Review the horace mann
Domestic - International - Features - Economics - Science & Technology - Viewpoints
Imperialism
Cultural Imperialism By Mathieu Rolfo
Imperialism Lives By Wallace Cotton
Modern China By Vivianna Lin
The Horace Mann Review: Issue 7
Imperialism
Features Domestic
4 Rising from the Rubble by alex familant
8 The True Nature of “Cultural Imperialism”
by mathieu rolfo
10 Imperialism Lives
Economics
16 2015 Millenium Goals
Postponed
by alexander daniel
by wallace cotton
6 The Dropout: The
Harold Ford Jr. Story
19 In Times of Debt
by jessica bernheim
by Andre manuel
Science and Technology
12 Modern China: Imperialist or
International
Responsibly Conservative by vivianna lin
7 A Very Different Kind of 14 Overstepping the Boundaries: Global Warming
by harry manin
American Imperialism by Daniel elkind
20 War of the Whales by Alexander Posner
23 Responding to HPV
Viewpoints
25 Get One, It’s Your Right
Infections
by chloe kling
by Nathan raab
27 America and the Gun? by Stephen paduano
2
HM Review Vol. XIX
s
Letter from the Editor The Horace Mann Review Volume XIX , Issue 7
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 Executive Editor
Henry Hoglund Nancy DaSilva Spencer Penn Dan Shapiro Features Editor James Yaro Dan Temel Aradhna Agarwal Starlyte Harris Will Dubbs Editorial Director Production Manager
Alex Falk
Managing Editor
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 Associate Editors Aaron Goldman, Andrew Demas, Daniel Grafstein, Danielle Ellison, Deependra Mookim, Justin Katiraei, Victor Ladd Production Assistants Seth Arar, Elisabeth Stam Staff Writers Adela Kim, Alexander Familant, Alex Ma, Andre Manuel, Avital Morris, Christine Kim, Dorin Azerad, Emily Feldstein, Jacob Moscona-Skolnik, Jessica Chi, Justin Burris, Katie Cacouris, Matt Fox, Rebecca Segall, Wallace Cotton, Zander Daniel, Zoe Rubin 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/
March 2010 HM Review
Dear Reader, Empires come and empires go. But while many think that imperialism is a matter of the past - of colonial India, of preWorld-War-I prominence, others feel that imperialism is still alive and well, even today. Take, for instance, the statements of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose officials decry the Obama administration and the rest of the Western world as “imperialist powers ... trying to seize control of the Middle East energy resources.” Or, perhaps examine the prominence of American culture in the minds and pastimes of so many peoples across the world who are obsessed with American brands, American game shows (like American Idol) and who have sought to emulate the American way of life. Would such a cultural pervasion count as imperialism? Our writers sought to address that question and many others in the articles that they submitted this month. Mathieu Rolfo has one such piece on
cultural imperialism, while Daniel Elkind looks more deeply at American imperialism. Meanwhile, Vivianna Lin pays some attention to our neighbor in the East, evaluating the possibility of its own imperialism. As always, there are other noteworthy articles in this issue of the Review, from a discussion on the gun control to a look at HPV infections, from an examination of the 2015 millenium goals to acknowledging global warming as an international issue, “Climategate” regardless. We hope that you enjoy the seventh issue of the Horace Mann Review. Our writers, as usual, have done great work to bring to you writing on such an array of topics. Enjoy the month of April and have a happy reading.
Kevin Lin Editor-in-Chief Volume XIX 3
Domestic
Domestic Rising From the Rubble Will allowing the 9/11 trials to take place in New York have a lasting effect on New York Security?
A
by alexander familant
s if the people of New York have not already suffered enough physical and psychological damage as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Obama Administration is now proposing that the trials of some
4
of the supposed masterminds of the attacks take place in the New York City courthouse. If the trials were to occur in New York, these men—Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih, Mubarek bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi—would then
be tried only a few blocks away from the place where they were responsible for nearly 3,000 deaths. Trying these suspected terrorists in New York, the country’s largest, most densely populated and most important city, does not seem to be the right thing to do right now. If convicted, HM Review Vol. XIX
Domestic these men would be among the most notorious terrorists of all time. One of the main reasons that President Obama has not cleared the majority of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is that there is no place to put its inhabitants. Foreign countries refuse to imprison these men on their soil and there have been complications about mixing the people at Guantanamo Bay with regular criminals in the United States’ jails. It seems senseless then to send these men to New York, which houses the largest stock exchange in the world, the United Nations headquarters and is, in general a prime target for terrorists. By trying these men in New York, the United States is just giving terrorists more reason to target New York. Could you imagine taking the subway or going to school every day knowing that some of the world’s most wanted terrorists are being tried in your city? One could argue that the trying these men in New York has no effect on the threats that this city encounters everyday since it New York is already a major target for terrorists. However, there are others reasons why the trials should not take place in New York. Hosting these trials is an expensive job. Even if these men were acquitted, the costs imposed on New York City would be gargantuan. New York has already spent so much money rebuilding the Lower Manhattan area after 9/11, why make it spend more. It may seem that negative assumptions about these men should only be made if the suspected terrorists are justly tried and convicted through the United States court systems. However, regardless of whether these men are convicted for their role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they are still detestable human beings for other acts that they have committed. In my opinion, a man like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed killer of Daniel Pearl should to be tried in a military facility such as Guantanamo Bay without the same rights as a normal civilian. In reference to the murder of Pearl, an AmeriApril 2010 HM Review
can journalist who was decapitated in Pakistan in 2002, Mohammed said that he “decapitated with [his] blessed right hand the head of an American Jew.” Anyone who speaks so proudly about such a murder does not deserve a fair trial. He certainly should not be tried in New York. This issue has sparked great uproar by politicians, powerful business titans, and families of the 9/11 victims as well. Those opposed to holding the trials in New York have claimed that the trials will cause several problems for New York and the effective prosecution of these despicable men. Families of those who died on 9/11 are outraged at the fact that these men are being tried with the same rights as any normal criminal. Other opponents of the trial believe that holding this trial in such a public place as New York will bring to light the fact that these men were tortured in Guantanamo Bay. There is fear that the trial will revolve around the morality of how these men were treated under the Bush Administration rather its main purpose of convicting these suspected terrorists for their role in the 9/11 attacks. However, it is necessary to discuss the issue of torture in this trial. As terrible as some of these men already have proven themselves to be, the purpose of this trial is to find out who was actually behind the
9/11 attacks. If these men confessed to a crime after being subjected to hundreds of waterboarding, a method of torture by repeatedly drowning someone, sessions, they are not necessarily guilty. Under such circumstances, even innocent people would admit to a crime just to end their own suffering. If we want to find out who the real 9/11 masterminds are, then we cannot subject them to torture in the process of prosecuting them. There are also several proponents of having the trials in New York. For example, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a public announcement that he has “great confidence” that the New York City police department will protect the city from any threats that may arise from holding the trials in New York. However, it is not a question of whether the police can protect New York during these trials. There is simply no reason to put the city at risk by hosting the trials. HMR
5
Domestic ity of getting elected and whether that was in fact the reason Ford dropped from the race. Harold Ford Jr.’s political views are all over the place. He is entirely inconsistent, switching from a Republican view on many social issues to a Democratic one. Ford supported a constitutional amendment that abolished civil marriage between two people of the same sex. Yet,
Harold Ford is constantly voting against his views or changing them to please a specific group of people
The Dropout: The Harold Ford Jr. Story
by jessica bernheim
I
n 2006, a man moved from Tennessee to New York with big aspirations. He was a smart man, a hardworking man and thus went where all intelligent, driven New Yorkers go: to Wall Street, where he became vice chairman at Merrill Lynch. In an effort to bring transparency to the citizens of New York, he also worked as a political commentator on NBC and MSNBC. This man is Harold Ford. A southern man who only became an official resident of New York last year, he was born to Congressman Harold Ford Sr. and Dorothy Bowles Ford. Harold Ford started off his career with a bang, winning the election with little opposition and then subsequently, being re-elected four times!
