the POLITIK PRESS 2/17/14
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XV, Issue III
Volume XV, Issue III 1
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
the
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
POLITIK PRESS A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Rachel Cohen MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Sarallah Salehi Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato MARKETING & PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
HEAD WRITER Julia Alle MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts POLICY DESK EDITOR Michael Bodner COPY EDITOR Peter Lee STAFF WRITERS Eliza Schultz Dylan Etzel Abigail Sia Adrian Carney Geordan Williams Chris Winer Akshai Bhatnagar Rosellen Grant
VOLUME XV, ISSUE III FEBURARY 17th, 2014 2
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW ...................................................................
Page 4
Rosellen Grant ’16
INTERVIEW WITH GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND: MARTIN O’MALLEY ....................................................................... Page 5 Rachel Cohen ’14
THE POLICY DESK
Revisiting U.S. Foreign Policy towards South Asia: Tilt and Disengagement
...........
Page 7
Arpan Ghosh ’17
SPRING HAS COME EARLY TO BOSNIA THIS YEAR ..............
Page 9
Valentin Weber ’14
THE MAN WHO WOULD CRY ‘HITLER’: THE COMPLICATIONS OF CHINESE-AMERICAN RELATIONS
....................
Page 10
Adrian Carney ’14
OBAMACARE AND ITS INHIBITING EFFECT ON WORKER ... Page 11 Joshua Kolb ’17
FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES: A NEW PARTNERSHIP IN THE MAKING? ..........................................
Page 12
Akshai Bhatnagar ’14
ABORTION LEGISLATION IN SPAIN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR WOMEN WORLDWIDE ................................................ Page 13 Rebecca Grenham ’16
LOOKING BACK ON THE US BRAZIL UPLAND COTTON DISPUTE ................................................
Page 14
Ryan Conroy ’15 3
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
WEEK IN REVIEW By Rosellen Grant ’16, Staff Writer Obama sued over NSA surveillance policies Senator Rand Paul filed a lawsuit Wednesday against President Obama and the directors of several intelligence agencies, including the NSA and the CIA. The suit will challenge the constitutionality of recently exposed government surveillance programs that collect “metadata” of civilian phone calls. This strategy, which began under the Bush administration, reportedly only accumulates records that calls occurred—it does not document the content of the conversations. Paul, a prominent Tea Party member, argues that this collection of metadata without a warrant violates the Constitution’s fourth amendment, which protects “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This is not the first time these controversial government tactics have encountered the law: In 2006, 15 judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court deemed the policy legal for 90-day periods, and the Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that the collection of metadata is not protected by the fourth amendment. Senator Paul’s case lists approximately 350,000 plaintiffs, and could arguably serve as a media pull before a potential 2016 presidential bid .
The Rising Cost of Not Going to College According to a new study from the Pew Research Center published on February 11th, a bachelor’s degree might pay off—literally. The study, which analyzed Americans age 25 – 32, found that those with a college degree earn about $17,500 more/year than their counterparts without any college experience. This gap has more than doubled since 1965. Pew’s analysis also revealed college graduates’ many regrets, particularly regarding their major; 29% said that “selecting a different field of study as undergraduate students would have better prepared themselves for their ideal job.” This regret was not uniform across subjects, however: 33% of liberal arts, social science & education majors regretted their field of study, compared to just 24% of science & engineering majors.
Immigration overhaul grinds to a halt Just over two weeks ago, the GOP released a “Statement of Principles on Immigration,” which described their standards for immigration reform. The blueprint included several key points on the Republican’s reform policy, such as the prioritization of border security and interior enforcement, the implementation of an entry-exit visa tracking system, and the absence of a special path to citizenship for current illegal immigrants. However, this past week, Speaker of the House John Boehner stated that the GOP is not ready to proceed with the Obama administration in immigration reform this year. Boehner explained that many House Republicans “don’t trust that the reform that we’re talking about will be implemented as it was intended to be.” In an indirect response to Boehner’s pessimistic comments, President Obama said he “would like” to pass immigration reform before 2015. Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, is now considering a discharge petition, which would bring the bill directly to the House floor and circumvent standard process. Overall, it appears the two parties remain at odds with one another, while some predict that immigration will become a new “Obamacare”-esque showdown. PP
4
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
Interview with Governor of Maryland:
Martin O’Malley By Rachel Cohen ‘14, Editor-in-Chief Martin O’Malley, who has served as the Governor of Maryland since 2007, sat down with the JHU Politik to share his thoughts on some of the most relevant issues pertaining to college students in Maryland, as well as his legislative plans for the future. O’Malley’s history with Johns Hopkins runs deep; he previously served as Mayor of Baltimore City from 1999 to 2007, and before that he worked as a Baltimore City Councilor Councilman from 1991 to 1999. While he has not yet confirmed or denied the speculation, Governor O’Malley is widely considered to be a serious contender for the 2016 presidential election.
Since your time as Mayor of Baltimore do you think the relationship between Hopkins and the city has changed? I was elected Mayor in 1999, I think over the years the relationship between Johns Hopkins and the neighbors of East Baltimore has improved. I think you see some physical manifestations of that improved relationship in these new school buildings here, and the redevelopment of this East Baltimore area north of Johns Hopkins. There was a commitment by Johns Hopkins to make sure that we were not only creating more jobs adjacent to their campuses but that we were also rebuilding the fabric of the community that had been hit hard violence and by the abandonment that the open air drug markets had caused here. To see the [Henderson Hopkins School] open shows that Johns Hopkins sees the future of the institution intertwined and very dependent upon the future of the neighborhoods that surround Johns Hopkins. And that’s a positive thing. None of us are so powerful and mighty that we can ever separate ourselves from the broader community in which we live and work and achieve.
My sophomore year I took a class called “Baltimore and the Wire.” It was taught by Peter Beilenson, who served as Baltimore City Health Commissioner from 1992-2005, during your time as Mayor. What is your take on the iconic show? Do you feel it is a fair depiction of the city? I think The Wire accurately depicted the conditions that we had allowed to rise up in far too many of our neighborhoods. I mean for years we failed to push back on the proliferation of open air drug markets in our city and it robbed a lot of families of their legacy wealth, of their homes, of their neighborhoods and of their sons’ lives. Hopefully there will be another show, provided we can get back on track here. From 2000-2009, Baltimore had achieved the largest Part 1 crime reductions any major city in America and we need to do that again, we need to do it every decade for the next several decades. And as we do, we’ll see the city growing in population, growing in opportunity, growing in prosperity.
5
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
As an undergrad you took a semester off from school to work on Gary Hart’s presidential campaign. What role do you think students play politically within Baltimore City and Maryland at large? Do you think students should be getting more involved in the political process? Well I think the process always benefits when young people are more involved rather than less. One can see the direction of a state, a city or a country from the attitudes of its young people and the sooner those attitudes find their way into government, campaigns and party platforms, the better. It accelerates the curve of progress. I think young people were instrumental in President Obama’s election and reelection campaigns, and both my campaigns for Governor. Young people were a huge part of what propelled us into office.
Many of us will soon be graduating and entering into the ominous job market. What sorts of policies do you think would be most effective to help ensure employment and what sorts of things do you also hope to see in the absence of a robust hiring scene? Here’s the good news and bad news for the people in the class of 2014. The good news is that the financial markets and banking institutions were stabilized by the actions that President Obama took several years ago. Our industrial base was rescued by the actions that the President and Congress took with our auto industry and the good news is that we’ve now had 47 months straight of positive job growth.
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
of the top three states in America for upward economic mobility at a time when there has been a hollowing out of our middle class. But while things that we are doing are working, we are part of a larger national and global economy. We need as a nation to invest in the fundamentals of a stronger economy. I’m talking about education, affordable college, the infrastructure, water, transportation, cyber and R&D. It’s what our parents and grandparents did. It’s what we’ve done at every generation but for some reason we became distracted for the better part of the last thirty years by this phony theory of trickle down economics that says that if you cram as much of the country’s wealth into the hands of the fewest people then that will somehow lead to a burst of opportunity and jobs. It doesn’t work that way. It never has.
What initiative are you most excited about for this legislative season? The one I’m most excited about is actually raising the minimum wage because it allows for us to hold a larger conversation and gives us an opportunity to talk about a host of actions we’ve been taking as a state. There are so many people from across the political spectrum who all agree that nobody who works 16 hour days should have to raise their children in poverty. So it’s an opportunity to have a larger and more inclusive conversation rather than speaking past each other with ideologies and old formulas. PP
Last year we moved more people from welfare to work than in any other single year since these numbers have been kept. That is why we have also increased the earned income tax credit to reward hard work and it is also why this year we are pushing for an increase in the minimum wage. These things are all steps we can take. And if you look at what is happening in Maryland in terms of upward economic mobility, it would appear that the balance of steps we are taking is actually working because the Pew Foundation ranked us as one
6
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
POLICY DESK By Arpan Ghosh ’17, Contributing Writer
Revisiting U.S. Foreign Policy towards South Asia: Tilt and Disengagement
I
ndia is the largest democracy in the world today, and it stands unparalleled in South Asia in terms of its economic and political power. The largest prowomen’s rights movement in the world is occurring right now in India, and public, as well as congressional outcry, over graft and corruption within the Indian legislative and judicial system is only strengthening India’s democracy. For a third-world emerging state, India is doing an adequate job in improving their domestic issues in terms of infrastructure and overall development. Although there are still many issues that need to be tackled (overpopulation, high level of poverty, and an intensifying energy crisis), India’s progress has been promising. One of the largest reasons as to why India has emerged as an economic powerhouse has a lot to do with American investment. Private American corporations have poured billions into India’s IT and manufacturing industries, and the emergence of a consumer-driven economy has further amplified India’s economic security. However, in the realm of international politics, India’s role (or lack thereof ) has been curtailed by its own dogmatic approach to diplomacy. After winning independence from Great Britain in 1947, India was one of the first of many emerging nations in the latter half of the 20th century to establish a secular, pluralistic democracy. The former colonial holdings that comprised what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh had been made up of dozens of ethnic groups, as well as religions as wide-ranging as Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism. The two major religious groups, Hindus and Muslims, had lived together in harmony for an entire millennia, and although there may have been a few reports of communal violence throughout its history, violence between the two factions is a uniquely 20th century phenomenon. [U2] Unfortunately, the region was hurt by a partition that divided the area by ethnicity and religion, a move engineered by the British as a final piece of reactionary and intrusive influence.
The Indian National Congress (INC), was a secular party formed during the birth of India that aimed to represent the interests of all Indian ethnic and religious groups. Yet a few ideological Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah formed a political party known as the Muslim League, which claimed that Muslims would not have enough influence in the INC , and that their interests be adequately represented. India, led by the Indian National Congress, modeled itself on pluralistic ideology, but Pakistan and Jinnah’s Muslim League took a completely different approach, forming for the first time in South Asia a homeland for Muslims: an Islamic Republic. India at the time was led by Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, two powerful leaders who advocated for peace and a concept of international diplomacy known as non-alignment. The non-alignment movement was predicated firmly on Nehru’s personal ideology discouraging the existence of super-powers, an ideology that stemmed from Gandhi’s peaceful revolt that created an autonomous state of India without the need for violence or war. This idea of non-alignment resonated with the leaders of India for decades to come, and would unfortunately truncate India’s efforts to progress rapidly on the international stage, especially with the United States. While India was being born, the United States and the USSR were entrenched in a rigid battle of ideological warfare. American Cold War policy towards South Asia has been based on attempting to keep the developing South Asian countries from aligning with the Soviet Union. The United States realized that socialist/ communist ideology thrives in places where instability was prevalent. Thus, the United States hoped to help India smoothly develop into a capitalist state. Unfortunately for India, the leaders wanted to continue to remain ”non-aligned” and uninvolved with the problems facing the Western powers. Because of this, the United States shifted their focus and adopted a policy of “hyphenation” towards Pakistan and India, treating both countries exactly the same. This naive policy drove relations between the United States, India, and Pakistan
7
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
in completely unexpected directions, jeopardizing trilateral relations and creating conflict that still exists to this day.
either comply entirely with American demands, or act as an aggressor. In either scenario, the United States will hold the strategic power.
After the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, by terrorists trained in Pakistan, U.S. foreign policy towards that entire region of South Asia changed drastically. The United States began to actively fund Pakistan’s military, with the goals of stopping the Taliban from moving into and from Afghanistan, and dismantling terrorist activity within Pakistan itself. Pakistan is also a nuclear power in the region, and for this reason the United States finds it imperative to continue non-proliferation talks and diminish terrorist activity to make sure nukes do not go into the wrong hands. Through U.S. foreign policy, Pakistan is kept at bay and almost subservient to the United States’ wishes due to the the large amounts of humanitarian and military aid that ultimately runs the economy of Pakistan.
The United States should also continue to expand military ties with India in order to create a well-armed force in the region, thus furthering America’s already existing “tilt” policy where the U.S essentially favors India over Pakistan. Increasing military aid and cooperation with India will also allow for strategic leverage when it comes to drone warfare, allowing drones to be sent from northern India to combat terrorists in Pakistan without the need for bases within Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is desirable, albeit unrealistic, for America to maintain good relations with both India and Pakistan, as congressional distrust of Pakistan is higher than ever before. The United States should also find it imperative to establish and develop a successful and powerful intelligence presence within India to curb terrorism in the Northern regions of India, particularly Jammu and Kashmir, as well as to curtail efforts in the East by Bangladeshi-Islamic terrorists who have ties with the terrorist Haqqani Network within Pakistan. It should also be noted that India’s strategic location allows for an American check on China’s ambitions to its East.
Unfortunately, after the shocking capture of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan’s largest military garrison city, Abbottabad, the United States should reconsider its foreign policy towards the troubled country. The discovery of Osama bin Laden’s housing within Pakistan was not the first time Pakistani cooperation with the United States was revealed to be suspect at best. In 2008, the CIA discovered that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (Pakistan’s equivalent of the CIA) had been responsible for aiding the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. In May of 2011, a terrorist attack on Pakistan’s own naval air base was found to have been conducted with aid from within the Pakistani Navy, members of which held strong ties with extremist groups near the region. The new policy the United States should create is one based on the threat of disengagement. It should be made clear that anything short of full American allegiance and cooperation will effectively inhibit Pakistan’s ability to grow and prosper. There should be firm policy changes that make it easier for the American government to track Pakistani spending, as well as a decrease in internal military aid. Humanitarian aid should not be reduced, but it should be tracked to validate spending. The U.S. should also impose sanctions and identify Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism, which would eventually pressure other nations like China, Saudi Arabia, and Bangladesh to sever connections with or impose sanctions on Pakistan. By doing this, the Pakistani government will be forced to
All of these reasons show how India can prove to be an anchor of American policy in Asia.While a full “tilt” towards India is daunting, it is manageable and sustainable in the long run. That being said, the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir should only be dealt with by the two respective countries. While the United States should not advocate for either side, it should push both sides to work against the terrorist groups that exist in the region. Although the history between the United States, Pakistan, and India has been uneven and dissatisfying for the most part, the promising condition of India as a resilient democracy in the region, coupled with its significant economic and political prowess, should lead to a full tilt towards India and a slow yet steady disengagement out of Pakistan. By doing so, American interests in the region will be obtained quickly and safely, and will not cost massive amounts of American financial aid, and more importantly, American lives. PP
8
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
SPRING HAS COME EARLY TO BOSNIA THIS YEAR by Valentin Weber ’14, Contributing Writer
O
n the 7th of February, public anger in Bosnia and Herzegovina reached a tipping point and unloaded itself in what many are calling the “Bosnian spring.” In Tuzla, workers have been protesting for several months to no avail. Some have been living without a salary for a stunning period of 54 months. Factories were forced to shut down indefinitely, leaving 10,000 without work. In an act of solidarity, students joined the fray and thus ignited a series of statewide social protests. In Sarajevo, the capital of war-ridden Bosnia and Herzegovina, violent hooligans set multiple government buildings, including the presidency building, on fire. The executive branch’s reaction to these events is a good example of how Bosnia has worked for the past 19 years. The executive branch remained passive and failed to prevent the young rioters from burning valuable scripts from the Austro-Hungarian period and setting fire to public property. Inaction is the name of the current Bosnian political system. This can be partly blamed on a flawed constitution. The constitution was successful in providing peace, but failed with respect to establishing a viable state. Being the only country worldwide with three presidents (one for each ethnicity: Bosniak, Croat, Serb) and over 160 ministers, nobody is ultimately being held responsible for the country’s fractured system. An opaque political system, loaded with red tape and corruption, has contributed to a general sentiment of apathy among Bosnians. Unemployment has soared to almost 50%; astonishingly, economic reforms have never been a theme in electoral campaigns. To cover up their inaction, politicians fight war through words, thus fueling resentment among the ethnicities. Political parties of each ethnicity have developed an almost perfect system of corruption and power sharing. State companies serve as a hatchery for nepotism. This might be common practice in China or Russia, but in Bosnia favoritism takes on a special twist. In addition to favoring close friends, politicians in Bosnia back members of their ethnicity. In consequence, in many state companies a member of another ethnicity has no chance of rising to a high position.
In addition, Bosnia’s neighbors are on their way to joining the EU or are already a part of it. Bosnia lags behind its neighbors, being only a potential candidate country to the EU. The EU needs to set clear goals in the accession process for this small Balkan country. A rapprochement to the EU would expand the rule of law through the acquirement of EU laws. This would give foreign investors’ confidence, attract investment and thus boost the economy. While an EU accession will benefit the people in 20 or 30 years, the people are facing hardship now. Hence, a different strategy must be adopted for the immediate future. Balkan expert and former Vice-Chancellor of Austria Erhard Busek is advocating for concrete bilateral projects to help the people overcome unemployment and hardship in targeted regions of Bosnia. To develop Busek’s idea, the EU could help Bosnia to establish special economic zones and support these with EU money and expertise. The EU’s resources, which has been going missing in a quagmire of corrupt politicians, would finally serve the people tangibly. Furthermore, to combat apathy among the population, an agora (Greek for gathering place) should be installed in every city. This can be a public building, where the local, state or federal politicians have to be open for questions once a week to the public. The people would not only get weekly feedback on the respective politicians’ actions, but would also develop a sound democratic debate on issues that matter. As the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Valentin Inzko, said in an interview with the Croatian newspaper Jutarnji List: “An empty stomach is an empty stomach, be they Serb or Bosniak, and there is solidarity there.” This is the same solidarity that allowed Bosnians to overcome their ethnic affiliation and eventually brought students to the streets on the 7th of February in Tuzla. What repercussions these protests are going to have on the general elections this October is unknown. But for the moment the heat is increasing and hopefully the Bosnian summer is underway. PP
9
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
THE MAN WHO WOULD CRY ‘HITLER’: THE COMPLICATIONS OF CHINESE-AMERICAN RELATIONS by Adrian Carney ’14, Staff Writer
L
ast Tuesday, February 4th, President Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines raised alarm in the international community. In an interview to the New York Times, he expressed serious concern over China’s naval expansion in the South China Sea and elsewhere, stating that its increasing territorial demands are analogous to Hitler’s demands to annex parts of Czechoslovakia in 1938. To simply call any political antagonist ‘Hitler’ is a tactic as sensationalist as it is irresponsible. This bout of fear-mongering is an unusual step for Aquino, who has made moderate, if sorely needed, domestic reforms in the Philippines. His administration can trumpet a decent list of successes: anti-corruption crackdowns, negotiations with militant groups in the south of the country, and passing the controversial Reproductive Health bill. By contrast, his foreign policy record is more troubled. In 2010, Filipino police bungled a hostage crisis in which multiple Chinese tourists were killed. In 2012, the Chinese reneged on an agreement to withdraw from a disputed island and maintained a military presence there after Filipino forces left. In light of this behavior, we must ask: does President Aquino have a valid point about Chinese territorial expansion? The present state of Chinese territorial demands is exceedingly complicated, and has long basis in history. Since its establishment in 1949 after a bloody civil war, the People’s Republic of China has been involved in settling border disputes with almost all of its neighbors. Most notably, this involved a long standoff with the government in Taipei. Although a cautious peace now exists across the strait, there are still multiple points of contention elsewhere. This involves not only the South China Sea dispute, but also the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island dispute with Japan, which has fueled mass protests and even war panic. To make matters worse, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been undiplomatic in recent months. His visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, and inflammatory statements made comparing China and Japan to England and Germany in WWI have not contributed to a peaceful resolution of these tensions.
Any attempt to list the extant claims over each shoal and outcropping is far beyond the scope of this article. However, it is possible to list their significance. These rocks have value far beyond their size or any negligible resources that exist on the land itself. Their importance instead lies in fishing rights and mineral resources in the surrounding ocean, as described by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Furthermore, they also have valuable potential as sites for military bases to project power and protect valuable trade routes. Do history and politics justify Aquino’s claims? In many ways, he is wrong. The Chinese do not have any intent to annex populated tracts of Filipino territory, nor would they have the resources or inclination to do so. The comparison to Hitler is especially tactless, considering that the Chinese and the Filipinos both fought against Axis occupation. This does not diminish the present tensions over the disputed Pacific Islands, and in many ways, it serves to highlight them. China’s assertive actions over these territories are a source of regional tension, but many of the nations involved have a long and turbulent history. When politicians use and distort the painful history of the past century as a diplomatic tool, they are slicing open old wounds. The United States has manifold obligations in the Pacific. It has to soothe its own allies and calm down any fears of Chinese domination, but it also must recognize its own deepening relationship with China, not only in matters of bilateral trade, but also in areas where we have coinciding interests are aligned, such as managing the rogue state of North Korea. In doing so, however, the United States must also manage domestic pressures and the complicated interests and demands of its own allies. The worst case scenario, and one that we can rightly fear, is that tensions could continue to worsen between China and Japan, and a further military buildup could lead to some incident to spark a regional war. Even with the increased volume of trade in East Asia, this is not an implausible scenario. With friends like these, the United States has no need to make enemies. PP
10
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
OBAMACARE AND ITS INHIBITING EFFECT ON WORKER by Joshua Kolb ’17, Contributing Writer
R
epublicans endeavored to make their opposition to Obamacare the central issue of the 2010 and 2012 elections. Now they’re trying again in 2014. Consequently, they continue to exploit any opportunity to denigrate and defame the law, seeing it as a catastrophe for America and a pathway to political victory. The latest melee began with a staid text of economic analysis. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which provides nonpartisan analysis to Congress, released a report documenting the effects the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will have on the labor market. It predicted that Obamacare would encourage more Americans than had previously been thought to reduce the hours they work; this drop in the labor supply is the equivalent of two million full-time jobs. But why let accuracy get in the way of good politics? Immediately after the report was released, Republicans pounced; triumphantly pronouncing that Obamacare would cause two million people to lose their jobs. Unfortunately, yet predictably, the media amplified this falsehood; even the august Wall Street Journal reported “Health-Care Law Expected to Take Greater Toll on Workforce.” Speeding past the substance, most news reports, instead, focused on the political ramifications of the misunderstood new findings. After a protracted process – that included Congressional testimony by Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, and a helpful Q&A on the organization’s website – the distortion was largely corrected. But by then, Republican talking points had shifted. One of the central justifications provided by the CBO is that the health insurance subsidies one receives from Obamacare decreases as the person’s income rises. Unfortunately, this problem exists in every meanstested welfare program. An ultimate solution has yet to be devised and so, for now, it remains an unavoidable aspect of any social safety net. But this would not have been the case had we established a single-payer or public option system that insures everyone. The other significant reason for the CBO’s prediction is specific to healthcare and helpful in understanding the
true nature of Republican opposition. Many people rely on their job for health insurance because, frequently, the only avenue through which they can obtain it is their employer. Furthermore, those with certain existing or pre-existing conditions can only receive the healthcare they need from certain plans, forcing them to work in jobs they otherwise would not. The ACA changes that. Now, people working full-time, in order to secure insurance, have the option of being covered by the Obamacare exchanges. This should be a cause for celebration. Bluntly put, Americans are now freer than they were five years ago freer to do with their lives what they choose and freer to make rational economic decisions, an essential principle in a free-market system. It also happens to foster a more humane and supportive society. And this is not some naive world where no one has responsibilities and everyone can go off to be an artiste. It is merely the removal of one sometimes onerous incentive to work more, while ensuring that individuals still retain basic health care. But conservatives are enraged. It is, apparently, horrendous for people to have this choice. “I think any law you pass that discourages people from working can’t be a good idea,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO). “Why would we want to do that? Why would we think that was a good thing? How does that allow people to prepare for a time when they won’t work?” Mr. Blunt and his colleagues should pause to consider what, in fact, they are actually lamenting. Those who would work less include parents who want to spend more time with their children, a person who is ailing but is still working until he is eligible for Medicare, or someone who is inventive, ambitious and wants to start her own business. Claims like Mr. Blunt’s and his colleagues’ are both hypocritical and cruel. One minute Republicans speak of the dignity of work and the next they work assiduously to destroy unions. Usually, Republicans disdain the mere laborer and champion the entrepreneur. But when a government program – championed and enacted by Democrats – allow more Americans to follow this entrepreneurial path, it is fostering laziness and dependence. PP
11
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES: A NEW PARTNERSHIP IN THE MAKING? by Akshai Bhatnagar ’14, Staff Writer
T
he U.S. and France seem to have embarked on a new era of cooperation: for the first time in 18 years, the White House welcomed the French President, Francois Hollande, to a formal state dinner this month. Over the last five to seven years, France and the United States have partnered to combat numerous global concerns, including nuclear proliferation, the rise of Islamist fundamentalism, and Middle East tensions. The U.S. should expand upon this “recipe for success,” as doing so would be in the interests of France, the U.S. and the world at large. In 1945, the United States economy accounted for roughly 50% of world GDP. The other major World powers at the time— Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union – had torn each other apart over the course of two devastating world wars. Stalin’s Red Army placed half of Europe under Soviet hegemony, while the colonized world demanded independence. Given the US’s economic superiority, the reaction against pre-Pearl Harbor isolationism, and its nuclear monopoly, it should have been no surprise that the US appointed itself the “world’s policeman.” While that legacy has had many dark chapters, from Vietnam to Iraq, it has also defended American principles of democracy, capitalism, and human rights. Today, the US share of world GDP is closer to 20%, and is declining as poorer countries grow more quickly. This so-called “Rise of the Rest” is, in some ways, a cause for tremendous celebration, as rapidly expanding economies in Brazil, India, and China lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. However, as the US retains a shrinking share of a growing world economic pie, it will increasingly need to share the burden of global leadership with other countries. As last week’s state dinner at the White House demonstrated, the U.S. has recently moved closer to one of its oldest allies: France In Libya, French-and-British-led NATO action was able to prevent the victory of Muammar Qadafi over the Arab Spring rebels. This decision prevented Qadafi from fulfilling his stated goal of hunting Benghazi rebels down “to their closets,” with “no mercy or compassion.” With the approval of the United Nations and Arab League, NATO air strikes against Qadafi’s army saved
the residents of Benghazi and allowed the Arab Spring to continue - without putting boots on the ground. In Syria, France was the only Western ally of the U.S. to threaten military action over Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons: a threat of force that allowed the U.N. to remove chemical weapons from the country. Over negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program, France has taken a hard line, demanding sanctions not be weakened unless real concessions are made by the Iranians. In Mali and the Central African Republic, France has tried to keep Islamic fundamentalism at bay, preventing the establishment of a new “safe haven” for Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. This type of cooperation between the U.S. and a regional ally should be replicated, particularly with regards to the other European powers. The European Union today has the largest economy in the world - even larger than that of the United States. After over 65 years of relative peace and prosperity on the continent, it is time for the great nations of Europe to do their share in fulfilling the responsibility that comes with power. While some remain paralyzed by their history (i.e. Germany), others must remain active in world affairs, not only to defend the values they preach, but also to make amends for their imperial pasts. The active role that French presidents of different political parties have taken should serve as an example to all of Europe. Ten years ago, the United States and France were at loggerheads over the Bush administration’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq. Since then, both countries have seen their self-confidence battered by the lingering effects of the 2008 financial crisis. Today, however, France and the United States are partnering to fight the most dangerous problems of the decade, namely WMD proliferation and Islamic fundamentalism. The alliance between our two countries stretches back to the days of Lafayette and Jefferson; we are united by our history, by the colors on our flag, and by our republican ideals. In this new century, as the voice of rich democracies is threatened by the resurgence of authoritarian powers such as China, the U.S. and France have an obligation to remain active and engaged. PP
12
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
ABORTION LEGISLATION IN SPAIN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR WOMEN WORLDWIDE by Rebecca Grenham ’16, Advertising and Publicity Co-Chair
W
e are used to the abortion debate. It is divisive, and usually leads to emotionally charged rants that hardly ever end in compromise. We are used to hearing people shout about abortion during election times, but legislation often fails to follow. However, a Spanish bill that reverses previously liberal abortion laws shows that reproductive rights are not always confined to the debate room. The new Spanish legislation allows abortion only when the physical and mental health of the mother is in danger or if the pregnancy is a consequence of rape. If the woman does choose to seek an abortion, she must receive the permission of two doctors. The law comes four years after Spain approved legislation allowing abortion on demand up to week fourteen of pregnancy. From 1985 to 2010, restrictions on abortion were the same as those in the current bill, except it was also allowed if the fetus was severely malformed. Before that, abortion was strictly forbidden. The current legislation has sparked a massive wave of protests across Spain and other parts of Europe, with many calling it a “step backwards.” While Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and the Partido Popular (PP) claim they are fulfilling their promise to the Spanish people, 80% of Spaniards do not support the bill, according to El Pais. However, parliamentary challenge to the legislation failed last week.. The question remains: why pass such an unpopular bill? One reason may be to distract from economic issues. Rajoy and the PP were elected largely due to dissatisfaction with the previous Socialist’s government’s economic planning. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the PP would pass such an unpopular bill if the economic situation in Spain was not grim. Under Rajoy, Spain has continued to introduce austerity cuts while also raising income and sales taxes to reduce the budget deficit, both of which proved incredibly unpopular. Unemployment remains staggeringly high (25%), and half of individuals between 15-24 are unemployed. Due to limited job opportunities, massive waves of young people are leaving the country in search of work.
Politically, Rajoy’s government faces growing separatist movements in Catalonia, strained relationships with the Basque country, and political threats from a rising right-wing political party Vox. Catalonia plans to hold a referendum in November to decide whether or not it wants to remain part of Spain, and Rajoy has repeatedly said he will not allow it. Rajoy and his cabinet worry that such a measure will also spark separatist action in the Basque Country, a region that has historically fought for independence, though in 2011 separatist group ETA stated that it would remain peaceful. In the meantime, Rajoy and his party must work to keep their conservative supporters loyal since a small group of right-wing politicians split from the PP and formed Vox. Vox accuses Rajoy of being too lenient on Catalonia and the Basque Country and states that its primary goal is to keep all Spanish provinces united. All the while, corruption scandals and a law bringing in stricter consequences for protesters have contributed to the PP’s decreasing popularity. The abortion legislation, it seems, was brought in to keep the conservative vote and distract from economic and political issues. The use of abortion as a political wedge is far more worrisome than the specific reasons that prompted the legislation. Rajoy and the PP came in claiming to be socially conservative and pro-life, and passed the law accordingly. The Socialist party, on the other hand, has claimed that if they are re-elected once Rajoy’s term is finished, they will bring in more liberal abortion laws. If abortion is to remain a wedge, it means that women will have to continually adjust their decisions about their bodies according to fluctuating, politically-agitated laws. This means that abortion as well as other women’s issues may continually be used as ploys to gain support and distract from other, “more serious” issues. This is problematic because it not only implies that women’s issues are not as important as others, but could also mean that women and their bodies will continue to be subjected to political surges from the left and right. Justice Minister Gallardon, upon passing the law, said that: “no right is unlimited.” It seems that reproductive rights may no longer be unlimited, but rather dependent on political interests. PP
13
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
LOOKING BACK ON THE US - BRAZIL UPLAND COTTON DISPUTE by Ryan Conroy ’15, Contributing Writer
F
ew have been shy in expressing their displeasure with the legislation in the 2014 Farm Bill passed early this month. One conspicuously silent figure, however, is Brazil. The United States has been locked in a trade dispute with Brazil for more than a decade, and Brazil stands ready to impose sanctions worth close to $1BN should the newest Farm Bill fail to eliminate what it considers to be unfair subsidies to American cotton producers. In 2002, Brazil brought a case to the World Trade Organization (WTO) arguing that America’s Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payment Program (DCP), Marketing Loan Program (MLP), and Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) constituted illegal subsidies under WTO agreements, with the cumulative effect of suppressing cotton prices in world markets and increasing the US market share in upland cotton. These are insurance programs that the DCP program pays farmers to stay in business and also gives them a cushion when market prices look dour. The MLP program allows farmers to collateralize their crops in exchange for a low-interest loan from the government, making it possible to sell these crops throughout the year instead of only when market prices are low. The Export Credit Guarantee Program makes it safer for US banks to lend to developing countries with the condition that the loans be used to buy US agricultural exports. The WTO addresses cases like this in its Dispute Settlement System (DSS) - a forum that adjudicates cases where countries violate WTO rules. Rather pragmatically, the DSS has one fundamental principle: states should solve problems among themselves, as long as the solutions don’t violate WTO policy. Should countries fall into intractable dispute, the DSS grants sanctions to one party, essentially permitting them to break trade rules. The process by which the DSS decides this is extremely bureaucratic (disputes can run on for decades) and ends with the case being dismissed or the transgressor being requested to change its policy. If it fails to do so in a timely manner, then sanctions are awarded to the other party. By 2005, after years of appeals, the WTO requested the US alter the three disputed programs within six months,
which it failed to do. Brazil requested the right to levy customs duties on a selection of US goods, and was awarded $147.3MM in response to DCP and MLP programs, as well as a variable amount based on Export Credit Guarantee program spending. Due to insufficient trade between the two nations, Brazil was also granted cross-retaliatory measures. Cross retaliation allows sanctions in sectors outside of goods, such as US copyrights and patents. In 2009, Brazil announced a potential retaliation of $829MM on U.S. goods, including $268MM eligible for cross-retaliation, upon which both countries entered into private negotiation. The US ultimately agreed to pay the Brazilian Cotton Institute $147.3MM each year until it could reform the subsidies. The Farm Bill was due to be re-legislated according to this framework in 2012, but was pushed into 2013 due to partisan deadlock, and then into 2014 due to further deadlock. The 2014 Farm Bill’s reforms to these areas are mere posturing. It is true, for example, that the bill eliminates direct and counter-cyclical payment programs. For cotton producers, however, they will be phased out slowly over 2014 and 2015. Considering that these programs have been internationally recognized as illegal since 2005, a “slow wind-down” is no longer reasonable. The Farm Bill also extends the Marketing Loan Program and Export Credit Guarantee Program, which is unchanged outside of a simple clause stating that in the future it should be administered in accordance to the rulings of the WTO. On top of that, the Farm Bill actually legislates a new insurance program for Cotton producers called STAX that provides a subsidized secondary insurance policy to cotton producers. For the last four years, the US has avoided internationally mandated reform by paying off Brazilian cotton farmers. Brazil quietly accepted this arrangement on the condition that the next Farm Bill should address the contested programs. That time has arrived and the Farm Bill failed to do so. In the coming months we will either see the US punished by the largest package of retaliatory tariffs in history or, more likely, a last minute deal between the US and Brazil that ensures a costly alternative to adhering to world trade law. PP
14
Volume XV, Issue III
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 17th, 2014
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.
If interested e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org 15