Review the horace mann
Domestic - International - Features - Economics - Science & Technology - Viewpoints
Afghanistan
Plunging into Afghanistan by Nathan Raab Learning from the Past by Stephen Paduano
Issue 4:
Afghanistan International
Domestic
6 Murder and martial
4 The struggle within
pbs
law in Maguindanao
by Jessica bernheim
by hannah jun
8 Tehran and the bomb by greg barancik
10 Neutral no more by andre manuel
psaonline
Features 12 Plunging into Afghanistan by nathan raab
14 Learning from the past by Stephen Paduano
Was the surge really a good idea? Nathan Raab looks into the topic on page 8.
Science and Technology
Economics
18 The Chinese
20 To the dark side of
facade
the moon
by Deependra mookim
by alexander posner
22 An inconvenient truth 33 by Alexander Daniel
globalwarming1
Viewpoints
2
Could global warming be exaggerated? More on page 18. Cover graphic edited by Aradhna Agarwal. Disclaimer: The views of the articles do not necessarily represent those of the editorial staff. HM Review Vol. XIX
Letter from the Editor The Horace Mann Review Volume XIX , Issue 4
Letter from the Editor
A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture
Kevin Lin Editor-in-Chief
Nicholas Herzeca
Jason Sunshine
Alex Falk
Managing Editor
Executive Editor
Dan Temel Nancy DaSilva Henry Hoglund Dan Shapiro Features Editor James Yaro Starlyte Harris Aradhna Agarwal Spencer Penn Will Dubbs Editorial Director Production Manager
Jordan Federer Freddie Adler Antonia Woodford Ben Marks Mario Alvarez Eric Schwartz Business Manager Hill Wyrough Senior Columnists
Camille Knop Aylin Gucalp Photo Editor
Board of Trustees Maximilian D.C. Thompson, Zachary Freyer-Biggs, Charles Stam, Kunal Malkani, Venkat Kausik, Zachary Malter Production Assistants Seth Arar, Elisabeth Stam Associate Editors Deependra Mookim, Justin Katiraei, Andrew Demas, Aaron Goldman, Danielle Ellison, Victor Ladd, Daniel Grafstein Staff Writers Dorin Azerad, Justin Burris, Katie Cacouris, Jessica Chi, Wallace Cotton, Zander Daniel, Alexander Familant, Emily Feldstein, Matt Fox, Adela Kim, Christine Kim, Alex Ma, Andre Manuel, Avital Morris, Jacob MosconaSkolnik, Zoe Rubin, Rebecca Segall Contributing Writers Hannah Jun, Nathan Raab, Stephen Paduano, Alex Posner, Greg Barancik, Jessica Bernheim Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. Please contact The Review for information on advertisements at thereview@horacemann.org. Visit The Review website at: web.horacemann.org/review/ © 2009, The Horace Mann Review
January 2010 HM Review
Dear Reader, Afghanistan has been on our radars for a long time now. From the years in which America armed the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets to the war on terror that President George W. Bush announced against al-Qaeda, our attention on this key part of the world has waned and waxed over time. With the recent election of President Barack Obama, Afghanistan has been brought back to the forefront of the American consciousness. Will the surge work? Should we seek to improve the quality of life of the citizens or should we simply try to win the physical confrontations against insurgents? Questions like these arise ceaselessly. Thus, in the fourth issue of the Horace Mann Review Volume XIX, we ourselves take a look at the complex problem in Afghanistan, with two articles from Nathan Raab and Stephen Paduano discussing the effects of the surge and the lessons of the past,
respectively. Of course, we also cover many other events that have been going on in the world, from the ramifications of banning minarets in Switzerland, to the global warming “hoax” that set such a frenzy of press coverage against the notion of global warming, to the shooting at Ft. Hood by Sgt. Nidal Malik Hasan and situations of Muslim soldiers in the United States. As always, I am very proud to present to you this issue of the Review, having seen firsthand the work that our writers and editors alike have put into the publication. So, I wish you all a happy reading. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Kevin Lin Editor-in-Chief Volume XIX
3
Domestic
The Struggle Within
Faced with discrimination, Muslims in the military can have a vastly different experience than those of other leanings. by jessica bernheim
R
ecently, while reading articles about discrimination towards Muslims in France and Britain, I found a blog written by a soldier from the 3rd Battalion of the Marine Corps Security Force Regiment. Not only was his blog factually supported, it was one of few with which I found myself agreeing. The name of this blog was Muslim Discrimination in the U.S. Military. Not. This blog
4
could be seen as offensive, demeaning the discrimination Muslims in the army have endured. But, after having read the blog, I completely agree with the author. Muslims are a valuable asset to our nation’s security, and serve in virtually all sectors of our military as translators and servicemen. We as a country cry racial discrimination as a cause for attacks like the one made by Major Hassan, when in fact it was religious beliefs that propelled his actions. Like the author states, if we had tried to “questioned or detain[] him
regarding his religious/ideological leanings he would have been on the news as a poor, poor victim of a mean old Army Muslim hunt.” I do believe that discrimination exists. Estimates state that there are from 4,000 to over 12,000 Muslims in the army, and it has been noted that some Muslim soldiers do get mocked and teased in a derogatory manner. But I believe that Muslims endure more discrimination in a civilian setting, where average people are unaware of the positive contributions HM Review Vol. XIX
army.mil
Domestic wall street journal
Devotion Sgt. Fahad Kamal prays Friday at the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen near Fort Hood, Texas.
Muslims make to society and see only the media’s representation of Islam’s terrorist nature. There are many Muslims who sympathize and agree with the actions of extremists; in fact, one man on CNN said that the Qur’an specifically dictates that all non-believers must be terrorized. However, while there are extremists out there, we cannot say the entire Muslim population has extremist beliefs. Discrimination towards any ethnicity or religion is absolutely despicable. It exposes the ugliest of human traits, and ultimately provides evidence for Thomas Hobbes’ belief that man is inherently evil in nature. It has long been human belief, from before the days of Social Darwinism, that we are superior to everything else on the planet. But superior should mean that we are above petty hates towards those who are different. Charles Darwin never intended his theory of natural selection to apply to humans, but unfortunately peo-
Estimates state that there are from 4,000 to over 12,000 Muslims in the army, and it has been noted that some Muslim soldiers do get mocked and teased in a derogatory manner.
January 2010 HM Review
Shooter A photo of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused Fort Hood gunman. Hasan was paralyzed from the waist down after the shooting.
inthenews
ple subverted his scientific theory to justify cruelty towards those they felt inferior. Humans are such a diverse group that adapting any generalized beliefs to the human population proves destructive. Scientists have found that genetic muta-
tions have caused the human species to evolve over time. Are those with the ability to consume milk, one of the first genetic mutations to arise, not human? While discrimination is wrong, I can understand discomfort amongst soldiers stationed in a country in which their main enemies are Muslim extremists. They are ordered to kill these people— these Taliban—who have murdered so many of their comrades, and yet at the same time they are ordered to fight alongside people who hold the same beliefs as these enemies. That being said there is an enormous difference between discomfiture and outright contempt. An American Muslim is American the same way an American Christian is. The separation of church and state is extremely important in America, and yet it is not properly enforced. This is one of the fundamental flaws in our government. Religion should not conflict with nationality, yet it does, because when we fight Afghans or Pakistanis, we are targeting extremist Muslims whose intent is to destroy America. Because we as a country are battling with those of a specific religion, all those who share that religion, even without the extremist element that threatens our safety, are viewed as a threat. This is the plight of American Muslims in civilian environments. Conversely, joining the American army is voluntary, and anyone who chooses to join and fight for their country is subject to the same rules and restrictions regardless of religion or ethnicity. Muslims in the army have chosen to fight under no obligation from the state. All
American citizens in the army are subject to restricted rights of speech, press, and expression. For example, soldiers cannot participate in demonstrations in uniforms, on post, in a foreign country, or where violence is likely to be present. A soldier cannot write for a publication regarding national government operations, military matters, or foreign policies without submitting the article for review and approval. A soldier cannot act in a way that would seem as if he or she were representing the views of the army. All those subject to these same laws should be entitled to the same rights, chief among them the right to keep and practice one’s religious beliefs without being subject to hatred or discrimination. Everybody shares something with a criminal, be it skin color, race, gender, or religious belief. That does not mean we are all criminals. We cannot group extremist Muslim terrorists with other Muslims. They share a faith, yes, but you and a terrorist share at least one thing— you are both members of the human race. You are both human beings. HMR
5
International Murder and Martial Law in Maguindanao
M
by hannah jun
aguindanao is the second poorest province in the Philippines. Its economy is based solely on agriculture. When fiftyseven people were found murdered there, it looked to be the most violent political
crime in recent Philippine history. The bodies were identified as the family and supporters of Ismael “Toto� Mangudadatu, who had sent his wife and three sisters to file his candidacy papers to run for governor of Maguindanao after he had reportedly received threats that he would
be kidnapped if he personally filed candidacy papers. The massacre was quickly connected to the Ampataun family when a government construction vehicle was found near the scene of the crime. The patriarch of the family, Andal Ampatuan Sr. is the current governor of Maguineyesgonzalez
6
HM Review Vol. XIX
International Candles Journalists light candles for the victims of the Maguindanao massacre at a rally. danao. The Ampatauan clan is politically powerful in the region; relatives, in-laws, or close allies of the Ampatuan clan run most of the Maguindao’s thirty-six towns. By filing candidacy papers, Mangudadatu challenged the Ampatuans and their absolute control (enforced with guns and a reported private army of five hundred men) over the province. Similar to cities controlled by gangs, very few will talk about the Ampatuans out of fear. These killings prove the desperate lengths to which the elite are willing to go to protect their political power. “Political offices have become attractive due to the billions of pesos in I.R.A. [Internal Revenue Allotment] Remittances electoral victory provides,” Francisco Lara of the development studies at the Institute of London School of Economics says, referring to the share of national taxes local governments are given. Andal Ampatuan Jr., the current mayor of Datu Unsay, is believed to have ordered the massacre. He and his brother Zalday, also a governor in the Maguindanao region, are now under arrest after surrendering a few days after the killings, and await trial on twenty-five counts of murder. What makes this ordeal controversial is that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, along with declaring state of emergency on the Maguindanao province, declared martial law on the southern province on December 4th and deployed thousands of troops to the province. Martial law allows the military and police to make arrests and raids on property without warrant. Raiding a warehouse and ranch that belong to the Ampatuan clan, Philippine police and military found firearms, ammunition, and vehicles. They have arrested seventy suspects including three other brothers of Andal Ampatuan Jr. and Andal Ampatuan Sr. without warrants. The armed men resisted on December 6th in a firefight, withdrawing only after reinforcements were brought in. But even with these finds, critics remark that declaring January 2010 HM Review
martial law sets a dangerous precedent, especially since neither of the two constitutional conditions that allow a president to declare martial law—foreign invasion or rebellion—have not been fulfilled. But isn’t a cache of 1,500 firearms and half a million rounds of ammunition and fiftyseven dead (including thirty reporters) enough to define a rebellion? President Arroyo probably did the right thing for this unique and horrific situation both politically and ethically.
But what makes this ordeal controversial is along with declaring state of emergency on the Maguindanao province, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, had declared martial law as well as deploying thousands of troops to the province. With the power the Ampatuans have, would the national government have been able to conduct a speedy and fair trial or even find the suspects involved? With 4,000 loyal armed men, the Ampatauans have not surrendered to the 24hour deadline they were given by leaflets dropped by helicopters urging them and clan followers to surrender and give up their firearms. Philippine military have now started to move and position troops
blogspot
in the Maguindanao region with intent to pressure the militiamen to surrender. Luckily, President Arroyo didn’t take that chance and let the situation worsen or turn into a full-blown rebellion. She also saved face when people doubted if the government would push the importance of the situation when it was clear that the Ampatuans were involved, especially since the clan had supported the president politically since 2001. The clan’s rise to power probably also gained President Arroyo more support. Even with critics and more then half the senators opposing the declaration, martial law will likely not be overturned, due to the fact that only the House of Representatives (dominated by Arroyo’s allies) can reject President Arroyo’s declaration. On the other hand, with the Ampatuans’ power shaky after numerous arrests and suspicion, the power in the province will probably shift to the family of Mr. Mangudadatu, which controls the neighboring province of Sultan Kudarat. Mr. Mangudadatu filed his papers for candidacy just days after the massacre, exclaiming that now nothing could stop him from running for governor. HMR
7
Digital Journal
International
wordpress
Tehran and the Bomb
P
by greg barancik
resident Obama has pledged since his 2008 campaign that he will open a dialogue with Iran and negotiate in a way that his predecessor did not. This policy was most recently affirmed by the Norwegian Nobel Committee when Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” While diplomacy is the ideal course for America’s foreign policy, the United States needs to remember that its national security is paramount, and that the complex nature of United States-Iran relations may call for serious action instead of lofty rhetoric. Iran’s recent history is plagued by the issue of nuclear proliferation. There is little doubt among our country’s leaders and top intelligence officials that Iran hopes to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publically stated that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map and after the
8
most recent Iranian elections, it is clear that Iran has become a dictatorship with no regard for human rights or human life. Almost all nations agree that appropriate action must be taken against Iran in order to prevent not only greater tensions, but also a total, chaotic destabilization of the entire Middle East region. One year ago, then Senator Barack Obama promised that he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran. The move was supported by many Americans who rejected President Bush’s statement that he would only engage the Iranians in dialogue if they stopped enriching uranium. The problem with President Obama’s plan is that it assumes the Iranians have the same goals of peace and international unity that guide the Democrat’s exemplary foreign policy. When two opposing parties have opposite views but hold a common desire for international peace and security, engagement can be a powerful tool. The world witnessed the power of engagement in the context of nuclear weapons during the Cold War; the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and
Russia led to a reduction in nuclear armaments. This strategy, whenever applicable, should be used to the fullest extent possible. However, when both parties cannot agree on a common ideal, there are significant risks to engagement, which the Obama administration must consider more carefully. Engaging Iran without a display of good faith presents both risk
The United States should not and must not submit to Iranian terms while Iran continues to flaunt its disregard of international law. of future extortion and moral hazard for the world. If we appease Iran without demanding anything in return, we make ourselves vulnerable to perpetual Iranian demands. If the Iranians believe that we will continue to make concessions as a security building measure regardless of their actions, the Iranians will have no incentive to change their course of behavHM Review Vol. XIX
International
January 2010 HM Review
clear weapons irrespective of harm to the country’s people, there is nothing that even unanimous sanctions can do about it. Although sanctions continue to be the best plan at the moment, given their risks of failure, we cannot afford to limit ourselves to this option. When all diplomatic and economic measures have been tried, there is only one instrument of foreign policy left to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. America should be prepared to use precision force to disable Iran’s nuclear program. At this moment, the United States cannot afford to wage a full-scale war against Iran but the cost of a small military strike against specially targets is far less costly than doing nothing, and allowing a dangerous country to become a nuclear power. This option is far from ideal. Fixing the Iranian issue through diplomacy or economic measures would be a good model of peaceful foreign relations. However, if these two options do not prove effective, we need to be prepared to use force against Iran. While Iran may not yield to diplomatic pressure and while the world may not unite in sanctions, the United States certainly has the power to disable Iranian nuclear weapons by force. Hopefully, the United States will not be obliged to take military action against Iran but we need to be prepared to do so. HMR
huffingtonpost.com
ior. Similarly, if we reward Iran’s misbehavior by unconditionally welcoming it back into the fold of International Diplomacy, we establish a dangerous precedent where other disenfranchised nations may act up in an attempt to gain international acceptance. Although President Obama’s intentions are genuine, his offer should not be extended unilaterally. There must be a visible Iranian commitment towards disarmament before we agree to sit down at the table or we place our national security at risk. The Iranians have consistently ignored binding United Nations resolutions and show no respect for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Through their reckless disregard for agreements, the Iranians have already proved that they cannot be held to their word. Now the burden shifts to Ahmadinejad to make the show of Good Faith; the United States should not and must not submit to Iranian terms while Iran continues to flaunt its disregard of international law. If the United States and Iran cannot agree on a similar goal on similar terms, any time spent on diplomacy is merely stalling on the part of the Iranians in order to fully develop their nuclear technology. Considering Iran’s history and the domestic risks associated with engagement, heavier sanctions would seem an ideal solution to this issue. The premise is simple: make the economic situation so bad for Iran that it will be forced to choose economic stability over a nuclear weapons program. However, despite the United States’ best efforts, enacting these tough sanctions has proven far from straightforward. The principal issue with sanctions is that they are only as strong as their weakest link. The United States may put any amount of sanctions on Iran but if China and Russia do not take similar measures, Iran may simply trade with them and our sanctions would have little consequence. So far, the United States has been able to convince China and Russia to put stronger sanctions in place, but Iran’s economy has remained steady. In addition, as we have seen with North Korea, if a dictator is determined to build nu-
9
International
Neutral No More by andre manuel
webshots
In a blow to Switzerland’s reputation as a neutral stronghold, Swiss voters have overwhelmingly decided to ban the construction of new minarets. Minarets—tall spires built on a mosque— are a distinctive feature of the Islamic religion and used in the call for prayer. This vote comes as a surprise to many, as the referendum, pushed forward by the rightist Swiss People’s Party was expected by most to fail. Leading up to the vote, the Swiss People’s Party led a campaign of negative advertising associating minarets with Islamic terrorists, igniting fear in the hearts of many Swiss voters. The vote reflects not a tangible threat to the people of Switzerland, but a fear of Islamic fundamentalism, the spread of Muslim immigration, and the erosion of Swiss values. Of the around 150
10
HM Review Vol. XIX
International mosques in Switzerland, only four have minarets, and only two currently have plans to build them. The ban represents more than the prejudices of the Swiss people. It represents a growing trend of anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe, the increasing tensions between the Muslim world and the West, and one of the biggest drawbacks of a Democratic society: the possibility of a tyrannical majority. The ban has experienced backlash all around the world as European leaders, including those in Switzerland, have been quick to denounce the ban. It has also caused anger in the Muslim community and from religious leaders. A statement released by the Vatican called the ban “a heavy blow to religious freedom and integration.” Yet the surprising realism of the situation is that Switzerland only represents the surface of the underlying problem of religious tensions now being faced in Europe. In France, a ban on certain traditional Islamic veils is being considered to curb the effect of some of the more fundamentalist sects of Islam. Europe, a continent often praised for its equality and ability to overcome differences appears to be reverting to the bigoted values that led to World War II and the Holocaust. Yet to fully understand the ramifications of this ban, which appears to be racial and religious prejudice at its worst, we must look at the circumstances that made it possible. Switzerland has a Muslim Population of around 400,000 and a total population of 7.5 million. Continued Muslim immigration to Europe sparked by war in the Middle East has lead the Swiss people to become fearful that their identity was being lost in a flood of Islamic beliefs. The extreme Swiss People’s Party took advantage of the Swiss Constitution’s loose laws regarding amendments and proposed a one-sentence amendment to the Constitution to ban the further construction of minarets. In order to amend the Constitution, a majority of both popular votes and the twenty-six cantons in Switzerland is needed. When the ban was proposed, world leaders quickly looked to Swiss leaders to strike down the amendment on one of two grounds. The Swiss Constitution guarantees religious freedom, and January 2010 HM Review
in addition, the International Declaration of Human Rights drafted in and signed by Switzerland states religious freedom is a fundamental human right. However, Swiss leaders allowed the referendum to take place, citing that the failure of this amendment would be a testament to the traditional tolerance and understanding of the Swiss people. Despite this, in a surprise result, 57.5% of voters and twenty-two of twenty-six cantons voted for the ban. Now, the Swiss Parliament will have to draft the amendment to the Constitution, a process that often takes over a year. The consequences of this ban will not only be felt in Switzerland, Europe, and the Muslim community, but in the United States as well. The ban serves as a sad reminder that democracy, the most prized American value, can often be just as evil as dictatorship, tyranny, and the oppression that we so often seek to eliminate. Switzerland’s pure democracy has proven America’s founding fathers’ biggest fear:
The ban serves a sad reminder that democracy, the most prized American value, can often by just as evil as the dictatorship, monarchy, and oppression that we so often seek to eliminate. the persecution of a oppressed majority at the hands of the tyrannical majority. Our Constitution and method of government is apparently safe from the policies of intolerance currently being implemented in Switzerland. Ours is a representative government, not a direct democracy, in which the wishes of a more moderate and reasonable body of representatives and elected officials makes decisions governing the nation. And while voters pick these representatives, the diversity of the American people and the safeguards set in place help prevent obvious narrowmindedness and discrimination. Our founding fathers’ fear that a tyrannical majority was no better than a tyrant led them to develop our intricate system of government that has worked so well to protect America from travesties such as
the minaret ban in Switzerland. America is not completely free from the burden caused by the hypocrisy of preaching democracy. Proposition 8 in California and similar measures in several states around the nation have sent a resounding message of intolerance to the gay community. While legislation against gay marriage may not seem as discriminatory as the minaret ban in Switzerland, it is, in reality, quite similar. Proposition 8 struck down the right of gay couples to marry and directly opposed the notion that marriage is a human right, as stated by Article Sixteen of the International Declaration of Human Rights. The fact that Proposition 8 was struck down expresses a clear cultural bias (often instilled by religion) evident in the unlawful and immoral persecution of a particular group of people, in this case the LGBT community in California and across America. Americans, regardless of their religious views, should strongly oppose measures to strip the gay community of its rights, lest our country sink to Switzerland’s level of discrimination. Even if the recent vote in Switzerland, which happened miles away, is not a reminder of the dangers of democracy, than the current situation involving gay marriage should be. The majority is not always right. Some form of democracy is a necessary part of a free state, but the tyrannical majority is a severe side effect. The floodgates of democracy have opened, releasing a torrent of inequality. Those who doubt the effectiveness and fairness of the Electoral College and are in favor of a system where a popular vote dominates need look no farther for affirmation of the system. Those who are ambivalent toward the effectiveness of our Congress need only look across the Atlantic Ocean. While Congress may be petty, partisan, and corrupt at times, it protects us from the radicalism and bigotry that has recently engulfed Switzerland and threatens to harm America.
HMR
11
Time
Features
Features Plunging into Afghanistan Is the surge a tonic for peace or a recipe for disaster?
T
by nathan raab
hat every brave man and woman who leaves his or her country to fight can come back in a casket is an unalterable truth of war. Bearing this in mind, America cannot send her soldiers to foreign lands without good reason; we may instead only put them in danger when the benefits to the safety and security of our nation outweigh the terrible toll of human life and limb. President Obama’s recent escalation of the war in Afghanistan does not pass that test: terrorists will thrive in Afghanistan whether it has a strong, prowestern government or not, and a military occupation of the area will only breed resentment and hatred among those who live there. Thus, the best thing we can do
12
for our troops, for our nation, and for our world is send those fighters back to their families and take other, more effective steps to halt terrorism. Islamic extremism is primarily a religious and transnational movement, not a political organization, and suppress-
It is an unalterable truth of war that every man and woman who leaves his or her country to fight could come home in a casket. ing it in Afghanistan will do little or nothing to stop its overall success. Because it is so diffuse and ingrained, it will not disintegrate if what it views as an imperial Western power exerts military pressure
against its members. Instead, the Taliban will merely shrink into far off corners of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where there has been no effective central government or police for six thousand years, and every single military force since the Greeks has been ravaged by insurgents and guerillas. There, they will continue to plan terrorist attacks with a renewed vigor. No army could occupy or control these semi-autonomous areas and we would be foolish to try; our last attempt in Vietnam ended only with the loss of over 50,000 soldiers. Occupation would also breed resentment among the local Pashtuns, even those not affiliated with the Taliban, and collateral damage—accidental shootings, poorly aimed bombs, and other mishaps caused by the fog of war—would devasHM Review Vol. XIX
Features
Time
tate the region and add to the poverty that drives so many unemployed young men to jihad. A U.S. drive to deny extremists a safe haven in Afghanistan will fail, merely provoking them. While in the short term they may retreat, in the long run they will spring back more motivated than before. Even if an occupation only partially fails, the loss in space and resources for Al Qaeda (which currently is not even officially affiliated with the Taliban, making even more tenuous the connection between a strong Afghan government and safety from terrorism) in Afghanistan would not significantly impact their operations. Training terrorists does not require large amounts of land or labor; only a few square miles will suffice. They can make bombs in small apartments. Even if a few are caught, what can happen to them? Two options present themselves: either they are be summarily executed, in which case they become martyrs for Islam, or they Time are sent to prison and then released, in which case they rejoin the jihad with greater resentment toward their captors and a better knowledge of how the system of capture and trial works. Neither option appeals, to say the least. History itself is telling concerning the probability of success in even temporarily occupying and building a stable government in Afghanistan. Alexander the Great managed to hang onto it only for a brief while, as did Genghis Kahn; Britain did not keep it as a colony for very long and Russia bogged itself down in a war there that eventually led to the fall of communism and the U.S.S.R. January 2010 HM Review
Nor have foreign interventions in other lands proven themselves successful in recent years. Somalia, for example, is still a failed state even after the United Nations deployed a peacekeeping force there (and ironically, only began to see a rise in its standard of living after the peacekeeping force left). After eight years of bloodshed, Iraq is about as stable as it was before the United States sent troops in, and although the U.S. did remove a brutal dictator, they did it at a cost of some three thousand lives and one trillion dollar—enough,
more or less, to buy all Iraq’s land instead of fighting for it (Iraq’s GDP was $19 billion in 2001 and 2002, and $12.5 billion in 2003). Everyone knows how Vietnam and Korea turned out. All these failed interventions inspired what is known as “blowback” or resistance to military occupation for ideological reasons. We can expect the same blowback and failure in Afghanistan. Just because Islamic terrorism is an indestructible ideology does not mean we cannot neuter it without massive loss of life; it merely means we must be more careful in our fight. In our quest to make
jihad against America cease, we must first seek to minimize the collateral damage to people and property and avoid the blowback that has caused previous attempts to make peace to end in failure. We must ensure every strike against a member of the Taliban is exactly that, and not the murder of an innocent civilian. We must use our massive technological advantage effectively, through precise surveillance and proper targeting. We must foster relationships with the Afghan people, and invest in development in their economy, so that they turn to honest work and not suicide bombing. We must not occupy their land or remain an overbearing presence in their lives but instead watch carefully from afar, destroying only what requires it via tactical strikes with drones and other, less invasive measures. This is how we can suppress violence and terror successfully and with minimal loss of life. We will succeed not through tearing down but by building up, not through killing innocents but by singling out the guilty, not through brute force but by clever strategy, not through the dirt and grime of war but by the warm fire of peace and prosperity, interfering with the lives of the Afghan people only when utterly necessary. If we leave the Afghans alone and give them no reason to hate us, but instead lend a helping hand in their development, they will abandon the Taliban. The fanatics who are left will be abandoned in a dark corner of the country, helpless to harm the rest of the world.
