NUPR Spring 2020

northeastern university political review A Dam(n) Shame: Ethiopia and Egypt's Destructive Dispute BEZA ZENEBE

Transnational Hip-Hop: A Lens into Social Protest EVAN CRYSTAL

The “Deal of the Century” and the Death of the Two-State Solution STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE

Letter from the Editor & the Co-Presidents Dear Reader, We hope this letter finds you healthy and well. Spring is here and normally the winding down of the semester gives way to warm days spent together on the quad, long-awaited graduation celebrations, the sweet relief of submitting a final assignment, exciting summer plans, and bittersweet farewells. This year, due to the outbreak of COVID-19, the shift in seasons has instead been accompanied by an unprecedented shift in the very way we lead our lives: social distancing, quarantine, campus and office closures, travel restrictions, and the cancellation and postponement of nearly all programs and events. The fate of this issue of the NU Political Review was also in the air—but only very briefly, before our e-board decided, resoundingly, to continue working together remotely. And we are so glad that we did.

This pandemic has motivated many individuals, communities, and organizations to come together in combating its effects—by helping those who are in most need of care, rallying for improvements in health care and housing, and demanding dignified conditions for all. It has also pulled back the curtain to lay bare the ugliest parts of our current system, that even now attempt to benefit the best off rather than the worst off. As young people, we have known this. As young people paying attention, we have opposed this. So we hold fast to our commitment to conditional optimism: our commitment to keep engaging in the kind of thinking and writing that prompts action, until the world reflects the version in our minds—one that is just, equal, and promotes flourishing for all.

We are endlessly grateful for our writers, editors, and designers, who continue to engage in the very crucial exchange of ideas, even when it is not face-to-face. Though these circumstances have been difficult to deal with, and certainly overwhelming, our writers thoughtfully tackled some of the most pressing problems we face today—in our immediate communities, in America, and around the world. Indeed, the breadth of topics covered in this issue confirm what we’ve known all along: that we are connected at a fundamental level. We wholeheartedly thank our team for maintaining their usual level of engagement and excellence in thought and writing—and for reminding us why we do the work we do.

Lastly, we thank you, our readers, for picking up this issue of the NUPR. It has been one of the brightest highlights of my, Elena’s, college career to have been a part of this publication, and I thank you kindly for the privilege.

We share our deepest sympathies with everyone impacted by the pandemic, and look forward to seeing you on campus when it is safe to do so.

Warmly, Elena Kuran, Editor-in-Chief Kamran Parsa, Co-President Jillian Wrigley, Co-President

Meet the Team Executive Board

Mission Statement

Kamran Parsa Co-President

The Northeastern University Political Review seeks to be a non-affiliated platform for students to publish essays and articles of the highest possible caliber on contemporary domestic and international politics, as well as critical reviews of political books, film, and events. The Political Review aspires to foster a culture of intelligent political discourse among interested individuals while promoting awareness of political issues in the campus community. The organization envisions itself as a place where students with a common interest in politics and world affairs may come together to discuss and develop their views and refine their opinions. The Political Review hopes to reflect the diversity of thought and spirit at Northeastern, including the dual ethic of academic and experiential education our school embodies.

Jillian Wrigley Co-President Elena Kuran Editor-in-Chief Reshma Rapeta Treasurer Aileen Farrell Creative Director Mia Vuckovich Communications Director Chantal Cheung Digital Director Bryan Bonnett Podcast Director

Editorial Board Milton Posner Managing Editor Rintaro Nishimura Columns Editor Beza Zenebe Columns Editor Chantal Cheung Magazine Editor Evan Crystal Magazine Editor Akshat Dhankher Magazine Editor Gabriel GarcĂ­a Magazine Editor Alexandra Jacobs Magazine Editor Claire McHugh Magazine Editor

For More Information Check out our website at nupoliticalreview.com Want to write for NUPR? Email us at nupoliticalreview@gmail.com Magazines printed by Puritan Capital

Table of Contents National

Featured

6

20

A Dam(n) Shame: Ethiopia and Egypt's Destructive Dispute Beza Zenebe

Global

23

Transnational Hip-Hop: A Lens into Social Protest Evan Crystal

10

Are Cold Sino–American Relations Solely Trump’s Fault?

Lawrence Cai

26

The “Deal of the Century” and the Death of the Two-State Solution Students for Justice in Palestine

14

Modern Maoism Prevails: Xi Jinping and the Use of “Red Memory” Julian Fuchsberg

16

From Extreme to Mainstream: Behind the Scenes of the Alt-Right Milton Posner

The New Yellow Peril? AntiChinese Sentiment in the West Chantal Cheung

Columns 28

How to Save Millions of Lives Alex Jarecki

31

Bill Who? The Republican Primaries’ Significance in the 2020 Election Stephanie Luiz

34

“OK Boomer” is the Pepe of 2020.

Here’s Why. Taraneh Azar

National

From Extreme to Mainstream: Behind the Scenes of the Alt-Right Milton Posner / Journalism & Political Science 2021

Last October, after years of up-close reporting on the methods and influence of far-right media figures, New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz published Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation.

NUPR spoke with Marantz about his reporting, what he learned, and how to combat the spread of far-right ideology. The conversation is edited for length and clarity.

If, as you suggest, total journalistic neutrality or objectivity is sometimes impossible or unworkable, what principles should replace it?

I just finished reading this book The View from Somewhere, which . . . does a kind of taxonomy of terms of objectivity as opposed to neutrality as opposed to lack of bias and draws distinctions between them, which I think are useful in that academic context.

In everyday parlance those things get conflated, which is understandable. There’s a good and bad sense in which we can allow these things to be declared dead. There’s a healthy sense of allowing these things to be seen as obsolete, which is declaring your priors, not being willingly obfuscatory in your aims. There’s a more dangerous sense, which we’re more immediately familiar with, which is just making shit up or deciding what’s true in a kind of autocratic way.

6

Spring 2020

I’m for the former and not the latter, but a lot of it is case-dependent . . . If you’re talking about preferences on how to mark up a specific treaty or the fine points of trade policy or something, as a journalist you’re not doing your readers a favor by putting a thumb on the scale.

Even here you need to get into finer distinctions about what kind of journalism you’re talking about. There’s newspaper journalism, more magazine-y journalism which has always been more filtered through the writer’s opinion which readers have come to know and expect from a certain kind of magazine piece.

There’s documentary filmmaking.

So you have a different compact with your audience depending on which type of journalism you’re doing, but let’s take the most straight-ahead, standard, traditional form of journalism. Even in that form, part of the problem in recent years has been people trying to graph the version of neutrality you would use if you were talking about some obscure trade policy onto basic questions of value like “How should we feel about white nationalism?” And it just doesn’t track.

Why did you detail your reporting and make yourself a character in the story?

Partly because of decisions like this. There’s an understandable reticence . . . to not make yourself the story, to not be too solipsistic

about it . . . But it felt like it would be, if not dishonest, then just a little bit willfully incomplete to ignore the fact that in a book about new forms of media production, I’m doing a certain kind of media production just through the act of being there. There’s an observer effect in all kinds of reporting, but in this case it was particularly stark.

All the people that I’m writing about think of themselves as media producers, announce themselves as media producers, compare notes with me about the way that I’m producing media about the media that they’re producing. So to pretend that my part of that equation wasn’t happening would have warped the story I was telling more than putting it in would.

While you researched, did you face backlash from the alt-right community?

Oh yeah, constantly. I could have pretended that I don’t have any ill will toward them, but they were constantly declaring their ill will toward me.

It would have been a mistake to say, “These guys are making memes on Reddit where my face is in a gas chamber, so I’m going to do the same thing to them.” Obviously I’m not going to stoop to their level, but their antagonism toward what I represent is part of the story. Sometimes it was just so general that it was hard to take seriously. Sometimes it was just, “Oh, you’re a media elite cuck blah nupoliticalreview.com

Then there was stuff where it was either my name or my face or whatever. Trolling is always better when it’s personally tailored. But again, it never really was that deep or that well-informed. A lot of these people have a sense that they’re playing a game that has public and private faces, and don’t really feel much of a need to have those two things cohere.

What is the advantage of spreading altright talking points through memes?

How does it affect the murky distinction between actual hatred and trolling, jokes, or provocation?

It’s always hard to tell which is which, and that’s partly because it’s always a little bit from every column. There aren’t sharp distinctions in these things. The advantage for people . . . is money, fame, attention, advancing an ideological agenda, or all of the above . . . We’ve built an attention economy designed to reward the most titillating or outrageous content with the most immediate attention and people are built to crave attention.

Is the attention economy inherent in social media or our content consumption habits? Is there a way around it?

There’s always been an attention economy, but social media transformed it . . . There have always been liars, there has always been propaganda, there has always been a human desperation for attention, but by pouring old wine into new bottles you can completely transform everything about how people behave.

How can people be intelligent skeptics online? How can they make informing themselves less overwhelming and more manageable?

I worry about people retreating into the feeling of “Well, I’ll never know anything anyway so I’m just not going to try.” That’s the wrong approach. There are the facile answers; you can try harder and spend more time and read more. That works, but not everybody has the time or inclination.

You have to come to some reasoned conclusion about which sources you want to trust and put your trust in them. It’s funny, you hear this desperation coming from a lot of people these days, going, “I wish there were nupoliticalreview.com

just some set of trained professionals I could turn to to tell me—on a daily or weekly basis—what is most important, rank it in order of what I should pay the most attention to, and give it to me in a reliable and straightforward way.”

We already invented that, it’s just not really cool to like it anymore.

You said that “instead of imagining that we occupy a post-gatekeeper utopia,” we should “demand better, more thoughtful gatekeepers.” Who counts as a gatekeeper and what would more thoughtful gatekeepers do?

There are a lot of different gatekeepers at different levels, but the ones that I call “the new gatekeepers” are the social media megaliths.

There are still old gatekeepers. TV is still important, even print and pixel media are still, to some extent, important. Media is everything and tech is everything so it’s not just this or that main source. Anything that corrals human energy into any kind of informational channel could be considered a gatekeeper.

To me, all gatekeeper really means is an entity or person with the power to channel human attention in powerful ways that are outside of the control of any individual user. Social media companies and the people who control their algorithms absolutely fit that definition.

The difference is that they’ve been in denial about that for about twelve of the sixteen years of their existence. We as a society have participated in that denial and glorified them as liberators when that has not been the case.

Do I want to arrogate more power to these people? No, I don’t. But I want them to take responsibility for the power they already have.

Many alt-right media figures know how to get their messages from their outlets to FOX News to everywhere else, showing that despite their professed contempt for mainstream media, they recognize its influence. Should mainstream outlets change their approaches or practices to avoid being manipulated?

Definitely. Nobody should want to be manipulated. Either they are unaware of it or they are aware of it but they don’t classify it as manipulation. They call it “being informed by new sources of information.”

You can’t just not take tips from anonymous sources or you wouldn’t get good tips. You

National

blah blah.” I didn’t take any of it personally, but that stuff would have been impossible to take personally because it literally had nothing to do with me.

It’s a very calculated choice they’re making, and there’s a lot of high-IQ, well-educated people in these movements, which makes it all the more pernicious.

“

can’t just not listen to stories from the periphery or you’re willfully blinding yourself. The principle can’t be “Don’t run stories that you heard from anonymous weirdos on Twitter” because anonymous weirdos on Twitter give you a lot of good information. You have to be skeptical, you have to be contextual.

There’s also a business model problem.

Legacy media companies that are barely solvent—or, in many cases, insolvent—are desperately churning out as much content as they can and they need stories. They’re not going to be at their best when they’re acting out of desperation. I don’t blame individuals for getting duped sometimes. I think it happens to everyone. The question is “How much can you prioritize figuring out a better way to do it?” That starts with not running with a story unless you know exactly why you’re doing it.

Are there stereotypes about the alt-right and its ideology that you found were inaccurate or misleading?

The immediate misperception is, “Oh, these people are rubes, these people are idiots, they live in complete isolation, they don’t have access to education, all those things.”

And those don’t really turn out to be true.

Obviously there are people in the movement who are idiots because the conclusions that they’re reaching are often monumentally wrong, so some of that might be due to lack of critical reflection. But a lot of times it’s not, “Oh, these people are too dumb to know that you shouldn’t be racist.” It’s a very calculated choice they’re making, and there’s a lot of high-IQ, well-educated people in these movements, which makes it all the more pernicious.

You extensively discuss the difference between the alt-right and the alt-lite/ New Right. Why is distinguishing the two important?

For the purposes of the project it was important to distinguish just so people knew what I was talking about . . . But I also think it’s important to not lie about your subjects. We started out talking about how I don’t feel that I owe these people neutrality. I think it’s an easy leap to go from there to saying that you don’t owe them accuracy. And that’s a huge mistake.

Spring 2020

7

National I don’t like bigots and misogynists and anti-semites, but I’m not going to call someone a bigot or a misogynist or an anti-semite unless I have evidence for that . . . That’s a pretty big part of the distinction between the alt-lite and the alt-right. Some of them are anti-semitic, some are not. So I’m not going to call someone a Nazi if they’re not.

Sometimes people lie about what they are and you can’t just take them at their word, but you also can’t make stuff up.

If ignoring right-wing trolls and extremists makes us complacent and complicit, and responding amplifies their message and legitimizes their views, what should we do?

There’s no good answer . . . it’s a trap. The long-term solution is to create social and discursive conditions that do not make it likely that people will publicly espouse these views or privately hold them. The longterm goal is to create a more just society where there aren’t bigoted, rampaging groups of anonymous trolls. Once they’re out there and they’re sincere and motivated enough that you can’t really put them back in the bottle just by magic, then there are no good solutions at that point. There are a range of less-good solutions.

celling someone, you’re not getting out of the attention economy. You’re participating in it.

I’m not saying that all you can do is studiously ignore these things or not comment on them or not express outrage about them. A lot of these things are outrageous and people should be outraged by them.

I’m saying it’s superficial.

I don’t think we can be complacent enough to say, “We’ve discovered all the bad apples.” It’s not a bad apples kind of problem.

If we want to create a world where it’s not a real, valid, or viable political strategy to be an open white supremacist or to deny the truth at every turn or to be a trickster . . . we can make those things seem boring, we can scorn them, we can mock them, we can fight them with reason, we can fight them with art. There’s a variety of approaches and they should all be taken up, but I don’t think we can be complacent enough to say, “We’ve discovered all the bad apples.” It’s not a bad apples kind of problem.

Doxing is a constant worry for prominent alt-right figures. Is it an acceptable response to their spreading of hatred or should we stop doing it?

What exactly is a “new moral vocabulary”?

Naming and shaming racism doesn’t fix racism. Fixing racism fixes racism. If your response to the new incentive structure of the twenty-first century attention economy is to win immediate plaudits and feel better about yourself and have a viral post by can-

8

Spring 2020

There are people who will say that it creates a deterrent effect and all this stuff. There are arguments on both sides, but it’s certainly not sufficient. If you’re going to engage in it you need to be honest with yourself that there are major drawbacks in addition to whatever benefits you think it might have.

It depends . . . There are people who are powerful and anonymous who don’t want to be named who—you could argue—are powerful enough that it’s in the public interest to name them . . . What I have doubts about is doxing low-level foot soldiers in the movement for the sake of feeling like you’ve done something.

“

Many of your sources speak in general terms about their perceived enemies: the left, academia, mainstream media, the establishment. How does this affect political conversation?

It’s important for any group, especially a group that purports to be a sort of insurgent, underground movement, to have enemies.

From a propaganda perspective, you want to define your enemies as broadly as possible.

You don’t have to be an underground movement; you can be literally the president of the United States and still find great utility in naming an enemy. It’s a great advantage to not be constrained by coherence. You can name the press as your enemy and then spend literally all day talking to the press or engaging with the press. Then you can have it both ways.

nupoliticalreview.com

National

You tell the story of Samantha, a young woman who went down a five-day internet rabbit hole, joined the alt-right, then found her way out. Why did you tell her story and what can we learn from it?

I had spent so long at that point with people who were movement leaders, or who purported to be, and I wanted the story of a run-of-the-mill convert . . . It’s really hard to cut through the spin and the bullshit when you’re talking about full-time propagandists.

I spent so many hours talking to so many dozens of people, but I didn’t have that many moments of feeling like somebody was candidly spilling their guts about what it was like because they were still in it. So to find somebody who was in the process of coming out of it, to watch her deprogramming herself in real time, was valuable.

beating racism. The ideology doesn’t just go away because you’ve found all the people who currently subscribe to it. They can find new converts. Misogyny and white supremacy and fascism are pretty robust ideologies. They weren’t invented five years ago on the internet by some small, finite set of individuals.

So one thing that we can learn from the story of someone like Samantha is that we need to create a world where a smart but aimless and gullible person is exceedingly, exceedingly unlikely to fall prey to really bad ideas, I don’t think we’re there yet.

What was the most appalling thing you read or heard while researching the book? What was the most encouraging thing?

I don’t think that can be all down to individual agency and ingenuity. We have to create systems that encourage all people to move in the right direction. Knowledge is socially produced. It can’t just be leaving the onus on each individual to discover the truth for themselves.

We need to create a world where a smart but aimless and gullible person is exceedingly, exceedingly unlikely to fall prey to really bad ideas.

One thing we can learn is that pretty much anyone is susceptible. She’s absolutely not stupid. She’s a thoughtful person. She just got really duped.

I found a lot of things that were appalling. They’re all tied for most.

People think that gambling addicts don’t know that they’re losing money, but that’s just empirically not the case if you go ask them. So it’s really dangerous for us to think that the way to inoculate yourself against the worst ideas in modern history is to be a nice person and grow up in a diverse town and read books in school and be a good kid. Those things don’t inoculate you.

I didn’t expect to go this far down the rabbit hole at first. I didn’t expect to be hanging out with literal neo-Nazis. I didn’t expect the spectacles like Charlottesville to be as overt as they were. There have always been neo-Nazi marches in America, but I didn’t expect things to be quite as on the nose as they got. All of that was pretty discouraging.

This is why it’s insane and naive to think that if we just find all the racists we’ll be done

What I found encouraging is that there are lots of people like Samantha who, as much

nupoliticalreview.com

as it’s perplexing that they were sucked in by this stuff, they really have a powerful drive to get out. I’ve seen lots of other cases like this where people don’t have any immediate incentives to get out other than just hearing a voice within themselves that says, “This is fucked up. I need to leave.”

“

I’m skeptical of notions of truth with a capital T. But I did find it encouraging that as much as I focus on the Overton window moving in scary directions, there’s nothing intrinsic to suggest that it can only move in that direction. Quite to the contrary. It can move in any direction that people push it more powerfully. It’s as simple as that.

Spring 2020

9

Global

Are Cold Sino–American Relations Solely Trump’s Fault?

Lawrence Cai / International Affairs & Economics 2020 10

Spring 2020

nupoliticalreview.com

Global

D

onald Trump’s foreign policy has been rightfully criticized by many Americans.[1] American prestige and credibility have taken an extraordinary nosedive since Trump came into office.[2] There is, however, one relationship Trump has perhaps taken unjustified criticism over: the pan-Pacific relationship between reigning superpower America and ancient, reawakened, competing superpower China.[3] With an arms race and trade war raging, many believe Trump has damaged a potentially constructive relationship, as if Sino–American relations—which includes $737.1 billion of trade between two nuclear states—were once a glistening ship that could stay afloat if handled properly. But it’s worth asking whether good Sino–American relations were ever possible, if Trump actually worsened them, and if his policies are effective.

Just twice in history have the American and Chinese governments cooperated closely; both times occurred when a mutual and urgent adversary was present. The first was during the Pacific War, known to the Chinese as the War of Resistance, when a combined Sino–American effort drained and crushed the Japanese empire.[4] Sino–American cooperation began even before the official American entry into the war. The second time only saw minimal agreement and occurred during the latter half of the Cold War, years after Chinese relations with the Soviet Union imploded into a frenzy of border disputes.[5] There are more tales of positive, albeit less meaningful, Sino–American relations, such as American contributions to Chinese education during a collapsing Qing Dynasty and symbiotic trade between the two. Indeed, several American towns are named “Canton” after the old English name for Guangzhou, which was, and still is, a bustling maritime trade and transit hub. The Sino–American relationship is older than American independence, and finds itself as globally

nupoliticalreview.com

imperative as it has ever been, with Donald Trump leading one of the two participating parties.

CLASH OF CULTURES

“

National unity reigns supreme over all other priorities, and American values—such as individual freedom and democracy—are considered less important.

“We must not be afraid, as Western people are, that the government will become too strong.”

– Sun Yat-sen Those who criticize Trump for confronting China must remember that the Chinese government, which operates via a hybrid of Confucian and Legalist virtues, does not adhere to the same philosophical priorities and historical lessons that the American and other Western governments do.

In Chinese history and philosophy, a good government maintains two things: tradition and unity.[6][7] The Chinese government earns its legitimacy by keeping the country united and defended and by carrying on the legacies it inherited, at any cost necessary. National unity reigns supreme over all other priorities, and American values—such as individual freedom and democracy—are considered less important.[8] This core Chinese belief, echoed by prominent Chinese thinkers such as Confucius and Sun Yat-sen, explains why, to the Chinese government and people, national unity takes precedence over other priorities and values.[9] This also explains why the Chinese and Western views of human rights are rarely compatible.[10] Many Chinese people, including those who have left China, want their government to be authoritarian, partly due to propaganda but largely due to philosophy and history.

It is this very reason many Chinese people view pro-democracy Hong Kong protesters as unprovoked radicals.[11] That is what happens when a country is five thousand years old,

“

home to a billion-and-a-half people, and is the former jurisdiction of about twenty-eight historical dynasties, each violently torn apart in its own horrific civil war.

This disagreement is just one seemingly immovable obstacle to Sino–American relations. A more modern reason why a positive Sino–American relationship is impossible is also very simple: China will never accept the leadership of another nation.

A good illustration of why this is comes from the Chinese language, in which there are numerous names for “China.” The most commonly used term, Middle Kingdom (中国), illustrates the belief that the Chinese way of life is the core of civilization; an older term, All Under Heaven (天下), declares that the regions controlled by China are the only ones blessed by Heaven.[12][13] The gate in Boston’s own Chinatown proudly displays the latter name. Another term, laowai (老外), can be used both positively and negatively as a slur for any non-Chinese and illustrates the sometimes awkward relationship between Chinese and non-Chinese.[14] The Chinese tend to believe their civilization is the most virtuous, and the Chinese government considers itself qualified to guide international relations.[15][16] Being led by any other nation is often viewed as an abomination to Chinese identity and history.

Influence from any other country, or from any system non-Chinese in origin, is considered an insult and a humiliation to the Chinese, and the Chinese government aims to subvert America until they dominate, not lead, the

Spring 2020

11

Global

“

international hierarchy.[17] Combined with the Chinese perception that America and the West are in decline, the only simple way for America to avoid conflict with China is to accept uncontested Chinese supremacy, as diplomacy has become increasingly difficult.[18][19] Trump demonstrates little understanding of Chinese history or philosophy, but he does understand one thing: Beijing is not interested in being lasting friends with Washington. Or Brussels. Or anyone else. While determining Chinese domestic policy is China’s sovereign right, Beijing’s ambitions to dominate the Asia-Pacific, and perhaps the world, are fair game to counter.

So, when considering Trump’s handling of Sino–American relations, observers should remember that China operates with an ancient philosophy that opposes the most basic values for which America has shed blood and gold, and the only way for Trump to avoid confrontation is to tolerate the development of a China-dominated international order.

Not ideal.

America is not trying to contain China; Chinese talent, innovation, industry, academia, economic potential, market power, and military might are far too capable to be contained by a country across the Pacific Ocean with a population four times smaller.

Rather, America aims to defend the region from Chinese ambition, which is an old tale for the Asia-Pacific.

OBAMA’S GIFT TO TRUMP While it is true that relations under Trump are poor, relations under Obama were a far cry from positive. In just the first half of Obama’s first term, he repeatedly stated that America was China’s friend and welcomed its rise before promptly activating his “Pivot to Asia.”[20] By announcing this policy, which repositioned concentrations of American

12

Spring 2020

A more modern reason why a positive Sino–American relationship is impossible is also very simple: China will never accept the leadership of another nation. military might from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific, Obama made one thing clear to the Chinese: America is a threat. He made no fruitful efforts to combat Chinese exploitation of economies and intellectual property.[21] Across eight years, Obama aimed to compel China to refrain from destabilizing Asia and contribute to the international system.

In the years since, Chinese encroachment has continued, and perhaps escalated.

[22] The Chinese government continues to sponsor espionage against American and other international competitors, directing both intelligence agencies and state-owned corporations to steal innovation secrets relating to anything from missiles to crops.

[23] The espionage does not stop at stealing blueprints; the Chinese government has also hunted for documents regarding internal strategies and, allegedly, the personal information of American citizens.

[24] The Chinese government, an entity preoccupied with preserving its sovereignty, continues its assault on the sovereignty of its competitors.[25] The Chinese government’s hypocrisy does not end there. Along with espionage, the Chinese government has long violated several of its international obligations, such as those under the World Trade Organization (WTO).

[26] In particular, the Chinese government has long tolerated and even promoted excess capacity, overproducing goods and exporting the excess at prices competitors cannot compete against, distorting

international markets.

Other frequent complaints toward the Chinese government include its disregard for accepted transparency standards required of WTO membership and its sponsorship of the acquisition of foreign companies with the goal of facilitating economically inefficient technology transfers.[27][28] Economics aside, the Obama administration’s military posture has clearly not inspired Chinese acceptance of American leadership. Chinese military intrusions continue to threaten the sovereignty and transit lanes of numerous Chinese neighbors, and the Chinese government has feverishly invested in its warwaging assets, including a globally capable navy and drones for export.[29][30][31] Along with being considerably more advanced than it was when Obama was inaugurated, the Chinese military actively identifies the US as an obstacle to its claimed security efforts.[32] By the beginning of the Trump administration, the philosophical incompatibility between the Chinese and American governments persisted, and the well-meaning Obama administration had both failed to mitigate Chinese government offenses and further justified their suspicions. The result is a China that invests lavishly in the ability to wipe out the American military, distrusts the global system and America, and still commits all the malfeasance Obama thought he was going to stop, such as intellectual property theft and invasive military patrols.[33][34][35] Obama entered his presidency with idealist views and goals.[36] Not only is China now even more suspicious of all of that, it now boasts a much more capable economy than before, and its armed forces are building hypersonic nuclear-capable missiles.[37] To this day, the Chinese continue their economic predations and military intimidations.

“

nupoliticalreview.com

Global

CONFRONTING THE MONOLITH Trump, on the other hand, wasted little time defending American and global interests from Chinese predation, despite China being richer and better armed than before.

Of course, Trump should not aim for a ColdWar-style tactic of isolation; China’s existence has gifted the world with greater economic stability and potential, while also producing gargantuan quantities of scientific research and engineering breakthroughs.[38][39] Trump would be wise to avoid establishing a “bamboo curtain”; an absolute schism between China and America would be a great disservice considering their combined intellectual, scientific, and industrial might.[40] Despite vast Chinese contributions, the international community has complained for years of China intentionally lowering the costs of their export products and stripping intellectual property from foreign corporations to boost its own industry.

Trump’s tactic of using tariffs and surveying Chinese acquisitions of American technology has shown that aggressive Chinese government activities will actually be resisted, something missed under Obama.[41]

This tactic has not been without collateral damage; the tariffs have burdened American consumers, which is a glaring weakness in Trump’s China policy.[42] However, Chinese economic policy aims to tilt the global market in favor of Chinese corporations and impedes the potential for Americans to fully benefit from Chinese industrial, economic, and scientific achievements, and not confronting Chinese actions would allow China to prey on American business and consumers nonetheless.[43] While compelling the Chinese to open their market to foreign corporations is unlikely until Chinese corporations can compete, this does not mean America should tolerate intellectual espionage and predatory pricing.[44] While Americans indeed lose from Trump’s tariffs, they, along with many others, will definitely lose from Chinese policies. Chinese trade practices are estimated to cost Americans $225 billion to $600 billion a year, including intellectual property theft and excluding the cost of predatory pricing in export products such as steel.[45][46] Trump’s policy has shown China that its reckless ambitions will not go unopposed, all the while not isolating China severely and keeping the relationship focused on economics, not military assets. Of course, while

Trump should receive credit for being the first, and practically only, world leader to confront Chinese predations, the rest of his foreign policy has fallen well short of objectives, and Trump’s China policy would be far more effective had he not fractured American alliances and prestige.[47][48] China is a monolith. In the event that Chinese expansion and influence are uncontested, authoritarian unity and Chinese dominance would risk being normalized to, or at least tolerated by, those who doubt liberal political philosophy.[49] While Trump cannot and should not stop said beliefs from being pervasive within China, he can surely impede their influence on the world.

Trump took office when his counterparts in Beijing were promoting economically malicious policies that the global community had grown weary of. Beijing viewed American intentions with suspicion. While some of the burden of Trump’s actions has indeed fallen on those he claims to serve, Chinese ambitions have created uncertainty for the American public and much of the global community. Trump has not only made it clear such malfeasance will not be appeased, but has also shown enough restraint to prevent both a cold war and a hot war.

Now, if only he could connect his China policy to the rest of his foreign policy.[50]

[1] Gallup. “Presidential Ratings -- Issues Approval.” Gallup.com. Gallup, March 2, 2020. [2] Bialik, Kristen. “How the World Views the U.S. and Its President in 2018 in 9 Charts.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, October 9, 2018. [3] Holodny, Elena. “The Rise, Fall, and Comeback of the Chinese Economy over the Past 800 Years.” Business Insider. Business Insider, January 8, 2017. [4] “SACO in China During World War II.” SACO. Accessed March 22, 2020. [5] Evans, Michael. “The Sino-Soviet Border Conflict, 1969.” Accessed March 22, 2020. [6] “A Point Of View: Is China More Legitimate than the West?” BBC News. BBC, November 2, 2012. [7] Mingkang, Tong. “Cultural Heritage Conservation in China (Article).” Accessed March 22, 2020. [8] Wang, Chi. “China Doesn't Need Democracy, It Needs a Strong Leader like Xi Jinping.” South China Morning Post, February 11, 2019. [9] Meng, Weizhan. “Unity, Democracy, and Anti-Americanism in China.” Taylor & Francis. Accessed March 22, 2020. [10] Press, Associated. “China Presents Its Take on Human Rights at Global Forum.” South China Morning Post, July 20, 2018. [11] Chen, Qin. “How Do Mainland Chinese View the Hong Kong Protests?” Inkstone. Inkstone, August 12, 2019. [12] Koon, Wee Kek. “How China Got Its Name, and What Chinese Call the Country.” South China Morning Post, October 20, 2017. [13] Gobena, Lelise. “The Implications of ‘Tianxia’ as a New World System.” USC US–China Institute, December 4, 2008. [14] Mao, Yanfeng. “Who Is a Laowai? Chinese Interpretations of Laowai as a Referring Expression for Non-Chinese.”

Semantic Scholar, January 1, 1970. [15] Lewis, Richard. “Why China Considers Itself The Center Of The World.” Business Insider. Business Insider, July 9, 2014. [16] “Is China Challenging the United States for Global Leadership?”

The Economist. The Economist Newspaper. Accessed March 22, 2020. [17] Greer, Tanner. “Can American Values Survive in a Chinese World?” Foreign Policy, October 12, 2019. [18] Swaine, Michael D. “A Relationship Under Extreme Duress: U.S.-China Relations at a Crossroads.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Accessed March 22, 2020. [19] Auslin, Michael. “Opinion | The Old Era of Sino-U.S. Relations Is over - and There's No Going Back.” The Washington Post. WP Company, April 29, 2019. [20] Li, Cheng. “Assessing U.S.-China Relations under the Obama Administration.” Brookings. Brookings, September 5, 2016. [21] Canrong, Jin. “How America's Relationship with China Changed under Obama.” World Economic Forum. Accessed March 22, 2020. [22] “Timeline: U.S. Relations With China 1949–2020.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed March 22, 2020. [23] “Responding Effectively to the Chinese Economic Espionage Threat.” FBI. FBI, February 6, 2020. [24] Viswanatha, Aruna, Dustin Volz, and Kate O’Keeffe. “Four Members of China's Military Indicted Over Massive Equifax Breach.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, February 11, 2020. [25] Stokes, Jacob. “Does China Really Respect Sovereignty?” – The Diplomat. for The Diplomat, May 23, 2019. [26] “2018 Report to Congress On China’s WTO Compliance.”

United States Trade Representative, February 2019. [27] Charnovitz, Steve. “Grading Trump's China Trade Strategy .” The George Washington University Law School, 2019. [28] “2018 Report to Congress On China’s WTO Compliance.”

United States Trade Representative, February 2019. [29] “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2019 .” Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2019. [30] “Type 055 Class Destroyers.” Naval Technology. Accessed March 22, 2020. [31] Marcus, Jonathan. “Saudi Oil Attacks: Who's Using Drones in the Middle East?” BBC News. BBC, September 17, 2019. [32] Jiayao, Li. China's National Defense in the New Era - Ministry of National Defense. Accessed March 22, 2020. [33] Jeong-ho, Lee. “China Releases Footage of 'Guam Killer' Missile in 'Clear Message to US'.” South China Morning Post, January 29, 2019. [34] Rosenbaum, Eric. “1 In 5 Corporations Say China Has Stolen Their IP within the Last Year: CNBC CFO Survey.” CNBC. CNBC, March 1, 2019. [35] Wong, Catherine. “Chinese Patrol near Disputed Islands 'Is Warning to Vietnam'.” South China Morning Post, May 21, 2018. [36] Li, Cheng.

“Assessing U.S.-China Relations under the Obama Administration.” Brookings. Brookings, September 5, 2016. [37] Panda, Ankit. “Hypersonic Hype: Just How Big of a Deal Is China's DF-17 Missile?” – The Diplomat. for The Diplomat, October 16, 2019. [38] Lin, Justin Yifu. “China and the Global Economy.” Asia Economic Policy Conference, n.d. Accessed March 22, 2020. [39] Ball, Philip. “China's Great Leap Forward in Science.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, February 18, 2018. [40] “Bamboo Curtain.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 22, 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bamboo curtain. [41] Charnovitz, Steve. “Grading Trump's China Trade Strategy .” The George Washington University Law School, 2019. [42] Brinkley, John. “Trump's Tariff War Doing The U.S. More Harm Than Good.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, April 8, 2019. [43] Meltzer, Joshua P., and Neena Shenai. “The US–China Economic Relationship: A Comprehensive Approach.” Global Economy and Development at Brookings, February 2019. [44] Huang, Yukon, and Jeremy Smith. “China's Record on Intellectual Property Rights Is Getting Better and Better.” Foreign Policy, October 16, 2019. [45] “The Theft of American Intellectual Propoerty: Reassessments of the Challenge and United States Policy.” IP Commission, 2017. [46] Greenwood, Ian, Ray Hudson, and Human Resource Management. “Fact Check: Is China Dumping Steel?” The Conversation, March 10, 2020. [47] Cohen, Eliot A. “America's Long Goodbye.” Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs Magazine, January 29, 2019. [48] Pitlo, Lucio Blanco.

“Primacy and Balance: Trump's China Strategy.” China US Focus, March 16, 2018. [49] Sullivan, Joseph W. “Every American Should Hope Trump Prevails Against China.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, August 20, 2019. [50] Cohen, Eliot A. “America's Long Goodbye.” Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs Magazine, January 29, 2019.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2020

13

Global

Modern Maoism Prevails: Xi Jinping and the Use of “Red Memory” Julian Fuchsberg / Business Administration & Political Science 2023

I

n recent years, worldwide authoritarianism has been exposed to a new sort of “nostalgic nationalism,” where leaders increasingly rely on extreme loyalism and patriotic sentiment to promote an agenda. Within this genre of civic manipulation is a concerning phenomenon: heads of state reverting to tactics of bygone eras and rose-tinted propaganda to fuel support and monopolize power. In China, President Xi Jinping has capitalized on Mao Zedong's everlasting appeal—and instilled his own degree of Mao-centric propaganda—as a means of gathering support for policy and amplifying his power.

From 1949 until his death in 1976, Mao Zedong held virtually unchallenged rule over the People’s Republic of China as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Though China’s leaders have embraced certain limited reforms in the past four decades—from Zhou Enlai’s successes with foreign diplomacy to Deng Xiaoping’s economic “openness”— Mao’s shadow still looms large in the twentyfirst century. Loyal Maoists “operate scores of web sites” promoting his legacy, promulgating the notion that, “separated from Mao, the Communist Party has no glory.”[1] Mao’s mausoleum in Beijing sees scores of tourists and pilgrims traveling to view his embalmed body.[2] As historian Ross Terrill observed, Mao

14

Spring 2020

has been “added to the panoply of faith” in China, as “nightclub singers in Beijing croon songs that cite Mao’s words” and “Red Guards wave Mao’s little red book.”[3] Though Mao’s ultimate impact cannot be understated, Xi Jinping has made a case for himself as a similarly exceptional ruler. There is no disagreement among observers that Xi’s ideological priorities have permeated the ranks of Chinese government and culture; in fact, the Chinese Politburo granted Xi the status of lingxiu, an honorific title for highly revered leaders that was essentially reserved for Mao exclusively.[4][5] So what has enabled Mao’s enduring appeal in the Chinese popular consciousness? This so-called “red memory” is a two-pronged phenomenon. As professors Iza Ding and Jeffrey Javed noted, older generations derive Mao nostalgia from the quality of their lives during his rule, while younger people rely on official state narratives to form their opinions.

[6] In the former case, even those who had issues with aspects of the Mao era seem to separate the period from Mao himself, not feeling that his shortcomings justify dismissing his influence as a trailblazer. This trend is a manifestation of “reflective nostalgia,” a “simultaneous acceptance of the present and romanticization of the past.” Xi has exploited these sentiments

to gain political capital. For example, Xi’s anticorruption campaign is seen as anecdotally effective by many of the “nostalgic” population interviewed by Ding and Javed, who favorably recall Mao’s efforts to root out corruption.

The CCP, spearheaded by Xi, has used propaganda to create positive associations with Mao—and by extension, authoritarian leadership—in order to cultivate support and a following. Under Xi, Chinese classrooms have been directed to instill a higher degree of “ideological education,” including classes on Mao Zedong Thought and Chinese Marxist theory.[7] The curriculum is present in hundreds of thousands of lower schools and thousands of universities.[8] The courses are critical to Xi as they are designed to lend legitimacy to his policy goals.[9] Mao’s popularity has arguably risen in recent decades; portraits hang over Tiananmen Square and millions visit his childhood hometown each year.[10] Xi has even been known to mimic Mao’s attire, including a proclivity towards high-waisted pants.[11] Instead of carving a new legacy for China, Xi has relied on Mao’s still-commanding presence to normalize novel government initiatives.[12] Xi has also capitalized on Mao’s rhetoric to seize power and codify his agenda. Xi often uses language reminiscent of Mao, describing nupoliticalreview.com

Global

his early life as a humble idealist in rural China prior to ascending the ranks of the CCP.[13] Red Star Over China, a 1937 book by journalist Edgar Snow, contained detailed interviews with Mao which described a “picture of detail and frankness, of gentle humor, and of the revolutionary precision of the mind of [the] Chairman” through various stories of his industrious youth and politically charged rise.[14] Xi, in parallel fashion, has written autobiographically about his younger days, which he allegedly spent laboring in the rural countryside.[15] Through this recounting, Xi has steered policy and national focus by positioning himself as a leader who struggled alongside the common man.[16] Xi’s larger policy goals have been cemented in the Chinese canon in a manner akin to Mao. Xi has formulated a “grand strategy” for China, similar to Mao’s “Leaning to One Side” strategy, which entailed absolute opposition to perceived US imperialism and capitalism.

Xi’s policy blueprints include the Belt and Road Initiative—a series of major trade and infrastructure undertakings—and the “Chinese Dream” ideal, which promotes a blend of spiritual identity, nationalism, and reform.[17][18] It has been noted that Xi is a “more visionary and strategic thinker than his predecessors,” who lacked such ambitious plans.[19] While the Chinese leaders between Mao and Xi often consulted advisors and the Politburo in formulating foreign policy, Xi has dismissed consensus to become more monolithic.

Xi’s domestic policy, backed and legitimized by Mao nostalgia, has transformed him into a commanding figure. As mentioned, Xi’s anti-corruption campaign, a staple of of his agenda, has been heavily supported by

a number of those who romanticize the purported “purity” of the Mao era.[20] However, Xi is dismantling a series of critical reforms “under the guise of fighting corruption” as a way to accumulate unchecked power.[21] The CCP has consistently looked toward Maoist strategies in other policy areas. For instance, an invasive surveillance program is being tested under the name “Sharp Eyes,” which is derived directly from a Maoist slogan.

[22] Xi has also promoted increased party intervention in private enterprise despite China’s supposed economic reforms.[23] And above all, Xi Jinping Thought has permeated

“

the top down. In fact, as some have argued, Xi’s “driving need to rehabilitate Mao” is both out of “practical necessity”—the feeling that loyal Maoists would criticize the shortcomings of Xi’s government if he strayed from Mao—and “a sincere emotional attachment to Mao and his era.”[25] Perhaps, cynically, Xi has a deeper desire to extract absolute power from his rule. Or, Xi is actually a product of the Mao era himself and has a desire to revive the professed purity and righteousness of his formative years.[26] This phenomenon is not exclusive to China.

Vladimir Putin has accomplished something similar in regards to Joseph Stalin. Putin has tended to hold Stalin in high regard and focus on certain aspects of Soviet-era rule to build his own legitimacy and provide the basis for imperial ambitions, like the annexation of Ukrainian and Georgian territory.[27] Even in the United States, President Donald Trump has cultivated his own cult of personality, rallying behind a slogan of “Make America Great Again” that Ronald Reagan used in his 1980 presidential campaign.[28] It is important to confront how myriad factors can engender a cult of personality, and how certain strategies are used to manipulate people and exert control. As the world faces a rise in nationalism and strong-willed leaders, recognizing these tactics is the first step in combating them.

Xi has not only taken advantage of China’s widespread admiration of Mao, but effectively expanded on it and mirrored his tactics to create a new cult of personality.

official publications, institutions, and schools, consecrated alongside the ideology of Mao. The proliferation of Xi’s belief system throughout modern China is a practice essentially not seen since the Mao era. Xi has not only taken advantage of China’s widespread admiration of Mao, but effectively expanded on it and mirrored his tactics to create a new cult of personality.[24] Xi has balanced his own ambitions with popular sentiment; in other words, his control and legitimacy come from the bottom up and

“

[1] Tatlow, Didi Kirsten, “Mao’s Legacy Still Divides China.” The New York Times. May 05, 2011. [2] Ibid. [3] Terrill, Ross. “Mao Now.” The Wilson Quarterly (30)4. 2006. [4] Campbell, Charlie. “Xi Jinping Becomes China’s Most Powerful Leader Since Mao Zedong.” Time. October 24, 2017. [5] Gan, Nectar. “Why China is reviving Mao’s grandiose title for Xi Jinping.” South China Morning Post. October 28, 2017/ [6] Ding, Iza and Jeffrey Javed. “Understanding ‘Red Memory’ in Contemporary China.” 2017. [7] Hernadez, Javier C. “Mao 101: Inside a Chinese Classroom Training the Communists of Tomorrow.” The New York Times. June 28, 2018. [8] Hernadez, Javier C. “To Inspire Young Communists, China Turns to ‘Red Army’ Schools.” The New York Times. October 15, 2017. [9] Hernadez, Javier C. “Mao 101: Inside a Chinese Classroom Training the Communists of Tomorrow.” [10] Anderlini, Jamil. “The return of Mao: a new threat to China’s politics.” Financial Times. September 29, 2016. [11] Ding, Iza and Jeffrey Javed. “Understanding ‘Red Memory’ in Contemporary China.” [12] Dirlik, Arif. “Mao Zedong in Contemporary Chinese Official Discourse and History.” China Perspectives. 2012. [13] Kostiz, Bryce. “Mao and Xi: Story of the Man, Story of the People.” China Story Yearbook: Power. 2018. [14] Snow, Edgar. Red Star Over China. Grove Press: Revised 1964. [15] Kostiz, Bryce.

“Mao and Xi: Story of the Man, Story of the People.” [16] Garnaut, John. “The Creation Myth of Xi Jinping.” Foreign Policy. December 19, 2012. [17] Chatzky, Andrew and James McBride. “China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative.”

Council on Foreign Relations. Updated January 28, 2020. [18] “What does Xi Jinping’s China dream mean?” BBC. June 06, 2013. [19] Ross, Robert S. and Jo Inge Bekkevold. China in the Era of Xi Jinping: Domestic and Foreign Policy Challenges. Georgetown University Press: 2016. [20] Ding, Iza and Jeffrey Javed. “Understanding ‘Red Memory’ in Contemporary China.” [21] Tepperman, Jonathan. “China’s Great Leap Backward.” Foreign Policy. October 15, 2018.

[22] Associated Press. “China’s Sharp Eyes surveillance system puts the security focus on public shaming.” South China Morning Post. October 30, 2018. [23] Economy, Elizabeth. “China’s Neo-Maoist Movement.” Foreign Affairs.

October 01. 2019. [24] Ibid. [25] Greer, Tanner. “Xi Jinping Knows Who His Enemies Are.” Foreign Policy. November 21, 2019. [26] Ibid. [27] Rutland, Peter and Neil Shimmield. “Putin’s dangerous campaign to rehabilitate Stalin.” The Washington Post. June 13, 2019. [28] Parker, Kathleen. “‘Make America Great Again’ is no longer just a slogan. It’s a symbol of rebellion.” The Washington Post. February 22, 2019.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2020

15

Global

The New Yellow Peril?

Anti-Chinese Sentiment in the West Chantal Cheung / Political Science & Economics 2021

16

Spring 2020

nupoliticalreview.com

Global

O

n March 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the novel coronavirus outbreak (COVID19) a pandemic.[1][2] Since the outbreak began in December 2019 in China’s Wuhan city, the number of reported cases has increased daily, so it’s no wonder that people are bombarded with news about it every day. While recent news about COVID-19’s mortality rate and containment methods is critical, not all news coverage of the outbreak has been equal.[3][4] A number of stories, especially early reports, have ranged from thoughtless at best to downright racist at worst. Misinformation about the virus continues to rapidly spread through various social media platforms.[5] This combination of misinformation, fear, and racism has negatively affected East Asians around the world, regardless of their affiliation with China or the virus.[6] Media coverage sets the stage for public debate, and media companies determine what’s newsworthy, essentially telling people what to think about. The more a topic is covered in the news, the more importance people place on the issue.[7] That’s why news companies must be diligent in considering how they cover COVID-19.

The United Kingdom’s Daily Mail and The Sun have published multiple articles expressing disgust toward eating bats and other animals, insinuating that Chinese people are to blame for the outbreak because of their eating habits and culture.[8][9] Never mind that the widely circulated video of bat soup was taken out of context, and that bats are consumed in many parts of the world, including Africa and Oceania.[10][11] France’s Le Courrier Picard published articles with inflammatory headlines such as “New Yellow Peril?” and “Yellow Alert,” referring to the racist anti-Asian ideology that has plagued Western society since the nineteenth century.[12][13] News

nupoliticalreview.com

sources, particularly tabloid newspapers, often use fear-inducing language such as “deadly disease” and “killer virus” that only exacerbates the problem.[14] Even more traditional sources such as The New York Times and CNN have published thoughtless articles.[15][16] Most articles focus on the number of deaths in outbreaks, but fail to note the number of recoveries; skimming through news articles, one would think that COVID-19 was a certain death sentence instead of a recoverable illness for much of the population.[17] People are usually drawn to alarming stories, and more views means more profit.[18] However, the focus on death instead of prevention and recovery means that most people are more fearful of coronavirus than they probably should be.[19] Most notably, when reports of COVID-19 first came out, many articles referred to it as the “Wuhan coronavirus.” Such a label is problematic.

Although people in China refer to it as the “Wuhan coronavirus,” and that may be why Western media began doing so as well, that is no excuse for journalists to ignore the consequences of their choices. Referring to—and thus naming—diseases after people, regions, or animals can harm communities by stigmatizing them and prompting racist treatment. In the case of COVID-19, it already has.[20] People of East Asian descent around the world have reported verbal and physical harassment and racist treatment. Many businesses have put up signs banning Chinese customers.[21] Hundreds of thousands of people in South Korea and Malaysia have signed petitions asking the government to ban Chinese people from entering their countries,

“

and one petition from parents in the York Region of Ontario demanded that students remain home for at least seventeen days after returning from China.[22][23] A woman in New York City was called a “diseased bitch” and physically assaulted because she was Asian and wearing a face mask.[24] French Asians have experienced so much harassment that they’re using #JeNeSuisPasUnVirus (I am not a virus) on social media to complain of abuse.

[25] Even elite academic institutions have perpetuated the normalization of racism; the University of California, Berkeley recently

The outbreak has reawakened anti-Asian, specifically antiChinese, sentiment with deep roots in yellow peril ideology.

“

removed a post—after much backlash— that claimed racism and xenophobia were “normal” reactions to the outbreak.[26][27] The outbreak has reawakened anti-Asian, specifically anti-Chinese, sentiment with deep roots in yellow peril ideology. The West has a history of viewing Chinese people and their customs as dangerous, dirty, and unwelcome. When Chinese laborers immigrated to the US during the California Gold Rush, white laborers felt that their jobs and opportunities were being taken away by immigrants.[28] The idea that “immigrants are stealing jobs” persists today, evident from the ascendancy of Donald Trump, who commonly uses rhetoric such as, “They’re taking our jobs. They’re taking our manufacturing jobs. They’re taking our money. They’re killing us.”[29] Back then, white laborers and unions

Spring 2020

17

Global

lobbied to keep Chinese laborers out of the US.[30] Their biggest argument was that Chinese people carried “Chinese” forms of diseases, particularly sexually transmitted diseases, that were more virulent than “white” forms of diseases.

In particular, Chinese prostitutes were targeted. The Medico-Literary Journal of San Francisco ran an article in 1878 titled, “How the Chinese Women Are Infusing a Poison into the Anglo-Saxon Blood,” which stated: “If the future historian should ever be called upon to write the Conquest of America by the Chinese Government, his opening chapter will be an account of the first batch of Chinese courtesans and the stream of deadly disease that followed.”[31] A member of the San Francisco Board of Health, Dr. Hugh H. Toland, believed that Chinese prostitutes had more virulent forms of STDs, particularly syphilis.[32] People believed that leprosy was a “Chinese disease” resulting from generations of syphilis.[33] They believed that “Chinese smallpox” was more contagious than “white smallpox.”

The editor of the Medico-Literary Journal was Mary P. Sawtelle, a suffragist and one of the first women on the West Coast to attend medical school.[34] Dr. Toland founded a medical school that ultimately became the University of California, San Francisco. These were reputable people of their time.[35] Anti-Chinese sentiment was so strong that in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese laborers from immigrating to the US.[36] Chinese food became a particularly specific form of American racism.[37] Ching chong Chinaman eat dead rats Chew them up like gingersnaps!

This popular schoolyard chant stuck around for decades and was even performed by Judy Garland in the 1944 musical Meet Me in St. Louis.[38] It seems, then, that major events such as COVID-19 can revert people back to, or reveal, xenophobic tropes. The stereotype

18

Spring 2020

that Chinese people eat “filthy, strange meats” still haunts Chinese people today, and recent coverage of and reactions to the outbreak confirm just that.

Food is culturally relative, and Western disgust toward “weird” Chinese food is Eurocentric. Never mind that Americans are eating more pork than ever despite the swine flu outbreak in 2009.[39] Those who shame Chinese people for their food and customs fail to realize the bigger issue: the Chinese government struggling to properly regulate the trade of wild animals thought to be the root cause of the virus.[40] Coverage of virus outbreaks has harmed minority groups before. When AIDS was first discovered in the US in the 1970s, the government and mainstream news outlets ignored it because its earliest manifestations predominantly affected injection drug users and gay men.[41] In fact, Ronald Reagan’s press secretary laughed about the AIDS epidemic with a journalist, calling AIDS the “gay plague.”[42] These incorrect assumptions increased homophobia in the US following the epidemic.[43] When Ebola broke out in Africa in 2014, it was immediately associated with black people, regardless of their affiliation with Africa. Once again, people blamed it on “strange, African” food and customs, as if Africa is homogeneous and those who were infected were to blame for their suffering.[44] Navarro College in Texas sent out rejection letters to Nigerian students, telling the students that the college would not accept students from countries with “confirmed Ebola cases,” even though Nigeria had successfully contained Ebola cases and days later was declared Ebola-free by the WHO.[45][46] At a Pennsylvania high school football game, the opposing team chanted “Ebola!” at a black football player.[47] Newsweek published a magazine cover with a picture of a chimpanzee and the headline, “A Back Door for Ebola: Smuggled Bushmeat Could Spark a US Epidemic.”[48] The list goes on. Misinformation about COVID-19 seems to be more contagious than

the virus itself: Coronavirus can be prevented by taking Vitamin C and avoiding spicy foods; it can be cured by drinking a bleach solution.

[49][50] It originated from Chinese people eating cooked bats.[51] Chinese spies smuggled the virus out of Canada; it was lab-engineered as a bioweapon.[52][53] Tech companies have a responsibility to mitigate the damage spread on their platforms. Companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google have long struggled to reduce the amount of health misinformation circulating on such platforms. Anti-vaccine posts and videos thrive on Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram, while bogus health advice flourishes on Twitter during viral outbreaks.[54] In the wake of the most recent outbreak, Google-owned YouTube has seen multiple videos containing dubious information on the origins and spread of COVID-19 despite YouTube’s claims that its algorithm prioritizes credible sources.[55] Regarding COVID-19, Facebook claimed that it has labeled inaccurate posts and “lowered their rank in users’ daily feeds,” though notably, it has not removed posts containing health misinformation.[56] While Facebook’s third-party fact checkers have rated certain posts as false, it’s particularly hard to control closed, private Facebook groups. Twitter has stated that it will expand a feature that places “authoritative health info from the right sources up top” when people search for a hashtag. And yet, misinformation thrives because once it has spread, it is difficult to control. That’s why it’s so important that anyone who uses social media recognizes their responsibility to mitigate the spread as well.

When a health crisis happens, people immediately want to know the latest information—even if it’s inaccurate. Those on social media who claim to know remedies and causes of health scares get the most attention even if they’re wrong. The temptation of identifying an easy cause and solution is too much for people to ignore, and while bots and human “troll farms” originate most

nupoliticalreview.com

“

It’s not just misinformation that people need to be aware of. People must also consider the roots of their prejudice and selective empathy.

information they put out is accurate before articles are published.

Media companies should also take note of the words used and the tone of the articles; fear can be a social emotion, so companies must be careful not to sound overly alarmist and unnecessarily spread panic.[58] Social media companies should also be mindful of what is promoted on their platforms. Companies such as Facebook have already employed fact-checkers, who have found multiple fake posts regarding COVID-19 and have labeled the inaccuracies as such.[59] While employing fact-checkers is important and necessary, social media companies should also provide accurate information alongside content with fake information so that people are exposed to correct information.

It’s not just misinformation that people need to be aware of. People must also consider the roots of their prejudice and selective empathy. When someone sees a comment like “We should just ban all Chinese from America,” they need to stop and think: does that commenter actually want to do

Global

misinformation, ordinary people pass it to their friends and family.[57] People might not believe a piece of information shared by a random social media account, but are more likely to believe it if someone they know and trust shares that information.

So what can people do about all this?

For starters, recognize that just because information is new doesn’t mean it’s accurate.

Refer to and share sources that have an established track record of accurate science and health reporting; sources such as the WHO or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are more reliable than unknown personal social media accounts. Peer-reviewed medical journals have better information than a random post on Facebook, though even such journals have published false information in the rush to get news out. Lastly, people can check to see that the source is actually what it claims to be, as bots and trolls can invent government agencies or organizations to spread disinformation.

The media can also help prevent misinformation and fear from spreading.

The pressure for media companies to put out breaking news is high. But in times of crisis, companies should pause and ensure all the

“

anything helpful about COVID-19 or does the commenter just want to spread hate and fear? When someone says “Chinese people eat weird food and that’s why we have a new plague,” is that coming from a place of science or bigotry? Are people conflating the Chinese government, whose actions they may or may not agree with, with Chinese people?

It is far too easy in times of crisis to shun the other, blame the perceived outsiders, and ignore the humanity of those suffering the most. But it is also during these times that people, more than ever, must show compassion for one another.

[1] World Health Organization. Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Updated 2020. [2] Dahlberg, Brett and Elena Renken. “New Coronavirus Disease Officially Named COVID-19 By The World Health Organization.” NPR. February 11, 2020. [3] Perper, Rosie. “WHO Says The Coronavirus Global Death Rate Is 3.4%, Higher Than Earlier Figures.” Science Alert. March 05, 2020. [4] “Coronavirus response: a focus on containment is still apt.” Nature. March 03, 2020. [5] Leskin, Paige. “Reddit ran wild with Boston bombing conspiracy theories in 2013 and is now an epicenter for coronavirus misinformation. The site is doing almost nothing to change that.” Business Insider. March 06, 2020. [6] Haynes, Suyin.“As Coronavirus Spreads, So Does Xenophobia and Anti-Asian Racism.” Time. March 06, 2020. [7] Wayne, Wanta, Guy Golan, and Cheolhan Lee. “Agenda Setting and International News: Media Influence on Public Perceptions of Foreign Nations.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81(2). June 2004. [8] Video: “Coronavirus outbreak linked bat soup sold Wuhan market.” The Daily Mail. Updated 2020. [9] Mullin, Gemma. “MISSING LINK Coronavirus outbreak could be linked to bat soup say scientists.” The Sun. January 24, 2020.

[10] BBC Monitoring and UGC Newsgathering. “China coronavirus: Misinformation spreads online about origin and scale.” BBC News. January 30, 2020. [11] Mickleburgh, Simon, Kerry Waylen, and Paul Racey. “Bats as Bushmeat: a Global Review.” Oryx(43)2. 2009. [12] “Coronavirus: French Asians hit back at racism with 'I'm not a virus'.” BBC News. January 29, 2020. [13] Tchen, John Kuo Wei, and Dylan Yeats. “Yellow Peril: 19th-Century Scapegoating.”

Asian American Writers’ Workshop. March 05, 2020. [14] Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin. “Coronavirus: how media coverage of epidemics often stokes fear and panic.” The Conversation. February 14, 2020. [15] McNeil Jr., Donald G. “Wuhan Coronavirus Looks Increasingly Like a Pandemic, Experts Say.” The New York Times. February 02, 2020. [16] Yeung, Jessie. “As the coronavirus spreads, fear is fueling racism and xenophobia.” CNN. January 31, 2020. [17] “Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University.” 2020. Distributed by Johns Hopkins University. [18] Pinker, Steven. “The media exaggerates negative news.

This distortion has consequences.” The Guardian. February 17, 2018. [19] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Summary. Updated 2020. [20] World Health Organization. WHO issues best practices for naming new human infectious diseases. Updated 2015. [21] Yeung, Jessie. “As the coronavirus spreads, fear is fueling racism and xenophobia.” [22] Kim, Victoria. “‘No Chinese’: In petitions, signs and tweets, fear is spreading faster than the coronavirus.” The Los Angeles Times. January 31, 2020. [23] Li, Erjun. “Stop the Potential spreading of the Novel coronavirus in schools of York Region, Ontario.” 2020. ipetitions.com. [24] Li, David K. “Coronavirus hate attack: Woman in face mask allegedly assaulted by man who calls her 'diseased'.” NBC News, February 05, 2020. [25] Asian Law Students' Society. “La pandémie #COVID19 est une période stressante pour beaucoup.

Cependant le racisme et la xénophobie ne devraient jamais être tolérés. Aidez-nous à sensibiliser l'opinion publique pour mettre fin au racisme anti-asiatiques. Merci de partager nos œuvres d'art!” March 17, 2020, 9:12AM. [26] Shih, Adrienne. “Confused and honestly very angry about this Instagram post from an official @UCBerkeley Instagram account. When is xenophobia ever a “normal reaction”?” January 30, 2020, 12:53PM. [27] Chiu, Allyson. “‘Stop normalizing racism’: Amid backlash, UC-Berkeley apologizes for listing xenophobia under ‘common reactions’ to coronavirus.” The Washington Post. January 31, 2020. [28] The African American Policy Forum. N.d. “Chinese Exclusion Act.” Aapf.org. Accessed March 18, 2020. [29] Hoban, Brennan. “Do immigrants “steal” jobs from American workers?” Brookings Institute. August 24, 2017. [30] American Federation of Labor. Some Reasons for Chinese Exclusion.

Meat vs. Rice. American Manhood against Asiatic Coolieism. Which Shall Survive? Senate Doc. No. 137, 57th Congress, 1st Session (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1902). [31] Pomfret, John. The Beautiful Country and the Middle Kingdom. New York: Henry Holt and Company. 2016. [32] Chen, Yong. Chinese San Francisco: 1850–1943. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2000. [33] Ibid. [34] Pomfret, John. “The coronavirus reawakens old racist tropes against Chinese people.” The Washington Post. February 05, 2020. [35] “Hugh Hunger Toland (1806–1880).” A History of UCSF. University of California, San Francisco. Accessed February 15, 2020. [36] An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to the Chinese, May 6, 1882; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1996; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.[37] Wladaver-Morgan, Susan.

“Pacific Visions.” Pacific Historical Review 70(2). May 2006. [38] Liu, Haiming. From Canton Restaurant to Panda Express. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 2015. [39] Dewey, Caitlin. “Why American are eating more pork now than they have in decades.” The Washington Post. May 26, 2017. [40] Yeung, Jessie. “As the coronavirus spreads, fear is fueling racism and xenophobia.” [41] Ruel, Erin and Richard T. Campbell. “Homophobia and HIV/AIDS: Attitude Change in the Face of an Epidemic.” Social Forces 84(4). June 2006. [42] Lopez, German. “The Reagan administration's unbelievable response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.” Vox. Updated December 01, 2016. [43] Ruel, Erin and Richard T. Campbell. “Homophobia and HIV/AIDS: Attitude Change in the Face of an Epidemic.” [44] Onion, Rebecca. “We’ve Had a Lot of Pandemics Lately. Have We Learned Anything From Them?” Slate. January 30, 2020.

[45] Ohlheiser, Abby. “Navarro College in Texas apologizes after rejecting Nigerian applicants over Ebola fears.” The Washington Post. October 15, 2014. [46] “WHO Declares Nigeria Ebola-Free.” World Health Organization. October 20, 2014. [47] Zurcher, Anthony. “Ebola, race and fear.” BBC News. October 21, 2013. [48] “Newsweek accused of 'racism' and 'fear mongering.’” Al Jazeera. August 25, 2014. [49] Mark, Yu. “Got this advice from a friend. . .” Facebook Post. January 25, 2020. [50] Landsverk, Gabby. “Conspiracy theorists are telling people to drink a dangerous bleach solution to cure or prevent coronavirus.” Business Insider. January 31, 2020. [51] Li, Ming. “吃蝙蝠肉和蝙蝠汤会得 病吗.” Youtube Video. January 23, 2020. [52] Funke, Daniel. “Websites spin unproven link between Canada, China about coronavirus outbreak.” PolitiFact. January 28, 2020. [53] Bertz, Bill. “Coronavirus may have originated in lab linked to China's biowarfare program.” The Washington Times. January 26, 2020. [54] Oluwafemi Oyeyemi, Sunday, Elia Gabarron, and Rolf Wynn. “Ebola, Twitter, and misinformation: a dangerous combination?” The BMJ. 2014.

[55] Romm, Tony. “Facebook, Google and Twitter scramble to stop misinformation about coronavirus.” The Washington Post. January 27, 2020. [56] IBid. [57] Pomerantsev, Peter. “The disinformation age: a revolution in propaganda.” The Guardian. July 27, 2019. [58] Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin. “Coronavirus: how media coverage of epidemics often stokes fear and panic.” The Conversation. February 14, 2020. [59] Romm, Tony. “Facebook, Google and Twitter scramble to stop misinformation about coronavirus.”

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2020

19

Featured

A Dam(n) Shame: Ethiopia and Egypt's Destructive Dispute Beza Zenebe / Political Science 2021

I

n 2019, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now he might lead Ethiopia to war with Egypt over a dam.[1] The conflict started in 2009, when Ethiopia—without consulting Egypt or Sudan—announced that it would construct the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile.[2] The Blue Nile—located in Ethiopia—is the source of 85 percent of the Nile’s waters.[3] Egypt and Sudan are the Nile’s main beneficiaries; Egypt, in particular, depends on the Nile for 90 percent of its water.[4][5] Former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi asserted that “all options are open” to address the GERD’s potential threats toward their water supply.[6] Similarly, Egyptian media members have called for an invasion to stop Ethiopia’s project.[7] In response, Abiy warned that “no force could stop Ethiopia from building a dam,” and that he could militarize millions to protect the GERD.[8]

20

Spring 2020

These threats have only worsened tensions; if Abiy wants to legitimize construction of the dam, he must reassure the Nile Basin states that the project benefits all those involved.

Ethiopia has always marketed the GERD as a mutually beneficial project. However, the country’s actions contradict its words. Former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi assured that “the benefits that will accrue from the dam will by no means be restricted to Ethiopia.”[9] He also claimed that the GERD could resolve disagreements about equitable use of the Nile, as the project would reduce evaporation, regulate water flow, and provide cheap energy to downstream countries. Zenawi’s successor, Hailemariam Desalegn, considered the GERD a “joint ownership,” as all Nile Basin states would benefit from its development. But when Egypt offered to finance and manage the project in 2014, Ethiopia declined, citing state sovereignty.[10] Ethiopia went as far as to state that a joint administration for the

GERD was unacceptable. Even now, Abiy has spoken for cooperation while simultaneously threatening military force. These mixed messages have obscured Ethiopia’s intentions.

Egypt’s history with the Nile is just as troublesome. For one, there is no regional treaty regarding use of the Nile, just thirteen bilateral or trilateral agreements.[11] Nevertheless, Egypt claims majority control of the river based on two conventions: the 1929 and 1959 Nile Waters Agreements.[12] Under the 1929 agreement, Great Britain— which represented its colonial states Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika (now Tanzania)—gave Egypt the right to veto projects that would affect its water share.

This is because of Egypt’s historical claims and dependence on the river. While Sudan is a major beneficiary of the Nile, it—alongside Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania—has access to alternative water resources, such as heavy rainfall or the sources that supply the Nile, the Blue Nile and the White Nile.

nupoliticalreview.com

nupoliticalreview.com

are encouraged to work together on mutually advantageous projects and refrain from activities that harm the other's interests.

But because the framework is non-binding, all Egypt could do was condemn Ethiopia’s refusal to cooperate. In response, Ethiopia cited its sovereign right to build on its territory and claimed that it was fulfilling its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses.[17] Article 4, Part II requires that states use watercourses “in an equitable and reasonable manner.”[18] For

“

water shortages.[19] It is also possible that dam cooperation could strengthen international relationships, allowing for increased trade. But because impact reports are scant, Ethiopia’s claim of appropriate water sharing and mutual benefit is questionable.[20] The UN Watercourses Convention also mandates that states develop and protect international watercourses “in an equitable and reasonable manner.”[21] Ethiopia can claim that they’ve fulfilled this requirement, but by excluding Egypt, which has a legitimate claim to the river, they are denying the country its right to participate in Nile development projects.[22] Thus, Egypt can use the convention to press Ethiopia to be more cooperative.

Article 33 of the UN Watercourses Convention allows Egypt to seek a mediator. Egypt and Ethiopia tried to settle the issue diplomatically with the United States in late 2019. The three states set a deadline of January 15, 2020 to settle the disagreement, but failed to meet it.[23] Since then, President Trump expressed optimism that a mutually beneficial agreement was near. Ethiopia then skipped the next meeting in Washington D.C., asserting that the US pressured both parties to quickly wrap up negotiations.[24] Ethiopia’s Water and Energy Minister Seleshi Bekele noted that the US-brokered deal lacked comprehensiveness and focused only on how quickly the dam should be filled.[25] On March 22, Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs Gedu Andargachew claimed that

It is possible for Egypt and Ethiopia to make peace, but it will require major concessions on each side.

a state’s use to be equitable and reasonable, it must aim for optimal and sustainable use, with consideration for the interests of the other watercourse states. A state must, among other things, take into account the social and economic needs of all watercourse states, the populations dependent on the water, and the economic impact.

Ethiopia claims that the GERD will ensure appropriate water sharing and benefit all states involved. It may do so, especially if all concerned parties are allowed input on regulating it. The GERD could increase hydraulic infrastructure to improve water distribution, which could be especially useful as climate change worsens desertification and

Featured

The 1959 agreement—which expanded on the 1929 agreement—divided the resources solely between Egypt and Sudan without concern for the other Nile Basin states.[13] Under this agreement, Egypt’s water allocation went from forty-eight billion cubic meters to fiftysix billion (66 percent of the Nile’s waters), and Sudan’s from four billion cubic meters to nineteen billion (22 percent). The agreement also established the Permanent Joint Technical Commission for Nile Waters between Sudan and Egypt, intended to resolve disputes.[14] The commission comprised four engineers from Egypt and Sudan, supervised approved projects, and managed water allocation during low-flow years.

Ethiopia is not party to either of these agreements. Furthermore, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania have all rejected the 1929 agreement, arguing that Britain was not their lawful custodian and did not have their best interests in mind when ratifying it.

Egypt disagrees, claiming that because these states succeeded their colonial counterparts, they must uphold their obligations. However, there is no international law demanding that succeeding states honor the commitments of their predecessors.[15] Thus, these states aren’t legally bound by the 1929 agreement.

Sudan, on the other hand, is legally bound by the 1959 agreement, as it signed on postindependence. Still, no other Nile Basin state signed onto the 1959 agreement, meaning it is not regional law.

While Egypt and Ethiopia have yet to pass binding treaties regarding Nile use, the two countries did pass the non-binding Framework for General Cooperation in 1993, establishing expectations for future interactions.[16] States

“

Spring 2020

21

Featured

Ethiopia had formed a solution to its dispute with Egypt and that the GERD’s construction and reservoir filling will continue as planned.[26] As of publication, Egypt has not corroborated this assertion.

This is why negotiations will most likely fail. Egypt and Ethiopia cannot negotiate together or agree on the GERD’s impact. They cannot even agree on what equitable sharing is.

Even though the UN Watercourses Convention defines equitable sharing, both parties latch onto particular parts of the definition and disregard its full meaning. Egypt looks solely at its water dependence, without regard for other states that have long been excluded from negotiations. Ethiopia looks at economic growth, water reallotment, and energy creation without reflecting on Egypt’s lack of alternative water sources.

Neither side trusts the other’s words because there is no accountability mechanism for regional oversight. While the International Court of Justice is responsible for settling international disputes, it cannot compel states into arbitration.[27] It is possible for Egypt and Ethiopia to make peace, but it will require major concessions on each side. To start, both must commission independent scientists, engineers, and economists to estimate the GERD’s environmental, economic, and water-share impact. In 2013, Ethiopia allowed Egypt and Sudan to form a body of international experts to review the GERD, but the panel’s findings were buried, never made

“

public. They only saw the light of day because International Rivers leaked the report about a year later.[28] The panel found enormous gaps in the project’s documentation, stating that a project of GERD’s magnitude, importance, and impact deserves a more detailed, sophisticated, and reliable study.[29] It recommended that Ethiopia conduct a transboundary environmental and socioeconomic impact assessment and create a water resources–hydropower system simulation model. Ethiopia has failed to adopt this recommendation. In response, Egypt called for a neutral third party to determine GERD’s impacts. If Ethiopia wishes to prevent further escalation, they should comply with this request.[30] Ethiopia and Egypt should also work to involve the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), a temporary cooperative body that aims to establish governing mechanisms for the Nile.[31] Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo are all members, while Eritrea maintains observer status. The NBI functions off the Khartoum Declaration, a non-binding agreement that advocates

harmonized data sharing, environmental management policies, and environmental impact assessments among signatory states.

Most importantly, a permanent Nile Basin Commission must be established.

The NBI is trying to transition away from being a temporary fixture, but needs binding mechanisms and the support of all member states to fulfill its goals. The NBI has struggled to live up to its potential, as member states have not paid their contributions.[32] Some donors have cut their support for the NBI because of its operational failures, perpetuating its struggles.

To address this, states must reaffirm their commitments to the NBI. While empowering it would diminish state sovereignty, the sacrifice is necessary. Otherwise, a region plagued by instability and conflict will suffer another setback, further limiting opportunities for growth, progress, and advancement.

Prime Minister Abiy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize. Show the world why you deserve it. Allow Egypt access to GERD. Work with independent research bodies, the NBI, and fellow Nile Basin River states to assess impacts and accomodate the needs of the entire region.

Whether the GERD is accepted as mutually beneficial depends on you proving it to the rest of the Nile states.

Otherwise, the conflict will persist.

Ethiopia looks at economic growth, water reallotment, and energy creation without reflecting on Egypt’s lack of alternative water sources.

“

[1] The Nobel Prize. “Abiy Ahmed Ali: Facts.” Nobel Prizes 2019. Accessed February 09, 2020. [2] “Egypt’s battle over the Renaissance Dam: A Timeline.” Mada Masr. March 23, 2015. [3] “Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.” International Rivers. Accessed February 09, 2020. [4] “Egypt’s battle over the Renaissance Dam: A Timeline.” Mada Masr. [5] Mutahi, Basillioh. “Egypt-Ethiopia row: The trouble over a giant Nile dam.” BBC. January 13, 2020. [6] “Egyptian warning over Ethiopia Nile dam.” BBC. June 10, 2013. [7] Magdy, Samy. “Egyptian media urges military action against Ethiopia as Nile talks break down.” The Time of Israel. October 22, 2019. [8] “Ethiopia's Abiy Ahmed issues warning over Renaissance Dam.” Al Jazeera. October 22, 2019. [9] Tawfik, Rawia. “The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: a benefit-sharing project in the Eastern Nile?” Water International 41(4). April 13, 2016. [10] Ibid. [11] Salman Tayie, Mohamed. “The Legal Aspects of the International Rivers: The Nile River as a Case Study.” The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry 56: The Nile River. January 22, 2017. [12] “Factbox: Nile river agreements and issues.” Reuters.

July 27, 2009. [13] Kimenyi, Mwangi S. and John Mukum Mbaku. “The limits of the new ‘Nile Agreement.’” Brookings Institute. April 28, 2015. [14] “Permanent Joint Technical Commission for Nile Waters: Egypt-Sudan.” United Nations. January 01, 1983. [15] Zimmermann, Andreas. “State Succession in Treaties.” Oxford Public International Law. Last updated November 2006. [16] “Framework for General Cooperation between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Ethiopia.” July 01, 1993. [17] Swain, Ashok. "Ethiopia, the Sudan, and Egypt: The Nile River Dispute." The Journal of Modern African Studies 25(4). December 1997. [18] “Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses.” UN. May 21, 1997. [19] Yihdego, Zeray, Alistair Rieu-Clarke, and Ana Elisa Cascao. “How has the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam changed the legal, political, economic and scientific dynamics in the Nile Basin?” Water International 41(4). July 20, 2016. [20] Abdelhady, Dalia et al. “The Nile and the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: Is There a Meeting Point between Nationalism and Hydrosolidarity?” Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 155(1). July 2015. [21] “Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses.” UN. [22] Swain, Ashok. "Ethiopia, the Sudan, and Egypt: The Nile River Dispute." [23] Washington AFP. “Trump says deal on giant Ethiopian dam is near.” France 24. Last updated January 01, 2020. [24] Okello, Christina. “Egypt and Ethiopia eye calmer waters in Nile dam dispute.” Radio France International. Last updated January 31, 2020. [25] Egypt Independent. “Ethiopia Prepares Solution on Dispute with Egypt over GERD: Minister.” Egypt Independent, March 22, 2020. [26] “Statute of the International Court of Justice.” UN. April 18, 1946. [27] “The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Fact Sheet.” International Rivers. January 24, 2014. [28] “International Panel of Experts on Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project.” International Rivers. May 31, 2013. [29] “The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Fact Sheet.” [30] “Nile River Basin Initiative.” International Waters Governance. Accessed February 10, 2020. [31] Ndyabawe, Swizeen. “The Nile basin – Is there any hope of cooperation?” Foreningen for Internasjonale Vannstudier. Accessed February 10, 2020.

22

Spring 2020

nupoliticalreview.com

Featured

Transnational Hip-Hop: A Lens into Social Protest Evan Crystal / International Affairs 2020 From the heart It's a start, a work of art To revolutionize make a change nothing's strange People, people we are the same Public Enemy, “Fight the Power,” Fear of a Black Planet (1990)

W

hen people first heard those lines from the unparalleled baritone of Chuck D., the frontman for hip-hop group Public Enemy, it was in Do the Right Thing, the 1989 Spike Lee joint that focused on racism, racial tensions, and the resulting violence in 1980s Brooklyn. Even though hip-hop was born in New York and most, if not all, of the famous artists are American, it has become a transnational phenomenon.[1] Musical groups around the world have adopted elements of hip-hop, identifying with marginalized voices everywhere.

Public Enemy is one of many hip-hop groups that used music as a cultural critique.

Even if they wanted only to be artists, they became voices of the people—willingly or unwillingly—by elevating popular causes and voices through their music.[2] One of the most recognizable rap songs from that era was also one of the most incendiary: N.W.A’s “Fuck tha Police.”[3] It was a target of suppression from the FBI and local police on the grounds of “inciting violence,” and the FBI banned the group from performing the song during their first tour—a clear violation of the artists’ First Amendment rights.[4] A letter written by the assistant director of the FBI Office of Public Affairs referenced police deaths in the line of duty, but failed to link N.W.A’s music to any fomentation of violence.[5]

nupoliticalreview.com

In Straight Outta Compton, the biographical drama about N.W.A, when asked why and how they could say such things about police officers, primary lyricist Ice Cube simply responded, “Our art is a reflection of our reality.” Growing up as young black men in Compton, California, they dealt not with a police force focused on community protection, but with a racist, corrupt, quasi-military organization that targeted black and brown minorities.[6] Fuck the police Coming straight from the underground A young n***a got it bad 'cause I'm brown And not the other color so police think They have the authority to kill a minority Fuck that shit, 'cause I ain't the one For a punk motherfucker with a badge and a gun To be beating on, and thrown in jail We could go toe to toe in the middle of a cell Fucking with me 'cause I'm a teenager With a little bit of gold and a pager Searching my car, looking for the product Thinking every n***a is selling narcotics N.W.A, “Fuck tha Police,” Straight Outta Compton (1988) Breaking down the allegations in the lyrics, a listener hears accusations of: 1.

Racial profiling: “A young n***a got it bad 'cause I'm brown”

2.

Police violence: “They have the authority to kill a minority”

3.

Profiling based on relative wealth and age: “Fucking with me 'cause I'm a teenager, with a little bit of gold and a pager”

4.

More racial profiling: “Thinking every n***a is selling narcotics”

Although N.W.A was protested by police across America and many other public interest groups, the group’s allegations have since been widely corroborated.[7][8] Furthermore, some of these issues are only now being recognized on a greater scale. Today, Black Lives Matter is protesting the exact same phenomena: police violence and racism.

While it originally may have seemed like the genre would cater to demographics that experienced the same social reality as the artists, hip-hop quickly spread to white America. Indeed, “many suburban white youth embrace and embody elements of hip-hop culture in their daily talk, dress, and musical listening preferences.”[9] This, according to critical race theory scholar Kafi Kumasi, “is indicative of the ubiquitous and powerful influence of urban youth culture” on youth culture and society in general.[10] Songs like Grandmaster Flash’s “The Message”—one of the original hip-hop songs— and Wu-Tang Clan’s top single “C.R.E.A.M.”— which stands for “cash rules everything around me”—illustrate the harsh life of growing up in the inner city.

Broken glass everywhere People pissing on the stairs, you know they just don't care I can't take the smell, can't take the noise Got no money to move out, I guess I got no choice Rats in the front room, roaches in the back Junkies in the alley with a baseball bat Grandmaster Flash and the Furious 5, “The Message,” The Message (1982)

Spring 2020

23

Featured

Cash rules everything around me . . .

I grew up on the crime side, the New York Times side Stayin' alive was no jive Had secondhands, Mom's bounced on old man Wu-Tang Clan, “C.R.E.A.M.,” Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) (1993) These songs describing life in New York City— respectively, the South Bronx in the seventies and eighties and Staten Island in the eighties and nineties—are often the first prolonged experiences the broader American population had with this specific segment of society.[11] Tracks with great lyrics, rhythm, and beats are made every year, but what makes many of the greatest hip-hop songs great, what gives them staying power, is a lasting message, whether it’s about love, loss, or (a critique of) society that resonates with listeners.

Even more so when it comes attached to a memorable line like “fight the power,” “fuck tha police,” or “cash rules everything around me.”

An association with urban America has created a perception that hip-hop is uniquely American, or, at a minimum, created an overly (or exclusively) domestic popular catalog. International artists are presenting listeners with all the elements that Americans love in their own hip-hop, but they are not receiving remotely the same notoriety.[12] At the same time, other recent genres of popular music have not been so domestic. Rock and roll, also influenced by Black America, was hugely popular in the United Kingdom, among other countries.[13] Pop, a nebulous genre, has many popular Latin influences, and a handful of non-English songs have topped the Billboard 100 list, including Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee’s “Despacito” and Los Lobos’ version of “La Bamba.”[14] Discounting Canadian rappers—who share significant cultural influences with their American counterparts—like Drake or Kardinal Offishall, most Americans can barely identify a single international hip-hop artist

or group.[15] The most famous, the Fugees, has two Haitian members, but the frontwoman and most famous member is Lauryn Hill of the decidedly uninternational East Orange, New Jersey.

As an art form, hip-hop’s capacity to support protest messages of younger generations is transnational.[16] Thriving hip-hop cultures exist across the world, with beats and rhymes and a unique, personal message that can still resonate culturally in the United States. Hiphop is performed by Native Americans, French and French Africans, Basques in Northern Spain, and in the slums of Brazil.[17][18][19] Take Cuba, a country cut off from the United States and most of the world due to its clash with the West over communism.

Despite government policing of art, Cuba still has a vibrant and active Afro-Cuban hiphop community, which emerged within and beneath the communist regime. Songs like “Havana Side Underground” try to show what life is like for the marginalized, and it takes its title from a term describing the other side of life in Cuba. For Afro-Cubans, this means lived experiences of anti-black racism and few means of advancement, an issue largely

International artists are presenting listeners with all the elements that Americans love in their own hip-hop, but they are not receiving remotely the same notoriety.

24

Spring 2020

ignored by the government.[20] “Tengo,” meaning “I have,” is one of the most popular tracks from the Cuban hip-hop group Hermanos de Causa (Brothers of the Cause). Adapted from the poetry of Nicolás Guillén, a famous Afro-Cuban poet, the song angrily discusses their struggles as black people living under communism.[21]

Tengo una raza oscura y discriminada . . .

Tengo una jornada que me exige y no da nada Tengo tantas cosas que no puedo ni tocarlas Tengo instalaciones que no puedo ni pisarlas Tengo libertad entre un paréntesis de hierro I have a dark and discriminated race . . .

I have a day that demands me and gives nothing I have so many things that I can't even touch them I have facilities that I cannot even step in I have freedom in an iron bracket Hermanos de Causa, “Tengo” (2001) The first line talks about racism. The next accuses the communist government of unfair compensation. The rest focus on rights that cannot be realized: freedom in an iron bracket, freedom by name only, constrained by the shackles of dictatorship. The Cuban government has tried to solve and hide the issue by supporting artistic expression to a degree, but has censored meaningful public discourse and initiatives.[22] Overt criticism of the government, and of the racism embedded in society, is reminiscent of the rhymes of Public Enemy and N.W.A thirteen hundred miles north.

Beyond the similarities, new forms of hip-hop that evolved in geographically unique locations allow for new innovations in the genre.

In their song “Kirino Con Su Tres,” another Guillén adaptation, the Afro-Cuban feminist hip-hop trio Instinto rap over salsa beats instead of drum beats, a refreshing, fastpaced style. “Kirino” is a man’s name.[23] In the poem he is described as “nappy-haired,” along with other pejorative stereotypes. A “tres” is a three-course guitar-like instrument popular in Cuba.

Instinto turns the poem on its head by focusing on Kirino’s mother, who Guillén mentions only in passing, making her the focus of the track. Instinto offers a black

“

También soy bravo como el licor Verde, blanco, y rojo Ese es mi color No tengo dinero pero me sobra el valor Por mucho que se encuentre siempre traigo el calor No olvido mi raíz, soy hijo del maiz Orgulloso yo me siento de este gran país . . .

I’m also brave/rough like liquor Green, white, and red This is my color I don’t have money but I have the courage For whatever is found I will always bring the heat I won’t forget my race, I am a child of maize I feel pride for this great country . . .

Kinto Sol, “Hecho en Mexico,” Hecho en Mexico (2003)

Novels and poetry are important and have their audiences, but so does hiphop, and important truths should reach as many minds as possible.

This verse addresses the colors of the modern Mexican flag and pride in socioeconomic class and race. It then references corn, a national symbol and the base of historical and contemporary Mexican diets. Later in the song, they proclaim, “Soy Azteca, Chichimeca, Zapoteca, Indio, Yaqui, Tarasco y Maya,” referencing the seven indigenous Mexican nations from which nearly all modern Mexicans descend.

Rap in Mexico can take on an antineoliberalism approach, a protest of the way the traditional order has impacted Mexico and the condition of marginalized Mexicans, who live with elevated levels of poverty, unemployment, and crime. The negative circumstances created a reactionary idealized view of the past in which genetically modified American corn has not yet supplanted Mexican farmers and where indigenous cultures have not been marginalized by neoliberalism and societal stratification.[26] This phenomena includes the group Sociedad Café—which roughly translates to “society of people with coffee colored skin"— who rap about race and skin color.[27] Café es la sociedad que vengo y represento Café es el color que llevo muy adentro Somos herederos de cultura pura, sabia, envidiable and enviable Raza criolla hecha de bronce, respetable Piel morena con orgullo represento a los cuatro vientos, expresando lo que llevo adentro Brown is the society that I represent Brown is the color that I carry deep inside We are inheritants of a pure, wise, culture Creole race made of bronze, respectable I represent Dark skin with pride To the four winds, expressing what I carry inside

Featured

feminist perspective, which is often missing from the genre.[24] Although slightly better now, hip-hop was generally ignorant and often misogynistic when the song was released in 2004.[25] Moving west, Mexico’s hip-hop sound is vastly different from Cuba’s. Due to its proximity to California, Mexican rap has a lot of similarities with its Angeleno counterpart.

Fans of the gangsta rap genre—which includes N.W.A, Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, and Ice-T—will hear similarities when listening to many Mexican acts.

Some groups, such as Cypress Hill, blend the two languages, releasing tracks in English, Spanish, and a mezcla (mix) of the two. In the track “Armada Latina,” frontman B-Real— along with featured bilingual Latin American artists Pitbull and Marc Anthony—lead off with their roots and ties to the motherland: “Came out the other man, southern land.”

Emphasis on roots is a consistent feature of Mexican hip-hop, more specifically, the national symbols and ancient peoples of the country. Kinto Sol offer an example in “Hecho en Mexico” (Made in Mexico), the titular track from their 2003 album.

“

Many lyrics contain an interesting juxtaposition—Mexican pride and societal critique, a constant tension for Mexican artists. Yet, this is truly a definition of protest: willingness to criticize to improve something you love and to embrace risk to improve life for your community.[28] Cuban and Mexican hip-hop offer a new avenue to experience and learn about the underground culture, wrapped in a new package that might be more appealing than older forms of media. Novels and poetry are important and have their audiences, but so does hip-hop, and important truths should reach as many minds as possible. Diversity of medium is important, and the material is increasingly accessible through the internet and the spread of the language. More and more American students are learning Spanish, and for those who cannot understand, translations are available.[29] Students of politics, history, and many other disciplines are instructed to investigate primary material, and music is one way to experience it. Hip-hop offers a societal critique from the youth beyond America. Tunisian rappers made their voices heard during the Arab Spring, as did Egyptians (who sampled the aforementioned Lauryn Hill), Libyans, and other protesters.[30] Across the world, people are using hiphop as an outlet. As the largest consumers of the genre, Americans have a unique ability to elevate voices and learn about struggles and protests across the world—often referencing the United States’ own legacy of revolutionary struggle.[31] Listen. Listen because it’s good music, a genre that feels familiar, but with a new pace, and a new language. Listen to learn.

Sociedad Café “Sociedad Café,” Emergiendo (1999)

[1] Khal, “How Aug. 11 Became Hip-Hop's Birthday,” August 11, 2017. Complex. [2] Dorian lynskey, “Chuck D: ‘WE battled the mainstream, we battled our label, we fought every goddamn minute,’” November 22, 2015. The Guardian. [3] Rich Goldstein, “A Brief History of the Phrase ‘F*ckk the Police,’” April 14, 2017. Daily Beast. [4] Kelley L. Carter, “The Painful, Long, and Lasting Legacy Of “Fuck Tha Police,” August 13, 2015. BuzzFeed News. [5] Steve Hochman, “Compton Rappers Versus the Letter of the Law: FBI Claims Song by N.W.A. Advocates Violence on Police,” October 5, 1989. Los Angeles Times. [6] Karen Grigsby Bates, “'It's Not Your Grandfather's LAPD' — And That's A Good Thing,” April 26, 2017. NPR. [7] Rich Goldstein, “A Brief History of the Phrase ‘F*ckk the Police,’” April 14, 2017. Daily Beast. [8] Tim Arango, “California Today: ‘This Is Not Your Grandfather’s L.A.P.D.,’” June 8, 2018. The New York Times.

[9] Kafi Kumasi, “Roses in the Concrete.” Knowledge Quest 40, no. 5 (May 2012): 32–37. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] TM Brown, “The greatest hip-hop songs from around the world,” October 15, 2019. BBC Music. [13] Robert Palmer, “The 50s: A Decade of Music That Changed the World,” April 19, 1990. Rolling Stone.

[14] Hugh McIntyre, “'Despacito' Is One Of Just Seven Non-English Songs To Hit No. 1 In The U.S.,” September 1, 2017. Forbes. [15] Morgan, Marcyliena, and Dionne Bennett. "Hip-Hop & the Global Imprint of a Black Cultural Form." Daedalus 140, no. 2 (2011): 176-96. Accessed March 16, 2020. [16] Alan West-Durán, “Rap’s Diasporic Dialogues: Cuba’s Redefinition of Blackness” Journal of Popular Music Studies 16, no. 1 (March 2004). [17] Ibid. [18] Suzy Exposito, “Indigenous Climate Activist Xiuhtezcatl Seeks Signs of Hope in New ‘Magic’ Video,” November 5, 2018. Rolling Stone. [19] “Sexion d’Assaut Biography,” 2019. BBC Music. [20] Alan West-Durán, “Rap’s Diasporic Dialogues: Cuba’s Redefinition of Blackness,” Journal of Popular Music Studies 16, no. 1 (March 2004). [21] Nicolas Guillen, “Tengo,” 1964. [22] Roberto Zurbano, “For Blacks in Cuba, the Revolution Hasn’t Begun,” March 23, 2013. New York Times. [23] Nicolas Guillen, “Quirino con sus Tres,” 1961. [24] Briana Younger, “Is Rap Finally Ready to Embrace its Women?” December 7, 2018. The New Yorker. [25] Sarah Sherard, “From Battles to Bigotry: The Barriers of Sexism in Hip-Hop. February 11, 2019. WRBB. [26] Andrew Green, “The Ethnography of Hip Hop Nostalgia: Indigeneity, intimacy and ‘roots’ in Mexico,” Hip Hop Constellations 42, no. 2 (2017). [27] Arlene B. Tickner, “Aquí en el Ghetto: Hip-Hop in Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico,” Latin American Politics and Society 50 no. 3 (2008). [28] Ibid. [29] Stephen Burgen, “US now has more Spanish speakers than Spain – only Mexico has more,” June 29, 2015. The Guardian. [30] “The Rap Songs of the Arab Spring,” June 9, 2011. NPR. [31] Ibid.

Spring 2020

25

Featured

The “Deal of the Century” and the Death of the Two-State Solution Students for Justice in Palestine

I

n late January of this year, US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally unveiled “Peace to Prosperity,” a proposal by the Trump administration to resolve the Arab–Israeli conflict.[1] The so-called “Deal of the Century” plagiarizes a forty-year-old plan by the World Zionist Organization, envisions a disjointed Palestinian state, and loosely promises meager benefits to Palestinians, contingent on “fantastic conditions.”[2][3][4][5] It pays lip service to an outdated concept—the two-state solution.[6] For how could such a proposal truly be a two-state solution if one group was not even represented in the negotiations?[7] It’s time that the United States, Israel, and the international community recognize the twostate solution is dead.

For much of Israeli–Palestinian history, the two-state solution has acted as “a corpse taken out of the morgue every now and then, dressed up nicely, and presented as a living thing.”[8] The two-state solution envisions Palestine—referring only to Gaza and the West Bank—as sovereign and independent from Israel, with divisions based on pre-1967 borders.[9][10] This proposal is seen by the United Nations and by the United States as the “most realistic” solution to ensuring peace between Palestine and Israel.[11] Yet the two-state solution conflicts with viable peace, as it overlooks the fact that Zionism is a nationalistic, settler-colonial project with a violent nature of dispossession.[12] Zionism is a political ideology that emerged in the late nineteenth century in response to rising anti-Semitic persecution and secular nationalism.[13][14] Zionism calls for a Jewish national homeland in Palestine due to the land’s significance in holy texts and historical records of Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.

This goal was realized in 1948 through the creation of Israel, which displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and instilled a discriminatory, ethnonationalist state.[15][16] Palestinians refer to May 1948 as the Nakba, meaning “the catastrophe” in Arabic.[17] During this time, approximately fifteen thousand Palestinians were killed in more than seventy massacres. Over five hundred villages were destroyed, and at least 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from the region. Israel prioritized its own political, religious, and social goals and violently trampled the rights of the indigenous population. What happened during the Nakba was a deliberate military strategy known as Plan Dalet, which was implemented to expel Palestinians and seize indigenous territory.

26

Spring 2020

Plan Dalet outlines steps taken by Zionist militaries in the case of Palestinian resistance to setter-colonial violence: [18]

“Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously; Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.”

Settler colonialism is “an ongoing system of power that perpetuates the genocide and repression of indigenous peoples and cultures” while normalizing the settler’s occupation and exploitation of the land and resources.[19] The disastrous effects of settler colonialism are evident not only in Israel, but in other settlercolonial states such as Australia, Canada, and the United States. For example, as American settlers colonized the New World, they stole more than 1.5 billion acres from the indigenous people living in what we now call North America.[20] Today, the United States continues to suppress indigenous populations by building oil infrastructure projects on sacred lands, practicing racial profiling, and remaining inactive regarding high rates of sexual assault and kidnappings of native women.[21][22] The plea to conceptualize a one-state solution in the Arab–Israeli conflict follows the model of the United States’ late-stage colonization, promising reconciliation while perpetuating dispossession and violence.

A two-state solution would normalize Israeli settler colonialism and permit the plight of Palestinians. It requires both parties to adhere to rules of compliance and nonviolence established during peace talks in the 1990s.[23] The Oslo Accords—a nine-year interim agreement through which a twostate solution would be realized—formally established the Palestinian Authority as the official representative of the Palestinian people in the eyes of Israel, the United States, and the international community.[24] A key component of the Oslo Accords was that neither party could unilaterally change the status of the West Bank.

Israel continuously violates these peace agreements by settling further into the West Bank and by denying Palestinians basic

human rights. Today, there are approximately 600,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, an area that includes East Jerusalem.[25] These settlements are illegal under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which states that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."[26][27] The Israeli government encourages new settlements through building plans for new houses and apartment complexes in Palestinian territories.

[28] It also financially incentivizes settlers with tax relief and education investment.

In 2005, Israel removed all of its settlements in Gaza, but has carefully crafted the world’s largest open-air prison. The 2014 war in Gaza left the strip devastated, killing at least 2,100 Palestinians, including 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women.[29] Today, 97 percent of water in Gaza is contaminated, with open, untreated sewage causing outbreaks of waterborne and foodborne diseases.[30] Furthermore, Gaza cannot be rebuilt, since the Israeli government blocks construction materials from entering the besieged strip.[31] There is a clear disconnect between Israel’s professed goal of a peaceful two-state solution with Palestinians and their allowance of uninhabitable conditions in Gaza.

In addition to illegal settlements, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians also makes a twostate solution impossible. Israeli occupation meets the UN’s criteria of genocide: (1) Killing members of the group; (2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.[32][33] Israel, often considered “the only democracy in the Middle East,” has more than sixty-five laws that discriminate against Palestinians.[34] [35] In addition to the aforementioned killings of Palestinians during and after the Nakba, Palestinians suffer arbitrary incarceration that affects their physical and mental health.

[36] According to the Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel has arrested over four thousand Palestinian children since October 2015, with about three hundred still in jail as pre-trial detainees for minor offenses like throwing rocks.[37] Nearly 100 percent of people tried in these courts are convicted.[38] Checkpoints have economic, physical, and psychosocial effects on Palestinian pregnant women, preventing healthy and humane births nupoliticalreview.com

to smaller plots of land far from their origins.

The plan is a disrespectful ploy disguised as a gift. It would annex all current (illegal) settlements with a “four-year freeze” on additional settlements.[48] Israel has never respected international territorial expansion law, so it likely wouldn’t respect a freeze. The plan also calls for a demilitarization of Gaza and boasts repercussions for Palestinians and Muslims who do not “come in peace.”[49] The rhetoric implies a villainization of Arabs, Muslims, and anyone resisting settler colonialism.

American taxpayers should protest their government’s financial support of an increasingly right-wing state that is helping to destabilize the Middle East. From 2009 to 2018, the United States provided Israel with $38 billion in military aid.[50] The state of Massachusetts alone contributed an estimated $890,172,812.[51] In addition to mass economic exchange, the United States and Israel engage in what social justice organizers refer to as the Deadly Exchange, in which American police, ICE, FBI, and border patrol confer and exchange tactics with Israeli police, soldiers, and border agents.[52] These tactics include repressing marginalized populations deemed “dangerous” and stifling human rights defenders. It is not a coincidence that police forces in both Israel and the United States are racist and discriminatory to their core, nor that they continue to evolve together.

A frequent misconception is that a one-state solution would demand evicting all Jewish settlers from Israel and replacing them with Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, as well as those from the diaspora. The solution does not have to look like this. It would be most appropriate for the United States to condemn Israel’s abuse of human rights and take a step back to let those in the region discuss how to integrate themselves into one equitable state.

It is important that the apartheid wall fall and that Palestinian refugees gain their right of return.

Though there are many ways to restructure the fractured territory, it is essential that no one is newly displaced, exiled, or murdered for having been born into a war zone. A onestate solution could mean the integration of 600,000 settlers alongside newly liberated Palestinian communities, with considerations of rehabilitation and reparations. The logistics are daunting but would end apartheid and free Palestinians from constant military violence.

While there are many actors at play—including the divided Palestinian leadership, Israel’s right-wing government, and the international community—the first step forward must be the universal recognition of a unified, democratic state.

Through demonization of Palestinians and a violent occupation, Israel pushes

Featured

of Palestinian babies.[39] Complications during childbirth arise when a woman is not allowed past a checkpoint to the hospital. She is often forced to deliver the baby in her car or outside, with no medical attendants or resources to ensure safety and dignity for the mother and the child.

If the international community were even to consider an equitable two-state solution, the maps Israel proposes would leave Palestine as a semi-sovereign entity at best. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe notes that the result of a two-state solution would be the creation of “pseudo-national homelands,” similar to the Bantustans established during South African apartheid for the occupied nation’s Black population.[40] Israeli apartheid has divided the Palestinian territories to the point that it would be hard to restructure them into one sovereign state. Gaza is a minuscule piece of land on the western coast of occupied Palestine with a population of about two million.[41] The West Bank is on the country’s eastern border with Jordan with a population of close to 2.8 million.

[42] Considering Israel’s establishment of the apartheid wall, the air, sea, and land blockades on Gaza, and 573 barriers and checkpoints with military to enforce constant surveillance, a sovereign Palestinian state made up of Gaza and the West Bank is impossible to conceptualize.[43][44][45] Approximately 1.8 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship live in Israel, and approximately seven million make up the Palestinian diaspora throughout the world.

[46][47] A sovereign Palestinian state for those scattered across and forced out of an apartheid state becomes difficult to fulfill without recognizing their right to return to their indigenous land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Trump’s “Deal of the Century” would restructure the current, dwindling Palestinian territories into 167 smaller islands without the approval of the Palestinian Authority or any consideration for the Palestinian people.

Palestinians would also be given two isolated pieces of land in the desert. This move to allocate resource-poor land reeks of American colonialism’s relocating of indigenous people

The first step forward must be the universal recognition of a unified, democratic state.

“

the false notion that Jewish liberation is tied to Palestinian oppression, creating a false expectation that peace can only occur through separate sovereign states. The Israeli–Palestinian war emerged out of a settler-colonial project that prizes the right of one people over another. It is a war that must consider Islamophobia and anti-Semitism as forces propelling illegal Israeli settlements.

Islamophobia lurks behind orientalist justifications of “democratizing” majorityMuslim Arab states such as Palestine, and anti-Semitism has left Jews around the world rationally looking for a home free of religiousbased discrimination.

The conflict is also one of colonization, of Palestinian erasure, and of ethnonationalism.

Palestine has been illegally occupied for over seventy years. This period has seen massive resistance efforts on the part of Palestinians, Jews, Israelis, and all those who see struggles as intersectional and intertwined globally.

To keep the corpse of the two-state solution around is dangerous, and a barrier to bringing justice to the region.

[1] “Peace to Prosperity.” The White House. The United States Government. Accessed March 21, 2020. [2] “Trump Calls His Mideast Peace Plan The 'Deal Of The Century'.” NPR. NPR, January 28, 2020. [3] Shaul, Yehuda. “Trump's Middle East Peace Plan Isn't New. It Plagiarized a 40-Year-Old Israeli Initiative.” Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy, February 11, 2020. [4] Heller, Aron. “Trump Peace Plan Delights Israelis, Enrages Palestinians.” AP NEWS. Associated Press, January 29, 2020.

[5] Boot, Max. “Opinion | What Trump and Netanyahu Just Unveiled Was a PR Campaign, Not a Peace Plan.” The Washington Post. WP Company, January 28, 2020. [6] Street, J. “It's Not a Peace Plan, It's an Annexation Smokescreen.” J Street: The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans, January 29, 2020. [7] McGreal, Chris. “All That's Missing from Trump's 'Overly Good' Middle East Plan Is Palestinians.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, January 28, 2020.

[8] Pappé, Ilan. Ten Myths about Israel. London: Verso, 2017. [9] Maltz, Judy. “Two States, One and Other Solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” haaretz.com, September 10, 2019. [10] “BBC NEWS.” BBC News. BBC. Accessed March 21, 2020. [11] “Peace to Prosperity.” The White House. The United States Government. Accessed March 21, 2020. [12] Pappé, Ilan. “Zionism as Colonialism: A Comparative View of Diluted Colonialism in Asia and Africa.” South Atlantic Quarterly.

Duke University Press, October 01, 2008. [13] “Zionism.” A Definition of Zionism. Accessed March 21, 2020. [14] Beauchamp, Zack. “How Did Israel Become a Country in the First Place?” Vox. Vox, May 14, 2018. [15] Al Jazeera. “Five Ways Israeli Law Discriminates against Palestinians.” Israel News | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, July 19, 2018. [16] Pappé, Ilan. “Zionism as Colonialism: A Comparative View of Diluted Colonialism in Asia and Africa.” South Atlantic Quarterly. Duke University Press, October 01, 2008. [17] Al Jazeera. “The Nakba Did Not Start or End in 1948.” Middle East | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, May 23, 2017. [18] Imeu. “IMEU Institute for Middle East Understanding.” IMEU, March 08, 2013. [19] Cox, Alicia. “Settler Colonialism - Literary and Critical Theory.” Oxford Bibliographies, February 20, 2020. [20] Onion, Rebecca, and Claudio Saunt. “Interactive Time-Lapse Map Shows How the U.S. Took More Than 1.5 Billion Acres From Native Americans.”

Slate Magazine, June 17, 2014. [21] Anaya, James. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” United Nations Human Rights Council, August 30, 2012. [22] “A Well of Grief: the Relatives of Murdered Native Women Speak Out.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, January 13, 2020. [23] “History of Mid-East Peace Talks.” BBC News. BBC. July 29, 2013. [24] “Palestinian Government.” Mission of Palestine, September 28, 2018. [25] “1. Background: The Israeli Occupation.” Amnesty International. Accessed March 21, 2020. [26] “Israel's Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.”

United Nations. United Nations, December 23, 2016. [27] Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 49 - Deportations, transfers, evacuations, August 12, 1949. [28] Deutsche Welle. “Israel Lures Settlers with Financial Incentives: DW: 30.12.2012.” DW.COM, December 30, 2012. [29] “Gaza Conflict 2014: 'War Crimes by Both Sides' - UN.” BBC News. BBC, June 22, 2015. [30] Tolan, Sandy. “How Can Gaza's Contaminated Water Catastrophe Be Solved?” Middle East | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, October 30, 2018. [31] Al Jazeera. “'Collective Punishment': Israel Blocks Fuel Shipment to Gaza.” Israeli–Palestinian conflict News | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, July 17, 2018. [32] “The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective.” Center for Constitutional Rights, August 25, 2016. [33] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. United Nations, January 12, 1951. [34] Hawari, Yara. “The Only Democracy in the Middle East? 4.5m People Can't Vote in the Israeli Elections.” The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, March 25, 2015. [35] Al Jazeera. “Five Ways Israeli Law Discriminates against Palestinians.” Israel News | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, July 19, 2018. [36] “Israel Must End 'Unlawful and Cruel' Policies towards Palestinian Prisoners.” Amnesty International, April 13, 2017. [37] “PCBS: On the Eve of the International Children Day.” PCBS, November 20, 2017. [38] Levinson, Chaim. “Nearly 100% of All Military Court Cases in West Bank End in Conviction, Haaretz Learns.” haaretz.com. January 11, 2018. [39] High Commissioner for Human Rights. “The Issue of Palestinian Pregnant Women Giving Birth at Israeli Checkpoints.” United Nations. Accessed March 21, 2020. [40] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Bantustan.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., December 04, 2019. [41] “The World Factbook: Gaza Strip.” Central Intelligence Agency. Updated March 15, 2020. [42] “The World Factbook: West Bank.” Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence Agency, February 1, 2018. [43] Al Jazeera. “Israel's Illegal Separation Wall 'Imprisons' Palestinians.” Palestine News | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, July 09, 2019. [44] “Gaza Blockade.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory. Accessed March 21, 2020. [45] Eid, Haidar. “Declaration of a Bantustan in Palestine.” Israel | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, October 13, 2011. [46] Berger, Miriam. “Palestinian Citizens of Israel Struggle to Tell Their Stories.” Columbia Journalism Review, January 11, 2019. [47] FAQs about Palestinian Refugees. Al-Awda: The Palestine Right to Return Coalition. Accessed March 21, 2020. [48] Associated Press. “Trump's Middle East Plan Calls for Palestinian State, Settlement Freeze.” Deseret News. Deseret News, January 28, 2020. [49] “Peace to Prosperity.” The White House. The United States Government. Accessed March 21, 2020. [50] Congressional Research Service. “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel.” Accessed March 21, 2020. [51] “How Much Military Aid to Israel?

(2009-2018).” US Campaign for Palestinian Rights. Accessed March 21, 2020. [52] “Deadly Exchange.” Deadly Exchange. Accessed March 21, 2020. https://deadlyexchange.org/.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2020

27

Columns

How to Save Millions of Lives

I

f history and science have taught us anything, it’s a simple lesson: vaccines work. They’ve saved countless lives and allowed millions of children to grow up without fear of debilitating diseases. Because of vaccines, we’ve nearly eradicated several diseases that once posed significant danger to the public.[1] In 1916, polio killed about six thousand people in the United States and left thousands more permanently paralyzed.

[2] There were nearly fifty-eight thousand cases in 1952. In the early 1960s, polio vaccines were licensed, and by 1994 polio was eradicated in the Americas. Other diseases that have dramatically decreased since the development of vaccines include Hepatitis A and B, chickenpox, measles, and whooping cough.[3] Nevertheless, preventable diseases remain a public health issue. In the first half of 2019, there were more measles cases reported worldwide than any year since 2006.[4] Before the measles vaccine was developed, the US saw more than 400,000 reported cases each year.[5] That number dropped almost to zero by 1992. However, in 2019 the disease re-emerged with 1,282 confirmed cases across thirtyone states—the second-largest outbreak since 2000.[6] While this resurgence is nowhere close to measles’ peak, it’s still something to be concerned about. Measles is highly contagious, infecting up to 90 percent of those exposed prior to immunization.[7] Over 140,000 people died of measles in 2018.[8] Whooping cough saw a similar global increase.[9] Before the vaccine’s introduction in the 1940s, there were over one hundred thousand cases each

28

Spring 2020

year in the US. Cases dropped to fewer than ten thousand before rising again starting in 2003.[10] In 2012, there were more than fortyeight thousand cases reported nationwide.

Washington state declared an epidemic.

In 2014, California followed suit after eight hundred cases emerged within two weeks; the number spiked to eight thousand by the end of the year.[11][12] Though not as deadly as other infectious diseases, whooping cough is one of the most contagious, equivalent to measles.[13] It’s especially dangerous for babies and those with weak immune systems—most who died from whooping cough in 2012 were less than three months old.

Why have these diseases returned, especially in a medically advanced and developed country like the US? Much of the blame falls on the anti-vax movement, people and groups around the world who hold moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs against vaccination.

In developed nations, especially those in North America and Europe, distrust in vaccines is rising.[14] Some cite religious reasons, as certain religious organizations— such as the Church of Christ, Scientist and the Dutch Reformed Church—discourage vaccination.[15] To accomodate, forty-five US states allow religious exemptions from mandatory vaccination.[16] Other people refuse to vaccinate because they distrust the pharmaceutical industry, citing the opioid epidemic as justification.

[17] This distrust also varies by race: the American Academy of Family Physicians found that 61 percent of African Americans agreed with anti-vax beliefs. This distrust is partially because medical professionals historically have harmed African Americans, as evidenced by the Tuskegee Experiment, in which several hundred black men with syphilis were promised free medical care but unknowingly received placebo treatments.

[18] Even today, black women are two to six times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy complications, illustrating persistent racial disparities in the medical field.[19] As such, it is no wonder African Americans are skeptical of the medical community and, by extension, vaccines.

In contrast to those who distrust the medical system are those who only distrust vaccines.

[20] Many people lack a solid understanding of

nupoliticalreview.com

Columns

Alex Jarecki / Biology & Political Science 2022

infectious diseases, vaccines, or epidemiology, and believe vaccines shouldn’t be trusted. In reality, the science is pretty simple.[21] In 1796, Dr. Edward Jenner found that contracting cowpox prevents smallpox.[22] All vaccine development stems from this discovery. Vaccines are weakened or inactive versions of the virus that don’t cause any actual harm. By exposing your body to the virus, your immune system learns how to recognize and fight it in the future.

Still, vaccine development has caused public discomfort, hesitation, and even panic. Opposition existed from the start; clergy declared Jenner’s smallpox vaccine “unchristian” because it came from an animal.[23][24] Furthermore, many parents were skeptical of the science and the method used to vaccinate—scoring the skin and inserting lymph (fluid containing white blood cells) from someone previously vaccinated.[25] Others saw vaccinations as a threat to personal liberty. Between 1840 and 1853, the British government passed acts that made vaccinations mandatory, giving rise to several anti-vaccine journals and groups. Opponents argued that mandatory vaccination infringed on personal choice and that the government had no right to compel them. As activism toward mandatory vaccination arose in the US at the end of the nineteenth century, the same rise in anti-vaccine groups occurred.[26] They too cited personal freedom.

More recently, the public’s attention has shifted to potential side effects. The diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine received controversy after a report alleged that three dozen children developed neurological conditions after receiving it.[27] Moreover, in 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a paper claiming a link between autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

[28] As the media spread his findings, the public grew more distrustful and hesitant toward vaccinating children.[29] However, Wakefield’s article was fraudulent.[30] It involved a sample size of just twelve children.[31] Because most children received the MMR vaccine, it was easy to find a dozen kids with autism who received it. Furthermore, the paper was a case study which analyzed patients’ medical histories and involved no lab research. Consequently, the findings could not be replicated. An investigative journalist also found that Wakefield manipulated his data, only

nupoliticalreview.com

including cases that fit his hypothesis.[32] He also shifted vaccination dates and fabricated the ages when behavioral symptoms emerged in order to make the connection more direct. Wakefield was stripped of his medical license and numerous studies discredited his findings.[33][34] Even so, Wakefield’s narrative persisted. A 2019 Gallup survey found that ten percent of American adults believe that vaccines cause autism, up from six percent in 2015; fortysix percent are unsure.[35] Jenny McCarthy, a former Playboy model and MTV star, joined the anti-vax movement after her son was diagnosed with autism. In a 2009 interview promoting her book Healing and Preventing Autism, McCarthy claimed that the mercury, aluminum, and “other toxins” in vaccines— which act as preservatives and are not present in large enough amounts to be harmful—are at least partially responsible for many cases of autism. [36][37] Anti-vaxxers point to the simultaneous increase in recommended vaccines and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnoses to justify Wakefield’s thesis.[38][39] After all, if vaccines cause autism, then it makes sense that there’s a positive correlation between the two. Yet correlation is not causation.

The rate of ASD diagnoses has increased over the past two decades, from one in 150 children in 2000 to one in fifty-nine children in 2014.[40] Two 2018 studies estimated the rate to be as high as one in forty.[41] This increase isn’t because of vaccinations, but because doctors are identifying and diagnosing ASD earlier. Research shows that ASD can be reliably diagnosed as early as two years old; thus, doctors started screening for it earlier.[42] Doctors have also become better at identifying ASD in more diverse populations.

Historically, ASD was most prevalent in white children.[43] When doctors examined this race discrepancy, the rate of ASD diagnoses increased. Lastly, as doctors continue studying ASD, they discover how the disorder presents in different people.

There are a wide range of symptoms, and no

two autistic people’s experiences are the same.

[44] As doctors found more symptoms for ASD, diagnoses rose.

Autism diagnoses aren’t increasing because we’re injecting children with more vaccines.

They’re increasing because we’re getting better at identifying and diagnosing it in younger children and in more diverse populations.

Vaccines don’t cause autism, and using this false claim to justify not vaccinating children is horrifically ableist.[45] In the previously mentioned interview, McCarthy stated that given the choice between autism and measles, parents of autistic children “will stand in line for the fucking measles.”[46] She also argued that “it shouldn’t be polio versus autism”—as if a child with autism is equivalent to a child contracting polio and possibly becoming paralyzed for life.

Anti-vax beliefs are misinformed, misguided, and dangerous. The World Health Organization named “vaccine hesitancy” as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019.[47] Only five US states have no vaccine exemptions.[48] Fifteen allow philosophical exemptions; parents can opt out of vaccinating their children simply because they don’t want to. In states without personal belief exemptions, evidence suggests that parents make false claims about religious beliefs to avoid vaccination. [49] In response, several American cities and states are moving toward mandatory vaccination. In 2019, Washington, Maine, and New York all removed some exemptions.

[50] New York Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz noted that mandatory vaccination is “about

Some people—including infants and those with autoimmune diseases or specific allergies— cannot receive certain vaccines.

The best way to protect them is through herd immunity.

“

health.[51] It’s not about religion.” The ability of states to mandate vaccines goes back to 1905, when the Supreme Court ruled that states have the power to enforce mandatory

Spring 2020

29

Columns

vaccination to protect public health.[52] Because certain individuals don’t consider the science when making decisions, these guidelines are essential.

Vaccines contribute to herd immunity— the more people immune to a disease, the less ability the disease has to travel between people, and the better protected the population is.[53] Some people—including infants and those with autoimmune diseases or specific allergies—cannot receive certain vaccines.

[54] The best way to protect them is through herd immunity.[55] It’s equally important that we address the reach anti-vaxxers have in our culture. In 2019, anti-vaccine content from the three most popular creators of health misinformation generated over a million engagements online.

[56] As misinformation spreads from Facebook groups to YouTube videos, these beliefs become harder to combat.[57][58] Many anti-vaxxers promote “natural” supplements and remedies as an alternative to vaccines and medical treatment. Commenters on a post in an anti-vax Facebook group encouraged one mother to treat the flu with breastmilk, thyme, and elderberry; no one recommended medical attention.[59] Her son was eventually hospitalized and died a few days later. The family declined to comment on whether the child had received the flu vaccine.[60] Like social media, traditional media sources play a role in spreading anti-vax sentiments.

Journalists have a habit of grabbing onto medical stories and running with them, regardless of how solid the science is.[61] Reporters treated a story about an Italian researcher claiming to have cured his wife’s multiple sclerosis as a heartwarming love

“

It’s more effective to share correct information than criticize what’s incorrect.

story, without reviewing the study’s merits.[62] Upon closer inspection, the survey was badly designed, and its results could not be replicated.[63][64] Everyone loves a feel-good story.

But when media outlets publish stories about miracle cancer cures or red wine lowering the risk of heart disease, they misinform the public.

[65][66] The media was complicit in the spread of Wakefield’s fraudulent study connecting vaccines to autism.[67] Reporters’ propensity for novelty over slow progress can give anti-vax movements an edge over scientific facts.[68] How do you fight a misinformed, dangerous movement that infected many areas of the internet and seeped into our daily lives? In short: well-researched, reliable information.

Health researchers and doctors have fought misinformation for decades, and this fight must continue. Hilda Bastian, an Australian researcher, outlines several key lessons she and other medical professionals have learned: explain why you believe something, offer reliable and understandable information, and take emotions—not just statistics—into account.[69] Responding to misinformation with hostility often doesn’t work. Moreover, Bastian emphasizes that it’s more effective to share correct information than criticize what’s incorrect.

Being informed and knowing how to communicate information is key. Medical news can be scary—headlines that tell you vaccines are causing autism or that a disease outbreak is imminent tend to spread quicker than good news. Fear-mongering articles may lead to more shares if people quickly try to inform their inner circles about possible risks. Therefore, it's up to consumers to treat medical news with scrutiny and search for additional sources.

“

Doctors, researchers, and journalists need to be aware of how false news can spread and need to ensure that the information they provide is accurate.

Countries should also consider adopting mandatory vaccination. Some countries already have restrictions to ensure that their citizens are vaccinated—Australia and Germany, for example, restrict access to school for unvaccinated children.[70] For countries that can enforce mandatory vaccination, doing so could assure herd immunity. The pushback they’ll get can be overcome only by building trust between people and the medical systems that serve them. Communication will be critical. If medical professionals want the public to trust them, they have to participate in outreach and education.

Finally, many racial and ethnic groups have reasons not to trust the medical community, as they receive lower-quality health care than white people.[71] It’s up to experts and advocates to rectify this by building a culture where everyone trusts medicine. When people are informed about vaccines by advocates with similar backgrounds, it helps increase trust.[72] A mother in Rio de Janeiro may not listen to an American doctor, but may listen to a member of her community.

Problem-solving, especially regarding divisive issues, begins by meeting people where they are. If we want to fight the antivax movement, it will require information, patience, and communication. The work will pay off and guide us toward a healthier world.

[1] “14 Diseases You Almost Forgot About (Thanks to Vaccines).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 3, 2020. [2] “All Timelines Overview.” Timeline | History of Vaccines.

Accessed March 21, 2020. [3] “All Timelines Overview.” Timeline | History of Vaccines. Accessed March 21, 2020. [4] “Global Measles Outbreaks.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 6, 2020. [5] “Graph of U.S. Measles Cases.” Graph of U.S. Measles Cases | History of Vaccines. Accessed March 21, 2020. [6] Doheny, Kathleen. “Measles Returns to California for 2020.” WebMD. WebMD, February 10, 2020.

[7] “For Healthcare Professionals - Diagnosing and Treating Measles.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, February 5, 2018. [8] “Measles.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization. Accessed March 21, 2020. [9] “Pertussis.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, July 25, 2019. [10] Bender, Maddie. “California Keeps Close Eye on Whooping Cough after Infant's Death.” CNN. Cable News Network, July 19, 2018. [11] Christensen, Jen. “Whooping Cough Epidemic Declared in California.” CNN. Cable News Network, June 16, 2014. [12] Shapiro, Nina. “Add Whooping Cough To The Growing List Of Vaccine-Preventable Epidemics.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, February 27, 2019. [13] Brown, ByJennifer J., Becky Upham, and Don Rauf. “10 Essential Facts About Whooping Cough, Pertussis.” EverydayHealth.com. Accessed March 21, 2020. [14] Keown, Alex. “Vaccine Mistrust On the Rise in Developed Nations, Survey Shows.” BioSpace. BioSpace, June 19, 2019. [15] Najera, Rene F. “Very Few Religions Expressly Prohibit Vaccination, Yet Confusion Remains.” History of Vaccines, November 9, 2018. [16] Skinner, Erik, and Alise Garcia. “States With Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From School Immunization Requirements.” National Conference of State Legislatures. Accessed March 22, 2020.

[17] O'Donnell, Jayne. “Why Big Pharma Distrust Is Fueling the Anti-Vaxxer Movement and Playing a Role in the Measles Outbreak.” USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, April 29, 2019. [18] Nix, Elizabeth. “Tuskegee Experiment: The Infamous Syphilis Study.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, May 16, 2017. [19] Flanders-Stepans, M B. “Alarming Racial Differences in Maternal Mortality.” The Journal of perinatal education. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2000. [20] Housset, B. “Distrust of Vaccination: Why?” Revue des maladies respiratoires. U.S. National Library of Medicine, October 2019. [21] “Understanding How Vaccines Work.” Centers for Disease Control, July 2018. [22] “History of Smallpox.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 30, 2016. [23] “History of Anti-Vaccination Movements.” History of Vaccines. Accessed March 21, 2020. [24] Durbach, N. “'They Might as Well Brand Us': Working-Class Resistance to Compulsory Vaccination in Vicmtorian England.” Social history of medicine : the journal of the Society for the Social History of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, April 2000. [25] “History of Anti-Vaccination Movements.” History of Vaccines. Accessed March 21, 2020. [26] Wolfe, Robert M, and Lisa K Sharp. “Anti-Vaccinationists Past and Present.” BMJ (Clinical research ed.). BMJ, August 24, 2002. [27] Kulenkampff, M, J S Schwartzman, and J Wilson. “Neurological Complications of Pertussis Inoculation.” Archives of Disease and Childhood, n.d. Accessed March 21, 2020. [28] Wakefield, Andrew J, and Scott Montgomery. “Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccine: Through a Glass, Darkly,” 2000. [29] Hackett, Alison Jane. “Risk, Its Perception and the Media: the MMR Controversy.” Community practitioner : the journal of the Community Practitioners' & Health Visitors' Association. U.S. National Library of Medicine, July 2008. [30] Godlee, Fiona, Jane Smith, and Harvey Marcovitch. “Wakefield's Article Linking MMR Vaccine and Autism Was Fraudulent.” The BMJ. British Medical Journal Publishing Group, January 6, 2011. [31] Belluz, Julia. “Research Fraud Catalyzed the Anti-Vaccination Movement. Let's Not Repeat History.” Vox. Vox, March 5, 2019. [32] Deer, Brian. “How the Case against the MMR Vaccine Was Fixed.” The BMJ. British Medical Journal Publishing Group, January 6, 2011. [33] “Vaccines and Autism: A Summary of CDC Conducted or Sponsored Studies.” Centers for Disease Control, n.d.

Accessed March 21, 2020. [34] “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism Concerns.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 27, 2015. [35] Reinhart, RJ. “Fewer in U.S. Continue to See Vaccines as Important.” Gallup.com. Gallup, January 31, 2020. [36] Kluger, Jeffrey. “Jenny McCarthy on Autism and Vaccines.” Time. Time Inc., April 1, 2009. [37] “Thimerosal in Vaccines Thimerosal.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 27, 2015. [38] Children's Hospital. “Vaccine History: Developments by Year.” Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, November 20, 2014. [39] “Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 23, 2019. [40] “Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2014.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 15, 2018. [41] “News & Events.” Organization for Autism Research, March 3, 2020. [42] Lord, Catherine, Susan Risi, Pamela S DiLavore, Cory Shulman, Audrey Thurm, and Andrew Pickles. “Autism from 2 to 9 Years of Age.” Archives of general psychiatry. U.S. National Library of Medicine, June 2006. [43] “Here’s the Big Reason That Autism Rates Have Increased Again.” Healthline, n.d. Accessed March 21, 2020. [44] “Signs and Symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorders.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 27, 2019. [45] “What Is Ableism?: Identity-First.” identity. Accessed March 22, 2020. [46] Kluger, Jeffrey. “Jenny McCarthy on Autism and Vaccines.” Time. Time Inc., April 1, 2009. [47] “Ten Health Issues WHO Will Tackle This Year.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization. Accessed March 22, 2020. [48] Skinner, Erik, and Alise Garcia. “States With Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From School Immunization Requirements.” National Conference of State Legislatures. Accessed March 22, 2020. [49] Helen Branswell. “Study: Rise in Religious Vaccine Exemptions Points to Some False Claims.” STAT, November 4, 2019. [50] Skinner, Erik, and Alise Garcia. “States With Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From School Immunization Requirements.” National Conference of State Legislatures.

Accessed March 22, 2020. [51] Sales, Ben. “What’s Really behind the Measles Outbreak in NY Jewish Communities?” The Times of Israel, June 8, 2019. [52] “Jacobson v. Massachusetts.” Oyez. Accessed March 22, 2020. [53] “Herd Immunity: How Does It Work?” Oxford Vaccine Group, April 26, 2016. [54] Vadalà, Maria, Dimitri Poddighe, Carmen Laurino, and Beniamino Palmieri. “Vaccination and Autoimmune Diseases: Is Prevention of Adverse Health Effects on the Horizon?” The EPMA journal. Springer International Publishing, July 20, 2017. [55] “Who Should Not Get Vaccinated.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 8, 2020.

[56] Zadrozny, Brandy. “Social Media Hosted a Lot of Fake Health News This Year. Here's What Went Most Viral.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, December 29, 2019. [57] Zadrozny, Brandy. “On Facebook, Anti-Vaxxers Urged a Mom Not to Give Her Son Tamiflu. He Later Died.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, February 7, 2020. [58] Soucheray, Stephanie. “Online Anti-Vax Efforts Prove Daunting Public Health Challenge.” CIDRAP, April 11, 2019. [59] Zadrozny, Brandy. “On Facebook, Anti-Vaxxers Urged a Mom Not to Give Her Son Tamiflu. He Later Died.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, February 7, 2020. [60] Kreutter, Tony Keith/Danielle. “4-Year-Old Colorado Boy Dies from the Flu.” Content. Accessed March 22, 2020. [61] Belluz, Julia. “This Is Why You Shouldn't Believe That Exciting New Medical Study.” Vox. Vox, February 27, 2017. [62] Pullman, Daryl, Amy Zarzeczny, and André Picard. “Media, Politics and Science Policy: MS and Evidence from the CCSVI Trenches.” BMC Medical Ethics, 2013. [63] Picard, André, and Avis Favaro. “Researcher's Labour of Love Leads to MS Breakthrough.” The Globe and Mail, May 2, 2018. [64] Fayerman, Pamela. “The ‘Final Curtain’ on CCSVI and Liberation Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis?” Vancouver Sun. Vancouver Sun, October 10, 2013. [65] Shapiro, Michael. “Pushing the ‘Cure’: Where a Big Cancer Story Went Wrong.” Columbia Journalism Review, January 13, 2004. [66] “Drinking Red Wine for Heart Health? Read This before You Toast.” American Heart Association. Accessed March 22, 2020. [67] Goldacre, Ben. “The Wakefield MMR Verdict.” Bad Science. Accessed March 22, 2020. [68] Belluz, Julia. “Research Fraud Catalyzed the Anti-Vaccination Movement. Let's Not Repeat History.” Vox. Vox, March 5, 2019. [69] Belluz, Julia. “Doctors Have Decades of Experience Fighting ‘Fake News." Here's How They Win.” Vox. Vox, April 29, 2017. [70] Belluz, Julia. “The Global Crackdown on Parents Who Refuse Vaccines for Their Kids Is On.” Vox. Vox, November 15, 2019. [71] Bridges, Khiara M. “Implicit Bias and Racial Disparities in Health Care.” American Bar Association. Accessed March 22, 2020. [72] McRae, Mike. “There's a Big Problem With Making Vaccines Mandatory, And It's Worth Paying Attention.” ScienceAlert.

Accessed March 22, 2020.

30

Spring 2020

nupoliticalreview.com

Columns

Bill Who? The Republican Primaries’ Significance in the 2020 Election Stephanie Luiz / Political Science & Economics 2022

D

espite President Trump’s approval rating sitting at 44 percent as of March 20, 56 percent of Americans— including 65 percent of independents and 93 percent of Democrats—disapprove of his administration.[1] Even the number of Republicans supporting the president has fallen by two percent since January, when the president’s approval rating peaked at 49 percent.[2] Yet toppling an incumbent in a primary is considerably difficult, especially when the economy has felt like it has improved for most of the term and the president has deep ties with their base like Trump does (62 percent of his base supports him unconditionally).[3][4][5][6] That said, there was room—albeit limited—for a challenger to impact the outcome.[7] Splitting a ticket during a primary impacts the general election by reminding voters that they can elect another candidate, showing that the incumbent is not unchallengeable. Even former White House strategist Steve Bannon stated that Trump’s reelection “is not in the bag” and that if he were to lose three percent of the traditional Republican vote, his 2020 campaign would fail.[8][9] Due to Trump’s overall unpopularity, multiple Republicans launched primary challenges. The last time a president faced significant internal opposition was in 1992, when populist Pat Buchanan ran against

nupoliticalreview.com

President George H.W. Bush.[10] Every time a president faced primary opposition—which has occured six times—they failed to win reelection.[11] The public largely ignored Trump’s three primary challengers, all of whom represent distinct subsects of the party and reject Trump’s tactics for one reason or another.[12] Former Illinois Representative Joe Walsh announced his candidacy on August 25, 2019 on social media.[13] Despite advocating for the Trump campaign in 2016, Walsh described the president as “morally unfit” for the position after the Helsinki Summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, where Walsh and other conservatives believed Trump to be disseminating Putin’s propaganda.[14][15] Walsh was convinced Trump had been involved in nefarious and even criminal activity. “The [Republican] party has become a cult . . .

Donald Trump is a dictator, he’s a king. He literally is the greatest threat to this country right now. Any Democrat would be better than Trump in the White House,” Walsh asserted.[16] After receiving only one percent of the vote in the Iowa Caucus, Walsh ended his campaign.[17] He’s since stated that he would rather have Bernie Sanders—a

“

Democrat he doesn’t agree with on any policy issue—in the White House over a dictator.[18] Former South Carolina Representative Mark Sanford announced his primary challenge on September 8, 2019.[19] Running on a platform of extreme fiscal conservatism, Sanford criticized the Trump administration for skyrocketing national debt.[20] His campaign focused little on Trump’s conduct; consequently, his message failed to resonate with Republican voters, most of whom dislike the president’s behavior more so than his policies.[21] In November, Sanford’s campaign ended. He lamented that impeachment’s dominance over Republican politics made his goal of “making the debt, deficit, and spending issue a part of this presidential debate impossible.”

Weld’s goal was not to become president. His motivations for running were far nobler: to remind Republicans they have a choice.

“

Bill Weld ran the longest and most successful campaign of the challengers, beginning on March 15, 2019 and centering on contrasting

Spring 2020

31

Columns

the president’s lacking qualifications with Weld’s ample experience and credibility.[22] Weld suspended his campaign on March 18, 2020, vowing to uphold his “commitment to our nation and to the democratic institutions that set us apart.”[23] On the surface, Weld and Trump seem to have the same background: Both are New Yorkers from wealthy families and both graduated from Ivy League colleges. But their similarities end there. Unlike Trump, Weld has immense political experience. Weld began his career as a junior counsel in the House Judiciary Committee during President Richard Nixon’s impeachment.[24] He served as US Attorney for Massachusetts, where he prosecuted New England’s largest banks for money laundering and the municipal government for corruption.

The Boston Globe called him “by far the most visible figure in the prosecution of financial institutions.”[25] In 1986, Weld became the head of Ronald Reagan’s Criminal Division of the Justice Department in Washington D.C. Two years later, he resigned to protest US Attorney General Edwin Meese, who was accused of corruption.[26] In 1990, Weld ran as a Republican for governor of Massachusetts. Due to his progressive social views and promises to reduce the deficit, lower unemployment, and cut taxes, Weld won the election with 50 percent of the vote, becoming the state’s first Republican governor since 1975.[27][28] In office, Weld promoted progressive norms by recognizing domestic partnerships, making abortions more accessible, instituting protections for gay students, and expanding Medicaid.[29][30][31] The Wall Street Journal and the Cato Institute ranked him the most fiscally conservative governor.[32] By meeting his campaign promises, Weld won reelection in 1994 with 71 percent of the vote.[33] Weld also has substantive experience in foreign affairs. As governor, he led sixteen trade missions around the world, establishing Massachusetts as a hub for education,

32

Spring 2020

technology, and business.[34] In 1994, Weld worked with Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich to craft the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since then, Weld has served as an active member of the InterAction Council and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Trump and Weld disagree on the role of government and on the principles of conservatism. As evidenced by his “make America great again” mantra, Trump believes the government should be seized and used, rather than diminished.[35] Conversely, Weld does not tout a rightist ideology, but rather a conservative sensibility in which right-wing reforms are supported, but not at the expense of stability or the risk of a ballooning deficit.

Weld has a long history of bipartisanship.

He not only endorsed former President Barack Obama in 2008 and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, but also worked to diminish polarization between the parties.[36][37] His gubernatorial campaigns centered on his personal policies rather than the GOP platform, established an independent base, and persuaded the opposition to engage with his agenda, which prioritized organizational efficiency.

The candidates also diverge on foreign policy; Weld advocates a “stable, bipartisan” system which prioritizes cyber and infrastructure security, free trade, and multinational climate agreements.[38] Trump has pursued and poorly implemented protectionist foreign policy. For example, Trump’s misapplication of quotas— quantitative restrictions on goods—failed to increase tax revenues and raised the price of products, burdening the American consumer.[39] The policy benefitted foreign companies more than domestic ones.

Trump believes trade is dictated by leverage and power, not by economic principles.[40] Throughout his administration, Trump has threatened to implement tariffs—taxes on imports—which provide none of the economic benefits of an actual

tax. Rather, the threat of tariffs promotes stockpiling and economic volatility as domestic manufacturers hesitate to invest in new jobs and infrastructure. Weld focuses on the economy of the future by prioritizing industries such as artificial intelligence while emphasizing accessible job retraining.[41][42] Trump fails to realize that tariffs cannot and should not revive industries of the past.

If he were running in any other election year, Weld could be a prime candidate. But running against an incumbent president— particularly one with so much cultish clout— has been deemed futile. Weld struggled to gain name recognition and run a successful campaign because the ever-burgeoning Tea Party sect of the Republican Party—and, by extension, GOP elected officials—has not given him financial or political support.

The threat of retaliation from Trump— whether through Twitter or withholding endorsements—has kept Republican candidates in line. Despite his countless racially insensitive remarks on Twitter, it was his bid for the Republican primary that cost Joe Walsh his national radio show.[43] Trump also threatens retaliation against any GOP congresspeople who vote against his interests, as illustrated by his continual attacks on Senator John McCain for voting against the 2017 GOP health-care bill.[44] The president’s harassment is not limited to elected officials; after Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly questioned his treatment of women, Trump constantly attacked her and her reputation, contributing to her departure from Fox News.[45] Due to this retaliation on critics in Congress and the news, it was difficult for Weld to gain any recognition from GOP members (elected or otherwise) and right-leaning media. Additionally, Trump has changed the fundamental belief system of the GOP, not only in terms of what social views are acceptable, but also in terms of economic policy.[46] His promotion of populist policies has shifted the party away from free trade and limited

nupoliticalreview.com

Bloomberg had chosen to run as a Republican, I would have stepped aside for him. But that candidate would have to be a Republican, because I am running, on purpose, against Mr. Trump in the Republican primary.”[55] Weld’s challenge shows that not all Republicans have fallen into step with Trump.

The president’s anti-democratic reforms are not representative of all members of the GOP, particularly moderates and those who consider themselves to be classically conservative or New England Republicans. Both terms allude to modest socially progressive and fiscally conservative values that do not always align with the Libertarian Party’s radical antigovernment stances.[56] The future of the Republican Party rests in the hands of elected officials and their ability to speak against Trump. Yet, many elected officials have been forced to choose between falling in line with the administration or retiring. Since Trump was elected, 40 percent of Republican members of Congress have either stepped down or been defeated at the ballot box.[57] Fellow former governor of Massachusetts and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized the Trump administration on numerous occasions.

During the impeachment trial, he and Maine Senator Susan Collins were the only GOP senators who voted to hear former national security adviser John Bolton’s testimony on Trump’s solicitations of foreign interference in the 2020 election through withholding aid to Ukraine.

[58] Romney was also the only Republican senator to vote against the president’s acquittal and to condemn him for corrupt actions. In response, Trump labeled him a “pompous ass.”[59]

“

Unless more established, nationally recognized GOP members join Weld, Romney, and the numerous Republicans who left office because of Trump’s election, the GOP’s platform will grow more distorted. The party will lose its legitimacy, propagate even more discriminatory policies, cultivate a growing deficit, and destroy democratic norms that have stabilized the United States for centuries.

The Republican Party will never be the same; the Trump administration has already tarnished it. If our congresspeople choose power over speaking out against the man they once opposed, how can they be trusted to represent our interests in other moments of political strife?

The importance of the Republican primary is not only to remind voters that they have a choice, but also to remind office holders that they have the power and responsibility to challenge those in office who fail to uphold the constitutionally mandated priorities of the United States: equality, individualism, liberty, and—most importantly—protection from autocracy in favor of popular sovereignty.

Columns

government spending. It has normalized racist rhetoric and left the GOP’s base substantially more xenophobic than it was during the Obama administration.[47] Trump also used his influence as the head of the GOP to pressure leaders of the Republican state committees to cancel primaries.[48] Minnesota listed only Trump on its primary ballot; contests in pivotal states such as South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, and Kansas were canceled altogether.[49] Andrew Hitt—chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin—attempted to justify excluding Weld on the ballot, arguing that he did not need to be on the Wisconsin ballot if he was not on the ballot elsewhere.

Despite all this, Weld did surprisingly well. In the Iowa Caucus, Weld took one delegate.[50] In the New Hampshire Primary, he received almost 10 percent of the vote, with 12.5 percent in Concord, 17 percent in Portsmouth, and over 30 percent in Hanover.[51] On Super Tuesday, his best performances occurred in New England.

In Vermont, after being endorsed by Governor Phil Scott two weeks prior, Weld received 10.4 percent of the vote.[52][53] In Massachusetts, he received 9.3 percent of the vote. Conversely, in Texas, Tennessee, and Alabama, Weld received 0.8, 1, and 1.5 percent respectively.

These numbers were not enough to beat Trump. However, Weld’s goal was not to become president. His motivations for running were far nobler: to remind Republicans they have a choice. This made Bill Weld the perfect challenger to Trump; he is everything the president is not.[54] Where Trump is uninformed, Weld is knowledgeable.

When Trump is vulgar, Weld is composed.

While Trump is a conservative in the most oppressive ways, Weld empowers his constituents to pursue their personal and professional autonomy.

Nothing proved Weld’s intentions more than his interview with Boston: “If Mike

Weld’s challenge shows that not all Republicans have fallen into step with Trump. The president’s anti-democratic reforms are not representative of all members of the GOP.

“

[1] “Presidential Job Approval Center.” Gallup. Updated March 13, 2020. [2] Ibid. [3] Manning, Rick. “Republican primary theme: Beating incumbents is difficult.” The Hill. May, 20, 104. [4] Tankersley, Jim. “Trump Promotes Low Unemployment and Rising Wages in State of the Union.” The New York Times. February 04, 2020. [5] Duehren, Andrew, Catherine Lucey, and Gabriel T. Rubin. “How Trump Has Kept Near-Unanimous GOP Support Through Impeachment.” The Wall Street Journal. January 19, 2020. [6] Monmouth University Polling Institute. “Partisan Opinion on Trump Digs In.” Monmouth University. November 05, 2019. [7] Waxman, Olivia B. “Could Trump Lose the Republican Nomination? Here's the History of Primary Challenges to Incumbent Presidents.” Time. October 10, 2019. [8] Bursztynsky, Jessica. “Bannon on 2020 race: ‘Trump is a closer’ but his reelection ‘is not in the bag.’”

CNBC. September 19, 2019. [9] Welch, Matt. “Donald Trump Thumps Bill Weld by 76 Percentage Points.” Reason. February 21, 2020. [10] Waxman, Olivia B. “Could Trump Lose the Republican Nomination? Here's the History of Primary Challenges to Incumbent Presidents.” [11] Ibid. [12] Charlee. “Meet the Republicans challenging Trump in the GOP primary.” What’s on Politics. September 13, 2020. [13] Kelly, Caroline and Kate Sullivan. “Joe Walsh to take on Trump in 2020 Republican primary.” CNN. Updated August 25, 2019. [14] Hoffman, Bill. “Joe Walsh on Trump: He's a 'Traitor' and 'Danger' to US.” Newsmax. July 16, 2018. [15] Krawczyk, Kathryn. “'Disgraceful,' 'shameful,' 'damn near traitorous': Conservatives rail on Trump's disastrous Putin summit.” The Week. July 16, 2018. [16] Stracqualursi, Veronica. “Joe Walsh ends Republican primary challenge against Trump.” CNN. February 07, 2020. [17] Ibid. [18] Nichols, John. “Trump Wants You to Ignore His Republican Challenger.” The Nation. February 15, 2020. [19] Blitzer, Ronn. “Mark Sanford announces Trump primary challenge: GOP 'has lost our way.’” Fox News. September 08, 2019. [20] Buck, Rebecca. “Mark Sanford suspends 2020 presidential campaign.” CNN. Updated November 12, 2019. [21] “Republicans largely agree with Trump on issues, but only about a third say they like his personal conduct.”

Pew Research Center. March 05, 2020. [22] Brusk, Steve and Kate Sullivan. “Bill Weld officially announces he is challenging Trump for GOP nomination in 2020.” CNN. April 16, 2019. [23] Weld, Bill. “Today, I'm announcing that I am suspending my candidacy for President of the United States, effective immediately.” Facebook Post. March 18, 2020. [24] Naftali, Timothy. “An Oral History Interview with William Weld.” The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. September 28, 2011. [25] Weld, Bill. “Bill Weld: A personal message for Delegates to the Libertarian National Convention.” Independent Political Report. May 2016. [26] Yardley, William. “Arnold Burns, Who Left Justice Dept. in Protest, Dies at 83.” The New York Times. October 01, 2013. [27] Burns, Alexander. “Bill Weld Will Challenge Trump for 2020 Republican Nomination.” The New York Times. February 15, 2019. [28] Butterfield, Fox. “THE 1990 CAMPAIGN; Politics of Rage Dominate Contest in Massachusetts.” The New York Times. November 01, 1990. [29] “Mass. governor to recognize same-sex partners.” UPI. August 05, 1992. [30] Rimer, Sara. “Gay Rights Law for Schools Advances in Massachusetts.” The New York Times. December 08, 1993. [31] Lee, Meredith. “What does William Weld believe? Where the candidate stands on 5 issues.” PBS NewsHour. February 15, 2019. [32] “Meet Bill: Most Fiscally Conservative Governor in the Nation.” Bill Weld 2020. Accessed March 15, 2020. [33] Ibid. [34] Ibid. [35] Williamson, Kevin D. “No, Weld can’t beat Trump. But he’s the only way real conservatives can dissent.” The Washington Post.

April 22, 2019. [36] Metzger, Andy. “Weld urges support for Clinton if votes aren’t with Libertarians.” Telegram. Updated November 08, 2016. [37] Williamson, Kevin D. “No, Weld can’t beat Trump. But he’s the only way real conservatives can dissent.” [38] Weld, Bill. “Reclaiming Republican Foreign Policy: How Donald Trump Led an Isolationist Takeover of the GOP—and How to Take the Party Back.” Foreign Affairs. October 08, 2019. [39] Ip, Greg. “Trump Shows How Not to Be a Protectionist.” The Wall Street Journal. May 30, 2018. [40] Ibid. [41] Weld, Bill. “Reclaiming Republican Foreign Policy: How Donald Trump Led an Isolationist Takeover of the GOP—and How to Take the Party Back.”[42] Weld, Bill. “Policies from the desk of Bill Weld: Jobs and the Economy.” Weld 2020. Accessed March 15, 2020. [43] Budryk, Zack. “Joe Walsh says he lost his national radio show.” The Hill. August 26, 2019. [44] Blake, Aaron.

“Trump is out for revenge -- after the GOP swore he didn’t threaten them.” the Washington Post. February 06, 2020. [45] Rutenberg, Jim. “Megyn Kelly’s Cautionary Tale of Crossing Donald Trump.” The New York Times. November 15, 2016. [46] Sargent, Greg. “The Republican Party is now institutionally defending Donald Trump’s racism.” The Washington Post. September 19, 2016. [47] Relman, Eliza. “Republican voters have become more xenophobic as Trump has normalized racist rhetoric.” Business Insider. July 18, 2019. [48] Nichols, John. “Trump Wants You to Ignore His Republican Challenger.” [49] Van Berkel, Jessie. “President Donald Trump wins Minnesota Republican primary, with no challenger.” The Star Tribune. March 03, 2020. [50] Nichols, John. “Trump Wants You to Ignore His Republican Challenger.” [51] Fujiwara, Daigo. “Results: 2020 New Hampshire Republican Primary.” WBUR News. February 11, 2020. [52] Bakuli, Ethan. “Vermont governor endorses Trump opponent Bill Weld in 2020 presidential primary.” Burlington Free Press. February 17, 2020. [53] “Counting the Vote.” Associated Press. Accessed March 15, 2020. [54] Stimpson, John B. “Bill Weld is the best possible Trump challenger.” The Hill. September 17, 2019. [55] Soroff, Jonathan. “The Interview: Republican Presidential Hopeful Bill Weld.” Boston. February 10, 2020. [56] “2018 Platform.”

Libertarian: The Party of Principle. July 2018. [57] Martin, Jonathan and Maggie Haberman. “Fear and Loyalty: How Donald Trump Took Over the Republican Party.” The New York Times. Updated December 22, 2019. [58] Everett, Burgess. “Romney denies Trump unanimous Republican support.” Politico. Updated February 05, 2020. [59] Ibid. REPUBLICAN ICON: Republican by Alexander Skowalsky from the Noun Project

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2020

33

Columns

“OK Boomer” is the Pepe of 2020.

Here’s Why. Taraneh Azar / Journalism & Political Science 2021

T

he ubiquity of the term “OK Boomer” comes at a time of heightened generational contempt. Similar to Pepe the Frog’s influence on the 2016 elections, the phrase may impact outcomes in 2020 and have real implications for social and political structure.

Pepe the Frog demonstrated the influence internet culture and memes can have on social and political sentiment offline in 2016, when then-candidate Donald Trump retweeted an image of himself depicted as the anthropomorphic cartoon frog with the slogan “Can’t Stump the Trump,” in effect endorsing the meme and the ideas it represented. In response, Hilary Clinton’s campaign posted an explainer, denouncing Pepe as a neoNazi and white nationalist symbol.[2] Pepe allowed a cohort of right-wing extremists to rally around a collective sentiment in 2016 that was legitimized and endorsed by Donald Trump.

“OK Boomer” doesn’t have the same endorsement from prominent politicians that Trump gave Pepe, but the ability of young people to come together around the antiquated ideals that the meme effectively calls out can parallel 2016 events on the other side of the political spectrum.

“

34

Spring 2020

Although “OK Boomer” as a memetic phrase varies distinctly both from Pepe’s format and symbolic meaning, the term could influence outcomes in 2020. It not only reflects pre-existing sentiment of a generational rift, but also deepens it.

A “boomer” in this context is anyone with antiquated ideas in opposition to the progressive stance that many “zoomers”—the Gen Z foil to the baby boomer generation— tend to take. It is a sarcastic response dismissing anyone with outdated ideas, indicating that they are out of touch with progress and change. “‘OK Boomer’ is a reflection of a generational divide between Gen Z (age 7–22) and baby boomers (age 55–75), but then, as it becomes codified through this shorthand joke, it influences culture and you see all these think pieces now about how it’s equivalent to ageism,” explains Ryan Milner, an assistant professor of communications at the College of Charleston and author of the 2016 book The World Made Meme. “That can maybe further exacerbate this generational divide or make it more pointed, because now we have a label for it and we have a thing to point to that exemplifies it.”

“OK Boomer” not only reflects preexisting sentiment of a generational rift, but also deepens it.

“

Brandon Epstein, a fourth-year Mathematics major at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and creator of the Facebook meme page “MIT Memes for Genetically Modified Beans” adds that, “‘Boomer’ is not an age. ‘Boomer’ is a mindset.

And the fact that the term has been brought in to indicate a particular set of sentiments and viewpoints, and the fact that the meme is not localized to the phrase ‘OK Boomer’ or to any particular usage thereof, I think that adds a lot more mutability to it.”

“OK Boomer” is one example of how memes not only reflect tangible social sentiment, but also shift conversation and dialogue around shared feelings as more and more young people adopt the term in their daily speech.

In this case, assigning a distinct phrase to a tangible shift in sentiment can heighten division between boomers and zoomers.

A 2019 poll by the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics found that the generational conflict between Gen Z or millennial voters and baby boomers is growing. Only 16 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds agreed that elected officials of the boomer generation care about young people and their needs.[3] A February poll of Democratic voters found that 27 percent of seniors aged sixty-five and older supported Joe Biden, while only six percent of voters under thirty-four supported him.[4] As for the other moderate favorite, Pete Buttigieg’s support among voters aged 18–34 was on par with Biden at six percent, with voters aged 50–64 making up the largest nupoliticalreview.com

Columns

cohort of support at 16 percent (Buttigieg has since exited the race). Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, had support from a striking 54 percent of voters under thirty-four and only eight percent among those sixty-five and older.

Just like Pepe incited partisan division in 2016, the phrase may incite generational division at a time of already-heightened alienation across demographic groups, especially within the Democratic Party, as zoomers and millennials tend to lean further left.

[5] This lack of unity helped Trump to win and makes his re-election increasingly likely.[6] While the generational divide impacts both political parties, it runs deeper on the left, as more zoomers identify as liberal but are less likely to identify as Democrats.[7] Gen-Z voters tend to skew further left than their older Democratic counterparts, so much so that some predict support for the formation of a third major party in the next few years.[8] Despite the structural barriers preventing a shift away from the twoparty system, 71 percent of millennials think that a third major party is needed, according to an NBC News/GenForward poll.[9] On the flipside, young voters could lead the Democratic Party to victory, depending on the party’s nominee. With Gen Z and millennial voters together comprising the largest sector of the electorate at 37 percent, Democrats can’t win without youth support.

[10][11] So if a candidate with little youth support

“

nupoliticalreview.com

is nominated, “OK Boomer” might just be the response. But if their overwhelmingly popular candidate of choice—Bernie Sanders—is the nominee, turnout from younger voters could push Trump out of office.[12] The ability of the phrase to mobilize young people to recognize

2016 elections where zoomers and boomers disagreed on whether to support Sanders or Clinton.

With the same mobilizing force as Pepe in 2016, calling out the boomer is a beacon of collective culture in the ultimate pursuit of change.

Representation and sentiment go hand in hand. “OK Boomer” is the social response to what’s happening socially and politically, two largely intertwined facets of American life. As the spread of memetic imagery and public sentiment are closely related, a feedback loop is created when memetic phrases rally likeness, unity, and a desire to be heard, which in turn influence viral memetic content.

“You have a divide which influences the meme, which causes people to respond to the meme, which then can influence the divide and it goes around in a circle,” explains Milner. “It’s definitely a snowball.”

The ability of the phrase to mobilize young people to recognize a common enemy in outdated attitudes and ideals works to determine collective support and disdain. a common enemy in outdated attitudes and ideals works to determine collective support and disdain. This young cohort could determine everything.[13] Younger voters and older voters are divided on who to endorse for 2020. These numbers are strikingly similar to voting data before the

“

[1] Nelson, Libby. Why the Anti-Defamation League just put the Pepe the Frog meme on its hate symbols list.” Vox. Updated September 28, 2016. [2] Kozlowska, Hanna. “Hillary Clinton’s website now has an explainer about a frog that recently became a Nazi.” Quartz. September 13, 201. [3] “Spring 2019 Harvard IOP Youth Poll Results.” Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics. Accessed February 23, 2020. [4] Malloy, Tim and Doug Schwartz. “Sanders Takes Top Spot In Dem Primary As Biden Falls, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Bloomberg Rises In Primary, Runs Strong Against Trump.”

Quinnipiac University Polls. February 10, 2020. [5] Levin, Dan. “Young Voters Keep Moving to the Left on Social Issues, Republicans Included.” The New York Times. January 23, 2019. [6] Wattenberg, Martin P. “From the Obama Youthquake of ‘08 to the Trumpquake of ‘16: How Young People’sDislike of Hillary Clinton Cost Her the Election.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 49(1). March 2019. [7] Galston, William A. and Clara Hendrickson. “How Millenials voted this election.” Brookings Institute. November 21, 2016. [8] Thompson, Derek. “The Millennials-Versus-Boomers Fight Divides the Democratic Party.” The Atlantic. December 10, 2019. [9] Hartig, Hannah and Stephanie Perry. “Millennial poll: Strong majority want a third political party.” NBC News. Updated November 29, 2017. [10] Cilluffo, Anthony and Richard Fry. “An early look at the 2020 electorate.” Pew Research Center: Social & Demographic Trends. January 30, 2019. [11] Glickman, Dan and Alan Solomont. “Young voters are going to be key to winning 2020.” CNN. Updated January 02, 2020. [12] Jones, Sarah. “Bernie Sanders Is Building a Youth Firewall.” New York Magazine. January 09, 2020. [13] Garrison, Joey and Rebecca Morin. “‘I think they will decide the race': Can young voters again push Democrats to victory in 2020?” USA Today. Updated November 08, 2019.

Spring 2020

35