf.

NUCLEAR ENERGY:

A KEY PART TO FIGHTING THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND A POTENTIAL POINT OF UNITY

Photo by Markus Distelrat.

It has now been months since what was easily the most divisive election in modern American history, but the sharp partisan divides that underpinned the election remain. However, the issues the United States faces transcend partisanship. With existential challenges like climate change looming over our heads, politicians have no choice but to seek common ground and legislate, especially with a razor-thin 50-50 partisan balance in the Senate. The efficiency, environmental friendliness, viability for energy independence, and bipartisan support of nuclear power provide the perfect opportunity for an effective, bipartisan move towards a green America. With each year, the climate crisis grows more urgent. There is consensus in the scientific community that the “tipping point,” or point of no return from irreversible ecological damage, could occur at the earliest between 1ºC and 2ºC of warming past pre-industrial temperatures.

Despite the Paris Agreement goal to stay below 2ºC, we are currently on track to get to 3ºC of warming. The human impact of this would be catastrophic, and marginalized communities globally will bear the brunt of it.

Statistics like this can make the fight against climate change feel like a lost cause. Luckily, nuclear energy mitigates these harms better than any other form of renewable energy and balances different interests. Instead of carbon-emitting fossil fuel, nuclear power comes from uranium fission reactions that produce clean, carbon-neutral energy. Nuclear power is significantly more reliable than other forms of renewable energy; it operates at full capacity 93% of the time, as opposed to 35% of the time like wind and 25% of the time like solar. As a result, it makes up 55% of America’s current clean energy usage and helps to power 28 states. In 2019, the amount of carbon emissions that nuclear energy caused

the US to avoid was equivalent to the impact of removing 110 million gas-powered cars. Expanding nuclear energy will be vital to increasing our share of clean energy sources because it has the capacity to meet the needs of our population that wind and solar currently lack.

In addition to being a crucial part of America’s clean energy, nuclear power is good for the US economy. The nuclear energy industry employs 100,000 people currently; when factoring in secondary jobs, this number increases to 475,000. Residents who use nuclear power save an average of 6% on their electricity bills, and the US’ existing nuclear power plants add $60 billion to the annual US GDP. Nuclear power plants are also safe to operate, with US nuclear power plants found to be 100 times safer than what regulatory safety benchmarks mandate.

In spite of all of these facts about the viability, efficacy, and safety of nuclear energy, public opinion has only recently become widely receptive to nuclear power as its role in powering America and awareness of its safety increases. In the past, nuclear power had a reputation of being unsafe and unpopular, stemming from how people reacted to accidents in the late 20th century like Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island. However, this perception is rapidly changing. As of 2016, Gallup polling on nuclear energy said that 56% of respondents felt that the majority of their community would oppose nuclear energy. But this perception gap shifted in the opposite direction by 2019, with 53% saying that they felt that the majority of their community would support nuclear ener-

Moderate West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, who is the chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a key Democratic vote given the 50-50 partisan split in the Senate. Photo by Ralph Alswang.

gy. As a whole, 60% of the population favors nuclear energy and 71% believe that it will be vital to meeting US energy needs. Studies show that continuing to inform the public about the benefits of nuclear energy increases people’s receptiveness to it. In the past, the unfamiliarity of nuclear energy and the higher safety risk of less mature reactors created a stigma against it, which resulted in more community backlash to the development of plants.

There has been a failure to reach a consensus on climate change and environmental legislation for years now in Washington, but nuclear power can help to change that. In 2019, the Progressive Democrats, backed by youth activist groups like the Sunrise Movement, have struggled to get past introduction on the House floor for the Green New Deal, which noticeably excludes both carbon dividends and nuclear energy. The backers of the bill rightly acknowledge the magnitude of the problem and the upheaval in infrastructure the US will need to fight it. But the clock is ticking, and ideological purity cannot come before utilizing vital tools like nuclear energy in our fight against climate change, especially when the votes are not there. Aside from the empirical evidence supporting making nuclear power a cornerstone of American energy, it has a key advantage over plans offered by nuclear opponents on both sides of the aisle: bipartisan support. In August 2020, the Democratic Party included nuclear energy in its platform for the first time since 1972. This marks a significant turning point, as the 2019 partisan divide amongst constituents on nuclear energy was 65% of

Republicans and 42% of Democrats supporting nuclear energy. Getting the party that currently controls the White House and both chambers of Congress on board is a huge step in the right direction. Even conserva-

strategy, and using money collected from these dividends to support the development of more nuclear power reactors. The GOP base is overwhelmingly supportive of nuclear energy as it is. With greater geo -

tive Democratic senator and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Joe Manchin, has come out in favor of nuclear energy. Manchin has traditionally been a strong supporter of fossil fuels and has opposed other climate measures like cap and trade because of the importance of coal to his constituents’ local economy.

In the GOP camp, both old and new congresspeople are making efforts to break the stigma of being the party of climate deniers and anti-environmentalists. Freshman representative Peter Meijer of Michigan’s 3rd district and member of the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus says, “Our energy independence is going to require not only a shift to renewables, but also maintaining some on demand energy production. Whether that’s natural gas or nuclear, it has to be part of the mix.” Within the last few weeks, prominent Republican senator and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney announced his openness to making carbon dividends a “pillar” to the GOP climate

political energy concerns like the desire to achieve energy independence, nuclear power is a method of combating climate change that can serve broader GOP interests like free market-based solutions and ridding our energy supply from foreign interference.

Democrats and Republicans will continue to disagree on many issues, and the tensions that arose under the Trump era will not vanish overnight. But in the age of polarization, nuclear energy is a chance for the bipartisanship needed to effectively fight climate change and create economic opportunity while at it. Climate change will only continue to become a more serious threat, and in order to act for their constituents, both parties will be forced to make concessions with one another if they are to pass legislation that can meet the challenges of the times. Nuclear energy is one area where the evidence indicates bipartisan support, providing the perfect opportunity to break from partisanship on an issue that was once much more heavily divisive.

“IN THE AGE OF POLARIZATION, NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A CHANCE FOR THE BIPARTISANSHIP NEEDED TO EFFECTIVELY FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE.”

FUTURE FRONTIERS OF WARFARE: THE PROMISES AND PERILS OF WEAPONIZED A.I.

On July 28, 2015, over 4,000 leading researchers signed an open letter entitled “Autonomous Weapons: An Open Letter from A.I. & Robotics Researchers” at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. The signatories––including the likes of Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, Noam Chomsky, and Steve Wozniak––advocated against the use of autonomous weapon systems in the U.S. military. They fear that automated weapon systems would become the “Kalashnikovs of tomorrow,” threatening unnecessary violence and a destabilization of the balance of power. Since 2015, artificial intelligence research has continued to predominate in the technical fields, providing ever-increasing applications to not only the U.S. military but to those of the United States’ biggest foreign competitors, China and Russia, as well. Today, the U.S. is faced with the difficult decision of either adhering to the advice of its scientists and refraining from integrating A.I. in the military, risking giving China and Russia

a technological edge, or ignoring its scientists in the name of national security and maintaining U.S. military dominance.

In order to understand the potential utility––or harm––that artificial intelligence offers with respect to governance, an understanding of A.I.’s capability and historical use is necessary. The inception of A.I. is generally agreed to have taken place at the 1956 Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, where host John McCarthy for the first time defined A.I. as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines.” This summer project brought together leading computer scientists, cryptographers, engineers, and mathematicians to discuss the future of computing and the role that A.I. would, and should, play in it. At the conference, the first AI-based computer program––a program capable of solving mathematical proofs––was unveiled. Surprisingly, the program received little reception, but its success proved that artificial intelligence in its nascent form was indeed possible.

With increases in available com-

Sebastian Preising // Columbia College ’22 March 29, 2021

Photo by Michael Dziedzic.

puting power and decreases in the production cost of computers, A.I. research saw vast developments in the years succeeding the historic summer conference. Between 1950 and 1970, Marvin Minsky and Dean Edmunds engineered the first rudimentary neural network that was capable of storing short- and long-term information, Alexey Ivakhnenko and Valentin Lapa introduced the first multi-layered neural network, and Joseph Weizenbaum created the first natural-language processing computer program, called ELIZA, that was able to mimic English grammar rules. These huge successes

efficiency. However, as the growth rate of Moore’s Law surpassed the computational requirements needed for truly ambitious projects, the next two decades saw what A.I. research could achieve when equipped with sufficient computing power.