HMR
13
Features
Learning from the Past by stephen paduano
I
n recent weeks President Barack Obama has met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to determine the fate of the United States’ armed forces in Afghanistan. The war torn country is used to foreign military presence within its borders. The country has been occupied by three of the most powerful nations of the last two hundred years: the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States. In 1839, when the UK attempted to establish its military superiority over the Russian Empire, Afghanis began forming their own militias to fight back, successfully defending themselves from the larger, more powerful United Kingdom. More than a century would pass until the Soviet Union’s failed attempt at supporting a weak Afghan government. The Soviet Union attacked the eastern borders of Afghanistan to defeat the Islamist Mujahideen who ruled over the lands with no regard for the Afghan government. The Soviets deployed their troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to support a fellow Marxist regime, which was the official ruling party of Afghanistan at the time. However, when one of the most powerful and feared countries of the time attempted what should have been a quick invasion and occupation, the Mujahideen’s lack of power proved false. The Soviet Union, unlike the Mujahideen, was equipped with cutting edge military technology, with the ability to attack via air and land. The Mujahideen, by contrast, were stuck in the notorious cave complex known as the Tora Bora. Even though Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev deployed nearly 280 military bombers similar to United States’ C-141 crafts, the Mujahideen prevailed. The Soviet Union was misled into believing that the Mujahideen were savages, but they had actually devised a military strategy
14
that rendered the Soviet bombers useless. The Mujahideen situated themselves safely within the caves, yet were still able to fire at the advanced military airplanes using Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG7s). Warlords placed their RPG-7-wielding fighters throughout the area and ordered them to fire at any Soviet vehicle. As a result, the Soviets were forced to abandon their planes lest they be shot out of the sky and their High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HUMVEE) lest they be shot at or blown up by mines. The Mujahideen forced the Soviet Union to descend to their level to fight – soldier to soldier. By that point in the war, the Mujahideen knew the battlefield too well to lose. Throughout the previous decade, members of the Mujahideen carved out caves and tunnels from the mountains. Snipers and soldiers on turrets had been placed throughout the region. It was in 1989 that the Soviet Union realized its inevitable failure in the region and had to withdraw. Afghanistan’s lawless Tora Bora region struggled for years between local leaders who ignored the rule of the sitting government. As time passed, the once united Mujahideen disintegrated. The local warlords individually led the newly divided states of the Tora Bora. The most notable of these warlords is the Saudi-born Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al-Qaeda. He and his warriors have been linked to attacks such as the bombing of the U.S embassy in Kenya, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. After the attacks on September 11th, 2001, the U.S government sent the most qualified soldiers to the most troubled region of Afghanistan. The elite Special Forces Unit, knows as Delta Force, was sent on a mission to capture or kill Bin Laden. Along with Delta Force, mem-
Patdollard
HM Review Vol. XIX
Features
Boston
January 2010 HM Review
15
Features bers of the Special Air Service and the Special Boat Service, the British Queen’s elite commandos and six intelligence operatives from the CIA were deployed to the region. Learning from previous mistakes in Afghanistan, the CIA worked with members of the Mujahideen to draw them from Bin Laden’s grip. This latest attempt at stabilizing the lawless region is the most successful so far. However, despite the evident technological advantage of the United States and its allies, Delta Force did not achieve its main goal of capturing or killing Bin Laden, though the elite warriors did succeeded in killing or capturing most members of Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the region. President Obama has now been left dealing with a situation with which few have succeeded. The president must decide if the United States and its armed forces will remain in the region until they entirely wipe out the remaining fighters. The main problem is that intelligence reports from CIA and Delta Force have discovered that Bin Laden and his top advisor Ayman Al-Zawihiri, have escaped to
the turbulent, northwest region of Pakistan, called Waziristan. If Barack Obama goes ahead with his plan to deploy 30,000 more troops to the area, it will be crucial for the troops to cross the border to where Bin Laden and his closest allies have escaped. As President Obama plans to bring an end to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, he and the members of the JCS must realize that we are fighting a mobile force. An intelligence report by military personnel in the field following the final days of Delta Force in Tora Bora states that we lost Bin Laden and Ayman-Al Zawihiri on December 13th, 2001, when Bin Laden had allegedly been working on a peace treaty with members of the Mujahideen who had allied with the United States. However, during this time, Bin Laden, his top adviser, and other members of Al-Qaeda escaped over the Pakistani border. Therefore, as of December 13th, 2001, members of the U.S Special Forces, whose mission was to capture or kill Bin Laden, had no business in Afghanistan. It is crucial to listen to intelligence reports and act
accordingly if we want to capture Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately, this abhorrent disregard for military intelligence dates back to the beginning of the Bush administration, when the President’s Daily Brief landed on his desk at his Crawford ranch entitled, “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US.” These blunders have led us to our current state; approximately 38,000 troops are deep in Afghanistan and our targets in Pakistan. Continuing this course of action would lose us the war. Despite progress in the occupation of Tora Bora, it is time that we address the Pakistani government for its approval to cross the border and hunt down Bin Laden in Waziristan. Looking forward in this war, we must use strategy, technology, intelligence, and even brute force. Ignoring these key components as we have done for the past eight years will prevent progress and allow the enemy combatants who fled from battle at Tora Bora to reestablish themselves in an untouched and unregulated land. The war in Afghanistan is no longer in Afghanistan. HMR
digitaljournal
16
HM Review Vol. XIX
Features
War’s Devastation
Time
Newsweek
Time
Following the attacks on September 11, 2009, U.S. intelligence sought the persecution of Osama bin Laden. After the Taliban government ignored demands to deliver him to justice, a U.S.led coalition of forces began bombing Afghanistan, and a full scale invasion caused further animosity. A resurgent Taliban, supported by al Qaeda, has made the future of Afghanistan extremely bleak. Further exacerbating the devastation was the fraudulent Afghan election in 2009. Obama has been forced to increase troop numbers and try to instate a more centralized effort. Despite all efforts, the devastation of war remains piercing in the hearts of all civilians both in the United States and Afghanistan.
Newsweek
Boston
January 2010 HM Review
17
Economics
The Chinese Facade
An Unconventional Analysis of the Chinese Economy
Panoramio
D
by deependra mookim
ue to its dynamic G.D.P. growth, burgeoning middle class, and future prospects, China has caught the attention of those on Wall Street as well as Americans on Main Street with its potential as an emerging superpower. After this tumultuous period in economic history, China is now helping to lead the global economic rebound despite the continued negative pressures on the system. However, predictions for Chinese economic growth are no longer tethered to reality or sound economic principles. The European Union Chamber of Commerce in China (EUCCC) believes
18
that China’s overcapacity is “wreaking far-reaching damage on the global economy.” The 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus package passed last year is exacerbating this excess industrial capacity, especially in the steel, aluminum, and cement industries, among others. Spending in these industries will likely yield a low return on investment due to the inefficient nature of many of the projects being funded or subsidized. Money that could have been invested in research and development or the like is instead spent on making goods in excess of the market demand. Instead of spending more money on health, education, and innovation that are more likely to increase Chinese
living standards and benefit the economy in the long run, the Chinese government has been allocating a disproportionate amount of resources with only next quarter’s G.D.P. report in mind. Investors and politicians in China are so set on G.D.P. growth of 8% in 2009 that there is a tremendous incentive for politicians to undertake actions to reach this growth rate, regardless of whether or not their actions are beneficial to the long-term prospects of the Chinese economy. China’s own state council has admitted that annual output of cement would increase to 2.7 billion tons, compared to domestic demand of 1.6 billion tons, if China’s planned cement projects were all HM Review Vol. XIX
Economics launched. The Wall Street Journal reports that “Chinese industrial company profits were down 10.6% on year to the end of August, with state-owned industrial companies -- major beneficiaries of the stimulus efforts to date -- seeing profits off 25.2%.” This suggests that the goods created in excess of demand are hurting suppliers and their bottom lines. If this decrease in profits continues for Chinese firms producing in excess, many of these firms would have to layoff workers and possibly shut down. Additionally, Chinese exports fell by 1.2 percent yearover-year as reported in data for November. Although exports are shrinking at a slower rate and a probable return to export growth is in sight, China’s exports will likely remain under stress with a subdued economic recovery as the consensus for China’s major trading partners. Chinese credit markets have expanded credit by $1.3 trillion this year, potentially indicating a credit bubble that could burst as more and more debtors default. This cheap credit accentuates the problem of excess capacity in China, since money is flowing to increase production notably into Chinese state-owned enterprises that are also stimulated by lower unit costs from subsidies. The extensions of the Communist state seem to act more and more as artificial inflators of economic growth utilized by Chinese politi-
January 2010 HM Review
cians to serve their personal interests and not those of the Chinese people. China’s official economic statistics must be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least. In fact, Chinese economic data in general should be scrutinized. For example, Chinese car sales surged in the last few months but gasoline demand has not made a similar comeback. It is likely that the data used to report these two statistics were incomplete or otherwise flawed. However, there are reports about the Chinese central government forcing state enterprises to buy fleets of cars that are then simply stored in parking lots. The banking industry in China also faces
Money that could have been invested in research and development or the like is instead spent on making goods in excess of the market demand. the dangers of corruption in a command economy, since politicians choose most of the top executives at state-owned enterprises. Much of China’s growth results from federal officials requiring a certain amount of production at the state and local levels. These governments naturally respond by finding ways to boost growth
within their jurisdiction, even if resources are misdirected to inefficient uses as a result. Ordos, a Chinese city, exemplifies the inefficiency within the Chinese economy. This very modern city, built in just five years, was meant to house one million residents, yet almost nobody currently lives in Ordos. Chinese officials say that the majority of the houses in Ordos have been bought, not as homes but as investments. (This, in itself, suggests the warped perception held by the Chinese regarding real estate markets.) Of course, no individual person is going to move to Ordos unless many people move into the city at once. Those that would actually like to move to Ordos also commonly cite high property prices as an obstacle. In addition, vacancy rates for real estate in many major Chinese cities are high not because there is not enough demand, but that there is excess supply. Prices continue to rise in Chinese real estate markets, though, since demand has also significantly increased, partially due to the increased availability of credit. If expectations remain irrationally high for a long stretch of time, China’s excess capacity, coupled with factors such as a real estate and credit bubble, could eventually cause an economic crisis tantamount to the one the world is now starting to shake off. HMR
19
Science and Technology To the Dark Side of the Moon As NASA plans for the future, the Space Shuttle may be headed for history.
O
by alex posner
n January 14, 2004, George W. Bush delivered a speech highlighting a new U.S. plan for space exploration, in which NASA would achieve three new goals in space exploration. This plan won wide bipartisan support, a rare occurrence for the Bush Administration, and it represented a new direction for NASA following the fatal 2003 crash of Columbia. On December 15, 2005, Congress passed what would be called the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. To fully understand the Act, we have to look at it piece by piece. The first goal was for NASA to both complete the International Space Station (ISS) and retire the Space Shuttle fleet by 2010. The space shuttle has for many years been NASA’s primary spacecraft since its first flight in the early 1980s. Over the past few decades, the shuttle has launched humans into space 127 times on a variety of missions, including the deployment of the Hubble Telescope as well as the installation of many satellites in use today. For the past few years, the shuttle missions have focused mainly on the construction of the ISS. Early conceptions for a space station have been around since the time of the Cold War, when the United States was in a space race with the Soviet Union. Since then, there have been few attempts at the creation of a longterm space station, and none have been successful. In September of 1993, Vice President
20
Al Gore and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin announced plans for a new international space station. Japan and several countries from Western Europe were included as primary investors and participants in this new project. Five years later, when the first piece of the station was launched into space, the station was on track to be completed in 2003. A series of unexpected delays eventually forced NASA to move the completion back until 2011. Throughout the course of its construction, astronauts have continued to live on the space station for periods of six months at a time. They
Unfortunately, this means that the United States will be without a spacecraft for four years after the shuttle retires. This is even more of a reason to extend the lifetime for the Space Shuttle program. spend their days performing various experiments that are all key to making continued scientific discoveries, improving life on earth, and helping prepare for and improve future space travel. Because the three remaining shuttles in the fleet are set to retire in 2010 and the ISS is set to be completed in 2011, spacecrafts from other countries, which tend to be less efficient, will have to fend for themselves with the final pieces of the construction. It makes much more sense to keep the shuttle in operation until the completion of the ISS, but that currently seems unlikely.
The second major part of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 calls for NASA to develop and test a new Crew Exploration Vehicle by 2008. According to the legislation, it will take its first manned flight in or before 2014. This is the most dramatic aspect of NASA’s new space program, since the last time NASA worked to develop a new spacecraft was in the 1980s, when the shuttle program was created originally. NASA began by introducing the Constellation Program. Developed by Lockheed Martin, the human space flight program consists of two launch vehicles, Ares I and Ares V. As the crew launch vehicle, Ares I will carry astronauts into the earth’s orbit. Ares V, on the other hand, is a cargo launch vehicle that will not carry any humans. Instead, it will carry materials and equipment needed for longer missions, such as fuel and food, outside the confines of earth. These extra supplies would attach to Ares I in space before heading to the moon or Mars. NASA has been working on Ares I since early 2007 and hopefully will publish the design by July 2010. Testing will continue until 2012 and a human launch is scheduled for no later than 2014. Unfortunately, this means that the United States will be without a spacecraft for four years after the shuttle retires. This is even more of a reason to extend the lifetime for the Space Shuttle program. The third and final aspect of NASA’s new initiatives calls for the return of human explorations to the moon by 2020. Humans have not traveled to the moon since the final Apollo mission in 1971. HM Review Vol. XIX
Science and Technology Considering that the computers used to bring the Apollo to moon had less processing power than today’s pocket calculator, this is a great time for this initiative. The Constellation Program is largely derived from the original moon missions as many of the fundamental designs that were used 40 years ago still are being applied today. The recent downturn in the economy has forced NASA to re-evaluate its proposed future programs and projected timelines. The Constellation Program, which is supposed to be implemented over the next decade, is expected to cost $97 billion by 2020 and $200.6 billion by the end of 2030, as NASA plans to construct a space station on the moon. In an attempt to fully evaluate the effectiveness of NASA’s current programs, the Obama administration ordered a panel review of the Constellation Program as well as an investigation completed in mid-November, which proposes five alternatives to the current program. One proposed modification is essentially a minor reworking of the current space shuttle with a side mount to carry the astronauts. This side mount would be attached to the fuel tank, which is potentially very dangerous, since if the fuel were to ignite, the shuttle would explode. Unfortunately, this new rocket design would not be powerful enough for a future mission to Mars. Another idea is also based on the current shuttle in place and would require a redesign by putting the capsule on top. This idea is safer, because the astronauts would be further away from the rocket fuel, but it still isn’t enough for missions to Mars. Two other designs call for a lighter Ares V and are believed to be the best alternative to the current Constellation Program. This would eliminate the need for Ares I, as the new vehicle would be capable of carrying both crew and cargo. The final design would be to build an all-liquid fuel rocket similar to Saturn V, the rocket that brought people to the moon 40 years ago. It would eliminate the need for expensive solid rocket fuel. These plans will be presented to President Obama in January 2010, offering him a range of options from which to decide NASA’s future. According to many predictions, President Obama will most January 2010 HM Review
Spacearium.com
likely decide to change the new space program from a two-vehicle system to a one-vehicle system. This will cost more in the short term, as NASA will work to redesign the spacecraft, but in the long run will cost less because one (not two) vehicles will be needed to travel to the moon. In light of our precarious economic situation, some will ask why the U.S. government continues to invest billions of dollars on trips to the moon and space exploration. What do we have to gain by exploring space? The answer is knowledge. Among the questions space exploration can answer are these: Are we alone in the universe? What other living things may exist? Scientific advances from past space exploration are readily apparent. Freeze-drying food, heat shield materials that protect skyscrapers, bar coding items at stores, memory foam found in mattresses, invisible braces, swimsuits that reduce drag, technology that allows for minimally invasive knee surgery, the Givens Buoy Life Raft (which has been credited with saving over 400 lives), infrared ear thermometers, ingestible toothpaste, wireless headsets (Bluetooth), carbon monoxide detectors, foam in athletic helmets, various passenger airplane technologies, Anthrax detectors, artificial limbs, and plasma screen displays are all
technologies engineered in full or part through NASA’s various space missions. These technologies did not exist before NASA’s work in space exploration and for these we owe NASA credit. The scientific discoveries we can make in the next decade through the development of the Constellation Program would be key to improving life on earth. The moon itself has groundbreaking resources. There are large amounts of helium-3 present on the moon’s surface, a substance easily adaptable into rocket or automobile fuel. Also important is the frozen water that exists just below the moon’s surface, which could be important to helping sustain life. In the next few months, there will be much debate as President Obama decides on the fate of NASA’s Constellation Program. Some experts believe that he will call for a one-vehicle system, similar to the Apollo Program, which would be based on Ares V. If he does, the timeline of the project goals will most likely be pushed back by several years. As countries such as India, Japan, and Russia have already pledged their own lunar explorations, the U.S. must continue its scientific journey and continue to lead the world in boldly exploring the final frontier. If we do not, we will lose our largest territory: the skies. HMR
21
Science and Technology
An Inconvenient Truth Perhaps the dangers of climate change from global warming have been exaggerated...
by alexander daniel
I
n 1633, Galileo Galilei and the views of rational science were tried by the Inquisition, in the most notorious trial in the history of science. The church establishment refused to accept an inconvenient truth—that the Earth revolves around the sun. Yet, today scientists have betrayed their martyr and have now become the inquisitors, suppressing facts and data pertaining to climate change and waging a crusade against researchers challenging the Global Warming Doctrine and its globalist clergy. As leaders and national representatives converge in Copenhagen to reach a watershed agreement addressing climate change their efforts are hindered by the cloud of uncertainty and scandal revolving around climate change’s substantiation through suspect practice. For the past decade, European progressives and leading scientists have demanded sweeping reforms to address perceived climate irregularities. Despite the plethora of issues confronting the developing world, international security concerns, and an unstable global economy, the United
22
Nations has shifted its attention to combating climate change and catalyzed an enormous shift in energy policies throughout the world. However, these efforts have been based on incomplete or fudged data, exaggerating the externalities of man-made emissions and rate of climate change. In November 2009, hackers broke into a server from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, one of the leading research entities investigating climate change. Over 1000 e-mails and 2,000 documents were stolen and disseminated, revealing disturbing information regarding the nature of climate change research. The CRU is no ordinary university research program; it plays a central role in shaping international perception on climate change. The director of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, heads the Hadley Center, a re-
Their unwillingness to publicize their findings calls for a serious inquiry into the validity of their data and means of conducting research.
search and data collecting institution whose statistics are the primary scientific data selected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For years, members of the CRU have evaded Freedom of Information laws in the U.K. Their unwillingness to publicize their findings calls for a serious inquiry into the validity of their data and means of conducting research. The explanation for these scientists’ secrecy is clear by the nature of the leaked emails: the results of their research were wrong and skewed. In November 1999, Dr. Jones, explained to a colleague that “I’ve just completed Mike [Mann’s, a leading scientist suggesting that after 1,000 years of decline, global temperature has dramatically risen] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” This admission to blatant tinkering with scientific data further sheds light upon the willingness of scientists and activists to intimidate and manipulate the public and politicians to fulfill their radical agenda. These scientists have not only revealed the pitfalls and inexplicable aspects of arguments for climate change, but also shamed the field of sciHM Review Vol. XIX
southenergy
Science and Technology entists. Their conspiracies might sound far-fetched, but considering the billions in research grants funneled to scientists by gullible politicians and fearful private institutions, the scientific community certainty has a monetary incentive to overhype global warming. Furthermore, Jones branded skeptics of climate change as “idiots” and even expressed desire to use violence on a skeptic. Such vitriol is commonplace in the highest echelon of the scientific community. Prominent opponents of the theory of climate change have been ostracized for failing to sign the IPCC assessment reports. The central problem at the forefront of Climategate stems from statistics and trends in temperature and climate that belie the popular notion promoted by unwavering adherents to the theory of climate change. Although man-made emissions certainly play some role in the deterioration of the ozone layer and the trapping of heat in the atmosphere, scientists have exaggerated the severity of the situation. The truth is that temperatures have declined over the past two years, contrary to the ethos of climate change, and according to the BBC, temperatures have also steadily declined since they peaked in 1998. Moreover, in the aftermath of World War II, from 1945- 1977, when global industrial activity and fossil fuel emissions rose, temperatures dropped. Consequently, it is of little surprise that scientists devoted to the perpetuation of a myth would go to extraordinary lengths to cover up their lies. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research summed up this sentiment a month ago in the leaked e-mails by noting: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Americans are now becoming skeptical of the notion of global warming, as the number of individuals believing that warming is caused by humans declined from 47% in April 2008 to 36%. Furthermore the percentage of Americans thinking that there is credible evidence indicating climate change has slipped from 71% to 57% in that same time period. Furthermore, the approach endorsed by the United Nations, the IPCC, and most environmentalists will hinder January 2010 HM Review
economic growth throughout the international community. The most disturbing aspect of the so-called agreement is the massive expenditures required, potentially upwards of $100 billion annualy to developing countries, with the intention of investing in “environmentally-friendly” energy. Such expenditures are not only counter-intuitive, but outrageously expensive. These measures will not directly impact struggling people in the developing world. Environmentalists claim swift action is needed to ensure the developing countries are not adversely affected by “climate change”; yet in reality the international community is just pursuing an
In light of Climategate, politicians and the public cannot afford to throw their unwavering support behind an unsettled theory. Quite simply, the hacked e-mails render the science of climate change fraudulent.
?
themoneytimes
unsubstantiated threat, rather than using the potency of multilateralism to address real concerns, namely development and the eradication of poverty. The E.U. plans to divert funds from Official Developmental Assistance to pay for the $10.6 billion stipend for “green” technologies in the developing countries. Moreover, developing countries emit a fraction of all fossil fuels. The real culprits (yet in reality all countries have the right to pursue their own economic interests)—The United States and the People’s Republic of China, which account for over 40% of carbon dioxide—have been reluctant to
ratify the Kyoto Protocol and have made meager emission cuts. China’s stated goal of reducing its carbon intensity, a measuring of emissions per unit of GDP, by 40% will in fact cause an increase in its emissions. The international community should scrap these rash plans. Most concerning, these proposals will jeopardize fiscal growth on a huge scale in a time of economic tumult. Green energies, namely bio-fuels, wind power, solar power, and geothermal technologies are cancers to economic systems. Not only are such energy sources ineffective and unreliable, but they carry obscene prices. According to the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute, solar energy costs 300% the price of coal, while wind energy costs 150% of the price of coal. The United States would inevitably suffer the most from these unsustainable economic practices, which will further strain our economy. President Obama has promised to cut the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed 17% cut would cost American households an average of $890. Obama’s environmental policies are tantamount to a tax on all Americans and would also significant reduce our manufacturing capacity—resulting in job losses. In essence, the American people will saddle a debt based on the climate change hoax. In light of Climategate, politicians and the public cannot afford to throw their unwavering support behind an unsettled theory. Quite simply, the hacked e-mails render the science of climate change fraudulent. In his inaugural address, President Obama noted his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” His credo, and that of all individuals and nations seeking responsible science, has been marginalized by global efforts to address an illegitimate concern based on the baseless inclinations of ideology-driven scientists. HMR
23
The Horace Mann Review Horace Mann School 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, New York 10471
24
HM Review Vol. XIX