The HillChapel Hill Political Review

March 2013studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill

How Safe Are We?

Al Qaeda in Africa, Increases in Mass Gun Violence, Illegal Immigration, Emerging

Nuclear Powers, & The China Threat

The HillUNC’s Nonpartisan Political Review

Volume XII Issue IIIstudentorgs.unc.edu/thehill

Dear Readers,It is no secret that we live in a dangerous world, but it is critical that we understand these dangers in order to defeat them. Accordingly, for our first issue of 2013, we decided to focus on the various threats to US security, both foreign and domestic.

Abroad, we discuss the French military invasion of Mali and explore the growing threat of Islamic extremism in North Af-rica. In addition, we analyze the rise of China and its effect on the balance of power in East Asia. Another threat is the relentless pursuit of rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons. Here at home, we follow the most recent effort to confront the threat of gun violence as our country consid-ers measures for gun control. In a rare moment of bipartisan collaboration, Congress is also acting to address another long unresolved aspect of our security – illegal immigration and border security.

There has been a host of polit-ical developments in the US. We explore the changes and internal debate within the Grand Old Party, and evaluate Pres-ident Obama’s controversial appointments to his cabinet. Furthermore, we consider the new Republican administration in North Carolina, and the latest round of gerrymandering and

efforts to restrict voting laws. Energy policy is also at the center of the news. We discuss the renewed commitment in the Obama administration to ad-dress climate change, including articles on nuclear energy and another evaluating the Environ-mental Protection Agency’s new rules.

In international news, we exam-ine the emergence of factions in the Arab Spring, specifically Islamists versus secularists, and continue to follow the long and arduous path to democracy. Ad-ditionally, we analyze the most recent crisis in Europe, which is the potential exit of the UK from the European Union. Finally, we consider the case of rape in India that has changed the terms of debate for that issue in India and around the world. Thanks for reading this issue of The Hill. We hope our articles strike your fancy, and we hope you continue reading in the future.

Sam HobbsRadhika Kshatriya

MANAGING EDITORSSam Hobbs & Radhika Kshatriya

SECTION EDITORSBrendan Cooley & Jon Buchleiter

WRITERSCarol Abken, Lyndsey Bernal, Brian Braytenbah, Chris Brown, Jon Buchleiter, Dain Clare, Casey Crow, Brendan Cooley, Sam Hobbs, Radhika Kshatriya, Sarah Lunenfeld, Tess Landon, Nikki Mandell, Nick Neuteufel, William Perlmutter, Walker Swain & Eishante Wilkes

DESIGNRadhika Kshatriya

HEAD OF ARTRobert Bridgers

TREASURERChristie Blazevich

HEAD OF PRBrian Braytenbah

FACULTY ADVISORFerrel Guillory

PHOTO CREDITSFlickr: Cover, Peter D. Blair;pg 15, Thomas Hawk;pg 19, Bryant AvondoglioWikimedia: pg 12, Magharebia

This Magazine was paid for, at least in part, by Student Activ-ities Fees at a cost of approxi-mately $1.10 per copy.

Domestic

Cover

Contents

3

International

12 France’s Involvement in Mali

14 The Immigration PlanA bipartisan moment

16 The Great Gun Debate

17 Nuclear Nuisances:Iran and North Korea

20 The UK’s Potential Departure from the EU:Legitimate or Leverage?

22 What’s Happening in Bahrain And Why We Should Pay Attention

23 The Horror of InequalityWomen’s Rights in India

5 Working Harder or Working SmarterThe Smart Grid

7 Threats to Our Democracy? The Impacts of Voter ID Laws and Redistricting

11 How the GOP Got Its Groove Back The Grand Old Party’s Attempts to Win Voters

Hill-O-MeterNick Neuteufel

4

Who’s on top of the heap right now? Who’s fallen far? We track the up-and-comers and

the down-and-outs.

Marco Rubio This rising star is helping craft the Senate compromise on perhaps Washington’s hottest issue: immigration reform. Recently tapped to pres-ent the GOP rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union address, this Florida Senator has been the subject of much presidential run speculation. Let’s see if his POTUS dreams go down in flames like Bobby “Kenneth from 30 Rock” Jindal’s in 2009.

1

2

3

4

Joe Biden Uncle Joe has been in the news a lot these past few months. After “fiscal cliff” negotiations with the Republican-led House and President Obama fell apart, “Cup of Joe” and known turtle and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell brokered a Senate compromise that ultimately became law. The “Bice President” also led President Obama’s gun control task force. So I guess you can say things are getting pret-ty serious for the “Bidenator.” 1

Pat McCrory has taken his talents for bashing academic freedom, liberal arts, and public education to the Governor’s Mansion in Raleigh. It just seems strange since he graduated from a liberal arts college that has acclaimed programs in music and theater (Catawba College). Now he has gone after women’s studies courses. Any misogynist would say that he just doesn’t have the hair line to bash women and then ask for their votes.

Mohammed Morsi (An Open Letter)

Hello Mr. Egyptian President, In case you didn’t get the memo, a President with unlim-ited emergency powers to “protect the nation” does not a strong democracy make. You, being the figurehead for the Freedom & Justice Party (cousin of the Muslim Brother-hood), have declared judicial review void. Not cool at all. You’re also not helping yourself by calling Israelis “de-scendants of apes and pigs.” Stop trying to make dictator-ship happen, it’s not going to happen.

Sincerely,People of the World

1. All of these are actual names used for VP Biden in the White House

Working Smarter or Working Harder?Tess Landon

5Domestic

As an innovation of the late 19th century, the antiquated electric grid currently used in the United States is not equipped to handle the influx of demand of electricity for a booming popu-lation in a more technologically advanced world. Not only are the grid’s technological aspects lagging behind compared to modern-day technology, but the century-old infrastructure is be-coming more of a threat than a help.

So what is the alternative? The Smart Grid – an environmentally sound, neoteric computer system of enhanced energy distribution.

The “Smart” comes into play with the new method of communi-cation between households and utilities. As of now, a single line of exchange is open between the utility and every household, but with the Smart Grid, and the in-novative technologies accompa-nying it, the power usage of the household is transmitted back to the utility as well. The efficiency of electricity transmission will be improved immensely, trans-lating into increased resiliency after power outages and an array of reduced costs for utilities – ul-timately causing the electric bills

of consumers to dwindle.

Not only will it reduce costs of electric bills for all consumers, but Smart Grid is especially ad-vantageous to consumers with customer-owned power gener-ation systems including renew-able energy systems, such as solar panels. The owners of said systems will not require as much power as a typical consumer might, and, accompanied with integration into the Smart Grid, the owner can potentially sell power back to the utility if these home systems generate enough power to sustain the household’s needs. The consumer makes a profit, and the utility gets some

slack on the high demand for electricity – a win-win situation.

However, as ideal as the Smart Grid sounds there are some kinks in the plan. For starters, the cost of implementation is estimated between $13 billion and $50 bil-lion, and Smart Grid technology is multifaceted, comprised of nu-merous computers, controllers and technologies. Execution of the entire grid will be complicat-ed and could take several years to accomplish. With the state of the U.S. economy and the tight purse strings in Washington, funding a

high-cost project – from which major benefits may not be seen for another few decades – would be difficult to say the least.