Artificial Intelligence in 2021

Today, A.I. helper systems like Amazon Alexa and Google Home are found in a quarter of homes in the United States, the world’s best Chess and Go players are sitting inside the pant pockets of 294 million Americans, machine learning data analytics are used in vir-

employees signed a petition protesting Google’s involvement in “the business of war,” causing Google to back out of the partnership. Even without the help of private companies, the U.S. military now utilizes AI-based decision-making support systems like the “Commanders Virtual Staff” program, the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, which can operate autonomously, and an Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team that is researching the uses of A.I. for exploiting foreign networks and even running unmanned aircraft.

in the field of artificial intelligence captured the attention of the U.S. government, leading the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to become the primary sponsor of A.I. research in the United States. With a close relationship established between DARPA and A.I. research, the U.S. military saw its first real applications of A.I. technology in the 1970s. Advancements included pattern recognition programs used to identify enemy missiles, U.S. missiles engineered to autonomously course-correct, and programs attempting to instantaneously translate Arabic. Throughout the rest of the 20th century, developments in artificial intelligence steadily progressed but repeatedly hit ceilings due to inadequate computing power and

tually all modern software, and OpenAI’s GPT-3 language model can produce text that is indistinguishable from human writing. Driven by the profitability and public interest in AI, private companies and universities have taken the lead in research innovations, leaving the U.S. government struggling to keep up in applying these new innovations. This has caused the U.S. Department of Defense to pursue partnerships with private tech companies. Perhaps the most famous example is Project Maven, a joint initiative between the U.S. government and Google with the goal of utilizing Google’s video analysis systems to autonomously sift through and highlight key moments in captured drone footage. But in response to the publicization of this project, thousands of Google

It’s clear that engineers at Google and A.I. researchers alike don’t want their fields corrupted by warfare, but the unfortunate truth is that they may not have a choice. Compared to Russia and China, the United States exhibits only a moderate interest in developing A.I. warfare. Vladimir Putin famously said in an address to students, “Whoever becomes the leader in [artificial intelligence] will become the ruler of the world.” This sentiment seems to resound most within the Chinese government, whose national goal is to become the world’s leader in artificial intelligence technology by 2030. Additionally, China’s military has wholeheartedly expressed a willingness to integrate A.I. technologies. As of 2018, China is the world’s largest exporter of unmanned combat drones, the largest user of facial recognition AI, and is actively sponsoring––in both the private and military spheres––autonomous submarines, aircraft, and combat robots. Russia is similarly engaged in military A.I. research, sponsoring its own swath of autonomous combat vehicles to counteract population

“ALL THREE OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR POWERS ARE SERIOUSLY EXPLORING MILITARIZED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND THE MILITARY BENEFITS ARE OBVIOUS. BUT WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL DRAWBACKS.”

constraints, cyber warfare initiatives designed to politically derail countries through misinformation, deep fakes––artificial faces overlaid on people’s faces within videos, and decision support systems. Keeping in mind the fervent interest in militarized A.I. that China and Russia demonstrate, the U.S. may be forced to continue researching military applications of A.I. in order to preserve its military advantage and protect the interests of American citizens. All three of the world’s major powers are seriously exploring militarized artificial intelligence, and the military benefits are obvious. But what are the potential drawbacks?

Complications with Artificial Intelligence:

The most commonly shared fear of introducing autonomy within weapon systems is the unwarranted and unapproved attacking of targets, but there are many more problems to be worried about. The public has little trust in handing over to computers the decision-making authority to end a person’s life, engineers distrust the ability of A.I. to accurately process data, and security analysts are hesitant about the complexity A.I. would add to military cooperation. These concerns are not unfounded. A.I. attacked allied targets in 1991 when the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System aboard the USS Jarrett mistook a friendly ship for an enemy and autonomously fired at the USS Missouri. In other cases, humans supervising semi-autonomous Patriot missiles ended up trusting the target recommendations of the systems excessively and accidentally fired on a Royal Air Force plane, killing the crew members. Because of such mishaps, there

have been repeated discussions about banning fully autonomous weapon systems, though Russia, China, and the United States all doubt each other’s commitment to such a promise.

Moreover, there are intrinsic complexities in applying A.I. technology to warfare that make it potentially unstable. Current machine learning capabilities orient computers to solve single task problems. When multiple objectives are at play, secondary objectives are often ignored or unoptimized. If an A.I.’s task is to win a military battle, then objectives like gaining territory, stalling the enemy, and acquiring intelligence could be easily cast aside in favor of achieving a crushing victory, which may result in more total casualties. Additionally, in warfare, military forces almost never have perfect data about the enemy’s military capabilities, location, or size. As such, militaries will likely train A.I. on inaccurate data that could result in the A.I. making strong recommendations without appreciating the data’s uncertainty. Lastly, MIT’s Dr. Erik Lin-Greenberg argues that A.I. military integration could hamper alliance cooperation and coordina-

tion. Dr. Lin-Greenberg writes, “By increasing the speed of warfare, A.I. could decrease the time leaders, from the tactical to strategic levels, have to debate policies and make decisions,” ultimately threatening an alliance’s decision-making cohesion.

AI clearly offers a new era in military engagement that may result in fewer human casualties, more efficient decision making, and shorter battles, but the vast uncertainties inherent to A.I. make its military integration questionable. In the 2015 open letter, the researchers warn of the inevitability of a “global arms race” if A.I. weapon systems continue to be researched by militaries. However, it seems that countries abroad have fewer ethical concerns about such an arms race and the dangers of AI, putting pressure on the United States to continue research. Of course, in the face of increasing A.I. military threats from foreign powers and the loss of a military advantage, the United States should continue its own research; but for the sake of humanity, the U.S. should, at every step of the way, attempt to negotiate a binding, international prohibition of autonomous systems in war.

DOMESTIC POLITICS COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SUMMER 2021

Photo by Markus Spiske.

POLICY 360 THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

Azadi Tower, Tehran. Photo by Blondinrikard Fröber.

TheJointComprehensivePlanofAction(JCPOA),alsoknownastheIranNuclearDeal,hasmadeglobalheadlines inthepastfewweeks.OftentoutedasahallmarkforeignpolicyachievementofformerUnitedStatesPresidentBarack Obama’ssecondterm,theJCPOAwasintendedtolimitTehran’snuclearcapabilitiesinexchangeforliftsonoiland financialsanctions.InlightofU.S.PresidentJoeBiden’sbidstorenegotiatethetermsofthedeal,severalinvolved stakeholdershaveremaineddividedovertheeffectsofrevisingforeignpolicystrategytowardsTehran.

ThispiecefocusesonthedifferingperspectivesthatstatesrangingfromtheUnitedStatestoRussiahavewielded regardingtheprospectofareviseddeal.Itaimstoprovidereaderswithabroadoverviewofthevariedapproaches towardstheJCPOA:whileBidenfacesthechallengeofsteeringitsforeignpolicytowardsTehraninadirectionthat differsfromhispredecessorwhoreinforcedsanctionsduringhisterm,SaudiArabiaandIsraelhavevoicedopposition toareviseddeal,despitethelatter’scloseallyshipwiththeUnitedStates.Thedealmayalsoengenderunintended consequences—asidefrompotentiallyspurringthecontinuedsustenanceofHezbollahactivities,itmayalsoprovide RussiaandChinawithastrategicadvantageiftheUnitedStatescontinuestototterinitsapproach.

ThisroundtableaimstohighlightkeytouchpointsfromtheperspectiveofsomeoftheJCPOA’smostpertinentstakeholders,witheachsectionendingoffwithpolicyrecommendations.Yetitisalsoimportanttorecognizethatthese suggestionsarenotimmutable,giventhefast-changingnatureofnegotiationssurroundingthedeal.Withtalksonthe EU’sinvolvementinrenegotiationsandIran’supcomingpresidentialelections,howthedealunfolds—inadditionto itspoliticalandeconomiceffects—remainstobedetermined.

WITH THE UNITED STATES’ TRANSITION FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN, REASSERTING THE UNITED STATES’ POSITION ON THE JCPOA IS CRITICAL

Jenna Yuan // Columbia College ’24

Whe Iran Nuclear Deal, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has been making headlines recently in the United States as President Joe Biden attempts renegotiations. Despite clear signals from Biden administration figures like Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Press Secretary Jen Psaki about the United States’ new commitment to resurrecting the JCPOA moving forward, the revival effort is facing resistance from Iran due to the battered history of the deal.

