JHU POLITIK
the
I
MARCH 23, 2015
VOLUME XVII, ISSUE VIII
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 Olga Baranoff Dylan Cowit Arpan Ghosh Alexander Grable Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Evan Harary Shrenik Jain Shannon Libaw Robert Locke Morley Musick Sathvik Namburar Corey Payne Zachary Schlosberg
• March 23, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VIII
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9
Week in Review: The Environment Shannon Libaw ’17 Justice Without Peace:
What’s Missing From Our Discussion on Sexual Violence
Anonymous
Maduro Cannot Be Chavez So Long As Oil Prices Are Low Rebecca Grenham ’16 The Iran Letter and an Intractable Issue Sathvik Namburar ’18 Challenging Big Business:
Why We Need More Internet Competition
Arpan Ghosh ’17
A Letter to My Dear Fellow White People Corey Payne ’17
Volume XVII, Issue VIII • March 23, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week in Review: The Environment by Shannon Libaw ’17, Staff Writer Chinese Premier Addresses Public Concern for Air Pollution At the end of the annual meeting of the National People’s Congress, Chinese Premier Li Kegiang announced that he intends to seek more effective anti-pollution policies. Maintaining that China has remained committed to reducing pollution, Li acknowledged that measures thus far have been largely ineffective. China’s air pollution represents a mounting environmental and public health threat, and has come under intense scrutiny in recent years. Given the clout of large oil companies and other state owned businesses, it may be difficult for Li to implement a comprehensive plan. Though this news conference is a symbol of political reliability, questions are generally preselected and modified to avoid probing unwanted by Communist Party leaders. Thus, it remains to be seen whether these words can be effectively translated into action. While reduced economic growth this year could potentially decrease demand for coal, and would in turn reduce pollution, it is possible that economic concerns could drown out environmental one
California Expands Regulations for Heavy Drought Amid a heavy drought, the California State Water Resources Control Board has voted to increase regulations on residents’ water usage, which will be enforced by local water departments throughout the state. Residents will no longer be allowed to use sprinklers and customers at restaurants will not receive water unless they ask. California is in its fourth year of a drought, which has devastated both agriculture and ecosystem: fire departments claim that arid conditions this past winter have required them to employ the highest number of seasonal firefighters the state has ever had. While environmental groups advocate for stronger regulations to limit water use, these rules have implications for businesses and other entities that regularly use water as part of their operations. The state, for its part, maintains that these most recent actions are an effective compromise that can minimize water use.
EPA Funds Tracking Device for Hotel Shower Water Consumption In an effort to conserve water and modify behavior, the Environmental Protection Agency is investing $15,000 to create a wireless device that will monitor the water usage of hotel guests. The device is under development at the University of Tulsa. As most hotels do not currently track how much water their guests use, millions of gallons of water are wasted from unnecessarily long showers. The device will send water consumption information to a hotel monitoring system and will help guests track and alter their water consumption patterns. Guests can also track their daily water use online or with a smartphone application. Regarding privacy concerns, the EPA maintains that the purpose is not to track how much time guests spend in the shower, and that the market rather than the EPA will decide the demand and utility of the emerging product. ■
4 the JHU POLITIK
• March 23, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VIII
Justice Without Peace:
The Missing Piece in our Discussion on Sexual Violence by Anonymous
I
Editors’ Note: The Politik decided to run this op-ed anonymously due to the private and personal nature of its content.
t’s time to seriously re-evaluate the framework in which we discuss sexual violence and broaden our attention spans past the point of immediate drama, so as to extend our dialogue and introduce terms like “long-term recovery” and “healing” into our vocabulary. I know this from personal experience. Last August, I was assaulted by my then-boyfriend. Six months later, I had yet to fully recover, and for this I was ashamed. I was ashamed because even though the initial tears had dried and the visible scars gone, the pain had not subsided. I felt that I didn’t have the right to still hurt: in a country where there is a backlog of 400,000 untested rape kits and only 2 percent of rapists will spend a day in jail, my assailant was punished and justice served. I am blessed because, in a culture where 68 percent of rapes and 85 percent of incidents of domestic violence go unreported due to fear and cultural stigma, I have a strong support system giving me the bravery to speak up. I am blessed because I am a victim at a time when victims have more power than ever before. Yet I was not able to make peace with these incidents, and the hurt within continued. I hid away this pain because society had indicated that I no longer had a right to feel sore, and this exacerbated my continued anguish. In today’s climate, victims have a voice until they achieve justice; many are handed a microphone to voice disappointment and anger over lack of punishment, but none are given an opportunity to discuss the internal bruises that have not, and sometimes will not, go away. Victims are expected to simply move past the incident, as though our entire mental state hinges on a court or school decision, and that once we see the institutional result we desire, we should be fully healed. What society refuses to acknowledge is that even when our assailants are sent away, our inner agony remains.
for the weight she as a victim carries daily, which Columbia University refuses to help lift. In part, the mattress fits into our current conversation about justice, as it calls into question what sort of repercussions are appropriate for her assailant. But the mattress also serves a larger purpose; it represents the longterm mental anguish of sexual violence victims and points at the need to discuss mental recovery. Yet neither the media nor the general public have scarcely paid attention to this aspect of Sulkowicz’s protest. I am hopeful that we can create the necessary change to fix this. To help us begin refocusing our conversation, institutions need to be proactive. Johns Hopkins, for example, should better promote and make available long-term resources for victims to access after the initial incident. Though programs such as SARU are vitally important resources, they are branded as hotline services to assist in heated moments. They serve in the urgency of now, but not later. The University needs to establish better resources to serve victims weeks and months down the line and, most importantly, it needs to do so openly. As of now, our administration discusses mental health in a very hushed manner. This only aggravates the problem. If institutions were transparent in offering these services and willing to openly discuss the long-term mental health implications of sexual violence, this would broaden the scope of our conversation, and there would be less guilt and stigma when reaching for help. Then victims could finally fully heal, for it was not until I realized that I had the right to hurt that I was able to find peace. ■
I lost friends over this, people who could not understand why I was not able to return to my “normal self.” Still, I couldn’t fault them; their responses were the inevitable consequence of a cultural flaw. When society ignores mental health and refuses to have a conversation about long-term healing, how could I expect individuals to act any differently? My experience is not an anomaly; another very visible example is Emma Sulkowicz, the Columbia student who has vowed to carry her mattress with her to bring attention to this injustice. The mattress is a symbol
Volume XVII, Issue VIII • March 23, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
Maduro Cannot Be Chavez So Long As Oil Prices Are Low
N
by Rebecca Grenham ’16, Staff Writer
icolas Maduro, President of Venezuela, employs fiery rhetoric when dealing with political controversies. Most recently, his government published an advertisement in The New York Times as a reaction to recent American sanctions on seven Venezuelan officials: “Never before in the history of our nations has a president of the United States attempted to govern Venezuela by decree. It is a tyrannical and imperial order and it pushes us back into the darkest days of the relationship between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean.” This language may sound familiar to those who heard Maduro’s comments regarding anti-government protests in 2014 and 2015, when jailing political opponents such as former Mayor of Caracas Antonia Ledezma, when accusing supermarkets of forcing customers to wait on long lines, or when claiming that one shop owner was deliberately trying to destabilize the Venezuelan economy. In almost all cases, Maduro seems to find that at the heart of all issues lies a secret conspiracy designed to overthrow his government. Maduro’s reactions may also seem somewhat out of place to those familiar with Venezuela’s current economic situation. According to data from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, oil revenues account for 95 percent of Venezuelan exports, while data from the World Bank indicate that oil rents accounted for 26.7 percent of GDP in 2012. With oil prices falling, Venezuela officially entered into a recession in December. And given that the government has placed price controls on certain goods, shortages of basic food items and long lines at supermarkets are common. On top of these issues is a large national debt. Venezuela’s economy is crumbling, and an over-reliance on oil, rather than political opposition, is one of its primary causes. Maduro’s rhetoric in the midst of this economic crisis is likely an attempt to echo his predecessor, Hugo Chavez. For example, Chavez’s remarks that former President George W. Bush was a “donkey” and “the devil” reflect strong antiAmerican sentiments. Similarly, Chavez often resorted to jailing political opponents, arguing that it was in the best interest of the nation. Maduro wishes to imitate Chavez because Chavez was incredibly popular in Venezuela. Chavez introduced a new set of social programs, or “misiones,” which included new
6 the JHU POLITIK
schools and universities for low-income students, local planning councils to give constituents a role in politics, and health clinics. These social programs made great strides in tackling poverty, with the poverty rate declining by 18.4 percent, and inequality, as the Gini Index fell from 45.9 to 39 – the lowest in Latin America. These programs relied almost completely on exports of oil for funding. After increasing state ownership of Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the state oil company, Chavez diverted most of these revenues to fund projects in the social sphere. Similarly, Misión Barrio Adentro, which increased the number of health clinics in poorer areas, relied on oil in a slightly different way: Venezuela exported oil to Cuba at a favorable price, while Cuba sent doctors to staff the clinics. Chavez’s programs were successful largely due to high oil prices at the time. After encouraging the reformation of OPEC and cutting back oil production, prices rose and Chavez found himself with funding for his social programs. As a result, he increased social spending from 18 percent in 1998 to 34 in 2008. Maduro, on the other hand, has not been as lucky. Maduro runs an oil-reliant economy, yet global oil prices are low. The economy remains undiversified and unable to withstand global shocks. As a result, shortages of imported goods, such as food, though common under Chavez, have been pervasive under Maduro. To deal with these challenges, Maduro cut government spending in response to the crisis – an unpopular move given Chavez’s legacy. Maduro may share Chavez’s vision, but an oil-reliant economic model hinders what he can do for the poor. Even Maduro’s words on the United States, in retrospect, seem watered down compared to Chavez’s comments. Though perhaps this could be due to personality differences, it is more likely a result of a changing international climate where oil exporters feel less powerful. Chavez was able to insult the President of the United States when the Venezuelan economy was booming and oil was expensive. Maduro, on the other hand, must resort to defending his country with statements such as “Venezuela is not a threat.” Even rhetorically, Maduro cannot be Chavez so long as oil prices are low. ■
• March 23, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VIII
The Iran Letter and an Intractable Issue
F
by Sathvik Namburar ’18, Staff Writer
or nearly a decade now, the so-called P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran have produced few major breakthroughs and many headaches for the Western world. Following the election of moderate Hassan Rouhani to the Iranian presidency in 2013, the West renewed efforts to curtail the Iranian nuclear program, and talks are now continuing at a feverish pace. On March 9, however, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas published an open letter to Iran signed by forty-six of his fellow Republican senators, angering the White House and threatening to undermine nuclear negotiations. The letter outlines the process required to affirm any bilateral agreement that the U.S. makes with Iran and assures Iranian leaders that Congress will not approve any nuclear deal that arises from the P5+1 talks. In the aftermath of the release of the letter, a political firestorm erupted, with President Obama and many in the press lambasting Cotton and the other signatories. The release of the letter is an example of Congressional overreach. The Logan Act of 1799 holds that unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments currently in dispute with the U.S. are committing a felony, but legal scholars question the constitutionality and applicability of the law to this specific situation. Regardless, the senators’ letter to Iran violates a clear historical precedent and is unacceptable. The senators have argued that President Obama has failed to properly keep them abreast of the ongoing negotiations, but addressing a letter to Iran’s rulers and disrespecting the office of the President is not an appropriate way to express frustration. This letter comes on the heels of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress, and this is no coincidence. The letter affirms Republicans’ unwavering support for Netanyahu’s government. Netanyahu favors a hawkish stance on Iran, and his re-election on March 17 ensures that Israel will continue to push for an end Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, real or imagined. However, Netanyahu and the signatories of the letter to Iran fail to recognize that five other Western nations have joined the United States in the P5+1 talks, and any effort to subvert the talks in the U.S. could serve to anger or alienate
our allies. Any decision made concerning whether to break off the talks should be made collectively by the six nations that are negotiating with Iran. The letter undermines the P5+1 countries’ bargaining power by signaling to Iran that any deal that is signed that would lessen U.S. sanctions on the country will not be ratified by Congress, which would, in effect, leave the deal moot. Iran’s leaders can now use this fact to stall in negotiations or demand concessions that they know would not be ratified by Congress, thus effectively stonewalling negotiations. Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has dismissed the letter as a “propaganda ploy,” but the Iranians are definitely paying attention to the political discord within the U.S. administration. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have argued that engaging with Iran forces the Iranians to either negotiate to scale back their nuclear program or refuse to continue talks and risk further isolation and condemnation. As a result, the P5+1 talks are essentially forcing Iran’s hand, but in order for these talks to continue to be effective and for any substantive change to result, the West needs all of the bargaining power it has, and the senators’ letter does no favors to the P5+1 coalition. Despite the senators’ letter, the P5+1 talks still have a reasonable chance to succeed. The U.S.-led sanctions have crippled the Iranian economy, and as the failed 2009-10 Iranian uprising shows, younger Iranians are not willing to tolerate blatant corruption or voter fraud. Indeed, the countries are currently working on an agreement under which Iran would roll back its nuclear capabilities for ten years. Republicans may grumble that such a deal merely kicks the can down the road, but a ten-year rollback of nuclear capabilities would also make it difficult for Iran to immediately resume its purported pursuit of a nuclear weapon after this time period is over, even if no larger deal is signed during this time. Of course, the West must take care to continue to monitor Iran’s nuclear program and leave sanctions in place if necessary, but this deal would be a good deal for the West, even if the senators may argue otherwise.
■
Volume XVII, Issue VIII • March 23, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Challenging Big Business: Why We Need More Internet Competition
F
by Arpan Ghosh ’17, Staff Writer
or a country that prides itself on being a bastion of free market enterprise, the United States government has failed the Internet service industry. Internet service providers (ISPs) – Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner in particular – are an oligopoly, controlling large service areas without substantial competition. In 2014, Comcast spent $17 million lobbying Congress, Verizon $13 million, and Time Warner $15.1 million. These behemoths spend millions every year to keep themselves unchallenged, free to raise prices and collect more revenue as they wish. And Congress allows this because, simply put, they are paid to resist any challenges to the current concentration of ISPs dominating the industry. The decentralized nature of the Internet is directly challenged when competition is stifled by the “natural” oligopoly of ISPs. A “natural” monopoly/oligopoly is one that is thought to function better – in terms of efficiency, cost for government, cost to consumers, etc. – under limited competition than with numerous competitors. Although the current system has not completely diminished the freedom of the Internet, the consequences of having a “natural” monopoly are visible today. Over the past couple decades, the largest development in Internet service has been the expansion of broadband, replacing dial-up Internet with cable modems. But the expansion has not been a phenomenon distinct to the United States; in fact, the development of the Internet has been a global feat. But unlike the U.S., countless countries have fostered the growth and development of the Internet by enticing companies to develop better infrastructure. Though the cost of Internet in America has skyrocketed over the past decade, its speed has remained much the same at about 30 Mbps, making the nation’s Internet twenty-seventh quickest out of 398 countries. Meanwhile, in South Korea, average speeds are four times faster than in the U.S. and half as expensive. Even countries with much less economic power than the United States, such as Romania, have average speeds that are almost three times the American average.
upgrading existing technology is expensive, and the largest corporations seem to have reached a mutual understanding that there is no reason to change the status quo, as revenue would continue to flow since American consumers have no choice but to purchase from current ISPs, even if the low speeds do not warrant the high monthly payments and the horrible customer service. An Internet service industry where numerous companies exist to challenge one another serve the public’s interest. The competition will lead to advancements of current technologies while at the same time lowering monthly costs. This will benefit everyone, specifically the ecommerce sector. Yet the real struggle lies within Congress. It is imperative that Congress understand the role of the Internet and its significance to commerce, innovation, and academia. But with the continued influx of lobbyist money, I am pessimistic that Congress is willing to address the importance of removing the current mechanism to transform the Internet service industry that is constantly under competition. This is where the White House’s Office of Science, Technology, and Innovation can play a crucial role in emphasizing the importance of an Internet/telecommunications industry operating under fair market principles. The Internet is too integral to the daily lives of Americans today; we may have even reached the point where many Americans might argue that it is a necessity. So naturally, there is very little that consumers can do directly to influence the oligarchic industry, since Internet demand is relatively inelastic. Consumers can, however, continue to educate themselves and file petitions against the federal government against the use of special interest group money in Congress, as they have done so in the past regarding SOPA and Net Neutrality. We need new policies that put consumer interests first, and the Internet telecommunications sector is one where antitrust regulation would actually result in a freer, more diverse market. But the Executive branch needs to be much more involved in the discussion of the oligopolies of Internet Service Providers. Until then, consumers in the United States will continue to be bullied by big business. ■
The reason for the relatively slow speeds in the United States is a lack of desire for the current oligopoly to invest in infrastructural expansion. Implementing new cables and
8 the JHU POLITIK
• March 23, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VIII
A Letter to My Dear Fellow White People
T
by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
wo weeks ago, the United States commemorated the 50th anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma. In this country, we enjoy civil rights stories like Selma: there was violence, chaos, and racism – but then we enacted the Voting Rights Act and the world became a better place. But that isn’t the end of the story. As white people, we tend to look through the history of race in this country and say, “We screwed up, but good thing we fixed it!” We celebrate our triumphs as much as, if not more than, our shortcomings. Consequently, there seems to be a belief across the country that racial disparities no longer exist and that the faults of our ancestors have long been corrected. We then sit back and become frustrated when we hear about racism and discrimination. We grow impatient upon hearing complaints about racial injustices that still exist today – we fixed them all already, didn’t we? It has been said that the greatest obstacle to change is the belief that it can’t be done. However, even more harmful to progress is the belief that it no longer needs to be done. This might come as a shock to some of you, but the races in this country are not treated equally. Whether it is through the institutionalized structures that normalize these disparities or simply through the perpetuation of harmful racial stereotypes, we must accept that unequal footing exists. That is the first step towards fixing it. We do not need to feel guilty about it – but we do need to be aware of it. It is not inherently our fault that our ancestors decided that enslavement was easier to justify when the victims didn’t look like us. Nor is it our fault that our Founding Fathers set forth this country under the belief that only white men had rights and all others were mere fractions of a human. But it will be our fault if we do not accept that the path towards justice and righteousness is still unfolding before us. It will surely be our fault if we decide that today was good enough, today was equitable enough, so that we don’t have to change tomorrow.
We have privilege. We have power. And I know that sometimes it doesn’t feel that way. I know that all people have the chance for success and all people have the chance for failure. Not all white Americans are rich and not all black Americans are poor. But the process of getting there is different for all of us. Imagine walking into a lecture hall and being randomly assigned a seat in the room. In the front of the room, there is a trash can sitting in the center. You are instructed to take a piece of paper, wad it up, and throw it in the trash can. The people who are randomly seated at the front of the room have an easier time throwing the paper than those in the back. However, some in the front don’t make it and some in the back do. This is privilege. By random circumstance some have a better opportunity for success than others. While everyone has the chance to make it, there is no equity or justice in those chances. While we all cannot understand what it feels like to be unprivileged, we must empathize with it. Even the staunchest white allies should not pretend to understand the struggle against racism that we have never felt. Instead we must stand with our friends and family of color. We must accept the reality of racism today and we must let the world know that we will not accept its continuity. The people in power do not like to give up their power, but if we stand together and we stand out of the way, then it can be ensured that the rights of all are no longer restricted by the privilege of the few. We can hope for a world where circumstance does not dictate opportunity, or we can make it happen. The choices of each of us live in history, and we have been on the wrong side of it for far too long. ■
Volume XVII, Issue VIII • March 23, 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 23, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue VIII