JHU POLITIK
the
FEBRUARY 16, 2015
VOLUME XVII, ISSUE IV
the
JHU POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Eliza Schultz MANAGING EDITOR Christine Server
HEAD WRITER Julia Allen
ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Dylan Etzel Preston Ge Abigail Sia
POLICY DESK EDITOR Mira Haqqani
CREATIVE DIRECTOR Diana Lee
MARYLAND EDITOR David Hamburger
COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad WEBMASTER Ben Lu MARKETING & PUBLICITY Chiara Wright FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
CAMPUS EDITOR Juliana Vigorito
STAFF WRITERS Abigail Annear Olga Baranoff Arpan Ghosh Alexander Grable Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Shrenik Jain Christine Kumar Shannon Libaw Robert Locke Sathvik Namburar Corey Payne
• February 16, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue IV
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9
Week In Review: Technology Lisa Xiao ’18 Breaking the Cycle:
On FBI Director Comey’s Recent Address
David Hamburger ’18
Incompetence Reigns in the Land Down Under Shrenik Jain ’18 The Forty-Year Front Dylan Etzel ’17 Libertarianism and Freedom in the Workplace Alexander Grable ’15 Navigating Free Speech and Xenophobia Tom Varghese ’17
Volume XVII, Issue IV • February 16, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week In Review: Technology by Lisa Xiao ’18, Contributing Writer Facebook Brings Free Internet to India An Internet.org app is now available for 100 million of India’s residents to connect to the web without paying for mobile data. Spearheaded by Reliance Communications and Facebook Inc., this initiative will provide free Internet access to low-income and rural users. The app allows for access to at least 38 web services, provided in English and six languages spoken in India. Web services include sites providing news and information regarding social welfare and health. The app, however, does not cover e-commerce sites such as Amazon and email, as Facebook thought the latter would be redundant given its own messenger service. In 2010, only eight million residents of India on Facebook, compared to the 108 million today. 85 percent of the population in India, however, still lives without access to the Internet. Currently, access is restricted to those Reliance subscribers in six Indian states who have handsets that connect to the Internet, although there are plans to extend the program to other subscribers throughout the country.
Baby Steps for Smartphone Giant Xiaomi China’s fastest-growing smartphone maker Xiaomi recently announced plans to enter the U.S. market. Their products, which include accessories such as power banks, fitness bands, and earphones would be offered through their e-commerce website. Although Xiaomi is only five years old and has no presence in the United States, it has become the world’s fifth largest smartphone maker. They gain a competitive advantage by selling their phones at a low cost. Xiaomi’s co-founder Bin Lin stated that the company does not plan to offer their handsets in the U.S. anytime soon due to legal and logistical challenges. Nonetheless, the company has been aggressively expanding its reach globally, having just secured a manufacturing partner in Brazil. Xiaomi’s move has implications that extend far beyond the distribution of its products. Instead, it is a step toward a global presence, which provide Xiaomi with the platform necessary to challenge technology giants Apple and Samsung.
Merger Talks between China’s Two Largest Taxi-Hailing Apps Two of China’s largest taxi-hailing apps are in a fight for market domination. The companies, Kuaidi Dache and Didi Dache, are offering discounts and rewards to passengers in order to secure customer loyalty, spending exorbitant amounts of cash in the process. Recently, they have been in talks to finalize a merger – one that would partially resolve this unsustainable and costly battle. The merger has implications beyond the taxi-hailing app market. Kuaidi Dache is backed by Alibaba Group Holdings, an e-commerce company, while Didi Dache is supported by Tencent Holdings, an online games and social networks company. Ride-hailing is an opportunity for Alibaba and Tencent to grow their respective payment services’ market share. Kuaidi Dache riders pay using Alibaba’s Alipay system, while Didi Dache’s customers are connected to Tencent’s mobile-payment system. The merged company may utilize both forms of payment. The taxi-hailing app battle is only the beginning of a greater online payments war to arise in China in the coming months. ■
4 the JHU POLITIK
• February 16, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue IV
Breaking the Cycle:
On FBI Director Comey’s Recent Address by David Hamburger ’18, Maryland Editor
O
n February 12, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey addressed a crowd at Georgetown University in a speech entitled “Hard Truths: Law Enforcement and Race.” In a frank and broadreaching address, the FBI Director outlined a series of “hard truths” about the innate racism and cynicism plaguing the nation, arguing that both the civilian population and police need to take “more time to better understand one another.” Director Comey’s opinion is both timely and much needed. But if the goals proposed in the Georgetown speech are to become realities, his voice must be one of many – and it must serve as the beginning of a more honest discussion on the complex interactions between law enforcement and race. Director Comey’s four “hard truths” highlighted both the past troubles and potential transformations in the way policing deals with race. He began by acknowledging that police had served throughout American history as agents of policies “brutally unfair to disfavored groups,” and contextualized such policies within the “unconscious racial biases” that all Americans possess. Both points are worth discussing, and necessary for initiating a better understanding of a complex problem. But rather than offer solutions for the future, they address either wrongs committed in the past or an inherent nature not easily changed. This is not so, however, for the third of the four truths Director Comey proposed: “Something happens to people in law enforcement.”
The central issue is thus two pronged – a product both of unstable environments and the effects of these environments on officers’ mentalities. Any solutions, then, must adequately address both points. If officers continue to operate in communities of high – often violent – tension and low expectations, the cycle continues: more youth fall into the trap of a criminal lifestyle, and more officers find their prejudices reaffirmed by their daily encounters on the street. Similarly, when these prejudices – whether perceived or actual – find their ways into policing practice, communities find it harder to develop trust with local officers, thereby broadening the existing gap between police officers and the communities they strive to serve. It is true, as Comey states, that Americans generally, and police particularly, must “account for th[e] inheritance” of a troubled past of racism and bias. In spite of this tainted history, however, the American public cannot afford to forget the sacrifices made daily by law enforcement officers across the nation. The communities made safe by the police officers that patrol them have a right to expect fairness and objectivity – but so too do they have a duty to return such services with respect and an understanding of the difficulties facing police officers in executing their responsibilities. Director Comey has initiated a conversation that must be had – and he has done so with honesty. It is now incumbent upon the public to both continue the discussion and precipitate meaningful action. ■
This simple statement seemingly encapsulates, in many ways, the crux of the issue. Daily encounters in “environments where a hugely disproportionate percentage of street crime is committed by young men of color” do serve to skew the objectivity of police officers, driving them toward what Comey termed “cynicism.” It is this cynicism, Comey argues, that leads to profiling of youth standing on street corners – and which, in turn, drives hostility toward the police in profiled communities.
Volume XVII, Issue IV • February 16, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
Incompetence Reigns in the Land Down Under
T
by Shrenik Jain ’18, Staff Writer
he Australian government suffered a blow to its credibility recently when conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott barely survived a vote of no confidence on his leadership. Abbott, ironically, was elected in 2013 on a platform of government unity, and saw a vote by his party against him fail 39-62. While the Prime Minister remains in office, questions about his competence linger – and, moreover, rumors circulate that internal Liberal Party foes are mobilizing to seize power. In light of these developments, it is clear that the Australian Parliament should begin the search immediately for an effective leader, rather than tie itself to the mast of a sinking ship. When Abbott assumed office on September 18, 2014, he promised an “adult government” that would replace the backstabbing and infighting of the previous Labor government, which had resulted in two leadership coups. Since then, Abbott’s leadership style has ranged from inappropriate – such as a claim that his opposition had caused a “holocaust” of job losses – to inconsistent – as when Australia saw increases in petrol excise taxes after the government promised exactly the opposite – to incompetent. Consistently making policy decisions without consulting any of his advisors, Abbott made history for refusing to even appoint a science minister. He went on to rationalize the decision by claiming that the Minister of Industry could carry out the functions of the role. Coming from a man who denounced the notion of climate change as “crap”, this negligent attitude only further demonstrates Australia’s need for a new government head. Opposition parties have already ceased criticism of Abbott and begun planning for a campaign against Malcolm Turnball, the Liberal Party’s immensely popular Minister for Communications. Any prospective Prime Minister of Australia would do well to learn from the mistakes of the Abbott administration, unless they wish to emulate Abbott’s current 29 percent approval rating. Australia is currently facing a multitude of issues, all of which require a deliberate, planned approach – a direct opposition to Abbott’s erratic, unilateral leadership style. Citizens list the economy as chief among their worries, and only around 30 percent believe that the economy is improving under Abbot. Australia currently faces its highest unemployment rate since 2002 at 6.4 percent, and
6 the JHU POLITIK
a slump in prices of commodities such as iron have hurt the large industry in Australia that centers on extraction and exportation of the ore. Worryingly, the Reserve Bank of Australia has also cut interest rates in a desperate attempt to further weaken the Australian dollar. While, in theory, lowering interest rates gives citizens an incentive to spend, the crux of improving a nation’s GDP revolves around ensuring that the population is confident enough in the future for individuals to spend. At this point, the Abbott administration has shown itself to be so inconsistent that it will be nearly impossible to restore consumer confidence. Compulsory voting in Australia means that the entire electorate must appear at the polls on Election Day. Current day statistics show that almost 40 percent of Australians will not end up voting for the largest two parties, Abbott’s Liberals and their opposition, Labor. With Abbott’s track record, it is likely that even more votes than typical will be driven to third parties; the Labor Party remains unpopular due to leadership struggles preceding Abbott’s election. While many look favorably upon the growth of third parties, too many factions in a parliamentary democracy results in complications in forming a ruling coalition. Australia would do well to avoid a political crisis like the Dutch faced in 2012, particularly in light of the fragile state of the world economy and Australia’s sensitivity to global events as a commodity-exporting developed nation. Already, the Reserve Bank of Australia’s currency devaluation tactic is conducive to coordinated global economic recovery. Above all, Australia needs to put its best foot forward and start forming concrete plans for its future. While Abbott has survived for now, both dominant parties should use the upcoming lull as an opportunity to plan for a more accountable model of government in the future, as stimulating domestic demand is impossible when individual citizens do not trust the government. Similarly, the nation’s policies on climate change could also do with an update if the government wishes for Australia to be viewed as the potentially prosperous democracy that it is. ■
• February 16, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue IV
The Forty-Year Front by Dylan Etzel ’17, Assistant Editor
S
elf-determination, a concept that crystallized after World War II, is not dead and gone. Between the 195 countries in the world, the majority of people remain without the right to rule themselves. In the spirit of selfdetermination, the Polisario Front has remained active for many decades, fighting for their lands in the Western Sahara. The Polisario Front is the organization that originally fought for independence for the Sahara from Morocco. Though the Western Sahara is scarcely populated and consists mostly of sand, an astonishing three-quarters of the world’s phosphate deposits (necessary for modern fertilizer production) can be found in Morocco and the Western Sahara. A mandate for a Western-Saharan referendum of self-determination (MINURSO) was upheld by the United Nations and has been active since 1991, but the parties involved have been unable to implement it. It is clear that Morocco’s “procrastinator diplomacy” must come to an end. This procrastination has resulted in the poor living conditions of the 100,000 Sahrawi refugees that occupy the Tindouf refugee camp of Algeria along with exiled Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic officials, the body which claims to govern the Western Sahara. These people desire the independence that Morocco denies them and choose to reside in the Tindouf camp rather than endure oppressive Moroccan rule. Since 1991, Morocco has sent money and people to the Western Sahara to “reinvigorate” the economy. Morocco profits enormously from phosphate mines built in lands that the SADR claims belongs to them. To placate domestic whistleblowers for independence, Morocco has promised to build transportation and a university. But what this has translated to in practice is Moroccan immigration and forestalling, and infrastructural promises have not yet come to fruition. Morocco’s beneficiary status is not in question, but the recipients of the benefits are murky. It seems that Morocco is engaging in a kind of neo-colonialism, spreading southward to allow its citizens access to more land and money. In theory, this practice is no different than imperialism. The situation in the Sahara is unique because Morocco has acknowledged Sahrawi right to self-determination. But at the same time, Morocco has spent years economically pressuring nations from Colombia to India to withdraw their recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. These countries are nearly as much to blame as Morocco for the Sahrawis’ plight; they are bystanders witnessing a crime. It is clear that
Morocco will not fulfill its promise of self-determination, and since the UN Security Council heard the Sahrawis’ case, France’s veto has stood aligned with Morocco’s wishes. MINURSO, however, has been an unproductive UN mission. MINURSO aims to conduct the referendum of the Saharawi people that will allow them to voice support for independence. But it has yet to establish a human rights monitoring organization. Indeed, it is the only so-called “peace-keeping mission” that has been unable to do so in 37 years. As a result, the Polisario Front suspended its communication with MINURSO in 2010. This failure on the part of MINURSO is due to questions regarding who is considered a Sahrawi: the SADR’s list of residents differs from Morocco’s. As such, the framework for a referendum has never been agreed upon. In many ways, the Western Sahara exemplifies the United Nations’ powerlessness. Considering that the UN has had nearly 25 years to resolve a dispute that involved none of the Great Powers – a dispute that called upon its pact to recognize states’ rights to self-determination – it is hardly believable that there has been so little concrete progress for the Sahrawi people. By not honoring the Sahrawi’s right to self-determination, Morocco has failed to comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The occupied territories experience human rights abuses whenever they revolt. Former MINURSO Force Commander Esegbuyota Okita said of the Independence Intifada (riots for independence in 2005 due to international non-action): “The Saharawi people’s protest was met by severe repression by the Moroccan forces, where they [were] exposed to [beatings] and bulldozers for demolition [of] their houses.” Due to this neo-colonial oppression, the African Union has placed its support behind the Sahrawis’ self-determination. Morocco is the only African country not in the African Union, which could be symbolic of Morocco separating itself from the African colonial experience to join the colonizers. Though this theory may be an exaggeration, it does highlight the ambiguity of Moroccan and Sahrawi identity. Do the Sahrawis feel Moroccan? Do the Moroccans feel African? One of these questions can be resolved by an aforementioned referendum – yet to take place, decades after its mandate. ■
Volume XVII, Issue IV • February 16, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Libertarianism and Freedom in the Workplace
L
by Alexander Grable ’15, Staff Writer
ibertarians classify themselves as believers in “maximum freedom.” When discussing liberties, they keep the conversation focused on their support of legalized narcotics, for example, or same-sex marriage. This permits the party to appear as a proponent of freedom, particularly of social freedom. But Libertarian support of pro-employer laws reveals a different story. The greatest source of tyranny in the United States is not, as Libertarians would have us believe, the government. It is the employer. As a particularly shocking example, in August 2012, Murray Energy threatened its miners in Beallsville, Ohio with dismissal if they did not attend a campaign speech by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Threatening to strip an individual of their job is a highly coercive measure – certainly not one that, when used, still allows an employee to be free. As an illustration of the extent of control an employer legally holds over an employee’s life, the latter may be fired for using the restroom without permission. Or for having a relationship, even off-site, with a co-worker. Or for talking about the employer on Facebook. An employee may be fired for blogging, after hours, on their personal computer, if the employer does not like what is being said on the blog. Or, perhaps most significantly, an employer can demand that an employee give campaign donations to their preferred political candidate, and has the right to dismiss the employee for disobedience if they do not do so. In other words, an employer has the legal right to reach into the most private aspects of their employee’s life and actively prohibit them from expressing themselves – a contrast to the NSA, which cannot manipulate individual actions and freedoms in such a way, but merely monitors. The Libertarian argument follows that, since employees are contracted to do their jobs and are free at the beginning and end of the day to enter and exit the workplace, they are free. In other words, if an employee does not like what goes on in
8 the JHU POLITIK
the workplace, he can quit. But this is not sufficient provision of freedom to the employee. The employee deserves a greater degree of freedom within the workplace, regardless of an employer’s opinions. Implementing policies to achieve this will increase the moments of freedom that an employee has both inside and out of the workplace; and since nearly everyone is an employee somewhere, at some point in their lives, these protections would benefit everyone. Libertarians vigorously oppose any measures that would protect the freedom of the employee both within and outside of the workplace. For example, the Libertarian wage policy would make it more difficult for employees to enjoy higher wages, as it opposes minimum wage and government spending cuts and would make it harder for unions to organize. All of these factors contribute to impoverishing those that do not fall in the top 0.1 percent of the income bracket. Even at current minimum wage levels, many are forced to take on debt or rely on welfare. A wage any lower than the current minimum wage, combined with an absence of social programs, would make for increasingly dire living circumstances for many more individuals and families. This kind of economic restriction is not freedom. But Libertarian policy appears to have no problem with this. Libertarians may claim to promote “maximum freedom,” but their promotion of untrammelled prerogatives for employers without regard to the personal freedoms of employees appears to cut against this. The Libertarian argument – that the right to quit a job is sufficient freedom for an employee in a workplace – is insufficient in ensuring a greater freedom for individuals overall. This attitude, in addition to wage policies that would seemingly only serve to further impoverish low-income individuals, poses a problematic aspect of the Libertarian agenda – one that deserves to be understood and discussed in greater light. ■
• February 16, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue IV
Navigating Free Speech and Xenophobia
G
by Tom Varghese ’17, Contributing Writer
ermany faces a unique situation with regard to free speech and assembly. The specter of Nazism still reigns over the public, and has steered the population away from mass demonstrations or nationalistic rhetoric. For much of its post-war history, German citizens have avoided waving flags of any sort and placing their hands over their hearts as they chant their national anthem. In Germany, patriotism is largely to be avoided. Yet the tides are changing with the rise of PEGIDA, or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West. The politically unaffiliated organization is based in Dresden and, since October, has professed strong anti-asylum and anti-refugee sentiments. Its platform highlights the fact that Germany absorbs over 25 percent of the total refugees that arrive in the European Union, making Germany the second most-favored destination in the world for refugees. Most of these refugees hail from Syria and Iraq, their displacement a result of the Arab Spring.
or useful to the German economy as Grillo might believe, and accounting for the refugee population siphons muchneeded funds away from public service goods such as vouchers and shelters. However, it is not these economic issues that most anger the majority of PEGIDA’s supporters. Rather, they fear that the foreign culture that refugees and immigrants bring with them into Germany threatens to rip the country apart. Surprisingly, the city of Dresden, a hotbed of PEGIDA protests, is comprised of a population that is only 2.8 percent immigrant and 0.1 percent Muslim. It is possible that the population’s homogeneity has spawned unfamiliarity and discomfort.
Every Monday evening, protesters numbering in the tens of thousands stage anti-refugee demonstrations in Dresden, despite condemnation from high-profile political figures. Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned the German people not to be “exploited” by these ideologies, while Justice Minister Heiko Maas simply labeled the protests a “disgrace for Germany.” Many politicians have indicated that PEGIDA’s ideology may be akin to neo-Nazism, discrediting the organization’s efforts to change Germany’s asylum laws.
Despite careful manicuring by PEGIDA of their image – through their Facebook page, for example – to ward off accusations of xenophobia, it is telling that extreme farright political parties such as Alternative for Germany and the National Democratic Partyhave given their tacit approval of the organization. Against the backdrop of Germany’s history, PEGIDA’s mass anti-asylum and antirefugee demonstrations take on overtones of xenophobia, despite their repeated attempts to package this sentiment as goodwill for Germany’s nationalism. This brand of dark pride is epitomized by the phrase “Überfremdung” – often used by PEGIDA supporters – which implies that the native culture has become too tainted with foreign influences. This same phrase was uttered proudly during Nazi rule.
Germany accepted over 200,000 asylum claims in 2014 – more than double the claims from 2013. President of the German Federation of Industry Ulrich Grillo previously commended immigration as an avenue for skilled laborers to enter the German workforce, to the benefit of the country. However, a crucial difference exists between immigrants and the refugee population that Germany accepts: these refugees often do not possess adequate work skills. In addition, refugees are not allowed to work until they receive an approved work permit, which only become available after refugees have lived in Germany for a year. Even then, it is only after the Federal Employment Agency verifies that a job is undesirable to a German or EU citizen that a refugee is permitted to take it. Individual refugees are not as skilled
Ultimately, PEGIDA’s campaigns against the asylum system is too far-right to be instituted within mainstream German politics. The organization’s agenda is too focused on cultural issues; their image, perhaps, would benefit from highlighting the economic strain associated with hosting refugee populations. But on a deeper level, PEGIDA’s actions raise important questions for Germany and for free assembly in general. In a country where mass demonstrations and patriotism are mostly vilified, it is important to ask whether PEGIDA should be condemned simply for attempting to assert German pride. Other countries notably believe that their citizens should take pride in their nation; it is not difficult to imagine similar demonstrations having greater success in other developed countries. ■
Volume XVII, Issue IV • February 16, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
WRITE FOR the JHU POLITIK
PHOTO COURTESY: UNITED STATES LIBRARY OF CONGRESS’S PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS DIVISION
JHU Politik, founded in 2008, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins community with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning. We are lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, the city of Baltimore, the domestic landscape of the United States, and the international community . While we publish the Politik weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.
If interested, e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org
10 the JHU POLITIK
• February 16, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue IV