February 20, 2012
Volume VIII, Issue I
!"#$%&'()(* US MILITARY FACES BIG CUTS
ISSUE I INTERNATIONAL Venezuela Primary Poses Strong Challenge to Chávez by Collette Andrei, ‘14 - Page 3 GREEK AUSTERITY PROTESTS TURN VIOLENT by Samuel Harris, ‘15 - Page 4
OPINION NEW FRENCH LAW PUNISHES DENIAL OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE by Akshai Bhatnagar, ‘15 - Page 5 US SHOULD NOT MILITARILY INTERVENE IN SYRIA by Mike Bodner, ‘14 - Page 6 Leon Panetta
Washington Post
by Julia Allen, ‘15 Staff Writer
W
hen this year’s federal budget is finalized, it is likely that the Pentagon will be operating with 32 billion dollars less than last year. The new military spending plan will change the nature of current US military operations and future capabilities. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, claims that these cuts “will rebalance our global posture and presence to emphasize where we think the potential problems will be in the world,” without detracting from the overall effectiveness of American military power. Panetta’s plan includes drawing forces out of Europe and placing a greater emphasis on the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific.
1
Because of the intensified focus on Asia and the Pacific, it is not surprising that the United States government is “explicitly putting a greater emphasis on air and sea forces at the expense of ground forces,” as Todd Harrison from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments recently told NPR. Despite the adjustment of priorities, ground troops will not be neglected in their training. Funding may be reduced, but officials say that these soldiers who spent years in Afghanistan and Iraq focusing on irregular warfare will be retrained in some of the more traditional roles like amphibious assault and armored warfare which have recently gone unpracticed.
OBAMA’S CONTRACEPTION MANDATE INFRINGES ON RELIGIOUS LINERTY by Chris Winer, ‘14 - Page 7
JOHNS HOPKINS’s OnlyWeeklyPublished Political Magazine
Moving away from the nationbuilding missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Defense Strategic Guidance document of 2012 makes it clear that, “U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.” This shift in the war-fighting paradigm is reflected in President Obama’s comments to NPR on January 26th, where he urged Americans to “look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the end of long-term nation-building with large military (continued on Page 2) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
February 20, 2012
Volume VIII, Issue I
)"+$%&'()(* !"#$$%&'(")'!
Julia Allen Colette Andrei Megan Augustine Michael Bodner Rachel Cohen Robert D’Annibale Virgil Doyle Eric Feinberg Cary Glynn Anna Kochut Hilary Matfess Chloe Reichel Danniel Roettger Ari Schaffer
)*("+',(-,./()$
)*("+',(-,./()$
Will Denton
Hannah Holliday #!!(!"#-"%)*("+'!
Randy Bell Jeremy Orloff Matt Varvaro
3#4+2"%)*("+'
Ana Giraldo-Wingler 0#-#1(-1%)*("+'
Alex Clearfield $#.23"4%#*5(!+'
Steven R. David
JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are those solely of the author.
NATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 1) footprints,” to when “we will be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces.” Within the past year, President Obama has authorized several small-scale missions which embody this new vision for the future of American ground power. The current policy of drone strikes in Pakistan, the killing of Osama bin Laden, and the airstrike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki are all examples of these high risk, high impact missions. The Pentagon is being urged to come up with “innovative, low-cost, small-presence approaches to achieve security objectives,” that would allow the US to exert power where it is needed, but also put an end to a period of long term conflicts. The effectiveness of these tactics have been questioned on several different levels. The policy of targeting killing and drone strikes on leaders within terrorist groups have been challenged by many including Stephen Biddle, the senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. He points out that “when you kill the first string [of leaders], they are replaced by the second string, which is often younger, more radical, and not so open to negotiated solutions.” Without ground troops who are prepared to carry out sustainability missions afterwards there is evidence that targeted killing and drone strikes are not as effective. The legality of these strategies have also been questioned, making the
2
future policies of the American military subject to debate. The 2013 budget will certainly lead to cuts on military expenditures, but how the US armed forces will be transformed by these changes remains unclear. Critics argue that the cuts will severely limit the capability of American troops, and that proponents of the new military structure are unrealistic in their belief that it is possible to have it both ways: trim the budget by half a trillion dollars over the next decade while maintaining US military preeminence. On the other hand, Panetta argues that, “The military will be smaller and leaner. But it will be agile, flexible, rapidly deployable and technologically advanced.” As the debate centered around the 2013 fiscal budget continues, the future of the United States military is being reshaped.
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
February 20, 2012
Volume VIII, Issue I
INTERNATIONAL REPORT Venezuela Primary Poses Strong Challenge to Chávez by Collete Andrei ‘14
O
n February 12, 2012, approximately 2.9 million voters lined up outside schools in Venezuela to cast their votes for an opposition candidate to challenge current president and leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. The country’s political opposition overcame years of political division in this primary election, jointly held by a spectrum of opposition parties, in which 62 percent of voters, some 1.8 million people, selected fresh-faced candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski to challenge Chávez in the general election scheduled for October; the election will inevitably be seen as a referendum on the socialist incumbent’s tenure of more than 13 years. “Today, our people have spoken,” Capriles told crowds of cheering supporters late Sunday. “I aspire to be the president of all Venezuelans. The message is clear: Venezuelans are fed up with confrontation, with division.” Yet even with unified opposition behind him, Capriles faces the steepest challenge in taking on Chávez, who claimed he will thrash the opposition in October’s election. A highly controversial and divisive figure both at home and abroad, Chávez, a former soldier turned politician, became president of Venezuela in 1999 and pledged to implement widespread changes to benefit the poor. Following his own ideology of “Socialism for the 21st Century”, Chávez has focused on implementing socialist reforms as part of a social project known as the “Bolivarian revolution”, which has yielded a new constitution, participatory democratic councils, and the nationalization of several key industries, such as oil. After being re-elected in 2000, Chávez introduced a number of social justice, welfare, and anti-poverty programs, Communal Councils of citizens to oversee local policies, worker-managed cooperatives, and a land reform. The opposition argued that he was a populist eroding representative democracy and was becoming increasingly authoritarian. They staged a failed coup to remove him from government in 2002. However Chávez proclaimed his adherence to socialism and was re-elected again in 2006. Chávez is a self-professed anti-imperialist, vocal critic of neoliberalism and capitalism, and a strong opponent of U.S. foreign policy. He has allied himself with
3
socialist governments in Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, which all came to power in the so-called “pink tide”, the name given to the increase in the influence of leftist ideology and left-wing politics across Latin America in the 21st century. Despite the argued successes of his government, such as a decline in poverty and increase in social programs, Chávez’s heavy-handed populism has also resulted in the persecution of political opponents and journalists critical of his policies, the stacking of parliament with his supporters, an annual rate of inflation averaging close to 30 percent, and the transformation of Venezuela into one of the world’s most crime-ridden countries. Yet support for Chávez remains strong with important constituencies, such as the poor, who have seen their lives improve significantly under his government, and stateowned company employees who may feel that their jobs depend on Chávez remaining president. Chávez, 57, has repeatedly dismissed his opponents as the remnants of an old order dominated by a small and often corrupt oligarchy, while casting himself as the champion of revolution and remade society. It is not clear, however, if Chávez can place his challenger in this same role. Capriles, 39, is the governor of Miranda, one of the country’s most populous states, which includes a large area of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela. Capriles has defined himself as a political moderate, emphasizing his record as an administrator during his time as governor and before that as mayor of a section of Caracas. Capriles states that the country is tired of the president’s bellicose talk and is ready for someone who can bring people together. Chávez has mocked the opposition and said that its candidate represents the bourgeoisie and American imperialists. Though the opposition is much more unified than in the past, Chávez still enjoys several important advantages over any opponent, such as a vast amount of money from the state-run oil industry, social programs that pour money into poor neighborhoods, and a propaganda machine that constantly advertises the president. Chávez remains a larger-than-life figure despite his fight with cancer and lingering questions about his health. However, the larger-than-expected turnout in the primary could spell trouble because it suggests that the opposition is energized and well-organized. While the opposition is stronger than it has been in years and an upset is possible, there remains deep polar(Continued on page 4)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
February 20, 2012
Volume VIII, Issue I
INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 3) ization in the country, with an estimated one-third of the electorate uncommitted to either Capriles or Chávez. For Capriles to contend he must persuade these undecided voters that he can improve their lives. He has already received overwhelming support and enthusiasm from citizens at various stops on his campaign as he points to health clinics and food programs that his state built, saying he will continue the fight against poverty, only with better management. Beyond the goal of unseating Chávez, there were other issues at play in the primary, such as what to do about high levels of public spending, widespread security problems, and inadequate healthcare. These are issues that Chávez, who is running for re-election for a fourth time, has been unable to resolve. He now faces a dynamic opponent who must convince citizens that a better future for Venezuela is one in which Chávez’s 13year presidency has come to an end.
Greek Austerity Protests Turn Violent by Samuel Harris ‘15
T
he Greek debt crisis has exploded in recent days as new calls for austerity measures have rocked the country, leading to a new wave of violence and opposition from Greek citizens. The source of tension is a new round of government spending cuts that the EU and IMF have demanded of the Greek government in exchange for an additional 130 billion euros ($170 billion) in bailout funding. Riots began last week in Athens as Greek lawmakers approved the austerity measures, which would cut an additional 325 million euros ($426 million) from the government’s budget, largely from pension payments and government wages. Nearly 100,000 people marched on the parliament, demanding the end to the austerity measures. The protestors set fires and partook in looting which ravaged the capital as police struggled to maintain order. The protests are a continuation of a series of protests stretching back to May 2010, when the Greece’s sovereign debt crisis began. Overall, the riots in recent days have damaged or destroyed at least 110 buildings, nine of which are registered as having national historic significance. Additionally, at least 30 stores have been looted, over 110 protestors injured, and at least 55 pro-
testors arrested. The riots reflect a growing anti-austerity sentiment in Greece, as Christos Papoutsis, a member of the coalition party Pasok, remarked Tuesday that “the people cannot take anymore,” going on to say, “the government is making superhuman efforts, and we have reached the limits of the social and economic system.” According to a poll by SKAI, over 85% of the Greek population approves of the riots. The overwhelming support for the riots may reflect a growing frustration with Greece’s situation, as additional austerity cuts mean further slowdowns in the Greek economy, which contracted 7% in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to the previous year. Aside from internal pressures from Greek citizens, the Greek government has had to persuade other Eurozone members to continue providing bailout funding. Greece’s finance minister, Evangelos Venizelos, said on Wednesday that “there are many in the Eurozone who don’t want us anymore.” The situation is becoming especially tense with Germany, a major backer of the European central bank and the bailout funds. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said Wednesday in a radio interview that “[Germany] is not going to pour money into a bottomless pit.” German citizens and politicians are becoming weary of the seemingly unending demand from Greece for additional bailouts. Wolfram Schrettl, a professor of economics at the Free University of Berlin, commented that “there is a growing belief that Greece is looking for a sucker – and Germany’s playing the sucker.” German and Eurozone authorities are having doubts as to whether Greece will hold up its end of the agreements in light of what is becoming an increasingly unpopular political situation. Many Eurozone leaders are beginning (Continued on page 5)
Protesters set fire to buildings in Athens.
