NUPR Spring 2015

Political Northeastern University

ENERGY SHIFTS SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

NO! NO!

NO!

NO!

NO! NO!

1

Fossil Fuel THE atheist sheikhing colombia things up: Divestment: anathema and the allison nowacki US-Saudi Our Path to a farc brittany mcwilliams Diplomacy Livable Future lila sevener 5 8 anna bagley 11 14

featured essays Carbon-credit Mexico What Selma’s danielle murad strategies: Portrayal of REDD+ and an 18 LBJ Really Analysis of Means justin cook 20 Unpegging Mexico’s Legal the Swiss organoFramework devon grodkiewicz 16 Franc ponicos scott oldano 22 david mcdevitt 24 New Fate of Kendrick Lamar neiha lasharie 26 2

table of

CONTENTS

VOLUME 6, ISSUE 2

the lighter side (of our government) david london 29

IMAGES: via Flickr, WikiCommons

nupr perspectives SGA Senate Free Speech Counterbalance: Tramples Falling the Grudge Student With Help Goes Global hannah lishutz Speech From NEU 34 prasanna rajasekaran 30 anthony turner 32

3

meet the

TEAM EXECUTIVE board

Emma McGrath President Josh Sternberg Editor-in-Chief Kaoru Inoue Vice President of PR Megan Walsh Design and Layout Editor Evan Bruning Treasurer Neiha Lasharie Secretary

EDITORIAL board

Kaitlin Beegle Senior Column Editor Lindsey Bressler Associate Column Ed. Rachel Dec Associate Column Editor Jaclyn Roache Senior Magazine Editor Wendy Chu Associate Magazine Editor Emilio Cariati Associate Magazine Editor Anna Bagley Senior Blog Editor

for more

INFORMATION Check out our webiste: www.nupoliticalreview.com for more articles and perspectives.

Want to be heard? Reach out to NUPR for more information at: nupoliticalreview@gmail.com

4

MISSION

featured essays

statement

The Northeastern University Political Review seeks to be a nonpartisan 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.

Divestment:

Our Path to a Livable Future

Lila Sevener, Political Science and Environmental Studies, 2018

A

s the climate crisis worsens, it is becoming clear that action must be taken to prevent further deterioration of our environment. As a society, sustainable living needs to become a priority to preserve the Earth and save resources for future generations.

One of the major problems we are currently facing is our reliance on fossil fuels. Atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, which contribute to the greenhouse effect by absorbing and emitting infrared radiation, continue to rise exponentially. This is causing irreversible effects on the climate. 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic and dangerous to humanity and the entire ecosystem of the Earth.[1] Unfortunately, modern industrial society is dependent on fossil fuels that burn carbon and release these harmful gases into the atmosphere. From transportation to growing our food to heating our homes, fossil fuels are everywhere.

The technology and resources are available to begin a transition to renewables and a green future. However, the fossil fuel industry and its incredible political and economic power stand in the way of that transition.

Coal, oil, and gas produce billions of dollars in revenue every year and these companies will not voluntarily give up those profits. Fossil fuel companies currently have $27 trillion worth of assets in their known oil reserves.

[2] However, according to a study by Impax Asset Management, “80% of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves cannot be consumed without exceeding the international target to keep global warming to within 2°C above pre-industrial levels.”[3] The challenge our society faces is how to stop fossil fuel companies from digging up and burning these resources, which would force them to forfeit these assets. One possible tool to combat this problem is the fossil fuel divestment campaign.

Fossil fuel divestment consists of selling investments

in fossil fuel companies and reinvesting in other industries, creating ‘fossil free’ investment portfolios. This campaign has three main goals. The first is to pressure governments to enact legislation requiring resource extraction companies to leave fossil fuels in the ground.

This means creating laws that would not allow these companies companies to extract all of the fossil fuels they have discovered. The next aim of divestment is to pressure fossil fuel companies to switch to lower carbon forms of energy. This means transitioning the products offered by these companies from traditional fossil fuels into other forms of energy. Finally, divestment attempts to pressure governments to create bans on drilling.[4]

If Northeastern wants to maintain its reputation as a global leader, the administration needs to take action to make our ideals a reality.

This would put governments in control of carbon and use legislation to mandate reductions in fossil fuel production and consumption. While divestment will not solve the climate change crisis on its own, it will likely prove to be a useful tool to weaken the power of fossil fuel companies, thereby making it possible for governments to enact legislation that protects against their business interests.

One of the major reasons that fossil fuels - and the companies which extract, refine, and sell them - are so entrenched in our society is the wealth they create for producers. Fossil fuel companies use their profits to influence politicians and lobby for subsidies and legislation favorable to their business. In fact, according to a study in Oil Change International, “for every $1 the industry spends on campaign contributions and lobbying in DC, it gets back $59 in subsidies.”[5] Politicians use fossil fuel companies for campaign contributions and in return give these companies huge tax breaks and subsidies, in addition to blocking progressive climate change legislation. During the 111th congress (2009 and 2010), the oil and gas lobby spent $350 million.

Oil and gas subsidies for the same period totaled over $20 billion. In contrast, the environmental movement spent $48 million on lobbying in the same time frame.[6] The fossil fuel industry spent more than seven times as much money on lobbying than the entire environmental movement, illustrating this industry’s immense influence in the US government. Our democratic process has been corrupted by these corporations demonstrated by the continuing monetary benefits these companies receive, while ignoring the detrimental impacts of fossil fuels on the environment. Oil companies save $4.4 billion a year in tax breaks through loopholes, such as domestic manufacturing tax breaks and foreign tax credits (oil companies often claim royalties as foreign taxes to get a deduction).[7] In 2013, the top five oil companies earned $93 billion in revenue, yet still received $2.4 billion in tax breaks.[8] Rather than aiding these destructive industries, government regulations should be protecting citizens and the environment and preventing further harm.

Another major challenge facing the climate movement is the confusion around climate change, caused by

5

featured essays

deliberate dissemination of false facts about climate change. Fossil fuel companies fund interest groups and foundations to discredit climate science and the climate justice movement in order to dissuade the public from taking a stand against their operations. Robert Brulle, a researcher at Drexel University, explains that there is a “deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate change,” which is a major obstacle to legislative action.[9] Fossil fuel companies do not want the public to realize the extent of the damage their products and operations are causing to the environment. In order to counteract climate scientists, and reports such as those published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, fossil fuel companies have funded research centers, nonprofit organizations, think tanks, foundations, and policy institutes focused on undermining and discrediting the environmental movement.[10] A recent example is the Heartland Foundation, which financed a billboard campaign associating climate change with murderers, tyrants, and madmen.[11] The fossil fuel divestment campaign aims to balance this misdirection by showing the public a unified, fact-based campaign.

Bringing together universities, cities, towns, churches, and other independent organizations attempts to show the general public that respectable institutions want to divest and will not support fossil fuels.

The goal of fossil fuel divestment is to create a social stigmatization of the industry, not to financially ruin these companies. As activist Bill McKibben explains, “pure self-interest probably won’t spark a transformative

challenge to fossil fuels. But moral outrage just might.”[12] The goal of the divestment movement is to use social pressure to force change. By revealing the truth about the harm that fossil fuels are causing to the environment and gaining publicity for the climate movement, divestment could play a key role in influencing public opinion. Similar campaigns have proven successful at accomplishing these same goals in the past, such as the tobacco divestment movement and the South African Apartheid divestment movement. The latter started on college campuses in the 1980s and spread to municipal and state governments. By the end of the decade, 155 campuses, 80 cities, 25 states, and 19 countries had agreed to divest from companies associated with the Apartheid regime.[13] Although this campaign did not have a significant economic effect on the companies associated with Apartheid, the social stigmatization had a huge influence in ending the regime. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “In South Africa, we could not have achieved our freedom and just peace without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the Apartheid regime.”[14] A study by the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment reviewing the successes of this campaign reveals that, “in almost every divestment campaign we reviewed from adult services to Darfur, from tobacco to South Africa, divestment campaigns were successful in lobbying for restrictive legislation affecting stigmatized firms.”[15] If the fossil fuel divestment

campaign successfully exposes the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption, politicians might listen to their constituents calls for environmental policy reform. The reform for new laws and enforceable regulations to lower carbon emissions would also accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources.

One of the main arguments against the fossil fuel divestment movement is that divested portfolios will financially underperform. Some students oppose their own universities divesting on these grounds, believing it will reduce funding for financial aid, faculty training, and new campus buildings. However, studies analyzing the past five years of data have shown that “removing the fossil fuel sector in its entirety and replacing it with ‘fossil free’ portfolios of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other alternative energy stocks, either on a passively managed or actively managed basis would have improved returns with limited tracking error.”[16] In fact, a portfolio that replaces fossil fuel stocks with diverse environmental technologies would have performed better and yielded higher returns.[17] Fossil fuel companies currently have billions of dollars in profits and therefore appear to be sound investment options. However, projections for future profits do not account for any future reductions in fossil fuel production and consumption. International consensus by climate scientists remains that raising the global temperature by more than 2°C will have extremely negative effects on the climate. To avoid this increase, most of the declared fossil fuel reserves cannot be burned. At some point in the future, carbon regulations will get stricter, restricting the burning and digging of

SOURCES: [1] “Home.” Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2014. [2] McKibben, Bill. “The Reckoning.” Rolling Stone 2 Aug. 2012: 52-60. Print. 56 [3] “Beyond Fossil Fuels:The Investment Case for Fossil Fuel Divestment.” Impax Asset Management, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014. [4] Ansar, Atif, Ben Caldecott, and James Tilbury. “Stranded Assets and the Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign: What Does Divestment Mean for the Valuation of Fossil Fuel Assets?” Stranded Assets Programme, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014. [5] “Fossil Fuel Funding to Congress: Industry Influence in the U.S. - Oil Change International.” Oil Change International. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. [6] “Environment.” Opensecrets RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. [7] “Breaking It Down: Oil-Industry Tax Breaks.” Www.nationaljournal.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. [8] “With Only 93 Billion in Profits, the Big 5 Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks.” American Progress. [9] Brulle, R.J. 2013. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations, Climatic Change, doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 [10] Faber, Capitalizing on Environmental Injustice, 15 [11] “Meet The Climate Denial Machine.” Media Matters for America.

N.p., 28 Nov. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2015. [12] McKibben. The Reckoning. 59 [13] See 12. [14] Murphy, Sara. “Nelson Mandela, Divestment, and the End of Apartheid.” N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015. [15] See 4. [16] See 3. [17] See 4. [18] See 3. [19] “The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change.” White House, n.d. Web. [20] “Divestment Commitments.” Fossil Free. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. [21] “People’s Climate March, Fossil Fuel Divestment, and Flood Wall Street.”350.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. [22] Schwartz, John. “Rockefellers, Heirs to an Oil Fortune, Will Divest Charity of Fossil Fuels.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Sept. 2014. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. [23] “Northeastern Ranked America’s Greenest University.” News Northeastern. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. [24] “Our Commitment to Environmental Sustainability.” Our Commitment to Environmental Sustainability. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. [25] “HOME PAGE TEXT.” DivestNU. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015. [26] See 20. IMAGES: Light Brigading on Flickr.

6

these resources and forcing price changes. Companies will be left with assets that were once profitable and now are worthless, having a catastrophic effect on both the companies and its investors. Although some investors believe they will be able to retract their carbon investments before the carbon bubble bursts, “recent history of financial markets suggests that few investors will be able to successfully anticipate any sudden repricing and/or stranding of fossil fuel assets.”[18] Thus, current profit projections are not accurate and overvalue fossil fuel investments. By divesting now, investors can avoid a bursting ‘carbon bubble’ and, enjoy similar or even greater returns on their investments. It is in the best interests of investors to be proactive lead the divestment movement.

In addition to the negative impacts of the carbon bubble, many investors also fail to consider the economic costs of climate change. Fossil fuel companies are not currently held responsible for the damages done to the environment or the costs that result from these damages.

A White House report on the costs of climate change reveal that if the temperature warms 3° Celsius above preindustrial levels, instead of 2°, economic output could decrease by about 0.9 percent. To put that in perspective, 0.9 percent of the 2014 U.S. GDP equates to approximately $150 billion. Any temperature rise greater than 3° Celsius would cost even more.[19] While fossil fuel companies are not the only cause of these damages, they are the primary producers of these emissions, and the future costs of adapting to and addressing climate change should be factored into the product price. If these expenses are considered, the market would adapt to the true costs of fossil fuels and renewable energy sources would become much more competitive .

The fossil fuel divestment movement has taken off around the world. Already over 500 colleges have divested as well as 34 cities including Oxford, Orebro, and Dunedin. Additionally, the Swedish National Pension Fund has divested, and more than 50 foundations and religious institutions have also participated.[20] Over the last two years, 181 institutions and local governments

and 656 individuals representing over $50 billion dollars have pledged to divest.[21] This campaign is gaining momentum, as exemplified by the People’s Climate March in September where over 400,000 people gathered in New York City to demand a livable future. Following this march, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund pledged to divest its $860 million philanthropic organization.[22] The Rockefeller fortune was built through Standard Oil, but in recent years this organization has expressed a willingness to support environmental initiatives and has shifted its investments from fossil fuels to renewables. As more and more universities, cities, organizations, and notable individuals join the movement, public awareness of the need for divestment will increase and encourage more people to take a stand.

For every $1 the industry spends on campaign contributions and lobbying in DC, it gets back $59 in subsidies.

On our own campus, student activists have been pushing the administration to divest since the fall of 2013. In 2013, the University of Indonesia’s GreenMetric ranking of world universities ranked Northeastern University the nation’s greenest university.[23] As a founding member of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, Northeastern has claimed to prioritize sustainability and green practices.

President Aoun even stated, “I have made it a top priority for our university to assess our options and define assertive and responsible actions to speed our progress towards environmentally friendly policies, systems and facilities.”[24] These interests are reflected

in the voice of the student body as well. Last year,75% of the 3,625 students who voted in the Student Government Association’s spring election voted in favor of divesting the Northeastern endowment from fossil fuels.[25] This was the first referendum in nine years that had enough student votes to validate the election.

The success of this vote was due to a powerful student campaign using education and outreach. Clearly, this is an issue that Northeastern students care about. A full year after this voting success, DivestNU is still waiting on the administration to make NU’s endowment fossil fuel-free. The longer NU waits, the more likely it is that other universities and institutions will divest before Northeastern. Already, 26 schools around the country have divested and demonstrated stronger leadership on environmental issues than Northeastern.[26] If Northeastern wants to maintain its reputation as a global leader, the administration needs to take action to make divestment ideals a reality.

Fossil fuel divestment is not a comprehensive solution to the climate crisis. Other steps will need to be taken to reduce emissions, transition to renewable green energies, and decrease overall consumption of energy across the globe. However, divestment is a first step in stimulating the climate change conversation.

Climate denial funded by fossil fuel companies has left the public unclear about what actions need to be taken and legislators torn between the money offered by these companies and the threat of climate change. The divestment movement can pressure the public to demand action by publicizing the facts of climate change and the detrimental effects that continued use of fossil fuels will cause. Government regulations and legislation will be needed to prevent fossil fuel companies from burning all of the oil and gas reserves. Although divestment will likely not have a significant impact economically on the fossil fuel industry, it can create a social stigmatization that pressures politicians to act in the interests of citizens and the environment.

7

featured essays

The

Atheist Anathema Perception of Atheism in Modern America Allison Nowacki, International Affairs 2016

P

rotestant, Catholic, Evangelical, Mormon, Orthodox, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu….

Atheist. The majority of American citizens categorize themselves into some form of religious group. We are home to citizens of a variety of religious backgrounds. Yet, one of these things does not look like the others. In a predominantly theist nation, there is a lack of understanding of the American Atheist. Through a sea of misconceptions, Atheists struggle to stay afloat with their moral reputations intact. Inaccurate biases are spread through media and public discourse. These biases affect family views on Atheists, political views, views on trustworthiness, and programs within America that operate at the disadvantage of American Atheists.

Persecution of Atheism in America is a problem that can no longer be ignored. In order to inspire a change in dialogue and public opinion, it is important to expose the unfounded bias’ and views of American Atheists. Through creating an awareness of these intolerances, American society can move to become more understanding and open.

What is Atheism? According to the American Atheists, “Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system.

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”[1] Although there is a large debate on whether or not Atheism is a religion, for the purposes of defining which religious beliefs a person subscribes to, it is used as an identifying term. In a country where over 78% of the population identifies with some form of Christianity, the voices of Atheists are often

8

muffled.[2] As a result, religion has an important role in American families.

Imagine a politically divided American family where the mother is mostly conservative, and the father is mostly liberal. While politically divided, they’re bound to agree on some issues. For instance, suppose the daughter in this family comes home for Christmas with her newly announced fiancée. When parents of this girl invite their prospective son-in-law to say grace, he politely declines, stating he is an Atheist. How would they feel

about this revelation? According to a poll conducted

by Pew Research Center, likely not happy. When asked how they would react to an immediate family member marrying someone who doesn’t believe in God, 58% of mostly conservative respondents stated they would be “unhappy.”[4] Even among respondents who describe themselves as mostly liberal, 41% would be unhappy with this situation.[5] Fast forward a few years, and now it’s their son’s turn to introduce the parents to someone he intends to marry. In contrast to his sister, he brings

home a ‘born-again’ Christian. The son is concerned his parents will be unhappy with this partnership, as he saw the opinions that met his sister’s announcement.

Fret not. In comparison to the percentage of individuals who would be unhappy with a family member marrying someone who does not believe in God, the odds of his parents unhappiness with a prospective born-again Christian in-law are miniscule. Only 6% of mostly conservative individuals would be unhappy with a family member marrying a born-again Christian, and that percentage only increases by 3% in mostly liberal individuals.[6] These polls demonstrate that Americans are more likely to support a marital union with a born-again Christian than one with an Atheist.

These beliefs about Atheists transfer into politics as well. If two qualified candidates, an Atheist and a Catholic, were to run for president, who is more likely to win? In the court of public opinion, the Catholic will eviscerate the Atheist. In a polling conducted by Gallup, 94% of Americans would be willing to vote for a Catholic candidate, while only 54% would vote for an Atheist.

[7] Out of all the categories to choose from, an Atheist candidate was the least likely to be voted for, behind a Muslim candidate.[8] These results belie the common belief that America has a separation church and state, and that all citizens are created free and equal. Clearly, this is not the case. Popular opinion demonstrates that racial biases are more flexible than religious ones. While America currently has an African-American president,it it is highly unlikely that there will be an Atheist president within the next few generations.

Why are the American people against electing an Atheist president? One study suggests that there is not an outright dislike for Atheists, but rather a distrust. A study conducted jointly by the University of British Columbia and the University of Oregon found that distrust is the driving force behind anti-Atheist prejudice.[9] The study also found that individuals who were religious were highly preferred for a job that requires high-trust, such as a daycare worker.[10] When discussing the results, the lead study author stated “People are willing to hire an Atheist for a job that is perceived as low trust, for instance as a waitress. But when hiring for a high-trust job like daycare worker, they were...not going to hire an Atheist for that job.”[11] Part of the same study presented participants with a scenario where a man cheats and steals. When the participants were asked if the thief was more likely to be a Christian, a Muslim, a rapist, or an Atheist, the respondents overwhelmingly selected rapist and Atheist.[12] There was virtually no differentiation between

rapists and Atheists.[13] The fact that this kind of stigma is normalized in general public opinion is extremely dangerous. In a world where Atheists already face a discrimination, the proliferation of these beliefs can further ostracize them from society.

There are many aspects of society in which Atheists are overlooked. One of the most tragic cases is the neglect of Atheists serving in the U.S. Military.

Popular opinion demonstrates that racial biases are more flexible than religious ones.

While America currently has an African-American president,it it is highly unlikely that there will be an Atheist president within the next few generations.

Military chaplains are one of the key pillars of support for servicemembers. They represent an alternative counseling method widely used by those in service. While there are mental health professionals available to nontheist service members, there are many disadvantages to seeking counseling from mental health professionals rather than military chaplains. For servicemembers, there is a stigmatization with seeking help from a psychiatrist or counselor.[14] This is seen as a sign of weakness, whereas visiting a chaplain is so common that it escapes this stigmatization.[15] Also, the soldier-chaplain relationship guarantees complete confidentiality, whereas seeking help from a mental-health professional does not.[16] Atheists and theists face the same emotional struggles that come from military service, and yet there is a serious lack of support for men and women serving in the military that identify as Atheist or non-theist. While there have been humanist chaplains who have meet all technical eligibilities to become chaplains, they have typically been blocked from becoming chaplains within

the military.[17] By simply allowing these humanist chaplains to work beside our servicemembers, the men and women who risk their lives for America would receive the help and counsel that they deserve, regardless of their religious affiliation.

Religion also provides its own breed of social networking and opportunities to create social ties.

Children who are brought up “in the church” are provided with friendships and peer relationships earlier than children whose first social interactions with peers begin in preschool. Sunday school can begin as early as birth, and continue throughout high school.[18] This provides children with the beginnings of social networking into young adulthood. Once an adult, churchgoers can create social ties by attending church events along with weekly masses. The United Methodist Church goes as far as to advertise that it “offers singles a variety of ministries where they might discover their future sweethearts.”[19] Atheists do not have a comparable form of social institutionalization. One of the few options for networking among Atheists is attending conferences geared toward Atheism and skepticism, which are usually expensive to attend as they occur infrequently, and can also incur expensive travel costs. By creating a more open dialogue about Atheism around the country, more opportunities for socialization may be established. Atheists cannot establish an easy-access form of connecting and gathering if they fear animosity towards their beliefs from the rest of society.

Celebrities are not exempt from discriminatory beliefs about Atheists. In a bizarre dialogue at the Annual Vera Beach Prayer Breakfast, Phil Robertson, star of popular American television series “Duck Dynasty,” goes into an in-depth fantasization of an atheist family being attacked in their home.[20] His peculiar story follows as: two men break into the home of an atheist man and his family, they tie up and gag the man, rape his “two little atheist daughters” in front of him, shoot the daughters, decapitate his wife, and then as a grandeur final act castrate the man and brandish his “manhood” in front of him.[21] Seemingly, the point of this monologue is that if the man is an Atheist, then there is no moral wrongdoing on the part of the intruders. Robertson states, on behalf of his imaginary intruders, “You’re the one that says there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun!”[22] It is worth noting that the sound recording of Phil Robertson was provided in support of his spoutings, by website that describes this monologue as a “powerful address.”[23] This shows that these are not the condemned speakings of a zealot, but rather

9

that people support what he is professing. These are dangerous comments, as the “Duck Dynasty” brand has a large following. This is not Phil Robertson’s first time making inflammatory comments. In December of 2013, he was suspended from the reality series by A&E for making outrageous comments to GQ about homosexuality, including comparing it to beastiality.[24] [25] Following an outpour of support from Duck Dynasty fans, Robertson’s suspension was lifted a week later.

[26] Politicians came to Phil Robertson’s defense in light of his suspension, including the newly announced 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz.[27] Discriminatory and hateful comments like these are even more dangerous when made by public figures. Bigots are allowed to publicly promote this hate-speech and not only validate it as part of their religious beliefs, but claim protection under the First Amendment. By allowing such hatred to go unchecked, we are privileging those with religious beliefs at the expense of those without such beliefs. If an Atheist were to tell a similar story of the rape and murder of a Christian family, it would be seen as a vicious, persecutory attack against religious rights. And yet, Robertson’s hateful spiel has received little media attention and condemnation.

When a tragedy occurs, our society tends to search for a simple explanation or meaning behind the horrible act. For example, when three young Muslim students were gunned down in their home in Chapel Hill, North Carolina the media rushed to find what provoked shooter Craig Hicks to commit this act of violence. It was soon discovered through Hicks’ Facebook page, that he was an outspoken Atheist.[28] Despite the condemnation of the attacks by prominent atheists, the media jumped on this tidbit as the explanation as to why he murdered three young students. The Daily Dot stated that his Facebook “reveals an obsessive interest in Atheism.”[29] This is misleading, and spreads the belief that Atheism promotes immorality and evil acts, despite the fact that there is no correlation between Atheism and immorality. In fact, there are countless cases where religion has been used to justify gravely immoral acts. The media makes no effort to understand Atheism, but instead further spreads the bias’ and misunderstandings about American Atheists.

Despite common misconceptions, the American Atheist is not foreign or evil - they are Americans, yearning to be understood. Not all Atheists hate religion or hate religious people, but they do hate being misunderstood and unfairly judged. Widespread discrimination against Atheists is harmful to religious and non-religious Americans alike, because it unfairly ostracizes members of the American public based solely on what they choose to believe, or not believe, about god.

These patterns of discrimination are evident in everyday interactions, as well as social and political institutions. In a country where the First Amendment to the Constitution is freedom of religion, America lacks a freedom of nonreligion.

SOURCES: [1] “What Is Atheism?” American Atheists. 2015. Accessed March 27, 2015. [2] “Summary of Key Findings (Statistics on Religion in America Report).” Pew Research. 2008. Accessed March 27, 2015. [3] See 2. [4] “Section 3: Political Polarization and Personal Life.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. June 11, 2014. Accessed March 27, 2015. [5] See 4. [6] See 4. [7] Jones, Jeffrey. “Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias as Presidential Candidates.” Gallup. June 21, 2012. Accessed March 27, 2015. [8] See 7. [9] Gervais, Will M., Azim F. Shariff, and Ara Norenzayan. “Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-atheist Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101, no. 6 (2011): 1189-206. [10] See 9. [11] North, Anna. “People Think Atheists Are Just As Bad As Rapists? Christ.” Jezebel. December 1, 2011. Accessed March 30, 2015. [12] See 9. [13] See 9. [14] “Military Chaplains Providing Support for Nontheist and Non-Religious Members of the Military.” Secular Coalition for America. Accessed March 30, 2015. [15] See 14. [16] See 14. [17] See 14. [18] “Children’s Sunday School.” Cowan First Baptist Church.

2015. Accessed March 31, 2015. [19] Hahn, Heather. “Cupid in The United Methodist Church.” The United Methodist Church. February 13, 2014. Accessed March 31, 2015. [20] “Friday March 20, 2015 - Phil Robertson.” Trunews. March 20, 2015. Accessed March 27, 2015. [21] See 20. [22] See 20. [23] See 20. [24] Merrigan, Tara. “Readers React to GQ’s ‘Duck Dynasty’ Story and Phil Robertson’s Indefinite Suspension.” GQ. December 19, 2013. Accessed March 27, 2015. [25] See 24. [26] Yahr, Emily. “A&E Retracts Its Suspension of ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson.” Washington Post. December 17, 2013. Accessed March 27, 2015. [27] See 26. [28] Baker-Whitelaw, Gavia. “Chapel Hill Shooter’s Apparent Facebook Page Showed His Extreme Anti-religious Attitudes.” The Daily Dot. February 11, 2015. Accessed March 31, 2015. [29] See 28. [30] Richard Dawkins, Twitter post, February 11, 2015, 4:15am.

IMAGES: American Hunamist and Pew Research Center.

10

featured essays

Sheikhing Things Up:

an economic Approach to US-Saudi Diplomacy Anna Bagley,International Affairs and Economics 2018

D

iscussions of the Middle East are often synonymous with two topics: the commodity of oil and US involvement in the region. The United States and Saudi Arabia, two ostensible allies, face a conflict of interests as the US continues to engage in nuclear negotiations with Iran and Saudi Arabia deploys air assaults on the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen. Due to the US’s continued alliance with Israel and its recent reestablishment of diplomatic ties with Iran, Saudi Arabia has seen a decline in the prominence of its national interests in US policy.

Weakened diplomacy is not the only threat to US-Saudi relations: surpluses of oil are destabilizing the commodity market and driving down profits throughout the industry.

As two of the highest oil producing states in the market, the US and Saudi Arabia find common ground in their mutual desire for stable and profitable oil prices - achieved through strategic cooperation and agreement on oil policies.

Since its establishment in 1960, a primary goal of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has been to reach and maintain a stable price in the international trade of oil. On November 27, 2014, head delegates from its 12 member nations met in Vienna to host the 166th meeting of the conference of OPEC. High on the meeting’s agenda was the discussion of oil prices, which had already fallen more than 40% since June.[1] Superficially, the low prices suggest prosperity, as trillions of US dollars are shifted from producers to consumers, inflation rates are continually reduced, and global GDP increases.[2] Politically, the instability of the market creates a power vacuum, leading nations like Saudi Arabia and the

United States to seek security and control in the market. The United States, through hydraulic fracturing (fracking), hopes to continue its ascent into the realm of global oil producing powers. Saudi Arabia, the most redoubtable of the OPEC nations, flexes its muscles of wealth and resource in order to exert power over less opportune oil producers, such as Iran.

Saudi-US relations pertaining to oil began in 1933, when the Saudi Arabian government granted concession for drilling in the country to a subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company of California, which would later grow into the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (ARAMCO, after its former name the Arabian-American Oil Company). In 1945, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt promised cooperation with and consideration of the Arab people in regards to the handling of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. While aboard the USS Quincy with Saudi Arabian King Abdul Aziz, FDR assured the leader that “the defense of Saudi Arabia is a vital interest for the defense of the United States.”[3] FDR’s death shortly thereafter complicated the two nations’ relationship. His successor, Truman, made the United States the first country to recognize the nation of Israel in 1948 – an affiliation that would cause tension between the United States and Arab leaders for decades to follow. Two years later, in 1950, King Abdul Aziz pressured ARAMCO into splitting its profits 50/50 with the Saudi state. By the 1980s, the Saudi Arabian government would assume full control of ARAMCO, making it a state-owned enterprise and member of OPEC. However, the United States and Saudi Arabia were able to find a common enemy in the Soviet Union, with Saudi Arabia’s opposition to the Eastern bloc

solidified in its conflict with Yemen in the 1960s.

However, conflicting US and Saudi interests in oil and relations with Israel came to a head in 1973 when the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) made the decision to establish an embargo in response to US support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The embargo ultimately proved unsuccessful, as it marked the beginning of the decline of OPEC’s power as a solidified bloc and encouraged investors to seek relations with other oil producing nations, such as Norway.[4] As a result of the loss, Saudi Arabia learned that by decreasing its market share and increasing prices, it would ultimately drive consumers towards its competitors - a lesson which echoes in the current choice not to cut production in order to increase prices.

The post-9/11 relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia was strained due to allegations of Saudi ties to al Qaeda by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[5] However, negative US perceptions of Saudi Arabia that came at the fault of Saudi terrorists did not deter shared interests between the two states: security cooperation, new arms sales, and security training.[6] Relations were restored after the 2003 and 2004 al Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia led Saudi leaders to vow to join the US in its fight against terrorism.[7] The falling oil prices of 2014 opened up a new window of opportunity for interaction between the US and Saudi that could act as a foil to developing US policy in the Middle East. The recent cooperation between the United States and Saudi’s Middle Eastern compatriots, namely Iran and

11

Syria, has left Saudi leaders fearful of dependency on US policy, which they found to be insufficiently supportive of Saudi interests in the region.[8] By March 2015, US oil prices dropped as low as $45 a barrel. This followed Saudi Arabia’s refusal to cut production in order to maintain market share.

Saudi Arabia’s actions are based on the hope that US oil production will slow, despite the rise in specialized fracking methods.[9] Oilmen, however, are known to have a knack for scraping together funds to turn a profit even in unfavorable economic circumstances.[10] While a number US shale companies have fallen into bankruptcy as a result of high costs of production and low prices, several firms have proven resilient enough to cause US output levels to plateau rather than crash.[11] Nevertheless, continued production by shale companies at their current rate would require extreme practices of efficiency (i.e. a decrease in factors of production such as labor and capital) to balance the high costs of constant drilling that are necessary for fracking.

Oil offers a chance to approach relations with Saudi Arabia under the guise of economics rather than politics.

As falling oil prices create an opening for increased Saudi market power, the US seeks to simultaneously appease several of its diverging Middle Eastern allies - but both states have an opportunity for cooperation that would strategically stabilize their politics in the long term. Looking to maintain its regional hegemonic status, the oil-rich Saudi state - which at the outset of falling oil prices had over $900 billion in savings - produces 1/3 of all oil put out by OPEC countries, and can therefore afford to keep production high and prices low. By manipulating oil prices, Saudi Arabia will sit in a hegemonic position for two reasons: 1) it is the most politically stable country in the region, and 2) it will automatically stop Iran from achieving regional hegemony through profits from high oil prices. As OPEC’s power to control prices and market production proves weak, Saudi Arabia proves not only to be a regional hegemon, but global manipulator of perfect competition. Though the nation does not have monopolistic control of the oil market, its high market share and degree of influence, emphasized in November’s OPEC meeting, will enable it to become a stronger actor in the political economics of the region. By taking advantage of ARAMCO’s size, output, and scale of operation (more than 4 million barrels per day at a cost of around $5 per barrel), Saudi Arabia utilizes an economies of scale model that reduces the power of less efficient oil producing nations.[12] By refusing to cut production, and therefore contributing to the saturation of the oil market, Saudi Arabia is also helping to cut off the money that groups like ISIS - which has been selling crude oil in the range of $40-$60 per barrel - get from oil revenue.[13] Currently, there is no alliance between private oil producers in the United States and ARAMCO. Although such an alliance would be mutually beneficial, neither side has initiated an agreement because low oil prices do not present an imminent threat to the US economy. The most efficient

oil policy between the United States and Saudi Arabia would come in the form of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) - a bilateral agreement that would outline (and thereby assure) common interests and intentions between states. The bilateral agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia would be established independent of legalities and therefore non-binding.

Oil offers a chance to approach relations with Saudi Arabia under the guise of economics rather than politics. As falling oil prices create an opening for increased Saudi market power, the US seeks to simultaneously appease several of its diverging Middle Eastern allies - but both states have an opportunity for cooperation that would strategically stabilize their politics in the long term.

Such an association would present a number of opportunities for both the Unites States and Saudi Arabia: 1) a pragmatic approach for the US redistribution of alliances throughout the Middle East (i.e. less exclusivity towards Israel, more support for Arab powers), 2) an opportunity to discreetly impair Iran’s economy in ways other than the pre-existing sanctions, 3) a reversal of implications set by the Strategic Cooperation Agreement, and other alliance agreements like it, 4) an opportunity for a formal agreement that would take away from suspicions by Iranian president Rouhani regarding secret deals against Iran conspired by the US and Saudi Arabia, 5) in the wake of the decline of OPEC’s influence, the formation of a new bloc of oil producers who control oil prices to make them stable and favorable to the global economy, and 6) credibility gained

by the US through an agreement such as this would be especially important in the wake of the CIA Terror Report, as it would exhibit ostensible efforts to effectively negotiate with an Arab state.

In the midst of sensitive nuclear negotiations with Iran, the Obama administration is attempting to resist pressure from Congress to reimpose heavy sanctions on the Islamic Republic lest the negotiations go awry.[14] A public alliance (an MoU) with a professed adversary of Iran (Saudi Arabia) could create contention between the Obama and Rouhani administrations, especially in the wake of Saudi-led air strikes on Iran-supported Houthi rebels in Yemen.[15] Developing relations with Iran and continuing preexisting ones with Saudi Arabia is not hypocritical, but rather a dichotomous approach by the United States to dispersing diplomatic and economic relations throughout the Middle East. As members of the World Trade Organization, the United States and Saudi Arabia may cooperate on the basis of fair trade and global economic interests. While the paths of economics and politics are continuously intersecting, the price of oil as a commodity is so influential to the health of the global economy that it becomes separate from partisan interests in the US. A cooperation agreement between the Saudi and the US nations would help to stabilize bilateral relations by acting in the name of economic stability and the Most Favored Nation (MFN) principle. Furthermore, the agreement would pose an opportunity to improve US relations with the region. These improvements would be a result of the relative economic stability brought on by a stabilization of oil prices. The image of the United States in the region would also improve, as the backlash from its historically heavy affiliation with Israel would be counterbalanced throughout the region as talks with Iran and economic cooperation with Saudi Arabia go forward, thus potentially earning the US more acceptance in the Arab community.

The last arrangement of this kind in the region was between the United States and Israel in 1981, under the Reagan administration. The two nations agreed to pursue the main objective of deterring Soviet forces in the region through military cooperation. An agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia should address the regulation of oil production in a way that efficiently maximizes profits for both nations. Like the nations of OPEC, the US and Saudi Arabia would set production quotas that would seek to approach market equilibrium, thus stabilizing the economy around oil while exerting power over one of the global economy’s most influential commodity markets.

The frequently shifting political landscape of the Middle East makes the seriousness and efficacy of diplomatic endeavors difficult to predict. By focusing on commodity market interests, the US is presented with the potential for an economically secure method of policymaking in the Middle East that deters the risk of conflicting alliances.

featured essays

SOURCES: [1] “Why the Oil Price Is Falling.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 08 Dec. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.[2] “Sheikhs v Shale.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 06 Dec. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.[3] Al-Monitor. “Obama’s Presidency Brings Uncertainty to Saudi-US Relations – Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East.” Al-Monitor.[4] “Making the Best of a Low Price.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 06 Dec. 2014. Web. 8 Dec. 2014.[5] Walsh, Declan. “WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists.” The Guardian. [6] Bressler, Lindsey. “The Future of Saudi-US Relations.” Northeastern University Political Review. Northeastern University Political Review, 4 Apr. 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2014.[7] LeVine, Stephen. “Frenemies forever: how Washington stopped worrying and learned to love Saudi Arabia, again.”

Foreign Policy 184 (2011): 31-33.[8] Reuters. “Saudi Arabia severs diplomatic ties with US over response to conflict in Syria.” Mail Online.[9] “WTI Oil Drops Below $60 After Saudis Question Need to Cut.” Bloomberg. com. Bloomberg, 11 Dec. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.[10] “Many Winners, a Few Bad Losers.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 25 Oct. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.[11] “Why the Oil Price Is Falling.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 08 Dec. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.[12] Mosendz, Polly. “How Much Does ISIS Make on Selling Oil?” Newsweek. 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

IMAGES: NASA via Flickr and Noise Yaad.

12

13

colombia and the

farc Should the Peace Talks Continue?

Brittany McWilliams, Political Science and International Affairs, 2018

T

he Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, better known as the FARC, began as a resistance movement among impoverished farmers in rural Colombia during the 1920’s and 1930’s.

The movement started peacefully as a way to protest a lack of government intervention in peasant hardships, but when the government failed to intervene, the FARC became more politically volatile, following a MarxistLeninist way of thinking, as well as more physically aggressive. The organization also began to make its money from the sale of illicit drugs.[1] Over the past half century, the FARC has victimized and displaced hundreds of thousands of Colombian citizens. In fact, Colombia has one of the highest rates of internally displaced persons, with 5.7 million refugees recorded within the countries’ borders.[2] Roughly 220,000 people have been killed in the armed conflict with 80% of these deaths being civilians.[3] While the number of victims of kidnapping, violence, and displacement are considerably lower than they were in the early 2000s, Colombia Reports, an English news site based in Medellin, indicates that there were still over 100,000 victims of these types of crimes in 2014.[4] This civilian directed violence carried out by the FARC has made the prospect of peace precarious at best.

The FARC has been participating in peace talks with the Colombian government since late 2012. The group, seen as a terrorist organization by the European Union and the United States, has been fighting as a rebel army in the rural countryside of Colombia for the past 50 years.[5] The recently re-elected president Juan Manuel Santos has been working tirelessly throughout his

14

time in office to come to an agreement with the FARC in order to secure safety and peace for the Colombian people. Though widespread violence by the rebel army

Dancing around negotiations while violence is still occurring, while people are being displaced, and while the FARC is still ruling with impunity seems to be more of a front for peace than anything else. has slowed tremendously in recent years, kidnappings and attacks on rural areas have continued to splatter headlines in Colombian news sources. Since President Santos’ reelection in 2014, peace talks have ramped up significantly. There are six main points that the current negotiations are focused on: rural reform, political participation, illicit drugs, victims, end of conflict, and implementation. The first three issues have been agreed upon while the latter three are still being discussed.

With half of the issues still being debated, peace is a very real, albeit problematic, possibility. Each side claims a desire for peace, but in reality neither seems willing to trust the other enough to finish the peace talks and implement changes. Without the willingness to trust one another, it seems unlikely that peace talks will ever amount to more than just that—talk. President Santos seems afraid to make any particularly aggressive moves, either toward peace or away from it, for fear of upsetting the current precarious balance of power. Because the Santos government continues to straddle the line between aggression and compromise, and the FARC’s creation of a wealthy and extensive system of power, it is improbable that the two parties will strike a peace accord in the near future. In order to achieve lasting stability, the Santos government must act decisively to either diplomatically reach a peace agreement with the FARC or destroy their existence altogether through brute military force.

In December 2014, the FARC presented a ceasefire offer to the Colombian government. The FARC claims that the ceasefire is an attempt to help expedite compromise during the peace talks. The government is wary to trust the offer, stating, “the guerilla’s conditions are unacceptable until a peace deal is reached.”[7] Further, the Colombian government believes that the FARC would only use a ceasefire as time to remilitarize troops. After such an extensive period of violence, the Colombian government seems justified in not wanting to leave itself vulnerable by trusting the rebels not to take advantage of such de-escalation. However, it is difficult, if not [6]

featured essays impossible, to agree to peace terms with any entity that continues to carry out violent attacks despite a clear effort to create lasting peace. The same thing can be said for the FARC, who continues to assert that if the Colombian government does not agree to call off their troops and abide by the ceasefire, the FARC will end negotiations altogether.[8] This stalemate situation, in which neither side fully believes the other to be trustworthy, has been repeated many times throughout history. In this particular case, the conflict happens to be within one country, and not across state boundaries. The government cannot trust the FARC and the FARC cannot trust the government. The inability to agree upon terms for a basic ceasefire does not bode well for more permanent peace resolutions.

While some terms have been agreed upon, it seems unlikely, given the violent history of Colombia and the level of mistrust between the FARC and the government, that all terms will be both compromised on and upheld without violence. However, it also seems implausible that Colombia will remain in a continuous state of war.

Since their inception, the FARC has become a powerful institution in Colombia. They hold a great deal of power and wealth. It is estimated that the FARC receives $600 million yearly from the trafficking of illicit drugs. They supply 50% of the world’s cocaine and 60% of U.S. cocaine.[9]The FARC also levies unofficial taxes against rural Colombian villagers and extorts money via kidnapping ransoms. In many of the rural areas of Colombia, the FARC has created full systems of rule, which provide a great deal of power and stability as an organization.[10] The FARC tendency towards violence and their comfort in ruling large portions of rural Colombia are not likely to end just because President Santos has decided to pursue peace talks. Furthermore, it is possible that the FARC has only agreed to peace talks out of fear for their own continued relevance. In 2010, Victor Julio Suarez Rojas, the FARC’s senior military commander, was killed during a Colombian military raid. It created quite a setback for the FARC that they never recovered from.[11] The Colombian people are wary that the FARC may just be using peace talks as a way to recover from their loss.

This strategy does seem to be more plausible than the FARC’s sudden willingness to give up any of its violent tactics which, for the past half a century, have secured its place in Colombian society.

One of the contested issues in the peace negotiations concerns possible amnesty for FARC leaders. While the Colombian government may be willing to make this kind of concession to the FARC, the Colombian people may not be so ready to forget the grievances held against the

FARC from the past half a century. Though President Santos’ desperation for results may lead him to offer a great deal of amnesty to the FARC rebels, many Colombians feel that a group which has carried out acts of terror as severe and damaging as those the FARC has carried out, deserves no such reprieve. The Colombian people want to end the conflict, but may not be willing to offer full-fledged forgiveness that essentially absolves the rebels of a half century of atrocity.

The fact that the Colombian people have faced such high levels of displacement and victimization suggests that they are in no position to rise up against both the government and the FARC to assert their will. However, underestimating the will of the Colombian people in the face of adversity is folly. In early December, thousands of Colombians took part in marches protesting possible amnesty for FARC members.[12] Although the amnesty agreement may be the only way to appease the FARC, it is clearly not something the Colombian people will agree to.

Each side claims a desire for peace, but in reality neither seems willing to trust the other enough to finish the peace talks and implement changes.

These presence of these marches calls into question the government’s will to end the conflict. President Santos is working tirelessly to come to agreements with the rebel group, but many Colombians believe that negotiating with the FARC will not achieve anything.

Former President Alvaro Uribe was quoted as saying, “We call on the army to support us by fighting and defeating the guerrillas, if the government wants it or not.”[13] Defeating the FARC is an ambitious and potentially impossible goal, but dancing around negotiations while violence is still occurring, while people are being displaced, and while the FARC is still ruling with impunity seems to be more of a front for peace than anything else. Surely, after 50 years of violence, a more aggressive campaign could be undertaken to assert power and once more regain full sovereignty over Colombia.

It is a dubious hope that the Santos’ administration will ever take such an aggressive stance as the one that former President Uribe advocates, and perhaps that is ultimately for the best. After all, the FARC is powerful, wealthy, and has been in existence for decades. The FARC has built up a massive presence, albeit a much hated one, that will stain Colombian memories for years to come. Organizations - and the ideas they stand for which wield that much power are not easily erased, and it is possible that an aggressive offense would do nothing more than make any form of peace impossible and fuel the FARC’s anger towards the government.

The discontent felt by the Colombian people towards their government’s handling of peace negotiations is just the most recent manifestation of the decades of discontent that initially bred the FARC. According to Joel Gillin in Colombia Reports, many of Colombia’s economic and political struggles have at their center, “the problem of a weak state.”[14] Without strengthening government institutions throughout the nation, it is arguably impossible that either peace or aggressive military action will fix the larger problem at hand: Colombia’s weakness as a state. Without the proper institutions in place, parallel powers are likely to establish themselves out of necessity. However, part of the peace negotiations include the development of infrastructure, especially with regards to agriculture. If Santos were to fully commit to peace talks, it might not only be the end of armed violence, it might also be the beginning of a new, strengthened Colombian state.

The Colombian government needs to commit resolutely in one way or another, whether through a complete commitment to peace or a complete commitment to destroying the rebel presence. Dancing back and forth between peace negotiations and military actions against the FARC is ineffective, and has put Colombia on a track going nowhere. The Santos government has two distinct options: It can either choose to trust the FARC, accept the peace deal offered, and give the FARC more political power than the people of Colombia would like, or it can choose to attack the FARC with full military conviction. Either way a decision must be made if there is to be any hope for stability.

Otherwise, the peace negotiation gridlock and the air of uncertainty that has dominated Colombian news for the better part of the past two years will only continue.

Moreover, this lukewarm approach to the issue will only retain a relative level of calm for so long. This critical decision point is something that the Colombian people know, that the FARC is trying to take advantage of, and that President Santos needs to get a grip on.

SOURCES: [1] Transnational Institute. “The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Illicit Drug Trade.” Last modified June 7, 1999. [2]The UN Refugee Agency. “2015 UNHCR country operations profileColombia.” Accessed March 22, 2015. [3]BBC News. “What is at stake in the Colombian peace process?” BBC, January 15, 2015. Accessed March 22, 2015. [4] Alsema, Adriaan. “Colombia peace talks.” Colombia Reports, November 19, 2014. Accessed March 22, 2015. [5] United Nations Regional Information Center for Western Europe. “The guerrilla groups in Colombia.” Accessed March 22, 2015. [6] See 4. [7]Associated Press in Bogota. “Colombia rebuffs FARC ceasefire offer.” The Guardian, December 18, 2014. Accessed March 22, 2015. [8]BBC News. “Colombia: Farc’s truce ‘threatened by military action’.” BBC, January 10, 2015.

Accessed March 22, 2015. [9]United Nations Regional Information Center for Western Europe. “The guerrilla groups in Colombia.” Accessed March 22, 2015. [10]Council on Foreign Relations. “FARC, ELN: Colombia’s Left-Wing Guerillas.” Accessed March 31, 2015. [11] The National Counterterrorism Center. “Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).” Accessed March 22, 2015. [12]BBC News. “Farc ‘amnesty’: Colombian marchers reject ‘impunity’.” BBC, December 13, 2014. Accessed March 22, 2015. [13] See 12. [14] Gillin, Joel. “Understanding the causes of Colombia’s conflict: Weak, corrupt state institutions.” Colombia Reports, January 13, 2015. Accessed March 22, 2015.

IMAGES: Mauricio Morerno via Flickr.

15

featured essays the recent rejection of REDD+ by more than 20 international indigenous organizations and community groups at the most recent COP20 in Lima, Peru calls into question the effective implementation of REDD+.

The Cancun Safeguards are a critical component of REDD+. Designed to protect biodiversity, forest regression, indigenous rights, and other stakeholders, these safeguards demand compliance, as failure to heed them would severely inhibit a country’s ability to access financing for further reforestation and forest protection. The Cancun Safeguards include:

Carbon-Credit

Strategies REDD+ and an Analysis of Mexico’s Legal Framework

Devon Grodkiewicz, Environmental Science, 2016

U

nder the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), parties of the UN are working towards the ultimate objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. Negotiations take place at annual Conference of Parties (COP) meetings, and the COP -- comprised of delegations from all states that are members of the UNFCCC -- also serves as the primary UN decision making body on climate issues. Underneath these negotiations are several frameworks and treaties, each containing their own unique policies for emission reductions. Through these frameworks, UN member nations have agreed to 2020 emission targets. Beyond 2020, there is a universal legal agreement on climate change to be finalized at the Conference of the Parties in Paris (COP21) later this year. One proposed mechanism for the universal agreement, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Land Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+), which

16

was introduced in 2005. REDD+ is a means to abate the roughly 20% of emissions from deforestation -- where natural forests are cleared through logging and/or burning -- and land degradation, where the value of a biophysical environment is affected by human-induced processes on the land.[1] Successful implementation of REDD+ requires developing nations to meet several UNFCCC safeguards established during the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16). These so-called “Cancun Safeguards” are the guiding principles for nation-specific strategies to combat deforestation and land degradation, while simultaneously protecting the rights of indigenous populations and communities. It was not until The 19th Conference of the Parties in Warsaw, Poland (COP19) that an agreement was made that required REDD+ countries to provide a report every two years on how the Cancun Safeguards are promoted and supported. Failure to address these safeguards would jeopardize a partner-countries ability to participate in global carbon-credit markets -- which are

markets where a country, corporation or individual can purchase credits in order to offset their own emissions.

Although the implementation of REDD+ would significantly improve climate policy, challenges remain in the ability of developing nations to sufficiently address the Cancun Safeguards. Specifically, Mexico’s inadequate legal framework for addressing the Cancun Safeguards exemplifies the questionable short-term viability of REDD+ implementation and its potential role in US climate policy.

There have been some early efforts by individual US states to incorporate REDD+ into existing climate policy as a pilot program for the universal agreement. California’s passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006 made efforts to incorporate a REDD+ carbon credit partnership with Brazil and Mexico. If California were to include REDD+ credits in their existing cap-and-trade system, they would be the first state in the world to recognize REDD+ offsets as part of a carbon-trading scheme, potentially paving the way for its inclusion in other cap-and-trade systems. However,

Consistency with objectives of national forest programmes and relevant international conventions and agreements; Transparent and effective national forest governance structures; Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities; Conservation of natural forests and biological diversity and enhancement of other social and environmental benefits; Actions to address the risks of reversals; Actions to reduce the displacement of emissions.[2] Since the development of these safeguards, significant controversy has risen over the ability of developing nations to implement nation-specific legal frameworks to meet their requirements. At COP20, there was pressure by nongovernmental organizations to reject REDD+, led primarily by indigenous community organizations. This concern has grown from the failure of developing nations to address indigenous territorial sovereignty, customs, land tenure, corruption, and ineffective legal structures to address UNFCCC safeguards.[3] This struggle is epitomized in an indigenous-led call to action against REDD+ in at COP20, with an excerpt from their letter to the public below: “One clear example of how harmful REDD+ projects can be is the agreement signed between the states of California in the United States, Chiapas in Mexico and Acre in Brazil, which aims to allow industries in California to continue polluting in exchange for carbon credits purchased through REDD+ projects in Acre and Chiapas. Although Acre is usually presented to the world as the ‘model for the green economy’, the reality is different: carbon trading which facilitates timber exploitation have been devastating territories and violating the rights of the forest peoples.”[3] The examples cited are strong indicators of the inability of countries to address indigenous concerns and Cancun Safeguards within the REDD+ process. To date, many REDD+ pilot projects have been organized within indigenous communities that currently experience land tenure

insecurity. These projects have been overshadowed by the negative consequences of historical forestry development projects on indigenous lands, such as the sustainable and pro-poor development projects in the Amazon. According to a study on REDD+ in the Amazon, such projects “had surprisingly few lasting positive effects on the local communities.”[4] These pilots contained uneven benefitsharing, and often favored private actors over indigenous communities.

As a result of previous failures, the ability of developing nations to implement REDD+ is still unclear. An assessment

by Mexico Alliance REDD+, an organization dedicated to building capacity and generating knowledge for REDD+ objectives, found several failures within Mexico’s legal frameworks to address UNFCCC safeguards, giving credence to indigenous community groups’ concerns.

[5] With regard to transparency and effectiveness of governance, the Mexican legal framework had a “lack of provisions to facilitate local communities access to information, ineffective prevention of corruption in the forestry sector, lack of guidelines on profit distribution,

While there are high hopes for the inclusion of REDD+ carbon credits in markets by the end of 2015 -- as well as laudable efforts

by California to be the first state to include these credits -- the legal grounds for developing nations like Mexico to meet UNFCCC Cancun Safeguards is questionable at best. provisions on gender equality are not fully implemented, access to justice is not guaranteed in practice; institutional coordination does not work in practice.” In addition to issues with transparency and effective governance, the report found that Mexico’s legal framework does not provide a clear definition for “indigenous peoples,” “local communities,” or “traditional knowledge.” Moreover, there are no laws “to operationalize the rights of indigenous

peoples and local communities and respect for customs,” thus failing to address the UNFCCC safeguard for respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Without recognizing legitimate ownership of land by indigenous peoples, Mexico, whether with intention or not, has excluded relevant stakeholders from the REDD+ process.

The inclusion of relevant stakeholders is the fourth Cancun Safeguard established within the UNFCCC. Based on the analysis made by Mexico Alliance REDD+, participation in environmental decision-making is not regulated, there is no framework for identification of stakeholders, and there is no regulation with regard to free, prior, and informed consent.[5] Though progress has been slow to protect indigenous land ownership, customs and rights, the Mexican government has been pursuing reform since 2012.[6] Simple steps that could be made include updating land tenure rights to include not only male heads of house but also widows, children, and neighbors and people who possess and use the land.

With respect to Mexico’s efforts in meeting the Cancun Safeguard for biodiversity and forest conservation, Mexico neither defines biodiversity nor restricts forest conversion from natural forests to plantations.[5] There are “significant gaps in terms of technical assistance for forestry,” and Mexico does not address drivers for forest deforestation within their legal framework or provide support for independent forestry monitoring.[5] Under the current legal structure of Mexico’s REDD+, the opportunity for exploitation of small indigenous landholders echoes similarities to previous projects in the Amazon. A review of REDD+ partner-countries has found that more than 10 REDD+ partners, including Mexico, have violated the right to free, prior and informed consent and the right of civil society and indigenous peoples to participate in REDD+ processes.[7] While there are high hopes for the inclusion of REDD+ carbon credits in markets by the end of 2015 -- as well as laudable efforts by California to be the first state to include these credits -- the legal grounds for developing nations like Mexico to meet UNFCCC Cancun Safeguards is questionable at best. With implementation deadlines ahead, a rushed advance of REDD+ poses risk not only to indigenous peoples but also the long term viability of REDD+ programs. Previous forestry development projects have run aground with financial failure as a result of the drying of initial program funding and failure to address indigenous land ownership concerns. With many states leaning towards a carbon credit system to make up for gaps in emission goals, the possibility of inclusion of REDD+ in these systems is at stake. In the case of Mexico, these issues have been identified but further efforts must be made into the development of resources, legal definitions, and protections in order to make the necessary changes.

SOURCES: [1] Arhin, Albert, “Safeguards and Dangerguards: A Framework for Unpacking the Black Box of Safeguards for REDD+” Forest Policy and Economics 45 (2014): 25 [2] Peskett, Leo, Todd, Kimberly, “Putting REDD+ Safeguards and Safeguard Information Systems into Practice” UN-REDD Programme Policy Brief Issue #03 (2015): 2 [3] Signatories to REDD+ Call to Action, “TO REJECT REDD+ AND EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES TO CONFRONT CAPITALISM AND DEFEND LIFE AND TERRITORIES” Petition (2014) [4] Pokorny, B., I. Scholz, and W. de Jong., “REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+? About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies.” Ecology and Society 18(2): 3. [5] Allianza MéxicoREDD+, “Progress and Recommendations for the Design of a National REDD+ Safeguards for Mexico,” Policy Brief: 5-6. [6] Romero, Purple, “This goes far beyond REDD+” — Mexico’s legal preparedness and cultural take on REDD+ Safeguards, REDD+ Safeguards, October 18, 2013, Accessed March 24, 2015. [7] Carbon Trade Watch, Violation of Free, Prior, and informed Consent by UN-REDD and REDD, Carbon Trade Watch, May 29th, 2013. Accessed March 24, 2015.

IMAGES: Wagner T. Cassimiro via Flickr.

17

Ayotzinapa: Mexico’s Pandora’s Box

featured essays

Danielle Murad, Political Science 2019

D

uring this past year, Mexico experienced one of the worst crimes in recent memory - the kidnap and murder of almost 50 students.

The magnitude of this atrocity has not been seen in the country since the Tlatelolco Massacre, which occurred on October 2, 1968. Over 500 students were wounded and killed by the police, under orders of then-President Gustavo Díaz Ordaz. Both of these tragic events are a manifestation of something much larger within the Mexican state. The outsized influence of powerful elitist groups in Mexican politics has undermined democracy in Mexico. The degradation of democracy led to the normalization of both the student kidnappings and the the events that followed.

This past September, 43 students from a teachers college in the small town of Ayotzinapa went missing.

What began with students heading to the capitol to protest the education reform bill, ended in a series of events that exposed many of the problems that Mexico is facing. The Mexican authorities, in an attempt to find the missing people, uncovered a set of mass graves near the state of Guerrero - where Ayotzinapa is located.

However, these mass graves did not contain the bodies of the missing students.[1] The investigation of the grave led to the discovery that the mayor of one of the municipalities in Guerrero, Jose Luis Abarca, along with his wife, were involved with the drug cartels in the area.[2] The couple was responsible for ordering the police to stop the protests over the education reform bill. The students were allegedly kidnapped and transferred to a local drug gang named Guerreros Unidos, who in turn murdered every student in cold blood. Additional investigations were made by the Procuraduría General de La República (PGR) or the Mexican Attorney General’s office. The head of this agency, Jesús Murillo Karam, reported that the students’ bodies were burnt in Cocula, a nearby dump.

Most human remains found were completely incinerated, preventing the Argentine forensics experts working with the PGR from recovering traces of DNA. Scientists were able to recover a few DNA samples from a molar and two centimeters of bone fragment, and sent them to a specialized lab at the University of Innsbruck, in Austria.

The recovered DNA traced back to one of the students.[3]

18

However, the credibility of the Mexican government and its investigators has been questioned, and the families of the other forty-two students are determined to keep up the search.

However, the problem is that the prevailing narrative of that September day is flawed; nobody really knows what happened, every version of the story is different.

While some sources like the BBC claim that the students were protesting discriminatory hiring practices for teachers[4] others, like the independent Reflections on a Revolution Magazine, claim that the students came from a school program with the goal of social emancipation of the poor.[5] In each media narrative, there is no clear account of what happened or who was responsible.

It appears that no one in Mexico wants to tell the truth about what happened, because nobody is willing to assume the responsibility. One noticeable characteristic of the mass kidnapping event is the unwillingness of any Mexican authority to assign blame. Doing so could also implicate local authorities and their involvement in the event. This dynamic has led to a pseudo-friendship between opposing political parties and different members of Mexico’s government. These various parties have partnered to create a master narrative that implicates the most obvious culprits, the drug gangs, while eschewing government culpability. Such collusion is inherently undemocratic: not a single opposing political party has taken the lead in demanding government accountability.

It appears that Mexican political parties fear that elements within their own organizations may be involved in the kidnappings, or other similar events. However, by shifting the responsibility to the drug gangs, those in power easily escape scrutiny and accountability.

This dynamic within the government is a side effect of a bigger issue: the erosion of democracy by powerful elitist groups in Mexican politics. Their influence has manifested in the recent and historical violence in Mexico. The elite groups in Mexico can be categorized into three mutually-reinforcing political actors. The first group is comprised of corrupt politicians. Widespread corruption and lack of accountability in the government has allowed these elite groups to get away with almost anything. Because there are no mechanisms to keep

them in check, they exercise their power at their own whim. Many political leaders have strong ties to the drug cartels in and out of the country. One clear example is the wife of Mayor Jose Luis Abarca, who is related to members of the Beltrán Leyva and Guerreros Unidos drug gangs.[6] This drug gang was responsible for murdering the 43 college students after their encounter with the police.

The second group is comprised of drug cartels and their militant enforcers. The presence of militant groups and drug cartels in the country has a tremendous influence over the government at every level. The amount of power and wealth the cartels have obtained through their operations has given them the ability to manage their illicit businesses without worrying about government repercussions. These cartels can control government officials through bribes, violence and coercion - using threats to their person and families.

There is a third group that has played a crucial role in the erosion of democracy in Mexico. The billionaire elites that control many of the industries in the country have shaped economic, political and social relationships. As opposed to other elitist groups in the country, this group’s main source of income comes from licit activities in Mexico and elsewhere. These individuals have gained so much economic power that their combined income represents a large portion of the Mexican GDP. One of the clearest examples is Carlos Slim, with a personal wealth of $79.6 billion,[7] he represents 4.3% of Mexico’s GDP.[8] With this amount of wealth comes political power - the elite have the capability of influencing policymaking and policy enforcement. The disproportionate power held by each of these three groups has lead to a slow decay of democratic institutions, and the demise of the middle class and civil society. Typically, when the role of civil society in governance diminishes, the less accountable a country’s leaders become. This leads to a collapse in democratic processes, where ordinary citizens have little or no say in the way their country is being run. With less accountability to citizens, corruption and violence increase dramatically, and the state fails to provide basic services for its citizens. In Mexico, this vacuum of social

service provision provides an opportunity for drug gangs to offer a supposed way out of poverty for the oppressed lower class.

The impoverishment of the Mexican lower class is a product of the decay of the middle class and the polarization between the rich and the poor. As the income gap widens, small groups of elites have gained enough money and power to control the country completely, while the lower class becomes frustrated and angry. This frustration manifests in the recent protests and riots seen in the country, including the education reform bill protests the kidnapped students were travelling to. In the absence of economic growth in the middle class, many Mexicans may pursue illegal or illegitimate activities to enhance their livelihoods. This reinforces the power held by elite groups, in a cruel cycle of poverty and violence.

The Mexican government continues to look for “those responsible” for crimes like the mass kidnapping instead of tackling underlying problems including, inefficient institutions, corruption, and lack of government transparency. President Enrique Peña Nieto has called upon the Mexican community to join in a collaborative effort to move forward to overcome this moment of pain.

[9] However, instead of looking for a way to alleviate the underlying popular grievances, the government looks for a scapegoat to sweep such problems under the rug.

For 70 years, Mexico was run by the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI). The PRI administration was marked by hierarchy and political favors, and created a system where government officials acted according to self-interest without addressing issues concerning the larger Mexican population. In 2000, when the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) finally overthrew the PRI,

nothing really changed. The new administration tried to disassociate itself from the PRI officials still inside the government, but instead of working to change the way government ran, PAN officials made no meaningful progress in dismantling the corrupt PRI infrastructure.

When the PRI was voted back into office with Enrique Peña Nieto in 2012, the system continued to operate as it always had, as if no change in power had ever occurred.

Ayotzinapa represents so much more than just 43 missing students, it is one of the symptoms of a decaying democracy in a country that has so much potential to thrive.

In the Mexican political system, incumbents are averse to change, preferring to maintain the status quo out of purely self-interested power politics. Furthermore, due to the fact that elite institutions in Mexico are so tightly linked, even a few individuals who aspire to change the system are easily eliminated through murder, falsified legal charges, or arbitrary restrictions on labor mobility.

In the case of Ayotzinapa, the government has tried to “move forward” but the Mexican people are not willing

to forget the killings, the disappearances and the pursuit for answers. As government officials try to convince the public that the prevailing narrative is the truth, many citizens are unsatisfied and it is clear that much bigger issues are at stake. The kidnappings demonstrate the ongoing cycle of violence, oppression and inefficiency in Mexico. Although events like the Tlatelolco massacre appeared to be a thing of the past, the events of September 2014 proved otherwise. Ayotzinapa represents so much more than just 43 missing students, it is one of the symptoms of a decaying democracy in a country that has so much potential to thrive. The missing students are symbolic of the thousands of people that have gone missing in Mexico. The government is responsible for investigating all cases of missing persons, not just the students of Ayotzinapa. The mass kidnapping simply brought international attention to the issue of Mexican corruption. The spotlight shined by the international community has forced the Mexican government to assume at least some responsibility, although so far they have fallen into the same cycle of blame that has plagued Mexican politics for generations.

A system that only works for elites will remain operational until there is a substantial internal or external shock. It may be shortsighted of elites in Mexico to believe they can continue controlling the country as they always have. Mexico is approaching an important moment in modern history. Ayotzinapa should be a wake up for Mexican people and elites alike, to begin to strengthen government institutions and promote transparency and accountability. Only such actions will bring checks and balances to the elites that have led Mexico to the edge of a cliff.

SOURCES: [1] Ayotzinapa: A Timeline of the Mass Disappearance That Has Shaken Mexico , last modified December 9 2014. [2]“Los Abarca-Pineda, una historia de impunidad”, last modified November 4th 2014.

[3] Crisis in Mexico: Who Is Really Responsible for the Missing Forty-three?, last modified February 7, 2015. [4] Mexican students missing after protest in Iguala, last modified on September 29, 2014. [5] Ayotzinapa protests awaken Mexico from a nightmare, last modified November 7, 2014. [6] Mexico’s ‘First Lady of murder’ caught in squalid bolt hole: Mayor and wife accused of using drug cartel to kill 43 protesting students who threatened to disrupt party and speech are finally captured, last modified November 4, 2013. [7]Mexico’s Carlos Slim Reclaims World’s Richest Man Title From Bill Gates, last modified July 15, 2015. [8] World Factbook: Mexico, last modified June 20, 2014. [9] Peña Nieto llama a “superar” el dolor del caso Ayotzinapa, last modified December 5, 2014. IMAGES: MOD via Flickr.

19

featured essays

History

Bigger Than

What Selma’s Portrayal of LBJ Really Means Justin Cook, Political Science 2018

I

n one of the opening scenes of the Oscar-nominated film Selma, released this past December, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. pays President Lyndon B. Johnson a visit at the White House to discuss discriminatory voting laws in the South. Dr. King wants President Johnson to vigorously pursue new legislation that would take away the ability of states to enforce standards such as poll taxes and literacy tests. But Johnson isn’t willing to risk his political clout for such a bold move. “Dr. King,” he says condescendingly, “this thing’s just going to have to wait.” As the movie progresses, Johnson repeatedly positions himself as an obstacle to King’s goals, even going so far as to have FBI director J. Edgar Hoover threaten King’s family life with information he has covertly gathered. Only after the horrific images of police brutality on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama garner the sympathies of whites for the cause of the protesting African-Americans does Johnson change his course and introduce the sweeping Voting Rights Act. [1]

It’s certainly not the most flattering portrayal of President Johnson, but is it accurate? The film has come under fire from historians and aides of the former president who say that it paints him as an enemy that he never was. Mark K. Updegrove, director of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum, says that while Johnson may have been reluctant to add a voting rights component to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to introduce the Voting Rights Act, it was because he knew they wouldn’t pass, not because he wanted to protect his clout.[2] In fact, after the Civil Rights Act passed, Johnson reportedly told Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to write “the goddamnest, toughest voting rights act” that he could. And King agreed with him, which is why the Selma march came into play: to convince Congress and the general public that reform was needed.[3] Johnson’s top assistant for domestic affairs, Joseph Califano, agrees with Updegrove’s assessment, accusing the filmmakers of “fill[ing] the screen with falsehoods, immune from any responsibility to the dead, just because

they thought it made for a better story.” He even goes so far as to make the much-disputed assertion that the march through Selma was actually all LBJ’s idea.[4] That last claim notwithstanding, it seems that Selma is indeed not a completely historically accurate movie. This is to be expected; after all, very few, if any, Hollywood films are accurate re-tellings of history.

However, few have generated the controversy that Selma has. Many critics have theorized that one of the reasons

Only those who know what it means to be oppressed can meaningfully fight against oppression, and not showcasing their ability to do so is gravely dangerous... Selma, then, is important because it reverses this trend the film received only two Oscar nominations is because of this controversy, a theory which gains more weight when you learn that Califano essentially told voters to ignore the film during awards season. But why should Selma be singled out when far less accurate movies like A Beautiful Mind and The Imitation Game have received multiple accolades? It all comes to this: white people feel threatened by this portrayal of Johnson. And in a sense, the filmmakers wanted them to be.

Perhaps the most common defense of historical

inaccuracy in Selma is that it is a historical movie, not a documentary, and is therefore allowed to take creative liberty for storytelling purposes. This explanation makes sense; a drama is a lot more dramatic when there are strong adversaries, and there are few adversaries stronger than the President of the United States. But if that were the only reason for the portrayal of LBJ, the film wouldn’t be as controversial as it has become. To understand why the filmmakers chose this direction for the character of President Johnson, we must first take a look at the history of films that tackle the subject of racism.

From the Best Picture-winning films Driving Miss Daisy and Crash to biopics like The Blind Side and 42, most major movies about race tend to oversimplify the subject, present it through the lens of a white protagonist, or have a white character hold the hand of a minority in their struggle against discrimination. Take The Blind Side, the 2009 film about Carolina Panthers offensive tackle Michael Oher: it is only because of a nice white family that the African-American Oher is able to do well in school and go to college. The only other black characters in the movie are thugs who threaten the nice white mother.[5] And 42, the 2013 Jackie Robinson biopic, which Robinson’s wife described as being very accurate, shows Robinson only able to break the color barrier because of white executive Branch Rickey’s guidance.[6][7] Why is this so problematic? If these films are historically accurate, what’s the big deal? These movies, while clearly well-meaning, are robbing black characters of their agency in a panicked effort to assuage white guilt. As David Oyelowo, who plays Dr. King in Selma says, “Films like this [are] told through the eyes of white protagonists because there is a fear of white guilt. So you have a very nice white person who holds black people’s hands through their own narrative. We don’t want to see that pain again, so you don’t even go into what that pain was in an authentic way.”[8] White people feel bad about racism, so many films about race emphasize the role of white people who fought against it in an attempt to ease their collective conscience. This paradigm leads

President Lyndon B. Johnson meets with Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders at the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

to people like Califano arguing that the struggle against racism was actually conceived by a white President, and not a black civil rights leader. Along the way, revisionists lose what is truly important about the stories they speak of: the struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. Only those who know what it means to be oppressed can meaningfully fight against oppression, and not showcasing their ability to do so is gravely dangerous. Others can, of course, recognize the injustice of oppression and join the fight against it, but if it is not the oppressed leading the charge, significant change cannot occur.

Selma, then, is important because it reverses this trend. It features African-American characters fighting legalized racism without any whites in positions of power on their side. Although some white people join their cause, it is Dr. King and his colleagues working on their own to develop a plan to change the system. Selma defies history because the message it has to send is more important than a purely historical retelling. Even beyond this empowering message, the character of Lyndon B. Johnson can be seen as a metaphor for the challenge many whites struggle with on the issue of race today.

Officer Darren Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri sparked a national conversation ranging from citizen rants on social media, to pundit rants on talk shows, to politician rants at press

conferences. In the midst of this conversation emerged a brand of racism known as “laissez-faire racism.” That is, racism from people who genuinely believe that they are treating all races equally, but because of ignorance or a number of other reasons, are actually perpetuating

White people feel threatened by this portrayal of Johnson. And in a sense, the filmmakers wanted them to be. racist attitudes and practices.[9] A widespread example of laissez-faire racism was the way a number of media outlets dug into Brown’s past run-ins with the law in an effort to discredit him.[10] This “assassination of character” is echoed in Selma by Johnson’s attempt to uncover information on Dr. King’s alleged sexual affairs.

Both instances involved specific groups exploiting the past actions of their political opponents in an attempt to distract from the more pressing issues at hand.

Selma makes another poignant point on race

relations when it portrays Johnson trying to convince King that the enactment of the Civil Rights Act proves that segregation is effectively over. This scene mirrors the rhetoric of some Americans who argue that the US is a post-racial society because the president is an AfricanAmerican. What Johnson and these Americans ignore, or don’t realize, is that progress does not mean that we have actually reached the promised land that King saw from the mountaintop.[11] Although America has come closer to fulfilling King’s dream, there are people who continue to ignore or rationalize the ongoing injustices in our society. In Selma, Johnson is an allegorical character whose purpose is to inspire whites to examine their contemporary attitudes about race and re-evaluate them.

“Selma is now, for every man, woman, and child,” raps Common on Selma’s Oscar-winning credits song “Glory.”[12] Here we find the thesis of the film: the racism ingrained in society that Martin Luther King, Jr. fought against has not disappeared. Nor is it something we can ignore. The need for true racial equality is as urgent today as it was in the 1960s. The character of Lyndon B. Johnson thus becomes an important symbol, meant to empower African-Americans and spark introspection for whites. Critics and historians can shout about Selma’s inaccuracy all they want, but in the end, it’s about something much more important than that.

SOURCES: [1]Selma. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2014. Film. [2]Updegrove, Mark K. “What ‘Selma’ Gets Wrong.” POLITICO Magazine. December 22, 2014. [3]May, Gary. Bending Toward Justice: The Voting Rights Act and the Transformation of American Democracy. Duke University Press Books, 2014. [4]Califano, Joseph A. “The Movie ‘Selma’ Has a Glaring Flaw.” Washington Post. December 22, 2014. [5]The Blind Side. Warner Bros.

Pictures, 2009. Film. [6]Red, Christian. “Relief and Excitement for Rachel as ‘42’ Debuts.” NY Daily News. April 7, 2013. [7]42. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2013. Film. [8]Henne, B.G. “David Oyelowo Says Hollywood Has a “white Guilt” Problem.” The A.V. Club. February 2, 2015. [9]Bobo, Lawrence, and Ryan Smith. From Jim Crow Racism to Laissez-Faire Racism: The Transformation of Racial Attitudes. University of Illinois Press, 1998.

[10]Goodale, Gloria. “New Divide Opens in Ferguson over Media Checks into Mike Brown’s past.” The Christian Science Monitor. September 3, 2014. [11]King, Martin Luther. “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop (Transcript).”

American Rhetoric. April 3, 1968. [12]Stephens, John, Lonnie Lynn, and Che Smith. Glory. Common and John Legend. © 2014 by Columbia Records. IMAGES: WikiCommons.

20

21

featured essays

Unpegging the

and What it Means for the Euro Zone Scott Oldano, Marketing and Finance 2017

S

everal years ago, the Euro Zone experienced a crippling blow to its economy when Greece was on the verge of a full-on economic collapse.

During the crisis, Greece endured high unemployment, overly high structural deficits, and a dangerously elevated debt-to-GDP ratio. Though the Greek economy is slowly piecing itself back together, especially with a new governmental structure in place, the Euro Zone has recently been plagued by another pressing issue: the Swiss National Bank (SNB) scrapped its three-year-long peg of the Swiss Franc to the Euro. The decision sent a shockwave of panic throughout the Euro Zone community and thousands of investors around the world lost money.

The Franc, which had once been deemed a “safehaven” investment due to the country’s booming export culture and minimal inflation, is quickly falling behind other benchmark currencies. Though the SNB believes the move was necessary in order to stabilize the Swiss economy, economic analysts and financial professionals firmly disagree - they view the initiative as a costly error that might trigger a domino effect among other major world currencies. Therefore, the following questions still remain: will other euro-pegged countries like Denmark share the same fate, and will Switzerland’s economy recover soon?

The initial decision by the Swiss National Bank to peg or cap the Swiss Franc came in September of 2011.

During this time, the franc appeared to be closing in on parity with the Euro and economists feared that the Franc would continue to appreciate in the future. Given these circumstances, the SNB established a minimum exchange rate of 1.20 francs per euro, a move that warranted against a growing fear of the “franc being a threat to the economy” due to deflation and other

22

economic risks.[1] Another reason that prompted the SNB to discard the peg included the depreciation of the euro, which led the Swiss franc to become weaker compared to the US dollar. Essentially, the franc was now out of its “exceptional overvaluation” phase when the peg had first been introduced. In more simple and practical terms, the pegging decision enabled the SNB to closely follow and commit to the European Central Bank (ECB) system.

Such a concerted effort added a sense of stability to the Swiss economy, hence becoming a “safe haven” for investors, and ultimately prevented Switzerland from becoming a part of the wide-reaching Eurozone crisis.

Yet, even as the decision by the Swiss National Bank proved to be a short-term fix to deflationary development, the move baffled financial institutions around the world. In particular, the decision stunned currency traders as the Swiss Franc soared when other currencies, notably the US Dollar and Euro, depreciated greatly.[2] This causality in turn led to a sudden drop in stock volume and value for Switzerland.

Also, many feared that a so-called “battle in currency wars” would ensue due to the unpredictable implications of the pegging move. What’s more, the immediate impact of the declining Franc value had more or less caught the financial world off-guard. Jeremy Cook, chief economist at currency brokerage firm World First, stated the following in regards to this viewpoint: “That was the single largest foreign exchange move I have ever seen…The Swiss franc has lost close on 9% in the past 15 minutes.

This dwarfs moves seen post-Lehman brothers and other geo-political events in the past decade.”[3] For many economists like Cook, the brisk aftermath of the decision instilled both fear and uncertainty for Switzerland and the surrounding Euro Zone.

The concept behind currency pegging has been around for decades and several countries have adopted the economic strategy. A prime example is that of Denmark, a country that has a long history of currency pegging and economic stability. Back in 1982, Denmark established a currency peg with Germany in order to benefit from the country’s rising economic stature and secure trading relations.[4] As the euro became the currency of the Eurozone in later years, the peg eventually shifted to a krone-euro relationship. In retrospect, Denmark’s experience with currency pegging has paid off due to a high standard of living, low government debt, and a healthy economy. History has shown, however, that a variety of factors can render currency pegging detrimental to any functioning economy. Just as the franc experienced economic trouble, the euro-krone peg too is beginning to experience instability. According to financial experts, Denmark is the only country with a formal peg to the euro ever since Switzerland abandoned its currency peg a few months ago.[5] The Danish peg has recently come under scrutiny after it devalued following the European Central Bank’s extensive bond-buying program in January.[6] This move led investors to believe that Denmark is inching closer to a possible abandonment of its currency peg to the euro. Though some fear of unpegging remains, Denmark’s central bank insists that the krone-euro peg is healthy and destined to continue in the future. Lars Rohde, governor of the Danish central bank, made the following clear to critics: “We are able and we are willing to do whatever it takes to defend the peg. The peg is the cornerstone of economic policy in Denmark and has very broad based support.”[7] Rohde, along with other faithful supporters of the currency peg, additionally argue

that the Swiss franc predicament is a totally different situation in terms of scope and outcome. The Swedish Central Bank maintains that the Swiss peg represented a “ceiling” more than anything else and that the economic move was never intended to last forever. Clearly, though financial tension between the ECB and Danish government is evident, a domino effect from the Swiss Bank’s ill-fated decision is very unlikely.

Now that the Swiss peg has been scrapped for a few months, the following case still remains: will the Swiss economy prosper in the future, or will it continue to worsen? Despite the heartache attached to the Swiss National Bank’s decision to leave behind the franc-euro peg, the Swiss economy is faring considerably well at the moment. Compared to extremely low prices at the time of the peg scrap, the Swiss franc is now valued higher than the euro. To put this into perspective, the franc advanced 1.4 percent to 1.0433 per euro in London, and touched 1.0422 per euro, the strongest level since early February.[8] Because of recent growth, the SNB decided to not increase negative deposit rates, a sign that the Swiss economy is leveling out once again. Even more encouraging is the fact that such growth is expected to increase even more in the coming months. Overall, while the Swiss economy isn’t fully restored per se, but the

currency exchange rate is definitely advancing in the right direction.

Despite the heartache attached to the Swiss National Bank’s decision to leave behind the franc-euro peg, the Swiss economy is faring considerably well at the moment.

Now that several months have passed since the SNB renounced the franc-euro peg, several conclusions can be drawn regarding the inner workings of monetary policy and the global economy. In retrospect,

countries like Denmark and Switzerland adopted currency pegs to safeguard national currency from external economic influences. In theory, currency pegging is very effective and a successful peg will yield positive trading relationships, controlled inflation, and tempered interest rates for those countries involved. Yet, as the Swiss franceuro case has proven, not every currency peg is destined to last in today’s complex economic environment. Due to rapid appreciation of the Swiss franc, fear of deflation, and a host of other economic risks, the Swiss franc-euro peg ultimately dissolved, as the Swiss National Bank tried to stabilize the Swiss economy. As a result of this measure, a temporary shockwave was sent throughout the European economy and investors everywhere incurred major financial losses. Though countries like Denmark have followed in Switzerland’s footsteps and adopted a currency peg, it is quite improbable that a similar scenario will occur. The Danish government is fully committed to maintaining its currency peg and the economic move has helped the country prosper immensely. All things considered, the Swiss economy is steadily recovering from the currency peg and the Swiss franc is once again on track to become a safe haven investment in the future.

SOURCES: [1] Gonzalelz-Corzo, M. (2003). Transition or Survival? An Analysis of Cuba’s Post-Soviet Economic Reforms. Rutgers Graduate School - Newark. Retrieved from [2] The Castros, Cuba and America; On the road towards capitalism. (2012, March 24). The Economist.[3] Mark, J. (n.d.). Growing it Alone; Urban Organic Agriculture on the Island of Cuba. Earth Island Journal. [4] Altieri, M., & Funes-Monzote, F. (2012, January 1). The Paradox of Cuban Agriculture.Monthly Review [5] Hunt, N. (2008, January 1). Agricultre in Cuba Today. Retrieved January 1, 2015. [6] The Impact of Climate Change on Natural Disasters. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2015. [7] Kezber, M. (2013, March 13). How the Farm Machinery is Getting Greener. Retrieved March 1, 2015. IMAGES: WikiCommons.

23

featured essays

The Light of CubaN Agriculture and a Case Study for Peak Oil

Organo ponicos Title

David McDevitt, International Affairs and Economics 2017

O

ne of the most prevalent questions floating between political analysts, political scientists, students, and everyday educated American citizens concerns the state of post-embargo Cuba. What aspects of Cuban society will change or even disappear, and what aspects will resist outside influence? Over the past five decades, Cuba has developed multiple unique systems against the grain of global norms to adapt to its wayward isolation. Arguably the most successful of these unique systems would be the development of Organoponicos, a collectivization of food production into a series of poly-produce urban gardens. Organoponicos are commonly maintained on rooftops or alleyways within low-level concrete walls, grown in an entirely organic manner without petroleum-based fertilizers, and relying on irrigation from city plumbing. They are designed to produce fruits and vegetables for the immediate community to prevent food shortages, like those around the country that were common during the post-Cold War era. The system in itself is in no way a fully self-sufficient one, surviving solely based on heavy subsidies from the Cuban government, but it serves as a necessary case study for developing sustainable agriculture methods around the world - most prominently in a system where petroleum resources are depleting rapidly.

From 1959 onward, Cuba’s industrial agriculture sector depended on the Soviet Union; the Soviet satellite received deep subsidies for heavy machinery, pesticides, and petroleum-based fertilizers in exchange for produce to states within Comecon (the Eastern Bloc’s multilateral economic union). The Cuban economy was extremely vulnerable without these subsidies, which allowed sugar to be purchased at nearly three times the price per pound. At one point, these subsidies even accounted for 40% of Cuban trade during the peak years of the Cold War.[1] While buying sugar at a price much higher than the market value, Comecon states also sold machinery and petroleum for fertilizers to Cuba at rates lower than

24

the market price of these products, creating an agroindustrial sector entirely reliant on subsidized imports from within the Eastern Bloc.

As the Cold War continued, Cuba experienced increasingly dire economic conditions. Its special relationship with Eastern Europe ended abruptly with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, along with the gradual dissolution of the Warsaw Pact - and with it the dissolution of Comecon. This ushered in the era of economic downturn colloquially known as “The Special Period,” during which resources in petroleum and heavy machinery shrunk dramatically in volume, and billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies disappeared overnight.

[2] Because of Cuban’s heavy reliance on subsidized industrial farms that operated with petroleum and heavy machinery, its agricultural system collapsed during “The Special Period.” Food shortages became a severe issue in Cuba, and the average caloric intake fell by nearly one-third, plummeting from 2900 calories for the average citizen in 1989 to 1800 calories in 1995.[3] A restructure in food production systems became crucial, especially since Fidel Castro’s hostility to the U.S. did not help facilitate regional imports.

Even though necessity serves as the catalyst for invention, it doesn’t create the resources required to turn ideas into a reality. Cuba had the intellectual resources required for an overhaul of agricultural infrastructure, boasting 11% of the scientists in Latin America within a mere 2% of the total population of the region.[4] What the country was obviously lacking were physical resources - specifically those of heavy machinery, petroleum, and pesticides. Cuba needed to devise a system that increased production at a sustainable rate without most of the modern luxuries of farming.

Enter Organoponicos - the Cuban response to the food shortages of “The Special Period.” Organoponicos are a system of urban gardens that produce completely organic produce. They often consist of small and

diversely-grown enclosures with organic matter and soil. These urban gardens are a labor-intensive form of farming, because they are tended to daily by community members or state employees. Starting in 1994, Cuba began to prioritize food production with an acute focus on small farmers. This focus caused a movement to reclaim unused land for purposes of agriculture such as abandoned lots, rooftops, or even alleyways.[5] Most usable and unclaimed land in urban areas was converted to these poly-produce organic gardens while more efficient farming techniques used on small farms gradually made small-scale production profitable. The fruits and vegetables produced by Organoponicos are completely organic, without the presence of GMOs, petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, or any other chemicals. The organic nature of these urban gardens has even spread to the non-urban agricultural sector. As large-scale farms adapted to the environment after the collapse of Comecon, they found themselves converting to a completely organic and labor-intensive system.[6] The results of Organoponicos are successful to an extent. Cuban reliance on agricultural imports has fallen to 16% from the peak of 53% during “The Special Period,” and most of their food imports do not thrive in the tropical climate of the state and therefore could not be produced locally, like cereal grains or livestock.

[7] Food deserts, urban environments where residents do not have physical access to fresh produce, have been given a nearby and constant source of fresh produce. For example, Havana is capable of producing 90% of its daily produce consumption through urban gardens [8]. Success is also apparent in the survivability of the agricultural system. Previously, the frequent high-intensity tropical storms that would sweep through the Caribbean would damage the output of industrial farms. After Hurricane Ike hit the island of Cuba in 2008, research showed that poly-produce organic farms took smaller hits in production and recovered faster than their monocultured

counterparts. The diversification of produce and introduction of urban gardens made Cuban agriculture less vulnerable to the extreme weather that would annually pass through the region.[9] Should this system be replicated around the world?

It is, without a doubt, an impressive system - healthy and organic, environmentally responsible, potentially less vulnerable to extreme climate events.[10] Despite the system’s positives, its labor-intensive nature is very difficult to maintain; the system only provided 4% of the country’s GDP while employing nearly one-fifth of the working population.[11] Additionally, they fail to turn much of a profit on their own, working great as a system to supplement Cuba’s ability to provide for itself, yet falling short when it comes to exports and the ability to make a profit in the agricultural sector. During multiple years since 1997, most farms, both urban and rural organic enclosures, would not have been able to make a profit off of their produce without the help of heavy government subsidies, even after the land was turned from state-run farms into privatized enclosures. The fact that one-fifth of a country’s population is employed in a sector that does not have a positive impact on Cuba’s position as a global economic player is a major detriment to the development of the state from a forced survivor into a presence in the global economy.[12] However, trends in the supply of petroleum suggest that innovations like Organoponicos may be necessary for other states to implement. The term “Peak Oil Crisis” describes a scenario where the world’s demand for petroleum increases while levels of non-renewable

resources decline.[13] Debate currently focuses on when Peak Oil Crisis will occur - with new advances in petroleum extraction technologies that provide access to additional reserves. However, it is clear that oil production levels will eventually decrease to a level where it can not

Organoponicos serve as an excellent isolated case study for how a state could adapt to an economy with insufficient access to fossil fuels. meet the world’s demand and cause global shortages.

Organoponicos serve as an excellent isolated case study for how a state could adapt to an economy with insufficient access to fossil fuels. Cuba experienced a very sudden decline in access to petroleum products and rapidly transformed their system into a relatively stable one. If other countries adapted to Cuba’s agro-ecological system by introducing urban gardening systems and organic methods in rural farms, the dramatic impact of Peak Oil Crisis could be mitigated and the impacts of oil shortages could be lessened. However, the primary

downfall of the Cuban system is the labor requirements to maintain organic farms in rural areas. This issue stems from Cuba’s lack of heavy machinery after the collapse of Comecon. Some sustainable farming activists maintain that countries currently have the ability to produce green farm machinery that can render the massive use of labor unnecessary.[14] Other countries could consider adapting Cuba’s Organoponicos system to a higher-functioning economy.

The example set by the Cuban state is rarely one that should be used as political precedent in states around the world. But through a bizarre set of circumstances facilitated by the collapse of Comecon, Cuba experienced a “mock Peak Oil Crisis” decades before it was predicted to hit the rest of the world. The purpose of looking at the Organoponicos system is to satisfy the need for a case study involving response to diminishing petro-chemical supplies. Cuba experienced the rapid onset of economic hardships with a reduction in the supply of subsidized petroleum to a trickle over the period of a few years. With proper recognition by states that this decline in petroleum supplies will occur, the world could adequately transition towards a new system for agricultural production that is able to sustain itself despite the diminishing supply of fossil fuels - using the successes and failures of the Organoponicos system in Cuba as a precedent.

SOURCES: [1] Gonzalelz-Corzo, M. (2003). Transition or Survival? An Analysis of Cuba’s Post-Soviet Economic Reforms. Rutgers Graduate School - Newark. Retrieved from [2] The Castros, Cuba and America; On the road towards capitalism. (2012, March 24). The Economist.[3] Mark, J. (n.d.). Growing it Alone; Urban Organic Agriculture on the Island of Cuba. Earth Island Journal. [4] Altieri, M., & Funes-Monzote, F. (2012, January 1). The Paradox of Cuban Agriculture.Monthly Review [5] Hunt, N. (2008, January 1). Agricultre in Cuba Today. Retrieved January 1, 2015. [6] The Impact of Climate Change on Natural Disasters. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2015. [7] Kezber, M. (2013, March 13). How the Farm Machinery is Getting Greener. Retrieved March 1, 2015. IMAGES: Molly Breslin via Flickr.

25

featured essays

from

K-Dot

to

kunta

The New Fate of Kendrick Lamar Neiha Lasharie, Political Science & International Affairs ‘18 @ribbonlacetulle

C

ompton, California has birthed its fair share of artists who have gone on to make a mark in the rap and hip hop industry, but it’s Dr. Dre’s protege, Kendrick Lamar who has taken the industry by storm. Formerly known as K-Dot, the rapper’s Section.80, and good kid, m.A.A.d city have all been critically acclaimed. good kid, M.A.A.d city was dubbed an instant classic by many, and the album went platinum. According fellow singer-songwriter and producer Erykah Badu, good kid is, “...an album that not only tells a compelling story, but a near-definitive one of a specific time and place, offering a window on the varying complexities of turn-of-the-century Compton.”[1] An important observation; like most rappers, Lamar waxes lyrical about his upbringing, his hometown - struggling Compton - and his desire to, in the words of the character playing his mother at a skit at the end of “Real,” “Come back a man, tell your story to these black and brown kids in Compton.” These words, taking into consideration the current context of race relations in the United States, are extremely powerful.

That brings us to his most recent release To Pimp a Butterfly, an intentional reference to To Kill a Mockingbird - appropriate, given the racially-charged content of the album. The anticipation was cultivated almost tenderly, with singles dropped periodically and the release date left unannounced until three weeks before the official launch date - March 23rd. The first single released off the album was “i,” divisive in that it deviates from the dark, cinematic undertones of Lamar’s usual fare. The single is inundated with confidence and optimism, self-love that can only be forged in the smithy of racial

26

empowerment. Undeniably funky, it foreshadowed the jazziness that plays Atlas to Kendrick Lamar’s world in Butterfly. The second single off the album was a divergence from the uplifting message of the first, a track called “The Blacker the Berry” presumably in response to the controversial Azealia Banks’ criticism over Lamar’s comments regarding Ferguson.[2] Addressing the looting and violent rioting that some protesters following the grand jury decision were accused of, Lamar emphasized the importance of black self-respect: “[change] don’t start with just a rally, don’t start from looting - it starts from within.”[3] “The Blacker the Berry” is scathing, and Lamar is as accusatory of America’s institutionalized racism as he is of himself, spitting, “I’m the biggest hypocrite of 2015” and weaving the theme of hypocrisy throughout the song. He explores his identity as a black man, struggling with the label of African-American, his African heritage, speaking to the “institutionalized manipulations and lies” perpetuated by the system, demanding the listener admit, “You hate me, don’t you? You hate my people […]” Anti-black slurs ricochet: “I want you to recognize that I’m a proud monkey.” At the very end of the song, he turns the mirror back towards himself, recalling his own history of gang violence - almost lambasting himself. “So why did I weep when Trayvon Martin was in the street, when gangbanging made me kill a ni**a blacker than me? Hypocrite!”

The explosive last line is unapologetically difficult to swallow, and Lamar has no intention of making Butterfly easy to swallow. Layers upon layers of historically black musicality in every song; a cacophony, if not for the

masterful way in which brass, wind and bass weave together. The third single released, “King Kunta,” was quickly overshadowed by the arrival of something far bigger than it: the album itself. Accidentally released March 15 on iTunes, it was fully released on March 16th, taking many fans by surprise and setting a Spotify record with 9.6 million streams in a day.[4] Right off the bat, with “Wesley’s Theory,” you are taken on a ride akin to Jay-Z and Kanye West’s Watch the Throne: a celebration of black excellence, as Jay-Z would put it, “opulence, decadence.” A critic called Butterfly “[...] black insomuch as the album is a cosmic slop of nearly every musical movement that we Negroes have founded on this continent.”[5] The album opens with a sample of “Every Ni**er is a Star” by Boris Gardiner, and features George Clinton of the Parliaments, an avowed inspiration.[6] “King Kunta” is deceptively evocative beneath unabashed rhythm - Kendrick Lamar often refers to himself as “King Kendrick” but in this subversion he relates to Kunta Kinte, a Gambian slave who had the front part of his foot cut off as punishment for trying to escape slavery in the burgeoning United States. The next few tracks follow with similar funkadelic allusions to the race conversation that will proliferate the latter part of the album; but the arrival of “u” radically changes everything and jolts a new perspective into “i.” The outro to “These Walls” preludes “u,” with a spoken word piece by Lamar that transitions one song into the next throughout the album: I remember you was conflicted Misusing your influence Sometimes I did the same

Abusing my power full of resentment Resentment that turned into a deep depression Found myself screaming in a hotel room… “u,” appropriately, begins with Lamar screaming and repeating “Loving you is complicated” ten times in a frantic voice. “Complicated—” an Atlantic piece submits, “not impossible, not difficult, but complicated. Everything in Lamar’s world is complicated, probably because everything in the real world is.”[7] He stumbles through the song, crying, drinking, eviscerating himself with cruelty: he wasn’t there for his sister, he wasn’t there for his city, he wasn’t even there for his friend Chad while he died in a hospital bed save for a Facetime call.[8] The last lines in the song are jarring: “And if I told your secrets/ The world’ll know money can’t stop a suicidal weakness” and lead into the cautiously optimistic “Alright” with Kendrick singing against a broken, brassy backdrop, “I’m f*cked up/homie, you f*cked up/but if God got us/then we gon’ be alright.”

Not enough can be said about the juxtaposition of “u” against “i,” but it is necessary to know that these existential questions are a pivotal part of the black experience. Kanye West explored these questions in Yeezus, and Watch the Throne is a twelve-song testament; Frank Ocean alludes to it in “Swim Good” (referenced by Kendrick in “These Walls”), Janelle Monae actively preaches against it in The Electric Lady.[9] Even the September-released “i” receives a facelift in Butterfly.

It gets stripped down to seem like it’s being performed live, but retains its optimism until a fight breaks out in the crowd. Kendrick stops immediately, exclaiming “Not

on my time - not on my time!” and demands of the crowd, “How many ni**as we done lost, bro, this year alone?” He continues, trying to silence the arguing and

The explosive last line is unapologetically difficult to swallow, and Lamar has no intention of making Butterfly easy to swallow. Layers upon layers of historically black musicality in every song; a cacophony, if not for the masterful way in which brass, wind and bass weave together. instill a sense of camaraderie amongst them with an a capella verse and a lesson in linguistics: “N-E-G-U-S, definition: Royalty; King Royalty.” Instead of ni**er - the

turn of tongue that has damned so many black people to slavery, and that renders many, like Oprah who condemns the use of the “n” word, uncomfortable - he encourages the use of this word of black excellence, validating Oprah and offering an olive branch in the form of a word that only has empowering connotations.[10] “Kendrick Lamar, by far, realest Negus alive.”

There is no way to dissect, discuss and lampshade every single track on this album under a word limit. But the last track of the album demands a paragraph of its own.

Tupac “2Pac” Shakur is regarded by many as being the most influential rapper of all time; Lamar has repeatedly mentioned 2Pac as one of his greatest influences, and it stands to reason.[11] 2Pac’s legacy is controversial but it is undeniable. His music is influenced by his family’s Black Panther notoriety, including his stepaunt Assata Shakur, the first woman to be added to the FBI’s most wanted list.[12] “Mortal Man” is to this album what “Real” was for good kid: putting lessons learnt throughout the album into perspective, to realize oneself in the grand scheme of things. Kendrick Lamar asks of the listener, “When shit hit the fan, is you still a fan?” citing all the ways in which he could get in trouble over the course of his lifetime: being framed for crimes he did not commit, arrested on exaggerated charges to fit the agenda of institutionalized racism. Not unlikely scenarios given the backdrop of continued, arguably escalated, police brutality against black people and people of color. He invokes the legacy of Nelson Mandela, a man jailed for more than two decades for his commitment against apartheid - it’s not just homage, it is a statement

27

the nupr perspectives of intent, a promise to fight the good fight, working for justice and peace. It is a bold promise, and one that he obviously wants to be held to. But it is the outro of the song that leaves the most lasting impression. He starts reciting the poem that has laced one song to another in its totality. Blackness must unite to prevail; blackness must forget the colors of gangs; blackness must forgive itself and reject the evils of “Lucy” - Lucifer, who has haunted Kendrick through his career. “If I respect you, we unify and stop the enemy from killing us/But I don’t know, I’m no mortal man, maybe I’m just another ni**a.”

Paper crumples, and you can almost visualize Lamar looking up with an almost sheepish look on his face, “Sh*t and that’s all I wrote.” The outro quickly establishes itself as a conversation between two people: Kendrick Lamar and his idol, Tupac Shakur. The late Shakur’s words are taken from his 1994 interview with a Swedish radio station, but it doesn’t seem like a conversation with a ghost. He may as well have been talking to Dr. Dre with the familiarity and slight awe that is in Lamar’s voice.[13] They contemplate poverty, impending revolution, the future of black youth: and isn’t it natural for a 27 year-old black man against the background of Ferguson, “I Can’t Breathe,” and #BlackLivesMatter to be asking such questions of his idol? Butterfly is an album for disenfranchised youth of color struggling to find a voice

in a society that purports to be post-racial and is anything but.

Perhaps Kendrick Lamar is a butterfly, and his discography is his evolution. Section.80 wove together a setting for the story of Kendrick’s Compton; good kid, m.A.A.d city was a memoir, one teeming with his experience of racism and exploring vice along the way; but To Pimp a Butterfly is bigger than Compton: it’s America. It’s Kendrick Lamar exploring his role as a black man with a voice that is becoming increasingly influential; it is the narrative of a man terrified and insecure of the temptation that surrounds him in his new-found fame, and - and perhaps most importantly - it is the manifesto of an apostle. In his words, Lamar is doing “god’s work” on earth; how timely, this album, given what is essentially the reinvocation of the civil rights movement.[14] If to To Pimp a Butterfly is a “75-minute story of “survivor’s guilt” that finds some sort of resolution at the end, the question must be begged: what is next for Kendrick Lamar?[15] Activism has always manifested itself through multiple mediums and Lamar joins the ever-increasing number of black artists that have anointed themselves activists. Will he work through musicianship? Or will he step out from behind the curtain of artistry and take the helm of the resurging civil rights movement?

the

lighter

side

(of our government) David London, Journalism 2018

SOURCES: [1] Badu, Erykah. 2013. ‘Kendrick Lamar’. Interview Magazine. [2] Azealia Banks, Twitter post, January 10, 2015, 12:07am. [3] Edwards, Gavin. 2015. ‘Billboard Cover: Kendrick Lamar On Ferguson, Leaving Iggy Azalea Alone And Why We’re In The Last Days’. Billboard.

[4] Kastrenakes, Jacob. 2015. ‘Kendrick Lamar Sets Spotify World Record With 9.6 Million Streams From New Album In A Day’. The Verge. [5] Charity, Justin. 2015. ‘Review: Kendrick Lamar’s ‘To Pimp A Butterfly’ Is A Dark Album For A Dark Time’. Complex. [6] Rolling Stone,. 2015. ‘The Trials Of Kendrick Lamar: Inside The New Issue’. [7] Kornhaber, Spencer. 2015. ‘Kendrick Lamar’s ‘To Pimp A Butterfly’ Is Noisy, Complicated, And Brilliant’. The Atlantic. [8] Kendrick Lamar, Twitter post, September 4, 2015, 10:57pm. [9] Lasharie, Neiha. 2013. ‘Janelle Monáe: Revolution Through Music’. Northeastern University Political Review. [10] Yvette,. 2015. ‘Oprah: “You Can’T Be My Friend And Use The N Word Around Me” | Breaking Brown’. Breakingbrown.Com. [11] Graham, Nadine. 2015. ‘Kendrick Lamar: The West Coast Got Somethin’ To Say’. Hiphopdx. [12] Obejas, Achy. 2014. ‘Why Cuba Will Never Send Assata Shakur To The U.S.’. Chicago Tribune. [13] FACT Magazine,. 2015. ‘Listen To The Full Tupac Interview Featured In Kendrick Lamar’S To Pimp A Butterfly’. [14] Muhammad, Latifah. 2015. ‘Kendrick Lamar: “I’m Doing God’s Work”’.

BET. [15] Coscarelli, Joe. 2015. ‘Kendrick Lamar On His New Album And The Weight Of Clarity’. New York Times. IMAGES: NRK P3 and The Come Up Show via Flickr.

28

29

This article originally appeared as part of a semester-long column produced by the author.

O

n Monday, March 16, the Student Government Association (SGA) Senate voted “no” on a referendum proposed by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which advocated for divestment from 4 companies that support Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories. The companies - Raytheon, Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola - have sold products directly to the Israeli military that, according to SJP, led to human rights violations.[1] But, because the Senate voted “no,” the larger student body will not have the chance to debate the merits of these claims. On a broader level, the decision was a denial of free speech perpetuated by a Senate that has lost sight of its responsibility to the students of this university.

I was present for the Senate hearing. Based on the arguments I heard that Monday, the Senate would probably justify its decision by saying that they were simply following the articles of their bylaws, that they had to make sure the referendum passed the three criteria of feasibility, fairness of wording, and adherence to university policy before it went on the ballot. They would probably say that the SJP referendum failed to adhere to each of these criteria: that it was not feasible because administration would never divest from the specific businesses, that it was unfairly ambiguous in its wording, and that it threatened the safety and security of the students on this campus.

In essence, the Senate denied us our right to referendum - our greatest tool to change university policy - because, according to them, students cannot handle the responsibilities of free speech. According to them, we are not smart enough to debate, understand, and vote on a complex issue. The entire fairness of wording argument was based on the fact that the word “engaged” was too ambiguous a word for students to understand.

The Senate also made it very clear that they think a good portion of Northeastern students are so inherently racist that they cannot talk about Israel without being anti-semitic. That was the basis of the adherence to university policy argument, that students will inevitably be targets of racial harassment if this issue is debated, even though there is nothing racist about the referendum itself.

Under that logic, there should never be debate about Israel-Palestine.

The real irony of this decision is that Senators are students. The idea that the SGA Senate, a Northeastern student group, can freely debate and vote on an issue while denying that same right to vote to the rest of the student body is almost laughable in its hypocrisy. But that’s exactly what happened. The Senate’s failure is even more egregious if you consider their stated responsibilities. According to the SGA website, the Senate “is charged with expressing the general will of the student body.” [2] What better way to express that will than through a student-wide vote? What’s the point

of having Senators represent us if they silence us on the issues we care about? Student Senators denying other students the right to vote is the most blatant overreach of power imaginable. Considering we hardly ever get to vote on anything regarding the policies of this university (not even on the Senators who represent us), it’s borderline autocratic.

What makes this entire decision even more suspect is that the other three referenda that were up for debate on Monday night all passed resoundingly. Two of them passed without a single “no” vote. The SJP referendum, conversely, lost 9 to 25. From the start of the debate, SJP’s referendum held to a much higher standard than the others. That’s because the debate was never really about fairness of wording or feasibility or adherence to university policy. After SGA announced the rejection of the referendum, NU Hillel, a Jewish student group at Northeastern, posted a very long facebook status praising the hard work of its team in getting Senators to deny the initiative. This wasn’t an objective, de-

In essence, the Senate denied us our right to referendum - our greatest tool to change university policy - because, according to them, students cannot handle the responsibilities of free speech. politicized vote. It was a carefully coordinated effort to prevent students from debating the referendum, and by proxy, the Israel-Palestine issue. Many of the Senators who argued against the SJP referendum had prepared speeches beforehand demanding a no-vote. First of all, that level of organization was nowhere to be found in the previous three debates. Second, it made it clear that many Senators had no intention to consider both sides of the debate. Their minds were already made, completely defeating the purpose of the hearing in the first place.

SJP, and through them the entire student-body, was never given a chance.

In Hillel’s previously mentioned Facebook status, they dedicated a paragraph to thanking all of the outside organizations and political groups that supported their

efforts. It’s important to note that SJP also enlisted the help of outside groups to get its referendum to pass. It was an unfortunate reminder of how little power we as students have to freely talk about Israel-Palestine and how, at every chance they get, outside groups will try to stifle student speech in order to support their own interests. This happens on both sides of the debate. It’s even more unfortunate that student-run groups employ the support of these organizations in order to silence the opinions of the rest of the Northeastern community. The difference is that SJP enlisted outside support in order to give power to the students through a referendum vote.

Hillel enlisted such support to prevent the vote.

Some might make the case that denying a referendum vote is not a rejection of student speech, that students are still free to speak their minds on the issues. Yes, we can still “speak” about Israel-Palestine.

But what’s the purpose of speech if no change can come from it? Our words become meaningless and “free speech” becomes an empty, useless ideal. Free speech only has its power if it can instigate action, in this case through a referendum. That power has been lost thanks to the Senate decision.

In the end, the greatest victim of the Senate decision is the Israel-Palestine debate itself. We had a chance to inform students about the complexities of Israel-Palestine through campaigns on both sides of the initiative. We had a chance to involve fresh, objective perspectives to this age-old controversy. We had a chance, as a student body, to firmly take a stand on arguably the most important problem in the world. Whether we passed the referendum or not, we could have shown that Northeastern students are informed about political issues and that we care enough to speak about them. But the Senate has denied us all of these opportunities. Now, the Israel-Palestine debate stays locked in the margins of the Northeastern community. Discourse has been shut down. And most regrettably, students have been silenced. We have once again been told our opinions don’t matter. But this time it wasn’t Northeastern administration silencing student voices. It was our own student Senate.

Senators who voted “no” on this referendum have failed their fellow students. They have put their own biases above their constituents’ right to free speech, and they have shown that they have no faith in the intelligence and civility of this student body. But Senators face no negative repercussions because students do not vote for them. The Senate is a body representative of students, but there is no accountability to students. The current system not only allows but encourages Senators to disregard the will of the student body in favor of their own interests. Monday’s decision isn’t an isolated incident. It is the product of an inherently undemocratic process that does not truly allow for student voice to be heard.

the nupr perspectives

SGA Senate Tramples

Student Speech

Prasanna Rajasekaran, Economics 2018 SOURCES: [1] “Letter: SJP Calls to Divest.” The Huntington News RSS. March 19, 2015. Accessed March 26, 2015. [2] “Become a Senator.” Accessed March 26, 2015. IMAGES: Santiago Nariño.

30

31

the nupr perspectives

This article was originally published as part of NUPR’s Perspectives series, where authors with a unique perspective are given an opportunity to make their voices heard.

Aparth ei d Stan di ng,

Falling with help from

No rtheaste rn Un iv er sity Anthony Turner, International Affairs and Economics 2015

O

n March 16th, 2003, an event occurred in the Gaza Strip that appalled the United States and the world. Rachel Corrie, a hopeful American college student from Olympia, Washington, had traveled to Palestine to work on her senior year college project.

While she was there, a family that she had been working with was informed that their house was going to be demolished. And so Rachel Corrie, in a fashion reminiscent of the iconic Tiananmen Square protester, decided she would stand in front of the bulldozer poised to demolish this family’s home. But there was one defining difference. The bulldozer did not stop for Rachel Corrie.[1] It went ahead and bulldozed her, killing her and leaving a hole where there had once been the promise of protection of nonviolent protest – a cherished American value and fundamental human right.In a tragically ironic twist, it was 12 years to the day – March 16th, 2015 – that our Student Government Association (SGA) blocked students from voting on a referendum asking Northeastern’s Board of Trustees to divest from four companies that provide infrastructural support for human rights violations in Palestine – Caterpillar, Raytheon, Motorola, and Hewlett-Packard. The referendum question, proposed by Northeastern University Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), was inspired in part by Northeastern’s

decision to divest from companies with interests in apartheid South Africa in the 1980s.

Some said that it would’ve been pointless to vote to ensure that our investment practices adhere to international law, since we so clearly weren’t going to anyway; others argued that the referendum unfairly targeted Israel…

Let’s meet our contestants.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been

labeled illegal under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention[2], as well as the UN Apartheid Convention of 1973, which expressly mentions the expropriation of land and the creation of racially segregated housing reserves.

[3] These settlements are facilitated and provided for by Caterpillar, who has contracted with the Israeli military to provide equipment strictly for the expropriation of Palestinian homes and land, and the construction of such settlements. Put another way, Caterpillar designs and sells products purpose-built for violating international law.

Raytheon designs missiles specifically to carry cluster bombs, which are made to ensure massive civilian casualties, and are banned under international treaties.[4] Raytheon’s cluster bombs were used this summer when over 2,000 people were killed in Gaza by airstrikes, of which 70% were civilians, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.[5] Put another way, Raytheon designs and sells products purpose-built for violating international law.

Motorola and Hewlett-Packard (HP) together develop cameras and technology that take snapshots of people as they pass through checkpoints, and based on the facial features of a person can determine if the person is white, black, or Arab.[6] This information is used by the Israeli

military, which diverts force presence according to the racial makeup of certain areas at certain times. This is a practice also deemed illegal by the Apartheid Convention of 1973, which prohibits “establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons.”[7] Put another way, Motorola and HP design and sell products purpose-built for violating international law.

All of this has led to a growing international isolation of such policies similar to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement used in Apartheid South Africa. Universities including UC Berkley, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, UC San Diego, UCLA, the UC Student Association, UMass Boston, Stanford, Loyola, DePaul, Northwestern, Evergreen State College, Hampshire College, Carlton University, Arizona State University, University of Johannesburg, the London School of Economics, London SOAS and many, many more have passed divestment resolutions. Churches such as the U.S. Presbyterian Church, the World Council of Churches, and the United Methodists have passed divestment resolutions. Musicians such as Carlos Santana, Gil Scott Heron, Elvis Costello, Stevie Wonder, Cat Powers, The Killers, Talib Kweli, Sinead O’Connor, and Peter Gabriel have refused to perform in Israel. Trade unions, teachers’ unions, student unions, pension funds (including entire country-wide pension funds throughout Europe), actors, authors, and world leaders such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela have all joined the call for an international isolation of Israeli apartheid.

Still, SJP was concerned that the SGA would try to block a vote using the faulty legal analysis they had attempted to use just a few weeks before. Civil rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Center for Constitutional Rights, Palestine Solidarity Legal Support, and the National Lawyers Guild sent a letter to the SGA advising them that criticism of Israel’s policies is protected political speech, and urged the SGA to resist calls to suppress student democracy.

This came in addition to an outpouring of support for SJP from a coalition of 32 Boston community organizations,

the former Executive Director of Northeastern’s Hillel and University Jewish Chaplain Martin Federman, and over 5,000 people across the country who signed online petitions supporting the Northeastern student body’s right to vote.

During the final SGA hearing on March 16th, student senators were tasked with approving or rejecting student referenda based on three criteria: feasibility, adherence to university policy, and fairness of wording. The senate was expressly prohibited from rejecting a referendum based on whether or not they agree or disagree with the issue –

Some even accused SJP of having “terrorist” aims despite its clear mission statement supporting justice and denouncing violence and oppression. that decision is for the student body to make.

Unfortunately, despite vocal resistance from a handful of student senators, the majority succumbed to pressure from outside groups and voted against allowing the referendum on the ballot (9 in favor, 25 against, and 13 abstentions). The stated goal of the well-financed national lobbying groups, which noted their tactics with shameless candor, is to suppress Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) measures, and is achieved by openly meddling in the democratic processes historically available to university students. As a result, the arguments from some senators ranged from disappointing to ridiculous. Some said that it would’ve been pointless to vote to ensure that our investment practices adhere to international law, since we so clearly weren’t going to anyway; others argued that the

referendum unfairly targeted Israel, despite clear language stating “this resolution calls for targeted divestment from multinational corporations […] regardless of which countries contract said corporations [emphasis added];” and some even accused SJP of having “terrorist” aims despite its clear mission statement supporting justice and denouncing violence and oppression.

I must say, I feel fortunate – social justice was practically a family value growing up. I was raised to believe in the dignity of all humans and the inalienability of their human rights at the very least. However, I’ve never made an exception for Palestinians, and as such, have come to expect being called a terrorist, an anti-Semite, a Muslim, and any number of absurdly inaccurate, not-always-covertly racist labels common among the fringe elements that somehow make their way into almost every political discussion. However, I never expected to hear these things in an academic setting.

The fact that the official representatives of the student body – at the bastion of academia that is Northeastern, no less – were successfully deceived by these spectacular insults to logic, to me, passes understanding. The fact that we in the SGA assumed the student body is in the same intellectual league as the fringe elements described above is even more despairing, and speaks to a profound lack of confidence in their thinking ability. However, I must say: as the hearing went on, and we made comparison after comparison that would’ve been laughed out of the room anywhere else, I began to lose confidence in our constituents myself. After all, they elected us.

This flagrant violation of student democracy by the SGA has only strengthened and united the wide range of social justice groups at Northeastern. Together, these groups – ranging from workers’ rights groups to environmental justice groups – have a powerful following on campus, and have promised unrelenting solidarity as the fight for Palestinian justice continues. Northeastern students have proven that even as their administration and SGA fight for what’s wrong, they will never stop fighting for what’s right.

SOURCES: [1] Nigel Parry and Arjan El Fassed, “Photostory: Israeli bulldozer driver murders American peace activist,” The Electronic Intifada, 16 March 2003, [2] The United Nations, Resolution 446 (1979), The United Nations Security Council S/RES/446, (Geneva, Switzerland: March 22, 1979), [3] The United Nations, International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, United Nations General Assembly (Geneva, Switzerland: November 30, 1973). [4] “Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of a Convention on Cluster Munitions,” Irish Department of Foreign Affairs (Dublin, Ireland: May 30, 2008).[5] The United Nations, “Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency Situation Report,” The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Geneva, Switzerland: September 4, 2014).[6] “Hewlett-Packard,” WeDivest.org, accessed March 2015. [7] See 3. IMAGES: WikiCommons.

32

33

the nupr perspectives

This article originally appeared as part of a semester-long column produced by the author.

Counterbalance:

the grudge goes global F

ollowing November’s midterm elections, it was quite clear that with a shift in the balance of power, current policies were going to be modified. What may have been less obvious before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s US visit and Senator Tom Cotton’s Iran Letter, is that the new conservative majority would overhaul fundamental democratic protocols.[1] After months of negotiations, international representatives successfully released a framework for limiting Iran’s nuclear potential on April 2nd. Prior to the solidifying of the agreement, 47 Republican senators were globally humiliated by in their failed attempt to thwart the negotiations. The senators sent a letter warning Iran that the (Republican) winner of the 2016 election could rescind the agreement that was recently negotiated. Just in the last month, Netanyahu used the Capitol as a stage for a re-election antic against the President’s wishes, and an international nuclear deal with Iran was purposefully obstructed. Apparently undermining the President and allowing catty political maneuvers be the face of American politics take precedence over introducing actual policy alternatives. After receiving the letter, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, stated that it appears that the US is “disintegrating from within.”[2] The current state of affairs makes it seem as though he is not too far off.

One of the world’s most controversial leaders, Netanyahu was invited by Speaker John Boehner to use the House chamber as an outlet for his re-election campaign.

Netanyahu used the podium to critique President Obama’s Middle Eastern foreign policy platform while simultaneously questioning Iranian legitimacy.[3] Following the speech, House Republicans exploited prevailing tensions in the Middle East to widen the rift between themselves and the President, and between the White House and Israel. Given Obama and Netanyahu haven’t maintained the most amicable relationship, Obama was not consulted before the invitation. Given Boehner is one of the President’s prime adversaries, this gesture was intentionally crass. Following the address, Boehner’s office confirmed that the speaker will be visiting Israel later this month, with hopes of strengthening his relationship with the newly elected Prime Minister.[4] Encouraged by the controversial visit by Netanyahu, the antagonistic voices in the Senate decided to write a letter to Iranian leadership, warning them of President Obama’s imminent exit and of a possible Republican

Hannah Lifshutz, International Affairs and Political Science ‘17

34

executive in 2016. Netanyahu’s stake in this agreement has made him the archetype for the resistance to the framework, with the Republican party following closely behind. The resistance is rooted in the argument that the White House is not being tough enough on limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Republicans maintain that the response to Iranian enrichment should be offensive in nature, threatening additional sanctions and possible military action. By crippling the Iranian economy and making their leaders reluctant to come to the negotiating table, the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran for the last decade yielded nothing but hostility. This stagnation has proved that constructive negotiations have the potential to benefit both the United States and Iran. The efforts thus far of the Republican party have not been centered on proposing an alternative to the negotiation posture upheld by the Obama administration instead Republican efforts focused on sabotaging progress and delegitimizing the President yet again.

Rather than embracing tolerance and democracy, Republicans chose to humiliate themselves on the global stage by pretending as though their empty threats carry any international political clout.

It wasn’t until April 2nd that the international representatives were able to agree upon a framework in Geneva, cutting off all possibilities for Tehran to become nuclearly capable within the next 10 years. The deal would give the international community jurisdiction to maintain oversight over Iran’s nuclear plants for up to 25 years. In addition sanctions will not be lifted upon the signing of the deal but only after international inspectors have assured that

Iran is complying with the nuclear agreement.[5] Following the announcement of the deal, President Obama stood in the Rose Garden and attempted to ease the apprehension.

“Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.[6] Diplomacy in the negotiations was able to bring about a substantial framework for improvement rather than another unnecessary war in the Middle East.

The president’s overall response to Republicans’ recent attitudes has been one of dismissal. When asked about the letter while being interviewed on VICE, Obama stated, “I am embarrassed for them.”[7] During his interview with VICE, Obama claimed that the stagnant state of affairs is out of his control. He criticized the GOP for embracing what he called a “slash-and-burn approach to politics.”[8] Although partisanship and deadlock are a result of actions taken by both parties, why maintain the status quo if it’s clearly not yielding any progress? During the President’s address in the Rose Garden he hinted at the defiance stating, “Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world’s major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?” Rather than embracing tolerance and democracy, Republicans chose to humiliate themselves on the global stage by pretending as though their empty threats carry any international political clout.

When receiving the letter, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme leader, released a response on his website condemning the backstabbing nature of the correspondence.

“US senators officially announce that when this government leaves, its commitments will become nullified,” he stated.

“Isn’t that the ultimate collapse of political ethics and the disintegration of the US system?”[9] While this statement is dramatized, it isn’t unprecedented. As the President noted following Netanyahu’s address to Congress, “The prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.”The Republican senators’ Iran letter didn’t have many alternatives outlined in it either, even with 2016 right around the corner. Over the course of these negotiations members of the international community were able to persuade Iran to agree to the most comprehensive nuclear restriction of its kind, which is more than the Republican party can say about their embarrassing attempt at managing foreign policy.

SOURCES: [1] Lehigh, Scot. 2015. ‘The GOP Takes Partisanship International’. Boston Globe. [2]Waldman, Paul. 2015. ‘Republicans Are Beginning To Act As Though Barack Obama Isn’T Even The President’. Washington Post. [3] Erdbrink, Thomas. 2015. ‘G.O.P. Letter By Republican Senators Is Evidence Of ‘Decline,’ Iranian Says’. New York Times. [4]New York Times,. 2015. ‘Mr. Netanyahu’S Unconvincing Speech To Congress’. [5] DeBonis, Mike. 2015. ‘John Boehner Will Visit Israel Following Netanyahu Win’. Washington Post. [6]Gordon, Michael, and David Sanger. 2015. ‘Iran Agrees To Framework Of Nuclear Deal’. New York Times. [7] Guion, Peyton. 2015. ‘Iran Nuclear Deal: Full Transcript Of President Obama’s Remarks’. The Independent. [8]’Sen. Tom Cotton’S Farsi Version Of His Explosive Letter To Iranian Leaders Reads Like A Middle Schooler Wrote It’.

2015. Foreign Policy. [9] DelReal, Jose. 2015. ‘Obama On Senate GOP: ‘I’M Embarrassed For Them’’. Washington Post. [10]Fields, Liz. 2015. ‘‘I’M Embarrassed For Them’: Obama Hits Back At Republican Senators’ Letter To Iran Over Nuclear Deal | VICE News’. VICE News. [11]Eqbali, Aresu, and Asa Fitch. 2015. ‘Iran Supreme Leader Criticizes Republican Letter On Nuclear Talks’. Wall Street Journal. IMAGES: David London.

35

BE HEARD. 36