HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW
CHINA’S BIG BRAIN DRAIN
STOP OBAMA, HARVARD’S NETANYAHU, SMOKING BAN MACHIAVELLI
VOLUME XXXIX NO. 2, SUMMER 2012 HPRONLINE.ORG
THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL MIGRATION HOW TO MAKE SENSE OF CHINESE MIGRANT WORKERS, DYING LANGUAGES, NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES, AND LITTLE ITALY.
MIGRATION
5
Making Sense of Migration Beatrice Walton
6 From the Countryside to the City Teresa Yan
11 China’s North Korean Repatriation Policy Courtney Grogan
9 In Defense of the Ethnic Enclave Gram Slattery
22 Where’s the Tea Party? Simon Thompson
14 Globalization and Revitalizing Endangered Languages Alexandra Méndez
18
Mapping Babel Ola Topczewska
OPENING SHOT
WORLD
3
The Truly Persecuted Harvard Minority Sarah Siskind
28 All In the Family Andrew Seo
4
Selling “Democrat” Matt Shuham
UNITED STATES 20 States of Austerity Jacob Morello 24 The Rise of Mainstream Feminism 26 Vietnam: Asia’s Hidden Tiger Jay Alver and Valentina Perez
16 China’s Brain Gain Eric Hendey and Tom Lemberg
Anastasiya Borys
INTERVIEWS 42 Bill Kristol Sarah Siskind 43 Matt Bai Daniel Backman
30 The Unexpected Advocates Kenneth Mai and Oliver Wenner 32 Iraq’s Forgotten Postscript Brooke Kantor 34 Qatar Rising Elsa Kania
BOOKS & ARTS 38 Class Action Cory Pletan 40 The Machiavellian Megillah Eli Kozminsky
ENDPAPER 44 Harvard Discriminates Against Everyone Max Novendstern
36 The Audacity to Win Florence Chen Email: editor@hpronline.org. ISSN 0090-1030. Copyright 2012 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved. Image Credits: Wikimedia Commons: 6-Frank Muller, Dimitris Argyris; 9-Shereef Moustafa, Mark Heard; 11-Stefan Krasowski; 14-Marissa Strniste; 16-jetheriot; 20-amsf2011; 22-dani0010; 24-WeNews, Senator McCaskill; 26-MickyMazda1; 30-brainchildvn; 32-Elvertbarnes; 34-Jesper SärnesjÃ; Aleksi Pihkanen; Flickr: 18-Daniel Schwen; 40-Santi di Tito; 42-Gage Skidmore; U.S. Federal Government: 36-Pete Souza, The White House.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1
HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW A Nonpartisan Journal of Politics Established 1969—Vol. XXXIX, No. 2
EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Jonathan Yip PUBLISHER: Andrew Seo MANAGING EDITOR: Neil Patel ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Alex Chen ONLINE EDITOR: Paul Schied COVERS EDITOR: Beatrice Walton CAMPUS EDITOR: Tom Gaudett CAMPUS ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Medha Gargeya INTERVIEWS EDITOR: Alpkaan Celik U.S. SENIOR EDITOR: Caroline Cox U.S. ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Frank Mace U.S. ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Daniel Backman WORLD SENIOR EDITOR: Josh Lipson WORLD ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Arjun Mody WORLD ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Gram Slattery B&A SENIOR EDITOR: Christine Ann Hurd B&A ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Eli Kozminsky B&A ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Lena Bae HUMOR EDITOR: Sarah Siskind STAFF DIRECTOR: Zeenia Framroze BUSINESS MANAGER: Olivia Zhu ASSISTANT BUSINESS MANAGER: Naji Filali CIRCULATION MANAGER: Ross Svenson DESIGN EDITOR: Sam Finegold GRAPHICS EDITOR: Gina Kim MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Eric Hendey WEBMASTER: Corinne Curcie WEBMASTER: Ben Shryock
SENIOR WRITERS Chris Danello, Kathy Lee, Paul Mathis, Max Novendstern, Jeremy Patashnik, Henry Shull, Simon Thompson, Jimmy Wu
STAFF Jay Alver, Oreoluwa Babarinsa, Elizabeth Bloom, Humza Syed Bokhari, Peter Bozzo, Gabby Bryant, Samuel Coffin, Catherine Cook, Tyler Cusick, Jacob Drucker, Farha Faisal, Mikhaila Fogel, Harleen Gambhir, Aditi Ghai, Raphael Haro, Kaiyang Huang, Nur Ibrahim, Elsa Kania, Adam Kern, Sandra Korn, Ha Le, Ben Lopez, Jimmy Meixiong, Peyton Miller, Laura Mirviss, Chris Oppermann, Lily Ostrer, Samir Patel, Caitlin Pendleton, Mason Pesek, Heather Pickerell, John Prince, Matt Shuham, Martin Steinbauer, Alastair Su, Lucas Swisher, Rajiv Tarigopula, Pooja Venkatraman, Ben Wilcox, Danny Wilson, Jenny Ye, Benjamin Zhou
ADVISORY BOARD Jonathan Alter Richard L. Berke Carl Cannon E.J. Dionne, Jr. Walter Isaacson Whitney Patton Maralee Schwartz
2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
FROM THE EDITOR Lowered Sights Dear Readers, Some—if not many—of Harvard’s best moments seem to lie outside the classroom. You could create your own world-class education simply by cherrypicking from amazing speakers that pass through: Ban Ki-moon, David Petraeus, Oprah, Geoffrey Canada, Stephen Colbert. Even if their words are at times trite, their very presence, personality, and tone are master classes in public leadership. But this surfeit jades the best of us; my freshman fall, I jumped eagerly at the chance to hear Michelle Bachelet, President of Chile, speak at the Kennedy School. I lined up for half an hour and happily sat in the worst seats in the house to see her. Her story, that of a political prisoner tortured by Pinochet turned pragmatic and successful president, was breathtaking. Yet today, I find myself doing laundry or surfing Facebook instead of trekking to the Kennedy School. Some insidious normalcy has set in, where the routine and banal have edged out remarkable possibility. This evolution is pervasive among students at Harvard, from wideeyed idealism to nose-to-the-grindstone cynicism. And unsurprisingly, it closely tracks the journey from freshman to senior. But, I recently put my laundry aside— just for a few days—and rediscovered the intriguing narratives that emerge in the cross-current of speakers on campus. In the span of two weeks, I heard from three profoundly impressive people: Steven Holl, renowned American architect, Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Each had a unique charisma, Holl in his self-assured and sweeping aesthetic vision, Rousseff in her down-to-earth poise, and Dempsey in his frank wit. But, what was more striking than their individual messages or even personal magnetism was the unspoken undertone that linked them. Holl, an architect not exactly concerned with practicalities, spoke on the use of scale in his buildings. They were daring, ambitious, perhaps even crazy. His “linked hybrid” is a city in the sky, soaring
towers joined by floating bridges complete with daycare, cinemas, and cultural venues. His “sliced porosity block” consumes an entire city block, with deep slices cut through the imposing building to provide sunlight to interior apartments. And his “horizontal skyscraper” is exactly as it sounds. They seem like the imaginings of unchained artist, but they exude an unmistakable optimism, that society can be challenged and inspired by audacious architecture. Amazingly enough, these fantastical buildings are being constructed—in China. The story is much the same for Brazil. President Rousseff, while acknowledging the significant challenges her country faces—crime, poverty, currency appreciation—asserted a confident, optimistic Brazil. It is a nation that has never shied away from dreaming big: in the early 1960s, President Kubitschek ordered the building of a utopian capital in the middle of the country. Photographs of its construction are stunning, modernist monuments rising out of a barren savannah. Half a century later, Brazil has continued to live out the bold spirit of Brasilia: 40 million people have been raised from poverty to the middle class, and before the decade is out, Brazil will have hosted the the Olympics and the World Cup. Rousseff capped her speech tellingly, “Brazil needs Harvard as much as Harvard needs Brazil.” After all this, Gen. Dempsey delivered the coda, declaring that “America is not a country in decline.” It may not be, but it seems that these days, we have settled for the small and the quotidian. We’ve stopped dreaming and doing big things, our aspiration for the future replaced by narrow cynicism. Acela is what we call high-speed rail, and One World Trade Center is our new architectural centerpiece. That might be how nations evolve, but I sure wish it weren’t.
Jonathan Yip Editor-in-Chief
OPENING SHOT
The Truly Persecuted Harvard Minority Sarah Siskind
T
he Harvard Kennedy School has joined the Harvard Medical School and the School of Public Health in an attempt to rid itself of hot air. No, unfortunately, not that kind of hot air. The Kennedy School administration has decided to ban smoking on campus. One month into the ban, house masters and school administrators have already proposed extending the ban to the whole campus, starting with Harvard Yard. Currently, smokers are not allowed within twenty-five feet of any Harvard building. But they may not find refuge off campus either. The city of Cambridge has already taken steps towards banning all outdoor smoking. If both bans were to be implemented, Harvard smokers would not be able to find a place to legally smoke outside for about seven square miles. Similar smoking bans have taken hold at hundreds of other college campuses across the nation, but the audacity is particularly striking at Harvard. The intent of such a ban is unavoidably paternalistic. The powers that be either assume that smokers do not know the risks and are unable to make decisions of their own, or that non-smokers are simply incapable of avoiding smoke. Despite what this ban implies, any passerby is, in fact, able to take one or two steps to avoid inhaling a black cancerous fog of death. Furthermore, it
is ridiculous to imply Harvard smokers are making an uninformed decision. Harvard smokers, like the rest of the community, have been inundated with resources, campaigns, and societal pressures aimed at stopping smoking. Yet if health risks were the sole determinant of human behavior, no one would drive a car. The sheer audacity lies in the fact that this patronizing display of parochial paternalism is inflicted upon some of the brightest minds in the world. If it were simple Harvard paternalism, that might be one thing; however, the logic behind the ban is not even consistent. If Harvard is genuinely concerned for the health of its students, why stop at smoking? Drinking is far more common and dangerous. In response, many argue that smoking, unlike drinking, may be dangerous secondhand. Yet arguing that there is no equivalent to “secondhand” smoke is a nonstarter. Kindly inform 72% of rape victims, roughly half of victims of domestic abuse, and any victim of a DUI that drinking does not have secondary consequences and see how they take it. Perhaps a more substantive explanation for the ban may be found at the source. The group largely advancing the proposal is the IOP’s Tobacco Control Policy Group, led by Mackenzie J. Lowry ’11, a proctor in Wigglesworth. She has chosen to focus on Harvard
Yard because, as she puts it, “it is very symbolic of Harvard University as a whole.” Apparently Lowry is concerned with the representation of Harvard regardless of whether it is truly representative. Such a ban not only mocks the intelligence of Harvard affiliates, but also makes a mockery of the law itself. Current smoking laws are simply blowing smoke. Campus police have far better ways to occupy their time than hounding out renegade smokers. What’s more, the ban disproportionally affects international students and Harvard employees. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the ban is motivated more by moral repugnance than by any substantive reason. It is important to expose the philosophical presupposition that underlies this ban: the administration has an obligation to deter you from doing things that shorten your life. Yet a long life, even a long healthy life, is not everyone’s end goal. I do not consider myself a smoker. I can count the number of packs of cigarettes I have bought on one hand. Yet, I stand in solidarity with those who believe that life is not measured in the number of breaths you take, but how you choose to take them. So I advise the administration to save theirs and leave mine for me.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 3
Selling “Democrat” Matt Shuham
I
t’s easy to define a Democrat. At least, that’s the commonly held belief. We drink lattes and worship Paul Krugman as a god amongst men. We believe that the only fault of government is when it does not regulate enough, and that the best thing we can do is legislate the change that does not manifest itself naturally. We play “Robin Hood,” giving the gains of the rich to the poor, because it just feels right. It’s easy to define a Democrat, which is why so many people do it. Democrats are tagged as “Bleeding Hearts” because of our support of strong social welfare legislation, and much of the time, we don’t have a good retort. In reality, it’s because most Democrats really do believe in the inherent good of programs meant to make society more just and equitable. In fact, a study by Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham in 2006 showed that selfproclaimed “Liberals” tend to value fairness and reciprocity more, while “Conservatives” value respect. These stereotypes offer somewhat of a challenge for the Democratic Party’s messaging efforts. Economically, the American public is ultimately the same as any voting public: self-interested. New taxes to support more comprehensive social programs are anathema to this self-interest, and the old party lines—those of Republicans accusing Democrats of wanting to raise taxes—read themselves out with a predictable vigor. Historically, Democrats pitched their efforts to the American people with a potpourri of promises and projections. Franklin proposed a “New Deal” to the American people hurting from a severe depression and lack of hope. Kennedy campaigned on a new vision for America, putting a young face to chants of “We can do better!” Johnson took great strides toward his Great Society, and Bill Clinton built a Bridge to the 21st Century. In the modern era of progressivism, our campaign cries have taken quite a few different pitches, but one isn’t heard nearly enough these days: economic competitiveness. In all of their talk about fairness, equality, and reciprocity —as necessary as they are in a political dialogue—Democrats seem to have glossed over what could be our strongest argument in the political arena: the Democratic agenda is the most capable of putting America in an advantageous economic position on the world stage. When Barack Obama sold his healthcare efforts to the American people, we heard messages of fairness, the injustices of 30 million people uninsured. Indeed, this is a compelling problem. But problems can be solved no matter how you word the solution, and the economic argument is one far underutilized by the left. How could we not have mentioned the comparative disadvantage we face against countries with a public option?
4 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
Employers in Britain never have to worry about the increased hiring costs due to healthcare expenses, and you would be hard pressed to find any CEO citing medical expenses as the cause of layoff. Germany never worries about the loss of productivity of sick, uninsured workers, as they are covered either by private insurance or non-profit “sickness funds.” Most importantly, in countries where healthcare coverage is a right and not a privilege, prospective small business owners aren’t scared away from chasing their dreams by the looming costs of being selfinsured, or without insurance altogether. If we as a country aim to keep employer costs down, productivity up, and small business ownership strong, couldn’t the left have used these points during the healthcare debate? Over the past year the sentiment echoing out of Wisconsin towards teachers has spread with alarming speed. But the antiteacher (and more broadly, anti-union) phase that the right is going through would probably do more harm than good if it were carried to its logical extent. Teachers (and unions, for that matter) are responsible for education and preparing a generation for becoming productive members of society. Educated workforces are better for product quality and better for the bottom line, so it’s no surprise that the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council marked education (“Improving Human Capital”) as one of the top 5 policy issues facing the US, along with taxes, immigration, infrastructure, and research and development. One point on the CEO Council’s list, immigration, deserves significant attention. The DREAM Act would keep educated and military bound immigrants in America, where they have the options of serving in the armed forces or getting a college education. The H1-B “Genius Visa” allows doctorate students and researchers to stay in the US, creating a slew of technological and medical advancements. A few years ago, Thomas Friedman summed it up best when he listed the 2010 Intel Science Fair finalists—almost all of them were from first generation immigrant homes. This is just one more area in which the Democrats must assert the economic importance of their policy: we could have a new generation of soldiers, students, and scientists here in America, or we could send them unwillingly home. In a nation worn down by a brutal recession, the argument that progressive legislation leads to economic advance is one that isn’t heard nearly enough from the left. Progressives, instead of touting the economic importance of their ideas, quietly accept that they are the party of naïve emotion against the so-called rational, clear-headed policies of most of the right. Democratic policies do create economic opportunity on the world stage. We just need to remind the American people.
MIGRATION
MAKING SENSE OF MIGRATION Beatrice Walton
W
hen I saw a “We’re Closed” banner in the front window of a Hungarian deli in New York’s Upper East Side one morning, and that the store’s shelves were absent their traditional salami, red paprika, and huge coils of sausage, I was sure that “Little Hungary’s” last remaining meat emporium had closed its doors for good. The deli, established in the 1950s on what was once known as Manhattan’s “Goulash Avenue,” had since become a rarity, a tribute to a time when European immigration abounded and globalization was a buzzword yet unknown. Since then, profound changes in migration, immigration, and emigration patterns have impacted communities immensely. Today, new global and local movements of people continue to affect cultures, languages, citizenship rights, international relations, and politics in complex and controversial ways that, according multiple experts interviewed in this edition, should not be over generalized.
This HPR edition analyzes how such movements are changing norms in a variety of locations. From the “brain gain” of Chinese western-educated students returning home that has raised hopes for democratization (p. 16), to the strain that Bangladeshi immigration has placed on India’s historic tolerance (online article), migration is challenging traditions and customs. In China, migrants are defying old political divisions as rural workers move to cities to seek opportunities (p. 6), while elsewhere, whole religious groups are contemplating moves to escape persecution in their homelands, as with Arab Christians today (online). Of course, changing patterns of human movement also entail changing politics. With more dual citizens than ever before, many countries must ask tough questions about what, exactly, constitutes citizenship (online). Likewise, debates persist over the status of refugees, particularly concerning North Korean defectors in China, and the protections afforded them
by international law (p. 11). In addition, modern migration is changing linguistic and cultural landscapes. However, with efforts to revitalize endangered languages amidst globalization’s conforming pressures (p. 14) and concern increasing for the fragility of ethnic enclaves (p. 9), we are slowly becoming conscious of migration’s power. Fortunately, understanding these intricacies and the growing inter-connectedness of communities is possible with the development of technological applications that track human movement in urban settings (p. 18). Yet despite new theoretical and technical approaches, mapping the effects of migration and predicting the persistence of languages, ethnic communities, and cultural customs is manageable only with close attention to case-by-case detail. Using this approach, the HPR attempts to tackle the intricacies of migration.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 5
MIGRATION
FROM THE COUNTRYSIDE TO THE CITIES THE IMPLICATIONS OF MIGRATION ON CHINA’S URBAN-RURAL DIVIDE
Theresa Yan
C
hina’s transformation is one of the most startling tales of economic fortitude over the last half-century. Within this transformation, the importance of China’s migrant workers is often underestimated, even though Chinese migrants account for nearly twenty percent of China’s annual growth. Like migrant workers elsewhere, economic prospects and opportunities in Chinese cities drive rural Chinese workers far from home, often into brutal working conditions. Unlike other migrants, Chinese migrant workers face unique problems rooted in China’s communist legacy. Despite moving to the cities in an attempt to achieve better economic and social conditions, rural populations continue to be segregated by the hukou, a household registration system, which separates urban and rural populations. Although migrant workers are attempting to close the economic and social gap between urban and rural populations, the bureaucratic barriers created by the hukou system have impeded their integration into society.
THE STATE OF CHINA’S URBAN-RURAL GAP The hukou system, which dates back to imperial China, was previously used for bureaucratic identification. Since 1958, the system has been used to separate urban and rural populations to
6 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
effectively stop migration. Without proper documentation, those with rural hukou statuses were forbidden to pursue opportunities in urban centers. As Harvard Professor in Sociology Martin King Whyte notes, the hukou system created the largest urbanrural gap in the world by binding the rural poor to farms and preventing them from gaining better livelihoods. “Ironically, the Great Equalizer, the Great Liberator, Mao, produced a two caste society,” Whyte explained, leaving China with “two different societies [and] with different issues and social problems” today. The tale of the modern migrant worker began with economic reforms in 1978, which opened China to foreign markets for the first time since the rise of the Chinese Communist Party in 1950. Fueld by the economic growth of Chinese cities, the movement of migrants from the countryside to cities has been the largest migration in human history with over 200 million migrants currently working away from home. However, despite the government’s easing of migration policies, the hukou system still enables discrimination within cities. While earlier anti-migration policies were implemented in order to keep urban living standards high, even today, having an urban hukou status entitles residents to greater opportunities. Because hukou statuses are assigned for life, when rural migrant workers arrive in cities, they often face difficulties in utilizing urban social services. “For
MIGRATION
Modern migrant workers’ movement from the countryside to cities has been the largest migration in human history with over 160 million currently working away from home.
the past 20 some years, China’s government sacrificed migrant workers’ benefits to attract foreign investment,” Taiwanese businessman Bobby Huang acknowledged in a statement provided to the HPR. By failing to provide social services to migrant workers, the government has limited the economic potential of urban migrants. Many migrant families face difficulties with providing an education to their children. Though urban-born children have easy access to public schools and about 74 percent of them are accepted into college, migrant children, by contrast, are inherently disadvantaged when they accompany their parents to the cities. Scott Rozelle, professor at Stanford University, observed that although migrant children can obtain free urban public education, they can only attend when seats are available and tend to be placed in poorer, lower quality urban schools. Private migrant schools are also available, but they are usually unregulated and expensive. In an interview with the HPR, Qiu Yu Wang, a Harvard Chinese preceptor who volunteered at the Haidian District Xingzhi Experimental School in 2000, recalled that “conditions were bad” because despite being private, the migrant school she worked at lacked good teachers, equipment, and a strict curriculum—as do many other migrant schools. Due to the difficulties
associated with urban school, many migrant families choose the emotionally daunting alternative of sending their children to rural schools under the care of relatives.
THE FUTURE OF THE MIGRANTS While the hukou system is still one of the many barriers between China’s urban and rural populations, the two groups are becoming more integrated as more migrants settle into cities and become informal urban residents. In 2011, China’s urban population was roughly greater than its rural population. Only thirty years ago, about eighty percent of its population lived in rural areas. In a way, the urbanization of China’s population is “not visible,” explained Leslie T. Chang, author of Factory Girls: From Village to City in A Changing China, in an interview with the HPR. “It seems [migrant workers] are urban people, [despite the fact that] they have rural backgrounds.” Nevertheless, this revolutionary demographic shift is causing what she considers “huge social, cultural, economic, personal and emotional changes” in China’s society, especially as migrant workers are becoming more affluent, and forming the next urban middle class. In fact, in comparison to past anti-migration policies, progress has been made. Although China’s government is currently
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 7
MIGRATION
A highway into Guangzhou, China.
struggling to balance migrants’ rights and benefits with economic development, more social services are beginning to be provided to migrant workers. For instance, Health Minister Chen Zhu recently announced the launch of a new healthcare plan which would cover the treatment of migrant workers outside of their rural hometowns. Furthermore, Wang observed that hukou statuses are “not as important as they were in the past” because people are paying “less and less attention to hukou.” For Chang, the most striking part of modern treatment of the hukou system is that “although it still exists, it’s irrelevant for millions of people.” Likewise, in newer cities, like Dongguan, migrant workers are not counted as official residents. The only people who acknowledge rural residents are their bosses, but even then, “the only thing they care about is that there is a young, healthy person who shows up at work everyday.”
THE FUTURE OF CHINA’S MIGRANT WORKERS Although the barriers created by the hukou system are slowly crumbling, the hukou system’s underlying purpose is still to separate urban and rural populations. If the hukou system continues to create challenges for migrant workers and prevents them from fully assimilating into urban life, the future of Chinese migrant workers remains unclear. So long as there are economic opportunities available, migrant workers will continue to move
8 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
into cities and struggle to obtain equal footing as urbanites. Yet in the future, if China’s growth slows downs, Rozelle warned that without proper skills and education, migrants, a projected thirty to forty percent of the labor force, may struggle in an economy dominated by high-waged jobs. “China could have huge problems,” he believes, especially with organized crime and unemployment. The hukou system, however, can be useful in certain contexts. As rights and opportunities are increasingly becoming disassociated with hukou statuses, the hukou system may simply end up serving its original identification purposes. Whyte noted that other countries like France, Japan and Indonesia all have household registration systems documenting their citizens. According to Whyte, although changes should be made, “the hukou system doesn’t need to be abolished” altogether. China must appropriately deal with the hukou system and its treatment of migrants for the sake of its future. Migrant workers move and will continue to move so long that there are economic inequalities between urban and rural areas. By fundamentally dividing urban and rural residents, the hukou system both causes and complicates migration. Although China’s economic prowess now depends on migrant workers, this may not always be the case. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the long term economic and social effects of the hukou system for the future of China’s migrant workers.
MIGRATION
In Defense of the Ethnic Enclave Gram Slattery
M
anhattan’s Little Italy was once a microcosm of its mother country, replete with Genovese, Neapolitan, and Sicilian enclaves, a frenzied amalgam of Italians conversing in their native tongue while vending homemade porchetta and piadini. But after a slow, inexorable decline, Little Italy has become a neighborhood of nostalgia rather than a neighborhood of existing immigrant culture. While one can still find a few dozen Italian restaurants, the vast majority of this dying ethnic enclave has been gobbled up by the neighborhoods of SoHo, Chinatown, and Nolita. Now, contemporary Little Italy does not take up any significant piece of geographic territory, nor is it particularly Italian in nature: the latest census revealed there to be zero first-generation residents, and in any given restaurant within its boundaries, the wait-staff is much more likely to hail from the Dominican Republic than the Republica Italiana. This does not necessarily mean that all contemporary ethnic enclaves are anathemas. As the encroachment of New York’s Chinatown into Little Italy reveals, some ethnic enclaves are indeed growing. The case of Little Italy is indicative of a larger trend, however, in that immigrant communities, even those that are experiencing growth, are de-concentrating, culturally and spatially, making the concept of the urban ethnic enclave increasingly obsolete.
RETHINKING IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES To expound upon the Chinatown example, between 2000 and 2010, the Chinese foreign-born population of New
York City increased by 86,000, while over the same period, the Chinese population of Chinatown itself decreased by 17 percent. Several authors, including Bonnie Tsu of The Atlantic, have pointed to these statistics as a sign of the decline of Chinese enclaves altogether. Upon examining these numbers more closely however, one notices that the adjacent districts of the city, such as SoHo and Tribeca, have experienced an influx of Chinese residents, such that a lower concentration of Chinese-Americans is distributed over a greater geographic expanse. As Donna Gabaccia, one of America’s foremost experts in immigration history, explained in an interview with the HPR, wealthier immigrants tend to arrive in a more scattered geographic pattern than those of a lower socioeconomic status. The modern composition of Chinese
migrants, for example, is more economically diverse than has historically been the case, resulting in an outmigration from the traditional boundaries of tenement-laden ethnic enclaves. This increase in economic diversity among immigrant groups has led to an entirely new phenomenon in ethnic settlement: the “ethnoburb.” A term coined by University of Arizona sociologist Wei Li, an ethnoburb is in many ways a group of immigrants that have abandoned the urban enclave in search of more suitable housing. Ethnoburbs differ from ethnic enclaves, Li explained in an interview with the HPR, in that they are suburban rather than urban, are “demographically much more diverse,” have economies that are significantly more “intertwined” with surrounding communities, and their residents, as a whole, tend to be wealthier
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 9
MIGRATION
and better educated than those of traditional immigrant neighborhoods. Furthermore, in addition to these ethnoburbs, an increasing number of “invisiburbs” have sprung up in suburban areas. Invisiburbs are ethnoburbs with even lower concentrations of a given ethnic group and practically no outwardly visible signs of a collective ethnicity. As ethnic communities de-concentrate, Gabaccia adds, ethnicity “tends to become more private and domestic,” as everyday interaction within an ethnic group lessens. Traditional food and religion, on the other hand, are often the last vestiges retained as the symbol of one’s heritage.
A NEW PLURALISM Many European-American ethnic groups underwent a similar process earlier in the twentieth century. Ethnic enclaves based on western European migrant groups shrunk severely, as ethnic identity was privatized or abandoned altogether. This has been a continuous, predictable process as socioeconomic disparity has decreased to the point of irrelevance. Perhaps more importantly, while foreign-born Chinese still immigrate into the United States at the tune of 70,000 per year, western European immigration has slowed to a trickle. Residence in ethnic enclaves, Gabaccia asserts, does not tend to be a multigenerational affair. When migration stops, the ethnic identity of enclaves disintegrates, whether it is through the disappearance of Manhattan’s Italian Harlem or the outflow of German residents from a panoply of Germantowns. There is reason to believe that on the whole, the traditional North American ethnic enclave is losing its distinct flair, either through decreasing concentration, as in the case of Chinatowns, or through increasing irrelevance, as in the case of Little Italies, Germantowns, and the like. Whether or not one approves of the slow settling of traditionally distinct ethnicities into the bottom of the American melting pot is a function of one’s belief in multiculturalism. This judgment is normative by nature, but to make a moderate assertion, most non-social-conservatives would likely approve of an America filled with spice and variation, an America that mixes into a congruous cultural jambalaya, rather than a homogenously bland rice pudding or an incongruous mix of inherently opposed cultural mores. From this viewpoint of qualified multiculturalism, perhaps better described as pluralism, there is a faint, but existent, silver lining around the current condition of ethnic enclaves. First, and perhaps most importantly, while traditional enclaves are de-concentrating, other emergent, more marginalized ethnic groups are forming new communities. The “New Littles” project, headed by New York City sociologist Andrew Beveridge, illustrates that new ethnic groups, such as Somali-Bantus and Ghanaians, are slowly forming nascent ethnic communities. These are, by and large, far too small to be considered bona fide enclaves. Like most modern immigrant communities, they tend to have a relatively low level of ethnic concentration. Nonetheless, with continued immigration, Little Italies and Germantowns could slowly be replaced by New Accras and Addis Abbas. Furthermore, even in traditional ethnic enclaves, high immigration has led to revitalization in a few rare cases, a phenomenon that can be seen in the remarkable resur-
10 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
gence of Toronto’s Little Italy and the sustained growth of San Fransisco’s Chinatown.
SAVING THE ENCLAVE While there is hope for the continuation of modern ethnic enclaves, if we desire to save the distinct patches of the American cultural quilt that are offered by these concentrated immigrant communities, we must arrive collectively at a series of realizations. First, and perhaps most obviously, without new immigration, ethnic communities cease to exist, as they are by and large a function of first and second-generation Americans. The rapid contraction of ethnic enclaves toward the middle of the twentieth century caused by a near-moratorium on immigration from 1924 to 1965 provides possibly the most poignant example of the harmful effects of sluggish migration on ethnic communities. The vitality of ethnic enclaves relies on our understanding that we are and continue to be a nation of immigrants, hopefully a nation not to undergo any more painful bouts of xenophobia Of course, as many immigrant groups become further assimilated and socioeconomically diverse, even high immigration levels might coincide with low levels of enclave growth if immigrants seek a greater diversity of housing options to choose from. In order to avoid an unnecessarily rapid outflux of immigrants from traditional communities, cities need to avoid steps that will make these communities undesirable places to live in the long run. In Boston, Chinatown has been boxed in over time by two interstate highways and a remarkably bland, expanding medical center. Furthermore, the city’s redistricting commission has attempted to divide Chinatown between three councilmen, a measure that would effectively destroy the community as a political entity. On the other hand, the North End, now wedged between beautiful post-Big Dig green space and the Atlantic, is a neighborhood that has grown hip and professional, but remained distinctively Italian even as Italian-Americans have grown wealthier as a whole. As a last ditch effort, when ethnic enclaves slowly degrade, failing to follow the path of the North End, it is possible to artificially celebrate the ethnic heritage of an enclave even after the enclave has been demographically diminished. For instance, the Feast of San Gennaro in New York’s Little Italy, originally instituted as a celebration of Neapolitan immigrants in 1924, continues today. The festival seems to admit that if one can no longer celebrate the heritage of one’s country of origin in a collective way, he or she might as well celebrate the heritage of the enclave. By embracing new urban ethnic groups, avoiding the nativist slings of our past, and buttressing the integrity, cultural, architectural, and otherwise, of our existing immigrant communities, we can avoid, or at least delay, the disappearance of the Little Italies, Chinatowns, and other enclaves. The goal is not ethnic compartmentalization. In a nation of immigrants, a spicy jambalaya model of living is far more preferable than a homogenous rice pudding culture of mush. Perhaps, it is time to take the required steps to protect the integrity of ingredients in this cultural jambalaya. Not to stress our differences, but rather to protect the vibrant pluralism of a homogenizing American society.
MIGRATION
CHINA’S NORTH KOREAN REPATRIATION POLICY
NO ESCAPE
Courtney Grogan
I
n the days following nuclear disarmament negotiations with North Korea on February 29, 2012, the United States was busy publicizing its “diplomatic breakthrough.” Meanwhile, 31 North Koreans who had crossed the border into China were captured by Chinese authorities, detained amid protests from the international community, and eventually repatriated back to the D.P.R.K. This received unprecedented press coverage in South Korea as North Korean defectors living in Seoul spoke out against China’s treatment of North Korean refugees. While concerns over North Korea’s nuclear program dominate the news media, China’s repatriation policy deserves more attention. Such inquiry would provide insight into the diplomatic difficulties of the Korean peninsula, particularly regarding human rights. Indeed, China’s rhetoric defending its longstanding repatriation policy, as well as the views of North Korean defectors, can provide a better understanding of life inside the world’s most closed-off country and what should be done for those who escape.
AGAINST ALL ODDS: THE JOURNEY TO CHINA The U.S. State Department estimates that there are currently tens of thousands of escaped North Koreans hiding in China.
Food shortages, deteriorating humanitarian conditions, and human rights violations are all factors that drive North Koreans to cross the Sino-D.P.R.K. border. To escape, they have to swim across the Tumen River while avoiding detection by both D.P.R.K. and Chinese border security. This can involve bribing border guards, sneaking between patrols, and maneuvering through barbed electric fences. Once across the border, criminal organizations often exploit these vulnerable North Korean refugees. Estimates suggest that over half of the North Korean women who cross into China are sexually trafficked as brides to rural Chinese men. In China, many North Korean migrants take on menial, lowpaying jobs. Some hope to make money to bring back to their families in North Korea. Others hope to eventually gain asylum in South Korea or the United States by traveling through an “underground railroad” to Southeast Asia or Mongolia. All of these migrants live in fear of detection by the Chinese authorities with the possibility of severe punishment looming if sent back to the D.P.R.K. Repatriated North Koreans are sent to temporary labor camps where they are often interrogated and tortured to glean information about their time in China. If found guilty of having associated with Christian NGO workers while in China, these repatriates face harsher punishments, such as execution or long sentences in a labor camp. Several reports indicate that traf-
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 11
MIGRATION
ficked pregnant women are forced to abort their half-Chinese babies when sent back to North Korea. Those who risk escaping into China also risk the lives of their families, as three generations of a North Korean’s family are punished for such behavior. More than 20,000 North Koreans have defected to South Korea since the 1990s and approximately 130 defectors have permanently settled in the United States. The information available about the situation on the Sino-D.P.R.K. border largely comes from personal accounts told by North Korean defectors who make it out of China. The Chinese repatriation policy of North Korean refugees exacerbates human rights problems on the Korean peninsula by preventing defectors from seeking political asylum and by preventing the United Nations Refugee Agency from accessing the border region. The policy also allows North Korea to commit additional human rights violations against those who are returned.
HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE
in March, sharing their stories and calling upon South Koreans to object to China’s current practices. One anonymous North Korean defector told HPR about his hope to raise awareness in South Korea through music and film. Human rights advocates hope that China will give in to international pressure and disband their repatriation policy or at least allow the UNHCR to provide humanitarian assistance in the region. Kyung-Seo Park, former South Korean Ambassador for Human Rights, told the HPR that he believes Chinese policies towards North Korean migrants will not last if pressure from the international community continues to build. He cautioned, “In pressuring the Chinese on this issue, we should not take an aggressive stance, but should try to understand the Chinese difficulties.” Indeed, the international human rights community needs to understand China’s point of view if it hopes to seriously pressure China to change its longstanding policy.
CHINA’S REPATRIATION POLICY
The protests surrounding the repatriation of the 31 refugees in March 2012 brought greater awareness to the plight faced by those who seek to escape North Korea. Those protesting outside of the Chinese Embassy in Seoul assert that North Koreans who cross the border into China should be given official refugee status. Human rights activists point to China’s membership in the UN, which obligates them to abide by the 1951 Refugee Convention agreement of “non-refoulement” in which “no contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened.” Many North Korean defectors were present at the protests
Chinese officials have long rejected the assertion that North Koreans who cross the border into China meet the definition of “refugees.” Instead, they refer to the border-crossers as “economic migrants,” which allows them to avoid abiding by the UN’s principle of non-refoulement. Yet, regardless of why these North Koreans cross the border, many fit the definition of refugee sur place due to the harsh punishments they face when sent back to North Korea. China has enforced its repatriation policy since the 1990s, when the flow of North Korean refugees increased due to the North Korean famine, which killed an estimated one million people. This constancy in the Chinese policy contrasts with
NUMBER OF NORTH KOREAN DEFECTORS BY YEAR
Source: South Korean Ministry of Unification
12 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
MIGRATION
Chinese officials have long rejected the assertion that North Koreans who cross the border into China meet the definition of “refugees.”
South Korea’s delayed articulation of their views on this issue. During the Sunshine Policy years of South Korean President Kim Dae Jung (1998-2003) and President Roh Moo-hyn (20032008), South Koreans remained silent regarding the repatriation of North Koreans. Up until the recent protests, South Koreans have not shown major objection to this policy. Chinese policies towards North Korean migrants are characteristic of the Chinese Communist Party’s continual struggle to control internal and external migration, population growth, and ethnic minorities along China’s borders. In addition, nationalist complications shape China’s refusal to admit Koreans into its border area, the Yanbian Autonomous Zone. An estimated one million ethnic Koreans already live in this area, which some Korean nationalists in South Korea claim as their own. Many speculate that the Chinese are reluctant to support reunification of the Korean peninsula, as they would prefer to keep North Korea as a buffer zone separating China from the U.S.-influenced South Korea. Likewise, China wants to avoid a large inflow of refugees, which it believes could lead to regional instability. Indeed, the CCP’s People’s Daily, has written that “attempting to ‘refugee-ize,’ internationalize or politicize this problem” of North Korean refugees would be futile.
NORTH KOREAN DEFECTORS AND THE FUTURE OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA Some had hoped that current leader Kim Jong Un, exposed to the outside world while studying in Switzerland, would have more concern for the North Korean people than his father. However, Kim Jong Un’s order that guards should shoot-to-kill when patrolling the border, as well as his crackdown on the possession of illegal Chinese cell phones, does not forebode well. China has also responded by tightening its own border-security. According to South Korea’s Yonhap news agency, China has recently installed silent alarm systems in the houses of a Chinese border town to encourage residents to inform the police if they encounter North Korean escapees. Nevertheless, the South Koreans’ recent protest of China’s repatriation policy has brought more attention to the people who can play an important role in the shaping of the future of the Korean peninsula. North Korean defectors are the ones currently standing up for the oppressed still living in North Korea. Their insights into a very secretive country are valuable in improving outside knowledge of what goes on inside the D.P.R.K. Even more, their experience living in both North Korea and South Korea is essential to hopes for future Korean unification.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 13
MIGRATION
HOW DO YOU SAVE AN ENDANGERED LANGUAGE? Alexandra Méndez
W
hen campaigning in Puerto Rico in March, Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum told a local newspaper that, just “like any other state,” Puerto Rico must comply with federal law mandating English as the “principal language.” There is, however, no federal law in the U.S. mandating English as the official language. Can Santorum’s statement be dismissed as a simple case of confusion, or does its inaccuracy indicate something more? Indeed, his comment reflects the sentiments of many monolingual Americans who defend the supremacy of English in the U.S. and question the use of learning other languages. Lawrence Summers, Economics Professor and former president of Harvard University, echoed these views in a New York Times editorial in January, “English’s emergence as the global language, along with the rapid progress in machine translation and the fragmentation of languages spoken around the world, make it less clear that the substantial investment necessary to speak a foreign tongue is universally worthwhile.” According to Summers, learning languages other than English is not only becoming obsolete, but also runs counter to the forces of globalization. But what do we stand to lose if we abide by English-only standards and succumb to globalizing forces? Is the death and fragmentation of languages in the twenty-first century inevitable? Statements like those of Santorum and Summers have prompted a difficult discussion about which languages to cultivate and preserve in an increasingly globalized world.
WHAT GLOBALIZATION IS, AND ISN’T In an interview with the HPR, Linguist Dr. Salikoko Mufwene of the University of Chicago cautioned defining global-
ization in overly simplistic terms. Indeed, globalization must be understood on the local level and not simply as a universal phenomenon. Similarly, Mufwene argued that globalization does not mean the imposition of English-only. Instead, it can refer to the imposition of different languages in various contexts. Each impact of globalization must be considered in the context of the particular conditions and environment of the specific ecology. In human terms, these ecological factors are largely economic. They allow populations to operate viably in some languages and not in others. For example, Portuguese dominates in Brazil because it is the language of commerce, and indigenous languages are not economically viable. On the other hand, Afrikaans is the primary language of economic transactions in South Africa. Still, as Dr. Jan Blommaert, linguist at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, told the HPR, small-scale studies are actually the key to understanding the impact of globalization. Studying the languages that people actually speak at home, rather than the languages that people use in transactions outside of their communities, can actually reveal the creative ways in which people preserve their native languages. Globalization, likewise, has an effect on language much larger than just the imposition of English-only. In an interview with the HPR, Dr. John Sullivan, Director of the Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology in Mexico, recalled how globalization has existed since 1492 and emphasizes that language imposition is really a story of hierarchies. Today this means that English is overtaking Spanish and Spanish is in turn overtaking Nahuatl and other indigenous languages. Music, movies, and commercials, according to Sullivan, help drive this pattern.
Language provides a vehicle for expressing not simply meaning but also culture and identity. 14 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
MIGRATION
PRESERVING AND MAINTAINING LANGUAGES When considering the challenge of preventing the extinction of underused languages, Mufwene makes a clear distinction between preserving and maintaining languages. Preserving languages, he says, is relatively easy. It involves archiving, and writers are needed to simply record the language, which then becomes inert and prime for research. The process of maintaining a language by keeping it alive is more difficult as it entails empowering people with economic autonomy. If people can use their own language in an economically viable way, he argues, then they will maintain their language and adapt it to changes in society. By contrast, Blommaert argues that the best way to preserve languages is to “leave them alone,” to not standardize them or enforce their use. He advocates that speech communities should reserve the right to regulate themselves. The government of Paraguay, however, has tried a different approach to promoting the Guaraní language, with much success. In a recent article in The New York Times, Simon Romero noted that, for political reasons, the Guaraní language was written into the constitution and its teaching enforced in schools. Though this method differs strongly from self-regulation, it nevertheless helps keeps alive a language that might otherwise have died out or morphed into a variant of Spanish. Here, Mufwene’s idea of creating an economically viable space in which speakers can interact in their own language has, in fact, promoted the preservation of a language. Dr. Sullivan also takes a more hands-on approach to maintaining indigenous languages. At his institute in Zacatecas, he runs many projects to get native-speaking professionals to “continue working in their native language and culture.” For indigenous people in Mexico, higher education in Spanish, he says, is the final step that strips them of their native language and culture. Sullivan argues that Nahuatl and other indigenous languages are, in fact, academic languages, and that they should be treated as such. The institute works toward language revitalization through projects such as the compilation of the first Nahuatl monolingual dictionary, thesaurus, and encyclopedia. Sullivan’s approach, too, is a far cry from Blommaert’s recipe of leaving languages alone. He emphasizes the importance of creating monolingual dictionaries in order to erase the hierarchies that are inevitably present in Spanish-Nahuatl or EnglishNahuatl dictionaries. While some argue that this standardization is detrimental to the “organic” process that Blommaert favors, in today’s world, standardization is essential to not only academic discourse, but also to economic viability. Indeed, economic factors are no small matter in determining the evolution of a language.
WHY MAINTAIN THESE LANGUAGES? But why erase a language hierarchy at all? Why resist the English-only thrust of the world and the other myriad examples of language imposition? Sullivan offers a pragmatic reason to study multiple, and rare, languages: people who speak different languages offer unique creative problem-solving perspectives that are both productive and lucrative. A recent article in The New Yorker illuminates how M.I.T.’s Building 20, which housed researchers from a wide
The government of Paraguay enforces the teaching of Guaraní language in schools to keep the language alive.
variety of disciplines, has spawned some of M.I.T.’s most creative ideas over the years, including several of Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories, largely because people of different backgrounds, speaking different languages, literally or metaphorically, came together to contribute a multiplicity of perspectives. Ultimately, the reasons to promote the use of endangered languages go beyond pragmatic or sentimental appeals. It is, certainly, important keep in mind the dangers of language hierarchy. If we accept the rank of English over Spanish and of Spanish over Nahuatl, then we may implicitly accept the hierarchy of Western culture over indigenous culture, of capitalism over alternative economic structures. We limit ourselves to patterns of thought devoid of the rich diversity of humanity. Instead of embracing the possibilities for dialogue that globalization offers, hierarchies impose ideals and insulate humans from truly learning from one another. Most importantly, this hierarchy affects languages and people. Language provides a vehicle for expressing not simply meaning but also culture and identity. If we rely on Google Translate and expect to interact with people on a global scale entirely in English, not only do we fail to properly convey or understand meaning, but we also lose sight of the human element that gives purpose to language. To say that a language is not worth learning is to say that its speakers are not worth bringing into the global conversation. As long as we expect people to interact globally in a common, dominant language and make no efforts to learn and maintain subaltern languages, we will continue to perpetuate misunderstanding.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 15
MIGRATION
CHINA’S BRAIN GAIN Can Chinese students with American university degrees bring democracy home to China? Eric Hendey and Tom Lemberg
W
hile traditional discourse has focused on the exodus of well educated professionals from developing nations, over half a million Chinese students who had worked or studied abroad had returned home by the end of 2009. They are commonly referred to as haigui or “sea turtles.” This group is using the skills gained in their ventures abroad to fundamentally restructure China’s economy. Some of China’s most innovative firms like , the provider of China’s largest search engine, were founded by Chinese graduates of American universities. The economic impact of “brain gain” has and will continue to be profound, but the political and social implications are still to be determined. Chinese citizens educated abroad have had significant exposure to Western liberal ideas and could serve as a catalyst for political change in China. As more Chinese return from their education abroad and gain influence in business and politics, they could lead the charge for democratic change. The prospects for change, however, are ultimately determined by the
16 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
motives of those who seek to study and work away from China.
THE IMPACT OF RETURNEES In his recent book Borderless Economics, Robert Guest argues that young Chinese college students who study at American universities eagerly absorb democratic ideals alongside technical training. According to Guest, as returnees assume leadership positions in Chinese government and business, they will use their influence to push for democratic change. Recent developments lend support to this argument. Cheng Li, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, contends that returnees have had a huge impact on Chinese higher education. This is particularly true of think tanks that advise the government. At the same time, foreign returnees are gaining influence in the Communist Party. Li estimates that they will make up 15 to 17 percent of the Central Committee next year, up from six percent in 2002. Vivek Wadhwa, a research fellow at Stanford
MIGRATION
University, told the HPR that China’s real strength lies in this rising generation of leaders, “They don’t hesitate to think outside the box, to take risks, or to have ambition,” he says. “Unlike their parents, this new generation can innovate.”
THEIR LIMITS It is not clear, however, that foreign returnees will use their growing influence to promote democratization. Andrew Scott Conning, a researcher at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, tells the HPR that Chinese students who choose to study abroad “are less likely than those who stay home to end up working in the public sector.” He admits that “although government agencies and the Communist Party do attempt to draw talent from among returnees,” such positions actually represent a small share of China’s returnees. The extent to which sea turtles bring democratic values to Chinese education may also be exaggerated. According to Conning, the influence of foreign returnees on education is strongest at the university level, where their qualifications are in high demand. By contrast, their influence fails to reach the majority of Chinese citizens who do not attend higher education because they serve a minimal role in primary and secondary education. Returnees are far more likely than their Chinese-educated counterparts to find job opportunities at high-paying international firms operating in China, Richard Freeman, a professor of economics at Harvard University who studies labor markets, told the HPR that economic opportunity drives most returnees’ decision to return home. In fact, most Chinese students choose
to study at American universities simply to increase their career opportunities, without a mind to bring liberal democracy home with them.
WHO ARE THE SEA TURTLES? Chinese families have learned that a diploma from the U.S. can give their child a competitive edge in the job market. Moreover, studying abroad in the U.S. is expensive, so most Chinese families will not invest in an overseas education unless they feel that it will pay off financially in the long term. As Jiang Xueqin, a director at Peking University High School, stated in a recent article in The Diplomat, Chinese students are seeking American academic credentials “primarily to advance their careers, with little interest in learning more about the West.” Because most Chinese students do not come to the U.S. for political reasons, it is wrong to assume that they all return home with a more liberal outlook. Xueqin explains that most sea turtles come from wealthy and powerful families. Accordingly, some of China’s strongest anti-Western critics and nationalists have emerged from this group of returnees. Overall, despite the exposure to democratic norms and values, many of the sea turtles may have no desire to significantly speed up democratization in China any time soon.
As returnees assume leadership positions in Chinese government and business, they will use their influence to push for democratic change.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 17
Ola Topczewska
MAPPING W BABEL
hile cities have defined the way humans live and interact for millennia, social network theory (SNT) has changed the understanding of cities. SNT focuses on the interconnectivity of actors, whether on a personal or national level. Applying this theory to cities sheds light on the complexity of the urban environment. As Sergio Rey, professor at Arizona State University, told the HPR, cities are “nodes on the network,” which are linked HOW SOCIAL through any form of interNETWORKS ARE action, from something as CHANGING THE tangible as the shipment of STUDY OF CITIES
18 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
MIGRATION
a good to quotidian activities like a phone call, an email, or an internet posting. Every such connection can be tracked, studied, and represented on a visual map. Seen through the lens of SNT, cities are not independent entities, but are parts of webs of interaction bound together by the interplay of physical, cultural, economic, and social ties. Social network theory “captures the complexity and the mobility of city life in a way that a lot of other approaches do not,” Thomas Bender, professor at New York University and co-author of Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies, told the HPR. For Bender, network theory is not a policy-oriented approach but one that is inquiryoriented. Its primary value lies in its ability to encourage policy makers to consider the unexpected consequences of their actions on a range of potentially volatile networks.
CHANGES IN URBAN STUDIES Demographic shifts have continuously change dynamics in American cities. In the 1970s, many wealthy Americans left the city centers and settled in the suburbs. Gordon Douglas, Ph.D. candidate in Sociology at the University of Chicago, explained to the HPR that the reversal of this trend in the 1990s and widening urban wealth disparity created the need for more nuanced theories to map these more complicated networks of interaction. Michael Batty, visiting professor at the University College London, explained in a 2011 article that network theory has shifted the theoretical understanding of urban environments from thinking of “cities as machines” to “cities as organisms.” Under this view, cities grow organically by way of “preferential attachment” with each node creating links that bring in nodes from other hubs. Geraldine Pflieger, professor at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, believes that this revolution in theoretical understandings of urban areas has fundamentally changed “the way we see cities” because it has led urban scientists to take an increasingly “materialist view of the city by studying the links between the technical, political, and infrastructural and everyday experiences of the city.” Urban sociology now emphasizes the links between individual communities and the link between the local and the global.
APPLICATIONS OF SNT From creating models of the spread of disease to planning public transportation systems, network theory is an important tool for city planners. The SENSEable City Lab at MIT, directed by Carlo Ratti, uses network theory techniques to create more efficient methods of organizing urban life. One product of this lab optimizes parking systems through a cost-effective scalable framework. Another presents a real-time city monitoring sys-
tem using cell phone data and the location of public transportation to provide live traffic conditions. The application of network theory to cities has revealed a phenomenon called “polycentry,” which refers to an urban environment that lacks a centralized nucleus. As Michael Hoyler, Associate Director of the Globalization and World Cities Research Network Department at Loughborough University, told the HPR, “The problem when it comes to planning such regions is that there is a mismatch between the economic geography of a polycentric region and the political geography of that region.” Network theory now allows analysts to visualize how cities may function in a larger economic network that is incongruent with their municipal limits. In addition to geography, SNT can be used to construct complex maps of interaction of all types including financial exchange, labor exchange, migration, and traffic. Over the past decade, Holyer’s team has ranked cities by their integration into the networks of major firms, which tend to cluster in key cities. The result is an index of the global integration of cities around the world which can be used to find correlations between a city’s level of integration and other variables. Other research projects are turning to data from Facebook and Twitter to construct maps of online interaction, with potential implications for politics. As Celine Rozenblat, professor at the University of Lausanne, explained to the HPR, these tools can be used to study political propaganda and communication. For instance, movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring were organized with the help of social media and can also be mapped using an SNT approach.
THE FUTURE Current studies in SNT are exploring how networks are interconnected, and determining the patterns and strengths of ties that connect communities on the national and neighborhood levels. More research remains to be done on the types of connections between various social network hubs, as well as on the processes through which social connections are formed. Despite its utility, social network theory is not without shortcomings. For starters, Douglas believes that computerized mapping will never replace in-person ethnographic research for mapping how a living city culturally grows and changes. In addition, as Rey acknowledged, cities are highly complex entities and the task of cataloging the infinite possible uses of land within them exceeds the capabilities of existing technology. Network theory has limited predictive power. Pflieger believes that it would be “technological determinism” to say that more interconnected cities are necessarily more homogenous or peaceful with networks less in conflict with one another. With an optimistic view, however, she views highly integrated cities as a “sort of Tower of Babel that functions well.”
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 19
UNITED STATES
STATES OF AUSTERITY THE NEW WAYS STATES ARE CLOSING THEIR BUDGET GAPS Jacob Morello “It’s all in the role of the dice. And it’s really tough for the states to control; states with volatile sources of income witnessed a revenue shock”, Kim Rueben of the Urban Institute told the HPR, regarding the recent recession’s impact. “It’s really been a question of who has done the least harm,” she added. Indeed, the Great Recession hit state pocketbooks hard. State deficits reached $191 billion in 2010, compared with just $80 billion at the height of the last recession during the early 2000s. Compounding this crisis, states will receive 2.7 percent less funding from the federal government this current fiscal year than last with the budget deal passed last August. While revenues have slowly increased over the past year with the recovery, states continue to seek innovative ways to balance their budgets without compromising critical programs such as K-12 education and health care. Yet, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported that 37 states are providing less funding per student this year, with 17 slashing K-12 education budgets by more than 10 percent. 31 states have cut public health care programs, and all but six have cut state workforces. Though austerity is reigning across the country, state legislators and think tanks are finding creative alternatives to raising taxes and cutting expenditures. While such solutions certainly are not panaceas, they represent real attempts at preserving existing public programs at low costs.
MONEY DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL QUALITY
20 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
Consider education, which has recently been targeted for significant cuts. Arizona is ranked second to last in state per-pupil spending, but schools like Mesquite Elementary School have received “excellent” ratings over the past eight years based on standardized test scores, the highest under Arizona’s evaluation system. Their secret is budget creativity and personalized, individual attention for each student. According to Edutopia, a non-profit organization that promotes innovation in education, Mesquite faced a 75 percent capital budget cut in 2010. Teachers and administrators experimented with unorthodox methods of maximizing resources: for instance, paper use has been replaced with digital means of communication, and teacher collaboration websites containing lesson plans and activities have eliminated the need for textbooks since 2007. Furthermore, teachers have fine tuned education to each student’s needs, providing struggling students with additional aid and successful students with more challenging material. The result has been marked improvement in test scores, proving that cashstrapped school districts can still provide a quality education.
A QUARTER HERE, A DOLLAR THERE The shrinking tax base has challenged state legislators, but one income source with positive externalities that states have been experimenting with is tolling. According to the National Council of State Legislators, “most states have enacted toll authorizing legislation, and tolling is a growing
UNITED STATES
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) is trying to pass a bill that would provide an additional $23 billion to states.
source of revenue in more than 30 states”. Of these, ten states have also introduced “high occupancy toll” (HOT) lanes, which allow drivers that do not meet carpool lane requirements to pay for access. Beyond the revenue component, tolls have other good effects, reducing congestion, fuel consumption, and traveling time. While tolls alone will not eliminate budget gaps, they exemplify the type of thinking policymakers should pursue.
ENTER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Considering these pressing challenges, what can Washington do? Congress can pass one measure that would provide approximately $23 billion in additional revenue to states. The law, entitled “The Marketplace Fairness Act”, would not cost the federal government a dime. Instead it allows states to enforce sales tax laws currently being circumvented. A 1967 Supreme Court ruling asserted that states could not tax firms lacking a physical presence within their borders, even if the firm’s customers resided in the state. The decision was grounded on the premise that such taxes would infringe upon the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which limits interstate commerce regulatory powers to the federal government. Introduced last November by conservative Senators Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the bill received bipartisan support in the Senate. Though this legislation would have major ramifications for online commerce, for the sake of fiscal responsibility, this law merits widespread support.
DO THE STATES REALLY HAVE THE POWER? There are external factors unique to specific states that affect prospects for sustainable budgets. As Dr. Therese McGuire of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University told the HPR, “Nebraska and Massachusetts, for example, have
diversified economies, which have lessened the effects of the Great Recession on their budgets.” In contrast, she pointed out that severe fiscal conditions in Nevada and California can be linked to their less diversified economies and exposure to the housing bubble. Beyond that, other economists argue that large natural resource reserves in states like oil-rich North Dakota explain why some states maintained balanced budgets. Regardless, deliberate governmental action can address budgetary challenges, but it requires political compromise. McGuire remarked that, “the political process makes budget decisions difficult.” She continued, “Those states that have manageable deficit situations have politicians willing to work across the aisle and make tough choices”. To illustrate this point, consider Illinois and Indiana, two geographically and economically similar states with very different budget situations. Indiana has experienced mild deficits with a government inclined to compromise, while Illinois faces immense shortfalls and maintains a fractured political system. Indeed, states that have done well recently are often those that mitigated partisan agendas. Compromise, while difficult for politicians to swallow, is a requisite for fiscal responsibility.
WHAT’S THE SECRET? Unfortunately, no single solution exists for maintaining a balanced budget. Nevertheless, seemingly trivial efforts like those from Mesquite Elementary School can accomplish much in the aggregate. When further spending cuts and revenue increases are impossible, states must resort to these unconventional methods, and when pursued with bipartisan cooperation, they can sizably reduce deficits. Rather than debating whether to raise taxes or cut spending, state legislators facing billion dollar shortfalls should think outside the box and consider trying something new.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 21
UNITED STATES
WHERE’S THE PARTY? The Future of the Tea Party Movement Simon Thompson
I
n summer 2009, a new political force struck establishment politics when hundreds of thousands of self-proclaimed “Tea Partiers” descended on the National Mall. Prospects for President Obama’s healthcare legislation looked increasingly bleak, and Republicans nationwide trembled about the ascendancy of an alternative conservative third party. But, this former political juggernaut is slowly fading into the background. Nearly three years later, the Tea Party website that promoted the 2009 protest no longer exists, and the remaining Republican presidential contenders are not significantly associated with the Tea Party. Simultaneously, the co-founder of the prominent Tea Party Patriots has resigned due to internal turmoil while the movement struggles to unite divergent factions to promote a consistent message. While the Tea Party will likely remain politically relevant for the near future, its previous influence over the national agenda is over. The movement that originally claimed political independence has largely been co-opted by the Republican Party.
A PARTY IN TRANSITION Naturally, some are loath to admit the Tea Party’s decreasing political relevance. Lucas Scanlon, a Texas transplant who founded and leads Harvard University Tea Party chapter, told the HPR that, “people are frustrated because nothing has gotten done [and] there’s no value in a political party,” creating an environment ripe for the Tea Party to flourish. But outside observers see a different story. Van Jones, author and founder of Rebuild the Dream, an organization dedicated to progressive goals, characterized the Tea Party for the HPR as, “a dying gasp of a particular kind of racialized, divisive, smallminded politics from the right.”
22 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
John Halpin, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, also disagrees with Scanlon’s analysis, telling the HPR that, “there’s no infrastructure currently in place that suggests the Tea Party will be around in the long-term.” Regardless though, the Tea Party’s prior impact on political discourse in this country is indisputable.
ONE OF A KIND OR MORE OF THE SAME? The modern Tea Party’s roots stretch back to a televised rant by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli less than a month into the Obama presidency. The Tea Party Patriots, the most prominent Tea Party grassroots organization, confirmed in November 2010 that Santelli’s rant, “started [the] entire movement.” Nevertheless, Tea Party enthusiasts stress that, despite popular perception, the movement is actually quite distinct from the Republican Party. Scanlon, who questions why Democrats have not adopted any Tea Party principles, said that both major parties were caught off-guard. “I think the Republicans and Democrats have been scared by the response to the Tea Party.” Scanlon also stressed that many individuals, himself included, became politically involved for the first time through the Tea Party. Though Jones believes the Tea Party’s message was, “a repackaging of ideas that have been around for a very long time,” nobody could not deny that this, “particular uprising pulled in new leaders and new voices.” Halpin offered a similar analysis, saying that the movement primarily was, “just a clever rebranding of right wing activism,” spurred by Obamacare.
STRATEGY (OR LACK THEREOF?) The Tea Party’s initial success in gaining press coverage and
UNITED STATES
plugs by prominent conservative legislators led Obama’s supporters to inquire whether he could turn around the Democratic Party. Feminist Camille Paglia asked this very question in Salon magazine as early as September 2009. Though the Tea Party likely cost Republicans key senate races in Delaware and Nevada last election cycle, overall the midterm elections swept Tea Partiers onto Capitol Hill, leading most pundits to characterize the election as a triumph for the movement. Scanlon however says this emphasis on the Tea Party’s electoral strategy misses the movement’s larger goals, claiming, “I see more focus on messaging [than electoral strategy].” Indeed, nearly every congressional Republicans signed the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” created by Americans for Tax Reform leader Grover Norquist. This document, which reflects Tea Party principles, states that legislators will not support net tax increases. Similar pledges with socially conservative goals also experienced immense popularity among Republican candidates. The pressure the Tea Party has exerted on Republicans to adopt their views is largely undisputed by liberals and their allies. Halpin said the influence of Tea Party members in the House has put Speaker John Boehner, “on a leash,” and Jones noted the Tea Party can, “push the buttons of the Republican Party.” However, this messaging does not necessarily translate into electoral success, as Halpin notes, “They were not very successful at all at the senatorial level and they won’t be successful at the presidential level because they’re a marginal ideology.” Indeed, the Tea Party’s message generated discourse, though not always for positive reasons. Jones discussed how the rigid ideology of the Tea Party prevent members from celebrating landmark pieces of legislation, including the New Deal safety net and environmental protections. He argues that those “are
seen by the Tea Party as betrayals of the republic rather than our greatest achievements.”
BACK TO THE FUTURE The impending Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of Obama’s signature health care legislation has kept the Tea Party movement animated. One journalist described Tea Party protesters, “flood[ing] the steps” of the Supreme Court during oral arguments, protesting in a fashion reminiscent of summer 2009. Scanlon adds that, regardless of its decision, the Supreme Court’s verdict can only help the Tea Party. Should the legislation be overturned, the Tea Party will “see [the ruling] as a huge victory and it will bolster its ranks.” Others are not quite as optimistic. Halpin argued that though as a, “grassroots group of people... [the movement] should be lauded,” their long-term prospects are dim. “I think they’ll have to do a lot more to define an agenda, a set of candidates, if they want to exist in the long-term.” Many have also highlighted the lack of a viable Tea Party candidate in the presidential race as a harbinger of their waning influence. Such rhetoric does not bother Scanlon though, who sees the Tea Party’s message beyond a black and white electoral strategy. “I think there’s a question right now in what our country is going to become ... as long as that question remains, I think the movement will continue.” While Scalon remains optimistic, the Tea Party’s future is uncertain, and as voters have seen over the past year, the Republican Party will continue to subsume Tea Party rhetoric and candidates. The movement that once prided itself on its political independence is increasingly nothing more than a small, yet vocal, interest group within a larger entity.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 23
UNITED STATES
RISE OF THE MAINSTREAM FEMINIST Anastasiya Borys
I
n an election year focused on resuscitating the struggling economy, few could have predicted the central role feminism is playing in political debates. Beginning in early February with the controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate, the Democratic Party has made overtures to women and aligned itself with traditionally feminist viewpoints. However, the spillover from the contraceptive debate extends beyond mere political strategy. As Caroline Light, Director of Studies for Women and Gender Studies at Harvard, told the HPR, “recently many people who may not have initially identified as feminists have become politicized by the character of recent public arguments on women’s sexuality and health.” But the media and public’s recent focus does not herald a new feminism. Ultimately, the individuals that Light argues have become politicized are simply frustrated by the birth control debate. While this will temporarily strengthen the Democratic base, any electoral advantage and long-term effects are limited.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR The Affordable Care Act’s mandate that all insurance policies cover contraceptives, whether through public or private institutions, catalyzed this shift. When Congressional Republicans began voicing concerns in February about how this mandate would apply to religious institutions, they argued that the law violated the constitutional right to freedom of religion. The argument was primarily a strategic one. Victoria Budson, Executive Director of the Women and Public Policy Program at the Harvard Kennedy School, explained to the HPR that Republicans raised the topic, “to be a wedge issue in the upcoming elections and to mobilize a conservative base.”
But while there was support for the Republican stance, Democrats and other opposition groups characterized the move as an attack on women’s health. House hearings on the mandate and its possible violations solidified this view, as they featured no women on their expert panels. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused to hear from women who had used, provided, or needed contraception, even for medical reasons. As Debbie Walsh, Director of the Center for American Women and Politics, told the HPR, “There was a sense that this was a moving backward. Access [to birth control] was something that a lot of people took for granted and suddenly this was in question.” The narrow debate that Republicans sought suddenly became much wider and more divisive.
WORDS IGNORED For Democrats, this uproar was a political blessing. Women comprise 54 percent of the electorate, and Republican alienation of this demographic could provide a significant electoral advantage. Recent poll numbers indicate that there has already backlash against the GOP. According to Gallup, the biggest change in support came among women younger than age 50. In mid-February, when the debate was just beginning, just under half these voters supported President Obama versus likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney. By April, support among this group for Romney had fallen to 30 percent while 60 percent backed Obama. The birth control debate likely contributed to this drastic change in support. Furthermore, while it remains unclear how much Democratic candidates have fundraised from the debate, there is circumstan-
Alex Boota 24 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
UNITED STATES
tial evidence that many have been successful. Rush Limbaugh’s notorious comments about Sandra Fluke, a law school student asked to speak about contraceptive use in a congressional hearing, inspired Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to appeal to her supporters. In the fundraising appeal, McCaskill repeated Limbaugh’s rhetoric, a tactic that helped her campaign collect over $10,000 in one day. Other Democratic candidates have employed similar tactics with success in recent months.
WOMEN PUSH BACK Beyond fundraising, to counter the perceived unfairness of anti-abortion and contraception laws, female legislators across the country have introduced bills to regulate men’s sexual health. A bill in Virginia would require rectal exams and cardiac stress tests for men seeking Viagra, and a bill in Oklahoma would declare “wast[ing] sperm” a crime against unborn children. More notably, Congressional Democrats are pushing to renew the Violence Against Women Act. While prior renewals were relatively uncontroversial, the Democrats’ attempt to make reauthorization a major component of their legislative agenda this year is creating friction. Erin Matson, Action Vice President of the National Organization for Women, worries about the increasing divisiveness of legislation concerning women. Matson tells the HPR that there has been, “a long-standing tradition of bipartisan support for the Women Against Violence Act against since 1994, [and] I think that there is no reason that we should allow this to become a political issue.” What may help Democrats in 2012 may result in political confrontation and few real gains for women. However, much of the Democrats’ efforts focus on political gains rather than genuine concern for women’s issues. For an in-
creasingly jaded electorate, it is unlikely that President Obama’s messages about the importance of women will sway many female voters outside the existing Democratic base.
HISTORY’S LESSON The increased debate about women’s issues is not unusual. Twenty years ago a similar focus arose during Senate confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas. As Walsh explained, because the Senate Judiciary Committee which discussed sexual harassment was all male, it “catalyzed women from coast to coast to become politically active.” One should note though that after the Thomas hearings, the upsurge in women running for Congress and becoming politically active was temporary. Indeed, since that time female membership in Congress has not exceeded 17 percent of either the House or Senate. The new focus then is likely temporary, and while Democrats may find a short-lived advantage in November, it is unlikely that there will be any dramatic changes to the political landscape. Using 1992 as precedent, it seems that at best Democrats could attract additional support from groups directly affect by the birth control debate that traditionally have low turnout, like unmarried women. Though Matson claims, “There is a high likelihood that we’re going to see a new push of women deciding to run for office,” hopes for lasting increases in female political involvement are fleeting. Significant shifts must come from within the electorate itself, not debates among the political elite. But, even though feminist sentiments will subside, many women will be stirred into action should Hilary Clinton find her way onto the ballot in 2016.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 25
WORLD
Vietnam: The Hidden Asian Tiger Jay Alver and Valentina Perez
W
hile visiting Hanoi recently, HPR staff writer Jay Alver noticed an astounding number of privately owned businesses in the city. Slightly confused, he asked a local guide how this could be true, given the supposedly absolute control the Communist Party wields. Smiling a bit, the guide responded slyly that with increasing liberalization in Vietnam and increasing regulation in the United States, Vietnam was now more “capitalist” than America. Vietnam’s recent record of economic success has been staggering. According to the magazine Foreign Policy, from 1986 onwards, GDP growth has averaged an impressive 5.3 percent per year. Even more extraordinary, Vietnam weathered the recent global financial crisis with seven percent annual growth between 2005 and 2010. Should this growth persist, Vietnam would rank among the existing Four Asian Tigers (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore), which averaged six percent annual GDP growth from 1960 to 1990.
THE ROOTS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH David Dapice, a Tufts economics professor and contributor to the Harvard Vietnam program, highlights the government’s introduction of “Doi Moi” policies in 1986 to explain Vietnam’s economic growth. Influenced by declining Soviet influence, Doi Moi encouraged capital
26 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
flows from the western world by initiating free markets, lowering tariff barriers, expanding agricultural exports through trade liberalization, and joining regional trade blocs. The discovery and development of oil and natural gas reserves in the South China Sea also contributed substantially to Vietnamese growth during the Doi Moi period. In 2000, Vietnam took a step toward additional diversification and deregulation of its economy by enacting the Enterprise Law, which eliminated a substantial amount of red tape associated with establishing new private businesses. Vietnamese citizens, particularly urban ones, have embraced this reform quite enthusiastically. Many tall, narrow buildings characteristic of northern Vietnamese cities, their unique style reflecting earlier Communist land distribution policies have converted their bottom floors into stores selling consumer goods produced in Vietnam and neighboring countries. The entrepreneurial spirit also extends to citizens without storefronts. On the same trip described above, the writer saw dozens of licensed barbers setting up shop against a fence surrounding a city park. Mirrors and hair-styling supplies hung from hooks along the fence while patrons sat in plastic lawn chairs, forcing pedestrians to sidle past to stay on the sidewalk and avoid the motorcycles filling the busy street. The Enterprise Law explains in part
why Vietnamese growth has been fundamentally dissimilar to that of other emerging Asian markets. Despite the continued growth of industrial exports, domestic consumption comprises 65 percent of output, compared with 36 percent for Vietnam’s northern neighbor China. According to the Harvard Vietnam Program’s paper entitled “Choosing Success,” the Vietnamese economy is quite diverse, with strong agriculture and mining bases, and rapidly expanding manufacturing, tourism, utilities, construction, and financial sectors. The government has even used this period of stable growth to invest in poverty reduction programs and electricity. These factors, says Dapice, make Vietnam’s development model an example for other developing countries seeking to maximize usage of existing resources.
THE CAVEATS Despite a plethora of optimistic indicators, there is increasing awareness among developmental scholars of flaws in the Vietnamese model that could potentially stunt its future growth. Inefficient usage of foreign investment earlier led to high levels of inflation, and although price level growth has slowed, the overall inflation rate, estimated at around 18 percent in 2011, remains high enough to cause serious concern. Furthermore, the Vietnamese government’s infrastructure investment has not been matched by cor-
WORLD
responding investment in human capital, and the nation’s schools and universities have not undergone any significant improvements. According to the Harvard Vietnam Program’s “Beyond the Apex” paper on higher education, corruption and an inefficient budget allocation structure have contributed to failures in improving Vietnam’s education system. Compounding the situation, a growing middle class and the ascendancy of industries requiring skilled labor is leading to demand for more young Vietnamese students to pursue higher education. The government has also been unable to create an effective urban planning policy as traffic-choked and heavily polluted cities grow ever larger, damaging the prospects of human capital development that Vietnam’s future depends on. Another potential problem for future growth is the persistence of “dualism” in the Vietnamese economy. Private
industry and foreign investment have been the driving factors in Vietnam’s impressive growth, and hold the key for future development. Despite this, the Communist government has been unwilling to scale back the massive control it exerts over the economy through large state-owned conglomerates. This practice of dualism, or “one country, two systems,” made sense during the Soviet Union’s collapse and the Asian financial crisis of the late 1980s and 1990s. The system allowed for an orderly, managed transition to a market-oriented economy. However, now that the transition is well underway, the continued existence of a massive state-owned sector has stifled the growth of the private enterprises that have fueled job creation and economic expansion in Vietnam.
THE FIFTH ASIAN TIGER?
potential. According to the IMF, its economy remains smaller than that of nearby Thailand and the Philippines, but with access to abundant resources it still has ample room to grow. Comparisons between Vietnamese and Chinese development have been misleading, primarily because of Vietnam’s small size and relative lack of institutional development. However, Vietnamese growth has also been extremely diverse, rather than being based heavily on industrial exports. Overall, while institutional reforms are needed to extract continued economic growth from Vietnam’s rich human and physical resources, the country has the potential to maintain existing levels of growth for the foreseeable future. If successful, Vietnam could very well become the next true Asian Tiger, and millions would come to enjoy higher standards of living.
Despite the problems enumerated above, Vietnam still has enormous
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 27
ALL IN THE FAMILY How dangerous is Kim Jong-un’s North Korea?
Andrew Seo
G
enerally, the photos and videos released by North Korean state media are meant to uphold the regime’s aura of power and greatness.
But in February 2011, state television aired footage of Kim Jongun holding binoculars upside down as military officials surrounded him, a mistake uncharacteristic of the tightly controlled government. For the then-vice chairman of the Central Military Commission and
28 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
presumptive heir, the episode proved a setback on Kim Jong-un’s pathway to leadership. The past year brought remarkable change to the Korean peninsula, and with his father Kim Jong-il’s death last December, Kim Jong-un has assumed control of
North Korea. His public appearances have been geared towards shaping the political neophyte into a stately, confident ruler. In terms of actual policy, he has aimed to consolidate power by visiting elite military units and taking a hard-line stance against defectors.
WORLD
Kim Jong-un’s ascension as Supreme Leader has experts like Scott Snyder of the Council on Foreign Relations reevaluating North Korea. Many wonder how the hermit state will maintain domestic stability while asserting itself on the international stage. Yet, the new leader’s role remains ambiguous, with Snyder telling the HPR, “What’s more difficult to discern is whether he is a figurehead or a decisionmaker.” The youngest head of state in the world, Kim Jong-un will face immense pressure from military brass and senior advisers to maintain North Korean strength and stability. However, if Kim Jong-un takes brash actions to drum up support and prove his bravado, he risks alienating China and fraying the one relationship that the regime depends upon for its survival.
FALSE PROMISES? Weeks into his tenure, Kim Jong-un surprised the world by announcing that North Korea would suspend part of its nuclear fuel enrichment program, halt long-range missile tests, and invite international nuclear inspectors back into the country. Named the Leap Year deal, the proclamation hinted at mutual cooperation between the new regime and the United States. In exchange for these concessions, the United States would provide 240,000 metric tons of food aid to the impoverished nation. As reference points, according to the Congressional Research Service, the United States provided 148,270 and 21,000 metric tons of food aid in 2008 and 2009 respectively. But the plans quickly fell through after North Korea announced March 16 that it would launch a satellite rocket into space. The United States dismissed this as pretense for another missile test, and the Obama Administration cancelled its $250 million pledge, given that the formal written agreement had not been concluded. This latest episode suggests that the problems and tensions emblematic of international relations under Kim Jong-Il will persist while the son employs his father’s tactics. Andrew Scobel of the RAND Corporation told the HPR that, “it’s going to be a continuity of his father’s policies.” This affair suggests strongly that Kim Jong-un will act for his government’s selfinterest, despite pressure from the West.
A LEADER UNTESTED Since World War II ended, only two other leaders have governed North Korea. While the first transfer of power occurred over many years before the death of Kim Il-sung, the first North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un’s ascendancy took place over mere months. Consequently, the young ruler has had to operate within the multilateral framework of the Workers’ Party, the People’s Army, and the Central Military Commission. He must navigate these various factions to accumulate the widespread support and faith of the ruling elite that is requisite to maintaining power. While the media has attempted to craft a cult of personality around the leader, Snyder notes, “concerns over a potential power struggle are unlikely to subside in the near term given the uncertainties surrounding the legitimacy of Kim Jong-un.”
For example, despite having minimal experience, Kim Jongun was promoted to vice chairman of the Central Military Commission and four-star general in September 2010. He will undoubtedly have to use his powers to project authority over the country.
CHINA’S STRATEGIC INTERESTS Despite having demonstrated a tendency toward brash actions, Kim Jong-un is likely to consider China’s interests, given that the regional powerhouse is North Korea’s largest trading partner and closest ally. However, the bilateral relationship has weakened over the past few years, as North Korean aggression necessitated Beijing’s reassessment of the alliance. According to Snyder, China’s principal aims are to maintain regional stability and, “ensure that the leadership won’t falter.” China has previously reined in North Korea when the rogue state threatened the existing balance of power. When North Korea first tested a nuclear weapon in fall 2006, China agreed to U.N. sanctions, then an unprecedented move for the regional titan. While the sanctions did not preclude China from trading with North Korea, given that bilateral trade between the two nations actually increased, the policy shift did send a message to Pyongyang that Beijing can pull the plug anytime. According to Scobell, “Pyongyang and Beijing don’t particularly like each other, but they need each other.” China’s willingness to publicly condemn North Korea is likely a harbinger of future economic sanctions. China must carefully balance between pressuring North Korea and imposing harsh sanctions, which could have the unintended effect of spurring regional imbalance and political retrenchment. Accordingly, North Korea can push the envelope and test Beijing’s patience in tolerating such behavior, but Kim Jong-un must not stray too far. “Although Chinese officials have publicly expressed support for a stable leadership…Kim Jong-il’s sudden death is likely to intensify China’s internal debates on its future North Korea policy,” said Snyder. The Chinese are fully prepared to push back should the situation warrant it.
THE FALLOUT According to Scobell, Kim Jong-un’s actions are largely explained because he is, “young, and still trying to exert his authority.” To shore up institutional support and retain an iron grip, Kim Jong-un will implement forceful strategies from his father’s playbook. But Beijing is monitoring the situation, and will not stand idly if the North Korean regime crosses the line. North Korea’s actions remain difficult to predict precisely because the totalitarian state has few parallels. However, its actions over the past decade help paint a clearer picture, and despite a nominal leadership switch, little has changed in North Korea under Kim Jong-un. With its singular self-interest and recent pattern of dealings with the United States and China, North Korea is not likely to change its security policy anytime soon, despite the veneer of the new Supreme Leader.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 29
WORLD
THE UNEXPECTED ADVOCATES Gay rights around the world.
Kenneth Mai and Oliver Wenner
O
n Dec. 6, 2011, at a Human Rights Day convention in Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that “being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights.” The United States and many other Western democracies pride themselves upon being progressive leaders, yet with respect to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, they have significant improvements to make. However, a handful of surprising countries with conservative traditions and historical hostility to LGBT individuals have expanded LGBT rights. Exploring their discrepancy with the West on gay marriage, blood donations by LGBT individuals, and transsexuality provides a deeper insight into the current state of global gay rights, revealing paths the West should pursue.
TYING THE KNOT Marriage equality continues to dominate the gay rights debate, both in the United States and abroad. Yet, only 10 countries and 11 U.S. states currently
30 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
recognize same-sex marriages. Even in the United Kingdom, which has shown strong leadership in international affairs and equal rights movements, gay marriage remains a contentious subject, with many politicians opposing its legalization. The continued controversy over gay marriage in Northern Europe, a bastion of LGBT toleration, is indicative of the movement’s struggles. Meanwhile, Spain and Argentina, with strong Catholic influences, are unexpected countries that legalized gay marriage. Even more surprising, with the African continent’s historical hostility to gay rights, South Africa legalized gay marriage in 2006. Timothy McCarthy, a Harvard Kennedy School Professor and founding member of President Obama’s National LGBT Leadership Council, told the HPR that, “in the aftermath of the fall of apartheid, there was a nearly unprecedented commitment to reconstructing the country in such a way that no one would become the victim of the kind of repression, violence, prejudice, and discrimination that black South Africans had been subjected to.” Indeed, the hor-
rors of apartheid led to strong demand for protecting all individuals.
BLOOD DONATIONS These advances are evidence that universal marriage equality is a closer possibility than expected, despite the challenges faced. However, less glamorous elements of the gay rights struggle remain unresolved, among them blood donations from gay men. Since the outbreak of the HIV epidemic, most nations have prohibited gay men from donating blood. Chris Viveiros from Fenway Health, a Bostonbased health provider for the LGBT community, tells the HPR that this occurs because, “men who have sex with men have higher rates of HIV infection than the general population.” In fact, the Centers for Disease Control reports that gay and bisexual men comprise a majority of new infections, accounting for 61 percent of new HIV transmissions in 2009. However, many countries have relaxed their policies regarding gay male blood donations. France and Italy, for example,
WORLD
These advances constitute a growing body of evidence that universal marriage equality is a closer possibility than expected, despite the challenges faced in some Western countries.
no longer question their donors about their sexual history, and with great struggle activists in Britain reduced the lifelong donor ban on gay men to one year for only those that are sexually active. One important factor in this trend is the realization that other demographic groups are also at increased risk. Thus, singling out all homosexual men for life-long bans imposes an unjust stigma, especially when heterosexuals with HIV-positive partners are not subjected to the same standards. But even though this issue is arguably more scientific than social, some countries have adopted relatively liberal policies: Russia, with its general restrictions on liberty, nevertheless lifted all blood donor restrictions in 2008.
HOMOSEXUALITY AND TRANSSEXUALITY: A FALSE DICHOTOMY? The area of transsexuality precisely highlights the inconsistency that pervades LGBT policies around the world. In the otherwise liberal country of Sweden, legislation related to gender reassignment surgery has sparked controversy and international attention. Dating back to 1972, Sweden imposes sterilization and divorce upon individuals undertaking gender reassignment surgery. Despite the outdated nature of this policy and clear support from many in government for repealing it, the process has been delayed due to the opposition of a small conservative party in the governing coalition. Conversely, in Iran, where homosexuality is legally punishable by death, transsexuals enjoy relatively positive treatment. Gender reassignment surgery is preferred over having transgender individuals retain their birth sex. Afsaneh Najmabadi, Harvard Professor of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, tells the HPR that a, “sex change [operation] is explicitly framed as the cure for a diseased abnormality, and on occasion it is proposed as a religio-legally sanctioned option for hetero-
normalizing people with same-sex desires and practices.” There, transsexuality is viewed as a condition that can be remedied through surgery. While this justification is founded on discriminatory assumptions, it has allowed transsexuals to live safer and more fulfilling lives.
THE FUTURE OF GAY RIGHTS The road ahead for international gay rights is characterized by the difficult need to prioritize goals. Marcelo Ferreyra, a program coordinator for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, tells the HPR that, “the pace of progress around civil and human rights throughout the world is frequently slow [and] uneven... The right to marriage seems to be in the foreground these days: it is one that affords recognition, dignity and parity to openly love your partner of choice.” Nevertheless, international trends hint at movement toward a more open dialogue about LGBT rights. Waqas Jawaid, a second year graduate student and an LGBT freshman proctor at Harvard University, spoke to the HPR about the policies in his home country of Pakistan. He notes that, “especially in the cities, there’s a lot of conversation, activism, and support. It has to do with the globalization that has allowed the conversations happening here [in the West] to percolate within the global community, and the cities in Pakistan are part of this global community that has become very accepting.” Overall, the belief that Uganda and many other countries need fundamental change in their treatment of LGBT individuals is uncontested by many. However, too often advocates forget to fight for closing the gaps in liberal states where other human conditions are satisfactory. By drawing attention to these cases and commending progressive policies wherever they might be found, equality can finally be realized throughout the world.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 31
WORLD
Iraq’s Forgotten Postscript One of the most remarkable untold stories of American involvement in Iraq is coming to an end. Brooke Kantor
W
ith the closing of Camp Ashraf, one of the most remarkable untold stories of American involvement in Iraq is concluding. With support from the United States and United Nations, the Iraqi government has begun moving long-time residents of Ashraf, the Mujahedin e-Khalq in Iraq’s Diyala province, to another location called “Camp Liberty,” potentially the first step in allowing them to leave the country. Composed mostly of Iranian dissidents, the population of Ashraf has consented to the transfer, fearing a crackdown by pro-Iranian elements in the Iraqi government that emerged with the U.S. military withdrawal. Without much evident consideration, the international community has trusted this very government as the primary overseer of the relocation process. In response, a growing movement is speaking out against perceived irresponsible trust in the Iraqi government. In American circles, many are questioning the extent to which the U.S. is responsible for the saga of Ashraf’s imperiled residents, a problem that demands a deeper exploration of the base, its history, and its future.
CAMP ASHRAF: A COMMUNITY OF EXILES Amidst the arid desert of Iraq’s Diyala province, an area stretching northeast from Baghdad to the Iranian border, Ashraf lies on the Tigris River. Despite the surrounding area’s impoverishment, the longstanding base contains schools, parks and trees, swimming pools, mosques, a museum, and a university. Ashraf is a self-sufficient, hermetically-sealed enclave amidst Iraq’s geopolitical chaos. Ashraf’s origins however, lie across the border in revolutionary Iran. In 1965, Iranian leftists who strongly opposed the Shah founded a group known as the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK), or The People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI). They heavily partook in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but found their humanitarian and democratic goals at odds with the Shiite Islamist regime that ultimately seized power. Amir Emadi, co-founder of campashraf. org, explained to the HPR that these Iranian citizens were severely persecuted for their political and social beliefs. Out of fear and a desire to continue their democratic struggle, they sought refuge in Iraq, establishing Ashraf in 1986. Over the last two decades, Ashraf has grown into a community of 3,500 MEK members, sympathizers, and their families, playing an integral role in Diyala’s politics and society. Despite the camp’s partial isolation, Emadi detailed Ashraf’s importance to nearby Iraqi locals: its construction services, shops, museums, and park-like beauty drew those searching for otherwise rare residential and commercial amenities. Moreover, residents of Ashraf, Shiite Iranians under the patronage of Iraqi Sunnis,
32 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
helped facilitate peace talks between local Sunnis and Shiites during bouts of sectarian violence. Compelled by these experiences, over 525,000 Iraqis showed their support in April 2011 for the residents of Ashraf, declaring, “We, the people of Diyala, view the PMOI as our esteemed guests, and consider their presence in Iraq and in Ashraf as a national imperative against the Iranian regime’s meddling.”
UNDER U.S. OCCUPATION Because of its anti-Iranian platform, the MEK had been friendly with Saddam Hussein and his Sunni regime. During the Hussein years, the Iraqi government provided most of the group’s funding, weapons, and protection, directly helping construct Ashraf. However, Hussein’s removal in 2003 quickly ended the MEK’s long standing protection and privilege. Residents were viewed as enemy targets by coalition forces, whose attacks resulted in several casualties and considerable structural damage. According to Emadi, the MEK deliberately did not retaliate, declaring their neutrality to demonstrate their cooperation with the U.S. military. By April 2003, the group signed a cease-fire agreement with the United States, handing over their arsenal of weapons in exchange for guaranteed protection. By 2004, the residents of Ashraf were granted “protected persons” status under the Geneva Convention, ushering in years of continued security and stability.
SINCE THE WITHDRAWAL When the United States began withdrawing from Iraq, the security of Ashraf was gradually handed over to the new Iraqi government on the stipulation that residents would continue to be protected. However, upon the narrow re-election of Iranianbacked Nouri al-Maliki to Iraq’s highest office, the Iraqi government has dramatically reversed its policy, even conducting organized attacks against Ashraf. Emadi explains that if the Iraqi government could act without American encumbrance, it would immediately arrest and, “repatriate the residents to Iran, where they would face certain death for their political beliefs.” Beginning in July 2009, conflict erupted when Iraqi forces entered the camp to establish police stations without the MEK’s consent, leading to a skirmish that killed nine residents. An additional 36 were detained and subjected to harsh beatings and torture. After a series of smaller attacks, April 2011 saw a full-fledged raid by Iraqi forces, leaving 34 dead and over 300 wounded. Although international observers responded negatively, scrutiny was mostly deflected when Iraqi officials claimed that security forces were responding to rocks thrown during
WORLD
Iraqis protesting the potential explusion of refugees from Camp Ashraf.
a “riot.” Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has maintained a blockade of the camp, depriving its residents of basic services including proper medical care. Though humanitarian groups have begun analyzing the Iraqi government’s conduct for potential human rights violations, the process has been extremely slow and ineffective. According to Emadi, although the residents of Ashraf would prefer to remain, “they are not seeking a bloody confrontation with the Iraqi government.” Therefore, their only viable option is resettlement outside of Iraq. Last December, the Iraqi government and United Nations agreed to a phased plan that would transport the residents of Ashraf to a temporary location called Camp Hurriya, a deserted U.S. military base formally known as Camp Liberty. Residents did not anticipate, however, that their lives would once again be controlled by the Iraqi government. The U.S. State Department’s special advisor on Ashraf, Ambassador Daniel Fried, said that, “The Government of Iraq has committed itself to the security of the people at Camp Hurriya, and is aware that the United States expects it to fulfill its responsibilities.” Reports from the first wave of 400 residents who were relocated on February 18th this year have demonstrated that Camp Liberty, contrary to its name, is merely a prison that the Iraqi government controls with brutal force. Iraqi police stations surround the camp’s enclosing wall, armed troops are on constant guard, and surveillance devices dominate the landscape. These 400 residents have publicly accused the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), whose responsibility is ensuring that the camp meets “international humanitarian standards,” of lying. Nonetheless, the United States has continued its support for closing Ashraf, trusting the Iraqi government to fulfill its humanitarian responsibility.
THE MEK’S “TERRORIST” PROBLEM To complicate the issue further, the MEK was added to the U.S. government’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list by the
Clinton administration in 1997. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School calls the move a “mistake.” Dershowitz tells the HPR that including the MEK on this list was a political strategy used by the Clinton Administration to “open [America’s] doors” to Iran. Published in 1995, the book titled Democracy Betrayed claims that the then-drafted State Department’s report on MEK is, “characterized by innumerable discrepancies, falsifications, and distortions of simple, unambiguous facts.” Furthermore, many American officials have acknowledged that the MEK has provided intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program and the Islamic Republic’s growing influence in Iraq, critical to shaping America’s security policy.
PROMISES TO KEEP American advocates for Ashraf’s residents have been emphatic in calling for the U.S. government to maintain its protection. These backers charge America with two tasks to combat the situation: first, the U.S. must take MEK off the list of designated terrorist organizations. According to Dershowitz, their affiliation with this list has made European countries that would normally accept Ashraf’s residents as refugees reluctant or unwilling to do so. Perhaps Secretary of State Clinton’s recent remarks that, “MEK cooperation…will be a key factor in any decision regarding the MEK’s [Foreign Terrorist Organization] status” signal a shift in American policy. Second, they call on the United States to ensure that the evacuation from Ashraf proceeds rapidly and that the Iraqi government adheres to humanitarian standards. The livelihood and security of these residents depends on whether they can escape stifling repression. Should the United States fail to act, it will abrogate the promise made to Camp Ashraf’s residents in 2003. Devastating consequences will result for an American-aligned group at the nexus of Iraq-Iran relations. To promote regional stability and human dignity, the international community would do well to pay greater attention.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 33
WORLD
Qatar Rising Taking the Lead in Middle Eastern Power Politics Elsa Kania
W
ith immense wealth, a novel brand, and a distinctive foreign policy agenda, Qatar has emerged as a rising power in the Persian Gulf. Abetted by 13 percent of the world’s total natural gas reserves and the preeminence of its national news outlet, Al-Jazeera, Qatar has demonstrated a unique capacity for promulgating its own soft power. Indeed, with traditionally dominant states such as Egypt and Syria engrossed in internal conflicts and political turmoil, Qatar is taking advantage of a shifting geopolitical landscape. Because Qatar’s agenda and strategic objectives remain ambiguous, one must wonder whether its current prominence is merely a transitory phenomenon or if it signals the arrival of a new dominant force in the Middle East.
ACTIVISM IN THE ARAB SPRING A catalyst for the Arab League’s support for intervention in Libya, Qatar was also the first Arab country to recognize the Transitional National Council established by rebel forces. During Gaddafi’s overthrow, Qatar not only supplied financial and logistical support to insurgents, but also put several hundred special-forces personnel on the ground. These instances of intervention mark a substantial departure from a Qatari foreign policy that traditionally exhibited a neutral disposition. However, according to Dr. Ibrahim Sharqieh, Deputy Director of the Brookings Doha Center, this agenda emerged from an ideological shift among neighboring Middle Eastern states whereby most governments are increasingly less averse to interventionism. Elsewhere, Qatar, both independently and through the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), has undertaken an activist role.
34 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
Within the GCC, sustained rapprochement and close collaboration between Qatar and Saudi Arabia have allowed Qataris to act with unprecedented strength. Although they are traditional rivals, the two nations have been bound by mutual interests. Justin Dargin, currently a Research Associate with The Dubai Initiative and a Fulbright Scholar studying the Persian Gulf, characterized these states as, “less willing to allow intra-Gulf issues” to impede cooperation. The GCC-brokered deal that eased Ali Abdullah Saleh out of power in Yemen and pro-monarchy intervention in Bahrain exemplify this. More recently, a meeting with the Friends of Syria opposition movement in Istanbul resulted in a joint pledge by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to provide financial aid and weaponry to rebels.
RECONCILING THE IRRECONCILABLE Through its newly acquired position in international politics, Qatar has been able to develop strategic partnerships with many actors, balancing relationships between seemingly irreconcilable groups. Indeed, Qatar has long enjoyed U.S. protection and friendship, even hosting several American military bases. Simultaneously, Qatar maintains amicable relationships with groups conventionally opposed to U.S. interests. Qatar’s support of Islamist movements including the Muslim Brotherhood has been viewed with suspicion by U.S. administrations. Qatar also has close and relatively congenial relations with Iran and, partially stemming from its connections with Taliban leadership, it facilitated the proposed Taliban office in Doha, encouraging now stalled negotiations to end the Afghanistan conflict. In
WORLD
Egypt, Qatar has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and is a substantial, yet opaque source of funds to affiliated political parties. Qatar has long used economic tools to establish and maintain alliances outside of traditional political or diplomatic frameworks. Previously, due to rivalry with Saudi Arabia, Qatar sought to form independent relations with its neighbors in what Dargin described as an “alternative power bloc.” In the Dolphin Gas Project, initiated in 1999, Qatar spearheaded the construction of a natural gas pipeline to establish closer ties with the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Qatar has also improved friendships with its Gulf neighbors by selling natural gas below market price. Paralleling this, with goodwill accumulated from its economic and military aid during the Libyan Revolution, Qatar has moved toward establishing strong partnerships with Libya’s energy sector.
STRATEGY OR SENTIMENT? In general, Qatar’s objectives are framed as a combination of security concerns and symbolic considerations. Dr. Michael Herb, author of All in the Family: Absolutism, Revolution, and Democracy in the Middle Eastern Monarchies, tells the HPR that Qatar’s primary security interest is defending its petroleum wealth. In addition, he notes that the vast natural gas field shared with Iran, “adds another dimension to the necessity to cooperate,” facilitating the maintenance of generally amicable relations. However, Qatar’s policies have gone beyond what is necessary for ensuring these interests. Herb believes that, “the degree of activity in international politics has something to do with the desires of the leadership to make an impact.” As Dr. Gregory Gause, an expert on the Persian Gulf with the Brookings Institute, asserted to the HPR, it is, “hard to characterize Qatari foreign policy” because it tends to be “very much driven by the Emir and the Prime Minister…[and] not based on anything you would argue is national interest.” From his perspective, “personality-driven” policies and ambition have driven these leaders to seek status and power for Qatar. For instance, Qatar mounted an aggressive campaign, under the leadership of the Emir himself, to host the
2022 FIFA World Cup and will be the first Arab state to do so. In preparation, massive infrastructure projects, such as an expanded metro system and a Qatar-Bahrain causeway, are being planned. Through domestic infrastructural investment, Qatar is seeking symbolic recognition along with geopolitical dominance. Yet, simultaneously, Qatar has ample reason to seek alliances. As a small nation in an ever-perilous region, Qatar faces fundamental challenges to its security. In particular, the escalating confrontation surrounding Iran’s nuclear program puts Qatar at risk. As Gause points out, while the U.S. base in Qatar does provide protection, this could also drag Qatar, however unwilling, into a future confrontation or make it a target for retaliation. He characterizes the presence of air bases as a “double-edged sword” as it has the potential to make Qatar collateral damage in a massive geopolitical conflict. For instance, a potential U.S. air strike on Iran could best be launched from these bases, yet recent statements by Qatar have expressed strong opposition to such an attack. Dargin describes Qatar as, “attempting to serve as a moderating voice in the conflict” by seeking, “to balance various forces in the region.” Yet ultimately, as Sharqieh warns, “When great powers fight… small players would be likely to pay the price.” Thus, Qatar’s use of financial and soft power to build influence and goodwill are likely fundamentally motivated by concerns for its security.
THE HONEST BROKER? Although Qatar has only recently garnered a central role in Middle Eastern power politics, the nation has long played the part of intermediary and problem-solver. Past successes include brokering a solution to political gridlock in Lebanon and facilitating the entente between Fatah and Hamas. Through maintaining and further developing relationships with emerging power centers, Qatar could fulfill the increasingly essential role of an honest broker in the Middle East, even if these initiatives are driven by personal ambition and self-protection. Ultimately, although Qatar’s privileged geopolitical position may not be sustainable, its liminal position and critical role will make it integral to the future stability of the region.
Through its newly acquired position in international politics, Qatar has been able to develop strategic partnerships with many actors, balancing relationships between seemingly irreconcilable groups.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 35
BOOKS & ARTS
THE AUDACITY TO WIN, AGAIN What does David Plouffe’s 2008 book say about 2012? 36 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
BOOKS & ARTS
Florence Chen
M
ost comparisons of President Obama’s prospects of reelection in 2012 and his 2008 campaign focus on factors that he now lacks. He has necessarily lost the novelty, the sense of history-in-the-making, and the image of being a blank slate upon which voters could project their visions of change. Statements about his strengths in the 2012 election cycle are much less common, and these observations usually revolve around his remarkable fundraising skills or the deep divisions within the Republican Party. One of his greatest advantages, his electoral strategy, is rarely mentioned. To most voters and even to those who consider themselves politically informed, Obama’s 2008 strategy is still something of a mystery. It was a magical combination of technology, volunteers, young people, and momentum that propelled him to the Presidency. For me, it certainly was. Yet in January of this year, I received two opportunities to explore and understand the Obama campaign. I read The Audacity to Win, campaign manager David Plouffe’s account of the day in and day out decisions made on the 2008 campaign trail and became a Spring Organizing Fellow, or volunteer coordinator, for the 2012 Massachusetts campaign. Evaluating the 2012 campaign through Plouffe’s lens of 2008 demonstrates that a strategy emphasizing volunteers, metrics, and discipline will be just as formidable this cycle as it was in the last.
COMPONENT 1: THE VOLUNTEERS Many campaigns advertise themselves as volunteer-driven, but few campaigns have integrated volunteers as well as the Obama campaign. Plouffe describes how their approach consisted of giving more to and expecting more from their volunteers. Their philosophy is embodied in the motto, “Respect. Empower. Include.” Since the beginning of the Democratic Primary in Iowa, Obama strove to develop a system of volunteer leaders and coordinators. He wanted to include these volunteers not only in phone banks and canvasses, but also in high-level strategy planning sessions. Especially poignant is the scene in which a victorious Obama on the night of the Iowa primary chooses to spend time alone with his young Iowa volunteer leaders and emerges from the room with tear-laden eyes. This incident epitomizes the depth of involvement and connection between the campaign and its volunteers. Today, the campaign strives to hold itself to a very high standard of volunteer leadership. Obama for America Massachusetts has only one paid staff member, state director Carl Nilsson. All other positions from regional leaders to volunteer captains are not only unpaid, but can demand up to 15 hours a week part time or 40 hours a week full time. The Obama campaign is unafraid to ask more of its volunteers and to trust its
volunteers to carry the campaign. This will enable it to sends its campaign deep into communities in this cycle.
COMPONENT 2: THE METRICS The campaign’s strategy is driven by metrics. In The Audacity to Win, Plouffe’s passion for numbers and statistics shines through the pages. He repeatedly describes field data, delegate math, and methods for tracking volunteers and donations. In 2012, the love for data has evolved into a phrase that every Organizing Fellow hears from the team leader at least once a week: “If it isn’t in VAN [the Democratic database], then it didn’t happen.” “What are your numbers?” a phrase used equally often, also highlights the campaign’s commitment to monitoring number of contacts, meetings, or new volunteers added. While Ron Paul’s campaigns have succeeded in attracting a dedicated core of volunteers, they fail to reach a broader base. Obama’s system enables a focus on quantity as well as quality of outreach. Simply increasing the number of supporters is just as important an indicator of success as building commitment and enthusiasm among these supporters.
COMPONENT 3: DISCIPLINE The essential component of Obama’s 2008 campaign was its discipline. Plouffe credits the discipline to the President’s personality, saying, “one of the President’s greatest strengths, and therefore his organization’s strength, is his discipline: once a course is set, he is determined not to let a chorus of critics alter that game plan.” Without this discipline, the campaign would have abandoned the ultimately successful technique of expanding the electorate by registering new voters. Without this discipline, they would have stopped courting the youth vote. Without this discipline, their victory would have been unlikely as they responded to the media’s and Democratic establishment’s criticisms and waffled between methods. Even when pundits like Democratic strategist Peter Fenn warn, “It is it is very difficult for the Obama campaign to duplicate the groundswell of enthusiasm and commitment to Change You Can Believe In,” and claim that the energy and passion no longer exist, the campaign’s focus will continue to be on volunteers, on youth, and on speaking to one voter at a time. The clear and consistent strategy represents a significant advantage. It will enable the campaign to concentrate on execution and action rather than decisionmaking and debates over strategy.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 37
BOOKS & ARTS
CLASS ACTION Cory Pletan
C
harles Murray is no stranger to controversy. In 1994, as the co-author of the bestselling book The Bell Curve, Murray inflamed the passions of critics and supporters alike by arguing in the vein of genetic determinism that intelligence was one of the most important factors that determined one’s lot in life. Now 18 years later, Murray has expounded upon this argument to address one of the most divisive issues facing the United States: income inequality. Coming Apart focuses on the ever-increasing differences between Murray’s “new” upper and lower classes, which developed after 1960 because of the large premium placed on intellectual ability in the workplace. The new upper class is made up of college graduates who work in managerial positions or professional occupations and belong to the top 5 percent of all income earners. Murray’s new lower class comprises working-age men who are unemployed or underemployed and don’t make enough by themselves to put a household of two above the poverty line, single mother with minor-aged children, and an ill-defined group of men and women who, as Murray puts it, are “disconnected from the matrix of community life.” This lower class comprises close to 20 percent of the American population, and they are unsurprisingly located in the poorest neighborhoods. Murray then identifies four “founding virtues” of America incorporating marriage, industriousness, religion, and honesty. He declares the “four aspects of American life were so completely accepted as essential that, for practical purposes, you would be hard put to find an eighteenth-century founder or nineteenth-century commentator who dissented from any of them.” Charles Murray’s premise in Coming Apart is that the decline of the four founding virtues among the people of the new lower class has contributed to their socioeconomic stagnation, while the preservation of those values among the people of the new upper class produces their prosperity. Murray’s tale about the decline of his four founding virtues digs deep into the underlying causes of socioeconomic inequality. He chose his four virtues well for the most part, although I do not
38 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
BOOKS & ARTS
Today, the girls in the lower class grow up, get pregnant, and have children out of wedlock, while the boys never learn vital life lessons like how to work hard or be a good father. think Murray should have treated them all equally. Honesty and industriousness form the weakest part of his argument because they are more abstract than marriage and religiosity. Murray does have facts and figures to support his claim that honesty and industriousness are in decline, but he cannot make many concrete observations because it is difficult to quantify them. The institutions of marriage and religion are much more important because it is easier to cede that their decline precipitated the deterioration in honesty and industriousness. Murray’s argument concerning marriage is a revelation because he takes many different statistics that seem relatively harmless on their own and shows how disastrous their combined effect has been for the United States. Marriage rates have fallen in everywhere in our society, but while the rate seems to have stabilized among the upper class, it has continued to decline in the lower class. The number of people in the lower class who are divorced or have never been married has skyrocketed since 1960, and thus many children are born and raised in single-parent households. There are those who argue that single parents can be just as effective at raising a child as a two parents, but even they cannot deny that lower class children raised by single mothers generally have access to fewer resources and opportunities as their peers with two parents. This is an enormous problem because children do not learn vital lessons that helped preceding generations get ahead. The decline of marriage also ties in well with the decline of religiosity because they both began their deterioration at around the same time. In fact, it could be argued that declining religiousness of the American population contributed to the decline in marriage because people felt it was less necessary to get married as the taboo against having children out of wedlock disappeared. Murray provides a refutation of the commonly held misconception that poorer working class whites are more religious than their upper class counterparts. Citing evidence gathered in the General Social Survey distributed since the 1970s, Murray shows that while the amount of people in the upper and
lower classes who consider themselves to be either religious or secular is about the same, the percentage of people in the upper class who regularly attend a worship service is about 15 percent higher than in the lower class. Since organized religion provides a weekly refresher course on the importance of good behavior to followers, the particularly sharp decline in religiosity in both classes might help explain the increase in all types of crimes. The situation in the lower class is worse because there has been a correspondingly larger decrease in religiosity. American society has changed greatly in the last several decades due to the decline of Murray’s founding virtues. The decline disproportionately affected the lower class, and the upper class is understandably drifting apart from the rest of society. The members of both classes tend to live in clusters of communities with people similar to them. Murray succinctly points out the problem with this when he says “It is not a problem if truck drivers cannot empathize with the priorities of Yale professors. It is a problem if Yale professors, or producers of network news programs, or CEOs of great corporations, or presidential advisors cannot empathize with the priorities of truck drivers.” Members of the upper class tend to make far-reaching decisions that affect members of all other classes, but how can they make decisions that benefit people they do not understand? Unless members of the new upper class make a conscious effort to address their increasing separation from the lower class, no amount of welfare or social programs will be able to resolve the issue of income inequality.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 39
BOOKS & ARTS
THE MACHIAVELLIAN MEGILLAH Historical literature and the politics of warning, from Machiavelli to Netanyahu Eli Kozminsky
N
iccolò Machiavelli’s Discorsi may be one of the seminal texts of modern political theory, but it was originally a gift to his close friends Zanobi Buondelmonti and Cosimo Rucellai. The three of them would talk politics in the Oricellari gardens of Florence and in their equally fertile letters. Prefacing his work in the third person, the author notes how he considers his Discorsi to be “unquestionably the most valuable thing Niccolò Machiavelli could send you. For in it I have put in words all that I know and all have learned from an extensive experience of the affairs of the world and endless reading about them.” These “affairs” were the ferocious politics of Northern Italian city-states during the Renaissance. Machiavelli saw both sides of these clashes. He was a civil servant after the ousting of the Medici family and the establishment of the Florentine republic, and a victim of torture when the Medici regained power and purged the city-state’s government. He somehow found time during all of this upheaval for “endless reading,” studying, amongst other texts, Ab urbe condita, a mammoth history of ancient Rome by historian Titus Livy. The Discorsi serves largely as Machiavelli’s commentary on the work of Livy, as well as an extension of its lessons to the practice of modern politics. One recurrent lesson is a deep-seated distrust of the French, who had long terrorized Machiavelli’s Italy. In book three, chapter 43, the author cautions readers that “the French have always behaved in the same way, and so it is easy to work out to what extent other rulers can afford to trust them.” His distrust extends back even to antiquity, indicating a more thorough suspicion of the French character itself. In The Prince, for example, Machiavelli uses “France” to refer to both the ancient province of Gaul and the modern state of France. David Wootton, a professor of history at the University of York, as well as a
40 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
translator and interpreter of Machiavelli, considers this terminology “a reminder of [Machiavelli’s] conviction that there is a real continuity between the ancient world and the present.” Just as the Gauls had caused troubles for the Roman Empire in the time of Livy, Machiavelli implies, so too do their modern French descendants pose problems for Italy’s city-states. Tracing this national trend through history, the prudent prince will be wary of such proven enemies. Nearly five centuries after Machiavelli presented the Discorsi to his companions, students of politics and gift-giving find Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu giving the Book of Esther to President Obama at a recent meeting. According to Netanyahu, the conference mainly concerned efforts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Coming two days before the Jewish holiday of Purim, the Prime Minister was making a stern, historical point to the president with this particular souvenir. Purim commemorates the events documented in the biblical Book of Esther. The title-character here is the crypto-Jewish queen of ancient Persia, who thwarts the attempt of the prime minster, Haman, “to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus [Persia]…” (3:6). Orphaned at an early age, Esther is raised by her cousin Mordecai, a palace gatekeeper who had previously exposed an assassination attempt on the Persian king, Ahasuerus, generally identified as Xerxes I. Esther eventually gains favor with the king, and the two marry—though Ahasuerus is unaware of his wife’s Jewish heritage. Meanwhile, Mordecai runs afoul of the new Prime Minister, Haman, when he refuses to bow down before him. Knowing that Mordecai is Jewish, Haman draws up plans to exterminate the Jews of Persia as revenge. “There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of
BOOKS & ARTS
thy kingdom;” seethes Haman, “and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them” (3:8). The stage is set for genocide. But Mordecai, who has an uncanny way of uncovering conspiracies, alerts his queenly cousin of the plot. Esther then reveals herself as Jewish to her regal husband just as Haman’s insidious conspiracy nears fruition, and reminds the king of Mordecai’s faithful foiling of the past assassination attempt. Furious with his prime minister, Ahasuerus hangs Haman on the gallows originally erected by the anti-Semite for Mordecai. Jews celebrate this reversal of misfortune yearly with Purim. The Megillah, a scroll of the Book of Esther, is read in the morning and evening, during which costumed revelers (Purim is sometimes referred to as “the Jewish Halloween”) drown out the name “Haman” with noisemakers each time it pops up in the text. To top it off, Jews are expected to celebrate enough to forget the difference between “Blessed be Mordecai” and “Cursed be Haman.” A deluge of alcohol aids these efforts. Returning to more sober politics: By brandishing Esther’s scroll, Netanyahu is taking a page straight out of Machiavelli’s Discorsi. There is always some maniacal Persian trying to wipe out the Jews. In the past it was Prime Minister Haman with his annihilationist conspiracy; today it’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, hell-bent on arming himself with atomic warheads in order to vaporize the Jewish state. If I may quote another ruler of Israel, King Solomon, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecc. 1:9)—even in the realm of international affairs. Indeed, when Ahmedinejad’s not busy implying that the Holocaust is a sham, some of his public statements about Israel certainly echo Haman’s malicious sentiments. Machiavelli had his misgivings about those perfidious French, a pathology manifested even in their Gaul days. So too, it seems, should policymakers dismiss the actions of present-day Iran as the next installment of genocidal anti-Semitism by a cabal of Persians.
While I don’t know if Netanyahu has ever studied the Discorsi, he appears to have picked up one of its many lessons with his deference to national history. But is historical experience binding in the play of politics? Consider another biblical anecdote and its more recent analog: The Egyptian pharaoh enslavement of the ancient Hebrews, an experience documented in the biblical Book of Exodus, and the Jews’ eventual emancipation from Egypt by divine miracle is celebrated during the upcoming holiday of Passover. Keeping with Netanyahu’s logic, it ought to follow that the Jewish people should avoid dealing with the descendants of the oppressive pharaoh; the shackled national history of Egypt can simply be extrapolated into a future of enmity. Yet in 1978, another Egyptian leader, President Anwar Sadat, signed onto the Camp David Accords—making Egypt the first Arab state to recognize the Jewish one. To be sure, it has been an imperfect peace between the two states in the years that followed, but such diplomacy is nonetheless a striking step in the right direction. Perhaps Obama should have exchanged a copy of the 1979 Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty for Netanyahu’s scroll. So for Machiavelli, the past may be prologue. “Wise men often say, and not without good reason, that if you want to predict the future you should look at the past,” he writes in book three, chapter 43 in the Discorsi, “for everything that happens, no matter where or when, has its analogue in past history.” This is hard to dispute, but we cannot believe that the past is somehow determinant or inescapable. If we do, historical deference devolves into fatalist statecraft. France and Italy’s current partnership in the European Union is enough to temper these notions in Machiavelli’s case. Like Mordecai’s affront to Haman, we should refuse to bow down to history as some unbreakable tyranny over our hopes. Even if, as in the case of Israel and its neighbors, a narrative of vicious animosities festers on both sides. Blessed be the future, cursed be mirages of the inevitable.
Netanyahu is taking a page straight out of Machiavelli’s Discorsi here.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 41
INTERVIEWS
INTERVIEW: BILL KRISTOL with Sarah Siskind
Court may decide it’s better to err in upholding federal legislation. But, the case exposed several things, namely how little the administration takes the constitution seriously, and how extreme Obamacare is in going beyond normal government meddling, with the individual mandate exemplifying that.
If Obamacare is struck down, what actual bearing would this have? And, would this count as judicial activism, something many conservatives are opposed to?
Bill Kristol is a conservative political analyst. He was Chief of Staff for former Vice President Dan Quayle, founded The Weekly Standard, and regularly appears on Fox News.
Can we expect to see more paternalistic laws and actions, as with the recent Kennedy School’s smoking ban? This reflects a shift towards government telling us what to do across an amazing number of things, especially when related to health. You can say one person’s illness costs other people money, as with secondhand smoke. The questions should be how much you defer to government experts’ decisions, and how many liberties we give up for regulations. There has certainly been a growth in soft paternalism, with fancy justifications that aren’t harsh, making it more congenial and compatible with a liberal democracy. I believe that Obamacare, with its panel of experts and incentives, is the high water mark of this.
The Supreme Court is currently deliberating Obamacare. Does the administration have reason to be confident? I don’t think anyone should be confident. No one knows what the Court will do. I think however that the White House has shown how shoddy their constitutional justification was. The
42 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
It’s very hard to predict the political implications of striking something down. However, it’s not fair to call this judicial activism. There are a million laws, and judges can uphold them or strike them down. But this one went farther than what anything else has in terms of the individual mandate. The administration’s allegations are a bit ridiculous in claiming that it’s judicial activism for the Court to strike this down. It’s very healthy for this debate to exist. But government does need to be limited. Paternalism has run amok.
If Obamacare is upheld, what resistance will we see? The Republican Presidential candidate will have to say that Obamacare remaining constitutional is very unwise, and that we should elect a Republican President and Congress to repeal it. That will be exciting and dramatic. The bad news from a Republican point of view is that if it is constitutional, that will give it legitimacy. The burden will then be on Republicans and conservatives to say, “Look, fine, the Court upheld it, but it’s a bad idea and we need to repeal it.”
In a recent article, you attributed the 2010 Republican takeover of the House to Obamacare. If that is true, would the Court upholding the legislation bode well for Republicans? It’s possible: I can argue that either way. Placing a seal of legitimacy will make it the central issue of the 2012 campaign, which is good for Republicans. Striking it down however would make it less of an issue. It’s hard to predict the political fallout. This interview is edited and condensed.
INTERVIEWS
INTERVIEW: MATT BAI with Daniel Backman
the 20th century’s. Democrats had built this incredible architecture of legislation last century, but while defending that legislation, failed to adapt that vision to a different economy, technology, culture, and set of challenges. This problem has not been solved by either party.
You mentioned the different political culture now that may cause electoral politics to be more volatile. What are the origins of this new political dynamic?
Matt Bai is a columnist for the New York Times. His latest book, The Argument, discusses the Democratic Party and its politics.
What prompted you to write The Argument? It’s pretty straightforward. Sometime in 2003, Democrats were so down and out, and liberalism as an ideology so beaten down, that serious people talked about whether the party was viable long-term. By the end of 2004, I had a preliminary work on what was happening in Democratic politics, and how technology was reshaping the landscape.
Do you see similar problems in the Democratic Party today in lacking a unified vision and it impacting the election? Or do you think things have changed? Honestly, things do change. Parties and politics are cyclical. By 2009, Republicans looked barely viable and Democrats were talking about a 50 year realignment, which I thought was silly because now power changes hands much more frequently, and it’s going to be volatile with cultural changes around politics. However, I think Democrats are stronger now because they have President Obama, and they did rally around a legislative agenda when they controlled Congress. But, the question I would ask is whether they have an argument for what the 21st century’s government ought to look like versus
I personally have gravitated toward the generational and cultural issues involved. I’m not suggesting that stuff like redistricting, ruthless strategists, and money didn’t contribute to the perversion of our politics. But, we had a failed generation across the ideological spectrum. The obsession with very narrowly defined character, moralizing, personal lives, and re-litigating old policy debates prevented the country from adapting to new circumstances. The challenges aren’t new. Gary Hart was talking in the early 1980s about stateless terrorism, the dangers of dependence on foreign oil, and the coming information economy. This generation of leaders had decades to adapt to these challenges. They don’t necessarily share the blame in equal measure, but across the ideological spectrum there has been a focus on triviality and the past that made people very cynical about politics, and we can do better than that.
As a political analyst and writer, what are the challenges and opportunities for more honest or forward-looking political discourse? How do you think political analysis and journalism can contribute to this? In this universe of instant analysis and punditry, there is no substitute for the in-depth reporting a magazine does. There’s so much hammering, bravado, self-congratulation, and ignorant speculation out there meant to gratify one side or the other, that political writers should bring information to the table and analyze it because politics ought to be engaging and tell you something new. I feel that what people really want from journalism, and what they really respond to, is hearing stories about people and events that they didn’t know about before. Actual information and storytelling is the core of what we do, and what people positively respond to. This interview is edited and condensed.
SUMMER 2012 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 43
ENDPAPER
HARVARD DISCRIMINATES AGAINST EVERYONE Max Novendstern
Like many people my age, I didn’t “discover” that I was American until after I left America. The story is typical, and it begins like this: Kid leaves suburban hometown to travel the world. It’s his “gap year.” Kid backpacks through Peru, learns to dance salsa, and drinks tea atop Andean mountains. He does this for months. Kid concludes at some point, with embarrassment then relief, that he doesn’t really belong there, that this isn’t his home—thus discovering, transitively, that he belongs somewhere, that he has a home. In confronting what he’s not, Kid learns what he is. Kid becomes less of a kid. This story has a title: it’s called “Growing Up.” Going to Harvard from Peru wasn’t as psychically disorienting as I had expected, because the experience of being at Harvard – like that of any liberal arts college – is similar to the experience of perpetual travel. A friend once earnestly remarked to me that Harvard was the first time in his life when he was the only white guy in the room. I get that. Identity conflict really isn’t just about “rights” or “fairness.” It proceeds from a deeper, more primitive place—that need we have, revealed by travel, to belong in this world that wasn’t built for us. Earlier this year, an Indian American student filed a complaint to the U.S. Department of Education alleging that Harvard systematically discriminates against its Asian applicants. To this some said, “Of course!” Others confided that they didn’t really get it all. Reactions were so polarized when I brought it up at the dining hall that I sensed, finally, we weren’t really talking about Asians and Harvard at all. Two facts are true at once. Fact #1: the average Asian applicant has to score roughly 140 points higher on her SATs than her average non-Asian peer to be admitted to the same elite college. Is that fair? Now fact #2: the average Asian American has a three hundred percent greater chance of being admitted to an elite college
44 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2012
than her non-Asian American peer. Now how about that: is that fair? To parse this, you have to go pretty deep. What is college admissions for, exactly? For the people who believe that students with higher SATs should get into better colleges, the answer is easy: college admissions is society’s aptitude test. It’s a machine designed to sort people according to IQ, self-discipline, and social skills. Like a piston in the engine of our meritocratic society, college admissions answers the central question of Justice—“Who deserves what?”—by invoking the principle that if we have to pick someone, we might as well pick the best. But there’s another answer. Those who doubt the Asian discrimination case tend to doubt that it’s possible, or even advisable, to rank our world according to merit. For if an admissions decision can be “unjust,” then an admissions committee—a group of old people—can create justice. It means that merit can be declared by fiat, and that these declarations are “fair,” in a world where birth is random, and where the rules of what is meritorious reflect the preferences of the powerful. To the doubters, college admissions is better understood as a process when colleges hustle to help themselves. Some colleges need football players; some prefer math students; and the feeder schools must be kept feeding. We can and should argue about “what is good,” about what colleges ought to value, but not about “what is right,” as if they owed us anything. This second view is for the better. If you can reconcile yourself to the arbitrariness of the universe (or in the language of theology, “its giftedness”), then you’re less likely to gloat about your merit and less likely to care about the declarations of old people who judge us from above. At least for me, that was the lasting effect of travel: to realize that things could have been radically different for no good reason at all.
THE HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW. ON SCREENS NEAR YOU. HPRONLINE.ORG
Amemor i alt oPr es i dentKennedy , t heI ns t i t ut eofPol i t i cshasasi t smi s s i ont o i ns pi r es t udent si nt oal i f eofpol i t i cs , publ i cs er vi ceandl eader s hi p.
TheI ns t i t ut eofPol i t i csatHar var dUni ver s i t y 79J FKSt r et|Cambr i dge, MA02138|( 617)4951360 F orevenmor ewayst obeapar toft heI OP , checkout :www. i op. har var d. edu