Berkeley Political Review - Fall 2017 Issue by UC Berkeley Publications and Media Center

Berkeley Political Review

MAURITANIA’S CONTINUING SLAVERY

ZUCCHINI-GATE OR BUST

TO FUND OR NOT TO “PERQUÈ ÉS EL FUND MEU DRET”

VOLUME XX, NO. 1 FALL 2017

FREE MONEY FOR EVERYONE FUTURE POLICY OF THE POLITICAL RIGHT?

WANT MORE?

VISIT US AT

bpr.berkeley.edu

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Dear BPR Reader, Many of the earliest universities founded in the United States and Europe (such notable names as Harvard, Oxford, and others) were founded to train clergy. It’s easy to forget that fact in our age of relentless pre-professionalism and its marriage to higher education: just take a walk down Sproul and hear the clarion call of bright-eyed Cal classmates to join consulting clubs, pledge pre-law fraternities, or attend tech talks with résumé drops. There is nothing wrong with desiring gainful employment, but I challenge all readers — on this campus and off — to treat this publication as an opportunity to take a break, look beyond the rat race, and — hearkening back to the earliest raison d’être of many colleges — ask questions about values. In this issue, writers cover modern-day slavery, treatment of indigenous peoples, minority voting, funding for the arts, and much more. These subjects should all give you the opportunity to interrogate your own beliefs and those of your companies, organizations, and elected representatives. Betty Friedan wrote in the 1963 book The Feminine Mystique of suburban children, “There was literally nothing these kids felt strongly enough to die for, as there was nothing they actually did in which they felt really alive. Ideas, the conceptual thought which is uniquely human, were completely absent from their minds or lives.” Fifty-four years later, apathy and ignorance remain alive and well — and just as crucially important to fight, in others and within ourselves. In the 21st Century, most of us aren’t heading to the clergy, but we all share the responsibility to think about questions of morality. Recent months have brought us numerous stories of what happens when power goes unchecked: everything from collusion with foreign powers at the cost of the integrity of our democratic processes to horrific cases of sexual harassment and assault. Berkeley Political Review hopes to speak truth to power and illuminate oft-unseen issues. Ultimately, our university motto says it best: Fiat Lux, “let there be light.” Thank you for supporting us in our pursuit of that goal. Warmly,

MASTHEAD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Adora Svitak DEPUTY EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Rea Savla Cathrine Petersen CALIFORNIA EDITOR Sean Vernon DEPUTY CALIFORNIA EDITOR Christian Fong UNITED STATES EDITOR Nick Friedlich DEPUTY UNITED STATES EDITOR Nikhil Dilip WORLD EDITOR JJ Kim DEPUTY WORLD EDITORS Rimon Tanvir Hossain Anthony Swaminathan OPINION EDITOR Zaki Alattar DEPUTY OPINION EDITOR Tushita Saraf ONLINE EDITOR Bhaavya Sinha DEPUTY ONLINE EDITOR Logan Goldberg BUSINESS MANAGER Yash Sanghrajka TECHNICAL DIRECTOR Luqmaan Abdul-Cader MARKETING MANAGER Sadhvi Mathur DESIGN DIRECTOR Tonya Nguyen DESIGN TEAM Olivia Bowman Chase Walz Anna Wysen

Adora Svitak Editor-in-Chief ASUC sponsored. The content of this publication does not reflect the view of the University of California, Berkeley or the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC).

contents Volume XX, No. 1 — Fall 2017

Letter From the Editor-in-Chief

Meher Wadhawan

Are You #MakingADifference?

Jacob Hands

In Defense of the Electoral College

Salim Dharamshi

The Twisted Path of Kenyan Politics

Curtis Wang

Why Asian Americans Don’t Vote A Theoretical Perspective

Molly Kraus

Zucchini-Gate or Bust Berkeley’s Battle for Affordable Housing

Liam Frölund

Crossroad Blues

Sarah Sheets

“Perquè és el Meu Dret” The Catalan Referendum

Alexander Casendino

Soldiers of Fortune The Rise of Private Military Companies and their Consequences on America’s Wars

Henry Tolchard

Free Money For Everyone Future Policy of the Political Right?

Odysseus Pyrinis

Sanctuary Showdown Jerry Brown vs. Donald Trump

Berkeley Political Review

Lauren Glasby

California’s Other Water Problem

Tom Kadie

Mauritania A Place of Continuing Slavery

Chance Boreczky

Still Stuck in the Cold War? Turkey, NATO, Russia, and the Art of Patronage

John Rider

Guilty Until Proven Innocent The Kangaroo Court of Social Media

Sebastian Miller

To Fund or Not to Fund

Yoojin Shin

The North Korean Nuclear Crisis Where to Go From Here?

Lili Siri Spira

The United States... and Territories The State of Puerto Rico

Neeknaz Abari

Rwanda’s Path to Gender Equity

Claire Yang

Electoral Breakthrough or Electoral Persistence? Forecasting AfD’s Future in the German Parliament

Perla Shaheen

“Eat the Rabbits” Venezuela’s Plan to Curb its Food

ARE YOU #MAKING MEHER WADHAWAN

Over

the past decade, voluntourism has become a dirty word in the world of development. You may have encountered it in updated Facebook profile pictures. Or an advertisement selling idealism through service projects to Africa. Or maybe you watched ‘Who Wants To Be A Volunteer’, a satire of the stereotypes perpetuated by volunteering abroad. The video’s criticisms over youth efforts to help impoverished communities abroad can come as a shock to many. In today’s grim world, one would assume empathy and service to be signs of hope. However, the voluntourism industry has ironically metamorphosed into a breeding ground for corrupt, profit-oriented organizations. Under the guise of making a change, they employ ineffective and often harmful approaches to poverty relief. Voluntourism is the intersection between traditional volunteering abroad and a cultural exploration trip. A 2008 study approximated the industry to be worth between 1.7 and 2.6 billion USD, with 300 organizations worldwide and 1.6 million youth partaking in projects each year. Projects are suited for student volunteers looking for a short-term experience. Voluntourists take part in such proj-

ects for different reasons. Some travel in pursuit of their perceived moral duty to humanity, others to appear worldly on their résumé (usually just in time for college or scholarship deadlines). They volunteer services like English language tutorials, athletic training, medical care, therapy, and general care taking. However, voluntourists often do not possess the skills required to provide such services due to the age-specific requirements of these projects. Generally, voluntourists are not trained professionals in these fields.

“the voluntourism industry has ironically metamorphosed into a breeding ground for corrupt, profit-oriented organizations” An article in Verge Magazine explores this issue in relation to anti-human trafficking work in SouthEast Asia. The author argues that foreign volunteers find their efforts misplaced when dealing with sensitive situations like human trafficking. For example, victims of trafficking require professional counseling to help them cope with the trauma of abuse and exploitation. Untrained

YES volunteers lack the qualifications and experience to deal with such issues, often causing further harm to victims as well as to themselves through second-hand trauma. It also appears counterproductive for voluntourists to spend a great sum of money to fly halfway across the world in an attempt to provide such aid services. Especially in relation to the philanthropic disasters of Haiti and Nepal, some would argue that funding local organizations may be more effective. Local NGOs are able to aid long-term development and simultaneously create local employment in relief situations. They are also better integrated into communities, with stronger contextual understandings to make change. Issues with a long history of cultural and political significance, if better understood, will more likely be better addressed. Profit-oriented organizations overlook these inconvenient facts. The inflow of money and tourism is too

A DIFFERENCE?

NO great of an opportunity cost. Thus, through exploitative means, members of the industry perpetuate the commercialization of poverty. The Cambodian orphanage industry is an example of this failure. In early 2017, a Cambodian government study found that 80% of the 48,775 children living in orphanages in the country are not strictly orphans. Many had one, if not both, of their biological parents alive. Yet they were coerced into living in orphanages to meet the large demand created by voluntourism organizations. Research by organizations like ReThink Orphanages, have shown that children living in orphanages face attachment issues, problems in forming relationships and delayed cognitive development. These issues are further exacerbated by the quick turnover rate of volunteers. Ultimately, well-meaning voluntourists end up falling for such traps. In their ignorance, they contribute to

the problem. Not only are the means of change-making flawed, the process also has damaging cultural implications. The industry taps into the guilt of privileged teenagers in Western societies, urging them to adopt the role of a white savior. It empowers participants’ collective arrogance and naivety on dealing with underdevelopment. Poverty is packaged and sold like Lego pieces waiting for foreign volunteers to put together.

CHICAMOD

This pursuit of service is often compared to the historical “duty” of Western European colonialists. This duty entails bringing European “civilization” and standards of progress to poor countries. Such parallels emphasize the legacies of colonialism and racial superiority that live on through developmental aid of this nature. Teenagers motivated by their morality and awareness should be able to recognize the dangers of such narratives. Yet, the industry attracts affluent youth by exploiting their

adolescent confusion. Trips are advertised as experiences that can help solidify one’s sense of self. Organizations allude to ideas of spiritual awakening in these mystical, but terribly poor countries. This is further aggravated through social media and the 21st century teenager’s need for instant online gratification. Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms have been plagued with photographs of privileged teenagers posing with ‘exotic’ poor children in an ‘exotic’, unnamed foreign country. Through this, they attempt to appear worldly and altruistic to their online friends. Blinded by the illusion of self-actualization, millions flock to the Global South with little experience in developmental work and high hopes for an emotional transformation. The industry seems to profit on the ills of underdevelopment while ignoring the corruption and inefficacies of their practices. This mess calls for greater awareness in our pursuit of change — an awareness of the proven inefficiencies of such industries as well as the broader historical and cultural implications. While participating in voluntourism may be an easy pat on the back, our Instagram photos captioned #MakingADifference fall short of the reality.

JACOB HANDS

IN OF THE On Tuesday, November 8th, 2016, two things occurred: Donald Trump was elected President, and the Electoral College became the most reviled appendage of the American body-politic. Why? Because the two are linked — ultimately, Mr. Trump is the putatively illegitimate child of an old and puzzling institution, one that abjures direct democracy and instead places trust in a clique of 538 electors merely pledged to represent the interest of their states.

Alexander Hamilton remarked that the chief executive should be selected by several men from each state with no “governmental position, nor holdings of trust or profit under the United States.” These electors, Hamilton supposed, would be most likely to have “the information and discernment” necessary to select an ideal candidate and to avoid the election of anyone “not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

So, why defend it? To understand the necessity of the Electoral College (EC), it is imperative to unearth its roots. In Federalist No. 68, one of 11 essays written in defense of the Constitution,

This procedure — as articulated by Mr. Hamilton and the rest of the framers — has remained largely intact, save a few exceptions: originally, the President and Vice President were not on the same

ticket; it would not be until after the passage of the 12th Amendment that voters could actually select a party-affiliated slate (i.e. a Jefferson/Burr ticket) rather than having to choose individual candidates (i.e. Jefferson, Adams, or Burr). Prior to this modification, the electors would ordain the candidate with the most votes, President, and the runner-up, Vice President. Why this system endures is as contentious as it is complex. The reason the framers initially sought such a system was multifactorial: men, like John Adams, had long been suspicious of direct democracies such as the Athenian system, which they found fleeting and

susceptible to “majoritarian tyranny.” Second, the framers were acutely aware of the geographical constraints of their nascent state; they could not possibly expect the average voter to be well-in tune to the political happenings of an electoral circus days, if not weeks, away by horse-and-buggy. Third, which I suppose dovetails the first consideration, they did not seem entirely confident in the populace’s resolve and objectivity in the face of a foreigner/Manchurian Candidate — a candidate, backed by a foreign government, that would seduce the American voter base in order to subsequently exploit and undermine our nation. Finally, the framers sought to found a system free of parochial constraints and regional tyranny — wherein certain states could deliver a decisive result by virtue of their mass, thus marginalizing the concerns of the nation’s smaller states. In short, the Electoral College was a fail-safe.

could not vote. But the Electoral College — a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech — instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.”

Despite these arguments, there has been no shortage of skepticism. The EC’s detractors spurn such considerations as antiquated, bigoted or inequitable. For instance, the notion that the nation’s citizens are sufficiently far-removed from the electoral process such that they could not render an informed decision is a vestige of the past, if not a patronizing insult to the average voter’s IQ.

Could it be true that times have changed? That the EC is simply another cog in our electoral machine? It seems unlikely. Adams was right to fear direct democracies. Even today, they are rare sights to behold. The only nations that govern accordingly are Switzerland and Greece — the latter barely clings to this title. History is no fan of this system either. Since time-immemorial, few nation states have ventured into its territory, the most famous of which being Greece. Yet, even authentic “Athenian Democracy” was short-lived. The STOA consortium (an electronic publication that focuses on Classical Research) estimates that the direct democracy that is conjured when talking about the “Athenian System” lasted no more than 186 years.

Further, many critics point out that one of the main historical drivers of the EC was slavery. Primarily Virginia-born blue-bloods, the framers were not keen on letting the North dictate their nation’s policy agenda –– an almost certainty had the nation been governed by a true, direct democracy. As Time columnist Akhil Amar editorialized, “in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course

Additional points of contention challenge the inequity of the current system. Because the EC is tallied by summing a state’s total number of congressional representatives, certain smaller states (think Wyoming) and border states (think Florida and Ohio) gain a competitive advantage that would otherwise be absent. In truth, this inequality is not fictive — California’s electors are worth ~510k votes each; Wyoming’s — just shy of 143k votes per elector. That Wyoming voters should have an almost 5x greater “say” in an electoral outcome is unacceptable for many prospective voters.

However, one should be careful to distinguish between a direct democracy that entails a slew of supplemental protocols and democratic procedures, and a “direct election,” which merely mandates the anointment of the Commander-in-Chief by popular vote. Still, the proposal holds little merit.

If we were to elect the President by popular vote, then his or her ascension would be primarily dictated by four states: California, Florida, New York, and Texas. In total, these four states would contribute more than 30% of the total vote count. Though it is true that presidential hopefuls already spend much of their campaign in only a few states, this would radically tip the scales — a move that would lead to the exact kind of parochial nightmare that the founders feared would inspire civil discord. More reasonable critiques remind that the EC is moribund regardless; in many states, electors would face fines and other draconian penalties if they were to defect. Perhaps, this is why faithless electors are virtually non-existent — there have been 167 faithless votes cast since our nation’s inception; never once has a faithless electors decided an election. This, too, is complicated. Although electors have yet to exercise their constitutional exigency, this should not compel us to forget their role as the only electoral fail-safe, aside from impeachment. In the event that our electoral system is compromised — a reality not as far-fetched as one might suspect in the digital-age — they are our first-line of defense. In summary, the electoral college remains a keystone institution. Though its role has been obscured in recent years, its purpose is no less vital. If the nation were to lose this institution, it’s likely to arouse civil strife and permanently fracture the integrity of our electoral system.

The Twisted Path of K e n y a n P o l i t i c s SALIM DHARAMSHI

Kenyans queueing to vote on 8 August 2017 anticipated

the standard sequence of events – some bribery and dishonesty at polling stations, aggressive police officers assaulting journalists, and heated protests. While the 54-year-old democracy has witnessed several transformations since independence, many aspects remain static. An Uber driver said, “Why should I waste my time when it [the elections] won’t have any impact on my life? I haven’t seen any results from the past few years.” Historically, Kenya has a reputation of corruption and instability. When politics are not sufficiently bound by checks and balances, there is no accountability. Since an election is the only legitimate path to rule, individuals evade and bend the law to achieve power. But this time, there was a twist to the familiar tale. As the election concluded, Uhuru Kenyatta (Kenya’s president for the past five years) defeated Raila Odinga. Considering incumbents rarely lose, this was within the realm of normative outcomes – until Chief Justice David Maraga declared the election ‘invalid, null, and void’. This fateful gamble, the first nullification of a Kenyan election, illustrates their wish for a new system – a system wherein citizens select their leadership, and institutions constrain the power of the powerful. Except, a wish is not a plan. Although Kenya has embarked upon an optimistic path, lacking direction and a clear strategy could make Kenya stray into disorder.

TOWARDS ELECTORAL CREDIBILITY A noticeably frustrated Mr. Kenyatta branded the Supreme Court judges ‘wakora’ (‘crooks’ in Swahili). Although officials have unearthed no evidence of electoral misconduct, systematic irregularities – including the torture and murder of the senior official responsible for the computerised voting system – were enough to justify investigation.

Criminal Court accused Mr. Kenyatta of instigating the attacks against Mr. Odinga’s supporters. Albeit, inadequate evidence terminated the case, but Mr. Kenyatta is still far from a paragon of integrity. Despite all that, Mr. Kenyatta won by a comfortable 54% of the votes. Did people actually vote for such a man? Mr. Odinga relieves Mr. Kenyatta of some doubt. This is Mr. Odinga’s fourth, and probably final, attempt at the presidency. Therein lies the concern: Mr. Odinga could be playing an adept game of brinkmanship to inveigle his last attempt at election. The annulment is a contentious debate, and the ongoing investigation makes it premature to assert a conclusion. But perhaps, the mere existence of this discussion points to Kenya’s effort for change. Integrity is being restored to the election process. The stage has been set for challenges to be upheld in court. It serves as a cautionary tale for future presidents, while a trust-inspiring story for citizens. Yet, one ought to be wary of engaging these recent events as a triumphal narrative. It is not destined to continue forever; the judiciary still needs to preserve the progress made and ensure a fair re-election. Their actions henceforth are what matter. Besides, electoral reliability is just one achievement; political stability is a separate and more important issue.

MOVING FORWARD The myriad of flaws in Kenya’s political architecture makes it unclear how they will advance from this sudden juncture. The rigmarole of coordinating a re-election, in a much shorter time, catalyzes the pressure. Concerns revolve around transmitting the results digitally – particularly from remote polling stations, where bribes and intimidation are prevalent.

Kenya has entered a phase of uncertainty. On one side, if the election was righteously overruled, it is a triumph for the rule of law. On the other, it could be a corrupt ploy to swindle the election’s result.

Democracy works best with informed citizens, yet many Kenyans do not know their rights and responsibilities of voting. Polling is determined by tribal affinities – not candidates or policies. Respectively, hostility ferments as larger tribes hold greater political influence.

African rulers typically have not been known for their honourable leaderships and Mr. Kenyatta’s efforts offer no exoneration. The East African Bribery Index exposed that 83% of Kenyans define the corruption level as ‘high’. In addition, after the 2007 election process, the International

The extent of alarm is evident in the allocation of electoral funds: the initial election cost Ksh 49.9 billion ($499 million), and security operations required Ksh 5.3 billion. Moreover, judicial members investigating

the election are receiving threats. Kenya lacks the culture of formally airing grievances in court, resulting in unofficial clashes on the streets. The media has the potential to remedy voter concerns and hefty security expenses. However, legislation, political officials, and the police negatively impact the media’s freedom. More frequently, reporters exposing anomalies, violence, and the duplicity of pervading politics, are beleaguered by brutish officials. Without the media, there is no transparency or accountability.

Why Asian Americans Don’t Vote CURTIS WANG

STANDING AT CROSSROADS Witnessing these events unfold might grant a moment of lucidity. But, progress is transient. A constant, contentious effort is required to cement legitimacy into Kenyan politics. Furthermore, fair and credible elections are only valuable insofar as they operate within a politically stable environment. The Supreme Court has laid the foundations. Now, if Kenya chooses to continue down this path, I would bet on positive progress. Not because it is inherently inevitable. Rather, there are too many people longing for change. After all, great events stem from small acts. Annulling the election has begun to reinforce institutional might, break old habits, and generate the momentum for reform.

The people’s willingness to change is brave – even if appended is short-term turbulence. Be that as it may, credible elections are but the first step in a lengthy, circuitous path towards political stability and institutional legitimacy. In this backdrop, the annulment can be described as modest – modest in its relation to the broader dream of political stability, yet gigantic in relation to Kenya’s former responses.

Asian Fortune

I recently watched the new Jackie Chan movie

called The Foreigner, which is basically a Chinese Taken (highly recommended, by the way). But what stood out to me was the title. The only reason this title is even pertinent to the movie is in the character that Chan plays, an immigrant in the UK who fights the IRA in order to avenge his daughter’s death at the hands of an IRA bombing. If anything, it follows an ingrained myth of Asian Americans being the perpetual foreigner, which isolates and divides Asian Americans from the rest of civil society and perpetuates harmful stereotypes. This changes the political efficacy of Asian Americans, as the myth believes that the political machine is not one that includes Asian Americans, especially when the sociopolitical culture reifies these forms of racism. Specifically, there are five myths of Asian Americans: the model minority, the yellow peril, the docile worker, the perpetual foreigner, and the asexualized body. However, concerning the focus on the 11

divide between Asian Americans and political participation, there are specifically three myths that primarily contribute to this divide: the model minority, the yellow peril, and the perpetual foreigner. While the other myths contribute to a larger holistic picture of apathetic voters in the Asian American community, these three myths construct the prime motivation of voter apathy. Note that this is not a holistic examination of Asian American voter apathy, but a perspective rooted in theory and racial divides.

“These sharp racial divides have been so internalized into the Asian American identity that traditions like voting are not commonplace, and they reflect on how political campaigns are run, where presidents do not seek to appeal to Asian American interests or voters.” THE MODEL MINORITY The thesis of the myth of the model minority has much to do with the history of Asian Americans and their economic status in the United States. The simple idea is that Asian Americans have long been a minority group in the United States, but unlike other minority groups, Asian Americans have achieved a middle class status, or so we are led to believe. This primary assumption leads to a comparative evaluation of other minority groups that assumes that the United States has become a society in which any minority can succeed, they just need to be like the Asians. Not only is this a false equivalency that conflates and homogenizes the experiences of different racial minorities in the United States, but it also ignores the insular problem that the model minority thesis hides, which is that the economic success of Asian Americans cannot be the sole determining factor of bridging the racial gap, and also overlooks the economic struggles that Asian Americans face. The data surrounding Asian American wealth accumulation paints a different picture of the model minority status. First, the monolithic un12

Time

derstanding that Asian Americans as a group fare better as a whole is wrong and specific ethnicities within the Asian American diaspora show a diverse data set. The model minority myth is not just about the economic status of Asian Americans — it also encompasses the general attitude that Asian Americans are well off — but the large divide also has to do with the lack of diversity in Congress. The recent 115th Congress, for example, has the highest amount of AAPI representatives but sits only at eighteen AAPI representatives, out of the 538 representatives in the House and the 100 senators in the Senate. Why would the model minority myth impact Asian American voting? If the myth is internalized, it would have Asian Americans believe that there is no real policy measures to fight for and that there is no construction of modernity that could benefit them further. The notion that other racial groups are struggling due to their own accord would also fracture the necessary coalitions that would lead to less support to social justice initiatives and demands, such as Black Lives Matter, while creating a cognitive dissonance towards the historical realities and violence that Asian Americans have had to endure in America.

THE YELLOW PERIL AND THE PERPETUAL FOREIGNER Long before the myth of the model minority, the primary racial anxiety of Asian Americans had much to do with the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act (CEA), and its extension, the Geary Act, once the CEA had expired. The CEA had come around a time in the 1800s when thousands of Chinese laborers had completed the Transcontinental Railroad, and white Americans were now worried that their jobs would be lost given the amount of laborers that were available. This created a root of anti-Chinese, and by extension, anti-Asian sentiment that rang for decades to come. The construction of the yellow peril coincided with the attitudes that Asian Americans were just not real Americans, and the categorical designations created by white Americans during this time ended up having Asian Americans realize that we would never truly be American. There is always some part of us that is perpetually foreign. The CEA and the Geary Act severely limited Chinese and, when the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907 came about, Japanese immigration as well. The policies themselves were not the only racist attitude to come about, as the push for these stricter immigration policies were also accompanied by racist propaganda.

Complex

“The construction of the yellow peril coincided with the attitudes that Asian Americans were just not real Americans, and the categorical designations created by white Americans during this time ended up having Asian Americans realize that we would never truly be American. There is always some part of us that is perpetually foreign. Many of these posters and attitudes stereotyped the Chinese as “degenerate heroin addicts whose presence encourages prostitution, gambling, and other immoral activities.” The modern yellow peril takes place in studies of international relations, specifically the realist school of thought, where people like Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago make statements in his work “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” By contrast, in Chengxin Pan’s work “Knowledge, Desire and Power in Global Politics: Western Representations of China’s Rise,” Pan, a senior lecturer in International Relations at Deakin University, makes the argument that such representations of China in foreign policy creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where bad predictions of aggression from China only reinforce an attitude of serial policy failure. This divide doesn’t just present in theory, and it even has infiltrated our domestic dialogue on the economy and politics. For example, Trump’s rhetoric, based on the long-held belief that jobs are somehow being stolen by Chinese workers is no longer a reality. This divide sharply places Asian Americans in the political periphery as there is a constant antagonism between two notions of “home,” where the United States may not feel like such a safe haven, but the political and military conflicts in places like South Asia, for instance, are not exactly as welcoming. These sharp racial divides have been so internalized into the Asian American identity that traditions like voting are not commonplace, and they reflect on how political campaigns are run, where presidents do not seek to appeal to Asian American interests or voters. This apathy is based on racial tropes, not just in an insular sense of identity, but by how these myths end up being grafted onto the American political machine, where Asian American voters are, sadly, consistently invisible. 13

Zucchini gate or Bust! MOLLY KRAUS

Standing at the podium in front of

the mayor and eight City Council members, cameras zooming in, lights blurring, voices fading to a dull murmur in the background, one citizen was brave enough to brandish an anti-housing weapon no one had ever thought to wield: a zucchini. At the Berkeley City Council meeting on the night of June 13th, after over four hours of arduous debate, one citizen courageously shook a zucchini from the public comment podium where so many other advocates and activists had once stood. If a two-story house were built next to her residence, it would cast a shadow on her garden, preventing the life of countless garden vegetables just like the one in her hand. In the great zucchini versus housing debate of 2017, City Council sided with the zucchini. City Council’s decision to remand the two-story housing proposal for 2212 Tenth Street to the Zoning Adjustments Board ignited a slew of condemnatory responses from citizens and national publications alike. Kevin Burke, a web developer, sent a letter to all of City Council, stating that he

BERKELEY’S BATTLE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING would, “much rather have a zucchini garden crisis than a housing crisis.” Henry Grabar wrote an article for Mother Jones claiming that Berkeley was “too busy arguing about zucchini” to tackle real issues like climate change. But Berkeley’s complex relationship with housing development began long before Zucchini-gate. From ignoring state housing mandates to resisting lawsuit-after-lawsuit, Berkeley City Council has made one thing very clear: housing developers should look elsewhere. Much of the drama began in March of 2016 when the Zoning Adjustment Board approved a project that would replace a single family home with three two-story homes on Haskell Street. The proposed project incensed the neighbors, who worried about the project’s impact on traffic and parking. Protesters displayed signs declaring the need to “Protect Open Space,” and outrage gripped City Council. Facing significant constituent protest if the project progressed, City Council denied the renovation in a 5-2 decision. In response to the denial of the project,

multiple renter rights organizations threatened to join the legal circus. They claimed the city had failed to follow California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA), which mandates that a city can only deny a housing project if that project violates “objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria,” and to provide evidence of how the Haskell Street proposal would violate any such standards. As a means of bypassing the HAA, Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Councilmember Sophie Hahn decided to enhance Berkeley’s health, safety, and design standards to reject the project. Their item included four key provisions:

Adopt numerical density and building intensity standards. Adopt “objective, identified written public health safety standards.” Adopt design review standards. Quantify and set standards for views and shadows.

This item passed, with the ultimate goal to maintain “local land-use discretion,” where the city could unilaterally make housing proposal decisions without facing state intervention under the HAA. The item’s inclusion of shadow quantification would make it legally possible for the City of Berkeley to put the needs of zucchini gardens ahead of people’s needs for increased housing units. Beyond the quantification of shadows, it’s important to note that Berkeley already has public health and safety standards for buildings and already has the Zoning Adjustment Board and Design Review Board to ensure that projects support the maintenance of Berkeley as a beautiful, livable city. The template that Mayor Arreguin and Councilmember Hahn created would require a substantial amount of additional costs and staff time. Moreover, Berkeley’s action could set a precedent for other cities to create their own templates to bypass the HAA. One month before, on June 13th, Berkeley City Council voted to raise registration fees and requirements on all new housing developments. The revenue from such fees will be funneled into the construction of new affordable units that will support low-income residents. At its surface, this ordinance appears to be a paragon of inclusionary zoning, whereby the construction of market-rate housing for middle-and-upper class consumers will also generate the creation of affordable units. This is precisely the kind of progressive politicking that government officials love to slap on their resumes, even if the idea works better on paper than in implementation. The ordinance actually raises the cost of housing development far above that of neighboring cities. De-

“after over four hours of arduous debate, one citizen courageously shook a zucchini from the same podium where so many other advocates and activists had once stood”

velopers are thereby incentivized to build housing elsewhere, meaning that fewer market-rate units will be constructed and far less money will be channeled into affordable housing. In a joint letter, Councilperson Lori Droste, Carol Galante (the former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President Obama), Karen Chapple (founder of the Urban Displacement Project), and other city leaders penned a joint letter opposing the increase of fees on housing development without a feasibility study. They argued that the fees were over six times the current amount of West Oakland’s multi-family housing fees, and cited a 2016 study from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office which found evidence showing that increasing market-rate housing reduced housings costs for low-income individuals. The study asserts that widely increasing affordable housing programs generates prohibitive housing costs for cities, and instead, cities should target populations with specialized needs — such as communities of homeless individuals or people with different physical and mental abilities.The increase in registration fees and requirements imposes cumbersome prohibitive costs for developers, leaving Berkeley residents floundering and scrounging for the few existing housing units. How do Haskell Street, the circumnavigation of the HAA, and the increase in fees and requirements intersect? With City Council’s track record on housing, from Haskell Street to circumnavigating the HAA to increasing fees and requirements, developers

got the message, loud and clear: look elsewhere. The City’s prohibitive measures and costs not-so-subtly target the construction of new housing units during a housing shortage. Despite Berkeley’s improving economy, housing development has shown signs of slowing, as Berkeley’s Office of Economic Development highlighted in their September report. Although Berkeley City Council has belabored the need for affordable housing, its actions indicate that it has stronger incentives to capitulate to neighbors who want to maintain Berkeley’s medium-density history. Berkeley City Council represents a larger, structural issue within California politics. Local municipalities have extensive authority over housing that cities can interpret as permission to deny housing projects for aesthetic and ideological reasons. The scale has been tipped disproportionately toward city discretion, leaving the state and developers floundering for a voice. Whether or not increasing development is the answer to the housing crisis, the current practice of denying housing for superficial reasons during a housing shortage certainly seems politically paradoxical. As the housing affordability crisis continues, Berkeley City Council must decide if its role is to protect zucchini gardens or assuage the affordable housing crisis.

Crossroads Blues LIAM FRÖLUND

In 1965, the city of Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia. It was poor and isolated, with an economy wholly subsidized by Britain’s Royal Navy. To the north, Malay extremists threatened to instigate a coup and regain the island. To the south, the Indonesian military toppled the pro-communist government, killing millions and threatening the entire region’s stability. At the head of this vulnerable citystate, responsible for the futures of almost 2 million Singaporeans was the British-educated Lee Kuan Yew. Lee saw before him a crossroads: poverty or prosperity, democracy or dictatorship. LEE’S DEAL The Singapore of today looks nothing like the Singapore of 1965. Since 1960, GDP per capita rose by thirteen times, life expectancy increased by 17 years, and the human capital index more than doubled. The Port of Singapore, once dependent on Western naval bases, is now one of the busiest in the world, transferring over a billion tons of cargo annually. By any objective measure, Singapore has risen from squalor to splendor, matching and even exceeding developed countries like the United States on any number of metrics. Lee Kuan Yew made the right decisions for the economy. Nevertheless, his choice was very much a deal with the devil.

Coinciding with this rapid growth was a constant, undemocratic domination of Singapore politics and society by Lee and his People’s Action Party (PAP). For the first fifteen years after independence, no other party held a seat in the parliament. The party’s worst showing was in the 2011 general election, winning only 60.1% of the vote and 81 out of 87 seats in the parliament. Every single president has been tied to the party and all but one rose to the position without an election. In the 2017 presidential “election”, only one candidate was deemed eligible to run: Halimah Yacob, who, unsurprisingly, was the candidate backed by the PAP. To call Singapore authoritarian, however, is difficult because it does not fit traditional notions of what is and is not authoritarian. Singapore does not purge; it does not kill. It is not ideological, genocidal, or warlike. The government is nominally democratic, it functions, and it scores well on indices of corruption. Singapore is a pioneer of what Guriev and Treisman from the London School of Economics call “soft autocracy”: Instead of controlling the people directly, the PAP uses information and manipulation to maintain their rule.

“Singapore is a pioneer of what [is called a] ‘soft autocracy’: instead of controlling the people directly, the PAP uses information and manipulation to maintain their rule” AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP To see how Singapore’s government treats information in the country, one need not look farther than Reporters Without Borders. For 2017, they ranked Singapore 151 out of 180 countries on their Press Freedom Index, putting it below the oligarchy in Russia and the military regime in Thailand. Much like their democracy, Singapore’s press is nominally free: Article 14 of the Constitution specifically protects freedom of speech and press. However, all radio and television broadcasting is controlled by the state-owned Mediacorp. All print media goes through Singapore Press Holdings, a private company with a list of former directors that reads like a roll call at the Prime Minister’s cabinet meeting. Finally, films, music, video games, performances, news media, and even the internet are subject to regulation and censorship by the Orwellian Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. The government does not even have to overtly exercise its regulatory power as its sheer influence causes widespread self-censorship among journalists. If critics or dissidents do manage to

publish critical or opposing pieces, they are frequently prosecuted under strict defamation laws, sometimes being charged with “sedition” for a maximum of 21 years in prison. The result is a society in which you are free to vote, but not free to know. The government provides a variety of justifications for this authoritarian hold on politics. In his book, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story, Lee Kuan Yew constantly cites Singapore’s unique situation with a heterogeneous population and weak geopolitical position as requiring firm leadership. Prime Minister and son of Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong minimizes the government’s actions by labeling it as simply enforcement of the rule of law, a necessity to maintain Singapore’s economy amid all its challenges. Law Minister K. Shanmugam deflected criticism at the New York Bar Association by claiming Singapore cannot be looked at as a country; instead, Singapore should be seen as a city comparable to New York or Chicago which are also held by single parties.

All of these justifications stem from two key arguments. First, Singapore is different and thus requires different solutions, and second, only the PAP can lead Singapore. Lee’s choice at the crossroads — authoritarianism over democracy, prosperity over poverty — is inextricably linked to these arguments. In the historical canon espoused by the Singaporean government, Singapore’s position in 1965 was so terrible it needed a savior to drag the country from third world to first. This claim can and should be tested.

“Across the world, countries are grappling with the growth of authoritarianism and oppression and many in the third-world, who feel like the West’s prescriptions have failed, are looking to alternative models of development” GASLIGHTING To be clear, Lee Kuan Yew and his party managed the Singaporean economy well; to say otherwise would be a blatant lie. However, when the government draws the conclusion that only Lee Kuan Yew and his party could have managed the economy well, they are also lying. Refer back to the earlier statistics detailing Singapore’s prosperity: a 13x increase in GDP per capita, a 17-year increase in life expectancy, and a doubling of the human capital index. When compared to most developing countries, this growth seems amazing, but when compared to Singapore’s peers, these numbers are not particularly striking.

ONCE AGAIN, A CROSSROADS The justifications provided by Singapore are disrespectful to democratic reformers across the world in general and to those in Singapore in particular. These reformers fight long, hard battles to win people their freedoms and to slander the process as Singapore has is almost as shameful as the acts they wish to defend. For inspiration, Prime Minister Lee should look back to his father, who in 1955 said, “If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication.”

In South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, all of these improvements were attained, and in some cases, beaten. All of this with greater geopolitical threats, greater political instability, and far poorer starting conditions. Most importantly, all three are today democratic. South Korea ditched a US-backed dictatorship in 1987, and now has a democracy hailed by some as the gold standard. Around the same time, Taiwan ended the one-party rule of the Kuomintang that had lasted since their exile from the mainland, and is now using their democracy as a point of judgement against their rivals in Beijing. All the while, Hong Kong has maintained a constant democratic tradition under first the British and now the Chinese. In none of these places did democracy ever serve to slow down the pace of growth and development, in fact, part of Hong Kong’s slowdown in the 1990s can be directly attributed to fears regarding its reintegration with the authoritarian China.

What is more, however, is that Singapore is not alone. Across the world, countries are grappling with the growth of authoritarianism and oppression and many in the third-world, who feel like the West’s prescriptions have failed, are looking to alternative models of development. Even the People’s Republic of China looked to the “Singapore Model” as an example for their own country when they abandoned Maoist economics in the 1980s. Singapore’s economic success is a siren song that continues to lure unwitting countries to dictatorship and, ultimately, despair. In this, Lee Kuan Yew has turned his country into the devil that first tempted him in 1965.

Moving beyond Asia and considering the rest of the world, the unnecessity of authoritarianism becomes increasingly clear. In fact, a 2014 article by academics Acemoglu and Robinson found that democracy itself has “a significant and robust positive effect on GDP.” For Singapore to continue claiming otherwise is to paint a dishonest picture of their history. Yes, Singapore was poor, isolated, and vulnerable; however, authoritarianism never did anything to help.

The road ahead of Singapore today is, once again, a crossroads. The leadership of Lee Hsien Loong is no different from that of his father. Presidents are still chosen rather than elected, journalists are still silenced instead of heard, and the people are still controlled instead of freed. Worse, however, is that Singapore does not have to do any of this. Singapore’s prosperity derives entirely from its economic freedom, not its political oppression. To continue on this path of authoritarianism would be a disservice to all in Singapore. The call for democracy will continue to grow until it is answered.

“Perquè és el Meu Dret”: THE CATALAN REFERENDEM SARAH SHEETS

As September came to a close, protesters surrounded the famous landmarks of Barcelona to show their desire for a ‘Sí’ vote on the referendum for Catalan independence. The national government in Madrid seems to be doing all in its power to prevent the vote from occurring. Reports show that forces have been sent to prevent citizens from entering voting booths, have confiscated millions of ballot papers, and arrested dozens of Catalan government officials for their role in instigating the referendum. Madrid has even prepared three ferries, which could hold upwards of 6,000 people, to move police officers into Barcelona, a move that is eerily reminiscent of the country’s authoritarian days. How did Catalan independence go from a fringe political topic to the forefront of Spanish politics? While little has changed in regards to Catalan autonomy in the last decade, Catalan politicians have been scrambling to find common ground in what is otherwise a state of extreme political disunity. Independence fits into a broader ‘Catalan Narrative’ and provides a band-aid solution for a much deeper issue of political fragmentation in Catalonia.

Lluís Gené

LEGALITY At this point, the chances of a legally-binding referendum are slim. Spain’s constitutional court has ruled to suspend the legality of the referendum until it has considered more arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of the law. However, Article 2 of the constitution reads, “The Constitution… recognises and guarantees the right to self government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.” The question that will be debated in the Court is whether “self-government” implies that Catalans can vote to leave without a national mandate from other Spanish citizens. However, based on recent court rulings, it seems that the Court leans in favor of Madrid. Another fundamental obstacle to Catalan independence is that, while a clear majority of Catalans desire the right to vote on a referendum, actual support for independence has been estimated at around 41%.

THE CATALAN NARRATIVE The issue of independence gives politicians access to a very powerful set of rhetorics, originating from what researchers at McGill University call the ‘Catalan Narrative,’ in which Catalonia’s history is propagated as a constant struggle for independence against outside forces. The research found that “the main national symbols — the flag (la Senyera), the national anthem (Els Segadors), and the national day (La Diada) — are built upon certain key historical events,” all relating to independence. The Catalan flag alludes to the community’s founding as a kingdom back in the 9th century, while the national anthem refers to the Catalan revolt against the Castilians. The national day commemorates a historic defeat of Catalonia against a French-Spanish joint attack, which resulted in the abolition of Catalan laws and the Catalan language. In the 1900s, military dictator Francisco Franco had a similar policy of repression towards Catalan culture and language. The same researchers note that the formative historical narratives of Catalan identity “are related to wars and conquests; they are all events that could probably be described as traumatic.” Understandably, this creates a sense of unity within Catalans against the “others” that politicians are able to exploit and use to increase their own support. The recent crackdown by Madrid doesn’t seem so far off from Catalans who have lived through the regime of Franco, meaning that calls for independence and warnings of the perceived threat of Madrid’s authoritarianism understandably resonate well in a region with such a historical narrative.

“FORCES HAVE BEEN SENT TO PREVENT CITIZENS FROM ENTERING VOTING BOOTHS”

POLITICAL DISUNITY Yet despite this rhetoric, support for full independence from Spain has been relatively low, and the region’s Statute of Autonomy, which has been intact since 1978, seemed to be an acceptable compromise for both Barcelona and Madrid. What has changed? Against the background of an economic downturn, increasing tensions with regards to immigration, and fragmented political parties, independence has become a powerful rallying cry for Catalan politicians to increase their party and parliamentary support. In the Catalan parliament, coalitions are volatile, and member parties often have little in common. The President of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, noted in regards to the independence coalition: “The [ideological] distance between my party and the CUP is huge.” For reference, Puigdemont represents the CiU, a center-left party; the CUP is known as an anti-establishment, far-left party. While this coalition has thus far succeeded, existing divisions foreshadow bigger issues in the future. For example, last year, the CUP opposed and took down the CiU’s budget proposal. This raises questions about the feasibility of a ruling coalition that relies on ideologically opposed members. A platform based around independence has also become a powerful tool for politicians who can blame existing issues on the government in Madrid, and who claim that independence will increase their ability to fix them. Madrid is now a scapegoat for a myriad of voter issues – as diverse as immigration, high unemployment, or federalism – for an equally diverse electorate in Catalonia. This may be useful in winning elections, but it is a dangerous gamble for politicians due to the diversity of ideologies that come attached to a “sí” vote. If the referendum passes, they will have to put their money where their mouth is – and with a voting base comprised

Emilio Morenatti/Associated Press

of far-left anti-capitalists, center-right anti-immigration voters, and everyone in between, it is hard to imagine what a post-referendum political consensus would even begin to look like.

“MADRID IS NOW A SCAPEGOAT FOR A MYRIAD OF VOTER ISSUES – AS DIVERSE AS IMMIGRATION, HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT, OR FEDERALISM” LOOKING AHEAD Some observers have compared this referendum to Brexit and have started discussing the implications for Catalonia’s status in the European Union if it wins independence. Trade regulations, immigration issues, and monetary policy are all possibly at stake. A successful referendum would also be a green-light for similar independence-based politics in Galicia or the Basque country. However, it seems a bit premature to entertain questions on these topics when Madrid has made very clear the illegality of the referendum. That is not to say that Madrid’s actions against this referendum are justified – they are, in some ways, correctly being compared to actions notoriously taken during Franco’s rule. Furthermore, Catalans deserve a chance to voice their concerns over what seems to be an increasingly centrist national government in a country where regional culture and regional autonomy are highly valued. Instead, the lesson from the referendum should be one of caution. We know that the best way to ruin the chances of realistic redress to these issues is for opportunistic politicians to push the independence movement past its limits. Without more consensus within the coalition itself, a vote for independence will likely backfire due to its rocky foundations, undermining the legitimacy of the very issues Catalans are trying to voice, and they deserve more than that.

Soldiers of Fortune ALEXANDER CASENDINO

War and conflict are synonymous with human history,

and where there is conflict, there are often mercenaries who reap the profits. These “armies for hire” appeared as early as Ancient Egypt and Rome, with rulers deploying paid auxiliary forces to supplement imperial armies. In present-day America, mercenaries have consolidated into one of the strongest institutions in the United States: the corporation. Mercenaries adapted to changing trends in statecraft and warfare by merging into corporate entities under the title of private military companies, or PMCs. America, the country with the strongest national military, is oddly the largest customer of PMCs. According to the Congressional Research Service, roughly 10 percent of America’s armed forces were privately contracted during WWII, but during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the proportion grew to a staggering 50 percent. This past July, the Trump administration confirmed America’s affinity for PMCs when the president’s advisers recruited Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater Worldwide security firm, and Stephen Feinberg, owner of the military contractor DynCorp International, to draft alternative military strategies in the Middle East that rely primarily on private contractors.

The exponential growth of private military firms warrants careful historical and present-day inspection. PMCs emerged out of America’s dynamic military priorities and still deserve a place within America’s military operations, but the unchecked expansion of PMCs in recent decades has produced severe limitations upon America’s ability to resolve conflicts.

The United States military has utilized private military contractors in past conflicts to supplement America’s forces in war, but Peter W. Singer, author of “Corporate Warriors: the Rise of the Privatized Military Industry,” notes that PMCs have vastly expanded in size and function in recent decades as a result of three historical trends. First, the end of the Cold War sparked a worldwide decline in the number of troops needed by major superpowers. Second, the nature of warfare became much more chaotic and dynamic, with a range of violent regional conflict fueled by the availability of cheap and deadly arms, such as the wars in Rwanda and Kosovo. Third, many governments outsourced their responsibilities by means of privatization. Services previously provided by the public sector, including education, policing, and most importantly, warfare, were opened to the private sector in an effort to reduce costs through market competition. These trends produced an explosion in the use and functions of PMCs, most notably during the U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; since 2009, the ratio of contractors to U.S. troops in war zones has increased from 1-to-1 to roughly 3-to-1. And in 2015, the Pentagon distributed $274 billion to federal contractors, an amount equal to seven percent of all mandatory and discretionary federal spending. Outsourcing military operations to PMCs do provide certain benefits, such as covering logistics and support for the U.S. military, reducing the number of U.S. casualties, and expanding America’s military capability to engage in multiple conflict areas. Simultaneously, the amount of resources spent on PMCs has produced mixed results in resolving America’s conflicts in the Middle East, as indicated by President Trump’s announcement for an additional 4,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and the instability of present-day Iraq. Several factors related to the expansion of PMCs hamper the U.S. military’s ability to resolve conflicts, specifically the reduced oversight of private soldiers, the loss of international credibility, and the profit motive of PMCs.

FOG OF WAR One of the most difficult challenges related to the use of PMCs is the issue of oversight and transparency. Issues of mismanagement can range from financial wastefulness to serious casualties. While military officers control the actions of military personnel and government civilians, their control over individual contractor personnel is less clear. Military personnel are subject to criminal punishment if they disobey an order, whereas the responsibilities of contractors are set in a fixed written contract. Tangential to the problem of oversight is the lack of transparency related to the use of PMCs. PMC contracts are not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests to maintain the confidentiality of operations, but this practice essentially bans public access to important data, such as the number of contractor casualties. Without a clear chain of command in place or public, and with little accountability to the public, the current level of regulations placed upon PMCs disrupts the effectiveness of American operations and challenges the current standard of public trust in the U.S. military.

“The profit incentives of PMCs, as private entities, do not always align with the public good.”

“The United States’ heavy reliance on PMCs has hurt the country’s credibility and thus poses a threat to security partnerships between the U.S. and its allies.” MONEY AND POWER The profit incentives of PMCs, as private entities, do not always align with the public good. Several firms, including Halliburton and Custer Battles, have been accused of war-profiteering and overcharging for services, undermining their purpose as cost-saving companies. The growth of the PMC industry also reduces the overall strength of the traditional U.S. military as experienced soldiers are drawn to lucrative jobs within private security firms, with some firms offering former Army Green Berets and Navy Seals up to four times the U.S. military salary. The issue of the profit motive, in conjunction with the lack of oversight, unsettles America’s tradition of a civilian-controlled military and poaches talented soldiers from the the U.S. military.

CONTRACTORS TO COWBOYS

EMERGING VICTORIOUS

The lack of stronger oversight is directly linked to the second issue concerning the rise of PMCs: the risk of losing international credibility as a result of contractors turning into loose cannons. This issue was most notoriously exposed when a squadron of private Blackwater contractors killed 17 civilians at a Baghdad traffic circle in September of 2007, provoking an intense anti-American backlash across Iraq.

America’s strategy of addressing a variety of conflicts around the globe has embedded PMCs deep within US military strategy. Given the rigorous demands of maintaining such a strategy, PMCs are still needed to support American forces abroad. However, America’s insatiable appetite for private security contractors cannot remain unchecked.

America’s reputation was further eroded by the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in which the majority of the interrogators were employees of CACI International, a private military firm contracted by the U.S. Department of Defense. Given the complexity and dangers of modern terrorist networks, sharing intelligence and resources is critical for successful counterterrorism operations. The United States’ heavy reliance on PMCs has hurt the country’s credibility and thus poses a threat to security partnerships between the U.S. and its allies.

The dramatic rise in the use of PMCs has placed our military in an undesirable position of dependency upon these companies and hampers the military’s ability to resolve ongoing conflicts. Issues of oversight and war-profiteering must be resolved in order for PMCs to function appropriately and effectively alongside America’s military.

FREE MONEY henry tolchard

ARE APPROACHING A TIME WHEN MACHINES “ WE WILL BE ABLE TO OUTPERFORM HUMANS AT ALMOST ANY TASK ... SOCIETY NEEDS TO CONFRONT THIS QUESTION BEFORE IT IS UPON US: IF MACHINES ARE CAPABLE OF DOING ALMOST ANY WORK HUMANS CAN DO, WHAT WILL HUMANS DO?

”

asked Moshe Vardi, expert and professor of computer science at Rice University. The question is legitimate, and the political leaders of our future will have to answer.

Universal basic income, or UBI, may ap-

pear to be a leftist utopian ideal, but its fundamental ideology is rooted in free-market capitalism, and therefore, when forced to propose a solution for extreme unemployment, it will likely become part of the political right’s policy platform. UBI initiatives, and closely related policies, have already enjoyed some support on the right. Milton Friedman, American economist and champion of a free market economic system with minimal government intervention, supported a ‘negative income tax.’ The tax would replace the existing social welfare bureaucracy, derided by politicians and thinkers on the right, with a cash donation to every citizen. Friedman’s system distinguished itself from other flat-gift systems by scaling the money awarded back proportionally as a citizen earned money.

FOR EVERYONE

historic capitalist support Friedrich Hayek, Austrian-British economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism, also supported the idea of a minimum income. He wrote in 1979 that “the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society.” The motivation for Hayek in supporting this proto-UBI system is not one of egalitarianism, according to UC San Diego philosophy professor and libertarian Matt Zwolinski, but rather for protection from coercion. Because the autonomous self is the greatest goal for a libertarian, an individual’s actions are key to ensuring that autonomy. The coercive power of an employer to force the worker to support policies they do not like, or undergo other things that they disagree with, mean that an individual’s need for financial security will always be a concern for libertarian goals of autonomy. Since freedom, expressed as personal liberty, is the ultimate goal of libertarianism, libertarians “will want some mechanism that catches those who fall through the cracks left by imperfect market competition” says Zwolinski.

“A basic income gives people an option ... allow[ing] them to escape subjection to the will of others. It enables them to say “no” to proposals that only extreme desperation would ever drive them to accept. It allows them to govern their lives according to their own plans, their own goals, and their own desires. It enables them to be free.” This rhetoric of “be[ing] free” is the type of freedom that, according to libertarians, allows individuals under a basic income to escape the societal forces that reduce their autonomy. Taxes, overreaching government control, and even societal norms are all constraints on individual liberty. In the workplace, and any part of society that is affected by microeconomic coercion, a UBI would allow people to avoid control and unjustified authority. When UBI is considered as a liberating policy, rather than a social safety net, its appeal to the libertarian right is more clear.

“A massively unemployed underclass” Conservatives will, however, generally avoid expanding government social programs if they can avoid it. However, the future of automation and unemployment will lead to massive amounts of political unrest, forcing each party to offer its own solution. Conservatives will not be able to let the free market solve, like they have advocated for in the past, when the free market deprives their voters of jobs. In a rigorous 2013 study, researchers Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne examined 702 occupations and found that 47% of Americans jobs are at high risk of being automated. For example, the study says that workers in transportation and office support could in the future be replaced by “computer capital” and workers in sales and services are also susceptible to computerization. As self-driving cars become a closer and closer reality, and advanced computer programs enhance their self-diagnostic abilities, this is hardly a surprise. As technology develops, more can be produced with less labor, leading to shortages in employment. Moshe Vardi, professor of computer science at Rice University, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that “we are approaching a time when machines will be able to outperform humans at almost any task...I believe that society needs to confront this question before it is upon us: if machines are capable of doing almost any work humans can do, what will humans do?” McKinsey & Company, considered by The New York Times to be the most prestigious management consulting firm in the world, said that “as many as 45 percent of the activities individuals are paid to perform can be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technologies. In the United States, these activities represent about $2 trillion in annual wages.” They clarified that these losses affect not only low-skilled or low-paid workers, but also higher-paid occupations like CEOs and physicians. Polina Kolozaridi, a researcher at the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, wrote that unemployment caused by automation “will lead to a decrease in people’s income unless governments elaborate some way of dealing with it. This might be a reason for big social changes — not always a revolution, but — in some places — a revolution as well.” Democrats are already shifting their political platform to appeal to populist working-class concerns. Republicans, and others on the right, will do the same in the future when they are forced to confront the future problem of rising unemployment brought on by automation.

incentives for the right The political right will have a plethora of options to choose from to deal with the emerging social problem of mass unemployment, and UBI’s elimination of government bureaucracy will be a major reason for the small-government coalition’s support of it. According to the libertarian CATO Institute policy think tank, “UBI would completely eliminate the current welfare state — a sprawling and bureaucratic morass — and replace it with a single redistributive program that would provide a monthly payment to everyone.” This simplicity and cutting of red tape is attractive to small-government advocates. Food stamps, housing assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or “welfare,” could all be eliminated and replaced by a small administration sending out uniformly distributed checks on a regular basis. In a large government bureaucracy, “distinguishing between the deserving and undeserving is difficult business, and requires a variety of invasive, demoralizing, and degrading inspections into the intimate details of applicants’ lives,” the CATO institute says. Although progressives may prefer programs that address marginalized populations — the poor, people of color, etc. — the ability to send out a uniform check with the same amount paid to everyone, regardless of social location, will be in conservatives’ favor. Progressives will in the future no doubt suggest programs to combat automation that expand the government bureaucracy to support unemployed workers, but such programs will only be met with distaste by conservatives. A consistent program that gives the same payment to everyone will be far more preferable to conservatives. In addition to eliminating government bloat, UBI will become attractive on the right in large part for its support of basic free market policies. When libertarians approach a given policy problem, they take a given policy’s incorporation of larger free

market principles into account. Avik Roy, libertarian journalist and policy advisor, in his healthcare proposal, noted that “the plan has its roots in real-world examples of market-oriented, cost-effective health reform” for a reason. The Senate Republicans’ recently approved budget utilizes a calculation called “dynamic scoring,” which assumes that reduced taxes will generate substantial economic growth. The free market has always been the crown jewel of the political right. UBI directly supports those free market instincts by placing the distribution of resources in the hands of the supply-and-demand market rather than a centrally administrated government program. People will use their UBI money to purchase goods and services on the free market, through private competing companies. This supports the supply-and-demand model of distribution of goods through buying and selling in the free market. The distribution of the UBI will be uniform and simple, but the application of those distributed funds by individuals will be entirely through the free market, perfectly embodying the ideology of the political right. It may seem counter-intuitive for the right to support such an expensive program, but recent shifts in the Republican party may change that. Senate Republicans approved a budget that will increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Donald Trump’s wall will cost $21.6 billion according to an internal U.S. Department of Homeland Security report. The Republicans are not exactly the deficit and debt-hawks that they used to be. Additionally, Republicans can portray UBI as paying for itself. The left-leaning Roosevelt Institute think tank reported that a UBI paid for by increasing the debt would expand the economy by 12.56% over the baseline after eight years. This would amount to an increase of about $2.5 trillion by 2025.

UBI is not the only solution that has been proposed to solve mass poverty, however. Universal basic services, or UBS, offers a more bureaucratic approach. In a UBS system, basic needs such as housing, education, healthcare, and food are all provided directly by the government. Proponents also argue that this would alleviate the societal harms of automation, since unemployment would not necessitate a life of resource poverty. In future political alignments, progressives would be more likely to support this type of solution. For one, It would not entail the elimination of government programs that the left has sought to expand and protect for decades. Additionally, the left will be more receptive to a program that administers aid through the government rather than through the free market. This is why the left, in their ideal world, would rather support a single-payer healthcare system rather than a fully subsidized private insurance model. UBS provides the central control and planning that liberals want when implementing programs to alleviate societal harms. The future will inevitably lead to mass unemployment as automation replaces more and more of the work we humans currently do. Conservatives and liberals will each provide a solution, or risk political catastrophe. Only time can tell, but the basic principles of UBI align well with modern conservative politics.

Sanctuary Showdown: Jerry Brown vs. Donald Trump ODYSSEUS PYRINIS

On October 5, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown openly defied

the federal government. With the passage of State Senate Bill 54, California became a sanctuary state in direct defiance of President Donald Trump’s stringent immigration policies. However, while this seemingly appears to be a bold and unprecedented action on the part of California, the idea of sanctuary legislation, at least within cities, is not a new concept. The first city in the United States to pass a sanctuary resolution was Berkeley on November 8, 1971. This resolution mainly applied to Navy sailors avoiding the Vietnam War, forbidding city employees from assisting the federal government in enforcing federal law through the draft. The concept of sanctuary legislation itself created a path for cities such as Los Angeles becoming today’s traditional sanctuaries as early as 1979 in response to the mass influx of immigration from poverty and violence-stricken Latin American countries. In modern times, a sanctuary city refers to a city which has adopted sanctuary legislation, or policies which forbid city officials from prosecuting undocumented individuals. Typically, sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with federal efforts, specifically with organizations such as ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which seek to identify and deport illegal immigrants. While California has become a sanctuary state, others have done the opposite: declaring themselves as states that have outright banned “sanctuary cities” within their borders. States such as Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama, and South Carolina are just a few states that have joined the ranks in their commitment to opposing this idea. Indeed, this showdown between states is perhaps a microcosm of the nation-wide polarization on immigration policy. Clarifying this conflict is the increasing tension that California’s new policy will bring to the table as the Trump administration responds to this development. Even prior to the passage of this legislation, or even its consideration, President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions vowed to “strip funding from sanctuary cities.” Aligning with this statement, after a proposal had been brought forth in the state legislature for California to become a sanctuary state, President Trump responded by saying that “If we have to, we’ll defund [California].” He went on to add that though he does not “want to defund a state or a city, if they’re going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that. Certainly that would be a weapon.” But in light of President Trump’s comments, an important

question to ask is whether his stance on immigration policy is as stringent as it appears? While his rhetoric may be one thing, do the numbers illustrate a different story? To date, Barack Obama has deported the greatest number of illegal immigrants compared to any other president — over 5 million over his two terms in office despite publicly expressing his sympathy of America’s broken immigration system and the pain caused by separating families through deportations. In lieu of this statistic, is Donald Trump all that stringent in his immigration policy? Opponents of Trump’s immigration reform suggest that the January 25, 2017 executive order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” incorporates vague language that expands the criteria for determining deportations, though Section 5 distinctly specifies to target illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony or criminal offense. Nevertheless, President Trump has been attempting to reach a compromise with Democrats in both chambers of Congress, offering protection for immigrants identified as DREAMers in exchange for funding to build the wall. While it appears that the Trump administration’s current deportation rates are lower than President Obama’s, Governor Jerry Brown still issued a statement acknowledging the controversy of this bill’s passage. In explanation, he argued that the intention of the new law is not to prevent state and local authorities from targeting criminals, but rather to protect hard-working immigrants who are productive in society but do not possess citizenship in the United States. Since California is the first sanctuary state, some of the logistics of enforcing this protection for illegal immigrants seems to be in conflict. Rallies were held in Los Angeles in front of the L.A. County Sheriff ’s department as information was leaked that the department had collaborated with federal immigration officials, providing ICE with inmate information. Consequently, ICE now has access to a constantly updated system of inmates regarding prisoners soon to be released. On another note, just because California is now a sanctuary state does not mean that illegal immigrants can rejoice in never fearing deportation. The Senate Bill 54 only limits local and state authorities’ cooperation with federal immigration agents. California cannot prevent ICE from increasing their presence in California and continuing deportations. Regardless of the outcome of this showdown, however, California has done one thing: it has solidified its reputation as being at the forefront of progressive politics and an openly defiant stance against our current federal administration.

California’s Other Water Problem BY LAUREN GLASBY

Carolina Garcia and her family live in a vibrant, close-knit com-

munity about a mile outside of Sanger, California. She has fruit trees flourishing in her backyard, chickens and sheep frolicking outside her house, and four beautiful children with another on the way. She seems just like any other Californian, except for the fact that her family, and most of her neighborhood, is exposed to unsafe drinking water. Her community is not alone: small, rural areas exist in almost all of California’s 58 counties, and nearly all experience contaminated water. About 300 communities across California have lacked access to this right for over a decade. Flint’s contamination problem, which has been grabbing headlines for years, has recently been declared resolved. Yet over one million rural Californians, more than 10 times the population of Flint, still lack access to potable water. The problem is, hardly anyone knows about the issue. California deemed access to safe and affordable drinking water a human right in 2012, but the state continuously fails to provide this basic necessity to many residents. While the rest of the state worries about the “little things,” like the grass in their lawns going brown, affected communities such as Garcia’s worry about

$21 billion. But nitrates from fertilizers and livestock production runoff seep into the groundwater and ultimately into the wells of rural Californians. As a result, hard-working Californians like Carolina Garcia are denied a fundamental human right. By brushing the clean-drinking-water issue under the rug, California politicians disproportionately hurt low-income farmers. Rural residents are forced to spend high portions of their income on bottled water in order to safely drink, wash, and cook. The Community Water Center found that some families in these areas are paying up to 10 percent of their income on water alone. And tainted water affects more than just households. Schools are forced to spend already limited resources on bottled water. By not being able to invest resources in books, school supplies, and teachers, Garcia’s children, and the other children in her community, are denied the quality of education received by children in urban areas. This further limits their ability to move into cities where economic opportunities, and safe water, are more abundant.

PEXEL

not having water to drink. Particularly in rural areas, high levels of arsenic and nitrates contaminate the water. These chemicals are shown to cause “cancer, nervous system decline, miscarriages and reduced mental functioning in children.” Unlike large urban areas, rural communities often lack the resources to maintain and operate water supply systems. Rather than utility districts, which can treat and provide water for multiple cities, people living in rural areas typically use personal wells to distribute water. The well owners are unable to properly treat the water and remove the harmful chemicals without the funding of a large utility district. As a result, much of the water from these wells exceeds the maximum contaminant levels set by the EPA. Farming plays a large role in contaminating the water, yet California state officials seem to prioritize the returns of agricultural production over the burdens placed on these rural populations. Cash receipts for California agriculture totaled over $47 billion in 2015, and exports totaled almost

California officials also neglect the issue of contaminated water due to the race and legal standing of those impacted. Many of the impacted live in poor farming communities whose population is up to 95 percent Latino and largely undocumented. Communities can attempt to resolve their situation by applying for federal funds under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but without legal status, these people are unable to apply for the funding. Additionally, rural communities have received no guarantee that they will receive the funding from the government. To worsen matters, since those affected by the contaminated water are generally poor, rural Latinos, and undocumented immigrants, they lack the political power to fight back against big agriculture and to pressure the government to incite change. However, Latino political power is growing, and people are now taking notice of the clean drinking water crisis in California. The government has started to take action with Senate Bill 623 that would tax farmers for fertilizer use and add a modest fee to urban water bills. The California Water Foundation recently found that 72% of Californians would be willing to pay an extra dollar on their monthly water bill to help fix these contaminated systems and provide potable water to these communities. A state with California’s wealth — it is the fifth-largest economy in the world — should not continue to deny the poor or rural this fundamental human right. But, without strong support from the government and voters, over one million Californians will continue to bear the burden of unsafe drinking water, something the rest of the state takes for granted.

Mauritania

A PLACE OF CONTINUING SLAVERY

TOM KADIE

Moulkheir Mint Yarba tends goats in the Sahara Desert

and works long hours in the sun for little to no pay. Yarba constantly fears the prospect of rape and on one day, upon returning home, she found that her master had left her young infant out in the sun to die. Following the death of her child, she requested a break from her work to bury her child. Her master denied the request and immediately required Yarba to return to work. When one listens to Yarba’s story, one calls to mind the experiences of slaves in the Antebellum South. Yet, Yarba did not live in 1850’s Alabama. Yarba’s story comes to us from Mauritania today. More than thirty years after its official abolition, slavery remains deeply rooted in Mauritania’s culture. According to Gulnara Shahinian, the UN’s special rapporteur on slavery, slaves constitute 10% to 20% of Mauritania’s population. While Mauritania abolished slavery in 1981 and criminalized it in 2007, rates of slavery still remain high. Ineffective law enforcement partly causes this problem. Despite laws against slavery, there has been only one successful prosecution. However, while one should recognize law enforcement’s failures, larger cultural issues contribute more to slavery’s legitimization. The problem starts with laws prohibiting the discussion of slavery’s existence. When questioned about slavery, Brahim Ould M’Bareck Ould Med El Moctar, the minister of rural development, responded that, “All people are free in Mauritania and this phenomenon (of slavery) no longer exists.”

ATI

“Indeed, the government actively dedicates resources to prevent the discussion of slavery in the Western press.” When journalists from CNN interviewed anti-slavery activists, they were compelled to conduct their interviews secretly because otherwise, a government minder from the Ministry of Communications would monitor discussions to prevent the mentioning of slavery. Indeed, anti-slavery activists report that they have been arrested and tortured for their work. Consequently, slavery denialism’s prevalence has prevented resistance to slavery. Moreover, the politicization of Mauritania’s census undermines measurements of the number of people enslaved. Erin Pettigrew, professor of history and Arab crossroads studies at NYU Abu Dhabi, notes that even as the government conducts a census for the first time in decades, certain groups such as the Haratin, Soninke, Wolof, and Pular believe that the government has done everything possible to prevent their participation in the census. This systematic exclusion from the census explains the disparity in the estimates of the number of slaves. While the Global Slavery Index claims that the enslaved population amounts to 43,000, SOS slavery puts the number at 600,000. Because Haratins claim descent from slaves, the political nature of the census has undermined anti-slavery activists’ attempts to accurately measure the slave population’s size.

Furthermore, neither racial discrimination nor the historical model of chattel slavery defines slavery in Mauritania. While Mauritanian slavery has racial aspects, those racial aspects lack the importance that they possessed in the context of American chattel slavery. Historically, both Arab-appearing people and people who would appear black to Americans have owned black slaves. As a result, while slavery’s victims were from a single racial group, slavery’s beneficiaries have come from multiple racial backgrounds. This fact challenges the conception that racial discrimination necessarily plays a role in all aspects of slavery since some blacks benefited from slavery. Mauritanian anti-slavery activism cannot indict slavery through appeals to the practice’s racism. Rather, challenges must start with the unethical nature of coerced labor. Indeed, the trans-Saharan slave trade’s historical legacy explains the contemporary immunity of those of Arab descent from slavery. Since the 8th century, human traffickers have brought people across the Sahara to North Africa and often into Europe. With the growth of Arab socio-economic and political power over Mauritania and the rest of the region, Arabs gained the power to enslave other racial groups. Pettigrew notes that enslavement was justified on religious grounds. Arab slavers argued that people from the lands south of the Sahara were not sufficiently pious in their Muslim faith. Even today, supporters of slavery popularly use such appeals in Mauritanian political discourse to support slavery’s perpetuation. Simultaneously, Mauritanian slavery does not fit the American model of slavery. When Americans think of slavery, they think of chattel slavery, where masters physically purchase slaves and slaves work on plantations. Americans understand slavery in terms of hard coercion, where masters physically prevent slaves from leaving with brutal force if necessary. In contrast, Pettigrew notes that soft coercion informs the features and logic of Mauritanian slavery. In Mauritania, relationships between slave and master lack reciprocity, but do not always involve the physical force constitutive of chattel slavery. Mauritanian slaves enter into such unfair relationships voluntarily. However, they do not receive a living wage or humane working conditions or regular payment. High rates of unemployment supercharge this problem by causing slaves to lack alternatives. Even with a massive slave population, Mauritania’s unemployment rate hovers around 12 percent. Anti-slavery activists must answer the complicated question of what to do with slaves in the absence of slavery. Thus, because of the difficulty of recognizing the soft coercion of Mauritanian slavery, law enforcement faces challenges in prosecuting slave owners. Similarly, because one cannot articulate the immorality of Mauritanian slavery in terms of race, the international

“Anti-slavery activists will need to design their strategies with a full understanding of the problem; with an understaning of slavery’s complexity in Mauritania, activists can move forward to challenge not just the laws that support human bondage, but also the cultural norms that serve as its foundation.” community has not pressured Mauritania to end the practice. Even as labor unions such as the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Labor, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations have called for the removal of Mauritania from the group of countries that benefit from the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the U.S. has still refused to forbid Mauritania from benefiting from the Act. The Act allows African countries that uphold human rights to export goods duty-free to U.S. markets. As a result, the U.S. has lacked the courage to hold the Mauritanian government accountable. Yet, even as the horrifying condition of slavery persists in Mauritania, anti-slavery activists should focus on the systemic factors that incentivize slavery and not on particular individuals’ character. When faced with norms that support slavery’s proliferation, Mauritanians may find it difficult to reject the culture of slavery. Challenges cannot center on the immorality of slave owners. Rather, the anti-slavery movement must focus on the legal and cultural factors that render slavery all but inevitable. Additionally, since discussion of slavery’s immorality is functionally illegal in Mauritania, learning about the arguments against slavery’s permissibility has become difficult. Campaigns against slavery must be careful to demonize legal and cultural systems that legitimize oppression and not particular individuals within those structures of power. Overall, various factors coalesce to facilitate Mauritanian slavery’s continuation. While the Mauritanian government’s failure to enforce anti-slavery laws has played an important role, prohibitions on the topic’s discussion, the politically-motivated census, and the fact that Mauritanian slavery does not fit traditional models of coercion have all contributed to the practice’s maintenance in a more insidious manner. Anti-slavery activists will need to design their strategies with a full understanding of the problem; with an understanding of slavery’s complexity in Mauritania, activists can move forward to challenge not just the laws that support human bondage, but also the cultural norms that serve as its foundation.

CHANCE BORECZKY

STILL STUCK IN THE COLD WAR? Sputnik International

TURKEY, NATO, RUSSIA, AND THE ART OF PATRONAGE

Russia announces new arms deals almost daily, and

successfully completes them nearly as often. But the sale of Russian arms to a NATO member is a strikingly rare event. Last month, Turkey signed an agreement to purchase the S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile system from Russia, following in the footsteps of Belarus, Algeria, and China, all of whom are longtime buyers of Russian equipment. Both the Turkish decision to seek the deal and the Russian decision to make the sale seem inscrutable, but only on the surface. In public statements, Istanbul has emphasized that the purchase is vital to improve their air defense capabilities and thus their national security. From this perspective, they have made a fine choice. The S-400 is Russia’s newest air defense system, with potent capabilities against aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. Each of the four batteries Turkey is purchasing is completely self-contained, obviating the need to supplement the new missile with any of their existing, highly outdated air defense equipment. The deal also includes a provision for technology transfer, under which Turkey will import half of the order from Russia and produce the other half domestically. Given the country’s recent turn towards domestic arms manufacturing, this will provide invaluable experience.

Turkey’s true reasons to pursue this agreement, however, are more complex. It would not be left vulnerable without the S-400. Its air force is much larger than Iraq’s, its relations with Iran are relatively smooth, and while its relationship with Greece is tense, both countries are NATO members. Indeed, the only recent threat from the air has been the violation of Turkish airspace near the Syrian border, ironically by Russian planes. These incursions culminated in the shootdown of a Russian Su-24 in 2015. Turkey has also shot down three Syrian government aircraft for airspace violations. Russia and its close ally Syria have been more respectful of the border since 2015, but the decision to purchase Russian equipment remains highly unusual. There is also a major concern about stray missiles from within Syria landing inside Turkish borders, but Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands have all deployed air and missile defenses along the border. Germany and the United States formerly had missiles deployed as well, but chose to remove them in 2015. That decision spurred Turkey to improve its air defenses; it had announced, in July, that it planned to purchase the French SAMP/T air defense system for its future needs. The decision to acquire the S-400 instead would not be inexplicable, even if there were no political motivations; officials in charge of military procurement, in Turkey as elsewhere, are reliably fickle and often change their plans on short

notice. But the recent and highly publicized spats between Erdogan and German officials, and the EU’s punitive measures in response, are the underlying reason for the decision to buy Russian. With this move, Turkey is retaliating against the EU’s limitations on arms exports, demonstrating that it is not dependent on NATO for its defense needs. The purchase fits into an ever-lengthening series of rebuffs towards the West, which reached a new level recently with the suspension of most visa services between the United States and Turkey, and show no signs of abating. Russia’s reasoning for the sale is similarly complex. The Russian government continues to be heavily reliant on arms sales for its income, but there is usually no shortage of customers, and the decision to export to NATO gives off a faint scent of desperation. Russia must also face the possibility that some of the S-400 systems will be whisked away to a base in the Nevada desert at some point, or at least very closely examined by NATO intelligence personnel. The United States “acquired” a great deal of Russian equipment from former Warsaw Pact countries after 1989, and even if the sales agreement prohibits this, it will be nearly unenforceable if relations between Turkey and NATO return to normal. Ultimately, the only way the sale makes sense from the Russian perspective is if Russia does not expect Turkey to remain a close NATO ally for long. Thus, the arms deal is likely an attempt to pry Turkey further away from its close relationship with NATO, building on a series of diplomatic moves including personal negotiations between Erdogan and Vladimir Putin.

generally lacks regional influence in the Middle East. Moreover, Russia will likely prioritize its relations with Syria over those with Turkey, and has not shown the inclination to resolve the two countries’ border disputes. If Turkey falls in line with Russia, it may find itself stuck with an impotent and reluctant new partner, as well as a set of very alienated former allies. But it is far more likely that Turkey is playing both sides. Erdogan surely has not forgotten the past tensions with Russia, and the continuing disagreements going forward: the future of Syria and Russian access to the Black Sea, principally. Russia seems confident that Turkey’s split with the EU will naturally make it more receptive to diplomatic overtures from Moscow, but that is far from guaranteed. Russian influence in Turkey does not necessarily trade off with EU influence; as long as the major EU states see Turkey as a potentially valuable partner, they are unlikely to totally abandon it simply on 31 account of its association with Russia. Turkey can thus extract concessions and favorable treatment from Russia in exchange for Russia’s perception of increased influence, and return to the EU fold whenever convenient or whenever the EU offers it greater concessions.

“Russia is simply not the patron state that it once was, and has relatively little to offer; besides the situation in Syria, there are few issues of mutual interest”

If the Turkish leadership really intends to reciprocate these overtures, it is likely headed for disappointment. Russia is simply not the patron state that it once was, and has relatively little to offer; besides the situation in Syria, there are few issues of mutual interest. In contrast, there are substantial grounds for cooperation with the EU, even with the current animosity between Erdogan and Germany. Turkey’s trade with the EU far outstrips that with Russia, and Russia

All told, the S-400 sale makes perfect sense considering the broader interests of both parties. Turkey can show its determination to act independently of NATO, and Russia can work towards its ambitions of regional hegemony in the Middle East. But with Turkey’s deep economic ties to the European Union, Russia’s strategic weakness, and the continuing grounds for contention between the new partners, the relationship will not remain beneficial to both sides for long. Turkey seems to realize this fact. Russia will ignore it at its peril.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

The Kangaroo Court of Social Media JOHN RIDER Michael Hamill rose and fell over six years, then three days. The ethics of his rise and fall provide a challenging case for exploring the dissolving barrier that separated public and private life, as well as raising important questions that need to be interrogated regarding mob justice in the digital age. Hamill’s story begins with an attractive selfie aiding in Irma recovery operations posted on Sept. 10th. It practically begged for attention. Unfortunately for him, this attention brought scrutiny when it resulted in two anti-Semitic Facebook posts referencing the Holocaust from four and six years ago emerging. The exposure of these posts resulted in Hamill’s suspension pending investigation.

Was it right for Michael Hamill to be exposed for Anti-Semitism? Was it right for the City of Gainesville’s police force to then fire him?

as a fifth of his life. What’s more, they were presumably made with the expectation of semi-privacy on a personal Facebook page. Considering the case through a more abstracted lens makes the case less clear-cut; an individual is sexualized while working, that sexualization results in meme-status, and one observer pries into said individual’s digital footprint to find reprehensible behavior from over half a decade ago. That reprehensible behavior is brought to light, a mass-shaming ensues, and the individual is dismissed.

We as the participantaudience then get to feel good for having taught the individual a lesson and for having issued their sentence for the crime, as judge, jury, and executioner.

This abstraction doesn’t excuse Hamill, but it allows for interrogation of the ethics of the shaming itself. Suppose that he gets a new job and turns his life around, correcting the anger and vitriol that inspired these posts. This hypothetical improvement is lost in the public shaming. What is out cannot be revoked. The public cannot unknow Hamill as an anti-Semite, and he is irreparably and permanently associated with the evil of those posts. Any room for improvement is extinguished. This is not to excuse Hamill, though; he could be terrible person. We simply cannot know, however, because the second he is outed it doesn’t

The first question begets, in my mind, a resounding initial “yes.” There is an obvious moral case for removing Hamill from the force: anti-Semitic racism and racism wholesale, are impermissible, and it should be made clear that neither are to be tolerated. Still, there are details that complicate this moral justification: these posts are older than Hamill’s tenure in the police force, and are distanced from Hamill now by as much

Gainsville Police Department Facebook

matter what the truth is: the truth was presumed and acted upon, and the punishment was doled out. This sort of mob justice — sentencing and punishment by seething internet-armies — is not unique. One might remember Justine Sacco’s life imploding after an offensive post made her a target. In both cases there ought to have been a semi-expectation of privacy, though the two are not equivalent cases: in one, a woman’s life was torn apart because she had no adequate platform by which to explain what, by her account, was a joke initially intended to be viewed by a handful of people. In another, no explanation has been offered nor is possible. In both cases, however, prosecution was carried out without the possibility of defense on the presumption of evil. Abstraction complicates the moral case: do these two posts reflect Hamill today and warrant the public debasement he’s now receiving? One could argue either way, leaving no certain answer to the question of whether or not Michael Hamill’s shaming, and his ensuing suspension, was a just course of action. There is, however, another reading that ought to be considered regarding the suspension consequent to this shaming, distinct of the justice of the shaming itself. For this one must interpret the interaction between a cop and his or her policed body of people as a collaborative production. For this reading especially, I turn to the work of Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter in his work The Strength of Weak Ties. In theory, both the police and their policed bodies can be read as firms that cooperate with one another in creating a product: harmonious society. Under this reading, police officers should serve in a metaphorically productive capacity, “shaping” society. The communities they serve provide the raw-material “society” to be shaped. Efficient interactions between these firms necessitates a great deal of trust. Police cannot effectively “shape” society if that society does not trust the police to fairly and

effectively do so. What’s more, this trust is necessary “not only at the top levels… but at all levels where transactions must take place”: this is a semi-articulation of Granovetter’s overarching argument of “embeddedness”: rational action does not exist in some plane separate of preexisting social ties, and individuals do not merely “forget” social interaction when it comes to marketized interaction. In light of embeddedness, all constituent police officers within the institution of “The Police” therefore have a burden to uphold a façade of trustworthiness: the embedded social ties between the police and their policed-body allow for more efficacious policing so long as it remains positive. Hamill’s public shaming introduces friction. How can a policed body trust police who are demonstrably racist? A Jewish individual cannot meaningfully trust an anti-Semite. Had these posts remained hidden, perhaps this friction would’ve never come about, but their public exposure forces the City of Gainesville’s hand. In order to efficiently police, the friction must be removed. This is a flawless example of negative-embeddedness: the social interaction of the racist with those who find racism unpalatable prevents even “rational” interaction. In a Granovetterian reading, Hamill needed to be suspended, irrefutably. To keep him on without acknowledging the unfortunate externality of his racist posting-past would be to keep friction that burdens the production of harmonious society. Thus, regardless of the ethics of publicizing Hamill’s past, once his private life was made public Hamill’s fate was sealed.

of the public shaming are questionable at best, and evocative of mob-justice vigilantism at worst. I do believe, however, that the firing of Michael Hamill was not only ethical but in fact was a necessity.

The police as a body ought to protect those populations who cannot protect themselves from incursions upon their rights, and that includes the same minority groups that Michael Hamill saw fit to target four and six years ago. This irony has real consequences on the trust that is required for meaningful interaction between police and their policed bodies. What we must now ask is not whether or not this sequence of events was ethical, but whether or not the whole ethos of mob-justice endemic to social media is ethical. To that question, I think the answer is “no,” and we ought to spend more time interrogating ourselves before we deem ourselves appropriate jurors in public opinion cases such as that which decided Michael Hamill’s fate.

So one can return to the question: was this ethical? I earnestly believe – and this is in no way to defend an anti-Semite — that the ethics

d n u F To

t t o

d n u F o

N r o H

ow should society determine its priorities? Should government invest only in services that yield a quantifiable, measurable benefit? Or, should government also recognize the importance of things that, while gratifying to the soul, are not as clearly utilitarian? For decades, the arts have been lumped in with the second category. Museums, theaters, galleries, and other non-profit arts centers, while appreciated for providing enlightening pastimes, are rarely thought of as bastions of critical economic activity. The stereotype is particularly exacerbated by the job prospects facing those with arts degrees. Empirical consensus suggests that in the

IA ST BA

LL MI

modern economy, STEM degrees are generally more valuable, and arts degrees are a riskier investment for college students. Per Georgetown University, “unemployment rates are generally higher in non-technical majors, such as the Arts (11.1 percent), Humanities and Liberal Arts (9.4 percent), Social Science (8.9 percent), and Law and Public Policy (8.1 percent).”

Yet, it would be a mistake to conflate the disappointing employment numbers associated with arts degrees with the economic value of the arts as a whole. The Trump administration is currently among those making this mistake. In its proposed budget, the Trump administration made devastating cuts to government-sponsored arts programs, presumably because they aren’t worth the investment. While the House Appropriations Committee has since rejected such cuts, the attempt made by the Trump administration reflects a general disdain for the arts — and a belief that they simply don’t pull their weight. In reality, the Trump administration could not be

fon

e cha

more incorrect; the arts industry contributes far more to the economy than most people, including Mr. Trump, realize. A national study published by Americans for the Arts (the data for which was verified by several independent university groups) found that the nonprofit arts industry produces $166.3 billion in economic activity every year. Of the revenue produced, $63.8 billion is produced by the industry itself through tickets, concession sales, and merchandise. However, the rest of the revenue—a whopping $102.5 billion—is produced through event-related expenditures. Folks who go to the theater don’t generally only go to the theater; they buy dinner, go shopping around town, and purchase nice clothes and gifts before the night even begins. In short, the arts are unique in their ability to produce expensive date nights. Arts events give people reason to spend a night out on the town enjoying the outdoors and, more importantly to the utilitarian, investing in the local economy through their consumerism. On average, an attendee spends $31.47 per event beyond the cost of admission. That number jumps to $47.57 per event for attendees coming from outside of the theater’s county, a group that comprises roughly 34% of all attendees. So, not only do arts events bring locals to the theater, but they bring outside business to the county—consumers that ordinarily would have no reason to bring their business outside of their local economy. The Trump administration may argue that other economic sectors produce more jobs, yet the study also found that the $166.3 billion produced by the nonprofit arts industry manifests into supporting 4.6 million jobs, which are highly resistant to outsourcing. So, while STEM investment helps bolster rapid economic growth, arts funding uniquely supports local communities, and in particular builds longer-lasting lines of investment into smaller businesses.

This amounts to 4.2% of the United States’ GDP — a larger share of the economy than transportation, tourism, agriculture, and construction. As the agencies the Trump administration wishes to cut—the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities—assist both commercial and nonprofit arts institutions, the proposed cuts would put a damper on the entire three-quarters of a trillion dollar industry. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the combined budgets of the NEA and the NEH do not exceed $300 million, meaning that the tremendous economic value produced by the arts comes at a very low cost to the federal government.

“the arts provide a fulfilling and entertaining outlet for students and inmates” In addition to the slew of economic benefits produced by the arts industry, exposure to the arts has a less measurable but equally important effect on the quality of life of US citizens. The California Arts Council, a committee created by the state government of California, boasts that students involved in the arts are four times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement, have a higher attendance rate, have a lower dropout rate, and are twice as likely to graduate from college. Similarly, arts programs in correctional facilities reduce recidivism rates, help prevent at-risk youth from turning into career criminals, and promote a safer prison envinta ha ronment by directing inmate energy into Ma am nd something positive. In sum, the Ari arts provide a fulfilling and entertaining outlet for students and inmates,

It is worth noting that so far, these numbers have only been referencing nonprofit arts industries. However, with the inclusion of commercial and for-profit arts industries, the revenue generated by the industry is $730 bi l l i on .

35 35 35

making them more productive members of society in the long run. The listed effects of the arts so far have all been tangible, measured benefits that could convince even the most cynical corporate boardrooms of the worthiness of arts funding. But the reality is that the utilitarian argument should be the last thing to discuss when addressing arts funding. American society—just like any society—is not entirely utilitarian. We don’t all spend all our time with noses to the grindstone; we value time spent with loved ones, pursuing activities we find fulfilling, and expressing ourselves in ways that help us forget the grind of everyday life. We find this aspect of our lives, where our problems can be temporarily put on hold, to be the principally distinguishing factor between simply surviving and actually living. The utilitarian might quibble over the relative value of arts funding as opposed to other government investment, but the value of the intangible should not be lost on us. The arts facilitate living. They provide a new, exciting, and dynamic window into ourselves and our experiences, and give us the power to become more in tune

Elite Tours

with our emotions, ambitions, and fears. These effects may be intangible—perhaps even nonsensical to the scientifically minded. But that doesn’t make them any less real, or any less valuable to the individuals that experience them. 36

If government, and society at large, is truly formed to perpetuate the well-being of all people, funding the arts is simply a no-brainer. That said, the money doesn’t hurt.

The North Korean Nuclear Crisis YOOJIN SHIN

On September 15th, North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile over the Japanese island of Hokkaido for the second time in the span of three weeks. This provocative launch comes just four days after the U.N. Security Council’s unanimous adoption of new U.S.-drafted sanctions on North Korea. Despite the new sanctions’ unprecedented severity and the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley’s push for “all nations [to] implement them completely and aggressively,” there are few signs that North Korea will decelerate the rapid development of its two decades-long missile program.

The major part of this new U.N. sanction seeks to cut off North Korea’s refined petroleum imports by 55 percent. The new embargo would deprive the country’s total annual fuel imports—or what Haley calls “the lifeblood of North Korea’s effort to build and fund a nuclear weapon”—by 30 percent. In addition, the sanctions ban the country’s textile exports, as well as any form of foreign investment and technology transfers. Even North Korea’s historic allies—China and Russia—have supported this decision, for the purported aims of “denuclearizing” the peninsula through nonviolent means. The Chinese ambassador to the U.N., Liu Jieyi, stated that “China is consistently committed to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, to the peace and stability of the peninsula and to the solution of the issue through dialogue and consultation.” However, given the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s strong advocacy of the resolution and the increasingly bellicose stance of the U.S. in the region, standing against the proposal would have been a decidedly self-ostracizing move. The Chinese ambassador Liu’s goal of achieving peace through dialogue and consultation does not ring close to Haley’s claims, who told CNN that the Security Council has exhausted all

its options and that she would be “perfectly happy kicking this over to [Secretary of Defense] Gen. Mattis, because he has plenty of military options.” Then, explicitly expressing the willingness for military measures, Haley added that “if North Korea keeps on with this reckless behavior, if the United States has to defend itself or defend its allies in any way, North Korea will be destroyed—and we all know that.” Nevertheless, the North Korean stance remains unmoved. Instead of vacillating under threat, the country’s state news agency has gone so far as to condemn the “Japanese reactionaries” for backing the U.S. given its record of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For those who are willing to see it, the state of the crisis is very clear: sanctions and military threats have not, and will not, stop North Korea from pursuing its nuclear program. Instead, the international community must redirect its attention towards a much overlooked strategy of humanitarian diplomacy. NORTH KOREA AND THE U.S: THE STRAINED AFFAIR Haley’s combative stance towards North Korea is nothing new. It represents decades’ worth of sour relations that date back to the Cold War Era, when the South allied with the U.S. and the North with the then Soviet Union. During the Korean War, the U.S. Army carpet-bombed the entirety of North Korea, an act which was confirmed by the former General Curtis Lemay of the United States Air Force who coordinated the bombing campaigns. As a result, North Korea lost approximately 25 percent of its population in the span of three years, an act of which Michel Chossudovsky, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa and the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), have declared as an act of genocide under the international law. For comparison, the CRG points out that “during the Second World War, the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the U.S. lost 0.32%.” Every year, thousands continue to partake in the U.S.-South Korean joint annual military drills. In 1958, five years after the end of the Korean War, the U.S. deployed nuclear armed Honest John missiles and 280mm atomic cannons to South Korea, adding various arsenal over the span of six decades. Despite repeated requests by North Korea to halt these annual drills and dispel the U.S. troops from the peninsula, its requests were never granted. “Every time these war games happen there’s a problem — that a deterrence signal bleeds into a provocation from North Korea’s perspective,” said John Delury, a professor at Yonsei University, during his interview with CNN. “The U.S. and South Korea can call the joint exercises defensive and regular as much as they want, but it’s not defensive if you’re sitting in Pyongyang.” To Kim’s regime, these joint exercises serve as active, hostile threats.

THE JUSTIFIED PARANOIA AND THE NUCLEAR CRISIS

“THUS, THE U.S. REMAINS A DANGEROUS INTRUDER TO BE RECKONED WITH — A FORCE TO DEFEND FROM WITH ALL ONE’S FANGS. FROM KIM’S MIND, DEATH MIGHT BE THE ONLY OTHER OPTION.” Kim Jong-un, the current leader of North Korea under whom the country’s nuclear program has quickened its pace, has not once wavered his stance towards his country’s nuclear development. Analysts point to the fall of Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi as an embodiment of why, according to Kim Jong-un, North Korea must not give up its nuclear weapons. To this day, Gadhafi remains as the sole dictator to concede to Western demands of eliminating its nuclear program in returns of humanitarian aid. Nic Robertson, the International Diplomatic Editor of CNN who had met top advisors of Gadhafi, writes that the regime had trusted the western nations to hold up their end of the deal. It was Libya’s surefire route to mend its relations with the U.S. and the main European powers. However, when the Arab Spring protests arose, NATO held little reservation in bombing Libyan forces and bringing Gadhafi to his death in 2011. The case of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who was deposed by a U.S.-led coalition that invaded the country in 2003, also provides an apt source of paranoia for Kim Jong-un. An accusation by the U.S. president George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair towards Hussein of having weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Qaeda resulted in the dictator’s capture and execution in 2006. The North Korean regime had learned that the U.S. is a threat to their security before the turn of the 21st century; however, through incidences in Libya and Iraq, it may have learned an additional lesson. As the North Korean state media has so aptly put it, the “tragic consequences in those countries which abandoned halfway their nuclear programs… clearly prove that the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) was very far-sighted and just when it made the [nuclear] option.” To them, the U.S. is an unpredictable entity with the demonstrated capacity to annihilate a regime with a mere false accusation. Thus, the U.S. remains a dangerous intruder to be reckoned with — a force to defend from with all one’s fangs. From Kim’s mind, death might be the only other option.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE? On September 30th, the U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated on Twitter that there have been attempts to establish diplomatic contact with North Korea. However, she said, North Korea is not interested. However, given the history of the U.S.-North Korean relations and the volatile nature of the current administration, this response is a predictable one at best. For better or for worse, stockpiling nuclear arsenals is Kim Jong-un’s best bet for maintaining the autonomy of his regime while staying alive, and that resolute stance is likely to stand against the latest sanctions as well. “This new missile test ... is both a reaction to the stringent UN sanctions of Monday evening and a wake-up call about the limits of sanctions and military threats as a way to change North Korea’s behavior,” said George A. Lopez, a former member of the UN Security Council panel of experts for sanctions on North Korea, to CNN. However, analysts have also come to a general consensus that North Korea will not fire first. Kim Jong-un is tactful enough to understand that a war against the U.S. is a losing bet for North Korea. Therefore, scenarios described by ambassador Haley, in which the U.S. would be forced to defend itself and its allies, are unlikely to occur. If an all-out war with the U.S. is not what North Korea wants, then why are they continuing to develop nuclear arsenals? The only credible remaining explanation points to its need for defense and isolated self-reliance, which have only been galvanized by military threats and sanctions from the international community. For a country that is always on the defensive, the best method of appeasement may be a demonstration of commitment to peace. Moon Jae-In, the newly elected South Korean president, is a left-wing advocate of a peaceful dialogue with North Korea. His political attitude displays similarities with those of former president Kim Dae-jung (1998-2003) and his successor Roh Moo-hyun (2003-2008), the former of whom received a Nobel Peace Prize for his pioneering policies of peaceful engagement with North Korea, later named the Sunshine Policy. These policies centered around the continuation of humanitarian aid and encouragement for dialogue despite potential aggression, which stand in stark contrast to the new rounds of U.N. sanctions and the current — and historically — aggressive stance of the U.S. In accordance with this philosophy, Moon is likely to pursue a diplomatic route despite the mounting military pressure from its Northern neighbor. On September 15th, just hours after North Korea’s second missile launch over Hokkaido,

Reuters Amphibious assault vehicles of the South Korean Marine Corp throw smoke bombs during a U.S.-South Korean joint drill in 2014

Moon has confirmed his administration’s humanitarian aid plans towards North Korea, which includes a donation of $4.5 million to the World Food Program to help provide supplies to North Korean hospitals and daycare centers. “In principle, giving support for infants and small children and pregnant women should be handled separately from politics,” said Mr. Moon in a statement. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Sunshine policy towards North Korea is inconclusive. Opponents to this approach have long claimed that the North has been, and always will be, steadfast in its nuclear development regardless of South Korea’s attitude. However, the primary reason behind the inconclusiveness of the Sunshine Policy was its short-lived and volatile nature; expectations of permanent peace and compliance from North Korea in an environment of short-lived concessions and periodic vilification are not realistic grounds to evaluate the agenda. Further, the approach behind the Sunshine Policy simply remains the only viable option left that will not precipitate a catastrophic war on the Korean peninsula. While the complete disarmament of South Korea is politically unfeasible, Mr. Moon and South Korea must take care to reduce the military tensions within the peninsula if it wishes to rebuild the foundations for long term peace. In order to do so, the South Korean government must incorporate the attitude of compassion and peace behind the Sunshine Policy with tactful diplomacy. This will inevitably entail regaining South Korean autonomy from U.S. pressures in its foreign policy, and may include postponing its annual joint military drills. But above all, it will require South Korea and the peninsula’s regional players to understand the North Korean regime and the historical roots of its anger.

LILI SIRI SPIRA

THE UNITED STATES... AND TERRITORIES The State of Puerto Rico Praying for my friends and family. Can’t communicate with my family. I don’t know anything about them, this is desperate. CNN

My sister-in-law follows each Facebook post with a vid-

eo of the storm. A Miami transplant, she’s luckily away from her hometown in Puerto Rico. But much of her family is not. The wind is blowing. Murky water rises and swishes away houses piece by piece. The camera shakes as a boat takes off. This image, unfortunately, is not unfamiliar. Hurricanes, right before Maria, ravaged Houston and Miami. Puerto Rico, though, is different. Puerto Rico is both within the jurisdiction of the United States and without the funding of it, lying in a legal grey area. Now, in the wake of Hurricane Maria, that status — its detriments, its durability — matters more than ever. Puerto Rico is, as a territory, part of the United States. According to U.S. code the U.S. is defined as “several States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” Because of this, all Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. However, Puerto Ricans are unable to vote in presidential elections and have a sole congressional representative who is not able to vote. The U.S. government also has a considerable amount of control over the island. For instance, Puerto Rico is not able to ask the U.N. for disaster relief — even if that U.S. government is failing to provide speedy and efficient relief — since their foreign relations are handled fully by the federal government. The federal government gained even more control starting in 2016 when Congress passed PROMESA (Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act), which established an oversight board for Puerto Rico’s economy to “correct” their massive debt. 40

The U.S. primarily controls the Puerto Rican economy via taxes. Most people in Puerto Rico do not pay federal income tax. Many would argue that since they do not pay federal income taxes they are not entitled to the assistance of the federal government, including hurricane recovery aid. However, some Puerto Ricans do, particularly the ones who receive their income from organizations based in the states like the federal government. The ones who don’t pay federal income taxes pay the federal government via social security taxes, export/import taxes, and commodity taxes. It’s truly taxation without representation. Puerto Ricans also paid greatly when President Bill Clinton nullified a tax break on U.S. mainland companies in Puerto Rico. The tax break had, since the 1950s, brought U.S. manufacturing jobs to the

“Puerto Rico is both within the jurisdiction of the United States and without the funding of it, lying in a legal grey area. Now, in the wake of Hurricane Maria, that status — its detriments, its durability — matters more than ever.

Department of Defense

island. Then President Clinton signed a law to phase these tax breaks out over ten years — roughly ten years later in 2006, not only was the Puerto Rican economy crashing, the worldwide economy was about to crash. This sent Puerto Rico’s economy into a tailspin from which it has not recovered.

No, because Congress doesn’t want it to be. As mentioned before, Puerto Rico has a large debt. If they became a state the federal government would have to include that debt in the U.S. GDP. Integrating Puerto Rico as a state would also mean that Congress would lose the incredible control it has over Puerto Rico as Puerto Ricans would get a representative in Congress that could vote in their favor.

Additionally, as an island, Puerto Rico is heavily impacted by the Jones Act, “a maritime law requiring shipments of goods between two U.S. ports to be made with American-flagged vessels, manned by American crews.” Puerto Rico, being an island, receives most of its shipments via ports. The Jones Act makes shipments into ports twice as expensive — a huge economic burden to put on an area in an economic crisis that has also been hit by a natural disaster. While the Jones Act was quickly waived in the case of Harvey and Miami, it took massive public and political pressure for President Donald J. Trump to waive the act. Even then he only waived it for ten days.

This also goes beyond a political and legal issues — it’s an issue of race. As Representative Luis V. Gutierrez from Illinois shared in a statement: “The supporters of statehood are selling a fantasy that a Latino, Caribbean nation will be admitted as a state during the era of Donald Trump; that states, many of which supported Trump, will accept a Spanish-speaking state that will receive just as many Senators and maybe even more House seats than they currently have.”

Due to these discriminatory policies, Puerto Rico’s territory status has stirred up debate on the island and the mainland for decades. There have been five referenda on maintaining territory status, applying for statehood, or declaring independence, since 1967. In the two most recent referenda (2012 and 2017) Puerto Ricans have voted for statehood.However, while 97 percent voted for statehood in 2017, only 23 percent of Puerto Ricans voted. Many protested the vote, saying that it had been rigged by the party in power.

Hurricane relief has been criticized as severely mismanaged with many singling out President Trump. In fact, President Trump threatened to rescind emergency responders in a series of tweets. He even went so far as to blame Puerto Rico’s financial struggles wholly on them even though many of their financial woes were caused by the federal government. However, Puerto Ricans were suffering long before Hurricane Maria hit via the Great Recession and the federal government’s manipulation. This is because they were never meant to be more than a colony, a faraway place meant to benefit the motherland. As for my family’s Puerto Rican story, my brother was able to get some of his wife’s relatives out of the island and onto dry land. But he was not able to get everyone. He was not able to help the other three million Puerto Ricans, many of whom are living without access to electricity or clean drinking water. Puerto Rico needs to see change of political status if it’s going to survive and thrive in the long-term.

But even if every Puerto Rican wanted statehood, would Puerto Rico become the 51st state? 41

Rwanda’s Path to Gender Equality

NEEKNAZ ABARI

When Justine Uvuza returned to Rwanda after the 1994 genocide,

she was shocked by the state of her country. At the time, Rwanda’s leading narrative was one of little remaining infrastructure and shattered political systems post-genocide. But what stood out most to Uvuza was a more subtle change: women working in butcher shops, accounting firms, and courthouses — spaces previously exclusive to men. Uvuza’s realization was not unrelated to her country’s devastation, but was simply the implication of a lesser-told told story – Rwanda’s shortage of men. By the end of the conflict, between 500,000 and 800,000 Tutsis had been slaughtered, with the majority of the casualties being men. Of the remaining men, many were arrested or forced to leave the country. The result was a state with a population made up of 70% women. Faced with a new demographic reality, the former patriarchy had to adapt. The genocide disproportionately affected more educated and urban demographics. This significant loss in human capital allowed women to begin occupying myriad positions that had formerly been almost exclusively available to men. The national government, in significant need of reform and lacking of experienced members, proved to be an avenue for women to assume traditionally male roles. Only 20 of Rwanda’s 785 judges remained after the genocide, and the post-genocide Transitional National Assembly did not feature a single person who had served in the previous

The African Exponent

regime’s government. Rwandan President Paul Kagame instituted a quota mandating that 30% of the country’s parliamentarians be women, in addition to pro-women reforms focused on appointing women to other governmental positions and educating young girls. Today, Rwanda is one of the few countries to have achieved a gender-balanced parliament, with women holding 61.3% of the Chamber of Deputy’s seats. Of the 14 members of Rwanda’s Supreme Court, seven are women. Women are also represented at sub-national levels of government, where they are required to make up 30% of District Council and political party seats.

“Of the remaining men, many were arrested or forced to leave the country. The result was a state with a population made up of 70% women.” Yet despite holding some of the highest levels of political power in the country, Rwandan women are held back in the social sphere. The same women that occupy parliamentary seats have found that their political power does not translate to empowerment within their homes. Justine Uvuza, the woman who returned to Rwanda after the genocide, wrote her doctoral dissertation on the discrepancies between the public and private lives of Rwandan parliamentarians. Of the 29 women she interviewed, only four reported any improvement in the balance of domestic tasks between themselves and their husbands. All reported increased tensions with their spouses caused by their increased political involvement and how it reduced their time spent at home . As one would expect, the domestic experiences of female politicians reflect women’s rights in the

greater population. As of 2015, Rwandan legislation protects women from marital rape, sexual harassment in the workplace, and domestic violence including sexual, physical, emotional, or economic abuse. One famous stride towards abolishing gender violence was made in 2008, when Parliamentarian Judith Kanakuze backed the passing of landmark legislation that made sexual assault illegal and and imposed harsh consequences for rape. While these legal protections represent progress within the Rwandan parliament, they have proved insufficient in protecting the country’s women. A 2016 study of Rwandan women found a variety of reasons why they were unwilling or unable to take advantage of legal protections in situations of intimate partner violence. “Poverty, gender inequality with prevailing strong norms of male superiority, and the tendency to keep abuse as a private family matter” were all contributing factors. These results call into question how impactful Rwanda’s legislation against domestic violence can be without a corresponding social movement. Yet while the effectiveness of laws can be debated, legislation should not be considered insignificant in the fight for Rwandan women’s equal rights. There are examples of legislation successfully opposing domestic violence from around the world, one being the effect of unilateral divorce laws in the United States. A 2017 World Bank report found that there has been considerable international progress in legislation that both criminalizes domestic violence and provides support systems to victims. But further progress, the report finds, depends on a change in norms surrounding violence as well as the implementation of programs that support and enforce legislation. One of the report’s recommendations is to “engage the whole community,” including men and women, in long-term and comprehensive anti-violence efforts.

“The lack of a firmly grounded women’s movement, however, has created many surprising discrepancies between how women are valued on paper versus how they are valued in their society.” The discrepancy between Rwanda’s institutional structures and the country’s social norms is a result of how rapidly women have gained social capital. Unlike many other countries, including the U.S., Rwanda’s approach toward women’s empowerment has not yet included a comprehensive feminist social movement. Instead of prioritizing the rights of individual women, over the past two decades, the push for women’s empowerment in Rwanda has focused on the service that women can provide their country. Christopher Kayumba, a lecturer at the National University of Rwanda, argues that “Kagame isn’t pushing for women just for the sake of it. He’s mostly interested in capable people.” Kayum-

Inclusive Security

ba’s view is supported by statements from the Rwandan President himself. When urging women to join the government, Kagame stated that “women have to be involved at all levels and in all activities meant for the development of our country.” While the concept of seeing women as “capable people” needed “for the development” of Rwanda may seem compelling, Kagame’s approach disregards the importance of equal rights. The pro-country argument for women’s empowerment undermines women’s intrinsic value as individuals. In fact, “feminism” is still seen as a dirty word in Rwanda, used to refer to women who selfishly put their own needs ahead of those of their country. The Rwandan feminist is often seen as a promoter of Western cultural imperialism. The emerging feminist movement in Rwanda, however, has become particularly strong in the last two decades. Uvuza, a supporter of the social approach to women’s empowerment, argues in her dissertation that “despite the relevance of women’s access to political posts/work, failure to tackle gender inequalities in all areas of socialisation reshape and reinforce patriarchy in significant ways.” In order to create lasting change in the country, she contends, “a cultural shift” is necessary. Women’s empowerment is progressing in many aspects of Rwandan life. The lack of a firmly grounded women’s movement, however, has created many surprising discrepancies between how women are valued on paper versus how they are valued in their society. Over the years since the Rwandan genocide, the country has concentrated on developing its economy and rebuilding its infrastructure, while women have increased their influence largely as a side effect of this focus. Although women’s progress has been promising, especially in their legislative presence, the remaining problems can only be solved through the valuing of women’s empowerment for more than just the benefit of the country. Instead, social, cultural, and legislative reform must be implemented for the benefit of women themselves – “for the sake of it,” as Kayumba would say.

Electoral Breakthrough or Electoral Persistence? Forecasting AfD’s Future in the German Parliament CLAIRE YANG

The Western world breathed a sigh of relief after the triumph of the young

independent centrist Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen, leader of the right-wing National Front, in the French presidential election. His victory was hailed as a sign that the emerging tidal wave of populism that had culminated in the Brexit Vote and Donald Trump’s victory had been held at bay. Thus, when the 2017 German parliamentary elections came, there was little to no doubt that Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) would win the majority and safeguard the EU’s stronghold against populism—after all, Germany, with its own 20th century history and its many laws restricting free speech, had cultivated a national conscience repulsed by the allures of farright rhetoric. But just how immune is Germany from the right-wing ideology it renounced so many times after World War II? CDU’s technical win was beset by a moral loss. While CDU won 32.5% of the vote, it will now have to share the Bundestag with Alternatif fur Deutsch (AfD), the first far-right party to win seats in almost six decades. AfD came in third after the Social Democratic Union (SDU), polling at an unnerving 13.5% and siphoning votes from the mainstream centrist and left-wing parties. It ran on a galvanizing populist platform that was all too reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric, championing the German dominant culture, and criticizing Merkel’s open border policy for Muslim refugees from Syria and Africa. Like Trump, AfD enjoyed the support of working class citizens of the rusting industrial sectors, who constituted the greatest share of its voting base, as well as young adults barely past voting age. Polls conducted by the German state TV indicated that 85% of AfD voters surveyed feared that the influx of refugees would endanger German culture and livelihood, a concern magnified by the fact that, according to 2015 data, Germany has taken the most refugees of all European countries: nearly one million. This unprecedented increase in racial heterogeneity will call into question Germany’s acceptance of asylum-seekers in the face of economic instability, which is ever so effective in stoking xenophobia.

Looking Ahead AfD’s electoral breakthrough means that the next three years will be of utmost importance in ensuring the dominance of current mainstream parties in the Bundestag. Though Germany boasts the highest GDP growth in Europe, there are plenty of impending economic obstacles on Chancellor Merkel’s plate. In a study conducted by the German Institute for Economic Research, 40% of Germans do not earn enough for future savings. The study also indicated that of the 40,000 people that constitute Germany’s top 1%, a fifth are billionaires — meaning that income inequality has increased. In addition, within the next three years of her term, Merkel must work with the Bundestag to ease the planned national transition from combustion to electric engine use without completely gutting the ailing steel, diesel, and car industries, which hold almost a million jobs. Short-run economic woes during Merkel’s term can culminate in a political realignment away from mainstream parties to AfD. This could grant AfD electoral persistence after, if not during,

“ In this environment, the AfD could become highly influential in the legislative process, much like the UKIP was on the Brexit Referendum.” Merkel’s current term. Legislation, if ineffectively designed and enacted, may result in immediate high losses sustained by these industries that will increase unemployment and thus income inequality. If that is the case, AfD may not need to significantly moderate its anti-refugee rhetoric to work with other parties. Instead, it could capitalize on the failure of mainstream parties to prioritize the prosperity of native Germans over philanthropy for nonnative refugees and gain enough traction to become a majority in the Bundestag in the years to come. However, AfD’s contemporary counterparts overseas, such as the UKIP and Finland’s Finn’s party, are considered too disorganized to consolidate a formidable, coherent faction in the national parliament and ultimately devolve into opposing moderate and extremist camps. This was also the case for populist radical-right parties such as Die Republikaner and the German People’s Union in 1990s Germany. The question is, would AfD share the same fate? Founded as a Euroskeptic party by economists disgruntled by Germany’s bailout of Greece in the EU’s fiscal meltdown, AfD first began to echo the xenophobic

nativist and anti-Islam rhetoric of other European far-right parties during televised debates in 2015, presumably to launch its campaign for the 2016 regional elections. Support for the party rapidly rose: it had eroded CDU’s majority in two regional elections and won seats in 9 of 16 regional legislatures by September 2016. But unlike contemporary far-right parties, it has formulated coherent plans to substantiate its claims. The elder of its two co-leaders, Alexander Gauland, invests heavily in nationalist ranting, while his younger counterpart, economist Alice Weidel, tempers his xenophobic comments to court cosmopolitan citizens who might be put-off by his Nazi-esque wordplay. She proposes that limiting refugees to those with higher education levels would boost domestic productivity and ease the strain on Germany’s institutional resources which must, first and foremost, serve native Germans. The two differing campaign strategies reinforce one another, meaning that party unity may in fact be quite strong. They converge to consistently preserve a central message: the Muslim refugee population of over one million must

be contained. Regardless of whether the party spews fascist rhetoric just to get more votes or truly plans to implement radical policies, its leaders have uniformly strong convictions to exert sustained pressure against the dominant parties and to partially undo what Merkel has done in her past four terms: increasing Germany’s fiscal responsibilities in the EU and increasing refugee inflow. But even if AfD splits into sub-factions, it’s still the third largest party in the Bundestag. Its entry into the parliament alone means that mainstream parties have lost seats and votes. Party systems will become increasingly fragmented, with the parliament dominated by a few medium-sized rather than big parties. In this environment, AfD could become highly influential in the legislative process, much like the UKIP was on the Brexit Referendum, even if it holds just 10 to 15% of votes. This is not to suggest that a German equivalent of Brexit is inevitable. Regardless of the state of its unity, AfD’s platform and Euroskeptic stance put it at odds with Merkel and all that she stands for. At the very least AfD would still be an obstructive force to the plans of the Social and Christian Democratic Unions. Merkel pledged in her most recent press release to address the needs of working class voters who turned to AfD, commenting that she will not make concessions to the far-right party that will diminish Germany’s multiculturalism and role in the EU. One thing is for certain—her job has only gotten harder.

PERLA SHAHEEN

VENEZUELA’S PLAN TO CURB ITS FOOD CRISIS Government mismanagement of oil revenues, international debt, and rampant inflation have led Venezuela into an extreme food crisis with only one plausible solution: eat the rabbits. At least that’s the plan recently proposed by President Nicolás Maduro.

HOW DID IT COME TO THIS?

Venezuela has the largest amount of oil reserves in the world – approximately 300 billion barrels worth. Former President Hugo Chavez took advantage of this surplus, and now over 90 percent of the nation’s exports come from oil. Through this, Chavez was able to lower poverty rates, improve education, and spur economic growth. But even though oil does not translate directly to cold cash, Chavez spent government revenues as if it did.

ization, and a decline in productivity that deteriorated the economy.

Chavez created the Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela and launched a project in 2002 towards “21st Century Socialism.”. This revolutionary project was dependent on oil revenues to fund a prolific welfare program for improving healthcare and education.

When Chavez died in 2013, his successor Nicolás Maduro was left with a sea of problems. Venezuela’s currency, the Bolivar, became worth less than the paper it was printed on; this year, the nation’s inflation rate rose above 220 percent. “You end up with this situation that’s very unfortunate and shouldn’t have developed in the first place,” Post said. “Now people have to raise rabbits in their backyards to have access to food and basic staples; it just keeps

The policies implemented by Chavez ended up having a detrimental effect on the country’s economy. He introduced currency exchange controls, national-

“In the case of Chavez, there was some outright mismanagement,” said UC Berkeley Comparative Politics Professor Alison Post. “Though his attempts to set up local cooperatives seemed like the foundation for encouraging economic activity, even leftist scholars would argue that they weren’t managed effectively.”

getting worse and worse.” The 2006 collapse of the Venezuelan economy lead to the food crisis we see today. According to the IMF, Venezuela’s oil revenues were $80 billion in 2013, which dropped to $20 billion by 2016. The socialist democracy allows for high government regulation on basic staples. Thus, state-imposed price controls on necessities have resulted in many food-selling businesses closing down because they operated at a loss. Almost half the nation reported has gone days without food and 70% claim to have stopped consuming types of food they consider important. About 80% of food products have been in short supply since 2016. On average, Venezuelans spend over 30 hours weekly in shopping lines, waiting lengths of time only to be greeted by empty shelves.

THE MAN WITH A RABBIT PLAN In the past, the government simply encouraged the establishment of food co-operatives and urban agriculture to solve these issues. These approaches, however, have proven insufficient in the current crisis. The new plan: convince Venezuelans to eat rabbits. The thought process? There is a surplus of rabbits and a scarcity of food; therefore, make the rabbits your food. In Maduro’s words, rabbits have the added benefit of “breeding like rabbits,” so it will be harder to run out of them. Maduro and his ministers claim rabbits will make an excellent source of protein

for the estimated 24 million food-insecure people. Their recommendation is that families raise the rabbits at home to prepare for dinner later. This practice is actually common in Europe, China, and some of the Middle East, and in comparison with pork and beef, rabbit meat is richer in protein and other vitamins and minerals. It also has less fat than most red meats. Even with these benefits, according to Freddy Bernal, the minister for urban agriculture in charge of the plan, Plan Rabbit has already run into a “cultural problem”.

Maduro had initiated a pilot project in which rabbits were given to 15 communities. The result: people named and put bows on their rabbits, treating them as loveable pets. Maduro’s task of changing the nation’s culture will not be simple.

PROTEST LIKE BERKELEY Ever since Maduro granted himself the power to pass laws in mid-August, violent protests have been consistent throughout the nation. Problems have continued mounting since the beginning of Maduro’s presidency, from the drop in oil prices to his polarization of executive power, all leading up to the current food crisis. Thousands of citizens have taken the streets in opposition to his administration; government suppression has

left many dead, hundreds injured, and thousands arrested. “It’s a sad, sad story and it’s combined with an increasingly authoritarian approach to governing the country on the part of Maduro,” Post said. “Chavez was not guiltless in this but Maduro has taken it to new heights, using groups of thugs or other party-affiliates to beat up the opposition.” These economic and political issues have sparked a deep mistrust in Mad-

uro’s administration, resulting in an opposition that refuses to succumb to repression. Polls have consistently predicted that Maduro would lose in upcoming elections and in response, Maduro has extended his term as president eight times since 2016. “Venezuela has become a sort of a competitive authoritarian regime,” Post said. “There are elections and there are opposing parties, but the playing field is not level and the media is not free.”

WAITING ON THE WORLD TO CHANGE The opposition faces multiple challenges. First and foremost: it is not cohesive. The Venezuelan opposition is made up of 29 different parties all umbrellaed under the Democratic Unity Coalition and the various factions make it harder to organize and push forward an ultimate strategy. In the end, the entity that holds the most power to bring change is the military. The Venezuelan military is complicit in the national corruption, being utilized to shut down the opposition, and establishes the government’s food distri-

bution system. Fortunately, most of the upper divisions of the current military were appointed under President Chavez after the Bolivarian Revolution. Thus, the military’s leaders’ loyalty remains in the hands of the former president, who denounced authoritarianism in his rise to power. The economic situation may provoke the military to jump sides and support the opposition. “The key question is when the military will stop supporting the regime,” Post said.

“Currently, they profit from existing food distribution schemes and from having control over the program’s implementation. Perhaps when the upper brass has to start raising rabbits too, they may switch to the other side.” 47

Berkeley Political Review

Join UC Berkeleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only nonpartisan political journal Open Positions Writing

Design

APPLY ONLINE! BPR.BERKELEY.EDU/APPLY

Business

BPR.BERKELEY.EDU FACEBOOK.COM/BERKELEYPOLITICALREVIEW @BERKELEYPOLREV ADVERTISE HERE TO REACH THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS! CONTACT BPROUTREACH@GMAIL.COM