6
Harold Ford decided roughly two or three months ago to challenge Democratic Senator Kristen Gillibrand for the New York senate seat. In a recent turn of events, Harold Ford let it be known that he was dropping out of the race. In his op-ed, “Why I’m Not Running for the Senate,” Ford stated, “If I run, the likely result would be a brutal and highly negative Democratic primary where the winner emerges weakened and the Republican strengthened.” He then went on to say that he would “refuse to do anything that would help Republicans win a senate seat in New York, and give the Senate majority to the Republicans.” What a noble thing to do: to drop out of the senate race to strengthen one’s political party. But, while this admission seems so genuine, one has to look at Ford’s actual probabil-
because New Yorkers are a largely democratic constituency and thus are in favor of same sex marriage, Ford’s view has changed. On the Today Show, Matt Lauer asked “So you’re now in favor of same sex marriage?” and Ford replied, “Civil unions and same-sex marriage, yes.” The same inconsistency occurred on another social issue. At the Tennessee Senate Debate in 2006 at the University of Chattanooga, Ford was asked his stance on abortion. He replied, “I’m pro-life.” Yet, in an article written by Douglas Johnson, the Legislative Director of the National Right to Life Committee, it was stated that Ford had voted against the pro-life side 87 percent of the time during his ten-year duration in the House of Representatives. Harold Ford is constantly voting against his views or changing them to please a specific group of people, which leads one to believe that he is not firm in his convictions and that for him politics is about popularity and not the actual substantive issues that plague our nation today. If he had stayed in the race and won, we would have elected a senator who held no firm stance and who was so easily swayed by others that he would have been bought and corrupted immediately. Perhaps it is New Yorkers realization of Ford’s true character that prompted his drop from the race and not his desire to do whatever is best for the Democratic Party. HMR
HM Review Vol. XIX
International A Very Different Kind of globalwarming.net
O
by harry manin
n November 17 2009, the climatology blog RealClimate discovered that its server had been hacked. The unknown hackers revealed thousands of emails and research documents written by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Although subterfuge was required to execute the hack, the important story is the corrupt research practices that were exposed. The linchpin of the issue is Phil Jones. Not only is he the director of the CRU, but also, he is a highly regarded climatologist. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) often used his research, a practice that now positions the Nobel-winning body under much scrutiny. The IPCC once had a significant influence over international environmental policy, but its reputation has plummeted. It has admitted to manipulating data and scientific assertions in order to support ‘accepted’ theories of global warming. The most glaring of these claims was that the Himalayan glaciers would completely melt by 2035, an unsupported observation based on the guess of a single scientist. In its fervent belief in the reality and dangers of global April 2010 HM Review
warming, the IPCC has managed to jeopardize any progress it has made since its inception in 1988. Global warming hoax theories have since become more numerous as the newly termed Climategate provides skeptics with reasonable doubt as to the nature of climate change. If the loss of respect and influence of the preeminent climate change contingent has not damaged the environmental reform effort enough, a recent study conducted by research journal Science has all but derailed the endeavor. It reviewed global temperature increases from the 1980-90s and concluded that CO2 emissions were not responsible; instead, Science determined that another greenhouse agent, water vapor, was the primary agent in ambient increases in temperature. In the 1980s and 1990s, atmospheric water vapor levels spiked and worked like CO2, trapping heat. Since 1998, global temperatures have stabilized. This has been the result of a systematic reduction in atmospheric water vapor, not one in CO2 emissions. This situation is incredibly dangerous as the decrease in water vapor masks the harmful repercussions of our excessive carbon output. Though nations have not significantly curbed emissions, global warming appears to have ceased. This is true,
at least for the moment. Rapid climate changes and unprecedented temperature increases are in our planet’s future if we do not reform. When atmospheric water vapor levels stop decreasing—and they will—it will be as if decades worth of CO2 and other greenhouse gases were instantly emitted. In an effort to awaken the world to the dangers presented by global warming, the IPCC has dealt the cause serious damage. Lying to the international community has caused what is probably irreparable harm. Policy makers are less inclined to reform environmental regulation and practices, much of the public’s belief in global warming has waned (especially when considering that the 2009-2010 North American and European winters were uncharacteristically cold), and research suggests that temperatures have stabilized. The conviction that global warming is a hoax or something from the past is significantly dangerous. Though the effects of global warming are on hiatus, serious reform is necessary now even more than in the pre1998 years. Significant and detrimental climate change is an imminent threat. An overhaul in environmental policy has become our prerequisite to survival. HMR
7
Features The True Nature of “Cultural Imperialism” Does the introduction of elements of one culture into another subvert local traditions? Does such integration warrent government censor? by mathieu rolfo
I
n our modern, interconnected world, the ways in which the different cultures of the world have combined are astounding. Along with the rise of globalization following World War II, the term ‘cultural imperialism’ was created. Although historians continue to debate the exact definition of the phrase, it refers to the aggressive introduction of one culture into another, with the consequence of subverting the local traditions. With the United States’ development as a world power, it has attracted cries of cultural imperialism as its cultural and economic views have been introduced to societies around the world. Countries across the globe have felt that American values and ideals have threatened native cultures and substituted foreign ideals in place of their own. However, it must be acknowledged that the intermingling of the world’s cultures is a natural and irreversible result of globalization, instant communication, and the internet. Nations around the world must decide how to balance their own cultures with the influence of America and other countries. Fighting the flow of ideas into one’s culture will only hinder the progress that a culturally diversified world can make. Thus, the term “cultural imperialism” is a misnomer, particularly in today’s world. The modern version of cultural diffusion, through virtual media and business, is a positive force that
8
makes people citizens of the world and intellectually diverse. Other nations should accept the influence of American culture in the way that America has accepted theirs. As internet use has skyrocketed throughout the world, countries have begun to fear that wealthier nations will destroy their heritage and have thus placed online barriers such as firewalls and spam blockers to prevent the dissemination of media. One of the nations that has tirelessly fought against its peoples’ desire for American media and culture is China. In two recent news stories, China cut back screenings of Avatar, James Cameron’s blockbuster, and had heated discussions with Google over removing content filters. China’s actions to prevent American media from entering the minds of their citizens is a prime example of politicians adhering to the theory of cultural imperialism. In the example of Avatar, China claimed that it wanted to reduce competition for its state-produced movie about Confucius and expressed sensitivity towards the topic of Avatar. It is absurd that China regulate its movie industry for fear that the Chinese will not watch a movie about Confucius. In today’s world, with free file-sharing and other software programs, people who wish to watch American movies have the ability to do so. China’s insistence on creating a cultural border between itself and America only
made the Chinese government appear weaker and out of touch with advances in technology and communication allowing for immediate sharing of information. In addition, the Chinese have failed to realize the potential benefits of American cinema in their home market, choosing instead to cap at 20 the number of foreign films screened per year in Chinese theaters. As shown by the success of Bollywood in India and films in other countries, the presence of American film may galvanize a rise in films rooted in Chinese culture. The fear that American ideals of democracy and free speech will invade the minds of China and give nothing in return is only multiplied by their ill-conceived theory that it American culture is a product of modern imperialism. Globalization in the 21st Century knows no borders, and as China is influenced by American culture, America too will be influenced by China. China’s idea of cultural imperialism, that America is using its vast resources to usurp local cultures and create new markets, has become more and more implausible throughout recent years. A prime counterexample is France, a distinctly European country with a sense of nationalism and rich culture. Throughout the world, France is particularly renowned for its culinary legacy, including wine, cheese, and the art of gastronomy. Recently, however, France has adapted to HM Review Vol. XIX
”
Features the entrance of distinctly American food products, most memorably the red-andyellow arches of McDonald’s. Although many at the time had expected France to reject fast food just as China has recently attempted to do with American cinema, it was accepted by the citizens of France almost whole-heartedly. Now, McDonald’s plans to open up a location in the Louvre, one of the major cultural centers in all of France, with little local resistance. Currently, France is McDonald’s second largest market, after the U.S. itself. While this cultural importation developed, America imported much of France’s culinary legacy and developed its own style of cultural gastronomy, challenging much of the myth of cultural imperialism in lieu of spreading culture. One would be hard to say that McDonald’s has crushed French cuisine and singularly pushed the image of french fries and burgers; the chains in France have adapted to suit local tastes, even selling the cultural staple of the macaroon. One day, McDonald’s may even think to test selling macaroons at stores in the U.S., a very slight, yet none-
theless possible, idea. Were this to happen, it would become the paragon of a globalized economy, where business can enter foreign markets not to dominate but simply to learn from these new markets, bringing their lessons back to their home and improving their products and brand. Regardless of future events, the French example shows that acceptance of foreign cultures and businesses can be productive and even symbiotic. America’s presence in foreign lands should not be a sign that it plans to culturally destroy the nation it has entered. In the modern world, it is not a threat but an offer, an offer to exchange ideas and ensure that people around the world have access to the information and goods they desire. With the rise of the internet and related technologies, large countries such as the U.S. need not even be physically located within another nation’s boundaries to have sway. This creates concerns for countries such as China and other nations that have attempted to block internet access. Without much consent, corporations such as Google in the U.S.
nyt
e C
d e
r o
s n
wordpress
can operate in foreign lands, and the idea of free speech and access to information has gravely threatened nations such as China, who continue to fear a cultural attack by America. Their privacy filters on companies such as Google have created a dangerous playing field. Whether or not the Chinese agree, all their citizens will have full access to the internet soon enough. The real question for China and other nations waving the flag of “cultural imperialism” is when they will realize that the rise of one culture does not necessarily mean the diminishing of another. This is especially true on the internet, where there is space for everyone to express their view. As the 21st Century progresses, and third-world nations begin to develop, the world will begin to realize the fallacy of “cultural imperialism” in our world. What remains to be seen is when the vast river of information, creativity, commerce, and opinion will break the dam of illusioned opposition and flow through the oceans and trickle through the streams of the world. HMR
chinasmack
Too much censoring? In nations such as China, Russia, and India, among others, the government censors internet, movies, and even food, often in an attempt to provent American culture from threatening native traditions. While these actions are generally designed to protect the people of a country, they often end up merely exemplifying an oppresive government restriction. April 2010 HM Review
9
Features
Imperialis The Spanish Empire
The Chinese Empire
I
by wallace cotton
mperialism. To many it brings to mind the Chinese, Roman, Ottoman, Spanish, British, and Russian empires – some of the most notorious in history. Still, most regard imperialism as a relic of the past. Yet contrary to popular belief, this is not true. imperialism, especially for Americans, is still a viable and contemporary political system that exists in places around the world. In addition, when broken down to its simplest form political imperialism in the 21st century remains identical to that of the 20th century. What has changed is which nations are practicing imperialism, as well as the specific tactics of modern imperial rule. Although it may seem an impossible burden, imperialism, and particularly military imperialism, is well within our power to solve once we recognize it. Imperialism by definition is the control
10
worldpress
worldpress
The United States
and exploitation of other countries or territories by a ruling or �overseeing� power that benefits by controlling that state. This overseeing power is almost always accompanied by military intervention in order to more securely maintain this power. As recently as the 20th century, there existed two important imperialistic societies: the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Although prior to the 20th century the United Kingdom had lost some of its more profitable territories such as America, in the first half of the 20th century the United Kingdom still had a strong grip on the world, including crucial places such as the subcontinent of India and Hong Kong. Both of these colonies, especially India, were incredibly profitable and produced valuable raw goods for the mother country, such as chocolate, wheat, tea, fruits, and vegetables. For its part, during a large part of 20th
century the Soviet Union encompassed Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, just to name a few. The Soviets also attempted but failed to capture Afghanistan as well as the Ottoman Empire. The goal of these imperialistic nations was quite clear: make the most money possible out of a colony. Dating back from the 18th century, England employed this same principle in America. Throughout the history of imperialism the strategy has remained constant: exploit colonies in order to obtain goods uncommon in the mother country. Many believe that imperialism is a thing of the past. However, this is an erroneous viewpoint. Imperialism did not end at the turn of the 21st century. Sure, India and Hong Kong have gained independence and the Soviet Union has fallen. But as the line between necessity and greed has yet to be drawn, Imperialism persists in modern HM Review Vol. XIX
soc
som twe we dea rea sam Am Eas To terv imp one eve
imp dat cro for ist
Features
ism Lives
sed an, Soure ire. ons osthe me toned ain y. s a roend dia nce the t to ern
The Ottoman Empire
worldpress
society. In fact, we, the United States, have to some degree become imperialist. Almost twenty years since Operation Desert Storm, we find ourselves still in the same place, dealing with the same people. Further, the reason for our imperialist practice is the same as that employed by past empires: America needs Iraq as well as other Middle Eastern countries for one commodity - oil. To many Americans suggestion that this interventionist policy in Iraq is reminiscent of imperialism is outrageous – how can anyone call us, Americans, Imperialists? However, this is the reality. Between the 20th and 21st centuries, imperialism hasn’t changed much, Its foundations reside in exploitation of a countries crops, goods, and people in order to provide for the ruling country. Slight differences exist such as particular moral and economic April 2010 HM Review
The Soviet Empire
convictions, but the general motives and format are constant. In Iraq, American law and government is put upon the Iraqi people regardless of their opinion of our system. The majority of Iraqis the current system it is a better one than Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical dictatorship. However, some disagree. We now exploit Iraq for its oil and pressure its people to choose a side. But they are their own country; they should decide what they want to do on their own. As of 2003 America accounts for over 730 military installations in over 50 countries worldwide. Granted, we have stations in Iraq as well as many other places around the world in order to protect our nation, but this occupation usually is, and must be, with the consent of these nations; otherwise, we are acting as nothing more an Imperialist aggressors.. Unfortunately, we are currently sending out a mes-
worldpress
worldpress
sage to many in the international community that we, America, want to convert any system of government different from our own, and we must use military force to accomplish that. And this is exactly the formula of Imperialism. Often, the United States jumps to Imperialistic military involvement before attempting open dialogue with the international community, or with particular countries we are considering occupying. In this dialogue we must clearly state our true intentions of our forthcoming relationship with this country. We would then discuss what we hope to achieve by establishing a trading relationship with the nation. This strategy may seem naïve, but it might result in a better outcome than some Imperialistic international situations in which we are currently involved. HMR
11
Features
C
by vivianna lin
hina has long been known for its imperialism dating back to the third century B.C.E. It’s rich history is full of dynasties. Each successive dynasty brought in its own culture, gradually changing the traditions of China with it. From the Imperial era to the Modern era, China has certainly evolved culturally and gone through massive political change. However, China is not an imperialist nation in the modern era; China has evolved to benefit from the resources provided by the current time period. In order to understand how China got to where it is today, we must go back to the beginning of the Imperialist era. The first Imperial dynasty was the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BCE) with Qin Shi Huang as the ruler. During this period, the country was unified by a strict Legalist government that brutally silenced political opposition. An example of this silencing was the burning and burying of scholars, where freedom of speech was suppressed. The Great Wall of China was also begun during this time period, built to protect the Chinese Empire from invaders. The Great Wall strengthened the Chinese Empire’s fortifications and gave it an advantage over enemies. The Qin Dynasty, known for its uniformity, brought a centralized government, writing, currency, measurement, and a legal code. Despite strict policies, the Qin Dynasty provided a foundation for dynasties to come. After a series of dynasties and wars, China’s last Imperial dynasty was the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911 CE). During this period, the First Opium War erupted between Britain and China in 1942. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. There were multiple rebellions during the late 19th century in China, making the country weak and unstable. Many were unhappy with this weakness and sought to reform China. These people used the revolutionary ideas of Sun Yat-sen, who was angry with the conservative Qing
12
Dynasty. He wanted to overthrow the Qing Dynasty and create a republic. The Qing Dynasty was overthrown and the Republic of China was established in 1911, with Sun Yat-sen as the first president. The Communist Party of China was the founding and ruling government of the Republic of China. The Communist Party of China and Kuomintang Party of China bitterly fought for power over the country. In 1949, soon after the end of World War II, CPC was victorious. The People’s Republic of China was declared on October 1, 1949. Market based economic reforms were introduced to China in 1978 and the country became capitalist Ever since China became a capitalist nation, it has become the world’s fifth fastest growing economy, third largest importer, and first largest exporter in the world. For eighteen of the past twenty centuries, China’s economy had been the largest in the world, but was overtaken in the early 20th century by the US. The poverty rate of 53% in 1981 has rapidly decreased to 8% in 2001 due to industrialization. Over the last quarter of a century, China has rapidly advanced economically, socially, and technologically to find its place among the world’s great powers. China is a potential superpower, with the world’s largest standing army and second-largest defense budget. Over the past year, the entire world has been suffering from the recession, except for China. China has managed to continue steadily growing in the midst of the recession because of the vast reserves accumulated over the years. China has also managed to increase in capital export, which can be interpreted as a characteristic of imperialism. Not only does China have enough surplus to spend on improving domestic infrastructure and social spending, but the country also has accumulated surpluses from the profits of state-owned enterprises as outward FDIs, meaning it can greatly increase its foreign investment. The result of these FDIs is China’s exploitation of the US and EU’s economi-
cal recessions; China is exporting its own finance capital and posing a challenge to the US and EU as an emerging imperialist power. However, we must reevaluate the definition of an imperialist nation; it is a nation that seeks to increase its power by conquering other nations. Although it is indisputable that China has steadily been growing in power over the past few decades, it has not yet declared a national revolution. It certainly is in China’s power to do so, but that sort of decision would only alienate it with all other countries. It is also arguable that China is monopolizing the world trade through super profits. The cheap labor costs in China increase the profit made off the products. The cheap labor costs also allow more products to be made with less money, increasing the number of exports from China and increasing the presence of China in the world trade. The reason China is so dominant in the world trade is because the country has so many people. As the country with the world’s largest population, China has so many people that companies will always have people to work. This is one of the reasons for China’s cheap labor costs. There is no wonder that many of these workers would be involved in producing commodities for the world trade. China’s dominating presence in the world trade is a direct consequence of the enormous population, not necessarily because the country wants to invade other countries by first monopolizing the world trade. China is not an imperialist nation. The steadily growing country is merely adapting to the changing times and economy. Seeing as China had just recently begun participating in the world trade, the developing country is doing very well. In order for China to be imperialist, it must be a superpower. Though it may become a superpower one day, China still has a ways to go before establishing a presence as strong as that of the United States. HMR
