The Boston Bombing Trial: The Death Penalty?

On April 15th, 2013, the whole nation felt the terror resonating from the bombings at the Boston Marathon. Multifarious people, from all over the globe, tuned into the annual marathon held in the heart of Massachusetts. I, myself, lived on Beacon Street near Boston College, which is en route to the finish line. The bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, were both residents of Cambridge, Massachusetts. My mother went to graduate school in Cambridge. Never did I imagine that an act of terror could unravel only a few miles from my home – let alone one carried out by two young men who virtually lived down the street. 

Just over a month ago, the trial for the Boston Marathon Bombing began on March 4th, and has been proceeding in Boston. About a month later, on April 8th, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty on 30 charges, those of which include 17 charges that could potentially “send him to death row,” according to CNN. This has led to a new phase in the case, in which surviving victims, relatives of the deceased, and others have come as witnesses before the jury to describe the horrifying and gruesome details of their injuries and the carnage that they witnessed. 

Currently, according to a poll conducted by CNN , “53% of Americans say [Tsarnaev] should be put to death, while 45% feel he should spend the rest of his life in prison.” Opinions come and go, as do numbers. Maybe tomorrow the 53% will jump to 63%, or drop down to 43%. But what should remain the same is the value of a human’s life.

There are several reasons why, according to deathpenalty.org, people as well as those in Washington, should oppose the death penalty. One of them brings about an issue that the Richard family also mentions in their letter shared by the Boston Globe, in which they oppose the death penalty for Tsarnaev. The family writes a valid point of the amount of appeals that will follow the final verdict. If Tsarnaev is sentenced to death, the case will be prolonged by appeals to the court to reduce the penalty to life in prison. Not only will this result in even more expenses spent toward the case, but it will also elongate the pain that is being forced upon the victims and the nation. 

Executing Tsarnaev will undoubtedly give the nation a breath of relief, maybe even closure. But to many, his death will do little to ease the pain caused by him and his brother. There is also the possibility that if Tsarnaev is sentenced to death, he may become a martyr to future homegrown terrorists who may become inspired to target even more Americans. 

Personally, I oppose the death penalty because I cannot, as a fellow human being, put a value on someone else’s life. Who am I to say that a crime defines a stranger’s last breath? No matter how affected we are by a heinous act, death should not be the upshot to a problem. I am not saying this to disregard or excuse any of the unethical and violent behavior of Tsarnaev’s, or of any other convicted criminals’. Rather, I am bringing forward an approach to death penalties that asks people to view the accused with distanced empathy than sympathy or hatred. To jump to conclusions and agree to favor a death penalty because of a polarized media portrayal of a certain convict is ubiquitous and inevitable, but nonetheless immoral itself.

This should not be an eye-for-an-eye situation. Although the government acts as an agent of the people, what it wants to achieve from the death penalty should also be separated from what the victims want to achieve. Personal hatred and other sentimental factors are bound to add to the mounting bias against Tsarnaev. I am asking for those of you who are reading this to make your own judgments on impartiality. 

Others may be more willing to grant a death penalty. Others will be more comfortable with saying “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev deserves the death penalty,” which should not be condemned by anyone but by those who say it; words are entitlements to the voices of their owners. 

- Yeho Hwang

The Review: Reduce Gun Violence Through Responsible Reforms

The Review is the editorial board of the Political Union and Review at NYU, NYU’s political debate society. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the editor in chief and the editors of the Review.

This past Tuesday, the Political Union and Review at NYU hosted a debate about one of the most divisive topics in America today: gun control. Gun violence has become a nearly ubiquitous occurrence in the United States, especially as social media has greatly increased our awareness of the potential of these weapons to cause harm to others. This has helped give rise to the debate over whether the federal government should increase the regulation of firearms in the United States. For some, even the notion of gun control sounds like an encroachment on one’s constitutional right to freedom and self-protection while for others, gun control sounds like an absolute necessity for a safe and civil society. No matter one’s opinion on gun control, the epidemic of gun violence is one that must be addressed.

Guns have an idealized and unique place in American culture. For many around the world, guns represent war, death, and destruction. Given the chance, there are numerous countries that would eradicate the presence of these weapons from their borders altogether. Yet in the United States, guns have come to represent freedom, individuality, and even community values. Such sentiment stems from the experiences of early American frontiersmen and colonizers who had to maintain their own properties and cultivate their own land without help or protection from law enforcement – leaving them to protect their families on their own.

Therefore, in exploring this topic and possible solutions for decreasing gun violence, we must keep in mind the deep cultural values associated with these weapons and remember that the vast majority of gun owners throughout the United States are responsible and respectful of firearms. Regardless, we do not see the necessity of the possession of particularly dangerous weapons, such as semiautomatic firearms, nor do we see why some of the most simple, preventative, and straightforward of proposed gun reforms – such as the implementation of mandatory background checks – would infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans.

The 2nd Amendment was created to act as both a safeguard against tyrannical government and a precaution against the possibility that a colonizing power would attempt to conquer the nascent United States. As a revolutionary state, the United States defined itself in opposition to the imperialist domination of the British Empire, and this cultural antagonism to supposedly over-reaching government control still manifests itself in today’s political discourse over gun rights. With the militarization of police weaponry through the 1208/1033 Program, allowing the transfer of excess Department of Defense military-grade weaponry to police forces, gun rights activists claim that arms control legislation will only further increase governmental ability to exert dominance over citizens. As seen from the recent Ferguson protests, the police do in fact have the capability to deploy this heavy weaponry in situations of civil strife. Lawrence Hunter, writing for Forbes Online, described the Second Amendment’s importance succinctly: “The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law.”

On a smaller scale, however, many guns rights advocates have pointed to self-defense as a key reason for why Americans must own and carry firearms. This argument is, in part, rooted in the inability of government regulation to affect the unofficial sale and transfer of weapons between individuals or on the black market. As James Wilson wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “It is virtually impossible to use new background checks or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow.” Thus, guns that are ‘gifted’ to friends or stolen from registered owners vanish off the grid, gaining immunity from both taxation and registration. Furthermore, when gun regulation limits the ability of licensed owners to purchase and carry firearms, advocates of gun rights believe that responsible citizens will become increasingly vulnerable to violent crime and criminal activity. The idea, then, is that more guns in the hands of licensed, trained, and conscientious citizens will bring about more safety.

However, arguments that more guns will amount to more safety must be dispelled. The American Journal of Public Health has found that “states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.” That is why the only way to reduce tragic mass-shootings is to drastically reduce the ability of irresponsible people to access firearms and the ability of anyone to access military-grade weaponry.

Despite the complexity and ubiquity of this problem, simple and responsible reforms can make great strides towards eliminating the scourge of gun violence. President Obama has already called for a number of such solutions: a ban of “military-style” assault weapons, tightening background checks, prohibiting the use of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, and improving mental health awareness. Other possibilities include banning the sale of armor-piercing and hollow-point rounds.

The weapons referred to above – specifically the military-style assault weapons and the armor-piercing and hollow-point rounds – are completely unnecessary for the purposes of self-defense. These are extremely dangerous weapons that belong on battlefields, not in neighborhoods.

How should we dispose of these weapons, millions of which can be found across the United States? The U.S. government, on several occasions, has flirted with the idea of a buyback solution. However, this in itself raises several issues. Considering the government’s increasingly strained budget, the U.S. government would most likely be unable to afford the thousands of what would soon-to-be banned weapons. However, it is likely that any plan that involves the government taking away Americans’ weapons will, for many, sound like a government that has become Orwellian and oppressive, and gun regulation’s many opponents will likely demagogue a buyback program in this way.

The idea of tightening of background checks has perhaps received the most attention in the media and from gun control advocates. Unfortunately, despite that the fact that the majority of Americans and gun owners support increased background checkers, this debate has become polarized to the point where any attempt to restrict arms has been met with bombastic antipathy from organizations like the NRA, which have drowned out the voices of the millions of gun owners who take no issue with ensuring that weapons do not fall into the hands of those who are not responsible enough to possess them.

Gun violence is a problem for all Americans, regardless of whether or not they own firearms or live in communities where gun violence is frequent. This epidemic will continue to take lives and shake families until elected officials, community leaders, and private individuals take action.

- The Review

Hillary Clinton’s Catch-22

Warm and approachable aren’t exactly the first words that come to mind when describing Hillary Clinton. When 29 New Yorkers were asked to describe the former Secretary of State, Senator, and First Lady, some of the words included “solid,” “intelligent,” “capable,” “badass,” “empowering,” “fearless,” and “pantsuit.”

Yet, Secretary Clinton’s campaign announcement conveyed a much softer side of the candidate. The two-minute video featured a range of Americans – a gay couple, an expectant mother, two Hispanic brothers – all of whom were entering transitional periods in their lives. Consequently, Secretary Clinton’s core message is that she wants to fight for them. The emphasis here was not on “I” but on “you,” and in particular, on “your vote” and “your time.”

This greatly contrasts to Secretary Clinton’s message from the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, where she was featured sitting alone on a couch with the cocky “I’m in it to win it” attitude. When Secretary Clinton formally began campaigning, she soon became known for holding massive rallies and portraying her victory as inevitable and her ideas and experience as clearly superior to those of the other candidates in the race. Subsequently, she was widely criticized for being distant, unapproachable, and arrogant; an image that contrasted deeply with that of the charismatic and energetic then-Senator Barack Obama.

In contrast, Secretary Clinton’s 2016 campaign announcement was followed by a low-key road trip to Iowa, where she made several unannounced stops at gas stations and local restaurants, engaging in a string of intimate discussions with voters; her road trip through Iowa has been so quiet that she even managed to stay incognito at a local Chipotle. Low-key, indeed.

Despite the campaign’s obvious change in tone, critics are still framing Mrs. Clinton as calculating and “too much of a professional politician”. This is the catch-22 situation that Mrs. Clinton finds herself in today – either she’s distant and cunning or she’s just manipulative. It seems as though any attempt she makes at being more relatable will inevitably be accused of being disingenuous. 

However, it would be premature to dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s efforts this early on. Yes, her campaign now is very different from the one in 2008. But so is her hairstyle. The bottom line is Mrs. Clinton is trying to correct the mistakes that she made in 2008, which shows an extraordinary amount of humility. 

Paul Begala, a veteran Clinton adviser, was quoted in the New York Times defending this change in strategy. “This is a relationship. So when she does a different kind of video or holds different types of events, she’s saying, ‘I hear ya, I get it, and I’m going to show you that I’ve learned and will be a better candidate and president because of it.’ ”

Perhaps Mr. Begala’s interpretation will be harder to swallow because the Clintons have been under the political spotlight so long. Ultimately, however, as the former secretary of state embarks on her bid for the White House a second time, her campaign announcement has set the tone for a more progressive and relatable candidate. The next challenge Secretary Clinton faces is finding a way to tie her message to specific policies. With the intense media scrutiny following her campaign, there is little room for error.

- Paula Zampietro

Undermining Social Justice

On April 1, 2015, in an effort to restore religious freedom to those who “feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action,” the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, instituted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana. The Act didn’t explicitly deny rights to members of the LGBTQ community, but it might as well have. Even after removing the most explicitly discriminatory parts of the bill, the bill still reads as the following: 

The religious freedom restoration act provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.

The wording of the bill is used as a sly means to justify the denial of LGBTQ rights and to promote the ideal radically conservative mindset. Similar to the Jim Crow laws which followed the manifesto of “separate but equal” starting in 1890, the new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) justifies the same deplorable treatment of the LGBTQ community. Instead of promoting the pursuit of increasing diversity and social acceptance, the imposition of this new Act impedes social liberties and hinders the progress of the 21st century’s social justice movement. With all this new controversy added to the social justice sphere, we must consider why this Act was implemented and how the leaders of both Indiana and Arkansas (which passed a similar bill) expect this act to benefit the community. 

In his editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Governor Pence attributes the reasons behind his controversial actions to the United States’ and Indiana’s constitutions’ strong recognition of freedom of religion, concluding that the act is overdue in Indiana. Governor Pence believes that since several states and the federal government itself has passed such laws, Indiana has as much of a right to do so as well. However, the consequences of the new Indiana RFRA act negatively outweigh its benefits and therefore should not be considered in the same light as the laws to which he refers.

The federal court’s first ruling to implement a Religious Freedom Restoration Act came in 1993 after it was agreed that the free exercise clause could not defend general laws if the law infringed upon a person’s religious liberty [Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith]. Later, in 2014, the Supreme Court used the RFRA to rule in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means to furthering the law’s interest. Furthermore, according to Governor Pence, “over 19 states have passed such laws [like RFRA] and 11 state courts have interpreted the law to provide a heightened standard for reviewing government action”. Though the government’s intention is not to curb religious beliefs, but rather spread and accept progressive thought for LGBTQ rights, some still feel that the government is violating their First Amendment rights. Stanford Law professor Michael McConnell suggests that people whose religious freedom might be restricted as a consequence of the job they are paid to do should be allowed to refuse service in an effort to protect their religious rights: 

"For example, I would think a Jewish wedding singer could legitimately refuse to sing in a church wedding.... For a photographer or other artist to refuse to apply her creative gift to a same-sex marriage ceremony is much the same. I cannot understand why any civil libertarian would want to force someone to participate in a ceremony they do not approve of.”

As a supporter of one’s rights to put their religious beliefs above the law, Governor Pence crafted the Indiana RFRA to protect those whose religious beliefs have been attacked by the government and looked upon negatively by the media. 

However, though Mr. Pence claims that he had no intention to restrict the rights of the LGBTQ community, the wording of the Indiana RFRA gives its citizens the ability to openly discriminate against other members of the community. For example, Memories Pizzeria in Indiana was forced to close down for a week after the owners openly supported the controversial law and refused to service a gay couples’ wedding. The pizzeria recently received over $842,000 in less than 48 hours and opened to a full house the next morning. The pizzeria’s actions are a prime example of how this new Act allows people to freely discriminate against others based on sexual orientation. 

Each day this act is allowed to stand marks another day when discrimination is upheld by the law. Though the United States as a nation has tried to make steps forward to prevent discrimination, its states and citizens aren’t united in this cause. The passage of this act just adds to the numerous social problems we are faced with today. Instead of championing the acceptance of all people regardless of race, color, and sexual orientation, we are undermining the incredible feats made by social justice activism in the last few decades. 

- Rohan Shah

Czar Putin

Vladimir Putin became President of Russia on December 31, 1999. Since then, he has served two terms (from 2000-2008) and, due to term limits, became Prime Minister from 2008-2012. He is now serving his third term as President. He says that he does not know if he will run again in 2018, but, let’s face it, he probably will. And he will undoubtedly win, for despite the almost 15 years that Mr. Putin has had in office, there has never been an opponent strong or organized enough to beat him. Put simply, Russia can either be seen as an oligarchy run by a handful of elites who answer to Putin, or simply as a dictatorship in which we can expect Mr. Putin to stay in office for decades, like his peers Muammar Gaddafi, Kim Jong Il, and Saddam Hussein.

But who is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin? Born in 1952 to a modest family, Mr. Putin grew up in St. Petersburg, then called Leningrad. After a brief time at law school, he signed up with the KGB, the Soviet Union’s infamous intelligence agency, in which he served for sixteen years. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Mr. Putin worked in St. Petersburg for Mayor Anatoly Sobchak, where he acted as an adviser on both political and financial matters. But Mr. Putin was not satisfied with local politics. Following Mr. Sobchak’s removal from office, Putin took up with the central government and became a top advisor to Boris Yeltsin, the first President of Russia. Then, following Mr. Yeltsin’s unpopular tenure, Putin succeeded him. 

Despite President Putin’s Frank Underwood-style rise to power, Mr. Putin's private life has often proved to be quite colorful. In his spare time, you can find the president riding horses while shirtless, lounging in one of his twenty houses, singing jazz with Kevin Costner, playing piano, or enjoying his favorite pastime: judo. But being a political tyrant is only Putin’s day job—he has an estimated $40 billion in personal assets, given, among other investments, his 3.5% stake in oil conglomerate Gazprom, 37% stake in oil conglomerate Surgutneftegaz, and 50% in the oil-trading company Gunvor. He maintains four yachts, fifty-eight aircrafts, and twenty homes. And his 8 million square-foot, $950 million residence on the coast of the Black Sea is reminiscent of Versailles or El Escorial, not to mention a house fit for a czar. 

Mr. Putin demonstrates that if you want to run Russia, you need more than intelligence—you need guts. This guy gives a new meaning to corruption. His rise to power would not have been possible had he not cultivated connections with elite Russian businessmen, worked with the Mafia, participated in election fraud, handled bribes, seized companies, imprisoned opponents, and in all likelihood, participated in calculated murders (Putin’s Kleptocracy). Many of his most outspoken critics have been jailed or killed. It is no wonder that Russia ranks 136th on Transparency International’s list of the 175 most corrupt nations. Mr. Putin has also extended the president’s time in office to six years from four, despite widespread complaints and findings that the elections in which Mr. Putin “won” were interfered with in order to guarantee his victory (Putin’s Kleptocracy). As Stalin once said, “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything”.

Of particular significance to Mr. Putin and his power structure is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a Putin critic who served ten years in prison for rubbing the President the wrong way. During the late 1990s, Khodorkovsky was Russia’s version of Warren Buffet. He headed an oil conglomerate named Yuoks, took advantage of President Yeltsin’s “radical market reforms” by obtaining swaths of oil fields and, at one point, became the richest man in Russia with a net worth of $15 billion (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/12/remote-control-2 ). He took what he could and became an opportunist amidst an economy in transition. In 2003, at a business meeting with Mr. Putin, Mr. Khodorkovsky drew attention to one of the President’s corrupt business dealings, only to be arrested on fraud and tax evasion charges soon afterwards. Mr. Khodorkovsky’s surprise release and exile in December 2013 was likely influenced by increased global media attention on Russia due to the Sochi Olympics. Mr. Khodorkovsky is now a democratic champion of sorts, one who has even expressed interest in succeeding his archenemy: “It wouldn’t be interesting for me to be President of the country when the country is developing normally.

But if the issue becomes that the country needs to overcome a crisis and undergo constitutional reforms, the main aspect of which is the redistribution of Presidential power to the courts, parliament, and civil society, that part of the job I would be willing to do. Still, Mr. Khodorkovsky is no enlightened philosopher. He is a prime example of one of the oligarchs, someone who took advantage of the country when he could, but somehow wound up as the chief opponent of the most powerful man in Russia.

Although fewer in number than his enemies, President Putin’s friends are undeniably loyal. Aside from his troupe of business oligarchs, he demands loyalty from his politicians, most notably former President and current Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev, who was once remarked to “play Robin to Putin’s Batman”. Medvedev is essentially Putin’s puppet. He served as President from 2008-2012, only to cede the presidency back to Putin who, in 2012, could legally be president again. Whether or not the two will play the game of back and forth until one of them is dead is uncertain, but it is apparent that Putin will not be leaving the political landscape anytime soon. 

Perhaps surprisingly, the Russian people seem satisfied with their government as a kleptocracy, at least according to the polls. Mr. Medvedev won 70% of the vote in 2008; Mr. Putin won 63% in 2012 (Putin’s Kleptocracy). But polls can be misleading, even fraudulent. More than 1,000 were arrested in post-election protests, signaling an undercurrent of constituent resistance. Some Russians are furious. The arrest of 3 members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot in March of 2012 also caused political unrest, signifying the beginning of a new pro-LGBTQ movement in Russia. Yet homophobia is a deep-rooted Russian sentiment. Most Russians hold traditional, religious values and will support a leader who maintains that status quo.

From an objective standpoint (and sanctions and oil price drops aside), President Putin has done good things for Russia. Russian GDP per capita grew from $2,400 in 2000 to $12,000 in 2014. Under his leadership, the percentage of citizens living in poverty level has dropped from 40% to 11%. Unemployment has been reduced from 55% in 1999 to 15% in 2013. The inflation rate has decreased from 36% in 1999 to 6.6% in 2013. Most importantly, the Russian middle class has swelled from 11% to 48% under Mr. Putin’s long reign. From 1991-1996, every Russian household acquired a new television set and a new washing machine. 

Indeed, on the environmental front, Mr. Putin even initiated a program to save the Amur tiger from extinction. Despite an increase in capital flight as well as income inequality, the Russian standard of living has increased dramatically since the end of the Cold War. During the 1990s, no one wanted to touch the ruble. Now it’s available in London currency kiosks. 

The Russians are a proud people, and, following the humiliating fall of the Soviet Union, Mr. Putin has revitalized Russia, won the confidence of at least some people, and once again made Russia a global power. Rather, Putin has been able to take Russia into the 21st century as a global power. He may be a bully, and perhaps even a murderer. So do Mr. Putin’s ends justify his means? It depends which Russian you ask.

Regardless, the future of Russia is problematic. The recent activity in Ukraine—specifically, Russia’s annexation of Crimea—symbolizes Mr. Putin’s lust for power and territory. A greater point of concern, however, is the Arctic. Over the last few years, Russia has mobilized its military to initiate practice war practice games in the north, intimidating the other Arctic-bordering nations—Canada, US, Norway, and Denmark. With the melting of the ice caps due to climate change, new trade routes have been opened up and, more importantly, new areas to drill for fossil fuels. As evidenced by the cohesion between Russian fuel companies and Russian politics, fossil fuels is an essential Russian industry. In 2008, explorer Artur Chilingarov planted a Russian flag at the North Pole in an attempt to claim the Arctic for Russia. The Arctic is estimated to hold 1/3rd of the world’s oil and gas reserves, making it a place of contention. But this is not the Age of Exploration. How this dispute unfolds will shape the future of Russian foreign relations. 

Is Mr. Putin a good leader simply because Russia needed one? Could some other ex-KGB official have done an equally sound job without the bribery, kleptocracy, and palaces? Or do the ends justify the means? Are President Putin’s corruption and crimes the cost of upgrading a withering communist union into a modern “democratic” federation? When we do not consider Mr. Putin, and look solely at the statistics, Russia has flourished economically. But when we look closer we see the price paid: reduction of political freedoms and increasingly frayed relations with the West. Only time will tell if these sacrifices will make him another legendary Russian ruler, akin to Stalin or Lenin, or another Gorbachev simply managing Russia’s decline. 

- Kyle Sims

Why the AIIB Matters

The burgeoning membership and growing successes of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) have made obvious to the rest of the world one of America’s biggest foreign policy mistake of the past several years – ignoring the importance of the Asia-Pacific countries. Despite President Obama’s calls for an “Asia pivot” at the beginning of his second term, the President and his foreign policy team have began to focus increasingly on the Middle East at the expense of one of the most influential growing regions of the world.

According to the AIIB website, the bank was established in 2014 to bolster investments in developing countries in Asia. In particular, the bank seeks to facilitate dialogue between lender and debtor nations for investments in energy, agriculture, transportation, and urban development; infrastructure that is greatly lacking in developing countries that are unable to find substantial aid from other world organizations like the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank (ADB). While these global institutions include developing Asian countries, they are primarily led by the U.S., or, in the case of the ADB, by Japan, a U.S. ally. In contrast, the AIIB is led by China. The change in leadership suggests Beijing is taking on a much larger international role, indirectly threatening the U.S.’s status as a world power, especially in Asia. 

One of the common complaints lodged by the United States is that the AIIB is unclear in its structural organization and objectives, and that it often fails to enforce labor and environmental standards. While it is true that its management structure has yet to be established, analysts agree that the AIIB will soon be up and running by the end of the year, with talks already outlining the major governing bodies. And the United States’ concern for violations of international regulations actually undermines its goals: because the United States refuses to join the AIIB, they are unable to prevent the AIIB from committing international violations from within. 

However, the United States has cause enough to remain outside of the AIIB. The ADB recently released data showing that Asian developing nations need approximately $750 billion to develop infrastructure. With the World Bank supplying $24 billion and the ADB supplying $13 billion, it’s clear that the AIIB’s role will only become more difficult in the coming years. Though AIIB supplies $100 billion, the amount needed to improve the Asia-Pacific is still a long ways off. If the United States were to join the AIIB to counter China’s efforts, it would need to provide a substantial supply of aid in order to actually gain influence – aid that Congress is unlikely to give anytime soon.

The primary fault, then, is the Obama Administration’s initial reaction to the AIIB. The United States’ refusal to join an organization concerned with Asia and its following insistence that its allies follow suit denotes an indifferent attitude towards the swiftly changing relationships with regional affairs. China’s economy has rapidly expanded, South Korea remains an exporting superpower, and North Korea’s volatile nature will continue to roil international relations in the near future. Asia as a region is beginning to dominate world politics, and the United States must look towards the East to maintain its superpower status. 

- Melinda Chen

Photo: Retina Mail News (Russia)

Lost Opportunities: Garcia Edition

In the aftermath of the runoff mayoral election in Chicago, analysts across the political spectrum are claiming that Mayor Rahm Emanuel defeated Cook County commissioner Jesus Chuy Garcia for one simple reason: his campaign was the significantly better funded of the two. The claim that Mr. Emanuel’s campaign had resources unlike anything that Mr. Garcia’s campaign could dream of is certainly an undisputable fact; however, the reason Mr. Garcia lost is much more complex than a lack of money. Chicago is a great city, but one that is riddled with issues. Put simply, Mr. Garcia was unable to adequately use the problems facing the city to his advantage in order to overcome the financial restraints of his campaign.

One of the demographics Mr. Garcia desperately needed to galvanize in order to win was black Chicagoans. The increasingly violent south side of Chicago is predominantly black, and the black community in Chicago has long been seeking a mayoral candidate who will deliver on promises to revitalize these neighborhoods. Mr. Garcia actively tried to appeal to African Americans throughout his campaign; in fact, as the final weeks of the election season approached, both Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Garcia were fighting for the black vote on Chicago’s south and west sides. 

Ultimately, Mr. Emanuel won out in this fight. As the runoff election approached, Mr. Emanuel’s approval rating in Chicago’s black community increased significantly. To put it into perspective, nearly six in ten African Americans disapproved of his policies in August 2014. Mr. Emanuel was endorsed by key members of the African American community, including Willie Wilson, the third place finisher of the initial election, Reverend Jesse Jackson, and, as was expected, President Barack Obama. It’s questionable as to how much Wilson’s endorsement helped Garcia, but as a Chicagoan I can safely say that it is likely President Obama will always have at least some clout in the Windy City.

Another population Mr. Garcia failed to capitalize on was organized labor. Early in his campaign, it seemed likely that Mr. Garcia would carry support from most labor unions and that this is where a significant portion of his campaign funds would come from. However, while the Chicago Teachers Union and Service Employees International ultimately supported Mr. Garcia, UNITE HERE and the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Mr. Emanuel, adding to his already-sufficient campaign funds. Should Mr. Garcia seek election in 2018, he will need to make garnering support from labor unions his top priority. Without the funds and support that labor unions could offer a 2018 Garcia mayoral campaign, Mr. Garcia could very easily find himself in a similar situation.

Lastly, Mr. Garcia also failed to exploit the fact that Mr. Emanuel faces many criticisms from the Chicago public. Mr. Emanuel is often targeted over the city’s discontent with public education and escalating crime in poor communities on the west and south sides . There was potential for the Mr. Garcia campaign to profit from this, but it did not fully exploit this opportunity. Mr. Garcia did put forth some ads accusing Mr. Emanuel of putting education funds towards private education as opposed to public, but this attempt was underfunded and simply not enough to sway voters away from voting for the incumbent. Mr. Garcia had quite a bit of material to work with when it came to tearing down Mr. Emanuel, and he did not sufficiently use it to his advantage. If Commissioner Garcia takes on Mayor Emanuel again in four years, he will need to seriously reassess the conflicts facing the city of Chicago and paint Mr. Emanuel as the cause of them if he hopes to win.

- Nika Arzoumanian

Photo: The Economist

The Disappearing Act

Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin disappeared from the public eye for almost two weeks. A meeting with the Head of the Republic of Karelia, purported to have taken place on March 11, six days after his so-called disappearance, was found to have actually occurred on March 4. He also reportedly missed an annual meeting with senior officers of the Federal Security Service, or the FSB, which he headed in the years leading up to his presidency. Understandably, given the (to put it mildly) tense situation in Russia and Ukraine, Western media was whipped into a frenzy and rumors swirled, from illness to the birth of illegitimate children to his death. “#PutinIsDead” began making the rounds on Twitter. All the speculation was accompanied by persistent denials by Dmitry Peskov, the presidential spokesperson, and the Kremlin, that all was well with the president, although they failed to provide an adequate explanation for his “disappearance.” 

Given a similar situation late last year when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un vanished from public view for over a month, and subsequent unannounced meetings of his top generals with South Korean officials, another theory was thrown around, and slightly more sinister: a coup had taken place. If the answer was as simple as the flu, why was it being denied? Why was there so much misinformation being distributed by the Kremlin? A comment by former Putin aide Andrey Illarionov insinuated that he had been overthrown. And it did seem plausible, at least to Western audiences, with Russia’s economy in shambles, the ruble having declined by around fifty percent to the dollar, and the perception of growing unrest in Russia.

However, what many of us misunderstand is Mr. Putin’s actions have not been playing to the West – they were meant for his large base of support in Russia, one that is motivated and excited by Mr. Putin’s fervent nationalism. By catering to these feelings, his popularity has soared, especially after the annexation of Crimea last year. Opinion polls show almost three-quarters of the country would vote for Mr. Putin in the 2018 elections, which would make it his fourth term overall, and his second six-year term as president. With widespread public support for his policies, as well as close ties with Russia’s oligarchs who would do well to stay on Putin’s good side despite growing concerns about Western sanctions, Putin has built an infrastructure that has nearly insulated him from coups and political rivals.

This does not mean there is no opposition in Russia – indeed, there is – but with security forces cracking down on virtually any dissent, a ubiquitous state-controlled media, the fear or unwillingness to get involved in political issues, and the genuine support that many have for their president, this means that this opposition still has a long way to go. With the opposition in disarray, especially after the tragic murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, their chances of unseating Mr. Putin look increasingly bleak. 

Which is why the fear (or hope) of a coup having taken place in the Kremlin was largely unfounded. Perhaps we can simply take solace in the fact that the disappearance might have just been due to a botox treatment.

- Kanak Gokarn

The Function of Truth: Operation Protective Edge and the Media

In the summer of 2014, Hamas fired an estimated 4,500 rockets from Gaza into Israel during Operation Protective Edge (OPE). But the western media did not capture footage of a single rocket launch. How and why did this happen — and what does it mean for the overall media coverage and public perceptions of the events that unfolded in the summer of 2014?

“You can miss one, miss 100, even 200,” said Ron Prosor, Israeli ambassador to the UN. “But if you’re sitting inside Gaza and you weren’t able to show one missile being launched, that’s very strange.”

That summer, the world saw many images, mostly those of the tragic destruction in Gaza caused by Israel; ruined schools and hospitals, dead women and children. Yet there was a “lack of proportion between representing Israel as causing all this destruction, and no footage of [Hamas] firing from within mosques, hospitals, and schools,” Ambassador Prosor said. “And the amazing thing is that no one asks the question, ‘How come we don’t see these images?’” 

This was not the only example of the media’s lopsided coverage of OPE. After examining a number of Western media organizations, I found certain patterns and weaknesses that emerged from the coverage, such as disproportionality, perceptional bias, and lack of context, all of which contributed to the media’s failure to show both sides of last summer’s calamitous events. 

Disproportional reporting was evident in the amount of attention Israel received versus other areas in the region. Even though many had died due to the expanding military conflict in Iraq and the UN had stopped counting the dead in Syria after 90,000 (70,000 more people died in Syria in three years than in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), the Associated Press had 40 full-time news staffers reporting in Israel. That’s more staffers than they had in all the countries combined where the “Arab Spring” uprisings took place. 

An article in the New Yorker dedicated to the “outbreak of violence and instability everywhere,” included only 36 words about Nigeria, 39 words about Ukraine, 102 words about ISIS, but 683 words on Israel and the Palestinian Territories. 

Margaret Sullivan, public editor of the New York Times, wrote a public letter to her readers admitting bias in the Times’ coverage, and that “The Times place[s] so much emphasis on Israel.” However, Joseph Kahn, the top editor for international news, believes the subject isn’t over-covered. “We are following our best gut experience about what people are paying attention to,” he said. “We cover things that are most relevant to readers… We’re reflecting the intense interest that is there.”

But Kahn didn’t specify why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more relevant to Americans than 500 Syrians killed by their own government, something the Times hardly covered. Over the summer, the Times wrote only 140 words about Saudi Arabia beheading 19 criminals, half of whom committed non-violent crimes. Kahn’s statement about the coverage reflecting readers’ “intense interest” is dangerous in that it allows readers to dictate the news – possibly leading to tabloid journalism.

This selective reporting was pervasive throughout the Western press. In early November, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, said, "Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties.” He even sent a Pentagon team to Israel to learn how to reduce civilian casualties in urban warfare. Despite countless articles throughout the summer about Israel targeting and killing civilians, the only major American newspaper to pick up the story about Dempsey was the Washington Post, bearing the poorly contextualized headline, “Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey undermines Obama administration criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza.”

Outright censorship was nearly as pervasive. According to the Jerusalem Post, a French reporter was threatened with being thrown out of Gaza, and Russia Today correspondent Harry Fear was told to leave after he tweeted about Hamas rockets fired from near his hotel. Ambassador Prosor couldn’t remember seeing any footage of even one dead Hamas combatant. “The world didn’t see one Hamas terrorist, and Israel killed many of them,” he said.

Matti Friedman, an AP reporter who covered Israel for five years, attributes this to cameramen at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City being told to turn their cameras off and not film the arrival of wounded and dead combatants. Friedman further stated that when he was reporting, “the policy was, and remains not to inform readers that the story is censored unless the censorship is Israeli.”

Jodi Rudoren of the New York Times reported in early August on Second Lt. Hadar Goldin, who was kidnapped and killed by Hamas. Two days afterwards, Rudoren published another article titled “Military Censorship in Israel,” in which she claimed she was asked not to publish important biographical information on Goldin for security reasons. She obliged, but wrote about the censorship for the sake of “transparency,” stating that “any censorship is a huge compromise.”

Yet no article regarding Hamas’ censorship in Gaza was ever published in the New York Times (or hardly elsewhere in the media), despite the fact that Rudoren’s deputy, Isabel Kershner, approved a statement made by the Foreign Press Association that journalists were “harassed, threatened or questioned over stories or information they have reported. 

Ambassador Prosor said, “Journalists couldn’t show this because they were afraid for their lives. But their reporting was distorted as a result. No one came out and said, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, you have to take into account that reporting from areas with terrorist organizations is completely different.’” 

The greatest detriment to readers around the world, however, was the lack of context provided by the media in viewing this conflict. After the operation ended, the Washington Post published that of the 1,890 Palestinians killed, 217 were “armed militants” and 1,396 were civilians, including 222 women and 418 children. The Post got their statistics from the West Bank and Gaza. The article stated that “Israel disputes the numbers provided,” but didn’t report Israel’s numbers, although they did offer a link to an IDF page with its numbers (“More than 1,000 terrorists killed”). It is legitimate to doubt the IDF’s numbers, given its potential bias, but there seems to be no distrust in the potential bias of the numbers supplied by Palestinians. Captain Barak Raz, Deputy IDF Spokesperson to the foreign media in reserves, said it’s “almost like [the media] won’t believe what Israel has to say, but has no problem believing every last word that comes out of Hamas’ mouth or the Palestinian Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas. That should be of concern to people who take a look at journalism and how it’s being reported.”

Similarly, the New York Times analysts reported that men ages 20-29 are 9% of Gaza’s population but made up 34% of civilian deaths, while women and children under 15 make up 71% of the population but 33% of civilian casualties. But the Times did not analyze these numbers as to what they might mean: a possible rebuff to accusations made against Israel that it targeted civilians. If Israel had targeted civilians, one would expect civilian casualties to represent the demographics, or at least be close, when in reality there is a major discrepancy. Sullivan admits that the “coverage and handling of this fraught topic has room for improvement,” and suggests for the paper to “provide as much historical and geopolitical context as possible in individual articles.”

But Kahn points out that the Times only hears complaints of the lack of context from “people who are very well informed and primed to deconstruct [New York Times] stories based on their knowledge,” and not from “readers who are merely trying to understand the situation. 

This makes sense since only people who have knowledge of the situation can be aware of the lack of context. But without proper context, there isn’t much hope that readers with little or no knowledge will really understand the situation.

The journalists’ role can’t be to only report the news. Their role has to include placing the news in context and within proportion so that the public is well informed. Otherwise, journalists will fail in supplying readers with enough information to reach their own conclusions. Walter Lipmann said that the “function of news is to signalize an event,” and that the “function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each other, and make a picture of reality.” In this sense, the media succeeded in telling the news, but failed in telling the entire truth and showing a complete picture of Operation Protective Edge.

- Omri Bezalel

Photo: Russia Today

Click here to see works cited 

 

OCD About Safety: The Germanwings Crash

For as long as we can remember, passing a medical exam has either been a hassle, a pest, a source of anxiety, or, at the very least, some combination of the three. The school nurse pokes your spine, makes you breathe one, two, three times too many and asks you all sorts of questions about allergies and diseases you don’t even know how to spell. Sounds more like a torture method than a health inspection, does it not? As we grow older, though, we increasingly seem to take matters into our own hands. Whether out of arrogance, time constraints, or our unlimited access to WebMD.com, our tendencies to self-diagnose have skyrocketed. What adds to this is the abnormal spike of ADHD and ADD cases that have been diagnosed over the years which, again, we monitor with OCD precision. It’s a vicious cycle.

With this newfound obsession, it appears as though we have entered the Arab Spring of Patient Presumptuousness. Who needs doctors after all? Well, in the recent Germanwings flight 4U9525 tragedy, disaster struck out of this exact issue. Where do we need what kind of medical specialists and, most importantly, when do we need them to act? A variety of both legislative and moral canons influenced the events that took place on and preceding March 24th, 2015.

The puzzle begins with two pieces that do not align. The EASA, also known as the European Aviation Safety Agency, reported that in recent years the German Aviation Authority had handled certain medical cases leniently. However, the officials responsible for handling mental illness cases within flight agencies like Lufthansa act as mere middlemen. According to Bloomberg Magazine, aeromedical examiners lack the expertise in the assessment of psychological ailments and, in turn, are not necessarily expected to spot symptoms unless pilots express very clear behavioral problems that may be linked to mental instability. The problem lies in the communications between personal practitioners and airline officials. Those affiliated directly with the airlines, more specifically airline officials, are only responsible for judging the physical fitness of pilots, not their psychological wellbeing. Maybe they should be.

It is also noteworthy to mention a comment made by FAZ, a German newspaper, regarding airline rules and regulations. German law holds doctors accountable for reporting patients that pose a severe risk to others due to depression or, and Andreas Lubitz’s doctor will most likely be no exception. According to FAZ, Mr. Lubitz’s psychiatrist should have set up a meeting with the co-pilot’s employer to inform Lufthansa of his dangerous mental state. However, this meeting never took place. Not only does this count as a breach in the legislative code surrounding aeronautical safety, but also as a worrisome indication that the discretion we value in our doctors is not enough to save us from ourselves. Said psychiatrist had pronounced the pilot unfit to fly the day of the “accident.” Mr. Lubitz withheld this information and proceeded to go to work anyway. On one hand, German law takes doctor-patient confidentiality very seriously, putting it at the top of healthcare’s moral agenda. Yet, although the Hippocratic oath is of utmost importance, hence why there is nothing illicit – per se – about Mr. Lubitz’s doctors’ choice to remain silent, where does confidentiality find its limits? Virtue, valor and veneration of the law seem to conflict with each other on this front.

In addition, the nature of the crime is controversial. Was it a massacre aimed at many, a suicide aimed at one, or a suicidal massacre? It has been generally accepted that Mr. Lubitz’s cause of death was suicide. As stated by Gaby Dubbert in the New York Times, the fact that the crash was planned strengthens this argument. Records show that Mr. Lubitz had researched methods of suicide on the Internet prior to flying Germanwings into the French Alps. Despite the co-pilot’s morbid wish to end his own life, though, one cannot deny the numbers. Mr. Lubitz not only killed himself, but 105 innocent passengers. Suicide is murder in itself but when there is more than one victim, we are bound to face the situation with skepticism.

How sure are we that this crash was not linked to the series of recent airplane incidents? How can we know that suicide wasn’t just an easy alibi for organized crime? Finally, when it comes to safety, is there such a thing as being too OCD?

-  Frederike Cardello

Photo: Mashable

Religious Freedom: The Irony of Liberty

When the obvious stays silent, we fall into the oblivion of ignorance. And what some may find to be obvious may be as elusive as Mona Lisa’s smile to others. To me, the fact that human rights—regardless of age, gender, and race—should be equal on all terms is very obvious. No one should be discriminated against due to social norms or because of someone’s cultural or religious beliefs.

The Indiana State Senate recently passed Bill 568, also known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Indiana Governor Mike Pence officially signed the bill, thereby granting passage. The act essentially prohibits the government from burdening an individual’s exercise of religion unless it has a compelling interest to do so. Since then, there have been numerous accusations made by the American public, often claiming that the law allows businesses in Indiana to discriminate against the LGBT community.

Perhaps there is, to some degree, overreaction from the general public. The overwhelming disapproval of the religious freedom bill may be due to the media fanning the flames of controversy and the people’s lack of knowledge about the language of and intention behind the bill. 

According to the New York Times’ coverage of Governor Mike Pence’s (R - IN) press conference regarding the signing of the bill, the law was originally meant to “protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved an illegal drug, peyote.”

The governor also stated in the press conference: “I don’t believe for a minute that it was the intention of the general assembly to create a license to discriminate.”

Regardless of whether the governor believes that the bill did not have a discriminatory intention or not, it is necessary to recognize that the bill would inevitably enforce discrimination against the LGBT community because words create subjectivity. And what are bills made of but words?

It should be noted as soon as one reads the bill that by using religion as the basis for civil conduct, it is apparent that those in the LGBT community will be treated differently than heterosexuals. It is not just based on a “perception problem” that a few changes to the bill can fix. The world of discrimination is more than words. And whether or not the bill originally meant to protect Native Americans, all American citizens should be given the opportunity to use the bill’s words to benefit themselves.

Ultimately, my question is, why does one need a bill that reinforces what is already a guaranteed constitutional right: freedom of religion? The only reason that the bill was introduced and enacted in Indiana (and possibly more states to come) is because the conservatives of Indiana felt threatened by the LGBTQA community who supposedly do not follow the teachings of religious (read, Christian) texts.

The irony is that by signing the religious freedom bill and granting people the freedom to protect themselves using religion as a backdrop, there will be even more repression of groups that do not. There will be no liberty within freedom if this bill begins to be enacted in other states. The people who have discriminated against the LGBTQA community now have a legal document that will protect them from their discriminatory actions.

Words are used to interpret and understand. But Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act exploits people’s faiths in order to impose discrimination upon others who do not comply with what is stated in religious texts and teachings.

- Yeho Hwang

Israeli Elections: The Aftermath

For the 20th time in history, Israeli voters went to the polls this past month to elect a new Knesset. Prior to the election, many polls predicted a win for the centrist left party, the Zionist Union; however, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s center-right party, Likud, was ultimately overwhelmingly reelected. Assuming he can assemble a coalition in the requisite 45 days, Mr. Netanyahu will be serving his third term as Prime Minister. Prior to the election, Mr. Netanyahu was under scrutiny over a controversial visit to Congress and a questionable and contentious press release in which he seemingly back-pedaled on his commitment to a two-state solution and accused left-wing parties of shuttling Israeli-Arab voters to the polls in droves. This controversy has been met with harsh disapproval from the Obama Administration as well as a renewed tension within the Arab community both inside and outside of Israel.

The Friday before the election, Mr. Netanyahu held a press conference in which he discussed the priority of “taking care of Hamas,” the elected government of Gaza which the United States has deemed a terrorist organization. Before the conference, Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign released a statement stating, “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that [in light of] the situation that has arisen in the Middle East, any evacuated territory would fall into the hands of Islamic extremism and terror organizations supported by Iran. Therefore, there will be no concessions or withdrawals; they are simply irrelevant.” When pressed, Mr. Netanyahu concluded that “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.” By saying this, the Prime Minister signified how unlikely he saw any form of two-state solution due to security issues and a lack of a peaceful partner on the other side.  

Having included himself in peace talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, facilitated by Secretary of State John Kerry, Mr. Netanyahu had always been an advocate for a two-state solution, so his press conference confused many supporters. Political analysts saw this statement as a way for the prime minister to gain support from the extreme right-wing of his party in time for the elections, making sure that the seats that would have been given to Naftali Bennett’s pro-settler Jewish Home party and Avigdor Lieberman's ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu were instead given to his party, Likud. This tactic is widely credited with his reclaiming the Knesset. After realizing how harmful his statement had been to Israel’s international image, Mr. Netanyahu elucidated his position, telling MSNBC, “I don’t want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful, two-state solution. But for that, circumstances have to change.”

President Obama did not take the prime minister’s comments lightly. “We believe that two states is the best path forward for Israel’s security, for Palestinian aspirations, and for regional stability. That’s our view, and that continues to be our view,” Mr. Obama said in a press conference following the elections. “And Prime Minister Netanyahu has a different approach. And so this can’t be reduced to a matter of somehow let’s all hold hands and sing ‘Kumbaya.’ This is a matter of figuring out how do we get through a real knotty policy difference that has great consequences for both countries and for the region.”  

Since Mr. Netanyahu’s formal commitment to a Palestinian state in his Bar-Ilan University speech in 2009, he has never since backed away from the conditions that he set. “If we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state.”

A little less than a year ago, the Palestinian Authority formed a coalition with Hamas, whose charter clearly states: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Following the issuance of this charter, the two organizations formed a unity government, eventually leading to the war in Gaza this past summer. Since then, Mr. Netanyahu has been vocal about his skepticism for peace without Mr. Abbas and the unity government’s full cooperation, making this past month’s statements not as surprising as the media made them out to be.

While the tensions are high between Israel and its Arab citizens, this election recorded an enormous record turnout for Israeli-Arab voters, resulting in the Arab bloc gaining an unprecedented number of seats. This surge in political participation by average Israeli-Arabs reveals the empowerment of the too often disaffiliated citizens, one of Israel’s many democratic features.

In 2012, Mr. Obama famously said that the United States would “always have Israel’s back,” but, after Mr. Netanyahu’s tendentious statement, Mr. Obama stated that he is planning on “reassessing” America’s relationship with Israel. This relationship is vital to Israel’s existence, as the U.S. sits as one of the five permanent members on the United Nations’ Security Council and has in the past blocked sanctions and other considerable threats to Israel’s statehood. According to the White House, “Last year, the U.S. opposed 18 resolutions in the UN General Assembly that were biased against Israel.” With this most recent election under Israel’s belt, Israel’s ties with Mr. Obama, the Democrats, and the United Nations remain fragile and incomparably important. 

- Elisha Jacobs

The Man, The Legend: Lee Kuan Yew

On March 23, 2015, one of Asia’s giants left this world. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first leader, having ruled for an astounding three decades from 1959 to 1990 under the banner of the People’s Action Party (PAP), passed away, leaving a gaping hole in the hearts of many Singaporeans. Nothing has made this more evident than the millions who stood in the pouring rain to pay their respects to the larger-than-life figure who brought Singapore to the international fore. While Lee Kuan Yew, affectionately known as LKY, is credited with transforming Singapore from a Third World country with no natural resources to an Asian Tiger economy, along with getting diverse groups of people to establish themselves as Singaporean nationals, his government was credited with crackdown against political dissidents, careful monitoring of the press—as evidenced by the explosion of the story of a young Singaporean boy who issued a fake statement about LKY’s death 5 days before it happened  -- behavior that was often cited as an example of a “nanny state.” His son, Lee Hsien Loong, continues his father’s legacies—and that of PAP—leading some to wonder whether Singapore will develop a dynastic autocracy. This raises the question of what is most important: economic prosperity or political freedom? 

While it cannot be denied that governing a country through the ups and downs of 30 years, and especially through a transition to independence from Malaysia, is an extraordinary feat, there are definitely some more curious aspects to LKY’s policies. For example, he advocated that the reason that multi-party democracy and free political expression was limited was due to the need for economic stability. Some abroad may question why Singapore has continued this path of limited political freedoms in the face of a growing economy. It would be mistaken to assume that all of this backlash and criticism is strictly coming from outside of Singapore. Dissidence has begun to arise in many forms across Singapore, including the first strike—considered illegal in the small nation-state—since 1986 in 2013  and an increased presence of opposition parties in the Singaporean parliament. Filmmaker Eric Khoo was famous for his subtle criticism of LKY’s governance through disturbing films such as “Mee Pok Man” and “12 Storeys,” seeking to highlight the lives of the Singaporean poor and the tensions that existed between residents of public housing respectively.  

The focus of Western media on this critical lens is astounding. While some—including renowned journalist Fareed Zakaria—supports Lee Kuan Yew almost unequivocally, many have poked holes in the LKY Asian development model, joking about the serious punishments for infractions such as buying and selling chewing gum and criticizing the bankrupting of political opponents  by the Lee family. However, political pundits understand the value of having a leader like Lee Kuan Yew in a region that has otherwise produced brutal military dictators, and that many leaders viewed LKY, as he is affectionately known, as a role model, including China’s Deng Xiaoping and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In the latter country, there are even plans underway to build a statue and construct a museum in honor of Lee Kuan Yew in the state of Tamil Nadu, where most of Singapore’s ethnically Indian citizens hail from. There is a sense that perhaps LKY defied the West in creating a distinctly Asian system of national achievement. Lee Kuan Yew’s iron grip on Singapore resulted in flourishing economic success, but at the cost of political democratic freedoms.  

Lee Kuan Yew intimidates the West in many ways, and for good reason too. If more Asian leaders turn to the Lee Kuan Yew model to improve their countries’ economic growth, that could mean less influence from Washington and London. This could leave the development of strong economic states with weaker civil societies in its wake. 

- Anjana Sreedhar

Nigeria: The Hopeful Trickle Down of a Novel and Nonviolent Election

Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country and largest economy; the 21st largest in the world. Its cultural influence is similarly weighty and far reaching across the continent: Nollywood films and Naiji music are enjoyed from Kenya to South Africa, and Nigerian authors, like Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, have gained international recognition for their ideals and literary merit, all of which were a staple during my study abroad in Ghana. The spotlight on Nigeria most recently, however, has shed light on an increasingly violent and unpredictable facet of the country that is unfavorable to growth, morale, and development in all of its forms.

In 2014, Nigeria made international headlines due to the violent insurgency of Boko Haram, an Islamist sect widely described by the media as a terrorist movement, which swept the northern region of the country with the mission of abolishing all secular systems of government. Most notable and complete with a suitable hashtag, (perfect for those ardent supporters of a good cause but without any of the headache of commitment!), was the kidnapping of 276 Christian girls from the Government Secondary School in Chibok, northeast Nigeria. The atrocity of the event is staggering enough: today there are still 219 girls unaccounted for. Add a stagnated government that has failed to adequately respond to the needs of its own people and a lack of necessary support for its soldiers deployed to tackle the threat, and citizens are left with disillusionment and a desperate need for a change in the status quo.

Just last week, Nigeria made headlines again. This time, however, the West African country was being praised for an incredible feat, one that serves as an indicator of potential progress – holding a competitive election between two candidates for president. After delaying election day for six weeks  – done to thwart Boko Haram insurgents threatening to disrupt the process – Muhammadu Buhari, former military leader and a ruler of Nigeria for a 20 month period from 1983-1985, was elected president on March 29, successfully marking the first time an elected incumbent President has peacefully transferred power to the elected opposition leader. Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan conceded the position and offered his congratulations on March 31, after elections that were mostly peaceful and violence free, citing “nobody’s ambition is worth the blood of any Nigerian.”

The last time Mr. Buhari rose to power was an extremely different story: he served as a leader of the December 1983 military coup that overthrew the democratically elected President Shehu Shagari. During his rule, Nigeria’s secret police service was given unparalleled levels of power, heavily cracking down on public dissent. The State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No.2 of 1984 allowed for indefinite, incommunicado detention of Nigerian citizens. Today, Buhari reclaims a political and economic climate similar to that of his 1980s term: falling oil revenue, high unemployment, and a devalued naira. While his austerity measures and rejection of an IMF appeal then might not have made the necessary reform his country needed, it nonetheless demonstrated a resolve that Buhari strives to reiterate as he pledges to weed out corruption, bring stability, and encourage opportunities for direct investment and employment for the primarily youth driven country.

While these free and fair elections set a precedent, and served as an indicator of stability in a period of volatility not seen since the height of the Nigerian civil war, it is not without hesitation that Nigeria welcomes their new president. In his speech to the Chatham House in London in February, Buhari issued the following statement, “I have heard references to me as a former dictator. I take responsibility for whatever happened under my watch.” If he manages to keep up this invaluable trend of transparency and accountability, however, Buhari will have already made leaps of progress.

- Sabine Teyssier

             

 

 

 

Stop ISIL’s Cultural Genocide of the Assyrian People

As the mass genocide of Christians in Iraq at the hands of ISIL has waged on, I have seen several disturbing images of the Assyrian people, the ethnic group to which I belong, being murdered in their own homeland. However, this video is one of the most upsetting things I have witnessed – it shows ISIL destroying thousands of priceless, ancient Assyrian artifacts at the Nineveh Museum in Mosul, Iraq.

As an Assyrian, being in the presence of these ancient artifacts is powerful; they remind us of the strength and creativity that our civilization stands for and of our powerful ancestors that continue to inspire us. These relics are one of the few ways in which we Assyrians today can connect with our national culture outside of our language and our stories. We cannot just hop on a plane and go to our country to connect with our roots as we have no homeland to call Assyria. Instead, our people are facing both human and cultural genocide at the hands of ISIL on the Plains of Nineveh in Northern Iraq, the same place where our civilization once thrived.

It may seem strange to care so much about the destruction of statues when violence towards the Assyrians and other Iraqi Christians at the hands of ISIL is rapidly increasing, including but not limited to the recent taking of 150 Assyrians hostage in late February. However, archeologists around the world are referring to this atrocity as a “cultural genocide,” and with good reason. Although there is no reliable estimate as to how many Assyrians remain in the world, most estimates are less than 800,000, and these people are spread out from the violent Plains of Nineveh in Iraq to Washington Square. Because Assyrians are a small, stateless ethnic group that is spread around the world, what binds us is not land, but rather our language, fine art, and ancient traditions. The Assyrians have no recognized state and therefore have limited if any standing in the international community, so what we rely on to give us a voice is in fact our cultural identity. If this identity is destroyed, as ISIL is seeking to accomplish, one swing of a hammer at a time, the Assyrian people will have no glue to hold them together. Our chance of having a true voice in the Middle East and in the international community shrinks with each blow to the marble.

Yes, statehood would be the ideal way for the Assyrian people to achieve a voice in the international community and to impact global politics. However, with the situation in the Plains of Nineveh becoming increasingly volatile, the Assyrian community in the diaspora has more realistic expectations. By protecting our cultural identity, we, the Assyrian people, hope that we will be able to garner enough international support to protect us from physical and cultural genocide. We may not have established political leaders, an army, or even a country, but we do have our culture; and the Assyrian people have hope that our cultural identity might be just strong enough to save us.

- Nika Arzoumanian

Photo: ArtNet News

Peaceful Islamic Responses to Radical Islam

 

Responses to current waves of radical Islamic extremism have appeared one after the other over the past few months as a collection of symbolic acts of solidarity. They represent a united, Westernized Islam that bends itself willingly to the demands of human rights. The most powerful of these responses are those of peaceful Muslim individuals and communities around the world. 

One is that of the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb, who made a public statement on February 18, declaring that Dutch Muslims must accept Western values or leave. As he explains, "The Dutch constitution, but also the Dutch society, is constructed on a very, very intrinsic basic value, and that is tolerance and acceptance… So the moment you come to the Netherlands…and you get a citizenship then you have to at least underline and embrace the constitution and the values of the country".

The message Aboutaleb makes clear is this: the Netherlands is a place of tolerance with a progressive legal framework. Moreover, these attributes are sources of national pride and security, and therefore not to be taken lightly. This requires a pluralistic conception of the nation’s cultural mosaic, and to that end, a fundamental understanding that the secular, human rights based laws of the nation must, without exception, supersede religious law , a topic that will be further covered by my article in the NYU Journal of Human Rights called “The potential benefits of state secularization in human rights”.

A similar message holds true in the letter to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a theological text undermining IS as fundamentally non-Islamic and signed onto by Islamic scholars around the world. It is safe to assume that the text’s intended audience is not the Islamic State’s radical leaders, but rather those who might judge Islam based on this state as well as those contemplating joining them. For these audiences, the letter frames Islam in a distinctly Westernized lens, urging Muslims to conform to mainstream contemporary human rights expectations. 

The letter states, “It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.” These internationally accepted rights – religious freedom, gender equality, children’s rights, and fair trial, among others – are revealed to be requisites of the Islamic faith. Further, the letter condemns so-called jihadist terrorism, explaining, “Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct”. The letter and its signatories strive to wholly dissociate themselves from radical Islamic acts and instead align with the more palatable (and at best, more just) Western human rights regime.

The Oslo synagogue demonstration echoes these political and theological acts through symbolic social action. On February 14th, 2015, Norwegian Muslims encircled an Oslo synagogue to show their protection and support of the Jewish community. They too were in support of an Islam that aligned itself with the pluralistic and peaceful outlook of their nation, and not one in which terror is ever justifiable on religious grounds

Oslo’s Jewish community leader, Ervin Kohn, responded by saying, “It is unique that Muslims stand to this degree against anti-Semitism and that fills us with hope… particularly as it’s a grassroots movement of young Muslims.” One of those young organizers, Zeeshan Abdullah, told the crowd, "There are many more peace mongers than warmongers. There's still hope for humanity".

This demonstration bodes well for Norway’s past and future Muslim immigrants, who have been accused of “adulterating pure Norwegian blood.” A 2014 opinion poll found that 77 percent of Norwegian’s valued the contribution of Muslim immigrants to Norwegian society, but that still leaves 23 percent who need convincing. This demonstration might serve to reinforce and build upon that 77 percent.

Critics argue that the West is failing to contain the spread of radical ideologies. It is encouraging, therefore, to hear how Muslims are joining the fight against radicals by showing solidarity and setting high expectations for those of Muslim faith around the world. The strongest defense against radical Islam will be put up by Muslims themselves, and it is up to Muslim leaders and grassroots activists alike to continue these demonstrations of value if we are to ever see a tangible shift in the global imaginary away from Islamophobia and towards tolerance and peace.

- Emily Albert