The Politik Press, Volume XIII, Issue 1

FEBURARY 4th, 2013Volume XIII, Issue I the POLITIK PRESS

1


2

the

POLITIK PRESS

A publication of

JHU POLITIKjhupolitik.org

MANAGING EDITOR Alex Clearfield

ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Colette Andrei

Ari Schaffer

LAYOUT EDITOR Victoria Scordato

HEAD WRITER Rachel Cohen

STAFF WRITERS Megan Augustine, Akshai Bhatnagar, Michael Bodner, Henry Chen, Virgil Doyle, Chris Dunnett, Cary Glynn, Archie Henry, Peter Lee, Daniel Roettger, Geordan Williams, Chris Winer

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Jeremy Orloff, Matt Varvaro

VOLUME XIII, ISSUE IFEBURARY 4th, 2013

The views expressed within this publication reflect the personal opinions of each article’s author and are not necessarily endorsed by JHU Politik or the Johns Hopkins University.

FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David

Cover Image: Hudson River Brick Piers by Jasper Francis Cropsey (1886), The United States National Gallery of Art


3

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

WEEK IN REVIEW ................................................................ Page 4 Christine Server ‘16

READING LIST ..................................................................... Page 5 Alex Clearfield ‘14

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG’S HISTORIC DONATION ................ Page 6 Randy Bell ‘13

PUSSY RIOT IN THE WEST . .................................................. Page 7Ingrid Nelson ‘15

WOMEN IN COMBAT ............................................................... Page 10Peter Natov ‘16

INTERVIEW WITH NUR SEYADA KOC .................................. Page 11Leila Collins ‘14

FRANCE GOES TO WAR ........................................................... Page 9Archibald Henry ‘13

IMMIGRATION REFORM FOR A GLOBAL ECONOMY ............. Page 8Anna Kochut ‘13


4

WEEK IN REVIEWBy Christine Server ‘16, Contributing Writer

Two Years After the Revolution, Brewing Chaos in Egypt Tests New Regime

Rioters this past Sunday staged a takeover of the Egyptian city of Port Said, attacking police stations and barricading all roads leading into the city. Although Egyptian troops managed to secure major city landmarks by nightfall, it came at a cost, with casualties from the fighting numbering in the hundreds. The trigger for the violence: the conviction of 21 Port Said soccer fans for their role in one of the deadliest soccer brawls in history. President Morsi has turned to the military to quell the uprising, declaring a one-month state of emergency in Port Said and two other cities, but anger at Morsi’s authoritarian measures is only fanning the flames of unrest. The upheaval in Port Said coincided with protests in other Egyptian cities marking the second year anniversary of the revolution that ousted former President Mubarak, and reflects a growing sense of dissatisfaction and frustration with the new Islamist government. Renewed Threats From North Korea

Leadership in North Korea is reacting fiercely to a new round of sanctions passed by the UN Security Council censuring North Korea for its December 2012 rocket launch. A dispatch re-leased by the Korean Central News Agency stated that “Kim Jong-un expressed the firm reso-lution to take substantial and high-profile important state measures” in retaliation to the UNSC resolution. In a more bold declaration, Rodong Sinmun, the main party newspaper, said, “a nuclear test is what the people demand.” In contrast to his father, who kept a lower profile dur-ing such confrontations, Kim Jong-un is adopting a more assertive stance, a move believed to be timed with the upcoming inauguration of South Korea’s first female president, Park Geun-hye. The aggressiveness of the North throws shade on the hopes of the South’s president-elect for restored cooperation between the two states. A Break From the European Union for Britain?

In a speech last week, British Prime Minister David Cameron set forth a plan to reevaluate Britain’s place in the European Union. Mr. Cameron is intent on changing the terms of Britain’s membership by bringing more powers back to the nation, including those over legal rights, criminal justice, and employment legislation, which have been under the domain of the Euro-pean Union. Mr. Cameron hopes to present these revisions in a referendum on which the Brit-ish people will vote by the end of 2017--given, of course, that the Conservatives win re-election in 2015. While Mr. Cameron’s speech has pleased members of his own party, critics at home and abroad are more doubtful of the merits of his proposal. Among these skeptics was Ger-man foreign minister Guido Westerwelle, who said that there could be “no cherry-picking” the terms of Britain’s membership, and that doing so would threaten the peace that the nations of Europe have created over the past fifty years. PP