HM Review Vol. XIX
M
I
Features
Modern China:
Imperialist or Responsibly Conservative
nyt
April 2010 HM Review
13
Features
Overstepping the Boundaries: American Imperialism christian-gaming
by daniel elkind
S
ince the middle 1900s, United States intervention in foreign countries has been motivated either by the desire to counter foreign threats or by the aspiration of imposing American values and economic systems upon foreign peoples. In those instances when we have responded to foreign threats, like World War II and our invasion of Afghanistan, the American efforts have been heroic. However, in those instances when the United States has intervened in foreign nations, occasionally supporting unpopular foreign regimes, with the objective of spreading our values or economic philosophy, our involvement has often led to disastrous results and has been counterproductive. Such held true during our involvement in Vietnam, our support of the heinous Pinochet regime in Chile, and our support of the Shah of Iran. These efforts have frequently disrupted the progress of these nations towards adopting the freedom and economic policies, namely the free-market based economy, which we have fervently advocated. Three principal examples from the 20th century – U.S. involvement in Vietnam, our support for Pinochet, and U.S. support of the Shah – illustrate a foreign policy of intervention in the affairs of other countries for the purpose of promoting our values and economic systems. Each of these cases exemplifies the hazards of intervention for such purposes. If the declaration that our values
14
of freedom and free markets are naturally attractive to foreign peoples holds true, then foreign peoples will naturally migrate to these values without our intervention, just as countries like China and the Soviet Union have adopted more market-based economies. Ho Chi Minh emerged as a nationalist leader of Vietnam in the 1940s, battling to oust the French from their control over Vietnam. In 1954, his campaign succeeded and Vietnam was divided into North and South Vietnam. Beginning in the 1960s, the United States supported successive “puppet” regimes in South Vietnam and engaged in a decades-long war against North Vietnam on the premise that our intervention was necessary to prevent Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese from spreading Communism throughout Southeast Asia and to prevent Vietnam from becoming a “puppet” state of China. The Vietnam War resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Americans. Following a military defeat, the United States was forced out of Vietnam in 1973, after which the North Vietnamese took control over the entire country. Within three years of the conclusion of the Vietnam War, North Vietnam was battling with the Chinese over Chinese support for Cambodian dictators, border disputes, and additional issues, contrary to the prediction that North Vietnam would eventually become a “puppet” state of China. Today, Vietnam is developing a market-based economy, has entered into
numerous treaties and trade agreements with the United States, engages in billions of dollars of trade with our country, and is a member of the World Trade Organization. The Vietnamese economy, according to Department of State statistics, has become one of the more rapidly growing economies in Asia, growing at a rate of 6-9% per year since 1990. The history of Vietnam demonstrates that the Vietnamese people, not United States involvement, established steady progress towards the adoption of a market economy. Vietnam has evolved as a member of the world community, like China and the Soviet Union, without U.S. intervention. Past intervention by the United States intended to impose our economic systems was witnessed in U.S. involvement in Chile, when Augusto Pinochet became the dictator of Chile. Beginning in 1970, the administration of U.S. President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to prevent the election of socialist Salvador Allende as the Chilean President, yet Allende was nevertheless elected by a popular vote that overcame the covert operations of the Nixon administration. Eager to prevent a socialist from obtaining power in Latin America, Nixon and Kissinger dispatched the Central Intelligence Agency to plot the overthrow of the popularly elected Allende with the Chilean military. Kissinger later explained in a widely reported statement, “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go HM Review Vol. XIX
Features communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.” The involvement of the Nixon administration resulted in Allende being overthrown in a bloody coup led by Augusto Pinochet, a General in the Chilean military. Pinochet was installed as dictator; he ruled Chile for 15 years, during which he and his regime engaged in bloody repressions of the Chilean people. During his regime, concentration camps and torture chambers were established. Tens of thousands of Chileans were butchered, tortured, and vanished in one of the darkest periods in Latin American history. During this same period, economists trained by the University of Chicago, known as the “Chicago Boys,” joined the Pinochet administration as economic advisors and aided Pinochet in his institution of economic reforms consistent with conservative U.S. economic philosophy. American support for Pinochet is yet another example of a chapter in American involvement in countries against the will of the people. Our advocating for Pinochet would severely damage the reputation of the United States in Latin America for decades to come. Just such involvement has encouraged support for radical elements such as Hugo Chavez, the current President of Venezuela. Iran also demonstrates the patterns of unpopular U.S. intervention. Prior to 1950, Iran had fallen under the control of foreign countries like Great Britain and the Soviet Union. In 1941, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi succeeded his father
scrapetv
as Shah of Iran and by 1951, a burgeoning nationalist movement was extending through Iran, reflecting popular resentment over foreign control of much of Iran’s vast oil reserves. In 1951, Premier Mussadegh and his National Front Movement, composed of militant nationalists who possessed the support of the Communist party, incited the Iranian Parliament to nationalize the oil industry. In 1952, Mussadegh forced the Shah to flee from Iran and, in a development stalwartly opposed by the Iranian people, the United States government supported a coup which removed Mussadegh from authority and reinstated the Shah as the ruler of Iran. U.S. involvement in removing Mussadegh became a symbol amongst many Iranians of their nationalistic aspirations and of U.S. interference in Iranian affairs. Although Mussadegh was a nationalist leader, rather than an Islamic militant, the United States involvement in his removal eventually opened the door to the takeover of Iran by Islamic radicals. While the Shah of Iran made efforts to modernize Iran, to spread property ownership, and to improve the rights of women, Iranians came to resent his pro-western positions and his close relationship with the U.S. government, which had aided in the overthrowing of Mussadegh, their nationalist leader. In 1979, nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists operated in tandem in a revolution which expelled the Shah from power and led to the radical Islamic dictatorship that rules Iran today. In the revolution, nationalists sought to restore the memory of Mussadegh, and fundamentalists utilized the
worldpress
movement for national control to direct the country in a fundamentalist Islamic direction, regardless of the fact that Mussadegh was a nationalist with little interest in Islamic fundamentalism. No one would argue that America should avoid involvement in foreign affairs, or that America should refrain from intervening against foreign nations or movements that pose threats to the United States and other nations or engages in war crimes against its own citizens. However, the intervention of America in Vietnam, Chile, and Iran demonstrate that when the United States intervenes in the affairs of another country with the objective of imposing our own values or against the will of the foreign people, the result is commonly counterproductive, and destructive to the reputation of the United States. Had the United States not inserted itself into the affairs of Iran in 1950, one wonders whether Islamic fundamentalism would have succeeded in controlling the government of that nation today. Had the United States not supported Augusto Pinochet in our scurrying to halt the spread of socialism, the reputation of the United States might be improved in that area of the world. Similarly, with Vietnam having itself moved towards a market economy since the defeat of the U.S. war efforts on Vietnamese soil, one must wonder whether the many hundreds of thousands of deaths and protracted years of war actually promoted or delayed Vietnam’s movement to a more open and market-based economy. HMR
latinamericanstudies
American Imperialism: Oppressive American imperialist policies have frequently disrupted the progress of nations towards adopting the freedom and economic policies, namely the free-market based economy, which we have fervently advocated. Countries such as Vietnam, Iran, and Chile have vocally and physically expressed their discontent with American interference. April 2010 HM Review
15
tofslie
Economics
2015
healthpolicyinitiative.com
Millenium Development Goals
I
by alexander daniel
n a small agrarian village in the Nepalese countryside, Mohini Devi, a poor wage laborer toils to earn miniscule wages, amounting to 60 Nepalese rupees or $0.82 a day. Uneducated, and without land, Devi has no opportunities for social advancement; as a women in a misogynistic society, she never learned to read and makes only 60% of what a male laborer would receive for a comparable job. She holds onto a slim glimmer of hope: aid programs and the possibility that her government and the international will
16
proactively improve her current state and that of the 1.1 billion people living off less than a dollar a day. However, such lofty visions of aid programs fail to meet their intended purpose. Devi laments the ineffective development programs “being implemented in the villages, but they are not meant for poor people like us.” In recent decades, the international community has consistently channeled limited, yet substantial resources, to aid the world’s impoverished. The goal: to alleviate the predicament of Devi and others denied opportunities. Multilateralism, growing popular support for
international social justice, and mounting health problems near the turn of the decade paved the way for a robust international response. As world leaders converged at the United Nations headquarters in September 2000, a watershed accord came to fruition: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The Millennium Declaration established international solidarity to “free all men, women, and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty.” Among over a hundred benchmarks established to achieve this lofty vision, eight major goals were delineated in the agreeHM Review Vol. XIX
