JHU POLITIK
the
MARCH 2, 2015
VOLUME XVII, ISSUE VI
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 Zachary Schlosberg
• March 2, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VI
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 8 10 11 12
Week in Review: Negotiations Rebecca Grenham ’16 When Someone Calls You A Feminist Juliana Vigorito ’16 Across the Durand Line Mira Haqqani ’17 Ending Prohibition:
It’s Time to Legalize Marijuana in Maryland
Corey Payne ’17
Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform? Olga Baranoff ’16 The War of Pride Dylan Etzel ’17 The Problems (Not Just Snow) Are Piling Up Robert Locke ’15
Volume XVII, Issue VI • March 2, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week in Review: Negotiations by Rebecca Grenham ’16, Staff Writer Department of Homeland Security Receives Funding for One Week On Friday, Congress agreed to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for a brief week after grueling negotiations and disputes between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The controversy emerged when congressional leaders began to eliminate protections for undocumented immigrants from the proposed budget. This move, a stab at President Obama’s November executive order that granted protections to many of these immigrants, resulted in a back-and-forth between the Senate and the House. Initially, the Senate agreed to fund DHS until September, with Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggesting that Congress vote on immigration measures in a separate bill. The House rejected this measure, refusing even to pass a three-week funding agreement. As of now, DHS funding will only be sustained until March 6.
Greek Loan Extension Granted Greece’s request to extend its 240 billion euro loan program by four months was approved by Eurozone finance ministers on Tuesday. Creditor countries throughout Europe such as Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and Estonia also passed the agreement. The loan has been extended on the condition that the Greek government tackle issues such as tax evasion, tobacco smuggling, and political corruption. The Greek government also pledges to address what it calls a “humanitarian crisis” by providing free medical care to the unemployed and uninsured, and to ensure that citizens have housing. Though some politicians seem satisfied, Christina Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund and Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank worry that reform mandates are too vague. Despite the extension, Greek citizens have taken to the streets to protest potential reforms that come with the bailout. Many feel “sold out,” viewing the reforms as a reminder of the austerity measures that Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras vowed to end.
Nuclear Talks with Iran Resumed, to Netanyahu’s Dismay Secretary of State John Kerry participated in another series of nuclear talks with Iran this week and will spend next week in Switzerland to continue negotiations. All parties involved in the talks, including Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, seek to set a framework by March 31. The talks center around uranium enrichment capacity and the lifting of Western sanctions. The United States would like to see the number of Iranian centrifuges reduced from the current ten thousand to between four and five thousand. These restrictions will last for ten years, though Iran may be permitted to increase the number of facilities toward the end of this timeline. The talks have caused some friction between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims that the United States is taking a soft position on the issue. Netanyahu fears that Iranian production of nuclear fuel poses a direct threat to Israel, and would like to see a ban on all uranium enrichment in Iran. He is particularly distrustful of Obama due to the latter’s recently critical stance on Israel and his involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Netanyahu’s words have resonated with a few in Congress, including Speaker of the House John Boehner, who invited Mr. Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress on March 3. ■
4 the JHU POLITIK
• March 2, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VI
When Someone Calls You A Feminist
O
by Juliana Vigorito ’16, Campus Editor
n the night of February 25, Shriver Auditorium was uncharacteristically filled to capacity. The crowd, mostly women and of all ages, waited with bated breath. Gloria Steinem’s train was running late, but nobody made a move to leave or even expressed a hint of impatience. When she finally entered, it was to raucous ovation; many stood, and spirits were high. The atmosphere was politically charged for a Wednesday on our typically sleepy campus; some students even erected anti-abortion posters on the quad outside, sparring with those waiting in line for the event. When asked why he felt it was important to demonstrate, one student commented, “[Abortion is] an issue we mostly think about … from the point of view of the opposition.” Feminism, perhaps like abortion, is too often seen from one narrow perspective. Steinem has regularly engaged with both these issues over her fifty-five year career, and continues to travel and speak widely now, at 80. Her talk at Homewood did not touch on abortion specifically but encompassed a remarkably broad scope of issues: contraception, pacifism, pornography and domestic violence, among others. Delving into this variety of issues in quick succession did a service to broad and intersectional understandings of feminism, provoking the audience to consider how women’s issues underlie global ones. Steinem was brought to campus by the Foreign Affairs Symposium, an undergraduate-organized speaker series that trumpeted her as a “women’s rights icon” in their advertising – a rather singular title amidst lineups that tend to include former ambassadors and security experts. The inclusion of one of the best-known American feminists in this year’s series has implications, therefore, for campus politics going forward. The resonance of Steinem’s talk comes to bear when considering the history of women and feminist organization at Johns Hopkins; unlike other speakers, her area of expertise engages with the personal as much as the academic lives of students. When, in 1970, the first female undergraduates stepped onto our campus, it was a victory eighty years in the making.
Their presence was regarded with awe and leering, reflected in quotes and op-ed pieces featured in The News-Letter issues of that year and those to follow. Female enrollment steadily grew, but sexism largely failed to decline; women were shunted to inferior housing facilities (past residents of Rogers House will sympathize) and denied adequate gynecological services from the student health and wellness center (still the subject of many student complaints today). The political energy of feminism did, however, take hold at Homewood in the 1970s; female students organized, demanding fair accommodations and calling for the establishment of a dedicated women’s space on campus. Forty-five years later, we are still calling for similar things. While women’s enrollment in top tier universities has grown to match or outstrip men’s in recent years, Hopkins and many peer institutions still have clear indicators of a gender problem. When Gloria Steinem spoke to a crowd of feminists on our campus, she did not mention the pending Title IX investigation that implicates many of our administrators. Toward the beginning of her speech, she indicated a desire to talk about “things that move beyond gender.” I would argue that, thus far, Johns Hopkins is hardly ready to do that. Despite discussing the origins of patriarchy and offering words of advice on how to maintain mindfulness despite adversity, Steinem left her audience without a certain path to successful advocacy. Perhaps, as she told us, movements do go in stages and we must make our own way. The advice to occupy buildings was more feasible at Berkeley in the ‘60s, when collective consciousness was easier to build; tuition strikes, another recommendation, can only be mounted by students single-handedly paying their quarter-million dollar way here. What it means to be an activist, and a feminist, has changed undeniably over time; the next generation might consider Beyoncé its central icon, not Steinem. Feminism now encompasses anti-racist and queer-inclusive rhetoric among other themes and is continuing to develop new tools on campuses and beyond, though the battles being fought remain the same as old ones. ■
Volume XVII, Issue VI • March 2, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
Across the Durand Line by Mira Haqqani ’17, Policy Desk Editor
I
n the wake of the deadly terrorist attack on Peshawar’s Army Public School on December 16, local authorities in Northern Pakistan have embarked on an intensive repatriation program aimed at returning Afghan refugees to their war-torn homes on the other side of the Durand line. The attack that was carried out by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a Pakistani splinter group of the Afghani Taliban movement, has created a new round of fear amongst the citizens of Pakistan, many of whom now fully favor the expulsion of Afghan “troublemakers” from their country. Consequently, Pakistan once again finds itself at the center of the Western world’s attention, questioning its reputation as a hospitable neighbor to the Afghans and its ability to protect the Afghan diaspora that fled war some years ago in the hope of finding a new homeland in Pakistan. Pakistan has become known to the West as an insincere and dubious ally in the War on Terror – even more so in the aftermath of Operation Neptune Star, the 2011 mission that killed Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The Pakistani intelligence community and military have consequently been accused of covertly aiding the Afghan Taliban, as well as supporting the TTP. Despite these accusations, the Pakistani army has lost roughly twice as many men as the U.S. in the War on Terror so far. Since Pakistan first moved its troops along the Afghan border in 2004, nearly 5,000 Pakistanis have been lost in battle and over 15,000 injured. This has resulted in a feeling of extreme underappreciation amongst Pakistanis, most of whom wish Pakistani society would be freed from the tormenting effects of 9/11 in the region, yet are only greeted with the sound of bullets and bombs courtesy of the TTP and other foreign non-state actors such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and fast-approaching Daesh. Within Pakistan, a large percentage of the population holds Afghans responsible for the former’s rapid capitulation into a state torn by extremism, referring to it as a spillover effect. The mass migration of displaced Afghans began as early as 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and has continued since then as a result of the oppressive Taliban regime and continuously deteriorating humanitarian conditions in the country. For years, Afghans and Pakistanis have lived in peaceful coexistence along the border,
6 the JHU POLITIK
particularly in the northern Pakistani province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). Since their arrival, over 1.5 million registered Afghan refugees have been welcomed in Pakistan and incorporated into Pakistani society. The exact number of illegal Afghan immigrants in Pakistan is unknown. However, the recent Peshawar school attack has created a new wave of deep-seated resentment amongst many Pakistanis for the Afghans, seeing them as a threat to peace in Pakistan. The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated quickly, especially since the beginning of the War on Terror. With Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in parts of Afghanistan, including at the border with Pakistan, it is no surprise that millions have fled the country to protect themselves from mass atrocities. The Afghan government is confined to its center in Kabul, with little or no influence in other parts of Afghanistan that have been taken over by militant forces. With underdeveloped infrastructure and limited prospects for economic growth, the situation in Afghanistan is unlikely to improve in the near future. Those living in makeshift settlements in Afghanistan are faced with poverty and food shortages, and are deprived of basic provisions such as safe drinking water, sanitation and shelter. In addition, more than half of Afghanistan’s population is younger than 17. The poor living situation in Afghanistan has led to a myriad of problems including child labor, widespread domestic violence against and forced marriages of girls, and attacks on educational facilities and hospitals in places across the country. Consequently, Afghan children have been stripped of their rights to education and adequate medical provisions. It is this difficult predicament that most Afghans find themselves in, looking to Pakistan as one of their only ways of escaping a country that has been torn by terrorism. Since the Soviet war, nearly two million Afghans are reported to have been living in the KPK province of Pakistan, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and northwestern Balochistan. Most of these Afghans were born in Pakistan and have therefore been granted legal status as Afghan refugees in Pakistan and are under the care of the UNHCR. However, the exact number of Afghans living in Pakistan is difficult to determine since there is also
• March 2, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VI
a large population of unregistered Afghan refugees in the country. For several years, Pakistan’s willingness to attend to and protect those fleeing the troubles of Afghanistan has gained Pakistan the reputation of a hospitable and valuable neighbor. However, the recent surge in terrorist activities in Pakistan has thrown this reputation into jeopardy, especially as an increasing number of Pakistanis begin to acknowledge that their country is no longer politically or economically strong enough to share Afghanistan’s burden. Pakistan’s descent into instability and terrorism has left the country helpless and trapped in a situation where it is choosing between guaranteeing national security and protecting the human rights of thousands of refugees.
that it will continue to help its neighbors, most Pakistanis wonder whether there is a way to rescue their homeland from spiraling even further out of control – and to restore peace to Pakistan. ■
As the forced repatriation of Afghan refugees from Pakistan continues, international organizations such as Human Rights Watch have criticized Pakistan for its hasty and “potentially unlawful coercive repatriation of Afghan refugees.” They believe that the Afghan government is too economically and politically unstable to accommodate two million people crossing into Afghanistan. In response, however, many Pakistanis continue to convey their helplessness in a situation where they no longer feel like they can bear the brunt of the huge numbers of displaced peoples. Once again, Pakistanis feel underappreciated and are critical of the Western world’s lack of empathy for them, a population who has seen its society suffer and break down in the face of terrorism. At the same time, however, overlooking the crisis at hand and the suffering of Afghan refugees is as unfair as overlooking the brutal actions taken by some Pakistani local authorities, who have resorted to violence against Afghan communities in Northern Pakistan. Since the Afghans first moved into Pakistan, the latter has kept its border open to them, taking them in during a time of war. However, Pakistan is now faced with a war of its own and, consequently, a huge dilemma regarding how exactly this situation should be handled. The easy route for Pakistan would be to continue the coercive repatriation of Afghans, compromising their own international image and their moral obligation to protect those in need in order to reduce foreign threats to national security. However, this is unlikely to happen as international pressure piles up on the Pakistani authorities in the upcoming days. Pakistan is faced with a unique challenge – one that requires it to balance its own security with the moral duty of helping Afghans in desperate need of a home. The Afghan refugee dilemma in Pakistan is an issue likely to develop into an even bigger problem for Pakistan at a time of extreme internal instability, or another crisis waiting to pour into Afghanistan. As the world fixates on Pakistan in the hope
Volume XVII, Issue VI • March 2, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Ending Prohibition:
It’s Time to Legalize Marijuana in Maryland
L
by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
ast year, under then-Governor Martin O’Malley, the state of Maryland decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. This move seems to be in sync with national legalization trends, as more states and municipalities take steps toward legalizing the drug for both medical and recreational use. But Maryland isn’t quite finished with its marijuana conversation. This legislative session, a bill has been proposed to completely legalize marijuana – a move that is praised by many who wish to see an end to prohibition. In fact, the majority of Maryland residents approve of the measure; The Baltimore Sun reports that 53 percent of Marylanders support legalization. Most politicos say that the bill has little chance of passing the legislature this session, which is a shame, because legalizing marijuana is an effective way to begin to turn the tides in the failed war on drugs. According to a national study released last year by the Drug Policy Alliance, 42 percent of all drug arrests are marijuana-based, and 87 percent of all marijuana arrests are for simple possession, not distribution or production. This means that roughly 675,000 people were arrested for possession of marijuana in 2012 alone. Even more disturbing is the overrepresentation of racial minorities within these figures. According to the ACLU, black Americans are 3.7 times more likely than white Americans to be arrested for marijuana possession, despite similar usage rates. Ending marijuana prohibition will not only put an end to the mass incarceration of hundreds of thousands of nonviolent offenders, but will also work to correct a massive racial disparity within the American justice system – one that is very much alive in the state of Maryland. But justice isn’t the only issue at stake here. According to the same ACLU report, the United States spends over $3.5 billion a year enforcing marijuana laws. With legalization, that money can be redirected to better serve other social programs or even rerouted to enhance law enforcement strategies for violent offences. The economic benefits don’t stop there. In Colorado, which began the legal sale of marijuana last year, the legal marijuana market has brought over $60 million in tax revenue into the state. Opponents of legalization cite many different claims – such
8 the JHU POLITIK
as the health risks of marijuana, the risk of increased usage rates, and the possibility of violent crime related to drug sales – in arguments against legalizations. Unfortunately, none of these claims have substantive merit. To begin, countless medical reports have shown the negligible risks that marijuana users encounter, and assert that the use of drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are far more damaging to the health of the user. Unless individuals espousing this argument are also in favor of banning alcohol and tobacco, marijuana prohibition becomes a simply arbitrary regulation. Looking again to Colorado, we can also see that there has been no increase in teen marijuana use, DUI offenses or violent crime related to drug dealing, according to a report for the state’s Department of Commerce. These trends reflect the fact that a legal market can be a regulated market. Right now, recreational marijuana sales happen in the black market. This leads not only to the creation of a violent drug production and distribution network, but also to unsafe products for users. Much as was the case with speakeasies for the sale of alcohol, if the production and sale of marijuana were legalized, then networks could be recreated in the formal economy and health regulations could be placed on the products themselves, thereby eliminating a criminal empire and reducing the risk for the user. Recent studies show that drug abuse tends to decrease when legalization occurs. Particularly in regard to highly addictive drugs, when the emphasis shifts from prosecution of drug users to the rehabilitation of drug users, usage plummets. (However, “highly addictive” is a classification into which marijuana does not fall: according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, fewer than one in ten users develops any kind of dependency.) This was the case in countries such as Uruguay, the first to legalize marijuana without major restrictions in 2013, and Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs in 2001. In Portugal in particular, the decriminalization of all drugs has led to a lower average usage rate than the rest of Europe and a rate of adolescent usage that declined in the years following the policy shift, as reported by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
• March 2, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VI
Portugal and the United States certainly have different cultures, and these results are not necessarily transferable from one country to another. But the plunge of usage Portugal, combined with the unchanged rates in Colorado following legalization, provide significant evidence that an eventual decline in marijuana consumption is possible. Much of the negative attitude surrounding marijuana legalization stems from the federal government, which categorizes marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the most restrictive of the five groups established by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Schedule I drugs are defined as having no accepted medical use in the United States and a high potential for abuse; other drugs in this category include LSD, heroin and ecstasy. Almost half of the states in the country have passed laws that allow for the use of medical marijuana, and over one million Americans currently use the drug under the supervision of a physician. Yet, because marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, research authorization not only has to go through the researcher’s institutional review board and the FDA, but also through the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Adding to this absurdity is the fact that using marijuana – and marijuana alone – for research also requires the approval of the Public Health Service of the Health and Human Services Department, a requisite not placed on other Schedule I drugs. This means that medical marijuana research is more regulated than research on LSD, heroin and ecstasy, as well as every other drug classified by the DEA. Because of these extra hoops, only 16 independentlyfunded research projects have been approved by the federal government since 1999. With the medical benefits of marijuana becoming more apparent every day, the federal regulation of marijuana hinders the advancement of medical research. Ending the prohibition of marijuana and allowing the legal production and sale of the drug would have the added benefit of opening up the realm of scientific research to ensure that Americans across the country are receiving the best methods of care possible.
