JHU POLITIK
the
I
MARCH 9, 2015
VOLUME XVII, ISSUE VII
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 9, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VII
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 8 9 10
Week in Review: Justice and the Courts Evan Harary ’16 Fabricated Crimes: Then and Now
Morley Musick ’18 The Strategic Triple Alliance: India/Japan/United States
Arpan Ghosh ’17 Fuerza Pepe! Robert Locke ’15
No Speech is Better Than a Bad Speech Mira Haqqani ’17 Why Maintaining Net Neutrality is a Net Positive Sathvik Namburar ’18
Volume XVII, Issue VII • March 9, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week in Review: Justice and the Courts by Evan Harary ’16, Staff Writer Discrimination as Routine: Department of Justice Releases Report on Police Practices in Ferguson Last week, the Department of Justice found strong evidence of racially-biased policing in Ferguson, MO, the St. Louis suburb in which Officer Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown last August. The DOJ report revealed that the majority-white Ferguson police force stopped blacks – who account for two-thirds of the Ferguson population – disproportionately and often with insufficient cause. The investigation turned up email exchanges among highranking law enforcement officials peppered with racist remarks, and found that black residents regularly reported being the target of racial epithets. The DOJ also reported that Ferguson police violated Constitutional protections, focused on revenue production over law enforcement duties, and abused power with alarming regularity. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke on the matter, concluding that nothing short of a complete systemic overhaul could correct the pattern of discrimination and constitutional violation that characterized Ferguson police practices.
Criminal Case Against Argentine President Dismissed in Wake of Prosecuting Attorney’s Death A judge dismissed criminal charges against Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in a case that has sparked international attention. The dismissal comes in the wake of allegations that Kirchner had a hand in protecting Iranian officials involved in the bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center in 1994 that left 85 dead. The investigation into the bombing was marred by accusations of cover-up and incompetence, and the subsequent trial produced no convictions. The prosecutor who had originally brought the charges of conspiracy, Alberto Nisman, died in January under mysterious circumstances, shortly after drawing up a request for President Kirchner’s arrest. Speculation has run rampant as to who could have been behind his death. Mrs. Kirchner maintains, as of January 22, that Mr. Nisman was the casualty of a plot undertaken by rogue spies to destabilize her heavily indebted government.
Four Words, Six Million Without Insurance?: Supreme Court Hears Arguments on King v. Burwell The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the latest case related to the Affordable Care Act this past Wednesday. Petitioners allege that a previously unnoticed clause states that the Internal Revenue Service may only dispense tax-credit subsidies to people living in areas where healthcare insurance exchanges had been “established by the state.” The law’s proponents argue that a host of other provisions in the ACA demonstrate that lawmakers had intended for subsidies in every state. They assert that this, along with the fact that the clause was not discovered until well after the law’s enactment, indicates that lawmakers did not intend to force states to establish insurance exchanges. Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the petitioners, insurance exchanges in over thirty states could collapse, leaving more than six million people without health insurance. ■
4 the JHU POLITIK
• March 2, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VI
Fabricated Crimes: Then and Now
A
by Morley Musick ’18, Contributing Writer
friend recently sent me a security document detailing the CIA project Operation Northwoods, which John F. Kennedy rejected in 1962. The operation intended to spread fear about Cuba by blaming various acts of violence on its rebel government. It proposed faking terrorist attacks, killing American citizens, and dropping boat parts into waters between Cuba and the United States to support claims that Cuba had blown up an American passenger ship. These suggestions are outlandish, but what is most alarming about Operation Northwoods is that it exists at all, and that there were government officials so intent on overthrowing Castro that they were willing to fabricate threats in order to justify an invasion. Operation Northwoods could easily be dismissed as a product of ‘60s paranoia, but in many ways, it resembles FBI tactics employed today. The FBI still creates crimes and blames them on others. Case in point: a recent Human Rights Watch study revealed that many foiled terrorist plots – such as that of the “Newburgh Four,” who were accused of plotting to blow up two synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down planes flying out of a National Guard Base – were essentially cases of entrapment. The investigation reveals a pattern of FBI behavior: an undercover agent forms a relationship with a young, disenfranchised, often mentally ill and impoverished Muslim man, then provides him with the means to commit a domestic terrorist act. Agents have supplied hundreds of thousands of dollars in incentive money, weapons and plans to potential targets. The agent arrests the target once he decides to exact the plot placed in his hands, and then this capture is trumpeted throughout the media as a victory against terror. Meanwhile, the targeted men face decades of imprisonment. Though these men are not worth valorizing, there is also little reason to believe that they would have carried out terrorist plots without FBI agents urging them to do so. Of course, no one could justify entrapment if the practice did not come from some vague area of truth. As 9/11 and other tragedies show, terrorism does present a real threat to American lives and the FBI does prevent genuine terrorist attacks from taking place. But coercing men into committing terrorist attacks and then arresting them does not prevent terrorism. If one accepts the premise that it does, one must also accept
that Japanese-American internment during World War II and McCarthyism were effective and necessary tactics for keeping America safe. In each of these scenarios, the government acted on the belief that it was right to imprison people before they committed a crime. With the benefit of hindsight, we have generally come to agree that internment and McCarthyism were grievous mistakes. And yet we continue to act on these programs’ guiding principles. But perhaps entrapment tactics are not, even ostensibly, in place to protect us. Federal judges have raised similar objections to the ones presented here, and said that these arrests do not make the U.S. safer. The Bureau is aware of these objections, and yet continues to seek out vulnerable Muslim loners, urge them toward violence, and place them in prison. Perhaps the FBI employs entrapment out of the wrongful conviction that it helps keep America safe. Or perhaps they arrest these men for other reasons. If this is the case, we must wonder what these other reasons are. Operation Northwoods may help in answering this question. This document reveals that the purpose of falsifying crime was to spread fear of Cuba. Perhaps the reason why FBI agents target and entrap Muslim men is also to spread fear. Former FBI Assistant Fuentes said: “If you’re submitting budget proposals for a law enforcement agency, for an intelligence agency, you’re not going to submit the proposal that ‘We won the war on terror and everything’s great,’ ‘cause the first thing that’s gonna happen is your budget’s gonna be cut in half. You know, it’s my opposite of Jesse Jackson’s ‘Keep Hope Alive’ – it’s ‘Keep Fear Alive’. Keep it alive.” Both now and in the 1960s, there were ulterior motives for fabricating crimes. History has revealed to us why the CIA hoped to spread fear of Cubans: it was to win popular support for an invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro. The reason why the FBI spreads fear via entrapment is less clear, but quotes like the one above hint at the political purposes and benefits of feeding and sustaining our fear of terrorists. This article is the first installment of a two-part analysis of FBI entrapment. ■
Volume XVII, Issue VII • March 9, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
The Strategic Triple Alliance: India/Japan/United States
P
by Arpan Ghosh ’17, Staff Writer
resident Obama’s foreign policy has been one of reactionary decision-making throughout both of his terms as president. Whether in Crimea, in Syria, or even with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Obama and the White House are very cautious of acting abruptly and remain too timid to act decisively. However, when it comes to the formation of alliance structures in South and East Asia, Obama and his administration have broken away from their norm of inaction by embracing a progressive approach to establish a “triple alliance” between India, Japan and the United States. In embracing such a policy as the “triple alliance,” the Obama administration is pursuing a worthwhile and promising means of securing interests in the Asian Pacific. Fifteen years into the twenty-first century, many foreign policy analysts erroneously claim that U.S.-Asian relations now are the best they will ever be – that the strong partnerships needed with South Korea and Japan have been solidified, and that the growth of the twisted, puzzlelike obstacle of policies between China and the United States must be sustained for the benefit of economic interdependency. The Obama administration most certainly subscribes to passivity in many areas of its foreign policy towards Asia, but America’s recent desire to establish a stronger foothold in the continent reflects the old-school American approach to diplomacy. This time, however, the United States is proactively building strong relationships with India and Japan in a very novel way. A powerful China has always been a big concern for the U.S., and the truth is that the United States really does not have an adequate solution to contain China’s power. Economic ties with China are so integral to the well-being of the United States that attempting to balance powers in Asia has to be accomplished through complex webs and ties, mostly constructed through unilateral diplomacy with South Korea, Japan and even Vietnam. Fortunately for the United States, Narendra Modi’s victory in India opened new avenues for cooperation previously blocked by India’s hesitancy to involve itself in American foreign policy. But many of the old India non-alignment tendencies have changed (or even disappeared) in the past two years. And in the last few months, Obama and Modi
6 the JHU POLITIK
have dramatically increased ties between the U.S. and India, particularly in the realms of economic cooperation and security. While the economic ties signify new levels of partnership, the strengthened U.S.-Indian security relationship – manifest recently in the increased number of bilateral military exercises – ultimately proves more relevant to the fundamental regional balance of power. The United States and Japan, too, have continued strong military ties. Since World War II, the mutual defense relationship between the two nations has strengthened, with the result that Japan has one of the largest defense budgets in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. For a considerable period, Japan alone served as the greatest check against China’s maritime powers. With a triple alliance, the United States can not only work on bilateral relations, but also formulate a powerful trilateral allegiance, establishing a blanket of security to check China’s power to its east and west. This triple alliance will also pave a new path towards building a network of allegiance and partnerships between the three aforementioned countries and Australia, thus solidifying a hold on the Asian Pacific. The balance of power in Asia is only part of the puzzle that can be solved by building a triple alliance. Other than the military and security benefits, a triple alliance also serves to boost energy cooperation, especially between the U.S. and its two key Asian partners. An ever-growing population crisis and lack of infrastructure constantly plague India’s development, but the support of a triple alliance is allowing for easier discourse and the implementation of energy deals to secure the interests of both the United States and Japan in India. Moreover, Japan and the United States are now a step closer in working with India to implement an array of greenhouse gas reduction policies in the subcontinent. By establishing, and hopefully building, on a triple alliance, the scope of American foreign policy in Asia is no longer constrained to bilateral relations. Moving from simple unilateral and bilateral relations to a multilateral Asian community diminishes tensions for Asian countries fearing China’s power and attempts to build stability; therefore, a triple alliance with America’s most trusted allies in the Asian continent is the first step toward such progress. ■
• March 9, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VII
Fuerza Pepe! by Robert Locke ’15, Staff Writer “What is it that calls the world’s attention to me? That I live with few things, in a simple house, and that a drive a little old car? This is news? The world must be crazy since the normal surprises us.”
H
e is short with unkempt hair and a distinct squint in his eyes. In the 1960s he fought the Uruguayan government as a Marxist rebel and served fourteen years in prison as a result; not exactly the textbook definition of a president, yet an apt description for the well-known and widely-loved former president of Uruguay, Jose “Pepe” Mujica. On March 1, Mujica stepped down from the presidency as his five-year term approached its end to critical acclaim (the Uruguayan constitution prohibits consecutive presidential terms); he received an approval rating of above 60 percent for ushering in numerous liberal social policies and bringing a refreshing new face and attitude to presidential politics. Was he, however, able to bring about reforms reflective of the ideals that he advocated for during the liberal revolution of the 1960s, and pushed for as a candidate and as president? President Mujica became known internationally for his modest life choices, which were considered quite atypical for someone holding such a high office. The president’s simple lifestyle drew news crews from around the world, as he refused to reside at the opulent presidential palace and instead lived in a small farmhouse with his wife outside the capital, Montevideo. He drove back and forth between his office and home in an old VW Beetle that had originally sold for $1,800. Mujica also refused an offer of one million dollars from an Emirati interested in purchasing his car. Moreover, he donated 90 percent of his government salary to various charitable organizations because he “didn’t need the money.” Mujica became particularly well known for his candor and humor, evident in his everyday speech that weakened the walls of formality usually associated with the presidency. The former president has some notable policy initiatives to his name, including successfully pushing for the legalization of marijuana in Uruguay – the first country in Latin America and the world to legalize. The law, now in its second year, allows for a limited amount of in-home cultivation and regulates the market through a system whereby the