Economics ment. The focal point of the agreement centered on the eradication of poverty by halving the number of impoverished by 2015. Furthermore, the agreement sought a plethora of pertinent, yet exceedingly difficult, objectives: achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and forging a global partnership for development. World leaders lauded the holistic accord, considering the agreement the framework for development and the eventual minimization of the wide discrepancy in wealth between the developed and developing world. Through the agreement, the United Nations staked its legitimacy and any possessed purview over international development—an issue burgeoning into the central concern of the United Nations in recent years. The U.N. bureaucracy was enthralled by the promise of the comprehensive proposal, and viewed their goals as feasible and attainable, given the monetary commitments made from wealthy governments. A decade later, such optimism has steadily given to doubt over the ability of the MDG’s to induce transformative change in the developing world. Even United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon concedes, “progress has been too slow for most of the targets to be met by 2015.” As the global economy has been entrenched in a prolonged recession, the accessibility of pecuniary investments has declined; economic problems have been acutely grappled in the developing world as lower global demand has inhibited growth; yet the current fiscal crisis has played a minimal role in the colossal failure of the MDGs. Few benchmarks have yet to be made. Despite limited gains in addressing these pertinent issues, as the 2015 deadline approaches, the agreement has failed to produce tangible gains in the majority of these categories. A lack of funding at private and governmental levels, development programs’ inefficiency, an unwillingness to harness unique solutions, and lack of international resolve or awareness of the plight of the impoverished all contribute to failure. April 2010 HM Review
One essential factor besetting the attainment of benchmarks revolves around the impracticality of the benchmarks themselves. When shaping the agreement, diplomats pushed halving the number of people living in extreme poverty, those living on less than $1 a day. This proposal was doomed to failure, unless an astronomical and unprecedented amount of resources were to be expended. Under this benchmarks, African economies would have to grow 7% per year during 2000-2015; yet, only two African countries and seven overall accomplished this feat over 15 years. Such a significant increase in GDP is not plausible in most developing countries, as the infrastructure needed to support such expansion takes years to establish. In addition, Goal 3, the achievement of universal primary education disregarded the precedent over the expansion of educational system in other countries. Whereas European nations gradually expanded education over a century, developing countries, a majority of which possess enrollment rates of less than 70%, are expected to undertake
One essential factor besetting the attainment of benchmarks revolves around the impracticality of the benchmarks themselves. this transition in insufficient time. Withstanding the implausibility of the proposals, one factor has truly impaired the international community’s capacity to embark on their lofty initiatives: money. Since 1970, when GA Resolution 2626 passed, nations have consented to invest 0.7% of total Gross National Product (GNP -- a measure of economic output) to development. The Millennium Declaration sought a similar policy; however, unlike in the past, the international community expected concerted efforts to meet this goal. Although somewhat impractical, the MDG’s are still attainable; $40-60 billion in additional funding would allow for the fulfillment of vast majority of the initiatives, according to the World Bank. The benchmarks were devised on the pretense that respective governments would have the decency
to allocate money. In the overall scheme of the global economy and government spending such an assumption is reasonable. This lack of initiative can be directly attributed to two key factions: constituencies in the developed world and elected officials. Populaces in developed countries are removed from the realities of fellow global citizens and the plight of the poor in developing countries; no progressive activism has induced the needed change. Moreover, politicians especially in the United States have misconstrued development as tantamount to “imperialism” or “nation building.” Consequently, U.S. Congressmen have viewed the augmentation of aid as taboo, as they believe domestic concerns ought to take precedence; such a mentality edicts thousands of impoverished people to death and tumult. Regional and international organizations exist on the pretense that nations have the inherent responsibility to immerse themselves in international cooperation. By extension, all countries are at least partially responsible for assisting their fellow international citizens through the MDGs. The real culprit in the realm of government failures is the United States. Currently, the United States contributes only 0.2% of GNP to Official Development Assistance (ODA), falling well below the average of 0.46% for other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is comprised of the world’s developed economies. As the world’s largest economy, were the United States to provide a substantial increase in the percentage of GNP invested in ODA, the MDGs would receive a major boost. Another factor impeding the success of the MDG is the process of expending money and where the limited resources are allocated, not solely a lack of resources. Over one half of ODA is spent on debt relief for Heavily Indebted Poor countries (HIPCs). These expenditures fail to directly impact the struggling people or achieve the MDG’s. Although necessary for long-term sustainable development, starving people without access to services present a graver concern and do not benefit from blind appropriations to often corrupt regimes.
17
Economics
Furthermore, the limited ODA often fails to reach the grassroots level. Instead, the bureaucratic process results in waste, as aid programs channel business to select special interests groups, inflating costs. Many countries, including the United States have stringent regulations on the allocation of aid and require forgoing lower costs in order to curry favor among international special interests groups and allies. If the MDGs were to be fulfilled given current expenditures major reforms must be made to mitigate corruption in the allocation of aid. The biggest fault of the status quo perpetuated by development officials and the U.N. bureaucracy stems from the unwillingness to pursue pragmatic innovative solutions. Development officials have postulated that by merely providing scattered food aid and other resources the MDG’s can be attained. However, the assessment dismisses the notion that development can only be achieved holistically. While certainly providing maternal healthcare, launching environmental initiatives, or investing in education help a region in each specific area, the developing world experiences myriad issues; when one issue is resolved through aid meant at attaining the MDG’s, another will emerge. The international community ought to heed to Professor Jeffrey Sachs’s innovative solution to approaching development holistically, through clinical economics, an economic ap-
18
proach tantamount to doctors’ curing patients. To facilitate sustainable local economies and achieve the benchmarks of the MDG’s, the international community must allocate education, training in resourceful farming, baseline health care services, some level of infrastructure, and access to micro-credit for local commu-
The biggest fault of the status quo perpetuated by development officials and the U.N. bureaucracy stems from the unwillingness to pursue pragmatic innovative solutions. nities. In addition to clinical economics, the U.N. has also failed to devote sufficient resources to microfinance, a relatively inexpensive but highly successful tool in spurring development and allowing for the fulfillment of the MDGs. Former U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, remarked how “microfinance recognizes that poor people are remarkable reservoirs of energy and knowledge. And while the lack of financial services is a sign of poverty, today it is also understood as an untapped opportunity to create markets, bring people in from the margins and give them the tools with which to help themselves.” By incentivizing development on the lowest level and providing a means for advancement, many MDG’s will simultaneously be fulfilled. Women,
who currently receive more micro-credit than men, reap the benefits of the system. After generating revenue through entrepreneurial ventures, they often can afford tuition for their children and can purchase basic health services. Although the Millennium Declaration endorsed microfinance as a productive system to contribute to the MDGs, the international community has complacently pushed the initiative. Only $25 billion is currently invested in micro-programs, while an astounding $250 billion is requested by the industry. he status quo has colossally failed the billions of underprivileged individuals relying on the MDG’s for assistance, justice, and hope. “Failure” in the context of development results in deaths and suffering. Global citizens have an inherent responsibility to assist their fellow men. Complacency and negligence are not options; the world must decisively allocate the necessary resources. Were developed countries to halt their pursuits of petty militaristic altercation and downsize their excessive militaries, the plight of those suffering could be solved. In fact, if global defense spending were cut 3.3%, the diverted money could fund all of the MDG initiatives. The time has come for the international community to truly show resolve in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. HMR
HM Review Vol. XIX
Economics
In Times of Debt How our debt is connected to our politics and our history by andre manuel
changeyouractions.com
April 2010 HM Review
americaforpurchase.com
The national debt, always lurking around the corner, has come to the forefront of American politics. With the emergence of the Tea Party and “deficithawk” politicians, Americans have become more wary of the debt. The United States is emerging from the Great Recession, and now would be an opportune moment for lawmakers to come together and formulate a long-term plan to reduce the soaring debt. However, the obstructionist Republican Party has used the debt as an excuse to deny any new spending proposed by Congress or the President. Fear mongering and the politics of “no” have replaced rational discourse in Washington. Republicans are right in that spending is out of control, but utterly wrong in their response to the dilemma. With a debt of over $12 trillion and an annual budget deficit of over $1 trillion, it is obvious the government must do something to reign in spending, lest our country face a situation like Greece’s. However, due to many factors, the national debt has become overly politicized. The Republican Party, hungering for a victory in 2010, and the sound-bite media have skewed the implications of our debt and have instilled fear in the minds of Americans. Chasing high ratings, the media is quick to transform a slight economic worry into the biggest problem facing America. However, the greatest perpetrator of this gross misinformation campaign is the new Right. The Tea Party and conservative activists around the nation have taken fiscal conservatism to a new extreme, and the Republican Party has followed. The Republican Party has taken a stance against practically all new government spending. This includes stimulus spending that will help the economy in the long run. The most stunning example of this is Sena-
tor Jim Bunnings, who blocked an unemployment benefits and jobs bill on the grounds that it was too expensive. Simply for the purpose of making a political statement, he opposed necessary spending to help America’s growing unemployed. Republican lawmakers who supported the wildly expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now invoke the debt as their rational for opposing everything from their stimulus package to health care reform that may actually reduce the debt in the long run. It appears as if this strategy is working. Republicans seem less deranged in their absolute opposition to almost all proposed legislation, and polls show Republican gains in the upcoming midterm elections. However,
this is not because of the strength of Republican policies. Rather, it is the result of the gross exaggeration of the debt. America has been in debt since the Revolutionary War. The debt has always spiked during wars and periods of economic trouble. Yet when the wars ended and when the economy recovered, the debt went down. Taxable income increased and spending went down. America is currently in the midst of two wars and a severe economic recession. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan won’t last forever, and when they do end, we
will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The Great Recession has not only reduced tax revenue from lost jobs and cut wages, but has merited a trillion dollars worth of recovery spending. This spending is a temporary measure meant to slow the decline and spur growth. Republicans should take a lesson from Ronald Reagan. Under his administration, the debt tripled. However, his policies led to an unprecedented era of economic growth. Republicans have long heralded the free market as the solution to America’s problems. So they should take a lesson from the free market: sometimes you need to take a risk and spend money before you can profit. The national debt is a problem that needs to be addressed by the government. However, now is not the time. Measures to curb the debt, such as increasing taxes and cutting spending will surely hurt efforts at economic recovery. To prove this, we simply need to look back at the 1930’s. America suffered from massive debt as it emerged from the Great Depression. Roosevelt, seeking to reduce the debt, cut federal spending and raised taxes. However, this led to a recession in 1937, and a reversal of the years of economic recovery following the depression. America faces a similar situation now. We are recovering from a recession, and we are faced with a huge debt. However, this debt is not nearly as crippling as the right claims it is. The government must continue to govern, even during periods of recession and debt. Spending has stimulated the economy, and the government should wait until the economy has recovered to address the debt dilemma. This solution is not procrastination. It simply acknowledges that the government currently has bigger problems to deal with. Sometime in the future, however, the debt must be reduced. Countries with a debt that encompasses more than 90% of the GDP typically show economic growth of 2% less than nations with less debt. In the future, we will worry about cutting spending, especially in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, three of the most expensive government programs. However, now we must make sure that we recover from the recession, win the wars in the Middle East, and provide health care to all Americans. HMR
19
Science and Technology
War of the Whales
When the Hunt for Whales Ends with a Hunt for Humans
Ready for Action Advocates from Sea Shepherd pose for a photo. animal discovery
by alexander posner
Wherever Sea Shepherd goes, controversy follows. Founded in 1971, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has been at the forefront of ocean conservation efforts for the past 30 years. Its founder, Paul Watson, was one of the founding members of Greenpeace but was later voted 11-1 out of Greenpeace’s board because of his aggressive direct action tactics. Since the founding of Sea Shepherd, they have opposed whaling, dolphin fishing, shark finning, the seal hunt, and numerous other assaults on marine life. Their “direct action” approach has included ramming six ships and sinking eleven others. The most recent controversy involving Sea Shepherd is the killing of whales
20
in the Southern Ocean. Every year a Japanese whaling fleet consisting of eight ships travels to the Southern Ocean near Australia to meet a quota of 1,000 whales. Commercial whaling has been illegal since the 1986 global moratorium against whaling initiated by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). However, that same regulation allows an exception for whaling conducted in the name of scientific research (research whaling). Those involved in research are allowed to set their own quotas for this lethal research and the Japanese fleet utilizes this exception as a basis for conducting their annual whale hunt. Sea Shepherd and other environmental advocates charge that the Japanese are using this “scientific research” exception as a veil for undertaking com-
mercial whaling. When the Japanese ships return to port, they sell whale meat on the open market. A single whale sells starting at $100,000 and can bring up to $1 million. Although the Japanese vehemently assert that their whaling activities are in legal pursuit of research, it is clear that they are really killing whales in large numbers for the sake of the commercial sale of whale meat. The Japanese try to hide the real purpose of these whaling efforts as they paint the word “research”, in English, not Japanese, on the side of their ships in large white letters. They are consciously aware of their true intentions and they do this to simply contradict the anti-whaling viewpoint of environmentalists. Once they catch these whales, the HM Review Vol. XIX
scovery
Science and Technology Japanese fishermen cut up the whales onboard the ships, dump the organs overboard, and package the whale meat for storage and eventual sale. They do not conduct any research and have not published a single scientific report. This year the government of Australia has sent its own scientific research team to the Southern Ocean to collect non-lethal tissue samples from whales. One objective of this research is to produce scientific reports that provide an alternative to Japan’s “research” program and they are currently working on such a report, which they plan to publish later this year. For the past six years, Sea Shepherd has gone down to the Southern Ocean to physically confront and challenge the Japanese whaling fleet. As the confrontations have become increasingly intense, Animal Planet has begun to film these encounters, which are broadcast on a show called Whale Wars. Season 3 of the show will air this summer and will highlight the most recent confrontations. Some critics falsely accuse Sea Shepherd of doing the TV show solely for financial gain. Their real motive is to generate public awareness in their cause. Their real profit comes in the form of public recognition as many, including I, your humble writer, were unaware of this issue before the release of Whale Wars. The TV show is what has brought this issue to the international spotlight and has allowed Sea Shepherd to get closer to accomplishing their ultimate goal. So what exactly do the Sea Shepherds do? And how do they stop the Japanese from killing whales? Every year they send a ship down to the Southern Ocean carrying around thirty volunteers from around the globe. While the techniques of Sea Shepherd are aggressive, they are not intended to cause physical harm towards any human being. In fact, the Sea Shepherds have the reputation of not having caused a serious injury towards a human being in over three decades of operation. One of their most used techniques is the deployment of butyric acid, or rotten butter. While butyric acid is not dangerous and in fact is less acidic than orange juice, it does smell unpleasant. The Sea Shepherds will throw bottles of it onto the decks of the Japanese boats in order to dissuade the workers from workApril 2010 HM Review
ing on deck and contaminating any meat onboard. In fact the smell is so bad, that a single jar of butyric acid can prevent a ship from whaling for almost three days. Another popular technique used by the Sea Shepherds is prop fouling. The Sea Shepherds have two rigid inflatable boats (RIBs) on each of their large ships and they deploy the prop fouler from these boats. A prop fouler is essentially a long piece of thick rope designed to entangle itself in the ship’s propeller when placed in front of a moving vessel. While this technique is rarely successful, it keeps the Japanese on the run, which prevents them from whaling. In the first season of the television program Whale Wars, the Animal Planet channel highlighted the 2007-2008 Sea Shepherd campaign. First, two activists boarded one of the harpoon ships in hopes of delivering a letter ordering them out of the Southern Ocean. In response, the Japanese tied them to the side of the ship and held them against their will. This turned into an international incident and a standoff that lasted for three days until ultimately, the government of Australia negotiated the release of the two activists with the Japanese government. This incident brought increased public attention to the issue and encouraged the governments of Japan and Australia to exchange views about the annual whale hunt. These tensions escalated greatly during the most recent whaling season. Thanks to donations, including a $5 million one from the TV host Bob Barker, the Sea Shepherds were able to deploy three ships instead of one. One of their boats, called the Ady Gil, was a biodieselpowered trimaran. Relatively small in size, it was able to achieve speeds of over 40 knots and was even capable of submerging slightly below sea level. Its radar deflective paint made it undetectable to the whaling fleet making it one of their best assets during the campaign. Unfortunately on January 6th, as it was temporarily stationary in the water, the Ady Gil was rammed and split in half by one of the Japanese ships. Fortunately, everyone on board was rescued by of the other Sea Shepherd ships. By stopping to help attempt a rescue of their own ship, the Sea Shepherds lost the tail of the Japanese. But after several weeks they were
daily mail
Deadly catch A Japanese whaling ship, under the pretense of research, snags a whale from the ocean. able to locate the fleet again, following a path of whale organs in the water. The climax of the season occurred when Pete Bethune, the captain of the Ady Gil, boarded on of the whaling ships, the same ship that had rammed and destroyed the Ady Gil. As a citizen of New Zealand, he is allowed, under New Zealand law to make a citizens arrest of the captain. He boarded the ship in the middle of the night on a jetski and waited until sunrise before presenting an official letter to the Japanese captain. It not only called for the captain to turn himself in to the authorities, but it also demanded $3 million, to replace the destroyed vessel. As expected, the Japanese refused and instead took Pete Bethune on the fourweek journey back to Japan. He arrived
21
Science and Technology this past week and is currently being questioned by the authorities. Although no official charges have been filed, the Sea Shepherds have assembled a legal team to prepare for a potential court case. It is still unclear how the Japanese government will handle this situation. While the actions of Sea Shepherd may seem unconventional or excessive, they are making progress in slowing down the whaling fleet and to make whaling financially untenable. While they have not succeeded in stopping the killing of every whale, they have succeeded in cutting the quotas in half, which has cost the Japanese whalers millions of dollars. Every day the Japanese are unable to whale they are losing between two and three million dollars. For each of the past three years the Sea Shepherds have been able to cut the whaling quota in half, and in so doing they have caused a major financial loss to the government of Japan, which subsidizes the whaling industry. Especially dur-
At port Whaling ships are fitted with a waste disposal chute for whale remains, as can be seen on this docked Japanese vessel. the epoch times
22
ing a point of great economic struggle in Japan, at some point the financial viability of the whaling program will become questionable. So what is so essential about saving the lives of whales? The simple answer is that our oceans are dying and if they do, we will quickly follow them. In the 2009 documentary The End of the Line, the severe consequences of our overfishing were highlighted, and the statistics were shocking. Oceans constitute 70% of the Earth, and most of us assume that the bountiful supply of fish is endless. Globally, some 75 per cent of wild marine fish are now said to be either fully exploited or overfished, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. In European waters, for example, 80 percent of the stocks are overfished, according to the European Commission. We are severely overfishing our oceans. Take of the situation of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna as an example. The bluefin is a gourmet delicacy in Japan, sold at high prices. Today these fish are critically endangered, and as a result a single bluefin tuna can be sold in Japan as ootoro for up to $200,000. In a recent EU meeting in Luxembourg, top European officials met to discuss the fate of the fish and the industry that depends on it. When discussing the bluefin tuna, the scientists present at the meeting suggested that in order to prevent the population numbers from getting any worse, the quota would need to be set at 15 thousand tons. However, if they wanted to allow the population to replenish itself, the annual bluefin quota would need to be set at 10 thousand tons. Ignoring these scientific recommendations, the EU ministers voted to set the quota at almost 30 thousand tons, far above sustainable levels. Moreover there is no real policing force to ensure this quota is followed. Therefore the actual amount of bluefin caught this year will be around 60 thousand tons, which is one third of the entire population of bluefin still in existence. At this rate bluefin tuna will become extinct by 2012. Japan has the biggest market for bluefin tuna and the Mitsubishi corporation controls about 60% of the bluefin tuna market. Although it claims to be promoting sustainable fishing, its current fishing levels suggest just the op-
posite. Ignoring the endangered nature of the bluefin tuna, Mitsubishi actually sent out an even larger fishing fleet this year, capable of catching even more tuna. What it has been doing is building up a large reserve of frozen bluefin tuna. This means that if the bluefin tuna population ever collapses they will be in control of the last remaining reserves, which would allow them to set their own price. This same pattern of overfishing can be seen throughout the world. A recent study found that at out current rates of fishing, our oceans will collapse by the middle of this century. The implications of this would be devastating to the billions of people who rely on fish as their principle source of protein. In other words, we are looking at what is potentially one of the worst food shortages in history. This escalating crisis demands dramatic action and change. While the efforts of organizations like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society are important, they cannot change these global patterns alone. Governments must enact formal changes through stronger regulations of our fishing industries and by setting lower global fishing quotas. Here in the United States we have been relatively good at adapting to the bluefin tuna crisis. Our government has called for the complete end of bluefin tuna fishing in order to allow the species to replenish, an action that other countries also need to endorse and enforce. In addition, there is more we must do. Under our current legal system, we cannot prosecute local fisherman who violate their quotas and ignore fishing regulations. We can however prosecute international fishermen for doing the same thing. The United States government must strictly punish those who fail to follow existing quotas and regulations and, at the same time, work to reduce those quotas. Human beings remain the most dangerous ocean predators. If the oceans and all creatures that call them home are to survive as we know them, we must change. HMR
HM Review Vol. XIX
Science and Technology
Responding to HPV Infections chloe kling
H
April 2010 HM Review
strains put women at increased risk of developing cervical cancer; low-risk strains are not associated with putting women at a higher risk for developing cancer of the cervix but are associated with the development of genital warts. HPV types 16 and 18 are high-risk strains and HPV types 6 and 11 are low-risk. 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% of all cervical cancer cases. Types 6 and 11 are responsible for 90% of all of the
one or more strains of the vaccine they will still receive the benefit of protection from the other strains in the vaccine to which they have not yet been exposed. The vaccine is not therapeutic and does not serve as a form of treatment. Gardasil has been FDA approved for girls 9-26 years old. It is administered as three separate injections in the arm, spaced out over a six-month period. The efficacy of the vaccine is limited. A person who receives the vaccine will be protected against HPV types 16 and 18, which account for 70% of the high-risk strains. The vaccine will not protect women from the 30% of cervical cancers caused by other strains. The vaccine will also not protect women or men from those cases of genital warts not caused by strains 6 or 11. Hopefully, future vaccines will be developed that will protect against additional high and low risk strains of the virus. The duration of the protective effect of the vaccine is not known. The vaccases cine’s protective effect has been demonof genital warts. strated to be effective after five years and HPV vaccine Gardasil was ap- it has been confidently estimated that it proved by the Food and Drug Adminis- will last at least ten years. Booster shots tration (FDA) in 2006. This vaccine in- may be necessary if the person’s immune oculates individuals against four strains resistance to the vaccine is not mainof the HPV virus (6,11,16 and 18) and tained. guards the woman against the developThe United States is fortunate in that ment of both cervical cancer and genital it has a relatively organized and successwarts. The vaccine is preventative, and ful screening program that has been reit is effective only against those strains sponsible for a 75% reduction in the ocin the vaccine to which the woman has currence of cervical cancer over the last not yet been exposed before receiving the fifty years. The cases of cervical cancer vaccine. and the number of deaths from cervical It is recommended that the vaccine cancer are relatively small in proporbe administered to girls before they be- tion to the population of the country. come sexually active or shortly thereafter. Nonetheless, the large number of people If a person has already been exposed to infected with the HPV virus results in
23
pharmaproducts.com
uman papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the leading cause of cervical cancer and is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. HPV has also been found to be the viral trigger responsible for many other cancers. Each year in the United States, about 4,000 women die from cervical cancer, and 11,000 new cases are diagnosed. Cervical cancer is globally the second most common cancer affecting women. It is a pressing concern in developing countries. Internationally, there are nearly 500,000 new cases and over 250,000 deaths per year. HPV infections are also responsible for genital warts in both women and men. Over 50% of all HPV infections occur in individuals between 15-25 years of age and by the time a sexually active individual is 50 years old, there is an 80% chance that he or she will have acquired an HPV infection. Fortunately, 70% of all infections resolve on their own within the first year of infection, 90% of all infections resolve on their own within two years, and the average new infection lasts for only about eight months before it goes away. Cancer-causing strains, however, don’t always spontaneously resolve and if they persist and are left untreated, they may eventually develop into cervical cancer over the course of the next few decades. Most cervical cancers are diagnosed when women are between 35-50 years of age. There are about 100 different types or strains of HPV infections. The specific strains that are responsible for HPV infections that occur in the genital area are categorized into high-risk and low-risk types, referred to by number. High-risk
Science and Technology Men who are vaccinated are significantly less likely to get infected by HPV, and they will get the benefit and relief of avoiding medical and surgical treatments, the inconvenience of doctor visits, and the emotional trauma related to having this persistent and recurrent infection. Men who learns that they have an HPV infection have a moral and ethical obligation to inform their partner (and vice versa) so that they have the opportunity to be evaluated by their physician. Men who get vaccinated and who do not get an HPV infection may be able to avoid having these embarrassing conversations with their partner(s). This reason alone may make getting vaccinated worthwhile for many people. The introduction of the HPV vaccine has the potential for becoming a major global public health advance. The vaccine may be especially valuable in developing countries where over 80% of the deaths from cervical cancer currently occur and where 90% of the deaths from cervical cancer will occur by the year 2020. The five-year survival rate in developing countries is less than 50% compared to 66% in developed countries. An HPV vaccine program in underdeveloped nations would reduce the spread of HPV 16 and 18. Mathematical models have determined that vaccinating 66% of the population would decrease the inci-
dence of cervical cancer by 80%; it would take, 40 to 60 years of vaccination of the general population to see a significant reduction in HPV-related diseases. The introduction of the Pap smear into general screening programs in the United States has reduced the incidence of cervical cancer by 75% over the past few decades. However, developing countries lack funding to establish organized screening programs to detect cervical cancer at an early stage. For every fiveyear delay in a global cervical cancer prevention/detection program, there will be an additional two million deaths in the world. Questions that need to be addressed include whether to invest scarce financial resources towards the support of organized screening programs which have a proven efficacy or whether to initiate a vaccination program into developing countries. The introduction of the HPV vaccine in developing countries could be vital in halting the irrevocable downward force which destabilizes families and condemns them to poverty when they are deprived through illness or death of a loved one who is often the primary caretaker of her children. A global effort will be required to coordinate both increased screening and affordable vaccination in order to eliminate the scourge of cervical cancer. HMR
rachelaguiar.com
frequent procedures and doctor visits, which would decrease once the longterm protective effect of the vaccine is apparent. The cost, inconvenience and emotional trauma associated with the diagnosis and treatment of this condition can be avoided. Men play an important role in the transmission of HPV to their female partner(s). The problem of HPV infections in men has to be addressed in order to decrease HPV exposure in women. Although it would be more cost-effective to ensure that a higher percentage of women are vaccinated than to try to vaccinate both women and men, there are nonetheless many advantages to the individual man that may persuade him to consider getting vaccinated. There are many benefits why the man should consider getting vaccinated. A man who is vaccinated will have a decreased chance of developing an HPV infection. Men who are vaccinated will be less likely to act as a carrier who can potentially transmit the virus which causes cervical cancer and genital warts to their current and/or future partner(s). Men need to be mindful that they are responsible for half the problem in causing the spread of this infection, and it is the man’s responsibility to take adequate precautions in order to minimize the chance of spreading this infection.
24
HM Review Vol. XIX
Viewpoints
A
by nathan raab
well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Without ifs, ands, or buts, every able bodied American, black or white, man or woman, rich or poor, has the right to own and use a gun, provided, of course, they do not fire it to the detriment of another’s life or property. The Supreme Court, which is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions like the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, has consistently upheld the right of Americans to keep and bear firearms, most recently in District of CoApril 2010 HM Review
lumbia v. Heller. Advocates of gun-bans or gun “control”, however, continue to make two seemingly valid claims: either the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is wrong and must be overturned, or times have changed and the Constitution must be amended to allow more regulation of guns. Fortunately for our freedoms, both their statements are wrong. The interpretation of the Second Amendment as one guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms is correct, and the reasoning behind it— to allow the citizenry an ultimate check and balance against tyranny—is possibly more sound today than it was over 200 years ago. Most interpretations of the Second Amendment as a “group right”, or a right for people to form a militia, begin with a grammatical error: they confuse the preoperative clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” with the operative clause “the
25
babycenter.com
Get One It’s Your Right
“The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The phrasing of the second amendment has caused much confusion and has resulted in fierce debate over the right of an individual to bear arms.
Viewpoints right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Syntactically, the preoperative clause is an explanation of the “right of the People to keep and bear arms” and not a right in and of itself; it modifies “the right of the People to keep and bare arms” by describing the reason why it should not be infringed. The writers of the Bill of Rights, had they wished, could have rephrased the amendment as “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” because “a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.” Another grammatical marker that “A well regulated militia” is a preoperative is the use of the continuous tense of “to be”, or “being”. “A well regulated militia” is and will be “necessary to the security of a free state.” Keeping “a well regulated militia” is not what will “not be infringed”. The “right to keep and bear arms”, the object of infringed, is what must be protected. Group rights interpretations are also almost willfully ignorant of the context of the Second Amendment. In the late 18th century, a militia was not a rigorous and properly drilled volunteer protective force, like perhaps the National Guard is today, but rather every (male) civilian able to take up arms and fight for freedom; in that sense, “a well regulated militia” does refer to the general population whether or not it is in the direct body of the Second Amendment. This is in sync with most state constitutions, on which the Bill of Rights was based: North Carolina and Massachusetts, for example, claimed, “That the people have a right to bear arms.” Later on, 19th century legal schol ars—chief among them Justice Joseph Story, who wrote a very influential Commentaries on the Constitution— agreed. Story himself went as far as to claim “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” A claim that the 2nd Amendment only applies to state-sanctioned militias crumbles under such overwhelming contrary evidence. Relative to the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, a group-interpreted Second Amendment is also absurd: no other right in the Bill of Rights only applies to people acting as a group. I have the right of free speech whether I speak
26
alone or with a cast of thousands; I can assemble—even though the actual text is “the right of the people to peacefully assemble”—as part of a big group or as a loner with dreadlocks chanting anti-war songs in front of the White House. In any case, what would a group interpretation of the Second Amendment say? That people have the right to join a militia? The Constitution already gives the federal government the power to create and maintain armies; so that kind of a Second Amendment would be redundant. That people have the right to form organizations to defend their person and property? But if the government did not sanction those organizations—and the 2nd Amendment in this interpretation seems to claim that the government would be forced to sanction them—they would
The Second Amendment was originally meant to keep the American people safe from tyranny... be equivalent to individuals utilizing an individual right encapsulated by the 2nd Amendment together! Could it perhaps just be a protection of the right of the state to raise a militia? No other provision of the Constitution, save the 10th Amendment, which explicitly states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively”, involves the rights of a state. Moreover, the Federal Government has only the powers specifically delegated to it in the Constitution, which do not include the power to regulate state militias. As a result, we can see that a group-rights 2nd Amendment would not only be an incorrect interpretation, but also an incoherent and superfluous one. Our Founding Fathers did not seem to be so stupid
as to write an incoherent and superfluous amendment to the Constitution. It is far more likely, then, that it is instead the group-rights interpretation that is wrong. But should we amend the Constitution and get rid of the Second Amendment? Not if we want to keep our other rights intact. The Second Amendment was originally meant to keep the American people safe from tyranny; as Justice Story put it, “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against… domestic usurpations of power by rulers…since it offers a strong moral check against the arbitrary power of [them]”. This danger of tyranny is very real and tyrants have almost always begun their wars against freedom by checking or eliminating the right to bear arms. In the American Revolution, the battles of Lexington and Concord started because the British wanted to burn the military supplies of Americans stored in a Lexington warehouse. Hitler, before beginning his “final solution”, disarmed the Jews, and where they were armed in Warsaw—even when their arms were no match for the powerful German police—they lasted for over a month. The opening shots of the genocides in Darfur and Rwanda were the confiscation of the guns of minorities. In Soviet Russia, you could not find any guns for purchase (nor could they find you). Being that our own government today seems to be expanding without limits, it is worthwhile to be afraid of it, if just a little, and to provide an ultimate check and balance should it become too big and trample over Americans’ civil liberties. This does not mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should own a gun. Sensible regulations, like the barring of felons or those who are mentally ill from owning firearms or the prohibition of sale of machine guns or RPGs, are within the scope of the 2nd Amendment and can remain in place. Eventually, it is up to voters to decide how exactly to determine the safest way to allow everyone to obtain guns. Two things, however, must remain clear: everyone does have the right to “keep and bear arms”, and all regulation of that keeping and bearing must keep in mind the individual’s right to keep and bear those arms without undue governmental interference. HMR HM Review Vol. XIX
Viewpoints
America and the Gun?
W
wikipedia
by stephen paduano
ith lawmakers in Washington continuously debating the interpretation of the Second Amendment, we must know exactly what it means and how the US government has dealt with it in years past. People and groups such as the NRA have chosen to interpret the second ammendment as all citizens of the United States have the right to own an unregistered firearm, of any type, for their own security. On the other hand, more liberal groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have expressed their beliefs that owning a firearm increases the probability that danger will occur. However, policy makers on the left have no intention of repealing any regulation acts that have already been ratified. As an advocate of public safety, I would have to agree with the latter belief and stick to the gun regulation laws that are already in existence. Currently, the United States has many gun regulation acts that are in effect starting with The National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposes taxes on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers, while mandating registration of gun posApril 2010 HM Review
session in accordance to the act. However the United States government did not stop here, acts increasing gun crime awareness in schools, enhanced regulation of the industry, and federal background checks followed in line through The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968), The Gun Control Act (1968), and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993). These acts are ideal because they do not infringe upon anyone’s constitutional rights, and they also increase safety and awareness, which fulfills another key principle in the Constitution to ensure citizens’ protection. However, Republican beliefs have made their way through Congress, such as the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which sought to revise key sections of the Gun Control Act that had been passed twenty years prior so that know federal records would be kept on firearm owners. This conservative act falls right in line with the beliefs of major right-wing organizations that choose to interpret the second amendment literally, and have no regard for the safety and wellbeing of other citizens. Although someone should be able to possess a firearm, the owner should not be able to carry it concealed, in public, be unregistered, or exempt from federal background checks. It is of
absolute necessity that the government’s first priority be the safety of its citizens. Nonetheless, groups have gone so far as to say that owning a handgun, or a machine gun, or a short-barreled rifle, or a short-barreled shotgun, actually increase one’s safety. However this belief can easily be refuted with recent data verifying that 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries for people nineteen or younger were caused by registered firearms. In addition, registered firearms have killed 1,134 people accidentally in 1996. Although rightful action has been taken against unregistered gun owners in places such as New York, where the penalty is three years in jail, not enough action has been taken to ensure people’s safety. The results of policy being drafted in future weeks must form a conclusion on the issue in restricting the use of firearms. A percentage as high as seventy-two for unintentional deaths and injuries by registered firearms should be a clear cut sign that the United States must do everything in its capability to ensure safety. As sacred as the constitution may be, its clauses are open not only to free interpretation, but also to amendment. HMR
27
28
HM Review Vol. XIX
The Horace Mann Review Horace Mann School 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, New York 10471