Issue 3 - Leftist Latin America by The Horace Mann Review

Review the horace mann

editorials & opinion - features - special features - domestic international - economics - science & technology - horace mann

Leftist Latin America March 2009 HM Review

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Editorials & Opinion

21 Perspective: A Bolivian

03-04 Shahar Peer, Polarizing Par-

The rise of Bolivian President Evo Morales. BY DORIN AZERAD

tisan Politics, and Al-Bashir.

Features

05 No Mas FARC!

The Marxist, paramilitary group continues to terrorize Colombia and threaten its stability as a democratic nation. BY ZOE RUBIN

08 Socialism vs. Communism

And how they function in the modern world. BY CHRISTINE KIM

22 Booming Brazil

This South American state and world’s tenth largest economy might become the next great superpower. BY AKASH GOYAL

Special Features

Who is the real Che Guevera? BY REBECCA SEGALL

11 The Cuban Embargo Crisis

How the Cuban embargo has held Cuba in socioeconomic immobility and why it should be removed. BY JACOB MOSCONA-SKOLNIK

14 Old Adversaries

The CIA has been trying to influence leftist Latin states for decades. However, the CIA has proven to be largely ineffective and incompetent in dealing with the U.S.’s Southern neighbors. BY JAMES YARO

17 South America Saved (By Itself)

Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador have begun to resist U.S. influence. Can these countries come out of the yoke of the U.S. and become truly independent? BY STARLYTE HARRIS

19 The Pathfinder

Salvador Allende set the precedent for a workable democratic socialist state. How that could pave the way for future governments. BY AARON GOLDMAN

33 The Kosovo Precedent

How Kosovo and Georgia changed Russo-American relations. BY DAN TEMEL

37 Russia’s Back in the U.S.S.R With the realization of the Putin doctrine, Russia now poses a credible threat to the U.S. BY ZANDER DANIEL

Economics

23 Backing the Holy Land

Israel has often been cited as America’s closest ally. But why? The media and politics surrounding the United States’ relations with Israel BY DANIEL GRAFSTEIN

09 Perspective: A Second Look 25 Perspective: Dea(r)th of at an Icon

International

Success Story

Diplomacy

Simply put: Israel’s attack on Gaza was wrong, rash, destructive, and a setback in the plans for peace in the Middle East. BY VICTOR LADD

41 Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe

BY ANTONIA WOODFORD

43 Regressing to the Past

A rundown of the detrimental effects of socialism on the world economy. BY ALEX MA

45 Perspective: Union Problems BY MATT FOX

Domestic

27 The New Socialist Question

The world “Socialism” is being floated around a lot these days, but what does it mean? Are Obama’s policies socialist? And, most importantly: will they help or hurt America? BY DANIELLE ELLISON

30 Perspective: Really, Roland? Really?

Is Blagojevich the only one to blame? Who was heir to the throne for Obama’s seat? BY JASON SUNSHINE

31 President Obama’s Broken Cabinet

Have his cabinet members been unfairly victimized? The Review weighs in on the first major crisis of the Obama Administration. BY EMILY FELDSTEIN

Science & Technology

47 Not Just Fun and Games

Violent video games and their negative effects on society. BY JUSTIN KATIRAEI

49 Final Say: The Obama Doctrine

How Barack Obama should address the crisis in Darfur. BY AVITAL MORRIS

50 Subscription Form

Please become a subscriber of the HM Review. Your generosity allows this publication to continue to print each year.

For additional content and updates, check out the website at: web.horacemann.org/review/ HM Review Vol. XVIII

Letter from the Editor The Horace Mann Review Volume XVIII , Issue 2 A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture

Letter from the Editor Issue III: Leftist Latin America

Venkat Kausik Editor-in-Chief

Zachary Malter Executive Editor

Alice Kissilenko Thomas Hwang Editorial Director

William Kim

Deputy Managing Editor

Managing Editor

Gopal Das

Managing Director

Tyler Holden Jarett Bienenstock Photography Editor

Nancy DaSilva Will Dubbs Nick Herzeca Kevin Lin Spencer Penn Dan Shapiro Senior Editors

Press Night The Review staff poses for a photo before working on Issue III.

Director of Operations

Starlyte Harris Henry Hoglund Jason Sunshine Dan Temel Antonia Woodford James Yaro Senior Columnists

Aradhna Agarwal Nick Gerard Katie Dubbs Webmaster Production Assistants

Board of Trustees Maximilian D.C. Thompson, Zachary FreyerBiggs, Charles Stam, Kunal Malkani Copy Editors Mario Alvarez, Dorin Azerad, Jessica Chi, Andew Demas, Danielle Ellison, Alex Falk, Alexander Familiant, Emily Feldstein, Daniel Grafstein, Dylan Gilbert, Aaron Goldman, Justin Katiraei, Victor Ladd, Deependra Mookim, Rebecca Segall Contributing Writers Dorin Azerad, Alexander Daniel, Andrew Demas, Danielle Ellison, Emily Feldstein, Matt Fox, Aaron Goldman, Akash Goyal, Daniel Grafstein, Justin Katiraei, Christine Kim, Victor Ladd, Alex Ma, Avital Morris, Jacob MosconaSkolnik, Zoe Rubin, Rebecca Segall Faculty Advisor Mr. Gregory Donadio The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the AmericanScholasticPressAssociation,andthe National Scholastic Press Association. Opinionsexpressedinarticlesorillustrationsarenot necessarilythoseoftheEditorialBoardorofthe Horace Mann School. Please contact The Reviewforinformationonadvertisementsatthereview@horacemann.org. cover picture: 3arabawy/flickr, designed by uc berkely activist fares, inspired by the struggle of the kafr el-dawar textile strikers, found on www.arabist.net

March 2009 HM Review

Dear Reader, Welcome to the third issue of Volume XVIII of the Horace Mann Review. Our theme this issue is Socialism in Latin America. In our features section, we examine Latin American socialism in numerous different countries, from Colombia to Cuba to Bolivia. There is no better example than Latin America for the growing effect socialism is having in our world. We explore the influence of socialism from various perspectives this issue, dealing with its significance in U.S. policy in the domestic section, to its economic ramifications in the economics section. We also explore many other issues that have grabbed the headlines or deserved to in recent times. These issues include the continuously unfolding drama of Rod Blagojevich and Roland Burris, the changing relationship between the United States and Russia, hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, and the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. We have also introduced a revamped “editorials & opinion” section this issue; now, opinion pieces fit into the other sections, while short pieces written by our editors appear in the “editorials & opinion” section. The topics our senior editors wrote about this issue were the politicallymotivated banning of Shahar Peer from the Dubai Tennis Championships, partisan politics, and the need for action against Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir. There are two pieces of exciting news to announce this issue. Firstly, I would like to congratulate two Review editors, Spencer Penn and Dan Shapiro, on being elected

Student Body President & Student Body President. I would also like to congratulate the other candidates for making their mark on the election and the student body as well. During the election, many people complained that there wasn’t enough coverage of school issues. Specifically, the student body did not know who was active in student government, and even if it was told that some specific students were active, the students were not familiar with what student government had actually accomplished. Clearly, there was a niche waiting to be filled. Conveniently, there was a publication planning to fill it. I am extremely pleased and excited to introduce the HM section of the HM Review to the general public. Given the nature of school governance, this section will be released separately from the rest of the HM Review, and more often: it will be released on a biweekly schedule. It will cover just what the Review covers: current events, politics, policy, and culture, but this time focused on Horace Mann School. This is not another publication, but rather an extension of Review the magazine, further connecting the HM Review to our school. The first issue will come out early April. Congratulations on reaching third trimester, and enjoy Spring Break-

Venkat Kausik Editor-in-Chief

Editorials & Opinion fail, socialists: extreme politics

by dan shapiro

by nick herzeca

As a huge sports fan, the recent events taking place within the Dubai Tennis Championships are extremely upsetting. Israeli tennis star Shahar Peer has been denied a visa to participate in the tournament that began on February 25th of this year. The decision has undoubtedly been made as a result of the recent attacks on Gaza by Israel, as confirmed by the tournament spokesperson. Now, I am no new fan to sports, so I understand that politics does find its way into the world of athletic competition. That being said, I think it is unacceptable that in the 21st century, a tournament not meant to be affiliated with any government, can have the option to pick and choose its participants. Shahar Peer is an established athlete both on and off the court. As the only prominent female Israeli tennis player, Peer brings both monetary and social benefits to the tournament. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) continues to cite player security as the reason for this decision. Oddly enough, the UAE failed to look at the situation carefully, and in turn, received much backlash. The Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) threatened to drop their 17-year-old two million dollar event in Dubai next year, if the situation is not resolved. Furthermore, The Wall Street Journal has removed its sponsorship from the tournament. This situation obviously can be looked at as a microcosm of a global dilemma. However, my real problem with the UAE’s decision is that they are attempting to jade sporting events for its fans. As a fan of tennis, I want to see every player who is qualified to participate compete. Furthermore, the precedent set allows athletic venues to discriminate, which cannot be a reality in

The current economic recession has given each party the opportunity to become America’s savior by solving one of the country’s greatest crises of the last century. Despite this remarkable opportunity, both parties have been gridlocked by the traditional partisan bickering. What has recently emerged, though, has been each party attempting to marginalize the other through myopic criticisms. The Republicans have tabbed any measures by the Democrats to promote a “new, New Deal,” as socialist while the Democrats have anointed the controversial Rush Limbaugh as the heir to the conservative throne. Neither parties have committed themselves towards solving the crisis, but have instead resolved to partisan fighting. As the new Democratic majority has pushed for more progressive legislation, they have been confronted by Republican cries of socialism. Any mention of possible nationalizations of banks, which now seems to be the inevitable course of action, has drawn the s-word from most Republican leaders. The word socialism has a voodoo sort of connotation, inharmoniously linked with communism, yet not many people oppose socialist ideas such as public schools and our government controlled police and fire fighting services. Such unconstructive criticisms have no constructive outcome, and will only lead to a prolonged crisis. One of the new people emerging as the prominent voice of the post-Bush conservatism is the controversial Rush Limbaugh. Nothing more than a radio talk show host, Limbaugh’s unrestrained tirades, including his statement, “I want Barack Obama to fail,” have drawn the eyes and ears of many Americans. Many

shefshef

double fault: let shahar peer play

Banned Shahar Peer, Israel’s most prominent tennis star, was banned from the Dubai Tennis Championships on the grounds of security issues, sparking an international backlash against the tournament. our world. Interestingly enough, the UAE, facing the imminent disaster of their tournament, decided to grant visas for an Israeli doubles team; however, Peer was not granted the same courtesy. An example of the global reaction to this unfortunate situation is American tennis star Andy Roddick’s withdrawal from the tournament. Roddick stated that he would not participate in a tournament that was discriminatory, and I for one have newfound respect for the former US Open champion. Roddick’s actions are truly admirable, and are worthy of both replication and praise. They remind us that, both in the sports world and out of the sports world, we can work to fight against discrimination and in favor of equality. HMR

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Editorials & Opinion

act now: justice to al-bashir

www.progressillinois.com

by nancy dasilva

Polarizing Politics Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been in the spotlight recently for many polarizing remarks regarding President Barack Obama. Democrats have seen Limbaugh’s ascension as an opportunity to link his contentious rhetoric to Republican policies. Democratic strategists such as James Carville and Paul Begala have worked with President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, to correlate Limbaugh’s antics with the Republican Party.

The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuing of a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Hassan alBashir on Wednesday March 4 proved that the international community feels compelled to bring about a quick and decisive end to the genocide in Darfur. In the past six years, countless UN resolutions have attempted to either expand the mandate of UN peacekeeping troops on the ground in Darfur or give aid to those living in refugee and internally displaced persons (IDP) camps; however, the United Nations has completely ignored the core of the problem: the man responsible for these attacks. The UN should be passing resolutions that affect the way al-Bashir and the Janjaweed militia operate, not the actions of the UN peacekeepers. While I commend the ICC for taking a such an aggressive stance in this long overdue decision, it does not make up for the fact that throughout the six long years of the genocide in Darfur, the UN has taken a passive and, frankly, ineffective approach

towards solving the crisis in Darfur. Why in the past six years has the genocide made front page news only a handful of times? It is an outrage that Nicholas Kristof alone has written more articles in the New York Times about the genocide than the UN has issued press releases and resolutions combined. This is not one man’s or one body’s conflict to solve: it is the duty of the

It is the time to take the momentum created by the arrest warrant and run with it. entire international community working as one to confront this crisis head on. We must shift our focus from what the UN itself can do but how the UN as a negotiating body can act in the region to promote peace and the end to this humanitarian crisis. Now is not the time to pass another futile resolution, it is the time to take the momentum created by the arrest warrant and run with it. This arrest warrant has brought the humanitarian crisis in Darfur onto the world stage and embedded itself in the minds of all citizens of the world. We have to stop relying on outdated legislation of the UN and look to our world leaders to follow the precedent now set by the ICC and take action that will make a difference, not chaos. HMR

Unfortunately, both parties In the Open Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has let a genocide committed themselves to continue for years under his watch, but he is yet to face justice. marginalize the other party by connecting their policies to extreme examples. In order to solve the largest amalgamation of crises in American history, bipartisan cooperation is essential. Unfortunately, both parties committed themselves to marginalize the other party by connecting their policies to extreme examples. Deriding Democratic solutions as Socialist deprives their ideas of any value. Similarly, the anointment of Limbaugh as the pole-bearer for the Republican Party drains the Republican agenda of any sort of sensibility. This unfortunate cross-marginalization has paralyzed our political system and has destroyed any credibility from the parties’ solutions. This political environment is not suitable for the kind of change needed to confront the plagues of our nation. HMR

March 2009 HM Review

www.daylife.com

Features

Features dirtyharrysplace.com

No Mas FARC!

The Marxist, paramilitary group continues to terrorize Colombia and threaten its stability as a democratic nation. by zoe rubin

n a country known for the world’s highest homicide rate as well as its thriving and violent drug trafficking industry throughout decades of political unrest, one group remains at the heart of it all. The Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) is the Western Hemisphere’s greatest and most well funded terrorist group. Founded upon Marxist principles the organization today controls over one third of Columbia’s land in its mountainous and rural countryside.

Marching Along: Many children fight in FARC’s rebel force, a clear violation of international human rights guerilla terrorist groups, most significantly the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the FARC. Established as the military branch of the Communist party in 1964, the organization severed ties with the party in the 1980’s to become its own paramilitary group founded upon Marxist ideals. Today, the FARC is well funded primarily by their connection to Columbia’s cocaine industry and drug cartels. Additionally, FARC generates funds through the kidnappings of high-profile figures for ransom, most

tions highlight the many international human rights laws that the FARC neglects. The FARC’s common kidnappings violate both the Geneva Convention and Protocol II, two highly significant international human rights laws. Despite statements by the FARC that they will not continue such inhumane actions, they have. In 2000 the group kidnapped and held a three-year-old boy and five year old girl, whom they held hostage for ransom. In addition, the group recently began a new initiative they call Law OO2. This “law” requires all Colombians

FARC is the Western Hemisphere’s greatest and most well funded terrorist group. Founded upon Marxist principles the organization today controls over one third of Columbia’s land in its mountainous and rural countryside. During a time of violent political regimes, from socialists to conservatives, the FARC emerged as a voice of Columbia’s rural poor. The terrorist organization was founded after a decade of bloody civil conflict known as La Violenca between the Colombian Liberal Party, the Colombian Communist Party, and the Colombian Conservative Party from around 1948 to 1958, triggered by the assassination of Colombian presidential candidate Jorge Eliecer Gaitan in 1948. After years of brutal warfare the period came to an end only to bring about the establishment of numerous

famously the Franco-Columbian politician Ingrid Betancourt who was released in July of this year. Still, the organization holds 700 individuals hostage, 40 notable high-profile people among them, whom they hope to use as bait for negotiations. The traumatic accounts of recently rescued hostages paint a gruesome image of the humane violations these prisoners suffer as well as other violations attributed to the group. These accounts, along with the reports of numerous other non-governmental organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Na-

with U.S $1 million or greater to pay common taxes to the FARC, or risk being taken hostage themselves. The group brutally mistreats their imprisoned enemy combatants and non-state actors by denying them vital medical aid or outside treatment. Yet these violations are only some of many far greater. One of the greatest issues the international community has with the FARC is that according to People’s Advocate, sixty percent of the organization’s fighters are under the age of fifteen. Many of these underage soldiers join the group not out of force but instead from a desire

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Features

nytimes.com

No More! Colombians protest FARC’s presence in their country. that it will lead to a better life. Yet once they join the group, they are stuck. Susceptible to disease and sexual pressure once they have joined the groups, these children, some as young as eight, often cannot get permission to leave. They do not desert FARC, for the punishment for desertion is certain death by firing squad. Other inhumane actions of the FARC include its attacking hospitals, ambulances, and other medical facilities, its numerous murders of innocent civilians, and its own highly biased trials for both captured combatants and their own members. Yet they are not the only group in this conflict whose inhumane actions have been continuously questioned. The July 2nd rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and other FARC hostages raised questions as to the role of non-governmental organizations in the country. During the operation, which has been named Operation Jaque, American and Colombian officials posed as a fictitious non-governmental organization, International Humanitarian Mission, who was to bring the prisoners from the regional FARC commander César to the terrorist group’s leader, Alfonso Cano. The NGO would have been aiding the terrorist group by transporting their hostages to their leader, a set-up that was remarkably simple for the army officials to create. This recalls the words of President Uribe in 2003, who publicly stated that some of Columbia’s humane rights groups were in front of terrorists. The U.S. embassy report

March 2009 HM Review

in that same year proved Uribe’s controversial statement. One group on the list, the Jesuit-founded Center for Popular Research and Education or Cinep, clearly supported Columbia’s notorious guerilla groups out of their own bias against the government. The very organizations whose roles are to promote peace in the region may be doing little of the sort. However, it is not only the FARC and their supporters whose actions can be labeled as unjust and inhumane. In their effort to show that they are making progress in putting down the leftist group, Columbia’s army and police have been known to murder innocent individuals they claim to be FARC members, through what is called extra-judicial killings. Government members target and kill innocent civilians whom they pretend are actually FARC members. Such killings have substantially boosted the death records of FARC guerillas, thus acting as proof of the Colombian militaries supposed success. In the last year alone, Amnesty International recorded 330 killings; this number was up from the 130 civilians wrongly murdered in 2003. These actions have become so widely accepted that the Colombian government has turned a blank eye to the killings. Just last year, Columbia’s President Álvaro Uribe publicly stated that these inhumane killings do not occur. However, the recent civilian outrage by the military’s cold-blooded actions has promoted civil outrage not just in the streets of Bogotá, but all over the globe. Last November, the extra-judicial killings of eleven men in Soacha, a poorer neighborhood just beyond Bogotá, the

capital of Columbia, finally prompted the Colombian government to recognize and prosecute these injustices. These eleven men’s bodies were found in grave hundreds of miles from Soacha where they had been listed as being members of the FARC, killed during conflict. The resulting public uproar and mass reaction to the cruel murders has forced the Colombian government to respond to their own army’s corruption. Immediately, twenty-seven high-ranking army officials were dismissed from the army, after which the top army commander and veteran, General Mario Montoya, resigned. But, this purge will not be all, said one army official, “That’s not going to be the end of it.” Now, Columbia’s attorney general Mario Germán Iguarán Arana, the successor to previous attorney general Luis Camilo Osorio, whose actions had been critically attacked by Humans Rights Watch, is examining over 780 of these cases— the results of which could affect over 2,000 Colombian soldiers. Recently, evidence has come to light naming both nations and individuals worldwide that have been supporting the FARC through funding, educations, medical help, and other forms of assistance, from seizures of computers during multiple government raids on the organization. Columbia’s president Álvaro Uribe believes Venezuela, a nation whose role in negotiating numerous hostage releases has greatly aided Columbia’s counter-terrorist operations, has given the group over $300 million. Although the discovery of Cuba’s medical aid to the group and the many FARC camps in other South American nations is detrimental to

www.ufmg.br

Features

Opposition: Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has intensified efforts to curb FARC’s terrorist actions in Colombia. Columbia’s government enough, the greater issue these raids have discovered is the far-flung support the organization has received from individuals all across the globe. Suppliers and other allies of the terrorist group have been located from Australia to the Middle East, China to Russia, as well as all over Latin America. Continuing investigation on the issue has thus far concluded that the FARC has such a great appeal today due to the Anti-American sentiments echoing across the globe. President Uribe’s enemies portray him as being an American puppet as he continues to lead Columbia in a further West-policy based direction, recently through free trade agreements as well as military alliances. In contrast, South American figures such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have taken significant steps to lessen American influence in the continent. A leader of the South American socialist movement, Chavez recently aided the creation of the Inter-American Development Bank, an organization formed to lessen South America’s reliance on orga-

nizations such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. Aided not only by American foreign policy but also through the United States’ governmental intervention in Columbia’s security and military initiatives, Columbia has become one of the most US-friendly nations in all of South America. Such a connection has only increased the FARC’s national recruitment levels and worldwide support. But such this sentiment is not enough to quell Columbia’s growing disgust at the FARC’s continued terrorist acts.

“The FARC made themselves criminals long ago … we are simply tired of this.” Last year, hundreds of thousands of Colombians protested the FARC’s continued terror in their nation, as they desire freedom and peace from this continuous threat. Smaller protests took place throughout many international cities. As one Co-

lombian said, “The FARC made themselves criminals long ago… we are simply tired of this.” The statements of many nations that the FARC is a belligerent force and not a terrorist group as well as the continued murders in rural jungle camps emphasized the Colombians’ need not to live in such constant fear. The recent rescue operations of Ingrid Betancourt and her fellow captives as well as many recent successful negotiations have encouraged Columbia that the fear can pass and the FARC can be conquered. However before the Columbia’s peace can truly be a reality, reform must come to not only the FARC but also Columbia’s government, NGO’s , drug farmers, children, and numerous other groups. A people cannot be freed from fear if the very government that leads them or the organizations instrumental in preserving peace do not act for the greater peace themselves. Yet, if the devastating events of La Violenca have shown anything it is that such a reformation gone wrong could quickly turn catastrophic. HMR

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Features

Socialism vs. Communism And how they function in the modern world.

GIRL 78

by christine kim

ver the centuries since Locke’s Rights of Man, civilized society has searched for a form of government built to express those fundamental liberties. During the Enlightenment, philosophers like Diderot and Montesquieu challenged despotic monarchies, giving birth to an unprecedented revolutionary ideology. Socialism was the first governmental system to be considered “the doctrine that would not surrender any of the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. Socialism made a discreet entrance onto the world stage. Jean-Jacques Rousseau implemented a planned economy, in which the government controls the production and merchandising of the state. This became the backbone of modern Socialism. Following Rousseau’s lead, Henri de Saint-Simon, leader of a nineteenth century French socialist political movement, called for the production and distribution of goods to be carried out by the state, allowing every man to have equal opportunities to express individual talents, leading to a harmonious society. He commented on the role of the government, claiming that “Rule over men would be replaced by the administration of things.”

“Rule over men would be replaced by the administration of things.” A few decades later, a bright social reformer named Robert Owen conducted a social experiment in which he introduced an even more precise version of Socialism

March 2009 HM Review

into a small town called New Harmony, Indiana. He instituted local collection of funds, abolished child labor and corporal punishment, and provided free health care and affordable food. He advocated egalitarian distribution of “wealth and society into small communities”. Socialism was introduced again in the context of communism through Karl Marx and Frederiech Engel’s Manifesto of the Communist Party. The pamphlet outlined a system in which proletariats, the class of industrial wage-earning workers, gain common ownership of their workplaces. This was the beginning of Communism. “Proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent, movement of the immense majority, in the interest of immense majority.” For Marx, Socialism was the first stage in a communist society-- the transitional period between capitalism and communism that is characterized by common ownership of the production under the workers’ control. Engel distinguished between Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism and advocated the latter, which was used to describe social-political-economic theory that was supported by historical dialogues and proletariat-bourgeois relationships. Utopian Socialism, on the other hand was used to describe quasi-socialists who hypothesized perfect egalitarian societies without concerning the logistics of how to achieve this goal. Engel stated that pure communism was a step further than Scientific Socialism, which would ultimately result in a “classless, state-less, oppression-less society.” Many claim that communism never satisfied Engel’s goals, but instead diminished them. The economic system did not promote the socialist ideals, but reinforced the tasks of the bourgeois into the hands of the state. It is today considered to be con-

servative, rather than democratic, in the sense that fewer people have a say in the economic system. Throughout history, we see the downfalls of communism in government. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had the world’s largest economy, managed by Gosplan, the state’s economic planning commission. However, as the state grew larger and decentralized the information and funds, the economy stagnated and was slow to change. Faulty information circulating throughout the country led to the downfall of efficient manufacturing resulting in an increasingly active black market.

As Socialism reemerges into the 21st century, we are forced to examine how our world works today. Modern Socialists are against globalization and specifically neoliberalism. They believe the idea of transferring control of the economy from the state to the private sector ultimately betrays the ideas of human rights as well as the health national sovereignty. They believe regulation of the economy belongs in the hands of the state. They maintain that capitalist economic policies are exploitative and do not promote equity of opportunity, because it creates government policies that augment the power of large corporations, benefiting the upper class rather than the lower. As Socialism reemerges into the new, international 21st century, we are forced to examine how our world works today. We recognize that the desire to advance society for the benefit of humankind in insufficient. HMR

Features

PERSPECTIVE: A SECOND LOOK AT AN ICON Who is the real Che Guevara? Writer Rebecca Segall tells the story behind the image popularized world-wide.

ascent to a small industrial power. Che idealized about what he called “the new man”, one who worked for the betterment of soYou don’t have to dig deep in today’s society to find traces ciety rather than personal gain. For this reason, he set up instituof the socialist revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara. More than tions that encouraged young men to work voluntarily for one half a decade after his political emergence, he is engrained in day without pay, and constantly participated in these Days of Lapop culture through movies, books, and T-shirts. The revision- bor himself. He traveled the world, speaking at United Nations ism of Che’s life and death has propelled him to worldwide icon hearings and promoting Cuban socialism. Che’s long tours of Latin America are documented status. But is today’s widespread in his published memoir, The romanticism of Che’s message a Motorcycle Diaries. During the realistic look at who the man Cold War, when Cuba became really was? His niche in history a pawn of the Soviet Union, as a symbol of revolution and Che’s optimism began to fade. freedom from oppression is not He spoke out harshly against a balanced assessment of Che’s imperialist power, and when true legacy. Cuba crept toward the thin line To fairly judge Che separating a thriving socialist Guevara, one must push nation from dictatorship, he through the embellished lore left the country to help stimuthat surrounds his life. Che’s late revolutions elsewhere. His is the famous story of a young, unflinching determination to idealistic Argentine medical achieve a world of equality led student who was troubled by him to the Congo in West Afthe poverty he encountered in rica, where the uprising he led Latin America. A firm Marxwas unsuccessful. Following a ist, he came to believe that mobrief stint in hiding, Che soon nopolized capitalism was at the resurfaced in Bolivia, again root of this economic suffering, leading a rebel guerilla army. and that an armed revolution He was eventually captured by was the only way to rectify it. U.S. CIA operatives and held In 1955, Che teamed up with prisoner in La Higuera, Bofuture Prime Minister of Cuba th livia, for several days before he Fidel Castro in the 26 of July was shot by Bolivian militants. Movement, a plan to overthrow When asked by his executionCuban dictator Fulgencio Baer, moments before his death, if tista. The Rebel Army, of which WIKIMEDIA he was thinking about his own Che was the commandante, was mortality, his famous reply was, successful in ousting the United The Man Himself: Ernesto “Che” Guevara in the “No. I’m thinking about the imStates backed Batista; a feat that famous photograph by Alberto Corda. mortality of the revolution.” cemented Che’s transition from a While Che may have been a true hero to the people he doctor to a guerilla expert. After the Cuban Revolution, Che beled, many tend to overlook his myriad of flaws and see him as a came the Minister of Industry, and later the president of the natwo-dimensional, larger-than-life figure. No doubt he was effectional bank. He felt that Cuba tive in raising consciousness towards disenfranchised people, but needed agrarian reform, and [Che] was a brutal surely Che would not pass scrutiny by today’s moral standards or militant, responsible brought about a redistribution by human rights groups. He was a brutal militant, responsible of land using the Zapatista Libfor many deaths. eration Army policy “land for for many deaths. After the Cuban Revolution, Che, who was those who work it”. Under Che’s firm hand, Cubans experienced then the commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, had his radical change, most of which was for the better. Illiteracy and merciless revenge on Fulgencio Batista’s defeated army. He reinunemployment were virtually erased, and Cuba began the slow stated the death penalty, often executing those he considered to by rebecca segall

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Features be traitors by firing squad. Che was ruthless, and was not above killing those in his own Rebel Army whom he suspected of treason. Though Che’s message may have been pure in spirit, his personal conduct throughout his revolutionary campaigns was close to dictatorial; the very problem he sought to address in others. He has admitted that some of his reform in Cuba had negative effects, such as redistributing wealth without accounting for the general well-being of the economy. His deliberate disregard for sugar’s potential as Cuba’s cash crop cost Cuba a significant place in international trade. Che acknowledged that his actions were usually without planning, and that his agrarian system may have led to class struggle, the opposite of his steadfast goal. His brutality and mistakes remind us that he was human, and that his name is not clear of all mars. Che’s transformation into a violent militant and guerilla embraces the Machiavellian “by any means necessary” attitude of many who claim to fight for justice. Clearly, among current purveyors of his image,

PANORAMIO

PICASA

see constantly on T-shirts, posters, and coffee mugs. Why has his revisionism become such a pop culture trend throughout the past few decades? He is a symbol of uprising and of dedication to one’s con-

posters is not the real man. Iconography tends to eliminate all complexity and turn one into a caricature, which, while retaining the same basic message, usually has little to do with the person’s true story.

The high-contrast photo of Che that stares out stoically from key-chains and posters is not the real man. Iconography tends to eliminate all complexity and turn one into a caricature... victions, and this resonates with anyone who is struggling with the socioeconomic inequality Che fought, and even with those who simply admire his dedication. But the magnitude to which his influence has spread suggests a deeper connection society finds with Che. Perhaps the world today is seeking an idealistic revolutionary of sorts, in the style of Che. In Cuba, public schools start off each day with a pledge that reads, “We will be like Che.” The romanticism and fairy-tale air of Che’s story seems not to be directed at his literal actions so much as the ideal he ultimately

Assessing the idolized, action-figure version of Che and accepting him as a human, with human flaws and struggles, are two very different tasks. But is it history’s job to reconcile these unrealistic impressions of Che? Accurate biographies and depictions of Che’s life give us a fuller view of whom he really was, but do little to stop his growth as a major cultural figure. His legacy is found not only in the lasting political revolution he brought to Latin America, but in the perception of the masses. Though it is a skewed take on him, and is ironic in that it adds to the

PICASA

Pop Culture Che: There are many manifestations of Che in pop culture, from t-shirts to and graffiti. there is a failure to recognize Che’s shortcomings. However, the idea of overthrowing oppressors is a powerful and inspiring one, and Che- even when looked at in a more realistic light- embodies the spirit of it. Perhaps that explains the current allure. Since his death in the 1960’s, his story has struck a chord with people all over the world, especially youth. His likeness has been captured in countless biographies, Oscar-nominated movies, and what Time Magazine has named “the most famous photograph in the world.” This well known photo, Guerrillero Heroico, taken by photographer Alberto Corda, is the image we

March 2009 HM Review

represents to society. People take inspiration from his life and strive to be like him because his message, the idea that people can fight together toward a better life for all, hits everyone, regardless of whether or not they agree with his political stance or his radicalism. The war crimes Che committed and the men he killed are no secrets; they simply are irrelevant in history’s version of Che as an icon. In today’s storm of economic injustice, of suffering and consumerism, Che’s message has taken on a life of its own, standing for hope and idealistic authenticity. The high-contrast photo of Che that stares out stoically from key-chains and

consumer culture he fought against, it is how future generations will remember him. Perhaps, when a historical figure becomes as famous and as influential as Che, the facts may take a back seat to cultural relevance and lucrative merchandising. Ultimately, Che’s ideal reaches beyond his political movement, forever captured in movies and souvenirs. The stark contrast between the corporeal Che Guevara and the universally symbolic Che Guevara is what resonates in his final words, “Shoot, coward, you’re only going to kill a man.” While Che may have died in a hail of bullets in 1967, what cannot die is a legend.

HMR

Features

The Cuban Embargo Crisis How the Cuban embargo has held Cuba in socioeconomic immobility and why it should be removed. by jacob moscona-skolnik

aul Castro, the newly appointed leader of Cuba, recently stated, “[It] should be very clear [to the US] that it is not possible to achieve anything in Cuba with impositions and threats. On the contrary, we have always been disposed to normalize relations in an equal plane. What we do not accept is the arrogant and interventionist policy frequently assumed by the current [(Bush)] administration of that country.” Sadly, this is not only the opinion of one man but of many leaders across the world, and even within the United States. Whenever the United States attempts to bring freedom and democracy to other countries, there is a point at which the peacemaking changes from being diplomacy to unnecessary, “arrogant” intervention. This seems to have been the case in Cuba. For the 50 years that Cuba has been a communist nation, the United States has tried to promote democracy and

strangle the Cuban government, in an effort to liberate the Cuban people and stop the spreading of communism. However, the various methods the United States has employed, namely, the trade embargo, have failed to promote democracy in Cuba and should be removed. The futility of the various mechanisms that the US has employed has been recognized by the international community. The UN has passed a resolution every year since 1991 encouraging the US to drop the trade and travel restrictions. The votes have been overwhelmingly in favor of dropping the embargo, the last count being 183-4, with only Israel and 2 small Pacific island states siding with the US. Despite the pleading from the international community, the United States hasn’t budged. The first European to set foot on Cuba was Christopher Columbus. In 1492 he claimed Cuba as a Spanish colony. Cuba remained property of Spain until the Treaty of Paris in 1898 after the Spanish-American war, when Spain signed Cuba, in addition to

other territories, over to the United States. In 1902, just 4 years later, Cuba gained its independence through the Platt Amendment. This new amendment made Cuba a separate nation from the US and removed the US troops stationed in Cuba. However it also allowed the US’s involvement in Cuba’s domestic and international affairs, and gave the US various economic and military territories, including Guantanamo Bay. Much of Cuba’s land was still owned by wealthy American landowners and the United States owned a large part of the Cuban industries. In 1902, the US owned 60% of Cuba’s sugar industry, their main export. The United States was also a major importer of Cuban goods, purchasing 95% of Cuba’s crop exports. In 1933 General Fulgencio Batista rose to power as a military leader, and from 1944-1958 he was the president of Cuba. Batista was aided by the United States and therefore cooperated with them. In this way, during the early 20th century, the United States was able to maintain partial

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Mr. Mark

Features

What’s with the old-school cars? Since the enactment of the Cuban embargo in 1962, few cars have been imported into Cuba. As a result, the predominance of cars are refurbished 1950’s American made automobiles. control over Cuba, maintaining the profitable industries. However, in 1959 a drastic change came to Cuba. Fidel Castro, aided by his followers, brought communism to Cuba. Cuba’s new political and economic policies were worrisome to the US, especially given that the US had many economic interests in Cuba. Communism brought the nationalization of Cuban industry. Once this occurred, the US progressively increased trade restrictions on Cuba. Initially, only luxury items and alcohol were banned. However, as the trade restrictions became more stringent, more and more goods could not be traded, until eventually only small amounts of food and medicine were being traded between Cuba and the US. In October 19, 1960 a complete trade embargo and travel ban were instated. Throughout this period of time, the United States was in the middle of a cold war with

March 2009 HM Review

the USSR. If Communism were allowed to spread further and Cuba were to become allied with the USSR, it could have meant the demise of the United States and of the future of democracy. As corroborated by the Cuban missile crisis, Cuba was a strategically viable location from which the USSR could attack the US. The embargo was supposed to act as a catalyst for governmental change in Cuba and hurt Cuba’s economy, insuring that Cuba could not become as powerful an enemy as the USSR and would not have the resources to attack the US. The US felt it had to reprimand the Cuban government for its communism. While the embargo succeeded in impairing the Cuban economy, this only increased the poverty, without having any political effect. In 1961 CIA trained Cuban exiles failed in an attempt to invade the island. It was called the “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba. The plan, although no officially ap-

proved by president John F. Kennedy, was to assassinate Fidel Castro. This only worsened relations between the two countries. Castro used the attempt on his life to unify his Cuban supporters and to strengthen ties with the Soviet Union, a nation that posed a great threat to the United States. 35 years later, in 1996, the Helms-Burton Act was put into place. The law stated that any non-American company trading with Cuba could be “subject to trade sanctions” with the US. The law was implemented to strengthen the trade embargo and further damage the Cuban government and its industries. It was only passed, after being tabled the previous year, after Cuban fighter jets shot down two Miami based private planes. The US had larger, more advanced industries than Cuba, so the Helms-Burton Act led to the further decline of the Cuban economy, increasing the already devastating poverty. The GDP of the country declined

