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, Peter Lee, Daniel Roettger, Chris Winer

FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Jeremy Orloff, Matt Varvaro

VOLUME XII, ISSUE VIOCTOBER 22nd, 2012

Cover Art by Will Denton (‘12) and Victoria Scordato

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.

OCTOBER 22nd, 2012Volume XII, Issue VI

WEEK IN REVIEW

2

by Virgil Doyle ‘14, Staff Writer

the POLITIK PRESS

Cover Art by Will Denton (‘12) and Victoria Scordato

African Leaders Plan Military Intervention in Mali

Leaders from West Africa, the African Union, and the United Nations convened over the week-end in Bamako, Mali’s capital, to discuss a multilateral military intervention in the country’s troubled northern region. The intervention will be a response to the Islamic groups, including al-Qaeda, which have seized power in the northern region of Mali and imposed a harsh inter-pretation of Sharia law upon the populace. Reports from the region describe bans on music, the amputation of thieves’ hands, and one account of a couple accused of adultery being stoned to death. In response to this oppressive regime, Nkosazana Diamini-Zuma, the newly elected chair-woman of the African Union, stated that, “this is a threat we cannot afford to take lightly, and the danger extends far beyond Africa.” Though the force that intervenes in Mali will be composed entirely of African soldiers, there remains a possibility of the United States or Europe providing training and assistance for those soldiers. European Union Establishes Continental Banking Supervisor

Leaders in the European Union have agreed to make the European Central Bank (ECB) the single supervisor for all of the region’s banks. The deal marks a major step in the move towards a single European banking union. The increased power of the ECB will facilitate government interven-tion in failing or precariously positioned banks. Leaders from various European nations spoke in support of the measure. French President Francois Hollande stated, “We are on track to solve the problems that for too long have been paralyzing the Eurozone and made it vulnerable.” Hol-lande went on to say that “the worst is behind us.” However, there remain doubts about the path down which Europe is proceeding. Howard Davies, a professor of economics at Institut d’Etudes Politiques in Paris, reacted to the increasingly unilateral decisions of the EU by saying, “It is dif-ficult to be optimistic about the success of an initiative built on such flimsy legal foundations, and lacking democratic legitimacy.” Colombian Rebels Enter Negotiations

The Colombian government has entered into peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the first steps in ending a 48 year long conflict between the two sides. The FARC, a communist guerilla organization that controls large parts of Colombia, has approxi-mately 8,000 fighters and has been the subject of international criticism for, among other things, their involvement in the illegal drug trade. Both sides of the negotiation have stressed that the process will take time. Luciano Marin, a rebel commander within FARC, declared that “this can’t be a process against the clock, an express peace, as some are promoting.” Negotiators for the government have been willing to cede to the rebels that “unjust social differences” do exist in Colombia, lending some credibility to FARC’s negotiating position. The two sides have agreed to further peace talks in the future. PP

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, a Re-publican, spoke at Johns Hopkins on Octo-ber 17. He mostly avoided partisan politics, instead focusing on the roles of China and

technology in determining America’s future. How-ever, he did address his failed presidential campaign, noting that his serving as Ambassador to China under President Obama hurt his standing with conserva-tives. To thunderous applause, Huntsman said (and I paraphrase), “No matter your party, when your presi-dent calls on you to serve you do it.” This sentiment is anathema to many of our government officials today. As I reflect on the death of former Representative, Senator, presidential candidate, ambassador, and war hero George McGovern, I find myself nostalgic for a bygone era in American politics. Even though many vehemently disagreed with McGovern’s liberal poli-cies (which led to his landslide loss in the 1972 presi-dential election), he was still widely respected as an articulate, dedicated leader. His generation, which thrived in government from the end of World War II until the 1990s, has been mostly replaced by a genera-tion of men and women who are afraid to serve under another party’s administration, and spend their twi-light years collecting speaking fees and playing golf. The era of the statesmen, great leaders who served America in many capacities regardless of who was in power, is drawing to a close. McGovern is not the only one. Consider one of my po-litical heroes. George Mitchell: federal judge, Demo-cratic senator, and a special envoy to both the Middle East and Northern Ireland, in addition to many roles in the private sector. Or, from the other side of the aisle, George H.W. Bush: war hero, representative, ambassa-dor, CIA director, vice president, president, and inter-national aid activist. They were, or are, great men and some of the best leaders our country has known. When their country called, they and many others like Bob Dole and Daniel Moynihan stood up and volunteered. Leaders like Jon Huntsman are rare. We are left with Senator Mitch McConnell, an admitted obstructionist who spent a good amount of time last fall using his posi-

OCTOBER 22nd, 2012Volume XII, Issue VI

THE END OF THE STATESMEN

3

tion to lobby for his alma mater to join a larger collegiate athletic conference. We are left with a Congress that has renamed more than 37 government buildings and post offices, accounting for close to 20% of their passed acts and bills this term. Our government is dominated by men and women who think small and hold grudges, and I can guarantee you almost none of them will ever serve as an ambassador, head a presidential commission, or even take a call from a member of the other party. The era of the statesmen is not coming back soon. Par-tisanship is dominant and cooperation is dead. We are 15 days away from one of the most divisive elections in modern history, one mostly devoid of meaningful dis-cussion. Bipartisan legislation is almost nonexistent. The era of accepting a commission as an ambassador instead of a lucrative law firm partnership or presi-dency of a consulting firm is over. The era of calling your fellow lawmakers “communists,” as Allen West did, is ascendant. What we are left with is trying to mix two extremes, akin to pouring boiling water on a frozen windshield: you’re left with many cracks and a large repair bill. Whether Huntsman would have won an election against President Obama is uncertain. What I am certain of is that public servants like him are a dy-ing breed, and that he will have a meaningful future in politics even if he never runs for office again. The same cannot be said for many of our current officials. It is due to lack of ambition, ingrained party ties, and an allergy to bipartisanship. No matter who wins the presidential election, fix-ing the country will require the best of all sides to ig-nore partisanship and craft compromise. At this rate, our elected officials are not up to the task. I doubt a prominent Democrat would accept a Cabinet position or ambassadorship under a President Romney for fear of being seen as a traitor to the party, or fear of sac-rificing a high-paying, secure job. The same goes for Republicans and a second Obama term. For better or worse, we have two parties and one country, and we need the best of both to put country first, roll up their sleeves, and get to work. PP

by Alex Clearfield ‘14, Managing Editor

the POLITIK PRESS

OCTOBER 22nd, 2012Volume XII, Issue VI

LIBYA AND THE “BLAME GAME”

4

On September 11, 2012, four Americans died in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Beng-hazi, Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

One of the questions we now face is who is responsible for this attack?

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, originally stated that the attacks in Libya were entirely in re-sponse to the film, The Innocence of Muslims, which presented the prophet Muhammad in a negative light. During a White House briefing on September 14, Car-ney said that the attack was “in response not to United states policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” Six days later, Carney contradicted his claim that the attack was a spontaneous response to the film. He said, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” If it was so obviously a terrorist attack, then why did Carney state, six days earlier, that the attacks were entirely in response to a film?

During the same White House briefing, reporter Jake Tapper challenged Carney about security at the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Carney responded with a vague assurance that the government is very vigilant around important days like 9/11.

Three weeks after Carney’s vague assurance con-cerning security measures in Benghazi, he once again contradicted his claim by stating there was “no ques-tion that the security was not enough to prevent that tragedy from happening.” The four deaths in Benghazi might have been prevented had the security been bet-ter established by the White House.

When information surfaced and the Obama Admin-istration could no longer blame the YouTube clip for the terrorist attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the new scapegoat. On October 16, Clinton

claimed full responsibility for the security at the time of the attacks over a month ago.

She said that it is her responsibility to oversee the se-curity of American diplomats around the world. Ac-cording to Clinton, the president and vice president would not have knowledge about “specific decisions that are made by security professionals.” Clinton add-ed, “What I want to avoid is some kind of political got-cha or blame game.”

A blame game is exactly what the attack in Libya has become. The Obama Administration blamed a You-Tube clip, Clinton blames herself and the Republican Party blames Obama.

During the second presidential debate, the two can-didates spoke at length about Libya. President Obama defended his record by saying that the day after the attack in Benghazi he told the American people that the tragedy was, in fact, ”an act of terror.”

President Obama never told America that the attack in Benghazi was an outright act of terrorism. He called the men responsible “killers,” not terrorists; he called the attack a “terrible” and “brutal” act but not a ter-rorist act.

There was only one mention of the word “terror” in the entirety of Obama’s speech on the day after the attacks. He said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” Obama’s words are far too general for him to honestly claim he knew that the attacks were acts of terrorism.

It is in times of emergency that America, more than at any other time, needs its leader to be clear. Presi-dent Obama and his administration failed to be clear in the wake of the attacks in Libya and Egypt. Instead of focusing their attention on the situation, they con-centrated on the blame game, a game where no one wins. PP

by Malka Herman ‘15, Contributing Writer

Opinion

OCTOBER 22nd, 2012Volume XII, Issue VI

5

When pressed on the question of with-drawing troops from Afghanistan in last week’s debate, Vice President Joe Biden said, “We went there for one

reason, to get those people who killed Americans —al Qaeda… In the meantime, what we said we would do is train the Afghan military. It is their responsibility to take over their own security.” This statement reveals a deep and troubling trend in American foreign poli-cy: severely oversimplifying the situation in Afghani-stan while de-emphasizing the uphill battle of human rights in that country.

The United States had—or should have had—several goals when it invaded Afghanistan, not just the singu-lar goal of revenge to which the vice president alluded. First, the invasion was premised on the need to bring justice to those who had committed acts of terror on 9/11, and on this the vice president was correct. Howev-er, two other goals were equally important: that Afghan-istan would never again become a breeding ground for terrorism, and that the condition of the Afghan people, particularly women, would be improved. It is impor-tant to note that these three goals are not completely independent of one another. In fact, the success of each is heavily dependent on the pursuit of the two others. By only emphasizing revenge as the singular goal of the invasion, the vice president misleads American voters, the U.S. military, and the Afghan people.

At the time this article went to press, Malala Yousafzai—a 14-year-old girl from the Afghanistan-Pakistan bor-der—is recovering from a Taliban assassination attempt. Her crime: going to school and writing about it for the BBC, or, in the words of her would-be assassins, being a “symbol of the infidels and obscenity.” A few months ago, a young woman was nearly killed by her own broth-ers for being found with a cell phone. She was lucky enough to escape to an American military base, from which she can never leave lest her own family kills her.

While these violent acts should not in any way be con-strued as evidence of innate barbarism of the Afghan people as a whole, they do reflect the precariousness of human rights in the region. Many brave Ameri-

cans and Afghans gave the ultimate sacrifice to secure whatever meager human rights progress has already been achieved. To abandon our commitment to this cause now for the sake of domestic political expedi-ency would be an insult to their memory.

Discussion of human rights often produces knee-jerk emotional responses due to the long and dark history of imperialism disguised as “civilizing” inferior people. Although this response is understandable, a clear dis-tinction must be made between imperialism and sup-port for human rights. Remaining in Afghanistan until the country is able to protect human rights is not im-perialism. Ensuring that a young girl can go to school or dress as she pleases is not an ignoble act. Our values speak to universal truths, and an Afghanistan that does not support the right of an individual to pursue her def-inition of happiness in her way, without impeding on the rights of others, should be fundamentally intoler-able to the American conception of human rights.

The prospect for human rights in Afghanistan after a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2014 is incred-ibly bleak. The Afghan army, to which Joe Biden ros-ily speaks of turning over control, has a literacy rate of 13%. Unemployment in Afghanistan is at 35%, and its drug-dependent economy produces 92% of the world’s opiates. The idea that such a volatile country (neighboring such delinquent states as Pakistan, Iran, and Russia) could stand up for human rights without continued U.S. support is simply irrational.

The United States has neither the will nor the re-sources to overthrow oppressive regimes anytime or anywhere. Indeed, it may be the case that long-lasting human rights progress can only be made through do-mestic struggles and sacrifices. Yet, if the horrors of the twentieth century have taught us anything, it is that powerful states must stand up for human rights. When the book is eventually closed on the U.S. in-volvement in Afghanistan, it may very well say that the price of supporting human rights in Afghanistan was simply too high for the United States. In any event, it will not say that the issue did not at least warrant lip service in a vice presidential debate. PP

HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFGHANISTAN IGNORED IN VP DEBATE

by Akshai Bhatnagar ‘14, Staff Writer

Opinion

OCTOBER 22nd, 2012Volume XII, Issue VI

6

the POLITIK PRESS

With income inequality in America growing every year, budget deficits spiraling out of control, and the mid-dle class continuing to disappear, it

seems that Romney has lost touch with reality. His tax plan proposes to cut income taxes for all individuals by 20%, decrease the corporate tax rate to 25%, and to stop taxing income that companies earn abroad. On top of that, he hopes to decrease the budget deficit and increase defense spending by $2 trillion. The only problem: it doesn’t add up.

When asked how he would raise the revenue required for these tax cuts, Governor Romney has said that he intends to close loopholes in the tax code and to end deductions. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that Romney’s cuts will cost approximately $320 billion in 2015, and this cost will have to be paid for through other sources that Romney has not specified. The pro-posed tax breaks will bring the top tax rate, the rate paid on income over $388,000 a year, from 35% down to 28%. Additionally, Romney proposes to maintain the 15% tax rate on capital gains that disproportion-ately benefits only the wealthiest Americans who are generally the recipients of this type of income. These policies will allow income to continue to shift from the middle and upper-middle classes to the wealthi-est Americans who stand to save immensely under Romney’s plan.

While making grandiose claims about the benefits of lower taxes, Romney has never proposed a concrete way to pay for them. Romney has consistently failed to identify which loopholes can be closed in order to pay for his programs, and continues to promise deficit neutrality. President Obama remarked in the October 3rd presidential debate that there must be “revenue in addition to cuts.” The president argued that increased spending on schooling and infrastructure would help improve the economy. All of these programs are not deficit neutral and they require increased tax rev-enues, but they are vital to the economic health of the nation. If Romney actually did lower taxes and remain deficit neutral in the short term, a feat which

Romney has yet to show is even possible, the govern-ment would be less effective at providing the invest-ments necessary to make the country competitive and jumpstart the economy.

Romney’s stance on multinational corporations is even more disconcerting. As an increasing number of Amer-ican companies are globalized, a larger percentage of their profits are made up of income that is earned abroad. In effect, Romney’s proposal represents a large tax break for multinational firms. Although Romney claims that his plan will spur job growth, it will in fact provide an incentive to move jobs overseas. Romney has also proposed to continue the tax breaks given to oil companies and large energy conglomerates, serv-ing to artificially drive down fossil fuel prices and pre-venting much needed investment in alternative energy sources.

While deficit reduction in the long term will undoubt-edly be a priority, the effects of deficit reduction in the short run will squeeze out growth and hamper econom-ic recovery. Romney says that his plan will spur growth and thus offset any cuts in federal spending, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected fed-eral spending to reach 24% of GDP by 2022 if the Bush tax cuts are extended. The only way to bring the deficit under control while simultaneously lowering taxes is to perform a broad based cut on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but Romney has already said that he will not touch Social Security or Medicare for those who are retired and soon to be retired.

In order to meet his deficit reduction goals, Romney will have to look for deep spending cuts elsewhere, which is the last thing our ailing economy needs. A movement towards austerity will slow economic growth and lower revenues, a self-defeating prescrip-tion for cutting the deficit. There must be a balancing act between worrying about the debt and ensuring that we don’t steer our economy into a second Great Recession. There are no easy answers, but President Obama’s policy of increasing revenues along with pro-growth policies seems to be a sensible way forward. PP

GROWTH, TAXES, AND OBAMA’S SENSIBLE WAY FORWARD

by Sam Harris ‘15, Contributing Writer

OCTOBER 22nd, 2012Volume XII, Issue VI

7

the POLITIK PRESS

As the sun set on another day of the Syr-ian Civil War, explosions ripped across a Syrian military base at Tell Abyad. These blasts were not the work of the Free Syr-

ian Army, but rather that of an exponentially more powerful force. On October 3rd, the Turkish army commenced saturation shelling of Syrian military bases after artillery shells fired from Syria landed in the Turkish town of Akçakale, killing five civilians. This attack provoked an immediate retaliatory strike from Turkey, a country that has shared increasingly harsh relations with Syria since the downing of an unarmed Turkish warplane by a Syrian missile on June 22nd.

Now, as the Syrians trade fire with the Turkish along the border, the question on many nervous politicians’ minds is if, or perhaps when, this border conflict will escalate into a full Turkish invasion. What do the Turkish have to gain by such an invasion? More importantly, what do they stand to lose? The world holds its breath as they wait to see if the Turkish gov-ernment will turn the Syrian Civil War into a regional conflict.

One might wonder what the Turks have to gain by an invasion of Syria. The answer is that an invasion can both be an effective show of strength and boost public morale. Since 1978, Turkey has been fighting a brutal war against the militant Kurds of Northern Iraq and Southeastern Turkey. These Kurds are led primarily by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a resistance movement classified as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the US, UK, and EU. This war, characterized by guerilla warfare, torture and terrorists attacks, has claimed the lives of up to 56,000 civilians and 24,000 soldiers. Just last Monday, two Turks were report-ed killed and five more injured in a clash that also claimed the lives of six PKK militants.

An invasion of Syria would give the Turks an excuse to flex their muscle and show their people that they are still are a strong country capable of defending them-selves. This attitude is reflected in recent comments made by Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: “The

Turkish Republic is a state capable of defending its cit-izens and borders. Nobody should try and test our de-termination on this subject.” This hawkish statement was reinforced by a vaguely-worded act of parliament last Thursday that would allow Turkish troops to enter “foreign countries” if deemed necessary. Still it seems like an invasion of Syria is unlikely and impractical for a few reasons.

Turkey, a country on two continents, is currently en-gaged in the delicate balancing act of trying to please both the European Union and its Middle Eastern neighbors. Since 1987, Turkey has been officially try-ing to become a full member of the EU. The next vote for its membership will happen in 2013. A war with Syria could too easily result in a human rights scandal, through anything from an errantly dropped bomb to an impromptu firing squad. For Turkey, a country with a sketchy historical human rights record in Cyprus, Ar-menia, and at home, such a scandal could be a fatal or at least severe blow to its chances for EU accession in the near future.

As mentioned above, the EU is not the only group the Turks need to please. In the Middle East, a re-gion with a long memory, centuries of Ottoman rule are still fresh in the minds of many Lebanese, Jor-danians, and Iraqis. In more recent history, a 2008 Turkish incursion into Northern Iraq to fight the PKK received a lukewarm reception even from Tur-key’s NATO allies. Future foreign intervention could too easily be looked at as modern colonialism by Middle Eastern countries. Finally, from a security standpoint, a large Turkish force in Syria would cre-ate a security vacuum in Turkey, which would allow for more frequent and quite probably more deadly attacks by the PKK.

It is clear that Turkey has very little incentive to invade Syria. An invasion could bring devastating results to both Turkey’s immediate internal secu-rity and future economic and diplomatic well-being. It may be best to bring this border clash to a quick cease-fire before it can expand to something bigger and infinitely uglier. PP

FORGET AMERICA. WILL TURKEY INTERVENE IN SYRIA?

by Mike Bodner ‘14, Staff Writer

OCTOBER 22nd, 2012Volume XII, Issue VI

8

the POLITIK PRESS

The advent of online education suggests a possibility of ending disparity between races and classes in education. Online education is already in use. Many top universities now

have online classes available through a program called Coursera: Stanford, Princeton University, the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania, California Institute of Technol-ogy, Duke University, even our beloved Johns Hopkins University. Coursera offers free courses for anyone, anywhere in the world. Currently, these courses allow students to earn a grade and a certificate of achieve-ment from the school that offered the class, but courses for credit are in the works.

For universities, online education is a financial boon. On-line courses cost less money to run, and require only one professor for many more students. All in all they make college courses much more efficient from the adminis-trative prospective. Online education has been criticized because it allows universities to function more like busi-nesses, or to value money more than learning. Though I acknowledge that this is a disturbing notion, I believe that online education has the capability to redefine who can achieve high levels of education.

Online education has the potential to eliminate many of higher education’s current problems and expand it to a less privileged group. Universities would not be limited, for the most part, to students who have certain financial, temporal, and spatial resources, and thus would add ra-cial and class diversity to a relatively homogenous group. Online education is often free, or if not, low cost. It is true that schools offer financial aid, but when tuition at a pri-vate college is upwards of two hundred thousand dollars for all four years, it becomes difficult to supplement this huge figure without substantial parental contributions. Students would no longer be deferred from higher edu-cation because of financial constraints.

Online education liberates students from the tem-poral restraints of traditional university study. Tak-ing classes at their own convenience allows students to maintain other commitments such as working or caring for their families. Students can be anywhere when taking a class online, so those who are not able

to physically get to a university would still be able to learn. Online education could change the limitations that go along with university study. Students would be able to take university courses without giving up four years of their lives to live on campus. College students do not have to be rich or young anymore.

Taking courses online from these universities does not require that students gain admission for full time enrollment. All of the schools listed above have ac-ceptance rates under twenty percent. Privileged stu-dents are no doubt at an advantage. Expensive SAT prep courses and tutors offer wealthier students a way to improve their scores that underprivileged students do not have. Online education would dramatically in-crease the pool of students who could benefit from the most prestigious universities in the world.

According to the Johns Hopkins website, the undergrad-uate student body is 52 percent white, 20 percent Asian, nine percent Hispanic and five percent black. Clearly, historically more privileged races are represented much more heavily than others. Though demographically, like Hopkins, the US is predominately white, Hispanic and African American populations are considerably under-represented at Johns Hopkins. When students arrive at a school with a competitive admissions rate and notice that their own race is much more prevalent than others, it would be an easy jump, although not one that is logi-cally sound, to reach the conclusion that certain groups are more intelligent than others. The current inequality between races in universities could breed more deeply rooted racism.

If online education proves in practice to decrease in-equality in education across demographics, it could also decrease inequality in income. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, those who have bachelor’s degrees earn almost twice as much as those who have graduated from high school, and more than twice as much as those who did not. Statistics of employment rates between those who graduated from college and those who did not are extremely similar. Though income disparity is a complex sociological problem, online education has the potential to decrease inequality. PP

ONLINE EDUCATION AND EQUALITY

by Ingrid Nelson ‘15, Contributing Writer