5

Over winter break, I tackled one of the be-hemoths of American political literature: The Power Broker, by Robert Caro. Close to 1,200 pages, The Power Broker tells the

story of urban planner Robert Moses, the main politi-cal force in interwar and postwar New York. He rose to incredible heights as the de facto mayor of New York, and fell swiftly in his old age, undone by ego and the media that had defended him for so long. Moses, a frustrated idealist and advocate for govern-ment efficiency, gave up his crusade after gaining the power to develop Long Island’s state parks and park-ways. After that fabulous success, he moved on to constructing New York City’s highways and bridges. He railroaded two generations of mayors and gov-ernors, and even President Franklin Roosevelt, all while acting as, in Caro’s words, a fourth branch of government. Until Moses, the power one could hold in controlling infrastructure was neglected. Moses united construction, taxation, and complex, inter-woven public authorities to control all infrastructure and transportation in New York City, along with oth-er assorted projects in New York State. His vision solidified the dominance of automobile travel in urban areas as opposed to mass transit, wast-ing billions of dollars on roadways and bridges that did not solve traffic problems but made life hard for those without cars. His abuse of eminent domain and ignorance of sane housing policy destroyed countless neighborhoods. On the other hand, he ushered in a world-class park system and led the modernization of Long Island, America’s largest suburb. His clear disdain for the public he served, especially poor mi-norities, stands in contrast to the public image he cultivated. Caro presents a decidedly negative portrayal of Mo-ses as a racist, single-minded, power-hungry mad-man who demanded (and I wholeheartedly apolo-gize for the pun) his way, which also happened to

be the highway. Quite frankly, I cannot disagree with him. As a supporter of mass transit, my heart breaks at seeing how his philosophy, unchecked by outside forces, came to dominate modern infrastruc-ture planning. In addition, Moses showed absolutely no regard for the financial consequences of his proj-ects, and started numerous projects without money appropriated for them relying on elected officials to give him what he needed to finish them. This is not to say Moses was stupid; quite the oppo-site, in fact. Moses was a genius, a self-taught urban planner who could look at a map and plan an en-tire highway system. His imagination, so active he wanted to build a highway through the Empire State Building, was crucial in helping him accomplish his goals. However, he was unable to let go of his dream of roads crisscrossing a city crying out for mass tran-sit. Moses was concerned with one thing—power: not partisan advantage, not the love of the public, sim-ply power. Not the power to create an environment, to get his way and craft a city to his specifications. I have no doubt Moses would be an enthusiastic SimC-ity player.

Even a project as large as the 1964-65 World’s Fair was too small for him, as he delegated its running to underlings who mismanaged it into a $10 million deficit. For him, power was a suspension bridge that would carry millions of cars a year, or destroying a Bronx neighborhood for a small portion of a highway that didn’t solve any congestion issues. For better or worse, it was the most effective form of power in midcentury Manhattan. Keep in mind that there is no way can I do justice to this masterpiece in this small space. If you are at all interested in cities, government, and how power re-ally works in modern American politics, I urge you to read this book. PP

READING LIST

This week, we are introducing a new feature called “Reading List”. We invite you to share with us what you read this week in politics, be it news articles, magazine features, or books.

By Alex Clearfield ‘14, Managing Editor


6

In 1873, entrepreneur Johns Hopkins left $7 million for the creation of both a university and hospital, at the time the largest philanthropic donation in Ameri-can history. Johns Hopkins made his money through

investments in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, a fortune divided equally after his death for the creation of the two institutions, now two of the most influential centers of sci-ence, technology, and medicine in the world. The donation, which would value in the hundreds of millions today, built Johns Hopkins University and Johns Hopkins Hospital from the ground up while recruiting some of the country’s foremost experts in the fields of research and medicine.

On Saturday, January 26th, that same institution an-nounced that alumnus Michael Bloomberg would be committing $350 million of his net worth of $22 billion to the school that catapulted his journey into business and politics five decades ago. Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York City, amassed his fortune through the mass me-dia corporation Bloomberg L.P., which he founded in 1981. His donation is the 5th greatest individual donation to a university by one person worldwide and 2nd in U.S. his-tory only to Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, who donated $600 million to his alma mater in 2001.

As the selfless donations to the Johns Hopkins commu-nity have piled up over the years, Bloomberg is rivaling the institution’s founder for the title of its most influen-tial patron. According to the University, the most recent donation puts Bloomberg’s total endowment at above $1.1 billion, the most ever given in total to an American university and matching even high estimates for what Johns Hopkins’ historic donation is worth now. Not since its inception has one man been responsible for more growth and improvement than what this 70-year-old mayor’s benefaction has produced.

Bloomberg’s first donation to the university of $5 came after his graduation in 1964. Since then, he has been re-sponsible for a variety of monumental programs and ad-ditions to the school. The Bloomberg Scholarship pro-vides aid to students on the basis of financial need and composes 20% of the financial aid grants given to under-graduates. Working with his team of artists and archi-tects, he built the familiar brick and marble walkways, benches, and lamps lining the campus. He is responsible

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG’S HISTORIC DONATION

for the construction of the Bloomberg School of Public Health building, the Bloomberg Physics and Astronomy Building, the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institu-tion, and a stem cell research institute at Johns Hop-kins Hospital. His donations and involvement with the university and hospital have expanded both to heights which would be inconceivable without him and trans-formed the former from an average landscape into one of the most resplendent campuses in the country.

Bloomberg, who has pledged to give away the remainder of his massive fortune before he dies, says his decision to donate $350 million comes from his love of Johns Hopkins and its dedication to success. “Johns Hopkins University has been an important part of my life since I first set foot on campus more than five decades ago,” said Bloomberg. “Each dollar I have given has been well-spent improving the institution and, just as importantly, making its educa-tion available to students who might otherwise not be able to afford it.” $100 million of the donation will go to financial aid for undergraduate students, amounting to 2,600 schol-arships over the next decade. The remaining $250 million will be spent on the hiring and appointment of 50 new fac-ulty members to professorships in research departments studying global water supply and urban planning. These appointments are a part of a larger plan to raise $1 billion for interdisciplinary work on water sustainability, the study of learning, and health care delivery.

Because of Bloomberg’s charitable acts, students of un-matched ability who might otherwise seek cheaper and more attractive locales decided to attend this prestigious university. Experts from all fields likewise came to join this institution’s prolific congregation of professors, research-ers, doctors, and administrators, making Johns Hopkins University one of the highest ranking schools and the Johns Hopkins Hospital one of the most renowned hos-pitals in the world. “The modern story of Hopkins is in-extricably linked to him,” said President Daniels of Mayor Bloomberg. “When you look at these great investments that have transformed American higher education, it’s Rockefeller, it’s Carnegie, it’s Mellon, it’s Stanford — and it’s Bloomberg.” If this generosity continues, we may just see upon returning to our alma mater in years to come a bust of Michael Bloomberg out in the front of Homewood alongside that of our school’s founder. PP

By Randy Bell ‘13, Special Events Coordinator


7

RIOTING GIRLS: PUSSY RIOT IN THE WEST

Recently, a Moscow judge overturned the appeal of the notorious Russian feminist punk rock band, Pussy Riot. They were initially arrested last March, when members of Pussy Riot per-

formed a heretical, obscene “Punk Prayer” concert in a church. Over the summer, amidst much media atten-tion, they were charged with hooliganism and sentenced to two years in a work camp. Pussy Riot’s plight was met with huge sympathy from the West. Universally loved, supporters of Pussy Riot range from Madonna to Green Day to the New Yorker. Pussy Riot has said in interviews that they are con-siderably influenced by the Riot Grrrls of the 1990s, an American underground feminist punk rock move-ment. Riot Grrrls had clear ideological goals, center-ing upon gender equality, similar to those of Pussy Riot. From a musical standpoint, the female centered movement was revolutionary because punk rock had been a male dominated genre that stylistically often disdained femininity. However, the Riot Grrrl move-ment ended, and remained dead until Pussy Riot re-kindled their spirit. With just these facts in mind, it is easy to see why Pussy Riot has garnered so much western support. They are being unfairly imprisoned. Their charges are laughable: another Russian human rights violation, exemplary of the corrupt government that Pussy Riot was trying to protest. They were just fighting for gender and LGBT rights – like the kind we have in America – with their quirky punk show. Pussy Riot even hit a chord of Ameri-can nostalgia with their Riot Grrrl-sounding name. However, there is more to Pussy Riot than is often per-ceived. Perhaps American feminists should not blindly hop on the Pussy Riot bandwagon. Pussy Riot has mentioned that though their band takes influence from the movement, Pussy Riot and Riot Grrrls are far from identical. Both the contexts and ide-ologies of the two movements are different. It seems doubtful that all those people who clicked the like but-ton on the “Free Pussy Riot” Facebook page last August

were totally aware of these differences. First of all, Pussy Riot is an anti-capitalist group. Fur-thermore, their punk prayer was not the band’s first show. Before forming Pussy Riot, members had been part of a group called Voina (Russian for war) that had staged a public orgy, lit fire to a police car, and drew an oversized phallus on a St. Petersburg drawbridge that became erect when the bridge opened to let a boat pass through. Needless to say, Pussy Riot’s protests would not have been staged by Gandhi. Their goal is not a liberal, western democracy that perhaps some assume it to be, but something completely different. Western support for Pussy Riot may be overwhelming, but somehow I doubt Pussy Riot’s protests would have been as well received had they been staged in America. Those who truly believe in what Pussy Riot is doing should support them and continue to do so. But support-ing an anti-capitalist group while also shopping at the Urban Outfitters is a pretty confusing and hypocritical message. The broader context of the situation should also be con-sidered. As Vadim Nikitin wrote in The New York Times, “Pussy Riot’s philosophy, activism and even music quickly took second place to its usefulness in discredit-ing one of America’s geopolitical foes. Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, are dissident intellectuals once again in danger of becoming pawns in the West’s anti-Russian narrative?” Furthermore, the situation reeks of American privilege. Though we criticize Russia for its unfair treatment of women and LGBT populations, and lack of free speech, these same problems occur in our country. Fortunately, Pussy Riot holds potential as an example for fighting similar problems in America. Pussy Riot reminds us of the exciting, revolutionary capabilities of punk rock and the Riot Grrrl mentality. Music can be used to tackle the (numerous) problems of equality in our own country in-stead of wallowing over Russia’s. As Pussy Riot member Tyurya said in an interview with Vice Magazine about the band’s supporters, “…maybe they could start their own local Pussy Riot, if Russia is too cold and too far.” PP

By Ingrid Nelson ‘15, Contributing Writer


8

This past Monday, a group of senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties intro-duced a plan to overhaul immigration law in the United States. This bipartisan action on

such a contentious issue is impressive, particularly in light of the struggles between the two parties in previous months. Given the increase in global competition due to globalization, improvements in the case of immigration and citizenship procedures in the United States would only help the country’s global standing in international business.

The issue of immigration reform is incredibly conten-tious, and promises observers an interesting and tense round of debates in the coming months. Needless to say, the U.S. economy has had a difficult time recover-ing from the Great Recession. While the national econ-omy has struggled, economies of other countries, such as Germany’s, have continued to grow. One of the main differences between Germany and the United States lies in the education system. The German system includes an option for young people to become an apprentice in-stead of going to university. In the end, this apprentice-ship system leads to a more developed and diversified workforce.

As the apprenticeship option is missing in America, we need to find other ways to diversify our domestic work-force, thus improving our economic growth and com-petitiveness levels in the global economy. Such reform of immigration law would increase the number of for-eign skilled workers able to live and work here. While this is not an immediate fix, nor the only change America needs to make to improve its global economic standing, it would certainly help.

According to the Washington Post, the bipartisan group of senators suggested an overhaul of the immigration system geared towards easing the citizenship process for undocumented foreign nationals, specifically Hispanics, living and working in the United States. According to the Huffington Post, this proposition would affect almost eleven million people currently residing in the country.

The first step is to give “probationary legal status imme-diately by paying a fine and back taxes, [as well as] pass-ing a background check.” Next in the process would be a green card, once the U.S. government “certifies that the U.S.-Mexican border has become secure.” However, of-ficial citizenship would still be a long way off.

In response to this proposal, President Obama gave a televised interview in which he pledged his full support to the initiative. One statement Mr. Obama added to the issue was his belief that he “[doesn’t] think that it should take many, many months. [He] thinks this is something we should be able to get done certainly this year… in the first half of the year, if possible”. The president’s support behind this proposition is crucial, as reforming the im-migration law of this country would improve the United States’ standing in an interlinked and ever-shifting glob-al economy.

However, the bipartisan proposal still faces strong op-position from some members of the GOP. The common argument of this opposition is that the United States should not change its laws to suit those who settled in the country illegally, and should help its own citizens before helping anyone else. A country’s competitiveness in the global economy is strongly tied to the success of that country’s firms abroad, which necessitates a strong set of skilled workers who can first carry the firms do-mestically. The interlinked nature of the world has made insularity and isolationism impractical economic plans. The rather exclusive nature of U.S. immigration law and citizenship procedures has made it more and more dif-ficult for firms to hire talented workers from foreign countries, thus affecting the nation’s global competitive-ness in the long run.

Reform of the immigration law would demonstrate the United States’ commitment to non-insular economic and global thought, and would be beneficial to the coun-try. Those who consider only the logistical threats of this necessary action have not realized the full interdepen-dency of the globalized world, and are not considering the consequences of their policy actions. PP

IMMIGRATION REFORM FOR A GLOBAL ECONOMY

By Anna Kochut ‘13, Contributing Writer


9

One may have thought that the era of Western interventionism had ended after the exhaust-ing war in Afghanistan and the Security Coun-cil’s deadlock over Syria. However, it is clear

that the 2011 conflict in Libya and the most recent in-volvement in Mali have debunked this hasty conclusion.

On January 11th, French President François Hollande launched operation Serval, a military intervention in Mali responding to an unexpected southward push by insur-gent Islamic groups towards Bamako. These groups, in-cluding Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), have occupied the northern two-thirds of Mali since April 2012, when they brushed aside the Tuareg-led Na-tional Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA).

Operation Serval is one of the most justified foreign in-terventions the world has witnessed in a long time. This isn’t a case of fighting against a hostile regime for the sake of “democracy,” or of backing a dictator against “rebels.” Instead, this intervention is on behalf of a le-gitimate government that does not have the capacity to ward off non-Malian extremists that have imposed Sharia law and a rule of terror over Mali.

What prompted President Hollande to act? There are several contributing factors, but it is important to see that Malian President Dioncounda Traoré’s direct request for French action as well as the presence of some 6,000 French expatriates in Bamako certainly played a major role in prompting this decision. The surprise attack not only jeopardized the security of Bamako, but also posed a threat to the rest of Mali. Other reasons include the strong relationship between France and Mali, and the continued threat that radical Islam poses to France. What about economic interests? Although uranium in neigh-boring Niger fuels one third of France’s nuclear reactors, this is far from being the pivotal motivation for France’s involvement. The war is occurring in resource-poor Mali rather than in Niger, and these uranium mines located in Niger have never been threatened by the insurgents.

The intervention also respects international law, and follows article 51 of the UN Charter which guarantees the “inherent right of individual or collective self-de-

fense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” It also adheres to the previous Security Council resolutions regarding the deployment of a West African force to northern Mali. Although troops from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) were not ready when the alarm went off three weeks ago, today soldiers from Chad, Niger, Togo and other mem-bers are finally present alongside French troops in Mali.

One of the big questions that remain is the ambiguous role played by Algeria. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika opened the country’s airspace to French jet fighters and officially supports the intervention. However, the Algeri-an press condemns operation Serval as an act of neocolo-nialism, and there is evidence that AQIM pick-up trucks are actually being refueled across the Algerian border, which is 900-miles long and remains extremely porous.

France needs to progressively hand over the lead to ECOWAS. Although 60% of France supports the inter-vention, France does not want to engage in protracted asymmetric warfare in the Sahara. Thus, France is trying to eliminate the extremists as quickly as possible, and to prevent them from reaching the Adrar des Ifoghas, the highlands of northeastern Mali.

After Mali’s territorial integrity is secured, the next challenge is the political reconstruction of the country. Although the Tuaregs are the root of the conflict today, they are indigenous northern Malians and legitimate voices in the country. Their grievances were eclipsed when the radicals took over the north. Once the war is over, a north-south dialogue between the secular MNLA and Mali’s government is necessary.

Operation Serval constitutes a necessary intervention in a country that was on the brink of total collapse at the hands of AQIM and other extremists. It respects inter-national law and is not an act of neocolonialism or of economic greed. So far, the operation has been surpris-ingly efficient, but questions still remain for the future of Mali. If some extremists manage to fall through the cracks and remain after the fighting is over, where will they go? Will they reorganize? How long will it take for Mali to reconstruct a stable army and government? These questions are looming over the current conflict, and need to be considered before it is too late. PP

FRANCE GOES TO WAR By Archibald Henry ‘13, Contributing Writer


10

Just prior to the start of President Barack Obama’s second term in office, the departing Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, informed the American people of his decision to allow women to fight in

combat operations within the army. In response some are arguing that this action will serve as an impediment to the successful completion of operations in the battlefield, while others are arguing that this is another significant step in the effort to achieve full gender equality in the American armed forces and the United States as a whole. The discussion following Secretary Panetta’s announce-ment has largely focused on whether or not women are capable of fighting in combat on the frontlines of the war. Many believe that women’s typically weaker physi-cal capabilities will prevent them from successfully un-dertaking a duty that a male soldier would otherwise complete easily. Many believe that this will only aggra-vate the U.S. military’s already serious problem of un-wanted pregnancies among its female soldiers. Others believe that fighting alongside female soldiers will bring male soldiers unforeseen negative psychological effects. But let’s keep it real: there are of course many women al-ready enlisted in the military who are tall, strong, moti-vated, and supremely conditioned, capable of carrying a heavily-equipped, wounded male soldier if necessary off the battlefield. Thus, there is no question that women should be able to fight in combat alongside men in the American military. Allowing women to fight in combat will not lead to a weaker military because the women selected to fight and capable of fighting in such a role will no doubt be able to successfully fulfill their duties. Preventing a female soldier physically stronger than any male soldier is an utter insult to women and impedes ef-forts to achieve full gender equality in the United States. But all of this discussion about women’s fighting capa-bilities is missing the most significant underlying mes-sage from Secretary Panetta’s announcement. Allow-ing women to fight in combat reveals that the Defense Department believes that the future of warfare does not involve actual living soldiers fighting in combat opera-tions, but rather unmanned machines that will one day be capable of completely replacing the need for infan-try soldiers fighting on the frontlines of war. We have

already seen elements of this future reality taking place. The Obama administration has significantly increased the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, in thou-sands of deadly strikes across the Middle East and the Islamic world, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, So-malia, and especially in Pakistan and Yemen. The mecha-nization of warfare brings about many ethical and legal questions that we must resolve soon given that warfare is evolving faster than almost all military experts predicted.

The dangers posed by the increasing use of drone war-fare are significant. President Obama has authorized a great number of drone strikes. Some of these strikes tar-geted and successfully killed known, identifiable terrorists working for al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. But many more of these strikes have targeted and killed people who were not identified, or who appeared to be terrorists because of where they were or their mere “terrorist” ap-pearance. These strikes, more importantly, have resulted in the indiscriminate deaths of many civilians. The Obama administration has been silent on the issue of civilian deaths resulting from drone strikes, apparently justifying these strikes by claiming that civilian deaths are the un-fortunate consequence, or collateral damage, of striking at unidentifiable terrorists. Moreover, one strike in Yemen resulted in the death of the sixteen-year-old American citi-zen Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, son of the prominent terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi. President Obama and the United States cannot continue to authorize targeted killings resulting in the deaths of American citizens and many innocent civil-ians. Such killings are neither ethical nor legal. These are the major issues beginning to emerge from the Obama administration’s increased use of drone warfare, and it is certain that in the years to come, as the military becomes even more mechanized than it is today, there will be more unresolved ethical and legal questions. It is true that the Defense Department’s decision to allow women to fight in combat is at least a small win for gen-der equality. Yet, I think that because this decision reveals that the Defense Department and the United States mili-tary believe that the future of warfare involves machines and not soldiers fighting on the frontlines of battle, we must begin answering important legal and ethical ques-tions and establishing proper limitations to the inevitable reality of unmanned mechanized warfare. PP

WOMEN IN COMBAT: TIME TO ANALYZE THE FUTURE OF WAR By Peter Natov ‘16, Contributing Writer


11

Political Science and Anthropology double major, Leila Collins recently re-turned home from Istanbul, Turkey where she spent the fall semester of her junior year. While there, Leila directly enrolled in Bogazaci University and sought to actively immerse herself within Turkish society.

Turkey is a country that has undergone major fundamental changes through-out the 20th century—“Turkification” as it is commonly referred. In the cen-tury since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey has experienced intense na-tionalism and a series of reforms to westernize the Muslim country. Shifts in leadership, language and governmental structures have left Turkey in a unique position in its region of the world.

In 2003, Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Turkey’s Prime Minister. Erdogan’s adminstration has overseen a return to more traditional norms and a reversal of decades of secularist government policies. During Leila’s time interacting with peers, professors and lay citizens, she observed the tensions that exist between Turkish culture, Muslim culture, Arab culture, the European Union and more.

Leila decided to start a project of her own—she wanted to understand more deeply what made these people, and this country tick. And so she began to in-terview Turkish students that stemmed from different backgrounds, religious viewpoints and political leanings to learn more about Turkey from the per-spective of Turks. JHU Politik will be publishing a series of Leila’s interviews in an effort to pres-ent a slice of life of a very politically and religiously different place. The indi-viduals interviewed are neither experts nor claim to be, they just are a small sample of a diverse population. We believe these interviews, and these types of projects are important for our publication, and for the broader student body. We all live together in this globalized world, and thus we want to support stu-dent efforts to explore the issues and beauty of living in such a time as 2013.

We are proud to introduce Leila’s series, and we invite future students to con-sider international journalism projects that might help further our mission of raising the level of discourse at Johns Hopkins.

An Introduction to Leila Collin’s

Interview Series in Istanbul

By Rachel Cohen ‘14, Head Writer


12

Does the Turkish identity assume that your loyalty should first be to Turkey before Allah?

Yes, the Turkish republic is much more important that Islam.

How do you reconcile your Turkish identity with your religious views?

On this issue I am a little bit confused because I

do not have any national or ethnic identity, I much more identify myself [with] Islam, like I introduce myself as a Muslim rather than a Turkish Muslim. It [being Turkish] is not something that is important for me. Maybe it is something that is confusing for me because I grew up on Cyprus where there isn’t a strong Muslim community.

When did you start to wear a headscarf ?

I started to wear my headscarf when I entered this university [Bogazici]. When the Professors were telling me to take off my headscarf, it was really [a] challenge for me, that [first] year. I mean, I was depressed. I decided to wear a headscarf because of my religion and they were forcing me to take it off because of my education.

So here you were, you had gotten into the best Uni-versity in Turkey -- you had succeeded. You were trying to figure out who you were, and the institu-tion that you so much admired was telling you that you couldn’t be that person that you were discover-ing.

It was really hard. And I was thinking that I should take it off, but my sister was supporting me and helping me to find alternate ways to express myself, like wearing different types of hats [when I couldn’t wear my headscarf ].

Why did you start wearing a headscarf so late, despite your father’s strong faith as an imam? Aren’t Muslim women supposed to start wearing headscarves at the time of womanhood, like 12 or 13?

Yes, but my father was fine with it. I do not wear a headscarf because of my father. I should decide it.

Some Americans and secularists in Turkey would be very surprised that you had that much autonomy from your father, considering that he is an imam.

Islam has a list of traditions and is thought to be unequal in giving more importance to men and their role in the family and in other institutions. It is seen to be like there is hierarchy between genders, but there is not at all. That is my opinion; there are friends who don’t agree with me in this approach. It’s my interpretation.

I’m Jewish and a premise of that religion is that you are supposed to question the religion often, and wrestle with the texts. Does Islam have a similar premise?

Yes, very much so. You should question, you should search for it. You can’t just accept what is given. You should believe in it with your heart but also you should be satisfied with your mind.

I have been interviewing a lot of secular men who said that women who wear headscarves are spider headed. As I understand it, spider headed means that there are cobwebs growing in the mind from lack of use. Clearly, you use your mind constantly, you are very intellectual and a very strong woman. Why do these secular men feel this way?

It is because they are so much bonded to secularism as a religion, I mean secularism can be thought of

Interview with Nur Seyada KocBy Leila Collins ‘14, Contributing Writer

Nur Seyada Koc is a 23 year old studying Political Science and International Relations at Bogazici University. The daughter of an Imam, she was born in Ankara, but moved to Northern Cyprus at five and grew up there. The following interview was conducted in a coffee shop in Istanbul this past fall.


13

as religion. For those secular men, Islam shouldn’t be the most central thing in your life. It should be a small part of it; secularism should cover your life.

Whereas for you Allah is at the center of your life?

Yes. Because Islam is a religion that covers every issue. Social life, personal life, economic life, ev-erything. It is a religion that is not just practiced in terms of your soul, I mean, it is not something just personal. It also manages the social life. Your rela-tionships with other people, your economic rela-tions, your policy relations.

In the same way that the state manages those parts of life?

Yes

Do you date?

No. For my personal life, my reference is always Islam. But I do most of my things in secular way, but all of my basic reference points [stem from] Islam and I try to live in the way that it proposes.

But for the things that the state can control, for example, the economy, you are a secularist?

Yea. It is really confusing. Because I struggle with myself because I am doing what this modern state wants me to do, but in some way I should challenge this. I mean It is not the state’s institution that I should be following, it is not right. But I have to survive in this society.

So you have to lead a secular life to survive in Turkey?

Not totally secular, but you have to give up some things. Like in the headscarf issue, the state wanted me to take it off, but Islam wanted me to keep it on. So I had to make a choice. I had to decide whether this education is really important to me, or not. I should learn other sciences, the positivist sciences, Islam wants me to do that, but the state didn’t let me do that with my headscarf. Islam wants me to be educated, but the state is preventing me from going to school. Also the position of the state is contradic-tory, because they blame us for being uneducated, or spider minded, but the only way that they think

that we can get over our antiquated views is to go through their education. But we can’t because they won’t let us wear headscarves.

But now you can because of Erdogan.

Yes.

Is dating against Islam?

What do you mean by dating? I mean if it is dating that your family thinks is a suitable match, then it is ok. I mean before you marry you should talk with them. But it is not actually dating, because it is not just for fun.

And you have the power in that? You have the power to say, “I don’t like this guy”?

Sure! (laughs) I mean I’m the person who has to marry that guy.

Do your parents help you find that guy?

They help in terms of the basic stuff. They tell me about their experiences, their opinions, but they don’t say you should marry this guy you shouldn’t.

Do you think that it is important to some religious Muslim men to marry an educated Muslim woman like yourself ?

It is important for them and for me. You want some-one that you can talk with, I mean the same lan-guage. I mean, for me, my spouse should have some kind of intellectual level that I have to be able to get along well.

Have you ever been to the USA?

Yes, I studied abroad there.

Was it hard being Muslim there?

No! It was much more comfortable. I mean you can do whatever you want, I mean we are kind of nervous to just take our coat out and go for prayer in front of this building, but we did it in front of Harvard me and my friend, and people just looked at us and continued with their day. PP

INTERVIEW WITH NUR SEYADA KOC CONTINUED...


14

WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS

The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We believe that progress comes from conversation and that every voice deserves to be heard. Our staff is made up of students with majors that range from political science to bio-molecular engineering. We seek out the best political writers on campus and regularly interview professors and graduate students. In many ways, the Homewood campus is a microcosm of the American political landscape. We find our-selves at a crossroads defined by students from across the country, professors with disparate political theo-ries, and a city constantly confronting racial violence, political corruption and systemic economic problems. While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. In 2011, with the Arab Spring fully underway, we interviewed five Hopkins professors whose expertise ranged from Archeology to US-Israeli relations, in order to provide some clarity on an immensely complex and constantly shifting situation. In 2012 we focused on the politi-cal issues of Baltimore, conducting interviews with professors and local politicians in order to shed light on the complexities of our school’s relationship to our city. Possible topics for our next special issue include the politics of financial aid and student debt.

If interested e-mail us at

[email protected] find us online at

jhupolitik.org

Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division


15

The Politik Press, Volume XIII, Issue 1

Documents

Transcript of The Politik Press, Volume XIII, Issue 1