The Hillunc.edu/thehillVolume VI, Issue III March 2007

Chapel Hill Political Review

Marijuana: New cash crop?

AFRICANew hope

for a troubledcontinent

Capitalpunishmenton trial

The Hill

This publication was paid for, at least in part, by Student

Activities Fees at a cost of approximately $0.50 per copy.

The Hill StaffEDITOR

Leah Szarek

WRITERS

Melissa Brzycki

Hunter Gray Ellis

Lilly Lampe

Jordan O’Donnell

Sam Perkins

Ben Piven

Will Schultz

Alex Smith

David Zoppo

COLUMNISTS

Stephen Largen

Sean Reed Love

Juliann Neher

SECTION EDITORS

Melissa Brzycki

Lilly Lampe

Sam Perkins

COPY EDITORS

Melissa Brzycki

Juliann Neher

Jordan O’Donnell

Sam Perkins

HEAD OF DESIGN

Allison Evans

ART & DESIGN

Bella Shelley Fullwood

Lilly Lampe

Taryn Mahoney

David Zoppo

PUBLIC RELATIONS

Alex Smith

TREASURER

Hunter Gray Ellis

FACULTY ADVISER

Ferrel Guillory

2 The Hill

From the Editor

The HillChapel Hill Political Review

Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national and international

politics. This publication is meant to serve as the middle ground (and a battleground) for

political thought on campus where people can present their beliefs and test their ideas. A high

premium is placed on having a publication that is not affiliated with any party or organization,

but rather is openly nonpartisan on the whole. Hence, the purpose of The Hill is to provide the

university community with a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political

ideas, events and trends. This means that, on one hand, the publication will feature articles

that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. These articles

might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape.

On the other, The Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues.

www.unc.edu/thehill

To our readers:

Everyone from prime ministers and

celebrities to student activists and SBP

candidates seems to be talking about one

region — Africa. The horrific genocide

in Darfur rightly

captures the attention

and outrage of the

world, but this is a

continent with a rich

and multifaceted

political story.

In this issue, The

Hill delves into a

few of the political

issues confronting African nations. Our

cover writers analyze Somalia’s role in

the War on Terror, the consequences of

China’s economic interests in Africa and

the fledgling African Union’s attempts

at unity and peacekeeping. We also look

into the more positive stories from the

region like the stabilization of formerly

troubled nations and the success of some

international aid programs.

On U.S. soil, we explore the economic

argument behind legalizing a controversial

crop. We tackle the complex dynamics at

work in the newly elected Democratic

Congress and in the newly threatened

Detroit auto industry. We also examine

the escalating debate over the ethics of

execution by lethal injection.

Our spring semester columnists from

the left and right present two sides of

another escalating debate — the president’s

plan to deploy more troops to Iraq.

Finally, guest columnist Stephen Largen

teases out a troubling trend in American

politics, arguing that our tendency to elect

family dynasties threatens the vibrancy of

American democracy.

As always, we invite you to join in

the conversation. Send us your comments

by letter or e-mail. And consider joining

our staff—we are recruiting in every

department. Thanks for reading.

Enjoy!

Leah Szarek is a junior majoring in

journalism and political science.

thehillpr@unc.edu

208 Frank Porter Graham

Student Union

UNC-CH Campus Box 5210

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210

We’re proud to share our work with

you, and we invite you to share your

thoughts with us. Send us a letter or e-

mail—no more than 250 words, please.

Include your name, year and major.

Send us your comments

Leah Szarek,

Editor

Want to join the staff?

E-mail Leah Szarek at

thehillpr@unc.edu.

The Hill 3

ContentsMarch 2007 Volume VI, Issue III

Domestic Coverage 4 The economics of marijuana

Could legalization boost U.S. economy?

6 A lethal debate Recent developments stall executions in many states

8 100 hours Moderates and margins temper Democratic Congress’ agenda

10 Detroit’s challenge Can U.S. automakers compete in era of biofuel?

Opinion

The Hill

13 Product Red Bono’s business venture changes

landscape of philanthropy

14 Africa’s success stories Some war-torn nations find stability

14 Somalia in the spotlight Nation plays key role in War on Terror

16 Attempts at unity African Union faces challenges

17 Big help from micro ideas Microfinancing shows promise as

international aid strategy

18 Trade-offs of trade with China Protectionism gains traction in Africa, U.S.

FROM THE COVER

20 Left/Right More troops or more trouble?

22 American dynasties Select families dominate politics and threaten democracy

DOMESTIC

4 The Hill

Proponents of marijuana legalization

often frame the issue as a question

of liberty, the freedom to smoke

what you want unmolested by the govern-

ment. Recently, the debate over marijuana

has focused on another green substance

— money. The role of economics in the

debate over decriminalization is becoming

impossible to ignore.

TAX INCENTIVE

The economic case for legalization

has been bolstered by several recent stud-

ies. One survey undertaken by Canada’s

Fraser Institute valued the marijuana crop

of British Columbia at $7 billion. Accord-

ing to the study, the legalization of that

harvest — the product of almost 17,500

“grow-ops” located within the province

— could net the government $2 billion in

taxes. The study reported that nearly one-

quarter of the Canadian population has

used marijuana at one time; 7.5 percent are

“regular users.” The institute argued that

growth and use of the drug were far too

widespread to be completely stamped out.

The study’s author, Stephen Easton, con-

cluded that the monetary benefits of legal-

ization outweighed the costs of continued

prohibition.

In America, the potential profit from

legalization could be even larger. Jeffrey

Mirron of Harvard estimated that the gov-

ernment could rake in $10 to $14 billion

from a legal marijuana crop. About $6 bil-

lion would come from taxing the harvest;

the other $8 billion would be the windfall

from relaxing drug enforcement laws.

Mirron’s study was made the centerpiece

of a recent petition calling for a “regime

in which marijuana is legal but taxed and

regulated like other goods.” The letter was

signed by more than five hundred promi-

nent economists, including the late Milton

Friedman.

Other studies have come to similar

conclusions about marijuana legalization

in America. In the 1990s, Dr. Dale Gie-

renger published an analysis of the eco-

nomic effects of legalization. Gierenger

determined that although legalization of

cannabis would depress its price by “100

to 300-fold” due to a surge in supply, the

government could prevent massive sub-

stance abuse by imposing a “harmfulness

tax.” A tax of roughly $1 per joint could

yield $2.2 to $6.4 billion in government

revenue, assuming marijuana use remains

constant. A similar survey conducted by

the California branch of the National Or-

ganization for the Reform of Marijuana

Laws came to the same conclusion. The

state of California stands to gain as much

as $13 billion from legalization, thanks

to the rapid growth of the newly legal

marijuana business. The evidence is over-

whelming: legal marijuana would be a

cash bonanza for any nation.

No country has fully decriminalized

cannabis due to international guidelines

put in place by the 1961 Single Convention

Treaty on Narcotics. However, the Nether-

lands has taken steps to loosen drug laws.

Dutch citizens can legally purchase up to 5

grams of marijuana from government-op-

erated coffee houses, despite the fact that

distribution of the drug is still technically

illegal. The coffee shops that supply mari-

juana are subject to numerous laws that,

among other things, prevent them from

selling to minors and ban advertising the

drug. The city of Amsterdam alone is home

to 300 such establishments. Currently, the

marijuana trade in the Netherlands takes in

about 1 billion guilder each year, roughly

equivalent to $500 million.

COSTS OF A DIFFERENT SORT

Despite the economic benefits of

legalization, many are still opposed to

any loosening of America’s drug laws.

Ironically, they often point to the drug-

permissive country of the Netherlands

as evidence. A 2000 report by the Dutch

government concluded drug use was spik-

ing as a result of government control of

the drug trade. Since the experiment with

legalization began, marijuana consump-

tion among Dutch 18-20 year olds has

skyrocketed from 15 to 44 percent. The re-

port also found that some government-run

coffee shops were resorting to organized

crime to acquire marijuana. Drug rings, far

from being pushed out of business, were

flourishing in the more permissive climate.

As drug prevention expert David Raynes

observed, “illegal traders who pay no taxes

of any sort can always undercut legitimate

traders.”

The easing of drug laws has had

similar effects in other nations. Switzer-

Legalizing marijuana might be smart for the U.S. economy

By Will Schultz

Staff Writer

Grassroots economics

IMPORTANT NUMBERS: FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE DRUG WAR

6% Treatment &

rehabilita

tion

5% State funding

4% Research

1% Prevention & educatio

n

84% Enforcement

Source: President’s Committee on Organized Crime

DOMESTIC

land’s experience with legalization was

cut short after Platzspitz, a drug-tolerant

park in Zurich, was overrun by more than

20,000 addicts. Since the push for de-

criminalization in Canada began in 1994,

use of injectable drugs has risen from

132,000 to 269,000, while marijuana use

has doubled. Closer to home, legalization

critics note Alaska’s failed experiment

with decriminalization. During the 15-

year period in which cannabis was legal,

Alaskan teenagers used the drug twice as

frequently as their continental peers. In

1990, the voters of the state chose to ban

the drug.

HEALTH CONCERNS

Opponents of legalization also raise

health concerns related to marijuana. Al-

though the science is not settled, marijua-

na is alleged to cause damage to the brain,

decreasing memory and problem-solving

skills. Furthermore, heavy use of canna-

bis has the same effect on the respiratory

system as tobacco does. According to the

Partnership for a Drug-Free America, five

marijuana joints a week is the equivalent

of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Lab

tests on rodents have also shown marijua-

na can be harmful to the immune system

in large amounts. These health hazards,

associated with the dramatic increase in

drug use and abuse, have led many to

question whether the intangible costs of

legalization outweigh the potential in-

come.

Currently, the debate is a moot point

in the United States. U.S. drug policies

are nowhere near as lenient as those of

the Netherlands. Recreational use of can-

nabis, permissible in that nation, is uni-

versally prohibited in the U.S. However,

11 states have passed laws allowing the

possession of marijuana for medicinal

purposes. Patients suffering from diseases

such as cancer, AIDS and glaucoma are

permitted to grow and use their own mari-

juana plants. Additionally, 18 other states

have a more mild policy that accepts the

medicinal value of cannabis without per-

mitting its use. Although the federal gov-

ernment does not recognize these laws,

most drug users go unpunished as the vast

majority of law enforcement is carried out

by state police.

Recent years have seen a renewed

push for full legalization. In 2006, citizens

in Colorado and Nevada voted on a ballot

measure that would decriminalize the pos-

session of less than 1 gram of marijuana.

Both bills were voted down, but each gar-

nered more than 40 percent of the vote.

South Dakota voters also narrowly reject-

ed a bill that would legalize medical mari-

juana. Early in 2007, the Vermont state

senate began considering a bill that would

expand the list of diseases legally treat-

able with medical marijuana. Public opin-

ion has shifted vastly since 1972, when a

Gallup poll found that only 15 percent of

Americans favored the legalization of can-

nabis. Now, upwards of 70 percent of the

nation favors allowing the use of medical

marijuana.

Marijuana’s road to public accep-

tance has been a long one. In the early

20th century the drug was legal, albeit

limited to a small subculture of users. In

1937, Congress passed the Federal Mari-

juana Tax Act, one of the more peculiar

bills in recent history. It kept cannabis le-

gal, but required prospective growers to

apply for a marijuana tax stamp. To apply

for the stamp, the grower was required to

provide a sample of their own marijuana.

However, in doing so they would incrimi-

nate themselves as having raised unli-

censed cannabis. This catch-22 remained

in place until struck down by the Supreme

Court in 1969. Three years later Congress

approved the Controlled Substances Act,

under which marijuana remains illegal to

this day.

In the past few months federal and

state governments have been cracking

down on medical marijuana facilities.

Federal agents raided 11 medical mari-

juana clinics in Los Angeles in late Janu-

ary. Their timing coincided with the Cali-

fornia assembly’s decision to increase the

price of a medical marijuana ID card by

more than $100. In Washington, state po-

lice searched the offices of the marijuana

dispensary CannaCare, confiscating med-

ical records and marijuana plants. The

organization was charged with exceed-

ing the legal limit of marijuana reserves.

Whatever the benefits of legalization, it is

apparent the government is not going to

accept it quietly.

The legalization of marijuana, al-

though a hotly debated issue, has usually

simmered on the backburner of the na-

tional scene. New information on the eco-

nomics of legalization may bring it back

to the forefront. Whether new facts about

the benefits of decriminalization will over-

whelm the longstanding arguments against

it, only time will tell.

Will Schultz is a freshman

majoring in political science.

The Hill 5

Taryn Mahoney

DOMESTIC

6 The Hill

Angel Nieves Diaz began grimac-

ing, later licked his lips and was

blowing air. He appeared to

move for 24 minutes after the first in-

jection. AP reporter Ron Wood had seen

many executions before and knew some-

thing was wrong.

Diaz, a convicted killer in Florida,

received a lethal injection as part of his

execution on Dec. 13, but problems arose,

resulting in a death that took 34 minutes

instead of the usual 13-18 minutes.

Diaz’s eyes widened, his head rolled

and he appeared to speak, another wit-

ness said. “He was in pain,” said Neal

Dupree, Diaz’s lawyer, who also wit-

nessed the execution. “His face was

contorted, and he grimaced on several

occasions. His Adam’s apple bobbed up

and down continually, and his jaw was

clenched.”

The drugs administered in lethal in-

jection did not go into Diaz’s veins but

into his muscle, which meant the execu-

tion required two injections instead of

one. Diaz was found to have 12-inch

chemical burns on his arms. Although

prison officials promised to investigate,

they insisted Diaz felt no pain. They also

claimed his liver disease necessitated a

second dose of chemicals. His family

claims Diaz did not have liver disease.

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL?

Diaz’s botched execution is part of

a recent trend that has challenged the

legality of lethal injections in the Unit-

ed States. Many feel that it violates the

Eighth Amendment’s provision against

cruel and unusual punishment. If the

practice stops, it may mean a severe

blow to capital punishment in the U.S.

Since the first lethal injection on

Dec. 7, 1982, in Texas, the practice has

grown in popularity. It began replac-

ing other methods of execution such as

electrocution, hanging and firing squads

that were deemed inhumane. Every ex-

ecution in the U.S. since 2005 has been

done by lethal injection, which involves

three separate injections to create a sup-

posedly painless death.

Mounting evidence and a growing

concern about the suffering the recipi-

ents undergo has put the brakes on lethal

injections in several states.

Many new challenges arose after

a British medical journal, Lancet, pub-

lished an article called “Inadequate

Anesthesia in Lethal Injection for Ex-

ecution” in April 2005. The article stud-

ied the protocols of lethal injections in

Texas and Virginia, where almost half

of lethal injections occur. It criticized a

lack of training, monitoring, data-keep-

ing and peer-review. In fact, it found that

“toxicology reports from Arizona, Geor-

gia, North Carolina and South Carolina

showed that post-mortem concentrations

of thiopental in the blood were lower

than those required for surgery in 43 of

49 inmates (88 percent); 21 (43 percent)

inmates had concentrations consistent

with awareness.”

Capitalpunishment

on trialSeveral states

re-evaluate

lethal injectionBy Jordan O’Donnell

Staff Writer

LETHAL INJECTION FACTS

In most lethal injections, there are three chemicals used:

Sodium Thiopental, which renders the subject unconscious;Pancuronium or Tubocurarine, which both stop all muscle move-ment (except the heart) in order to prevent pain;Potassium Chloride, which stops the heart and causes the inmate’s death.

Currently, 38 states, the federal gov-ernment and the military have capital punishment statutes.

•

•

•

Taryn Mahoney

STATES RESPOND

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush issued a mora-

torium on the death penalty on Dec. 15. He

has created the Governor’s Commission on

Administration of Lethal Injection to study

the process in the state. The Governor’s

Commission plans to release its results in

February and March.

As tensions rise in Florida, Califor-

nia has seen its own controversy regard-

ing lethal injections and the court system.

A federal district court decision by Judge

Jeremy Fogel on Dec. 15 found lethal in-

jections to be technically constitutional but

poorly administered. On these grounds, he

delayed the execution of Michael Morales.

Fogel’s decision also declared administer-

ing the potassium chloride to a conscious

subject illegal and to be considered cruel

and unusual punishment.

Fogel took several steps to arrive at

his ruling. He visited the execution facili-

ties at San Quentin State Prison, talked to

the execution team, reviewed the group’s

paperwork and studied the group’s meth-

ods for training its workers. He found the

practices to be “broken” and urged Gov.

Arnold Schwarzenegger to act and address

the issue quickly. However, the state at-

torney general called the practice “rational

and humane” and said that “all reasonable

measure are taken.”

The situations in Florida and Califor-

nia involve objections long made by op-

ponents of lethal injections. Some say that

the entire three-chemical process is un-

necessary and is done to create the appear-

ance of a serene, humane death. One of the

chemicals used may not be humane at all,

as Human Rights Watch says it is banned

for use on animals because it is believed

that it only masks pain, but does not actu-

ally relieve or prevent any agony.

The moratorium in Florida and court

decision in California have inspired oth-

ers to take their cases to court, protesting

the constitutionality of lethal injections. A

2006 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court

in Hill v. Crosby stated that death-row

inmates may challenge the procedures of

the lethal injection process to be cruel and

unusual outside of a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus.

NORTH CAROLINA CASE

Recently in North Carolina, lawyers

for Marcus Raymond Robinson issued a

federal lawsuit to try to prevent his execu-

tion on these same grounds. The lawsuit

claims “the N.C. Department of Correc-

tions does not ensure its execution staff is

properly trained and the execution chamber

is poorly designed for administering lethal

injections,” according to the Fayetteville

Observer. A state judge stayed Robinson’s

execution on Jan. 25 and again on Jan. 26.

A debate continues to brew over the legali-

ty of lethal injections and until these issues

are resolved it is unlikely any execution

will occur.

North Carolina has seen this type of

controversy before. The state purchased

a brain-wave monitor in 2006 to observe

the conditions of the prisoners being ex-

ecuted. This could be a problem in future

lawsuits, as the state has taken measures

to ensure there is no suffering during the

execution.

DOCTORS’ ETHICS

Maryland has also seen legal action

recently in its state court. The Maryland

Court of Appeals said the state must

develop protocols for injections with

oversight by the attorney general and

a legislative committee, as well as pub-

lic comment. The challenges come from

several groups against capital punishment

interested in replacing executions with

life imprisonment without parole. In ad-

dition, a pending federal case in the state

has shown evidence of improper medical

and staff work. In early December, a fed-

eral judge in Maryland asked the state to

check the practicality of using medically

trained workers in executions. While this

may seem like a good way to prevent

medical mistakes, it creates ethical dilem-

mas about administering drugs.

Last summer, the president of the

American Medical Association, William

G. Plested, III, M.D., said that it is unethi-

cal for medical personnel to participate in

lethal injections because of their strict duty

to preserve life, not help take it. This cre-

ates difficulties for any doctors or nurses

who may want to assist with executions.

A NATIONAL DEBATE

As more and more court challenges

arise, it is possible that the U.S. Supreme

Court will get involved. “The strong chal-

lenge is part of a national debate,” said

Richard Rosen, a law professor at UNC-

Chapel Hill. While Rosen said it would be

naïve to speculate on the outcome of cur-

rent and potential cases, he said a national

ruling is a possibility. “I think it would not

be surprising for the Supreme Court to take

this up at some point.”

While the future of lethal injections in

the U.S. remains uncertain, Rosen said it

illustrates the major issue regarding capital

punishment. “I think it is hard to find a way

to kill a person humanely,” he said, noting

that there is something simply brutal about

intentionally killing someone, which is

why over the past century, every mode of

execution has been challenged.

If lethal injections are deemed to be

inhumane, it could end capital punishment

in the U.S. There is no other method of

execution currently available that involves

less pain and suffering; replacing it would

be difficult. Life imprisonment without pa-

role could become the most severe punish-

ment in the country. Supporters of the death

penalty say this will cost states much more

money, continue to overcrowd prisons and

lead to the possibility of convicted killers

escaping and endangering the public. But

if the Supreme Court deems a violation of

the Eight Amendment, that may be a risk

citizens will have to take.

Jordan O’Donnell is a junior majoring

in journalism and political science.

DOMESTIC

The Hill 7

TYPES OF EXECUTIONSINCE 1976

893 by lethalinjection

2 by firing squad

11 by gas chamber

3 by hanging

153 by electrocution

Source: Death Penalty Information Center

DOMESTIC

8 The Hill

Party on, DemsSlim majority in Senate and moderates in House shape Congressional agenda

By David Zoppo

Staff Writer

Nov. 7, 2006, marked the first time

that the Democratic Party assumed

majority control in Congress since

the Republican takeover in 1994. Democrats

hailed this year’s midterm election as a sign

of voter discontent with corruption in the Re-

publican Party, the war in Iraq and an ultimate

desire for policy change in Washington.

With their newly acquired power, Dem-

ocrats wasted no time pursuing their agenda.

In an effort to show voters that they would

follow through on campaign promises, Dem-

ocrats rushed their “First 100 Hours” agenda

through the House. The 100 hours legisla-

tion—which included a minimum wage hike

and Medicare prescription drug reform—

was passed in a scant 42 legislative hours, a

fact the Democrats point to as a sign of their

competence, authority and accountability.

“Today, Democrats stood united to say

that we have kept our promise to the American

people,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

However, the initial progress of the

Democratic agenda has not been without its

criticism —first of all, they did not allow Re-

publican amendments to any one of the six

pieces of legislation that were passed. In fact,

Democrats stifled debate on the “100 Hours”

bills in order to pass them quickly. More im-

portantly, the bills must now make it through

the Senate, a chamber where the Demo-

crats technically do not even have a major-

ity, though Independents Joe Lieberman of

Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont

will caucus with the Democrats. If the “100

Hours” legislation makes that hurdle, then

the prospective laws will still require the sig-

nature of President Bush, who could choose

to exercise his veto power.

So what does this mean for the Demo-

cratic agenda? It is certain to travel much slower

through the Senate. Traditionally, in the House,

anything that is opposed by the leadership is not

likely to be considered. House leadership has

strict control over debate, amendment consid-

eration and general House processions.

In the Senate, debate on legislation is not

nearly as tightly controlled by majority lead-

ership as it is in the House. So long as 41 of

the 49 Senate Republicans caucus together,

the Democrats will be unable to put together

the majority needed to break a Republican

filibuster. With this in mind, Senate leaders

on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged

that the House bills will undergo significant

revision if they are to be passed.

ETHICS REFORM

Ethics reform was the first legislation

to be considered in both Houses of the 110th

Congress. The House passed ethics and lob-

bying reforms, which prevent members from

accepting gifts, free meals and travel from

lobbyists. The legislation also requires that

all earmarks attached to bills be publicized.

The Senate bill essentially mimics the House

version, with a few exceptions.

First, it prohibits former Congressmen

from lobbying their onetime colleagues until

they have been out of office for two years.

Secondly, it prevents spouses of Congressmen

from lobbying the institution. Finally, the mea-

sure requires lobbyists to disclose “bundled”

Congressional contributions--or contributions

that are consolidated when they come from

close relatives, friends and clients.

This measure passed 96-2, with the only

nay votes coming from two Republicans—

Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Orrin Hatch

of Utah. Coburn would have rather the bill

addressed the issue of excessive Congressio-

nal earmarking. “Earmark abuse was at the

center of the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cun-

ningham scandals,” said Sen. Coburn. “This

bill will not change how Congress and lob-

byists interact.”

Despite its overwhelming support in

both Houses of Congress, the ethics reform

bill nearly died in the Senate. Republicans

demanded a vote on a measure that would

give the president a modified line-item veto

on certain spending bills, but the Democrats

were reluctant to allow for this. The deadlock

was broken when Democrats agreed that they

would give the latter proposal a vote when de-

bate came up on the minimum wage bill.

MINIMUM WAGE

Democrats have been pushing for a

minimum wage hike since the summer of

2006. At that time, the Republican-con-

trolled Congress tacked the hike on to a pro-

posal that would have eliminated the estate

tax. Democrats, however, would not accept

this compromise. For the past six years, they

have been committed to preserving the es-

tate tax, claiming that its elimination would

benefit only the richest portion of taxpayers.

The new Democratic legislation is free

of any measure that would eliminate the es-

tate tax. Their minimum wage hike raises

the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to

$7.25 over a period of 36 months. The bill

was passed by a vote of 315-116, with 82

Republicans signing on to the measure and

no Democrats dissenting.

Despite its strong support in the House,

the bill faltered in the Senate; Republicans re-

fuse to give the measure an up or down vote

unless it has legislation attached that would

give tax relief to small businesses, which

they claim will face higher labor costs. The

Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Mon-

tana Democrat Max Baucus, has voted to

add $8.3 billion in such tax breaks to the bill

in an effort to garner the support of both the

president and Senate Republicans.

Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the

House Ways and Means Committee, was

initially opposed to any tax breaks being

attached to the bill. However, he has since

decided to move ahead with the legislation;

however, the House version of the bill con-

tains only about $1.5 billion in tax breaks for

small businesses, a small amount in compari-

DOMESTIC

son to the Senate package.

Sen. Baucus recognizes this discrepancy

but was still relieved that Rangel allowed for

the tax breaks to be included. “I’m pleased

that Chairman Rangel is moving forward in

the House,” said Baucus. “The Senate-passed

package is larger, of course, than what he’s

proposing, so we’ll still have to work that out

between the two chambers.”

THE POLICY IN IRAQ

Iraq is perhaps the only policy area where

Democrats will have relative ease in pursuing

their agenda. As a result of declining public

support for the war and an increase in sectar-

ian violence in Iraq, Congressmen from both

sides of the aisle have voiced their opposition

to the president’s troop surge. Sens. Chuck

Hagel, John Warren and Susan Collins are

among the prominent Republicans who have

voiced dissatisfaction with Bush’s new plan.

“We can’t change the outcome of Iraq

by putting American troops in the middle of

a civil war,” Hagel said.

As a result of this unified opposition to

the president’s plan, Democrats in Congress

have been trying to find ways to exercise

more direct control over the president’s strat-

egy in Iraq. House Majority Leader Steny

Hoyer said that Congress will consider leg-

islation revising the 2002 mandate it gave to

President Bush to use military force in Iraq.

Bipartisanship in the Senate has led

John Warren and Carl Levin to craft a reso-

lution opposing Bush’s plan to send 21,500

more soldiers to Iraq. Senate Majority Leader

Harry Reid believes that public opposition to

the war will lead Senators across party lines

to support such a resolution.

Forty-seven Senators (all Republican

except Joe Lieberman) recently blocked de-

bate on the latter resolution. They insisted that

the Senate also consider a vote on two other

Republican resolutions: one from John Mc-

Cain, which offers support for the president’s

plan, and the other from Judd Gregg, which

simply offers support for the troops.

Reid accuses the Republicans of being

complicit with the Bush’s war policy. “Re-

publicans have given the president a green

light,” he said.

However, several days after Republi-

cans blocked debate on the Warren/Levin

resolution, seven Senators broke from the

ranks, saying that they would attach a mea-

sure protesting the president’s plan to any

piece of legislation that is debated on the

Senate floor in the coming weeks.

“The current stalemate is unacceptable

to us and to the people of this country ... We

will explore all of our options under the Sen-

ate procedures ... to ensure a full and open

debate,” read a letter the seven Republicans

sent to Majority Leader Reid and Minority

Leader Mitch McConnel.

EMBRYOS AND ENERGY

Funding for embryonic stem cell research

is a another measure that has considerable

support from members of both parties in each

House of Congress; nevertheless, last year Bush

vetoed a bill that would have expanded federal

funding of embryonic stem cell research. He

promises to veto the measure if it should reach

his desk again. This could kill the bill, for the

House does not have a veto-proof majority to

pass the bill into law without Bush’s signature.

The last piece of legislation passed as

a part of the Democratic 100 Hours agenda

was the Long-Term Alternative Energy Act,

which would repeal the previous tax breaks

that oil and gas firms received. Further, the

measure would set aside the $13 to $15 bil-

lion in the revenue it generates for appro-

priations and incentives toward renewable

energy resources.

Bush has said the he is opposed to rais-

ing tax rates on oil and gas industries, and the

bill is likely to be tempered in the Senate.

Another thing that Democrats must

consider is that their freshmen House mem-

bers were elected by running a campaign that

embraced more moderate stances than those

of the Democratic leadership. This could sig-

nificantly reduce their majority on contentious

social issues that may come up for a vote.

No matter what the issue, it’s apparent

that the election euphoria that many Demo-

crats experienced after Nov. 7 is wearing off.

They are faced with a newly elected conser-

vative wing in the House, a paper-thin ma-

jority in the Senate and—above all—a Re-

publican president who is notorious for his

stubborn, tough-guy attitude. The test for the

Democratic leadership is to moderate legisla-

tion so that it is acceptable to all of these par-

ties and at the same time fulfill the campaign

promises that swept them into power.

David Zoppo is a freshman

majoring in political science.

The Hill 9

Taryn Mahoney

DOMESTIC

10 The Hill

Big Oil and the Big 3Political, popular support for alternative energy threatens Detroit automakers

By Hunter Gray Ellis

Staff Writer

During his 2006 State of the

Union address, President Bush

said America was “addicted

to oil.” This year, Bush has made it

clear that his focus is still on attaining

energy independence. To accomplish

this objective, Bush is calling for a

mandatory increase in the production

of ethanol and other alternative fuels

for cars and trucks while facilitating

a nearly 20 percent cut in the produc-

tion of gasoline over the next decade.

The ultimate goal is to increase fuel

efficiency four percent by 2010 for cars

(2012 for trucks.

As with any plan, however, there are

plenty of kinks — financial, technologi-

cal and environmental — to work out.

DETROIT’S CRISIS

These governmental policy changes

occur amid a crisis in the American

automobile industry. Ford Motor Co.

reported a record $12.7 billion in losses

for the 2006 fiscal year. William Clay

Ford, Jr., Ford’s chief executive officer,

announced in September 2006 that he

would become executive chairman to

make room for Alan Mulally, former

Boeing Co. executive, as Ford’s CEO.

“We are at the bottom,” Mulally told

the Free Press. Ford will close 16 plants

and cut 44,000 jobs as it attempts to

downsize production. Ford hopes to win

Americans over with a 70 percent new

lineup of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury

models in 2009, when the company

expects to start turning profits again.

J.D. Power and Associates, the

industry quality guru, defended U.S.

automakers, saying, “Big Three [GM,

Ford and Chrysler] vehicles are more

reliable than European-made cars, and

the gap relative to Asian vehicles has

almost disappeared.”

Ford’s massive shortfall is represen-

tative of catastrophic American industry-

wide losses. This year marks the 100th

anniversary of the North American Inter-

national Auto Show in Detroit, Michi-

gan. While the event showcased cutting-

edge designs by Chrysler and Ford, the

recent losses by GM, Ford and Chrys-

ler have people wondering how much

longer Detroit will remain the automo-

tive capital of the world.

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION

For international manufacturer

Toyota, the present could not be any

brighter. Toyota is about to surpass Ford

Motor Co. with profits of $28 billion this

year. Analysts believe the company will

become the world’s largest automotive

manufacturer by the 2007 calendar year.

With a sales juggernaut, the gas-electric

hybrid Toyota Prius and the second-best

fuel efficient car lineup after Honda at

28.9 miles per gallon, Toyota has effec-

tively edged out Ford and GM. “We didn’t

appreciate the image value of hybrids,”

said Larry Burns, GM’s research and

development chief, concerning the last

ten years. “We missed that.”

In mid-December, Toyota’s chair-

man, Fuijo Cho, and Ford’s Mulally met

to discuss talks of a possible alliance. It

was stressed that these talks did not result

in any specific details but are a sign that

Toyota is seeking to make peace with

the U.S.’s second-biggest automobile

manufacturer. A senior Toyota executive

said of the meeting, “I don’t know if Mr.

Mulally realizes this, but if he asked for

help or suggested a way to collaborate,

knowing Mr. Cho, he would go out of his

way to be responsive.”

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

In light of better technology power-

ing today’s cars and a tightening gap

between brands, Bush has also proposed

government regulations to increase fuel

economy. At last year’s State of the Union

address, Bush asked for the authority to

change the average fuel economy, but

Congress rejected his request.

The current rules and regulations

for car mileage, known as the Corporate

Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, were

set in 1975 to set a standard fuel economy

following the Arab oil embargo. Unfor-

tunately, the CAFE has been frozen at

27.5 miles per gallon since 1990.

In those 17 years domestic oil

production has declined by almost a

third, from 7.4 to 5.2 million barrels a

day, and imports have risen from 5.9

to 10.1 million barrels a day to fill that

gap.

Nicole Nason, administrator of the

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-

istration, has pleaded for the outdated

standards to be changed. However,

strong opposition within the government

has forced the issue to a standstill.

The Transportation Department

has offered the idea of adding a new set

of guidelines that shift the focus from

average fleet mileage onto creating

standards for each vehicle model type.

These standards would be created based

on the vehicle’s “footprint,” the distance

between the wheels.

Critics opposed to changing the

current system argue that increasing fuel

efficiency would lead to more vehicular

deaths in automobile accidents as compa-

nies would meet the new goals by switch-

ing to smaller cars. Democrats foresee

several technical loopholes that could be

exploited with this model-based system.

The new system has also been criticized

for placing great burdens on automotive

companies that produce larger vehicles,

DOMESTICnamely American companies.

MAKING BIOFUEL COMPETITIVE

President Bush faces many obsta-

cles with his current plan for combating

America’s “oil addiction.” Corn is the

only real alternative to cellulosic ethanol,

or switchgrass.

Ethanol and biofuel manufactur-

ers certainly see the plan as beneficial,

although one of the primary obstacles

is that cellulosic ethanol is synthesized

from switchgrass, a crop still not grown

at anywhere near competitive prices. An

additional 40 million acres of switch-

grass would be required along with the

infrastructure to allow for the shipment,

storing and transforming of this feedstock

into fuel.

Problematic steps will be required to

cultivate the necessary amount of ethanol

at market competitive prices. Ken Cook,

president of the Environmental Working

Group, was a longtime advocate of alter-

native fuels but now worries about the

environmental repercussions of a mass

scale operation of ethanol. “There is not

much thought given to the impact it will

have on land, wildlife, water pollution,

the food supply, trade or anything else,”

he said. “It’s unfortunate, because biofu-

els deserve better than that.”

Expanding the nation’s ethanol

use up to 35 billion gallons a year sets

in motion nearly two decades of new

technologies, unexpected environmen-

tal problems and politics. Former Senate

Majority Leader and Bush adversary

Tom Daschle was an early advocate of

supplementing gasoline with ethanol.

Daschle is a senior scholar at the Center

for American Progress and believes

that the growing popularity of ethanol

is centered on four factors: global

warming, national security implications

of complete or near-complete depen-

dence on foreign energy, rising gasoline

prices and the desire of farmers to gain

more income.

Arguments for ethanol have been

strengthened by the discovery of methyl

tert-butyl ether in thousands of public and

private water wells. MTBE is a noxious

chemical used in the petroleum industry

to enhance octane ratings of gasoline.

Bob Dinneen, president of the

Renewable Fuels Association, said of

the current state of the ethanol indus-

try, “We’re going to blow past the 7.5

billion figure sometime next year.” The

group states that there are currently 112

active ethanol factories in the United

States with another 77 under construc-

tion.

Bush envisions that most of the

additional ethanol would come from

materials such as grass and wood fiber

— two noncommercial sources —

instead of corn. Financial analysts and

company executives warn that short-

ages of corn could have great effects

on the supply of food for livestock

in this country. “We fully support

efforts toward renewable energy,”

states Richard L. Bond, chairman and

chief executive of Tyson Foods Inc.

“However, as the food versus fuel

debate unfolds, we must carefully

consider the negative and unintended

consequences of overusing grains.”

President Bush’s proposals on alter-

native fuels have not gone unnoticed

by his critics. From expanding ethanol

production to abolishing the CAFE

number system, it is apparent that Bush

seeks to help the U.S. become less depen-

dent on foreign oil and to combat the

effects of a changing world climate. All

of this news arrives as Ford announced

massive profit losses for the fiscal year

2006, while Toyota continues to close

the gap on America’s automobile indus-

try. The effects of hybrid vehicles and

ethanol fuel are setting the pace for a

global effort to prevent the disastrous

scenarios linked to an global warming.

The major question left to be answered

is whether America will possess the

resolve to increase ethanol production

as intended, or if the nation will still be

debating the issue years later.

Hunter Gray Ellis is a sophomore

majoring in journalism.

The Hill 11

CAFE is a set of regulations enacted by Con-gress in 1975 to regulate and improve the av-erage fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the U.S. after the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo.

Biofuel is any fuel that is derived from bio-mass, or recently living organisms or their met-abolic by-products (like manure from cows). This is a renewable energy source unlike other natural sources such as petroleum, coal and nuclear fuels.

ALTERNATIVE FUEL DEFINED

Cellulosic Ethanol is a type of ethanol that includes cellulose, the primary material of green plants. It is produced from a number of biomass sources including switchgrass.

Switchgrass is a hardy perennial prairie grass that is considered a good candidate for biofuel. It has a huge biomass output, or the raw plant material used to make biofuel, of 6-10 tons per acre.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

Striving to overcome a continental divide

On a continent riddled by war, disease and distrust, signs of hope are emerging.

Several new approaches to international aid funnel money and support where it is most

needed, and nations have joined together for peacekeeping and unity. Still, many challenges

remain. The Hill explores Africa’s promise and problems in this special cover section.

Taryn

Mahoney

Africa:

With millions of lives on the line, Bono is putting all

his money on Red. Red, that is, as in his new global

brand Product Red, an effort to raise money and

awareness in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Almost 5 million people became infected with HIV last

year—the largest number since the disease was discovered in

1981, according to the Joint United Nations annual AIDS re-

port. Sub-Saharan Africa, though home to just 10 percent of the

world’s population, accounts for more than 60 percent of people

living with HIV. The infection rate in eastern and southern Af-

rica is so high that up to 60 percent of today’s 15-year-olds will

not make it to 60. Though funding for AIDS prevention and

treatment has increased from $300 million to $5 billion, it is

still less than half of what is needed in developing countries. It

seems traditional philanthropic models are not enough.

In response to this problem, Bono, headliner of the multi-

platinum rock band U2, launched Product Red with partners

American Express, Gap, Converse and Giorgio Armani to gen-

erate a “sustainable” flow of money to support the Global Fund

to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria. On average, these companies

have pledged 40 percent of their profits to the Global Fund.

Bono stresses this is a commercial venture, not philan-

thropy. Product Red wants to draw on the branding expertise

of its corporate partners, while these partners gain through the

broadening of their customer base and betterment of their pub-

lic image.

Celebrity-endorsed charities are often met with suspicion

by the public. “Some cynicism is justified,” said singer Peter

Gabriel at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “There will be

celebrities who fall for the wrong cause, and those who jump on

a bandwagon trying to revive their flagging careers.” Though it

seems celebrity action has culminated in battles to adopt chil-

dren from the most obscure country (ahem, Madonna) this is not

to say celebrity status can’t be used for good. This phenomenon

is called the “Diana-effect” for the late Princess Diana, whose

public acceptance of AIDS inspired stars to use their influence

on an otherwise apathetic public. Without Queen Rania of Jor-

dan and Oprah Winfrey, “Women for Women,” a charity that

helps women in war zones, would have gone unheard and wom-

en raped by soldiers in Rwanda would have gone without help.

Bono has the backing of the world’s most powerful lead-

ers. Oprah has called him “Ambassador to the World.” He

has also made strong ties with philanthropic billionaires Bill

and Melinda Gates. The three were named Time Magazine’s

Persons of the Year in 2005 for their charity work. Retired

Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, whom Bono recruited

to his cause, bears testimony to the “Bono-effect.” “After so

many years in Washington, I had met enough well-known peo-

ple to quickly figure out who was genuine and who was there

for show,” said Sen. Helms. “I knew as soon as I met Bono that

he was genuine. He has absolutely nothing to gain personally

as a result of his work. In fact, he has opened himself to criti-

cism because he has been willing to work with anyone to find

help for these children who have taken his heart.”

Of his new brand, Bono has said, “Philanthropy is like

hippy music, holding hands. Red is more like punk rock, hip

hop, this should feel like hard commerce.” Although not ev-

eryone may understand the rock star’s jargon, his message is

clear. Bono is changing the trend from celebrities getting into

charity’s business to charity becoming a business.

Lilly Lampe is a senior majoring

in English, economics and art history.

By Lilly Lampe

Domestic Editor

PRODUCT RED:

AID AS BIZ Africa’s success stories

Somalia: Front in War on Terror

AU seeks unity and peace

Aid programs that work

China’s economic presence

14

14

16

17

18

What’s Inside

Lil

ly L

am

pe

COVER

14 The Hill

Somalia revisitedAfrican nation is new front in War on Terror

By Ben Piven

Staff Writer

Headlines have been few and

far between, but Somalia has

exploded onto the world stage

once again. The implications of this

newest conflict could redefine the War

on Terror that characterizes U.S. foreign

policy. For Somalis, it means more dis-

location and disorder, a life they have

become accustomed to in the nearly de-

cade and a half that warlords and armed

militias have run this volatile nation.

A TRADITION OF INSTABILITY

Somalia has been virtually without

a functioning government since 1991.

Most recently the fundamentalist Union

of Islamic Courts (UIC) sought to institute

Islamic sharia law and unite the fractious

clan-based Somali society under the ban-

ner of Islam—and it was largely successful.

In 2006, the UIC consolidated its power

through alliances with local militias and

threatened to overtake authority from the

warlords who have traditionally held pow-

er, threatening to destabilize the entire re-

gion by installing a radical Islamic regime.

In an uncharacteristic move, the warlords

joined forces with the transitional govern-

ment authority and (with military support

from Ethiopia) drove the UIC fighters into

submission in late December 2006.

The battle may be over, but not the

war. Somalia’s transitional government

faces continuing questions about its legiti-

macy and ability to govern. A report by the

Council on Foreign Relations says Soma-

lia has a full-blown “terrorist infestation,”

with the U.S. military conducting several

targeted assassinations in January on what

it says are al Qaeda members responsible

for the 1998 East African embassy bomb-

ings. Somalia’s weak law enforcement and

proximity to the Arabian Peninsula—it lies

just a short boat ride away from Yemen—

have made it a hotspot for terrorists in tran-

sit or seeking refuge, the UIC even offering

sanctuary to international terrorists when it

was in control. Ethiopian troops began their

withdrawal on Jan. 23, but it remains to be

seen whether the transitional government

will lose its grip on power, like so many

governments before it.

VIOLENT CLASHES

Early 2005 saw the expansion of the

UIC, as it formed alliances with militias

and received financial backing from So-

mali business leaders. The UIC imposed

sweeping social ordinances, forbidding

of the use of the stimulant drug “khat” or

cigarettes and prohibiting cinemas, soccer

or the mixing of men and women in public.

For the most part, the UIC was successful

in bringing some semblance of law and or-

der to the areas it controlled.

In June 2006, the UIC extended its

control south toward Mogadishu and wrest-

ed power from the warlords who controlled

the city. In response to the power grab by

the UIC, the warlords formed a coalition:

the “Alliance for the Restoration of Peace

and Counter-Terrorism” (ARPCT). The

ARPCT was unable to hold onto territory,

and the UIC extended its control through-

out central and southern Somalia. Fighting

eventually broke out around Baidoa, the

seat of the Transitional Federal Government

(TFG). The TFG, a group of Ethiopia-sup-

ported secular warlords, is the only author-

ity recognized by the international commu-

nity but holds little power within Somalia,

currently running its sessions of parliament

out of a former grain warehouse.

Facing the prospect of a civil war on

its eastern border, Ethiopia launched air

strikes on Dec. 24 against UIC positions

inside Somalia and sent in ground troops to

support TFG forces. The result was a crush-

ing defeat for the Islamists, who abandoned

their final stronghold on Dec. 31. Ethiopia

While it is sometimes diffi-

cult to gauge the situation

in Africa due to a lack of

attention, progress has been made

and stability has emerged in coun-

tries that have spent years engaged

in bloody wars.

Liberia — America’s project in

Africa — had seen decades of civil

war until about the past year. The re-

moval and subsequent exile of brutal

dictator Charles Taylor in 2003 pro-

vided a window of opportunity the

citizens of Liberia, in conjunction

with the international community, did

not let slip by.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf won the

presidential election in October 2005

to become the first female leader in

Africa. As a Harvard-trained econo-

mist, she is giving full focus to devel-

oping Liberia’s economy.

Next door to Liberia, the Ivory

Coast is still pushing for such peace,

although it is getting closer. Again,

like most West African nations, the

Ivory Coast has been engulfed in civ-

il war. The various parties involved

have had difficulties obeying agree-

ments in recent years. However, since

the exodus of the international com-

munity in 2004, the warring parties

have calmed down.

The United Nations and South

African government have mediated

talks, and in 2005, the parties agreed

upon a ceasefire and disarmament

plan, which remains effective today.

Presidential elections have been

delayed, but raging street battles,

Continued on page 19

By Sam Perkins

Opinion Editor

Stable nations offer hope

COVERhas made clear that it will keep troops in

Somalia only as long as it takes for an Afri-

can Union force to take over. The Islamists,

many of whom have fled the country or

simply shaved their beards and melted back

into the population, have vowed to wage a

guerrilla war.

FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT

As if the conflict inside Somalia

weren’t already confusing enough, the

clash in Somalia has been framed as a

proxy war between Eritrea and Ethiopia,

two bitter rivals after a bloody conflict

that ended in 2000. Ethiopia is also the

mortal enemy of Somalia, the lingering

effect of a border war in 1977. Even so,

Ethiopia has a large stake in what hap-

pens in Somalia—with a population split

evenly between Christians and Mus-

lims, Ethiopia can’t afford the destabi-

lizing effect of an extremist-controlled

neighbor. Eritrea is eager to see Ethiopia

bogged down with an intervention in So-

malia and reportedly provided arms and

soldiers to the UIC. A November 2006

U.N. report has accused Iran and Syria

of having provided weapons and train-

ing to the UIC, possibly in exchange for

uranium.

While the U.S. has been hesitant to get

mixed up in Somalia after losing 18 troops

in a 1993 firefight in Mogadishu to arrest a

warlord, it has also thrown its weight be-

hind the TFG and given tacit support for

Ethiopian military involvement.

U.S. strikes within Somalia against

what it says are al Qaeda operatives and

a Feb. 1 announcement that the U.S. gov-

ernment-funded “Voice of America” ra-

dio broadcasts would resume in Somalia

for the first time since 1994 might signal

a renewed U.S. presence in the region.

According to a New York Times article,

many U.S. government officials have

been critical of a covert C.I.A. opera-

tion that has funneled hundreds of thou-

sands of dollars to secular warlords with

the goal of capturing al Qaeda leaders

thought to be operating out of Somalia.

The plan, they charge, carried out without

the knowledge of many Defense Depart-

ment and State Department officials, has

actually caused the resurgence of Islamic

militias in the country—precisely the op-

posite of what it was designed to do. In

any event, association with the U.S. and

Ethiopia cannot be a positive for the al-

ready weak Baidoa transitional govern-

ment and could undermine its tenuous

hold on power in Somalia.

CONTINUING CHALLENGES

UNC-Chapel Hill political science

professor Andrew Reynolds, who has

worked most recently with the fledgling

democracies in post-war Iraq and Af-

ghanistan, admits that the prospects look

bleak for Somalia. He sees two similar

scenarios playing out. In the first, African

Union peacekeeping troops, a notoriously

ineffective force, take over from the Ethi-

opians but are unable to rein in militant

factions, and Somalia returns to the anar-

chy it has know since 1991. In the sec-

ond, the Ethiopians stay but risk looking

too much like an occupying force, leading

to more support for a guerrilla insurgency

against Ethiopian troops. Sporadic attacks

by Islamists occur even now against the

Ethiopians. In either case, the TFG is sim-

ply unable to control the country.

Will the new government be able to

consolidate its power? “The TFG isn’t

made up of academics or altruistic indi-

viduals” by any stretch, says Reynolds, and

some of the warlords might have an eco-

nomic stake in seeing the country simmer

for a bit longer. “I don’t see any reason for

[Somalia] not to revert to what it was be-

fore,” Reynolds says.

Despite this gloomy assessment, So-

malia does have a beacon of hope. The

break-away state of Somaliland, located

in the country’s northwest and indepen-

dent since 1991, has since achieved a good

measure of stability in relation to the south-

ern portion of the country—but will the

rest of the country follow this model? The

only real hope is that a robust peacekeep-

ing force can stop the violence and that the

competing clans and sub-clans that make

up the Somali political structure will rise

above sectarian squabbling to create a vi-

able government. If not, the TFG will fail

like the 13 previous clan-based govern-

ments before it.

Ben Piven is a junior

majoring in international studies.

The Hill 15

Lilly Lampe

COVER

16 The Hill

The state of the African UnionHumanitarian crises test organization’s effectiveness

By Alex Smith

Staff Writer

African leaders, gathering in Ad-

dis Ababa for the 8th annual

summit of the African Union,

established the International Year of

Football in anticipation of South Africa

hosting the World Cup in 2010. In addi-

tion, they were hoping to focus on the

potential for science in aiding develop-

ment and the threat of climate change.

Unfortunately, instead of dealing with

these issues exclusively, the African

leaders were confronted with the hor-

rors of Darfur and Somalia, conflicts

that could shatter the fabric of African

unity and bring suffering to millions of

people.

TRIAL AND ERROR

The AU was founded in 2002 after

the former Organization of African Unity

(OAU) was declared ineffective. As war,

disease and poverty ravage the continent,

hopeful leaders are building the suprana-

tional institution as a unified front to these

grave threats. Resembling the EU, the AU

promotes the idea of “unity in diversity,”

believing that national differences can be

turned into comparative advantages. One

fundamental difference between the OAU

and the AU is that the AU is less restricted

by national sovereignty.

The AU peacekeeping mission in Dar-

fur represents a critical test of African unity.

The peacekeepers have made little prog-

ress, and many observers criticize the mis-

sion as a failure. After stabilizing the region

for months, the troops became the object of

some attacks by the Janjaweed (allegedly

backed by Sudan’s government), as report-

ed by CBS News. Eric Reeves, a noted Su-

dan researcher, called the AU force “weak,

undermanned, under-equipped and badly

demoralized.” It is unfortunate that one of

Africa’s first peacekeeping missions, finan-

cially hindered by poverty and the small

size of African armies, was deployed in

a region as large as France. Furthermore,

Sudan restricted the ability of the AU to

protect civilians by defining its role as an

“observer.”

But the AU seems to be recovering.

The effectiveness of African peacekeep-

ing troops rests on the motivation of the

member states to contribute. According

to BBC News, several African nations,

including South Africa and Nigeria, have

consistently participated in peacekeeping

missions by providing troops. Rwanda and

Uganda, nations scarred by genocide and

tyranny, contributed thousands of troops to

the Darfur mission and plan to help stabi-

lize Somalia with over a thousand troops

each. Their support legitimizes the peace

missions since the presence of troops from

a troubled nation represents the horrors of

violence and gives hope to the civilians

under attack. Other nations, including Ma-

lawi and Ghana, are also offering troops to

Somalia.

CONTROVERSY OVER SUDAN

Unfortunately, while the imperfections

of AU peacekeeping troops may not harm

African unity, the politicking of individual

states might. During the AU summit, Su-

dan attempted to become the organiza-

tion’s chair, which the nation voluntarily

postponed last year due to concerns about

Darfur. Although largely procedural, many

groups across Africa expressed reservations

about such a position, rightfully warning

that a Sudanese presidency would diminish

the neutrality of the African peacekeeping

troops. Chad even threatened to leave the

AU, BBC News reported. It was widely

suspected that Sudan sought the position to

shift focus away from Darfur.

The AU had promised Sudan the po-

sition for 2007, upon the condition that

Darfur improved. Sensing an injustice,

Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ali

Sadiq told the International Herald Tribune

that “African heads of states will have to

stick to their word (and select al-Bashir),

otherwise what is the point for the AU to

hold meetings and reach agreements.” In

the end, Sudan acquiesced and Ghana took

the chairmanship. Sudan’s opportunity to

assume the position was only based on the

tradition that the nation hosting the sum-

mit gains it. But the formal procedure is by

vote, and the Sudanese government knew

that. The AU, voting for Ghana, gave itself

credibility by adhering to its basic rules and

showing flexibility at the same time. The

point of the AU meetings is unity, but only

through legitimacy.

While Sudan’s dubious maneuver-

ing highlights the power struggles among

African nations (one of the main problems

of African unity), South Africa is working

behind the scenes as an agent to further

integration. Last October, “Africa’s su-

perpower” won a seat on the UN Security

Council. One of its first moves was to reject

a resolution calling Myanmar to improve

its human rights situation. The Economist

reports that, although surprising, South Af-

rica is sending a signal to Western nations

asserting Africa’s independence. According

to BBC News, Foreign Minister Dlamini-

Zuma declared South Africa would “serve

the peoples of Africa, the south and the

world.” South Africa, timid in its relations

with African nations after apartheid, will

now speed and strengthen African unity

because of its enormous economic and dip-

lomatic clout.

DOMESTIC PROGRESS

Further integration will depend not

only upon the relations among its nations,

but also upon the conditions within them.

It appears that the seeds of true democracy

are beginning to sprout. At the conclusion

COVERof the AU summit, U.S. Assistant Secretary

of State Jendayi Frazer gave a positive as-

sessment on the political climate in Africa

with the statement: “We have … had good

consultations on our partnership on regional

peacekeeping, on economic development

and on elections support.” She emphasized

the importance of this by saying that West

Africa alone would have over 11 elections

this year. This is good news for integration,

not only because democracy will reduce

violence within nations, but also because

the Pan-African Parliament, a budding AU

organ, will gain a firm foundation. In fact,

the PAP will not function without democra-

cy in its member states. The AU eventually

plans to establish the PAP as the primary

source of power within the organization,

with its members chosen by universal suf-

frage. The Parliament could serve to quell

conflicts between nations such as Chad and

Sudan because it would serve the people of

Africa, not power-hungry individuals.

Next year, according to AngolaPress,

it has been decided that theme of the 9th

AU summit will be “An AU government:

towards the United States of Africa.” Afri-

can leaders, flush with the hope of a peace-

ful and prosperous continent, are recogniz-

ing that unity is a goal to shoot for.

Alex Smith is a freshman

majoring in economics.

The Hill 17

Not even half a century removed from colo-nization, many young

African countries continue to strive to build a strong, stable economy. One key to that establishment is utilizing foreign aid to its fullest extent. For decades, the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund led the way in providing financing for poor African nations. Today, however, there is little success to be found that can be attributed to the WBG or IMF. But where some programs fail, others emerge and have even shown the success that seems to have eluded the African region for so long.

Corrupt governments have long de-fied efforts for economic improvement. The key recent focus has been on provid-ing aid and incentives to individuals.

Microfinance and microcredit pro-grams have exploded onto the scene as credible, successful programs. Bangla-deshi Muhammad Yunus developed mi-crofinancing through Grameen Bank in the 1970s, and in 2006, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

This system of financial aid provides small loans—just enough to start a small business or build within a small indus-try— with extremely low interest and ex-tended time to pay off the loans.

While the system is most popular in Asian countries such as Bangladesh and

Pakistan, African countries such as Kenya and South Africa are also seeing the pro-gram brought forth.

Microfinancing has proven particu-larly successful with women across the world. Even in regions where cultures deprive women of many rights and op-portunities, women have been able to provide for their families.

The catch to such a program does not snag the people it helps but rather the people who take the chance of head-ing such a program. The industry is not one for those seeking gargantuan—or even marginal—profits. In addition, it is a private sector program, something that many claim takes away from the develop-ment and self-sufficiency of poor coun-tries.

Nonetheless, the Grameen Bank has

issued more than $5 billion in loans since 1976 and thirty years later had only $4 million in outstanding debt.

The United Nations has quickly jumped aboard the microfinance band-wagon, going so far as to proclaim 2005 the International Year of Microcredit, set-ting various goals the implementation of the program.

Again, while mostly in South Asia, the Consultive Group to Assist the Poor estimates that half a billion of the world’s three billion poor people benefit from small loans.

Other small programs are also emerging with plenty of cases of success. Fair trade organizations certify products where the people responsible for their manufacturing. The Fairtrade Labeling Organizations (FLO) puts forth standards for certification that include using safe and permitted materials, operating under certain human and labor rights, and promoting social, economic and environmental development.

Direct foreign monetary aid still flows into Africa, but it can by no means be the solution. Programs such as these, however, are sustainable.

These programs indicate that the tools with which Africa can be fixed are out there. The key is assembling a com-plete tool box.

Sam Perkins is a senior

majoring in journalism.

The future of aidHint: It’s not in the (Red) marketing scheme

“Today, there is little

success to be found that

can be attributed to

the WBG or IMF. But

where some programs

fail, others emerge and

have even shown the

success that seems to

have eluded the African

region for so long.”

COVER

18 The Hill

Checking Chinese ambitionsChina poses similar challenges to African nations, U.S.

By Melissa Brzycki

International Editor

The United States and Zambia have

more in common than one might

guess. Both countries are facing

domestic pressure to stop the negative

effects of globalization. In the Zambian

presidential election last September, there

were two main contenders: the incumbent

President Levy Mwanawasa and his op-

ponent Michael Chilufya Sata. In this sub-

Saharan country where more than half the

population lives on one dollar a day, Sata

gained a following by emphasizing a pro-

tectionist message — promising to cut off

ties to China.

GROWING PROTECTIONISM

China has been exporting its own

cheap manufactured goods to Zambia.

Conversely, China has been importing

copper from Zambia, a major source of

revenue for the country. The Chinese

have been running many of the copper

mines and have opened up other facto-

ries. In doing so, Sata contends that the

Chinese have been exploiting Zambian

workers, reports the Canadian National

Post. Sata says the Chinese provide poor,

unsafe working conditions. He went so far

as to propose breaking off all diplomatic

ties with mainland China and recognizing

Taiwan instead, something that would be

a grave insult to Beijing.

Sata may have lost the election to

the Sino-friendly incumbent, but the fears

that fueled Sata’s popularity have not

vanished. These concerns are very similar

to the ones that are currently stimulating

protectionist inclinations in the U.S., too.

The newly elected Democratic Congress

consists of many members who are not

comfortable with free trade. Their con-

stituents include former manufacturing

workers who have lost their jobs to Chi-

nese factories. The rise of this economic

populism, as the Economist terms it, has

serious implications for U.S. foreign pol-

icy. American lawmakers have the power

to cut back on the liberalization of trade. A

law to normalize trade relations with Viet-

nam was almost defeated in the House this

past November, before the influx of even

more protectionist representatives.

FREE TRADE’S COSTS, BENEFITS

Though the benefits of free trade are

enormous, costs are present as well. The

U.S. must expend about $1 billion per year

to allay the cost to unemployed workers

whose jobs have been cut because of in-

ternational competition; however, the U.S.

economy as a whole gains approximately

$1 trillion per year from free trade, accord-

ing to a Jan. 18 article in the Economist.

The benefits to Africa are not so easily

identified. The Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development averaged

the entire continent of Africa’s economic

growth at five percent last year, with ex-

pectations for faster growth in the future.

Angola’s economy grew at an astounding

15.5 percent last year, though its relative

prosperity is much more closely tied to its

oil resources than any sort of growth in do-

mestic firms or manufacturing. In fact, this

is one of many criticisms leveled at China

in regard to its relationship to Africa.

China has been voraciously consum-

ing Africa’s resources. The price of oil is

up 90 percent since 2000; similarly, the

price of minerals and metals has risen 70

percent. China alone has caused oil de-

mand to rise 40 percent between 2000 and

2004. According to the Economist, this

demand for commodities may be keeping

Africa’s economies from diversifying.

Oil extraction and mining do not bring

many jobs to the labor market, either.

Many Western leaders also charge that

Africa is attempting to hold up its end of

oil consumption by any means. The Chi-

nese have been noticeably apathetic about

the human rights records or corruption of

the regimes they support. When the U.S.

and Canadian oil companies left Sudan

in the wake of its genocide, China filled

the gap. It supports the Sudanese govern-

ment against United Nations intervention

in Darfur. It has backed Zimbabwe’s gov-

ernment against the U.N. Security Coun-

cil in much the same way. Of course, the

Chinese assert that they are just doing

business, and surprisingly, some Africans

prefer this approach. In many countries,

the strings usually attached to Western

aid and investment can seem like heavy-

handed condescension.

African countries are not uniformly

benefiting from relations with China.

Countries without precious commodities

like oil have suffered. One notable indus-

try that has been decimated by Chinese

competition is Africa’s textile industry,

much like in the U.S. According to the

Economist, the domestic textiles indus-

tries of Lesotho and Mauritius have par-

ticularly endured hardship as a result of

cheaper Chinese products. Many argue

that the Chinese have an unfair advantage

over both African countries and the U.S.

Besides allegations of dumping in

Africa, the Chinese yuan is widely ac-

knowledged as undervalued. This means

that its exports are cheaper in the interna-

tional marketplace. Some even label this

a government subsidy, leading the U.S. to

consider filing a World Trade Organiza-

tion case against China for this practice.

This value distortion has contributed to

China’s enormous trade surplus with the

rest of the world. China also owns the

largest amount of foreign exchange re-

serves in the world, which, according

to the BBC, both economists and policy

makers are concerned could lead to upsets

in the global economy.

COVER

INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE

While China has clearly benefited

from free trade, these gains have not

come without a price. Some firms are be-

ginning to look elsewhere, especially to

neighboring Asian countries. Because of

its economic success, China has seen the

prices of production rise. Wages in par-

ticular have grown, in some places faster

than productivity. There is also little guar-

antee of intellectual property rights in

China. The U.S. raised this issue at the

Sino-American conference which took

place in Beijing this past December. This

semi-annual conference, called the Strate-

gic Economic Dialogue, aimed to mediate

the major economic disputes between the

two countries. The main issues were the

undervalued yuan and the related enor-

mous trade deficit. Despite the dialogue,

the trade disparity does not look as if its

resolution will come in the near future.

The U.S. and African countries that

are currently engaged with China must be

wary of rising protectionism as a response

to international competition. Though trade

with China is not perfect, perhaps not

even particularly fair, the benefits which

arise from it can not be ignored either.

Melissa Brzycki is a sophomore

majoring in political science.

The Hill 19

which primarily claim civilian lives,

have at least stopped.

Sierra Leone is yet another one of

the small West African nations engulfed

in civil war throughout the 1990s and

into the new millennium. Today, how-

ever, stability reigns.

These three nations — Liberia,

Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone — all

have something in common aside from

geography. When locked in a state of

civil war, the Economic Community of

West African States Monitoring Group

(ECOMOG) stepped in to aid the U.N.

with peacekeeping.

Nigerian troops lead ECOMOG

operations. While most of the world fo-

cuses on the emerging presence of oil

and Islam in Nigeria, the country’s mil-

itary has been a major factor contribut-

ing to peace and stability in the tradi-

tionally volatile West African region.

Central and Eastern Africa are the

two other regions often engaged in war.

The now-infamous 1994 genocide in

Rwanda still resonates, but the people

are steadfast in their commitment to en-

sure that it never happens again.

Rwanda adopted a new constitu-

tion in 2003, and the new government

elected soon after has committed itself

to governance without discrimination

based on race, ethnicity or religion.

Gender equality has emerged, too, with

as much as half of parliament repre-

sented by women — that on top of a

law requiring at least one-third female

representation under the belief that

women would not permit genocide to

recur.

Perhaps most promising for Africa

is the fact that its GDP growth rate con-

tinues to increase, sitting at 5.4 percent

in 2005. Only two nations in Africa

— Seychelles and Zimbabwe — saw

a regression in growth rate, and only

Central Africa saw a significant regres-

sion from 2004.

This does have mixed results.

While the monetary implications are

positive, the implications for the people

may not be. Agriculture is quickly be-

ing replaced with mineral and oil in-

dustries, thereby putting citizens in a

less stable situation. However, should

countries be responsible with the addi-

tional cash flow, it can mean great prog-

ress. Botswana, once one of the poorest

countries in the world, has done just

that in developing an economic state up

to which all other African nations can

look.

In its 40-plus years of indepen-

dence from Britain, Botswana has been

the anomaly of Africa — a true democ-

racy able to grow economically and

peacefully under a government free of

corruption. In fact, it has been ranked as

both Africa’s least corrupt government

and best credit risk.

While much of its economic suc-

cess has come from the mineral indus-

try, Botswana is pushing for reliance on

more stable industries such as tourism.

Economic stability and a credible sys-

tem have certainly allured foreign in-

vestment.

Botswana’s strong infrastructure

has also allowed it to respond positive-

ly to U.N. goals. It is expected to meet

six of the seven U.N. Millennium De-

velopment Goals. That means achiev-

ing targets aimed at addressing issues

such as poverty, child malnutrition, ed-

ucation, maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS

and environmental sustainability. The

last hurdle for Botswana is combating

its HIV/AIDS epidemic — one of the

worst in Africa — although even that is

seeing progress.

There are success stories in Africa.

They may not look like success stories

in America with glamorous skyscrap-

ers, nice cars, expensive clothes, tiny

cutting-edge electronics and a general

presence of luxury goods. Problems,

especially HIV/AIDS, still linger.

Nonetheless, there is progress. Interna-

tional attention and efforts do make a

difference, and countries like Botswana

prove that where there’s a will, there’s

a way.

Sam Perkins is a senior

majoring in journalism.

StabilityContinued from page 14

The costs to the U.S. from interna-tional trade from lost American jobs

The yearly gains to the U.S. economy from international trade

The rise in prices of metals and minerals since 2000

The rise in oil prices since 2000

African economic growth last year

Source: The Economist

$1 billion

$1 trillion

70 percent

90 percent

5 percent

IMPORTANT NUMBERS

from the

LEFTBush’s new plan for Iraq:

Scourge not surge

By Sean Reed Love

Columnist

ww

OPINION

20 The Hill

During his recent State of the

Union address, Bush received

applause from both sides of

the aisle when he called for reducing

gasoline consump-

tion in the U.S. by 20

percent and balancing

the federal budget.

But who supports the

president’s new plan

to send an additional

21,500 troops to Iraq?

Congress opposes it.

ABC News reports 61

percent of Americans oppose it. Many

Republicans are audibly skeptical, and

even high-ranking military officials say

raising troop levels will have only a

temporary effect on security.

The previous war strategy of “stay

the course” was a failure, but is this new

“surge” method really going to make a

difference? The situation in the streets of

Baghdad, the sentiment of most Iraqis,

the conclusions of the bipartisan Iraq

Study Group and the Army’s own coun-

terinsurgency field manual do not lead

me to believe so.

The war in Iraq has already claimed

the lives of more than 3,000 American

troops, and a 2006 Lancet survey esti-

mates the U.S. occupation will cause

more than 650,000 Iraqi deaths. Despite

efforts to eliminate insurgents, stabilize

the government and train Iraqi troops,

these numbers are still on the rise.

American troops clearly are no

longer welcome. The Iraqi people want

them out, and the national government

must prepare to oversee Iraq autono-

mously and begin to govern on its own

authority. The general ineffectiveness of

coalition forces to stop marauding death

squads has caused many Iraqis to turn to

local militias for protection.

Despite deep internal divisions made

evident by the February 2006 bombing

of the Al-Askari mosque by Sunni ex-

tremists and the differing reactions of

Sunni and Shia factions to the execution

of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis are united in

their opposition to the U.S. occupation.

The Economist reported in January that

61 percent of Iraqis now approve of at-

tacks on coalition forces, while 71 per-

cent say they would like to see the with-

drawal of American troops within a year.

It is clear that America has failed to win

the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people

— something that our military agrees is

absolutely critical if we are to succeed.

Based on this alone, increasing the scope

of the occupation by deploying 17,000

more troops to Baghdad and 4,500 more

to Anbar Province is ludicrous. This is

something Bush and Co. should have

learned from the history books on Viet-

nam, a painful lesson that demonstrates

more troops do not necessarily lead to

success — just more death.

In December, the Iraq Study Group

released a 142-page report outlining a

new strategy for the war in Iraq. Most

prominent among the report’s 79 recom-

mendations is a proposal that the U.S.

“should not make an open-ended com-

mitment to keep large numbers of troops

deployed in Iraq” and should begin to

withdraw by early 2008.

Also, instead of the prolonged mili-

tary involvement Bush now seems to

favor, the Iraq Study Group advocates

a more diplomatic approach in which

the U.S. establishes a dialogue with in-

surgents and local militias and gives the

Iraqi government a list of goals, or “mile-

stones,” such as holding local elections

and centrally controlling provinces.

If the U.S. is to realize some level

of success in Iraq, then the policies sug-

gested by the Iraq Study Group must be

implemented. Placing greater responsi-

bility on Prime Minister Nouri al-Ma-

liki and challenging his government to

become more independent is what will

ultimately lead to decreased violence.

Although Bush said he would take

the recommendations of the Iraq Study

Group “very seriously” (and by now it is

very clear that he has not), what he should

take into consideration is his army’s own

field manual on counterinsurgency.

The manual recommends a mini-

mum troop density of 20 soldiers per ev-

ery 1,000 civilians to maintain effective

counterinsurgency operations. Do the

math, and the U.S. would need at least

535,000 troops in Iraq — a number so

extreme that even the addition of 21,500

troops would only bring total U.S. troop

deployment in Iraq to just 153,500. Add

to that the small multinational force of

mostly British soldiers, as well as the

large though poorly trained Iraqi secu-

rity forces, and the number still comes

up short at 473,000.

How can Bush account for the dif-

ference? The military is already over-

stretched — equipment is breaking

down and troop rotation lags far behind

Pentagon guidelines. It will take too long

to recruit and train additional units, and

Bush can’t expect to be able to call on the

international community for support.

Unless he wants to start a draft, it

is virtually impossible for Bush to at-

tain the minimum troop level necessary

to meet the counterinsurgency manual’s

recommendation. Bush should imple-

ment the policies proposed by the Iraq

Study Group and plan for a withdrawal,

not a surge.

Sean Reed Love is a junior

majoring in political science.

Sean Reed Love

OPINION

The Hill 21

President’s vision for Iraq:Surge for success

from the

RIGHT

By Juliann Neher

Columnist

When a CNN reporter remarked

on President Bush’s low approv-

al rating due to the war in Iraq,

the Commander in Chief firmly replied that

he would rather be right

than popular. Exhibit-

ing this same resolve in

his State of the Union

address in January, our

president asked skeptics

to give his new plan for

Iraq a chance to succeed.

CNN’s report that

61 percent of Americans

oppose Bush’s plan for a troop surge hardly

surprises me because I feel most Americans

aren’t looking beyond the death toll and

reading between the lines written by the

liberal news media. With honest informa-

tion and deeper consideration, the majority

opinion would quickly change.

Opponents of the new plan question

the decision to send more soldiers into a

dangerous situation without much altera-

tion in political strategy. What they do not

realize is that there is barely room for po-

litical strategy in Iraq at this time. On Feb.

2, the White House stated that the opportu-

nity for political strategy in Iraq is quickly

fading. The current number of troops is

not sufficient to stabilize the area, so the

government cannot gain a firm foothold.

Troops must be added to defend the new

government against insurgencies until it

grows strong enough to develop a military

and police force capable of functioning in-

dependently of U.S. assistance.

Regardless of whether it was correct

for our military to enter Iraq in the first

place, the U.S. is responsible for the over-

haul that has transpired in Iraq. This makes

us responsible for further assisting the Iraqi

people not only because it means finishing

a job we started but also because if we leave

Iraq the way it is now, the country will col-

lapse. There are very useful economic and

political resources to be gained by having

a democratic ally in the Middle East. Op-

ponents of Bush’s new plan should realize

that the collapse of Iraq would result in the

loss of those resources and Iraq’s transition

into a massive breeding ground for extrem-

ists who would wreak havoc on the U.S. I

hope that Americans would choose fighting

this war in Iraq until it’s finished over the

risk of another Sept. 11.

A brand new government full of new

officials and backed by a new military

needs a chance to learn and become inde-

pendent. Barely a year removed from the

passage of its constitution, Iraq is not yet at

the weaning stage. Looking back at history,

the U.S. needed French aid throughout its

revolution, too. CNN recently reported that

a group of Iraqi soldiers showed up an hour

late to a search assignment and couldn’t ex-

ecute their duties efficiently, so U.S. troops

took over. The Iraqi troops need a paradigm

military force like ours in action in order to

develop an exemplary force of their own.

This is a matter of teacher to student ratios;

a higher ratio of U.S. to Iraqi troops would

expedite the teaching process. Iraq is strug-

gling through a multifaceted transition —

militarily, governmentally, economically

and technologically — and it needs all the

help it can get. Increasing troops by 21,500

will give that help, but not so much as to in-

hibit the Iraqis from taking control of their

own country. Only with a temporary in-

crease in troops will Iraq be stable enough

for our troops to eventually pull out.

Meanwhile, this is all a game for Dem-

ocratic Congress. The 2008 Democratic

hopefuls are blinded by the prospect of con-

trolling government and will do anything to

ensure success. The Democratic Congress

promised to serve the majority’s interests,

which include pulling out of Iraq. Congress

has the numbers to ensure withdrawal, so

why hasn’t it happened? Because no one

knows for sure what will happen. By pass-

ing good for nothing (aka “symbolic”)

resolutions condemning the president’s ac-

tions in Iraq, Democratic Congress is sav-

ing face. That way, no matter whether the

situation is hopeful or disgraceful, come

election time (which may or may not be

enough time to determine the success of

Bush’s policy), the Democrats will look

good. Rather than stand up and accomplish

something in the name of freedom, which

is what our president is attempting to do,

Democrats are hovering like vultures. Ac-

cording to CNN, 63 percent of Americans

are happy with the domestic situation in

America, so Democrats’ hope lies in failure

in Iraq. What a horrible thing to hope for!

In the end, I know all Americans share

a goal of a stable Iraq and a safe America.

We all want to be free from attacks on our

homeland and to have our soldiers home.

What 61 percent of Americans don’t under-

stand is that these goals will be achieved by

Bush’s decisions — not by the inaction of a

Democratic Congress.

Whether the history books will record

the war in Iraq as a Vietnam or a World War

II for America remains to be seen. My pre-

diction is the latter; with Sept. 11 we saw

our Pearl Harbor, with the war in Iraq we

see a fight against a new Holocaust. With

the troop surge, we will see a turning point.

The troop surge will not end the war in Iraq,

but it will definitely help to do so. After the

end of World War II, it took a 10-year oc-

cupation of Germany to stabilize the area,

as well as a final bill of what would amount

to $12 trillion dollars today and nearly

500,000 military deaths. Those are serious

losses. But just like the war in Iraq today,

the end result is well worth the fight.

Juliann Neher is a freshman majoring

in journalism and political science.

Juliann Neher

OPINION

22 The Hill

A family affairSmall core of powerful families dominate American politics

By Stephen Largen

Columnist

Prominent American political fami-

lies have dominated American

democracy since its inception.

The familiar names of Adams, Long,

Roosevelt and a myri-

ad of other families of

similar stature have left

an indelible mark on

American political tra-

ditions. Mentioned less

frequently, however,

are the emerging Bush

and Clinton political

dynasties.

With Hillary Clinton’s entrance into

the 2008 presidential race, the names

filling American presidential terms for

the past 18 and perhaps many more years

to come could very well be a sequence

between the two families, Bush-Clin-

ton-Bush-Clinton, assuming Jeb Bush

eventually relents with his disingenuous

denials of presidential aspirations.

The last time a Bush or a Clinton

wasn’t on the presidential ticket was

1976. This inexorable convergence of

presidential office holders has had fun-

damental and far-reaching effects for not

only American politics but also Ameri-

can life. If a diversity of political heri-

tage and thought is one of the yardsticks

by which the health of a democracy can

be measured, then—by that standard—

American democracy is in serious trou-

ble.

While ascending to the presidency

remains the apex for prominent families,

Congress and local governments are the

typical breeding grounds for political dy-

nasties. Both Congress and local govern-

ments have a strong history of electing

progeny and kin of prominent leaders.

There have been more than 700 families

that have had at least two members serve

in Congress.

What does all this mean? One could

extrapolate hundreds of significant

threads from the trend, but I will high-

light some of the bigger ones.

WHAT CAME FIRST?

Historically, our votes have exhib-

ited a preference for white, male poli-

ticians. White (using the all-ethnicity-

encompassing definition here) families

make up the vast majority of American

political dynasties. This trend points to a

monolithic system of government. Most

of the political dynasties have also come

from the upper-middle and upper class.

This trend might suggest that

Americans largely prefer these wealthy,

white families. However, it is legiti-

mate to ask whether voters have really

“preferred” these candidates or whether

their social class, resources and family

name slimmed down the political field

enough to facilitate winning elections.

In essence, it becomes a matter of these

political families being able to make

themselves politically viable in elec-

tions—and that’s half the effort it takes

to win.

In this vein, it seems the chicken/egg

conundrum doesn’t apply only to nature.

It is maddening to try to figure out which

came first in American politics. Did

people first vote for political figures be-

cause of strong family histories? Or did

these same candidates make themselves

politically viable for mass blocs of vot-

ers before political dynasties became an

obvious pattern?

The origins may be debatable,

but the consequences are clear. If the

political field is dominated by a rela-

tively small group of people, there is a

limited range of views or policy ideas

that ever come to fruition. With the ex-

ception of the rare Independents who

drop a white dot or two on the map of

Congressional seats, when was the last

time you heard of a non-major party

candidate winning a national or even

local election?

American democracy is somewhat

unique in its exclusive, two-party system.

In England for example, three political

parties have significant power in gov-

ernment. The exclusivity of two largely

corporate-funded parties in American

democracy further limits the range of

political viewpoints that are expressed.

Our third party candidates serve the os-

tensible purpose of fodder for late-night

comedy television.

In an increasingly diverse coun-

try, the opportunity to win political

office and the opportunity to legislate

views remains in the hands of a select

few who happen to have the commonly

accepted personal characteristics and

viewpoints.

The counter-argument to all this rec-

ognizes the pattern but asserts that these

dynastic political figures are somehow

part of an informal American royal class,

an intelligentsia who rightly deserve to

be in higher office. This theory dictates

that these candidates are in fact the only

ones intelligent or sophisticated enough

to dominate politics. One current exam-

ple — George W. Bush — throws a hitch

in this theory.

FAMILY FEUDS

One of the problems that the con-

tinued ascendancy of family members

engenders is the often acrimonious at-

tempts by later politicians to outdo the

legacy of their other family members.

The closest most of us come to any fam-

ily drama are the awkward conversations

over Thanksgiving dinner, but these fam-

ily disputes play out on the national stage

Stephen Largen

OPINION

22 The Hill

A family affairSmall core of powerful families dominate American politics

By Stephen Largen

Columnist

Prominent American political fami-

lies have dominated American

democracy since its inception.

The familiar names of Adams, Long,

Roosevelt and a myri-

ad of other families of

similar stature have left

an indelible mark on

American political tra-

ditions. Mentioned less

frequently, however,

are the emerging Bush

and Clinton political

dynasties.

With Hillary Clinton’s entrance into

the 2008 presidential race, the names

filling American presidential terms for

the past 18 and perhaps many more years

to come could very well be a sequence

between the two families, Bush-Clin-

ton-Bush-Clinton, assuming Jeb Bush

eventually relents with his disingenuous

denials of presidential aspirations.

The last time a Bush or a Clinton

wasn’t on the presidential ticket was

1976. This inexorable convergence of

presidential office holders has had fun-

damental and far-reaching effects for not

only American politics but also Ameri-

can life. If a diversity of political heri-

tage and thought is one of the yardsticks

by which the health of a democracy can

be measured, then—by that standard—

American democracy is in serious trou-

ble.

While ascending to the presidency

remains the apex for prominent families,

Congress and local governments are the

typical breeding grounds for political dy-

nasties. Both Congress and local govern-

ments have a strong history of electing

progeny and kin of prominent leaders.

There have been more than 700 families

that have had at least two members serve

in Congress.

What does all this mean? One could

extrapolate hundreds of significant

threads from the trend, but I will high-

light some of the bigger ones.

WHAT CAME FIRST?

Historically, our votes have exhib-

ited a preference for white, male poli-

ticians. White (using the all-ethnicity-

encompassing definition here) families

make up the vast majority of American

political dynasties. This trend points to a

monolithic system of government. Most

of the political dynasties have also come

from the upper-middle and upper class.

This trend might suggest that

Americans largely prefer these wealthy,

white families. However, it is legiti-

mate to ask whether voters have really

“preferred” these candidates or whether

their social class, resources and family

name slimmed down the political field

enough to facilitate winning elections.

In essence, it becomes a matter of these

political families being able to make

themselves politically viable in elec-

tions—and that’s half the effort it takes

to win.

In this vein, it seems the chicken/egg

conundrum doesn’t apply only to nature.

It is maddening to try to figure out which

came first in American politics. Did

people first vote for political figures be-

cause of strong family histories? Or did

these same candidates make themselves

politically viable for mass blocs of vot-

ers before political dynasties became an

obvious pattern?

The origins may be debatable,

but the consequences are clear. If the

political field is dominated by a rela-

tively small group of people, there is a

limited range of views or policy ideas

that ever come to fruition. With the ex-

ception of the rare Independents who

drop a white dot or two on the map of

Congressional seats, when was the last

time you heard of a non-major party

candidate winning a national or even

local election?

American democracy is somewhat

unique in its exclusive, two-party system.

In England for example, three political

parties have significant power in gov-

ernment. The exclusivity of two largely

corporate-funded parties in American

democracy further limits the range of

political viewpoints that are expressed.

Our third party candidates serve the os-

tensible purpose of fodder for late-night

comedy television.

In an increasingly diverse coun-

try, the opportunity to win political

office and the opportunity to legislate

views remains in the hands of a select

few who happen to have the commonly

accepted personal characteristics and

viewpoints.

The counter-argument to all this rec-

ognizes the pattern but asserts that these

dynastic political figures are somehow

part of an informal American royal class,

an intelligentsia who rightly deserve to

be in higher office. This theory dictates

that these candidates are in fact the only

ones intelligent or sophisticated enough

to dominate politics. One current exam-

ple — George W. Bush — throws a hitch

in this theory.

FAMILY FEUDS

One of the problems that the con-

tinued ascendancy of family members

engenders is the often acrimonious at-

tempts by later politicians to outdo the

legacy of their other family members.

The closest most of us come to any fam-

ily drama are the awkward conversations

over Thanksgiving dinner, but these fam-

ily disputes play out on the national stage

Stephen Largen

OPINION

with far more significant implications.

Just look at the Bushes and the Clin-

tons. George H.W. Bush tried to cement

his conservative legacy in contrast to his

moderate, Planned Parenthood leader

father, Prescott Bush. A generation later,

George W. tried to fix what he and his

band of omniscient, neocon sycophants

thought Daddy had screwed up in the

first Gulf War. Not to be outdone, Hill-

ary Clinton will try to prove that her

ill-received 1990s health care plan can

succeed and move her legacy away from

that of her horndog hubby. When presi-

dents wield their power in ways that re-

flect more concern for their legacies than

contemporary issues, American democ-

racy is poisoned.

HILLARY’S SHIFT

Hillary’s seat in the Senate and bid

for the presidency demonstrate the con-

tinuance of the ever-declining diversity

in American political office. Known in

Washington as The Great Triangulator,

she has already begun a pathetic and

completely obvious tweaking of her

political views in order to win the of-

fice. Then agian, her personal political

ambitions have been about as secretive

as Bill’s flings.

Nonetheless, building off of the

leg-up she received from her husband’s

presidency, Hillary has been shifting to

the right in a laughable, intellectually in-

sulting charade for the past few years. In

attempting to turn herself into a friendly,

focus-group tested soccer mom, she has

tried to make political hay out of inef-

fectual issues like video game regulation

and flag burning. And that’s not to men-

tion her completely ridiculous attempt to

have it both ways on the defining politi-

cal issue of our time, the Iraq War.

Hillary and her Democratic Lead-

ership Council ilk, who we shouldn’t

forget were tripping over themselves to

authorize the war in the first place, con-

sistently attempt to say they oppose the

“handling” of the war. But watch closely,

they’ll never question the very premise

of the war itself.

In addition, her first move upon en-

tering the race was to bring back the trite

and failed terminology of the Kerry cam-

paign, saying “I’m pleased to be able to

share this National Conversation.” Well,

it worked so well the last time, so why

not bring it back, right? Hackneyed rhe-

torical techniques like these are the cock-

roaches of American politics: They’ve

been poisoned over and over again, but

somehow they keep showing up, refus-

ing to die off. In America, it seems the

only difference between recent presiden-

tial nominees is the variety of platitudes

that they choose to pluck out of the bas-

ket.

I don’t mean for this to be some sort

of hateful screed against Hillary Clinton,

though she undeniably deserves most of

the criticisms leveled at her. I merely fo-

cus on her because she is the most con-

temporary continuation of a familial dy-

nasty, and she can still be stopped. Just

imagine it—15 years from now we’ll be

watching Jeb Bush on our laser televi-

sion holograms explain the “dire conse-

quences of leaving Iraq.”

No family should dominate political

office based on their name, but it is obvi-

ous that this has unfortunately been the

case throughout our history. It has be-

come abundantly clear over the past few

decades that we are in dire need of some

new ideas espoused by politicians from

diverse backgrounds.

So take a look at Illinois Sen.

Barack Obama, consider New Mexico

Gov. Bill Richardson or contemplate

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. As the last

six years have proven, the old guard just

isn’t getting it done anymore. Americans

must demand authenticity and original

thought.

For the sake of our democracy, let’s

hope Hillary doesn’t run away with the

presidency like—in the words of Dan

Rather—“a hobo with a sweet potato

pie.”

Stephen Largen is a junior

majoring in journalism.

The Hill 23

Tary

n M

ahoney

Tax incentives

Costs

Health concerns

Legalizing marijuana might be smart for the U.S. economy

The HillChapel Hill Political ReviewVoice your opinion about this issue.

E-mail us: thehill@unc.edu

A tax of roughly

$1 per joint could yield

$2.2 to $6.4 billion in

government revenue.”

“