Features roughly 20% in the 1990s. However, Cuba’s political policies remained unchanged. The Bush administration did not institute change to Cuba-US relations. The trade embargo and travel ban were kept intact. Cuba was even labeled as a member of the “Axis of Evil” and was considered to be a “rogue nation” by George W. Bush because of its attempt to obtain biological weapons. The status quo was maintained. Due to a the recent resignation of longtime ruler Fidel Castro and the change of presidency in the United States to Barack Obama, there is now a new opportunity to mend the relationship between Cuba and the US. Raul Castro, the new leader of Cuba, has made several small steps in changing Cuba’s government, such as a legalization of privately owned computers and allowing the public use of cell phones. He has sworn that his rule will be very different from that of his brother. Raul favors “practical policies of ideology” and has said that he will openly listen to the people’s grievances about the government, a huge change from his brother, who would punish people who insulted the government. President Obama supports improving relations with Cuba and putting an end to the poverty so the potential for a change in pace exists. At this crux, it is important that we rethink the trade embargo and travel ban with Cuba. The Cuban embargo has been in place for 50 years and has had virtually no effect— Cuba is still a Communist nation. Not only has the embargo had no effect on Cuba’s political policies, it has been detrimental to the well being of the Cuban people. Several billion dollars are lost each year due to the embargo. Prior to the embargo the United States was the primary importer of Cuban goods, while the predominance of Cuban imports came from the US. The embargo brought a huge loss to Cuban resources and assets, dramatically increasing the poverty levels and decreasing the quality of life for the average person there. Many salaries don’t cover basic needs and young children must work to make ends meet. One mother said, “Clothing and shoes for the children is a tragedy.” Although there is unremitting poverty in many other countries, in Cuba the citizens are denied many liberties that people in other countries have. A decline in the Cuban economy does not mean a decline in wealth for the elite, but for the poor. The embargo is not hurting the wealthy or the tyrannical government, but the impoverished citizens. Their horrible living con-

ditions will only be made worse and their low salaries will only be cut further. An end to the trade embargo will help alleviate these problems. In addition to crippling the Cuban economy, the embargo sheds a bad international light on the United States. The US is the only country in the world with trade restrictions with Cuba. The HelmsBurton Act not only affects Cuba, but any country involved in international trade,

Warren K. Leffler

Diplomacy Former Cuban President, Fidel Castro, at the UN after the Cuban embargo was implemented. forcing them all to “choose” between the United States and Cuba. This minimizes their trading opportunities. If a country traded a lot with the US, however obtained large amounts of sugar from Cuba, it would have to stop the trade with Cuba in order to maintain trade with the US. This creates the image that the US is interfering with other countries’ trading policies, and acting unfairly. There is much ambivalence surrounding the problem of the travel ban. There are many Cubans who live legally in the United States (20,000 visas are given out annually). On one hand, these people should have the right to visit their family

and friends in Cuba. Cuban immigrants should have just as much right to return to their homeland as any other immigrant. President Obama recently stated, “We have to lift the travel ban, not only to allow families to reunite but to allow us to provide information to the Cuban people that will help them form their decisions as to what kind of government they would like for the future.” On the other hand, Cubans who escaped to the United States were lucky to have left a dictator-ruled country and have so much opportunity in America that they shouldn’t be asking to return. It is not that hard to fly though another country. Most Cubans live their entire lives under the oppression of Communism. However, like the trade embargo, the travel ban has existed for a very long time and has had no effect on Cuba’s political system, which is its main goal, while just worsening the US’s relations with Cuba and its public image. For that reason, the ban should be removed The last key issue in Cuba-US relations is the role the US should take in encouraging democracy openly in Cuba. All attempts by the US government at broadcasting pro-democracy programs, as well as setting up government agencies within Cuba have been very poorly received by the Cuban government. Promoting democracy also worsens United States’ public image because the international community sees it as another situation in which the US intervenes without necessity, only causing more strife and chaos. However, encouraging democracy may be the only way to help free the Cuban people, who are forced to live under an oppressive government. And while the promotion of democracy is a valiant (neoconservative) goal, the embargo is ineffective in achieving this objective and yields nothing but detriment. The end does not justify the means. There are three key factors that need to be taken into consideration with any of these problems: public image, government relations and the security of the Cuban populace. The only solution that improves all these problems is putting an end to the trade embargo. The embargo and travel ban directly lead to increased poverty and worse living conditions of the Cuban people, and hurt the US’s reputation in the international community. An end to the embargo and travel ban is the first step in ending poverty in Cuba, and the first step in repairing the US’s public image. HMR

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Features

Old Adversaries

wi k

ed i

a. or g

The CIA has been trying to influence Latin American states, specifically those leaning towards communism or socialism, for decades. However, the CIA has proven to be largely ineffective and incompetent in dealing with the United States’ southern neighbors. by james yaro

s far back as the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the United States has considered itself the protector and adjudicator of the Americas. Since the Mexican War in 1846, the US has continually inserted itself into Latin American conflicts, influencing elections and governments in countries including, but not limited to, Guatemala, Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Mexico and Honduras. It would be impossible to assess precisely the extent to which the US has permanently altered the path of these countries. There must be a differentiation between operations in Latin America from 1823 until 1954 and operations after that time. Prior to 1954 most of these operations were conventional military interven-

sinations and governmental coups, which the CIA has undertaken in Latin America probably will never be known, for it often takes twenty or more years for documents detailing these operations to be declassified. But those operations for which we do have documentation were, for the most part, mishandled in an incredibly short-sighted and inefficient manner. The CIA was founded on September 18, 1947, by President Truman in his 1947 National Security Act. Its mandate was to collect, evaluate and disseminate “intelligence affecting the national security.” By the time President Eisenhower was in office, the CIA had expanded its scope of operations, directly influencing and altering the governance of foreign sovereign nations. Its first Latin American operation was Operation Ajax, pursuant to which the CIA forced the leader of Guatemala, Jacob Arbenz, to

a blinding preoccupation with stopping the spread of communism, an incredibly inept group of operations officers, or simply a total preoccupation with the United States’ need to ‘help’ other nations, the CIA has continued to interfere in, and in many cases botch operations throughout Latin America, preventing the spread of democracy and peace throughout the region. The CIA’s biggest preoccupation for almost fifty years in Latin America has been Fidel Castro’s Cuba. Initially, the CIA believed that Castro was, in the words of one CIA operative “a new spiritual leader of Latin American democratic and anti-dictator forces.” But two years after Castro’s coup, he announced his regime’s Communist affiliations. The CIA had made their first mistake. They had misjudged Castro, and allowed communism to set foot in the United States’ hemisphere. This

Whether because of a blinding preoccupation with stopping the spread of communism, an incredibly inept group of operations officers, or simply a total preoccupation with the United States’ need to ‘help’ other nations, the CIA has continued to interfere in, and in many cases botch operations throughout Latin America. tions, involving US military troops. After this point, Latin American operations became significantly more covert, complicated and ineffectual. Tellingly, in the 1950’s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) succeeded the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) as the Western world’s primary covert intelligence service. The number of operations, which include political assas-

March 2009 HM Review

resign in 1954. Under the auspices of preventing a “communist infection” spreading throughout Latin America, the CIA spread false information, utilized a group of Guatemalan émigrés to attempt a coup and attacked the country with CIA-piloted bombers. This operation is astounding in its similarity in cause and in action to many later CIA operations. Whether because of

was shortly after the McCarthy era, when anti-Soviet feelings were at their peak. The Deputy Director for Plans (DDP), or Director of the National Clandestine Service (D/NCS) as it is now known, Robert Bissel wrote to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) at the time, Allan Dulles, wrote a memo suggesting the ‘elimination’ of Castro. Dulles then asked Bissel to cre-

Features

The Iran-Contra affair was the last big mistake the CIA made during the Cold War, but the

studioscr eenings.or g com ntimes.

Despite repeated findings that the CIA would not be able to topple Castro, Bissel forged on with invasion plans. On March 11, the Bay of Pigs invasion began with a bombing of Castro’s airforce. The Cuban émigrés who were placed on the Cuban shore were given insignificant support from US forces, and they were all either captured or killed. The invasion was a total failure, and a public relations disaster for the CIA and the US. The fiasco damaged the US’ international reputation for many years. It also augmented anti-US sentiments within Cuba, causing the country to lean even more towards Communism. While the CIA continued futilely to attempt to assassinate Castro, it managed to let thirty-nine Soviet nuclear warheads enter Cuba unnoticed. The spy plane overflights of Soviet Russia were cancelled for five weeks and thus CIA missed the installation of the missiles. Premier Khruschev of Soviet Russia had easily outwitted the CIA. What resulted was the Cuban missile crisis. After frantic negotiations, the Soviets removed their missiles in return for the US removing a number of US warheads from Turkey, but the CIA remained very wary of Cuba, and continued to expend vast resources on intelligence-gathering regarding Cuba. Among those whom the CIA paid to give information about the Cubans was the former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. While it is difficult to ascertain exactly when he started getting funding

to washing

The invasion was a total failure, and a public relations disaster for the CIA and the US. The fiasco damaged the US’ international reputation for many years. It also augmented anti-US sentiments within Cuba, causing the country to lean even more towards Communism.

from the CIA, he received significant funds intermittently throughout the 1960’s until the late 1980’s. He was the mentee of the Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos. When Torrijos died in a plane crash, many have argued that it was due to the actions of the CIA and Noriega. Afterwards, Noriega became the de facto ruler of Panama, and continued to receive funding from the CIA, despite his involvement in the drugdealing and money laundering industries. He was paid by Pablo Escobar’s Medellin cartel to allow flights with cocaine on them to fly through his country. Despite public knowledge of his drug connections, he was not pursued by the US due to his CIA connections. Because of his willingness to participate in the Iran-Contra affair, he was left in power until 1989, when the Contra affair had ended because it was made public. At that point, the only way the CIA was able to curb Noriega was through an invasion of Panama. On December 20, 1989, US troops were sent in to remove Noriega from office. An estimated 300 Panamanian citizens, 300 paramilitary Panamanians and 23 US soldiers lost their lives in the invasion which caused massive damage to Panama and its population. Perhaps the most damaging CIA operations were those relating to the contras in Nicaragua. The Somoza dynasty (whose first leader had been placed in control of Nicaragua by the US in 1936) was toppled in 1979 by the Sandanistas, a group of nationalist, left-wing Marxists. The Sandanistas were feared by the US for their ideological similarities to Castro’s government in Cuba. The US decided it would be prudent to overthrow the Sandanista regime. The operative chose for the mission were a group of Nicaraguans in Honduras called the contras. As with the exiles involved in the Bay of Pigs operation, these rebels did not have public support. The CIA’s analysts even informed the DCI at the time, William Casey, that the contras could not reconquer Nicaragua. On the 21st of December, 1982, Congress passed a law preventing the US from attempting to topple the Sandanistas, cutting off funding for the project. DCI Casey decided that he would not abide by the Congress’ law, and sought private funding for his venture.

noblogs.org

ate a taskforce to eliminate Castro. Among the plans proposed to take down Castro’s regime were to poison his food, and take over Cuba using Cuban exiles. In a typically amateur fashion, they ignored the advice of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officer George Davis, who interacted with the exiles and warned that the only way to conquer Cuba was with US Marines.

Latin American Dictators (from top to bottom) Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Hugo Chavez HM Review Vol. XVIII

Features

i-italy.org

Leon Panetta is the next head of the CIA, and he has the responsibility drastically change Latin American policy

CIA has continued its dysfunctional operations in the 21st century. He undertook a deal with the Iranian government to provide funding. Iran would surreptitiously leave funds which would then be transferred by Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North to the contras. Originally, the deal was that the arms would be given to the Iranian government to resolve the Tehran embassy hostage crisis in Iran. But then the deal was altered so that there would be greater numbers of weapons delivered to the contras in return for additional funds left in the Swiss bank account of an arms dealer. Although they attempted to shred all the papers to cover up the incident, Lieutenant Colonel North forgot to shred a memo to National Security Advisor John Poindexter regarding the millions of dollars that were given to the contras. The damage caused by the scandal and its resulting cover up was immensely harmful to the US’ reputation and to the CIA. The

[The CIA] has funded many coups and which have brought in rulers who were less effective and more corrupt than their predecessors. March 2009 HM Review

Iran-Contra affair was the last big mistake the CIA made during the Cold War, but the CIA has continued its dysfunctional operations into the 21st century. There have been rumors since 2002 that the CIA has been involved in trying to kill or remove from power Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela. Chavez remarked in 2005 that “If they kill me, the name of the person responsible is [President] George

“In covert action you always have to think of the endgame before you start it. And we [the CIA] don’t always do.” Bush.” Chavez was ousted from power in 2002 for two days in a coup, but his army proceeded to retake the government and place Chavez back in power. Obviously it would not be unprecedented if the CIA was behind the coup or the supposed assassination plans. Chavez has been friendly with the Cubans, selling them oil at a discounted price, which has always been a red flag for the CIA. And he is unfailingly anti-American. While the CIA is no longer allowed to practice the policy of political assassination, it would not be unprecedented for them to ignore the law. The possibility that Chavez is just the next in line for assassination cannot be ruled out, for Venezuela is in Latin America, and it has been the CIA’s policy for over fifty years to interfere in Latin American governments, killing leaders and instituting

coups in almost every single Latin American county. The CIA has been totally ineffective in dealing with Latin American countries in the past. It has funded many coups and which have brought in rulers who were less effective and more corrupt than their predecessors. When this happens, the CIA interrupts the democratizing process of these nations for many years. The US and especially the CIA thinks it can institute processes of change and progress, but the operations it undertakes are for the most part totally ineffective, and often result in public relations disasters. John McMahon, a former Deputy Director of the CIA once said “In covert action you always have to think of the endgame before you start it. And we [the CIA] don’t always do that.” It is not the prerogative of the US and the CIA to reinvent Latin America by bringing in a new ruler for every Latin American country every time an anti-American ruler is elected. While the CIA should be involved in Latin America, giving support to certain nations and working to promote democratic leadership, it cannot continue to undertake such ineffectual operations, nor can it undertake operations without carefully considering the possible outcomes and problems which could arise. The CIA needs to be reinvented to create a functional intelligence operation like the one which was outlined in the National Security Act of 1947, one which would provide information regarding national security, while protecting democracy throughout the world. HMR

Features

South America Saved (By Itself)

Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador have begun to resist United States’ involvement. Can these countries come out from under the yoke of the U.S. and become truly independent? by starlyte harris

Morales’ actions by expelling the Bolivian Ambassador from Washington. The rela-

cocaine from Bolivia heads, will also be heavily impacted. According to the State

Not all severing of relationships with the US is bad news. The rejection of old structure for fighting illegal narcotics allows for a fresh opportunity for rethinking strategies. order to launch attacks on government officials. After holding a secret meeting in the early morning hours, Goldberg was caught on film leaving the office of the opposition leader Ruben Costas. The U.S. reciprocated

reduction as evidence of Venezuela’s weak support for international anti narcotics effort. The expulsion of the DEA will be most heavily felt in Bolivia and Argentina. Europe, the region where the majority of

US, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez followed suit. Chavez recalled his ambassador form Washington and ordered the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador in Caracas. The U.S. Treasury Department retaliated by accusing Barrios and Silva, two of Chavez’ aides, of aiding drug traffickers in Colombia. As Washington prepared to eject Venezuela’s top diplomat, Nicolas Maduro, Chavez preempted that move by recalling the diplomat first. Though Honduran Presi-

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Oswaldo Forte

ooperation with the United States in the war on drugs is at an all-time high in Mexico, Colombia, and the majority of Central America. But Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador continue to resist the United States’ efforts to end the illegal drug trade. In November 2008, Bolivian President Evo Morales expelled the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), claiming that agents were conspiring to overthrow him. Ecuador refused to renew a ten year lease on Manta, an important US base for launching anti-narcotics missions. An increasing number of South American countries are retaliating against the dominance of the United States. Though the resistance means less control for the US over those reThe Leaders Presidents Evo Morales (Bolivia, L), Hugo Chavez (Venezuela, second gions, the break in traditional methfrom right) and Rafael Correa (Ecuador, R) have increasingly resisted U.S. involveods for fighting the illegal drug trade ment in their politics, arguing they are able to operate autonomously. will result in new and improved strategies. tionship between the U.S. and Bolivia was Department, only less than 2% makes it to On September 10, 2008 President Evo further strained when Bolivia forbade DEA the US market. According to Roger NorieMorales expelled US Ambassador to Bo- planes from flying over Bolivian territory. ga, a former assistant of Secretary of State livia, Philip Goldberg, for allegedly conDespite the DEA’s claims that Chavez’ for western hemisphere affairs, Bolivia’s exducting political espionage. The President espionage claims were baseless, the DEA’s pulsion of DEA agents will impact the US’ claimed that Goldberg was responsible presence in Venezuela has been dramati- intelligence-gathering capabilities and also for spying on and killing farmers, stirring cally reduced in the past 18 months. U.S. weaken the country’s commitment to fightpolitical strife in an already divided nation State Department officials attribute the ing drug protection. (Bolivia), and funding criminal groups in Soon after Bolivia’s fallout with the

Plan Colombia and Beyond

Features

Coca plant While coca production has increased in Colombia, it has remained relatively constant in Bolivia, despite decreased US involvement in the country.

March 2009 HM Review

and International Studies in Washington believes that “this is a ratcheting down in a relationship that has been on the skids for a long time…” Though relations between Bo-

The general sentiment felt by these South American leaders is that the US does not need to rule over all Latin American countries. livia and the US have been spiraling downward, the leaders of Bolivia and Venezuela remain traditional allies with the other.

old structure for fighting illegal narcotics allows for a fresh opportunity for rethinking strategies. HMR

Axis of Logic

dent Manuel Zelaya declared no intention to break relations with the United States, he supported Bolivia and Venezuela by indefinitely postponing the accreditation of the U.S. ambassador to that nation. Following the precedent Bolivia and Venezuela, Ecuadorians voted to close one of the most important US operations for its war on drugs. Ecuador announced it will not renew the 10-year lease at the Manta airbase, one of the US’ most significant operation zones in the region since 1999. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa joked that if the US wanted Manta, it would have to allow an Ecuadorian base in Miami. Despite his jocular stance on the matter, the closure of Manta will leave a gap in the US’ abilities to monitor anti narcotics operations in the eastern Pacific. Today, 150 US military and civilians are stationed at Manta. The Manta base missions are responsible for 60% of the interceptions in the east Pacific. The general sentiment felt by these South American leaders is that the US does not need to rule over all Latin American countries. Morales said that Bolivia is more than capable of controlling antidrug operations without the help of the US. Evidence shows that his claim holds water. A UN report from June reveals that Bolivian coca crop cultivation increased by 5% in 2007, while cultivation in Colombia, which is one of the US’ loyal allies, increased 27%. Peter DeShazo, director of the America’s program at the Center for Strategic

These countries, as well as Nicaragua, are enthusiastic participants of ALBA, a multilateral organization founded by Chavez and Fidel Castro. The groups stated goal is to act as a counterweight to U.S. dominance in the region. Morales has had a rocky relationship with the U.S. since he campaigned for office in 2005 and the U.S. openly supported his opponents. The US has long had a presence in the world’s largest cocaine producers, namely Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. While Colombia and Mexico continue to have strong partnerships with the US, countries where leftists continue to vocalize condemnation of Washington, leaders continue to sever ties with the US. While relations with Venezuela and Bolivia have deteriorated to new lows, America’s relationships with Mexico and Central America are even stronger than previously. John Lindsay-Poland, co director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation Task Force on Latin America and the Caribbean says, “[Bolivia] as a whole has greater suspicion of US unilateralism. [Bolivian retaliation] is a blow to the [old US] approach.” Not all severing of relationships with the US is bad news. The rejection of

Manta Ecuador announced it will not allow the US to lease an airbase on Ecuadorian soil, limiting the US’ ability to monitor the South American drug trade. 18

Features

Calling out for Change: Leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, speaks at a rally to his country.

filosofía y fotografía

The Pathfinder

Salvador Allende set the precedent for a workable democratic socialist state. How that could pave the way for future governments. by aaron goldman

Imagine what would have happened to our nation if Barack Obama had been assassinated as he transcended the inaugural stage, welcoming in a new era. Imagine the fear, horror, and utter chaos that would grip every person of every age, of every race, of every economic class throughout our entire nation. Fortunately for our citizens, the U.S. did not have to deal with going through this traumatic experience, but in September 1973, the citizens of Chile were not so lucky. Salvador Allende, who came to power in 1970, was the first socialist in Latin American history to become a leader democratically. Within his first term, Allende’s policies had already begun to bring

economic salvation to Chile’s devastated financial system and could have yielded great success and great change for Chile. In that fatal year, however, a military coup took over this promising governance, which lead to19 years of ruthless dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet. Although Allende died during the coup on September 11 1973, his legacy of democratic socialism and of change would live on and affect many of the world rulers’ policies and lifestyles of the general populous today. Throughout his life, Salvador Allende was an avid socialist. Beginning at an early age, he began to develop many fundamental socialist views such as government redistribution of land and expenditures in a mixed economy. Socially he favored the working class and believed in independent

trade unions. Unlike most of his socialist predecessors; however, Allende believed in attaining a socialist government through a constitutional electoral process in a multiparty system or by other peaceful measures. Allende’s political career and socialist presence began in 1933, when he cofounded the Chilean Socialist Party, the first socialist Party in Latin America (not sure- the source I found this in seemed a bit unreliable). As Allende became older and more associated with both domestic and foreign affairs, his reputation as a socialist detrimentally soured in the United States under Presidents Kennedy and Nixon, due to his close relationship with the current Cuban President, Fidel Castro, who believed he and Allende “by different means trie(d) to achieve the same goals.” The United States feared Chile would become a communist state, and fall under the Soviet Union’s influence, as Cuba had done, and thus began to stiffly monitor Chile’s foreign affairs. The reality at the time was that Castro and Allende were merely friends, and although they were both firm believers in socialist principles, their respective political agendas to establish these doctrines could not have varied more. Despite these differences,

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Features however, they both clearly took the same stance on one issue—opposition to American imperialism. In the next 30 years of his life Allende was a senator, deputy, cabinet master, and unsuccessfully ran for president three times. On November 3rd of 1970, however, Allende was finally elected president of Chile. This election was a huge milestone for worldwide socialism as it was the first time a member of the socialist party had been elected to lead a country democratically. For this reason the government that Salvador Allende ruled over with socialist ideals and policies became known as the Popular Unity Government, or the UP.. During the first few years of the UP’s existence , Allende began to revive the devastated Chilean economy through typical socialist beliefs such as government redistribution of land and expenditures. He intended to improve the socioeconomic welfare of Chile’s poorest citizens by providing employment, either in new nationalized enterprises or on public works projects, through which the general welfare and state of mind of the average Chilean was greatly increased. This proved that when a socialist leader is elected democratically or in any other peaceful way, it is definitely a possibility for its government to not only succeed, but be prosperous. This notion would greatly aid the possibility of South American socialists, such as Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez, who became leaders of their respective countries in future years. After democratically being elected as president of the UP 1970, Allende further agitated America’s already fragile opinion of himself by openly declaring to his people that he supported Vietnam in the Vietnam War. America immediately responded with a private CIA document written just after Allende’s election that stated that “It is a firm and continuing policy that Allende be over by a coup,” and that “ it is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the United States government and American hand be well hidden.” This document is only a small part of Project FUBELT, a secret CIA operation that was intended to sabotage, Salvador Allende’s government. This plan, which exposed president Richard Nixon and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Henry Kissinger’s involvement in the coup despite their claims to the contrary, was first unveiled in 1998, 25 years after the coup actually occurred. These reports also alluded to the U.S.’s spending $8 million on right-wing oppo-

March 2009 HM Review

sition groups to “create pressures, exploit weaknesses, magnify obstacles” and an addition $7 million for Allende’s deposition. Whether or not the United States was directly involved in the Chilean Coup is still a highly controversial topic; regardless, the tremendous lack of U.S. for the UP definitely played a large role in influencing the Chilean military to overthrow their new administration. On September 11, 1973 the Chilean Augusto Pinochet, who was the commander-in-chief of the Chilean army, lead the Chilean navy and army in a military group against Allende. When the coup finally reached the presidential palace on that fatal day, Allende, who was still unwilling to admit defeat and surrender his prized socialist notions to unpromising leaders, pulled a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. The president had committed suicide and Chile was left in a state of total chaos. General Augusto Pinochet took over the administration and led it as a bloody, ruthless dictatorship for eight years. Although neither the UP nor any form of socialism has been reinstated in Chile to date, Salvador Allende’s presence as a democratic socialist is felt throughout Latin America today. Despite Salvador Allende’s apparent loss of the UP. , his socialist beliefs, and his life, have profoundly influenced and inadvertently aided one of the most prominent Latin American socialists of our era: Hugo Chavez.

Allende’s mistakes and greatest tragedies... are perhaps the most substantial influence Allende had on [Hugo] Chavez... Like Allende, Hugo Chavez, the current president of Venezuela, is a fervent socialist, who passionately believes in many fundamental socialist policies such as government redistribution of land and wealth and favoring the urban poor and working class. Unlike most other socialists, however, both Allende and Chavez were both democratically elected and are firm believers in democratic socialism. As a result of this, Chavez has based a large part of the economics, foreign, and domestic policy in his administration off of the UP Like Allende, Chavez is passionately opposed to U.S. imperialism. However instead of being opposed to American imperialism in Vietnam, like Allende was, Chavez is against

the United States’ wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The trend continues as the United States subtly portrayed Chavez as a severe threat to Latin American democracy, despite his clear belief and faith in the system of government. Allende’s mistakes and greatest tragedies, however, are perhaps the most substantial influence Allende had on Chavez and his administration, and could be the reason for the popularity and power of the Venezuelan Government today. Since he was elected into office in 1999, Chavez has been extremely careful in taking preventative measures to avoid a coup or any attempt at being overthrown, like Allende had been. Chavez made foreign pacts based on AntiAmerican imperialism and made a loyalist base in the military, whereas Allende only had allies in the Andean region. Furthermore Chavez made sure he had absolute power over the economic system so that no “boss lockouts,” which were attempts by the capitalist class to shut down the economy in order to form discontent among the people and eventually overthrow the government under the UP On April 11-12 of 2002 these seemingly neurotic measures were able to dispel a military coup, and almost singlehandedly created the power, popularity, and stability that the Venezuelan Government has today. The power of this now established government is soon after reaffirmed when an attempted “boss lockdown” is brutally repulsed as the 15,000 managers and supervisors who led the economic rebellion were fired and replaced by loyalists. In fact the immeasurable success that has been brought to Venezuela and to Hugo Chavez through Democratic Socialism has directly caused the recent revocation of Venezuelan limitation on terms served in Government Office. This tremendous power, stability, and unity, which Salvador Allende first brought through the Popular Unity Government and then spread in to the modern Latin American world, serves as a mere tribute to the endless power and potential of democratic socialism. Of course this is not to say that the notions of Democratic Socialism should be implemented in every country throughout the world, but should absolutely be considered for regimes that lack internal stability, just like the governments that had preceded and were restored by Salvador Allende and the UP. HMR

Features

PERSPECTIVE: A BOLIVIAN SUCCESS STORY The rise of Bolivian President Evo Morales. by dorin azerad

mediavigil.blogspot.com

ow can a traditional llama herder without a high school degree become the president of a corrupt and rebuilding nation? However wild the odds, Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia, has been able to accomplish just that and more. As a young man growing up in the upland of Oruro, Morales was one of seven children. He was met with loss from a young age as only two of his siblings made it past adolescence. Morales experienced laborious work from a young age as he herded llamas, worked on a sugar plantation, took a short occupation as a bricklayer, and then a baker. Encouraged by his father, Morales attended Beltrán Ávila High School but did not graduate. With such little experience and educational background, how could Morales obtain such a high standing government position? Does the education quality a person receives not affect the outcome of the profession? If this is true, Evo Morales is the perfect example of how governmental power does not come from formal education. However, why then do people around the world still consider education to be the gateway to a powerful occupation? On average, people pay around $30,367 a year on college tuitions. From first glance, that seems like a heavy price to pay for four years of education that may not even necessarily lead to an influential profession. The education Evo Morales used to base his political views on were from his experiences with, the people he worked with the people he later went on to protect as president. Additionally, he used his knowledge of traditional business transactions between the Bolivian people. Then, could it be said that a person only needs the knowledge of day-today workings and an understanding of the people he or she one day wishes to help, to achieve his or her professional goal. Are the $30,000 then in vain?

Morales: Evo Morales with Latin American leaders Hugo Chaves, left, and Fidel Castro. Evo Morales used his understanding of human interactions and comprehension of Bolivian citizens to become president. With these skills Morales was able to help the Bolivian people on a deeper level because he understood the troubles they were going through first hand. Close relations with people can be found in many successful world leaders. However, the majority of these leaders had a significant formal education growing up. Therefore, what makes Evo Morales so special? During the 1990s to early 2000s, Bolivia was in a state of utter unsettlement. The nation was beginning to follow orders from super-powers such as the United States of America, leading the people of Bolivia feeling uncertain about their future as a Bolivian citizen. Additionally, farming, the predominant occupation of the Bo-

The education Evo Morales used to base his political views on was his own experience.

livian worker was going through a rough path as the agrarian revolution was occurring causing crops to become inaccessible to many buyers. Morales was able to lead this harmed nation into a time of peace as he promised hope and change to the entire population. The story of Evo Morales is incredible and thought-provoking. How could someone with so little become so big? However, considering the state of Bolivia at the time of Morales’ entry into office, it seems unlikely that someone with the same background as Morales could take the same occupation. Nonetheless, Morales is an inspiration to people around the world. Many world leaders consider him to be a model for the new century. The legacy that Morales will one day leave will alter the political mindset of those who follow him. Morales has touched the lives of many. However, no one can be more grateful for Evo Morales than the people he kept his promises to, the people of Bolivia. HMR

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Features

gj ber l o ss

Booming Brazil

This South American state and world’s tenth largest economy might become the next great superpower. by akash goyal

espite the current economic recession, Brazil is emerging as a superpower. Recently, Brazil was still a middle-income country, but its growth rate has risen to an astonishing 5.2%. This figure isn’t ordinarily that high but is very challenging for a middle-income country to achieve in the current economic climate. Brazil previously had a similar growth spurt, but it was halted because of debt and high oil prices. Brazil’s military government gave way to democracy in 1985. The early years of the fledgling democracy were marked by high inflation and political instability. Brazil now has a much lower inflation rate and unemployment rate. Despite having the world’s 5th largest population, the unemployment rate is 8% and the inflation rate is a modest 5.8%. Brazilian companies, which before looked to international family-owned affairs, are now going to stock

March 2009 HM Review

markets to raise funds, which help finance expansion abroad. Brazil’s economy is breaking away from its dependence on the United States. It no longer possesses the same significant debt it had in the 1990s. Although Brazil’s economy has been negatively affected by the economic recession, it is not as bad as before. It still has remained one of the most attractive markets for foreign investors. Two of the largest banks in Brazil, Itaú and Unibanco, recently merged to create Latin America’s largest bank and also one of the largest banks in the world today. No major inflation problems are expected due to stronger monetary and fiscal policy. Monetary policy is the process by which the government controls the supply of money, the availability of money, and the rates of interest in order to have the economy grow and become more stabilized. Similarly, fiscal policy is the attempt by the government to influence the direction of the economy through changes in govern-

ment taxes. Brazil’s economy is improving because of its strong agriculture. Over 20 million Brazilian workers are involved in agriculture, constituting 20% of Brazil’s labor force. Brazil is one of the largest exporters in the world in soybeans, beef, chicken, orange juice, ethanol (accounts for 33% of worldwide production) and sugar. Today as diets and qualities of life improve, there is more demand for higher priced foodstuffs. Brazil is by virtue of this one of the answers to the food crisis. Brazil was once a simple agricultural supplier, but now its scientists are bringing new technologies of tropical agriculture to other parts of Latin America. The EMBRAPA (translated as the Brazilian Enterprise for Research on Farming and Cattle Raising) was founded in 1973 and is undergoing an expansion that will make it one of the largest agricultural centers in the world, and in addition to that it is opening foreign offices in Ghana and Venezuela to help boost food production. Cerrado is one of the most important agricultural regions of Brazil. It is a tropical eco-region, and is characterized by a large amount of plant and animal biodiversity. It contains Brazil’s largest and most successful crop, accounting for roughly 63% of soybean production. It is also the first to bring vegetable or plant sources of protein to low latitude regions. In the 1970s, the military government made the decision to make Cerrado a farmland, and they provided incentives for farmers to relocate there. However, despite the increase in commodity prices, environmentalists have accused soy producers and cattle ranchers of degrading the Cerrado and encroaching on the Amazon, which makes Cerrado’s status as farmland somewhat controversial. Of all the land deforested in South America, 73% of the land is deforested in Brazil, and environmentalists argue that land should not be deforested next to the world’s largest rainforest, the Amazon. EMBRAPA argues that although they need more land, there will be such an increase in efficiency that production will be more significant than the loss of land. From 1991 to 2007, grain production increased 129% while they only harvested 26% more land. As highly populated countries such as China and India begin to increase their demands, this spike in output will reveal the true value of productive efficiency. HMR

Special Features: Israel Two Opinion Pieces on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Backing the Holy Land

rusalem as Israel’s capital. In 2004, the Senate and House both created resolutions to reaffirm America’s foreign policy as laid out by President Bush in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The resolution reiterated the support of the United States for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and denounced Palestinian terrorism. In 2005, once again there was consensus in the House and Senate. This time the resolution condemned statements by Iraniinterests and common principles. Israel by daniel grafstein was an important American regional ally an President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad that throughout the Cold War and now in the Israel should be wiped off the map. Finally, he Democrats emerged as the fight worldwide against Islamic terrorism. The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act passed party in power on Novem- It has been the only democratic country in in 2006. It strengthened the ban on U.S aid ber 4, 2008, to the Palestinians unless promising to the president certifies that bring about the Palestinian Authority massive change. This is the is not controlled by a terfirst time in decades that rorist organization. With sees them heavily domisuch significant bi-partisan nating both the legislative agreement, any change in and the executive branches. the new Administration’s So one obvious question is policy will probably be subhow American policy in the tle, more in approach than challenging and crucial rein substance. gion of the Middle East will The Middle East is be affected by the new pothe origin of the Western litical alignment in WashWorld’s three major reliington. gions: Judaism, ChristianPerhaps surprisingly, ity, and Islam. Though the this may be one important region encompasses a wide area of US foreign policy range of religious and ethwhere there may not be nic groups, it is dominated much substantive change. Continuation Barack Obama seen with the Israeli Flag, symbolby Arabic Muslims. PalPolitically, American liber- izing his continued support for Israel estine is currently defined als and conservatives alike as the region between the have been generally supportive of the Israeli Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River government, even if the liberal-dominated With such significant bi-paralthough the original geography of “Palmedia often criticize it. There are solid rea- tisan agreement, any change estine” included the present-day nation of sons for this US political consensus despite in the new Administration’s Jordan. Israel, a country equivalent in size frequent media attacks on Israel. policy will probably be subtle, to the state New Jersey, is the only official America has supported Israel since more in approach than in subJewish state in the world and consequently its founding in 1948 because of common the only one in the region. It is also the only stance. country where Jews make up a majority of the region (until the recent elections in the population. Many of those Jews are deAmerica has supported Israel Iraq). Israel has regularly attracted over- scended from refugees who were expelled since its founding in 1948 be- whelming majorities in Congress for leg- from Arab countries. In its six decades of existence Israel has cause of common interests and islation and resolutions. In 1990, a House been constantly at war. Israel has shown a resolution passed expressing support for Jecommon principles.

Israel has often been cited as America’s closest ally. But why? The media and politics surrounding the United States’ relations with Israel.

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Special Features

Unity Former U.S. President George W. Bush shakes hands with Former Israeli President Ariel Sharon. America has maintained strong relations with Israel since Israel’s foundation as a state. concrete willingness to make peace where possible, having surrendered land that it won in defensive wars, such as the Sinai, which was returned to Egypt in 1978. The latest attempt to create a permanent and fair peace between Israelis and Palestinians came in 2000, under President Clinton, when Israel offered to support the partition of the land into two states. This would have enabled the Palestinians to form a state of their own in addition to Jordan where Palestinian Arabs constitute a majority of the population. Yasser Arafat, however, rejected the compromise and today Palestinian factions such as Hamas are explicit in stating their wish to destroy Israel itself. Unfortunately, Hamas won significant support in 2006 Palestinian elections. Many Arabs have exhibited constant hostility toward the only existing Jewish state. In fact, after the UN determined in 1948 that a Jewish State would be created in Palestine, Israel was attacked by Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and Egyptian forces. Sixty years later, young Palestinians are still taught through schools, television stations, and other propaganda that Jews are deceptive, corrupt, evil beings who plot to take over the world. A popular Saudi lecturer even made the ridiculous claim that

March 2009 HM Review

Jews are “the sons of monkeys and pigs.” This dehumanization of Israeli Jews has sadly led to a culture that encourages violent attacks targeted at innocent civilians, such as suicide bombings and the launching of rockets. President Obama and Vice President Biden have strong liberal credentials and both have consistently supported Israel. America’s position in the Middle East was one of the few controversial issues on which both leading presidential candidates, Obama and John McCain, could agree in principle. In a New York Sun editorial, Obama spoke of “a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: America’s strongest ally in the region and the Middle East’s only democracy.” He took Israel’s side in the summer of 2006 when Hezbollah, a

The liberal political leaders in the new Administration and the Congress accordingly remain staunchly supportive of Israel.

and then launching rockets at civilian targets in northern Israel. Biden claimed in his Vice-Presidential debate with Sarah Palin that there is no better friend to Israel in the US Senate than he. Obama and Biden both have pro-Israel voting records and hope to achieve the type of two-state solution that Israel advocated in 2000. The liberal political leaders in the new Administration and the Congress accordingly remain staunchly supportive of Israel. On the other hand, the liberal media, often take a different standpoint. Ted Turner, CNN’s billionaire founder, equated the actions of the Israeli army to those of Palestinian suicide bombers, trying to defend Palestinian suicide bombers because “that’s all they have.” In truth, Palestinian organized terrorist groups such as Fatah and Hamas seek to weaken Israel by inflicting fear among Israeli civilians, whereas the Israeli government tries to ignore these attacks or, when they persist for years on end, attempts to respond in a way that would minimize the number of innocent civilian casualties.

The liberal political leaders in the new Administration and the Congress accordingly remain staunchly supportive of Israel. Palestinians do suffer from the conflict as do the Israelis. However, in an effort to sympathize with Palestinian victims, Ted Turner and others in the liberal media often ignore crucial context, such as the fact that many Palestinian leaders makes no secret of their desire to eliminate Israel through war. Many media outlets around the world such as CNN, CBC and the New York Times refuse to define Palestinian actions directed against civilians as “terrorism” in an effort to obscure this important moral distinction. Liberal American politicians view the conflict with a balanced perspective and have not yet adopted this unfortunate media tendency. Liberal doctrine leans toward a nonconfrontational approach to most conflicts. The Arab-Israeli dispute is extremely deeprooted and will require the best of American liberal optimism and pragmatism to progress towards peace. HMR

, group that seized political control in southern Lebanon, attacked it by crossing into Israeli territory, kidnapping soldiers,

Special Features

PERSPECTIVE: DEA(R)TH OF DIPLOMACY

Simply put: Israel’s attack on Gaza was wrong, rash, destructive, and a setback in the plans for peace in the Middle East .

www.geenstijl.com

Rockets from both sides Over the span of one month, 940 civilians died while 5,380 were wounded. by victor ladd

tarting in December, one of the world’s most bitter conflicts, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reached a new peak with fighting over the Gaza Strip. Israel’s bid to put a final stop to the launching of Qassam rockets from Gaza by Hamas militants, began on December 27, 2008. Over fifty fighter jets collectively dropped over one hundred bombs that killed approximately 300 Palestinians and wounded 1,000 civilians in that night alone. Over the next twenty-three days, the civilian death toll rose to 940, with 5,380 wounded. Roughly 4000 homes were destroyed, 50,800 residents displaced. Critics of Israel customarily point to the

comparatively small number of Israeli casualties, accusing it of a disproportionate use of force: in the current conflict, Israel acted to retaliate against 8 years of rocket fire that killed a total of 28 civilians; in all, 10 Israeli soldiers have been killed in the

Over fifty fighter jets collectively dropped over one hundred bombs that killed approximately 300 Palestinians and wounded 1,000 civilians in one night alone. current conflict, 336 wounded. However this is not an argument of proportionality. When Israel bombarded the with region guns blazing it did what any nation would do. I believe that if terrorists attacked the

United States this country has ever right to defend their citizens by reducing the terrorist threat. However there is no need to argue that Israel’s actions in Gaza have been detrimental and extremely damaging to Gaza; the television screens show the human and material damage all too clear. Not so obvious on the television screens is the fact that Israel is destroying the prospect of peace in the region. In Israel’s case, the disproportionate show of force demonstrates the extreme extent to which it will go to exterminate a perceived threat. In attempting to quell violence in the region and safeguard the well-being of its own citizens, Israel is wreaking “collective punishment” on Palestinian society as a whole, in effect subordinating humanitar-

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Special Features ian issues under military ones. breach of the Geneva Convention. firing of rockets, but it imprisoned anyone In attacking Hamas, Israel has deIsrael’s actions, which harm civilians attempting such an action. According to stroyed schools, universities, mosques, and reduce the region to rubble, will never the Intelligence and terrorism Informaand even a UN compound, which Israel lead to a solution for peace in the Middle tion Center of Israel, only one rocket was claims were used by Hamas to shelter fired across the border in the month of If Israel sees itself as the militants and stock weapons. Throughout October 2008. As a result of this negothe war Israel had been under intense in- higher power, it has a moral tiation the Israeli blockade of Gaza was ternational pressure for its management obligation to foster peace in loosened. of humanitarian aid. On December 29, the Middle East. However, the treaty was not renewed a boat carrying over three tons of mediin December 2008 because Hamas felt cal supplies was rammed in international East. . Thousands have risen up against the terms pledged by Israel had not been waters and therefore could not deliver the Israel. In Egypt there were almost 10,000 met. Conflict broke out only eight days supplies. Since than, even Israel has re- protestors in the streets during the weeks later. The sudden explosion of violence by mained disinclined in the humanitarian of fighting in Gaza. They all chant phrases Israel was due to the rocket fire of Hamas effort. However, by far the most disturb- such as, “Off to Gaza we go, martyrs by the militants. These militants felt their huing humanitarian manitarian rights issue lies in the infringed on as kinds of weapthe Gaza-Israeli ons Israel used border had not in combating been loosened. Hamas, in parIn addition firticular the use of ings were made white phosphoin retaliation rus. after Israel enThe UN, The tered the country Red Cross, and on November Amnesty Inter4 and killed six national accuse Hamas gunmen. Israel of using In the end, dewhite phosphospite intentions rus. Use of white to restrict Qasphosphorus as a sam rocket fire, weapon is illegal later that month, under internarocket fire escational law. Use lated. A failure of this weapon to negotiate reagainst civilians James Hollander sulted in violence exacerbates the late December. crime. White Sderot Terror An Israeli woman screams as the red alert is sounded in reIf Israel sees phosphorus itself as the highsponse to the launching of a rocket from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel. burns at 1,500 er power, it has a Fahrenheit moral obligation and cannot be extinguished unless smoth- million.” Organizations such as Al Queda to foster peace in the Middle East. Howered with sand. The burns resulting from have inherited the purpose, “death to Isra- ever Israel decided to weaken the dam that white phosphorus are gruesome as it bur- el.” If Israel really wants to achieve peace contains animosity by failing to negotiate. rows into the skin continuously burning in the region, it needs to use democracy, Even so, many solutions to this problem unless medical attention is found. Ini- for as seen in the past, violence has only exist. A two state solution will separate tial allegations concerning the use of the brought more death and tension. states, one Jewish and another Arab, solvweapon were denied by the Israeli army. The use of diplomacy has only been ing a primarily religious conflict. This Now, in the face of mounting evidence beneficial to the region. After the election solution is widespread in popularity and and international outcry, Israel has been of Hamas, a six-month cease fire between has the ability to end conflict. The conforced to backtrack on that initial denial. Israel and Hamas was brokered by Egypt. flict in the region has only brought death, “Yes, phosphorus was used,” Yigal Palmor, Although neither Israel nor Hamas fully while Israel has appalled the international a Foreign Ministry spokesman. He later complied with all the terms of the cease- community. Israel may want peace, but added, “Some practices could be illegal.” fire, the arrangement led to a dramatic its actions will only bring the peace of the The use of white phosphorus against ci- reduction of Qassam rockets fired across dead. HMR vilians is not only appalling but a clear the border. Not only did Hamas halt the

March 2009 HM Review

Features

Domestic The New Socialist Question The word “Socialism” is being floated around a lot these days, but what does it mean? Are Obama’s policies socialist? And, most importantly: will they help or hurt America? by danielle ellison

solidearthnyc.blogspot.com

n light of Barack Obama’s recent inauguration as president, an old campaign question has reappeared: is President Obama a socialist? During the final days of the campaign, John McCain accused Obama of seeking to institute socialist-style economic policies in the United States. On the other hand, some liberals expressed that Obama is too centrist. Obama’s policies regarding healthcare, education, and taxation policies can be considered a more socialist viewpoint than what the United States has practiced thus far. However, whether or not a transition into a more socialist system would be a positive or negative change is largely up to debate. The term socialism refers to a broad economic and social theory developed by Karl Marx as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism advocates for the collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society in which all individuals have equal opportunities as well as equal compensation. Socialism is a continuum determined by the extent to which the government owns, runs, and pays for the enterprises and means of production in the economy. In order to measure the extent to which a country is socialist, one must ascertain

how much of the economy is owned or paid for by the state. One of the best ways to measure state involvement in its own economy is to study what percent of the nation’s spending is done by its government. The more the government spends, the more control it has over the economy, and the more it has to tax. In general, a primarily capitalist country such as the U.S. will have lower annual government spending as a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product). A socialist country will have greater annual government spending, generally exceeding 50%. A communist country will approach 100%. For example, in 2007, the GDP of France, a primarily socialist country, was 61.1%; the GDP of the United Kingdom, also quite socialist, was 50%; and the primarily capitalist United States had a GDP of 19.9% (34.6% if state and local spending are included). Any modern economy includes the following major economic sectors: defense and aerospace; healthcare; education; transportation; utilities (electricity, etc.); energy (oil, natural gas, etc.); telecommunications and cable; financial services (banking, investments, insurance); housing and real estate; media and entertainment; retail and distribution (restaurants, stores); consumer goods; capital goods. In order to measure how socialist a country is, one must compare how much the government controls of each of these industries, either as the producer or the consumer. Certain sections of the economy must be controlled by the government. For example, most people agree that the government should run the defense sec-

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Domestic tor of the economy. Isn’t this socialist? Essentially, yes. However, without government control of this sector private armies would emerge endangering the people of the nation and threatening to overthrow the government. In addition, there are many sectors of the economy including transportation, utilities, energy, and telecommunications that many countries consider too “strategic” or “important” to be run privately. Although the U.S. does not share these views, there are many other nations in which the government controls these industries. On the opposite end, there are many sections of the economy that, outside of a fully communist country, must be in the people’s control. This includes housing and real estate, media and entertainment,

through taxpayer money. The United States is one of the only nations in which education is based on a mixed public and private model. Obama advocates increasing government funding for education, both early childhood education and K-12 education. In addition, Obama proposes creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that “will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of ryskindsketchbook.files.wordpress.com tuition at the average public college or university and change this, as he advocates for universal make community college tuition completeor socialized healthcare. Instituting socially free for most students.” This essentially is ized healthcare would provide all Americalling for more government involvement cans, in every socioeconomic position, in education, particularly regarding higher with equal access to healthcare benefits. On education. Again, technically this is headthe surface, this sounds like a perfect soluing towards a more socialist system. Still, tion. However there are arguments against the U.S. is far from instituting the predomithis system as well. Socializing healthcare nantly public education system that exists in many countries. The question regarding all of these shifts towards a more so Because of the current financial cialist economy is not just one of political philosophy. Rather, it crisis, the U.S. government is progressively is a question of practicality: where is the government going to taking partial ownership of more and more of the financial services sector of the econget the money do to so? omy, which is essentially a practice headretail and distribution, and general indusing towards socialism. Started by the Bush would reduce the incentive of physicians trial. administration and now continued by the to provide competitive care and the drug The question of to what extent a Obama administration, the government companies’ incentive to provide top-notch nation is or should be socialist, as well as is involuntarily taking partial ownership medicines and treatments. Thus, the quality to what extent Obama is a socialist, really of “free” health care would deteriorate for deals with several controversial sectors of the average citizen. The other main prob- In order to measure the extent to the economy, particularly healthcare, edulem is that these “free” healthcare systems which a country is socialist, one cation, financial services, and taxation as it would be paid by tax dollars, mainly those must ascertain how much of the relates to these. of the wealthiest citizens. Some say that economy is owned or paid for by Regarding healthcare, as Obama bethis is only fair and moral. However, others the state. lieves that the government should play a argue that the government shouldn’t take greater role in the healthcare system, he money from some to pay for others’ healthis expressing an essentially socialist viewof some of the largest banks in the nation, care. Obama believes that the U.S. should point; however, many developed countries such as Bank of America and Citibank. socialize healthcare. However, whether this see a socialized healthcare system as ideal. Although the U.S. believes that these ensocialist viewpoint of the healthcare secIn many countries, particularly in Canada, terprises should be private, in light of the tor of the economy would be beneficial is Europe and South America, the governfinancial crisis the government has controlargely up to debate. ment runs the healthcare system using versially stepped in to save our financial Obama also advocates more governmoney from taxes. This is called universystem. The government hopes to gradument involvement in education, which, sal or socialized healthcare. Currently in ally rescind this partial ownership as these again, is technically a socialist conviction; the United States, about half the money financial institutions’ health improves. however, the U.S. is far from “socializing” for the healthcare system comes from tax The question regarding all of these the education system like many other napayer money (primarily due to Medicare shifts towards a more socialist economy is tions have. In many countries, particularly and Medicaid), and the other half comes not just one of political philosophy, whether in Europe, education is primarily public, from private enterprises. Obama wishes to or not you trust the government to control and is therefore paid for by the government

March 2009 HM Review

Domestic these industries. Rather, it is a question of McCain suggested that Obama would “con- other hand, opponents of this idea argue practicality: where is the government going vert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, re- that it is not “fair” that even the wealthiest to get the money to do so? The answer is distributing massive amounts of wealth.” Americans should have to give up much of simple: taxes. However, a balance must be Both supporters and opponents of their money to those who didn’t earn it. A struck here as well, because if the govern- Obama use the term “redistribution of question to consider is: does the money you ment taxes too much, motivation will be wealth,” in either the positive or negative earn belong most to you? Or to the people lost and the nawho need the tion’s economy money most? stagnated. This In addition, in fact is one of there is the the primary dequestion of bates between the voluntary Republican and charity as opDemocratic parposed to taxes ties in the United forced upon States. Republicitizens by the cans believe that government. the government Clearly, our should own less proportional of the means of tax system production and advocates distribution, alsome “relowing the govdistribution ernment to lower of wealth.” taxes. In contrast, Obama does the Democratic seek to inapproach is that crease this the government trend with his should play a tax increases greater role in to the highest swordattheready.files.wordpress.com means of producbrackets and tion and distri- Mixed Message Within the last few weeks of the Presidential race, Republicans acdecreases to bution, and raise cused Obama of being a Socialist in the hopes of deterring voters from voting for him the lower ones. taxes to provide The real questhe money to do tion is where to so. As a liberal Democrat, Obama advostrike the balance. In its extreme form, a comcates this more socialist point of view along Finally, to what extent is this socialplete and socialist “redistribu- ism? In its extreme form, a complete and the continuum. Throughout his campaign, Obama ad- tion of wealth” is where no socialist “redistribution of wealth” is where vocated tax cuts, particularly for lower and matter how hard any individual no matter how hard any individual works middle-class families. Supporters of both works or how much he or she or how much he or she earns, all his or her Obama and McCain described Obama’s money will be taken by the government earns, all of his or her money economic and specifically tax policy as a and redistributed equally to everyone. But “redistribution of wealth.” To some extent, will be taken by the governhow close to this will Obama really take us? this is an accurate description. Obama ment and redistributed equally What percent of GDP will the government seeks to increase the taxes of the wealthiest to everyone. constitute if all his programs are impleAmericans (those making over $250,000 a mented? Further, considering the number year), while decreasing those of all other of countries, particularly in Europe and Americans. In effect, this will “redistribute” sense. Therefore the question at hand is Latin America, moving more towards sowealth in the United States: tax money taken actually: is the “redistribution of wealth” cialism, is this undoubtedly bad? In Amerby the government from the highest brack- a good thing? And to what extent? Some ica, after the struggle with socialism and et taxpayers will be given in some form to would argue that it is only “fair” that those communism in the late 20th century, there the lower bracket taxpayers through vari- who have more give to those who have less: is a general dislike of these positions. Howous government programs, from improving the Americans with the highest income ever, with a new generation, and Obama as public schools to welfare assistance. Obama should pay much of their earnings to the our new president, these ideas may be beasserts that this is “economic justice,” and government that may or may not use this ginning to change. HMR said: “I think when you spread the wealth money efficiently to benefit the nation, around, it’s good for everybody.” However, and particularly poorer Americans. On the

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Domestic

PERSPECTIVE: REALLY ROLAND? REALLY?

Is Blagojevich the only one to blame? Who was heir to the throne for Obama’s seat? by jason sunshine

ust a short time ago, we found out that Rod Blagojevich had solicited funds in exchange for the vacant senate seat formerly held by Barack Obama. During the investigation, Blagojevich spontaneously and unexpectedly made an appointment. One may ask the question: who would possibly accept an appointment from the disgraced governor? Roland Burris. By the time he could walk, Burris already had high aspirations. He wanted to make a name for himself – a name synonymous with power and glory. Says Burris of himself, “Roland Burris, who started way down here, in the segregation of a southern Illinois community, was able to set goals, plan and strategize and make it.” Despite unsuccessful bids for Governor of Illinois and Mayor of Chicago, Burris served as Illinois’s first black comptroller and attorney general, and found success in the private sector as a political consultant and lawyer. The self-proclaimed “Trail Blazer” has wasted no time in immortalizing himself. If one were to take a walk through the Oak Woods Cemetery in Chicago, they would find Burris’s selfdesigned granite mausoleum listing, under the title “Trail Blazer,” all of his accomplishments. Burris is man with a big ego. So when an offer was presented to him that would allow him to become a

If one were to take a walk through the Oak Woods Cemetery in Chicago, they would find Burris’s self-designed granite mausoleum listing, under the title “Trail Blazer,” all of his accomplishments. March 2009 HM Review

United States Senator, without any of the hassles of a campaign, and with no risk of defeat, Burris jumped on the opportunity. Here comes the catch – Illinois Secretary of State Nancy Erickson refused to sign the appointment. Without the signature, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid contended, Burris could not be seated. And though the Senate’s refusal to seat the appointee was not personal to Burris (Reid

Roland Burris The Senator nominated by Blagojevich for Obama’s senate seat. had made clear he would try to block any appointment by Blagojevich) the fact remained. Even so, Burris began referring to himself as the Junior Senator of Illinois. In January, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the appointment did not, in fact, require the signature of the Secretary

of State, only the governor’s consent. Despite the setbacks in his appointment and repeated calls for him to resign, Burris happily took his seat in the senate. Naturally, he made sure to quickly engrave this new title on his mausoleum wall.

Even if he doesn’t get charged with perjury, he has let down his constituents, the citizens of Illinois. Earlier this month, the new senator submitted a sworn affidavit with the Illinois Impeachment Committee, in which he admitted that deputies of Governor Blagojevich had requested “assistance in fund-raising” for the governor three times in the weeks and months before Blagojevich appointed Burris. The affidavit contradicts his earlier testimony to the impeachment committee, where Burris had denied such associations with the governor. Now he may face felony perjury charges. And for those who think that there’s no way he could go to jail, remember George Ryan, former governor of Illinois, currently serving a seven year prison sentence in Texas. Even if he doesn’t get charged with perjury, he has let down his constituents, the citizens of Illinois. There were many trying to prevent Burris from being seated, but he dismissed their actions as unlawful and desultory. It seems, however, that their skepticism was warranted. Roland Burris has irreversibly destroyed his reputation. It is safe to say, even if he avoids jail, he will never again be elected to public office. The only appropriate course of action for him is to resign, apologize, and take a long vacation. HMR

Domestic

President Obamaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Broken Cabinet While President Obama wanted to get his cabinet finalized before inauguration, things have not gone according to plan. But have his resigning cabinet members been unfairly victimized? The Review weighs in on the first major crisis of the Obama Administration. 31

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Domestic by emily feldstein

made. It in fact is humanizing since he is certainly not alone in making mistakes. Secretary Holder and Secretary Geithner were both confirmed in spite of their flaws. Conversely, Nancy Killefer was forced to withdraw her nomination for Chief Performance Officer because of tax issues similar to those faced by Secretary Geithner. The office of Chief Performance Officer is a new position created by Obama to help eliminate unnecessary spending from the budget. A senior administration official told CNN that the taxes issue concerned household help. Although her specific mistake was not publicized, it was presumably a simple mistake, probably concerning hiring an illegal immigrant. Such a mistake was not harmful to anyone. During the Clinton administration, she was secretary for management and chief financial officer of the Treasury department, and currently she was the senior director at McKinsley and Company. The administration, and the United States, may have lost a valuable leader in Nancy Killefer. She withdrew her nomination because she was made to feel that her mistake was so wrong as to be unforgivable. Even if one does not believe in the policies set forth by these officials, it must be recognized that they all are qualified for the offices they were nominated to hold. The public has the right to know the truth about those representing them, but they should not find flaws in their representatives reprehensible when they would disregard the flaws in others. But sometimes, there are more shades of gray. It falls to the individual to determine where the line lies, and can come to his or her own conclusion. Perhaps, then, the most important thing for one to do is to pay attention. HMR

Tim Geithner, Nancy Killefer and Eric Holder have all been criticized for ethics reasons and have prevented Obama from transitioning smoothly to his administration.

March 2009 HM Review

wordpress.com

Failed Appointees from Left to Right:

The Treasury Dept.

Tim Geithner

Amidst the excitement of the new administration of President Barack Obama, the usual scandals have surfaced as new officials are appointed. In fact, this administration seems to have been plagued with officials hiding skeletons in their closets. Although these things are certainly not reasons for rejoice; they are also not reasons for the scorn and animosity that they have produced. Some were honest mistakes, and some may have been done knowingly, but none were intentionally malicious. Especially during this tumultuous time the world is facing, should the public dissect every minute error made by public figures? No one is perfect; not even politicians. Recently, a scandal surfaced regarding the legality of the actions of the newly confirmed U.S. Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner. Geithner received a lot of criticism for not paying his self-employment tax for 2001-2004. He was also criticized, although less so, for employing a housekeeper for three months after her employment authorization document expired. People questioned how the man who was nominated to oversee the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), among other economic organizations, could fail to pay his own taxes. However, Lisa Lerer, in her article on Politico, said, “lawyers, accountants and tax professors … consider Timothy Geithner’s failure to pay four years of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes to be a fairly common mistake.” Secretary Geithner himself called his failure to pay taxes “careless.” He has admitted to the mistake, which is not always the case among politicians, and, in the words of Senator Lindsey Graham, “he’s the right guy.” Tim Geithner was president of the Federal Reserve, and

chaired the G-10’s committee on Payment and Settlement Systems of the Bank for International Settlements. In addition, from 1999 to 2001, he was Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. Not only is his type of experience in finance vital in this tempestuous economy, but also his familiarity with international dealings is especially important in this era of globalization. Unfortunately, though unsurprisingly, Secretary Geithner was not the only nominated official to make a mistake neither the only official to be criticized for it. Eric Holder, another candidate for a Cabinet position who was nominated and recently confirmed, was chastised for his role in President Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich and his role in the clemency granted to members of Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN). Marc Rich, with his partner Pincus Green, perpetrated an illegal oil-pricing scheme which may have been the largest tax fraud in the history of the United States. Undoubtedly, the pardon of Marc Rich was not one of the shining moments of either Clinton or Holder. The clemency granted to sixteen member of FALN, however, was supported by both Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter as an issue of human rights. In stark contrast to the seemingly shady practices involved in the pardon of Rich, Holder also gave Kenneth Starr the authority to examine Monica Lewinsky’s relationship to President Clinton. Also, he prosecuted Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a very powerful Democrat in Congress, and sent him to jail. He was a D.C. Superior Court judge as well. When compared to his other accomplishments, the pardon of Rich does not look good, but it simply looks like a mistake Holder

Features

International The Kosovo Precedent

How Kosovo and Georgia Changed Russo-American Relations by dan temel

“In solving regional disputes in Eastern Europe, multilateral institutions as well as foreign nations have proven to be ineffective.” - Vladimir Putin, January 29th, 2009

arack Obama’s plan to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include Eastern European nations could carry negative consequences for the United States. Washington has taken advantage of Russian weaknesses since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, as the United States has expanded its alliances and strategic partnerships into nations formerly under Soviet control. NATO followed suit, as the military alliance absorbed former Warsaw Pact states into its mutual defense pact over the past decade. Until 1999, Russia had little choice but to accept Washington’s expansionist attitudes, as it did not have the military or political means to resist an American presence in the region. However, the Russian military has significantly increased its capabilities since the dawn of the new millennium. Now they are determined to prove that an American alliance cannot guarantee security and defense. Russia’s frustrations with the expansion of NATO are rooted in its isolationist

foreign policy. Vladimir Putin has called NATO a relic of the Cold War, a body that promotes Western interests over those of Russia. According to the private intelligence agency STRATFOR, “Russia has felt threatened by NATO’s expansion, as it feels that NATO does not serve the interests of Russia, rather it serves the interests of the Western bloc.” Russia is particularly concerned with the stability of its remaining allies in the region, mainly Serbia, and has voiced its commitment to maintaining the territorial integrity of these allies. Consequently, Kosovo’s declaration of independence on February 17th, 2008 and the United States’ subsequent recognition have challenged Russia’s sphere of influence. Over the last ten years, Russia has invested money and political capital into an alliance with Serbia, giving Russia a strong interest in maintaining stability in the nation. According to STRATFOR, “[the decision to recognize Kosovo] blew a hole through the image of Russian power.” To Russia, Kosovo represents an American ally embedded in a sea of Russian flags. Russian policy on the situation will therefore be focused on isolating Kosovo and mitigating American influence. The Kosovo situation has marked a transition in leadership in the global political spectrum. Since the conflict started in 1998, NATO has emerged as a primary mediator in peace treaties, igniting the ire of Russia. Russia is not a party to the NATO

treaty and views NATO as a largely antiRussian entity that flouts the United Nations by not affording Russia a voice in significant matters of national security. NATO attempted to mediate the Kosovo conflict and stop the conflict before it spread by drafting the Rambouillet Agreement, a document that would offer Kosovo autonomy and unity with Albania. After the drafting of the Rambouillet Agreement in 1999, NATO established itself as a player

Russia attacks Russian tanks make the journey towards the Georgian capitol of Tblisi in August 2008 HM Review Vol. XVIII

International agreements clear to the United States, however its opinions were largely ignored. Russia therefore saw the war in Kosovo as an attack on its influence and image, and was determined to never let America expand its influence again. However, Russia expressed discontent with another clause in the accord. Russia

Kosovo’s declaration of independence February 17th, 2008 and the United States’ subsequent recognition have challenged Russia’s sphere of influence. was alarmed by NATO’s increasing role as a peacekeeping force, as the Russian government had previously deferred all peace-

keeping matters to the United Nations forces. Russia viewed NATO’s peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo as an unsubtle attempt to increase Western military power and influence in a region previously controlled by the Soviet Union. Consequently, Russia spent the next decade improving its military provisions in anticipation of a confrontation with Western forces over supremacy in the Balkan region. Russia’s experiences in Kosovo set a precedent for future dealings with the American government, as the Russians developed a strong sense of regional identity and a belief that American expansionist ambitions stood between peace and power in the Eastern European region. The central disagreement that drove the conflict in Kosovo manifested itself once again in 2008, as NATO sought to include Georgia in its mutual defense pact. Many changes occurred in the political

www.propellor.com

in international mediation and global politics. NATO made demands to the Russianbacked Serbian government on behalf of the Kosovo government and affirmed its willingness to defend these demands with military force. After the Serbian and Russian governments rejected a clause in the Rambouillet Agreement that would allow “NATO personnel … free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout [Kosovo and Serbia]…including the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations”, the combined NATO forces commenced the bombing of Serbian military outposts. This provision in the Rambouillet Agreement represented NATO’s first attempt at unrestricted access in Russia’s sphere of influence and initiated Russia’s defensive actions over the last decade. Russia made its dis-

March 2009 HM Review

International

www.metro.co.uk

landscape since the previous conflict in ing its oil pipeline, Russia was targeting an the region, most notably the establishment important American interest abroad and Russia viewed NATO’s peaceof an American missile defense system in threatening America’s economic vitality. the Baltic and Northern European nations. keeping efforts in Kosovo as Georgia’s location is further strategically Washington installed a missile defense sys- an unsubtle attempt to inrelevant for the United States, as its proxtem aimed at Russia under the Bush admin- crease Western military power imity to Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan gives istration despite Russia’s protests, however and influence in a region prethe United States a friendly country in Washington failed to recognize a central viously controlled by the Soviet which military installations and refueling component of the situation. Russia of 2008 bases can be installed. Former Secretary of Union. was a very different nation than State Condoleeza Rice has statRussia of 1999. Firstly, Russia ed Georgia’s inclusion in fuemerged as an economic suture development plans in the perpower after its nationalizaregion. Rice has further stated tion of oil companies, affordAmerica’s goal to maintaining ing it the economic resources “Georgia’s territorial integrity.” needed to pursue a war against Unfortunately for Rice and the American interests. Secondly, United States, Russia does not nationalistic and aggressive support the war in Iran. Russia leadership presided over Ruscertainly does not appreciate sia. The combination of PresiAmerican military expansion dent Dmitry Medvedev and on its home perimeter, all to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin support a war that it is very was determined to protect Rusmuch in opposition to. Russian interests, a sharp contrast sia’s desires to attack American to the non-confrontational interests and alliances maniBoris Yeltsin, President during fested themselves when Russia the Kosovo War of 1999. And invaded on the eve of the 2008 lastly, the Russian military was Independence Day Crowds gather in the Kosovo capitol of Olympics in August 2008, a a much stronger and capable Pristina to celebrate their independence from Serbia. sufficient distraction to misdirect entity in 2008 than it was in 1999. the world from Russia’s attempts The combination of these changes left Rus- expanded its economic interests in Abkha- of subversion of American interests. sia a much stronger nation than the Bush zia by building ports and military installaRussia’s third goal in Georgia was a administration had anticipated. So when tions on the formerly Georgian-controlled goal that eclipsed the borders of the tiny America solidified its alliance with Georgia Black Sea coast. Russia went even further nation in the Caucasus Mountains. Ruseven after Russia’s threats of war, Russia during the war, as the army was instructed sia’s invasion of Georgia was an attempt attacked. Russia launched an invasion of to “attack oil pipelines and places of eco- to create instability in a nation allied with Georgia on August 8th, 2008, specifically nomic interest in Georgia.” By destabiliz- America in order to divide the government. targeting the Georgian capital of Tblisi, ing the Georgian economy, Russia attempt- Russia’s support of South Ossetia and Abkwith three main goals in the attack. ed to prove that growth under an American hazia was a result of a contrived attempt to Russia’s first goal was to send a mes- alliance could easily be destroyed by Rus- divide Georgia into three parts. The issues sage to all American allies in the region that sian muscle. in Abkhazia and South Ossetia were largely an American alliance cannot secure them Russia’s second goal in the Georgian ethnic conflicts that have plagued the Caufrom Russia’s wrath. Since allying with the invasion was to attack American strategic casus and Balkan region since World War United States and the European Union after alliances abroad. Russia was concerned by I, but Russian interference caused the conthe Rose Revolution in 2004 that brought America’s encroachment into its sphere of flict to explode. The conflict that originally democratic reforms to the previously des- influence and was determined to destabi- started off as a small regional disagreement potic nation, Georgia had experienced lize American interests abroad. Georgian- between ethnic minorities quickly turned unparalleled economic growth. Accord- American relations are based on a mutual into an international issue and a revival of ing to the EU, “the Georgian economy has interest in the 1,100 mile long pipeline the Cold War, as the Russian and Western grown seven to nine percent since Russia through Georgia that carries, according to spheres of influence collided in this small lifted trade restrictions on Georgia in 2004, Associated Press estimates, “slightly more nation off the Black Sea. When war broke mostly due to the increase in energy and than 1 million barrels of crude oil per day, out in Abkhazia during 1994, Russia immeshipping sectors.” Former Russian Presi- or more than 1 percent of the world’s daily diately supported the Abkhazian separatdent Vladimir Putin was cognizant of this crude output.” This pipeline is of the ut- ists, funding their munitions and supplying statistic, and was determined to prove to most strategic importance to the United troops to the budding insurgency. While nations considering diplomacy with Amer- States, as it is the only major oil pipeline Russia officially stayed neutral during the ica that diplomacy with America risked in the world that does not travel through conflict, the number of Russian security war with Russia. This was best shown in the Russia or any major Middle Eastern petro- arriving in Abkhazia as tourists during the months after the war in August, as Russia cracy. By destabilizing Georgia and attack- summer alarmed Georgian governmental

HM Review Vol. XVIII

www.toonpool.com

International

officials. Furthermore, the Russian army provided strategic bases of operations for Abkhazian separatists in Batumi, Poti, and Akhalkalaki. Russia’s ever-present hand manifested itself once again in 2008, when South Ossetia attempted to secede from Georgian sovereign control. Russia saw a window of opportunity in the region and immediately supported the secessionists, taking advantage of the South Ossetian rebels in order to fuel a larger conflict against American interests. Of course, if you ask Dmitry Medvedev about his interests in South Ossetia, he would never admit to fueling a conflict in a volatile region simply to sabotage American interests. If you ask Dmitry Medvedev about his interests in South Ossetia, he would provide a contrived answer about the necessary protection of Russian citizens abroad, as he did on August 8th, 2008, when he told international news agencies “he must protect the life and dignity of Russian citizens abroad.” But where are the Russian citizens in South Ossetia? That answer lies in the passports of tens of thousands of Abkhazian and South Ossetian citizens. Reuters reported in August 2008 that Russia has been issuing Russian passports to residents of the two ethnic enclaves, effectively making them Russian citizens. Medvedev’s ingenious, albeit corrupt, justification for the invasion and partition of Georgia has succeeded, as Georgia has been forced to

March 2009 HM Review

abandon its pro-Western practices. Instead of deferring to NATO as a mediator as Kosovo did in 1999, Georgia was forced to invite the United Nations to mediate the burgeoning conflict. The United Nations Security Council, comprised of two prosecessionist powers in Russia and China, certainly did not have the best interests of Georgia in mind. The peace treaty established a very weak peace that was broken almost immediately in September 2008, when Russia once again commenced building ports in Abkhazia on the Black Sea. Unfortunately for the United States, Russia has continued this practice of subterfuge in other pro-Western nations. If Russia continues this trend of identifying ethnic conflict zones stuck in Cold War demarcations and borders, Russia’s next target will be the tiny Transnistria, lodged between pro-American governments in Ukraine and Moldova. Ukraine has been an active participant in the American missile defense system, and interference in Transnistria will put an ethnic war on the periphery of one of America’s most important allies. Moldova, like Georgia, has oil and has expressed interest in joining NATO and the EU. Russia, concerned by the realignment of the two former Warsaw Pact nations, has attempted to reignite the conflict on the banks of the Dniester. Though the Russian government signed a treaty in 1992 that promised that the

14th Russian Army would leave Transnistria immediately, the military presence remains in 2009. The Russian presence in Transnistria is shockingly similar to that of South Ossetia, as the Russian government has placed a military force that can destabilize and wreak havoc on an American ally at its whim. Ultimately, these actions are committed under the guise of Russia’s attempts to destabilize Western interests abroad and restore its own diminished image in the region. But what is most confusing is Former Russian President Vladimir Putin’s signature on the 1999 Istanbul Charter for European Security. According to Article 2, Clause 8 of the document, all parties to the charter agreed that “within the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence.” Russia’s diplomatic obligations and its foreign policy initiatives have set an internal paradox in the beleaguered nation. If Russia stands back and lets America and the West expand its influence into Eastern Europe, then it will lose important allies and suffer a blow to its national image. If Russia attacks Western allies in Eastern Europe, then it runs the risk of igniting another Cold War, or worse, World War III. Fortunately for Russia, the United States is at a similar crossroads. President Barack Obama has placed a strategic alliance with Russia at the top of his agenda and an alliance with Russia would mean the severance of diplomatic relations with Georgia and other nations on the Russian periphery. Of course, the United States could continue to import oil from the Black Sea nation, however, the United States would have to halt the expansion of NATO into the Russian sphere of influence. Re-establishing America’s image in the world means recognizing its limits, and pushing further into former Soviet territory transgresses the limits of American diplomatic and military capabilities. Russia’s actions in response to the United States’ alliances with Georgia and Kosovo have set a disturbing and aggressive precedent. If the United States expands into Russia’s sphere of influence, the United States and its allies will suffer human and economic losses at the hands of a reborn and mighty Russian army. HMR

Russia’s Back in the U.S.S.R.

With the realization of the Putin doctrine, Russia now poses a credible threat to the U.S. by alexander daniel

wired.com

n May 9, 2008, the world witnessed a display of Russia’s military prowess, through the Victory Day Parade, which commemorates the Russian victory over the Nazis in World War II. This spectacle had become an annual event, with despotic Soviet leaders, the likes of Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev overseeing the procession of tanks, soldiers, and ballistic weapons. However, this May Day was unique, as it marked the first Victory Parade in Red Square, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Former President and current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin ordered the event in an effort to restore Russia to the grandeur and might of the former Soviet Union. Putin has revived Russia, creating an ominous threat to the United States. A deadly war appeared imminent between the United States and the Soviet Union, during the Cold War. For decades, the Soviet Union and the rise of communism provided the only significant foreign policy threats to the United States. The Soviets built a potent military with nuclear warheads and advanced weapons systems to counter that of the U.S. American dominion was challenged for years by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Victory Day Parade A recently revived annual show of Russia’s military strength.

(U.S.S.R.), through the Cuban nuclear missile fiasco, a Soviet space program comparable to America’s at the time, Soviet support for communist factions in Vietnam, and the formation of the People’s Republic of China. The economic woes of the U.S.S.R. in the 1980’s, along with the succession of Eastern republics from the Soviet Union, depleted Soviet power in the region. Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet Union to form multiple independent states, amidst dwindling solidarity among the U.S.S.R.’s republics. Russia became a democracy with Borin Yeltsin as President in 1991. During the 1990’s, price controls were eliminated, foreign trade barriers were lifted, and subsidies were cut, in order to liberalize the economy. The United States provided economic advisors to Russia to implement these reforms. Yeltsin cooperated with the West in addressing regional and global issues; thus Russia became a big recipient of U.S. foreign aid. Despite economic transformations and acceptance from the West, conditions deteriorated. Life expectancy plummeted in Russia and GDP contracted 50%, from 1991, to 1999 and the Russia economy suffered. Many Russians attributed their economic perils that arose through these “shock therapy” policies, such as ballooning poverty, a lack of social programs, and disproportional influence of monopolies, to the United States. Yeltin resigned the Presidency in 1999 and appointed Vladimir Putin to head a new government. Vladimir Putin quickly rose through the Russian political hierarchy

HM Review Vol. XVIII

cpj.org

International

Reign of Terror In October of 2006 Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was assassinated after condemning Russia for human rights violations in Chechnya. during the 1990’s and became the head of the Federal Security Services (FSB), the successor agency of the Committee for State Security (KGB). Prior to his political career, Putin was a KGB agent for fifteen years. His KGB experience has etched Putin’s worldview and has influenced his plight to restore Russia to old Soviet glory. Even according to Putin, “there is no such thing as a former KGB man.” Putin was the interim-President in 1999, and won the election in 2000 by a sizable margin. As President, Putin has advocated for autocratic policies such as suppressing freedom of speech, instilling state run media, using propaganda in schools, juxtaposing church and state, and beleaguering oppo-

His KGB experience has etched Putin’s worldview and has influenced his plight to restore Russia to old Soviet glory. sition leaders and political dissidents. Although relatively symbolic, one of Putin’s earliest reforms was changing the national anthem back to a Soviet melody. Putin has manipulated religion in Russia to further his anti-western propaganda. Putin’s antipathy towards Russian Protes-

March 2009 HM Review

tant religious groups stems from the fact that many of these groups are based in the U.S. The FSB has denounced Protestants as “soldiers who crucified Christ” and members of “totalitarian sects,” used by the U.S. “to infiltrate Russia”. Putin has exploited the Russian Orthodox Church to promote his absolute power. Under the direction of the Russian government and church’s Putin-allied leader, Patriarch Aleksei II, Russian Orthodox priests often advise their congregations to support Putin, through rousing sermons decrying the West and Kremlin opponents. The disparity between church and state has minimized under Putin and secular government and religious toleration- sacrosanct founding principles of the Russia Federation, are non-existent. Since 2000, the Kremlin has censored material disputing Putin’s policies. NTB was an independently run television station prior to Putin becoming President, and ran thought provoking satires negatively depicting Putin during the 2000 election. Moreover, NTB brought to light the human rights violations of Russian involvement in Chechnya, an autonomous district of Russia. Putin and the Kremlin responded by demanding that the station pull all critical segments of the government. When NTB refused, police stormed its parent company’s headquarters and disbanded NTB.

The most troubling event of Russia involvement in the media is the story of Anna Politkovskaya, one of the mostknown journalists in Russia. Politkovskaya advocated for human rights and wrote international acclaimed books that condemned Russia’s rash actions against separatists in Chechnya, during the Second Chechnya War. On October 7, 2006, Politkovskaya was assassinated in her Moscow apartment. Although, the Kremlin has denied involvement in the attack, police have failed to look into the case. Polikovskaya is just one of 2,200 journalists killed during Putin’s reign. The absolute power of Vladimir Putin was also evident during this year’s democratic election, as the vital democratic aspect of the election lacked. Putin and the Kremlin targeted opposition parties and subverted their efforts to organize against the Putin and his party, United Russia. Most notably Putin and his party, blocked the bid of chess champion, Gary Kasparov, who would later be arrested for holding “an unauthorized march.” Although only a symbolic measure, Putin decided to forgo an attempt to eliminate term limits, by amending the constitution. Instead, Putin endorsed his little-known protégé, Dmitry Medvedev. Medvedev would win the election with over 70% of the popular vote, a

International testament of Putin’s popularity. However, Medvedev’s title is just that, and Putin remains the de-facto leader of Russia, as Prime Minister and the leader of United Russia. In December, Putin pushed legislation that would extend term limits from four to six years- paving a path for Putin to remain in office longer, if he were to win the 2012 presidential election. Putin’s grapple hold on the Russian political system has enabled him shift his attention to rebuilding Russia’s might and prominence. Russia is one of the most powerful countries in the world. When the Russian Federation emerged from the Soviet Union, it inherited the U.S.S.R.’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Consequently, Russia has the capability to veto any Security Council resolution presented by the international community. Moreover, Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Since Putin became President in 1999, Russia’s GDP has increased fivefold, hinged on disproportionately high energy prices. In addition, under Putin, Russian defense spending has quadrupled to create a military that is of the same caliber of United States’. Russia’s lavish spending on defense and social programs has been possible by the tremendous amount of money made selling fossil fuels to the world com-

The operation, which claimed the lives of countless innocent Georgian civilians, was an effort to reassert Russia’s control in the Caucuses and send a blatant message to the U.S. and NATO: ‘Russia is back.’ munity, particularly to China and Europe. Russia has the largest combined energy reserves, with the most natural gas, second most coal, and eighth most oil in the world. European nations, many who are members of the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) have become reliant on Russian energy. The fact that America’s greatest allies in the region are at the mercy of Putin and Gazprom has only exacerbated the threat of Russia to the U.S. Gazprom, Russia’s state-run natural gas producer, fills almost all of Eastern Europe’s energy needs and also supplies a

substantial amount of energy to European powers: France, Italy, and Germany. Since Gazprom natural gas must flow through Ukraine, the Ukrainian government receives discounts in gas prices in exchange. This winter though, gas supplies to Ukraine were cut off because Gazprom and its majority stake holder, the Russian government, accused Ukraine of owing withstanding debt. However, the move by Putin, through the subordinate company he once was chairman of, was political. Ukraine, a major U.S. ally, had been vying for entrance into the EU and NATO- an ominous threat to Russia as the West would have formed a tangible pact with foreign satellite states. This incident is another effort by Putin to undermine American interests in the region and prevent former Soviet-satellite nations from entering security agreements with the West. The most notable instance of Putin’s Russian antagonizing the United States, was the illegitimate Russian operation in Georgia. Since Mikheil Saakashvili was elected President of Georgia, relations between the U.S. and Georgia ameliorated, Georgia’s GDP growth skyrocketed, and military matured, due to U.S. defense deals. However, when Georgian forces, protected their country’s national sovereignty, entered the autonomous regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian forces invaded Georgia. The operation, which claimed the lives of countless innocent Georgian civilians, was an effort to reassert Russia’s control in the Caucuses and send a blatant message to the U.S. and NATO: ‘Russia is back.’ Medvedev defied the West by meeting with pro-Russian representatives of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and recognizing the independence of these enclaves. In reality, the Russian occupation of the breakaway provinces was nothing more than de facto annex, as Russian forces are infringing upon Georgia’s national sovereignty. The Kremlin’s actions have left an irrevocable strain on relations with the U.S. and only menace long-term security, stability, and peace in the region. What was most appalling about Putin’s stance is Russia currently is embattled with a Chechnya independence movement, and South Ossetian and Abkhazian “succession” will set a precedent for disaffected breakaway provinces to attain independence. Putin has implemented a long string of policies that poke at the United States and intend to undermine America’s

security and prominence in the international community. This December, Russia and Venezuela partook in a joint-training operation in the Caribbean. This is a prime example of Putin attempting to exert Russian influence and ideals in the Americas, an area in which the United States has remained dominant in recent years. In retaliation for perceived American involvement in Eurasia, the Soviets “backyard,” the Kremlin is sending a message to Washington, reminiscent of Soviet actions in the region during the height of the Cold War. An even more troubling scenario was the

This winter though, gas supplies to Ukraine were cut off. closing of the Manos Air Force Base in Kyrgyzstan, due to Russian influence. Kyrgyzstan is an impecunious former Sovietsatellite state that had been debt- ridden due to the global financial calamity. Cognizant of this, Putin hammered out a two billion dollar aid package with the Kyrgyz government to alleviate their economy. Not coincidentally, days later the United States was ordered to close its Manos Air Force Base, which is paramount for the flow of troops, supplies, and equipment into Afghanistan. The planned closure is particularly troubling in light of the recent bombings in the Khyber Pass, part of the Pakistani route, and the fact that President Obama intends to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. This blatant attempt to impair American interests will have serious implications for the Obama administration. Also, the day after President Obama’s election, President Medvedev announced the deployment of nuclear capable missiles near Poland, capable of destroying U.S. missile defense systems there. In addition, Putin has dauntlessly attempted to block Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, in order to prevent a precedent of westernbacked independences in Eastern Europe. Putin has also made efforts to strengthen relations between Russia and China, another emerging superpower. In 2001, the two nations signed a Friendship and Cooperation Treaty aimed at improving economic ties and offsetting hegemomism. Also, work has begun on the Eastern Siberian-Pacific Ocean pipeline, which would transport Russian oil and natural gas to energy-thirsty China. These two na-

HM Review Vol. XVIII

International tions together will become potent economic and militaristic threats to the United States and the West, unless America can act decisively to diminish their power. It is quite apparent that the American government needs to address Russia’s growing power in the world. Unfortunately, President Obama has proven himself inept in addressing the Russian threat. After Russian forces invaded Georgia, Obama’s first response was to state the United States “should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence.” However, any substantial actions proposed by the Security Council would have been vetoed by Russia. Moreover, the American media Gazprom Might Gazprom, Rusand public have not placed enough sia’s state-run natural gas proattention on Russia’s recent emer- ducer, reaped havoc in Ukraine gence, as the U.S. is currently in- when it cut-off the country when volved in three wars and is suffering Ukraine began vying for enfrom perilous economic situation. trance into the EU and NATO. The U.S. has strived for decades to remain the most powerful country in the world, but that position is now being challenged by Putin’s Russia. by pursuing alternative channels for their The United States should continue to energy needs. In effect, NATO states would support Georgia and Ukraine’s bids into no longer be reliant on Russia; thus Putin NATO. Firstly, by having Eastern European would no longer have leverage over them. NATO members, the United States could The U.S. and the international community prevent Putin’s domineering ideology could grant Russia World Trade Organizafrom augmenting in former Soviet repub- tion membership, something Russia has lics. Moreover, these western allies could proactively vied for, if Russia hones back acts as buffers and firewalls for the extent It is quite apparent that of Russian expansion. More importantly, by being NATO members, other members the American government of NATO’s military command would be needs to address Rusobligated to defend both countries in the sia’s growing power in the event of a Russian attack. The U.S. ought world. Unfortunately, Presto maintain friendly relations with Estonia ident Obama has proven and Macedonia, which have embraced the himself inept in addresswest. Also, defense deals with other European nations would be beneficial to the ing the Russian threat. same effect. In August, the Department of State finalized a pact with Poland, which its imperialistic ideology. enables the Poles to purchase arms deals The global economic recession has had in exchange for the establishment of mis- profound effects on Russia. As oil and othsile defense systems. This allows the U.S. er commodities are worth substantially less to thwart, to some extent, possible Russian than over the summer, Russia’s economic rockets. has contracted. Since Russians are feeling Moreover, Russian defense projects the shocks of the recession more than most should not be funding by NATO members’ global citizens, support for Putin’s policies energy purchases. American European al- has diminished. In addition, Russia’s infralies could solve their dependence on Russia structure decays and population declines

March 2009 HM Review

pancho

have been exacerbated recently, posing a grave threat to Russia’s future prosperity. Putin and his thuggish coalition of authoritarian crooks are more preoccupied with their own power and wealth than the welfare of the Russian people. Recently, amidst troubling economic times, many Russians have begun to question and challenged the status quo of Putinistic autocracy. Weakened, Putin and Medvedev have relaxed their stranglehold over Russians and have re-evaluated their stance towards the West. Thus, Obama’s efforts to “press the reset button” in relations with Russia are ever more vital, as Russia may now be in a position to have productive dialogue to confront a myriad of global issues, such as nuclear proliferation. Russia may no longer proactively assert its imperialistic ideology in the region or immediately pose a direct threat to America’s national security, but Obama should not become naive in addressing Russia. It has become clearer now than ever- Putin has awoken the sleeping giant of Russian nationalism, and in ensuing years the Russian government will continue to assert its influence in the world community. President Obama can only desire a result tantamount to “Act 1.” HMR

Features

Economics HYPERINFLATION IN ZIMBABWE washingtontimes.com

by antonia woodford

f you were dwelling in Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital city, what could you purchase with a newly-issued $100 trillion banknote? About two loaves of bread, as of last month, if you managed to find a store whose shelves weren’t empty after spending hours in line at a bank to withdraw the cash. Since 2007, Zimbabwe has been caught in a hyperinflationary spiral that may prove to be the worst of its kind in history. By November 2008, the latest date for which data is measurable, Zimbabwe’s inflation rate was at 89.7 sextillion percent annually (roughly 9 x 1022 %), meaning that prices doubled every 24 hours, according to the Cato Institute. As the value of the national currency has plummeted, the country faces shortages of food, water, healthcare, and electricity, coupled with massive breakdowns in public services such as education. Around 3 million people have fled to South Africa, England, and the United States; the rest eke out a meager existence through bartering,

hoarding physical commodities, and trading on the black market. An inflation rate of at least 50% per month, or 12,875% annually, is defined as hyperinflation. It results from a massive expansion of the money supply relative to the supply of goods and services, often because a government decides to print extra money to cover its expenses. Because more money is now available to purchase the same amount of goods, the money price of goods rises. Once people notice the inflation, they begin to lose confidence in the currency. People spend money as quickly as possible before it loses more of its value, with the result that prices rise even more than in proportion to the increase in money supply. Hyperinflation typically occurs during wartime or periods of political turmoil, when the government’s need for money is particularly acute. By printing more money, the government in effect taxes its citizens by devaluing the monetary assets they currently own. In Zimbabwe’s case, longtime President Robert Mugabe began “running the presses” to finance his regime. From 2000 to 2002, Mugabe sent his

supporters to seize commercial farmland owned by whites. The government seized 95% of Zimbabwe’s 4,500 commercial farms without providing any compensation, the Economist reported. Though these farms were the backbone of the country’s agricultural economy and provided employment for many black Zimbabweans, Mugabe claimed he needed to give the land back to blacks whom it had been stolen from. This approach had several flaws. The new recipients of the land were inexperienced, and they failed to produce a bountiful harvest. Foreign investors, seeing the government’s ability to seize property upon any pretext, quickly took their money out of the country. Foreign currency, both from investors and from buyers of agricultural exports, dwindled away. At the same time, Mugabe needed to repay his supporters and the militias who were administering the forced land redistribution. His solution was simply to print more banknotes, leading to seven years of steady inflation. In February 2007, the government printed over 21 trillion extra dollars to pay overdue debts to the International Mone-

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Economics tary Fund. When this news became public, a loss. currency. The Zimbabwe dollar continues the inflation rate skyrocketed to the point Another consequence of the hyper- to lose its value by the hour, regardless of of hyperinflation. As price increases out- inflation has been a shortage of cash to where the decimal point is placed. paced wage increases, public workers such be used in making payments. A New York Mugabe and his administration have as teachers, doctors, electricians, and police Times article from last October recounts still failed to acknowledge the root of the officers began to walk off their jobs to pro- how Zimbabweans wait in line at the bank problem. Mugabe has stated that he considtest the low pay. A wave of blackouts swept as early as 2:30 a.m., because not everyone ers inflation an attempt by the private secthrough Harare and Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s who wants to withdraw money is able to. tor to overthrow his regime. Industry and largest cities. Thousands of patients died in Some even sleep outside banks rather than International Trade Minister Obert Mpofu hospitals that had run out of basic necessi- waste money on transportation home, CNN justified the 2007 price cuts by saying that ties such as bandages, IV fluids, saline solu- reported. This shortage might seem para- the government was “aware that these escation, and insulin medications. Contaminat- doxical, when the government is printing lating price increases are a political ploy ened water supplies led to outbreaks gineered by our detractors to sacbee.com of cholera and dysentery. effect an illegal regime change The situation only worsened against the ruling party.” in the subsequent months as the The crisis cannot be government announced one inefaverted until Mugabe ceases fective reform after another. Zimto inflate the currency to fibabwe’s central bank froze prices nance his personal motives. from March 1 to July 31, 2007, In 2006, as more and more declaring inflation illegal and Zimbabweans sunk into povthreatening harsh punishments erty thanks to his economic for anyone who raised prices or missteps, Mugabe moved into wages. Unable to profit by sella new presidential palace valing their goods at the fixed prices, ued at US$26 million. While merchants increasingly turned to Zimbabwe is the first country illegal trade. When the governto experience hyperinflation ment tried to stimulate the farmin the 21st century, it can learn ing industry by selling farmers valuable lessons from nations cheap gasoline, farmers instead that underwent hyperinflation resold it on the black market. It in the past. The government was not worth using the gasoline The Face of Hyperinflation A dearth of basic necessities needs to restore confidence to fuel farm equipment when and rapid inflation resulted in blackouts, cholera epidemin the currency and also plan they could not sell their crops at ics, and protests. to balance its budget, so that a reasonable price; the result was it will not have to keep propcontinuing food shortages and famines. new money at such a fast rate. However, the ping itself up by printing money. In one of On June 26, 2007, Mugabe went even loss of citizens’ confidence in the currency the most widely studied cases of hyperinfurther, demanding that all stores slash guarantees that any money that is printed flation, Germany experienced a 29,500% their prices by at least 50%. Price inspec- will be spent so quickly that prices will have monthly inflation rate following World tors visited shops and factories, fining and to be high relative to the available money, War I. In November 1923, the government jailing as many as 4,000 people for refus- resulting in complaints of a cash shortage. established an independent central bank ing to abide by the regulations. State-run Gideon Gono, the governor of the cen- which by law was prohibited from monetiznewspapers advertised the phone numbers tral bank, has ludicrously blamed the cash ing the government deficit. The hyperinflacitizens could call to report stores that over- shortage on Germany, “which unilaterally tion ended within a week of the new legislacharged. cut a 50-year-old contract to supply us with tion coming into effect. But not even Mugabe, who has ruled currency printing paper, machinery, spare In Zimbabwe, the central bank, as is Zimbabwe with near-absolute authority for parts and inks without notice,” he said. true for all other aspects of the govern29 years, can alter fundamental economic Faster printing of new currency, however, ment, is controlled by Mugabe, who is acprinciples of supply and demand. Once will only exacerbate the problem. customed to changing the law to fit his own stores had sold off all their stock at the Mugabe’s most recent policy response desires. As a political analyst from Harare mandated low prices, they were unwilling has been to revalue the Zimbabwe dollar for told the New York Times in 2007, “The big to keep supplying goods that would have to the third time in three years. On February problem about Zimbabwe is that the one be sold at a loss. Bread, meat, and gasoline 2, 2009, he announced that 12 zeros would thing you can’t rig is the economy.” The only became practically unobtainable. The gov- be cut off all prices, since the inflated prices solution to the country’s troubles seems to ernment responded by seizing businesses had been crashing businesses’ computer be the permanent removal of Mugabe from that refused to restock, but that hardly systems. This came after 10 zeros were cut power. HMR helped the situation. Despite nationalizing off in August 2008, and three zeros were cut slaughterhouses, the government could not off in 2006. These measures unfortunately induce farmers to sell off their animals at do nothing to restore confidence in the

March 2009 HM Review

Economics

Regressing To the Past

Alex Ma offers a rundown of the

detrimental effects of socialism on the world economy.

by alex ma

An Introduction With a new revival of Latin American Leftist leaders over the last decade, socialism has been put into the spotlight as an economic system. In a socialist economic system, the government controls most of the major industries, such as oil, steel and banks, leading to the very infrastructure of the state being controlled by the government. Socialism has its roots in the 19th century, when Karl Marx proposed a situation in which the working class would overthrow the bourgeoisie and the nobility to create a system where the wealth was distributed among the people more evenly

Better Economics: In a comparison of GDP and percentage of freedom in a country, more freedom is connected with a higher GDP.

than before. Part of the reason why this occurred was that there was a lot of technological advancement, due to the industrial revolution, around the same time period, allowing a greater part of the population to accumulate wealth. This social change then led people to take a hard look at the old economic system and the old form of government. Traditionally, the majority of the people had been ruled by a few, most of whom were part of a descended line of nobility that kept all the wealth to itself, and more importantly kept the wealth inside its families. However, due to the aforementioned technological advances, this system was becoming more and more obsolete, as it became easier to get rich; instead of just being royalty, people could become rich by developing railroads or factories, for example. This led to new, more radical ideas, and eventually to the creation of socialism

Differences Between Socialism and Capitalismâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Which System is Better? There are many distinct differences between a capitalist and a socialist system, and they mainly concern distribution of wealth. In a capitalist system, the people control the distribution of capital, thus giving everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. This in turn encourages people to work hard, come up with new ideas, and be creative, because

The Heritage Foundation

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

by doing so they are able to increase their wealth. In a socialist system however, the government controls the distribution of capital and instead of giving everyone an equal opportunity to succeed, the system gives everyone a relatively equal amount of wealth. At a glance, it seems that socialism could be just as effective as capitalism, if not better. There is no large problem with the distribution of wealth (gap between the rich and the poor), and the part of the population that does the majority of the work holds and benefits from the majority of the capital. However, there are some obvious flaws with the socialist model. Because it distributes wealth more equally than the capitalist system, it does not encourage people to work harder and innovate, so they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have any incentive to do so. On the other hand, capitalism encourages people to develop and innovate because they are allowed to keep most of the wealth generated by their ideas. Hence, socialism has two basic problems. First, it expects the people to work not for personal advancement, but for their country, which is not appealing to most. Second, socialist rulers will generally succumb to personal greed, and because they control all the money, there ends up being a lot of corruption and biases that corrupt the government. Capitalism solves this problem because it allows people to work for their own benefit and for the benefit of the country as well. Capitalism creates competition and eliminates

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Economics

Capitalism vs. Socialism: There have been many advances in the world economy that have come through the free market and capitalism. weaker organizations, something similar to Darwinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory of natural selection, where companies that cannot produce and compete with their competition are eventually wiped out (currently, we are seeing this happen with the American automakers that cannot make better cars for the same price as other international auto manufacturers). However, complete and total capitalism is not perfect either. For example, a certain company can become too dominant and eventually take over the whole market: the creation of monopoly, which would not be good for the economy (because it has total control over pricing). As well, without any regulation people could cheat the entire system. For example, if our system did not ban insider trading, the market would be unfairly biased to certain people, since they would have knowledge that others would not have. This then leads to the necessity of a strong legal system in order to be able to prosecute people for these crimes.

The Effects of the Economic Crisis Due to the current global recession, capitalism has come under fire. In essence, the free market that most of the world

March 2009 HM Review

has been moving towards in the past few years has faltered. This is obviously going to lead to a general trend towards opposite system of economics, socialism. Because a government always aims to please the people for fear of revolt, the governments of the world are going to have to invest in the major industries that support their respective countries, an idea that stems from socialism. If governments donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t invest enough the industries that can create jobs for the general population during a period of economic trouble, the people will lose jobs and become angry. And if enough people get angry at their governing bodies, they can overthrow them, leading to the creation of new governments that, if influenced by the views of the people, would most likely lean towards socialism. Therefore, in the long run, we are probably going to see a trend towards a more socialist world economy, due to the fact that governments worry about their situation and do not want to fall out of power. Now, what does this do to countries that are already socialist? Well, because the global trend towards capitalism has seemingly failed, countries like

If the entire global system becomes too socialist, we will run into problems similar to ones that plagued the Soviet Union...

China (which run on a mixed socialist and capitalist system) will most likely start following a trend back towards socialism. In fact, most socialist countries will go back to their roots economically, as they will feel safer doing so than trying out the capitalist system that the world adopted before the recession. However, this trend clearly does not bode well for the future. If the entire global system becomes too socialist, we will run into problems similar to ones that plagued the Soviet Union and led to its collapse in 1991. Because the Soviets were not able to innovate and expand as well as the United States was during the Cold War, the US was able to outspend them; for example, it was much easier for us to build up our military, because our economic system was stronger than theirs. Socialism, if further introduced, could cause the entire global economy to recover from this collapse even slower than it would if we had kept the old system. Instead, a better solution would be for governments to keep more of an eye on what kinds of risks that banks and other important infrastructural groups of companies take, so it will be easier to see problems in the future and correct them. As well, more regulation should be introduced for the same purpose. If a move towards capitalism with regulation does not occur , there is no end in sight for our economic problems that we face today. HMR

Economics

PERSPECTIVE: UNION PROBLEMS

“The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline.” –Milton Friedman by matt fox

he largest economic boom in our nation’s history took place in the period after the American Civil War, commonly referred to as the Industrial Revolution. Regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) changed very little in the 2000 years before the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution began an era of per-capita economic growth in capitalist economies. Essentially overnight, the United States became the world’s largest industrial power. With inventions such as the power loom and steam engine, the United States industrial growth was exponential. A large portion of this economic success can be attributed to the unrestricted capitalism

as possible. Their competitive nature was one of the main reasons for this economic growth. In the process, they exploited countless employees; they overworked young children, put individuals in physical harm, and paid extremely low wages. This exploitation led to the development of labor unions, organizations created to protect workers’ rights. At that time, unions may have been necessary, because workers’ lives were being endangered; but in the present, labor unions only inhibit our country’s economic growth. On November 6, 2008, Robert Nardelli, Alan Mulally, and Rick Wagoner, Chief Executive Officers of Chrysler, Ford, and GM respectively, sat before Congress and pleaded for 25 billion dollars in federal loans, in order to restructure their companies. The media’s primary focus on the

a considerable amount of money, it is nothing compared to the $151,720 that Chrysler pays per worker per year, or the twenty billion dollar health care trust that GM is required to fund for its workers. The exorbitant labor costs extracted by the United Auto Workers (UAW), for the Big Three Auto Companies are a main factor in the collapse of these corporations. The UAW is the labor union that represents autoworkers in the US and Puerto Rico. For the Big Three Auto Companies, the average annual labor costs per worker is 146,420. At the same time, non-American auto companies (specifically Toyota, Nissan, and Honda), operate in the United States, own factories in the United States, and employ American labor at an average of $96,000 per worker. A company can hardly be

Richard Lee

Bailout Many top GM executives admit even the $30 Billion auto bailout won’t solve GM’s cost-related problems. of the time. Individuals such as John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie built huge monopolies out of nothing. They were motivated by money and power; their goal was to make as much money as they could, and to become as influential

proceedings that day was not on the problem at hand, or how the issue would be resolved, but rather, the means of transportation of the three CEO’s. While the $20,000 that it cost each CEO to travel to and from Washington D.C is indeed

competitive when it is forced to pay its workers over 52% more than its competitors. Even now, in these dire times for the Auto Companies, the UAW refuses to make concessions that will allow these companies to stay in business. Because of

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Economics the exorbitant cost of UAW labor, the Big Three Auto Companies are hemorrhaging money and costing taxpayers nearly the GDP of a small nation. The potential collapse of the Big Three Auto Companies is simply one example how unions hinder the United States economy. Teachers Unions is one of the largest issues with the Public School System in the United States. Teachers Unions have destroyed local control of education, disposed of teacher accountability, de-

as outstanding teachers; lazy teachers are paid just as much as diligent ones. The economic success that our country has experienced over the past 200 years is due to the very principle that Teachers Unions take away; competition. The quality of your product must be higher than the quality of the competitors’ product if you intend to remain in business. With public school teachers, there is no reason to do anything other than the minimum, seeing as they are not rewarded for ex-

violation of teacher’s rights; therefore the teachers’ union should not get involved. At heart, unions naturally promote inefficiency. Unions strive to restrict labor supply and increase the wage. In a capitalist market, the competitive wage is the efficient wage, the competitive labor output in the efficient output. By restricting labor supply of its members, unions prevent some labor, which is valued at more than its cost, from being used, creating a large inefficiency.

European Commision

Money Problems? “U.S.” auto-makers, who submit to the UAW’s wage terms, pay 52% more to their workers than their foreign competitors, many of which have production facilities in the US. nied parents a voice in their child’s education, and abolished the system of merit in the public school system. Because of the union, New York school janitors are paid an average of $57,000 a year, and are only required to “mop the schools’ floors three times a year.” Teachers receive tenure after three years of work, getting rid of any incentive for a teacher to perform his or her job to the fullest of his or her ability. In North Carolina, .03% of tenured teachers are fired, compared to the 9.8% firing rate of private school teachers in the country. To put it simply, three out of every ten thousand tenured teachers are fired in North Carolina. By stifling any motivation to be better than their colleagues, improve their curriculums, or take any vested interest in their students, teachers unions destroy any sense of competition or merit recognition in the public school system. Poor teachers are paid the same amount of money

March 2009 HM Review

emplary effort, nor can they be chastised for the opposite. Teachers Unions are not only detrimental to the state, they are detrimental to the students because they remove the incentives that promote hard work and curricular innovation. Teachers Unions take actions that are clearly made to preserve the Union’s power, rather than to protect its worker’s rights. The National Education Association (NEA) announced a boycott of Florida orange juice after the Florida citrus department advertised on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. The local Teachers Union in Jersey City, New Jersey, threatened a statewide boycott against Pepsi if PepsiCo did not withdraw its support of the mayor’s voucher proposal. While the teacher pension fund in West Virginia was in debt, the West Virginia Teachers Union demanded that teachers be allowed to retire at the age of 50 with full benefits. These actions are not in response to any

Unions may have been necessary during the industrial revolution; when employers were putting their employees in physical danger, and were paying them extremely low wages for ridiculously long hours. They may still be important to protecting worker’s rights, but the amount of power that they have, and the ludicrous policies that they have implemented are not only unnecessary, they go against the basic beliefs of capitalism, that the best product thrives. In American, the land of freedom and opportunity, if you feel like you are being underpaid or that your working conditions are unsatisfactory, you can find another job. Unions were established to defend workers’ rights, and they did so in their early years; but as of now, they are simply a hindrance to the industries that they are involved in.

HMR

Science & Technology PERSPECTIVE: NOT JUST FUN AND GAMES Violent video games and their negative effects on society. by justin katiraei

ver since the idea was spawned in the Enlightenment, the premise that technology is always beneficial has been central in our society. However, we have seen in modern times that this is not the case, evidenced by technologies ranging from nuclear weapons to video games. It has been shown time and time again that violent video games can have a potentially harmful effect on minors. Nonetheless, now that we recognize this, there is still debate over what exactly to do next. There have been arguments made, laws enacted, and yet society is still in limbo on the topic. The evidence is

clear, and it is time we take firm action once and for all. In 2005, California passed a law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. Those who disobeyed would pay a fine of as much as one thousand dollars. On February 20, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down this law, asserting that “the state does not have the right to control minors’ thoughts.” The 2005 law was designed to

Street Life: A screenshot from Grant Theft Auto IV. Grant Theft Auto is the sixth most successful video game franchise.

limit the violent content of video games in the same fashion society limits obscene sexual content. According to the state, restrictions are necessary in order to limit the psychological and neurological harm that minors may receive while playing violent video games. On the national level, the United States Supreme Court recognizes that each state has a vested interest in preventing such harm. The government, backed by today’s leading scientists, is for the most part resolved against violent video games. The violent

X201

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Science & Technology video game industry has its own lobbyists, who do everything they can to guard their right to quite literally sell murder and rape to our society. Firstly, they claim that there is no conclusive evidence linking violent video games to crime, similar to the “lack” of evidence linking tobacco smoking with lung cancer and emphysema. In fact, the lobbies even went as far to suggest that the exposure to violence as seen in their video games is necessary to function as a society. According to the American Amusement Machine Association, “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.” After four years, they have finally “persuaded” the courts in California to see their way. “We are extremely gratified by the court’s rejection of video game censorship,” CEO of the Entertainment Merchants Association Bo Andersen says. “Ratings education, retailer ratings enforcement, and control of game play by parents are the appropriate responses to concerns about video game content.” Although there are two powerful sides to this debate, there is only one legitimate position. Almost all the available data shows that concern over violent video games is absolutely justified. ConCreeyp cerns originally arose based on the ydud e assumption that such games could

March 2009 HM Review

contribute to an increase in aggression and violence among minors. This conclusion was based on extensive research conducted by prominent organizations such as the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association. All these bodies claim that scientific evidence shows a cause-effect relationship between violence in video games and the children who play them. What do the scientists and doctors of the world say? Firstly, they have concluded that “children are more likely to imitate the actions of a character with whom they identify.” Considering that in violent video games, the player is often forced to play as the shooter, rapist, or other perpetrator, the studies are more than a bit distressing. They also state that with repetition comes learning. Since violent video games often require much repetition, what exactly are children learning? This is without even considering that with rewards comes learning, and that violent video games are often centralized around a system of reward. Studies measuring the physiological responses to violent video games have shown that such games increase physiological arousal. Children who were already hostile to begin with had a disproportionately higher aggressive response than those who were not. These physi-

Virtual Warfare: A screenshot from Call of Duty: World at War’s new map, Nightfire. Call of Duty is the twenty-first most successful video game franchise.

ological responses including heart rate, systolic blood pressure, adrenaline, and testosterone are important because they are the same reactions bodies experience when engaged in a fight. Exposure to violent games also has been shown to increase aggressive thoughts. And yes, this has been confirmed in both experimental and correlation studies. When asking children the negatives of playing video games, many report that they render their friends more “moody and aggressive.” The studies also show that children who frequently play video games were more likely to be in a bad mood during and after play than children who play less often. Furthermore, violent video games have been shown to increase aggression in minors. In a study of eighth and ninth graders, students who played more violent video games were also more likely to see the world as a “hostile place,” and were much more likely to be involved in physical clashes. While the video game lobbies claim association is not causation, the statistics account for many of the factors the lobbies refute. Studies measuring children’s aggressiveness even when hostility level, sex, and amount of play are statistically controlled still conclude that violent video games are in fact linked with aggressive behavior. The issue, however, will not be finished today. California now must decide whether or not to take their case to the Supreme Court, costing an estimated $283,000 in taxpayer money. As for the rest of the country, the debate will almost certainly continue to rage for the next few years, considering the power of the interest groups involved with the subject. It is unfortunate that so much time must be spent on violent video games, considering the many beneficial games also available to the youth. However, like society has done with alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and movies, it may be time to protect the youth from violence in video games as well. HMR

Editorials & Opinion

FINAL SAY: THE OBAMA DOCTRINE How Barack Obama should address the crisis in Darfur. by avital morris

Now that he is the President, Obama needs to find a clearer stance on the role of the United States in policing genocide. Obama became President Obama, and now his stances on other issues are available to the public at. However, it is difficult to find any information about his positions on humanitarian issues. After glancing at the headings within the section titled “Agenda”, and not seeing a page about humanitarian issues, I searched the website using the keywords “humanitarian,” and then “genocide” on whitehouse. gov. Neither found any hits. I searched “Darfur” and found that, buried within the Women’s issues page, there is a mention of the tens of thousands of women who have been sexually abused or killed in Darfur. This is a horrible tragedy, but is not the only tragedy happening in Darfur, so one would expect that someone as interested in stopping genocide as President Obama, would seem have more information on his position, and to make it more easily accessible to his constituents. Contrary to the current situation, when President Obama was in the Senate,

in DPAA. However, most of them are not interventionist enough to match what he said at the debate. The closest interventionist option of U.S. involvement is completed through asking the President to provide help and funding to the AU peacekeeping mission. The President’s website and voting record seem to conflict with his statement during the debate, which leaves us wondering: what does President Obama really think we should do about humanitarian crises? The most likely answer seems to be that he is not as interventionist as he suggested in the debate. Although he said that an intervention in the Holocaust could have been beneficial, he prefaced it with “If we could have intervened effectively.” When he said, “We should have stopped Rwanda” closer inspection reveals that there was more to his statement than that. The full quotation being, “If we could’ve stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something

www.nyinquirer.com

n the second McCain-Obama presidential debate, moderator Tom Brokaw asked each candidate describe a plan to fix humanitarian crises, and a layout of the force that would be used. Obama’s response was very pro-intervention, “We may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.” He further stated that the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide would have benefited from U.S. involvement. This interventionism was not contained to the past: America should be doing more in Darfur by setting up no-fly zones and providing logistical support. This stance seems to be promising in change for humanitarian issues than past administrations. In the four months since that debate, many things have changed. Senator

he worked to stop the genocide in Darfur. For example, he helped work on the Darfur Peace and Accountability act, which was passed in 2006. This bill takes measures to end the genocide, but it is very indirect about it. At one point, the bill suggests that the President instruct the NATO advisor to ask NATO to help the peacekeeping effort organized by the African Union. In fact, most of the bill consists of Congress’s instructions to the President, so by citing this bill as his main work on the issue, President Obama suggests that he believes Darfur to be the President’s responsibility, rather than Congress’. For congress, this was a safe way to get credit for passing a bill that helps Darfur while passing the responsibility on to someone else, namely the President. Now that he is the President, Obama needs to find a clearer stance on the role of the United States in policing genocide. He could begin by taking steps outlined

All talk: Barack Obama speaking at a Washington D.C. rally for the Darfur crisis. that we would have to strongly consider and act.” This unabridged version is more consistent with the general philosophy President Obama has displayed, both during the campaign and in his first few weeks in office. He is normally prone to careful nuance that considers multiple courses of action without committing to any of them. In this case, while he feels strongly about ending genocide, he does not want to commit to resolving all conflicts without discussing it with allies, as well as NATO and the UN. On this issue, however, not making a choice an option. By choosing not to act, we choose to let people die. Sometimes, that may be the right answer, but we need to recognize that it is a choice, and that it will have consequences. If President Obama is going to commit to intervening when necessary to stop genocide, he will have to make a decision. In this case, it is impossible to act boldly while remaining completely neutral. HMR

HM Review Vol. XVIII

Subscription Form Dear Reader,

The HM Review Board of Trustees:

Past Review Editors-in-Chief and Executive Editors

The Review, Horace Mann’s award winning political journal, is now in its eighteenth volume. We are committed to exploring politics, current events, public policy, and culture with journalistic integrity. The Review has been honored with numerous national awards from the American, National, and Columbia Scholastic Press Associations. This year, subscriptions cost $40.00 and should paid via check addressed to The Horace Mann Review. The check can be mailed to the school at the address found below; alternatively, it can be dropped off at The Review mailbox in school. The Review is dedicated to deliver-

Kunal Malkani ‘08 Charles Stam ‘08 Anoushka Vaswani ‘08 Maximilian D.C. Thompson ‘06 Zachary Freyer-Biggs ‘06 Current HM Review Leaders: Members of Volume XVIII

Venkat Kausik ‘09 Zachary Malter ‘09

CUT OUT THIS FORM FILL OUT THE BACK

ing the issues in a timely manner. With each main issue, you will receive the separately released HM section of the magazine. Each year, the HM Review subscribers, through their generosity and interest in students, allow us to publish this magazine as we do now. We hope you enjoy reading this issue, and take advantage of the opportunity to support one of HM’s most important publications. Thank you.

Venkat Kausik Editor-in-Chief March 2009 HM Review

Past HM Review Issues: Vol. XVIII: We the People, Corruption, Leftist Latin America

Vol. XVII: Absolutely Banned, Privacy?, Patriotism, The Other Side, The Future of Food, The Forgotten People Vol. XVII: Apocalypse Now?, The Midterm Elections, Crime & Punishment, Censorship, Up in Arms Vol. XVI: The God Issue, Sexxx, China, The Politics of Education

The Review is currently in its eighteenth volume. It is now HM’s journal covering current events, politics, public policy, and culture. Its faculty advisor is Mr. Gregory C. Donadio. 50

Subscribe to the HM Review: Please return with a check for $40 (payable to â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Horace Mann Reviewâ&#x20AC;? to): The Horace Mann Review, Subscriptions Department; Horace Mann School 231 West 246 Street; Riverdale, NY 10471

Name: ____________________________________________________ Please Print

Street Address: ____________________________________________ City, State, Zip: ____________________________________________

The Horace Mann Review 231 West 246 st. Riverdale, NY 10471

Please note: If you reside outside of the continental United States, please contact us at: thereview@horacemann.org

HM Review Vol. XVIII