and white. But marijuana does not harm the user nor those near the user any more than other legal substances might. It is only on the grounds of antiquated stigmas and arbitrary regulations that the prohibition of this drug continues. The national political climate for legalization looks even more dismal than that of Maryland. Congressional Republicans blocked a D.C. ballot initiative granting the authority to regulate a marijuana market to the D.C. council, effectively halting all the benefits of a legalized trade. With a presidential election on the horizon and with white, middle class mothers constituting a large population of the swing vote, neither party wants to be the face of drug legalization. It’s this inaction that makes state measures like the one before the Maryland legislature even more important. By using the states as methods of change, we can shift the national landscape. And by building upon the successes and learning from the failures of the states that acted before us on the legalization debate, we can ensure that the best policies are enacted to support the safest, most just and most economically-beneficial plan while maximizing individual choice. If Maryland were to legalize marijuana, just months after the upset election of a Republican governor in a blue state, it would send a powerful message to the rest of the country: the status quo isn’t acceptable. Progress is inevitable. ■
But on a much simpler level than all of these arguments lies the basis of the pro-legalization claim: that this is about personal liberties. While legalizing marijuana would certainly bring justice for nonviolent possessors, revenue into the economy and the state, and medical research advancements, the fundamental question is: should we allow our citizens to possess a largely innocuous substance for personal use? The answer is yes. When the question of legalization comes up with other more harmful and addictive drugs, the answer isn’t as black
Volume XVII, Issue VI • March 2, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform? by Olga Baranoff ’16, Staff Writer
L
ate last month, an unlikely pair of partners announced the creation of the Coalition for Public Safety, a new group dedicated to criminal justice reform. Koch Industries, headed by the conservative Koch Brothers, has joined forces with the Center for American Progress (CAP), a left-leaning D.C. think tank, to push bipartisan measures for reforming the U.S. criminal justice system. The coalition’s initial plans include attempting to reduce prison populations, reform sentencing guidelines, and reduce the recidivism rate. The alliance between conservative Koch Industries and liberal CAP may seem unconvincing, but the two sides do seem to have put aside their differences for their common cause of criminal justice reform. Republican rhetoric against crime took off in the 1960s, preceding the rise in incarceration that began in earnest by the 1970s. Ever since, the idea that America requires more prisons and a larger police force has stood at odds with the fundamentally conservative stance of rolling back government power. This paradox has long been evident to conservative politicians and their base. More recently, however, conservatives have come to embrace the new rhetoric surrounding criminal justice reform. Conservatives across the country, from Newt Gingrich and Texas’s Right on Crime initiative to various red-state legislatures, are uniting around the argument that prisons are expensive, inefficient and in need of reform. The 2012 Republican platform embodied this idea, proclaiming, “Prisons should do more than punish; they should attempt to rehabilitate and institute proven prisoner reentry systems to reduce recidivism and future victimization.” When politicians overhauled the criminal justice system in the 1970s, they responded to increasing crime by increasing incarceration. The logic was simple: incarcerating criminals who commit serious, violent crimes leads to an “incapacitation” effect, preventing people from committing crimes by removing them from society. But incarceration’s ability to reduce crime has diminished over time, since individuals currently filling prisons are less likely to be serious, violent criminals. Today, more than half of state and federal prisoners are serving time for low-level, nonviolent crimes or drug offenses.
10 the JHU POLITIK
Beyond its diminishing returns on crime reduction, incarceration leads to inefficient social loss. Incarcerating low-level criminals prevents these individuals from earning wages and contributing to the economy. Groups like Right on Crime, a criminal justice reform initiative based in Texas, are devoted to the “conservative case for reform” and push for lower-cost and less punitive solutions than incarceration for nonviolent offenders. The most popular criminal justice reform is known as justice reinvestment, a theory maintaining that placing offenders in jail for the long term is not likely to accomplish much. Reinvestment reform embraces sentencing alternatives, like drug rehabilitation and mental health treatment, and incentivizes good behavior for low-level and nonviolent offenders. The National Council on State Legislatures reports that at least 27 states have undertaken some form of justice reinvestment in the past seven years, which has successfully contributed to decreased incarceration without increases in crime. Eight states – Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah – have lowered incarceration rates in recent years by between two and 15 percent, and still saw at least a 15 percent decrease in crime. The tendency of both liberal and conservative states to adopt these measures is a noteworthy trend. Criminal justice reform has been on the rise for leaders, groups and policymakers on the left and the right. While some criminal justice reform aligns with conservative ideology – decreasing taxpayers’ payments, increasing economic efficiency, etc. – many of the Koch Brothers’ interest groups also work to weaken unions. Decreasing incarceration directly decreases the power of prison guard unions, a convenient consequence, intended or not, of working toward criminal justice reform. Regardless of ulterior motives, bipartisan criminal justice reform is far more likely to be effective than any partisan efforts, and decreasing incarceration rates is certainly an effort most Americans can support. ■
• March 2, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VI
The War of Pride by Dylan Etzel ’17, Assistant Editor
D
eep in their struggle with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the Kurds find themselves in a complex position of both strength and weakness in an eventual play for independence. Unlike other forces, the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Peshmerga have demonstrated a willingness to fight on the ground. The Kurds have provided a significant portion of the ground forces in the fight against ISIL. But will they have an army sizable enough to fight Iraq for their independence? If not, it would be an international scene as Iraq, defended by the Kurds whose independence it refuses, slaughters the Kurdish militias who were weakened by ISIL. Meanwhile, independence also hinges on Kurdish-Iraqi oil profit negotiations. In tandem, not all Kurdish politicians think that the people are ready for independence, for a variety of reasons. Despite any obstacles, Kurdish independence will happen, if not this year, then perhaps the very moment that ISIL dies out. Syria and Iraq have already made concessions to the Kurds, a people ethnically similar to Iranians. Both states have made autonomous Kurdish regions in their northern corners. On the other hand, Turkey, a state with a sizable Kurdish population, refuses even to recognize the Kurds as an ethnic minority. But it is these same Kurds that Turkish officials allowed to defend Kobani, a city on the Turkish-Iraqi border. On February 1, after months of U.S. airstrikes and KurdishISIL conflict, the Kurds retook Kobani, according to Islamic State fighters. Although it would appear that this is a victory for Iraq as much as the Kurds, the battle demonstrated Kurdish bravery and Iraqi fragility. Says Nechirvan Barzani, Kurdish Prime Minister: “The situation after Mosul is completely different. You can’t go back to the same structure, the same system, because Iraq is now a failed state. There is no Iraqi nation. But independence won’t be offered to us, we’ll have to take it.” Here he refers to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in which the United Kingdom formed the nation of Iraq. Here, Barzani implicates both Kurdish resolve and Iraq’s lack of ability to subvert it. Thus, we ask: what is Iraq’s current method to restrict the Kurds? Its method is economic threat via the oil market, a threat that is quietly dissipating.
On August 25, a U.S. district judge ruled that he could not bar the Kurdish oil tanker, the Kalavryta, from landing on U.S. soil. This contradicted U.S. agreements with Iraq that prohibit the unauthorized sale of “Iraqi” oil, demonstrating that Iraq’s economic constriction of the autonomous Kurdish region is failing and toothless. Howri Mansurbeg, a professor of petroleum geoscience in Kurdistan, explained to The New York Times that the Iraqi policy has only invited Kurdish audacity. As Iraqi officials continue to threaten the Kurds, the Kurds continue to develop infrastructure, as more than 80 oil companies are currently working in Kurdistan. There is no way for Iraq to stop them now. Two qualities that have bolstered the Kurds, military strength and national pride, have waned over time. As Manuel Almeida of al-Arabiya points out, the death toll from the ISIL conflict, low oil prices, and the burden of refugees are reasons that the Kurds cannot attempt independence by force in the near future. Nevertheless, pride is a factor that could push them to do so anyway. According to Ayub Nuri, this pride may end up being self-defeating. In his article for Time, he writes, “We were given this chance by the Islamist fighters … [who] removed the Iraqi army – our historical nemesis … But now it seems that this same group has ruined our chance by attacking us too. Now that the United States is helping the Kurds with air power, I’m not sure if we can speak of independence anymore. The world might consider us the spoiled kid who keeps asking for more.” Nuri describes a very real fear: that Kurdish successes can be attributed to the U.S. as well. Though Kurdish victories have been numerous, the right conditions for Kurdish independence need to be met. Under higher oil prices, more refugee relief and a crippled ISIL, the Kurds have a chance. Thus, Kurdish independence should not be expected soon, but it should be considered inevitable; it seems that crushing ISIL will soothe each of the Kurds’ problems.
Volume XVII, Issue VI • March 2, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
11
The Problems (Not Just Snow) Are Piling Up
B
by Robert Locke ’15, Staff Writer
efore January 23, my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts had only seen about five inches of snowfall in what was looking to be a calm winter. Yet, just a month later, 103 inches (almost nine feet) of snow have fallen in an average of over three inches of snow per day. The amount of snow that has fallen in the Northeast has captivated the area, the country and the world; photographs have documented snow piles that are taller than people, and an entrepreneur has even been selling snow to anyone outside of the Northeast willing to buy it. At its worst, the record snow might seem little more than an inconvenience, bringing out incessant complaints from even the best of us. But there is another side to this weather phenomenon that is not getting as much attention: the pressure that all this snow is putting on our public transportation, and its resulting strain on many people’s livelihoods. Public transportation has long been a popular way of commuting to and from work, and it is especially useful for low income-earners. However, America’s public infrastructures – including our public transportation systems – are in serious need of repair. Under-investment in public transportation infrastructures has long been recognized as an important issue, but has never been properly or fully addressed. The system in Boston, for example, has faltered under the pressure of the cold and snow, resulting in delayed buses, shutdowns on the train lines, and countless frustrated commuters. Commute times have tripled or even quadrupled for the average commuter, and the politicians responsible for directing funding to fixing the system have been largely inactive. Buses and trains that fail to show up can prove catastrophic to wage workers for whom each hour is crucial to putting food on the table and paying the bills. Delays are especially hard on those who have to work late shifts and then head back first thing in the morning. When the system malfunctions under pressure, it is not merely a headache we can overlook; real lives are being adversely and, in some cases, severely affected.
12 the JHU POLITIK
Urban areas are not the only ones suffering from outdated and underfunded infrastructure. In our very car-centric suburbs, which inherently cater to those who have to means to afford a vehicle, the overall existing infrastructure is in disrepair. Civil engineers across the country are worrying over the state of our bridges and tunnels. Remember when the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge in Minnesota collapsed in 2007 during the evening rush hour, killing 13 and injuring over 140? Promoting public transportation and other alternative methods, like cycling or walking, will be ineffective if we fail to improve our roads. No one is going to want to convert to a bicycle if the nearby roads are riddled with potholes or simply too narrow for bikers to safely navigate alongside drivers. Furthermore, investing in public transportation is not only critical for those who are less fortunate, but a necessary tool for greener, more sustainable cities. Maintaining a fleet of buses that runs on more efficient, compressed natural gas is not just a means to provide lower-income individuals with better transportation; it is also an investment in our environment. But again, these buses need good roads if they are to fulfill their purpose. Politicians of both parties say repeatedly that our nation’s infrastructure is in need of repair, but inaction remains the status quo. The inaction is similar to that which plagues Social Security, Medicare and entitlement reforms, since these programs are usually considered the devastating “third rail” of politics. If politicians do not begin to make a concerted effort to invest in transportation infrastructures, much more than the literal third rail will fall into disrepair. Our environment will continue to degrade, and many workers will lose access to their livelihoods. ■
• March 2, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VI
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
Volume XVII, Issue VI • March 2, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
13