When then-President Barack

Obama signed the JCPOA on behalf of the United States in 2015, administration allies lauded the deal as a breakthrough for peace and stability. For Obama, the JCPOA represented a major foreign policy accomplishment, one that he had been working toward since he took office in 2008. However, Republicans and even some Democrats immediately signaled their strong opposition to the deal. Ultimately, the Obama administration was able to garner over 41 votes to block a disapproval resolution. Still, many senators, including all Republicans and Sena-

tors Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), questioned Iran’s willingness to faithfully cooperate with the deal’s terms and characterized the deal’s loosening of economic sanctions as enabling Iran to further destabilize the region through proxy wars.

Thus, when Republican President Donald Trump took office, his largely anti-JCPOA administration took the opportunity to unilaterally withdraw from the deal in 2018. Citing the deal’s “sunset” provisions—which allowed Iran to build up uranium enrichment capability following the expiration of

restrictions after designated periods of time—and failure to account for ballistic missiles, the withdrawal was part of the Trump administration's ill-conceived “maximum pressure” strategy. Under this strategy, the United States reimposed the sanctions it had previously lifted when Iran met JCPOA requirements. Despite Iran’s reinstatement of its nuclear program in the absence of the deal, key actors within the administration, such as National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary

of State Mike Pompeo, still stubbornly refused to change course.

Indeed, President Biden should immediately backpedal on Trump’s disastrous course of action and attempt to revive the JCPOA. However, as experts like former Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control Robert J. Einhorn argue, the JCPOA’s provisions must be accompanied by a coherent broader regional strategy. The United States must ensure follow-through on all aspects of the deal: guaranteeing Iran

receives the economic benefits the deal promised, reassuring allies about the strength of U.S. security commitments in the region, opening the door to further cooperation and de-escalation with Iran and allies, and finally, convincing the American public and domestic political actors of the efficacy of the strategy. After four years of inane U.S. foreign policy, the JCPOA and broader Iranian strategy present a critical opportunity for the Biden administration to move the world towards stability again.

THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL AND SAUDI ARABIA’S QUEST FOR REGIONAL DOMINANCE

Kaitlyn Saldanha // Barnard College ’24

Since its initial signing in 2015, the JCPOA has faced some of its harshest opposition from the Saudi Arabian Kingdom. Dissenting from the wide array of Western states in strong support of the deal, the Kingdom identifies Iran as a regional source of “destabilizing aggression,” which the United States and European Union sanction relief provided by the deal would only intensify.

Tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran predate many of the modern schisms of the Arab world. Many assume this feud to be based on differences in Islamic interpretation, with Saudi Arabia being largely Sunni and Iran predominantly Shia. The issue, however, stems more from political rather than religious differences. The 1979 Iranian Revolution saw the emergence of a new kind of theocratic republic, and with this shift came a new push led

by Ayatollah Khomeini to assert Iranian dominance in the region. Hence, the feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia is based on a competition for leadership and dominance in the Islamic World.

The Saudi government initially expressed support for the initial signing of the JCPOA in 2015 by the P5+1 bloc, which includes the United States, France, China, the United Kingdom, and Germany, on the basis of resisting nuclear militarization in the Arab world. This stamp of approval was later revoked, and the Kingdom emerged as a central opponent of the deal. According to the Saudi Press Agency, “The Iranian regime... took advantage of the economic benefits afforded by the lifting of sanctions and used them to continue its destabilizing activities in the region, especially by developing its ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist organizations in the region, includ-

ing Hezbollah and the Houthi militia.” Thus, when former President Donald Trump announced U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018, the Kingdom stood in strong support.

The Saudi claim of opposing the deal on the basis of preventing human suffering and violence is, of course, nothing more than a political bluff. Needless to say, Iran is not the only Arab state with ties to Islamic extremist groups: should Saudi Arabia sustain its message of humble humanitarianism, the Kingdom will need to abandon its own terrorist ally of Al-Qaeda in the Yemeni Civil War.

As for the future of Saudi policy on the deal, the humanitarian solution would be for Saudi Arabia to momentarily set aside the battle for regional dominance and support the deal in the name of conflict aversion, civilian safety, and regional peace. But this path of action is highly implausible.

The best way for the Saudi government to support the goal for nuclear demilitarization in the Middle East without compromising its foreign policy agenda is to take a more activist role in the negotiation process, rather than sidelining as a passive opponent. In the new and reformed JCPOA, Saudi Ara-

bia should advocate for sanction relief only as a contingency of Iran’s neutralization of relations with violent nonstate actors like Hezbollah and Houthi militias. It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia will be successful in including the Assad regime in this list; but, in targeting extremist paramilitary groups, the

Saudi government can uphold the end goal of defunding threats to regional peace. Facing the long list of prominent JCPOA supporters, Saudi Arabia will fail in resisting Iranian encroachment on Saudi regional dominance until a more participatory and activist strategy is realized.

WHEN IT COMES TO A NUCLEAR IRAN, ISRAEL IS A LOOSE CANNON THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

Rohil Sabherwal // Columbia College ’24

On January 26, 2021, Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Aviv Kochavi subtly announced that the preparation of a military plan of action to address the possibility of a nuclear Iran was ongoing. Coming just days after the inauguration of President Biden, it was a clear, public warning against a return to the JCPOA.

The renegotiation of the JCPOA is a primary foreign policy goal of the Biden Administration. Just weeks after this initial, more passive military threat, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz much more explicitly expressed Jerusalem’s intent to strike Iranian nuclear sites, warning, “If the world stops them before, it's very much good. But if not, we must stand independently and we must defend ourselves by ourselves."

The intended purpose of the JCPOA is to hinder Iran’s nuclear program, buying world powers at least a year to prepare should Tehran choose to nuclearize its military. Why, then, is Jerusalem

threatening to take military action as a preemptive measure against a possible nuclear Iran in response to renewed talks about the revival of the very deal meant to prevent that exact possibility?

For Iran to develop nuclear capabilities, it requires enriched uranium, a functioning warhead, and a payload system capable of delivering it. From Israel’s point of view, the JCPOA not only fails to address the latter two conditions but actually paradoxically helps further them. In particular, top Israeli military advisors take issue with the deal’s sunset clauses and failure to address weaponization infrastructure.

The JCPOA does limit Iran’s immediate enrichment ability by reducing the country’s uranium stockpile by 97% and capping uranium enrichment at 3.7%. Yet most of these restrictions, at least in the original deal, were set to sunset by 2024. As Emily Landau of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv asks, “If there is no perceivable change in Iran’s military

aspirations in the nuclear realm…why would sun-setting the deal be a good idea?” Furthermore, since the deal only requires Iran to rename two of its major nuclear facilities as civilian research centers, not shut them down, Iran is free to do everything but enrich uranium. The lax language of the deal even allows Iran to continue to research advanced centrifuges that could drastically reduce the time required for enrichment. More than that, as the former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren argues, the deal rewards Iran by lifting billions of dollars worth of sanctions, money that has historically been used not only for advanced nuclear research but also for supporting international terror networks and non-state proxies.

On April 6, in Vienna, indirect talks between the original signers of the JCPOA aimed at bringing both the United States and Iran back into the deal got underway. Noticeably absent was Israel. Even after being inaugurated, President Biden waited almost

a month to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So, given Jerusalem’s valid opposition to the JCPOA, it is confusing why a historically pro-Israel U.S. president would refuse to cooperate with his deeply concerned ally.

When it comes to stability in the Middle East—and, in particular, Iran— Israel and the United States have two very different policies. Unlike the United States and the European Union, Israel is a firm believer in using robust, often militarily assertive, disincentives. On April 11, a mysterious explosion caused a power blackout at Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz, delaying ongoing nuclear activities there for

up to an estimated nine months. While Israel has not publicly claimed responsibility, signaling from the international intelligence community has made it clear: Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence agency, is responsible. Given both Jerusalem’s “gray zone” campaign against Iranian military entrenchment in Syria and these recent tactical strikes against Iranian nuclear sites that are clearly a part of Kochavi’s military plan of action announced months earlier, it is clear that Israel is willing to follow through with deliberate action whether the United States likes it or not.

Israel is the only democratic polity in the Middle East, making it a natu-

ral ally of the United States. However, it remains firmly outside of the United States’ nuclear umbrella; not only is Israel a non-signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it is also one of only three non-signatories suspected of possessing nuclear weapons. In essence, Israel fulfills all the necessary prerequisites of successful deterrence theory, but the Biden Administration does not seem to recognize that. Israel is a desperate gazelle being backed into a corner by unilateral U.S. efforts to revive the JCPOA, and unless President Biden meaningfully reaches out soon, it will rear its horns.

HOW HEZBOLLAH SYMBOLIZES THE DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN IRAN’S NUCLEAR ACTIVITY AND PROXY WARFARE

James Hu // Columbia College ’24

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, originally negotiated The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to stunt Iran’s nuclear capabilities. In 2015, the West feared that Iran’s nuclear enrichment programs had the potential to develop into nuclear weapons—putting the United States and its Middle Eastern allies at risk. Dissidents of the JCPOA feared that suspending sanctions on Iran would lead Tehran to ramp up other tenets of its aggressive foreign policy, including regional proxy activity. While the deal was effective in temporarily controlling Iran’s

nuclear prospects, the fears exhibited by JCPOA skeptics indeed became a reality. Financial, military, and diplomatic support for armed movements in countries stretching from Yemen to Iraq and Syria to Lebanon characterize Tehran’s proxy activity. Hezbollah, both a Lebanese political party and a militant group classified as a terrorist organization by the United States, is perhaps Iran’s most prolific proxy. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps helped create Hezbollah in the early 1980s by aiding the group against Israeli occupation. Today, the two possess a mutually beneficial relationship: Iran gives Hezbollah crucial resources,

and, in return, Hezbollah allows Iran to extend its influence into Lebanon, where the organization held thirteen parliamentary seats before the national government disbanded following the 2020 Beirut explosions. Additionally, because both actors are strongly opposed to the Israeli government, Hezbollah’s airstrikes on Israel are essential for Iran’s broader goal of exerting regional dominance.

Due to the JCPOA’s sanction relief, Iran’s economy performed well in 2016, allowing the government to allocate more funds to sustain the military activities of proxies like Hezbollah. In fact, according to 2018 estimates, Tehran gives

the group more than $700 million annually, which has enabled Hezbollah to expand its operations at the Israeli border and in Syria. In response, the United States and other Western countries have increasingly levied sanctions on Hezbollah-affiliated businesses and government officials in Lebanon, severely affecting the country’s economic output. Evidently, any attempt at quelling Iran’s proxy activity risks placing undue harm on the proxy’s home country.

A new nuclear deal with Iran must

affirm the most basic principle of nuclear non-proliferation: ensuring peace and security. This principle demands that nuclear containment not come at the cost of exacerbating regional tensions and, more specifically, that Lebanon has a seat at the table. The United States, being the most outspoken critic of Hezbollah’s activities, could offer the organization immunity from Israeli airstrikes (which it has the power to broker as Israel’s long-time ally) if Hezbollah allows the Lebanese state to formally supervise

its military arsenal. Due to its crippling economic condition and Lebanon’s rising civil unrest, Hezbollah has a unique incentive to negotiate now. Sanctions relief under the reformed JCPOA should be tied to Iran’s willingness to pacify its proxy activities and facilitate this transfer, including the sanctions reimposed in 2018 under Executive Order 13846. Under this plan, not only would the Iran nuclear deal better achieve its goal but Lebanon and Israel can establish a path forward to normalizing relations.

UNCERTAINTY REGARDING IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL GIVES RUSSIA A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE

Adam

Szczepankowski // Columbia College ’24

Occupying a unique space, Russia’s position on the JCPOA retains several layers of complexity. An ally of Iran, Russia has publicly reaffirmed its support for the preservation of the Nuclear Deal, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made clear last year in saying that his country “will be doing everything so that no one can destroy these agreements.” More recently, Lavrov also stated that the Russians “welcome the decision of the Joe Biden administration to return to the JCPOA,” indicating Moscow’s belief in the viability for progress on the deal following President Donald Trump’s departure from office.

In 2015, when the JCPOA was initially signed, Russia and most Western powers achieved their shared goal of preventing the development of a nuclear-armed Iran. But even then, whispers of Russian dissatisfaction with the deal

circulated. Some Iranians claimed that Lavrov had hoped the deal would immediately lift the UN arms embargo on Russia’s conventional arms trade with Iran as opposed to after the five-year period agreed upon, suggesting that Russia had intended to quickly restart arms sales. Further frustrations grew from the fact that, under the agreement, Iran was permitted to purchase civilian airliners from Boeing and Airbus, which Tehran prefers over the Russian-made Sukhoi Superjet.

That all changed, however, when President Trump withdrew the United States from the deal in 2018. America moved to immediately reimpose all sanctions on Iran, opening up a window of opportunity for Moscow. Russia benefited from its ability to blame Washington for upending the deal and could pursue closer economic ties with the Islamic Republic as a means of filling the

power vacuum that America left behind. Though somewhat paradoxical, Russian banks opted to reduce their transactions with Iran, for fear of American retribution.

This is all to say that Biden’s willingness to rejoin the JCPOA presents Moscow with a conundrum. As new talks begin gaining traction in Vienna, is it really in Russia’s best interest to help the United States return to the agreement?

Russian President Vladimir Putin, as politically shrewd and ruthless as he is, remains nevertheless pragmatic. Although his relationship with Biden got off to a rocky start, the Kremlin seems poised to cooperate with U.S. efforts, albeit while trying to prevent a renewed JCPOA from potentially affecting its existing relationship with Iran. Moscow’s envoy, Dmitry Polyanskiy expressed the country’s wishes in saying one “shouldn’t mix [the deal] up with a regional frame-

work which exists” and adding that the Russians “don’t see any reasons for it [the deal] to be modified.”

Simply put, Russia gains ground when American foreign policy promotes

instability like it did when the United States withdrew from the deal. Tehran no doubt sees Moscow as a more reliable partner, especially given the American hostility it has been subject to over the

last four years. While the United States looks to repair relations and reestablish global leadership via the deal, Putin sleeps soundly knowing that some diplomatic wounds may never heal.

CHINESE ENGAGEMENT WITH IRAN HINTS AT BEIJING’S FOREIGN POLICY MINDSET

Samuel Braun // Columbia College ’24

China’s participation in the JCPOA and greater engagement with Iran reconcile its two cornerstone foreign policy initiatives that confound Western experts: deteriorate American hegemony and reinforce the current international world order.

China’s reopening to the West in the late 1970s proved to be a critical development toward securing these two goals. China largely sought to garner international political legitimacy by integrating itself into the world’s economic and political institutions and systems. China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization in 2001, the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games, and other events emblemized this development: China aimed to ascend to the world stage not as an insurgent of the liberal world order, but as an active participant accepted by the international community.

The Chinese perspective on Iran and the JCPOA provides a snapshot of China’s self-perceived position in the chaotic international political arena. As one of the original signatories of the JCPOA in 2015, China seeks a U.S. reentrance into the agreement following

the Trump Administration’s withdrawal in 2018. Currently, as the Biden Administration considers talks with Iran and reentering the agreement, Chinese media praises the idea. This praise seemingly runs counter to the new developments in China’s one-on-one relations with Iran—a frontier upon which China seeks to challenge the United States in Middle East regional control.

In March 2021, China and Iran formally announced a significant economic and security agreement, one involving millions of dollars in Chinese investment in Iran set to last 25 years. China’s increased courtship of Iran is deeply troubling to U.S. officials: since the United States has no formal diplomatic relations with Iran and— resulting from its reimposed tariffs in 2018—buys relatively little oil from the state, the United States is in no position to counterbalance China’s growing influence. In advancing relations with Iran, China is both aligning itself with an influential anti-U.S. state while developing greater access to the Iranian oil market otherwise burdened by the reimposition of harsh U.S. sanctions.

The two positions China is pursuing in Iran’s foreign relations—where

it is simultaneously supporting U.S. diplomacy and undermining U.S. strength in the region—do not contradict one another, but portray the narrative China attempts to construct of its global position: that of a participant in a rules-based multilateral world order. In line with previous stunts like the 2008 Olympics, China’s encouragement of U.S. reentrance into the JCPOA signals its establishment of legitimacy for itself in the current system by promoting the international status quo. China’s further engagement with Iran does not display the moves of a radical, destructive power-seeking hegemony, but one which levels the global playing field and secures a stable balance of power.

Against the backdrop of low global approval ratings of U.S. leadership, unprecedented economic uncertainty, and the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, China is in the process of recasting itself as a protector of the global status quo, which has become ever so appealing to middle power nations like Iran. China continues to practice its foreign affairs calculus, and China’s encouragement of U.S. engagement with the JCPOA is but one key equation.

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Photo by Michał Siergiejevicz.

ALEXEI NAVALNY SENDS A WARNING SHOT TO CHINA

Tamar Vidra // Columbia College '22

April 3, 2021

On January 17, 2021, the world watched in suspense as Alexei Navalny, the prominent Russian opposition leader, journeyed home. On Navalny’s flight, journalists scrambled to capture his final moments of freedom. Less than a year ago, Navalny narrowly survived the Kremlin’s attack on his life. His homecoming would bring him back into the arms of the Russian police and even closer to death. Through live-streamed videos, millions watched Navalny kiss his wife goodbye in Moscow’s airport—moments before Russian authorities detained him.

But, the media storm didn’t end there: less than 24 hours later, the frenzy continued after Navalny released a pre-recorded YouTube video exposing a secret billion-dollar palace owned by Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the 113-minute-long video, Navalny acts more like a latenight show host than a politician. His political commentary is channeled through memes, creative editing, and light-hearted comedy. His statements feel scripted, but by a production team rather than a speechwriter. This style has enabled Navalny to capture Russia’s massive YouTube viewership—the third-largest in the world.

Even in his arrest, Navalny exemplifies a new kind of threat to authori-

tarian regimes. Long gone are the days when dissent can be swiftly hushed and crushed; Navalny and his contemporaries can now make soundwaves across the world through the Internet. The rapid ascendance of Navalny sends a warning shot across the border to China. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its leader President Xi Jinping have long been preoccupied by the open internet’s threat to the internal stability of their regime. As Russia grapples with the uproar over Navalny and democratic countries coordinate their responses to his arrest, China watches closely.

The ascendance of Navalny is particularly relevant to China given the state’s history of censorship. Both China and Russia have the infrastructure to censor Internet access, yet only China has implemented a “Great Firewall” to do so. The Kremlin fears that an open Internet will spread criticism of Putin’s regime, but its population is enamored with Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and the like. The Russian leadership now struggles to find a way to suppress dissent online while avoiding the backlash of its population that has ample access to Western media sites.

China, on the other hand, has censored the Internet since its arrival. This difference in strategy is one reason why

President Putin confronts nation-wide protests in the wake of Navalny’s arrest while Chinese President Xi Jinping has successfully quelled the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and blocked its spread to the mainland. The hysteria in Russia over Navalny may convince China to double down on its censorship efforts, which have been hurled with new challenges over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, China may act more quickly to suppress dissent from citizen journalists like Zhang Zhan who chronicled China’s stumbling response to the pandemic in Wuhan.

China’s conservative attitude towards the Internet is inextricably linked with the CCP’s goal of maintaining internal stability. An open Internet facilitates the exchange of all ideas, including dissenting ones, and proliferates them at an unmatched speed. In China—an expansive country with a myriad of regional differences—the Internet provides the most convenient way for critics to mobilize and unite. What would have happened if Mao’s Little Red Book was on Facebook? President Xi does not want to know.

President Putin, ironically, has shown a shrewd understanding of the dangers that come with an open Internet, utilizing YouTube, Tumblr,

Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter to meddle in two US general elections. Yet, President Putin seems unable to account for Russia’s own vulnerabilities to these sites—vulnerabilities that Navalny is an expert in exploiting. Russia’s current strategy is to outcompete western sites with copy-cat, state-sponsored platforms that can be monitored and censored, such as the video streaming platform, RuTube. The vision is for RuTube to be to YouTube what Chinese WeChat is to

WhatsApp—a home-grown platform that captures the domestic market and surveils from within. Yet, Navalny's rise is testament enough to the fact that YouTube and other western sites still reign supreme in Russia.

To learn from Navalny, President Xi should also analyze Russia’s changing relationship with the international community and reflect on how it may indirectly impact China. Navalny represents more than just a flawed attempt at censorship: he is a

push towards democracy that Russia has not seen in some time. Through his arrest, the Kremlin has squelched the rumblings of democracy - a maneuver that is bound to elicit an international response.

Additionally, his arrest falls upon a historical moment in United States politics—the transition between two administrations. The Biden administration has made clear that it would put an end to former President Trump’s cozy relationship with Russia,

Navalny being arrested during a protest against Putin’s government in 2017. Photo by Evgeny Feldman.

starting with imposing targeted sanctions for Navalny’s treatment. This decision communicates that the Biden administration will be more proactive about promoting democratic values. It is important that China parse these signals because President Biden’s foreign policy strategy is neither antithetical to President Trump’s nor identical to President Obama’s, and therefore unknown territory. In fact, President Biden aligns himself with President Trump when it comes to China. Un-

der the new administration, trade war tariffs have yet to be rolled back and sparring words between the two states continue to fly, as shown by the recent talks in Alaska.

However, the United States is not the only Western power that China should be eyeing right now. Shortly after Navalny’s arrest, the European Union—one of China’s top trading partners—imposed targeted sanctions on top Russian leaders. At the same time, EU officials circulated a confidential paper on Hong Kong that urged greater cooperation with the United States in countering the power of China and Russia. These coinciding responses demonstrate that Russia’s treatment of Navalny bears an impact on the international community’s perception of China.

While China and Russia have distinct foreign policy agendas, both countries have commonly been grouped as challengers to Western ideals. Navalny’s recent arrest, which is in close proximity to China’s crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, does little to help this perception. Indeed, the fact that Western responses to Navalny are coupled with a rethinking of strategy towards China is not a good omen for President Xi, who has bolstered his efforts to strengthen ties with the international community.

Overall, Navalny’s story may confirm China’s deep suspicion that an open Internet allows for the emergence of critical ideas, leaders, and movements, all of which threaten to overthrow an authoritarian regime. This threat is top of mind for President Xi, an authoritarian ruler managing the world’s most populous country with a not-too-distant populist past.

Moreover, Navalny’s starpower

reveals the risks of a fragmented and slow approach to Internet censorship. The unrest in Russia in some ways boils down to its original permission of an open Internet—a decision it now finds itself unable to turn back on. This lesson can be useful to China when thinking about how to deal with emerging western technologies and platforms, such as Clubhouse, the western drop-in audio app.

The geopolitical response to Navalny should be taken just as seriously by China. The world has questioned what a Biden administration would mean for the next four years of international affairs. Less than seventy days into office, President Biden may be giving China a preview. At least in the short term, it would be strategic for President Xi to tread watchfully as the United States and its European allies take a more forceful stance abroad.

Moving forward, President Xi must perform a unique balancing act that advances both his domestic and geopolitical interests. This requires finding a way to suppress the free exchange of ideas and democratic impulses at home while reassuring the international community that China is a good actor and will comply with international norms. At the crux of this strategy lies an uncomfortable contradiction: the exact ideals that the international community promotes abroad—freedom and democracy— are the ones that President Xi aims to curtail internally. To avoid a Navalny incident, President Xi must continue to tiptoe around this paradox. He must exalt China’s status on the world stage and keep its critical voices confined behind closed doors, so that they will never reach the bastion of freedom and democracy that is the open internet.

CRISIS AND CARNAGE IN MYANMAR: WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR THE ROHINGYA PEOPLE?

Benjamin Waltman // Columbia College '24

March 21, 2021

Democracy is burning in Myanmar.

On February 1st of this year, Myanmar’s military, the Tatmadaw, seized power from the National League for Democracy and declared a state of emergency. The leaders of the electoral movement, Aung San Suu Kyi and Win Myint, were detained on supposed violations of campaign laws, and the Commander-in-Chief of Defense Services Min Aung Hlaing emerged as the de-facto leader. As the military consolidates its vice-like grip on power, the country can only look on with fear at what recourse will befall the population. In the Rakhine state on the Western coast, the Rohingya people face an especially precarious future under the military junta.

The Rohingya people are a predominately Muslim, Indo-Aryan ethnic group who claim Myanmar as their home state. Though Myanmar claims to have no official state religion, it has demonstrated a strong preference towards Buddhist-practicing ethnic groups, with less than five percent of the population practicing Islam. These religious differences make it easier to label the Rohingya as

alien to Myanmar, dismantling their political status as well. The Rohingya people maintain they are an indigenous group from the Rakhine state, whereas the Myanmar government’s official stance is that they are colonial era migrants from Bangladesh. As a former British province, the country maintains a paranoid outlook on groups relating to East Bengal or their colonial history.

This anti-colonial argument, as well as mass returns of Rohingya to the state in the 1980s, forms the basis

human rights. Alongside a number of other injustices, the Rohingya are also required to perform forced unpaid labor under local government authorities. Not only has the Myanmar government historically persecuted the Rohingya, but the Rohingya are also the target of an ongoing genocide that started in late 2016. The Tatmadaw coup threatens to exacerbate the political persecution of the Rohingya while closing pathways of response for the international community. In the face of the new military

of the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law, which does not recognize them as a national race and has effectively excluded them from acquiring citizenship. As a result of their non-citizen status, the Rohingya suffer from restrictions of interterritorial and extraterritorial movement, the former of which constitutes a direct violation of

stratocracy, the already murky path to recourse for the Rohingya becomes even murkier. As if this historical persecution were not odious enough, conditions worsened considerably in 2016 as conflicts on the Rakhine State border led to military crackdowns on predominantly Rohingya villages. Security forces used extreme

"As the military consolidates its vice-like grip on power, the country can only look on with fear at what recourse will befall the population."

violence against these groups, ranging from the burning down 1,250 houses to killing villagers with helicopter gunships. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees fled the country, and those who remained have been subjected to conditions classified as genocide by numerous human rights commissions and tribunals.

Despite sometimes being supplemented by local forces and citizen militias that take this genocidal cause upon themselves, Myanmar’s military has been the main perpetrator of these crimes. The consolidation of power under Min Aung Hlaing will only increase the brutality and range of these persecutions and attacks. However, it should also be noted that the democratically-elected government took a surprisingly permissive attitude to-

wards this genocide, not protecting or doing much to hinder the actions of the military on the Western coast. Aung San Suu Kyi was hailed as the spiritual successor of Gandhi and the nonviolent resisters of India. She has won nearly every award from the Nobel Peace Prize to the Sakharov. Her career was built upon the non-violent struggle for human rights.

Despite all of this, she has actually defended the military-led genocide on the international stage. When a case was submitted to the International Court of Justice (I.C.J) investigating this matter, she served as the head council defending the actions of the military. At an ICJ hearing, Aung San Suu Kyri routinely characterized the genocide as a domestic armed conflict stemming from the

Rohingya attacking the military. On December 11th, 2019, she appeared in front of the Hague to explain away a whole host of human rights violations. The Myanmar government officially refers to Rohingya people as Bengali, refusing to recognize them as a distinct ethnic group. Aung San Suu Kyi, likewise, never used this term throughout her testimony, even as she wrote off claims of “genocidal intent”. Out of the hundreds of thousands of reported killings, there have only been two internal investigations. Defending the Rohingya genocide served as a rallying point for the National League for Democracy, which had begun to lose support as a result of burgeoning economic strife. The day she appeared in front of the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.),

President Obama and Aung San Suu Kyi during a press conference in 2014. Photo by the Asia Pacific Media Hub.

billboards and demonstrations sprung up both on the streets of the Hague and in the capital city, Naypyidaw. Unfortunately for the Rohingya, this coup represents a fairly lateral move. A state that refused to combat this persecution has been replaced by the persecutors themselves.

A multilateral international response is imperative as the domestic conditions for Rohingya worsen. The main course for intervening in this humanitarian crisis would be the case in front of the International Court of Justice. The west African Islamic nation of the Gambia, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, submitted an application claiming Myanmar violated the principles enshrined in the Geneva Convention. They submitted their memorial within the allotted time limit and Myanmar responded by filing objections against them on January 20, 2021. Though both parties had their deadlines to submit memorials extended as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the case proceeded normally. Under the best of circumstances, a decision cannot be expected until next year. However, the Rohingya received an early victory late last year, as the Court ordered Myanmar to take preventive measures and preserve all evidence of genocide. This order essentially puts Myanmar’s government under direct scrutiny of the court, requiring them to submit regular updates. While the final ruling will provide a more defined pathway to prosecuting the actions of Tatmadaw war criminals, this initial ruling affirmed the military committed war crimes and severe breaches of humanitarian law.

Though in theory the order should at least stop the Rohingya sit-

uation from deteriorating, it holds more weight as a condemnation than a practical solution. Both the democratically elected government and the Tatmadaw released statements rejecting the Court ruling, with General Myat Kyaw stating on behalf of the military that “What the Tatmadaw did was a just war”. When the order was upheld, it seemed clear that international pressure would be needed for the intended effects to be felt.

The slim chance of implementation dropped even further after the coup. As a result of pressure from the court case, Myanmar’s government appointed an “Independent Commission of Enquiry '' to investigate whether war crimes with genocidal intent had taken place. While the committee found no evidence of any such intent, it shows the citizen government had an inclination to bend under international pressure. Those

Many Rohingya Muslims

sentenced in military court martials have not been party to similar scrutiny. Those sentenced to ten years of hard labor for killings in the Inn Din Village were released after only a single year in prison. One can expect domestic investigations led by the Tatmadaw to be both less extensive and permanent than those overseen by international judicial bodies, and voluntary compliance with the court order seems very unlikely.

The Tatmadaw has made no indications up to this point as to whether they will continue in this case. As the former legal counsel is currently detained, it seems unlikely their legal strategy will remain the same. According to the court’s settled jurisprudence, merits of the case are judged based upon the time when the application was filed. Even if Myanmar were to pull all legal counsel and not submit a memorial, the court would

still make a ruling on their jurisdiction, and subsequently the merits of the case. In Nicaragua v. United States, the latter state refused to participate in the proceedings, protesting the I.C.J’.s jurisdiction, yet the court still ruled against them. A ruling will be made in this case whether or not the Tatmadaw chooses to defend themselves.

There is still no assurance that the Court will rule in favor of Myanmar, despite their indication that war crimes took place. A similar application was filed by Bosnia against Serbia in 2006. In that instance, the standard set by Nicaragua v. United States applied. The United States was not found responsible for the actions of the Contras, and in a similar manner, the Myanmar government may not be held accountable for the actions of distinct actors even if they share a common goal. If the I.C.J. case continues, this would be the most likely outcome. In the case of Serbia, it mostly gave further leverage to the already ongoing International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Though a separate criminal tribunal is not a necessity to hold Myanmar responsible, without one, the I.C.J. ruling may not hold much significance. Human rights violations in Myanmar have been condemned several times with little effect, and international pressure that takes the form of sanctions or military action would have to go through the Security Council. This is not going to happen. Russia and China have historically allied themselves with Myanmar, and though the Rohingya Genocide has alienated them, they still maintained a neutral position on the coup and would likely veto direct

who fled Myanmar lived in camps like this in Bangladesh. Photo by UN Women Asia and the Pacific

action against the state. This leaves international tribunals for specific individuals as the only remaining form of viable international recourse, most likely through the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.). Despite Myanmar not being a State party to

the Rome Statute, which established this court, the I.C.C. authorized an investigation into crimes against humanity on the Bangladeshi/Myanmar border. Still, this would only cover crimes that took place on Bangladeshi soil and would rely on cooperation from the Tatmadaw directly. Even if the I.C.J. ruled in favor of the Gambia, the increased leverage given to the I.C.C. still would not apply to crimes committed in Myanmar.

If reinstating the democratically elected government or recourse on the

international stage seems unlikely, is there any path towards rescue for the Rohingya? The mass demonstrations against the Tatmadaw might present an opportunity for the Rohingya to gain ground in the realm of the public opinion. Rejecting the 2008 Constitution has long been a central demand for the Rohingya activists, and the state of emergency declared by the Tatmadaw was justified under Article 417 of the same document, which gives the President authority to declare an one year national state of emergency if the state is under threat of disintegration. Though it has been perceived as undemocratic among the international community for years, this view has increasingly been adopted in Myanmar as well. Whereas the former government had seen the opportunity to rally citizens against the Rohingya, the common enemy has become the military. Surprisingly, the Myanmar public has re statements made on the Tatmadaw coup by Rohingya community leaders have been. Yanghee Lee, the special rapporteur of the UN for the situation in Myanmar, tweeted support and solidarity against the Tatmadaw. At one point, she was vilified as exaggerating

the Rohingya situation, but some showed gratitude and genuine regret in their former distrust. Advocates see this opportunity as a point to rally support behind the Rohingya and build solidarity between the Burmese people. Decades of state-run segregation could be brought to a close if the Tatmadaw falls from power.

Addressing the Rohingya crisis seems useless through international channels. Even if certain figures are tried through the International Criminal Court, the culture of hatred against the Rohingya will still persist. There is no solution to this problem that only relies on international bodies, as the voluntary nature of international law sabotages itself in this scenario. Hope for the Rohingya takes two forms: the coup creates domestic sympathy for their people and turns public opinion against the Tatmadaw, and increased international scrutiny on the crisis, amplifying the voices of activists. The end of this crisis may not be the result of prolonged legal battle mobilizing power on the behalf of the oppressed, but rather the result of the oppressors overplaying their hand and losing the control they had in the first place.

Tatmadaw propaganda outside a military barracks in Mandalay. Photo by Ilmari Hyvonen.

"Addressing the Rohingya crisis seems useless through international channels."

Suits everywhere. One after another, the newly elected politicians strictly follow the stereotype: white men fill the hall of the city council with their calculated speeches. Suddenly, the noise of a woman's high heels steals the show: Duda Salabert entered the room.

2020 brought Salabert and 29 other transgender people into various government positions across Brazil. However, the country has a long history of exclusion that has discouraged many from becoming a part of these powerful institutions. For those minority outsiders who dare to run for office, Brazil’s democracy charges an expensive price. Political violence towards politicians who do not fit the societal norm is taken for granted.

In 2018, polarization and hate speech violated the core of Brazilian democracy. Bolsonarismo, the popular conservative ideology starring Jair Bolsonaro, resonated with voters nationwide and propelled Bolsonaro to the presidency. His platform, which did not include a plan for education or healthcare, represented a Brazil many tried to deny. Bolsonaro and his political allies openly embrace claims of fake news and scientific denialism. From sexual education to secularism, bolsonaristas fueled an intense backlash against key legislation and social improvements. Racism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia are alive in Brazil—despite what many citizens may believe—and these forces now have a powerful spokesperson.

Even in such an unfair playing field, some believe that it is possible to make politics a pedagogical tool

TWO BRAZILS: TRANSPHOBIA AND TRANSGENDER POLITICIANS

able to mobilize and deliver hope. Amid a global pandemic, environmental crisis, and economic decline, a record number of transgender women ran under their chosen names for the first time. Only in 2018, the Supreme Court of Brazil ruled that the government can no longer require medical procedures or a judicial review for transgender people who want to change their name and gender marker on identification documents.

Duda Salbert, a literature teacher and transgender woman, embodies this historic time for the Brazilian LGBTQ+ community. Receiving more votes than any city councilor in the history of her city, Salabert is an environmental activist and strong proponent of social justice. When elected, diversity in her own cabinet was a priority which led her to invite other remarkable transwomen for her team. "For the majority of people, we are an aberration. They stoned us, quartered

us," stated Amanda Rodrigues, Salabert's parliamentary advisor in an interview with the Columbia Political Review. A Black transgender woman, Rodrigues describes pervasive transphobia during her first months working in the city council.  Brazil's most recent elections revealed significant support for marginalized communities. In both left-wing and right-wing parties, 2020 brought more descriptive representation (the degree to which policymakers resemble citizens) to legislative houses. Last year, 25 transgender people were elected to city councils—a 212% increase when compared to Brazil’s last municipal election. They not only won these seats but also received an overwhelming percentage of the vote. How can Bolsonarismo and mass electoral support for transgender people coexist in the same country? Are there two different Brazils?

According to Salabert, this contradiction is a mirror of Brazil. Her

Luiza Vilanova // Columbia College ’24 March 21, 2021

campaign was able to engage over 500 volunteers and garner 37,613 votes. The great electoral victory, however, came with hate messages and death threats. In one email, the attacker also swore to invade a private school that Salabert had worked at for 12 years: "I will wait for classes to come back and I will kill every student. Then, I will kill you."

Brazilian transphobia is not simply a harmful form of prejudice. It is synonymous with extreme violence. According to the Trans Murder Monitoring Project, Brazil is, by far, the country that kills the most transgender people worldwide. The stories behind this statistic are even worse. Alex, an 8-year-old trans girl, was beaten to death by her own father because he wanted to "teach her how to act like a man" after she started to wear female-clothing. Erica, a 14-year-old trans girl who entered prostitution, was shot to death. Vanessa, another 14-yearold, received threats and fled to

her grandmother's house. She was found strangled in March of 2014. Violence and discrimination against transgender people starts in childhood and compounds with age. Trans Brazilians are deprived of economic opportunities. They are unable to access quality public healthcare. They even have to fight for the right to use the bathroom. Without any financial support or prospective job, many become homeless. They frequently do not have access to opportunities and, to survive, often turn to sex work.

The Brazilian Association of Transvestites and Transsexuals estimates that 90% of transgender people in Brazil work in the sex industry at some point. "Those who consume our bodies are the same ones who kill us," Rodrigues said during our interview. A sex worker herself, Rodrigues explained how some of her friends were killed by their clients. "They felt guilty—killing us serves as a form of exoneration," she added. The cycle of exclusion, poverty,

and sexual assault or homicide is a tragic and familiar story.

2020 became historic not only due to the COVID-19 crisis but also because sectors of Brazil's civil society might have started to recognize transphobia as another profound humanitarian crisis. For the first time, many saw how transgender people suffer violent attacks on a daily basis. Transgender candidates were, in the public eye, fighting for their right to live. Citizens around the country were willing to vote for trans people. These candidates across Brazil won elections despite suffering political violence during campaigns and, for a huge majority, lacking financial resources to mobilize voters. "For me, the candidacy was never a goal, but the culmination of daily struggles and battles," Salabert stated. These campaigns have led Brazilians to demand gender diversity and intersectionality in institutional politics. When your existence is a rebellion against systems of oppression and exclusion, your life is a political act.

Although last year was an important step towards transgender representation, Bolsonarismo and transphobia are certainly still present. In 2011, Bolsonaro declared

A global map of reported murders of transgender individuals.

Photo by The Trans Murder Monitoring Project.

"Brazilian transphobia is not simply a harmful form of prejudice. It is synonymous with extreme violence."

that he would prefer to have a dead son than a gay one. For Bianca Biancardi, a transgender woman who ran unsuccessfully for mayor and identifies as a bolsonarista, there is no contradiction in her political narrative. The former candidate believes that Bolsonaro's transphobic comments and legislation no longer represent the president. Conversely, as reported by research published at Folha de S. Paulo, 76% of transgender people considered that the violence against them increased significantly after Bolsonaro's presidential election. The president, through his discriminatory comments, both ex -

plicitly and implicitly encourages violent behavior. Now, his electorate can blindly justify their actions as never before.

Biancardi's example is indicative of prejudice deeply ingrained into Brazilian politics—even transgender people are susceptible. Transphobia is so naturalized that it goes unnoticed and denied by many, sometimes even to those who suffer from it. "We live with transphobia so much that we start to emanate it," confessed Rodrigues when advocating for the need for trans-awareness. "I did not love myself because no one gave me af -

fection." Transphobia and trans politicians can only co-exist if people ignore the brutal reality trans people live in. Everyone, no matter their identities, is prone to hateful and populist ideologies such as Bolsonarismo.

Duda Salabert views her historic election as a cry of resistance and an answer to Bolsonarismo. "It is about resignifying transsexuality," Salabert stated. She sees her time in office as a tool to change the harsh reality trans people experience in Brazil. From creating legislation to hiring transwomen for her own team, Salabert is working towards a more equitable

The city councilor with the most votes in the city of Belo Horizonte's history. Photo by Duda Salabert.

employment landscape for the trans community. Nonetheless, the impact of diversity in politics is more surprising than one might expect. These transgender elected officials are only a first step to ensure that others will have a chance to occupy the same spaces. Still, these election results show progress in the journey of making the Brazilian congress a reflection of its people, with all backgrounds, identities, and demographics represented.

Spaces of power across Brazil informally segregate those who work cleaning or maintaining these facilities. In a country known for its hospitality and warmth, people in janitorial roles are taught to be invis-

ible. "They need to go in mute and leave quietly. Otherwise, they lose their jobs," said Rodrigues. After Salabert's election, the city council saw a significant change in its cultural norms. As women who hold an innate understanding of marginalization, the elected official and her team make a point of greeting and talking to everyone who works at the council. At first, she says that there was a certain strangeness but in a short time the atmosphere changed. The true “Brazilian spirit” appeared, maintained Salabert. One day, Rodrigues mentioned, a member of the cleaning staff expressed apprehension in asking if the books on display in the cabinet could be borrowed.

"She wanted to read but she could not afford to buy books. So, we arranged random books in the first library of the City Council."

Local politics have a direct impact on everyone's lives, sometimes more immediate than expected. This office provides the need to make spaces of power increasingly inclusive and participatory. By merely occupying a space of political power, Salabert and her team represent a possibility—an entirely trans staff is no longer an unimaginable feat. "We send a message that this is a place for everyone. We change the deeply rooted idea that being transgender is a disease. We transform the narrative," concluded Salabert.

A depiction of the man-made nature of mass-incarceration. Photo by Jared Rodriguez.

SEMICONDUCTORS AND TAIWANESE SECURITY: A BLESSING OR A CURSE?

Benjamin Eyal // Columbia College '24 March 26, 2021

Taiwanese economic power is based on the production of one key resource—semiconductors. The essential microelectronic, which serves to connect and direct our devices, has recently sent the globe into panic.

Controlling an outsized share of the market in production, even foreign corporations that design their own semiconductor chips turn to Taiwan as the only viable option to produce cutting-edge chips. The chips are so instrumental to the world economy that shortages cause production problems worldwide. This fortune is at once a boon and a potential danger: with Taiwan less than 100 miles off the coast of China, American and Taiwanese policymakers alike often worry that the concentration of such a valuable resource on China’s border may invite attack. However, it is more likely that Taiwan’s semiconductor fabrication plants, far from undermining Taiwan’s safety, enhance its security. The historical analogues bode well for the Taiwanese, and America’s vested interest in protecting its supply lines far outweighs the improved inducement of Chi -

nese interest.

This technological power has been nearly a half-century in the making. Taiwan’s semiconductor industry kicked off in 1974 when the Radio Corporation of America advised a Taiwanese economic minister to develop integrated circuits. In 1976, the plan agreeing to the first transfer of American semiconductor technology was approved. Over time, Taiwanese plants grew in number and sophistication. Key to their exponential growth was the innovation of the fabless manufacturing model pioneered by Taiwanese Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—prior to TSMC, semiconductor companies generally both designed and manufactured their chips. A corporation that wanted to produce more chips had to increase their capacity or outsource to a rival who might expect technology sharing in exchange. TSMC changed that, pioneering the model of only production. Companies could outsource production to its high-end manufacturing without fearing that TSMC would use it to compete in their design space. Moreover, without resources being

spent on design, TSMC could afford to continually improve their production. 45 years later, Taiwanese semiconductor firms sit atop the market in production.

Semiconductors are increasingly valuable and utilized in everything from consumer cars to military-grade airplanes. This high demand has caused a shortage that is wreaking havoc in the American auto industry. Both GM and Ford have estimated that the shortage will lower their operating profit by at least $1 billion this year. More broadly, some economists predict a cost of $15 billion in lost economic output for the US this year. Normally, when price rises along with demand, producers, motivated by the high profits, increase supply. Expansion of supply is not a shortterm option in the semiconductor industry, where high startup costs and setup time preclude quick growth. In fact, even existing players have trouble keeping up with the “More Moore Race”, the drive by semiconductor firms to continually produce smaller and more sophisticated chips. Moore’s Law, the name’s inspiration, holds that

until now, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years. The number of firms who have been able to keep up with the race have dwindled drastically. Down from 20 firms in the 1990s, today only TSMC and Samsung can produce the cutting-edge 5-nanometer chips.

Ultimately, this technological and industrial race has resulted in Taiwanese stewardship of a valuable strategic resource in demand by all. Even Germany is engaging in talks with Taiwan in hope of urging TSMC and others to increase production by any means necessary. This global dependency is at once lucrative and potentially dangerous: many fear that Taiwan’s concentration of a valuable resource just outside China’s borders invites aggressive behavior.

Examination of a historical analogy, the evolving role of oil, can help us better understand Taiwan’s

situation. Oil, like semiconductor chips, is an invaluable strategic resource necessary for industrial life. Production of oil was also concentrated in just a few regions, especially before oil was discovered in the North Sea. The Middle East in general held a dominant share of worldwide oil production. The case of the Middle East can be used to argue in two separate directions. The case of Iran would appear to augur terrible things for Taiwan. Conversely, the case of Saudi Arabia augurs further successes. Each of the two nations held a large supply of a resource with strategic value to the US. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the US helped with aid and arms sales in a tacit exchange of protection for oil. At first, the Iranian deal looked similar: the Shah received American aid and protection in exchange for oil. However, propping up the Shah enabled widespread repression and terror in Iran. When the Shah was overthrown in the Iranian Revolu -

tion, the new government was not disposed to be friendly to the United States. The calculus for America changed overnight, and oil in the hands of an enemy became a liability rather than an asset.

Given that Taiwan is an American ally, and that there is currently no systematic repression or broad-based resistance movement, the case of Saudi Arabia is a more apt analogy.  Saudi Arabia has become a rich nation, an American ally, and a regional power with influence across the Middle East. A large part of Saudi dominance is a direct result of its vast oil reserves. America’s vested interest in protecting an ally with a valuable resource led Saudi Arabia to become the largest customer for American arms, including its most sophisticated weaponry. This weaponry allows Saudi Arabia not only to protect itself, but extend its influence across the region, including in Iraq and Yemen. Far from a strategic liability, Saudi Arabia’s reserves made it a regional power.

Taiwan benefits from the same factor that guarantees Saudi safety—American interest. Ultimately, it is not just China that understands Taiwan’s strategic value. American commitment to Taiwan’s protection is undergirded by the vast arm sales America concludes with the island republic, the same commitment that America continually shows Saudi Arabia. Over the course of 2020, Taiwan and America exchanged $5 billion in arms sales, bolstering Taiwanese defense with drones, coastal defense, missiles, and rocket launchers. Taiwanese companies like TSMC reward this commitment not only with

TSMC office at night. Photo by Wikimedia.

the valuable chips, but with plans to build a chip factory in the US. The resulting plant would both create thousands of jobs and commit America to continue its policy of supporting Taiwan for several more years. Semiconductor plants take years to build—if America wants to see the plant completed, TSMC must still be around to construct it. The highly visible economic relationship between Taiwan and the US serves as a powerful deterrent to Chinese aggression.

Another promising sign is China’s drive for chip self-sufficiency. Simply put, China’s large investment into its own semiconductor production capabilities indicates they do not consider the seizure of Taiwan and its plants to be a via -

ble option. China would not need to expand its own semiconductor production if it believed they could seize the more-than-sufficient capabilities of Taiwan and use those. Because semiconductor manufacturing has high entry barriers of time and cost, Chinese investment in the field can be considered to be a significant bet against their ability to seize control of Taiwan.

Taiwanese semiconductor production may have increased Taiwan’s wealth and security, but nothing comes without a price. The price Taiwan pays for its bounty has taken the form of water shortages. In 2019, TSMC’s water consumption alone was 156,000 tons per day. That number only increased, and, when paired with a lack of

typhoons making landfall this wet season, a water crisis was practically guaranteed. President Tsai Ing-wen is already advising citizens to conserve water in the face of its most severe drought in 56 years—but why should the needs of industry be prioritized over the people? Beyond water shortages, national prosperity comes at the price of environmental harm. The semiconductor industry generates a substantial amount of toxic waste and directly contributes to air and water pollution.

As Taiwan continues its tightrope act of balancing American interest and Chinese business, the country should move forward without unnecessary recklessness, which only adds environmental concerns to a delicate calculus.

The U.S. recently supplied Taiwan with Harpoon Missiles.

Photo by Wikimedia.

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW