issue 6 - the war for natural resources

RESOURCES

THE WAR FORNATURAL

ReviewVolume XXIII - March 2014

Issue

6THE HORACE MANN

Caroline KuritzkesEditor-in-Chief

Samuel HenickExecutive Editor

Catherine EngelmannSenior Editor - Features

Ben GreeneSenior Editor - Domestic

Hana KrijestoracSenior Editor - International

Jonah WexlerSenior Editor - Economics

Jacob HabermanSenior Editor - Science and Technology

Daniel BaudoinHannah Davidoff

Henry LuoMohit Mookim

Kelvin RheeNamit SataraLenn UchimaJacob Zurita

Senior Contibutors

Charles CottonSamuel FischRobert Hefter

Sam SternAssociate Editors

ReviewTHE HORACE MANN

Gregory DonadioFaculty Advisor

The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholas-tic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. Please contact The Review for more information at www.issuu.com/horacemannreview

Will EllisonDavid Hackel

Sahej SuriManaging Content Editors

Jenny Heon*Mihika KapoorIsaiah Newman

Managing Design Editors

Letter From the Editor

2

Neil AhlawatEdmund Bannister

Jenna BarancikLauren Futter

Matthew HarpeLaszlo HerwitzEmily Kramer

James McCarthy

James MegibowAdam ResheffHarry Seavey

Brett SilversteinIkaasa Suri

Nathan Tillinghast-RabyMitchell Troyanovsky

Elizabeth XiongJunior Editors

*Chair of the Senior Board

Caroline KuritzkesEditor-in-ChiefVolume XXIII

Happy third trimester! I hope I speak for the entire senior staff when I say how excited and optimistic we are to begin this stretch of the year. I know the coming months will be an opportunity for us to pour even more energy and focus into The Review than we’ve been capable of before.

For the past few issues, Sam and I have been encouraging our writers to cover long-term resource and global health problems, especially in our Sci-Tech section. We chose a “War for Natural Resources” Issue 6 Features topic to meet that end. From the search for oil shaping American foreign relations in the Middle East to the UN’s role in miti-gating the food and water crises, there is no doubt that natural resources have posed a profound influence on our nation’s diplomatic and military agenda. Though the threat of terrorism may appear at the crux of US foreign policy in the public eye, oftentimes we forget the importance of resources in framing both our country’s conduct abroad, as well as the undertakings of governments worldwide. Since the onset of the Cold War, the US has pursued a course of action in the Middle East’s oil affairs – from the Suez Crisis in Egypt to our post World War II diplomatic dealings with Saudi Arabia. US corporate interest in Latin American petroleum, tin, and fresh water reserves is staggering, and the Arctic rush for the world’s undiscovered oil deposits and natural gas has become a major international priority.

Now, the conversation in Washington has suddenly shifted to energy sources within our borders. Hydraulic fracturing, wind energy, and the Keystone XL Pipeline remain constant political and media hot-topics, and President Obama continually calls for renewable, clean energy research. While the developing world is plagued by a lethal dearth of food and water resources, the United States stands as one of the most re-source-accessible regions in the world. For the first time since 1995, in 2013 the US produced more oil than it imported from abroad. How can the US oil boom erase the past years of American action in our mission to secure natural resources externally? How do we balance our own nation’s resource demand with the tremendous global need? And how do we achieve resource accessibility and sustainability to satisfy the standards of the modern world?

Review writers have thought deeply and analytically about these questions and many more. I hope you find Issue 6 relevant and engaging, and that you join them in contem-plating what is arguably the most critical problem of our generation.

3

DO

ME

STIC

44E

CO

NO

MIC

SAddressing Gentrification

Ankit Gupta

12

INT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

L

page 44

Gambling with New York’s Future

Daria Balaeskoul page 4

50

SCI-

TE

CH

Syria Through the Looking Glass

Daniel Lee page 12

The Ukrainian RevolutionAlexander Newman page 14

The Failures of MDG 1Anna Kuritzkes page 20

Reining in Wall StreetAdam Resheff page 46

The Coming of the Drone Age

Jack Vahradian page 50

Censorship is Doomed

Anne Rosenblatt page 52

30

FE

AT

UR

ES

Bill de Blasio: Reversing ProgressTeddy Kaplan page 10

Pollution: Made in China

Peter Shamamian page 56

Power in the Hands of the ISP’s

Matthew Parker page 58

4

Table of Contents

Independence UndoneMaria Balaeskoul &Evy Verbinnen

page 22

Caroline Kennedy: A Worthy Ambassador?

Evan Greene page 24

America the MediatorJohn Eng page 26

Overpopulation: A Global RealityEva Steinman

page 38

page 42

The Road Back to FallujahWilliam Scherr page 28

American Obesity on the Rise

Sydney Katz page 54

The Ukraine; Put inBetween Two Spheres

Paul Jang page 18

Every Drop Counts

Vaed Prasad

page 32

A Lethal Necessity Christopher Shaari

page 30

The Future of FrackingEric Stein

page 34

Eliminating the GMO Stigma

Benjamin Shapiro

page 36

Expedition OilMiranda Bannister

page 40

Danger Ahead: Budget Reform Imminent

Ray Fishman page 48

The Case Against Affirmative Action

Zachary Gaynor page 6

Walking Away from OilNatasha Moolji

4

Domestic

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII

AAMMBBLLIINNGG

GG

NEW YORK’S FUTURE

Daria Balaeskoulwith

5

Domestic

March 2014

“There is no question that Upstate New York’s economy has to be revitalized, but the state should look into alternative means of going about doing so.”

This year is set to bring about long awaited changes to revive Upstate New York’s struggling economy.

According to Governor Andrew Cuo-mo, over the course of the past 10-years, Upstate New York’s economy has been growing at half as fast a rate as the rest of country’s, plummeting into a downward cycle. Governor Cuomo has not only promised infrastructural developments and tax breaks to aid the ailing region but has offered the legalization of Las-Vegas-style casinos as an elixir for the area’s stagnant economy. Promoted as a major economic development vehicle by both the Governor and casino lobbyists, an amendment to the New York State constitution allowing for seven casinos to be built was passed in the polls last November with only 57% support. In a hasty move the state will distribute four casino licenses in June, and construction is set to begin by the fall of this year.

The legalization of casino gambling has long been advertised as a panacea for economic hardships as well as stag-nation. Theoretically, casinos would not only be able to generate revenue for the state but would also be responsible for creating thousands of jobs and encour-aging tourism. Yet, along with the gen-erated tax revenue comes a host of evils. Casinos on paper turn out to be much more attractive than casinos in the flesh.

Typically in states where casino gam-bling is legal, funds generated through casino tax revenues are allocated towards the physical and economic development of the region rather than towards the promised improvement of human ser-vices. Since the development and open-ing of casinos generates and attracts a large influx of visitors, the infrastructure of generally previously quiet towns is unable to support this inpouring of tour-ists. Thus, the state is required to allot a larger portion of its revenue towards the maintenance and improvement of infra-structure rather than towards education or social services. Similarly, job creation resulting from the development of casi-nos serves as a false beacon of hope. It goes without saying that the multi-year and multi-million construction of these slot-machine mammoths will gener-ate thousands of jobs, and even more jobs will be created after the casinos are opened, but the majority of these jobs are low-paying and do not offer benefits to their employees. In fact, the sheer-scale

of these operations leads workers to be seen as dispensable. Some may argue that low-paying jobs are better than no jobs at all, yet as large portions of the popula-tion become employed in the service in-dustry, it will become considerably more difficult for companies and businesses to relocate themselves to Upstate New York, where there will be a large amount of rel-atively unskilled workers.

Moreover, numerous studies have linked the establishment of casinos with problem gambling. According to Com-munity Research Partners, of the 1.2% of adults that are pathological gamblers and the 1.5% that are problem gamblers, half live within fifty miles of a casino. Gam-bling has also been linked with bank-ruptcies, arrests, imprisonments, and the dissolution of marriages. Job loss, un-employment, welfare benefits, and poor health in general linked with pathologi-cal and problem gambling greatly strain a community’s human service system as well.

In addition, most of the casino rev-enue generated now a days is from slot machines, which are designed to com-pel patrons to spend the most amount of money possible while remaining visually stimulating. In “Addiction by Design,” a study by Natasha Dow Schüll, an anthro-pologist who has devoted her career to studying gambling addictions, slot ma-chines are described as so fantastically exciting that some people only stop play-ing once they have exhausted all avail-able resources. Compulsive gamblers and those addicted to slot machines are so immersed in the game itself that they see winning as something that only mat-ters because it will allow them to contin-ue playing for that much longer. A study conducted in Ontario in 2004 found that almost one-third of all casino revenue was generated from patrons with gam-

bling problems. Perhaps Upstate New York will ben-

efit from the introduction of casinos as the governor claims. Maybe with a few infrastructural face-lifts and exciting new venues, the region’s economic pros-perity will be restored. Yet, it is hard to look past the potential ills that large-scale gambling will bring with it. It seems as if the attempt to jump-start the econo-my in this way is more of a Band-Aid that will leave the region with more problems than it started with. The state legislature, as well as Governor Cuomo, should look into other options for stimulating Up-state New York’s economy. There is no question that Upstate New York’s econ-omy has to be revitalized, but the state should look into alternative means of go-ing about doing so. Conceivably, through protecting small businesses and Upstate New York’s struggling agricultural in-dustry, the state will be able to revive the region. New York State currently has the worst business tax climate in all of Amer-ica. Offering tax-breaks to businesses that choose to move to or open in Up-state New York will lead to the creation of higher paying white collar jobs in the region, rather than the minimum wage service opportunities created by casinos.

An economic argument can be made for most anything that society considers a vice, including gambling. Essentially it is easy for the government to create an industry for itself to tax rather than at-tempting to raise already existing taxes or cut spending. The fact that the gam-bling amendment to the state consti-tution passed by such a small margin shows how uncertain New Yorkers were that casinos would bring about benefi-cial change. The gambling industry is applauding Governor Cuomo, but in six years will Upstate New York be singing his praises? HMR

Domestic

6 The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII

THE CASE AGAINSTAFFIRMATIVE ACTION

ZACHARY GAYNOR

An Unconstitutional and Unintelligent Solution towards Bridging Inequality

In a nutshell, Affirmative Action is the practice that encourages employers and schools to look favorably upon

the minority candidate if there is a choice between two applicants. President John F. Kennedy introduced the first case of Af-firmative Action on a governmental scale in 1961 when he said that all projects fi-nanced with federal funds would take Af-firmative Action, by employing a greater amount of minority workers. From its inception, this practice was a rash, sloppy fix to the much bigger problem of racism. Affirmative Action is inherently hypo-critical, arguably unconstitutional, and an unintelligent and imprudent resolu-tion to a long-standing problem that has plagued our nation for years.

What is the definition of discrimina-tion? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, descrimination is “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different cat-egories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.” Now let’s look at the exact essence of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is “an action or policy favoring those who tend to suf-fer from discrimination, esp. in relation to employment or education,” also accord-ing to the Oxford English Dictionary. To summarize, Affirmative Action is a poli-cy that tries to even out the playing field by discriminating against those who are not normally discriminated against. It ef-fectively takes the already prevalent issue of discrimination and widens the range of people who are affected by it.

In the 1978 Supreme Court case of Regents of the University of Califor-nia v. Bakke, a student by the name of Allan Bakke applied to medical school at the University of California, a school that employed Affirmative Action. The university set aside sixteen spots of the available one hundred for minority stu-dents. Mr. Bakke was rejected from the school not once but twice even though he had higher testing scores than the mi-nority students who were admitted into the school due to the spots that had been set aside. Upset with the admissions de-cision, Bakke sued the school because in its efforts to even out the playing field,

the University of California discriminat-ed against a student that was more qual-ified than other students that had been admitted. This case reached the Supreme Court and it ruled in Bakke’s favor, calling the setting aside of spots for minorities unconstitutional. Lewis Powell, an asso-ciate Supreme Court justice at the time, issued the statement: “Equal treatment and equality before the law—these are the foundations on which a just and free society is built. But there are some today who, in the name of equality, would have us practice discrimination… Well, they couldn’t be more wrong.” Justice Powel was not even a radical in his beliefs, rath-er simply a moderate, known to be a mas-ter of compromise in the Supreme Court.

In another Supreme Court case Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, the Jackson School Board had the pol-icy of protecting minorities by firing non-minority teachers first, even if the non-minority teacher had seniority. The Supreme Court ruled against the Jack-son Board of Education saying, “We have previously expressed concern over the burden that a preferential-layoffs scheme imposes on innocent parties. In cases in-volving valid hiring goals, the burden to be borne by innocent individuals is dif-fused to a considerable extent among so-ciety generally. Though hiring goals may burden some innocent individuals, they simply do not impose the same kind of injury that layoffs impose. Denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job.” This point is not only valid, but it is also fair. Being denied a job because of Affirmative Action is already unfair, but to be layed off from a job to clear room for minority

candidates is abominable. If a person has earned his/her spot for a job and has se-niority over another person, no race has the right to take that job away from the more senior person.

An argument in favor of Affirma-tive Action is that it makes up for years of discrimination by giving preferential treatment to the minority candidate. Sadly almost all races have been discrim-inated against. While we as moral peo-ple feel bad for the ethnicities who were persecuted in our country, we can’t fix that by deciding that we will discrimi-nate against the races that haven’t been mistreated. That is just backwards logic. Hate is learned, so we must educate the youth about equality, rather than send ing mixed messages with programs like Affirmative Action.

An argument for Affirmative Action is that the policy is needed to break ste-reotypes. The belief is that when minori-ties are integrated in places where they normally haven’t had access, the walls that society has historically built to sep-arate races break down. This thought, however, is inaccurate because Affirma-tive Action has the opposite effect. Affir-mative Action creates both unnecessary and divisive animosity between races and creates a schism that drives people fur-ther apart. The reality of the situation is that the people who are the minorities hired through Affirmative Action some-times aren’t as qualified as the people who aren’t hired through the program, so this power imbalance engenders further tensions between those hired.

Now let’s consider Affirmative Ac-tion from someone’s perspective who is actually assisted by the program. It

Domestic

7March 2014

“FROM ITS INCEPTION, [AFFIRMATIVE ACTION] WAS A RASH, SLOPPY FIX TO THE MUCH

BIGGER PROBLEM OF RACISM.”

seems to me that the minority groups would be highly offended that the federal government believes they cannot achieve the same levels of success without gov-ernmental help. A counter argument is that the government feels that minority groups are not being hired due to pre-conceived notions of their ethnicities. In truth it is possible that this counter-argument is well-founded, but is it the government’s right to pick and choose ethnicities that it believes are affected by discrimination? Absolutely, not. The American Constitution clearly limits the ability of any branch of the government from taking power away from the people.

Affirmative Action is simply a transfer of power away from capable, decision-mak-ing individuals to greedy and exploitative politicians. Making decisions on which people get jobs or are accepted into a pro-gram should be determined by American individuals, not American bureaucracy. This program gives an unfounded advan-tage to the groups they find to be under-represented in the labor force. Under-representation due to discrimination is a ridiculous notion, not because of the idea behind it, but because of the government’s inability to measure it. How is it possible to judge whether a certain hire was ethni-cally charged or merit-based other than

going to every employer and checking his or her records? We can all agree that different cultures and different people have different priorities. Some prioritize education and some prioritize family, for instance. These priorities yield different benefits, and in a labor force these prior-ities contribute to the success of a given person. It would make sense that some communities of people will do better then others. The African American pop-ulation is thought to be underrepresent-ed by our government in the workforce, but certain subsections of the population — Nigerians for instance — are not only well represented in the workforce, but


Domestic

Initiative from President Richard M. Nixon that re-quired federal contractors to meet certain employ-ment goals for the hiring of African Americans.

THE PHILADELPHIA PLAN1969

KEY EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND COURT CASESIN THE HISTORY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

President Kennedy calls upon government con-tractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10925 1961

1965 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246

President Lyndon B. Johnson prohibits employment discrimination based on col-or, race, religion, and national origin.

Allan Bakke was rejected from the University of Califor-nia twice, even though his college GPA and test scores made him highly qualified. The Supreme Court ruled that the university had to admit Bakke, on the premise that the school’s rigid racial quotas violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. BAKKE

1978

9March 2014

Domestic

they are thriving. Is it the government’s job to get involved in counteracting the morals our family has instilled in us? Also when a minority candidate gets a job or achieves something great, it can be chalked up to Affirmative Action, which would almost lessen the accomplishment of the minority.

Affirmative Action also lowers the standards of getting into a certain school or attaining a certain job. If minority can-didates know that they can get into a job with fewer credentials than others, there will be less of an incentive to actually work harder and gain higher education, as it will be rendered unnecessary for

them to get the job they want. In the long term, our country’s productivity and ef-ficiency will be at a lower rate than that of most other nations that support a truly color-blind society. We cannot let other nations jump ahead of us because we are trying to even the playing field in a dis-criminatory manner.

I suggest a process of racially anony-mous application, as race shouldn’t per-tain to the application process. I am not trying to downplay the importance of diversity. Our nation has also prided our-selves on our proclivity as a melting pot for all races, religions, and ethnicities. Diversity in all realms of society should

continue to be a strong standing pillar; however, diversity and meritocracy ar-en’t mutually exclusive. We should look for different, unique people who, none-theless, are all equally qualified in mer-it. Stuyvesant High School, a specialized public school in New York City, employed a similar program with regards to stan-dardized testing scores. It is very simple: the people who do the best, get in. Yes, standardized testing is flawed in its own ways, yet it is the spirit of a meritbased program that counts, and I am sure with all the great minds our nation has to offer, we can find a merit-based system that is not as flawed as the one we have now. HMR

THE PHILADELPHIA PLAN

5-4 court ruling that public school sys-tems cannot seek to maintain integra-tion through measures that take into account a student’s race.

PARENTS V. SEATTLE &MEREDITH V. JEFFERSON2007

7-1 ruling about the lower court’s decision about the University of Texas’ affirmative action policy. The case was sent back to a federal appeals court for review; no sweeping ruling or conclusion on the constitutionality of affirmative action was drawn.

2013FISHER V. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

10

v

Domestic


After 20 straight years of Republican and Independent mayors leading in New York City, Democrat Bill

de Blasio assumed the position at the start of the new year. When Rudy Giuliani took over, the city was in complete shambles but with the help of his successor, Michael Bloomberg, he successfully transformed New York City back into a world-class city. This was mainly done through reducing crime during their administrations, with policies such as stop-and-frisk. However, with Bill de Blasio as mayor, his removal of stop-and-frisk, handling of the snow storm, and the funding for a pre-K program will reverse all of the progress the past two may-ors have made.

During the 20 years that New York was led by mayors Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani, the murder rate declined sig-nificantly. While 1,946 murders were com-mitted prior to Giuliani’s term, in the first year of his administration, there were just 1561 murders, a 20% decrease within one year. He continued to lower the murder rate, with the help of Bloomberg, and there has

been a staggering 82.88% decrease in mur-ders since Giuliani became mayor. This in-credible statistic demonstrates the effect the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations had on crime rates in the city. The decline in crime was mainly due to the stop-and-frisk policy and the amazing job Police Com-missioner Ray Kelly performed. Ray Kelly became the Police Commissioner in 2002, at the beginning of the Bloomberg adminis-tration, with the crime rate already slightly reduced by Giuliani. He continued to low-er this rate, through aggressive policy in the NYPD, such as stop-and-frisk. Michael Gecan of the Industrial Areas Foundation said, “Kelly inherited a department that had already made the most dramatic improve-ments [during the Giuliani administration]. The fact that he sustained those results, extending the period of performance and impact to 20 years, is to his everlasting cred-it. Think of another public agency that has done this. We can’t.” Gecan’s praise shows the caliber of Kelly’s work during his time as the commissioner.

Stop-and-frisk, a policy that started in

1990 and really took off in 1994 under Gi-uliani, is designed for police officers to be able to stop suspicious people, before the crime is actually committed. This policy was definitely a factor in the murder rate drop-ping from an all-time high in 1990 down to an all time low this past year. However, much of de Blasio’s campaign was centered on removing stop-and-frisk, and replacing Kelly, moves which will reverse the progress made by the past two administrations. De Blasio stated that he wanted to remove stop-and-frisk because “Data shows that police stopped 49 white New Yorkers for every weapon taken off the streets, compared to 71 Latino New Yorkers, and 93 black New Yorkers stopped for every weapon yielded.” He claimed that this statistic showed that racial profiling was used in stop-and-frisk and thus did not keep Kelly as the Com-missioner. However, this policy and Kelly clearly worked, as the numbers of murders in New York significantly decreased during the time period Kelly was Commissioner. Now, he wants to replace this with reducing marijuana arrests. De Blasio is single-hand-

Bill de Blasio: Reversing ProgressTeddy Kaplan

v

11

Domestic

March 2014

edly eliminating the beneficial effects of the past two mayors on our city.

During de Blasio’s campaign, he stated that the rich and poor were making New York a “tale of two cities.” “We are called to put an end to economic and social inequali-ties that threaten to unravel the city we love,” said de Blasio in his inaugural address. In an attempt to eliminate the disparity between the wealthy and the poor, de Blasio wants to raise taxes on those making an annual in-come of $500,000 or more from 3.88% up to 4.41%. De Blasio is using this tax hike to fund a universal pre-K program throughout the city, despite Governor Guomo’s willing-ness to fund a statewide program without raising taxes. While providing pre-K educa-tion is indeed an honorable cause, de Blasio is using the issue of pre-K education sole-ly for taxing the rich and not for the actual funds. Governor Cuomo has announced that the state would be more than willing to fund this addition without raising taxes, saying, “The state will pay for it [the edu-cation], and the state will be proud to pay for it.” While one would think this outcome would be a perfect situation for de Blasio, since he would get what he wants without having to tax anyone, de Blasio has acted un-willing to use the state’s money, instead in-sisting on taxing the wealthy. “The people in the city have given me a mission,” the may-or declared at a City Hall news conference. According to de Blasio, a tax on the wealthy

“was the No. 1 proposal [he] put forward in an election that [he] won with 73 percent of the vote.” He remains staunchly opposed to accepting the state’s funding for the project. De Blasio’s refusal to accept Cuomo’s offer to fund the program is simply absurd. As a mayor, he should want the governor to sup-port him and, by contradicting Governor Cuomo, De Blasio is losing the governor’s approval. Cuomo tried to unite the state of New York through this new pre-K plan, but de Blasio said he was too good for state funding, a rejection that shows the contrast between the two Democrats. Thirdly, de Blasio’s choice to tax the wealthy is a terrible move because those with the specified in-come could simply move outside of the city limits, to neighboring Long Island, West-chester, or out of the state to Connecticut or New Jersey. While Mayor de Blasio has nev-er had the support of the wealthy to begin with, this stubborn decision all but ensured the loss of faith of every New Yorker making $500,000 or more.

De Blasio has proved incompetent in a recent snowstorm, during which he failed to plow the Upper East Side. Additionally, he held out on plowing other regions, drawing plenty of criticism from New Yorkers. Af-ter nearly a foot of snow struck the city on Tuesday, January 21, Bill de Blasio refused to take immediate action. The snow, project-ed to start mid-day Tuesday, began earlier than expected, leading to even more severe

problems. While de Blasio initially said that the Upper East Side had problems due to a broken GPS on a snow-removal truck, he admitted that “more could have been done.” While this simply could be the result of bad planning, it is probable that his failure to plow this specific neighborhood has great-er significance. Michael Bloomberg, whom de Blasio took over for, lives in the Upper East Side and many think this was playback against the former mayor. When de Blasio was campaigning for mayor, he took jabs at Bloomberg for plowing Manhattan first and more importantly than the other boroughs, using his “Tale of Two Cities” campaign. “We’re not rich, we’re not billionaires, but de Blasio is taking it out on us because no one around here voted for him,’ said Michael Shaw, a 66-year-old retiree who lives on East 76th Street. ‘He’s really making this city his ‘Tale of Two Cities.’” De Blasio denied both allegations, telling The New York Observer that “they’re just wrong. And I’ve said that immediately and I’ll keep saying it. The or-ders were given; the execution was not what it should have been. And when I saw it with my own eyes, I was thoroughly dissatisfied and I gave new orders and clear orders to beef up the efforts.”

De Blasio’s failure to handle a recent snowstorm, probable raise in crime, and re-fusal to make use of available funds to back universal pre-K show he will pose a major political liability for New York City. HMR

A: www.businessinsider.comB: blog.reuters.comC: nyopoliticker.comD: nyopoliticker.com


International

U.N. INTERVENTION FROM AFAR

In order to prevent more violence and casualties, the United Nations has intervened in the Syrian Civil War.

The UN has continued to ask for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to allow Syrian civilians to leave the besieged city, which is cut off from supplies, and have also of-fered to provide convoys of aid, goods, both food and non-food items, and some medical supplies to Syrian civilians tak-ing refuge from the war. As a result of the UN’s two years of delegation, Assad has allowed women and children to exit the city but has asked for a list of the men’s names before letting the rest of the civil-ians pass. With this diplomatic progress, however, comes two main issues: where these refugees will be sent to and where

food and supplies provided by the UN or-ganization will actually be sent.

Assad violently put down Syrian reb-els and activists in 2011 after the rebels attempted to achieve political freedom, democracy, and economic prosperity. The Syrian government’s response incit-ed the war between Assad advocates and opposition. So far, the war has claimed more than 100,000 lives in the past three years, according to the United Nations. The Syrian refugees who have escaped the nation successfully are currently scat-tered across UN member nations such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. However, Lebanon, which holds 850,000 refugees, the largest number of Syrian refugees of any country, has no established refugee

camps. The majority of Syrian refugees continue to live in rented homes or no-madic housing, and the Lebanese gov-ernment remains reluctant to create such camps as the country is anxious about the response from the Syrian government. The Syrian escapees are increasing-ly vulnerable, so we must decide where refugees will be transported next. As Lebanon is a border country of Syria the likelihood that escapees may not remain completely secure is high. So, the UN should prioritize the movement of ref-ugees into more protected, stable areas, such as Pakistan and Iran because they have well established camps for Syrians.

Also, there is a chance that the re-sources sent by the UN to Syrian refugees

Daniel Lee

may be intercepted by either of the Syrian war’s two factions. If they are being inter-cepted, agencies such as the UN would only be continuing to squander valuable funds, leaving victims of the war vulnerable. Data from the UNHCR shows that $168 million worth of budgeting has already been applied to the Syrian refugee cause.

The only method to raise efficiency of resources and have a positive impact on the refugees is to evenly distribute UN funding to three main areas. The first is to strike a final decision with the Syrian government to carefully transport all ci-vilian refugees out of the nation and have them sent to secure locations and coun-tries. The second would be to facilitate negotiations between the Syrian govern-ment and rebellion party to ultimately end the war. With constant reports of the deaths of Syrian refugees in the camps the protection of Syrians in the refugee camps are not guaranteed. The final purpose the UN could use their funding for would be to create humane living conditions and also fortification of refugee camps in Lebanon and Turkey in particular.

Despite its efforts, the UN’s endeav-ors are lacking in that they have failed to address the source of the political conflict itself. The UN is only attempting to mit-igate the effects of the war, and it fails to

facilitate a comprehensive agreement that is fair to both factions. Aspirations should be focused on having a lasting overall ef-fect in order to eliminate any possibility of more civilian or combatant casualties. Along those lines, an end of the war is feasible by either removing Assad from power or bringing an end to Syria’s chem-

ical weapon development programs, two paths that would have a definite impact on decreasing the number of casualties.

Recent negotiations between the United Nations and Iran have drawn the end of Assad’s reign closer. Tehran, As-sad’s greatest ally since 2011, has agreed on a six-month deal for uranium enrich-ment in exchange for providing a limit-ed sanction of the Syrian government. Although the pact has been made only temporarily, it increases the likelihood that Iran will drop its assistance of the Syrian government. As a result, Assad’s

forces will be severely exposed, leaving him to be ousted. Diverting all resourc-es and energy to expedite relations and talks with Iran should be the UN’s pri-ority in order to prevent the inherent deaths of thousands. Additionally, a sec-ond source of deaths in the Syrian War is the usage of chemical weapons. Although

the United Nations Council has formal-ly condemned that the usage, transfer, development, or possession of chemical weapons in Syria, there are still several reported cases in and near the region. As chemical weapons are a major cause of the tens of thousands killed per year, the United Nations must also strive in order to suppress such inherently de-structive actions and motives.

Especially in such a critical situation, the United Nations, as an influential body, must look from an objective standpoint in order to suppress further damage. HMR

13

International

March 2014

www.focusonsyria.org

“The UN only attempts to mitigate the effects of the war and fails to facilitate a comprehensive

agreement that is fair to both factions.”

daulahislam.com


International

or the past three months the world has watched as a wave of protests has crashed through Ukraine. The protests and civil unrest that persist have claimed the lives of at least six and injured hundreds more. Why are people setting up barricades and rallies in Kiev and toppling statues of Lenin? Cer-tainly a major aspect of the protest has been a call for an end of government corruption, power abuse and human rights violations in Ukraine. Howev-er, the main issue being contested is the issue of Ukraine’s integration into the European Union.

F

The Ukrainian Revolution

The Geopolitical Battle in Kiev, Moscow, Brussels, and Washington

Alexander Newman

15March 2014

International

On November 21, 2013, Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov issued a de-cree suspending preparations to sign the As-sociation Agreement and Free Trade Agree-ment with the European Union. The wave of public protests demanding closer Ukrainian integration with the European Union, known as the Euromaidan, has consequently erupted. The cause of the present situation in Ukraine can be ascribed to no single event or phenomenon. Dissatisfaction with President Viktor Yanukovych’s autocratic leadership and widespread government corruption are certainly issues that have proved central to protestors’ reform demands. Ultimately however, Ukraine is feeling, perhaps more than any other single force, the strain of the pressures caused by being caught in a tug of war between two superpowers. In the end, it is the conflicting ideas of Ukraine’s future held by Russia and the European Union that can be cited as the single greatest source of Ukraine’s current dilemma.

Azarov explained the motivation be-hind the decree was to “ensure the national security of Ukraine” after considering the effects on trade with Russia that might have followed the ratification of the agreement. And indeed, the Ukrainian government was feeling significant pressure from the nation’s neighbor to the East.

In addition to being a political super-power in the region, Russia—Kiev’s single

largest trading partner—is a significant eco-nomic force that Ukraine’s economy depends on. In November, the fear of potential Rus-sian trade retribution in response to integra-tion into the European Union is one that was certainly not unfounded for Ukraine. In July of 2013, in apparent response to Ukraine’s move to closer association with the Europe-an Union, Russia banned all products from Ukrainian chocolate company Roshen and encouraged Kazakhstan and Belarus to do the same.

On August 22, 2013, Russian Presi-dent Vladamir Putin spoke out against any potential Ukrainian decision to, “opt to sig-nificantly liberalize customs rules with the European Union.” Putin warned, “Then, member states of the Customs Union will have to think about protective measures.” In September Putin reiterated his warning of retaliatory “protectionist measures” that Russia would pursue against Ukraine if a Free Trade Agreement were signed with the European Union, encouraging Ukraine to instead join the Customs Union. And so, with this credible threat in mind, the Ukrainian government suspended its efforts to ratify the agreement after it received a re-quest from Moscow to delay the signature of the European Union Association Agree-ment.

This is not to suggest that the decision to suspend the signature of the Associa-

tion Agreement with the European Union stemmed solely from Russia’s economic in-fluence. In fact, perhaps equally responsible for the decision were the political changes that Ukraine would have to undertake in order to sign the agreement. In March of 2012, the European Union and Ukraine first initialed their Association Agreement. From the outset, the EU stressed that the agree-ment would only be ratified after concerns of “stark deterioration of democracy and the rule of law” had been addressed. In Decem-ber of 2012, the EU Foreign Affairs Council emphasized the need for Ukrainian “elec-toral, judicial and constitutional reforms”. The Council issued a statement saying that it “reaffirms its commitment to the signing of the already initialed Association Agree-ment, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, as soon as the Ukrainian authorities demonstrate determined action and tangible progress in the three areas mentioned above.” Additionally, the Euro-pean Union proved to be as equally opposed to Ukrainian integration into the Russian Custom’s Union as Russia was to Ukraine’s signing the Association Agreement with the European Union.

José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, expressed that “one country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the Eu-

Above: Riot police were ordered by President Yanukovych to stop the protests. The situation took a violent turn on February 21, when security forces fired on protesters. By February 23, protestors had toppled the regime and Yanukovych was ousted, though more than 80 protestors were killed.

“One country cannot at the same time be a

member of a customs union and be in a deep

common free-trade area with the

European Union.”

~José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission


International

ropean Union” in February 2013. Now, it must be said that the policy pursued by the European Union against a potentially Rus-sian-leaning Ukraine was markedly different from the policy pursued by Russia against a European-leaning Ukraine. Primarily, the European Union made no trade threats against Ukraine, while Russia openly did so. Nevertheless, the European Union’s stance served to achieve nearly exactly the same ef-fect that Russia’s policy did: to force Ukraine to decisively choose a side. Though in March of 2013, the “Urgent Measures for European

Integration of Ukraine” was adopted by the Ukrainian government in preparation for a planned signing of the Association Agree-ment on November 28, the constitutional reforms proposed, as well as the demands to free former Prime Minister Yulia Tymos-henko, proved ultimately to be too much for President Viktor Yanukovych and his gov-ernment.

As the European Union and Russia continue to struggle for influence in Kiev, Ukraine, it seems, may have a very limited amount of time before it is forced to deci-

sively choose a side. With the first conces-sions by the government since the start of the Euromaidan protests, Prime Minister Azarov and his Cabinet have resigned, leav-ing just sixty days for Ukraine to form a new government. In response to the resignation, Moscow has chosen to hold off from ful-ly implementing the $15 billion financial rescue plan that Ukraine desperately needs until a new government has been formed, a clear warning against any further westward movement by Ukraine. In response, the Eu-ropean Union has offered a financial rescue

August 24, 1991: Ukraine becomes an independent state after the dissolu-tion of the Soviet Union.

November 2004—January 2005: Orange Revolution took place in immediate aftermath of the run-off vote of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, with the between leading candidates being Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych, due to massive corruption, voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud. The final results showed a clear victory for Yushchenko, who received about 52% of the vote, compared to Yanu-kovych's 44%. Yushchenko was declared the official winner and with his inauguration on 23 January 2005 in Kiev, the Orange Revolution ended.

February 2010: Ukraine's fifth presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych, with 48.95% of the popular vote, was declared President-elect on February 14.

October 2011: Tymoshenko was convicted of em-bezzlement and abuse of power for exceeding her powers as Prime Minister in 2009 for ordering the Ukrainian firm Naftogaz to sign a major gas deal with Russia, a deal widely considered finan-cially disadvantageous to Ukraine.

17March 2014

International

“The people want fundamental changes in their lives, justice in Ukraine, and a path to European values.”

plan of its own to Ukraine in exchange for certain reforms. President Yanukovych has shown few signs of any interest in signing any agreement with the European Union. However, he has recently offered certain concessions to the opposition, including the release of all detained protestors and offers to opposition leaders of positions in the new government. Until recently, the opposition in Ukraine has remained wary of such con-cessions. However, on Sunday February 14, protestors withdrew from Kiev’s city hall, ac-cepting Yanukovych’s amnesty offer. Though the situation in Ukraine seems to be wind-ing down, President Yanukovych has yet to appoint a new prime minister and cabinet. And, if Yanuukovych’s choice is not consis-tent with the wishes of the opposition move-ment, Ukraine could very well descend into chaos once again.

So far, Yanukovych’s government has favored ties with its eastern neighbor over European ones. However, with the potential for another set of protests in Kiev if demands for European reforms are not met, European integration is certainly still a possible course for Ukraine. On January 28, former Prime Minister and senior opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko released a statement saying, “The people want fundamental changes in their lives, justice in Ukraine and a path to European values.” Similarly, during a sum-mit in Munich on Sunday, February 1, Her-

man Van Rompuy, President of the Euro-pean Council, expressed his confidence in Ukraine’s future with the European Union. In reference to a European Union offer of close association to Ukraine he said, “The offer is still there and we know time is on our side. The future of Ukraine belongs with the European Union.” In spite of Rompuy’s apparent confidence in a European Ukraine outcome, the issue is far from settled. In a recent poll, 39 percent of Ukrainians polled were in favor of joining the European Union, while 37 percent favored closer ties with Russia.

Ultimately, whether Ukraine signs the Association Agreement with the European Union should not be perceived as the main matter at hand. It is true that the suspension of the agreement’s signature was the inciting event for the entire struggle that has fol-lowed. However, the protests that continue to rage on in Ukraine are not concerned solely with a single agreement with the Eu-ropean Union, but rather with the future of the nation. Until the conflict in Ukraine is resolved, the world watches and prays that the two super powers that have stretched Ukraine thin can help bring about a peace-ful resolution. Hopefully, from the chaos, Ukraine can ultimately rise reborn — a na-tion that provides the freedoms and liberties that the people of Ukraine so desire and de-serve. HMR

Since this article and the one by Paul Jang were written, Yanucovych was forced out of office. The speaker of Parliament Oleksander Turchy-nov was elected as the interim president with the intent of moving closer toward European integration. Under pressure from Putin, after Yanukovych cracked down on the protestors, most of the country turned on him. Protestors were able to mount legitimate forces by seizing government compounds, taking weapons, and making a ring of fire for protection from further security force advances in Independence Square, Kiev. Yanucovych lost support even in the Eastern part of the country, his traditional stronghold. Between February 24 and March 4, 2014, 16,000 Russian troops invaded the “pro-Russian” Crimean peninsula, despite condemnatory warnings from the United States and the international community. Ukraine’s once internal political dispute has evolved to encompass European ethnic tensions, reminiscent of conflict from the Cold War.

Note from the Editors:

November 2013: President Yanukovych pulls out of the trade agreement at the last minute.

December 8, 2013: Protestors take down a statue of Lenin in Kiev, symbolizing the rejection of Moscow's influence.

February 18-23 2014: Euromaidan went into full swing, and the protests transi-tioned from peaceful sit-downs to a violent revolution. On 18 February 2014 pro-testers and police clashed, and at least 82 people were killed (including 13 police-men) while over 1,100 were injured. On February 22, the Parliament, Verkhovna Rada, voted with 328 deputies in favor and none against impeaching Yanukovych and scheduled new presidential elections for 25 May. Tymoshenko was released from prison while Yanukovych fled the country. The constitution was restored to its state in the time period of 2004 to 2010.

~ Yulia Tymoshenko,former Prime Minister and senior opposition leader on January 28


International

The Ukraine: Put in Between

Two Spheres

Paul Jang

Since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ukraine has faced several protests, all sur-

rounding issues of democracy, govern-ment corruption, and foreign policy. Currently, the Ukraine is being shaken by the Euromaidan, the largest street protest ever to take place in the nation since the Orange Revolution, a series of demon-strations against fraudulent presidential elections in 2004. The Euromaidan pro-tests started with people flooding the streets of Kiev and demonstrating after President Yanukovych’s decision to sus-pend preparations for signing the Euro-pean Association Agreement, in favor

of stronger ties with Russia on the night of November 21, 2013. Following that night, larger rallies took place in Maidan Nezalezhnosti with protesters carry-ing Ukrainian and EU flags, chanting “Ukraine is Europe.” A significant pop-ulation of Ukrainians desire its nation’s integration into the European Union, in large part due to the many democratic and economic standards the EU would require the Ukraine to uphold. Howev-er, in light of the government’s financial difficulties, it hasn’t been looking like the Ukraine will be invited to join the EU or EC anytime soon. According to the Ukrainian government, it is reluctant to

move forward with plans to join the EU, saying that the West failed to offer im-mediate economic benefits, and believ-ing the move would cripple its economic relationship with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), an organiza-tion of nations within Russia’s sphere of influence. Russia is the Ukraine’s largest trade-partner and de facto benefactor, with Russian natural resources flowing into the Ukraine in return for political loyalty. Instead of going forward with the European Association Agreement, Yanukovych signed Putin’s $15 billion deal, in which Russia will buy Ukrainian debt and lower the price of exported gas

19

International

March 2014

to the Ukraine by 33%, in exchange for continued allegiance and a rejection of EU integration. Despite the Ukraine’s ur-gent need for financial assistance, joining the European Union may be the only way for it to escape from autocracy, oligarchy, and dependency on Russia.

Just a few months before spurning the EU, President Yanukovych seemed persistent on looking towards the West, despite opposition from his political par-ty. Although many believe Yanukovych’s desire to have closer relations with the EU to be genuine, his sudden reversal is largely due to the many financial burdens facing the Ukraine. Yanukovych likely felt that the EU and supporters of EU in-tegration failed to acknowledge the scale of the financial difficulties his nation would face if he had chosen Brussels over Moscow, estimating that the Ukraine would need $160 billion over three years to make up for the trade the Ukraine faced losing. Additionally, the Ukraine has many emerging industries and en-terprises that are reliant on trade with Russia. With their open trade agreement, Ukraine’s manufactured goods sell well in Russia due to their competitive prices and superior quality. If the Ukraine signs a trade deal with the EU, Russia will end its free trade agreement, and prices will rise, crippling the Ukraine’s manufactur-ing industry. More importantly, Russia is the Ukraine’s main provider of natural gas with a lot of control over the market prices of this valuable resource. Con-sequently, it would not be wise for the Ukraine to provoke Russia, especially in light of Russia’s current gas deal with the Ukraine. Apart from the numerous eco-nomic benefits of sticking with Russia, Russia, unlike the EU, does not demand an entire raft of human rights regula-tions, rule of law, an end to corruption, and a proper democracy (which would be in favor of the Ukrainian government).

Although Russia’s response would harm the Ukrainian economy, the Ukraine would gain far more joining the EU and its free trade zone in the long term. Russia does not have much to offer the Ukraine apart from natural resourc-es. The European market is much bigger and richer than the Eurasian Union could ever be: the EU’s total GDP is approxi-mately 40-50 times larger than that of Russia. According to the World Bank, the Ukraine’s economic size and proximity to major markets would allow it to export

more than 40% of its domestically mana-factured products to the EU. So, why is the the Ukraine reluctant to work to-wards joining the EU? This is is largely due to Russia’s infamous bullying. Tee-tering on the brink of bankruptcy, Russia placed economic pressure on Ukraine, banning Ukrainian confectionaries as well as many other goods and placing customs delays. This demonstrated what life would be like if Ukraine signed the cooperation agreement with the EU. Also, although the EU’s strictness is a key factor in delaying Ukraine’s access to the EU, it can also play a big role in improv-ing Ukraine’s quality of standards (as in manufacturing) and the efficiency of its economy.

In light of the violent, never ending protests that rattle Kiev day and night, sometimes the government just has to follow the will of the people. Ever since the Berkut Special Police units violent-ly attacked protesters indiscriminate-ly, even those in the vicinity of Maidan Nezalezhnosti who did not participate in the ongoing demonstrations on No-vember 30th, the scope of the protests has changed dramatically. “Lucky was I,” a Ukrainian protester told the Kiev post. “They dragged me out and beat my head. I went to the hospital because it was bleeding and then to the monastery. Now I am ready for everything. Even to fight with weapons.” Now, the protest initially concerning European Integra-tion has evolved into something so much more. Thousands of Ukrainian protesters

have gathered in Kiev’s square to demand that the president step down, constant-ly engaging in violent clashes with the police. In the midst of all this chaos, the protestors have levied a multitude of de-mands from the government, indicating that they are gaining momentum. So far, despite the government’s efforts to quell the Euromaidan, there are no signs of surrender from the people, who continue to battle the riot police in sub-freezing temperatures. The staggering number of protesters clearly demonstrates the pub-lic’s commitment to the movement, with BBC reports stating 400,000-800,000 people gathered in Kiev.

Overall, the EU is Ukraine’s best option. Russia would ease the Ukraine’s huge debt burden, lower the price of gas, and help Ukrainian industries, but work-ing towards European integration would be most beneficial to the country in the long run. If President Yanukovych had signed the European associations agree-ment, which he failed to accomplish, Ukrainian exports would have increased, and the country would have been more economically stable. Back in September, just after his government had approved signing the pact with the EU, Azarov had painted a glowing future for Ukraine in Europe. “We all want clean air and water, safe food, good education for our chil-dren, up-to-date medical services, reli-able legal representation, etc. All these are not abstract terms, but norms and rules that are already in place in the EU, which we need in Ukraine,” he said. HMR


In September 2000, leaders of the international community joined to-gether at the UN Millennium Summit

to welcome the next era of international cooperation. The goal of the Summit was to discuss how to share the benefits of globalization throughout the world and create a framework for the United Na-tions in the future. To do this, delegates at the Summit outlined eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The first among these goals was the eradication of extreme hunger and poverty. The inter-national community’s success in this goal, as well as the others, is measured by the progress towards the targets of the goal.

The first target for MDG 1 was to “halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day.” This target was reportedly met in 2010, five years ahead of schedule. The achievement of MDG 1 was championed as a success on the global scale; however, success in this goal was largely regional-ly based. Economic growth in Asia, spe-cifically in China and India, caused the number of people worldwide living on less than $1 a day to decrease. Meanwhile, countries with historically weak econo-mies and desperate populations have not seen the same improvements. As many of the people living in the Least Developed

ANNA KURITZKES

The Failures of MDG 1

Evaluating Global Development Plans

International

21March 2014

Countries (LDCs) remain in the same circumstances they were in before 1990, the UN has been unsuccessful in MDG 1.

The first Millennium Development Goal is measured globally, with data from the entire world pooled together to mea-sure the United Nation’s success. This is a flawed system, as China’s rapid industri-alization and commercial success has lit-tle or no effect on the success of an LDC, such as Somalia. Between 1990 and 2008, the percent of the population living be-low the $1 a day poverty line in China fell from 60 to 13. Other parts of Asia expe-rienced similar success, as in South-East Asia, where the numbers decreased from 47% to 17%. Latin America and the Ca-ribbean also saw a significant reduction as the percentage decreased from 12% to 6%. But the changes seen in Africa, argu-ably the most vulnerable area of the glob-al community, were less significant. The percentage of people living on less than $1 a day in sub-Saharan Africa decreased from 56% percent to 47%. While this can be seen as an achievement on its own, it would be false for the United Nations to claim that it was successful in halving the proportion of the population living on less than $1 a day in this region.

The success of this goal also changes when looked at from an urban and a rural perspective. The number of the extreme poor in cities is increasing at an alarming rate, but the poverty that envelops the ru-ral countryside is so widespread that the increase in urban poverty cannot coun-teract the urban-rural gap. The gap exists because in the rural communities, indi-viduals work as small producers, relying on the natural resources around them. In 2010, an estimated 35% of the rural population worldwide lived in extreme poverty. The rural poor’s access to land and natural resources, however, is not a stable constant. Natural disasters and cli-mate change affect the livelihoods and circumstances of the rural poor. Further-more, the urban poor have better access to medical attention and other necessary services. The unfortunate problem of the urban-rural gap is reflected in the data around the success of the first MDG. In LDCs, 70% of the population lives in ru-ral areas; this contributes to the fact that success in achieving the first MDG in the LDCs is substandard.

Another important gap to be consid-ered when measuring the success of the international community in achieving the

first MDG is the gender gap. The number of women who are living below the ex-treme poverty line is disproportionately high. Cultural restraints on women make it even harder for them to escape extreme poverty. Women’s access to education, which is also disproportionate to that of men, is undoubtedly linked to the higher levels of women living in extreme pov-erty. To truly eradicate poverty, women’s economic success must be monitored and prioritized by the UN and by the interna-tional community.

A large percentage of the population of the developing world remains in des-perate poverty despite breaching the $1 a day barrier, showing that the $1 a day poverty line is relatively arbitrary. The UN cannot simply forget that there are millions of people living just barely above the extreme poverty line. Between 1990 and 2008, the proportion of people liv-ing on $2 a day worldwide declined by a far less dramatic margin—from 65% to 43%. Additionally, the people living just

above the $1 a day poverty line are ex-tremely vulnerable to economic turmoil, which can come from a variety of sourc-es including climate change and natural disasters, which affect the agroindustry, and financial crises, which stop the flow of aid into the developing world

For the UN to successfully achieve the first Millennium Development Goal, the goal must be restructured. Success must be measured on a national and re-gional basis rather than on the global scale. Urbanization and commercial suc-cess in one region cannot be championed as success for the global community, and the United Nations cannot classify a global achievement based on the success of one particular country or region. In-stead, the United Nations should remain focused on revitalizing the economies of the LDCs, in which rural populations constantly struggle with extreme poverty. Specific attention should be paid to clos-ing the urban-rural economic gap and the gender economic gap. HMR

“Urbanization and commercial success in one region cannot be championed as a success for the global

community.”

International

The Chinese ColonizaTion of afriCa

As globalization revolutionizes both economic and political relations, it becomes increasingly easier for pow-

erful and seemingly remote countries to utilize economic imperialism to their advantage. By extending their influence to form dependen-cy between underdeveloped countries and themselves, they allow for the exploitation of resources. While the world shifts to secular thinking, manifest destiny is no longer an ac-ceptable justification for colonization and cap-italization of others’ land. Neo-colonization is taking the place of manifest destiny whereby foreign powers intrude on unexploited re-gions. Neo-colonization is meant to develop countries that are underdeveloped by using the land to its full potential. In the short run it aids third-world countries, providing them with new infrastructure, job opportunities, and money for local economies.

China’s investing in Africa will do just this – but only for a limited time. In the long run, neo-colonization is inherently damaging, since when investment wanes, these African countries will be left stripped of their resourc-es. To prevent the detrimental effects, African countries must limit foreign direct investment (FDI) and promote local industry, adopting legislation related to the Non-Aligned Move-ment, an organization created to help repre-sent the interests and priorities of developing

countries. It is a group of states not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. Although many African countries have put laws in place limiting the industries in which China can operate, such a prominent presence of a global leader threatens African markets by introducing China as a competitor in their own villages leading to mass production of previously African-made goods.

While Africa and China have had eco-nomic ties since the 1960’s when China launched relief projects such as building a railroad between Zambia and Tanzania, their relationship only came to the forefront rath-er recently when China initiated its “going global” approach to the market. The goal of the program was to promote growth overseas and strengthen their bond. With the friendly relations created by such successful joint ven-tures, China was able to take its strong links to African countries including Algeria, Ni-geria, South Africa, Sudan, and Zambia and shape them to its ulterior motives of self-prof-it – thus “trade not aid.” China’s commerce minister, Chen Deming reported that China’s direct investment in Africa exceeds $14.7 billion, a 60% increase since 2009; however, other estimates have been much larger, sug-gesting that China is trying to downplay its overwhelming presence in Africa. Although China’s initial investments in Africa aimed

toward advancing and strengthening African technology and business, the investments have come at the price of Africans’ losing control of the land and its productive value. China’s in-terest and shares in the African economy have grown tremendously due to the discovery of resource-rich lands. Approximately 80% of China’s imports from Africa are minerals, while machinery is 29% of Africa’s imports – a rather large discrepancy. China’s lack of inter-est in the actual African people is apparent by observing where larger investments are being made. All of the countries aforementioned lie between the Sahara and the Kalahari deserts – the region between them is well known for its abundant supply of natural resources, rang-ing from precious minerals to oil. China has invested well over $15 billion into primarily oil infrastructure since 1990 but will only publicly admit to a vague approximation.

Though China has brought positive re-forms to Africa, China’s FDI is often not for the greater good of these third-world countries since it is focused on the expansion of the Chi-nese economy. With China’s presence in Afri-ca, many countries appear to have been put on a path of economic and social reform. The Chi-nese have created jobs, transferred their skills, and spent money in local economies in addi-tion to suppressing conflicts – often playing peacemaker though motivated by self-interest.

independenCe Undone

Maria Balaeskoul & Evy Verbinnen


International

www.global-gateways.com

However, many of the jobs created are not oc-cupied by Africans, but by Chinese immigrant workers. An estimated 1 million Chinese now live in Africa, more than double from over a decade ago, and more continue to arrive. As a result, local African businesses face competi-tion and shortages of resources that were once plentiful. A top British wildlife expert, Jane Goodall, claims that “In Africa, China is mere-ly doing what the colonialists did. They want raw materials for their economic growth, just as the colonialists were going into Africa and taking the natural resources, leaving people poorer.” She warns of the detrimental effects of purging the continent for natural resourc-es through the development of mines and oil wells and creation of construction sites. Rather than being used to advance the economies and industries of the African countries, the foreign capital is used to the exploit the country’s re-sources. Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group, told CNN, “The Chinese quid pro quo typically involves lots of Chinese content, lots of Chinese labor that they’re sending over to these countries to work, which hurts local un-employment issues. And of course, the avail-ability of commodities, including food, to be exported to China. There’s sometimes a Faus-tian bargain in these countries.” Thus, neo-col-onization increases the gap between the poor and rich countries of the world. Additionally, as already noted, after China stops readily in-vesting in Africa, the African countries will be left with shortages and markets based on now-lacking resources.

We can see a similar era of post-neo-col-onization decline in Colombia with the Unit-

ed States and Canada’s injecting approximate-ly $10 billion annually. While this investment may appear to positively stimulate the Colom-bian economy, the majority of this money goes toward the economic sectors of petroleum and

mining, where state and paramilitary repres-sion is most prominent. Unwelcome to many locals, corporations such as Pacific Rubiales Energy, which produces more than 40% of crude oil in Colombia, have domineered or-ganized labor, indigenous communities and the environment, sparking worker unrest. The free market model that was adopted in Colombia does not benefit the local people. As their land was taken away to benefit the country as a whole, communities lost access to their most basic necessities, resulting in a time of panic for self-preservation. Free market economics did not provide the displaced peo-ple with jobs and harmed rather than helped them. As free-market economics were in the best interest of the Canadians and Europeans investing in Colombia, the local people were neglected. In order to protect the people, Co-lombia implemented The Andean Pact, which substituted foreign capital with domestic capi-tal by limiting the foreign capital to 20%.

To maintain their independence and oppose the pressure of major world powers, African countries should jumpstart their lo-cal economies by empowering Africans with

local jobs often given to the Chinese by Chi-na-based employers and by curbing FDI. By keeping the workforce primarily African, money can circulate both within villages and the continent as a whole, distributing the

wealth more successfully and bridging large gaps between classes. Large social or econom-ic gaps in societies have often brought turmoil amongst groups; for instance, in the Gilded Age of the United States, big businesses were unregulated, leading to the impoverishment of the working lower class through the disregard of their welfare.

In order to limit FDI, underdeveloped na-tions must also place restrictions on resources and on how much money can be invested. This will preserve national, and in African countries’ cases, land integrity. By establish-ing an agreement between the investor and countries being invested in, underdeveloped nations can keep their best interests in hand. Countries that are part of this Non-Aligned Movement include 2/3 of the countries in the United Nations. Tailored specifically to protect less developed countries from exploitation of global leaders, The Non-Aligned Movement is based on respect of sovereignty and basic human rights. All nations that adopt policies of the Non-Aligned Movement honor the in-terests of their own people and of their local economies. HMR

Increased Chinese influence in Africa over the last decade

“An estimated 1 million Chinese now live in Africa, more than double from over a decade ago, and more continue to arrive.”

23March 2014

International

http://kanhemaphoto.com/


International

Caroline Kennedy:A Worthy Ambassador?

Evan Greene

Caroline Kennedy was an excellent choice by President Obama as our United States ambassador to Japan. Ms. Kennedy, the daughter of John F. Kennedy, is a well-known figure, which has added to the public’s excitement in watching her perform as a leading international diplomat. After being appointed by Obama in October, Kennedy

was quickly confirmed unanimously by the Senate to be the United States’ Ambassador to Japan. Many could not have predicted the strong role she has played in American politics, building on her father’s legacy. People remember Caro-line Kennedy, as a little girl in the picture of her father’s funeral, and her father’s courageous fighting of the Japanese in World War II. In many ways there is an ironic twist to her appointment, as peacemaker to a country her father fought against.

Caroline Kennedy has had a considerable history with Japan before her appointment as ambassador. She visited Japan as a college student to see Hiroshima. This must have had a major impression on her because right after she was appointed ambassador to Japan, she quickly returned to visit Nagasaki. The visits were obviously to observe the firsthand damage that nuclear weapons can inflict. But more important, this last visit was a diplomatic gesture to the Japanese to say - I understand what you have been through and let’s move forward together in the future. Symbolically, her father was also involved in rebuilding Japan and this adds historical meaning to her appointment by Obama. It is a hopeful and uplifting political gesture to both the Japanese and Americans that now, years later, she has returned as an interested and involved diplomat.

Today, Kennedy has become an important diplomatic broker working with a powerful country with which we have a strong relationship. The United Sates has vast commercial interests in Japan, with the Asian nation as our fourth largest trade partner worldwide. Furthermore, it is a known fact that many of our Armed Forces are stationed in Japan or in

25March 2014

International


Japanese waters. Obama’s appointment of Kennedy as Ambassador to Japan has opened up a whole new political world for her, and also a perfect opportunity for the United States to continue close re-lations with Japan. For Kennedy, it may be a stepping stone for future appoint-ments and perhaps even a run for public office someday, but for the United States it may signal a wise diplomatic maneuver that will surely bring the two countries closer. The Japanese papers were clear in their support for Kennedy as the United States’ leading diplomat in their country, given that the arrangement would bring publicity and attention to US-Japanese relations. Her appointment as ambassa-dor to Japan is a statement from Obama, as if to say that the United States is send-ing our top political diplomat because our political and economic alliance with Japan is of the utmost importance.

Previously there was not a great deal of press on Kennedy’s trips to Japan. However, this past month she has re-ceived coverage in the New York Times and other papers concerning her last trip to Japan. During this recent trip, the new-ly appointed ambassador expressed some deep concerns about the inhumane kill-ing of dolphins in Japan. As an ambas-sador for the United States, she did make comments suggesting that it is inhumane for the Japanese to kill so many dolphins for food. The process of dolphin killing in Japan can be complicated. Many Jap-anese were surprised by her frank com-ments about the dolphins. Some even thought it was wrong to critique a prac-tice that is vital to the business of many Japanese fishermen and has been going on for years. There were grumblings by our own government, as to why she had to get involved in an internal Japanese practice. But many others feel that she has boldly and rightly stood up against the controversial killing of these endan-gered animals. Although, some find her comments overly intrusive, Kennedy is bringing attention to the fact that dol-phins in Japan are being slaughtered on an increasingly large scale. Many animal activists believe that Ms. Kennedy has shown audacity and foresight in trying to point out to the Japanese that this is a cruel daily event. Perhaps there is a compromise that can be reached, either in the methods used to kill the dolphins or a quota on the numbers of dolphins being killed.

Japanese fishermen kill dolphins, usually selling their meat as a food source. There are numerous methods used to kill dolphins. A common technique is for the fisherman to drive hundreds of dolphins into secluded areas. Here they kill the dolphins for meat, let some dolphins go and then save a few for sale to aquari-ums and water parks. The fishermen spot a pod of dolphins and drive them into a small enclosed bay that is then sealed off with nets so the dolphins cannot escape. They are most often driven or dragged to the beach and then killed in various ways such as suffocation or with metal rods driven into their spinal cords. The kill-ing has been a source of contention and controversy for many years between the US and Japan. It is clear that the Japanese have always hunted dolphins for various reasons, and that killing dolphins is not against the law in their country. Further-more, dolphins are important sources of food and livelihood for many Japanese.

It is most interesting that Caro-line Kennedy has chosen the killing of dolphins as a major topic she will com-ment on as ambassador. She has taken an appropriate stance on the killings as there are not only more humane ways to kill dolphins, but also the Japanese can choose other fish to kill for food sales. She is smart in that she has not chosen an area such as nuclear weapons, cur-rency rates, or immigration. Cleary she has made a conscious choice to pick the killing of dolphins because it is a less controversial and more affable issue. Caroline Kennedy wants to cement the already strong relationship the United States has with Japan.

In conclusion, choosing Caroline Kennedy as ambassador to Japan is one of the best choices that President Obama has made. Not only is Caroline Kenne-dy from a well-respected political family, she is also a woman in a field of many men. Too often women are overlooked to be chosen as ambassadors to important countries like Japan. Caroline Kennedy in her own right is a smart, articulate and determined person besides her fam-ily name. People from the United States, Japan, and around the world should look forward to seeing her not only do well as an ambassador, but to rise to other im-pressive political posts in the future. I commend Obama for choosing her and Caroline Kennedy for seizing the oppor-tunity. HMR

26

v


International

On November 23, 2013, Beijing an-nounced and told the world of its Air Defense Identification Zone

(ADIZ) in the East China Sea where the Senkaku islands, also known as the Di-aoyu islands, lie. An ADIZ stakes a part of the land or ocean as part of its airspace in the interest of keeping the country safe, in this case, China. This was an event that could start a crisis and raise tensions be-tween three of the world’s great powers: Japan, China, and the US. Despite the ris-ing tension, China and Japan are still vying for ownership of the islands with neither side willing to back down. China persists in the claim even though Japan has numer-ous warships circling the islands as of this moment. The U.S. should act as a mediator between China and Japan to alleviate the tension.

Now what are the Senkaku islands? They are a series of islands off the coast of China and, although they seem to be closer to China, they lie in the archipelago that makes up the country Japan. The Sen-kaku islands themselves aren’t inhabited, but they do hold vast resources of oil that could keep both Japan and China running for decades. And due to the tsunami that devastated Japan a couple of years ago, Ja-pan needs all the resources and help it can get, as is the same with China with its ever depleting resources.

There are many different points of view on this issue over to whom these is-lands belong. The reason neither China nor Japan can settle this argument is that there are variations of the same story over these islands. Here is a bit of background information.

Japan claims that it had surveyed the islands for 10 years in the 19th century and had eventually placed a sovereignty marker on those islands on January 14, 1895, meaning that it had officially drawn those islands into its own territory as part of the Nansei Shoto islands. However, as it is known, Japan lost World War II and renounced all claims to a number of terri-tories including Taiwan due to the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951. And, as it hap-pened, the Nansei Shoto islands came un-der the ownership of the US, but instead of keeping those islands, we gave them back to Japan in 1971 in the Okinawa reversion deal, leaving us in present day with the is-lands in Japan’s control and territory.

Even so, China still believes that the islands are its to use and control. It claims that the islands have belonged to them since ancient times, when it used the is-lands as fishing routes, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that its claim is “fully proven by history and is legal-ly well-founded.” Since the Treaty of San Francisco, when Japan renounced claims to

territories and islands, China has believed that the islands should have also been re-turned to them in addition to Taiwan, but if the country had known and believed these islands to be in its possession, whey did it not rise up and notify both Japan and the U.S.? At that time reports show that China itself did not know whom the islands be-longed to. For example, leader Chiang Kai-shek did not raise the issue about whom the islands belonged to even after he was notified about the Okinawa reversion deal. Separately, Taiwan has also laid claims to the islands which is confusing, since there is still controversy over whether or not Tai-wan is independent from China or not.

Now why is there so much argument over a couple of little uninhabited islands? The answer is for its resources. These is-lands hold billions of barrels of oil both above and below the sea according to Brit-ish Petroleum. Both China and Japan seri-ously need this large oil resource. The one thing the two countries have in common is a list of problems to face. First off, their major suppliers of oil are in the Arab coun-tries and in North Africa, both of which are facing large issues of their own. China’s large population density means that China can barely sustain itself with the amount of oil and energy the country currently possesses and imports. Whereas Japan is not nearly as largely populated as China,

AMERICA THE MEDIATOR

www.nytimes.com

OUR ROLE IN THE SENKAKU ISLANDS DISPUTE

John Eng

v

27

International

March 2014

its problems are no less major. After the tsunami that hit Japan in 2011, some of its nuclear power plants were completely de-stroyed, which meant that Japan lost a ma-jor source of its energy, therefore increas-ing the need to import more oil for energy, which costs millions of dollars. Officials say that although the power plants are on their way to being prepared, it will take some more years for them to be back up to speed and running again. That is why these islands are so important: they offer a way to get these two countries out of a des-perate situation that could take years and billions of dollars to fix.

Right now tensions are on the rise with every move the Chinese and the Japa-nese make. The diplomatic solution would be to talk it out in peace; however, I believe that the differences between China and Japan are too great considering their dark past of wars, in addition to the fact that each country has so much staked in the is-lands themselves. Every week, a new event takes place that aggravates the Japanese government even more, whether it is Chi-na flying planes over the islands, or China increasing its maritime activities in that general area. It is almost as if China wants to start a war over these highly disputed is-lands. In general, nobody ever wants a war because it can have disastrous effects, ru-ining countries’ economies, breaking ties

and alliances and generally causing chaos in the world. But if a war were to break out between China and Japan, it would also in-volve the US because we made a security alliance with Japan stating that we would receive military bases in Japan in exchange for our protection if ever they were at-tacked. This means that not only would a war between Japan and China involve Asia, but it would also involve us, half a world away: a war between three of the world’s greatest powers. The conflict over the Sen-kaku islands should be a serious concern for the U.S., and we should make the issue on of our top priorities in foreign policy.

As President Abe of Japan said, “I ex-plained that we have always been dealing with this issue … in a calm manner. We will continue to do so, and we have always done so.” Dealing with the issue gradually and calmly is the best approach because of the disastrous consequences that could ensue. Should China make a reckless decision and move some of its drones or maritime forces into the island space that Japan had recently bought from private buyers, a war could spark that could potentially devas-tate trade and commerce all over the world, with China, Japan, and the U.S. caught in between. That is why it is every party’s best interest to resolve this issue peacefully.

However good of an idea this may sound like, the relationship between Japan

and China is too discordant for the coun-tries speak diplomatically without external mediation. The two countries have been on edge with each other for years, especially since World War II when the Japanese oc-cupied China and decimated its cities and villages. Thus, a war could be highly likely between these two disagreeable countries. This is where the US could help. We could act as the middleman in this argument. Although this may not seem appealing to many, remember that a war that spans the entire globe would be even less desirable.

Along with all the obvious reasons why a war shouldn’t be started over these islands, if a war were to break out, it would be detrimental on a global scale because there is no telling which countries could be involved. Being three of the worlds greatest powers, the U.S., Japan and China would have many allies and trading partners who may or may not decide to enter this con-flict, most likely to benefit themselves, en-gaging in activities such as selling weapons to Japan and China. Frankly, the outcomes of this potential war are endless and over-whelmingly negative. Destruction, trade disruption, broken alliances, and animos-ity that will last for generations all seem likely. It is in the U.S.’s best interest to dif-fuse this conflict diplomatically, and with as little violence as possible. HMR


THE

ROAD BACK TO

FALLUJAH

A s of January 2014, all of the US forces have been withdrawn from Iraq for two years. Yet the debate

over whether the US left Iraq too soon and vulnerable or whether it was time to come home continues to fill US airwaves. Those who argue the latter are absolutely right. The US invaded Iraq in order to take down Saddam Hussein and what we believed to be his weapons of mass destruction pro-gram. As soon as we achieved that end, we left; however, what was not in the plan was the ensuing Al-Qaeda insurgency. The Iraqi government within those two years has disappointed the US. Highlighting the disappointment was the city of Fallujah, a city whose battle, historians claim, was the

deadliest US battle since the battle of Hue City in Vietnam. The Iraqi government lost Fallujah again. We left the country trust-ing that Iraq would continue the progress that was made. Yet the Iraqi government let down all of the brave men and women who fought there, and the 4000 men and wom-en who died trying to liberate a country that was not even their own. This is Iraq’s country and therefore it is their war. We already did our part and pulled our weight and now it is time for the Iraqis to do theirs.

In April of 2004, the US launched one of the fierce invasions in Fallujah, Iraq. Af-ter the fall of Sudam Hussein, Iraqi al-Qae-da took over the city of Fallujah creating a Sunni Muslim stronghold. Through ex-

ecutions and torture, al-Qaeda punished those who supported the new Shiia presi-dent Nouri- al Maliki. As part of the pro-cess of removing al-Qaeda in Iraq, the US launched the largest urban invasion since 1968 in Vietnam, on Fallujah. Although al-Qaeda was knocked out of Fallujah, with over 1,500 insurgents killed and many more fleeing, the US still lost one hundred sol-diers while wounding around 500 men and women. An additional 300,000 civilians fled and 2,000 civilians were killed. The costs of this battle were staggering. Despite the ca-sualties, the results of these two battles were successful until Iraq lost all of this progress.

The US maintained a presence in Iraq for another seven years, suppressing

commons.wikimedia.org

William Scherr

International

29March 2014

International


al-Qaeda in Iraq and giving the Iraqi people a chance at the democracy that they longed for. They trained their army, and by in large created a safer Iraq at the cost of over 4,000 men and women dying and trillions of dol-lars of debt. For these reasons President Obama officially ended the United States’ involvement in Iraq on December 21, 2011. This decision had both positive and negative effects. On one hand, a war that has been go-ing on for eight years and killed 4,000 of our own people finally came to an end. The end of the war allowed our troops to come home and gave the Iraqi’s their country back. On the other hand, everything that we worked to accomplish over the past seven years was entrusted to the Iraqi government.

The first invasion in Fallujah lasted from April of 2003 to May of 2003, resulting in the loss of 27 American lives. The main reason for the initial invasion was the attack and killing of four employees from Black-water USA private military contractors. As they were doing their jobs in Fallujah, their car was ambushed. Sniper bullets from the rooftops rained down, and rocket propelled grenades flew. Then a grenade landed inside the car, killing all four men. Their bodies were taken from the car by citizens of Fal-lujah, dragged through the streets, hanged from the bridge, burned, and document-ed for all of Fallujah, Iraq, the US and the world to see. It was evident that the Amer-icans angered a group of Sunni Muslims, who thrived under Saddam Hussein’s rule, by killing Saddam Hussein. This invasion caused the villagers of Fallujah to be drawn to and convinced by al-Qaeda’s plan to resist Western intervention and take back over Iraq. When the Americans first arrived in Fallujah they were met with heavy fire as they were out numbered 2,200 American soldiers to 3,600 terrorist insurgents. Added to the disadvantage were the loyal residents of Fallujah. They protested the intervention of Americans in Fallujah and staged protests trying to let the US and Iraqi governments their displeasure; however, these protests resulted in American troops firing on the the crowd, further enraging the residents of Fallujah and causing them to become more infuriated. The US started confiscat-ing cars and motorcycles as they were being used in hit and runs with coalition forc-es. Then al-Qaeda attacked a US. Convoy carrying the US commander of the Mid-dle East with snipers and rocket propelled grenades. Eleven days after that, insurgents attacked a prison releasing 87 prisoners, and killing seventeen Iraqi police officers.

Much to the ground commanders’ dismay, who wanted strategically-planned strikes, the Joint Task Force ordered an invasion.

On April 4th the US surrounded the city, launching strikes on four different houses and fully engaging them in this bat-tle. They blocked all roads leading in and out of Fallujah and completely locked down the city; however, 12-24 different insurgency groups resisted the US forces. The fighting came to a temporary end on April 9th when a cease-fire was put in place. Although, this cease-fire was short lived as talks fell apart. The violence after that continued to spiral out of control. The police in Fallujah was giving weapons to the insurgency to kill coalition forces. Even the parliament of Iraq called for an end to the US efforts in Fallujah. Inevitably, the US was forced to pull out; however before they did, the army created a Fallujah task force composed of Iraqi’s in charge of maintaining the prog-ress made. They ultimately fell to the ter-

rorists, prompting the second insurgency. As a result of a lack of military pres-

ence, the insurgents came back with an even more powerful force. The US brought 10,500 troops combined with 2,000 Iraqi troops and 850 British troops to wipe out the 4,000 insurgents still left in Fallujah. Given all this time to regroup and reorga-nize, the insurgents fortified their city. They created IEDS leading to the city creating different lines of defense as well as convert-ing more people to their cause. The US per-formed door-to-door combat in an attempt to secure the buildings and their rooftops to eliminate any potential insurgent snipers from targeting the coalition forces from be-low. They also cleared out the main center of the city, and the heavily fortified northern parts of the highway, which was responsible for 20 marine deaths. The amount of forc-es and determination propelled the coali-tion forces to victory as Fallujah was then under control of the Iraqi government. HMR

“The US invaded Iraq in order to take down Saddam Hussein and what was believed to be his weapons of mass

destruction program. As soon as we achieved that end, we left; however, what was not in the plan was the

ensuing Al-Qaeda insurgency.”

www.wikipedia.com


The international rush for the Arctic is heating up, even faster than the climate change that is causing this

tension. Over the past decade, land and seas of the Arctic have become more ac-cessible to nations interested in the region’s resources; these nations include all the countries whose borders touch unclaimed Arctic territory, such as Finland, Iceland, Norway, Canada and Sweden. However, there are more significant powers at play

that have that same border justification for their haste for Arctic land. The United States, Russia and China all desire the po-tentially profitable waters of the Northern Sea Route that grow less icy and more tra-versable by the day, as well as the untapped natural resources lying hidden beneath the previously inaccessible ice. All three pow-ers drool over the economic prospects of the Arctic, but Russia seems determined to acquire land and military control at any

cost. With little provocation, President Pu-tin’s push into the Arctic promises to be the number one cause of the next Cold War.

As the Arctic gets warmer, resourc-es vital to the economies of major world powers and, more importantly, a new, profitable trade route in the Northern Sea Route open up. The Arctic houses 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gases and 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil depos-its. While Canada has expressed interest

The Competition Over Control of the Arctic

Miranda Bannister

www.gazprom.com

Expedition OilFeatures

31March 2014

in these resources, or rather protecting them, the major players will be the most aggressive. Russia is the number one oil producer in the world; although, the New York Times projects the United States will surpass Russia by 2030. Naturally, both nations are leaping at the opportunity to expand these vitally important sectors. Whichever nation gains control over oil resources in the Arctic gains control over the international oil industry. China de-sires the oil for similar reasons, so it will be similarly aggressive. As a developing country, China’s urban economies are root-ed in production industries that consume energy at the fastest rate in the world. Both nations need these resources. Nothing is more important than the Northern Sea Route, though. For the first time in years a Russian cargo ship made it through the North Sea Route in the dead of winter. As the icecaps melt and the waters warm, the

Route will be accessible during every sea-son of the year. According to the Diplomat, the Northern Sea Route takes one third the time and travel as current routes used for intercontinental transport; therefore, one third the cost of transportation. These wa-ters will be the chosen route of transporta-tion for coming generations. Any nation that gains control of the waters can charge exorbitant taxes on foreign ships passing through, and avoid that fate for themselves.

There are a multitude of stories each nation tells, explaining reasonable claim for the Arctic, but none is more insulting to the ears of the international community than the tales Putin tells. Canada claims environmental interests, but as the jour-nalist Richard Janda wrote, “If our claims to the North Pole were accompanied by a solemn pledge to leave it untouched, the land grab might seem more benign. But we did not spend $200 million on mapping the seabed to protect it for future generations.” Russia is less subtle even than Canada. “We must prove the Arctic is an extension of the Russian coastal shelf,” said Artur Chalingarof, a polar explorer and scientist. There is little show made by Russia to hide

the fact that the country is stretching the truths of science to serve its own interests. Every nation with its border on the Arctic has an automatically assumed Exclusive Economic Zone for 200 miles beyond its borders, but Russia filed a series of laugh-able claims with the United Nations in July of 2013 demanding a 150 mile extension of its EEZ. The same excuse suggested by Chalingarof was used: the arrangement of the Russian tectonic plates demand an extension of Russia’s rights to the sea.

Russia in fact overtly asserts its right-ful claim to the Arctic, especially its waters and the North West Route, with its symbol-ic gestures to the international community and, even worse, its eager militarization of the seas. In 2007, Chalingarof, on behalf of Russia, planted a titanium flag at the bot-tom of the North Pole. The implications of this bold statement are serious. Russia is claiming the Arctic, specifically its wa-

ters, for itself. Its later claims of extension to the United Nations only tap at the sur-face of the issue; Putin thinks the whole Arctic belongs to Russia, and he is willing to defend that assertion. In September of 2003, Putin reopened a naval base that was shut down twenty years earlier. Harmless as that may seem, the Russian government is starting to equip its navy with actual weaponry and more combat preparations. According to Russian legislation of 2020, the county intends to have border patrols and a firm military presence in the area, begging the question, how much land does Russia plan to acquire and what con-flict does Russia foresee as a result of this?

Indeed, the United States and China will not simply allow Russia to act with-out consequences; their war for resources will develop tension and may become an actual war someday. As block nations in the UN, the USA and China will both veto any claims of Russia’s, such as the appli-cation for the extension of the EEZ. Both the United States and China have equal need for the oil resource, and equal ability to obtain it. Though China has made no formal claims beyond its own EEZ, both

countries have begun militarization in the past few decades, especially in light of the highly provocative steps of Russia. There-fore, Russia will not be able to have Rus-sian land or waters under international law, so it will take the law into its own hands. This can lead to only one thing: a subtle build up of tension until the three powers are neck and neck in another cold war. Any slight faux pas by the military in the region could lead to a real war. It is clear by the military movement into the area that every nation anticipates this outcome.

A literal war for resources is a gen-uine threat to American security. Cur-rently the United States has 25,000 troops stationed in Alaska. However, as nations crowd into the Arctic for natural resourc-es, and tensions build, the Department of Defense intends to increase those troops because of the new exposed front and the highly likely scenario that violence will

break out over Arctic territory in the fu-ture. Russia is determined not to give up the opportunity of oil and natural gases. The only question left is how will the di-vide occur? A three way battle for land and water would be chaotic between the Unit-ed States, China, and Russia, but all three nations need the resources so desperately that there will be no choice but to clash. If the United States can secure steady rela-tionships with as many Arctic nations as possible, perhaps even China, the country stands a chance at achieving the incredible opportunities for the American economy.

There is hope that the United States will never see a cold or real war again. The De-partment of Defense released a statement that “[T]hese changes present a compelling opportunity for the [DoD] to work collabo-ratively with allies and partners to promote a balanced approach to improving human and environmental security in the region.” However, it seems unlikely that the envi-ronment will be a uniting force for interna-tional relations, seeing as resources are the number one reason the land is so valuable and the number one motivator for move-ment into and control of the Arctic. HMR

“The United States, Russia, and China...drool over the economic prospects of the Arctic, but Russia seems determined to acquire land and military control at any cost. With little provocation, President

Putin’s push into the Arctic promises to be the number one cause of the next Cold War.”

Features

The United States’ interest in the Middle East dates back to the Cold War. In 1957, President Dwight D.

Eisenhower delivered a famous speech, known as the Eisenhower Doctrine. The speech singled out the threat of increas-ing Soviet presence in the Middle East. The Suez Crisis of 1956 resulted in the creation of a power vacuum in the Mid-dle East, and Eisenhower wanted the U.S., rather than the Soviet Union, to fill this vacuum. The Eisenhower Doctrine, which authorized the commitment of U.S. forc-

es to aid any nations that felt threatened by Communist aggression, was meant to serve as a message to the USSR, signaling that America would strive to protect its interests in the Middle East. Its two main concerns were based upon maintaining a stable global energy market and securing access to the Gulf Region’s rich oil sup-plies. Since this time, the US has directed its foreign policy in the Middle East to-wards gaining control of the Gulf Region’s oil supply, even though doing so has re-sulted in a colossal waste of resources. En-

tanglement with regional politics and the quest to make sure no nation can thwart US influence has cost the US quite a bit more than it has received in return.

This initial interest that the Eisen-hower administration exhibited in the Middle East has been displayed countless times by the United States in the last fifty years, even though the Middle East does not always account for the majority of US oil imports. Since controlling oil access has been at the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, the US has been

WALKING AWAY FROM OILExamining American Foreign Policy in the Middle East

Natasha Moolji

32

Features


involved in multiple wars in the Gulf Re-gion and has maintained a unilateral mil-itary presence in the region. When Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in 1990, America immediately joined the rest of the UN Security Council in sanctioning Iraq. George H.W. Bush deployed U.S forces into Saudi Arabia and called on other na-tions to mobilize their troops as well. In order for the US to continue to be success-ful in the Middle East, it was important to ensure that no single country gained too much power in the region. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait would result in increasing Iraqi influence, which would be detrimental to US and Israeli interests, as well as desta-bilizing to the global energy market. The Bush administration would go to whatev-er lengths necessary to impede Iraq’s suc-cess. The First Gulf War only lasted for a few months but it was a decisive victory for the multilateral force led by the United States. The victory ensured that the pur-suit of US interests would remain unhin-dered.

After the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War, President Bill Clinton looked to solidify US policy on the Mid-dle East. The main goal was still to keep any country from gaining influence over the region. If one country became too powerful, the US would not be able to control the entire Gulf Region’s oil supply. In 1994, the Clinton Administration an-nounced the policy of dual containment. The policy was aimed at containing Iran and Iraq, which were the two main stra-tegic adversaries of the United States in the region. In Iraq, Clinton feared that the fall of Saddam Hussein would result in sectarian war and that chaos in the re-gion would lead to the destabilization of the global energy market and would also lessen American control over regional oil. As a result, containment in Iraq was comprised of sanctions and the occa-sional use of force. In Clinton’s eyes, Iran was a rogue state that was fundamentally opposed to American presence in the re-gion. Containment of Iran was an effort to prohibit the possibility of Iran’s acquiring ballistic missiles and to limit access to in-ternational funding. If Iran were to gain advanced weaponry, it was likely that they would have directly challenged American control of oil.

While dual containment was a suc-cessful policy in the short term, it was also inherently flawed. In the late 1990s, pun-dits began criticizing the US’s employ-

ment of this policy. Gulf oil did not help the US economy as much as its protection cost the US government. The costs of the unilateral defense strategy were too high. In addition, isolation could not last forev-er. Eventually, nations would forego em-bargoes on Iran and trade with them for their oil. US military presence also gen-erated anti-American sentiment because citizens who suffered from sanctions saw America as the source of their econom-ic troubles. The US troops that were po-sitioned in Saudi Arabia also increased hostility towards the US because people did not want Western interference in their lives and were frustrated by the soldiers on their holy land. Dual containment is cited as one of the reasons for extremists’ hatred towards American policies and was even referenced by Osama bin Laden as part of his motivation for the Septem-ber 11 attacks. America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 can also be traced back to Iraq’s control over oil in the Gulf. With these re-sources Saddam Hussein had the ability to increase worldwide oil prices and oppose

US actions.The US has been drastically impact-

ed by its initial interest in Middle Eastern oil. The obsession with controlling the Gulf Region has resulted in the spending of trillions of dollars and the loss of lives. The US has only forged a few shaky alli-ances and instead has made numerous en-emies. The pursuit of control over Middle Eastern Oil is not as important as it has been in the past. In 2013, the US produced 137,000 more barrels of oil a day than it imported. With the “fracking boom” in North Dakota, Texas, and other areas, do-mestic production is at an all time high. With less reliance on oil imports, it is not as important for America to control and maintain such a large presence there. Ana-lysts say that the diminishing dependence on foreign oil will protect the nation from sudden, sharp price increases, eliminating one of the reasons the Eisenhower doc-trine was implemented in the first place. There is no longer a need to focus so much on the Middle East’s oil and foreign policy might soon shift to reflect this. HMR

“The US has directed its foreign policy in the Middle East towards gaining control of the Gulf Region’s oil supply,

even though doing so has resulted in a colossal waste of resources.”

33

Features

March 2014

BENJAMIN SHAPIRO

When people hear the acronym GMO their minds jump to pesticides and harmful diseas-

es caused by un-natural altered substanc-es. However, the truth behind genetically modified organisms isn’t nearly as bleak as it seems on the surface. Many people hear of crops like corn having their DNA altered to protect against poisonous chemicals and that corn can seriously damage lab rats and lead to terrible disorders. Yet people don’t seem to hear about the positive affects of modifying living matter. To genetically alter something with another species’ DNA does not neces-sarily create negative products and can ac-tually be used to create useful and beneficial organisms to help people. When you modify corn to protect it from poisons, it doesn’t add any extra health benefits to the crop. How-ever, when you change a plant and add im-portant vitamins and nutrients to it, it could potentially help supplement a malnourished

human beings with nutrients that they are lacking in their diet.

Currently there is a type of genetically modified rice being grown in the Philippines that could be very important in helping mal-nourished people across the world. The name for the new organism is golden rice and it has the ability to produce beta carotene which is a natural source of vitamin A. The rice is called golden rice because of its prominent yellow color. The main reason that this rice could be so beneficial is because vitamin A is utterly essential in keeping a healthy im-mune system and maintaining eye health. This important vitamin is lacking in the diet of thousands of impoverished people whose main source of daily calories come from rice. In addition, rice is relatively cheap and easy to produce so it is the perfect staple to sup-ply these people with the vitamin A they are missing. The only problem with the growing and distributing golden rice is the opposition

that it receives from the general public due to the fact that it is a GMO.

The main reason that GMOs are asso-ciated with very negative ideas is because of their prevalence in modern day chemical agriculture. In order to keep crops safe from insects and weeds, chemical manufacturing companies genetically modify them to be immune to certain deadly toxins. Then farm-ers can plant the modified crops and douse their fields with pesticides in order to kill everything that could harm the crop without harming the plants themselves. An exam-ple of one such chemical is Roundup weed killer, which is one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world. The compa-ny that manufactures Roundup, Monsanto, genetically modifies crops such as corn and soy beans so that they are resistant to the herbicide; these GMOs are called roundup ready crops. Monsanto effectively controls the market for a variety of different crops

Features


Eliminating the GMO Stigma

because anyone who buys their weed killer also has to buy the GMO equipped to protect itself against that herbicide.

Through these farming methods, GMOs have been used to promote deadly toxins in agriculture, which has had multiple negative effects. The use of intense pesticides and weed killers has brought about increas-ingly strong and naturally resistant breeds of plants and insects. These new organisms require even more extreme poisons to be killed and manufacturers of these herbicides and pesticides create new powerful chem-icals to combat the developing organisms. The process is becoming more laborious and creating crops that are far more dangerous to consume. Genetically modified organisms being used for this chemical agriculture have become increasingly complex and have de-veloped more defects, leading people to try and avoid manufactured foods that include these GMOs.

From these seemingly dangerous prod-ucts GMOs have received a bad name and are constantly being avoided and rejected by consumers all over the world. In many devel-oped countries it is mandatory that GMOs be labeled so that the public can identify them, and in some places GMOs have been banned entirely. Recently a bill was proposed in Kona Hawaii to ban genetically modified organisms as a whole which received wide-spread support. However, even though many advocate against the use of GMOs, not many people contemplate the positive effects that

genetically modified organisms can generate. After all, for an organism to be classified as a GMO, its DNA has been altered with that of another species. In the case of golden rice, the label of GMO is a stigma that impedes its progress towards helping people on a global scale.

Golden rice is also not the only unique and beneficial GMO. Another example is a strain of genetically modified grapes pro-duced in Colmar France. This strain of grapes was made to resist a virus, which was infecting the plants. There was also a form of wheat being generated in Australia that had a lower effect on blood pressure than nor-mal wheat; however, protesters broke into the fields where they had been growing the wheat and destroyed the crop. The problem in these situations has nothing to do with the GMO, but rather the people receiving them. There are many advantages to GMOs and without further knowledge into the full ex-tent of these benefits, people tend to protest against and destroy genetically altered crops. Even the GMOs used in chemical agriculture have some sensible economic advantages; mainly that the altered crops ensure a much larger harvest yield. There are numerous re-wards in the use of GMOs, however the am-bivalence of citizens concerned with these organisms stops the productive utilization of these crops.

In August of 2013, protesters of golden rice smashed down the fences surrounding one of the rice farms and destroyed the crop

that the farm was producing. Without further knowledge of how this GMO could seriously benefit malnourished people, the Philippian protesters had destroyed the entire crop be-cause of false ideas they had about GMOs as a whole. Because the entire group of geneti-cally modified organisms has been branded with a stigma in society, it seems as though all GMOs are harmful. In order to reap the benefits that certain modifications in DNA can hold, the public must be informed that not all mutations are necessarily harmful.

Currently, genetically modified organ-isms are used mainly in agriculture to pro-tect plants against terrible poisons; howev-er, the potential of genetic modifications goes far beyond this crude and potentially harmful method. With breakthroughs like golden rice, new organisms can be created to aid people all over the world with vari-ous different problems that they face. Hun-ger and malnutrition are only two problems that could be helped and only beginning of altered crops’ potential. The bad name of GMOs has been fastened in the minds of people all over the world who encounter them and though problems are encountered with these products, they are not all dan-gerous. Instead of focusing new genetic en-gineering on protecting crops from insects and weeds, scientists should focus on alter-ing crops with special attributes that could effectively aid human beings. When applied to the right causes GMOs can be used to help people instead of harm them. HMR

“THE LABEL OF GMO IS A STIGMA THAT IMPEDES ITS PROGRESS TOWARDS HELPING PEOPLE ON A GLOBAL SCALE.”

Features

35March 2014

36

Features


A Lethal Necessity

Although many people believe we live in a world in which everyone has access to safe water, adequate

sanitation, and basic hygiene, the real-ity is in fact far more bleak. For people in first world countries, turning on the faucet or grabbing a Poland Spring when thirsty will not yield bloody diarrhea, nor a life threatening disease like malar-ia. But in some areas of the world, the waterborne disease crisis is ruining the lives of children with every sip. The water that is supposed to be sustaining them is also slowly but surely killing them. Every year, 3.6 million people die from water-borne diseases. That’s a death every 15 seconds, and 98% of these deaths occur in developing countries in Africa. The wa-

ter that the victims are ingesting is filled with bacteria and dangerous microorgan-isms. Fortunately however, programs to provide cleaner water and initiatives to prevent these diseases have been taken.

Water has its basic purposes in the body and in the houses of 1st and 2nd world countries’ citizens. Developing countries such as Ethiopia and Libya also use water for the same reasons; however, they lack proper sanitation facilities and therefore are forced to turn to often con-taminated surface water sources such as ponds and swamps. This water is infested with bacteria and dangerous microorgan-isms, which lead to waterborne diseas-es. The most common waterborne diseas-es are malaria and dysentery, and the most

common symptom is vital organ inflam-mation. If treated properly and in time, the carrier has a chance of living. Howev-er, once the diseases become chronic, the survival rates become very low. There are 250 million people diagnosed with ma-laria annually, with 600 thousand annual deaths. The incidence rate of dysentery is much less than malaria but is still very common. Malaria is caused by a parasite which multiplies in the liver and affects red blood cells. It is transmitted through mosquitoes which can be found in this water. Malaria causes fever, headache, and vomiting lasting 10-15 days. Malaria can become fatal by disrupting blood sup-ply to vital organs. Dysentery is caused by either a bacteria or amoeba and causes

CHRISTOPHER SHAARI

A Look at the Water Crisis

37

Features

March 2014

intestinal inflammation. Overcrowding and poor sanitation, common in develop-ing countries, contribute highly to trans-mission of this deadly disease.

The majority of the countries hard-est hit by the water crisis are located in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest drinking water and san-itation coverage in the world. In fact, unless countries in this part of Africa make huge efforts to fix their clean wa-ter, they will be the only region in the world to miss the United Nations Mil-lennium Development Goals (MDG) for clean drinking water. There are many reasons why Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest drinking water and sanitation cov-erage in the world. They are constant-ly forced to deal with emergencies and natural disasters. They have unfavorable geographic conditions such as adverse conditions for agriculture and adverse disease ecology. Finally, they lack prop-er management of water and are there-fore unable to have safe water and prop-er sanitation. All of these conditions characterize the region’s poor situation.

All households lacking an adequate household water supply are less produc-tive. Both the quality of labor and the amount of labor become reduced. People lose the opportunity for education when sick due to the waterborne diseases. Fi-nally, they are exhausted because their water supplies are often miles away and are very heavy to carry back to their vil-lages. Even worse, when carrying their water back to their village, they are typ-ically forced to make their way through unsafe terrain, putting them in dan-ger. Even the amount of labor is reduced when a person is carrying a waterborne disease. They lose time when collecting water when they are disabled, ironical-ly as a result of the very waterborne dis-eases that are the source of the disability.

The waterborne disease crisis is only getting worse, but there are possible solu-tions for the future. When it comes to preventing this crisis, the United Nations estimates that one-tenth of global disease could be prevented by improving water supply, sanitation, hygiene, and manage-ment of water resources. The develop-ing countries suffering most do not have clean water or the necessary systems to obtain it. International solutions are helping to provide people with the clean water. So far over 900,000 people have gotten the clean water they so desperately

need. The current most successful pro-gram, the Campaign for Clean Water, has helped hundreds of thousands of people.

The Campaign for Clean Water uses energy free chlorinators and neighbor-hood water tanks. The program is com-munity based and community led. The second program is Clean Water in Schools. They provide schools with chlo-rinators, water tanks, and train teachers to teach students about the importance of good hygiene and water. Through this program, tens of thousands of children have been protected from waterborne disease. What these programs have in common is that they help prevent deaths, improve the quality of life for the peo-ple, reduce suffering, and give the com-munity the confidence it needs to thrive.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another lead-er in the global mission to provide ev-eryone with clean water, has also made substantial progress in the field. Their mission is to improve the well-being of people around the world by giving them

access to safe water. They have teams that track waterborne disease interna-tionally, and investigate the causes and sources of waterborne diseases and out-breaks. Their research in the water crisis is helping them to complete their mission.

Finding the balance between treat-ing the illness or treating the water is one of the main issues facing governments of countries affected by the water cri-sis. As the level of protection of illness-es rises, the cost of water treatment rises as well. The decision hasn’t been made whether or not to go ahead in treating the illness or purifying the water, but pu-rifying the water appears to be the more cost efficient strategy. In the long term, providing protection towards illness by providing vaccines will become too ex-pensive due to the fact that viruses change forcing doctors to develop new vaccines frequently. Instead, we can educate com-munities and provide them with water treatment facilities, such as the ones that the Campaign for Clean Water program are providing, and work from there. HMR

Nearly a billion people in the world do not have access to clean and safe water. In the meantime, 70 percent

of the world’s drinking water that flows into North American and European homes is used for cleaning or is flushed down the toilet. In fact, one in every five deaths among children under the age of five is due lack of potable water.

More and more water is being squan-dered on luxuries in the United States and much of Europe. A poll conducted with Horace Mann Students revealed that the aver-age student believed that he or she consumed roughly 50 gallons of water directly each day. While this is a large number, it is not even remotely close to the daily per capita con-sumption of 100 gallons in United States as reported by the United Nations. In addition to the direct consumption, the average US Citi-zen consumes over 1,300 gallons indirectly per day. These indirect consumptions come in the form of luxuries that we enjoy. For ex-ample, it takes 3 gallons of water to produce a sheet of paper, 3,000 gallons for a pair of jeans, and 630 gallons for a hamburger. In contrast,

the daily per capita water consumption for Sub-Saharan Africa is 3 gallons. These sta-tistics highlight the significant disparity that exists across the globe in terms of access to clean and safe water, a basic essential for life.

Many of us cannot even imagine the hard-ships that people have to face due to the lack of fresh and accessible water. A charity worker re-ported that when she met a woman in Sub-Sa-haran Africa, the woman commented on how pleasant it felt to feel water splashing on her hands—something she had never experienced in her lifetime. There are many more like her as over 30% of the world’s population does not have adequate access to sanitized water. With so many people facing the problem of access-ing one of the most basic necessities of life, it is clear that this pressing issue deserves the world’s fullest attention. The United Nations estimates that by 2025 an estimated 1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity.

There are two fundamental types of wa-ter scarcity – physical water scarcity and eco-nomic water scarcity. Physical water scarcity is the situation where there is not enough water

to meet all demands. Dry and arid regions frequently suffer from physical water scarcity. Economic water scarcity, on the other hand, is the scarcity due to the lack of monetary means to take advantage of a water source. Typically this occurs in areas with lack of infrastructure.

Out of the billion people who don’t have access to clean water, 37% of them alone live in Sub-Saharan Africa. In those countries 80% of the illnesses can be linked to poor water and sanitation conditions. In Sub-Sa-haran Africa, access to water as well as overall sanitation is a daily struggle. Fewer than one in three people in Sub-Saharan Africa have access to a proper toilet. This forces them to access diseased and filthy water, as they have no other choice. The United Nations esti-mates that Sub-Saharan Africa alone loses 40 billion hours per year collecting water; the same as an entire year’s labor in all of France. With these serious problems that the families in Sub-Saharan Africa are facing it becomes imperative that we take immediate action.

Financially helping these villagers will have large impact on the world. According

Every Drop CountsVaed Prasad

FeaturesFeatures


ed Nations. Sub-Saharan Africa is the largest area facing economic water scarcity. Which means that with the right focus, investments and infrastructure the water scarcity can be alleviated. It is therefore imperative for us to focus our efforts and innovative water projects on the Sub-Saharan Africa region.

There is a wide range of proposals for in-creasing the world’s clean water supply. These range from installing aqueducts that use ped-als to generate water to political initiatives that legalize certain amount of water consump-tion. They also incorporate ideas that may not be so obvious to the US but have tremendous-ly benefited other countries such as commu-nal bathing similar to those of people in Japan, India, and Finland, as well as incorporating a pig toilet which allows pigs to consume hu-man waste, thereby reducing toilet water us-age. These potential solutions have numerous ethical, economical, and feasibility concerns.

One viable alternative is the use of the LifeStraw, as it represents one of the most promising potential solutions to the pressing issue of the paucity of clean drinking water in developing countries. The LifeStraw is a water filter that can be used by a person to filter his or her water so that it is safe for consumption. It filters a maximum of 264 gallons of water, enough for one person for one year. It also removes more than 99.9% of waterborne bac-teria and 99.9% of parasites as well as all solid

objects that are larger than a mere 15 nanome-ters. Many find this as a viable option as a per-son can get drinking water for an entire year with a LifeStraw for only $5. It is predicted that LifeStraw will meet the Millennium Develop-ment Goals of halving the number of people without drinking water at the cost of $8 billion, and providing drinking water for every person on the planet at a cost of $20 billion if the use of LifeStraw is widely adopted. Although this might seem like a large amount of money, it

is insignificant when compared to the results of depriving a billion people one of the most basic necessities of life. This goal can be eas-ily reached if every person in the U.S, U.K., Spain, France, Germany, and Canada, OECD countries with high income each contributed a mere $30. This small and miniscule sacrifice from the lives of 600 million today would al-low a billion others to survive into the future.

Another potential solution that numer-ous charity organizations such as The Water Project implements is the construction of water wells that excavate water from beneath the ground. The two major types of wells that are used today are the hand-dug wells and the drilled wells. Hand-dug wells are much cheaper than drilled wells, requiring only hu-man labor, and very little maintenance. These hand-dug wells are not as deep as drilled wells, typically reaching a mere 200 feet deep, and therefore do not require expensive equipment such as pumps. While the hand-dug well may seem like a very plausible solution there are many factors that prove detrimental to any efficient use in developing countries. For ex-ample, the surface water is exposed to con-tamination and therefore sewage is capable of entering the well. Also, the terrain of the well must follow many conditions, as it is impracti-cal to dig a well by hand in an area that is very rocky. Unfortunately, the Sub-Saharan Afri-ca has a very rocky terrain making hand-dug wells a very rare source of fresh water. Anoth-er potential solution are drilled wells that dig much deeper into the surface of the Earth and can get down to 3,000 feet into the ground, guaranteeing an abundant source of water. This, however, requires costly equipment and can build a substantial expense report for a small African village. The drill wells can also take up to several months to build depending on the material it drills to. That means that although it may yield a long-term benefit to the villagers in the future it does nothing to help the thirsty that need water immediately.

While today we can wake up and brush our teeth, take a leisurely fifteen-minute show-er, use a functioning toilet that is not a hole in the ground, and wash our hands afterwards there are a billion people not too far away from us for whom potable drinking water is merely an elusive dream. Although we can continue to focus our water on common luxuries such as high water consuming showers and dish-washers, it is self centered to disregard the bil-lion who live without the most basic necessity of life. The potential solutions to the problem at hand are plentiful. It is of the utmost im-portance, however, that we commit ourselves to making a world without thirst a reality. HMR

to the World Health Organization, for every $1 invested in water and sanitation, there is an economic return of between $3 and $34. This makes it clear that investing in water proj-ects for these civilizations provides all kinds of benefits including political, economical, and health benefits that will benefit the coun-tries in need as well as the entire world. These people need immediate help from developed countries such as the United States as well as international organizations such as the Unit-

Features

39March 2014

The debate over the use of fracking is not occuring in foreign coun-tries, but instead in small towns

across the United States. Fracking, more formally known as hydraulic fracturing, is the process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth. New technology is making it easier than ever for oil and gas industries to expand natural gas production across the United States. In the process of fracking, danger-ous chemicals are mixed with large quan-tities of water and sand and injected into wells at extremely high pressure. Fracking has been suspected of polluting drink-ing water where residents have reported

changes in water quality following frac-turing operations and also of contributing to climate change.

Fracking poses significant dangers to our environment. At least eight states have reported surface, ground, and drink-ing water contamination due to fracking. A study conducted at Cornell University found that 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon di-oxide, according to a Cornell University study in 2011. The methane released con-tributes to global warming and has a big-

ger greenhouse-gas footprint than coal or oil for time periods for less than fifty years. Also, fracking creates a discouragement in investing in alternative energy sources. This is because as fracking becomes more popular, it drives natural gas prices down, initiates greater consumer use, and results in more fracking. Fracking additionally releases air toxins, which are known or suspected of causing cancer and other se-rious health effects. Claims of water con-tamination have gone up as fracking has become more popular. Although there hasn’t been any proven case that the frack-ing process itself has affected water, stud-ies have determined that groundwater in

Features

The Future

Eric Stein

Of FRacking

www.huffingtonpost.com


Of FRackingareas near fracking wells tend to contain much higher concentrations of methane.

Furthermore, fracking poses many dangers to one’s health. A 2011 article in the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment compiled a list of 632 chem-icals identified from drilling operations throughout the U.S. The exposure of these toxic chemicals even at low levels can cause tremendous harm to humans. Up to 75% of these chemicals could affect the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs in ad-dition to the respiratory and gastrointes-tinal systems. About 40-50% could affect the brain/nervous system, immune and cardiovascular system, and the kidneys, 37% of these chemicals could affect the endocrine system, and 25% percent could cause cancer and mutations.

Fracking should not be allowed to continue until significant safeguards are put in place. Energy companies have been allowed to work without any restrictions and enforcement, resulting in contam-

inated drinking water, dirty air, gutted property values, and greater earthquake risk. Inadequate legislation has been un-successful in protecting our communities from wrong by the rapid expansion of fossil fuel production using fracking. The Department of the Interior sent out more than 2,000 violations to oil and gas com-panies drilling on public lands between 1998 and 2011; some of these violations were for extremely dangerous actions such as failing to install blowout preventers or building unsafe wells. Only six percent of those violators had to pay a fine, and in total, those fines totaled just $273,875, a mere fraction of the huge profits these companies are making.

While it may be impossible to make energy development completely safe, the safety of current operations must be im-proved. This can only be possible if state and federal governments enact legislation which enforce stronger laws and stan-dards. The safeguards the NDRC (Natural

Resource Defense Council) are re-propos-ing to protect our health and environment should be implemented immediately by state and federal governments. One of the safeguards proposed by the NRDC aims to place the most sensitive lands, including critical watersheds, completely off limits to fracking. Other safeguards proposed by the NRDC call for sound well drilling and construction standards to require the strongest well siting, casing and cementing and other drilling best practices, in addi-tion to permitting communities to protect themselves by restricting fracking through comprehensive zoning and planning.

America has become too dependent on fracking, so much so that it is impos-sible to outlaw it. New wells are being built everyday, and natural gas is abun-dant. New technology has made it eas-ier to extract gas from what were before unreachable sites, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of new frack wells in the United States. A better alternative is to work with states to make fracking safer, more transparent, and cleaner. The Environment Defense Fund (EDF) has spearheaded the effort to negotiate with the industry to make fracking safer. The EDF has been very successful in doing so. In Wyoming, the EDF negotiated rules to require groundwater testing near wells to detect any possible contamination. In Colorado, the EDF negotiated a set of pro-posed rules that would reduce methane leakage. Producers in Colorado will have to test for leakage on a regular basis, and will have to avoid methane venting from wells. These rules should be the first of many regulations for fracking.

The dangers of fracking are immi-nent. The future of our planet lies in the hands of lawmakers. If lawmakers give in to the greed of natural gas corporations, the more popular and dangerous frack-ing will become. Studies have shown that fracking harms our environment, and it is time for significant safeguards to be put in place. HMR

“The future of our planet lies in the hands of lawmakers. If lawmakers give in to the greed of natural gas producers, the more popular and dangerous fracking will become. Studies

have shown that fracking harms our environment, and it is time for significant safeguards to be put in place.”

41March 2014

Features

Overpopulation

A Global Reality

Overpopulation is not a myth. In the last six out of eleven years, we have not been able to pro-

duce enough food to feed the current population. Some of these reasons in-clude drought, severe weather and fail-ing harvests. However, with our growing population, it is necessary that we find a way to produce enough food for all and avoid the impact of severe weather on the world’s food supply. While we are not yet able to increase the food production, the

world’s population is increasing due to increased birth and increased survival, because of the medicines such as vacci-nations and other new technological ad-vances.

While the ideal state of the world is one that has a plentiful amount of food for all, the reality is that many are starving worldwide and the sources of food in the world’s markets are becoming more and more depleted. The lack of food is due to more severe droughts and severe weather,

resulting in failing harvests. For example, in Central America, a fungus known as “la roya”, in 2012, destroyed thirty per-cent of coffee trees. The rain and high temperatures caused a higher humidity, which eventually led to the destruction of thousands of crops. The severe weath-er, occurring mostly in the United States, has also affected many farmlands and killed many crops, stunting the growth of the food markets. On top of this all, in 2012, the United States experienced

Eva Steinman


Features

record heat waves. This caused the pro-duction of fewer crops, such as wheat and maize. These grains were at the low-est production point ever. These are just a few of the many crops that are being affected by the severe agricultural issues.

The result of the lack of food around the world has increased the rate of world hunger, as recorded in 2012. As of 2012, there are over 870 million people around the world that are malnourished and hungry. This number is increasing rap-idly in places such as the Middle East and Africa. During over half of the past 11 years, there was an insufficient sup-ply of food. Supplies are becoming very scarce across the world and food reserves are at a dangerous level. Due to the lack of food, the prices of available food are rising as a product of the increasing de-mand. It is a fact that the global food supply system could fall apart at any time. The climate has become unreliable and while the growing population has required a growing demand of food pro-duction, we are unable to increase food production. Many are beginning to buy cheap farmland in order to grow food for themselves, their families and even start businesses selling food. The price of key foods, the sources of meals for many across the world, such as wheat and rice, are expected to double their price over

the next twenty years. This would be di-sastrous for those who are not as fortu-nate, as their sole food source could come from wheat or rice.

In 2012, the food prices were already

close to record price levels. In 2050, the estimated population will be around 9 billion people. In order for all people to be provided food, a way must be found to produce more food, or stop the ag-ricultural impacts from damaging the world’s food supply. It is necessary that we begin to build resilience in the food systems to avoid chaos. While there is no present solution to this pressing problem, I believe that by increasing the amount of food produced and by slightly raising the price of this food, we will be able to avoid the world’s food supply levels from falling dangerously low during a time of drought or severe weather. Population growth is not damaging unless there is not enough

food to feed all. For this reason, I propose that prices be raised slightly, in order to provide more funds for more food pro-duction, eventually leaving none hun-gry. For example, if there were more of

an abundance of coffee trees in Central America, the fungus “la roya” would not have destroyed thirty percent of crops, but perhaps twenty or even fifteen per-cent. This would have still been a disaster, but would not have been as catastrophic as it was in 2012. Food in general would then become more plentiful for third world countries and other places that do not have enough food to feed all. While the price of the food would have to be raised slightly in order to accommodate for the production of excess food, I be-lieve that in the end this would balance itself out, as many more people would be fed and the rate of world hunger would drastically decrease. HMR

“With our growing population, it is necessary that we find a way to produce enough food for all and avoid the impact of severe weather on

the world’s food supply.”

43March 2014

Features

1990 2000

addressing Gentrification

ankit gupta

2012

Above: Median Income in the East Village from 1990 to 2012.

www.ny.curbed.com/archives

New York City is an area that has been troubled greatly by gentrifi-cation, a shift in a neighborhood’s

demographics toward wealthier residents. Wealthier residents move into a low-income area and start to invest in it, inadvertently raising property values. Gentrification gen-erally happens in urbanized areas, and there is no better example than New York City. Its effects have been profound, and while it has offered economic advantages, it has most-ly hurt the poorer neighborhoods of New York, a simply immoral trade-off.

At first, gentrification was a product of efforts to urbanize and modernize underde-veloped communities. As initially proposed by Former Mayor Giuliani, the plan was to support those already living in underdevel-oped areas like Harlem. Giuliani had plans to reduce the crime rate and increase eco-nomic activity to make the area both safer and wealthier. While the economic and safety goals were accomplished, the side effects turned out to be quite negative. In Harlem from 2000 to 2005, about 32,500

minorities were forced out of their homes as a result of increased property value. They could no longer afford to live in an area which became that developed and wealthy. The great majority of these 32,500 people were low-income African American families who were replaced by young white couples. In fact, during this same time period, Har-lem saw 23,000 new white people move in. In the past decade in Harlem, housing prices have gone up almost 250%, which is good for homeowners and local tax revenue, but bad for those who needed affordable living conditions.

While many see the displacement of low-income African American families by younger white couples as a racial issue, this is not a fair assumption and has no factual basis. Recently African American families have actually moved out of non-diverse communities and into more diverse com-munities, the lingering aftermath of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, which made it illegal to discriminate on race or ethnic origin in real estate dealings. The evidence suggests

that gentrification is not caused by racial tensions but by differences in economic class.

The reality is quite clear: the poor need to be helped and not rejected and ignored. There are a few solutions that would be fairly effective in accomplishing this. The first involves reducing local government development of poorer communities. In-stead of spending money on new amenities and neighborhood development that rais-es property values, the government could spend the money on other services that help the poor. This may sound more insensitive towards poorer communities, but it is an approach that would help slow down gen-trification in poorer, underdeveloped areas and not result in poor residents being forced out of their communities. Residents in these underdeveloped areas have actually voted against proposals to develop and beautify their community. They are concerned that improvements could come back to harm them later when they can no longer afford to live there. For example, some Brooklyn

EconomicsEconomics


residents have even gone so far as to say they want some misdemeanors to happen in their community to keep wealthier people from moving in. One interesting solution is the idea of having poor areas surround the wealthy in a belt formation. Real es-tate experts predict that builders would be less inclined to develop the outskirts of the

area, which would leave those living there a steady place to live. These are both ideas that have a lot of potential if approved and imple-mented, but politicians are reluctant, as they prefer to develop the poorer areas, so they can increase property tax revenue, regional economic growth, and income tax revenue.

Another possible approach to prevent increasing gentrification would be to make investing in wealthier areas more appeal-ing. In high-density cities, such as New York City, there are air right limits on each building. These restrictions limit the poten-tial growth of wealthy areas and force people to look for housing in underdeveloped com-munities, starting the cycle of gentrification. The city might consider increasing air rights so contractors can build taller buildings and accommodate more wealthier people.

A third possible solution would be to address the lack of affordable housing in New York City. From 2007 to 2011, there was a recession which hurt almost all Amer-icans, especially those living in New York City. In that period, the average amount of money made by New Yorkers fell, while rent rose almost 8.5%. Since people were not making as much money, the number of homeless people hit an all-time high at 51,000. The lesson is that rent is increasing and fluctuating at unhealthy levels that are threating to leave many New Yorkers with-out shelter. Undoubtedly, housing should be made more affordable, which the newly elected mayor has made a priority.

With the election of Bill de Blasio, there is hope that there will be more balance when it comes to gentrification and more help when it comes to affordable housing. Mayor de Blasio set up an ambitious goal for him-self during his campaign to preserve and create 200,000 apartments for low-income

families over the next decade. Although he has only been in office since the start of the year, his plan seems promising, as he is very committed to helping the underprivileged in New York. In 2010, as Public Advocate, de Blasio launched “NYC’s Worst Landlords Watch List” to pressure landlords into pro-viding a better life for their tenants at a lower

cost. De Blasio wants to encourage the con-struction of affordable housing by providing an incentive to developers constructing new housing units. If the developer pledges to make 20% or more of the building afford-able housing, the developer is permitted to build a larger building. De Blasio may want to take this idea too far – he wants all new housing buildings to include some afford-

able housing. While this might sound like a good idea in theory, it isn’t very realistic. When Bloomberg launched his program in 2003, it was wildly successful, preserv-ing and creating over 165,000 low-income apartments. De Blasio’s approach is less like-ly to receive much support from developers, and, therefore, may not be as successful.

Gentrification and the affordable hous-ing crisis are highly local issues, but they threaten many neighborhoods throughout the nation. Here in New York, thousands of people are being forced to leave their homes for the economic benefit of others. With de Blasio in power, it will be interesting to see how this story progresses, as it was a central issue of his campaign. HMR.

“RESIDENTS IN THESE UNDERDEVELOPED AREAS HAVE ACTUALLY VOTED AGAINST PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP AND BEAUTIFY THEIR COMMUNITY. THEY ARE CONCERNED THAT IMPROVEMENTS COULD COME BACK TO HARM

THEM LATER WHEN THEY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO LIVE THERE.”

EconomicsEconomics

Median Income in NYC 1990 Median Income in NYC 2012

www.census.gov

45March 2014

46

Economics


In 2008, the US faced the worst finan-cial downturn since the Great De-pression, as American households

and businesses witnessed over $13 tril-lion in wealth and 5.5 million jobs dis-appear over the course of a devastating recession. In the wake of this economic catastrophe, federal lawmakers sought to enact the most comprehensive reforms on Wall Street since the 1930s, as they saw the high-risk, high-reward lending and trading practices at the country’s largest banks as the central cause of the meltdown. In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Con-sumer Protection Act with the intention of reigning in the risky banking practices that had precipitated the collapse of the US economy in order to prevent a simi-lar crisis from occurring in the future. At the heart of the bill lay the Volcker Rule, which barred financial institutions from engaging in proprietary trading, finan-cial transactions that banks make in their own interests rather than in their clients’ interests. Only now, 3 ½ years after the bill’s passage, have regulators finalized the language of the Volcker Rule’s reforms. Americans should feel relieved that the government has finally established pro-tections for ordinary Americans against

the precarious workings of the major Wall Street. However, many loopholes remain in the Volcker Rule’s enforcement that could render the law toothless, specifi-cally exceptions for certain types of risky trading and the degree of self-regulation that law permits. In order to guarantee that the law accomplishes what it sets out to, regulators and members of Congress, as well President Obama and his succes-sors, need to stay vigilant in ensuring that banks do not take the same risks that led to the unraveling of our economy and contributed to the destruction of the lives of countless Americans in 2008.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Congress eased many of the financial regulations that had been established fol-lowing the Great Depression, culminating with the effective repeal of the Glass-Stea-gall Act, which separated commercial banking from investment banking. The weakening of these regulations created a moral hazard, as many large financial institutions could now take part in risky proprietary trading with the implicit un-derstanding that taxpayers would spot the bill if they came under financial duress. In this lax trading environment in which banks had no legal obligation to trade in their clients’ best interests, some banks

and investment firms used their ability to participate in proprietary trading to prof-it from their clients’ losses; According to congressional testimony, several firms be-gan designing defunct financial products, selling them to their clients, and betting on products’ inevitable failures. With no oversight, many bankers did not hesitate for even a moment to trade in their own interest at the expense of everyone else’s.

In the decade leading up to the col-lapse, financial firms engaged in billions of dollars’ worth of proprietary trades, most of the time relying on borrowed money to carry out the transactions, ac-cording to the Roosevelt Institute. How-ever, when Bear Stearns came under fi-nancial pressure in 2007, investors began questioning the value of the proprietary holdings at many banks, forcing several institutions to write down the value of their assets. Because investors would no longer conduct business with these banks, fearing that their assets had been overval-ued, the trading prices of the banks’ as-sets plummeted. As a consequence, many of the large financial firms that had ac-quired overpriced assets in proprietary trades now had to reevaluate the assets they owned, which they reported on fi-nancial statements, to reflect the trad-

Adam Resheff

The Need for Reform and the Obstacles New Regulations Face

Reining in Wall Street

47

Economics

March 2014

“We risk seeing another preventable economic collapse ruin lives and our economy.”

ing value. This adjustment in value cost the banks $230 billion by April 2008. At Lehman Brothers, a giant on Wall Street, their proprietary holdings had risen to $313 billion, up from $28 billion ten years before and constituting 58% of the firm’s revenue. As the meltdown gained trac-tion and the value of proprietary hold-ings dropped across the board, the firm suffered a $32 billion loss. With only $16 billion of capital to deal with their losses, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September 2008. By the end of that year, the government had infused trillions of dollars worth of bailout money to keep much of Wall Street and the financial sys-tem as a whole afloat.

Two years into the crisis, the mor-al hazard deregulation had produced managed to play out. Wall Street firms, saved by taxpayer-financed bailout mon-ey, returned to profitability, taking the same risks that had led to crash, while the overwhelming majority of the coun-try continued to suffer. President Obama and Congress, responding to the woes of their constituents and looking to prevent another crisis from reoccurring, passed the Dodd-Frank Act. While many fac-tors contributed to the recession, and al-though the bill encompassed a wide array of reforms that targeted different parts of the financial sector of the economy, the ban on proprietary trading, dubbed the Volcker Rule, lay at the core of the re-forms, underscoring the degree to which proprietary trading had jeopardized the financial stability of the country.

Even though Dodd-Frank passed in 2010, the five regulatory groups charged with overseeing the implementation of the Volcker Rule have only recently agreed to the final language of the new reforms. Since its conception, Wall Street has railed against the Volcker Rule, lob-bying heavily against the new regulations. Their efforts have not yielded the results many on Wall Street would have liked; however, they have still been successful. Through their lobbying, the Federal Re-serve has agreed to delay when the law goes into effect until June 2015, and it

could pushed the date back further until January 2017, giving Wall Street lobbyists and lawyers more time to find loopholes in the law and dilute it. Already, the law has been watered down from its original form, as regulators, responding to pres-sure from Wall Street, have made exemp-tions to the Volcker Rule for certain types of foreign investments, such as Europe-an bonds. While seemingly innocuous, the risk from this loosening of law can be seen clearly in the case of MF Global. The Wall Street firm filed for bankruptcy in 2011 after purchasing large amounts of risky European bonds, using the bonds as collateral to borrow more money, and then investing the borrowed money in more of the risky bonds, leading investors to panic and pull their money from the bank as countries such as Greece and It-aly faced massive debt crises. Under the diluted Volcker Rule, this type of pro-prietary trading would remain perfectly

legal. To make matters even worse, the banks themselves bear most the respon-sibility of enforcing the rules, and the CEOs of these banks do not have to attest that they are complying with regulations; rather, they only have to affirm that they have taken steps to comply with the rules.

While the Volcker Rule is a major step in curbing the risk-taking in the fi-nancial sector that debilitated our econo-my, Congress and President Obama have to make it a priority to see that the intent of the law is carried out. The Volcker Rule has its successes in banning proprietary trading and requiring banks to identify the risks they are taking, but regulators and lawmakers have to stay resolute in enforcing these measures by making sure big banks do not subvert the rules and be-ing vigilant in examining the activities of the banks; otherwise, we risk seeing an-other preventable economic collapse ruin lives and our economy. HMR

thenation.com


Ray Fishman

The allocation of Federal Government spending in the United States has continually garnered controversy

and dispute, and the manner in which the U.S. manages its revenue remains an irresolvable partisan conflict that neither Republicans nor Democrats have been able to solve. Although every year the government eventually settles on a budget, it is often to the dismay of millions of citizens, who claim that spending is more often than not focused in the wrong areas. Our current allocation, which has remained roughly consistent over the last few years, is also detrimental to the development of the United States as a whole. The current budget devotes roughly 40% of the total spending budget, an astonishing 1.44 trillion dollars, to Defense and Social Security programs alone. While these programs continue to receive an unfathomable amount of funding, other sectors that receive tiny portions of the Federal budget are suffering, such as those of Science & the Environment,

Food, and Education. In 2011, these three sectors combined only received 6.6-7.2% of the entire budget; a miniscule investment compared to Defense’s 20% stake. One must wonder why the departments of Science & the Environment, Food, and Education receive such little pecuniary support while Heart Disease and Cancer remain the two leading causes of death in the U.S. Terrorism barely measures up in terms of lives lost. Furthermore, the ongoing wars in the Middle East have been at a standstill for months. Relative to other nations, the United States spends more on defense than any other county, more than doubling China’s second place spot. Yet we derive no tangible benefit from the additional funding. Studies suggest that our military’s priciest operations have minimal effects on United States security at best. In terms of Social Security’s budget, one must question why the government plays such a huge role in people’s retirements, and far worse, why it extends Social Security’s monetary benefits to everyone, regardless of

socioeconomic status. There are 49 million Americans who do not have adequate food sources, so why does the government allocate so little to aid programs as opposed to the massively inflated budgets of Social Security and Defense? If we want to maximize the efficiency of our tax dollars, we must revise the national budget to include cuts for defense and social security but increases for Science & the Environment, Food, and Education departments.

In order to fully understand why Defense and Social Security cuts are necessary, it is important to understand why the government itself has chosen to spend 40% of its budget on these sectors. In terms of Defense, the United States is obviously concerned about the wellbeing of its citizens and the welfare of the country, especially since the infamous 9/11 attacks. Since September 11, 2001, however, only about two-dozen citizens of the United States have been killed from non-domestic terrorist attacks, and although every loss to terror is

DANGER AHEAD:

BUDGET REFORM IMMINENT

Economics

DANGER AHEAD:

BUDGET REFORM IMMINENT

49March 2014

saddening, the number pales in comparison to top American killers such as heart disease. Many proponents of a large military budget suggest that the U.S. military often needs to fund interventions in international conflict. However, we should really question the extent to which the United States should be policing the world. Additionally, even if we are to unilaterally maintain international peace, does the military really need 700 billion dollars of annual funding? To put that number in perspective, the sum of global Defense spending is 1.75 trillion, meaning that the United States comprises 39% of the entire world’s military spending. While strong National Defense is important, that level of spending cuts into other programs that could be more efficiently saving American lives.

In terms of Social Security spending, the government wants to ensure that seniors who have worked hard are able to sustain

themselves in their elderly years. However, there are multiple flaws and inefficiencies in the current Social Security system. Firstly, members of all socioeconomic classes receive social security benefits. While Social Security does keep 20% of seniors above the poverty line, there are countless dependents of Social Security that are in absolutely no need of extra money from the government due to their access to wealth. Secondly, as medical advancements have improved in recent years, life expectancy has gone up. Couple this with the sizeable baby boomer generation aging into the program, and we can easily see the serious issues with sustaining the current size of Social Security. These increased expenditures could be mitigated by slightly raising the age for benefits. However, the most effective way to cut spending on Social Security is to ensure that only those who need it receive it. Those who are not in need of financial resources should not be given

crucial government dollars.With the aforementioned suggestions

for cuts in the budget in the sectors of Defense and Social Security, we can either use the money to repay the National debt, or engage in long term investments in America’s future. In 2011, the Environment, Education, and Food sectors received 2%, 1.4-2%, and 3.2% of the budget respectively. However, some of the Nation’s most serious problems lie within these departments. Perhaps with additional funding for medical research, we could save the lives of countless Americans dealing with these diseases. With more funding, other scientific endeavors might include space exploration, replicated organs and limbs, production of stem cells, and exploring anti-aging and life extension. The possibilities are endless. The education sector remains the most underfunded of all. Recently, the U.S. ranked 24th out of the world’s countries in High School literacy rate, 29th in Math, 22nd in Science, and 20th in Reading, and while the U.S. ranks 10th in adults with a college degree, there is definite room for improvement in all these categories. If more money were granted to Universities, for example, a greater number of scholarship opportunities would be created, giving children with a socioeconomic disadvantage an easier root for social mobility. People with higher levels of education also comprise a more qualified work force that would likely reduce dependency on Social Security. It is far more important for everybody in the United States to have enough to eat and the ability to succeed, than for our government to fund protracted war efforts in the Middle East.

The reallocation of Federal spending would benefit the United States both socially and economically. In the end it is far more important to progress as a society, ensure our children’s safety and education for generations to come, and put food on the table, than it is to dump more funds into bloated government programs. HMR

“While strong National Defense is important, that

level of spending cuts into other programs that could

be more efficiently saving American lives.”

Economics


THE COMING OF THE

AND ITS CHALLENGE TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

JACK VAHRADIAN

DRONE AGE

Science and Technology

51March 2014

Over the past couple of years, un-manned aerial vehicles, also known as drones, have acquired practical

uses beyond those required in the military. However, despite recent advances, drones have been restricted to use in such fields, leaving out the possibility for use in human-itarian fields. The U.S. government recently deployed drones to monitor the Canadian and Mexican borders, marking the beginning of domestic drones, or drones that operate on and near American soil. Because drones have a variety of purposes, they will likely be used for both commercial and humanitarian pur-poses in the future. However, these drones will inevitably invade privacy, and the gov-ernment will not be able to do much about it.

Whether camera and video capabilities are needed to survey an area, or to avoid crashing, all drones need vision capacities. This means that at any given time, a drone could be spy-ing. This not only creates potential violations of privacy, but also complicates the concept

of Constitutional rights regarding new tech-nology. The Fourth Amendment essentially prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, which drones are capable of doing. Although this Amendment applies only to government drones, commercial drones could potentially violate Peeping Tom laws. Typically intended for people, these laws illegalize spying on one in his or her home, mostly through “peeping” in windows.

Humanitarian drones, in particular, which could be used to find people in wreckages or serve other purposes, pose a serious threat to privacy. In order for these drones to be able to spot people in wreckages, they need to be equipped with thermal cameras. While this may not seem like a big problem, it gives drones the ability to see heat signatures through walls. This would allow for people to be monitored, regardless of their location. As a result, these drones have even greater ca-pabilities to see citizens in their own homes through windows and walls. Legal problems are also presented when a drone happens to catch footage of a crime being committed.

Would use of such footage as evidence be considered unconstitutional? Although there is no right answer to this question, it will defi-nitely cause large and difficult problems for the government.

Even with all of these privacy problems presented by drones, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is unable to do much. Because of the potentially massive drone mar-ket, many companies are pressuring the FAA to be more lenient about drone privacy. An example of a company like this is Amazon, which is planning on using drones to deliver packages. Although not much information has been released about Amazon Prime Air, the drones will likely contain GPS systems and visual capabilities if instated. While the visual capabilities may seem unnecessary, the drones would not be able to avoid obstacles and could crash into buildings or other struc-tures.

The pressure that companies are currently placing on the FAA will increase in the next

few years due to the large market for drones. The growing popularity of the market will likely attract other large companies towards the use of drones for commercial purposes, further increasing the tension between the FAA and corporations. Because of this pres-sure, it will be very difficult, if not impossi-ble, for the FAA to mark certain areas as “no drone zones,” as doing so will likely anger many of the companies who will be deploying drones in the near future. In addition to the pressure exerted from companies, logistics are pushing the FAA to allow enough liberty in order to avoid drone-related nuisances and potential damages to people and properties. Because drones are very advanced aircrafts, even the banishment of a small feature could lead to mechanical errors, making drones a safety hazard. As presented with the Amazon drones, taking away even one component would diminish the basic capability of drones.

Although government-controlled drones are mostly used internationally, domestic drones could cause just as much, if not more, of an issue with privacy. These government

drones could mimic an Orwellian reality in which the government constantly monitors its citizens. Thus, questions regarding drones arise: Would these government-controlled drones have to follow the same policies as commercial and humanitarian drones? Would there be any legal problems if they didn’t? The government will inevitably de-ploy domestic drones on a large-term scale, and questions like these are ones that the FAA will have to answer.

All of these problems aside, the FAA must create these laws from scratch, as does any governmental body every time new and in-novative technology is introduced. In most cases, previously created laws can be used as precedents for implementing new laws with even newer technologies because the novel technology is usually very similar in func-tion to the older. Unfortunately with drones, this is not the case. The closest technologies to drones are manually operated aircrafts, which are still very different. In addition to

having very different uses than manned air-crafts, drones are significantly smaller than even the smallest practical aircraft, about 25 feet long. The smallest drones are, as of now, less than 1 foot and will likely be even smaller in the future. This size difference allows for drones to carry out stealthy activities, which a normal aircraft would in no circumstance be able to carry out.

It is clear that drones will be very common-ly used in the near future. Although not all drones will be used for surveillance or recon-naissance, they could, in practice, be used in such a manner unintentionally. This creates a privacy problem because any given person risks being spied on by individuals and groups who have the ability to avail themselves of the new technology. Although this poses a large threat, the government, and more specifically the FAA, is able to do surprisingly little about this problem. This is because of pressure from private companies, the fact that removing privacy issues could create safety issues, and the lack of framework to base the new regu-lations off of. HMR

“THESE GOVERNMENT DRONES COULD MIMIC AN ORWELLIAN REALITY IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONSTANTLY MONITORS ITS CITIZENS.”


President John F. Kennedy once as-serted, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make vio-

lent revolution inevitable.” Indeed, nations opposing free press reform are only signing their own death warrants. Antidemocratic authoritative regimes attempting to limit their citizens’ inherent right to freely ex-press their opinions are doomed to fall un-der this historically proven principle. The commonly asked question is of course, why would absolutist dictators embrace media freedom? It’s because it’s in their best in-terest. The right to express one’s political opinion facilitates reform over revolution and allows the institutional power to main-tain its seat of government through reform instead of inevitable deposition via violent revolution.

Perhaps the most violent conflict cur-rently taking place, the Syrian Civil War, might have been prevented had Bashar Al-Assad granted his constituents the free-doms to which they are undoubtedly en-titled. In 2011, frustrated Syrian citizens organized peaceful protests in Damascus to pressure the government into releasing Syrian journalists from political prisons. Bashar Al-Assad ordered the Syrian army,

whose duty and priority was to protect its civilians, to open fire on the crowd, light-ing the tinderbox of Syria’s repressed youth. Soon, nearly every population center in the country was swarmed by protests of vary-ing intensity. As the army continued to vi-olently suppress the demonstrations, pro-tests turned into an organized full-fledged rebellion. Had Assad agreed to grant even small media freedoms such conflict could have been entirely avoided. In a scenario in which, Assad releases the imprisoned journalists and passes small-scale reform, the protests would have dispersed, and no blood would have been shed. As a second-ary benefit, any further frustrations that might otherwise result in protest or revolu-tion would then be relayed to the govern-ing body through popular speech, offering Assad the opportunity to make the reforms necessary to prevent revolution. Granting media freedom to citizens, even as a despot, carries with it enormous benefit to both the security of the ruling party’s reign and to the stability of the populace.

In April of 1989, following the death of the liberal reformer and Communist Party General Hu Yaobang, university students marched in Tiananmen Square to protest

the new regime’s hardline reforms including restriction on media freedom. The students then engaged in a hunger strike, which ig-nited greater support for their cause. By mid day the protests had spread to nearly 400 cities throughout China. Once realizing the severity of the situation Chinese author-ities, specifically Deng Xiaoping, China’s main leader, declared martial law on May 20th and authorized military force, sending roughly 300,000 soldiers to Beijing. Follow-ing the protests, the Chinese government further censored foreign journalists and reporters by expulsion and tight monitor-ing of domestic news coverage. Data per-taining to the death toll and repercussions of such event have, due to the censorship of the Chinese government, remained unclear; however, some estimates have been made. Many death toll estimates vary; for instance, while Ambassador James Lilley proclaims that nearly 800 civilians had been killed, groups like Amnesty International claims the death toll to be near 6,000 people.

In addition to various sanctions, one of the most devastating consequences of the Chinese government’s handling of the situation was the foreign trade and invest-ments drop that commenced soon after

CensorshipIs Doomed

Anne Rosenblatt



wwww.anh-usa.org

the protests ended. Specifically, the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, sus-pended foreign loans to China and other foreign governments; tourism revenue de-creased from USD $2.2 billion to USD $1.8 billion, and many direct foreign investment commitments were cancelled. With regards to US relations, China went from being viewed as an ally against the Soviet Union to an authoritarian regime. Such a change of perception manifested itself in a US and Eu-ropean embargo on armament sales to the People’s Republic of China that is still held to this day. Much like in Syria, the Chinese government had the opportunity to ame-liorate itself of this conflict and the reper-cussions associated with it. The Tiananmen Square Protests would not have happened had China afforded its citizens their funda-mental right to media freedom.

History has repeatedly proven the pos-itive potentials of media freedom, so why do so many nations continue to deny their citizens such a basic right? Article 19 of The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Right states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Yet, the Freedom of the Press, a non- govern-mental organization which categorizes na-

tions under “free,” “partly free,” and “not free” based on measurements of a nation’s levels of media freedom and editorial inde-pendence, reports that at least fifty- nine na-tions were determined to be “not free.” (The Freedom of the Press 2012 Official Report.) Nations such as Eritrea, North Korea, Turk-menistan, Syria, Iran, and China are report-ed to have the highest levels of restrictions on freedoms of the press and media, while nations such as Finland, Norway, Estonia, and the Netherlands are ranked as the most “free.”

The most probable reasoning behind censorship and violations of freedom of expression is fear. Nations are afraid of the possible effects of allowing their citizens ac-cess to potentially harmful and significant information. Many nations support their claims with the claim that their govern-ments are in fact protecting their citizens from false and malicious information that might harm them. These same nations use the same international entity that created the case against them, the United Nations, to support their case. A United Nations res-olution on the Rights of Information states that previous rights to freedom of media and information “may therefore be subject to certain restrictions… (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public

health or morals.”Nations and corrupt governments will

continue to back-up and justify their cases for more restricted and monitored access to media and information; they will continue to find loopholes and violate the fundamen-tal human right of freedom of expression and information. However, prior to using legal or ethical means to combat nations with significant media restrictions, it is im-portant to stress to these nations the bene-fits that media freedom can provide.

By itself, forcing legislation of media freedom on governments that aren’t willing to accept it won’t be effective. It is necessary to establish an incentive system that can provide economic and humanitarian aid to countries willing to allow for only none to minimal restrictions on media freedom. Next, it would be necessary to provide a monitoring system and regulatory board, which would oversee the level of media freedom in classified “not free” nations and establish levels of incentives of aid depend-ing on level of media freedom. Once na-tions realize the benefits of media freedom, it would be much easier to sign them up for such an incentive system. Restricting media freedom is only harming nations, and it’s in their best interests to stop violating these human rights. Media freedom truly is the best solution, not only for citizens, but for their governments as well. HMR

wwww.anh-usa.org

53March 2014


A: www.freepress.netB: www.theplanetd.com

Childhood obesity is epidemic in the United States. Not nearly enough has been done by our govern-

ment, schools and public health agencies to combat the widespread problem of obe-sity. Obesity in both children and adults often precipitates various health issues, including diabetes, high blood pressure, colon cancer, and numerous other medi-cal conditions. According to a study per-formed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2012, more than 35.7% of U.S. adults and around 17% of U.S. ad-olescents suffer from obesity. Besides the serious health concerns obesity can cause, the cost of treating obesity and the medi-cal conditions that result from it now ex-ceed $200 billion. According to a recent article published in the Journal of Health Economics, over 20% of U.S. health costs are attributed to obesity. Funds are being taken away from treating and curing other medical conditions. The indirect costs are even higher.

Studies have identified numerous causes for the rise in the number of adults and children classified as overweight. One major cause is a drastic change in the daily lifestyle and lack of regular ex-ercise for all age groups in the U.S.; chil-dren and adults are much more sedentary

than they were 15 years ago. Excessive use of television, video games and com-puters has caused a tremendous reduc-tion in the amount of exercise performed by Americans. According to a 2009 CDC study, 32% of adolescents watch television three or more hours per day on an aver-age school day. In a survey done by NYS with National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, near-ly 25% of New York adults reported not having participated in any physical ac-tivity during the past month. These sta-tistics are alarming and life threatening.

The rise in the number and popularity of fast food restaurants, coupled with the rising costs of healthier foods, is a major reason why obesity remains a prevalent issue. Advertising campaigns for fast food restaurants and sugar-based beverages are widespread and deliver the wrong message. Advertising promotes the consumption of unhealthy products without providing in-formation on the harmful effects high calor-ic foods and beverages have on our bodies.

Genetics and one’s metabolic rate can also contribute to obesity. Studies have shown that an individual’s chance of being overweight increases by 25% if one or both parents suffer from obesi-ty. In addition, studies done by Stanford

Hospital & Clinics have shown that the likelihood of becoming obese as an adult is significantly higher if you are over-weight or obese as an infant or adoles-cent. Therefore, it is vital to get the proper amount of physical activity and develop healthy eating habits while at a young age.

Steps must be taken by schools, pub-lic health agencies, and the government to combat and overcome the problem of obe-sity. The solution starts with educating and encouraging children to eat healthier. Kids must know which foods they should eat, and must be provided with healthier alter-natives. Fast food restaurants must offer and advertise products extending beyond their fried and processed options. Parents and teachers must act as role models for the nation’s children. They must help reduce the time children spend in front of televi-sions and computers and encourage kids to spend more time exercising. The govern-ment must provide funding to increase the number of public parks and after school physical education programs. Funding for school support programs cannot be cut.

Thomas Frieden, while in the position of head of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, set forth a framework for action in his article “Reducing Childhood Obesity Through Policy Change: Act-

SYDNEY KATZ

54



AMERICAN OBESITY

ing Now to Prevent Obesity.” He suggests making healthier food more accessible by placing heavier taxes on unhealthy foods and sugar based beverages. Governments could use the revenue raised by said tax-es to lower the cost of healthier foods and subsidize farmers to grow fruits, vegeta-bles and other healthy organic products. This tax would also make unhealthy foods and sugar-based beverages more expen-sive, which would in turn help decrease their consumption rates. The function of this tax can be compared to that on alcohol and tobacco. According to an article pub-lished in the New England Journal of Med-icine, a tax of one cent an ounce on sugar sweetened beverages, about a 10 cent in-crease on a twelve ounce beverage, would be likely the single most effective mea-sure to reverse the obesity epidemic. Such a small tax could eliminate up to 8,000 calories from the annual diet of a child.

Other ideas set forth by Thomas Frie-den include enacting zoning restrictions to limit the number of fast food establish-ments and prohibiting unhealthy foods being served at schools, government fa-cilities and child care centers. Banning advertising of unhealthy food (which has been done in other countries), re-quiring the building of more parks and

bike paths to encourage physical activi-ty, and increasing the number of school and after school physical education pro-grams are other measures the government should take to alleviate childhood obesity.

At the moment, only baby steps are being taken by the Federal, State and Local governments to reduce obesity. Let’s Move! is a comprehensive initiative started by Michelle Obama to help direct children to-wards the path to a healthier future; how-ever, critics have attacked it as not having any real effect on childhood obesity. The Healthy Hunger - Free Kids Act of 2010 was enacted by the federal government to provide funding for safer eating in and out of schools. It set up nutrition programs and a National School Lunch Program. Critics complain that it does not do enough and that fast food restaurants and manufactur-ers of unhealthy food used their lobbyists to influence the legislators who drafted it.

On January 14, 2014 Florida started a new program to fight obesity. According to Florida’s Department of Health, two thirds of Floridians will suffer from obe-sity by 2030 if significant changes are not made. An example of an initiative by a lo-cal government was Mayor Bloomberg’s unsuccessful attempt to ban the sale of large sugar-based drinks and limit the use

of food stamps to healthy products to fight obesity. Mayor Bloomberg tried to pro-hibit the use of food stamps to purchase soda and other sugar sweetened drinks. His proposed plan was shot down by the federal government, which has oversight and control over the food stamp program.

According to a recent study performed in New York City, only small signs of prog-ress toward reversing the childhood obe-sity epidemic are being seen. In July 2013, the NYC government reported a 5.5% de-cline in obesity for grades K-8. However, one out of five students in the city remains obese. More needs to be done. Healthier foods must be more accessible and cheap-er. Parks, bike paths and other outlets for physical activity must become more avail-able for both kids and adults. Fast food and sugar beverages should be taxed in order to raise their prices and should be required to provide warnings, such as those pro-vided with the purchase of tobacco and liquor. Our government needs to take real steps to educate and help Americans get more exercise and eat healthier. The ideas of Thomas Frieden and Mayor Bloomberg need to be given a better chance so that people are better educated and encouraged to eat healthier and get more exercise. With greater steps will come greater change. HMR

RISE

55


March 2014

ON THE


In recent years, China has been accumu-lating and using coal to power many fac-tories and homes. Now consumption is

spiraling out of control. The major overuse of coal in China is causing a myriad of problems, affecting the nation’s water supply and quality, smog levels, biology, and even the life expec-tancy of its citizens. China has been unable to effectively change its main energy source, and coal is still on the rise in the country. The use of coal also perpetuates China’s notoriously high pollution rates, which affects the entire world. In order to effectively change the over-use of coal in China, the government needs to consolidate the number of coal mines with-in the nation and establish a limit of water usage for each coal mine. As a country that industrialized later than most, China has not yet implemented any new, cleaner technology to replace coal, another alternative in solving both problems of coal overuse and pollution.

China’s demand for coal is also creating a fierce competition for water, since the pro-cess of producing coal and using the energy in other areas demands an absurd amount of water. The nation has been scrambling for ways to ease the water scarcity, but proposed remedies raise more questions than answers.

An astonishing amount of China’s water is used in coal-related sectors. In fact, more than 50% of China’s industrial water usage is used for the coal industry- meaning that the wa-ter demand of the Chinese coal industry sur-passes that of all other industries combined.

Not only the water volume, but also the quality of safe water within China, is rapidly decreasing. In a joint report by the environmental company Greenpeace and the Chinese Academy of Science, riverside coalmines pour out more than 80 million tons of wastewater every year into the Yel-low River, the second longest river in China. The country’s environmental monitors have found a dangerous rise of pollutants linked to coal production in streams around major coalmines. The water affected by the coal pollutants is not safe to touch or consume.

The highest concentration of China’s coal is located in the nation’s northern regions, spe-cifically the Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia re-gions. These same regions hold about 23% of the nation’s water supply, a meager amount of water in terms of the whole country according to a World Water report. A majority of Chi-na’s coal factories are obviously built where the coal is, resulting in these water-scarce re-

gions sacrificing more of their water for the production of coal. These northern regions need to more clearly define themselves as coal-producing regions or not, so that coal mines do not completely take over and shut out the civilians living in these areas. Besides that, the government needs to allot a certain percentage of the water in these regions for coal production, as well as for civilian use.

Some coal businesses have dammed streams for their own water necessities, cut-ting off a lifeline to ecosystems downstream. In Inner Mongolia, the practice has turned the Wulagi wetland, once home to swans, red-crowned cranes and other species, into an immense desert region that is now the or-igin of sandstorms in Beijing. The pollution of coal in these old and once thriving eco-systems is obliterating the wildlife and natu-ral habitats of many rare plants and animals.

This is all due to the fact that coal is an effective pollutant, and as a pollutant, its us-age needs to be decreased. This is where the government needs to intervene. They need to instill limits on the amount of water to be used (and contaminated) per mine to pro-duce the coal. The government of China is trying to work to cut their emissions, both as

www.latimes.com


PETER SHAMAMIAN

MADE IN CHINA

Science and Technologya result of pressure from outside nations as well as the staggering increase in pollutants.

Looking more broadly at the entire Chinese population, coal is one of the major factors in China’s notoriously increasing pol-lution rates, and has gone so far as to affect the lives of Chinese citizens and the country’s overall life expectancy. The burning of coal to power China’s export factories is actually a major contributor to the country’s pollu-tion rate and decreasing life expectancy rate. In a study conducted by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, China’s exporting of goods to the United States was responsible for 7.4% of production-based Chinese emission for sulfur dioxide, 5.7% for nitrogen oxides, 3.6% for black carbon and 4.6% for carbon monoxide. These chemicals account for a major part of the toxic pollu-tion in major Chinese cities such as Beijing. A study conducted by Chinese health officials over two decades show people living in highly polluted urban areas such as Beijing and the coal-concentrated North have a lifespan that is on average 5.5 years less than the 73-year-old lifespan of other people living in the country.

China’s infamous pollution rates have their beginnings in the nation’s extreme effort of industrialization starting in the late 1970s. As a mass supplier of manu-factured goods for the world, China looks to coal to power a majority of its factories, regardless of many of the consequences.

Chinese pollution plays a role in the in-crease of pollutants in different countries. The pollution caused by burning coal in China has even affected the west coast of the United States and islands across the Pacific. Power-ful global winds called Westerlies can carry pollutants from China across the Pacific in days, leading to spikes in air contaminants, especially during the spring, according to a news release from the University of Califor-nia, Irvine. Major cities on the West Coast such as Los Angeles experience at least one extra day a year of smog that exceeds fed-eral ozone limits because of the nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide emitted by Chinese factories making goods for export.

The United States, however, is extremely dependent on the goods that the Chinese pro-duce. The fact that the United States relies on China’s goods but complains about the trans-pacific pollutants is a major hypocrisy. Our country’s demand for Chinese goods is partial-ly responsible for China’s elevated pollution.

This paradox between the demands of the consumer at the expense of the envi-ronment is severe, but the United States and other countries have an obligation to work with the Chinese government to find alter-natives to coal energy. As a country working hard to cut their emissions, the United States should look to pass proposals on to China to help them cut their own emissions. Renew-

able energy is new and being tested within China, but with increased encouragement and assistance from the United States, the nation would be able to more effectively de-velop and use these new sources of energy, specifically hydroelectric and wind power.

Not only the United States, but also oth-er countries east of China are alarmed at the deteriorating air quality due to the increasing pollution coming from China. Yet this fact is not surprising considering Chinese coal pollution’s tangible effects on external pop-

ulations and wildlife. For instance, environ-mental engineers in Japan have attributed a mysterious contaminant that is killing trees on Yakushima Island to pollutants from China.

Recent health concerns in western-Amer-ican cities and Pacific countries have been linked to pollution spread by China’s facto-ries. Black carbon, one of the many pollutants in the Chinese smog, is particularly difficult to deal with, since rain does not wash it out of the atmosphere. This allows the black car-bon to persist over long distances. Although most potent in polluted cities like Beijing, black carbon is known to cause asthma, can-cer, emphysema, and heart and lung disease.

Chinese factories are not very limited to the amount of coal they can use to power their factories. Pollution levels in China are staggering and continue to climb with the country’s increasing industrialization. Al-though we are still very much in the begin-

ning stages of this problem, China needs to produce definitive laws to regulate the over-using of coal, and the nation should allow other countries to intervene and assist in de-fining these laws that can limit the amount of water to be used per coal mine, or require fac-tories to be powered either entirely or largely by alternative and cleaner sources of energy. The effects of coal overuse are dramatic - from water scarcity and biodiversity issues to critical medical problems. Chinese pollu-tion engenders consequences to the extent of

global concern. It serves as both a detriment to China as well as other countries and will continue to cause more problems if the pol-lution and overuse of coal are not kept under control. The legislation to control coal mines and factories powered by coal needs to and will work, as the citizens of China who are already affected biologically will comply to virtually save themselves and their children.

As for spreading the awareness of this issue, the media around the world has report-ed a great deal on the increase in China’s pol-lution and overuse of coal in the last five to ten years, since scientists have concluded that China’s pollution affects the entire globe. The media should keep bringing attention to this issue not only in the U.S., but internationally as well, since it is extremely pressing, and the damage done so far is irreversible. To protect our future, China must regulate itself. HMR

Geological formations that could store carbon emissions from power plants in China, as iden-tified by a team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

blogs.nytimes.com

57March 2014

“The fact that the United States relies on China’s goods but complains about the transpacific pollutants is a major hypocrisy. Our country’s demand for Chinese

goods is partially responsible for China’s elevated pollution.”

The concept of Net Neutrality is fair-ly simple. Right now, the Internet can be accessed via cable companies

like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner, which provide access to content created on the web. Under a law passed in 2010, these companies were required to give equal pri-ority to all websites, whether it be Google or mattswebsite.com. Verizon challenged this law in an appeals court, and in mid-Janu-ary, the court ruled in favor of Verizon and against the Federal Communications Com-mission, striking down any semblance of net neutrality rules put in place. Backlash on the web was fast. People cried out all over social media, on sites that would never have been able to gain ground online if they had been required to pay for fast service. Some con-servatives approved of the decision, claim-ing that the Internet had functioned fine before regulation and that this law was just a

“power grab” by the FCC. They argued that the philosophy of the Internet calls for equal opportunity, and that the law had been an attempt to keep the current system in place instead of promoting innovation. This is where critics of the law would be wrong.

Net Neutrality has provided an even playing field for everyone on the Internet, whether you are starting a company in your garage or working out of a billion dollar enterprise. This decision could possibly de-stroy that online equality. The court said that while the FCC still has the power to regu-late content on the web, its justification for stopping service providers from exercising power over broadband to create equality is flawed. The court claims that the govern-ment cannot exercise its current amount of power over these companies because it is inhibiting the companies from making their own policies. While the ruling leaves room

for the FCC to revise its policies, internet service providers (ISPs) like AT&T and Ver-izon can choose which content to restrict and promote. With the current decision, ISPs can put into place systems where web-sites will have to pay for fast service. While ISPs cannot necessarily restrict content, they are able to bring traffic through many companies to a slow crawl, while a compa-ny like Google that can pay the ISPs will receive faster connection. This is a major loss for the Web, as web startups that can-not afford fast service will not be able to get a foothold online. If these had been imple-mented when Facebook was starting up in 2005, MySpace would have been able to pay for fast service, Facebook would have never taken off, and MySpace would be our go-to social network. Reddit and Tumblr would have had a hard time making a foothold without backing from a rich investor. Goo-

Power in the Hands of the ISP’s

A: appadvice.com

A Threat to Net Neutrality

B: qz.com

58



MATTHEW PARKER

gle of course would still be at the top of the Internet food chain. ISPs can now effective-ly control what everyone sees online, and have the power to make or break websites.

Forcing websites to pay to release con-tent will destroy innovation online. The aver-age Internet user will no longer be able to go on every site with the same speed, and people

trying to create websites with little cash on hand won’t be able to pay for the fast service people expect. On the other hand, compa-nies like Google, Apple, and Amazon will be able to pay for fast service and will ultimate-ly eliminate competition almost entirely.

However, these companies are not in fa-vor of the ruling either. The ruling will make them pay for the Internet speeds they need to provide their customers, something that should be guaranteed to all websites on the World Wide Web. Netflix has already said that they will promote protest and spread the word if Verizon asks for payments to keep their website running smoothly. Even companies like Google will be at the mercy of the ISPs. ISPs can demand that Google block any content that is negative

towards the company or threaten to slow down all traffic through Google. The rul-ing helps no one but the few already suc-cessful companies that charge too much for something that some view is a basic right.

Many have spoken out against the rul-ing, and there are steps in place to counter companies that may try to take advantage

of this ruling. The strongest power against these companies is the people themselves. If Verizon starts charging websites to receive good service, it is likely that word will get out and people will switch ISPs. No com-pany wants to lose all of its customers to a competitor, so no ISP will start implement-ing these pay for speed policies immediate-ly. Customers right now could switch ISPs to one that doesn’t have these policies, and no ISPs are willing to risk that yet. Howev-er, some have already started to slow down traffic. Verizon has reportedly slowed traffic from Amazon’s server on their network, al-though it is unclear if this is related to the implementation of these new policies or some other reason. Political leaders have al-ready seen the dangers of this ruling. Dem-

ocrats recently announced a bill that would restore net neutrality until the FCC rewrites their rules, which the court has allowed them to do. This bill, known as the Open Internet Preservation Act, will restore the status of the web to the way it was before, keeping it safe until the wheels of bureaucra-cy slowly start to spin out a new set of rules

for keeping the web equal. Unfortunately, this bill is unlikely to pass, as the Conser-vative in the GOP held House is against any regulation online. While their intentions to keep the Internet a free market are noble, the danger of handing over the power to a select few companies is too great. Congress would never allow for a monopoly to develop over the oil industry or any other physical entity, but many are ill informed about the impor-tance of Internet equality. Even though this bill will most likely not pass, people should continue voicing their concerns over this ruling; they will otherwise run the risk let-ting big companies control all of the con-tent available on the Internet. All people are created equal in this country, and all websites should be created equal as well. HMR

“While [Internet service providers] cannot necessarily restrict content, they are able to bring traffic through any given website... The strongest power against these

companies is the people themselves.”

59


March 2014

issue 6 - the war for natural resources

Documents

cold war

wind energy

us corporate

energy sources

horace mann school

post world war

natural resources issue

natural gas