JHU POLITIK
the
SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
VOLUME XVI, ISSUE II
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
WEBMASTER Ben Lu
COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
MARKETING & PUBLICITY Maria Garcia
STAFF WRITERS Arpan Ghosh Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Christine Kumar Shannon Libaw Corey Payne Juliana Vigorito
• September 8, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue II
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 8 9 10 11
Week in Review: The Courts Christine Server ’16 Closemouthed Politics: Sexual Violence on Campus Juliana Vigorito ’16 In the Name of Democracy Mira Haqqani ’17 The Unspoken Refugee Crisis in Ukraine Olga Baranoff ’16 Bogotá, Colombia: On The Cutting Edge of Environmental Progressivism?
Robert Locke ’15
BRICS Summit 2014: How Developing Countries Are Challenging the International Status Quo
Arpan Ghosh ’17
Protecting the Chesapeake Bay: The Need to
Close Loopholes in the Clean Water Act
Shannon Libaw ’15
Volume XVI, Issue II • September 8, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week in Review: The Courts by Christine Server ’16, Managing Editor A Precedent-Setting Case for Virtual Privacy The U.S. government is locked in battle with Microsoft over the right to access emails held in Microsoft servers in Dublin, Ireland. Authorities believe that the emails in question contain information about narcotics trafficking. Microsoft has refused to comply with the warrant, stating that the “government’s position in this case further erodes [...] trust and will ultimately erode the leadership of U.S. technologies in the global market.” Siding with the Obama Administration, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska asserted the U.S.’s right to information stored on servers anywhere in the world, ruling that, “It is a question of control, not a question of the location of that information.” The U.S. government hopes to hold Microsoft in contempt for their noncompliance in order to force the case to the appeals courts.
U.S. Judge Upholds Louisiana Gay Marriage Ban District Judge Martin Feldman upheld a Louisiana ban of same-sex marriage, breaking the streak of 21 consecutive federal court rulings that have overturned such bans. Feldman asserted that the Constitution does not protect the right to same-sex marriage because “there is simply no fundamental right, historically or traditionally, to same-sex marriage.” Furthermore, he affirmed each state’s authority to define and regulate marriage on its own, criticizing other judges for acting as a “legislative body.” Since the repeal of a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act last year, more than eighty lawsuits have been filed against every state with the ban, with judges overturning such bans in 17 states. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on state bans on same-sex marriage, and is expected to take up the issue as early as next year.
Ruling Allows Texas Abortion Clinic to Reopen Last week, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel overturned several key aspects of a 2013 law that curtails the operations of many abortion clinics in Texas. The law mandated that abortion centers meet the expensive building and staffing standards of ambulatory surgery centers and that doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals, rules which medical experts have deemed irrelevant to patient safety. Yeakel ruled that such rules pose unconstitutional barriers to women’s access to abortion. Clinics in South and West Texas have been hit particularly hard by this law, with Hispanic and low-income women in the Rio Grande Valley area being the most affected. Whole Women’s Health is looking to reopen one of its clinics this week after having been shuttered for the past year, but its future still remains uncertain. The ruling, which has been challenged by Texas officials, is set to face the Court of Appeals later this month.
4 the JHU POLITIK
• September 8, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue II
Closemouthed Politics: Sexual Violence on Campus by Juliana Vigorito ’16, Staff Writer
T
he university welcomed us back and greeted its incoming class for the first time just as Jezebel broadcasted a new and difficult headline: “Johns Hopkins’s Newest Rape Expert Previously Mishandled Rape Report.” Far from breaking news, this is only the most recent in a series of devastatingly unflattering reports that began last spring semester, when The Huffington Post broke the story on the failure of the university to report an alleged gang rape at the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity house. Now, five months later, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened an investigation with which the university has promised to cooperate fully. On August 12th, the entire Hopkins community received an email from President Daniels indicating this fact and calling sexual violence on campus “unacceptable”. I am inclined to believe that President Daniels really believes, just as I do, that the presence of sexual violence on campus must be eradicated. What I am less sure of, however, is that our university can depend on its current leadership’s efforts to achieve this goal. The August 12th email admits no fault, unsurprisingly, but in a later paragraph goes on to proffer a host of web links intended to suggest dedication to this noble mission. In true Hopkins fashion, a sleek website is now live at the awkward URL “sexualassault.jhu.edu”. An updated Sexual Violence Policy is advertised as well, evidence of responsiveness to the petition demanding such, circulated amongst students last spring. The university also proudly announced a newly formed Sexual Violence Advisory Committee, whose members stretch across many schools and departments of our massive university, for better or worse. This committee is headed by none other than Title IX Coordinator Allison Boyle, who was lambasted in the aforementioned Jezebel piece for admissions in leaked emails that she recognized the Clery violation and did nothing to correct it. Despite the ugly press, her place on campus seems secure and fully backed by the administration. Perhaps my reading of these reactionary measures is cynical, but cynicism seems like a most appropriate response in the face of increasing insularity on the part of the administration.
While President Daniels has commissioned an independent report to review sexual violence issues, I cannot help but have doubts about whether it will prove true to the experiences of survivors and concerns of activists or treat this direly important issue the same way the administration seems to view it, as a bureaucratic nightmare. The issue I take with administrative response is about mode of transmission as much as it is about the inadequacy of the reaction itself. Sending mass emails with careful, politically correct wording hardly reflects the seriousness of the issue, and using online communications exclusively serves to keep students at an arm’s length, presumably in order to avoid confrontation and blaming. Since the media storm that has descended on Hopkins stemmed from a lack of transparency in the first place, it is remarkable that such a tendency is continuing even now, after a federal investigation has gotten underway. The lack of candor on the part of the university could be corrected, if administration only became willing to abandon their close-lipped method of handling controversial subjects. Town hall meetings on campus would suit this purpose well, but come with the inevitability of our intelligent, capable students and faculty asking the hard questions that no one — President, Provost, or Dean of anything — would want to answer. This trend of obtuse opaqueness seems fated to continue during and beyond the federal investigation, against both student wishes and best interests. In the last issue of the Politik, Eliza Schultz reflected on the Crenson Report and called for the creation of a women’s center on campus. In reviewing the state of sexual violence prevention at our university, I wonder if the creation of a women’s center would be more disingenuous than anything else, another promise made to applicants and new admits on campus tours that will not actually be carried out when they become students. For the time being, dedicating some office space or a floor of a building to women’s well-being on campus would add insult to injury without progressing toward any real change.
Volume XVI, Issue II • September 8, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
In the Name of Democracy by Mira Haqqani ’17, Policy Desk Editor
T
he 68th Independence Day of Pakistan saw thousands of anti-government protesters take to the streets of the capital, Islamabad, demanding the resignation of current Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. The protesters, largely led by parties opposed to the regime on grounds of corruption and undemocratic governance, have since then only strengthened, threatening the system in its current form and paving the way for civil war or a military takeover. Either of these events, however, would raise serious concerns about the democratic ideals that political parties in Pakistan pride themselves on, hence suggesting that the meaning of democracy in Pakistan has become ambiguous. The ongoing protests, also known as Azadi (Freedom) March and Inqilab (Revolution) March, are being carried out by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) and Pakistani Awami Tehreek (PAT) respectively against the sitting government of the Pakistan Muslim League Noon (PMLN). The three most essential personalities to the conflict are Imran Khan, leader of the PTI, Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, leader of the PAT and Islamic scholar of Sufisim, and Nawaz Sharif, who is in his third tenure as Prime Minister. The primary reason behind the outpour of disgruntled citizens on the streets of Islamabad is the allegation of fraud in the election last year that brought PMLN back to power. The election results were contested by several parties, who demanded a recount of votes at the time, and were deemed illegitimate by the PTI and PAT. The protesters are also highly critical of Nawaz Sharif ’s involvement in deals with large business firms within Pakistan and abroad, accusing him of corruption and dishonesty. However, while the PAT has nothing to lose as a result of these mass demonstrations, PTI does. The PTI is not a party sitting in opposition to the government in the Pakistani National As-
sembly; the 2013 general election saw it secure thirty-three seats in Parliament and establish control in the northern province of the country, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where PTI secured the most votes. The informal PTI-PAT coalition against the current regime continues to organize mass demonstrations and sit-ins across the capital city. However, it is interesting to note the extent to which these protests can be described as citizens exercising their right to protest against the government. Although both Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri instructed their supporters to continue protesting peacefully, Qadri repeatedly threatened the Prime Minister and his Cabinet in his speeches. Both parties later followed a violent streak when they marched into the Red Zone in Islamabad, an area that consists of the Prime Minister House and Parliament, and the Diplomatic Enclave, removing the containers and barbed wire that had been placed in order to prevent the entry of protesting parties. While neither PTI nor PAT has moved into any government building yet, there are fears that they may still. On the opposite end, the government’s actions in response have been no more responsible than those of the protestors. Although initially determined to not engage the protesters, the government resorted to violence against PTI and PAT supporters, throwing tear gas and using police force to disperse the large crowd. In addition, several political analysts and free media channels have been told to be taken off air on Pakistani television on government orders, begging the question of what democracy, which guarantees freedom of speech, truly means for Pakistan. While anti-government elements accuse Sharif of electoral rigging and claiming power unfairly, the government has asserted that PTI and PAT are trying to derail the democratic system in Pakistan, creating further complications relating to the status quo. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
6 the JHU POLITIK
• September 8, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue II
Even though other political parties have urged both sides to engage in negotiations, talks have largely failed. The PMLN’s refusal to give in to PTI’s demands of Sharif ’s resignation, dissolution of the current government, and snap elections conducted by a caretaker setup have alienated the protestors, making them hostile to the prospect of ending the political deadlock. The determination of anti-government protesters can be seen in their chants and slogans, one of which reads: “We will have Nawaz resign or die trying”. As talks fail and PTI and PAT continue to occupy the streets of Islamabad, democracy in Pakistan seems to have become hostage to a handful of politicians, each one with their own ideas about how exactly they can bring democracy to Pakistan, while the Pakistani population, divided and helpless, continues to support them. As negotiations at the civilian level fail, there have been reports of the Pakistani military playing a mediatory role between the government and protesting parties. However, the army’s role in the crisis has not been confirmed, as it is widely believed that the military wants to remain apolitical in this conflict. However, as Pakistani history suggests, the military has always played an important role in deciding the direction of Pakistani politics, whether in the form of pressure on political stakeholders or military takeovers. While there is evidence to prove that the Prime Minister requested military help to diffuse the crisis, the protestors also appear to turn to the army to intervene in order to vacate the Parliament of PMLN’s majority. Although the military retains its ambiguous stance in the dispute and chooses to stay neutral, that a democratically-elected Prime Minister and protesters claiming to bring democracy to the country have such expectations from the military illustrates that Pakistan’s democratic system is majorly flawed. In light of recent events, however, it is unlikely that the military will intervene at this point, mostly as a result of the Pakistani army’s operation against Taliban militants in the north along the Afghan border. If anything, the military has explicitly taken up the role of referee in this crisis, with both sides trying to lobby their way with them. While it seems that that the military may not be the most likely group in Pakistan to have a democratic system, it also does not want the democratic process to be
hijacked, which would place the entire country in grave danger. The ongoing political drama in Pakistan could not have come at a more damaging time. With ISIS around the corner, a pending American withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the operation against militants within the country, the security of the whole nation has been compromised, especially as the military is dragged into the conflict. In addition, the Pakistani economy has suffered colossal damage since the protests started and countless workdays in the industrial and educational systems have been lost. The current situation sheds light upon a fundamental question when it comes to Pakistan’s future: is Pakistan’s democratic model failing? It is obvious that democracy in Pakistan has failed to some extent, seeing that every political party is now suggesting changes to the existing structure. At the same time, Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri are also accusing the government of misusing the system to establish a monarchical