Another issue is “real-time pric-ing”. This basically implies that a household can maintain regu-lar energy consumption but save money by consuming most of its energy during off-peak hours or by turning off appliances if not needed for a certain period of time. However, hospitals and manufacturers need to keep a consistent flow of electricity even during peak hours and are with-out the option to pick and choose which appliances to run. As a re-sult, energy costs for these busi-nesses would rise. These busi-nesses’ higher costs would trickle down to the consumer, negating the savings from utility costs through higher costs elsewhere.

Smart Grid systems are popping up all over Europe, and thus far have proven beneficial to these communities – but is it a step in the right direction for the United States?

As of now, a single line of exchange is open between the utility and every household, but with the Smart Grid, and the innovative technologies accompa-nying it, the power usage of the house-hold is transmitted back to the utility

as well.

Domestic

6Obama’s New TeamJon Buchleiter

As the curtain rises on Obama’s second term, a host of new actors occupy the stage. The foreign policy team has changed considerably with the appoint-ments of Chuck Hagel as Sec-retary of Defense, John Bren-nan as Director of the CIA, and John Kerry as Secretary of State. These appointments received a range of responses in the Senate: from sharp criticism of Chuck Hagel and a heated confirmation hearing for John Brennan to the 94-3 vote in affirmation of John Kerry, former head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to succeed Hilary Clinton as the chief at Foggy Bottom. How will these appointments shape Unit-ed States foreign policy over the coming years?

Ostensibly a Republican, Hagel represents an interesting choice for the next head of the Penta-gon. His staunch anti-war views, stemming in part from his ser-vice in Vietnam and reflected in his vocal opposition to the war in Iraq, belie his partisan label. Many Republicans have not for-given Hagel for his opposition to the Iraq War, and believe he is soft on issues such as Israel and Iran. Hagel’s ideas regarding Is-rael and Iran align closely with the President’s and he is com-mitted to the ideal of diploma-cy-first.

Hagel hopes to reduce defense spending without “undermining national security.” Most analysts agree there is room to trim the defense budget, but ideally these cuts will be made with precision and due consideration rather than a slash across the board. Overseeing this slimming pres-ents one major issue confronting him. Hagel’s affinity with Obama has triggered worries he will not “push back” in cabinet meetings but remain deferential. It is diffi-cult to know how these dynamics will unfold, but Hagel’s previ-ously ardent stances and refusal to tow the line indicate his will-ingness to hold firm in the face of opposition.

Brennan’s confirmation hear-ing did not generate as much a firestorm as Hagel’s, but he faced tough questions about which di-rection the CIA may go under his lead. Brennan repeated his uneasiness with “enhanced in-terrogation techniques” and stat-ed the CIA will need to carefully consider the issue moving for-ward. The future of drones in US counterterrorism operations has also been under intense scruti-ny during the transition period. Brennan has suggested turning over control of the drone pro-gram to the Department of De-fense, and he advocates for the CIA to refocus on gathering and

analyzing intelligence. In light of Brennan’s role overseeing this program during Obama’s first term many question the sincerity of this claim.

The least controversial of Obama’s nominations was Ker-ry, whose vast experience and positive rapport with his col-leagues in the Senate made him a shoe-in as the next Secretary of State. Many issues confront him in the foreign policy arena. Having served as a special envoy for Obama in the Middle East, Kerry has shown an eagerness to engage in diplomatic overtures in the region. Turning to the Pa-cific, Kerry faces the need to im-prove Sino-American relations. Professor Steven Balla of George Washington University describes this as “a period of uncertainty with leadership changes on both sides.” While it is important that Kerry devote attention to China, the relationship is “is broader than any single appointment” and he will certainly not shape these relations alone.

Obama’s nominees exhibit many virtues the President has extolled as paramount qualities in US for-eign policy. They are careful and considerate, favor diplomacy first and have a strong aversion to heavy-handed projection of US military power abroad. It is a notable slate of appointments, but it is also important to re-member that our foreign policy is broader than any singular ap-pointment.

The foreign policy team has changed considerably with the appointments of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, John Brennan as Director of the CIA, and

John Kerry as Secretary of State.

Threats to Our Democracy?Brian Braytenbah

7Domestic

State governments throughout the United States are using their powers to influence national elections. Specifically, state pol-iticians are changing congressio-nal district boundaries through the redistricting process and are considering new voter identifi-cation laws. Both of these issues are hot topics in North Carolina.

One responsibility that most state legislators in the United States have is redistricting. Every ten years the federal government conducts a national census. Fol-lowing the census, states engage in the redistricting process in or-der to reflect population chang-es. District lines are used as boundaries when people vote for their representatives in the US House of Representatives. Some states may gain or lose a seat, re-flecting an increase or decrease in population. North Carolina maintained the same number of districts and representatives it elects to the US House – 13 – af-ter the 2010 census.

The NC General Assembly, com-prised of the NC House of Rep-resentatives and the NC Senate, is responsible for redrawing Congressional districts in the state after each census. During the 2011 redistricting process, the General Assembly had a Re-publican majority in both cham-bers for the first time since 1870. The Legislature was accused of gerrymandering, the process of manipulating district boundaries during the redistricting process in order to provide an electoral advantage for a particular party. Unlike other states, North Caro-

lina’s redistricted map does not need approval of the governor to become law.

Prior to the 2011 redistricting, North Carolina’s delegation to the US House of Representatives was made up of seven Democrats and six Republicans. With the redistricted map in place for the 2012 election, North Carolina elected four Democrats and nine Republicans. 76,047 more North Carolinians voted for a Demo-cratic House candidate than for a Republican House candidate, making the four to nine party split in favor of Republicans dis-proportionate. The redistricted map will be used in North Caroli-na for the next ten years.

When asked about the fairness of the redistricting process, John C. Scott, an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at UNC Chapel Hill, said, “Gerrymandering is something that both parties have done over the decades, and there are no clean hands.” Scott also said that redistricting is used to tilt the playing field in a certain direction, and that the timing of the 2010 federal census with a huge shift in the party control of North Carolina’s state govern-ment has demonstrated a large tilt in favor of Republicans.

Another topic that state legis-lators around the country have recently debated is voter identi-fication laws. These laws would require voters to show photo ID at polling sites in order to be al-lowed to vote. Benjamin Mason Meier, an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at UNC Chapel

Hill, says that these laws “limit opportunities for fraud while at the same time disenfranchising individuals who would otherwise vote.”

Voter ID laws that require photo ID could limit the opportunity for North Carolina citizens to vote, as a report by the State Board of Elections found that as many as 9.25 percent of voters in the state do not have a state-issued drivers license or ID card. Meier points out that there is very little evidence of voter fraud. In fact, a 2006 Department of Justice study found only 40 voters out of 197 million votes cast for federal candidates from 2002 to 2005 were indicted for fraud. Meier says that voter ID laws “demon-strate the tension between two ethical principles: keeping the process fair and making sure in-dividuals can exercise their right to vote.”

Voter ID laws and redistricting in North Carolina alter the ways in which our elections are conduct-ed and the way that individual votes within our state are allo-cated for representation in the US House of Representatives. Regarding redistricting, Scott says “reform efforts are being proposed to help take this out of the hands of the politicians and make it a nonpartisan issue.” In the end, Scott says that Voter ID laws and redistricting fall within the larger constitutional issue of whether states or the federal gov-ernment should be making rules for elections.

Climate Change in the Second TermCarol Abken

Domestic

8

Since President Obama’s sec-ond inaugural address on Janu-ary 21st, many environmental-ists have been hopeful that the President will lead the United States toward a more sustain-able future in his second term. Obama highlighted in his speech that “some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of sci-ence, but none can avoid the dev-astating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” This attitude towards climate change suggests that the second Obama adminis-tration will take a more proactive stance against climate change as a threat to national security and stability.

The effects of climate change are already visible in the US, as demonstrated by the widespread fires in Colorado this summer and the extreme drought that is en-dangering agriculture through-out the country, particularly in the Midwest. Though a certain amount of damage due to climate change is inevitable at this point, the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and reforestation of the tropics is necessary to keep the climate at a sustainable lev-

el. The UN Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change suggests that climate change policies are currently insufficient to contain temperature increases to accept-able levels.

Though the Obama administra-

tion currently lacks a comprehen-sive climate change policy to face the challenges ahead, there have been incremental steps in the right direction. During the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, the President agreed to reduce the levels of American carbon emissions 17 percent by 2020. After a proposed bill to enact a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions was de-nied by the Senate in 2009, the President used executive pow-ers to circumvent Congress and strengthen the Clean Air Act, which enables the Environmen-tal Protection Agency to impose reductions on carbon emissions in a variety of ways.

Other measures have been in-creases in investment in solar and wind energy and the implemen-tation of stricter fuel-efficiency standards for new automobiles. Because of the gridlocked na-ture of Congress, there is a push from the left for the President to further sidestep Congress in order to pass the environmental legislation necessary to lessen the long-term effects of climate change while still possible.

One key decision that President Obama faces in the coming year is on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline. The pipeline would transport vast amounts of crude oil from the tar sands of Alber-ta down through the Midwest to Texas. The potentially devastat-

ing effects of the pipeline range from the pollution of the Ogal-lala aquifer and the disruption of the communities and habitats in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline to accelerating the rate of climate change. According to the EPA, extracting oil from tar sands creates about 82 percent more emissions than extraction from conventional oil.

Because the Keystone pipeline would cross international bor-ders, the full construction of the pipeline requires the approval of the White House. In Janu-ary 2013, the President rejected immediate approval in favor of postponing the final decision un-til mid-June. Advocates for the pipeline claim that its environ-mental impacts are overstated and that domestic job creation, lessened dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and potentially low-er energy costs would offset its negative repercussions. They ar-gue that Canada is going to pro-duce the oil regardless, so the US might as well be the beneficiary.

According to Professor Victor Flatt, director of the UNC Center for Law, Environment, Adapta-tion, and Resources, the Obama administration has no real crite-ria for rejecting the construction of the Keystone pipeline, and the most likely outcome in June is more delay on the decision. The administration sees great bene-fits for domestic energy creation, but deciding in favor of either option would send a clear signal: it is a choice between the econo-my and the climate.

The Obama administration currently lacks a comprehensive climate change

policy to face the challenges ahead.

The Future of Nuclear Power in AmericaDain Clare

9Domestic

Most of the country proba-bly does not realize that a good chunk of the electricity that pow-ers our cities and homes comes from nuclear power plants. Nu-clear energy production account-ed for almost 20 percent of the nation’s electricity last year, with 104 operational power plants. North Carolina is home to three commercial nuclear power plants, which account for almost 35 percent of the state’s ener-gy needs. With nuclear energy playing such a large role in our everyday lives, it is rarely cast in a positive light, because the sub-ject has become taboo in the eyes of the public.

The disasters at Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, and Fukushi-ma have turned nuclear energy into the evil alternative energy source, with wind turbines and solar panels stealing the heart of the public. However, we need not stay awake at night with fears of radiation sickness and nuclear fallouts. The three disasters that have given nuclear energy a bad name are only freak accidents.

The meltdown at Chernobyl could have easily been avoided. Operators at the plant decided to test the limits of their system, so they ramped up the core tem-perature until warning lights were flashing and the master alarm was blaring. Then they decided to push the temperature higher, to see how much energy the reactor could produce. Not surprisingly, the system could not handle the temperatures, and the core melted down.

An equally freak occurrence was responsible for the near melt-down at Three-Mile Island. A “maintenance-needed” tag was covering a warning light, so oper-ators did not know anything was awry until it was too late. Again, this was something that could have been easily avoided. The disaster at Fukushima is harder to put under the “operator-er-ror” category. A freak earth-quake and tsunami resulted in the near-meltdown and release of radiation into the water and air. It is certainly hard to plan for a tsunami, but advances in engineering mean we can equip future plants with protection systems that prevent meltdowns in the event of natural disasters. New power plants are very so-phisticated, and have safety mea-sures in place that are exponen-tially more effective than those in place even a decade ago.

So what does that mean for public opinion? The fear of meltdowns and glowing babies with three arms is still prevalent, although unfounded. A study done by the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2012 showed that public opinion is

swaying in favor of nuclear pro-liferation. The truth of the mat-ter is that nuclear energy is a clean, renewable energy source that is very safe when executed properly and with caution. With the supply of fossil fuels dwin-dling, and emissions threatening to change the natural world as we know it, nuclear energy can be an answer to our prayers.

In the past decade, proponents of nuclear power in Congress have pushed bills such as the “Nuclear Power 2010” bill, which started a joint project between the govern-ment and private energy com-panies to develop new technol-ogies and methods concerning nuclear energy in order to meet our growing need for alternative sources.

Hopefully, the public will con-tinue to lean towards the expan-sion of America’s nuclear energy program. With the support of the American people, Congress can continue to create legislation that strengthens our domestic nuclear program. And nuclear energy may just live on to fill our alternative energy needs.

Do We Still Need the Liberal Arts?Lyndsey Bernal

Domestic

10

In the midst of public outrage for N.C. Gov. Pat McCrory’s comments regarding defunding subsidies for liberal arts educa-tion due its inability to yield jobs, some students from the UNC Women’s & Gender Studies De-partment have responded with success stories about the ways in which a gender studies major has impacted their job outlook.According to Danielle Boachie, a UNC graduate with a bachelor’s degree in Women’s Studies, “I cannot express how much these classes have shaped my life. Women & Gender studies taught me about the beauty of critical thinking, exposed me to the in-herent problems of our society, and provided me with powerful literature. I am currently a nurs-ing assistant at UNC Hospital. I will be getting a master’s of Physical Assistant in the next few years, and will eventually be able to center my work in healthcare around women.”

Boachie’s comment, along with the responses of other current gender studies and graduate stu-dents, have been posted on the UNC Women’s & Gender Stud-ies Department’s website and all emphasize the essential critical thinking and writing skills they have gained from a gender stud-ies major that have enabled them to be successfully prepared them for the real world.

The responses from UNC’s gender studies students are a response to N.C. Gov. Pat Mc-Crory’s comments on education reform in an interview last Tues-day on the national radio show,

“Morning in America”. In the interview, the governor com-mented, “[Gender Studies] is a subsidized course and frankly, if you want to take Gender Stud-ies, that’s fine, just go to private school and take it, but I’m not going to subsidize that. It’s not going to get a person a job.” Fur-thermore, he said, “It’s the tech jobs that we need right now…I’ve got a lot of unemployment men who typically go into technology or mechanics and if they do, or welding, they could get six-figure payments…”

In the interview, the governor particularly expressed his con-cern about N.C.’s status as hav-ing the highest unemployment rate and also about employers not being able to locate enough qualified employees to take posi-tions. Moreover, he emphasized that he does believe in a liberal arts education, but said that with liberal arts, one must “exercise the brain” and “get a skill.”

The debate between funding and defunding liberal arts ed-ucations comes at a time where state policy makers are opting to promote degrees that offer the career-based skills they feel will land students a job when they graduate.

According to the 2011 report en-titled, “Degrees for What Jobs?” by the National Governor’s As-sociation(NGA), states such as North Carolina, Minnesota, Ohio, and Washington have cho-sen to align post-secondary edu-cation with the economic goals of the state.

In addition, some policymakers in Florida have recently proposed to cut state spending towards lib-eral arts to raise the employment rate. In a radio interview on the Marc Bernier Show in 2011, Flor-ida Governor Rick Scott attacked anthropology, commenting, “Do you want to use your tax dollars to educate more people who can’t get jobs in anthropology? I don’t. I want to spend our dollars where people can get jobs when they get out [of college].”

Moreover, the Florida governor also advocated a shift in funding to universities that offer degrees in science, technology, engineer-ing, and math because they offer market-based skills.

However, while STEM cours-es might provide students with the technical skills to perform well in the workplace, liberal arts teaches students necessary critical thinking skills and about being innovative so that they will be successful in any field they choose.If subsidies for lib-eral arts education are defund-ed, how then will it affect job performance for students going into areas like business, human resources, political science, and journalism where the ability to communicate well is particularly emphasized?

So while it can be said that edu-cation should prepare students with the vocation-based skills necessary for success in the workforce, we must not forget the critical thinking and com-munication skills that are gained from liberal arts education.

How the GOP Got Its Groove BackSarah Lunenfeld

11Domestic

If you tuned in to Fox News as electoral votes were being called on the evening of the 2012 Pres-idential election, you inevitably sensed the panic. Mitt Romney’s defeat signaled the end of an era for the Grand Old Party, and has sparked various initiatives to re-design the GOP in order to gain broader popularity. After accu-sations of being too conservative for a new generation of voters, GOP leaders are diving into the task of revamping their party in order to cater to growing blocks of constituents, particularly mi-norities and moderates.

One of the most contested issues for the GOP this past election was the debate over immigration reform. According to the Pew Research Center Data, Hispan-ics made up ten percent of the 2012 electorate and overwhelm-ingly supported Obama. Rom-ney’s “self-deportation” rhetoric throughout the primary debates seemed to parallel the GOP’s of-ficial 2012 platform concerning illegal immigrants, which states, “We oppose any form of amnes-ty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it.”

After the harsh dialogue con-cerning Hispanic voters and im-migration, Republican politician Newt Gingrich spoke out against the GOP, claiming, “A party that appears to ignore people won’t get the chance to make the case for its principles.” After the stun-ning lack of support from Lati-nos, the GOP is attempting to become more multicultural. Cur-rently in the Senate, Republicans

John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake and Marco Rubio are working with Senate Democrats on the Bipartisan Framework for Immigration Reform. It in-cludes a “tough but fair” path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, a far cry from last year’s GOP platform.

The GOP’s changing views go be-yond immigration. The Future Majority Caucus, a recent initia-tive led by the Republican State Leadership Committee, is an or-ganization that seeks to elect Re-publican politicians, and attract and elect more Hispanic and female representatives to pro-mote diversity. New and diverse leaders are emerging as future

faces of the party – notably the Cuban-American Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio and the larger-than-life Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie.

Time Magazine’s February 18th cover features Senator Rubio with the title, “The Republican Savior.” The son of Cuban immi-grants and child of Reagan-era politics, Rubio has added a dy-namic perspective to the GOP – and at a critical time. His back-ground lends his support to the typically liberal-supported docu-mentation of illegal immigrants, but only after a series of demands that the final policy reflect con-servative values. Rubio’s pres-

ence at the forefront of immigra-tion negotiations and in the GOP in general might attract more statistically Democratic constitu-ents to re-evaluate where they fit into the Republican Party.

Governor Chris Christie has also blazed to the forefront, particu-larly after his bi-partisan meet-ings with President Obama after Hurricane Sandy. Christie’s pres-ence as a firm leader has boost-ed his approval ratings in New Jersey, all while allowing him to become somewhat of a GOP me-dia darling. In an interview with Bloomberg, Governor Christie stated, ““If I can do my job well, I think that will have a positive effect on the ballot for my party.” GOP leaders certainly hope so.

While the efforts made by the GOP to overhaul their party seems to be generally well re-ceived, it is important to note groups within the party that are critical of deviating from tradi-tion. For example, Rubio and Christie are overwhelmingly popular among the GOP, but have received backlash for their perceived concessions concern-ing immigration reform and party loyalty, respectively. One must wait and see if the GOP will be able to reconcile its different constituencies or if their inten-tions to win over the voters will lead to a chasm within their own party.

GOP leaders are diving into the task of revamping their party in order to ca-ter to growing blocks of constituents.

France’s Involvement in MaliNikki Mandell

Cover

12

The French military inter-vened in Northern Mali on Jan-uary 11, after the Interim-Malian government requested its pres-ence to help fight Islamist and rebellion groups that had taken over the area. Through ground force and air strikes, the French handily halted the Islamic ex-tremist groups’ expansion. Now, with logistical help from Britain and the United States, their force is bleeding past the region in or-der to secure Mali.

The question is: for whom?

The picture painted by the French government is one of philanthro-py. President Hollande reasoned

that engaging in northern Mali is not a neo-colonial move, but rather the result of one sovereign nation asking another for help. However, a few years earlier when the Central African Repub-lic asked for the same support in fighting rebels, the request was swiftly rejected.

With the refusal to help CAR, it seemed that the invasion of Mali was a 180 from the direction France’s foreign policy was head-ed. Still, the French government felt so strongly about the poten-tial calamity of the situation that they invaded before any backing from the United Nations.

Maybe, instead, it is a decision stemming from the anti-terror-ism rhetoric ubiquitous in the West. The rebellion initially be-gan with the MNLA, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, a group made up of a minority people called Tuareg’s who felt ignored by the govern-ment. After a coup in March 2012, Mali was left vulnerable to a rebellion, and the MNLA, joined and backed by a few Is-lamic extremist groups, declared Northern Mali their own.

Soon, to the dismay of the MNLA, the extremist groups had im-posed Sharia law on the people of the region. The sheer power

Tuareg secessionists in Northern Mali

13Cover

of the extremist groups rendered the MNLA ineffective and the rebellion began to splinter. The MNLA had already cut ties with Islamic groups as they attempted to push Sharia law past northern Mali towards the capital when French troops intervened.

There is no question that an Is-lamic extremist country is no good for France, or for that mat-ter, the rest of Europe. The mere proximity of Mali and its neigh-bors would bring about signifi-cant safety concerns. Still, the same questions arise here as they did when the US invaded Iraq: is it to protect the expansion of ter-rorism or the influx of goods?

Uranium is France’s key energy resource. According to mineral resource analysts, beneath the deserts in Northern Mali and Eastern Niger, territory now ex-clusively claimed by the rebel groups, exists the world’s third largest uranium reserves as well as considerable oil reserves. The reserves in Mali are essential to France.

This is where the third explana-tion to the invasion surfaces. For almost 40 years, the French com-pany Areya had exclusive rights to uranium in Niger. Recently, Niger opened up its reserves to countries like South Africa, In-dia, and mainly China. Now, China is making plays to monop-olize Malian uranium as well,

investing money in the country and making special donation “agreements.” The China Times reported that Mali and China signed three agreements worth $117.7 million involving energy reserves specifically in the north-ern Mali region, Gao, now under Islamist control.

The French face another steal by China. Their chance to legally get into Mali and manipulate the country’s structure could easi-ly be a neo-liberal tactic based around the need for uranium.

Recently, the dialogue has evolved from why is it happening to should it be happening. The

UN refugee agency has estimat-ed that there are about 150,000 refugees outside the country. Malian testimony claims there has been killing akin to genocide, wherein if a soldier sees a person with light skin or an “African-Ar-ab” look, they will be killed imme-diately just in case they might be with the rebels. Even the MNLA is taking advantage of the tunnel vision of the extremist groups by taking over the land that the Isla-mists are forced out of.

This beast of violence, whether fed by selflessness or selfish-ness, is now expanding. France claimed originally that they would leave once the extrem-ists left the northern region, but they persisted in the aerial strike toward both the capital and the borders. Troops continue to kill, and they continue to be met with appreciative cheers from Malian citizens along the way.

The same questions arise here as they did when the US invaded Iraq: is it to protect the expansion of terrorism or

the influx of goods?

A Bipartisan MomentSam Hobbs

Cover

14

Immigration is one of those painful issues where all sides agree that it desperately needs reform, and yet politicians have long ignored it because of the political challenges. Still, there is cause for optimism - Congress is now closer than ever to compre-hensive immigration reform.

The most important break-through is a bipartisan plan for reform in the Senate. Four Dem-ocrats and four Republicans have agreed to the framework of a compromise for reform.

The basic substance of the com-promise is this: Republicans will allow a pathway to citizenship for the eleven million illegal immi-grants currently in the US if the Democrats will agree to delay the pathway to citizenship until cer-tain standards for enforcement and border security have been met.

The pathway to citizenship would be long and demanding. Illegal immigrants would have to register with the government, pass a criminal background check, learn English, and then pay fines and back taxes. At this point, they would receive a pro-bationary legal status, by which they are not citizens but are per-mitted to remain in the country.

Only then would they be allowed to go to the back of the line of the naturalization process.

Of course, immigrants would not be able to begin this lengthy process until a commission de-termined we had met certain standards for border security. The commission would be an assembly of governors, law en-forcement officials, and com-munity leaders from the border states. In addition, the proposal would require an exit system to be in place to track the departure of foreigners before the pathway began.

In fact, border security is tight-er and more effective than it has been in decades. There are twice as many border patrol agents now than in 2004. The Department of Homeland Se-curity spends fifty percent more on border security than it did in 2006. Furthermore, the flow of immigrants across the border has slowed to a trickle: partly because of enhanced border se-curity, and partly because of the weak American economy and an aging Mexican population.

Another bipartisan plan in the Senate focuses on reforming legal immigration. Most im-portantly, it proposes to nearly double the number of temporary visas for immigrants with ad-vanced skills in technology and science. It would also increase

the amount of permanent visas, known as green cards. These proposals would likely be a part

of any comprehensive legisla-tion.

Obama applauds the blueprint of the bipartisan plans in the Sen-ate, but he does have some reser-vations. He prefers a more direct path to citizenship than the one outlined in the Senate, and he is wary of the enforcement trigger. He fears the trigger would be an arbitrary delay tactic that would ultimately leave illegal immi-grants in a legal limbo.

The president’s plan emphasizes several other aspects of reform. He supports creating a federal electronic database for employ-ers to use to verify the legal status of their employees. Additionally, he seeks to make the legal im-migration system more efficient, particularly for highly skilled im-migrants, investors and family members of immigrants already here. For now, Obama aims to establish some key markers for reform but leave the details to Congress; although he threat-ened to introduce his own bill if Congress fails.

The reason for such sudden bi-partisan support for a previous-ly divisive issue is simple –elec-tions. Hispanics are a growing portion of the electorate, over ten percent, and they voted for Obama by three to one margins in 2012. Republicans’ tough talk on immigration is largely to blame for their poor showing among Hispanics, and they are eager to remove the issue from the discussion.

As a measure of the issue’s mo-mentum, even the House has a

Four Democrats and four Republi-cans have agreed to the framework of a

compromise for reform.

bipartisan plan for reform. The group is secret, but its principles are similar to the Senate pro-posal. To be sure, conservative opposition to any path to citizen-ship should not be underestimat-ed, and any legislation will have a tough time passing the House.

Discontent among House Re-publicans is already evident. They prefer a middle ground to amnesty: granting a permanent legal residency to illegal immi-grants but no citizenship. They also prefer to break immigration reform into smaller parts as op-

posed to a comprehensive bill. Democrats, however, insist that reform includes a path to citi-zenship and is comprehensive. If reform were broken into smaller parts, it is likely Congress would quickly pass popular provisions without addressing the larger and more controversial question of illegal immigrants.

Economically, immigration is a no-brainer. In an interview with The Hill, a spokesman for Ran-del Johnson, the Chamber of Commerce’s expert on immigra-tion, said: “We need more highly

15Cover

The reason for such sudden bipartisan support for a previously divisive issue is simple –elections. Hispanics are a growing portion of the electorate, over

ten percent.

skilled workers; it is nonsense to spend time and resources edu-cating foreigners at our univer-sities, only to send them away to other countries once they grad-uate.” Studies also show immi-grants are more innovative and create more jobs than the aver-age American citizen. Experience shows that illegal immigrants be-come better educated and more productive after becoming citi-zens as well.

The case for reform is strong and the political stars seem to be aligning. However, we came close to immigration reform in 2007 before it fell apart, and it will not be easy. Here is to hop-ing for a rare moment of biparti-san success.

The Great Gun DebateEishante Wilkes

Cover

Amidst tragedies due to gun violence in recent years like the shooting in Newton, Connecti-cut that claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults, the great gun debate continues to be a rel-evant topic of discussion. Since the early nineties, there have been discussions regarding the availability of guns and whether individuals should be allowed to possess them.

In September of 1994, former President Bill Clinton signed the controversial Assault Weapons Ban into law. The law essentially prohibited 18 particular weap-ons from being manufactured and also prohibited ammunition magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds. This law expired in 2004 due to strong opposition from the Republican Party and many Democrats avoiding the issue.

Could another weapons ban be the answer to the gun woes

of late? The data from the As-sault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004 has shed some light on the possibility of a decrease in gun violence, but still does not pro-vide 100 percent of the answers politicians are seeking. Accord-ing to a Study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania in 2004, there was a decrease in the number of individuals killed in mass shootings during the time the ban was in effect. Since the ban expired, the number of mass shootings per year has doubled.

The data also mentioned that eight percent or less of the weap-ons used during those crimes were actually those listed in the weapons ban.

Overall, the data is considered to be inconclusive in determin-ing whether or not a similar ban would be effective. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 has often been criticized for containing loopholes and being ineffective because only a select list of weap-ons were banned.

In the past several months, the Obama administration has un-veiled some key proposals aimed at reducing gun violence. Some of the key elements of these pro-posals include but are not limited to: requiring background checks for all gun sales, bans on partic-ular types of assault weapons, an increase in the number of school resource officers, and improved awareness regarding mental health issues. Many portions of

this initiative require Congres-sional approval.

So what does Congress think about these proposals? Many Re-publicans have chosen to support certain portions of the proposals, but disagree with others. For ex-ample, the majority of Republi-cans oppose the ban on assault weapons but some agree that universal background checks are important.

One of the largest conservative based organizations, the Nation-

al Rifle Association (NRA), also disagrees heavily with the pro-posal to ban assault weapons. The executive vice president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, stated that instead of banning weap-ons there should be an increase in school security and measures taken that would ban individu-als with mental illnesses from owning guns. LaPierre said in a statement released by the NRA that, “Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the govern-ment should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families.” LaPierre’s view-point seems to be echoed by the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party has mixed views regarding the effects of a weapons ban. Some Democrats also oppose the weapons ban as-pect of President Obama’s pro-posals as well, and the support-ers acknowledge that getting this portion of the proposal approved by Congress is going to be an up-hill battle.

As the great gun debate contin-ues two things remain clear: 1) It is going to take a bipartisan effort to establish necessary laws to reduce gun violence, and 2) The United States does not need another doubling of the mass shootings per year statistic. And so the great gun debate contin-ues.

Could another weapons ban be the an-swer to the gun woes of late?

16

Nuclear NuisancesChris Brown

17Cover

In recent years, developing nu-clear weapons has been a priority for the North Korean and Iranian governments. Efforts have been made to limit both North Korea’s and Iran’s ability to become full-fledged nuclear powers. Howev-er, when a country is willing to put its military interests before that of its citizens, any attempts to stop them are merely dilatory tactics.

North Korea and Iran have worked together on their nu-clear programs and have pos-sibly shared technology. Both countries have shared fates, at-tempting to emerge with nucle-ar capabilities in a world that is negatively opposed to new nucle-ar powers.

President Ahmandinejad has stated that Iran has already achieved nuclear capabilities, but does not intend to threaten Israel with them. However, possessing nuclear weapons is enough to change the political landscape of the Middle East. Further, as a result of the leadership changes in Egypt, there is the possibility of increased cooperation among Iran and Egypt. Iran possessing nuclear weapons adds a new bar-tering chip in the area’s relation-ships and conflicts.

As a result of Iran’s continued nuclear program, US led sanc-tions have targeted Iran’s access to banking and aimed to limit their oil income. Unfortunate-ly, these sanctions are adversely affecting the people and not the government of Iran. Despite the Ayatollah’s refusal to consider bilateral talks with the United States, Iran will negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and has engaged in six party talks. The outcome of these meetings will shape the result of a nuclear-armed Iran and the fu-ture of the Middle East.

North Korean media has stated that a nuclear weapon was suc-cessfully tested, and prior nu-clear tests occurred in 2006 and 2009. This action will have dubi-ous repercussions for North Ko-rea in regards to its national re-lations. The UN, which is openly opposed to North Korea’s nucle-ar program, condemned the test, but more surprisingly China, North Korea’s lone ally, also op-posed the nuclear test.

The test also sets the tone with South Korea’s new President, Park Geun-hye. The new admin-istration will take office amid a toxic relationship between the North and South. The nuclear

test, in conjunction with North Korea’s recent satellite launch that used a ballistic missile signal a resurgence of actions aimed at antagonizing the United States. The harder stance in Pyongyang is evidence of a need to reassert their authority after Kim Jung Il’s sudden death and of their bit-ter international relations with the United States and the South Korean administration.

After the UN resolution that con-demned the December rocket launch, North Korea has stated that they will not enter negotia-tions concerning denucleariza-tion. China’s support of the res-olution is a landmark political shift, as China has long been the only UN Security Council sup-porter of North Korea. Isolating China could be disastrous for the North Korean people who rely on Chinese foodstuffs to prevent starvation.

This nuclear test comes amid increased sanctions due to the North Korean rocket launch. In-creased pressure on North Ko-reas nuclear program has only increased their desperation to become a credible nuclear threat. In response to the UN resolution, the announcement of the third test came with a threat of doing more than just a nuclear test. It is likely that there will be further sanctions in response to North Korea’s most recent nuclear test. North Korea’s threats exceed their current abilities, but a di-rect strategy for managing North Korea needs to be a priority of the current administration.

Power Transition in the Asia-PacificBrendan Cooley

Cover

18

Our generation has come of age in one of the most peaceful periods in world history. Civil and interstate conflict have by no means disappeared, but the last 20 years have been marked by an absence of large-scale war or the threat of nuclear annihi-lation. Some contend that this period of peace is a result of the overwhelming power of the American military; others argue that it stems from unique char-acteristics of American-designed integrative institutions, such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund.

But there is widespread agree-ment that world politics are be-ginning a process of fundamental change – a shift from an Ameri-can-centric system toward one of

dispersed power and influence. China is leading this shift.

After 30 years of rapid econom-ic growth, China now possesses the world’s second-largest econ-omy and second-largest military. While it still trails the United States by distant margins in both of these metrics, China’s current growth trajectory has led some to speculate that its military and economic power will surpass that of the United States in the not-too-distant future. How this

power transition will impact world politics is one of the most important questions of interna-tional relations and for US for-eign policy.

The countries that care most about these changes are those in China’s backyard – Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Singapore, and others. On one hand, they have benefited from a China-centric East Asian pro-duction and trade network that has contributed to high growth rates across the region. On the other, they are wary of a Chinese military that has become more powerful and more active over the last decade.

Should relations between the United States and China sour considerably, China’s neighbors may be put in the unfortunate

position of having to choose between alignment with China and alignment with the United States. This has led many schol-ars and policymakers to ask: whom might they choose?

First of all, China’s neighbors differ enormously. Japan has a formidable military, while the Philippine Navy’s most capable ship is a retired US Coast Guard cutter. Singapore is a wealthy city-state, while Laos remains trapped in extreme poverty.

South Korea is a thriving liberal democracy, but North Korea is a closed and oppressive autocracy. These idiosyncratic characteris-tics will play a large role in deter-mining alignments in the region.

Structural factors will play a larger role. The international system is anarchic and national intentions are impossible to fully discern. Thus, regardless of the Chinese Communist Party’s true intentions, China’s increasing-ly powerful military will be seen as a threat by nearby countries. These peripheral countries can opt to pursue one of two strate-gies to negate this threat. They can either ‘balance,’ aligning with the United States to in-crease their ability to deter Chi-nese coercion, or ‘bandwagon,’ aligning with China in hopes that concessions make coercion less likely.

Relatively weak countries, like Vietnam, will make this deci-sion by determining whether the United States or China wields more power in the region. Weak countries lack the ability to sig-nificantly influence the balance of power, so their best strategy is simply to pick a winning coa-lition. Alignment with the source of greater power provides better security and side benefits, such as military assistance or foreign aid.

For middle powers, such as South Korea, the decision is more com-plicated. They can usually make a significant contribution to a military alliance, but cannot play a large role in dictating the char-

World politics are beginning a process of fundamental change – a shift from an American-centric system toward one of dispersed power and influence. China

is leading this shift.

acter of regional or international order. This role is played by the great powers. Middle powers look at which great powers’ dom-inance will better serve their in-terests, and to what extent they can influence the foreign policies pursued by either great power in making this strategic decision. For South Korea, the United States’ liberal model of global governance better suits its inter-ests, but China is in greater need of allies, and thus may prove more malleable to South Korean preferences.

For larger powers, like Japan, the decision calculus is much more simple. Large powers play a role in upholding the current international system, hold the capacity to unilaterally defend themselves, and thus almost al-ways balance against rising pow-ers.

For now, in the absence of overt US-Chinese antagonism, Asia-Pacific countries are pursu-ing strategies of hedging. In an attempt to balance the risks and rewards of engaging with China, many of these countries have made diplomatic and military overtures to the United States, while simultaneously deepening their economic integration with China. These strategies could be sustainable. China and the Unit-ed States are not predestined to come into conflict. The large de-gree of economic integration be-tween the American and Chinese economies, defensive nature of current conventional military technology, and deterrent im-pact of nuclear weapons are all forces pushing the United States and China away from conflict and toward cooperation and con-ciliation.

But as power transitions have historically been some of the most unstable and violent pe-riods in world history, China’s neighbors will watch the US-Chi-nese relationship closely, and think carefully about how they make alliance decisions. Increas-ing polarization in the Western Pacific will serve as a bellwether of more combative US-Chinese relations and a more volatile and conflict-prone region.

Speaker John Boehner and Leader Eric Cantor meet with His Excellency Xi Jinping in February 2012

The UK’s Potential Departure from the EUWalker Swain

International

20

One does not need to be a po-litical buff to have seen or heard about the United Kingdom’s lat-est round of threats to leave the European Union. The UK has had a long and often less than pleasant relationship with two of Europe’s largest and most powerful nations, Germany and France, and also exhibits excep-tionally strong national pride and historic tradition. With the respect to these and other con-siderations, the UK is certainly not without justification for de-siring to keep Europe at arm’s length. That said, the economic benefits of EU membership fur-ther augment the UK’s economy, providing free trade within the European bloc and the ability to negotiate as a powerful, unified EU voice being the trademark ex-amples. Some argue these bene-fits alone are reason enough for membership.

Why the sudden stir of contro-versy about a potential EU depar-ture in the last several months? After all, UK dissatisfaction with the EU is not exactly a new phe-nomenon, given the haggling that has occurred over the years as the UK has carved its unique, rather piecemeal accession to the union. In fact, the UK’s ability to line item veto certain EU mea-sures it does not wish to adopt – the Euro currency (€) being a glaring example – seems to present an argument for the UK maintaining its member status. Enjoying EU benefits while hav-ing the unique ability to cross out unattractive EU elements seems a dream scenario for member-ship in any type of organization, much less a trans-national union in Europe.

Andrew Reynolds, professor of political science and chair of the curriculum in global studies,

suggested an alternative expla-nation: the stir over an EU de-parture could amount simply to a political exercise by the current UK government to garner voter support, playing on the nation-alistic pride of their constituents. The UK is currently run by its first coalition government since World War II, and Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is no doubt taking heed of the added element of political com-petition in such a government – not only does the ruling party have to compete against oppo-sition parties, but in a sense the Conservatives must also compete against their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, for pro-portional control of the coalition.

The UK public already trends to-wards the “euroskeptic” end of the spectrum for various reasons, especially the perception of an unnecessary level of regulation and loss of sovereignty that many feel comes with EU membership. Based on this public sentiment, it would seem a political gimme for conservatives to make the rather short jump to the nationalist ap-peal, which is, not surprisingly, already in line with their plat-form. However deft a political maneuver this may be for the party with the largest share of seats in the House of Commons, one must not treat this potential bluff as such. There is a perfectly good chance that Mr. Cameron’s threats are in earnest, and, if car-ried out, what they would mean for the UK - notwithstanding the EU as a whole – is another story.

A Long and Hot Arab SummerRadhika Kshatriya

21International

At first, many champions of democracy were overjoyed at the thought of the Arab Spring. Af-ter two years, much of the initial enthusiasm has vanished in the face of wars which drag on and conflicts that seem indefinite. Ethnic tensions have erupted and some authoritarian govern-ments just refuse to budge. The Arab Spring, once a sign of hope, is now a source of disillusion-ment across the world.

But it is important to remem-ber that democracy never comes easy. Emerging democracies of the Arab world have had to grap-ple with fighting for indepen-dence, creating a constitution, building a government, civil war, and granting suffrage to women and minorities. In the US, we have had the luxury of dealing with these issues one after the other, but for the Arab world, all of these problems are to be dealt with simultaneously. And it is important to remember that these revolutions on the path to democracy have shed compara-tively little blood, compared with other nations’ bloody struggles during the process of democra-tization.

Of course it is going to be hard, and as humans, we are often my-opic in our view of distant histo-ry. The problems are not due to the fact that the Arab world is not ready for popular sovereign-ty. Rather, it is because it is the nature of authoritarian regimes to divide their people in order to maintain power, injecting their subjects’ minds with paranoia at a constant drip in order to main-

tain control-- and we are seeing the result of these societal divi-sions as regimes start to crumble or fall.

The most obvious case of this is in Syria. Bashar al-Assad’s fa-ther, Hafez al-Assad understood how to control different sects of the Syrian people. Bashar al-As-sad himself has stayed in power based off of the loyalty within the Alawite clan-- his largest group of supporters. A dictator often draws power from minorities who fear a loss of rights if the major-ity were to come to power when the dictatorship collapses. The Alawite clan is a clear example of this phenomenon-- Alawites are (generally) a Shiite minority, which makes up approximately 13 percent of the Syrian popula-tion. Alawites control the mili-tary’s elite units, which are now the regime’s main instrument of repression, and have tradition-ally been fiercely loyal to the re-gime. Now, even those Alawites who are sympathetic to the op-position forces cannot speak out, for fear that they will be rejected by their own community, and will not be accepted by the Sun-ni majority, which demonstrates just how entrenched the tensions between different sects have be-come. And there have been vio-lent clashes in the past, such as the 1981 Hama massacre, which left approximately 400 Sunnis dead. The Sunni majority does not have clean hands, either: 30 years ago members of the Mus-lim brotherhood singled out Alawite military cadets for ritual execution.

Under ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak’s regime, a com-mon remark was that the only safe place to open one’s mouth is in the dentist’s office. Egypt is a relatively homogeneous pop-ulation, yet Mubarak still used many of the same tactics as As-sad, by granting economic favors and control of previously state-run enterprise to a select group of elites, with these elites serving as his largest source of political strength.

The trend continues in Bahrain, where in a majority Shiite coun-try, a Sunni regime holds power. Shiite mosques and villages have been targeted time and again by the Sunni ruling party, and we have witnessed violent clashes between the police and the re-ligious majority, after tensions due to decades of institutional-ized inequality come to the fore-front. Similarly, Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi stayed in power and maintained support through various machinations, like family ties, threats, paranoia and bribes.

Modern day problems in the Arab world are often attributed to the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman empire, when “lines in the sand” were drawn to delin-eate the borders between nations without sufficient regard to eth-nicity. It is important to remem-ber the history of these people, and the means by which ethnic tensions were often stoked by rulers to maintain their own power. In no way does this mean that the Middle East is not ready for rule by, of, and for the people.

Why We Must Pay Attention to BahrainWilliam Perlmutter

International

22

What seems like a small dot on the map now could be the be-ginning of catastrophe for Amer-ican foreign policy in years to come. Bahrain, a small country of a little more than one million, saw the emergence of an oppo-sition movement amidst what is now called the Arab Spring. However, whereas opposition movements in Libya and Egypt received broad support from the West, such is not the case in Bah-rain. This inconsistency could have unintended consequences in the years to come.

Bahrain is a Shi’a-majority coun-try under Sunni rule. Both Shi’a and Sunni groups staged large protests together in 2011, but were put down by the Gulf Co-operation Council, an economic and political union consisting of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Thou-sands were arrested, beaten, tortured, and violated of their basic human rights as a means to maintain stability in the re-gion. From an American foreign policy perspective, the lack of interest in Bahrain shows a com-plete inconsistency with regards to democracy promotion, a pillar of both the Bush and Obama Ad-ministrations.

Even if America stays out of the mess in the Middle East, action by omission shows commitment to autocratic regimes and eco-nomic interests over the respect for human rights. At the same time, America is neither the only one to point a finger towards nor unlimited in capabilities to act.

King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khal-ifa has deployed what would appear to be an international armed force on his own people; the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) estimates that the National Security Apparatus (NSA) within the Kingdom is 96 percent non-Shiite, 64 percent non-Bahrainis, and most telling for future turmoil in the country, “treading in the same footsteps as the Iranian ‘SAVAK’ Service, which caused wide violations to human rights in Iran… and the people’s revolution which ended the Shah’s reign in 1979” (BHCR, 2009).

The religious tie of Shi’a Islam in Iran and Bahrain certain-ly show signs of political union

in the future. Furthermore, the Iranian-based Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain (IFLB) in 1981 was accused of staging a coup d’état in Bahrain, where members of the group (whom were also Iranian Revolution-ary Guard members) attempted to topple the Al Khalifa regime and establish what Hasan Tariq Alhasan calls a ‘free Islamic or-der.’ Although the group is now disbanded, to assume that such groups could not be formed again would be a stretch. In short, the people of Bahrain have a com-mon enemy – the regime, sectar-ian suppression, and the West – and the desire to attain freedom.

If uprising prevails, which side does America want to be on?

We must pay attention to the trends in Bahrain because they mirror the events that occurred in Iran during the mid-1970s: riots, protests, torture, ambiv-alence from the West. The only thing missing is Islamic Revolu-tion. America can choose to not be caught off guard if events un-fold in a similar fashion.

However, one must also realize the geopolitical calculations of USA inaction. Our ties with Sau-di Arabia and the GCC are great, and undermining their decisions in their backyard would not be taken well. Furthermore, up-heaval might do greater damage

than good, as the lessons from Iraqi-Iranian convergence after 2003 provide an illuminating example. However, we can ac-tively promote democracy in the country (while maintaining eco-nomic interests with the GCC) by engaging with the Bahrain-is regime and banning military contracts which would be used for human rights atrocities. We cannot give the Bahrainis people any additional reasons to dislike the West, as history shows us the backlash is certainly untidy.

We cannot give the Bahrainis people any additional reasons to dislike the West, as history shows us the backlash is certain-

ly untidy.

The Horror of InequalityCasey Crow

23International

On December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old physiotherapy stu-dent, Jyoti Singh Pandey, left a movie theater in South Del-hi where she was watching The Life of Pi with a good friend—a 28-year-old software engineer. The two boarded an unautho-rized bus, which they believed to

be public transportation, where six men proceeded to gang rape the young woman while driving. The men raped her in rotation, violating her repeatedly with a metal rod, and causing hor-rendous internal damage that would lead to her death thirteen days later. The young woman’s companion worked to rescue her from her attackers, but was brutally beaten and knocked un-conscious. Eventually both were thrown, stripped and bleeding, from the bus and forced to wait for assistance late at night.

The horror of this act has taken the world by storm, and cries of justice are being heard far out-side Indian borders. The incident perpetuated countless demon-strations and vigils, gathering together thousands of people in New Delhi, Kolkata, and Banga-lore. Most importantly, this trag-edy has resulted in an increased awareness of gender discrimi-nation and sexual assault, and sparked a debate on the under-lying causes of these trends in India—a country ranked as the worst G20 country in which to be a woman.

It is common for Indian families to participate in sex-selective abortions, sons are more likely to be educated than daughters, women’s health care is lacking, and in cases of sexual assault, women are stigmatized, and thus, more vulnerable to commit-ting suicide or being disowned by

their families. Victim-blaming is often seen in sexual assault cas-es, as it is seen in this particular case, in which the perpetrators blamed the young women for not being “respectable” and for being out late at night.

While this particular case has incited an undeniable response from the Indian people on be-half of justice and gender equal-ity, rape is not a rarity in India. Over 24,000 cases of rape were reported in 2011, and of the cases reported only 26 percent have re-sulted in conviction. Rape com-plaints in India have risen by 25 percent between 2006 and 2011, but many women stay silent due to intense social stigmas. Unfor-tunately, the numbers of wom-en experiencing sexual assault are not the only numbers rising. Records from 2011 show kidnap-pings of women going up by 19.4 percent, torture by 5.4 percent, and trafficking by 122 percent in the previous year. This phe-nomenon has been titled India’s “wake up call” to violence against women.

The Indian legislature is already making changes to laws on this matter. Former chief Justice J.S. Verma is heading a committee to propose amendments to criminal law dealing with sexual assault cases, resulting in suggestions to double the minimum sentence for gang rape—which is currently seven to ten years—or imposing the death penalty if the victim is killed.

This horrific event has effectively caught the attention of men and women around the world, and acts as a wake up call not only for India, but our own country as well. A gang rape took place in Ohio less than a year ago, and sexual assault crimes have recently risen for the first time since 1993. Change in the way women are treated is absolutely necessary, that much is clear, but the question is where to begin. Before blame is shifted to and fro between governments, law enforcement, and parents, per-haps we should take the advice of a young Indian demonstrator holding a sign that reads, “Let us look at ourselves first.”

This phenomenon has been titled In-dia’s “wake up call” to violence against

women.

studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill