the POLITIK PRESS 10/7/13
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XIV, Issue IV
Volume XIV, Issue IV 1
Volume XIV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
the
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
Volume XIV, Issue IV
POLITIK PRESS
the
POLITIK PRESS
INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW ....................................................................
A publication of jhupolitik.org
GILDED DUSK:
THE RESURGENCE AND SUPPRESsION OF FAsCISM IN GREECE
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Alex Clearfield & Rachel Cohen
ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Katie Botto Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato MARKETING & PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu
Page 4
Alex Dragone ’16
JHU POLITIK
MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
................
Page 5
Adrian Carney ’14
THE PROBLEM WITH A ZERO-SUM SHUTDOWN ..................... Page 6
HEAD WRITER Ari Schaffer
Victoria Scordato ’14
THE “FORGOTTEN” ARAB SPRING IN BAHRAIN: THE PARADOX OF OIL AND DEMOCRACY ............................................
MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts
Page 7
Sarallah Salehi ’16
COPY EDITOR Peter Lee
YOUR EVERYDAY GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN? ....................
STAFF WRITERS Akshai Bhatnagar Henry Chen Virgil Doyle Rosellen Grant Geordan Williams Chris Winer
Page 8
Dylan Etzel ’17
THE POLICY DESK Maintaining the Missile Defense Shield
.............................................
Page 9
Ari Schaffer ’14
FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
VOLUME XIV, ISSUE IV OCTOBER 7th, 2013 2
3
Volume XIV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
Volume XIV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
GILDED DUSK: THE RESURGENCE AND SUPPREsSION OF FAsCISM IN GREECE
WEEK IN REVIEW By Alex Dragone ’16, Contributing Writer
by Adrian Carney ’14, Contributing Writer
T
Government Shutdown, No Signs of Progress
he Golden Dawn burned with lurid intensity on its brief appearance on the national stage. This once-fringe party became a violent outlier in the already turbulent Greek political system. In 2012, after years of obscurity, the party won 7% of the vote with 500,000 in their favor, and 18 out of 300 seats in Parliament.
On October 1st, the federal government ceased all nonessential services following Congress’ failure to pass a budget bill or a continuing resolution (CR). House Republicans insisted on modifying the Affordable Care Act as an exchange for passing a CR. In opposition, Senate Democrats and President Obama refused to negotiate, viewing the passage of a CR or budget as non-negotiable. Currently, the GOP is claiming that the Democrats are being intransient in their refusal to negotiate, while the Democrats are saying that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is caving in to his rightist Tea Party caucus by refusing to hold a vote on a CR. As of date, no progress has been made on either side. However, there have been rumors of Democrats wanting to tie the CR to the vote on the debt ceiling increase.
It would be easy to discount the Golden Dawn as another blemish in an already troubled country. Greece has enjoyed only a few short decades of stability after the end of a military dictatorship in 1974. Furthermore, under-leveraged banking led to a devastating economic collapse in the late 2000s. Since then, in the midst of a deep disillusionment with the current political system, the two main political parties—the right-leaning New Democracy and the left-leaning Panhellenic Socialist Movement, or PASOK—have shrunk from holding a combined 80% of the seats in Parliament to just over 50%. The lost seats have been turned over to several other minor alternative parties, including SYRIZA, a farleft coalition, and the Golden Dawn.
Obamacare Online Insurance Exchanges Open with Glitches On October 1st, the online insurance exchanges of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) opened to the public. However, the website opened with numerous glitches including registration errors, empty drop down boxes, and inaccessible areas of the site. In preceding weeks, President Obama had cautioned that the opening days of the website would have problems. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claimed it was due to the high amount of traffic that the website generated, calling it “a great problem to have.” She assured that the problems would be quickly resolved. Some have claimed that the GOP missed a valuable opportunity to criticize the program in light of the federal shutdown. Others have speculated that the GOP orchestrated the shutdown in order to draw attention away from the launch of the online insurance exchanges, thus lowering enrollment and hurting the success of the program.
What set the Golden Dawn apart from other new political parties was its reactionary and xenophobic political platform. The group gained notoriety from its racist slogans, appropriation of Nazi imagery, violent beatings of leftists and anarchists, and the persecution of the large immigrant population in Athens.
Crackdown on Greek Golden Dawn Party Continues On October 3rd, Nikos Michaloliakos, head of the Greek political party People’s Association – Golden Dawn, or just Golden Dawn, was jailed pending charges of murder and illegal activity. In recent weeks, the Greek government has brought charges claiming that the Golden Dawn is a criminal organization responsible for last month’s murder of rapper Pavlos Fyssas. Mr. Fyssas was a well-known anti-fascist rapper who was stabbed to death by a man with Golden Dawn connections. As a result of the government crackdown, various party leaders and parliamentarians have been imprisoned. Golden Dawn is a far right party with strong ultra-nationalist, racist, and Neo-Nazi political leanings. It is widely rumored that the Golden Dawn has influence within the Hellenic Police, which has been accused of working with the Golden Dawn against leftist demonstrators. PP
The final straw was the widely publicized stabbing death of an anti-fascist activist on September 18th. Ten days later, the leader of the party, Nikos Michaloliakos, and many of his top associates were arrested on the charge of “being part of a criminal gang”. The group’s indictment included a wide variety of crimes, ranging from robbery and extortion to poison, kidnapping, and illegal possession of weapons. This is also the first time that a sitting member of the Hellenic Parliament was arrested since 1974. This move by Greek law enforcement elicited sighs of relief from many Greeks and foreign observers. It was
4
sweetly ironic, after all, to see a fascist political party purged by a democratic society, instead of the all-toocommon historical alternative of fascists crushing democratic society. However, this single incident will not serve all of Greece’s problems, and is akin to sticking a Band-Aid on an internal hemorrhage. The Golden Dawn had strong institutional support, most troublingly from the military and the police. Furthermore, investigations by Al-Jazeera and The Guardian, among other third parties, showed that the police voted in incredibly high proportions (up to 50% by some estimates) for the extremist party. When the mass arrests began a few days ago, many top police officials resigned or were taken into custody themselves. However, this complicity with law enforcement does not explain the party’s sudden rise in popularity, only how it has been able to survive in the past. The answer to this more complicated question lies within the party’s own actions, especially its propaganda apparatus. The Golden Dawn marketed itself as a genuine alternative to the corruption and poverty in the political system, and promised much to poorer Greeks who felt threatened by the overbearing authority of the European Central Bank and the influx of immigrants since the 1990s, from Eastern Europe and North Africa. The party thus promised an idealized version of Greece that was free from all external threats, real or imagined. Ideas cannot be outlawed, not even repulsive and dangerous ideas like fascism or racism. This is not just a bit of legalistic idealism, but a material truth. The circumstances which led to the rise of the Golden Dawn still remain. Even if this purge of fascists by a democratic government is complete and genuine, Greece still has a long and arduous path ahead. The institutional corruption of past parties and bureaucracies still remain, and the current policies of austerity are amputating an already moribund social safety net, leaving the poor even poorer and more desperate. The solutions to these problems—investment, education, development—take longer to implement, and are not easily made into snappy political campaigns. PP
5
Volume XIV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
THE PROBLEM WITH A ZERO-SUM SHUTDOWN
B
In his Wonkblog last Thursday, Ezra Klein made the astute observation that, regardless of who’s at fault, negotiations have now turned into a zero-sum game— either the Democrats give-in and concede to Republican demands or the Republicans pass the bill as is, having shut down the Panda-cam for naught. Ultimately, the situation has become a standoff in which one party cannot win without the other losing. In a political system founded on deliberation and compromise, that’s a problem. The basis of deliberation is discourse, discussion, and yes, dissent. Even good old Jefferson acknowledged that, “in every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords.” But, in the American political system, when there’s trouble brewing on the playground, we use our words, not our fists. That’s why rhetoric is so important; it may or may not be what caused the problem, but it’s what will fix it. Unfortunately, most of the public discourse surrounding the “shutdown” has been highly counterproductive. Far from facilitating a solution, much of the discussion has focused on finger pointing, pandering, and poll numbers. In a private conversation caught by a Kentucky TV News station last week, Senator Rand Paul told Mitch McConnell, “I just did CNN, and I just go over and over again, ‘we’re willing to compromise. We’re willing to negotiate.’ I don’t think [the Democrats have] poll tested, ‘we won’t negotiate.’ I think it’s awful for them to say that over and over again.”
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
THE “FORGOTTEN” ARAB SPRING IN BAHRAIN: THE PARADOXOF OIL AND DEMOCRACY
by Victoria Scordato ’14, Creative Director
y the time this is published, it will have been nearly a week since the government “shutdown” after the House failed to pass a bill funding the federal government for the next fiscal year. Thankfully, political commentators—both professional and amateur— quickly managed to identify the root of the problem. According to the age-old wisdom of politicians, pundits, and the Internet, the “shutdown” was the inevitable result of an increasingly polarized political landscape; and is also the manifestation of an ideological schism within the Republican Party; or wait, actually the consequence of political grandstanding from a few GOP presidential hopefuls. In fact, all of these explanations could be true, but none of them really help inform what should happen next.
Volume XIV, Issue IV
I have to agree. Although the House Republicans’ claims that they are attempting to negotiate may be suspect, the Democrats’ explicit refusal to engage in the sort of give and take that is required to pass any piece of legislation is outright condemnable. To be clear, this is not an ideological argument, it’s a rhetorical one. Politicians are inherently disingenuous, a lot of the time they have to be. But there’s a utility to maintaining certain pretenses. When it becomes politically acceptable to openly denounce the very force that drives our legislative system, namely deliberation, we have bigger problems than the Panda-cam. Now some have argued that these are extenuating circumstances, that a small faction of the House majority has taken Congress “hostage” by manipulating the system using tactics never intended or even conceived of by our forefathers. So again, we defer to Jefferson, who so presciently noted that, “there is no length to which [the delusion of the people] may not be pushed by a party in possession of the revenues and the legal authorities of the United States…there is no event, therefore, however atrocious which may not be expected.” So, at least according to Jefferson, Congress should have fully expected this sort of extenuating circumstance. In fact, Congress created the rules and regulations that today’s House Republicans are playing by. Thus, it is wrong to describe these Representatives as “hostagetakers” and, at least implicitly, criminals. These are democratically elected officials who represent millions of U.S. citizens. What’s more, they are playing by the rules. By employing this sort of rhetoric, Democrats are condemning their opposition as representative of some “other” America, whose Congressmen are somehow criminal for using the legislative tools at their disposal to oppose legislation that they got elected to fight against. And so, to quote my friend Mr. Jefferson one last time, “Perhaps this party division is necessary to induce each to watch and delate to the people the proceedings of the other. But if on a temporary superiority of the one party the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist.” PP
6
by Sarallah Salehi ’16, Contributing Writer
T
he intense passions surrounding the Arab Spring, sparked by the valiant Tunisian fruit vendor who set himself ablaze in protest of unjust government policies, invoked profound sentiments of freedom and individuality deeply cherished by Western onlookers. As the contagious fervor of liberation spread throughout the Maghreb to Egypt and Libya, there was a sincere feeling that a new day had dawned on a region long dominated by autocratic rulers who reigned with an unyielding iron fist. First went Ben Ali, then Mubarak, and finally Gaddafi. We were left dazed and wondering who would be next to stand trial in the unforgiving court of popular opinion. Yet the enthusiasm was short-lived as Western media and political leaders hastily drew the curtains on the unfolding drama once the theatre of unrest intrusively arrived in the Arabian kingdom of Bahrain. The small island nation, located off the eastern coast of Saudi Arabia, stands in stark contrast to its Arab neighbors because almost two-thirds of its 1.5 million inhabitants adhere to the minority Shiite branch of Islam. Inspired by the bold actions of their Arab comrades in Cairo and Tunis, tens of thousands of Shiite Bahrainis took to the streets in the capital Manama to protest the policies of discrimination imposed by the Sunni Al-Khalifa royal family. To the dismay of the repressive Al-Khalifa regime, thousands of Sunni Bahrainis eagerly joined the demonstrations to voice similar cries for civil and economic reform. Overwhelmed by the sheer unity of his people, King Hamid needed to take drastic action in order to regain control. Immediately, accusations of subversive influence from the dominant Shiite power, Iran, flooded the media airwaves and brutal crackdowns were swiftly initiated. Yet the muted response by officials in Western capitals from London to Washington seemed oddly inconsistent with the earlier calls for democratic reform. Unlike the uprisings in North Africa, Bahrain posed a direct threat not only to the U.S., but also to European national interests in the Arabian Peninsula. Although Bahrain has poor oil reserves, as in Egypt and Tunisia, its strategic positioning on the mouth of the Strait of
Hormuz, where more than 20% of world oil shipments pass, gives it immense significance as a regulation hub. Just as important, the bilateral agreements between Bahrain and the U.S. provide a home for one of the largest naval operations base in the world, which is all the more critical given our tense relations with Iran. The risk of losing these invaluable strategic assets would be greatly heightened if a popularly elected government materialized, as it happened in both Egypt and Tunisia. But these factors are all secondary to the main concern that Western powers faced in Bahrain: the symbolic triumph that democratic reforms would have on rebellious Shiite minorities who occupy the planet’s richest oil fields in neighboring Saudi Arabia. If the relatively small Shiite population in Bahrain successfully toppled their monarch and implemented a more democratic system of governance less friendly to Western regional ambitions, would the 3 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia aspire to similar ends too? The obvious answer to this question did not bode well to Western oil companies like BP and Exxon Mobil, who possess extremely favorable oil contracts with Saudi officials that would likely be negatively affected if a democratic government emerged. So it is within this context of state and private interests that we must try to make sense of the truly confusing responses by our leaders to the Arab Spring movements. For the people of Bahrain, who have been rattling for reform since February 2011 only to receive ever-tougher state suppression, the unjust reality that the Western media continues to turn a blind eye to their fight for democracy is truly heartbreaking. Even today, the hundreds of peaceful protestors who continue to voice their discontent do so with the knowledge that unlawful arrests and torture are surely to follow. Though many pundits have declared the movement over, the truth is that the Arab Spring in Bahrain has merely transitioned to an Arab Winter where ongoing demands for justice and freedom don’t necessarily coincide with what some in the West think democracy should mean. PP
7
Volume XIV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
by Dylan Etzel ’17, Contributing Writer
A
Polls overwhelmingly show that the public blames the unpopular shutdown on House Republicans. I liken the GOP’s strategy to the use of an atomic weapon in the modern age. International relations theorists argue that no nation will use an atomic weapon due to its extreme destructive capability; the old common wisdom held that neither party would opt to shut down the government for the same reason. If a nation were to use an atomic weapon, the world would most likely anticipate an equally destructive retaliation. Now that “government hostage-taking” has been used, who is to say Democrats will not use the strategy in the future? Reform of any governmental system may become impossible without unilateral support. Conventionally, holding the presidency and a majority in either the House or Senate makes governing much easier. However, currently, a small minority of one chamber controls the national conversation. Herein lies the fear: if the Democrats cave to Republican demands, a precedent would be set that a party needs only a simple majority in either the Senate or House to achieve any desired goal. This new reality could cause the Speaker of the House to have more power than the president. The public should not be afraid that this will become the new norm for several reasons. First and foremost, the fact that the Democratic Party allowed the government to shut down implies that any party “taken hostage” will likely refuse to negotiate on the budget bill or the debt ceiling. Democratic leaders like Harry Reid have argued that they will only accept a clean Continuing Resolution based on principle, and not the piecemeal funding bills for popular programs put forth by Republicans in recent days. Secondly, support for the GOP’s strategy is waning. Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, a vocal leader of the center-right Republicans, favors ending the shutdown
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
POLICY DESK
YOUR EVERYDAY GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN? s we enter the second week of the government shutdown, we must ask ourselves whether this is the new norm. Fortunately, it is not and it is becoming increasingly clear that the current attempt by the GOP to exploit the shutdown will end in failure.
Volume XIV, Issue IV
By Ari Schaffer ’14, Head Writer without defunding the ACA. Rep. Dent’s views are being backed by a growing number of moderate Republicans. Boehner, who has refused to introduce a clean Continuing Resolution, is the last remaining obstacle. Although Boehner’s stance on the government shutdown is strong, he has claimed that he will not allow the government to default, which seems to indicate that the shutdown will end by October 17. According to House rules, Boehner’s speakership can be challenged at any time. If a moderate Republican challenges Boehner’s speakership, he or she could replace him and introduce the clean Continuing Resolution. The shutdown has likely caused Boehner to finally lose control over his caucus, and may even foster bonds between Democrats and moderate Republicans. Of course, this is a hypothetical, but the possibility could scare both parties away from the strategy forever: shut the government down and sacrifice your leaders. Of these scenarios, it is most likely that the Republicans will fold in the face of a looming default. Boehner’s call for a final stand can only be seen as a bluff. In 2012, although the United States’ credit rating was lowered due to the crisis, the debt limit was raised and crisis was averted. Just the fear of the default has sent American stocks plummeting; a full-scale default would devastate an economy getting back on its feet. President Obama and other politicians have begun to discuss future bills that would enact penalties against government officials during times of shutdown, incentivizing a quick reopening of the government. This may be a onceand-for-all answer to our central question. Whether or not these bills will gain unilateral support and be constitutional is still unclear. Nevertheless, provided the Democrats do not give in, we can consider this an aberration. PP
8
Maintaining the Missile Defense Shield Discussion of the United States’ missile defense shield often recalls memories of Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” initiatives of the eighties. Composed of a complex network of domestic Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile launch sites, and deployed sea and land based AEGIS advanced warning radar systems, the United States missile defense shield is both real and effective. With the rising threat of the Iranian and North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile programs, the US, in conjunction with NATO, has deployed extra missile defense systems both on land in Eastern Europe and Japan, and by sea, in the Mediterranean and the Pacific. However, Turkey’s recent selection of a Chinese company to supplement its existing NATO missile defense network presents serious security concerns. Additionally, Russia’s plans to supply an S-300 anti-air missile defense system to Syria increases the need for parallel missile defenses by the West and its allies. Unless Turkey is convinced to opt for a Western company and missile defense capabilities are increased in the area, security there could be greatly compromised.
Recent developments in Turkish foreign policy and Russia have only exacerbated the problems arising in the region. This past week, Turkey passed over traditional missile suppliers such as American Lockheed Martin in favor of Chinese CPMIEC, a company under United States sanctions because of its dealings with Iran, North Korea and Syria. Aside from the simple concerns over a strategic challenger providing a key NATO ally with missile defense equipment, there is the worry that Turkey will not be able to unite the Chinese system with the NATO defense shield currently in place on the Syrian border. Even though the current NATO deployment is not sufficient on its own to resist a full Syrian air or missile attack into Turkey, the lack of trust with the Chinese military company will force it to operate as a stand-alone system. Had Turkey selected a Western, admittedly more expensive, option, it could have easily been united with the current missile defense detachment creating a much more effective defense shield. Instead, the United States faces a security concern in Turkey itself and an incompatible missile system.
The strategic benefits of the missile defense shield are immeasurable. As of the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, the U.S.-based system protects all of North America out into the Pacific and Atlantic from limited strikes (Iranian, North Korean and other small-state capabilities, but neither Russian nor Chinese full-scale assaults). Complementing the deterrent effect of both US conventional and nuclear arms, the missile shield provides extra security at home and discourages others from launching attacks that will likely be intercepted. While it is by no means perfect - a full assault by a large power would overwhelm the system and even one nuclear warhead getting by the system would cause terrible damage - it is adequate protection against the real contemporary threats of North Korea and Iran. Both nations possess short, medium and intermediate range access to Eastern Europe, Israel and all of America’s East and Southeast Asian allies, bases and naval forces and are working on both their intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear capabilities.
At the same time, Russia still plans to sell Syria an S-300 anti-air missile defense system, arguably the most effective missile defense system in the world. Russia has delayed delivery of the system but the potential of a high level anti-access system could pose problems if there is ever a need to strike Syria in the future. Increased Russian military cooperation with Syria, considered a threatening regime, is in and of itself a threat to American policy strategy. Russia has always been more comfortable with rogue regimes like Iran, North Korea and Syria but cooperation on this level poses a serious strategic threat to both US interests and the safety and security of our allies in Europe and the Middle East. Israel already attacked a missile shipment to Syria from Russia over the summer and NATO missile defense deployments in Turkey are a direct result of the civil war in Syria. A better armed Syria will further erode our allies’ sense of security resulting in escalation in the area and the need for greater United States involvement.
9
Volume XIV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
The increasingly alarming situation in North Korea and Iran has already prompted a response from the White House. In March 2013, Secretary of Defense Hagel announced the construction of fourteen new missile interceptor launch sites in addition to the 30 already in Alaska and California. The American military will also be deploying advanced mobile radar systems in Japan. More recently, the United States also announced a deal to help provide the United Arab Emirates with a THAAD missile defense system as well. Combined with the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), which has defense shield technology deployed to Spain, Romania and Poland that will protect Poland and all of Europe’s NATO member states against ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East, the current missile defense shield will provide an adequate defense against much of the threat from Iran, Syria and North Korea. However, with recent events in Turkey and the Russian missile transfer, further steps may be needed to complete the missile defense shield for the US and its allies. First and foremost, the US government, in addition to its NATO allies, must pressure Turkey to cancel its purchase of missile defense systems from China. The current missile shield deployed along the border with Syria is comprised of tactical (short-range) Patriot missiles from Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. Beyond the compatibility issues and concerns over data sharing with a Chinese company, China, while not considered a threat, is by no means completely trusted by the United States military complex. Because China often opposes the projection of American force abroad, a Chinese company will be a risky partner for military technology as sensitive as missile defense. US sanctions due to arms involvement with states like Iran and North Korea only underscore the danger of coordinating with a non-Western company like CPMIEC. The United States should press Turkey to opt for a more compatible missile systems provider.
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
military capabilities, including on the Turkish border, will be crucial to outmatching Syria’s defensive upgrades. Diplomatic alternatives with Russia seem sadly limited. Instead of the Russian reset, relations with Russia have deteriorated reaching a state similar to the height of the Cold War. Russia has acted as an arms supplier to many of Washington’s strategic enemies and seems intent on bucking US influence at any given opportunity. Adding fuel to the fire, Russia pledged to aid Syria if the US decided to execute a strike on Assad’s forces. Providing the Assad regime with an advanced air-defense system follows strongly along with current Russian policy. Using diplomacy to ask or press Russia to cancel its arms sale to Syria seems unlikely at best, if not entirely unrealistic. The current missile defense shield, while extensive, needs to be maintained and improved to counter the growing threats in the Middle East and East Asia. With Turkey’s selection of a sanctioned company to complement its NATO-run defense shield, a potential weak link in our missile defense in Eastern Europe could cause problems for our allies in Western Europe. The United States must do whatever it can to persuade Turkey to choose a more reliable supplier. As Russia continues to supply regional threats with more advanced arms and area denial weapons technology, it is all the more important that Western nations shore up their defense in the area. Although the current missile defense shield is strong and reliable, the US must work proactively to ensure its continued capability. PP
Volume XIV, Issue IV
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 7th, 2013
WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS
Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division
The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins campus 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’re 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, of the city of Baltimore, of the domestic landscape of the United States, and then of the international community as well. While we publish the Politik Press 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.
Concurrently, if Russia goes through with its S-300 air-defense sale to Syria, the United States should lead its NATO allies and ensure that Syria’s area denial capabilities do not outmatch Western capabilities to execute strikes in Syria if necessary in the future. Even if offensive considerations are ignored, such advanced area denial technology will only embolden Assad to continue attacks against his own people with intervention or other military strikes rendered impractical. Increasing
If interested e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org 10
11