Tufts Roundtable, Volume 2, December 2008

TUFTS

ROUNDTABLE The Journal of Political Discourse

December 2008

1

Institute of Political Citizenship

Tufts Roundtable Tisch College congratulates Tufts Roundtable for its continued success in raising the civic dialogue at Tufts. !

For information on civic engagement at Tufts, visit Tisch College at activecitizen.tufts.edu.

Contact I nformation TUFTS

ROUNDTABLE The Journal of Political Discourse

Tufts Roundtable 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 H E AD TO H E AD 9

Overstepping the Boundary

11

Renewed Regulation

David Stern Brian O’Reilly and Shabazz Stuart

I NTE R NATIO NAL: IN - DE P TH 15

Foreign Policy of a Global President

Shayan Purkayastha

LOC AL AN D C AM PUS ISSUES 4

Let Them Come to Massachusetts

John Peter G. Kaytrosh

NATIO NAL 5

Thoughts From the Mob

6

Popularity is Not Security

7

The New Face of Foreign Policy

Ashish Malhotra

8

Daisy’s Demise: The New Campaign

Will Cohn

13

War Games: Protecting Our Cities

Ian Hainline

14

The Growing Divide: Real America?

Leslie Ogden

Brandon Rattiner Chas Morrison

INTE R NATIO NAL AFFAIR S 17

The Forgotten Poverty

18

Beyond the Bullets: Politics in Iraq

19

Courting the IMF

19

Responsibility to Protect

Connor Gramazio

20

A Monroe Doctrine for Today

Evan Chiacchiaro

Faris Islam Colin Smith Asad Badruddin

December 2008

1

- Brian Kato

2

Tufts Roundtable

from the editor So, he pulled it off. Actually, they pulled it off. And not just the 66,862,039 Americans that voted for Barack Obama. The congressional Democrats were the real winners on Election Day. Republicans waking up on November 5th had reason to be disappointed. They lost the presidency to a political newcomer. Republican strongholds like Virginia and North Carolina flipped to “that one.” But it wasn’t that bad. Republicans could rest assured that they were still relevant in that old boys’ club, the United States Senate. They lost five seats, but thanks to Senate procedure, each and every Republican still could stop 59 other Senators from pushing through legislation; they had the filibuster. Since then Republicans have seen even that last lifeline falter. Ted Stevens, the Alaskan Senator of 40 years, lost his reelection bid after final ballots were tallied almost two weeks after Election Day. Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon saw his seat switch sides with Jeff Merkley’s victory. Incumbent Norm Coleman’s lead over Saturday Night Live producer Al Franken for the Minnesota Senate seat has fallen to just 136 votes with ballots still being counted as of this printing. Democratic victories in Minnesota and in the runoff election on December 2nd for the Georgia Senate seat held by Republican Saxby Chambliss could bring the Democrats to 60 seats. That just happens to be the number required to invoke cloture and force that sole filibustering Republican to sit down. Still, it is unlikely that the Democrats will reach the elusive sixty. And Republicans should be thanking their nominee for giving them hope even in the face of 58 “yea” votes. John McCain prevented them from exercising the “nuclear option” in 2005 to change the filibuster rule; now it is their only lifevest in a sea of blue. With control of the Oval Office and congressional margins not seen in decades, the Democrats have the power to steamroll their opponents and push major reforms. They will be tempted to do spitefully everything they couldn’t during the Newt-Bush era. Congressional Democrats will be wise not to live up to their reputation as the party of big government. New government programs will not solve America’s problems. Massive regulation will not bring the Dow back. Big government is not good government. Barack Obama, by slowly bringing in a moderate team, including economic adviser Austin Goolsbee and his pragmatic primary opponent Hillary Clinton, has already shown he is not the radical liberal “real America” feared. Still, with one-party government and the potential for a new era of government along the lines of the $700 billion bailout, we chose to examine in this issue of the Roundtable the role government already plays in our lives. Our writers chose to focus on food regulation to discuss how much government is too much government.

Samuel Wallis

tufts roundtable Editor-in-Chief

Samuel Wallis

Managing Editors

Austin Field Laura Pacifici

Editing Staff

Asad Badruddin Evan Chiacchiaro Nick Perricone

Graphics/Layout Editor

Charlotte Harrison

Senior Design Staff

Leanne Brotsky John Peter Kaytrosh Daniel Rosenblum

Design Staff

Rebecca Goldberg Connor Gramazio Lydia Hochheimer Brian Kato

Business manager

Shabazz Stuart

Assistant Business Manager

David Stern

Advertising Manager

Daniel Rosenblum

Webmanagers

Connor Gramazio Richard Mondello

Contributors

Will Cohn Faris Islam Ian Hainline Ashish Malhotra Brian O’Reilly Leslie Ogden Shayan Purkayastha Brandon Rattiner Colin Smith

Founders Shabazz Stuart Samuel Wallis Chas Morrison IOPC Student Board Members Megan Dalton, Dean Ladin, Jarrod Niebloom, Matthew Shapanka, and Shabazz Stuart

December 2008

3

Let Them Come to Massachusetts John Peter G. Kaytrosh In 2005, Massachusetts State Senator Brian Lees (R-Hampden) withdrew his support for a constitutional amendment that would ban the right to same-sex marriage that had been guaranteed in the landmark Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, an amendment that he himself had initially sponsored. He justified this change of heart by saying, “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the Commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry.” Indeed, this is – or at least, should be – the crux of the argument for legalized same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, it was not an argument accepted by the people of California this Election Day, who passed Proposition 8, which limits “marriage” to the union of one man and one woman, by a slim margin. However, if the people of California had been informed of what the people of Massachusetts have known for some time, the result would certainly have been different. Charlotte Harrison As Senator Lees noted, same-sex marriage has not, in a substantive manner, changed life in Massachusetts, except for those who choose to exercise their affirmed right. Since that warm night on May 17, 2004, when couples lined up in Cambridge to enter into expedited unions, more than eight thousand same-sex couples have become legally wed in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has not, it should be noted, become a Las Vegas of same-sex marriage; in 2004, then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) invoked a rarely cited 1913 law which prohibited any out-of-state persons from marrying in Massachusetts if that marriage would not be legal in their home state. Not until July 2008 was this law repealed. It is reasonable to argue that perhaps this should not have been done; requiring out-of-state couples to live in Massachusetts in order to marry would be an excellent means of carrying out the Commonwealth’s “City on a Hill” mission. The societal benefits of any such union recognized by Massachusetts, such as stable foster or adoptive families or good role models for gay and lesbian teens, would be evident to all as something done by and for citizens of Massachusetts,

4

Tufts Roundtable

encouraging others to work for the same solid foundations in their own state or to migrate to Massachusetts. It would also show respect for federalism rather than goading other states into calling for a federal ban on same-sex marriage. Indeed, federal law does not require states to recognize marriages from any other state if they would be illegal there. Nevertheless, the point has been made to many reluctant Bay Staters like Sen. Lees; same-sex marriage is hurting nobody. A large part of the reason that the scare tactics of the “Yes on 8” campaign succeeded in California was because the people of California did not truly get the opportunity to see what we saw in Massachusetts – equality – exist in their own state for more than a few months. For this reason, the “Yes on 8” sponsors, in the face of a decidedly anemic opposition, were able to mislead voters into thinking that the continuation of same-sex marriage would lead to the wholesale destruction of family, religion, and education in the Golden State. In Massachusetts, the situation was such that legislators were able to stall any prospect of these minority rights from being decided on by a majority of voters doing their duty of evaluating the situation and waiting until enough time had passed to make a rational decision. This rational decision was not to send this measure to the voters. In another era, consummate Yankee John F. Kennedy said, in the heat of a pitched battle over an even darker form of oppression than that which we face today, “Let them come to Berlin.” Not only was he trying to point out the failures of the East German regime, but also the pride of the citizens of the West Berlin enclave of freedom. And so, I do not doubt that were Kennedy alive today, he, like his brother Ted today, would be standing with us. He too would realize after living with it for almost five years that same-sex marriage has injured nobody, and he would be saying, as I do, “Let them come to Massachusetts.” Whereas California and many other states have failed, Massachusetts, and now Connecticut, have proven resilient and now carry the mantle of equality for this entire nation. •

Thoughts From The Mob Brandon Rattiner

As we marched together to Davis Square, there was undeniable electricity that ran through us. Between the hugs and tears, the chants of “OBAMA” and the singing of our national anthem, a group of Tufts students celebrated the victory of a relatively unknown political superstar with the type of vigor typically reserved for the accomplishments of friends and family. But what was so exciting and different about Barack Obama? Hope. Change. Whatever. What do those words actually mean, and what motivated a hundred or so students to unite around this well-spoken candidate? As I stood in the center of that mob and gazed into the eyes of my peers, I began to understand the significance of our solidarity. Obama’s victory was personal, and frankly, it went way beyond Barack. These people were celebrating America. Like rekindling a relationship with a friend that drove you away through years of neglect and heartbreak, we were reengaging with a country we thought we had lost forever. Throughout my education I have labored through the classics of American literature and history, often with annoyance and indifference. In a globalized world, the values preached in books seem so outdated. Yeah, the American dream exists, but it didn’t really seem uniquely American anymore. Yeah, America used to be a place that immigrants idealized and foreigners respected, but contemporary America has been dismissed as reckless and uncultured. For my entire life it seemed that American exceptionalism – that fundamental belief that America has a unique obligation to serve as a role model for the rest of the world – was totally antiquated. Our generation is too young to remember a time when Americans were proud of our government. Vietnam, Watergate, sex scandals, and Bush’s all-timelow approval ratings had reduced government to a late-night com-

edy punch line, and this was my only point of reference. America wasn’t exceptional; it was barely functional. I have always loved my country, but I have never loved my government, and my separation of the two never allowed me to really internalize the hyperbolic values and significance authors and historians assigned to America. Enter Obama. A biracial Hawaiian with a scary name. An unapologetic intellectual who refused to dumb down his rhetoric. A citizen of the world who values diplomacy and unity. Not only did he captivate America, he enchanted the whole world. Nearly every country wanted him to win. His election meant something to everyone, it was personal, and I could see it in the eyes of every Jumbo who shamelessly celebrated his victory. For one of the first times in all of our lives, we felt it. We felt that uniquely American feeling that we had never known. For one night, the whole world looked up to us, because only in America could Barack Obama wrestle away the presidency from the political establishment. Our democracy won out and emphatically claimed that we were ready to lead the world again. As Obama eloquently stated, “the true power of America is not in our military and economic might, it is our intangible commitment to freedom and democracy. Only America can be the ‘City on the Hill.’” His election reaffirmed this. We returned from Davis Square that night changed. I finally understood that the literary connotation of America is just as applicable today as it ever was, and as I looked around, it seemed my peers were equally enlightened. Obama was not the only victor; surely everyone had won something that night. In the face of skeptical nations and pundits, our entire country stood triumphant as America once again proved that it is exceptional. I couldn’t be prouder. •

December 2008

5

N ational P olitics

Popularity is Not Security Chas Morrison The international response to the election of Barack Obama has been nothing less than extraordinary. From Berlin to Beirut, St. Petersburg to Shanghai, the world has seemingly risen as one to embrace the President-elect. Americans should rightly feel proud to be the object of international admiration. However, the United States must not conflate temporary popularity with increased security. A secure nation is not necessarily a nation that enjoys widespread popularity—just ask the Czechs or the Hungarians. The true measure of American national security is not whether other countries like us; rather, security comes from the analysis of states and individuals that supporting the United States is in their direct interests. The most immediate threat to the Pax Americana is the global Islamist insurgency raging in not only the Middle East, but in South Asia, in the former Soviet Republics, and in the streets and coffees houses of the European capitals. The great challenge for American foreign policy will be to extrapolate classical counterinsurgency principles into a global framework to combat an insurgency that transcends national boundaries. Just as classical counterinsurgency doctrine holds that the population itself is the strategic center of gravity, the people of the Islamic world are the key to defeating the global insurgency. The goal of any successful counterinsurgency is to win over the neutral and reconcilable portions of the indigenous population to the cause of the status quo power. While this evokes the old adage of heart and minds, the reality is that hearts and minds are impossible to win if the population is convinced that the United States and its partners are unable to provide for its immediate physical security. The first and most basic of all human instincts is survival. Civilian populations will ultimately support whichever side is most able to protect their lives and their families. While any successful counterinsurgency must ultimately involve essential services, infrastructure development, and economic integration, physical security is the one indispensible precondition to victory. If the people of the Middle East do not believe the United States can protect them from those who would do them harm we will, no

6

Tufts Roundtable

matter the strength of our ideals or the charisma of our leaders, lose the battle for the population and in so doing lose our struggle against Islamist radicalism. How then do we avoid losing the battle for the population? First, we must resist the temptation to come home. Despite setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one catastrophic decision the Obama administration could make would be to withdraw significant forces from the Middle East and retreat to the position of an off-shore balancer. If the population of the Middle East senses that the United States lacks the resolve to finish its fight and follow through on its commitments, it will be pushed into the insurgent camp by default. Rather than exercising power less frequently, we need to exercise power more intelligently. This means harnessing all facets of national power towards the protection of strategically vital populations. While this will be done by the direct application of force when necessary, we must also provide substantial military aid to partner nations to ensure their populations will not be pushed into insurgent arms due to a lack of physical security. Winning the population means linking the physical security of indigenous persons with the interests of the United States. Popularity is not security, and true security comes through the recognition of a fundamental convergence of interests. If the Obama administration attempts to win hearts and minds without first securing populations from physical harm, it will jeopardize the gains of recent years, drive away the very allies which it seeks to support, and bring American resolve into contempt. •

N ational P olitics

The New Face of Foreign Policy Ashish Malhotra From Paris, to Jakarta, to Sydney, to Kogelo, Kenya – the ancestral village of Barack Obama – citizens of the world took to the streets in joyous celebration in the aftermath of Obama’s historic election to the presidency of the United States. In Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki declared November 5th a national holiday, while Obama’s face was carved into the sand of an Indian beach. The positive response to America’s decision was not limited to the citizens of the world, but also included its leaders, with congratulatory messages pouring in from presidents and prime ministers alike. Despite the enormity of the racial breakthrough that Obama’s victory represented, this was not the cause of the global excitement. Rather, it was the universal belief that President-elect Obama, a man who has family in Kenya and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, cares about the world, and will undertake much more of a multilateral foreign policy and leadership approach than that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Whether it is the non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq without United Nations approval, or the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Bush has tarnished the global image of the United States. From the onset of his presidential campaign, Obama has pledged to reverse Bush’s foreign policy catastrophes and to renew America’s leadership in the world to what it was under Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and more recently, John Kennedy: presidents admired worldwide. Obama understands that ending the war in Iraq, pursuing an Arab-Israeli peace agreement, deepening knowledge of other cultures, working multilaterally with other nations and international agencies, and tackling climate change are all part of the leadership role that the U.S. needs to assume in order to make the U.S. and the world a safer place. It is for this reason that he has inspired such optimism around the world. Obama’s foreign policy will be about multilateralism and diplomacy, unlike Bush’s policies of unilateralism and military force. In Iraq, Obama will not only withdraw troops, but set up regional and international diplomatic initiatives to oversee lasting peace. Obama was much maligned for his response to a presidential debate question about meeting leaders of rogue states without preconditions. While Obama’s stance is much more nuanced than has been reported— highlighting a difference between

preparation and preconditions— the criticism received, depicting him as naïve and irresponsible, leads one to wonder what, and how important, ‘preconditions’ really are. If a precondition for discussions with Iran is halting their nuclear enrichment program then there will never be talks between the two countries, because Iran sees such a precondition as undermining its sovereignty. While I acknowledge the widespread view that engaging in dialogue without this precondition somehow legitimizes the Iranian program, I respectfully disagree. Diplomacy is necessary in today’s nuclear world, and the neoconservative notion of preconditions serves to prevent such negotiations. The U.S. can negotiate while maintaining a clear stance, but dialogue is crucial to making any progress. Five former Secretaries of State, including Republicans Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, have agreed with the ‘inexperienced’ Obama. In his final year in office, even Bush, perhaps enlightened by Obama’s campaign, sent an envoy to Iran this July to engage in diplomatic discussions. Similarly, the world is hopeful that Obama will renew America’s commitment to the United Nations. While public opinion about the international body speaks of irrelevance and inefficiency, the U.N. can only be what its member states (especially the U.S.) allow it to be. Therefore the U.N. will only become more effective in ensuring world peace and achieving the Millennium Development Goals if and when Obama recommits the U.S. to the institution. Similarly, with only the U.K., Australia and Poland contributing significantly to the ‘coalition of the willing’ in Iraq, it is clear that Obama must, as he has said he will, repair relations with old allies who have been put off by the past eight years. Respect for the U.S. has also dwindled because of its hypocritical rhetoric. While much has been made about the brutal oppression of human rights by leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the U.S. has been guilty of brutally torturing detainees in the prison camps of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Obama will put an end to such operations as well as actively fight poverty, disease, and climate change, all measures that will allow the world to believe that the U.S. does in fact believe in the ideals that it has always proclaimed: freedom and human rights for all. •

December 2008

7

N AT I O N A L P olitics

Daisy’s Demise: The New Campaign Will Cohn It’s 1964. Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic nominee, is running against Republican hopeful Barry Goldwater. One night, during a station break on your brand new color TV, you witness what appears to be a cute advertisement involving a little girl. She is in a field picking away at a flower, endearingly miscounting the petals that she pulls off. All of a sudden a countdown from ten begins, and when it ends an atomic bomb explodes. An ominous voiceover says, “These are the stakes! To make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die. Vote for President Johnson on November 3.” Lyndon Johnson won the 1964 election in a landslide victory. When viewed today many would find this ad borderline comical as a result of the transparency of its purpose. At the time Lyndon Johnson’s campaign was harshly criticized, and the ad was pulled off the air. So if people are against this type of campaigning, why do politicians continue to use negative attacks as a strategy? The simple answer is that it works. Time after time even the lowest of attacks has led to victory for those who engage in them, even the 1964 “Daisy” ad, which so clearly played to people’s fears. 2008 proved to be yet another election year where negative attacks played an important role. However this time it was different, because our nation’s President-elect is different. Barack Obama ran a campaign with a message of “change” and in addition, the idea of a “new” kind of politics. Not only did this message connect with the American people, it was also an ingenious way to deflect almost anything that came his way. And he endured quite a bit. The Reverend Wright issue was a potentially devastating blow. In an incredible moment of honesty (for a politician), Obama gave a speech that will most likely go down as one of the most significant speeches in U.S. history. On March 18, 2008, Obama spoke in Philadelphia, where he condemned Reverend Wright’s comments on America. However he also said that,

8

Tufts Roundtable

“as imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children.” In a campaign that emphasized change, this controversy proved to be a perfect example of the kind of politics that Americans are used to, the kind of politics where important issues take a back seat to negative attacks. Obama’s campaign for change and a “new” kind of politics enabled him to directly address the Wright controversy in a way that most politicians would believe was politically risky. Instead of immediately denouncing Mr. Wright, Obama chose to defend his former pastor, while at the same time making it clear that he didn’t agree with his comments. Attacks continued throughout the campaign. However, as a result of his clear message, he was able to consistently move past them. When confronted on his comments about putting “lipstick on a pig”, he suggested that it was an example of “silly season” in politics, a phrase he used several times throughout his campaign. Obama’s message for change also enabled him to move past his association with Bill Ayers, former member of the terrorist group the Weather Underground. At one point McCain’s campaign appeared more focused on informing Americans about Mr. Ayers than about informing Americans about the candidate’s plans for the future. McCain, who said in his 2000 presidential bid that he would “not take the low road to the highest office,” was engaging in the type of tactics that Bush and Karl Rove used to derail his hopes in 2000. Obama won the 2008 election in an electoral landslide that wasn’t the result of robocalls, truth-bending, or mudslinging. Although it would be blind optimism to think that negative campaigning will end because of Barack Obama, it’s worth thinking about how open Americans were to changing the game of politics. Maybe, just maybe, many elections from now, negative campaigning will play a lesser role, and we will all be able to say that we were around when it all began. •

Overstepping the Boundary David Stern There are times when it is appropriate for government to intervene in the lives of its citizens, but it should never micromanage their lives. Nothing is more pernicious than the idea that one needs to be protected from oneself. Even if a trans fat ban does make Americans healthier, its implementation cannot be considered just. “So there are laws that are defensible but unenforceable, and there are laws impossible to infringe. But in the New York of Mayor Bloomberg, there are laws that are not possible to obey, and that nobody can respect, and that are enforced by arbitrary power. The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law. Tyranny can be petty. And ‘petty’ is not just Bloomberg’s middle name. It is his name.” These not so kind words about New York’s Mayor come from Christopher Hitchens in his 2004 Vanity Fair essay “I Fought the Law in Bloomberg’s New York.” The fickle laws that inspired Hitchens’ vitriol range from the banning of smoking in restaurants and taxis to the “unauthorized use of a milk crate.” Since these words were penned, New York City passed the most restrictive food consumption law in the nation, effectively making it illegal for restaurants to use trans-isomer fatty acids (trans fats) in the preparation of food. The ban follows in the wake of America’s rising obesity epidemic, curbing the availability of unhealthy foods and requiring that restaurants and vendors alter their operations. Unlike the sin taxes levied on tobacco and alcohol in order to discourage their consumption, trans fat bans outright prohibit what people can eat. As the number one cause of death of Americans, heart disease is a problem that needs to be taken seriously. Trumping personal responsibility by limiting choice, however, reeks of nanny-state authoritarianism. Forcing restaurants to modify the way they make food fails to

get to the roots of America’s obesity epidemic. Patterns of unhealthy eating behavior start at home, and driving people out of White Castle so they can eat the freezer aisle sliders in the privacy of their homes without someone wagging a finger at them is not going to make them healthier. Americans would be better off if they had more choice, not less, and if they were held responsible for the consequences of their actions. The trans fat ban is just one example of the government undermining both the freedom of individuals to can consume responsibly and the culpability of those who cannot. The Ban and Prejudice Although much trans fat consumption may be due to negligent eating habits, there exists a demographic that consumes it out of necessity. Barbara Ehrenreich notes in Nickel and Dimed, that for those wage earners who live each day at a time, the value menu at a fast food restaurant is often the cheapest source of protein they can afford. Considering this demographic, the trans fat ban makes sense - it makes food that people have no choice but to eat healthier.

This begs the question, though, of why food with trans fat is the most affordable choice available to low-income families. As the main providers of food saturated with trans fats – fast food restaurants build their menus on food in some way made out of corn or corn syrup. Subsidized heavily by the federal government, corn is ubiquitous in fast food items which are not-so-coincidentally prepared in inexpensive oil constituted of trans fatty acids. Rather than making fast food more expensive and out of the reach of people who eat it out of necessity, more resources should be spent on creating inexpensive alternatives so that trans fats are not tied to last resort meals. In an attempt to prevent the misfortune of having less-than-wealthy people eat less-than-healthy things, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a zoning restriction that effectively bans the construction of new fast-food restaurants in South Central L.A. Under the auspice of creating more choice, the city council restricted food choice not for the whole city, but only in a low-income,

December 2008

9

F eature heavily Hispanic area. This kind of discrimination is the gross expansion of power one can expect when the government is given the power over what its citizens can eat. Good intentions do not change the fact that this kind of social targeting is misguided and paternalistic. Regulation and Enforcement Though the food zoning implemented by the L.A. city council, and favored by Joel Rivera, the Majority Leader of the New York City Council, is a broader restriction than the trans fat ban; it is a natural expansion of power derived from the ability to control non-lethal food consumption. Power of this kind is unprecedented. Whereas cities have the power to inspect restaurants for cleanliness, and prevent use of ingredients such as unpasteurized milk products that pose an immediate health risk, they have never been able to ban ingredients that pose long-term health risks. Trans fats may be a major contributor to obesity, but everything poses a health risk if not consumed in moderation: caffeine, sugar, and sodium. Taking away trans fats is not going to change unhealthy eating behavior. Fast food is still unhealthy without trans fats. One also must not ignore the cost of enforcement. Regulations are not as simple as putting the law on the books. The amount of resources it would take to enforce a trans fat ban in restaurants is something that most local governments

cannot afford, especially during this economic downturn. At the forefront of the trans fat ban are New York City, Philadelphia, and California. All three are facing budget crises: California is facing an $11.2 billion budget shortfall, Mayor Bloomberg ordered city agencies to cut $1.5 billion in spending, and Philadelphia was one of three cities on Friday to ask Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for access to the bailout’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. All of these governments are facing tough economic times, and the last thing any of them needs is a frivolous expenditure on their balance sheets. Freedom and Social Welfare The fact that people often make poor decisions is not a reason to protect them from the outside world. Many things in life are harmful, and individuals have to learn how to moderate their own behavior in an environment of risk. The welfare of businesses must also be considered when accounting for the consequences of the bans implementation. The main reason for trans fat’s prevalence in food preparation is its economy as cooking oil. The shelf lives of hydrogenated oils are longer than those of their counterparts. Businesses should not be able to cut corners at the expense of consumer welfare, but the supply of similarly priced, healthier oil is considered to be unachievable. An Iowa State University professor,

Walter Fehrer, genetically engineered a soybean that, as an oil, would have a comparable shelf life to the partially hydrogenated trans fat oils. According to the January 26, 2007 All Things Considered broadcast, “To Cut Trans Fats, You Need a Better Soybean”, the transition to growing a healthier soybean would require 12.5 million acres of more land. Not only will this drive up already rising food prices, but it is also increasingly unlikely that farmers would find soy profitable to plant. Ethanol subsidies have drastically increased the demand for corn, making it more profitable to plant. On a national level, the efficacy of a trans fat ban is dubious. What the government should be doing to fight American obesity is creating more choices for its citizens. If availability of alternatives is the issue in urban areas, city governments should open public space for farmers markets. If patterns of bad eating behavior are the problem, then schools districts should establish healthy lunches, rather than contract out cafeterias to food service companies that dole out fried food. If unhealthy foods are eaten because they are the cheapest source of nutrients, then the government should stop subsidizing corn, whose unhealthy presence is ubiquitous in everything Americans eat. Banning trans fats is an ineffective way of making Americans healthier and an affront to the freedom one has over one’s body. Let them eat trans fats. •

A Nanny State?

The American Tradition of Intervention The Pure Food and Drug Act governed the sale of then-common “patent medicines” and processed food products, requiring that product labling be accurate in both listed ingredients and effectiveness.

1906

1919

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act provides that every state would either normalize its drinking age to twenty-one, or lose ten percent of its federal highway funding. All fifty states have complied, although some are considering a reversal.

1983

Pursuant to the Eighteenth Amendment, the Volstead Act was approved despite Woodrow Wilson’s veto. Going into effect in January 1920, Prohibition lasted until the beginning of the Depression after being deemed virtually unenforcable.

10 Tufts Roundtable

198

New York Sta seatbelt law Hampshire h states, one c wearing a se must have b offense first.

84

F eature

Renewed Regulation Brian O’Reilly As we can clearly see now, regulation does not kill the economy. The government has a vested interest in enforcing consumer regulations to promote general welfare. By enforcing a trans fat ban, the government is doing its duty to protect the American people from corporations looking to make quick profit and reduce their overhead. On Wall Street, the willingness to cut corners and take risks has been detrimental, causing damage well outside of the financial world. Health is different. The government must prevent corporations from taking risks with America’s health. “On a per-calorie basis, trans fats appear to increase the risk of CHD (Coronary Heart Disease) more than any other macronutrient, conferring a substantially increased risk at low levels of consumption (1 to 3 percent of total energy intake).” That statement, summarizing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, represents the consensus of the broader medical community on trans fats: Trans fats are bad for you. In fact, they are very bad for you; as the Journal notes, they have a more deleterious effect on the heart than any other calorie source. The consumption of trans fats, according to the study, is

Shabazz Stuart directly responsible for between 30,000 and 100,000 cardiac-related deaths each year. This scary number will only climb in the future; while the New England Journal of Medicine study notes a “substantially increased risk” of CHD when one consumes trans fats as one to three percent of one’s calorie intake, Americans currently suck down these poisons for 2.5 to 3.5 percent of their energy. In addition to greatly increasing the risk of CHD, trans fats also exacerbate other medical conditions. Trans fats do their worst to increase heart disease by lowering HDL (good cholesterol) and raising LDL (bad cholesterol). The American Diabetes Association considers LDL/HDL levels to be one of the six most important “preventable risk factors” in the development of diabetes, and specifically links fatty diets to multiple risk factors. The New England Journal of Medicine study devotes an entire section to diabetes and judges, “After adjustment for other risk factors, trans fat intake was positively associated with the incidence of diabetes” in a least one trial. Furthermore, a Wake Forest University researcher makes the case that trans fats even cause more weight gain per calorie consumed than other energy sources. Kylie Kavanagh

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act defines when website operators, small and large, must include a privacy policy and obtain proof of a user’s age. It remains in effect, despite many similar laws having been declared unconstitutional.

ate passed the nation’s first w. Every state except New has followed suit. In some can be pulled over just for not eatbelt. In others, offenders been pulled over for another

1998

2005

fed two groups of monkeys diets that had the same precisely calibrated amount of calories — the only difference was in the calorie sources. Her findings are worth reprinting: “After six years on the diet, the trans fatfed monkeys had gained 7.2 percent of their body weight, compared to just 1.8 percent in the unsaturated group. CT scans also revealed that the trans fat monkeys carried 30 percent more abdominal fat, which is risk factor for diabetes and heart disease.” In the words of Dariush Mozaffarian at the Harvard School of Public Health, “The days of thinking about fats just as calories are over.” Trans fats provide a unique danger to those who consume them, even if they eat an otherwise healthy diet. Trans fats are not naturally a risk to humans, however. In fact only a half of a percent of the average American’s calorie intake is actually made up of trans fats, well below dangerous levels. Over 80 percent of the trans fats America consumes are industrially produced, however, and push the country toward further unhealthiness. Heart disease, obesity, and other diet related health problems have reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the Department of Health of New

In 2007, New York City restaurants had to trim the fat, a result of a mandatory ban on trans fat in city restaurants. Philadelphia, Albany, Seattle, and California have passed similar bans, with several other areas poised to follow suit.

Beginning in 2005 with New York City, multiple cities and states have implemented smoking bans in bars, restaurants, workplaces, and casinos, with many being more stringent than others. So far, no federal ban is in the works.

2007

December 2008 11

F eature York City, the nation’s largest municipality, 1 million New Yorkers are obese. Like the national average, which has nearly doubled since 1990, New York’s proportion of overweight adults has grown substantially over the years, to about 20 percent. Diabetes affects more than 700,000 New Yorkers and, as of 2004, was the fourth leading cause of death in New York. Even more alarming statistics reveal that this epidemic is not color blind: African-Americans and other minority groups are at much greater risk. According to the American Diabetes Association, 11.4 percent of the African-American population has diabetes and AfricanAmericans are 1.6 times more likely to have diabetes than their white counter-parts. For Hispanics the news is grimmer still: they are more than twice as likely to die from diabetes as their white counterparts. One would think that because these epidemics seem to be rapidly spiraling out of control, all Americans would be doing everything possible to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, one would be wrong. While health officials scramble to find a cure, and doctors strain to find treatments, corporate America has been focused on making easy money. As dietary problems became more apparent in the 90’s, fast food restaurants largely refused to re-evaluate their menus and ingredients. Now one might assume, with some reason, that if corporations have been willing to subject their patrons to these nearly toxic ingredients for decades, trans fats must play some vital role in their ability to provide “fast food”. And, indeed, some defenders of the industry might note that trans fats increase a product’s shelf life, reduce its refrigeration requirements, and make baking easier without butter or lard. However, the New England Journal of Medicine concludes the following about these excuses: “On the basis of evidence from in vitro experimental studies, dietary trials, and prospective observational studies, the consumption of trans fatty acids from partially hydrogenated oils provides no apparent nutritional benefit and has considerable potential for harm... experience[s] in other countries indicate that such fats can largely be replaced by cis unsaturated fats without increasing the cost or reducing the quality or

12 Tufts Roundtable

availability of foods” Basically, people are dying because corporations are being lazy. And the corporate geniuses reaping the benefits have made a brilliant move by exploiting minorities most of all: the people suffering the brunt of these dietary ills are, due to social and economic reasons, those with the least power to learn about and stop them. Corporate America’s reluctance to shed trans fats has even prompted several lawsuits. In a 2007 lawsuit, The Center for Science in the Public Interest officially slapped Burger King with a

lawsuit, alleging that the company is “knowingly increasing its customers’ risk of heart disease and early death.” In 2003 a similar lawsuit prompted McDonald’s to “promise” to look into other solutions and an eventual phase out. While the litigation flies, corporations sit on their hands, and the epidemic grows, so responsible municipalities have been left with little choice but to act decisively. New York City, Philadelphia, and Albany have all officially banned trans-fats as ingredients while Chicago has a partial ban. King country of Washington State passed a trans-fat ban that goes into effect in 2009, while Maryland, California and Vermont are also considering bans of their own. Some complain that such bans go too far, and are out of the realm of government. “The government shouldn’t take a role in economics

and sales policy”, they say. “If people know that trans-fats are such a danger, they should be able to avoid these places themselves!” “Won’t the market send a message to restaurants?” they ask. My personal favorite is “what if I want trans-fats in my food?” First, no person educated on the subject (and without suicidal tendencies) could actually want trans fats in his or her food. Remember the Journal’s conclusion - this ingredient does nothing uniquely good, and severally things uniquely bad. In fact, the answer to the last three of those questions provide the answer to the first. Quite simply, people don’t know that trans fats are a danger. The medical literature might be unanimous, but it’s also inaccessible: the people most affected simply do not read the New England Journal of Medicine. And those who do know the risks don’t eat enough McDonald’s to force the companies to change their ways. In this case, it is the job of government to take the lead in issues of safety. Only 24 years ago some criticized the government of New York State for passing the nation’s first seat belt legislation; now 49 states have seat belt laws, and hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved. In 1966, Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, allowing the government to regulate standards for motor vehicle design. The same critics complained that the government was interfering in places it shouldn’t. Again, the result was a precipitous drop in motor-vehicle related deaths. One hundred years ago, the Meat Inspection Act regulated the meat packing industry on a federal level, in a similar situation. The government of the United States has intervened and will continue to intervene when greedy (and lazy) corporations take advantage of a susceptible public. Banning trans fats is just as simple, legal, and clear-cut as banning beef from sick animals or the unsanitary preparation of food. The Preamble to the Constitution notes that the people form a more perfect union, in part, to promote the general welfare. While some believe that the trans-fat bans of the 2000’s is an example of government overstepping its authority, this is just its latest of many attempts to to keep the American people safe and thriving. In America, we can prod corporations to do right, while marinating the world’s biggest economy with the best consumer regulations in the world. •

N ational politics

War Games: Protecting Our Cities Ian Hainline The face of war is one in constant flux—the weapons used, the tactics employed, and even the causes behind war have all morphed over time. Throughout the history of war, generals have always sought to avoid fighting in cities; such combat invariably leads to high casualties, as well as stripping away the momentum of a campaign. Collateral damage from fighting in cities can almost never be avoided, making winning the “hearts and minds” of the general population a more and more difficult proposition. Sun Tzu himself warned that “the worst policy is to attack cities,” and that cities should be attacked “only when there is no alternative.” One needs only to look to the infamous Battle of Stalingrad for a chilling example of how costly fighting in cities can be. Recent history, however, has demonstrated that one may no longer be able to ignore the warnings of Sun Tzu and the example of the Battle of Stalingrad. As the nature of war has shifted away from conflicts between conventional forces, and the importance of cities has increased, so too has their prominence as targets. Cities are engines of economic growth and development- 31 percent of all bank deposits in the U.S. are in New York City alone, while the spark behind China’s rise as an economic power was a shift in policy that allowed foreign investment in cities such as Shanghai. Those same factors, however, that enable cities to serve as engines of economic growth makes them prime targets for anyone seeking to attack the United States. The best way to hurt a man, the old saying goes, is to hit him in his wallet, and attacking an American city is surely now just such a blow. Indeed, as the economic importance of a city increases so too does

the degree of damage that an attack on that city would inflict, making that city, in effect, a more and more attractive target. In spite of their economic strength, however, cities are increasingly vulnerable. The tools and tactics employed by non-state actors (especially terrorists) can easily bring a city to its knees. Car bombs, the most common and infamous of these tools, are ideal weapons of urban terrorism; they are low in cost and easy to produce, traits made all the more effective in an urban environment because of the close proximity of people and potential targets in a city. The car bomb is an indiscriminate machine of death— ideal for butchering en masse, sowing panic, and demoralizing the population. If a society can be psychologically broken by the use of car bombs, then cities can, in essence, be held hostage by terrorist groups— not only putting American lives at risk, but crippling the American economy in the process. The ease with which this can be done is ominous; after all, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing cost Ramzi Yousef just over $3,600. In defending cities, there is no replacement for excellent national intelligence and sharp police work, which, when coupled with high standing in the international community and strong diplomatic relations, form the strongest line of defense for cities. Emergency services too must be well funded and workers carefully trained, able to respond to tragedy in as effective a manner as possible. Our cities are realizations of our dreams, housing the institutions that make our hopes possible, and defending them must be our highest aim. •

December 2008 13

N AT I O N A L P olitics

The Growing Divide: Real America? Leslie Ogden North versus South. Blue versus red. Liberal versus conservative. Democrat versus Republican. The Coasts versus the Midwest. Even though Barack Obama won in an electoral landslide, 46 percent of eligible voters did not want him to be President. It appears that there certainly is a divide in our country. Nearly every other person disagrees over fundamental policies and ideologies. One has to wonder about the validity of Sarah Palin’s claim that there is a “real” America. Could there be such a thing as two culturally separate entities under one constitution? According to Sarah Palin and parts of the Republican Party, yes. Claiming that there is a “real” America was one of McCain and Palin’s attempts to reach their target demographic. It is the people from the Wasillas and Scrantons of our country—the one stoplight towns where the good old Joes and Sallys come out on Sundays to sit on their front porches, waving an American flag and drinking Country Time lemonade. One cannot forget that the majority of people who embraced these ideas were, according to the polling website fivethirtyeight.com, mostly white, lacking higher education, and of a lower socioeconomic status. While people have the right to their own opinions and beliefs, I feel strongly that it is time that our country as a whole makes a shift in how we think, see the world, and protect human rights. In particular, I find it hard to believe, as do most scientists, that people still do not believe in evolution. Unbelievably, advocates of creationism opened a $27 million

14 Tufts Roundtable

“creationism museum” in Kentucky, which claims that over half-million people have visited it since its opening in May 2007. Websites offer curricula so that home-schooling can teach creationism. Ardent cases have been made from Kansas to Pennsylvania to Texas that creationism should be taught in schools and that disclaimers ought to be put in textbooks saying that evolution is only a theory and people should be wary of it. Dr. Kent Hovind, the founder of the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry, has even defended the idea that evolution is a religion. “People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true… evolutionism is a religious world view… The exclusive teaching of this dangerous mindaltering philosophy in taxpayer-supported schools, parks, museums and other institutions is also a clear violation of the First Amendment,” he writes on his website. So rather than look at it for what it is, we fight over creationism and evolution. This divide continues to grow and manifest itself in other aspects of our lives. The passing of Proposition Eight in California, which overrode the California Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage, and similar setbacks in Florida and Arizona, not to mention the amendment in Arkansas now prohibiting gay men and women from adopting children, are all a travesty. And the divide is almost right down the middle. 52.2 percent of Californian voters approved Proposition 8. 63 percent of Floridians voted for the amendment that would “protect marriage.” America should be outraged. To deny men and women basic rights because of a gender preference is comparable to denying men and women civil rights because of skin color. How can forced teenage marriages because of an unwanted baby be socially acceptable, but marriage based on love and mutual respect be illegal? This divide in fundamental beliefs has split the country. Could Palin be right? Are there two Americas? I certainly hope not. Not because I am opposed to small towns, but because our country cannot afford to be divided. The economy, global warming, infringements on human rights, and wars threaten to throw the world into chaos. We can only defeat these challenges through the spirit of cooperation. Now we have an opportunity to take this divided country and rally for a common cause – the well being of individuals, our nation, and the Copyright Rona Proudfoot world. I hope we can do it. •

Foreign Policy of a Global President Shayan Purkayastha In a recent online poll conducted by The Economist, readers from around the world overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for President; this came after the rapturous welcome he received while touring Europe over the summer. While all this means that he might just be an exception to the long list of unpopular American presidents in recent times, it also means that he is not only burdened by the great expectations of the American people but also by the rest of the world who expects positive changes from the Oval Office after January 20th. With the world watching, Obama has to focus on key foreign policy issues. The international expectations have perhaps never been higher considering the clarity with which the Obama campaign dealt with foreign policy questions. But the world that Obama faces as President is very different from that which he had been discussing on the campaign trail for the last year or more; it will not be long before he realizes that campaigning and governing could hardly be more different from each other. The world that Obama inherits is very different from what his predecessor, George W. Bush, inherited and it is in many ways so because of President Bush. From two wars to a tired and stretched military, and from a failing war against terrorism to an unprecedented antiAmerican sentiment, there are tough times ahead for the Presidentelect on the international front. But there is a silver lining under the dark clouds for him. And this silver lining is, ironically, that the Bush administration, beginning last year, has already adopted some policy changes that Obama will continue. But with so much to do and with such high expectations, Obama will need to prioritize, and nowhere will he need to do so more than in foreign policy matters. Here is where the Presidentelect will have to come up with the answer to the elusive question: what is the biggest foreign policy challenge facing the United States? This question has come up again and again but unfortunately no one in the campaign gave a clear response, even though

international events will be among the biggest problems Obama faces, second only to the economic crisis. When it comes to issues, there is a sense that the indifference that the presidential campaign showed is somewhat an intentional retreat from the harsh reality. There currently is potential for a rapid emergence of crises involving the United States in two regions: the Persian Gulf and Pakistan. There has been a radical shift in United States’s approach to Iran in the last few months. This is evident in a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report entitled “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities” published in December 2007, which suggested that Tehran’s “nuclear weapons program” came to a halt under international pressure in 2003 and that “a resumption of this effort was unlikely before 2010-15.” This is the polar opposite of how the Bush Administration portrayed Iran, as a nation with the intent of going nuclear in the near future and a country that threatened humanity itself. This was restated over and over again by the President himself at various forums. The immediate effect of the NIE report was both to calm the paranoia about possible armed confrontation and to undermine Washington’s campaign to win support in the U.N. Security Council for further sanctions against Iran. Back in February 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency publicly admitted that Iran was in possession of advanced centrifuge technology and suggested that the Iranian’s nuclear program had moved faster than even what the worst skeptics had expected. Since then the U.S. has been aggressive in its stance against Iran. U.S. strategy was obvious; it would have been suicidal on America’s part to fuel the chances of an armed conflict while under intense international and domestic pressure over the war in Iraq. The administration realized that the warlike rhetoric was not aiding the leadership in its domestic predicaments and it was a better idea to convince the rest of the world that more sanctions should be put on Iran. •

December 2008 15

I nternational affairs At the same time, there is a different angle to it. Russia is back in the picture and its aggression during the Georgian annexation has taken the world, especially the U.S., by surprise. Russia will certainly be one of the primary challenges on the foreign policy front for the next president. However, I would like to focus this article on Iran and Pakistan, though Russia’s role in world affairs is inevitable. Iran is critical to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s campaign for a resurgent Russia. After all, Iran’s rich oil reserves are a lifeline for the energy needs of Europe. An Iran-U.S. confrontation in all probabilities will result in a rift within NATO due to conflicts of interest, and this in turn will help Russia further consolidate its position. But situations seem to be gradually leaning in the U.S.’s favor since the NIE report was published last December. And the turning point was Russia’s annexation of Georgia. This changed the Iranian calculations. Tehran has much to worry about with Russia’s expansionist attitude that has stirred ethnic conflict and Russia’s policy of settling territorial disputes with force. Iran has been resisting Russian claims to a greater share of the Caspian Sea and, furthermore, fears ethnic troubles spilling over its border with the Caucasus. Apart from the change in the global political scene, there are events within Iran that puts the country in a vulnerable position. The support that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used to receive from the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has subsided due to internal issues that the country faces, primarily inflation, which the Iranian President has failed to tackle. All these events make it a perfect time for the U.S. to open up the communication door with Iran. Obama has to make the effort to initiate a meaningful dialogue and discussion with the country. Further east, another Islamic Republic stands as possibly the single greatest challenge facing the next American president. It’s been seven months since democracy returned to Pakistan when Yousuf Raza Gilani took the oath of office as its first democratically elected prime minister in nearly a decade. Unfortunately, it has been a short honeymoon. The momentary euphoria that followed Pakistan’s return to democracy, symbolized by the elections on February 18, 2008, has already ended because of mounting economic, political, and security crises. With such turmoil, one finds that U.S. interests in Pakistan are more threatened now than at any time since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. America cannot afford to see Pakistan fail, nor can it ignore the pro-Taliban extremists operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal (and past nuclear proliferation), Al-Qaeda and the war in Afghanistan keep U.S. national security interests firmly anchored in Pakistan. Afghanistan cannot succeed without success in Pakistan, and vice versa. Further, America needs Afghanistan to succeed in order to regain legitimacy in the region; Americans learned to their great sorrow on September 11, 2001 that what happens in Southwest Asia can profoundly affect their own lives. America needs to convince itself that a stable Pakistan is in its interest. Let me go one step further by suggesting that a stable Pakistan is the answer to most, if not all, other foreign policy challenges facing the next American

16 Tufts Roundtable

president, especially Iran. The deep link between Iran and Pakistan is a certain nuclear scientist by the name of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, who supplied materials and designs that would give birth to Iran’s nuclear program. Taking advantage of Pakistan’s fragile democracy, Khan continued his association with countries like Iran, North Korea, and Libya in helping them to develop their nuclear program while remaining Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist and enjoying support from every dictator and every government in Pakistan over the past several decades. Neither Khan nor any of his alleged Pakistani collaborators have yet to face any charges in Pakistan, where he remains an extremely popular figure. Khan is still seen as an outspoken nationalist for his belief that the West is inherently hostile to Islam. In Pakistan’s strongly antiU.S. climate, tough action against him poses political risks for the incumbent government. An additional complicating factor is that few observers believe that Khan acted alone, and this suspicion could gravely damage the Army, which oversaw and controlled the nuclear weapons development program under the control of then commander-inchief Pervez Musharraf . There is a sense that the present Pakistani government might in some ways be more favorable towards taking action against elements like Khan who, taking advantage of the political situation, have acted or aided actions that harm global security and are still doing so as evident by the situation in Pakistan’s tribal areas. And the U.S. needs a way to work with them in doing so. In the process the U.S. needs to gain the confidence of the people of Pakistan, especially those residing in the tribal areas. Here Barack Obama has gotten off to a bad start. His comments about not hesitating to invade Pakistan to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda have not gone over well with the people. The President-elect needs to understand that frequent intrusions into Pakistani territory and unwarranted attacks enforce the image of the U.S. as an enemy. This is where the Taliban takes advantage and gets the support of the local people. It is quite obvious that if given an option they will choose to fight with their own people (Talibani insurgents in Pakistan) rather than an imperialist foreign power that threatens their sovereignty, which is exactly what U.S. actions against Pakistan resemble. This will be made worse if Obama goes ahead with his aggressive policy. The President-elect needs to take the help of the Pakistani government in gaining the trust of the local authorities in these areas to make people believe that America has their interests in mind and that the intensions of the Taliban and Al Qaeda are far from being nationalist. These are tough times for the whole world and even tougher for the occupant of the White House. But at the same time, there’s no one more suitable to be in the White House than Barack Obama. The key for him will be communication and good old diplomacy. Additionally, he will need to make his implacable adversaries understand that he can use force if diplomacy doesn’t work. The President-elect must understand that America will successfully address the world’s complex challenges when it takes diplomacy seriously. •

I nternational affairs

The Forgotten Poverty Faris Islam As the developed economies of the world struggle with an unprecedented credit crisis, the highest unemployment figures in fourteen years and stock markets almost in free fall, it’s proving all too easy to forget about those stricken with poverty in the developing world and the terrible trials they face dealing with the twin evils of energy and food inflation. South Asia is a neglected victim of this terrible cancer, as one-fifth of the world’s humanity and, according to the World Bank, half the world’s poor struggle in the subcontinent to feed their families. Within the broader South Asian problem of growing poverty lies the story of Pakistan, a nation struggling with rising militancy, political instability, and a growing disconnect between the upper and lower classes – economically, intellectually, and socially. Despite the plethora of bad news broadcast across American airwaves, until last year the Pakistani economy was growing at above five percent. With this growth people were pulled out of poverty and the middle class grew, partially due to the influx of aid and foreign investment into the country following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and the start of the “War on Terror.” Serious flaws have come to light, however, regarding Pakistan’s economic boom. The benefits of economic growth, as always, disproportionately favored those at the top and gave them the purchasing power that enabled them to buy more imported goods and luxury items. While this influx of imported goods heavily skewed the nation’s trade balance to an almost two to one ratio, the bullish run on the oil markets and the subsequent printing of money by the government to finance the growing energy import bill sent the country into an inflationary spiral. The effects of inflation in Pakistan, particularly for the millions of the nation’s poor, have been devastating. With lower classes in the developing world already spending sixty to eighty percent of their incomes on food, according to a BBC News exclusive, rises such as the 130% increase in wheat prices over the last year have wreaked havoc on the poor across the world, including in South Asia.

In an interview Khursheeda Khatoon, a semi-literate domestic servant in Karachi, told me that she could no longer send her children to school for lack of money. She is not the only one. Shehnaz, a schoolteacher, is in trouble too, with her family only eating fish or chicken once a week now due to rising prices. Shehnaz also mentions her painful commute to work, to which she now walks instead of taking the bus to try and save what little she can. Though the last few years had been good for them, they have little hope for the future if prices continue to rise and their plight continues to be ignored. A grocery store owner shares this pessimism, saying his small business is suffering – people can afford to buy less and his profits are shrinking. He predicts a dire future for entrepreneurs, with their small businesses being drowned out and people lacking the purchasing power to buy anything beyond the bare necessities. For many, however, even the bare necessities are slowly moving out of reach – from food riots in Afghanistan to people eating animal feed in Bengal to children being taken out of school in Pakistan, in South Asia and most of the developing world people are plunging back into increasing poverty and desperation. • Faris Islam is the co-Chair of the South Asian Political Action Committee (SAPAC), a student group that focuses on socioeconomic and political issues affecting South Asia. For more information on SAPAC, contact [email protected].

December 2008 17

I nternational affairs

Beyond the Bullets: Politics in Iraq Colin Smith In 2003 the Iraq War began. For the next five years Americans, along with people around the world, watched Saddam Hussein fall, inspectors find no WMD’s, violence rule the streets of Baghdad, hundreds of thousands lay dead, a troop surge come and go, a sitting American president’s approval rating sink to historic lows, and his successor run a campaign originally based on opposition to the war. After all of this, it seems appropriate to look at this new nation, this new Iraq, and ask, what have we created? The largest party in Iraq today is the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. We can look to this party to see the beginning of the splintering of Iraq. The SIIC has a huge power base in Shiite-dominated Basra and is quickly transforming the area into a place of rigid Islamic standards. Where once there was a relaxed atmosphere, now women must walk the streets in traditional garb. Furthermore, according to the BBC, the SIIC has been accused by Sunnis for having a secret political and military alliance with Iran. Its position as the largest party, as well as its leadership of the United Iraqi Alliance (a coalition of 22 different parties), has provided the party with many government positions, including control over the Ministry of the Interior, which oversees the nation’s police force. Here, the SIIC has abused its power. It has been implicated for using the police force for sectarian violence and may have been responsible for thousands of Sunni civilian deaths. As if this was not enough, the SIIC has its own military branch, the Badr Organization, which contains several thousand fighters. Another crucial Shiite Leader is Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr controls the Mahdi army, a collection of loyal militants, and has considerable political influence. His followers have been blamed by the United States for multiple assassinations, kidnappings, and bombings. His militia has directly fought the United States military on multiple occasions and for a while seized complete control of the city of Amarah. Although he, like Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, does not hold a government position, Sadr is one of the most powerful men in Iraq. The Sunnis, on the other hand, have united under the Iraqi Accord Front, which won 44 of the 275 seats in the parliament. This coalition has been politically marginalized by the larger and more dominant Shiite groups, and currently holds

18 Tufts Roundtable

powerless positions, like that of the vice presidency. The result has been Sunni anger and violence. One of the coalitions’ three main member parties, the Grand Council for the People of Iraq, was led for years by Adnan al-Dulaimi, who has been investigated multiple times and whose son was arrested after being caught planting a bomb in a Shiite family’s house. This is a small sample of the violence Sunni groups have displayed during the sectarian struggles. A quarter of the seats in the Iraqi Parliament are held by yet another group, the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan (DPAK). This party unites the two main Kurdish groups along with a series of smaller parties. This coalition is again purely ethnic, looking to advance only the causes of the Kurdish people. As part of the joint government the DPAK has possession of the presidency, currently held by Jalal Talabani. Talabani recently launched a lawsuit against the Kurdish newspaper Hawlati after it published an essay accusing the Kurdish parties of corruption and undemocratic tendencies. This year’s Brookings Institution’s list of weakest states placed Iraq fourth. That position is no surprise considering the mess that confronts Iraqi politics. With the vast majority of seats held by groups with loyalty not to the state as a whole, but to individual populations and parties, there is little consensus building or compromise. The situation becomes even more complex with the threat of politically motivated militias and corrupt police forces using bloodshed to solve differences. While the surge may have slowed the tide, it is hard to see a bright political future for this child of American foreign policy, the Republic of Iraq. •

I nternational affairs

Asad Badruddin

Courting the IMF

Criticized by free-market proponents and socialists, by dictators and parliaments, by the right and the left, it could very well be one of the most thankless jobs in the world, as well as one of the most controversial economic bodies of the last century. The International Monetary Fund came into existence at the end of the Second World War and since then has undergone many reforms to evolve into the body it is at present. Its agenda, as its website claims, is to “survey, lend and assist.” To supplement these activities it also gathers information to provide research data and statistics. The IMF has been widely blamed for the Asian crisis of 1997. Most commonly, it is accused of making the problem much worse. Its infamous policy of “One Size Fits All” and its emphasis on public spending cuts and fiscal discipline (which in layman’s terms is increasing taxes and/or reducing spending by the government) have given headaches to many world leaders trying to negotiate terms that would be beneficial for their respective countries. Its contracts with governments reduce their ability to make independent decisions and have sparked violent protests in many developing countries. Further, the IMF has been widely criticized for failing to anticipate the current financial crisis on Wall Street. Critics also smugly point out that the IMF’s advice to the U.S. government would have been exactly the opposite of the bailout Congress eventually passed. A Third World country at the IMF’s mercy with large debts and current account deficits would never have gotten a go-ahead with a similar plan. The silence of the IMF about the bailout, at a time when anyone remotely familiar with economics has been commenting on it, has been surprising. Indeed the IMF is perceived to be a puppet of the United States helping to further its capitalist conquest of world markets. But hold on. There’s another side of the story. The IMF does not force anyone to take its money. Countries usually approach the IMF, so do they really have a right to complain? There is a reason these countries are in a hole right now, and maybe more discipline is what’s needed. Consider the analogy of a beggar who has a drug problem. Giving him money will not solve his problems. He would probably spend it on drugs instead of food. And the worst part is that the next day he will be back asking for more money. The IMF needs to make sure such a situation doesn’t arise. Indeed they place an emphasis on not ordering caviar when all you can afford is the salmon. Moreover governments are fond of blaming their shortcomings on the IMF in order to get more political mileage. The IMF needs more imagination and more compromise. It needs a thorough and honest evaluation of its performance, especially its many failures. It needs to adopt a softer approach to many of its policies and it needs to consider the input of economists from developing countries who haven’t been brought up with the western Friedman mantra. This would go a long way in giving the IMF credibility and flexibility, and would also address the concerns many countries have about its programs. •

Responsibility to Protect

Connor Gramazio

Typically the word genocide conjures up pictures of emaciated victims of Nazi concentration camps and vivid videos of the ovens where so many lost their lives. With the end of the war, the cry of “never again” echoed around the world, accompanying hope that humanity would never permit such horrors to exist again. More recently, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty released “The Responsibility to Protect” in 2001, a report declaring that nations have an ethical obligation to intervene and stop genocide around the world. But this has not been the case. Since the Holocaust, genocides have continued to prevail around the world. From Cambodia to Rwanda to Bosnia, the rally cry “never again” has proven to be an empty call. The ongoing situation in the Sudan provides an opportunity to finally reverse one of the most horrific things humankind can do to itself. Although the Civil War in Sudan has been intermittent since the 1980s, the especially volatile conflict in the Darfur region has attracted incredible international appeals to end what many consider an ongoing genocide. So far the international response to the matter has consisted mostly of humanitarian aid with African Union and United Nations troops mixed in sparingly. We have effectively been throwing rice in the face of genocide in hopes that somehow the tiny grains will stop the cogs of systematic and aimed murder. This is not a practical solution. Time and time again, the nation’s capital, Khartoum, has promoted non-aggression pacts, promises of peace, and investigations. Ultimately, however, these have all failed. In fact, if Khartoum has promised one thing it is that it constantly lies in all of its negotiations on the conflict. Current international approaches to the genocide have been tantamount to natural disaster relief: a belief that food, shelter, and distribution management will be enough to put a band-aid over the wound and that things will correct themselves. However, there is a large difference between Darfur and natural disasters. While a storm moves on, the Janjaweed, the murderers of countless thousands, do not. Peace is preferable to violence, but one cannot just talk loudly. The world community must now reach for the stick and show that the Darfur genocide will be stopped. However, using “the stick” is not synonymous to war, just an indication that soft diplomacy will no longer work. Although we have tried to deter the Janjaweed and the Khartoum government, it is obvious that our threats are not credible. With the addition of military protection of the refugee camps located on the Sudan/Chad border, there is the possibility of creating stable environments in which the 2.5 million displaced Darfuris can finally mourn the 400,000 dead, the innumerable raped women can seek assistance, and perhaps even a de-escalation of Janjaweed aggressiveness can occur. However, most importantly, a credible and long lasting ceasefire would provide the possibility of resettlement. The Janjaweed strategy is to carpet bomb entire villages, move in on foot, kill all the men, rape the women, burn the huts that still stand, and then drive the few survivors away from their homes and into the desert. The United States of America and the world, must fulfill its Responsibility to Protect the people of Darfur. •

December 2008 19

I nternational affairs

A Monroe Doctrine for Today Evan Chiacchiaro On December 2, 1823, James Monroe released to the public his seventh annual State of the Union address. Embedded in this document was the declaration of what became known as the Monroe Doctrine. Monroe stated that the United States would not tolerate further European interference in Latin American nations, creating a clear separation between the Old World of Europe and the New World of the Americas. While the doctrine was ostensibly aimed at securing freedom from European control for the newly established Latin American countries, the underlying message could not have been clearer: the Americas are our backyard, and we are committed to keeping it that way. And while criticisms of the true goals of the Monroe Doctrine have been abundant, Latin America was firmly cemented as an important strategic arena for the United States. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the current foreign policy vision of the United States. With two wars raging in the Middle East, a nuclear flashpoint in North Korea, and the rise of a resurgent Russia, America is no longer focusing on the importance of a secure and friendly Central and South America. Nowhere is this more evident than in the lack of public awareness and action over the current situation in Venezuela, whose status is rising both regionally and globally. As Americans remain concerned almost exclusively with our current conflicts, we ignore a dynamic change in our own hemisphere that may have much broader foreign policy implications. In the past few years, President Hugo Chavez has led his country on an aggressive, expansionist path, attempting to increase Venezuela’s influence in South America. In a clear attempt to portray Venezuela as South America’s alternative to an ‘imperialist’ United States, Chavez has pushed his brand of socialism and nationalization of industries as the answer for Latin America. Some close allies such as Bolivia, where in 2006 like-minded president Evo Morales was elected, have followed suit, taking steps towards creating similar socialist societies. However, even in nations such as Brazil where the free-market still reigns, Chavez has been able to increase Venezuela’s influence. In 2004 Venezuela and Brazil signed an agree-

20 Tufts Roundtable

ment aimed at increasing political, economic, and social integration in South America, and the two countries have extensive arms deals. These efforts for a unified Latin America take place in the background of fiery rhetoric from Chavez—including declaring at a U.N. General Assembly meeting that the podium still smelled like sulfur after President Bush spoke— that he backs up with inflammatory actions, such as the near simultaneous expulsions of American diplomats from Venezuela and Bolivia in 2008. There is no question that Chavez’s goal is a Latin American bloc firmly aligned against the United States. It is tempting to dismiss Chavez as nothing more than a dictator of an unimportant country that is blustering to gain some kind of international standing. While Venezuela is a significant oil exporter, it has appeared hesitant to use oil as a weapon and doesn’t have enough influence in OPEC to launch a full boycott. And while a Latin America opposed to the United States is unfortunate, it is hardly an existential threat. Why, then, should America worry about Hugo Chavez? The answer is the emerging Venezuelan alliances with Iran and Russia, two nations that not only possess the ability to inflict more damage upon the United States but whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours. In 2006 Chavez traveled to Iran in solidarity against attempts by the U.S. to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program, and Chavez and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have pledged to work together to fight “U.S. imperialism.” Chavez has also been cultivating relations with Russia, with the two nations going as far as to conduct joint military maneuvers in September of this year. Steps must be taken now to ensure that Latin America does not fall under the complete influence of these nations, which would present a great security threat to our nation. By taking a hard-line against Venezuela, and using soft power and economic incentives to bring other Latin American nations under the American umbrella, we can ensure that Latin America remains secure and friendly. Monroe’s strategy still rings true today: America’s security begins in the Western Hemisphere. •

I nternational affairs

Tufts

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

Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service Sponsered by the Institute of Political Citizenship