style of federal authority, perhaps implicit of the fact that Pakistani politics has become a toy in the hands of the upper class or the political elite; most Pakistani politicians are known to be feudal lords or businessmen who adopt a dynastic and nepotistic approach to political succession. It is for this reason that the term ‘democracy’ is being misused amidst current events in Pakistan and has become a shield behind which Pakistani politicians can conveniently exploit to further their personal interests. In this political crisis, one thing is certain. Although a simple resignation may be enough to quell the mass protests, it is unlikely to change the corruption with which Pakistan’s democratic ideals have become plagued. If politicians are able to manipulate the system in the way that they are currently, it is obvious that the system itself is lacking in some way. The sooner Pakistani politicians realize that the democratic deficit that they claim to address cannot be improved upon without simultaneous investment in economic and social progress, the sooner the country can apply both procedural and substantive models of egalitarianism in daily life. However, if they continue to do what they are doing, the country is likely to witness bloodshed and violence in the name of democracy.
Volume XVI, Issue II • September 8, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
The Unspoken Refugee Crisis in Ukraine
O
by Olga Baranoff ’16, Contributing Writer
n September 2nd, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) announced that the number of internally displaced Ukrainians has more than doubled in the last month. As in most wars, the conflict in Ukraine has forced hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to flee their homes and seek refuge elsewhere. Despite the alarmingly high numbers – an estimated 260,000 internally displaced people as of the first week of September – the actual figure may, in fact, be higher because many refugees stay with friends or extended family and do not register with authorities. The UNHCR estimates that 94 percent of the refugees are from eastern Ukraine, where the fighting is centered. Furthermore, since January, roughly 814,000 Ukrainians have entered Russia, thus putting the total number of displaced Ukrainians at over 1 million. Some Ukrainians entering Russia have sought refugee status or temporary asylum, while others have moved in with family or friends. Russian authorities have established temporary camps and shelters to accommodate the influx of refugees, but authorities plan to close down the camps before winter. The camps have become resettlement points, where Ukrainians board buses or trains to far-off, often remote Russian cities in the hopes of finding a new life and some stability. Although some Ukrainians who have entered Russia plan to eventually return to Ukraine, many are choosing to take advantage of government-sponsored programs that promise citizenship, pensions, work, and shelter. Despite the Russian government’s promises, however, it may be difficult for Ukrainian refugees to reestablish their lives in Russia. Moscow recently approved amendments that expanded regional programs for voluntary resettlement, but the amendments only allow up to 11,200 Ukrainians to be resettled throughout Russia. This leaves over 700,000 displaced Ukrainians outside of the official resettlement program. The majority of the refugees will likely remain in limbo – neither Russian citizens, nor citizens of Ukraine any longer – with unstable employment and housing prospects. Unfortunately, one would not know there was a refugee crisis just from reading the headlines of major American newspapers. While the conflict has dominated the media since the be-
8 the JHU POLITIK
ginning of public protests towards the end of 2013 – and even more so since Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in February 2014 and the outbreak of fighting between government forces and pro-Russia separatists – top headlines continue to focus almost exclusively on the political and economic implications of the crisis and not on its humanitarian impact. Mainstream U.S. media sources have covered European and American responses to the situation in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin’s growing aggression, alleged Russian funding and arming of the separatists, and Ukrainian political turmoil. A quick search of articles related to the Ukrainian conflict in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal yielded the following headlines: “Obama on Russian Culpability in Ukraine,” “EU sets Russia sanctions, threatens ultimatum,” “Putin Urges ‘Statehood’ Talks for Eastern Ukraine.” However, there is little mention of the displacement of Ukrainians. A New York Times article from September 5th is one of the first by the internationally-renowned paper to mention the refugee crisis, and it only does so in response to a UNHCR report. By contrast, European and Latin American media – and even Russian media – have reported extensively on the escalating refugee problem. While those headlines are just a sampling of the stories American news outlets have been publishing since the conflict began, they in fact mirror the general trend of near-exclusive focus on the political, economic, and international implications of the crisis, with scarce mention of the social and humanitarian consequences of the volatile situation. The failure of U.S. news sources to adequately report on the internal and external displacement of Ukrainians is distressing, but equally disturbing is the lack of focus among global politicians on the refugee crisis that grew out of the conflict. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General, has repeatedly said that there will be no military solution to the Ukrainian crisis and has instead called for political dialogue. Perhaps a media shift toward emphasizing the refugees’ plight will help politicians recognize the urgency of the situation – and the pressing need for both a political and humanitarian response to the conflict.
• September 8, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue II
Bogotá, Colombia:
On The Cutting Edge of Environmental Progressivism? by Robert Locke ’15, Contributing Writer
W
hen you think of Latin America, your mind might easily wander to the headlines of unrest in Venezuela or drug cartels and violence. A headline you might not expect to see is that Bogotá, Colombia was recently recognized as an environmentally innovative city, serving as the host of a United Nations global environmental innovation summit (Rio + 20) just last month. While this article will focus on Bogotá for its significant leadership in environmental progress, it is important to note that other Latin American cities like Mexico City (ProAire program) or Rio (Morar Carioca program) have also taken profound steps to green their cities. In Bogotá, home to more than eight million people, almost 200 miles of bike paths spread to form an extensive network across the city, a network larger than that seen in any city in the United States (Portland, Oregon has 79 miles of bike paths) and rival to the networks of European cities that garner most of the attention for their bike friendliness. The bike paths were one of the original strategies implemented by the municipal government as early as the 1970s in an effort to discourage the use of cars. In addition, on Sundays and holidays, many of the city’s principal avenues are closed to traffic, and people are encouraged to come out and walk, bike or even rollerblade down avenues usually crowded with cars in a highly popular program called Cyclovia. Just this past year, a significant portion of the principal avenue downtown was made pedestrian-only seven days a week in what has been seen as a “next step” in the green development of the city. The list of signature programs goes on. Another one of the city’s hallmark programs that has since been introduced in all of Colombia’s major cities, Pico y Placa, restricts vehicles on alternating days based on the last digit of their license plate number, a program that would have trouble gaining traction in the United States but, as Colombians see it, is a part of their greater civic obligation. Perhaps Bogotá’s best-known project is their unique transit system, TransMilenio, which first opened in 2001 and
has been rapidly expanding since. In an effort to take advantage of Bogotá’s wide avenues and to save the money an underground metro system would cost, a network of 70 miles of dedicated bus lanes (the world’s largest rapid transit bus system) has been constructed with stations located in the middle of the avenue accessible by a pedestrian bridge. The system serves almost 1.7 million people each day. Commute times have been cut in half in many places, public transportation emissions reduced by as much as 94 percent, according to a recent government study, and the city’s environmental standards have only improved, in what has become a model for other Latin American cities like Lima, Peru. So what’s keeping Bogotá and Latin America from taking the spotlight in the environmental realm? Domestic stability and economic development. A topic very much in need of its own discussion, important advances like the successful completion of the peace process and the end of the fifty-year civil unrest in Colombia will be a crucial step in ensuring the continued economic development of the country. Without economic and overall stability, the government has and will have no choice but to divert important resources from what it can do to help the country’s environmental future, and will instead focus on issues seen as much more pressing and politically important including the economy and citizen safety. Support from other nations with both the peace process and economic development will not only help Colombia grow, but will simultaneously promote the innovation factory of the development of sustainable practices already in full bloom, benefits of which can be reaped around the world. While their cities do struggle with pollution and other issues any rapidly expanding city faces, Colombia and many countries in Latin America are already one step ahead with an important willingness to try new programs and initiatives. Given the resources to truly make an impact and a conducive environment for these ideas to flourish, Bogotá and Latin America will come to the forefront of the sustainable environment conversation.
Volume XVI, Issue II • September 8, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
BRICS Summit 2014:
How Developing Countries Are Challenging the International Status Quo
G
by Arpan Ghosh ’17, Staff Writer
lobal summits are typically forums for large hegemonic nations to yield authority over global economic and political decisions while smaller nations, categorized as the “others”, have to play by the guidelines already set in place by the Western status quo. Over the past few decades, smaller global institutions not associated with the Western-centric United Nations, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the relatively recent European Union, were created to even the playing field. However, these institutions were never taken seriously by larger powers, simply because the economic capital possessed by the smaller, “other” nations indicated weakness and risks. Even within the United Nations, sub-organizations such as the G8+5 (more recently identified as the G7+5 due to the suspension of Vladimir Putin) included developing countries working side-by-side with highly developed nations, yet many of the +5 countries (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa) felt that their political voice might have been amplified only marginally as a result. Economic decision-making and opportunity to set a global precedence still suffered since the emerging +5 were practically subservient to the existing G7 economic framework. In 2006, perhaps to combat the existing international economic framework dominated mostly by the United States and other Western powers, representatives from Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) began to engage in discussions, which eventually culminated in a new economic-political structure of these four countries. Later, between 2009 and 2010, BRIC induced South Africa to form an international institution that we now know as BRICS. The basic purpose of BRICS was to create an international organization that embraces and addresses the political and economic concerns of the developing nations. Fast forward to this past summer, and much has changed in the global institutional structure. The most apparent and serious development was seen in the UN, with Putin being suspended from engaging in discussion with the G8 and the G8+5 due to Russia’s involvement in Crimea/Ukraine. The other members of BRICS were not concerned with the political ramifications of Russia’s engagement in Ukraine, and were focused more on Russia’s potential in a purely economic perspective. That the countries which comprise BRICS do not share with hegemonic Western powers the same sentiments regarding Russia
10 the JHU POLITIK
illustrates their strong desire for their own improved economic conditions. Moreover, BRICS conveyed the desire to end dependency on super-powers to manifest their own economic agenda. And so, on July 15th, 2014, BRICS hosted a summit in Fortaleza, Brazil. The countries discussed issues such as trade, innovation in petroleum/gas refinement, and even education; however, the largest takeaway from the summit came in the concluding talk, which finalized the establishment of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB). The NDB is a financial institution that challenges the existing international status quo on banking. Rather than relying on the World Bank, which many critics believe is largely controlled by American interests, or the International Monetary Fund, which is also criticized for its pro-hegemonic policies, the NDB attempts to establish a new financial foundation for developing nations. Each BRICS nation contributed $10 billion, for a net total initial capital of $50 billion, which is expected to increase to at least $100 billion in the next coming years. Their goal is to benefit developing nations by establishing a new international financial framework that will make it easier for them to acquire loans for developments not only in infrastructure, education, and technology, but also, controversially, in defense and military. Although this bank is a massive victory for the developing countries involved, the United States and the European Union are primarily concerned about the decreasing influence of the World Bank in developing countries, and the decrease of American influence in policy-lending and other activities. An interesting parallel can be made with the multilateral development bank created in the late 1960s that attempted to challenge the “Western-controlled” World Bank called “Corporacion Andina de Fomento (CAF),” which now funds the majority of projects in South America. The World Bank’s scope of reach to infiltrate South America has withered substantially since the establishment of the CAF. The question that arises today is whether BRICS can achieve the same type of outcome, and how this could potentially impact the World Bank or other institutions. Even if the framework exists today to tackle the financial status quo, it is too early to tell whether BRICS will be successful. Only time will tell whether BRICS can establish a substantial, global financial precedent.
• September 8, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue II
Protecting the Chesapeake Bay: The Need to Close Loopholes in the Clean Water Act by Shannon Libaw ’15, Staff Writer
T
he maintenance of clean water is an ongoing domestic and global problem. Especially with droughts in certain regions of the country, it is crucial to maintain the quality of the water that we do have. This summer, I had the privilege of assisting at an organization called Environment Maryland, where I worked to protect the Chesapeake Bay. In particular, I was working to convince the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to close certain loopholes in the Clean Water Act, which leave thousands of Maryland’s waterways unprotected from pollution. Corporate agricultural businesses are allowed to dump animal waste into these waterways, which contributes to the Bay’s rampant pollution problem. In the interest of the environment and public health, we must protect the Chesapeake Bay more fully by closing loopholes that contaminate our beloved body of water. While the Bay is well known for its recreational amenities – indeed, our campaign’s first line was, “Whether we go there to swim, fish, or canoe, the Bay is an important part of why it’s great to live here” – it is also the biggest estuary in the United States. According to chesapeakebay.net, almost 51 billion gallons of water flow into the Bay from freshwater sources. When these freshwater sources are polluted, the Bay itself becomes polluted. This not only contaminates our drinking water, but also causes the loss of biodiversity and degrades the ecosystems. One third of the Bay is currently a dead zone, meaning that the extremely low oxygen levels inhibit the existence of life in these areas. This can happen through eutrophication, which results from an excessive amount of nutrients in the water. When the freshwater sources are polluted, our ability to grow food from them is reduced. Much of the Bay’s pollution comes from agricultural businesses, such as chicken farm companies run by Perdue and Tyson, which often dump animal waste into waterways. Much opposition to this campaign primarily stems from these corporate agribusinesses, many of which have spent millions of dollars lobbying politicians to keep the loopholes open. Although food production from these companies may seem to outweigh the environmental damage they cause, the Bay’s resources, such as
food, water, and wildlife, are finite. These businesses’ practices are unsustainable not only for the associated ecosystems, but also for the usage of clean water to the public. The costs of their operations are not limited to financial costs printed on their revenue reports; they include environmental costs that hurt millions of people who live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed area. The drinking water of millions of Americans and the dependence of life on the Bay should not be sacrificed for increased profit by only a few agribusinesses. These agribusinesses may contest that closing the loopholes will not be conducive to businesses operations because jobs might be eradicated, or that technology is unpredictable and may not provide the same possible benefits to them. However, change is a gradual process; small developments along the way will ultimately lead to larger changes. There are sustainable alternatives for these agribusinesses that do not exploit loopholes. For example, animal waste could be used to make other products, such as fertilizer. Just as materials and trash can be reused, this waste can be used in a similar manner. Furthermore, even if technology is unpredictable, it is constantly advancing; there is a high likelihood that advances will come soon enough. As long as these companies actively try to integrate new advances, more sustainable practices will develop. The Chesapeake Bay is not just home to various wildlife; it is an integral part of the life of Maryland’s residents. Its beauty and finite resources are worth protecting for future generations. Unfortunately, it is not the only largest estuary in the country that is threatened. According to the EPA, over half of the United States population lives within 100 miles of the coast, a number that is only increasing. Thus, estuaries nationwide are particularly threatened due to urban development and pollution near the coastlines. Despite powerful opposition, closing these loopholes is in the public’s interest because it is the only way to ensure that the Chesapeake Bay’s resources, which are vital to society, will be preserved.
Volume XVI, Issue II • September 8, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
11
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
12 the JHU POLITIK
• September 8, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue II