Tufts Roundtable, Volume 1, November 2008

November 2008

1

TISCH AD

2

Tufts Roundtable

Contact Information Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service Lincoln Filene Hall Tufts University Medford, Massachusetts 02155 www.tuftsroundtable.org [email protected]

FE ATUR ES 7

Barack Obama: A Case For Change

13

John McCain: A Leader We Can Believe In

Shabazz Stuart and Samuel Wallis Chas Morrison and Evan Chiaccharo

LOC AL AN D C AM PUS ISSUES 4

Get Poor Jumbo on the MBTA

John Peter G. Kaytrosh

NATIO NAL 5

Victory is Not an Option

6

Does Going Green Cause Hunger?

15

McCain’s Pro-Choice Movement

16

Race in Politics

17

Rethinking Manifest Destiny

18

Kill Capital Punishment

Aaron Zucker Leslie Ogden Jan McCreary Shabazz Stuart David Stern Nick Perricone

INTE R NATIO NAL AFFAIR S 19

Moscow and Its Missiles

Chris Walczyszyn

20

Crisis in Bolivia

Asad Budruddin

November 2008

1

The Electoral College is made up of 538 electors. The first presidential candidate to win more than 270 electoral votes becomes the president-elect.

The Republican Party was the only thirdparty to win the presidency. Abraham Lincoln was the presidential candidate in that election in 1860.

Every state except two allocates all electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis reflecting the popular vote outcome in the state. In Maine and Nebraska, a candidate can win individual electoral votes by winning the popular vote in a congressional district.

The President, Senators, and Representatives can be elected by a plurality (having the most votes) rather than a majority (having more than 50 percent of the votes). Bill Clinton was elected with only 43 percent of the popular vote total in 1992 because George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot split the remaining votes.

The number of electoral votes a state has is equal to the number of its Representatives plus Senators. The District of Columbia was given three electors for President in 1960 by the 23rd Amendment.

The House of Representatives has 435 members elected every two years. The requirements for being elected are the attainment of 25 years of age, seven years of U.S. citizenship, and residency in the state.

There are 100 Senators in Congress, and each serves a six-year term. All Senators must be 30 years old, a U.S. citizen for nine years and a resident of the state he or she is representing at the time of inauguration.

The 26th Amendment effectively set the voting age at 18 years old.

Senators were originally elected by state legislatures until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, when direct election of Senators was established nationwide.

North Dakota is the only state that does not require voters to be registered.

— Brian Kato 2

Tufts Roundtable

from the founders

tufts roundtable

Upon picking up this publication, you may at first wonder why it exists. After all, this campus already has plenty of journals, magazines, newsletters and newspapers. We believe that our unique approach to political discourse will greatly improve the existing political dialogue here at Tufts. We want to get you talking, but more importantly we want to get you listening. Too often, political conversations become shouting matches and both sides show a willingness to play fast and loose with the facts. Such unproductive arguments are wholly unsuited to the temperament of the vast majority of students at this university. Tufts offers students a first-class education. Students actively synthesize ideas and take what they’ve learned to form well-considered, factual opinions. The Roundtable offers a forum for discussions of these opinions free from epithets and empty rhetoric. During this election cycle our generation has shown an interest in moving past partisan titles and ideological molds. The Roundtable is a way for students to express their views without the baggage that is attached to being a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We are firm believers that for intellectual thought to thrive, there must be a forum for discussion where the give and take of opinions can lead to compromise without requiring the compromise of one’s fundamental beliefs. We were not surprised to learn that while contributors were writing for this first issue, they often had to question their own beliefs and the factual basis that underlies those beliefs. It is our hope that many more of our peers will come forward with their own submissions and, given the wide range of political groups here on campus, we are sure we will not be disappointed. While we do not endorse any party or candidate or espouse one particular ideology, we do believe we can disagree without being disagreeable; that is the purpose of this magazine. We are so dedicated to this principle that this first edition features opposing opinions written by two editors, and we intend to feature more debates between staff in the months to come. Too often, rather than discussing differences and learning from others, our beliefs become so ingrained in our minds that we are unable to acknowledge when we are wrong. Furthermore, heightened rhetoric and passion have a tendency to convolute the issues at hand. Over the last few years, the Tufts community has seen the degree to which students will passionately defend their beliefs. We believe there has not been a place for these discussions to occur freely and civilly, even on a campus as politically savvy as ours. In particular, the outpouring of responses to Tufts’ policy on Freedom of Expression did not have an outlet. This is that outlet. We ask you to pull up a chair to the Roundtable and share your voice. The Tufts Community will be better for it.

Editor-in-Chief

Samuel Wallis

Graphics/ Layout Editor

Charlotte Harrison Laura Pacifici

Senior Design Staff

Leanne Brotsky John Peter Kaytrosh Daniel Rosenblum

Design Staff

Connor Gramazio Lydia Hochheimer Brian Kato

Content Editor

Austin Field

Business/ Shabazz Stuart Advertising Manager Assistant Business/ David Stern Advertising Manager Webmaster

Richard Mondello

Contributors

Asad Budruddin Evan Chiaccharo Brian Kato John Peter Kaytrosh Jan McCreary Leslie Ogden Nick Perricone David Stern Chris Walczyszyn Aaron Zucker

Founders

Shabazz Stuart Chas Morrison Samuel Wallis

Shabazz Stuart

Samuel Wallis

Chas Morrison

IOPC Student Board Members Megan Dalton, Dean Ladin, Jarrod Niebloom, Matthew Shapanka, and Shabazz Stuart

November 2008

3

Get Poor Jumbo on the MBTA John Peter G. Kaytrosh It is generally agreed, at least within the area served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), that a greater commitment to public transportation is not only a good thing, given the current fuel crisis, but something that is entirely necessary given the current fuel crisis. However, the most urgent project on the T’s agenda, besides, of course, finding a way to pay its salaries, is one that was promised in 1990 with the start of Boston’s legendary Big Dig. As any Tufts student who has walked to Davis Square knows, it is the extension of the Green Line to Medford. As in any city, money was the issue, but with funding guaranteed by the Commonwealth for the virtually bankrupt MBTA, building the extension, is now a sure thing. However, there are many battles to be fought on the way to Medford, and Boston’s strange sociology is being brought to the fore once again. The Green Line is the nation’s most heavily-ridden light rail line, a remarkable feat, considering the more extensive systems in cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. The last time the Green Line was extended was in 1959, when a branch terminating in Riverside opened in Newton, a community which, like Somerville and Medford, is unsure whether its identity is urban or suburban. However, this has not prevented the Green Line’s success in this community for almost half a century. Residents of Somerville, which is the most densely populated city in New England, are insistent that this extension be built, and are receiving support from Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone. Support for the Green Line extension is critical for any would-be politician within the community. Even Governor Deval Patrick made an appearance last October when beginning his earnest push to secure funding for the extension. However, Somerville’s interests do not merely lie in getting funding. Few Tufts students are familiar with Gilman Square, Union Square, Brickbottom, and Magoun 4

Tufts Roundtable

Square, all of which will be stops on the extension. But very few people had heard of Davis Square before the Red Line was extended there in 1984, and Somerville is counting on similar results for the rest of the city. However, across the border in Medford, residents are, while not wholly opposed to the extension, more apprehensive than their neighbors. The extension planned to extend all the way to the Mystic River at Route 16 but Medford may only receive one stop at Medford Hillside, on the northeastern corner of the Tufts campus at College Avenue. (The stop serving Somerville’s Ball Square will technically be located in Medford.) If the Route 16 stop is even built, it will be a neighborhood stop, without parking, unlike most of the T’s terminal stations. The plan for parking was thrown out because of opposition from Medford residents, who Photo copyright Eric Kilby contend that the addition of a parking garage or even a large lot would worsen the already congested traffic situation along Route 16. Some of the Green Line’s most ardent supporters in Medford oppose the paraking facility because they believe that it would defeat the objective of making Medford the sort of community of the sort where cars are unnecessary. However, there is an downside underside to the addition of rail-based transit which would be incredibly apparent to any Somerville resident who saw the Davis Square of 2008 and compared it with that before the arrival of the Red Line. The result of the MBTA’s advance northward was the rapid gentrification of the area, creating an island of young wealth in historically blue-collar Somerville, thereby uprooting many long-time residents and businesses, replacing them with graduate students and Starbucks due to increased rents and changing tastes. While many in Medford are already skeptical, would Somerville residents support the extension as wholeheartedly if they were fully aware of how it might upset the equlibrium of their community? •

Victory is Not an Option: Why the Surge Won’t Help Us Win Aaron Zucker Thinking back to the state of Iraq in January 2007, the conventional wisdom was that President Bush showed profound courage by proposing an increase in troop levels in Iraq, and “the surge” is widely considered to have been a success. John McCain and other Republicans frequently cite it as the sole reason for what they see as the United States winning in Iraq and love to claim that Barack Obama’s “focus is on withdrawal, not victory.” However, given the cost and duration of such a misguided war, the outcome of victory is impossible. Regardless of the improvements that many attribute to the surge, the strategy that has been characterized as brilliant by most is hardly more than conventional, and has done very little to alleviate the situation in which America has found itself. Although the bravery and tactics employed by General David Petraeus deserve commendation, the strategy of the surge which McCain so often boasts about isn’t particularly groundbreaking. Even a seven-year-old playing Age of Empires for the first time knows that if you throw 20,000 extra soldiers into a region, it’s going to be easier to defend. So of course the most powerful and disciplined military in the world was able to reduce violence, but it is hardly enough. Unfortunately, the surge was implemented to allow room for political progress, and there hasn’t been enough of that

to justify what we’ve lost. Provincial elections that were supposed to take place in late 2007 are now delayed until 2009 at the earliest. When they finally do occur, American-supported Prime Minister al-Maliki is projected to lose his coalition to gains by allies of militant cleric Moqtada al-Sadr; clearly not the progress that we were hoping for. Furthermore, experts fear that the successes that have occurred during the surge are too fragile to continue without the eternal protection of the U.S. military. Forever is a long time to wait for the Iraqi government to stand up. Since the surge began the American people have endured over 1,000 reported fatalities and nearly 8,000 reported wounded. Nearly two hundred soldiers have committed suicide during that time, and the army suicide rate has increased fivefold since the war began. We have also lost over half a trillion tax dollars when our country is facing an economic meltdown. It’s easy to get riled up trying to contemplate what we’ve lost in this war, and it is just as easy for these statistics to strengthen our resolve and make us more determined to win. But what military campaign could possibly be worth such a cost? Even if we could “win” in Iraq, we have lost at home. And of course, as we struggle to clean the bloody mess in Iraq that we alone are responsible for, our true enemy, Al Qaeda, is festering in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we can’t even fight them there because the world doesn’t trust us to do right this time. How can we be winning if our true enemy has gained influence and is rallying foot soldiers as we are losing everything? And then there’s John McCain talking about victory and accusing his opponent of excising this word from his vocabulary even though that’s exactly what Mr. McCain needs to do. General David Petraeus himself has refused to use words like victory and defeat, because “[he] is a realist.” In his first televised debate with Barack Obama, McCain said that because of the surge “we are winning in Iraq,” and that because we are winning “we won’t come home in defeat and dishonor.” Regardless of our leader’s failures, our soldiers deserve honor for doing exactly what was asked of them. If McCain believes in such conditional love, then he is truly misguided. Instead of showing true leadership and making the hard decision to come home, he ignores the true conditions on the ground and seems to tout the successes of our soldiers solely to be able to claim that he was right and Barack Obama was wrong. The American people cannot afford another premature Mission Accomplished, and they cannot afford to give President Bush and John McCain another four years, or even eight years, to clean up their mess. We need to come home before we have nothing left to lose. • November 2008

5

NATI O NAL

Does Going Green Cause Hunger? Leslie Ogden Did you know that in the last three years global food prices have risen by 83 percent? Or that the food import bills of countries have increased by 25 percent, while wheat has reached its highest price in 28 years, and the price of corn has doubled? The UN recognizes these numbers as indicators of a global food crisis, and its undisputed effects are seen all over the world from grocery stores, to political unrest, to heightened malnutrition. Lately, the effect of biofuels, especially of corn ethanol, has been a highly disputed cause of the food crisis. Everyone, from reporters at the BBC to heads of state, has cursed ethanol and called for an immediate halt in its production, but are biofuels really the culprit? Or are they simply part of a slew of global problems that need to be addressed on a global level? Many critics don’t take into account the myriad of other factors involved in this global food crisis. Increasing oil prices, for one, are a monumental issue. Food travels throughout the world, and just as our plane tickets get more expensive thanks to increasing gas prices, the price of transporting these products grows too. In fact, the Government Accountability Office cites that the cost of transportation now represents 65 percent of total expenditures for the U.S. emergency food program. Additionally, modern farming technology requires oil and a multitude of other resources like fertilizers. To combat these soaring costs, the price of oil must go down, and without alternate energy sources like ethanol, analysis at Merrill Lynch predict that gasoline prices would spike another 14.6 percent. Additionally, increasing populations in China and India demand larger amounts of food. A rising middle class presents a greater demand for meat, which requires 700 calories worth of animal feed to produce a simple 100-calorie piece of beef. Other factors such as severe weather, changing dietary habits, and increased labor costs are all factors that need to be considered before blaming ethanol. However, there is no denying that biofuels have negative aspects. The main issue that links biofuels to the food crisis is the fact that instead of producing food, farmers produce fuel because of government incentives and subsidies in the U.S. 30 percent of the corn that farmers now produce goes toward ethanol. As a result, less wheat and fewer soybeans are produced, reducing their supply despite growing demand. Scientists additionally cite negative environmental effects of biofuels such 6

Tufts Roundtable

as deforestation, further degradation of land, and the fact that producing one gallon of ethanol uses most of the energy that the gallon contains. Furthermore, Nobel laureate chemist Paul Crutzen has proven that the application of nitrogen fertilizer on ethanol corn produces increased levels of atmospheric nitrous oxide that are 296 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Sadly, when compared to fossil fuels, the use of corn-based ethanol only reduces greenhouse gas emissions by ten to thirty percent. Global problems demand global solutions. Countries need to come together to invest in alternative energy sources and to develop research on cellulosic ethanol or the use of crops like jatropha. The world must also double its food production in 30 years. To do this, governments, esepcially that of the U.S., need to decrease subsidies and increase food production, while very populous countries like China and India need to reduce population growth. Worldwide, countries need to combat poverty and level out class disparity so people can have equal access to food. With problems like these, countries need to collaborate and the U.S. needs to take an active role and participate fully. This problem is bigger than just ethanol. It not only involves hunger, but also poverty, population growth, the world’s dwindling resources, education, and global warming. We need to put humanity’s interests above a single country’s, come together, and utilize our knowledge for the greater good. •

A Case for Change Shabazz Stuart So you run a business. It’s the year 2000. Your company has just closed the book on a fairly robust decade, your profits are up, debts are down. More importantly, your outgoing project manager has earned the confidence and respect of all the firm’s employees and investors. So now you find yourself at a crossroads; you could stick with the same consulting firm that gave you your current and very successful project manager, or you could go with the new flashy consulting firm that promises to do even better. Their rhetoric is appealing, their promises are hard to ignore. They promise bigger returns, a more transparent process, and lower prices. More importantly, they paint their main rivals as incompetent, bland and unimaginative. It’s a pretty contentious decision, but your company decides to go in a new direction; you award a four-year contract to the new flashy firm. Let’s fast forward to November of 2004, the expiration date of the first four-year contract. Revenue and profit are down, and your involved in unprofitable and potentially harmful business ventures. There are serious questions about the competency of your current consultants. Still, your hired help insist that this stage is merely a work in progress. Again, they attack their rival firm as unresolved and incompetent. They insist that the next four years will be a period of record growth. They argue that it is dangerous to make a change at such a critical time. Patience is the word of the day. Against your better judgment, your company awards another four-year contract to this firm. Again, let’s jump ahead four years. Its 2008, your company is on the verge of bankruptcy, your business ventures have exploded in your face. Investors are pessimistic and your employees are downtrodden. Unlike their predecessor, your current consultants do not enjoy any confidence from the members of your company or its investors, and unlike

Sam Wallis four years ago instead of looking to expand, you are looking to stay afloat; you need a savior. Again, you have two choices, your current consulting firm insist that they can fix the problems, they insist that the best days are still yet to come, yet they also have not changed any of their fundamental strategies. Their rivals, the ones who led during the good old days, also insist that they can fix the problem. Who are you going to go with? Unfortunately, this hypothetical scenario isn’t purely out of the realm of fiction. George Bush and the republicans have broken and bankrupted the American enterprise. They took a 127 billion dollar budget surplus in 2000 and in just four years produced a 400 billion dollar budget deficit that is still growing to this day. The national debt has exploded to unseen levels. Additionally, while insisting on tax cuts, President Bush and the Republicans also hoodwinked the American public into launching an unnecessary and costly adventure Iraq, while loosing focus on the real war against terrorism in Afghanistan. The bad judgment and selfishness of George Bush and the Republicans are truly breathtaking. In 2006, while the seeds of the economic meltdown of 2008 were blooming, the Republicans were busy pursuing stunts; a constitutional ban on flag burning and a similar ban on gay marriage. In 2005, while Hurricane Katrina made landfall, the administration stood blithely by as hundreds of thousands of people lay in limbo. And when both exploration of energy reduction methods and alternative sources of fuel would have made a difference, the President and Republicans in Congress were busy denying global warming, ignoring the deterioration of our national infrastructure, and giving tax breaks to big oil companies. In fact, by almost every measure, under the republicans, the American enterprise has regressed in the past eight years. November 2008

7

FE ATU R E This election offers presidential choices with two starkly So now here comes John McCain and the “new” Republicans, dedicated to reform the ways of Washington different judicial philosophies. John McCain, who seemed and to fix up the mess that they have created. Again, they moderate in his early days in public office, has moved so far to the right on this issue that even Mitt Romney, with his brand the Democrats as tax-raising socialists. Besides, the Republicans say, why is everyone looking Reagan-as-god rhetoric, seems more like Lyndon Johnson. into the past? This election is about the future. John Barack Obama will maintain the rights we’ve struggled to McCain isn’t George Bush, and George Bush isn’t running attain for over the last half-cenury. In the August Civil Forum on for re-election. the Presidency hosted at Saddleback Economic boom and bust are Telling the American Church by Pastor Rick Warren, inevitable. The market will rebound people not to evaluate McCain made very clear what sort only sooner rather than later with the the Republican Party of litmus test he was looking for proper leadership. An ineffective leader based on its failed policies before nominating a justice. When who admits to a lack of economic is ludicrous, especially when asked which justices he would not expertise and fails to understand have appointed to the Court, he reality will only compound the crises, the McCain and the listed, surprise, surprise, all of the turning the cyclical market into a Republicans stubbornly rely liberals. Maybe he forgot that it was long term doomsday. Barack Obama on the same tried and false those justices who ruled in favor has shown the proper judgment, principles of economics. ofhis landmark McCain-Feingold temperament and has surrounded Campaign Finance Reform. It was himself with advisers not encumbered by ideology. He will change the conservative “you’re on you those liberals who voted to uphold this bill. So McCain own” philosophy that has dominated Washington for the reached across the aisle to author the legislation but then past eight years and will not burden the American people opposed those who upheld that legislation? Which McCain would we be electing? The respected with misguided beliefs long after his term has ended. Maverick or Rush Limbaugh? Do we really need a president who is pressured by those around him to assume positions he may disagree with? Isn’t W. enough? Can’t we have a president who has the intellectual curiosity and desire to We are on the brink of setting our country back for question his own logic when simultaneously praising his decades. And not just in the market. own bipartisan initiatives and then in the next breath I am sick of hearing how this election is the most promising to overturn them? McCain has repeatedly important of our lifetime. I get it. We are the ones we’ve been said that he would appoint judges who, according to his waiting for. We put country first. But why is this election website, faithfully apply the law as written, not impose so important? Simply put, one vote. Not one hanging chad their opinions through judicial fiat. He is a strict adherent in Florida. Not one “yea” on the Senate floor. Not even to the philosophy of judicial restraint. This philosophy of one more superdelegate. I’m talking about one more justice convenience is only applied when it suits the conservative in our high court. Many legal scholars, most prominently cause. It doesn’t mean the judges will leave the laws alone. In Jeffrey Toobin, argue that we are one vote, just one Supreme fact, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, two conservative Court justice, away from undoing the progress made judges who McCain points to as exemplary, are the two over the last 50 years. Miranda rights? So long. Choice? judges most likely to, based on their records, overturn a No more. Easy access to the ballot box? Already on its law. That doesn’t sound like leaving major issues up to the way out. people through their elected officials in Congress. It is likely that whoever the next president is, four McCain will strap us with these “restrained” legal minds Supreme Court nominations might be at his fingertips. long after he is gone. John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, We know how much is at stake by guessing which and Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are both 72. McCain we’re getting. Election 2000? Why leave that one Seventy-two may be the new 50, but none of these four are vote to chance? Long after he’s out of office, we’re stuck spring chickens. with him.•

A Permanent Setback

8

Tufts Roundtable

Economy

- Impose windfall profits tax on oil companies to provide an emergency energy rebate to American families - Immediate tax cuts for individuals making less than $250,000. - Invest in infrastructure and energy efficient programs that create jobs. - End tax breaks for companies who send jobs overseas. - Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit and the minimum wage. - Increase capital gains tax for those making more than $250,000 per year. - Accountability in the credit and financial markets and reduce predatory lending while closing corporate tax loopholes. - Federal lending to cities and states facing fiscal problems. - Repeals the Bush tax cuts for individuals making more than $250,000 - Supports Fair Trade and restructuring of NAFTA - Eliminates income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 - Ensures freedom to unionize

Foreign Policy

- Opposed War in Iraq from beginning and the troop surge. - Withdraw one to two brigades per month to end troop presence within sixteen months and force the Iraqi government to provide self-security. - Believes the Iraq War diverted resources from fighting the threat of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and supports a redeployment of troops to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Health Care

- Mandates that all children have health insurance funded by rolling back the Bush taxcuts on households making over $250,000 per year. - Creates a government plan option similar to the one offered to federal government employees to achieve universal coverage. - Requires employers to provide workers with optional insurance plan.

Education

- Supports the objective of the No Child Left Behind legislation but believes it is an unfunded mandate that has placed the burden of improving education standards on the states. - Proposes a budget of $18 billion a year to fund high-need schools, teacher recruitment, performance-based pay, and arts education. - Supports charter schools, funding early childhood education programs, and increased Pell grants for college education.

Energy

- Opposed to the gas tax holiday and supports implementing a windfall profits tax on large oil companies to supplement a middle class tax cut. - Opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. - Supports ethanol subsidies but opposes to the expansion of nuclear power. - Supports clean coal technology and offshore drilling with the requirement for oil companies to utilize federal land already leased to them. November 2008

9

The Electo

H OW TO R E AD TH E M AP

Solid Republican Solid Democrat Tossup

State Massachusetts Previous two presidential results, by party. Al 2004: 62 D 37 R Gore (D-2000), John Kerry (D-2004), George W. (R-2000, 2004) 2000: 60 D 33 R Bush State classifications made 19 October 2008

oral College PR E D I C T I O N S: J o hn Pe te r G . K ay tr os h Obama: All states John Kerry won in 2004, Iowa, New Mexico,Virginia, and Colorado (286) McCain: All the states Bush won in 2004 minus Iowa, New Meixco, Virginia, and Colorado (252) Barack Obama will win all the 2004 Kerry states. John McCain has ceded Michigan by ending his campaign there, and Obama has had a consistently strong lead in Minnesota for weeks. New Hampshire gave Democrats convincing takeovers of both houses of their state legislature and both of its House seats in 2006. Obama will certainly win Iowa; voters there didn’t appreciate being snubbed when McCain igonored their caucus. Obama may also take Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida from the GOP.

PR E D I C T I O N S: Chas M o r r is o n McCain (270 electoral votes) Nevada (5) New Mexico (5) Ohio (20) Virginia (13) North Carolina (15) Indiana (11)

Obama (267) Colorado (9) Pennsylvania (21) New Hampshire (4) Iowa (7) Michigan (17)

PR E D I C T I O N S: Shab a z z Stu ar t Virginia will be close, but the GOP’s dominance over the Old Dominion will end this year, due to the changing demographics of Northern Virgina. New Hampshire didn’t go for Bush in ‘04, and won’t go for McCain in ‘08. Even though North Carolina is a noted Republican stronghold, Obama has built up a strong ground game, outspending McCain. Obama will eke out a win, bolstered by high turnout in the Research Triangle. Colorodo and Nevada’s Hispanic communities don’t like being snubbed by the GOP, giving it to the Democrats. The economic crisis makes Florida a battleground state yet again. Apparently, the voters of Michigan are not even worth the time of the GOP. The Republican Party might as well try again in Pennsylvania in 2012. But Ohio’s demographics present a problem for Democrats, whose success depends on turnout in Ohio’s northern cities. This gives Obama 333 electoral votes, leaving John McCain with 205.

Economy

- Government purchasing of troubled assets directly from financial institutions for $300 billion. - Proposes reducing capital gains tax if necessary to control the crisis. - Extends most of President Bush’s tax cuts. - Cuts the corporate tax rate. - Pays for tax cuts by freezing discretionary spending (except for military and veteran’s benefits) and eliminating earmarks. - Eliminates the alternative minimum tax - Supports free trade, NAFTA, and CAFTA - Supports secret ballots in union membership

Foreign Policy

- Supported authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. - Early critique of handling of the war by the Bush Administration. - Supported troop surge. - Opposes a timetable for withdrawal, but projects return of troops by 2013. - Supports both hard and soft international pressure on Syria and Iran. - Supports creation of League of Democracies. - Supports missile defense. - Along with opponent, supports genuine autonomy for former Soviet states.

Health Care

- Opposes any government plan or mandate and prefers market-based approach.

Education

Energy

12 Tufts Roundtable

- Supports $5000 healthcare tax credits for families. - Supports out-of-state healthcare plan purchases.

- Believes in limited role of federal government in education. - Supports No Child Left Behind but opposes current measures of success based on group rather than individual achievement. - Supports merit pay. - Supports federal funding for existing early childhood education programs but does not want to expand them. - Supports charter and home schooling, school vouchers and merit pay. - Supports consolidating existing college aid programs and benefits. - Supports gas tax holiday. - Opposes windfall profits tax on oil companies, ethanol subsidies, drilling in the Arctic. - Supports lifting the ban on offshore drilling, new nuclear power plants and coal and clean coal technologies. - Invests in clean alternative sources of energy, including nuclear, wind, solar, water power and clean coal technologies. - Supports and Cap and Trade system for pollution permits.

A Leader You Can Believe In Chas Morrison The next President will assume office in one of the least favorable strategic environments in recent American history. From the dusty streets of Mosul to the mountain passes of the Hindu Kush, to the highlands of the Caucuses to the financial markets of Wall Street, the Pax Americana is under siege. The fundamental challenge for the next administration will be to preserve American hegemony while safeguarding our financial institutions and reforming Washington. This is no time for hollow words and empty rhetoric. Over a lifetime of public service, John McCain has proven himself to be more than capable of navigating the treacherous waters of hegemony. Barack Obama, unfortunately, has not. Managing the Endgame in Iraq In the Middle East, the United States faces the twin challenges of both Sunni fundamentalism and Iranian messianism. To a large extent, Sunni fundamentalism as exemplified by Al Qaeda is a reaction to Iranian messianism. If Iran can be made less of a threat, the conservative Sunni states which channel funds and support to Sunni radical groups can diminish their support for proxy groups. Consequently, the primary battleground between Iran and the Gulf States—Iraq—looms tantamount to securing any sort of regional stability. If Iraq can emerge as a stable, independent, and moderately representative state, the United States will have secured an enormous victory in its struggle to build a new Middle East. If, however, Iraq were to fall apart and fall victim to Iranian influence or civil war, the floodgates would be opened and an all out regional conflict would materialize between the Iranians and the Gulf States. An independent and stable Iraq will never be allied to Iran due to historic, cultural and ethnic reasons; however, a destabilized Iraq into which Iran can project power would destroy the regional balance of power. While we are very close to the endgame in Iraq, our job is not yet done. Although sectarian warfare is dead, a political conflict has developed between the provinces and the central government. It will take American influence to mediate between these two sides and craft an Iraqi political consensus. This work will not be finished over night and it is easy to see the progress of the past two years evaporating if we fail to man-

Evan Chiaccharo age our endgame properly. Current gains are reversible and we must never abandon Iraq as we did Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal. Given the stakes in Iraq, it is worth more than passing observation that while Senator Obama exhibited a principled opposition to the war against Saddam Hussein in 2003, he has steadfastly refused to adjust his position to align with the geopolitical realities created by the Coalition invasion. It is one thing for have Senator Obama to have opposed the war in the March of 2003, but his intransigence in attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is astounding and quite frankly, damning of his judgment. While the Sunni insurgency reached its peak in mid 2006 and sectarian warfare did bring Iraq to the brink of collapse, the insurgency is now all but dead and remaining conflicts are intra—not inter—sectarian. Iraq didn’t return from the brink on its own: it took a comprehensive American counterinsurgency effort bolstered by the surge of five additional brigades, mostly into Baghdad, to turn the tide. When most Democrats and many Republicans had given up on the unpopular war, John McCain stepped into the breach and with Churchillian determination, fought to preserve American interests in Iraq when others would have abdicated our responsibility. It is no exaggeration to say that it is only because of the political courage of men such as Senator McCain that Iraq today has a fighting chance to face a future free from fear. Afghanistan on the Brink The news is not so good from Afghanistan. The hapless and corrupt Afghani government is powerless to stop insurgent gains and the United States now finds itself facing a similar situation as the Soviets twenty years ago: while we control the major population centers, insurgents are increasingly gaining influence in the countryside and in the rugged mountain passes. While Senator Obama has rightfully called for an increased American troop presence in Afghanistan, troops alone will not solve the problem. At its peak, the Soviet presence in Afghanistan totaled some 118,000 troops. NATO now has 53,000 troops in Afghanistan and Senator Obama’s plan for Afghanistan would add roughly 15,000 American troops. While this is clearly a necessary increase, throwNovember 2008 13

FE ATU R E ing more troops at the problem is not a substitution for proper Freddie while ignoring their irresponsible financial practices. strategy. The problem is that the United States doesn’t have a Looking ahead, it is clear that increased oversight and regulastrategy for Afghanistan that deals with Pakistan, the source of tion will be required to put a stop to irresponsible lending. It most of Afghanistan’s problems. Until we address the underly- is equally clear that these reforms must be carried out by an ading causes of instability emanating from Pakistan—the feeble ministration which had the foresight to see the current financial government, the rogue security services, and the porous borders, crisis years in advance and tried to stop it. we will never fix Afghanistan. Senator McCain’s AfghanistanThe Reform We Need Pakistan strategy not only seeks to emIn the age of mass media, this elecIn these perilous times, power and clean up the Afghani govtion has frequently been analyzed down Americans deserve a President who to experience versus change. However, ernment through the strengthening of the institutions of state, but calls for the the ideas of experience and change are is willing to buck the extensive use of local tribal actors in Wapolitical establishment and do what not mutually exclusive. Since the early ziristan in order to hunt down insurgents 1990’s, McCain has made a career of is right and not necessarily what is in much the same way that the Awakstriking independent views on issues, popular. ening Councils in Iraq drove al Qaeda reaching across the aisle, and not toeing from Anbar Provence. Afghanistan is in the party line. His experience doesn’t dire, dire straits. However, the situation is salvageable—if we oppose his ideas for change, rather, it supports them. And while pursue the right strategy and are willing to commit the neces- Obama may have the flashy speech and the snappy slogan to sary resources. parade his mantra of change, McCain has the actions to back The Financial 9/11 up his words. The deep and pervasive financial crisis this September was a Change is working to reform campaign finance laws despite threat to our way of life. Without healthy financial institutions, strong opposition from within his party, as McCain did beginAmericans simply cannot enjoy the quality of life they have ning in 1994. Change is not reneging on your pledge to accept grown accustom to. When the circumstances demanded it, not public financing. Change is having the bravery to take on your only did John McCain stand up and meet the crisis head on, but entire party, as McCain did in 1998 when he proposed a bill that he showed exceptional foresight in trying to prevent the financial would impose heavy taxes on the tobacco industry to support meltdown. As early as 2005, Senator McCain and Congressio- anti-smoking campaigns, and having the bravery to fight for an nal Republicans tried to pass legislation which would have tight- unpopular idea, as McCain did when almost single-handedly ened regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The regula- fighting for the troop surge in Iraq. Change is not voting 97 tions would have limited the circumstances under which Fannie percent of the time with your party, the party that for the last two and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages. More precisely, years has controlled a congress with one of the lowest approval the legislation would have limited the number of subprime loans ratings in history, as Barack Obama has done since becoming Fannie and Freddie would have been able to finance. If Fannie a Senator. Change is being willing to fight to cut spending by and Freddie had been prevented from purchasing bad loans—a cracking down on earmarks and discussing the unpopular noproblem which they compounded by repackaging the mortgag- tion of freezing some government spending programs until the es and selling them to firms as securities—this entire economic budget is in order. Change is not proposing tax breaks while catastrophe probably could have been avoided. Instead, Senator not suggesting any major reductions in government spending. Obama and many of his fellow Democrats blocked the legisla- True change will come from the courage to carefully consider tion and the proposal fell through. The principle Democratic each issue and work with both parties for solutions, and John objection to reform of Fannie and Freddie was that increased McCain’s record shows that he’s just the man to do this. regulation and pressure would undermine access to affordable A Leader You Can Believe In housing. However, many Democrats also had a pecuniary inIn these perilous times, Americans deserve a President who terest in the lack of oversight over Fannie and Freddie, including is willing to buck the political establishment and do what is right Barack Obama, who was the second largest recipient on Capitol and not necessarily what is popular. Over a lifetime of public Hill of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, with service, John McCain has risen time and again to the challenge. donations totaling over $126,000. While campaign contribu- With the future of American power at stake, the United States tions are a natural part of any democratic process, it is discon- needs a leader who can successfully navigate the ship of state certing to see how Senator Obama freely took from Fannie and through the perilous storms of the future. • 14 Tufts Roundtable

NATIO NAL

McCain’s Pro-Choice Movement Jan McCreary Americans serious about keeping abortion legal in the United States probably won’t vote for John McCain. But pro-choice voters shouldn’t rule it out. Recently, McCain has appeared anything but a maverick in his approach to abortion rights. From his comments at the Saddleback Church Forum to policy prescriptions on his own website, John McCain seems to have embraced his party’s insistence that all life begins at conception and that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized a woman’s right to privacy, must be overturned. However, this hasn’t always been the case. During his 2000 primary campaign, John McCain spoke with the San Francisco Chronicle about his then progressive policies. McCain touted his pro-life record in Congress, but opposed overturning Roe in the interest of women who would be forced into dangerous and illegal abortion procedures. In that same breath, McCain made clear his strong opposition to the radical right. He proposed that the Republican platform desert the notion of completely banning abortions and instead work towards eradicating the social problems that make abortion the only option for many women. While these comments may be thoroughly moderate, it is hard to imagine how John McCain could win a national election on the Republican ticket while openly criticizing the core social ideals of his party. In the eyes of the American public, there is no such thing as a legitimate flip-flop. But for John McCain, the alternative to flip-flopping would mean alienating a core voting block of social conservatives, and therefore, committing political suicide. Voters should recognize that after being backed into a corner by the political interests of his party, it’s unlikely that McCain’s current abortion policies reflect his true beliefs. Still, it’s understandable why many would not want to bet their votes on an intuitive, though logical, assumption. This brings up the consequences of John McCain’s current commitment to overturning Roe. With five of nine Supreme Court Justices over the age of seventy, the next president may well have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice in his first term. Yet the overturning of Roe would not necessarily mean an end

to abortion in the United States. McCain currently endorses giving individual states the power to legislate abortion as an alternative to the unlikely ratification of a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Although this policy does not guarantee legalization, in the long run, it would help legitimize abortion rights. Since our nation’s founding, the validity of the Supreme Court has been challenged. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson warned that the Court, not being subject to popular control, would be manipulated by elites and only vaguely represent the people. In many respects, Roe exemplified the unwarranted authority Jefferson feared the Supreme Court would attain. Roe was based primarily on the right to privacy, a concept never declared in the Constitution. The Court ruled that the “penumbra” of rights granted by the Bill of Rights and the Due Process Clause encompass a general right to privacy. The enforcement of this right, the Court argued, guaranteed the right to abortion. To this day, this series of inferences seems overly intellectualized and sparsely supported to some Americans, while for others it chips away at the very notion of popular sovereignty in the United States. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a supporter of abortion rights, criticized Roe for terminating an emerging democratic movement towards the liberalization of abortion policy. If abortion legislation became the responsibility of the states, as John McCain is currently proposing, this opportunity for a popular pro-abortion movement would once again be renewed. Truly, if the public rallied and pressured Congress to pass a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion it would be considerably more difficult for anyone to challenge the validity of abortion rights in the future. So even if John McCain doesn’t follow through on the abortion policies he promised in 2000, abortion rights will prevail in the United States, as long as the people want them to. A vote for John McCain isn’t a vote against abortion. It’s a vote for a long-term solution. • November 2008 15

NATI O NAL

Recognizing Our Shame Shabazz Stuart Two months ago, after more than 140 years since the emancipation of African-Americans, and more than 40 years after the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, the U.S. House of Representatives, with little fanfare, passed a resolution officially apologizing for the “fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow.” Sponsored by more than 120 congressmen, the apology represented an important first step for the federal government regarding race relations in the United States. For a moment, let us look past the fact that this legislation was initially sponsored by besieged Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who represents a majority African-American district in Memphis. Cohen, who happens to be Jewish, was facing bitter primary battle against Nikki Tinker, an African American woman. For a moment, let’s pretend that the apology produced by the House of Representatives was non-political and genuine; that the representatives who sponsored and supported the bill did so due to their nagging moral convictions and not political gamesmanship. Our naïve assumptions fully in place, we can begin to ask deeper questions. First, why has it taken so long? Many Americans were surprised to hear that the federal government had not already apologized to African-Americans for the wrongs of the nations past. After all, we are an enlightened nation. America is the nation that joyously celebrates Martin Luther King’s birthday every January, other African-American icons such as Harriet Tubman and Malcolm X have gained recognition and we’ve even assigned the entire month of February to serve as Black History Month. Perhaps this is why a recent CBS/New York Times survey revealed that 55 percent of white Americans described race relations as “good” (the same was true for 29 percent of African Americans). So if we’ve come so far since the dark days of our past, why hasn’t our federal government followed the lead of North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, and Alabama in issuing an apology for its role in slavery and Jim Crow? Why are politicians on both sides of the political spectrum so frightened to go near an issue that has so much relevance to the nation that we are today? Race remains the political third rail. Most politicians, certainly all on the federal level, are wary of provoking a race16 Tufts Roundtable

based conversation among their constituents. Partisans on both sides of the political spectrum could potentially create an untenable no-win situation for any lawmaker or politician who dares bring up the subject of race or an apology. Activists and extremists on the right will cry “pander”; vocally pointing out that apology in question pertains to events that transpired over 100 years ago. They will loudly and boisterously wonder if the government has anything better to do with its time. Meanwhile radicals from the left, especially those in the black community, might see this as an opportunity to further the cause for reparations (another-political lightning rod). Why are politicians so frightened of this scenario? It’s already happened. In Virginia, the African-American community was outraged when Frank Hargrove, a white legislator, said “black citizens should get over” slavery (Hargrove was eventually pressured into voting for the resolution). In Maryland, another legislator sparked similar outrage in responding to a similar resolution by saying apologies were just “feel-good superficial measures”. Similar House legislation in 1997 sparked an outpouring of editorials from both sides pressuring the government to go further in its apology and (on the opposite end of the spectrum) to kill the legislation all together. All three incidents sparked uncomfortable and awkward debates that essentially created a political landmine for lawmakers. So why should lawmakers brave the electoral risks and officially apologize for slavery and Jim Crow? Even today, many Americans oppose slavery apology on various grounds. The taglines are all too familiar: “Slavery happened more than 100 years ago, before my family came to America, so why should I apologize?”, “Apologies don’t really accomplish anything but making people feel better”, “Hundreds of thousands of Americans died to free slaves, isn’t that sacrifice enough?” One conservative even professed that the government’s only job is to “to protect liberty, as long as the government protects the freedoms of African Americans now; the past is irrelevant.” The first claim represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the American society and the American promise. Any elementary student will recall the American promise that brought millions of immigrants to our shores. Simply put, immigrants did not come to America because of the scenery; they came because “the streets were paved with gold”. They came

NATIO NAL because of the prospect of economic prosperity and freedom, the promise of a better life. As the general rule of assimilation goes, a prospective citizen accepts all the benefits and drawbacks of the new society. One can’t take part in the glory of America’s past without confronting the shame of it; to do so would be un-American. Whether we’re immigrants ourselves, the descendants of immigrants or the descendants of founding fathers, we all have an equal stake in America. The next two arguments are also invalid because they rest on a premise that assumes that an apology only serves to appease African Americans. My conservative friend was right, one of government’s primary tasks is to preserve and to protect liberty. More importantly, our government should be accountable to itself and its citizens. This means that when government fails, an apology is appropriate, not to appease the

offended citizens but for the sake of accountability. In this case, the American government failed to live up to the standards set in its own founding document: the Constitution. It stood idly by as millions of its own citizens were enslaved, disenfranchised, imprisoned and murdered. So what are we to tell those politicians, who are afraid to tread the proverbial political landmine that is a general recognition of the government’s own past failures? If we truly believe in government accountability, if we believe that our government has an obligation to be transparent and reflective, then let’s encourage the President and the Senate to live up to our best bureaucratic ideals. Let’s urge the federal government to issue a statement of recognition and apology, not just to blacks, but to all of Americans who put their faith and confidence in the stars and stripes. •

Rethinking Manifest Destiny David Stern In the wake of rising gas prices and greater concentrations of Americans living in metropolitan areas, public transportation usage increased over 5% in the last year. America’s transportation infrastructure is crumbling, and in some cases collapsing, yet many continue to call for the death of that frivolous waste of taxpayer dollars, that model of nationalization’s inevitable failure – Amtrak. Although Amtrak has consistently failed to address problems within its organization, with reform it has the potential to not only be a profitable investment of taxpayer dollars but a vital institution to the United States as well. Amtrak’s travails date long before it was born out of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970. The private railroad companies that transferred their operations to Amtrak (National Passenger Rail Corporation) were struggling for decades to compete with the proliferation of air and automobile travel. Now, Amtrak still has not made an annual profit but it is not incapable of doing so. The northeast corridor, the track that connects Boston to New York to Washington D.C., actually makes a profit. About 80% of Amtrak’s losses occur on routes that only account for 15% of ridership. These routes are over 700 miles long; they are maintained primarily to provide rural service and to maintain the nationally interconnected system. The policy of maintaining these dead weight routes should be abandoned in favor of a more regional-intensive approach and the provision of bus service to low-ridership routes. Intensifying regional hubs can be achieved by focusing traffic around Amtrak’s already highly routed cities: San Francisco, New Orleans, Chicago, Denver, and the Northeast

corridor. By concentrating service around regional hubs, Amtrak could provide more frequent service as more trains cover a smaller area. As it operates now, Amtrak serves regions like the Southeast, where trains come through as little as once a day. The costs of maintaining service on these tracks hardly justify their preservation over the alternative use of bus service. In order to maintain a semblance of an interconnected system, the federal government should subsidize the highspeed rail technology long ago adopted in Europe and East Asia. These trains can provide intercity service between the major hubs, and serve as a price competitive alternative to air travel. Maglev trains – those that are propelled by magnetic forces rather than wheels – could also compete with air travel in terms of time efficiency. Not only are these trains markedly more sustainable than the competition, their maintenance costs are only a fraction of their wheeled peers. New tracks would be costly, but building them would create jobs for many Americans during this economic downturn. Ownership of the lines would also give Amtrak trains right of way; Amtrak currently operates on private freight rail lines and most delays are caused by Amtrak trains having to yield to passing freight trains. As it exists now, Amtrak cannot continue to be subsidized without a massive overhaul. It also cannot be ignored until it becomes a mere vestige of a formerly great American institution. This is an opportunity to restore greatness to the shameful state of America’s transportation infrastructure. We must not let it pass. • November 2008 17

NATI O NAL

Kill Capital Punishment Nick Perricone I sat pensively over the page, as I lifted my highlighter at the period, having deemed the words preceding it worthy of my emphasis. It was a line from the diary of Gregorio Dati, a Florentine silk merchant writing in the early 15th century. One line particularly struck me: “In order to ensure the peace and good of my own conscience, I vowed that I would never accept any office, if my name should be drawn, wherein I would have the power to wield the death penalty.” I was slightly taken aback-needing to remind myself that this was written in 1404-- and yet at once dismayed, that we are here, six hundred and four long, difficult years of moral evolution later, about to elect one of two American presidential candidates unwilling to make a similar statement. This is something to be ashamed of. And I am choosing my words carefully, so I am as precise as my faculties will allow when I say “ashamed of.” For by participating in the upcoming election, I shall be implicitly granting the state the power to decide whether or not I or any other of its citizens may exist. So I see good reason to be rather ashamed of myself. Neither I nor any other member of the human race is worthy of granting such a concession of individual sovereignty, nor any state or fellow human worthy of receiving it. I say this regardless of whether or not such a power could be “properly” employed: whether or not the “right ones” were to be eliminated. It is a matter of principle that the state does not have the right to make such judgment-and potential irreversible error-- in the first place. That is to say, enough of this raison d’être we hear of “determent”-that we’re being “tough on crime.” I can think of no better way of expressing my opposition to this than by underlining what it is I oppose: that the government ought to be in the business of sanctioning killing in order to send a message. Furthermore, may we recall legal execution’s lowly origins: stoning, hanging, death by firing squad. Upon traveling further down this noble road of human progress we encounter decapitation, gas chambers, and the recent memory of the electric chair; from there it’s only a short distance later before we arrive at twenty-first century America for what the apologists of the death machine describe as 18 Tufts Roundtable

the “humane” means of annihilation: chemical injection. And this is not to mention the institution’s near cousin-lynching. Forgoing the opportunity to cite any statistics indicating racial bias, I shall merely say this: the scars our country bears need not the aggravation of the debate this repugnant institution provokes. In an election season replete with references to change and reform, it is high time we abolish this antiquated institution. Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be the case. While the recent ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana was what one might call a step in the right direction, by reserving the penalty only for cases of homicide (presumably as if to say the imprimatur of death is only to be given when the slaying is mutual), this incremental abolition of the penalty must nonetheless be criticized: Christopher Hitchens once put it well enough by saying such a gradual abrogation of the system was as if “the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had upheld the theory and practice of slavery while trying to limit the use of the lash and the shackle.” Instead we should do well to heed Justice John Paul Stevens’s exhortation in his separate opinion to “rethink the justification for the penalty itself.” Howard Zinn once astutely asked what Dostoyevsky’s notable remark that “the degree of civilization of a society can be measured by entering its prisons” said about a society that implemented capital punishment . If now is truly the time for change, here is an area in which it is long overdue. •

Moscow and Its Missiles Chris Walczyszyn Those of us who thought the fall of the Soviet Union would usher in a new age of U.S.-Russian relations have watched with disappointment as a brief period of goodwill between the once mortal enemies has slowly faded. Tensions between Moscow and Washington are once again on the rise following an agreement signed by Poland and the United States to establish a U.S. missile defense system in the former Soviet satellite. Previous animosity between the two nations stemmed from Washington’s active support of Georgian membership in NATO, American opposition to Russia’s invasion of this former Soviet Republic, and a similar missile defense agreement brokered with the Czech Republic in early July. Now, tensions have been dangerously exacerbated by Washington’s continual failure to heed Moscow’s legitimate security concerns about the missile defense system. According to the State Department, the U.S. seeks to protect itself and its NATO allies “from the growing threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles of increasingly greater ranges, lethality, and sophistication, and potentially armed with weapons of mass destruction”. Specifically, the goal is to protect NATO members from missiles from belligerent nations in the Middle East. While the United States has every right, and every obligation, to prevent attacks on itself and its allies, the close proximity of Poland and the Czech Republic to Russia raises several key issues. Perhaps the most important of them is U.S. intrusion into what Russia views as its sphere of influence. Before the United States signed any treaties cementing the details of the missile defense system, Russia cautioned that it would take retaliatory action if the implementation of such a system took place in Eastern Europe. The Pentagon, however, according to Reuters, has written off Moscow’s warnings as merely “bellicose rhetoric designed to make Europeans nervous,” clearly ignoring the potential gravity of Russia’s response to the construction of a missile defense system. When asked how his nation would respond to missiles being placed in Eastern Europe during an interview with De Spiegel earlier

this year, Russian Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, stated that if the United States and Russia could come to no agreement regarding missile placement, “[Russia] will have to point our missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic.” Ambassador Rogozin also stated during his interview that “[the Americans] place weapons right under our nose and they maintain that they are not pointed at us. That is a lie and a hostile act.” While less inflammatory, Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev also appears to share the view that the U.S. intends to aim its missiles at Russia, saying during an interview with CNN that though negotiations are continuing, “Our perception is that all these weapon systems are being created around our borders to put further pressure on Russia.” Russia has indeed attempted to compromise with the United States and has suggested a Russian base in Azerbaijan and an area in southern Russia as alternative locations for the missile defense system. The United States, while feigning a perpetual commitment to work with the Russians on the system’s construction, maintains that it must be located in Eastern Europe to guarantee effective protection against potential threats to NATO’s security. It is imperative that the United States attempt to assuage Moscow’s concerns before constructing the missile defense system. Russia has made it plainly clear that it will not take the placement of missiles at its borders lightly and will respond appropriately by pointing its missiles at America’s Eastern European allies. The fact of the matter is that Washington has completely ignored the very valid concerns of Russia and has dubbed them mere threats. To disregard the statements of such a key player on the world scene, and specifically in Eastern Europe, is both foolish and irresponsible. The consequences could be dire. According to Russia’s ambassador to NATO, a second arms race is a very real possibility. Washington has an obligation to its citizens and to its allies in NATO to maintain non-hostile diplomatic ties with the Russian Federation to avoid a standoff reminiscent of the Cold War. The placement of missiles at its borders despite Moscow’s opposition is not the way to do it. • November 2008 19

I NTE R NATI O NAL

A Crisis in Bolivia Asad Badruddin In the past few months the United States has faced several complex foreign policy problems, the crisis in Georgia being a prime example. One of the issues that have not been highlighted in the media as much is the current turn of events in Bolivia. The United States Ambassador to Bolivia was recently declared a public enemy and expelled by President Evo Morales. Subsequently Venezuela followed suit with Hugo Chavez announcing that the U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela had to leave. On the September 11, 2008, Leopoldo Fernandez, one of the governors who is part of the National Democratic Council, an opposition party, allegedly used his paramilitary force to kill and torture dozens of peasants outside the town of Porvinir. Fernando later fled to rural Brazil and was then arrested and brought back to Bolivia. Evo Morales blamed the United States ambassador for financing opposition activities such as these. Bolivia has made an impressive transition to democracy. President, Morales, is very popular with the middle class workers and lower middle class peasants that form the majority of his electoral base. After sending in the military to Porvinir and following negotiations to form a tense peace on September 15th, thousands of workers, students and their families marched to support their President’s actions. Even though the days before the massacre were filled with anti-government protests in which rioters inflicted heavy damage on businesses, a recall vote on August 10, 2008 showed that Morales had a 67% majority. His socialist policies such as redistributing of land and natural gas have empowered the middle class and have given him the necessary populist backing to forge a peace agreement. There have been a couple of other major reasons why Morales has been able to fight off these rebellions. Firstly he enjoys the support of the military. His is probably the first civilian government that can say so. He has done this by shrewdly giving army officials access to lucrative jobs in the semi-civilian sector such as customs, increased their wages and has incorporated them into a nation building process by having them distribute bonuses to school children and senior citizens. The military’s refusal to support the anti-government movement has played an important role in the peace making process possible. Moreover many of the Latin American states have responsibly expressed solidarity with Morales and his government. Latin American countries are becoming increasingly involved in 20 Tufts Roundtable

establishing a global presence thanks to strong economies in Brazil and Venezuela, which have made good use of the discovery of oil and gas reserves. Brazil, an emerging regional player, does not want its neighbor, from whom it gets half its supply of gas from, to be destabilized. Hence in a meeting on September 15th in Chile, the Latin American leaders gave their full backing to Morales and called on the United States to stop interfering in Bolivia’s internal affairs. The U.S. ambassador denied this charge moments after he was expelled, stating that, “All the accusations made against me, against my embassy... against my country and against my people are entirely false and unjustified.” Given the history of the region, strong, unified action by the Latin American countries was surprising and refreshingly assertive. But the countries must tread carefully. Openly criticizing the U.S. could be dangerous to their national interests because the U.S. still holds influence over some parts of the region. This show of unity tells us Latin America has come a long way from its years of unrest, dictatorship and economic turmoil. A new Latin America is emerging, one that is independent in its foreign and economic policy. If they can continue to look out for each other as they did in the Bolivian crisis it may usher a new era of regional stability and greater economic prosperity. •

November 2008 21

7XIWV

Roundtable

Tufts Roundtable

The Journal of Political Discourse www.tuftsroundtable.org Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service Lincoln Filene Hall Tufts University Medford, MA 02155

J M. T C  C  P S S   I  P C 22 Tufts Roundtable