government is responsible for selling and setting the price of the drug. Unsurprisingly, the initiative has been controversial, but has also begun to serve as a potential model for future initiatives from other nations. While Mujica’s leadership in the legalization process cannot be understated, it is also important to note that Uruguay has historically been one of Latin America’s most liberal countries, and with a population of only three million people, such bold initiatives are inherently more feasible. Additional initiatives of Mujica’s include the legalization of gay marriage, decriminalization of abortions in the first twelve weeks, as well as welcoming 42 Syrian refugees and six prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. While Mujica leaves the presidency having helped to stabilize Uruguay, both economically and politically, critics say the president could and should have done more. This is not to say Mujica was all talk, but he did not actively pursue major economic legislative initiatives or tackle income inequality. Additionally, other related social issues still persist with great room for improvement. Perhaps reducing these inequalities or introducing comprehensive social programs were not playing to Mujica’s strengths as a politician, but the fact that he brought a different perspective and approach to the job is refreshing and should carry significance of its own. As other Latin American countries like Colombia recover from long internal conflicts and look to assimilate former rebels back into society, Pepe Mujica can serve as an optimistic glimpse into a post-conflict environment in which former rebels have become productive members – and in the case of Mujica himself – even leaders of reformed societies. As Mujica once said, “I spent 14 years in prison. The night they gave me a mattress, I felt comfortable, but also learned that if you can’t be happy with only a few things, you’re not going to be happy with a lot of things. The solitude of prison made me value many things.” Perhaps this kind of perspective is just what countries and their governments need to bring substantive change to not only Latin America, but to other countries around the world. ■
Volume XVII, Issue VII • March 9, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
No Speech is Better Than a Bad Speech
O
by Mira Haqqani ’17, Policy Desk Editor
n March 3, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was met with roaring acclamation as he claimed the floor in Congress to contest an American-brokered deal with Iran over the latter’s controversial nuclear program. Despite the hype created by the contentious nature of Iran’s nuclear talks, the poorlyexecuted speech failed to offer any substantive argument against the deal. Netanyahu’s speech contained no surprises, nor did it offer any viable solutions to the Iranian nuclear conundrum. The two focal points of the speech included the adverse consequences of reaching a deal with Iran over its nuclear program and the importance of exploring alternative ways of dismantling its nuclear program. Netanyahu repeatedly accused Iran of constituting an existential threat to Israel and emphasized the need for the U.S. and its allies to continue imposing harsh economic sanctions on the country. Unsurprisingly, Netanyahu also addressed the issue of Islamist extremism, but did so through an interesting comparison: “Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State.” With this weighty statement, the Israeli Prime Minister has, unlike President Obama, failed to recognize Iranian armed efforts against ISIS and resulted in many believing that he believes armed war with Iran is necessary, just as it is with ISIS. Netanyahu wants Americans to believe that, once armed with nuclear weapons, Iran will want to obliterate Israel, even though Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is peaceful and for civilian purposes only. The accusatory yet ineffective content of Netanyahu’s speech has led to the popular opinion that the Prime Minister is more concerned about his re-election than the threat Iran’s nuclear program could potentially pose in the future. The Israeli legislative election is scheduled for March 17, and it is for this reason that live broadcasting of the speech was banned on Israeli television. Many Israeli critics have dismissed Netanyahu’s speech, suggesting that it was nothing more than a political stunt in the run-up to the election.
8 the JHU POLITIK
Although Netanyahu repeatedly asserted that his speech meant no disrespect to the American President or his efforts to quell tensions with Iran, it directly challenged Obama’s foreign policy in a calculated political move at both ends: the Prime Minister of Israel was invited to deliver this speech by Republican congressional leaders with no involvement from the White House. Netanyahu has continued to emphasize the important relationship between the U.S. and Israel. However, his words have once again revealed the differences in opinion over the approach to Iran, and hence had an unfavorable impact on U.S.-Israel relations. In addition, many question the legitimacy of Netanyahu’s statements. Based on his suggestions to Congress in 2002, the United States sent troops to Iraq the following year in an invasion that proved shockingly humiliating for the Americans. Similarly, many have criticized Netanyahu for calling Iran’s regime “dark” and “murderous” while Palestinians continue to be tortured and denied their fundamental human rights. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress has angered Iran, which has dismissed it as nothing more than a deceitful attempt to convince the U.S. that war with Iran is necessary. Iran has responded to Netanyahu’s call to “stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror” by denouncing accusations that it wishes to develop nuclear weapons. In an angry response to Netanyahu, Iran’s ambassador to the UN wrote: “Mr. Netanyahu seems to be in a state of panic at the prospect of losing this tool with which to attack Iran, as we do all in our power to address the genuine concerns of the international community and arrive at a settlement over our country’s nuclear energy program.” The speech has sparked an important debate within the United States about American interests and their compatibility, or lack thereof, with Netanyahu’s. Simultaneously, it has shown that House Republicans continue to use American foreign policy as a battleground against President Obama, making it clear that Netanyahu’s speech was unnecessary and a cheap political tactic from both sides that has caused more damage than repair. ■
• March 9, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VII
Why Maintaining Net Neutrality is a Net Positive
O
by Sathvik Namburar ’18, Staff Writer
n February 26, the Federal Communications Commission voted to classify Internet service providers as public utilities, thereby defending net neutrality. This highly anticipated decision was fraught with political and economic implications, and has been met with praise and condemnation alike. The Obama Administration, which supported the decision, tweeted shortly after the announcement that the FCC had received more than 3 million correspondences in the months leading to the decision, a revelation that demonstrates the importance of net neutrality. The term “net neutrality” was first coined in 2003 by Professor Tim Wu at Columbia Law School, and refers to the principle that the government and Internet providers should treat all data on the Internet equally and not discriminate in any form against specific users, websites or content. However, some users and websites use more data than others. A February 25 article in The Economist revealed that one-third of peak network traffic in the United States comes from Netflix. Internet service providers such as AT&T, Comcast and others argue that they should build infrastructure specifically for companies such as Netflix and charge these companies extra money to use this special infrastructure. An analogy for this proposal is the creation of special toll lanes in highways which guarantee that vehicles will move at a certain minimum speed. Consumers who do not want to wait in traffic can access these toll lanes for an extra cost and reach their destinations more quickly. Similarly, Internet service providers and others seek to introduce tiered network access, and argue that upholding net neutrality would prevent the free market from operating, thus constituting governmental overreach. In light of the recent debate, the FCC voted to classify Internet service as a subset of the field of telecommunications, which means that companies cannot differentially charge users to use different infrastructure, just as with telephone services and other basic utilities. As a result, the FCC has decided to preserve net neutrality and will continue to prevent Internet service providers from discriminating against users or websites. This decision is a major victory for those who believe that the Internet should exist as a medium for free, democratic communication.
Quality Internet access is a necessity in the United States, and the Internet has become crucial for communication and commerce. Ending net neutrality would give Internet service providers a way to manipulate and control websites’ loading speed, thus allowing them to become the new gatekeepers of information and commerce on the Internet. Introducing tiered network access would also greatly impede small and new companies that are unable to afford premium Internet delivery. Various studies have demonstrated that net neutrality levels the playing field between companies and fosters innovation by giving start-ups the opportunity to succeed. Net neutrality allows small, innovative companies to remain competitive with their larger, more static peers. Tiered network access would only further marginalize small businesses and would aid larger, less dynamic companies. While Internet service providers support the introduction of tiered network access out of free market concerns, in reality, ending net neutrality would only beget more oligopolies by creating an environment in which small businesses are at a competitive disadvantage. The Internet was designed to prevent outside authorities from interfering with content or services. Ending net neutrality would indirectly undermine this principle by giving Internet service providers the power to discriminate between users. There is justifiable concern that ending net neutrality would allow Internet service providers to legally censor certain information online by manipulating download speeds of websites, which would violate American constitutional rights. In short, while ending net neutrality would surely increase the revenues of Internet service providers, before the FCC or Congress can allow for the introduction of tiered network access, they must establish more stringent guidelines that limit the power of Internet service providers and ensure that users’ freedoms are not inhibited. In the meantime, the positives of the FCC’s decision far outweigh the negatives, and this decision continues to uphold the principle of net neutrality and enshrines equal Internet access as a fundamental right in the United States. ■
Volume XVII, Issue VII • March 9, 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
• March 9, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VII