JHU Politik Issue 3, Volume 6

JHU POLITIKSUPREME COURT TAKES ON

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

(From left to right, top to bottom) Justice Elena Kagan, Samuel Alito, Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas.

by Chloe Reichel ‘15Staff Writer

The Supreme Court heard argu-ments last Tuesday for two human rights cases, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Mohamad v. Palestin-ian Authority. Both cases confront the issue of whether or not the Unit-ed States can hold these foreign or-ganizations liable for accusations of criminal activity overseas.

Jurisdiction over this case is jus-tified by the Alien Tort Statute of 1789. The statute, enacted in 1789, says, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil ac-tion by an alien for a tort only, com-mitted in violation of the law of na-tions or a treaty of the United States.” The plaintiffs believe that the statute, which has only ever been used in cas-es dealing with individuals, will serve (continued on Page 2)

The Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

ISSUE IIINATIONAL

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT SPEAKS AT HOPKINS

by Julia Allen, ‘15- Page 3

INTERNATIONALCOLUMBIAN REVOLUTIONARIES TO END KIDNAPPINGS

by Virgil Doyle, ‘14- Page 4

OPINION

JOHNS HOPKINS’s OnlyWeekly-Published Political Magazine

to protect them as organizations. Similarly, in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, the case has been justified with the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 and whether or not it can be applied to organizations as well as to individuals.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum involves a group of twelve Nigerian plaintiffs from the Ogoni community, including the eponymous Esther Kio-bel. The group is suing Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) and claim that Shell and Nigerian authorities are respon-sible for many human rights abuses that occurred in the region, including executing eight prominent members of their community, in the 1990s.

Rahim Mohamad was a natural-ized U.S. citizen who’s claims was

killed by members of the Palestinian authority in 1995. The Palestinian authority argus that Mohamad died of a heart attack, which was not cor-roborated by an autopsy.

During oral arguments on Tues-day, the justices were clearly divided only liberal and conservative lines. The question of jurisdiction came up repeatedly with Justice Samuel Alito asking, “Do you really that think the First Congress wanted victims of the French Revolution to be able to sue French defendants in the courts of the United States?”

Alito took an even stronger stance later, saying, “There’s no particular connection between the

OBAMA’S HANDS ARE TIED ON GAS PRICES

by Daniel Roettger, ‘13- Page 6

WILL GOP SHIFT TO SOCIAL ISSUES HURT OR HELP?

by Ari Schaffer, ‘14 - Page 5

March 6, 2012 Volume XI, Issue III

1 www.JHUPOLITIK.cOm

THE POLITIKEDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Will DentonsTaFF wRITERs

Julia AllenColette Andrei

Megan Augustine Michael Bodner

Rachel CohenRobert D’Annibale

Virgil DoyleEric Feinberg

Cary GlynnAnna Kochut

Hilary MatfessChloe Reichel

Danniel RoettgerAri Schaffer

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Hannah Holliday assIsTaNT EDITOR

Randy BellJeremy OrloffMatt Varvaro maNagINg EDITOR

FaCulTy aDvIsOR

Steven R. David

JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are those solely of the author.

NATIONAL REPORT

events here and the United States,” and questioning “whether there’s any other country in the world where these plaintiffs could have brought these claims against the Respondents.”

Chief Justice John Roberts continued with this line of questions, “...isn’t it a legitimate concern that allowing the suit itself contravenes international law?”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the jurisdiction against these attacks from the right. The Alien Tort Statute exists and therefore there is, as Alito wondered, a “connec-tion between the events here and the United States.” Eluci-dating this point, Ginsburg said, “I thought what we were talking about today, the question was, is it only individual defendants or are corporate defendants also liable.”

Continuing the debate on whether organizations should be liable, Justice Elena Kagan said, “all of these [laws] are written to prohibit certain acts, and they don’t talk about the actors. So, it’s as if somebody came and said this norm of international law does not apply to Norwegians. And you [say] well, there’s no case about Norwegians. It doesn’t specifically say “Norwegians.” But, of course, it applies to Norwegians because it pre-vents everybody from committing a certain kind of act.”

Shell’s lawyer, Kathleen Sullivan, disagreed vehe-mently with this stance. She said that, “Nuremberg, if it established nothing else, established that it is indi-viduals who are liable for human rights offenses.” Thus,

corporations do not have the same liabilities as people. Sullivan maintained that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.

Alito agreed with this claim, saying that human rights cases like these do not fall under the Alien Tort Statute. He said, “The Alien Tort Statute was enacted to prevent international tension, and this kind of a lawsuit only creates international tension.”

How these cases will be decided will establish an im-portant precedent for future human rights cases. Based on the events of Tuesday, it seems there is currently a majority in favor of the organizations.

Although critically different situations, some com-mentators have drawn a connection between these hu-man rights related cases and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The reaction to that case, which left many believing that the Supreme Court will treat any corporation as an individual for the purposes of free speech, is being recalled in arguments in favor of the de-fendants in these human rights cases.

Peter Weiss, vice president of the Center for Con-stitutional rights, commented on the issue, pointing out this discrepancy. He said that ruling in favor of Shell would lead to “a paradox between the Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations can be treated as persons for purposes of making unlimited contributions to politi-cal campaigns, but not for the purpose of being sued for

committing human-rights violations.” ▪

(Continued from page 1)

layOuT EDITOR

Victoria Scordato

Alex Clearfield



(Continued on page 4)

NATIONAL REPORT

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft Speaks at Hopkins

by Julia Allen, ‘15Staff Writer

On February 28th, the Foreign Affairs Symposium held its opening event of 2012 featuring John Ashcroft as the speaker. Appointed by George W. Bush, Ashcroft served as the 79th US Attorney General from 2001 to 2005 and was heavily involved in shaping the Justice Department’s role in the War on Terror. Ashcroft spoke about the effects that the September 11th terrorist at-tacks had on his department, and took on some tough questions regarding his stance on the use of torture and information gathering techniques as well as his involve-ment in the war on illegal drugs.

Recalling the events immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Ashcroft stressed the most important com-mand that he received from his commander in chief: “don’t let this happen again.” The wide-spread effects that this attack on American soil had on the public, as well as the possibility that more attacks were coming, prompted Ashcroft and the rest of the administration to make changes. Ashcroft said that he thought along the lines of, “if you don’t like what you are getting, then change what you are doing.” Because the stakes were too high to risk allowing another tragedy like this to happen again, Ashcroft saw the need for a “philosophic change in the Justice department” away from the focus on prosecution and more centered around the concept of prevention. Using the suicide mission of September 11th as an example, Ashcroft argued that although pros-ecution did have a deterring aspect, it was not enough to prevent catastrophic events like 9/11 from happen-ing because the attackers did not fear prosecution or punishment.

Ashcroft claimed that this new focus on prevention is absolutely necessary, but acknowledged the inherent difficulty surrounding this “philosophic” change.The Justice Department’s focus on preventative measures was much more complex in nature than the previous em-phasis on prosecution, so the next step for Ashcroft was to “beef up the tool bag” that the department had at its disposal. His adoption of controversial techniques like the roving wire tap and delayed notification search horn are points of contention amongst his critics, but Ashcroft

claims that these policies are legitimate. Drawing from the “tool bag” of law enforcement agencies, Ashcroft ar-gued that these techniques had been in use for decades with successful results before they were adopted by the Justice Department to enhance its ability to engage in the war on terror.

Following John Ashcroft’s speech, the Foreign Af-fairs Symposium arranged for a question and answer session to take place, giving the audience a chance to in-teract with the speaker. When Ashcroft was asked about the controversial work of John Yoo, former official in the Justice Department under Bush Jr., regarding the Bybee Memo (a.k.a the Torture Memos), Ashcroft explained his initial rejection of the proposal. Though Ashcroft didn’t agree with the way in which the memo was ini-tially worded because it “didn’t express the opinions of the department at an optimal level,” he claimed to never have disagreed with overall policy expressed by Yoo and even went as far as to say that the US has never engaged in an act of torture. Other questions were aimed at his tough stance towards the war on illegal drugs, particu-larly why so much money is spent imprisoning people who use recreational drugs. Ashcroft responded by say-ing that there is certainly room for debate about the therapeutic value of some drugs and that legislation on the issue can always be changed in the voting booth, bu-tif something is illegal, the Justice Department should not punish it less or more depending on how harmless some people might perceive it to be.

Despite Ashcroft’s success in enacting his desired policies while in office, his term continues to be one marred be controversy. Many people have demonstrat-ed their outrage at the invasive policies legalized in the Patriot Act for the legalization of wire tapping, which requires increased amounts of personal information to set up bank accounts and other electronic databases. In-tensive searches and background checks in airport se-curity are further examples of policies that people feel are invading privacies that were once protected by the government. Ashcroft acknowledged this new struggle of security v. liberty in an age where people desire to re-main “anonymous” while the security they desire is be-coming more and more information-intensive. However, Ashcroft points to the system established by the health care industry as an example of how it is possible to cre-ate a network that would share information which could





NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL REPORT

be used to everyone’s mutual benefit while still protect-ing individual privacy. Security, he argues, needs some-thing to secure and that something is liberty, and people, wanting liberty in order to enjoy the objects of their desires, are likely unwilling to accept the consequences of this. Claiming that “the absence of consequence isn’t freedom, it is the absence of meaning,” Ashcroft believes that people are much more “free” if there are laws in place that protect them from massive acts of violence like what happened on September 11th. ▪

Columbian Revolutionaires Announce an End to Kidnappingsby Virgil Doyle, ‘14Staff Writer

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a leftist revolutionary group operating within Colombia, announced on February 26th that it would end its notorious practice of kidnapping. In addition, they have announced the release of 10 members of Co-lombian security forces being held as “prisoners of war” in an act of good faith. Kidnapping individuals for ran-som has long been one of the FARC’s major sources of revenue and a massive problem for the Colombian gov-ernment. If the FARC truly does abandon kidnapping, it will have wide-ranging implications for Colombia and the internal conflict that has raged for decades between the national military and the FARC guerilla forces.

The FARC has been operating in Colombia since 1965, when they were founded by a combination of com-munist freedom fighters and peasant self-defense groups after the formation of a new Colombian government by the country’s two dominant political parties. Since then, they have become the most powerful guerilla organiza-tion in Colombia, and together with the National Libera-tion Army (ELN), they control an estimated 30-40% of Colombia’s total territory. In a recent statement made by the FARC’s Secretariat on February 20th, the orga-nization’s primary goals are “life, national sovereignty, democracy, and social justice”. They are widely ac-knowledged as having a strong Marxist, anti-imperialist

agenda, and are especially hostile towards the United States’ involvement in Colombian national affairs.

The FARC funds itself first and foremost through its control of a massive share of the global drug market, with experts estimating that they take in $500 million to $600 million per year through drug trade. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice issued an indictment in 2006 indicating that over 50% of the global cocaine trade and over 60% of the cocaine entering the United States was FARC-controlled. In much of their territory in Colom-bia, the FARC operates as a de facto government, pre-venting the national government from providing basic services and collecting taxes. It is in these areas that they are able to direct farmers to cultivate the coca needed to sustain the FARC’s operations.

Though the growing and trafficking of drugs is their primary source of revenue, the FARC has historically funded itself by extorting businesses and kidnapping prominent individuals in Colombia for ransom. Their announcement that they would stop kidnapping alto-gether marks a major shift in the policy of the FARC, as it has long been one of their defining tactics. In the 1990’s, Colombia may have been the worst country on earth for kidnappings, with over 2,500 kidnappings occurring ev-ery year, most of which were conducted by the FARC. But by 2011, there were only 298 kidnappings recorded by the Colombian defense ministry. Of these, only 77 were attributed to the FARC.

As a result, their abandonment of abductions alto-gether has largely been interpreted as a political move intended to bring the Colombian government to the negotiating table. The FARC’s current leader, Rodrigo Londoño (but who goes by the name Timochenko), has made several similar moves with the goal of bring-ing about peace settlement negotiations. Luis Eduardo Celis, a conflict research analyst, has described Timo-chenko as imagining himself “the man who will take the FARC out of the conflict.” With this self-image, many view the abandonment of kidnappings as an important step toward a resolution to the conflict between the FARC and the Colombian government.

This termination of kidnappings has, however, led some experts to downplay the importance of the an-nouncement and the released prisoners because it does nothing to address the problem of extortion. Co-lombian security expert Alfredo Rangel stated that “if [the FARC] are going to continue to extort people, we





INTERNATIONAL REPORT/OPINION

haven’t gotten anywhere.” Thus, while the conclusion of their kidnapping policy is a positive step, it may not end up solving the problem of the FARC using violence and the threat of violence to extract revenues from Co-lombian civilians.

Any hopes for a future peace resolution between the Colombian government and the FARC appear tenuous at best. Despite their kidnapping announcement, the FARC has carried out several attacks on police stations in the past month that have killed 15 and injured dozens more, many of whom were civilians. This past week, the FARC has also imposed a blockade that has seen transporta-tion to a western region of Colombia completely cut off. These actions have called into question the sincerity of the kidnapping renunciation, as many feel that the FARC may simply be trying to buy time. Thus, despite their abandonment of abductions, peace negotiations still ap-pear to be a long way off, as tensions between the FARC and Colombian government remain high. ▪

Will GOP Shift To Social Issues Help or Hurt?

by Ari Schaffer, ‘14Staff Writer

A combination of executive policy and the rise of social conservative Rick Santorum have displaced the economy and brought latent social issues to the fore. A campaign which was just a few months ago decidedly fo-cused on the ailing economy has taken a sharp turn and refocused on social issues from contraception to college education. With the moral health of America a major topic of discussion in the reinvigorated Republican cam-paign, new questions and concerns have arisen; ques-tions about the correct path for a country with a strong tradition of religious values and concerns about the na-tional viability of the Republican Party.

The upsurge in discussion of social issues can pri-marily be traced to the Obama administration’s plan to force even religiously opposed employers to pro-vide contraceptives to their employees as part of basic

Rick Santorum, who has focused his campaign on social conservative issues, at the Washington Historical Museum in Tacoma.

Matthew Ryan Williams / New York Times

health care coverage. Although explicitly religious or-ganizations have since been exempted, the debate over religious freedom versus the state has inspired the now heavy focus on religious freedom, personal liberty and broader social issues. A similarly oriented proposal in the Virginia State Congress requiring a sonogram before abortion has equally excited discussion about the moral and religious direction of the United States.

Former Republican Presidential hopeful and strong social conservative Rick Perry has benefited the most from this discussion shift and is seeing his poll numbers surge. His fiery rhetoric, standing strong for religious freedom, has been particularly attractive to the populist elements in Middle America. This group tends to support conservative social values for the country as a whole, or at the very least, the inalienable right to practice what their religious values dictate. Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney on the other hand, who is located more in the centrist spectrum of the Republican party, has expe-rienced a drop in poll numbers. Favoring a more prag-matic approach to politics, Romney scares social conser-vatives who think he is too soft and is not willing to stand up and defend religious values or even the unalterable right of the individual to observe them. While Romney has made efforts to cast himself as equally conservative as his Republican opponent, Santorum’s populist tone





OPINION

and almost dogmatic support for religious values has ce-mented him the support of the evangelical vote.

The immediate concerns of the Republican Party are the electability of a social conservative who will not ap-peal to the almost 40% of the country self-identified as independents. The primary system may allow for a social conservative to take center stage but the national elec-tion is a whole other ball game. Recent polling by Ras-mussen for example, puts Santorum only a point behind Romney when matched with Obama but unlike Romney, Santorum has never polled higher than Obama.

The reality of the situation is that Santorum’s surg-ing poll numbers and newly electrified campaign are very telling about the attitude of contemporary Ameri-can values. With the Obama administration’s contra-ception controversy looming largely overhead, many religious Americans feel, and rightly so, that religion is under attack in America. Steps to force religious insti-tutions and the people that comprise them to conform to modern notions of individualism they do not accept raises concerns that America will turn down the anti-religious road of her Western European counterparts. Following this path, many believe, would be a betrayal of the strong religious tradition that has helped shape this country and its culture. In the words of NY Times columnist David Brooks “America is creative because of its moral materialism – when social values and economic ambitions get down in the mosh pit and dance.” Amer-ica without the value judgment and influence from its strong religious tradition would not be the creative, in-novative space for freedom and liberty – both economic and social – that we have today.

Even if, as is normally the case, the social conserva-tive candidate does not win the Republican nomination, the question of reshaping America’s moral fabric will be a significant part of the broader national campaign. As the Virginia Abortion law progresses and religious insti-tutions and individuals push back aggressively against the new contraception requirement, religious values and their place in American society will continue to figure prominently in the campaign. If Romney does win the nomination and assuages the fears of the conservative base, he could successfully channel the Republican so-cial conservative base to his advantage. Regardless of the campaign results though, a serious conversation about the place of religion in American society or the place of government in creating a moral society is long overdue. ▪

Obama’s Hands Tied on Gas Pricesby Daniel Roettger, ‘13Staff Writer

The price of gas has gone up drastically since Presi-dent Obama took the Presidential Oath. In January 2009, the average gallon of gas would cost you about $1.79. To-day, that’s closer to $3.60. This sets the stage for a clas-sic, brutal election-year standoff. But is this conflict over gas prices really worth it?

There’s a consensus among analysts in the oil indus-try that there’s relatively little any one political leader or party can do to influence – or bring down – the global price of crude. Severen Borenstein, a professor at the Hass School of Business at UC Berkeley, explains, “The problem is that oil is a global product with globally based pricing. US production is too small to make a noticeable dent in the global prices.”

This argument carries some weight. At the end of 2011, the US was responsible for producing 7.8% of the world’s crude, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Such a level of production puts the US as the third largest global producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. At first blush, these statistics might lead one to conclude that the US has the significance in the market to relieve the price of oil. But, in such a com-plex world, such a simple answer must be inadequate.

A key reason for the current price of oil is, according to The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake, Iran. Said Blake, “[Iran’s] warnings about blockading the Gulf of Hormuz if the U.S. and Europe continue to tighten economic sanctions.” These warnings should be unsettling. 20% of the world’s oil cruises through the Straight of Hormuz. Perhaps more significant, this quantity represents 35% of seaborne traded oil, according to the EIA.

The issues surrounding the Straight of Hormuz’s closure are beyond any one political leader, perhaps ex-cept Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Foreign Ministers of the EU, which itself buys nearly 20% of Iran’s oil ex-ports, “formally adopted an ‘unprecedented oil embargo against Iran over its nuclear programme, banning all new oil contracts with the country…. [and also] freez[ing] the assets of Iran’s central bank in the EU,” the BBC reports. The Obama Administration supports these actions. This comes amidst claims that Israel is preparing for a unilat-




OPINION

eral strike against Iran without the blessing of the Unit-ed States. The domestic politics affecting the decisions of these leaders continue to complicate the issue at hand, obscuring ‘good’ options from plain sight.

Regardless of the root cause, Republicans have tak-en to blaming President Obama for the price of oil, and they’ve grown increasingly focused on doing so in the wake of recent positive economic indicators. The Wash-ington Post reports that “Republicans have turned to gas prices as their silver bullet. In the past, this has proven to be a fruitful strategy in American politics, but it may not be so effective in the current political climate”.

After the September 2005 spike in oil prices, the public took President Bush to task. A Pew Poll then indicated that 28% of Americans blamed Bush for the spike in oil prices. On the other hand, the same poll to-day finds Obama the top culprit, but with only 18% of Americans stating so. This might be due to the positive changes we’re seeing in the economy, or it might have to do with good political maneuvering – particularly, the Obama Administration’s argument that domestic oil and gas production is at its highest rate since 2003 and call for Congress to end the $4 billion in subsidies to the oil industry.

However, there is a silver lining to this story. Accord-ing to Ford economist Jenny Lin, “Pent-up demand and the need to replace vehicles which now average a record age of 11 years will also spur growth” in the automotive industry, a process which seems to already be happen-ing. According to the Association for Financial Profes-sionals, the “total (automotive) industry sales rose 15.7% from a year earlier, while the sales pace hit its highest level since February 2008”. The growth in automotive sales are rewarding Detroit’s automakers, who commit-ted themselves to major investments in small cars and improved fuel economy that have allowed them to make up ground on rivals such as Toyota and Honda. ▪

This Issue of JHU POLITIK has been made possible with funding from the SGA and FAS.



JHU Politik Issue 3, Volume 6

Documents

Transcript of JHU Politik Issue 3, Volume 6