October 3, 2011
Volume VII, Issue III
JHU POLITIK
THE FUTURE IS IN THE HANDS OF THE NINE
ISSUE VII NATIONAL THE FUTURE IS IN THE HANDS OF THE NINE by Robert D’annibale, ‘15 - Page 1 FROM THE OUTSIDE: AMERICA’S CREDIT RATING by Julia Allen, ‘15 - Page 3
FROM THE OUTSIDE: AMERICA’S CREDIT RATING
THE DRUG WAR ON THE US’ DOORSTEP by Michael Bodner, ‘14 - Page 4
INTERNATIONAL SAUDI ARABIAN SPRING? by Anna Kochut, ‘13 - Page 5
OPINION The nine justices of the Supreme Court have always played important roles in politics; this Supreme Court term stands to be no different. (SOURCE: http://supremecourt.gov)
by Robert D’Annibale, ‘15 Contributing Writer
T
he Supreme Court’s calendar will be controversial this year, as always. The Roberts court, known for its conservative leanings, may well shape the country’s political, legal, and social discourse for the next fifty to seventy-five years. “Obamacare,” Proposition 8, and Arizona SB 1070 are just a few of the cases the Supreme Court will possibly hear during its term starting in October, 2011. While the Court remains undecided on whether or not they will take on one of President Obama’s biggest achievements, it remains the center of attention. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The remarkable law calls for drastic changes to America’s current healthcare system. The act
1
increases coverage of pre-existing medical plans, expands health insurance to over 30 million Americans, and increases the overall amount of money pumped into the pharmaceutical industry. It is the “individual mandate” aspect of the law that has received the most attention. The mandate provision requires most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a financial penalty. In recent cases, the 6th Circuit upheld the mandate, the 11th Circuit ruled it unconstitutional, and the 4th Circuit argued that it cannot rule on the mandate until 2014. Will the Supreme Court hear the case? In the midst of the upcoming presidential race, the Supreme Court’s decision will certainly have political repercussions. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a Re-
UNCOMMOM METALS AND COMMON HYPOCRISIES by Jackson Lok-Tin Tse, ‘15 - Page 6 THE ENDLESS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN by Daniel Roettger, ‘13 - Page 7 IN THE BUSINESS OF SECRECY by Chloe Reichel, ‘15 - Page 8
JOHNS HOPKINS’ OnlyWeeklyPublished Political Magazine
publican candidate for president, was quoted as saying, “Obamacare is a crime against democracy.” On the other side of the spectrum, Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic Congressman from Ohio, explained that “this bill represents a giveaway to the insurance industry. Seventy billion dollars a year, and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance, five (continued on Page 2) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 3, 2011
Volume VII, Issue III
THE POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Hannah Holliday
Will Denton
Layout Editor
Assistant editors
Ana Giraldo-Wingler
Randy Bell Jeremy Orloff Matt Varvaro
Staff writers
Colette Andrei Megan Augustine Rachel Cohen Cary Glynn Ben Goldberg Eric Feinberg Anna Kochut Daniel Roettger Ari Schaffer Hilary Matfess Briana Last
Managing Editor
Alex Clearfield PRODUCTION MANAGER
Neil O’Donnell FACULTY ADVISOR
Steven R. David
JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are solely those of the author.
NATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 1) consecutive years of double-digit premium increases.” As the debate over the healthcare bill rages on, there are many who still support the president’s plan. Regardless of the controversy attached to it, the Supreme Court will likely address the topic in its upcoming session. Bill Mears, a CNN Supreme Court Producer, reported that a decision by the Supreme Court “can be expected by June, right in the thick of a contentious presidential race.” There are other highly contentious and political cases that may be brought into the Supreme Court in the coming months. It was almost three years ago, when California officially added the clause, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” to their constitution. On November 4, 2008, California residents voted on Proposition 8. It passed with 52.5% of the vote - almost 5.5 million votes. Strong opposition to Proposition 8 led to several hearings at the California Supreme Court. After many debates and arguments, the Court stood firm to uphold Proposition 8 with a 6-1 vote. Along with Proposition 8, many proponents of gay marriage have expressed disgust of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under DOMA, no state may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relation-
2
ship considered a marriage in another state. However, the act was found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases under the Obama Administration. Although President Barack Obama has yet to publicly endorse gay marriage, he has called DOMA a “discriminatory” law and announced, “It’s time for us to bring it to an end.” Another controversial topic that the Supreme Court may tackle in the upcoming session is the Support Our Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona Senate bill 1070). The Arizona state law has several requirements that make it one of the strictest anti-illegal immigration measures in U.S. history. It mandates that all aliens in Arizona carry proper U.S. documents to show they have registered with the U.S. government. If an alien fails to abide the law, he or she will be charged with a misdemeanor. This bill has received serious criticism because of its negative racial connotations and the fact that it will create even greater antagonism between illegal aliens and law enforcement officers who will now be forced to ask for legal proof of immigration at routine stops. 2011 may prove a monumental year in the history of the United States. Will gay marriage ever be legal across the US? Will Americans be forced to buy health insurance? Not only will the Supreme Court’s decisions im(Continued on page 3)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 3, 2011
Volume VII, Issue III
NATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 2) pact the lives of many Americans, they will also impact the outcome of the upcoming presidential election. It will indeed be interesting to see if President Obama remains in office if the centerpiece of his domestic policy is ruled unconstitutional. s
From the Outside: America’s Credit Rating by Julia Allen, ‘15 Contributing Writer
W
hen Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States government from AAA to AA+ on August 5, 2011, global markets shook as traders reacted to the news. This change in U.S. economic standing, however, was not entirely a surprise: although Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling only three days earlier, the official Chinese rating agency, Dagong, downgraded the U.S. credit rating on August 3, which demonstrated the international concern over the United States’ financial issues. Almost two months down the road, it is worth considering the effect that this credit downgrade has had on the international perception of America. The fallen credit rating of the world’s leading economy highlights the toxicity of American politics, which many believe has led the nation to this point. S&P explained that “America’s governance and policy making becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable” was reason enough to downgrade the U.S. government’s credit rating. This reflects the international concern about the political brinksmanship seen in America and how it is getting in the way of an effective financial solution to the debt crisis. This high-profile condemnation of the United States government’s inability to handle the situation has affected global markets and evoked mixed reactions from other world powers. China, America’s largest creditor, rebuked the nation for “letting its domestic electoral politics take the global economy hostage.” The state-run news agency, Xinhua, stated that China had “every right now to demand [that] the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China’s dollar assets.” Xinhua urged international supervision over the “issue of U.S. dollars,” and insisted that the global community consid-
3
er introducing a “new, stable and secured global reserve currency” in order to “avert a catastrophe caused by any single country.” When asked about the possibility of creating a new global reserve currency, UK Business Secretary Vince Cable said that, though it might be a logical path to take in the future, it would not happen any time soon. He affirmed that the U.S. legislature has taken steps towards getting the American economy back on track, and that the American dollar is the “key international currency,” though only in the short run. Despite the American government’s credit downgrade, Australia and France have shown confidence in the United States’ ability to rectify the situation. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard pointed out that only one of the three top U.S. credit rating agencies (the other two being Moody’s Investor Service and Fitch Ratings) has downgraded the American credit rating, and urges the international community to keep calm. The French Finance Minister, Francois Baroin, also voiced his optimism that the American economy could get back on its feet. Having “faith in the fundamentals of this economy, which is one of the most powerful in the world,” Baroin acknowledged the “U.S. government’s determination” to carry out the debt-reduction plan that Congress passed that week. Nearly two months later, European leaders are faced with their own debt crisis and are struggling to come up with a plan to save the euro. Prospects for the global economy look bleak for a number of reasons: IMF and World bank meetings have yet to produce a firm plan for tackling the problem, the cushion provided by emerging economies is shrinking due to the austerity measures enacted by the wealthier countries, and the problems within the American economy are compounded by the continuation of political brinksmanship. Over the course of the next few months, all eyes will be on European and American leaders as they attempt to bring the global economy out of its current state of confusion. s
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 3, 2011
Volume VII, Issue III
NATIONAL REPORT The Drug War on the United States’ Doorstep by Michael Bodner, ‘14 Contributing Writer
n the middle of densely populated cities like Tijuana and Nuevo Laredo, balaclava-clad soldiers and cartel thugs armed with heavy machine guns fire on each other, littering the street with spent shell casings. Mexico is a battleground. The Mexican Drug War, fought between the drug cartels and the government of Mexico, officially started on December 11, 2006, when the Mexican military initiated Operation Michoacán, a joint-branch action with the broad goal of destroying drug plantations and combatting drug trafficking. Since then, the war has escalated from year to year with some of the fiercest fighting taking place along the United States border. Every bullet the cartel members shoot and every grenade they throw is for one main purpose: there is always a vacuum that needs to be filled. These vacuums are what make defeating the Mexican drug cartels so difficult. Whenever one cartel boss is killed, there is fighting to see who will take his place. When a cartel is completely wiped out, as was La Familia cartel, there is fighting to take over its turf. Through their hard-earned territory, the cartels smuggle marijuana, heroin, and guns. According to the U.S. National Drug Intelligence Center, over 1,100 metric tons of marijuana and eighty percent of America’s street meth come through Mexico each year. Smuggling drugs is a multibillion dollar industry that the brutal syndicates will not surrender easily. In order to help their cause, the cartels have corrupted great numbers of local law enforcement officers. A popular saying of the drug lords is “plata o plomo,” gold or lead. The police officers know that if they do not take the bribes of the cartels, they will be killed. Twenty-six mayors and over 60 reporters have been killed in Mexico so far for speaking out against the drugrunners. Just last Monday, cartel hitmen beheaded reporter Maria Elizabeth Macias for posting negative comments against the cartels on a social network. Violence seeping into the United States is becoming a serious issue. Cartel members have killed over 100 Americans. Bullets routinely fly across the border and strike buildings in border cities like El Paso, Texas. Kidnappings and home invasions have spiked in recent years in Arizona and Texas. America’s Justice Department has
I
4
named the cartels the biggest organized crime threat to the United States. The U.S. Joint Forces Command said that in a worst-case scenario, the continuous armed and corruptive pressure of the cartels can topple the government of Mexico within two decades. This would give terrorists an open door from which to enter America. To help end the drug war, the government under President Bush created the Mérida Initiative in 2007. The broad program was allocated $1.5 billion by Congress through 2010 to curb the drug influx into America and put a stop to the war. The sizable amount of money went to a variety of causes. It provided the Mexican army with new Blackhawk helicopters and surveillance equipment. It paid for technical support to help secure Mexican telecommunications systems. It went towards teaching Mexican law enforcement agents enhanced interrogation methods. Now, in 2011, the plan has been adopted into a four-pillar strategy of cooperation between the United States and Mexico. The pillars are: reducing the cartel’s operational capacity; reforming the Mexican police, justice, and penal systems; tightening northbound and southbound border security; and creating solid communities that will not fear and give harbor to cartel members. A major aim of this new bilateral plan is to end the drug war while fostering the faith of the Mexican people in the honesty and capability of the Mexican government and its law enforcement agencies. Critics of the Mérida Initiative compare it to Plan Colombia, the U.S. operation to reduce Colombian drug production by bolstering the nation’s military. It took Plan Colombia eight years to lower Colombia’s total cocaine production. These critics think that “Plan Mexico” will show similarly slow or limited results. An alternate
As of February 2011, Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, averages eight homicides per day. (SOURCE: http://newsnewmexico.blogspot.com)
(Continued on page 5) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 3, 2011
Volume VII, Issue III
NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL REPORTS (Continued from page 4) plan presented is to work on reducing drug addiction within the United States. With lower drug demand will come less business and income for the cartels. Proponents of this plan say the cartels are so powerful largely due to America’s ravenous appetite for drugs. The Rio Grande is about one city block wide, and it is all that separates the United States from a warzone. For roughly the past four and a half years, some of the world’s most brutal fighting has taken place just south of the border. Today, the Mexican government finds itself locked in combat with six different drug cartels, each of which cares nothing of eliminating anything that stands in its way of controlling the drug trafficking routes into the U.S. According to a combination of sources, almost 2,500 combatants have been killed in Afghanistan in 2011. South of the border, there have been 4,742 deaths. The Mexican government looks powerless to put a stop to the bloodshed, and slowly but surely the violence is seeping into the United States. s
Saudi Arabian Spring? by Anna Kochut, ‘13 Staff Writer
O
n Sunday, September 25, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia granted women the right to vote. However, this new development will be not implemented into Saudi law until the year 2015, which means women were not able to vote in the elections held in the country this past Thursday. Even in 2015, women will not be able to vote without the approval of a male family member or their male chaperone. While suffrage is a positive step towards greater freedoms for women, observers agree that it is a limited step toward the liberation of Saudi Arabian women. Saudi Arabia is a country that governs using Sharia law. Sharia, or Islamic, law guides all aspects of Muslim life, notably marriage, divorce, and criminal law. Law based on Sharia tradition is common in countries whose governments derive their legitimacy from Islam; Saudi Arabia is an example of one its strictest applications. For example, women in the country are still subject to a long list of controlled activities, such as driving, attending educational institutions, and engaging in commercial activities. Saudi women also are required to have male
5
chaperones at all times. Observers agree that Saudi Arabia’s enforcement of Sharia law is one of the most oppressive in the Middle East. There are many examples of Muslim nations that employ Sharia law more sparingly, or that do not use it at all. The United Arab Emirates, for example, is more relaxed than Saudi Arabia in tolerating the use of alcohol. While the decision of the Saudi monarch to grant women the right to vote was very recent, there are other examples how Saudi Arabian women were recently punished harshly under Sharia. According to the Guardian, a woman was lashed as punishment for driving a car. This occurred two days after the step forward in women’s suffrage. Many observers link the recent developments in Saudi Arabia to the effect of the Arab Spring, which took place earlier this year in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The Arab Spring was a series of pro-democracy movements in the Middle East in which citizens rebelled against the laws of oppressive governments. Many believe that the Saudi monarch, who considers himself a reformer, was inspired by these pro-democracy movements, and will continue to push similar reforms. However, the extent to which reforms for the condition of women take root in Saudi society is limited in scope due to the bounds of Islamic law. For example, women’s suffrage can only go as far as male chaperones (husbands, fathers, brothers) will allow. It depends upon the relative strictness of the male chaperone responsible for the potential female voter. According to the New York Times, Saudi Arabian women are pleased with the monarch’s decision. However, they are cognizant of the limits of the reform. Since June, Saudi women have been defying more and more Sharia laws. For example, according to the Guardian, more and more women have been driving. Even law enforcement has not been exercising punishment as frequently as the law holds they should. Police officers in the country have been letting women drivers continue on after they sign a pledge not to drive again. Women have also been gaining more rights to education, making up 58% of the college graduates. However, while women’s liberation has been increasing recently, few would characterize suffrage as a leap forward in the path to get more rights. While King Abdullah’s decision caused quite a stir in international news, many observers rejoiced as a result (Continued on page 6)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 3, 2011
Volume VII, Issue III
INTERNATIONAL REPORT/OPINION (Continued from page 5) of the glimpse of a brighter future for Saudi Arabia’s oppressed women. Many agree that true reforms can only take place when the tougher restrictions of Sharia law begin to loosen up. This requires the ability of women to attend college, engage in commercial activities, and drive without fear of enraging their male chaperones. In order for Saudi Arabia to truly be considered close to the pro-democracy nations in the Middle East, observers agree that the repressed half of the population must be able to participate fully in economic and civic life. s
Uncommon Metals and Common Hypocrisies by Jackson Lok-Tin Tse, ‘15 Contributing Writer
I
n a recent move that has sparked widespread international discontent, the Chinese government has increased its efforts at nationalizing the production of rare earth metals. At the Rare Earths 2011 Conference, Xu Xu, the Chairman of the China Chamber of Commerce of Metal Minerals and Chemical Importers and Exporters, elaborated that the move primarily stemmed from Beijing’s maintenance and environmental concerns. China produces approximately 95% of rare earth metals, many of which are instrumental in the production of goods such as wind turbines, fluorescent light bulbs, and gas-electric cars. Elementary economics dictate that a reduction in supply necessitates a rise in price and, in this case, the overall cost of producing earth metal-dependent goods. Naturally, to major consumers of Chinese-mined rare earth metals, the Chinese government’s attempts at consolidation are simply outright illegal and downright unfair. Imposing stringent quotas on rare earth production, and thereby hiking up prices, wrote economist Paul Krugman, are demonstrated characteristics of a “rogue economic superpower, unwilling to play by the rules.” In an article last year, the Economist disparagingly compared China’s industry consolidation to that of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The United States and European Union are both preparing a World Trade Organization case against the Chinese de-
The excavation of rare earth minerals has left China’s landscape scarred. (SOURCE: http://rbth.ru)
cision. Beijing’s actions, according to its critics, are supposedly illegal, unfair, and selfish. This is preposterous when considered in the context of China’s current system of rare earth production. At a closer look, it becomes clear that Chinese governmental policy is legal, fair, and reasonable. First, let us address the notion of illegal governmental action, and the hypocrisy governing the previous system of rare earth metal production from which all nations supposedly benefited. All was well before the Chinese government stepped in and began nationalizing mines and reducing the supply of these metals, right? Wrong. According to the New York Times, “rogue operations in southern China produce an estimated half of the world’s supply of heavy earths.” Local mafias, which oftentimes reinforced their reign through terror and violence, handled these operations with iron fists. Smuggling was, and still is, rampant, with the enormous Japanese demand for earth metals during China’s embargo satisfied only with smuggling through Vietnam. Chinese “nationalization” efforts, as such, are essentially based on the objective of eliminating these illegal rogue operations. It won’t help if Chinese efforts to legitimately eliminate and reform the institutionalized system of illegal, environmentally hazardous operations are themselves seen by the international community as “illegal.” The second point to address is the supposed unfairness of China’s actions. In this regard, China’s critics should consider the environmental impacts of widespread unregulated earth metal mining. In Baotou, China, rare earth processing plants indifferently dump (Continued on page 7)
6
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 3, 2011
Volume VII, Issue III
OPINION (Continued from page 5) waste into a man-made “lake of poison.” Run-off from the lake has poisoned surrounding areas, rendering the fields infertile. Official reports, according to an extensively researched article published in the Daily Mail, confirmed that these surrounding areas experienced unusually higher levels of cancer, osteoporosis, and skin and respiratory disease. The study also found that the lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than those of the countryside. These environmental and health effects are real, with real consequences for the people involved. Given the criticism of Chinese actions as “unfair”, international demands for goods are apparently of greater significance than the protection of one’s citizens. Finally, let us discuss the charges of selfishness on the part of the Chinese government. The United States, and several other nations, has claimed that China ought not to hoard its domestic production of earth metal resources. To be fair, membership in the WTO is predicated upon adherence to free-trade policies and the rejection of protectionism. However, consider that the Chinese government has been exporting earth metals to the international community – at an alarming rate – for the better part of the last twenty years. In fact, China supplies more than ninety percent of these metals. With China having just acquired the economic power and technological capital to fully utilize these earth metals, would it not be somewhat justified for the People’s Republic of China to cut down on exports and maintain a greater share of the metals to develop domestic industries? To summarize, the legitimacy and legality of Beijing’s actions are being questioned as the Chinese government cracks down on illegal, dangerous, and rogue mining operations. The international community has stressed the unfairness of Chinese actions even as China is forced to maintain current unsustainable export levels of rare earth metals, despite the persistent damage to the environment and to the lives of local people. China’s system of containing some of its resources for domestic usage is being harshly criticized, while the United States – and all countries, to a certain extent – embraces a position of favoring developing nascent industries, especially in the green energy sector (see Solyndra). Hence, the hypocrisies. The West often criticizes the lack of Chinese effort in dealing with environmental problems. What we need to do is to step back from these accusations and the cynicism that currently infect the international arena, and recognize our own paradoxes.
No country is perfect in its foreign policies. The United States, for one, has consistently articulated its concern for China’s carbon emissions. Yet when China steps in to intervene in illicit, environmentally-destructive operations, nations whose trade interests are threatened scream the charge of protectionism. Anger and cynicism – “the Chinese government is using environmental policies as a ploy!” – have become a common feature, replacing prospects of genuine dialogue and moderation. The bottom line: China’s earth metal industry is buttressing the global shift toward green renewable energy sources while Chinese lives are suffering from the health effects of over-mined resources. Something has to change. And the Chinese government is wise to attempt it. s
The Endless Presidential Campaign by Daniel Roettger, ‘13 Staff Writer
B
ill Clinton announced his candidacy for President twenty years ago last weekend. It was eighteen months before he became president-elect. Jack Kennedy made his intentions known just ten months before voters went to the polls in November, 1960. This year, there have already been eight Republican primary debates and many of the candidates announced their runs close to twenty-four months before the 2012 general election. The modern American campaign more closely resembles an endless sprint on an out-of-control treadmill than it does a ‘race.’ Candidates spend years spreading their message, attacking their opponents (in and out of party), and rehearsing talking points. Despite the entertainment gleaned from this political bloodbath, what are the consequences of an endless election season? One answer is more spending. In 1992, total spending by all presidential candidates totaled $192 million. In 2000, the sum had risen to $343 million. In 2008, by some counts, it reached $2.4 billion. This prompted Richard Ebeling of the American Institute for Economic Research to observe that “…all of the presidential contenders combined have spent the equivalent of .06 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in trying to win the brass ring to the White House.” In other words, pri(Continued on page 8)
7
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 3, 2011
Volume VII, Issue III
OPINION (Continued from page 7) vate industry could have used that $834 million to further enrich our economy. The financial costs of campaigning (and the industry of promotional firms that have grown up as a result) are only the most obvious features. During the course of the election season, candidates must be entirely committed to the campaign from the very beginning. If they are not, the quickly fail, as Newt Gingrich has shown this year. This commitment means a candidate has to prioritize the campaign over all else, including in many cases his/her employment. Despite their talk of jobs, work ethic, and the importance of commitment, most presidential candidates are, in running for office, skipping out on their day jobs. For some, this just means taking a leave of absence from their own companies, but for already elected officials this means abandoning their responsibilities to serve constituents. Of the nine ‘serious’ Republican candidates for 2012, three are currently holding elected office: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Congressman Ron Paul. Without a doubt, all three have sacrificed their job performance while simultaneously promoting their fiscal credentials. Michele Bachmann alone, since kicking her campaign into high gear in July, has missed 58 percent of House votes. In the same amount of time, Ron Paul has missed a relatively respectful 19 percent of votes. But he wasn’t so punctual when he ran for President in 2008, as he missed an astonishing 60 percent of votes in the fourth quarter of 2007. Then-candidate Obama missed nearly 80 percent of Senate votes in September 2007 and an average of 56 percent of votes over the course of the campaign. Top members of his Administration weren’t much better: in September 2007, Biden and Clinton missed 68 percent and 63 percent, respectively. There is no question that many of the votes taken in Congress are procedural, insignificant, or absolutely meaningless. It’s perfectly acceptable to miss a few post office renamings. But there are important votes that do take place and missing those is unacceptable. A member of Congress, regardless of whether or not they are running for president, does a disservice to their voters when they miss the most significant moments of the legislative calendar. Bachmann’s absence at President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress, for example, was inexcusable.
8
It strikes me as odd that this hasn’t attracted more attention. Should we not be troubled by the truancy of campaigning elected officials? At the end of the day, to seek the presidency is a personal endeavor and aspiration. The pursuit supplants all preexisting obligations and, for better or worse, is inherently selfish. So it makes little sense to me that it has become acceptable – or, at the least, unobjectionable – for politicians to leave their elected posts in pursuit of other jobs. In any other profession an employee publicly searching for a promotion while taking an unearned check from his current employer would be unacceptable. s
In the Business of Secrecy by Chloe Reichel, ‘15 Contributing Writer
A
new industry has taken off in Maryland, but chances are you haven’t heard. In the wake of 9/11, secrets have become a part of the area’s business. Over the past ten years, the National Security Agency (NSA), based in Fort Meade, Maryland, has grown tremendously. While the NSA leads homeland security efforts, about 30 percent of intelligence workers are contractors. Maryland Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger said that the NSA paid over $2.5 billion to contractors in Maryland in 2010 alone. Despite the sheer magnitude and capacity of the NSA and its affiliates, the United States still faces significant terror threats. Washington Post investigative journalists Dana Priest and William M. Arkin uncovered the secrecy industry in a series for the newspaper, and subsequently co-authored a book, Top Secret America, that was also the basis for a Frontline episode of the same name. The NSA’s main project is the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). Their surveillance system, the Global Electronic Tracknet, is one of the agency’s primary tools in counterterrorism efforts. This system logs 1.7 billion email, phone, and other intercepts per day. Over 30,000 employees work day and night at the NSA, and even that is not enough. Government contractors are essential to the sorting and processing of this huge volume of data. The National Business Park, in Annapolis Junction, MD is home to over 250 firms that work with the NSA, yet the NSA complex dwarfs the sprawling National Busi-
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 3, 2011
Volume VII, Issue III
OPINION (Continued from page 7) have incurred massive costs and a concurrent worldwide recession has prompted policy officials in our government to reevaluate our role in the world. However, a decision to relinquish our role as a “beacon on top of the hill” and the premier scion of democracy in the world, will prove costly. The last ten years have certainly been turbulent. My generation will always view international politics through the lens of the September 11th attacks. Horror stories of prolonged international conflicts and rogue states inching closer to gaining access to a nuclear arsenal arsenal will forever haunt our perspective. Nonetheless, debt reduction in the near future will almost certainly be followed by calls for defense budget reduction. All of these factors come together to make the perfect recipe for isolationism. It is not, however, the time to give into isolationism or succumb to international pressure to step back from our unwavering support for democracy. The last decade of terror, war, and political missteps has had a thick silver lining. After decades of waiting, the peoples of the Middle East have finally answered the clarion call of democracy and stood up to their government oppressors. They have demanded the rights due to them: the liberties that belong to every person, but which have been withheld for so long. Despite pessimistic predictions in the days immediately following the September 11th attacks, there have been no major attacks on the US since. Many attempts have been foiled by both government intelligence and civilian action. Osama bin Laden, the veritable boogeyman of our adolescence, has been removed once and for all. Al Qaeda is on its last legs of retreat, cracking under the pressure of the ten-year-long hunt. The flag of perpetual peace and universal freedom has come a long way. Sadly, there is a movement in America to withdraw from the international sphere despite these many gains. Entirely justified, they claim that the costs, both monetary and political, are too great to be worth the while. America would be better off taking care of itself for a while and leave the other countries of the world to solve their problems on their own. It is not America’s responsibility, many argue, to “police” the world. It is not America’s job, they say, to look out for anyone’s interests but its own. Anyone who has studied the history of Japan or China knows that isolation causes more problems than it
9
solves. It provokes conflict rather than avoids it. Even the British isolation was rudely ended to a burgeoning alliance system and the first steps of World War One. American isolationism following World War One and the Great Depression allowed appeasement and the enabling of Hitler’s Nazi regime. As the most powerful nation in the world, and the most powerful in history, America’s decision to step out of a position of leadership could give rise to another aggressive challenger. That is the last thing anyone wants. Finally, if there is any lesson to be learned from the September 11th atrocities, it is that Americans, or any supporters of Democracy, individual rights, or freedom, for that matter, will never be truly safe as long as there exist those who ideologically oppose these rights. In his “Letter to the Americans,” bin Laden condemned Americans for the very ideals upon which this country was founded; the very same rights for which we have been fighting for the past ten years and people in the Middle East have finally begun to reclaim. How would it look if, in the face of these ideological challenges and with so much opportunity just over the horizon, America were to lay down its flag with the whole world watching? After ten years of struggle for the very ideals we live and breathe for, “hope” should not be all the oppressed of the world have to hang their hats on. They need to know that there is one nation at least who will stand up for their rights. They need to know that there is one country that will help them even when their own governments refuse. Everyone knows that for true hope to endure in the world there must be someone willing to defend it. Let that be America, now and forever. s
Loyal Readers, Due to the Johns Hopkins University Fall Break on October 10, 2011, we will not publish an issue next week. Check back on Monday, October 17 for the next issue of JHU Politik. As always, thank you for reading. Best, The editors
h WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG