The Williams Globalist Issue 2 by Williams Globalist

THE WILLIAMS

GLOBALIST FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

IN THIS ISSUE: THE SHADOW OF RWANDA’S GENOCIDE • POWER DYNAMICS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

THE WILLIAMS

GLOBALIST VOLUME 2 | 2013

CONTENTS POLITICS 3 | The Balancing Act in the South China Sea* by Clyde W. Engle, Jr. 6 | Forgotten Horrors in the Congo by Benjamin Nathan 9 | Phocion Revisited: Due Process and Drone Strikes by Sean Hoffman

13 | The Chagossians’ Long Journey Home* by Raza Currimjee 15 | Containment for Nuclear Iran by Teddy Cohan 18 | Cyber Warfare: An Untested Battleground by Dan Whittam 21 | The Syrian Refugee Crisis by Sumaya Awad

29 15 6

13 26

FEATURES

SCIENCE

23 | Dispatch from Abroad: The Abortion Debate Down South by Emily Dugdale

26 | The Perils of Ocean Acidification* by Alex Okemah

29 | Obituary: The Telegraph* by Christopher Huffaker

*Denotes articles for the ocean theme FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

STAFF

Dear Readers,

Executive Director Burhan Aldroubi

Editor-in-Chief Christopher Huffaker

(Obituary: The Telegraph, p. 29)

Managing Editors Aldis Inde Laurel Jarombek Production Editor Winnie Ma Associate Editors Benjamin Nathan

(Forgotten Horrors in the Congo, p. 6)

Lauren Nevin Phonkrit Tanavisarut Financial Manager Griffith Simon Contributors to this issue Sumaya Awad

(The Syrian Refugee Crisis, p. 21)

Teddy Cohan

(Containment for Nuclear Iran, p. 15)

Raza Currimje

(The Chagossians’ Long Journey Home, p. 13)

Emily Dugdale

(The Abortion Debate Down South, p. 23)

Clyde W. Engle, Jr.

(The Balancing Act in the South China Sea, p. 3)

Sean Hoffman

(Phocion Revisited, p. 9)

Alex Okemah

(The Perils of Ocean Acidification, p. 26)

Dan Whittam

(Cyber Warfare: An Untested Battleground, p. 18)

Cover Ocean of Minds Winnie Ma 2

Welcome to the second issue of the Williams Globalist. In our first issue, released last spring, we introduced you to our goals for the magazine: to bring to the Williams community a forum for the discussion of global affairs and the spread of the various fascinating perspectives and ideas of our fellow Ephs. To put that goal into focus, we themed the issue around identity, including articles on everything from global Pentecostalism to Norwegian class conflict. The response was positive, and we are incredibly grateful for that. I hope you were able to get at least a fraction as much out of reading the magazine as we got out of creating it. No surprise: A lot has changed since we released the first issue. Hugo Chavez, the subject of my own article last year, is dead. India’s economy, the subject of praise in one article, is facing its biggest crisis in decades. We had multiple pieces focused on the Middle East, and at the time of writing this I cannot even identify the ways they might be outdated, simply because changes are occurring too quickly. This, too, can render any discussion of any particular piece American foreign policy obsolete in a moment. Even one of our pieces in this issue, which we thought to be fairly safe from “the news” in the short term, has been complicated by events of the past year. Edward Snowden’s revelations about the secret activities of the American intelligence community have cast a long shadow onto Dan Whittam’s thoughts on the state of cyber warfare. Fortunately, we found a subject that was sure to remain relevant: the oceans. The oceans are in a fragile place. With climate change, their levels are rising rapidly, and will continue to do so, threatening coastal cities all over the world. Earlier this summer, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raised its certainty that humans are the cause to 99%. At the same time, rising atmospheric carbon levels are acidifying the oceans. But our interest in the oceans was not solely environmental: They, and the resources and islands they contain, are also consistent sources of dispute, in places we didn’t cover, like the Falkland Islands and the Arctic Ocean, and in places we did, like the Chagas Islands and the South China Sea. There is a lot more to say about the oceans and their role in international affairs than you will find within. We have to figure out how to protect the oceans and the people whose lives are based around or threatened by them. I know this magazine isn’t going to do that, but I hope it will at least get you thinking. One more thing: As I will be abroad this school year, Aldis Inde, one of our executive editors, will be stepping up as Editor in Chief. I am certain he will do a fantastic job. With Love, Chris Huffaker

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

Politics » Oceans

THE BALANCING ACT IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA Only a balance of power will protect U.S. interests in the South East Asian territorial disputes Clyde W. Engle, Jr. It is becoming increasingly clear that in the South China Sea, China will not back down. Should it have to? The United States and its allies, who fear a regional Chinese hegemony, certainly believe the answer is yes. Increasing Chinese encroachment into, and claims over, the South China Sea are directly antithetical to their interests and, they would say, peace and stability in the region. In their view, in a unipolar Asia, the interests of other nations would be subjected to the will of the hegemon, exerting economic and military pressure to force cooperation from its neighbors. This would undermine American interests in the region by threatening the vitality of the partnerships the U.S. has forged with its Asian partners. Recently, China’s actions indicate its strategic intentions, particularly in the South China Sea, where it has publically acknowledged its intention to be a regional hegemon, as part of what it has termed its “peaceful rise.” China defends its rise with the persistent claim that it is the peaceful return of a once great superpower to dominance. From the 1950s onward, wrote Marvin Ott in a YaleGlobal Online article, “Chinese maps have shown nine elongated lines along the coastline of China and Southeast Asia” as it’s territorial claim, “a U-shape swathe,” encompassing

U.S. Naval Institute

the majority of the South China Sea. China has firmly established itself as the leading power in the region both economically and militarily. According to the World Bank, China’s GDP was $5.93 billion in 2010, outpacing that of regional rival Japan, making it the largest economy in Asia, and estimates indicate that by 2025, China’s GDP will surpass that of the United States, making it the world’s largest economy. In 2012, China’s GDP growth was roughly 8%, while U.S. GDP growth was a mere 2%, a continuing trend for the world’s fastest growing economy. Regardless of whether these predictions come to fruition given the recent turbulence in world markets, it is clear that China is rising and that it has been rising for some time. China’s military capabilities also continue to increase. Although the United States maintains a strong military presence in

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

The USS Fitzgerald maneuvers with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy destroyer Guangzhou off North Sulawesi. Asia, and a global military power that is far from being surpassed, China rises. From China’s standpoint, it is within its power and authority to exert control over the South China Sea. In 2009, China submitted a map to the United Nations indicating what it saw as its “indisputable sovereignty.” In layman’s terms, China is “number one” in the region, the islets and maritime space are its territory and under its authority, and it will continue to exert its rightful, hegemonic role. Chinese nationalism is on the rise. The rise of China and its actions in the South China Sea are seen as legitimate and right. It would be very difficult to convince the Chinese populace otherwise. China does not currently have the

Politics » Oceans

ETH Zurich

naval power to back up its claims, but this will not always be the case. The nation is getting stronger. In 2012, China introduced its first aircraft carrier-refurbished from an old Russian vessel--and while it is years away from full operation, it is a clear indication of what’s to come. The Chinese government, under widespread pressure to show a hand of strength, will not back down from its current political position and pronouncements. China is committed to its hegemony in Asia. This is part of a plan to show that Chinese power and dominance, for centuries a reality under the Chinese Empire, is back and here to stay. China will not cede its position, and the U.S. and regional nations must plan accordingly. The rules of the game have changed. Then there is the introduction of the cruise ship, sightseeing boats, and the China Marine Surveillance agency, signs of China’s new strategy of nonviolent confrontation, sidestepping U.S. strategy. Official U.S. policy in the region is neutral. American allied

China has changed the way it looks at exerting its control, assessing America’s strategy, and adapting to it. arrangements and agreements with Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and others, however, do not smell of neutrality. The U.S. claims it hopes to achieve two objectives in the region: Maintaining the international trade lanes as a “global commons” and ensuring territorial disputes and relations remain peaceful. China has changed the way it looks at exerting its control, assessing America’s strategy, and adapting to it. By using an unarmed sea patrol to assert its authority in the waters of the South China Sea, China is avoiding any conflict with America’s declared strategy. American allies in the region, notes Ott, would not dare to fire at a Chinese cruise

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

John J. Torres/Wikimedia Commons

ship infringing upon their maritime territory if the ship was carrying civilian passengers and tourists. China’s new non-military enforcement in the region, harassing Philippine fisherman and asserting strategic dominance, is part of this “new look” of Chinese policy. China has further established itself in strong, interdependent economic relationships with its peers in the region, investing heavily in infrastructure and development to cement strong, almost unbreakable linkages. Given the economic benefit that nations in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and other multinational partnerships gain from their relationship with China, they are unlikely to try to disrupt that bond in any significant way, and so, they acquiesce and allow China to act as it chooses. They choose the lesser of two evils, Chinese strategic dominance over the loss of economic well being. China has been sly and strategic, laying the framework for economic relationships that will ensure its partners’ measured indifference, if not full cooperation.

Thus, in response to China’s recent declarations, a balancing act in the region has begun to develop. Marvin Ott argues that China’s blunt statement of its regional hegemony is both a strategic mistake and a victory for China. It is a mistake in that it has prompted its allies to take a step back and reassess their relationships with China. Many have renewed and fortified their strategic partnerships with the U.S., which has recently launched a “Pivot to Asia” to strengthen its economic, military, and diplomatic position in Asia. China has upset regional countries with claims of their own in the South China Sea. In an attempt to counterbalance China’s increasing prowess and influence in the region, America’s allies have moved to strengthen their security agreements with the United States. This is the proper strategy for these nations to take--a balance of power that prevents China from expanding too far, but one that acknowledges the realities of its rise. What about the parallel between the U.S. in the early nineteenth century and China today? Is the South China Sea

forum.china.com.cn

A map of the territories and claims in the South China Sea (far left). U.S. Navy ships perform a Pass Exercise with a Royal Thai Navy ship in the South China Sea. (center). The Liuzhou Type 054A warship of the PLA Navy’s South China Sea Fleet is the sixth 054 warship in the area (right). issue China’s Monroe Doctrine? Is it not fair to allow China its own version of the Monroe Doctrine as it pertains to waters vital to their interests? The problem with this comparison is that the realities of the South China Sea do not match up with those of the Americas. While maintaining control over the Western Hemisphere was seen as of paramount importance to the U.S., countries bordering the South China Sea have considerably larger populations and have more importance to the geopolitical balance of the world. China is trying to make the South China Sea its Caribbean, but the comparison is not exactly fair. There is no doubting that Chinese claims are real and persistent, and there is no sign of its backing down in the near future. It will not budge on its ninepoint U-shaped claim over the South China Sea, so a balancing act must come

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

into place to stabilize nations’ concerns and ease tensions and hostilities. The way to victory, as the Chinese military classic The Art of War famously argues, is “winning without fighting.” It is important that the United States acknowledge that a regional balance of power is the best option in this situation and the one with the best chance of maintaining peace and stability. Gone are the days of U.S. total world economic and military dominance. In are the days of China’s rise. The way the world adapts to this reality will be crucial. With increasing tensions in East Asia and North Korean threats of nuclear strikes, maintaining peaceful, productive relations in the region is perhaps more important than ever. It is time to accept that both sides must give a little, and that a regional balance of power is the best-case scenario on the horizon. We must take it. -

Politics

FORGOTTEN HORRORS IN THE CONGO The aftermath of the Rwandan genocide has turned neighboring Congo into one of the most violent places in the world Benjamin Nathan The Rwandan genocide ended in 1994, when the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front took the capital city of Kigali and forced the perpetrators out. Nothing nearly as disastrous as that geocide has happened within the country’s borders in the nineteen years since. This muchneeded security for Rwanda’s citizens, however, has not come without a heavy cost for the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The violence has not ended; it has just moved west. The genocide’s perpetrators, along with millions of ethnic Hutus, fled to the Congo in 1994 and settled in the eastern provinces of North and South Kivu.

Hutu militants known as the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda, FDLR) have used the region as a staging ground for their attempts to retake Rwanda, and the Congolese government has tacitly offered the FDLR a free pass. In turn, Rwandan President Paul Kagame has arranged rebellions against the Congolese government to deny the Hutu militants their foothold. Since 1997, these rebellions have led to two wars that have killed over five million people in the Congo, unseated the entrenched dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, and sparked what former United

Rwanda Broadcasting Agency

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

Nations official John Holmes described as the largest rape crisis in the world. The second of the wars, the Second Congo War, formally ended in 2003, but the violence it produced hasn’t stopped. It is the biggest conflict in the world since World War II. Rwanda is suspected of still being a contributor to the Eastern Congo’s disastrous state of affairs. A report from the U.N. Security Council Committee from June 2012 claims that a Congolese rebel group known as M23 has been getting military support from Kagame’s government. M23, whose leader was recently arrested by the International

Criminal Court for war crimes, may be a tool for Rwanda to keep Hutu militants at bay. According to Williams Political Science Professor Ngoni Munemo, “The point is to get a foothold in the region, or at least to have some nominal finger on the pulse of what is going on in the region. It’s a foot on the ground to anticipate anything before it hits Rwanda.” Munemo, however, doesn’t believe the full extent of the U.N. report. Rwanda’s incentives, he says, don’t fit with the story of a full-blown covert operation in the Congo. “Accusations of direct military involvement are probably exaggerated,” he says. “But those of more tacit support to ensure that the Hutu militants remain weak are probably quite right.” The main issue is whether Kagame still has something to fear from the FDLR. If he does, a struggle against the Congo for sheltering the militants would make strategic sense. But if the FDLR no longer poses a threat to Rwanda’s security, Kagame would be risking his international standing and the lives of Congolese citizens in pursuit of a harmless enemy. Munemo leans toward the second possibility. Despite Rwanda’s failure to achieve complete victory in the Second

Congo War, he says, Kagame was still able to weaken Hutu extremist groups like the FDLR. Since the formal end of the Second Congo War there have been no significant signs of a gradual strengthening. Now, he says, “I don’t think anyone could imagine—at the moment—a situation in which Hutu

An alphabet soup of rebel groups and militias wage perpetual battles for political control and mineral wealth. militants could wage a successful operation against Rwanda.” Without such a pretext for Rwanda to go to war, the U.N.’s allegation of an underground military push is missing an important piece. Clement Ncuti, who works in Rwanda’s finance ministry, agrees. “The only reason Rwanda would be in the Congo is the FDLR,” he says. “If they have the guarantee that the group is completely destroyed,

Phil Moore/Getty Images

that’s it—just leave them in peace.” With or without Rwandan support, M23 has been a violent force in the Congo’s eastern provinces. The group captured the million-person city of Goma in the winter of 2012. Though they soon left and entered peace talks, the fighting has flared up again recently. The takeover elicited still-fresh memories of the past two rebellions, in which surrogate rebel groups fought for Rwandan interests. These memories are far from abstract for millions of people. Because of the lingering effects of the wars, the eastern Congo is a chaotic, misery-ridden place. “Children are being born and integrated into the rebel groups,” says Ncuti. “It tells you that there’s no hope.” The suffering there can no longer be traced to a handful of principal actors. An alphabet soup of rebel groups and militias wage perpetual battles for political control and mineral wealth. While Rwanda’s role as a meddler has arguably Rwandan President Paul Kagame arranged rebellions against the Congolese government (left). An M23 rebel marches towards Sake as residents flee fighting there (center). Congolese M23 rebels search for FDLR members on the road from Goma to Rushuru (right).

Jerome Delay/AP Photo

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

Politics faded since 2003, a diverse thicket of incentives and political allegiances has driven recent violence. Meanwhile, the DRC’s government in Kinshasa is too far away to calm things down. Across the border in Rwanda, a different story is unfolding. The hardwon noninterference of the genocide’s perpetrators has meant that the country’s main concern is poverty, not war. There has been progress on this front, too: twelve percent of the population came out of poverty in the last five years, which according to Ncuti has happened “nowhere else in the world.” Ncuti was twelve years old in 1994, the year when his home country descended into genocide. His family managed to escape to Zaire (now the DRC) and then Burundi, leaving behind all their property. When he came back, Rwanda had been hollowed out. 800,000 people had been murdered, including seven Congolese civilians flee the eastern Congolese town of Sake, 27kms west of Goma.

tenths of the country’s Tutsi population. But now, Rwanda is approaching the genocide’s 20th anniversary in a state of relative economic and political stability. Ninety percent of the Rwandan population is still comprised of poor

Though the worst of the violence happened in the early 2000s, the problems that caused it remain largely unsolved. farmers, but the country outshines its East African neighbors in economic growth. A healthy inflow of foreign aid has helped things along, though the UN report has prompted threats to freeze it. It would be possible to see the past twenty years in a better light if the end of the genocide had not led to millions

of deaths in the Congo. Though the worst of the violence happened in the early 2000s, the problems that caused it remain largely unsolved. Groups like M23 are still terrorizing villages, using rape and murder as tactics to gain political power. The FDLR, weak as it is, isn’t dead. And Rwanda’s government, stuck with memories of 1994, is unlikely to let it rearm in peace. With the prospects for internal improvement dim, the outside world has not provided much hope. The UN’s peacekeeping efforts in the Congo have been anemic. “There are some people who say, ‘we need more troops,’” Munemo says, “but it’s been tried and tried and tried again.” Whatever the political causes, and whatever the potential solution, the magnitude of the crisis in the DRC is unthinkable. As Ncuti says, “It’s not thousands of people. It’s not hundreds of thousands of people. It’s millions of people. So it’s just a whole generation, gone.” -

Jerome Delay/AP Photo

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

PHOCION REVISITED:

Due Process and Drone Strikes The use of lethal drone stikes against U.S. citizens demonstrates a dangerous lack of respect for the maintenence of due process Sean Hoffman A decade ago, America’s drone program was virtually nonexistent. Since then, it has evolved into a central, if not the central, weapon in the War on Terror. But despite the rapid growth of this unprecedented means of waging war, its constituent moral and constitutional questions have received remarkably little public scrutiny, particularly when compared to other innovations that arose after September 11, 2001, including the Patriot Act and the CIA’s use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. Because of his involvement in the drone program’s development within the Obama administration, the program became a central topic in John Brennan’s contentious confirmation hearings for Director of the CIA. As the first official to publicly admit to the lethal use of drones in counterterrorism operations, he faced considerable resistance during the confirmation process, culminating with Senator Rand Paul’s thirteenhour talking filibuster, in which Paul questioned both the constitutionality and the morality of employing lethal drone strikes against citizens of the

In 2011, three American citizens were killed by U.S. drone strikes: Anwar al-Awlaki, his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan.

United States. While Paul’s filibuster had a tendency to wander toward the absurd bounds of American libertarianism, including a discussion of combat drone usage against citizens within the borders of the United States, he brought to the forefront of American debate an issue in desperate need of national discussion: the use of drones on U.S. citizens. A month earlier, NBC News published a secret Justice Department “white paper” that justified the use of drone strikes against American citizens overseas, including the denial of fifth

amendment due process rights. This is not simply an abstract legal debate – in 2011, three American citizens were killed by U.S. drone strikes: Anwar alAwlaki, his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan – and administration officials have repeatedly asserted the legal right of the executive branch to order such strikes in the future. Indeed, on March 5, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech at Northwestern University in which he asserted both the legality of the administration’s rejection of due process and the

NPR

Senator Rand Paul conducted a thirteen-hour filibuster that questioned both the constitutionality and the morality of employing lethal drone strikes against citizens of the United States.

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

Politics

program’s fulfillment of “those values that inspired our nation’s founding.” He got it wrong on both counts. In 1784, Alexander Hamilton wrote two letters to the people of New York under the pen name “Phocion,” which represent what is perhaps the clearest explanation of due process among the founding documents. A provision of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, protected the property of Americans who had remained loyal to Britain during the war and angered many patriots who felt the loyalists’ rejection of the Revolution denied them any right to protection under the laws of the new nation. Accordingly, legislation was proposed to deny any British loyalist such legal protections, treaty or no. Hamilton viewed these attempts as clear-cut denials of the due process protections guaranteed to every American, regardless of loyalty. Hamilton’s due process argument, while a precursor to the Fifth Amendment, is substantively similar. He writes in the second letter, “FIRST, That no man can forfeit or be justly deprived, without his consent, of any right, to which as a member of the community he is entitled, but for some crime incurring the forfeiture,” and “SECONDLY, That no man ought to be condemned unheard, or punished for supposed offences, without having an opportunity of making his defense [sic].” This is, at its heart, due process, the right of a citizen to life, liberty and property, as protected by the United States Constitution, cannot be arbitrarily abridged. In other words, “No citizen can be deprived of any right which the citizens in general are entitled to, unless forfeited by some offence [sic]… The regular and constitutional mode of ascertaining whether this forfeiture has been incurred, is by legal process, trial and conviction.” While the Phocion letters do not hold any official legal sway within

... No man ought to be condemned unheard, or punished for supposed offences, without having an opportunity of making his defense.

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

the American legal system, they do serve as an important and necessary guide to the meaning and intent of the due process clauses within the Constitution. While the Fifth Amendment does not require a trial for the due process requirement to be fulfilled, an arbitrary decision by a member of the executive branch surely cannot qualify as a full “legal process.” Nevertheless, the Department of Justice white paper attempts to do just that. It lays out three conditions under which the administration believes “a targeted killing of a U.S. citizen who has joined al-Qaida or its associated forces would be lawful,” concluding, “the Due Process Clause would not prohibit a lethal operation of the sort contemplated here.” The memorandum bases this conclusion off of the balancing analysis first employed in Mathews v. Eldridge and applied to the War on Terror in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. In essence, the balancing principle stipulates that the extent of due process in any given circumstance be determined by weighing the private interest of the individual against the interest of the government in providing national security and the difficulty of providing greater process to the individual. By proposing the three necessary conditions for a strike on an American citizen, the memo concludes that the interests of the government outweigh those of the potential target, even while ignoring the holding in Hamdi requiring the application of due process to a terror suspect. These three conditions are: (1) Where an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) where a capture operation would be infeasible – and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) where such an

operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles. Of the three, the first condition poses the greatest danger to the protections of due process, although the conduct of the Obama administration also gives cause for concern regarding point two as well. The definition given regarding the imminence doctrine of point one is so broad as to make the reader wonder which dictionary the Justice Department employs when writing its opinions: “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” Rather, the memo bases the condition of imminence on the assumption that the target is an al-Qaida leader and that alQaida leaders are constantly planning attacks – an assumption that leaves open the door for an assumption of guilt based purely upon the associations of the target without any substantial indication of threat to the United States. Regarding the second condition, Obama administration officials have repeatedly referred to the feasibility consideration as central to the decision to apply lethal force, regardless of the target’s citizenship. Last year John Brennan gave a speech in which he said, “Our unqualified preference is to only undertake lethal force when we believe that capturing the individual is not feasible.” However, the administration’s pursuit of the war has relied so heavily upon the use of lethal strikes as to raise questions regarding the strictness with which this standard is applied – for instance, in four years the Obama administration has approved six times as many drone strikes in Pakistan as the Bush administration did in eight. The right of due process granted to a citizen creates a significantly higher

In four years the Obama administration has approved six times as may drone strikes in Pakistan as the Bush administration did in eight.

FALL FALL2013 2013• •ISSUE ISSUE22

legal threshold for the acceptable use of lethal action. Even if this standard is not going to be applied rigorously and seriously towards non-citizens, it certainly should not be used to justify a significant and irreparable breach of the process due to American citizens. The final condition, adherence to the laws of war, is less of a concern. These laws state that any military action must meet four fundamental principles: necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity. Any military action, against any military target, is theoretically subject to these principles. This includes the U.S. drone program, although, again, there is perhaps reason to question the strictness with which the proportionality test has been applied. The drone program is not as sterile or precise as the administration would like to believe. As a final consideration of the balancing analysis, it must be asked whether the government’s inherent right to self-defense and obligation to protect its citizens from terrorist attack outweighs the target’s right to due process. In other words, in protecting due process rights should the government risk a terrorist attack at the hands of a U.S. citizen? Hamilton’s Phocion here provides an answer, granting that “cases indeed of extreme necessity are exemptions to all general rules.” However, “Speculations of possible danger never can be justifying causes of departures from principles on which the ordinary course of private security depends.” Under the broad definition of imminence outlined in the white paper, the threat posed by the target is no more than the very speculation Hamilton warned against. Further, reliance upon this “extreme necessity” mentality forces an endsjustifying-the-means structure onto the decision-making process, a situation President Obama declared unacceptable in an interview with CNN. “It’s very easy to slip into a situation in which

Politics » Oceans you end up bending the rules thinking that the ends always justify the means,” he said. “That’s not been our tradition. That’s not who we are as a country.” Beyond the tortured legal justification of the Justice Department white paper, this debate raises a more central question: should we grant to the executive the power to execute citizens on a mere supposition of guilt without some appeal to due process? True, Senator Paul’s implication that combat drones could be used within the territorial borders of the United States is absurd – in a letter written after the filibuster, Holder needed all of three lines to dispense with the question. But in an earlier letter to Senator Paul, the Attorney General left open the possibility of the use of lethal military force within the territory of the United States in some “extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate.” It is not too much of a stretch to imagine another white paper approving the use of a similar, albeit much less overt, lethal force in a domestic case. And that gets right at the heart of the matter. Granting this unilateral and extra-judicial authority for the application of what amounts to capital punishment to the executive sets a dangerous precedent. Hamilton notes in the second Phocion letter that an attempt by the legislature to “go out of their province to decide who are the violators of those laws,” could produce a subversion of constitutional principles. The danger is that much greater when the presidency does so, as the power is much more concentrated. No branch of government wants to return a power once it has been obtained, least of all the executive. This unilateral right to dispense with due process rights for drone strike targets is a power that it will not lightly relinquish, and could easily be expanded given the right circumstances. The bottom line: the Obama administration has granted itself the authority to order the extrajudicial killing of any U.S. citizen they suspect of being a high-level al-Qaida operative. By its

THE CHAGOSSIANS’ LONG JOURNEY HOME

In the island country of Mauritius an entire population displaced by U.K. and U.S. imperialism is fighting for the chance to return home Raza Currimjee

Wikimedia Commons

Alexander Hamilton wrote two letters under the pen name “Phocion” in 1784 to the people of New York that serve as an important guide to the meaning of the due process clauses in the Constitution. very nature, this authority runs contrary to the “regular and constitutional mode” and “legal process” for the abridgement of due process rights

The Obama administration has granted itself the authority to order the extrajudicial killing of any U.S. citizen they suspect of being a highlevel al-Qaida operative insisted upon by Alexander Hamilton, no matter how many times Eric Holder references our founding documents. The Obama administration would do well in this situation to consider the

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

closing words of Hamilton’s letters: “Let those in whose hands [the nation’s cause] is placed, pause for a moment, and contemplate with an eye of reverence, the vast trust that is committed to them…Is the sacrifice of a few mistaken, or criminal individuals, an object worthy of the shifts to which we are reduced to evade the constitution and the national engagements? If they even doubt the propriety of the measures, they may be about to adopt, let them remember, that in a doubtful case, the constitution ought never to be hazarded, without extreme necessity.” The sacrifice of the liberties of a few bad men ends up being much more. It is a sacrifice of the promise of those founding values, and so whenever such a question arises, the civil liberty carries greater weight than the seeming necessity of the moment. -

The 60 islands that form the British Indian Ocean Territory are generally similar. They are small, beautiful, uninhabited islands. In 2010, the archipelago was declared a Marine Protected Area (MPA), with the exception of the main island, Diego Garcia. This is because Diego Garcia hosts an American naval base. An American base on a British Island in the middle of the Indian Ocean? Occupation, to say the least. Back in 1965, Mauritius was a British colony whose territories included the island of Mauritius and a few other islands, including the Chagos Archipelago. The country was peacefully struggling for independence. Future Prime Minister Seewoosagur Ramgoolam and other party leaders held talks with the British and it was agreed that in 1968 Mauritius would be transitioned toward independence. However, Ramgoolam had a private meeting with Prime Minister Harold Wilson and other British officials, and

according to Mauritian journalist Jean Claude de L’Estrac, he was coerced into giving up the Chagos Archipelago in exchange for independence. This was quickly forgotten, but in recent years Mauritius has been claiming sovereignty over the islands because separating territories within a colony goes against resolution 1514 of the UN. Moreover, the Mauritian constitution has included the Chagos as part of its territories since 1992. This sovereignty dispute has increased in recent years, especially after the implementation of the MPA. Descendants of slaves brought on the islands during the French occupation, the Chagossians, settled on the islands and made a living thanks to coconut plantations, farms, and fishing skills. But after the United Kingdom acquired the islands, the colonists started an aggressive policy of depopulation. Most Chagossians were sent to Mauritius. Those who were away were not allowed to go back. Their properties were burned

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

The USS Saratoga tied up at the British Naval Base at Diego Garcia in 1987. down and most of them began enduring terrible conditions in Mauritius. They were unable to adapt to the economy and the existent social frame. They lived in slums and, as a result, many Chagossians committed suicide. This multi-step deportation process by the British is seen as one of the most shocking imperialist cases of human rights violations. The American government has also been subject to criticism, and rightly so. They cooperated with the British, and jointly caused the deportation of the Chagossians. Despite having occupied only Diego Garcia, they insisted on having no natives living on any of the islands. Their motives were simple: over the years, the islanders would have asked for more power and eventually the world would have put pressure on the United States to concede. What is most shocking, however, is that while foreigners work on

Politics » Oceans

Wikimedia Commons

The Chagos Archipelago, located in the Indian Ocean, is the subject of a sovereignty dispute that has increased in recent years.

Graphic Maps

A map of the British island Diego Garcia, which hosts an American naval base.

the naval base and tourists are allowed to visit the islands around the base, journalists are not permitted any access. The United States has also been on the receiving end of criticism because the Diego Garcia is alleged to be a CIA Black Site, accused of being a refueling stop for rendition flights and a mooring location for ships torturing detainees. On a more legal note, the base has been a crucial launch pad for many military operations since the construction of the base in the 1970s. In 1980, it was used during the unsuccessful attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran. Since then it has grown in prominence. In 1982, it was crucial in Operation Ernest Will against Iran. In the 1990s it was extensively active against Iraq. And after 9/11 came a significant turning point: the base was of immense importance, as both wars during the 2000s required its use. Since their deportation, the Chagossians have decided to face the British through a series of court cases in order to obtain compensation and discuss their right of return. From the early 1970s until very recently the islanders have tried to get their home back in vain. In 2000, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that they were allowed to return to the Chagos except for Diego Garcia. In 2004, the British government cowardly used the media hype created by a local election, to pass Orders in Council, reversing the decision of the High Court. Two years later, the same High Court overturned the Order in Council. But eventually, in 2008, the House of Lords went against the decision made by the High Court, ruling against the Chagossians’ return to the Chagos. The Chagossians took the matter to the European Court of Human Rights but were denied last year, due to the fact that they had received a small compensation from the U.K. more than two decades ago. Meanwhile, the U.K. declared the Chagos Archipelago a Marine Protected Area. This was well seen in the eyes of most of the world until 2010, when Wikileaks revealed that the MPA was just a way to add another obstacle on

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

the road back home for the Chagossians. An internal U.S. diplomatic cable quotes a Foreign Office official saying, “the BIOT’s former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve.” It also showed how seriously attached the U.K. and U.S. are to Diego Garcia and the Chagos. But Mauritius has stepped up its moves against the U.K. by going to The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration in order to debate the implementation of the MPA. The United Kingdom had hoped that the story about the archipelago’s sovereignty would be ignored in the case. But the PCA rejected this claim and sovereignty could now play a big role in the implementation of the MPA and the return of the Chagossians. The Prime Minister of Mauritius strongly believes that this might pave the way for the return of the islands to Mauritius and possibly the return of the islanders. The United States and United Kingdom are known as champions of democracy, but the United States is an empire. It has hundreds of bases outside its mainland. After World War II the process of decolonization followed and the U.S. and the U.K. knew that they had to keep some kind of geopolitical and strategic influence around the world. Other places were depopulated for military reasons as well. The American empire is one that is built on lies and violations of sovereign rights. What are we to expect then? By challenging the British, current Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam’s motives might be only aimed at increasing his popularity. And even if Mauritius gains the control of the islands, will it allow the Americans to keep their base? Or will it allow the Chagossians to go back? It’s not as if the Chagos contain valuable resources. It’s mostly a matter of national pride for Mauritius. For the Americans, it’s a matter of security, even though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are drawing to a close. But for the native Chagossians, it’s a fight for their right to have a home. -

CONTAINMENT FOR NUCLEAR IRAN

Politics

Even in the event of nuclear proliferation in Iran, restraint would serve U.S. interests much more than a military strike Teddy Cohan Lately, the threat of a nuclear Iran has grown more possible and more frightening to American citizens and policymakers. Although many American statesmen disagree, military action against Iran is unjustifiable. Iran does not pose a national security risk to America, and the costs of intervening would surely outweigh the benefits. America, therefore, should refrain from using its considerable military might in Iran. Instead, America should contain Iran by moderating any potential national security risks and pursuing cost-efficient strategies to preserve American treasure. Iran will not use nuclear weapons against another nuclear nation since doing so would be suicidal for the regime. The possibility of the military acting in its own interests ahead of the state’s interests does not apply to Iran because according to Akbar Ganji, under a supreme leader like Ayatollah Khamenei, “traditional domination develops an administration and a military force which are purely personal instruments of the master.” It is not the military but, rather, “the supreme leader who [sets] the policies” with nuclear weapons,”

America should contain Iran by moderating any potential national security risks and pursuing cost-efficient strategies to preserve American treasure.

meaning major military decisions fall to Khamenei. Because using nuclear weapons would be the surest way to terminate his reign, Khamenei will refrain from acting irresponsibly. The possibility of a “nuclear handoff ” to terrorists is also unlikely because the state would lose control but continue to be held accountable. Therefore, America faces no legitimate security risk from Iran. Military intervention in Iran to prevent regional instability because of an arms race is an illegitimate concern

because of the difficulty of developing nuclear weapons. Though, as John J. Mearshimer and Stephen M. Walt wrote, “Pakistanis were willing to ‘eat grass’ for the privilege of joining the nuclear club…not everyone is.” a major national commitment is necessary to acquire nuclear weapons. There also remains a possibility, as Jacque E.C. Hymans has argued, that Iran’s program could fail like Iraq’s did due to “years of coercive authoritarian mismanagement,” which led to “Iraq’s scientific and technical

Wikimedia Commons

Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the current Supreme Leader of Iran and is responsible for the country’s major military decisions, including policies concerning nuclear weapons.

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

Politics

workers [becoming] exhausted, cynical, and divided.” Further, unlike Iran, states such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey “are tied to the United States and the broader global economy, and developing nuclear weapons would put those interests at risk,” due to the resulting international fallout. Other regional actors can, therefore, be deterred from acquiring nuclear weapons. Instability caused by an Israeli preventive strike or Iranian regional ambitions are similarly unlikely because of the role America plays in the region. America must reassert its alliance to Israel and could deter an Israeli preventive strike by establishing a redline promising to treat an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel as an attack on America. Iran would likely be reluctant to take on two major military powers at once. The possibility of Iranian regional expansion, which would threaten American alliances with states such as Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, is also unlikely because Iran has a weak conventional military, suggesting it would have to rely on the threat of using its WMD to blackmail states into appeasing it to gain regional influence. To prevent this, America should show that Washington is committed to their security. Although the United States is pivoting to Asia while Russia and China are aiming to gain regional influence, America still has the political loyalty of several states in the region due to its security guarantees and aid packages. It can use these as leverage to build support against Iran and prevent bandwagoning. Because of America’s unique position in the region, a nuclear Iran would not necessarily lead to regional instability. The Iranian response to American military intervention would be costly, as Colin Kahl argued last spring in Foreign Affairs. Since Iranian leaders have “staked their domestic legitimacy on resisting international pressure to halt the nuclear program,” any attack on

Following any military intervention, America would still need to employ a costly containment policy to prevent the future development of Iranian nuclear weapons.

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

the program would essentially be “an attack on the regime itself.” Therefore, war with Iran would be “a messy and extraordinarily violent affair, with significant casualties and consequences” since Tehran is “likely to overreact to even a surgical strike against its nuclear facilities.” Iran would probably close the Strait of Hormuz, where nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes, so any conflict between the two nations would likely be short because of the international pressure caused by rising oil prices, and a shorter war would increase the possibility that Iran might “launch as many missiles as possible early in the war.” Though America would surely win the war because of its military superiority, it would also likely bear the brunt of considerable economic, political, and social consequences. Another major cost of an American military intervention in Iran would be the anti-Americanism the conflict would engender throughout the Middle East. Intervention would likely cause “both Islamist extremists and embattled elites [to] use this opportunity to transform the Arab Spring’s populist antiregime narrative into a decidedly anti-American one,” which would allow “Iran to play the victim and, through its retaliation, resuscitate its status as the champion of the region’s anti-Western resistance,” writes Kahl. Prolonged presence in the region would have the negative consequence of enhancing Iranian prestige and providing fodder for Islamist radicals and terrorist groups who could blame America for their problems. The only sure way America can reduce anti-Americanism is to remove itself visibly from the region, which will have the added benefit of reducing terrorism against America. Following any military intervention, America would still need to employ a costly containment policy to prevent the future development of Iranian

nuclear weapons. Kahl argues that because America can “do nothing to reverse the nuclear knowledge Iran accumulated or its ability to eventually build new centrifuges,” it is likely that following the strikes, America would “need to construct an expensive, risky, postwar containment regime to prevent Iran from reconstituting the program.” Otherwise, the program would likely begin anew, like in Iraq, which “required the Gulf War and another decade of sanctions and intrusive inspections to eliminate it” following Israel’s preventive 1981 strike. Moreover, America would have to do so on its own since “many countries would view such an operation as a breach of international law, shattering the consensus required to maintain an effective poststrike containment regime.” A military intervention would lead to a more extended, expensive containment process than America could pursue right now. Instead, America should contain Iran by crafting a policy centered on America’s fundamental interests: ensuring security and cost-effectiveness. To safeguard American security, it should lay down certain redlines that, if crossed, would lead to “U.S. military retaliation by any and all means necessary, up to and including nuclear weapons,” as James M. Lindsey and Ray Takeyh suggest. Unlike in Syria, where Obama laid down redlines and failed to back up his promises, Iran has the potential to threaten vital American interests in the region in a way that Syrian President Bashar alAssad could not, so the redlines would have to be real threats. The redlines should be “no initiation of conventional warfare against other countries [and] no use or transfer of nuclear weapons, materials, or technologies.” America’s containment policy must also put its resources to the best possible use. To do this, America should work towards the “formation of a regional

Understanding the limits of American power will allow Washington to create more effective foreign policy decisions – and that starts in Iran.

FALL FALL2013 2013• •ISSUE ISSUE2 2

alliance network that would marshal Arab states into a more cohesive defense grouping,” argue Lindsey and Takeyh. This would ensure America does not have to put more boots on the ground while also being rooted in multilateralism, which would show Iran that America is working with a unified coalition of supporters and not alone. America should further “seek to influence and, where necessary, constrain Iran’s friends in the Middle East” by working to solve regional issues within the framework of the regional alliance network. Building up the “institutional and military capabilities of Afghanistan and Iraq” would “further limit Iran’s strategic reach,” and reduce potential Iranian power projection. America should also continue economic sanctions against Iran, which are producing “intense pain,” according to Kahl. These processes would not be cheap for the U.S., but they would be even more costly for Iran. America does not have the resources to completely prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Understanding the limits of American power will allow Washington to create more effective foreign policy decisions – and that starts in Iran. America should only flex its military muscle when its national security is truly at stake and the benefits outweigh the costs. Finally, by performing a military strike, the United States would be playing into the hands of those who claim that America is not as morally superior as it likes to believe. Like President Truman said, “We do not believe in aggression or preventive war,” since “such a war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.” As the foremost proponent of liberal democracy, America must hold itself up to these high standards by making choices in line with its founding principles, making containment a far more prudent course of action. -

Politics

CYBER WARFARE: An Untested Battleground The danger of Chinese cyber attacks lies less in the attacks themselves and more in the risk of a bellicose U.S. reaction Dan Whittam In February, the story broke that the cyber security company Mandiant had traced thousands of cyber security attacks on U.S. industry targets to a single, unassuming building in Shanghai. The owner of this building turned out to be the People’s Liberation Army, the military wing of the Chinese Communist Party. This news naturally caused much alarm within America, and prompted President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, to issue a warning to China to get the attacks under control. Chinese leadership has denied responsibility for the attacks, and recently issued its own claims that its military and defense establishments

had been the targets of cyber attacks China says emanated from the United States. On May 6, a Pentagon report to Congress made a direct accusation that the attacks on American companies came from China, the first time such a straight claim has been made at China. Again, Chinese leadership denied the claims. The consequences of cyber attacks are varied. In the worst-case scenario, they can be disastrous. Picture massive infrastructure failures, military communication breakdowns, and unresponsive cell phones. The list of vulnerabilities goes on. According to a report from former U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman, critical systems, such as

thevsky.com

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

power plants and hospitals, run on industrial control centers connected to the Internet with little or no security. But these possibilities, while certainly worrisome, are fortunately remote. Instead, the current use of cyber warfare is mainly aimed at industry. Many corporations, including Google, Facebook, Coca-Cola, and the New York Times, have admitted in recent weeks that they have been the targets of cyber attacks. According to Williams Professor Ryan Kiggins, who specializes in the political science of cyber security, “the real issue is that 80% of cyber attacks originating in China are targeted at US corporations. Why? China is

siphoning the intellectual property of the United States, on which U.S. competitive advantage rests.” In many instances, hackers send an spam email that company employees click on, giving access to the company’s databases. Once inside the system, the hackers can be hard to detect and weed out. It is not known in many cases what sorts of knowledge is specifically being stolen, because companies are highly sensitive to being seen by investors as vulnerable. In light of China’s threat to America’s economic advantage, these attacks are especially worrisome. So what should America be doing about the growing threat of cyber attacks, especially from China? Given the real threats facing America, it is tempting to call for an urgent, largescale response. Why not fight back? Foreign Policy’s Dan Blumenthal argues for such a response. He suggests we give credibility to what are essentially cyber pirates, allowing private actors free reign to raid and attack Chinese targets, promising to protect them. Because America’s legal system is more reputable than China’s, America’s hackers will have to be shielded from the complaints and lawsuits that China will undoubtedly raise. He also suggests more public

attacks, such as Stuxnet, the virus the CIA used to disrupt Iranian centrifuges, to send the message that America is dominant in the cyber field. Such a response, however, would only further escalate the cyber conflict. The U.S. stands to gain very little through open cyber conflict with China. Instead

The U.S. stands to gain very little through open cyber conflict with China... The playing field in the cyber realm is very even. of blustering or attacking furtively, the U.S. should be leading the way to set guidelines on how cyber conflicts are to be carried out. American armed forces are currently unmatched; the only way other countries, such as China, will be able to quickly gain an advantage is through cyber warfare, where the disparity is not as great. The playing field in the cyber realm is very even. America must recognize this potential weakness and seek to control it, rather

Mandiant Corporation

than aggressively attacking in a realm where they are comparatively weak. Blumenthal also advocates creating a multi-national cyber response team made of U.S.-allied countries to protect against and respond back to Chinese cyber attacks. He suggests putting the site for such a team in Taiwan, an area of major tension in the region and of large significance to China, because he thinks the proximity to China will help the team function. But as Professor Kiggins points out, in the cyber realm, geographical proximity plays no role. What Blumenthal suggests could just as easily be carried out in the middle of the U.S., while collaborating with Taiwanese actors at the same time. Ultimately, it is not worth provoking China with what is essentially military aggression on one of the most sensitive regions in Asia for what could just as easily be done anywhere in the world. The U.S. needs to restrain its actions and act in a defensive manner. It is The Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers march during an open day at a Hong Kong naval base (far left). Kevin Mandia heads Mandiant as its founder and CEO (center). President Barack Obama meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington (right).

Susan Walsh/AP Photo

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

not that the threat is not serious— the U.S. is potentially losing billions a year due to corporate cyber espionage. Critically, however, responses to this problem need to be defensive, not offensive. Lieberman reports that up to 80% of cyber attacks can be stopped by basic measures, such as complex passwords or frequent patching. A bill proposed by the Senator would offer incentives for companies to do this, as well as to remove critical infrastructure systems from Internet connectivity. Defensive measures like these anger no one and make the country safer. China itself has called for new “rules and cooperation” with regards to cyber espionage, while still denying that the government was directly involved in attacks on American targets. It may be frustrating because it looks like the Chinese government is getting away with attacking U.S. interests without reprisal, but American interests line up with what they are asking for. The field of cyberspace is new enough to warrant major caution. As mentioned earlier, The building located on the outskirts of Shanghai that is believed to be the source of hacking attacks.

the U.S.’s capabilities in this field are untested. It is not clear that we posses the same advantage in this field as we do in all other fields of military technology. The U.S. must engage in private negotiations with China. Firstly, America should declare what its responses will be to different forms of cyber attacks. An attack on physical infrastructure

Up to 80% of cyber attacks can be stopped by basic measures, such as complex passwords or frequent patching. that results in deaths will warrant a large reaction from the U.S., while a breach of minor company’s website will not, and China should be made to understand this. The U.S. must also set up guidelines for conflict in cyber space with China, as well as with the broader international community, making it clear what is acceptable and what is not. Finally, the U.S. government should collaborate with private American companies like

Mendiant and those that have reported being hacked, in order to bolster the country’s defense. Many corporations are afraid to report cyber attacks for fear that rumors of vulnerability will hurt their stock prices, but this only keeps the issue of cyber defense in the dark. The defense of the country requires government collaboration with private actors. The U.S. must proceed cautiously in the emerging realm of cyber defense. While reports of the Chinese army deliberately attacking U.S. targets are alarming, it is important to keep larger objectives in mind. Responding aggressively to China and sparking conflict achieves very little. A wise approach is to establish norms that can be used to govern action in cyberspace and increase our own defenses. Cyberspace is still a very new concept. Caution and deliberate action are needed to ensure that the U.S. maintains a strong position in the field. Editor’s note: This piece was written before the revelations by former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden on the scope of American cyber surveillance. The scale of those capabilities are now better understood than the writer anticipated, but American cyber defense programs remain, for the most part, a mystery.

Carlos Barria/REUTERS

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

THE SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS

Politics

Escalating violence in Syria is driving huge numbers of refugees into neighboring countries, especially Jordan. Is it becoming too much for Jordan to handle? Sumaya Awad On March 19, 2011, the small city of Daraa located near Syria’s southern border with Jordan found its way into news headlines worldwide. Although the tensions in Syria between the tyrannical government run by the Assad family and the Syrian population were already highly evident in the country, tight security and fear had kept concerns under the rug. However, all these fears were put aside when a group of sixth grade boys danced around the streets of the small city of Daraa singing the infamous slogan of the Arab Spring “The people want to overthrow the regime.” The boys were met with violent arrests by Syrian police forces. The incident triggered a series of protests and demonstrations all across Syria, consequently unleashing the brutal violence of the Syrian regime. The protests resulted in the death of five protesters in clashes with security officers, while Daraa streamed across the headlines as an official participant in the Arab Spring. The protest in Daraa escalated into what many are now referring to as a Syrian civil war . While Syria and other

Over two million Syrians have left the country as refugees or asylum seekers since the start of the conflict in March 2011.

Arab countries, such as Egypt and Libya, have faced somewhat similar conflicts in terms of violence, no Arab country in recent years, with the exception of Palestine, has faced a refugee diaspora similar to that of Syria during the current civil war. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over two million Syrians have left the country as refugees or asylum seekers since the start of the conflict in March 2011. These refugees fled to the surrounding countries of Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan. Gulf countries limited the number of

Syrian refugees entering; Saudi Arabia in particular feared that the sudden influx would threaten the country’s stability. These countries assuage their guilt by allocating monthly funds to countries accepting refugees, such as Jordan. According to a June United Nations statement, Jordan, a small country with a population of six million people, will be home to over 1.2 million Syrian refugees by the end of the year 2013. Jordan is currently home to the largest number of Syrian refugees, at over half a million. The Jordanians have met this sudden influx of fleeing Syrians with hospitality.

BELGA/UPI/EYEVINE

Syrian anti-government protesters hold up banners with “Daraa is bleeding” and “Who kills his own people is traitor” written in Arabic.

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

DISPATCH FROM ABROAD However, the sudden influx has also created tension with the Jordanian population, who witnessed a similar influx during the 2003 Iraq war when thousands of Iraqi refugees found asylum in Jordan. Tensions between Palestinian refugees, who have been living in Jordan as far back as 1967, and the Syrian refugees are escalating since resources must be stretched to accommodate the new refugees. Various refugee camps, Palestinian, Iraqi, and now Syrian, are spread out over the Jordanian deserts. These camps were already in very critical condition, but the influx of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees has exacerbated the problems. Jordan has allocated minimum funds for these refugees, and regional aid from countries such as Saudi Arabia is often misused by the government, as it is given to Jordanians living in poverty instead of the Syrian refugees the funds were intended for. Similarly, the millions given by UNHCR and the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), as well as other aid given by countries such as the United States, which has pledged hundreds of millions, and Canada’s recent pledge of $13 million, go to the Jordanian government to distribute amongst the refugees. This, in turn, raises suspicions and criticism about the usage and distribution of international funds by the Jordanian government. “Funds have not come through” stated Andrew Harper, a representative of UNHCR, while describing the current status of refugees in Jordan. Others have also alleged that some funds are misused by the corrupt Jordanian government. “The Jordanian Hashmite Charity Organization” stated Ali Abu Sukkar, the leader of the Jordanian-Syrian Association to Help Syrians, “isolated other organizations and monopolized aid supply by insisting that other groups channel their goods and funds” through the government-run organizations. However, due to the corrupt state of the government and the lack of substantial

THE ABORTION DEBATE DOWN SOUTH The failure of a political movement for abortion rights in Chile supplemented by vital, new underground methods of safe abortion Emily Dugdale Mohammad Hannon/AP Photo

Newly arrived Syrian refugees gather at Zaatari camp in Mafraq, Jordan. The Jordanian government is not allowing Syrians to leave the camp and join friends or family elsewhere in the country. evidence, little can be done to prove the accusations and ensure that international aid reaches the intended refugees. Aside from the financial aid, refugees in Jordan face another critical problem: discrimination between refugees of different countries, primarily those of Syria and Palestine. The number of Syrians crossing the Jordanian border

Regional aid from countries such as Saudi Arabia is often misused by the government, as it is given to Jordanians living in poverty. has increased drastically since the start of the conflict in 2011. According to recent United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports, approximately 7000 refugees escape the Syrian war zone and enter Jordan every day. The largest Syrian refugee camp in Jordan, Al-Zaatari Camp, houses over 50,000 refugees living in makeshift tents under the blistering desert heat during the day and harsh cold of the night. While most of the Syrian refugees fleeing are Syrian, a small minority are Palestinian refugees who resided in Syria either as refugees from the Palestinian territory prior to

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

the Israeli occupation or as refugees from the Golan Heights territory currently under the control of Israel. The Jordanian government, however, has dealt with these various asylum seekers in a discriminatory manner. While the border control allows Syrians to enter without proper protocol, it detains and even forcibly denies Palestinians entry into the country. According to International Refugee laws, every country must follow the principle of “non-refoulement, which prohibits countries from sending anyone back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened or where they would face a real risk of torture or inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment.” Syria fits the description, as does Palestine. The current situation in Syria is far from stable. The rebel party fighting the government has only intensified with the United Nations recognition of the Syrian rebels as an official group. It seems that for the time being, the number of refugees entering Jordan and nearby Lebanon will not be letting up. While Jordan’s hospitality is inviting, tensions will only increase. Unless humanitarian aid increases or is spent more wisely, the current protests and frequent outbreaks of violence within the refugee camps will continue to escalate for the foreseeable future.

2012 was on track to become a year that would go down in Chilean history. Three bills proposing varying levels of abortion-law reform were put before the Senate in the most recent attempt to confront one of the most repressive abortion laws in the world. Chile, the long, thin western country clinging to the South American continent declares all manners of abortion illegal, even in cases where pregnancy affects the life of the mother. The Senate’s ultimate decision in 2012 to block the three bills attests to the failure of emerging progressive politics over the past two decades in changing the stringent abortion measure. As a consequence, women are often forced to turn to illegal and unsafe abortion situations, risking their lives in the process. Recent statistics for the region as a whole cast a grim image of illegal abortion, with 95% of abortions in Latin America categorized as unsafe by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2008. However, the “back-alley” abortion stereotype associated with Latin America misses the impressive growing movement for safer abortions in Chile

The “back-alley” abortion stereotype associated with Latin America misses the impressive growing movement for safer abortions in Chile today.

today. Linea Aborto Chile, the country’s only abortion hotline, has emerged recently as a vital resource in the struggle for safe abortions, providing essential information on how to self-induce an abortion using the revolutionary drug misoprostol. And with similar hotlines spreading throughout Latin

America, the region seems poised to confront the long-standing ideologies that are barring access to legal, safe abortions and reproductive health. Infamous Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet passed the current abortion law in 1989 as he exited office, and the law remains a constant reminder

infoabortochile.org

Women attend a workshop that provides information about the Chilean legislation on abortion and promotes the sexual and reproductive rights of women in around the world.

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

of his controversial 16-year regime. Until the law was passed, abortion for medical reasons, known as “therapeutic abortion” was permitted in the country. Pinochet’s strict measure was upheld under later administrations, including Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s first woman president, and the current president, Sebastian Piñera. As Piñera wrote in a March 2012 article for Chile’s most prestigious newspaper, El Mercurio, translated from Spanish, “Our Constitution secures the right to life for all people… in accordance with our legal system, the unborn child is also a person, whose life must be protected.” Chile rests in a region of predominantly Catholic countries where religion has historically influenced the conservative political stance towards the rights of an unborn child. Those who perform an abortion or assist in the act are faced with imprisonment. A woman found seeking an abortion receives three to five years of jail time, while providing an abortion procedure may get you up to 15 years. Despite the difficulty of attaining a legal abortion, Latin America is categorized as having one of the highest rates of abortions worldwide: 32 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age. In Chile especially, even though current laws make illegal abortion the only option for a woman seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the abortion rate is stunningly high: Estimates range between 60,000 to 200,000 abortions annually. This paradoxical relationship between the restrictive abortion law and the sky-high abortion rates is increasingly evident in Latin America, prompting action by rising organizations focused on a fundamental change in women’s reproductive health. While political resistance against the Chilean abortion law is evident in the 15 abortion-related bills submitted to Congress since the 1990s, the arrival of

Chile’s greatest hope for abortionlaw reform lies in Linea Aborto, the hotline offering a new sense of hope and independence for thousands of Chilean women.

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

a legal end to the abortion ban is not yet in sight. The bills rejected by the Chilean Senate in 2012 would have modified the current abortion ban to permit abortion when the risks to a mother’s life or the prognosis of the survival of the fetus was severe, or in the case of rape. Remarkably, in less economically prosperous countries elsewhere in Latin America, abortion rights are steadily gaining ground. Cuba, Mexico, and Guyana all possess varying degrees of legal abortion, and Uruguay joined the ranks last fall when it legalized abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. Chile’s greatest hope for abortionlaw reform lies in Linea Aborto, the hotline making waves throughout the region and offering a new sense of hope and independence for thousands of Chilean women. Launched in 2009, the revolutionary hotline has received international attention thanks to a recent profile in the New York Times, and is hailed throughout Chile as a potentially life-saving resource offering women a safe alternative to the strict abortion laws. The hotline was founded by the pro-choice group Women on Waves, who later established similar hotlines throughout Latin American, all of which educate women on the use of the “miracle drug,” misprostal. A drug originally classified to treat ulcers by the WHO, misoprostol is now recommended as a safe and effective manner of inducing abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. The drug carries a reported 75-90 percent rate of success, according to the WHO. However, the once- readily available drug was taken off pharmacy shelves under the presidential term of Michelle Bachalet, pushing misoprosal and the women who desire it to the black market. The 12 pills required for an abortion cost around $250 USD. According to a blog post on Rh Reality Check submitted by Emily Anne, a hotline

volunteer, the WHO recommends taking the 12 pills over a time span of nine hours, and if the pill is placed under the tongue, complications from the abortion that require hospitalization can be disguised as a miscarriage. The Chilean group Lesbians and Feminists for the Right to Information serves as the voice behind the 30 volunteers that staff the hotline. The volunteers choose to shield their identity physically with masks while campaigning in public and to follow a script preapproved by a lawyer when answering calls for the hotline, due to the legal danger of being identified as a member of the hotline. According to the legal outline, the hotline can share publically available information with women, but must address the women in the third person. Volunteers are also not permitted to inquire after the women’s personal information, including regarding her health. Information may also only be publically shared with callers who are of legal age; that is, over the age of 18.

We have no other choice than to organize ourselves, and empower women to have the safest, most positive abortion experience they can.

womenonwaves.org

Red Mujeres Chile launches the hotline “Aborto: Información Segura,” which will give information about the safe and effective use of Misoprostol, in the Plaza Constitución.

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

Despite the restrictions on the hotline, their presence is a welcome source of information for many struggling women; according to a volunteer, the hotline estimates receiving 12,000 calls since 2009, and now operates 365 days a year. The advantages to the hotline are unparalleled for women in Chile seeking abortions. Growing awareness of Linea Aborto has promoted a larger discussion of abortion in the country, from women’s organizations and grassroots campaigns fed up with the failure of traditional politics to respond to the staggering numbers of unsafe abortions. And while Chile is still stalled on legal action to change the abortion law, support groups remain active and are visibly attempting to push new legislation. The Santiago Times reported in March that several senators from various politically left-wing parties will submit a bill to Congress this year proposing legal therapeutic abortions, which would allow abortions when the mother’s life is endangered, in cases of rape, and when the fetus is “malformed or lifeless.” This year, Chilean reproductive health specialists even went on record saying that misoprostol use has significantly reduced the volume of documented illegal abortion complications. This support, coupled with the rising tide of movements supporting abortion reform, means Chile is poised to move out of the shadow of one of Pinochet’s most lasting legacies. Only time will tell if politics are finally able to sort out a means to this end, and as bills are drafted and grassroots organizations host protests, a group of brave women will continue to answer calls from desperate women late into the night. As a volunteer writes in a blog post describing the intentions of the hotline, “We have no other choice than to organize ourselves, and empower women to have the safest, most positive abortion experience they can.”

Science

THE PERILS OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION Greenhouse gasses are as damaging to our oceans as to our atmosphere, and in the oceans they may affect the future of modern medicine Alex Okemah For the past century, coral reef destruction has taken a back seat to other environmental issues. Fifteen years ago, 58% (or 146,900 sq. km.) of the world’s reefs were classified as being at medium or high risk of overexploitation of marine resources, destructive fishing habits, and coastal development according to the World Resources Institute. In addition to these immediately visible methods of reef destruction, substantial

carbon dioxide emissions and inland pollution contribute directly to ocean acidification, creating a prominent, devastating force on the Great Barrier Reef as well as smaller coral reefs around the world. While international laws and even individual countries can end some of these more immediate forms of coral reef destruction, it would require a global effort in the long run to begin curbing the pollutants

Thorbjørn Kahrs Fabricius/AIMS

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

that contribute to ocean acidification. The age of industrialization ushered in exponential growth in the quantity of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. Since 1751, approximately 329 billion tons of carbon dioxide have been released into the atmosphere, with half of these emissions coming after 1970. In the past few decades, only half of the carbon dioxide released by humans has remained in the atmosphere,

and while the ocean absorbs 30%, the remaining 20% is taken up by the terrestrial biosphere. The carbon dioxide effectively being pumped into our oceans has created an ongoing reduction in ocean pH levels by forming carbonic acid with the water through chemical reaction. With more acidic oceans, marine organisms find it difficult to extract calcium carbonate from the water, which they need to construct their aragonite and calcite shells and skeletons. The drop in ocean pH levels between 1751 and 2004 has been estimated at 8.25 to 8.14. On our current track, estimates show our ocean pH levels could plunge as far as 7.85 by 2100, which passes the threshold of acidity where coral reefs begin to directly disintegrate in the water. With the ability of organisms to produce their shells and skeletons inhibited by the drop in ocean pH, the Great Barrier Reef has a difficult time repairing itself. With unprecedentedly low coral growth rates, natural destructive factors such as weathering

from wave action and coral bleaching soon begin to add up. Coral bleaching is a process in which vast swathes of coral die and lose their vibrant colors.

In the past few decades, only half of the carbon dioxide released by humans has remained in the atmosphere, and while the ocean absorbs 30%, the remaining 20% is taken up by the terrestrial biosphere. Coral bleaching is a natural occurrence in nature, but since 1998, regular coral bleaching spurred on by higher sea surface temperatures and higher ocean acidity has been observed to be too rapid for natural regeneration to take place. Within the next two decades, a 20% increase in carbon dioxide levels could significantly reduce the ability of corals to build their skeletons, and some species

Susannah Sayler/REUTERS

could become functionally extinct in this timeframe. The lack of shells impedes the natural ability for the reef to repair itself and the large-scale dying off of these invertebrates disrupts the food chain and decreases aggregate biodiversity. Along with protecting Australia’s North Western Coast from storm damage and erosion, the Great Barrier Reef holds considerable economic value. Each year, about 1.8 million tourists visit the Great Barrier Reef, spending over $4 billion (AU) in reef-related industries such as fishing, retail, and tours. To put this into perspective, the Disney Company as a whole recorded revenue of $40.9 billion (US) in 2011, while the popular amusement park Six Flags posted A map of the spatial distribution of octocoral richness in the Great Barrier Reef (far left). Coral reefs destroyed by ocean acidification (center). The Shen Neng 1, a Chinese bulk carrier filled with 65,000 tons of coal, took an illegal shortcut through the protected area and caused an oil spill (right).

Maritime Safety Queensland

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

revenues of $976 million (US) in 2010. The medicinal benefits of reefs are also not to be overlooked. Coral Reefs commonly produce chemicals like histamines and antibiotics, serving numerous general uses in both medicine and science. In our own reefs in the United States, chemicals have been collected from sea sponges off the coast of Florida to help develop Ara-C, which is used to treat acute myelocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. According to Dr. William Fenical, an American natural products chemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, “Marine sources could be the major source of drugs for the next decade” Destruction of these reefs for fishing purposes and general apathy towards curbing pollution levels shows a lack in

foresight of potential future benefits. The economic value of the Great Barrier Reef proves indispensible not only to Australians, but to the entire world.

The most difficult aspect of confronting a problem as globally distributed as ocean acidification is getting countries on the same page.

The most difficult aspect of confronting a problem as globally distributed as ocean acidification is getting countries on the same page. The most widely recognized way to address reef destruction is to reduce greenCoral bleaching causes swathes of coral to die. house gas emissions. Unfortunately, Since 1998, higher sea surface temperature and governments worldwide have shown acidity have sped up this process. inconsistency in committing to goals that

have been agreed upon. Even watered down targets set by the Kyoto Protocol were fundamentally ignored, making the rising threat of ocean acidification a prime example of Garrett Hardin’s tragedy of the commons. Independently, each country is acting rationally relative to other countries, yet all are knowingly damaging shared seas and harming the best interests of the world in the long run. Clearly not all countries are contributing the same levels of carbon dioxide and other pollutants to the ocean acidification process, but richer countries and industrial leaders such as China and the United States should strive to provide a better examples for less wealthy or developing nations to follow. No single interest group, or even country, can tackle ocean acidification single-handedly. The effort must be global.No single interest group, or even country, can tackle ocean acidification single-handedly. The effort must be global.

OBITUARY

THE TELEGRAPH

In memorandum of the first technology to connect the whole world, which passed away this summer after over 160 happy years. Christopher Huffaker

TeleGeography

The Climate Commission

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

To become idiomatic is, in a way, to become immortal. There may be Byronic heroes longer than we read Byron, and people will bring coal to Newcastle long, long after Newcastle mines any coal. This is why every elementary schoolchild in America has sent a Christmas candygram and seen the singing telegram from Elf, despite having never sent nor received an actual telegram nor, likely, having heard of Western Union, the telegraphy giant that actually invented the candygram. Unfortunately, that immortality is limited, and this summer saw the telegraph pass on. Like many obituaries, the biggest surprise to the reader may be that the mourned was not already dead. But on July 14th, India’s stateowned telecom BSNL sent its last telegram, ending what was considered

the last national telegraph service. As we enter what is tritely purported to be the communication age, we have lost the first great modern communication technology. And the telegraph truly was a great technology. Its birth is disputed, but it was some time in the first half of the 19th century, by German, American, Scottish, or English parentage. This was decades before the telephone, and it was not the telephone that killed the telegraph. There has always been a need for textual communication and, importantly, communication that persists. A phone call, for much of its history, was of no use in reaching someone out of the house or office. A telegram was. The telegraph could consistently and quickly cross an ocean. The first

FALL 2013 • ISSUE 2

A map of the undersea cables that carry the majority of all telephone and Internet traffic around the world. transatlantic telegraph cable, from Ireland to Newfoundland, was completed in 1858. This was no small feat; the cable weighed over a ton per nautical mile and had to be able to withstand several tens of kilonewtons of force. Multiple attempts over multiple years failed before a cable was successfully laid across the Ocean. The first telegram sent read, “Europe and America are united by telegraphy. Glory to God in the highest; on earth, peace and good will toward men.” It is no coincidence that the first transoceanic cable ran between North America and the British Isles. That connection remans extremely important.

Though we’ve had the telegram for nearly two centuries, its usage did not diminish until the last few decades. It was email that killed the telegram. In 1870 India and Britain were directly connected, and in 1872 Australia was linked to the world. The earth was encircled with a transpacific telegraph cable in 1902. Thomas Friedman likes to ridiculously pontificate about how flat and connected the earth is in the 21st century, but this began with the telegraph. The world still is not flat, but it was the telegraph that at least built the first stairs. The telegraph’s varied and historic life story shows its power. Few other technologies have had its effects on international affairs. World War I demonstrates this influence: In the Kruger Telegram, Kaiser Wilhelm II congratulated a South African leader on repelling a British attack, inflaming British sentiments and setting the stage for the arrangement of alliances that fought World War I. Then, at the beginning of that war, the Willy-Nicky Correspondence, a telegram negotiation between Wilhelm and his Russian counterpart, Tsar Nicholas II, failed to halt the march to war. Three years later, the Zimmerman Telegram, a message from Germany to Mexico asking the nation to join the Triple Alliance if the U.S. joined the Triple Entente, was intercepted by the British. This ended up being one of the factors that caused America to enter exactly what it attempted to mitigate. Obviously, it was not the fact that these were telegraphs that made them significant, but their content. But the ability to move that content long distances at high speeds is what made the individual repercussions of these events possible, particularly in the case of the Zimmerman Telegram. Furthermore,

THE WILLIAMS

GLOBALIST Want to write for the Globalist, or otherwise get involved? Have a correction or a comment on one of our articles? Email williamsglobalist@gmail.com Jan Messersmith

A diver loosens steel lashings attaching the undersea cable to the support structure, which is in danger of breaking and flexing the cable beyond its limits. do we not celebrate the Forrest Gump, present in the background of every historical event? In many ways, the telegraph weirdly presaged instant messages, texting, and Twitter. The forced economy of characters demonstrates that brevity truly is wit, or at least facilitates it. One of my favorite apocryphal anecdotes has George Bernard Shaw sending Churchill a telegram reading, “Opening night tomorrow. Bring a friend, if you have one.” Churchill replied, “Can’t make first night. Will be there second, if you have one.” Another, which probably actually did happen, has Victor Hugo, after the release of Les Misérables, sending a telegram to his editor containing only “?”. His editor, in the style of a modern journalist tweeting about breaking news, responded only with “!”. It’s worth remembering that even though we’ve had the telegram for nearly two centuries, its usage did not diminish

THE WILLIAMS GLOBALIST

until the last few decades. It was email, more than anything else, that killed the telegram. Western Union, America’s predominant telegraph service provider, only shut down its service in 2006, and while the economics were no longer working for India’s service, it had utility and resonance to the end. In addition to being used for various government services, the telegraph was a mainstay of runaway couples. Star-crossed lovers, banned from marrying by their families due to caste or religion, would flee, and notify their parents via telegraph. The telegraph allowed them to do so from afar while simultaneously providing evidence to the government and human rights groups, in case they receive retribution from their families. After over a century of use, we are losing one of our most world-changing inventions. The telegraph allowed us to communicate further and faster than we ever had before. STOP.

The Williams Globalist is online. Visit twglobalist.org for more news and commentary. The Williams Globalist is a member of Global21, an international network of student-run international relations magazines, based at Yale. Visit global21online.org for other great Globalist magazines.