4
(Louisa Gouliamaki, AFP)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
February 20, 2012
Volume VIII, Issue I
INTERNATIONAL REPORT/OPINION (Continued from page 4) to believe that Greece is becoming less of a problem that needs fixing and more of a burden that needs to be let go as the sovereign debt crisis continues to wreak havoc on the Greek and Eurozone economies. Greece faces many hurdles ahead as it seeks to avoid the first sovereign default in the Eurozone. The deadline is March 20, at which point Greece will be forced to pay 14.5 billion euros for bond redemptions or face default. In an effort to ameliorate its debt burden, Greece is working with the European Central Bank to exempt Greek bonds from debt restructuring in other central banks’ portfolios and looking to work with investors on a bond swap aimed at cutting 100 billion euros from its debt. These efforts, if successful, would help Greece avoid a default which could prove disastrous for its economic and political situation. At present, Greece’s future remains uncertain. Michael Gapen, a New York based economist at Barclays, commented that “the ongoing saga will likely go down to the wire and is, yet again, another reminder of the fragile nature of the state of affairs in Europe and the potential for a disorderly default.” Time will tell if Greece is able to procure its second bailout in recent years and avoid a costly default as policy makers rush to save an already battered Greek economy.
New French Law Punishes Armenian Genocide Denial by Akshai Bhatnagar ‘15
Last month, a new French law outlawing the denial of the Armenian Genocide passed both houses of Parliament. While most historians agree that the World War One-era massacre was a systematic genocide launched by the Turkish state, Turkey refutes the label “genocide,” attributing the numerous Armenian deaths to invasion and war rather than to targeted extermination. The bill, which enjoys strong support from President Sarkozy, would punish those who deny the massacre with up to a year in jail and a fine of 45,000 euros ($57,000). The bill is currently being held up over questions concerning its constitutionality, however President Sarkozy has promised to submit a revised version of the
5
law if the current bill is ruled unconstitutional. Were the Armenian genocide bill to become law, France would continue to disappoint its allies and admirers. Groups such as Amnesty International are justified in opposing this law, as it is a blatant denial of the
FRENCH PARLIAMENT
rights to freedom of speech and expression. In terms of human rights, France has been one of the world’s most progressive countries for centuries. Mr. Sarkozy must realize that this law violates all that France stands for and that it exemplifies a type of nationalism that will serve neither France’s ideals nor its interests. France, along with much of continental Europe, has recently seen an ugly backlash against immigration, cosmopolitanism, and civil rights. From a Swiss ban on building new minarets on mosques (when there were only four in the country to begin with) to French bans on Islamic headscarves (hijabs), Europe has not lived up to the liberal ideals fought so hard to preserve. It is one of the great achievements of the last century that the entire European continent is democratic and free. Yet some European leaders, including Mr. Sarkozy, seem to not fully understand that freedom. The bill in question is symptomatic of a larger tension between France’s growing nationalism and its founding principles. Although France has served as a model for the United States in many ways, France has yet to follow the example the United States has set as a pluralistic society that respects minority rights. Over the previous decade, French policy has turned its back on diversity and acceptance. France has consistently denied Turkey entry to the (Continued on page 6)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
February 20, 2012
Volume VIII, Issue I
OPINION (Continued from page 5) European Union, a decision based more on ethnicity and religion than on equality or fairness. The Sarkozy government has also begun a new program to deport Romani or Gypsy peoples out of France, despite receiving harsh criticism from institutions from the E.U. to the Vatican. The proposed genocide law has elicited extreme condemnation from Ankara, where Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced the bill as “racist.” Turkey has arrested those who label the 1.5 million Armenian deaths a genocide under a law prohibiting the “insulting [of ] Turkishness.” While it is understandable that the French would respond in kind, passing their own law outlawing denial of their (correct) view of history, it is not acceptable. As the most powerful Muslim-majority democracy in the Middle East, Turkey has set an example for the countries freed after the Arab Spring, a role similar to that France played in continental Europe. It would greatly benefit France to avoid any unnecessary disputes with the young democracy, as Turkey is set to play an essential role in the Middle East in the coming decades. France should be reaching out to this new power, not pushing it away. No country should sacrifice the truth to satisfy another, however, criminalizing a lie is going too far. Freedom of speech is a defining mark of true liberal democracy. Central to this is the belief that all opinions must be tolerated, however outrageous, inaccurate, or hurtful they may be. At a time when dictators from Damascus to Beijing are decrying the virtues of democracy, free states such as France must abide by the democratic standards they have set for themselves. It is patently hypocritical for France to expect other countries to adopt democracy when France itself refuses to embrace fully the pluralistic ideals that are at the heart of democracy itself. France must take on a larger leadership role on the world stage - a role that it can only successfully assume if it finally realizes what liberté, egalité, fraternité really mean.
US Should Not Militarily Intervene in Syria by Mike Bodner ‘14
W
hen Hosni Mubarak stepped down from power on February 11, 2011, reformers across Egypt and the Middle East rejoiced. Through persistent demonstration and amazing perseverance, the Egyptian people had managed to overthrow a dictator who had ruled for over thirty years. A new dawn seemed ready to rise in the Middle East, a dawn that would bring liberal democracy and equality to all Arabs. Flash forward one year. Egypt is a country in turmoil. Protesters are still being killed during peaceful demonstrations. Coptic Christians are murdered both in public and in their homes. The military council that rules the government seems reluctant to give up power. Egypt has become a security threat to its neighbors, as terrorists and extremists travel freely across its now loosely defended borders. The current situation in Egypt has led political analysts and heads of state to wonder if the countries of the Middle East are ready to abandon authoritarian rule and become liberal democracies. Presently, that debate surrounds the ongoing Syrian Civil War. There is certainly no doubt that the President of Syria, Bashar Al-Assad, is an immoral man and a criminal. He has ordered airstrikes and artillery barrages against peaceful protestors and mass arrests of civilians; according to UNICEF, around 400 children have been arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Multiple world leaders including Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Angela Merkel have already called for Assad to step down from power. Yet, would Syria and the Middle East really be better off without him? The governments of Russia and China would likely answer with a resounding “no”. On February 4th, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that proposed to condemn the actions of the Assad government. The fact that Russia and China would veto such a relatively mild resolution, one that proposed no economic sanctions or military action, shows their dedication to keeping the Assad regime in power. Global reactions to the veto were not courteous: the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, called the veto “disgusting” and French Ambassador Gerard Araud claimed that it was “a sad day for democracy”. But as much as one would like to agree with the majority of (Continued on page 7)
6
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
February 20, 2012
Volume VIII, Issue I
OPINION
(Continued from page 6) the Security Council and see Assad removed from power, Russia’s and China’s position is more reasonable than many may think. Not many know who the head of the Syrian opposition is. Even fewer people can name some of their key leaders who will be put forth to lead the country should Assad be removed from power. Without a strong leader to immediately step in following a possible Assad departure, a “free” Syria could wind up becoming very much like today’s Egypt, a country in trouble following a dictator’s departure. Libya is having its own problems as well: many rebels, armed by foreign governments, refuse to surrender their weapons and according to the UN, hundreds are held in private jails outside the jurisdiction of the ruling National Transitional Council, where torture is said to be rampant. The situations in Libya and Egypt show what happens when a dictator is toppled but there is no powerful substitute to take his place. Of course the Syrian revolutionaries should not simply lay down their arms and accept another few decades of Assad’s despotic rule. Still, it would not be a good idea to arm these rebels and provide them with military support just yet, a lá the Libya uprising. The most dangerous thing for the Middle East and global security is a failed state with the potential to be ruled by Islamist extremists. A corrupt and ineffectual government has no chance of controlling militants within its borders. That being said, Russia and China were still wrong in vetoing a resolution that would only have criticized the Assad regime without taking action against it. Such a veto by two powerful countries may work to give Assad the idea that he is untouchable, which can only lead him to be even more brutal towards the protestors. So, what should the US do to stop the oppression of the Syrian people? The answer is not a military intervention to force Assad to step down. Instead, our government should work to build the revolution by helping to establish key leaders while encouraging its various factions to unite into one cohesive party. This is most certainly a daunting task, but once it is done, the United States can start thinking of how to force Assad to step down, without fostering a revolution that will likely result in another Middle Eastern haven for terrorism and lawlessness.
7
Obama’s Contraception Mandate Infringes on Religious Liberty by Chris Winer ‘14
A
ccording to a mandate released by the Department of Health and Human Services in early January, Catholic institutions such as charities, schools, and hospitals must provide contraceptives, sterilization drugs, and abortifacients to their employees, free of charge. The reason that issue is so important and has generated so much controversy in recent weeks actually has nothing to do with birth control, but with a much deeper principle: namely, that of religious liberty. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, insurers are required to provide free “preventive care,” which includes items like Plan B and condoms. In January 2012, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a rule mandating all religious institutions, with the exception of churches, to cover these drugs. To qualify for an exemption from this mandate, a religious employer must proselytize as its foremost purpose and primarily serve people of the same faith. Accordingly, local Catholic food pantries and schools are not eligible for this exemption. As you can imagine, this ruling has generated much hubbub from Catholics around the nation, Democrat and Republican alike. Subsequently, in a blitzkrieg effort to salvage his image as the Great Compromiser, President Obama had HHS issue a compromise mandate last week. The new directive “accommodates” non-profit religious organizations by allowing them to opt out and not directly pay for contraceptives. The catch, however, is that the private insurers the organizations hire are forced to cover and pay for these drugs upon request by any of the institutions’ employees. Under this supposed compromise, the insurance companies nominally foot the bill; in reality, the Catholic institutions will, in the form of higher premiums needed to cover these additional items, still have to pay for these drugs that it believes violate the sanctity of life. If the institutions decide to stand by their religious principles and not comply with this mandate, they will be forced to pay a fine of $2,000 for each employee. Furthermore, the new mandate does not include a provision that accommodates large Catholic institutions that self-insure, such as Georgetown University or the University of Notre Dame. These employers pay for care directly and use insurers to manage benefits and (Continued on page 8)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
February 20, 2012
(Continued from page 7)
Volume VIII, Issue I
OPINION
process claims. Even though these types of organizations account for the majority of the private market, they were not given an exemption to this rule. These insensitivities reflect the underlying point that this mandate has nothing to do with increasing “access” to birth control. The Obama administration has declared a supposed fundamental right to birth control, as it undermines the constitutional right to religious liberty articulated in the First Amendment. The separation between church and state protects people of faith from governmental intervention and prevents government from imposing a state-run religion, or even secularism. Under the guise of promoting equality by providing preventive drugs free-of-charge, the Obama administration declares free birth control for all as it forces the Catholic Church to either sacrifice its beliefs or pay an onerous fine. The most confounding aspect of this mandate lies not in the fact that the president wants to ensure equal access to contraceptives for the poor, but that he decided to infringe upon a historically accepted religious exemption to accompish it. If the president just wanted to make sure that the poor have access to these drugs, he could have just handed them out, as several states currently do. However, the Obama administration prefers to impose its will on Catholic organizations across the country. The mandate not only infringes upon the right to freely practice one’s faith, but also threatens Catholic hospitals, charities, and adoption agencies that offer billions of dollars for orphans, the poor, and the sick by making these institutions either pay for drugs they deem immoral or shut down. One would think that a president who claims to care for the poor would want to work with the Catholic institutions instead of threaten their existence. While the Obama administration has sought to marginalize religious freedom, the Supreme Court has upheld certain privileges for faith-based employers. In the January decision of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the Court unanimously upheld the practice of “ministerial exception,” which allows houses of worship to choose their own leaders. The Court affirmed religious liberty even as the Obama administration sought the power to hire or fire employees of churches, synagogues, or mosques at will. The Obama administration has flouted the Constitution not to insure access to preventive drugs, but to attack the Catholic Church and score political points before the next election. President Obama, tear down this mandate.
8
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
The ALEXANDER HAMILTON SOCIETY PRESENTS
The FUTURE of NUCLEAR POLICY NUCLEAR ZERO or NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
A DEBATE FEATURING
DANIEL DEUDNEY
ELBRIDGE COLBY
Associate Professor Johns Hopkins University
Adjunct RAND Corporation
Monday, February 27th 7:30-9 at the Glass Pavilion
Design by Will Denton