Tunisia: the sole success of the Arab Spring

On December 17th 2010, fruit seller Muhammad Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest at the political and economic repression of the Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, sparking the first uprising of the Arab Spring. Just a month later, President Ben Ali fled the country. This was “the first time in the modern history of the Arab world a popular uprising forced the ouster of a ruler”. These events triggered dramatic protest movements across the entire Middle East, the fall-out of which we are still seeing today in the civil wars of Syria, Libya, and Yemen. These are not even the only countries where problems remain unsolved. In fact, every Middle-Eastern uprising other than that in Tunisia has lead to either ongoing war or a return to largely the same status quo as existed five years ago. On the other hand, Tunisia has overcome enormous odds and is still enjoying its successful transition to democracy.

 This resulted, this week, in the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the national dialogue quartet that is credited with being largely responsible for the aversion of civil conflict.This quartet included the Tunisian human rights league, the employer’s institute, the order of lawyers and the powerful union federation called UGGT. When war seemed almost inevitable, these groups, rising above their own disputes, unified as a quartet and stepped in to organise a national dialogue that resulted in compromise, peace and the consolidation of Tunisia’s new democratic system. Thus, the group prevented a move towards the escalation of violence and unresolved conflict that we have seen in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The Nobel Prize has faced criticism in recent years for being misdirected, awarding prizes based on future hope rather than actual achievements. President Barack Obama was a notable case of this when he won the award in 2009. This year contestants included Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Pope Francis, and US Secretary of State John Kerry. This more obscure group of Tunisians is surely a deserving winner though, considering their immense achievement in retaining peace in Tunisia.

The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, as it is now known, happened over a period of just a month. However, as we have clearly seen from events in other Arab countries, a rebel victory in no way guarantees a successful democracy. Indeed, the overthrowing of leaders in Egypt and Libya marked just the start of the immense violence those countries have seen. Tunisia accomplished this through the remarkable willingness of many, including this prize-winning quartet, to bargain and compromise. Tunisia did have some advantages over other Arab countries, such as its relative wealth, homogeneity, and long legacy of political institutions and little military intervention. Nevertheless, in 2013 there was what has now become a familiar situation all over the Arab world: polarization between Islamists and secularists. In Tunisia, this took the form of rivalry between the Islamist Ennahda party and the Nida Tounis party, made up of former members of the secular old regime.

The leaders of these parties, rather than moving towards conflict as happened in other countries, were willing to meet and reach a compromise in a national dialogue. This was mediated by the quartet that just won the Nobel Prize. This group brought about a compromise that ended with all parties agreeing on a constitution, followed by elections hailed around the world as being open and free.The role of the Islamist Ennahda party, and its leader, Rachid Ghannouchi, was also crucial. Ghannouchi, who is a renowned proponent of the compatibility of Islam and democracy, abdicated his leadership that he had won through elections to allow the national dialogue to take place and then agreed to a constitution with no mention of Islamic law and staunchly in favor of gender equality. This calmed fears of extremism and ushered in a secular democracy in which Islamist parties could participate.

Two years later from these events, despite economic crisis and several violent terrorist attacks, Tunisia’s democracy remains intact. The newly elected President Essebsi has raised concerns due to some constraining “emergency” measures he has taken to combat terrorism as well as his links with members of the former regime of Ben Ali. However, the country remains largely peaceful, and there has been no challenge to the holding of regular democratic elections. Tunisia has shown that willingness to engage in dialogue and balanced, tactful leadership can bring about a successful, largely non-violent transition to democracy in the Arab world. The key to success was this quartet group that was able to mediate between Islamists and secularists associated with the old order, and which has now been rewarded for their efforts with the Nobel Prize. The country’s success took place without any military aid from foreign countries, which has produced so few positive results in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Perhaps Tunisia’s story shows that the best option for the West and other foreign powers in the Middle East could be to find, build and support coalitions such as the Tunisian quartet, which have some chance of bringing about national unity, rather than inherently divisive military action.

- Xan Northcott

Student Loan Debt: Searching for Answers

Walking into the “Public Talk and Q&A With Loretta Mester” hosted by NYU Stern’s Center for Global Economy and Business, I expected the focus of the discussion to be on monetary policy. Mester is the President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Considering that she has been quoted on many occasions as pushing for rate hikes, I anticipated a prolonged discussion about the federal funds rate. In a surprising twist, and much to the chagrin of the MBA students lining the room, Mester dedicated only a few, fleeting moments to inflation target and interest rates. Instead, she chose to focus on what she deemed a “structural problem”: education policy in the United States.

Specifically, she focused on student debt, a universal problem shared by students at private institutions--such as NYU--and public institutions alike. Mester started with the startling statistic that in 2004, roughly 25% of 25-year-olds had student debt, while in 2014, that number has ballooned to 45%. In fact, a series of interactive charts produced by the NY Fed provide further context, breaking down debt and loan delinquency rates by age group.

According to the College Board, “about 60% of students who earned bachelor’s degrees in 2012 and 2013 from the public and private nonprofit institutions at which they began their studies graduated with debt. They borrowed an average of $27,300.” The increase, when compared to the 1999-2000 cumulative debt average value of $21,200, represents a 21% increase in average cumulative student loan debt per borrower, and a 33% increase in student loan debt per bachelors degree recipient over a 13-year period. Perhaps this differential between bachelor’s degree recipients and overall borrowers reflects national 5-year graduation rates—which are currently only at 55% nationwide. 

Despite these costs, Mester brought attention to the fact that the “skill premium,” or increase in income due to possession of a college degree, continues to rise. According to the Cleveland Federal Reserve, “college degree holders enjoy an 84% increase in earnings” when compared to high-school educated students.

From Mester’s comments, and other literature on this subject, it is clear that a college education is highly valued in the marketplace; yet, due to high tuition rates, the return on this investment still remains very low, or even negative, for many students. The Economist analyzed the return on investment (ROI) for various different college degrees, and the results were bleak. Comparing the investment in college to investing 20-year treasury notes (the lowest yield instrument), they found that engineering degrees regularly generated a high, positive return, while 46 of the 153 arts degrees studied generated a lower return than treasury notes. Of these 46, 18 degrees generated a negative return. According to this study, school reputation also matters a lot in determining the ROI of their arts degrees.

Reading these articles brought to mind an article by a Stanford University professor, which encourages students to exercise “moral courage” when choosing their career paths, rather than choosing the roads oft travelled (banking, consulting, etc.)

I, too, would like to see more people choosing to follow their dreams and passions, wherever they may lie. But for most, choosing a career path is another example of constrained optimization. Perhaps choosing to go into banking has less to do with a “fear of indulgence” and more to do with the piles of student loan debt with which this generation is faced. And, essentially, this article seems to leave out the immediate advantage that students going to an elite institution like Stanford have over other students when it comes to receiving a high ROI on a large variety of degrees.

So the question we should be asking is: why is tuition so high? Economists have differing viewpoints-- so much so that the Washington Post devoted a 10-part series to the subject. Some people might point to subsidies, while others may point to decreasing overall endowments, and still others might mention high administrative costs at universities.

While parsing out these individual impacts may be tough, what remains clear is that something must be done to make college more affordable. Mester emphasized the importance of restructuring the federal loan system. As much as I realize that doing so would be an enormous public policy challenge, I worry that the failure to do so will force students to default on loans, spend most of their adult lives paying for them, make career choices solely based on pay grade, or worse, seek out potentially riskier alternative forms of funding.

Ultimately, the call for college affordability reform comes from more than just a place of moral indignation. As low-to-middle skill jobs are becoming increasingly automated, education is going to be key in ensuring longer-term economic growth.

The good news is that politicians have surely taken note of this fact: President Obama has pushed for free community college education and presidential nominees have discussed the issue at length in their campaigns and debates. Hopefully this issue can transcend rhetoric and politics, and find itself on the long road towards action.

- Bhargavi Ganesh

How An Economic Crisis May Be Putin’s Downfall

Russia’s recent activity in Syria in support of Assad’s non-democratic regime raises questions about President Putin’s dedication to democratic principals and to a democratic Russia. While he claims that the country’s actions in the Middle East are aimed at defeating ISIS and international terrorism, his statements are worth questioning. And while post-Soviet Russia is often referred to as a country in transition, it is also worth examining into what Russia is transitioning. In light of Putin’s policies in Ukraine, the Middle East, and domestically, can we expect a true democracy anytime soon?

    Russia has a long history of autocracy and an equally extensive history of revolution and revolt. Looking back at how the country has dealt with its tumultuous authoritarian past, we can see a historical precedent for the pattern of economic depression followed by revolution and  emergence of a new regime.

    The abolition of serfdom in the late 19th century led to massive debt and famine, and inflation exacerbated by the First World War gave way to worker strikes and peasant unrest. This period of economic and cultural malaise triggered the Revolution of 1905 and the subsequent revolution in 1917. It’s interesting to note that these revolutions were followed by a epoch of hope for Russia; the Romanovs had previously ruled over the country conservatively and brutally, while the provisional government that succeeded them was one of the most liberal in the world at that time, seemingly dedicated to the tenets of democracy and freedom. But there was no democratic model for Russia to follow, and the Bolsheviks, who eventually replaced the provisional government, were little more than a new variation of the old autocracy. 

This pattern repeated itself in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Slowing economic growth was made worse by the regime’s corrosive tendencies and huge amounts of money put towards military endeavors, most notably the war in Afghanistan and the arms race against the U.S. By 1990, their GDP was on the decline while prices were on the rise. While the conditions in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s were unique and Gorbachev’s dedication to reform certainly contributed to the disintegration of the regime, economic problems led to dissatisfaction with the dictatorship that citizens had been able to put up with in more prosperous times. Preceding its collapse, a wave of democratization swept over Eastern Europe and left multiple fledgling democracies in its wake- the “fall of communism.” When communism fell in Russia, it was expected that democracy would stand up in its place. But as in 1917, the hope for a complete democracy was not realized.

    Today Russia is, at best, a “managed democracy,” one that holds free elections but greatly reduces the competition of the incumbent. Boris Nemtsov, one of Putin’s biggest critics, was shot dead in Moscow earlier this year, a jarring example of the fearful political climate in the country. The Russian state also owns or indirectly controls all three major television networks in the country- Channel One, Russia One, and NTV. So we have just another variation on autocracy, as we’ve seen in Russia’s past, and we also see an economic crisis looming on the horizon.

    The GDP per capita has increased from USD1,771 in 2000 to more than USD14,000 under Putin’s leadership. Putin’s tactics may get by with the Russian people as long as the economy is improving, but what happens when that upward trend stagnates? We may soon find out. Russia’s actions in Ukraine have caused trade sanctions to be put into place by multiple countries, and the fact that Russia’s economy is 85 percent export-based, mostly in oil, energy, metal, and wheat, means that these sanctions could devastate the country’s economic climate. Russia receives a large percentage of its food and medicine from Europe, and over 50 percent of the government’s revenue comes from oil and gas, mostly in sales to Europe. So attempting to respond to these sanctions by perhaps limiting their export of energy would only hurt them more. Of course, Russia’s economic problems are much more complicated than this, but overall The World Bank predicts a 3.8 percent drop in their economy this year.

    So what’s in the cards for Russia? If we look at it from a historical point of view, it wouldn’t be surprising to see Putin fall from power if this period of economic recession continues, like the Romanovs and the USSR before him. From there, it’s anyone’s guess, but it may be smart to anticipate that an equally questionable democracy may follow this one. The foundation of Russian history in its entirety has been that a strong state is a successful state, and for so long a strong state has been synonymous with an autocracy. While a fair and free democracy is what Russia should strive toward, it’s unreasonable to expect it to change centuries of ideology over the course of a few decades. A “managed democracy,” “sovereign democracy,” competitive authoritarianism- whatever you want to call Russia, it is a country with a tragic and authoritarian history and one that we should expect will inform its people’s decisions for years to come.  

- Alexie Schwarz

The Victims of Yemen: Innocent Civilians

If you’ve been watching the news or reading newspapers lately, you may have come across several stories about a conflict that has been brewing half-way across the globe in Yemen since as early as 2004. Over the past 6-8 months, Yemen has undergone profound, socio-political change, thanks to the rise of several different insurgent groups and the increasing unrest surrounding President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi’s political reign. Since the mid-1990s, the Yemeni public has voiced strong opinions about its government, accusing many of its members of promoting corruption and proliferating unemployment and nation-wide poverty. Along with public dissent, several coalitions have formed with the sole purpose of ousting the President from office, but none more prominently than the militant rebel group known as the Zaidi Shia Houthis, named after its leader, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi.  

While the Houthi rebel group has drawn its support from the public’s contempt for Hadi, they have also been a benefactor of former Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was removed from office in 2011. This creates an interesting dynamic in the conflict because Saleh has reclaimed some leverage in Yemen by siding with the Houthis. It will be interesting to observe what his role in Yemen becomes in the near future. 

In January of this year, the Houthi rebel group successfully forced President Hadi out of office in the capital of Sana’a, causing him to flee to the seaport city of Aden. Although he is still internationally recognized as Yemen’s leader, it is difficult to pinpoint who has power over whom in this ongoing conflict. As with many other civil wars involving several different political actors, there are severe, unintended consequences that innocent civilians and bystanders must face everyday. One major example of this is Saudi Arabia’s involvement in attempting to demolish insurgency forces throughout Sana’a. The problem with Saudi airstrikes and on-the-ground operations is that hundreds and thousands of innocent people are dying without any accountability from the Saudi or Yemeni governments. Saudi officials claim to “only target” Houthi extremists and to have no involvement in the killing of innocent Yemeni people. A New York Times article reports that “apache helicopters fired rockets at the village of Bani Zela in Hajjah Province, roughly seven miles from the Saudi border, killing at least 25 civilians, including women and children.” 

That is not to say that the Houthi rebel group has not been indiscriminately attacking residential areas either. Many people who still have access to social media in Yemen use the hashtag #Yemen to connect their personal stories to the rest of the internet via Twitter, and several tweets indicate that Houthi rebels have been perpetrators in killings of innocent men, women, and children.

This conflict puts the United States and the Obama administration in a tough foreign policy predicament that may illustrate a few contradictions. The United States has been an ally of Saudi Arabia for a majority of the 20th century because of oil-based economic negotiations and supposed counterterrorism provisions. Because of this, the United States has not vigorously acted to increase support for the well-being of Yemeni civilians, but rather it has increased its military intervention throughout the country, therefore siding with the Saudi coalition against the Houthi rebels  Although the United States government reports that it has provided close to 300 million dollars to Yemen in humanitarian aid since the conflict began, its military actions cancel out any visible progress that has been made. American action in Yemen does not mirror the Obama administration’s treatment of the Syrian civil war; the President has been imploring that Russia choose the side of the rebels when aiding in the war effort, not Assad’s.

Though in these separate contexts Saudi Arabia is an ally and Russia is not, and the circumstances for foreign diplomacy may contrast, the tragedies that occur within each country’s borders are similar. The question now for many becomes, “Where is the United States’s accountability?” U.S. made weapons are tearing through Yemen’s largest cities and are decimating everything in their paths; why are Yemeni civilians not taken into account? Many UN-affiliated and non-UN affiliated NGOs are working vigorously and courageously to aid those in need within Yemen’s borders, and although these institutions have been of much help, their resources are limited. 

No one knows how long the conflict may last, and there is certainly no easy, concrete answer to the question of who should or should not be in power in Yemen. The only fact that is for certain is that Yemeni civilians are suffering, and the international community cannot turn a blind eye towards this crisis.  

- James Sabia

Every [Corporation] for Himself: The TPP’s Growing Controversy

In March 2010, the United States and 11 other countries began the first round of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP was proposed to enhance trade and investment among the Pacific Rim nations, via lower tariffs and additional “common framework” regulations (intellectual property protections, dispute settlements, etc.) This summer, the US Senate approved fast-track authority, a policy that allows the White House to send trade deals to Congress for up-or-down votes, with the Senate unable to filibuster them and lawmakers unable to amend them. The fast-track debate, and its eventual approval, put a spotlight on the massive trade agreement over the course of this past year.

Just this week, international headlines have declared that the 12 member nations have come to a final agreement. If passed, the TPP would officially become the largest trade deal in global history.

Amid the discussion of fast-track approval, populist politicians and domestic labor unions began to publicly denounce the TPP. It was argued that the essence of these behind-the-door negotiations denied the public of their right to know what this mega-partnership entailed for the common man. Lobbying, establishment politics, and years of undercover arrangements began to frighten Americans everywhere. The uneasiness, without a doubt, remains well warranted.

Over time, remnants of the trade deal’s content began to become public. Those who condemned the TPP continued to, but this time with the ability to identify its negative externalities.

 Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was one of the first political figures to publicly condemn the TPP; her recently published Washington Post editorial,  which criticizes what is arguably the most controversial component of the TPP, represents only one facet of her fight. Her attack targeted the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a clause of the deal that grants international corporations the ability to sue governments for laws that harm their “expected future profits.” What’s even more startling is that corporate lawyers, not independent judges, conduct these settlements. This ultimately means that if a company refuses to comply with safety standards established for the protection of consumers (i.e. health/food safety regulations, environmental protections, etc.) and wins its case before the panel of corporate mediators, a nation would not only have to disregard their cause for protective standards, but would also be required to pay billions of dollars in damages. The arbitrary nature of this dispute resolution not only defies state sovereignty, but as Warren argues, exclusively grants victory to the biggest multinational corporations in the world.

 Vermont Senator and leftist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been equally unapologetic about his disapproval of the trade agreement. On his senate website, Sanders released a public statement articulating “10 Ways that TPP would hurt Working Families”.  In the release, he expands upon the TPP’s direct marginalization of the middle-class consumer and draws its similarities to previous trade deals like NAFTA.  Guaranteed outsourcing due to the low minimum wages in member states, wage threats from these drastic discrepancies in the cost of labor, and the surge of prescription drug prices as a result of pharmaceutical monopolies are just a few of the listed consequences.

Warren and Sanders certainly aren’t in this fight alone. Standing behind them are Congresswoman Rose DeLauro (D-CT) and Congressman George Miller (D-CA), who led an effort with 151 Democrats in the House of Representatives to inform President Obama of their disapproval in the “lack of adequate congressional consultation in many areas of the proposed pact.” More recently, former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reversed her previously supportive stance on the trade agreement. Regardless of her motives, a policy flip-flop just further solidifies the narrative established by the American people. This narrative, which many argue Clinton is attempting to resonate with, speaks loud and clear. The TPP isn’t looking out for us or our interests; the TPP is looking out for the businesses that lobby behind our backs.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership warrants the alarming reality of America’s current state as a “corporatocracy"—what economist Jeffery Sachs termed as an economic and political system dominated by multinational corporations and their corporate interests. The nature of the TPP’s development should be outright alarming to the general public, but the realities of the deal itself should elicit even more outrage.

With mere months before Congress even has the ability to enact the finalized agreement, many efforts have begun to push state representatives to vote against the notorious trade deal. Petitions are establishing widespread Internet presence, NGO’s like Doctors Without Borders are pleading member nations to reconsider the agreement’s pernicious tradeoffs to health, and if anything, a cultivation of awareness is stimulating the political sphere.

While inciting discourse is the first step, it isn’t enough. Americans must continue to fight actively for their voices to be heard. Now is the time for Americans everywhere to familiarize themselves with a trade deal that not only limits their significance as constituents of a democratic state, but also establishes a unique political precedent. Forget the idea of valuing corporations as people; the U.S. values corporations above them. 

- Jami Tanner

As the West stalls, Russia Delves Deeper Into the Syrian Conflict

This week saw tense confrontations between President Barack Obama and President Vladimir Putin as they came to discuss the conflict in Syria at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Both made speeches loaded with subtle criticisms reminiscent of some of the worst episodes of the Cold War (see the speeches here and here. Indeed, it has become clear that the United States and Russia now take fundamentally different views on both the current status of the conflict and what action should be taken in the future. At present, attempts to address this issue have served only to deepen divisions rather than to bring about a unified approach.

The main point of contention is over the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The war in Syria began in opposition to his regime, but he now stands in control of the only force preventing ISIS from taking control of even more extensive areas of Syria. Assad himself said this week that failure to defeat ISIS ‘will destroy the Middle East’. However, Obama is adamant that Assad remains a part of the problem, not the solution, and called Putin’s tactics in Syria ‘a recipe for disaster’. On the other hand, Putin said this week that it would be a huge mistake not to work with Assad  who, in his eyes, remains the leader of the ‘legitimate government’ of Syria and one of the few bulwarks against the spread of extremist terrorist groups. Putin also claimed that President Assad agrees with the possibility of ‘simultaneous political change’, meaning a gradual transition to democracy with Assad serving as the interim government. This approach is becoming increasingly hard to ignore, and David Cameron, Prime Minister of the U.K., this week conceded that at the very least ‘there would need to be some sort of transition’ for Assad to exit from power.

The fact is that there are very few options if Assad is to be entirely excluded from negotiations. The US stance of supporting the “moderate” Syrian rebels has unquestionably failed. Even back in August 2012 the US Defense Intelligence Agency released a statement saying that ‘Salafists (Islamic fundamentalists), the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria’.  All moderate factions have not only suffered resounding defeats but have also frequently had their Western-supplied arms stolen by more radical groups. It is estimated that at least  USD 650 million of US supplies has been acquired by ISIS, including weapons, cars and battle tanks. Therefore, if the Assad regime is toppled now, there is very little hope for any stability or end to the slaughter that has been ongoing in Syria for four and a half years now. The US, unwilling to do a U-turn on its policy and work with Assad or to send in ground forces, has been left to carry out ineffectual air strikes against terrorist groups with apparently no plan of what to do if these groups are defeated.

The stalling of US action has continued since Obama’s demand for the removal of chemical weapons from Assad’s arsenal two years ago, while Putin is now exerting a huge influence in the area. This week Russia admitted that, on top of providing large amounts of technological and financial support to the Assad government, they have conducted airstrikes against targets other than ISIS, suggesting a more obvious attempt to gain victory for Assad.  Furthermore, Putin has been trying to use Russia’s current position as President of the UN Security Council to bring countries together in support of combatting ISIS in a manner that works with Assad. Brazil and China have already hinted at support of this plan. It seems clear that if the West does not form new policy and take more significant action, it is possible that the Syrian conflict will unravel in a way that Putin desires, with Assad remaining in power and a victory for Russian diplomacy.

Overall, these issues leave the Syrian crisis in a state of great uncertainty. There is a distinct possibility that Assad will be able to continue his authoritarian rule at the end of the war, and no one seems to have an idea of what will happen if he does not. Most international rulers, like Obama, say they want the Syrian people to rule, but at present there is no visible way of how this might be put into practice. Meanwhile, as international powers bicker and stall, the death toll in Syria has surpassed 250,000 along with 4 million people made refugees.  Some political figures, like Donald Trump, think Putin’s intervention in Syria could be beneficial, but no one could disagree that he is going about his intervention in a somewhat reckless manner, leaving much uncertain. The West must soon develop some sort of stronger idea of how to intervene or the people of Syria are faced with domination by Putin and Assad on one side and humanitarian disaster on the other.

It is very difficult to suggest what path President Obama and other Western leaders should take, but at present they have disappointingly come up with no effective ideas at all, as inefficient airstrikes rage on. Pressure is mounting as Senator John McCain said on October 4th that Obama’s lack of policy amounts to ‘an abdication of leadership’ and spoke of an emerging ‘proxy war’ with Russia . Arguably Obama’s tactic of few commitments will do more for his popularity than any sort of stronger engagement, but, in the midst of this international fiasco, the tragic torment of the Syrian people is interminably prolonged. Unless something is done soon, with or without the help of Putin and Assad, the bloodbath status of the conflict is unlikely to change anytime in the near future.

- Xan Northcott

Lost Leaders: ISIL’s Sex Slavery and its Targets

Warning: Some of the hyperlinks in this article can be triggering. Viewer discretion is advised.

About a month ago, I read a New York Times article  that has lingered in my mind since. It tells the story of a 12-year-old girl whom an ISIL militant raped. ISIL, also known as the so-called Islamic State, seeks to create an Islamic caliphate that would serve as a paradise for all believers. Their militants continue to engage in violent tactics, such as rape of women and young girls, to further their mission. Before attacking her, the militant prayed and paused to explain to her what he was doing: he was punishing her for not being Muslim and, through his actions, would bring her closer to God. After committing the act, he prayed again and left. 

ISIL, a rapidly growing Islamic extremist group gaining ground in Syria and other parts of the Middle East, claims to find support for the mass rape of “non-believing” women and girls in the Qur’an. Militants equate it to ibadah, or worship. As a result, ISIL has created a fully functioning sex market in its camps; over 3000 women are currently held by the organization, and transactions involving women must pass through the Islamic court system. In addition to seeing it as a holy act, ISIL uses sex slavery as a means of fighter recruitment. Many of ISIL’s recruits are men from conservative Muslim backgrounds where extra- or premarital sex is forbidden; ISIL therefore incentivizes young, radical Muslim men by offering them to pick from the captives.

The targets of this sexual violence are almost always young women from minority communities. Yazidi women are a key demographic targeted for sex slavery, but Christians, including Christian Assyrian and Catholic women in the region have been taken and made ISIL’s property. The international community has seen these groups suffer at the hands of ISIL before: from the mass genocide of Yazidis, Assyrians, and other Christians to the rampant cultural genocide of minority groups seen most prominently in something that I have previously written about, the destruction of thousands of ancient Assyrian artifacts in Mosul, Iraq, ISIL is on a campaign to destroy the remaining vestiges of these minority societies.

Having grown up in an Assyrian-American household, I can say with confidence that the world I come from is a paradox. It is a patriarchal world because women are expected first and foremost to marry, have children, and be a support to their husbands even if they do have careers of their own. At the same time, women are the ultimate leaders of family units. My grandmother is my family’s undisputed matriarch, the oldest of nine siblings. She leads my family with not only unconditional love, but also unconditional honor and virtue.

ISIL knows what it is doing by codifying rape and sex slavery into the folds of its growing society. In many of these minority communities, a woman’s individual and social value is based on her honor and virtue [read: her virginity]. As a result, when women are the victims of sex crimes at the hands of ISIL, not only do they suffer violent trauma with little support, it is easy for them to believe that they have been stripped of their potential to be matriarchs and leaders in their communities. In a part of the world where women are often denied basic rights, rape and sex slavery is the complete denial of the leadership potential and often little agency these women have. Furthermore, the trauma they are subject to severely limits their capability to fulfill their leadership potential and contribute to the fight against their oppressors. Through its systemic attack on women, ISIL is destroying a critical half of the potential leadership of its opposition.

News sources have recently revealed that the impact of ISIL’s sex market on its victims does not stop with demoralization alone. Women enslaved by ISIL have begun taking their own lives; they would rather die than continue to fall victim to the atrocities militants are committing against them.

ISIL has destroyed cities, torn apart families, and shaken the conscience of the international community with its violence. Governments and international bodies alike have taken steps to bring down this extremist group. Many agree that without strong local opposition against ISIL in the region, the international community cannot topple it. But, without a diversity of voices—both men’s and women’s—at the leadership level in these movements, that strong local opposition is unlikely to exist any time soon. Unfortunately, the victims of ISIL’s sex market have fallen through the cracks with the vast majority of the solutions already put forth; they have neither been rescued nor has their agency or confidence been restored. It’s time for the international community to turn its gaze to the less visible victims of ISIL’s violence, to save both these women’s lives and the lives of so many impacted by ISIL.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?_r=0

- Nika Arzoumanian

Questions of Spain’s Future persist after Indecisive Catalonia Election

The future of Catalan statehood remains unclear after a September 27th parliamentary election yielded inconclusive results. The election—widely interpreted as a referendum on secession from Spain—resulted in three nationalist parties combining to win an absolute majority of seats in parliament, yet failing to capture a majority of the popular vote.

The vote serves as the culmination of three years of infighting over Catalonia’s financial contribution to Spain’s complex tax system. Although it is difficult to calculate the disparity between the federal taxes Catalans pay and the investments in services they get back, independence campaigners put the figure between €13.5bn and €17.5bn. For perspective, the Catalan regional budget for 2015 is only €22.5bn. Compounded by the fact that state investment in Catalonia has been steadily dropping, Catalonia’s rapid movement towards statehood begins to make a lot of sense.

While the economic issue may have served as the tinder setting alight a fire of secessionist fervor, the firewood has always been a separate identity many Catalans reserve for their native region. Catalonia has retained its own distinct language and cultural identity through centuries of union with Spain. National identity is of course an emotional issue, and Catalans express varying degrees of connection with their region and country.

Nationalist leaders were quick to point to their newfound control over parliament as a mandate to take Catalonia farther along the path towards statehood. In a Politico op-ed, Artur Mas, the president of Catalonia and leader of the secession campaign wrote:

“The victory of the pro-independence camp is unmistakable: The people of Catalonia have given a democratic mandate to their political representatives to begin this exciting process. Accordingly, the new Catalan parliament and the new executive government (made up from its members) will soon make a public declaration announcing the beginning of a political process that will culminate in full independence.”

But Catalonia is certain to encounter substantial legal hurdles if it were to declare independence. For one, Spanish law forbids any region from separating unilaterally. Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy, a fierce critic of the independence movement, has argued that the democratic approach would be for all of Spain to vote in a referendum on Catalonia's future because the loss of Catalonia would affect all of Spain. Despite making a mess of the principles underlying the right to self-determination, Mr. Rajoy is right to be concerned: the loss of Catalonia, one of Spain’s richest and most industrialized regions, would be a tremendous blow to the Spanish economy.

Whether the secession movement can withstand internal pressures that will begin to mount as Mas’s government moves toward secession is also doubtful. It bears repeating that fewer than half of the Catalan electorate voted for parties with a secessionist platform in what was generally considered a plebiscite on  independence. According to analyst Mauro Guillen, the divide cuts across urban rural lines with rural areas and smaller cities supporting the independence movement in greater proportion to metropolitan Barcelona.

More broadly, a successful independence movement could fan the fires of other would be secession campaigns across Europe, disrupting the already fragile constitution of the EU. David Cameron, who earlier this year dealt with a struggle to maintain the unity of his own United Kingdom with the Scottish referendum, warned an independent Catalonia would have to "take its place at the back of the queue" if it sought to rejoin. And Germany’s Angela Merkel said she supported Mr. Rajoy on respecting “national law.” As some of the worst challenges in the post-Cold War era begin to unfold, an EU weakened further by even greater divisions is the last thing heads of state—and the European people—need.

- Luke Shapiro 

NYU Student Tries Hand at International Diplomacy

Summary: NYU Stern Junior Won-Moon Joo, A South Korean national and United States permanent resident, has been detained in North Korea since April after sneaking into the country from China. Released after 6-months, many details remain uncertain about his stay and the possible implications.

With the upcoming 70th anniversary of the Worker’s Party of North Korea this Sunday and increasingly strained tensions on the Korean peninsula, October 5th marks an unusually fortunate day in inter-Korean relations.

Back in April of this year, Won-Moon Joo – a South Korean international student studying at New York University – was detained after illegally entering North Korea from China. In a CNN interview conducted a month later at the Koryo Hotel in Pyongyang, Joo made his first public appearance since being apprehended. In what appeared to be a prepared – and possibly coached – statement, Joo acknowledged his illegal entrance to the DPRK and expressed his hopes “that some great event could happen…that could have a good effect on the relations" between the two Koreas. When asked what kind of great event he was referring to, the response was light-hearted:

“I’m not really sure yet.” Instead, Joo optimistically focused on how his potential release would elucidate to the international community that the North is indeed capable of “generous treatment,” despite his clear violation of South Korea’s National Security Law (under the charges of entering the North without government permission and making pro-North remarks), as well as vindicate the utility of his seemingly purposeless escapade into the communist nation.

In response to Joo’s detainment, a ministry spokesperson from South Korea’s Unification Ministry stated:

“It is deeply regrettable that North Korea is detaining Joo Won-moon, who is a South Korean national, without any explanation to our government and his family. The government strongly demands the North immediately release Joo and return him to the arms of his family."

Considering Joo’s odd motivations and the rash unpredictability of North Korean foreign policy, the student’s fate was largely uncertain. Joo was the fourth known South Korean national apprehended in the country; two of those nationals were arrested in March on charges of spying (claims the South's National Intelligence Service called "groundless”) and subsequently sentenced to hard labor for life. Historically, the United States has been largely successful securing the release of its citizens despite not having a diplomatic or consular relationship with the DPRK, often at the expense of special humanitarian visits (i.e. New Mexico congressman Bill Richardson in 1996, former president Bill Clinton in 2009, former president Jimmy Carter in 2010). However, the repatriation of South Korean nationals is much more difficult and often unsuccessful, placing Joo in a purgatory of outcomes.

Five months after Joo’s arrest on September 25, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the sole news agency in North Korea, sanctioned a thirty-minute press conference in which Won-Moon Joo delivered an amiable statement all too typical of the agency’s ideological propaganda.

Making clear that his address was given in free will and intended to spread “the truth” about North Korea, Joo reasserted the North’s "humanitarian way" of treating him and professed the North as a "man-centered society where everything is for the benefit of the people." He described his positive observations of “North Korean college students conversing in English, watching foreign movies in theaters and even reading western novels on the computer.”

As a result, in what appears to be a conciliatory measure in currently strained inter-Korean affairs, North Korea repatriated Joo early morning on October 8th. Experts claim that the North’s rare instance of clemency may have been to “promote its regime as an advocate of human rights ahead of its anniversary.” Considering the pro-North content matter of Joo’s September press conference and his supposed desire to spurn a “great event,” these factors may have contributed to his sudden release. However, the student’s brief stint in the one of the world’s most isolated countries is still questionable. Three other South Koreans under much more severe circumstance remain detained, while the escalation of the North’s nuclear provocations perpetually increases the need for joint South Korea–United States military exercises.

While Won-Moon Joo’s return to the United States should provide further insight into his detainment and the veracity of the statements he made, this occurrence only substantiates the difficult and somewhat odd complex that exists on the Korean peninsula.

- Samuel Kim

Spread of Islamophobia in the Western World

More than 4 million Syrian refugees have fled the country since the start of the civil war over four years ago, most of whom have sought asylum in their neighboring countries rather than overseas; Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan house the highest percentage of refugees other than Syria itself, where over 7 million people are internally displaced. This is a shocking statistic when you take into account the resources at the disposal of these Middle Eastern countries. Even as early into the crisis as 2014, the influx of refugees into Jordan cost the country 2.4 percent of its annual GDP and threatened its already vulnerable water resources.

As a fact, Western countries are better prepared- financially- to bear the burden of this international crisis. So why does the fate of refugees in Europe and the United States remain uncertain? In a climate of stories such as that of Ahmed Mohamed, a 14 year-old student arrested in Texas for bringing a homemade clock to school, and Ben Carson, a Republican presidential candidate who says he would never elect a Muslim president, the factor of Islamophobia in the reception of the refugee crisis in the U.S. is hardly a question. But this situation has also given Europe a new opportunity to expose its historical tendency towards orientalism.

Europe’s tendency to “other,” as Edward Said put it in his acclaimed book Orientalism, is an age-old pattern of patronizing and fictionalizing “the East,” and has been going on ever since Europeans were able to recognize they were not the only people on the globe. France has one of the strongest histories of discrimination toward Muslims and Arabs. Muslims made up about 5.7 percent of France’s population in 2010 and that number is growing fast. Many of its citizens find Islam incompatible with French society. In a country where 38 percent of people had an “unfavorable” opinion of Muslims, it is no surprise that there exists a culture where reports of violence against Muslims are multiplying. Just one week after the attacks at the Charlie Hebdo offices in early 2015, more than 50 anti-Muslim acts were committed, including threats directed at Muslims and their places of worship.

Anti-Islamic sentiments are not only widespread in Europe, with France being one of the strongest examples, but are also often perpetuated by the governments of these countries. In France almost two-thirds of people believe that the Muslim women should not wear their headscarves in public,which has led to government bans against wearing the headscarf in certain places, such as at school or while delivering a public service like teaching or working in a government building. The UK’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Act includes what some people believe could unproportionally target the freedom of Muslims, like the ability to seize and detain passports in cases “where a person is suspected of intending to leave Great Britain or the United Kingdom in connection with terrorism-related activity.”

Taking into account the bias of the public and possible bias of the government, there is no surprise that Europe’s reception of the Syrian refugees has been less than welcoming in some countries. While we’ve seen overwhelming support in places like Germany, there are always movements counter to the norm. Germany’s anti-Islamic group, Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident (PEGIDA), exists solely to express disgust over the immigration of Muslim people into Europe. Eastern Europe in particular has demonstrated anti-refugee sentiments: thousands of people gathered in Poland to chant phrases like “Today refugees, tomorrow terrorists!” in protest of the EU’s suggestion that Poland accept 12,000 refugees. Slovakia will only tolerate refugees who are Christian and Hungary even built a wall to keep refugees out, a dangerous echo of the Berlin Wall, built to prevent the massive influx of East German immigrants from entering West Germany and bringing with them fascist ideologies.

Looking at the highly publicized welcome rallies for those escaping from the Middle East and assuming that Europe unanimously supports these refugees would be misled. Large majorities of people in the EU want them gone, especially in Greece and Italy, where over 80 percent of people want fewer immigrants allowed into their countries. This number reaches over half in the UK and France. Anti-immigration and anti-Islam sentiments have been central to European culture for many years and a humanitarian crisis will not change that.

These attitudes are not coming from a place of concern, but from a place of unwarranted fear. The United States is no stranger to this fear; since 9/11, the U.S. has experienced a wave of Islamophobia that has culminated in various acts of violence against Muslims. Despite the constant condemnation of extremist sects of their religion, the over 2 million Muslims living  in America are often regarded with suspicion and outright hatred. The NYPD even spied on Muslim neighborhoods for six years, looking for signs of terrorism and reinforcing the rhetoric that the religion itself is a threat, not simply those who take its teachings and twist them to support violence. The mistrust of Islam is demonstrated every day in the United States, in movies like American Sniper, in the presidential race by candidates like Ben Carson, and the anti-immigration policies of Donald Trump; in the narratives and coverage of ISIS that treat its actions as a reflection of Islam itself, rather than that of a small and subversive minority. To be a Muslim in America is to be treated with suspicion and disrespect. This affects the reception of refugees from the Middle East that desperately need aid and asylum from the United States. Republican Congressmen Michael McCaul and Peter King recently wrote a letter to Susan Rice, National Security Advisor, expressing the belief that accepting refugees into the U.S. would only invite ISIS into the country. This is a belief echoed by many people in the West and is dangerous to the humanitarian effort to resettle those fleeing from Syria.

The issue of Islamophobia is, fundamentally, an issue of education. The notion that Islam promotes violence is misguided and comes from a refusal to separate the minority of extremists from the overwhelming majority of those who are left with the burden of apologizing for their religion and culture. Fear is a normal response to change and tragedy, but the time for fear has passed-- it now is simply perpetuating an international crisis.

- Alexie Schwarz

Leaving Behind Venezuela and All of its Turmoil: A Familiar and Broad Perspective

In the mid-to-late 1990s, a young Venezuelan man named Alvaro Garcia--my stepfather--had a foreboding premonition about the socio-economic crisis that was coming to fruition in Venezuela, due in part to the rise of a new political figure coming up through the ranks of Venezuelan politics. His name was Hugo Chavez. 

While studying at the Universidad Central de Caracas, the young, soon-to-be Dr. Garcia witnessed a drastic fluctuation in political consensus among his peers and family members, with ideological preferences slowly turning in favor of the “revolutionary” Hugo Chavez, who was elected in the 1998 elections. Chavez’s policies were predicated around rebuilding the poorer communities through government subsidies and reconstruction projects throughout the entire country, especially in smaller cities such as Maracay. 

Normally, someone like my stepfather, being the left-wing, social justice advocate that he is, would not have been opposed to the government using its money to help redistribute the wealth among those who were socio-economically less fortunate. Those promises were tragically misleading, however, because of one major caveat: Venezuela’s money under Chavez came from mass exportation of oil. Chavez began to create a Venezuelan pseudo-economy that printed money whenever it felt necessary, thus drastically increasing inflation and reducing purchasing power of its national currency, while also scaring away foreign investors that supply foreign capital. The oil money created closed curtains that hid the glaring problems of economic failure from the Venezuelan people and the majority of the rest of the world.

Many Venezuelans, like Garcia’s family, at that time foresaw this happening but did not act upon their foresight and remained within the country’s borders with the hope that the situation would improve under Chavez. Garcia, on the other hand, did not take any chances, and after medical school ended, he was able to move to the United States during 2000, therefore escaping the darkest downturns of his premonition. His family, however, was not as quick to act. Unfortunately, they remained five more years after he escaped and suffered many of the social and economic effects that Chavez promised wouldn’t happen under his regime. Through fiery, demagogic language, Chavez promised his constituents and the Venezuelan public that corruption in government would be eradicated and monies would be allocated correctly and fairly throughout the economy. Garcia’s family witnessed first hand that neither of these promises were acted upon, with the majority of profit from oil money going into corrupt bureaucrats’ pockets.  Through sly political maneuvering and Garcia’s constant pressuring, his family was finally able to leave Venezuela in 2005 and take up residence in Barcelona, Spain.

After 10 years, and under a new political regime in the form of President Nicolas Maduro, not much has changed other than the fact that more Venezuelans are realizing that the country’s conditions are only worsening, and the only way to solve the problem is escaping. In recent years, crime has drastically increased, communication with the outside world has becoming increasingly limited, and the situation for the impoverished has remained stagnant. All of these conditions are causing a mass exodus out of Venezuela. According to a study conducted by Tomas Paez, a sociologist at the University of Central Venezuela, at least 6% of the population is now living abroad: that’s 1.9 million people, most of whom left under Chavez and are now leaving under Maduro. In an interview with the New York Times, a disillusioned boat manufacturing company owner named Ivor Hayer claims that he couldn’t wait to get out of Venezuela and move to Colombia, especially because the Venezuelan government is on a mission to seize small private businesses. 

Is there a way to solve the problems that many native Venezuelans are facing other than escape and asylum abroad? I’m not sure there is a concrete answer to that. One social media movement did take place throughout much of South Florida and around the globe, however, and it was aimed at shedding light on the brutal conditions that filled Venezuela’s communities. With #SOSVenezuela being the focal point of that movement, many Venezuelan Americans shared experiences about their trials and tribulations under Chavez, and many native Venezuelans trapped in the dystopia used the hashtag on Twitter and Instagram to send the world images of what was occurring. Major news organizations such as CNN and MSNBC used these social media platforms to retrieve the raw images and videos from Venezuela and eventually, they included them in their daily and nightly news segments, thus increasing awareness about the Venezuelan situation in the rest of the United States.

Thanks to social media and active dissenters, all is not forgotten in Venezuela, and those who have long left its lands are able to keep in at least minimal contact with their family members. But sentiments still run high in my family, especially with my stepfather. Some days, he misses Venezuela, and some he does not. Everyday, however, he hopes the quality of life for those still in his native Venezuela increases; he is also relieved for those that made it out safely. It appears that my stepfather’s sentiment is not whole-hearted nostalgia, however, and like many other Venezuelan-Americans, he realizes that what he once called “home” is now long in the past and nothing but a collection of memories of a better time.

- James Sabia

The Show Must Go On: Planned Parenthood

Three days ago in Iowa City, Carly Fiorina was faced with a group of protestors who donned pink shirts for Planned Parenthood. There were others dressed in birth control pills. Passionate chants went around, including a simple yet provoking phrase: “Women are watching—and we vote!”

The heat surrounding the Planned Parenthood debate began during the summer when the Center for Medical Progress disseminated several videos with graphic contents regarding fetal tissues. The videos included purported Planned Parenthood doctors callously mentioning gruesome details around the harvesting of fetal tissue. Since then, leading up to the debate now at the legislative level,  the videos have been uncovered as fake.

But why is this issue continuously circulating around the idea of the use of fetal tissues? The videos have been rendered fake. Although this may be true, the rest of the nation—at least half of us, I presume—wants the show to go on.

The answer to the question posed above lies in the meticulous way of how the Republican candidates are campaigning behind the fake videos. Their fervor and devotion in accepting the videos’ claims have been obvious to date. People follow and watch the trail to 2016, sparked by huge interest due to figures such as Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina.

Ever since the videos surfaced on the web, there has been a tide of Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. Recently this month, the House got enough votes to defund the healthcare clinic, with a 241-157 win. The arguments from the Republican side mainly focus on “unethical and possibly illegal” acts performed byPlanned Parenthood, as stated by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL). He was a co-sponsor to the bill calling for defunding the healthcare clinic.

But the Democratic side has not stayed silent on this issue, either. In August, Elizabeth Warren addressed the members of Congress, comparing the defunding bill to the times before Roe vs. Wade.  In the same video, she went on to list previous Republican efforts against abortion, such as the time in March of 2015 when the Republicans halted “a non-controversial, bipartisan bill” that would “stop human trafficking” in order to “[demand] new anti-abortion restrictions.” Warren and other Democrats are continuing their efforts to stop the Republicans from finding a way to take the nation back to the 19th century. President Obama has also stated that he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk.

The Republican presidential candidates’ fight against Planned Parenthood is gaining successful ground among Americans because of this reason: although what they are claiming is not true, they are still speaking for the minds of at least half of America. They are building their campaigns around a matter the conservatives have been silent on. The fire has sparked on the conservative side—the same fire that has moved pro-choice supporters who won the legal battle the fight for access to safe abortion.

Political influence and powerful multimedia presence easily moves Americans. We like to see a good show, as the first GOP debate has shown. The only major fight that we see is between the Republican presidential candidates and their jabs against Hillary Clinton. Since we have not been able to witness the Democratic debate yet, the conservative presence on abortion will reside longer.

The more liberal side, which includes pro-choice advocates, seems to be quieter and more disoriented than the conservative side. Along with the reasons stated above, the pro-choice fight for Planned Parenthood may be on shaky grounds due to the overemphasis and repetitiveness of reasons on why Planned Parenthood is beneficial for the nation.

Both sides want to tell their versions of truths on abortion and Planned Parenthood.  What counts is that truth does not reveal itself easily. What happens is that people seek to conjure a lie disguised as a truth. That has been the easier route—well-marketed lies move people.

The videos from Center for Medical Progress successfully diverted the nation’s attention from the real importance of Planned Parenthood’s mission. The videos have narrowed the bigger purpose of the organization, which is healthcare.

This piece would not be complete without mentioning a crucial aspect of the exposé. The Center for Medical Progress and the participants of the production of the videos had a goal: to expose unethical practices of Planned Parenthood when it comes to abortion. But what they did was not exposing the truth. They built on a lie, and the lie dispersed like wildfire. They violated the trust of many viewers. And they certainly gave the conservative leaders of this nation another reason to question the Roe v. Wade decision. The filmmakers have taken advantage of their rights and in turn manipulated the minds of Americans, making people believe that these fetuses are fully grown and dying on hospital tables. I repeat: the videos are fake.

I may personally never know what it is like to face unintended pregnancy, if not forced pregnancy. If you have not thought about the receiving ends of backlash against Planned Parenthood, I would like to ask you to consider the following questions:

Can you imagine being a woman before Roe v. Wade? Can you imagine almost half of the nation scrutinizing a decision you made on complete legal basis?

I cannot emphasize enough how important women’s rights in this country are—not just on abortion but on everything that makes us human. We have the right to vote. We can exercise our rights to control our bodies. Why should we lose that now? How can we lose that now? 

- Yeho Hwang

Eva is still Eva--A Greek Village Unchanged

Over two-hundred kilometers from Athens on the southern tip of the Peloponnese, a man takes a long drag of his hand-rolled cigarette, calmly gazing about the sleepy town square before him. Referred to by locals as a village, not a town, Eva is home to slightly over one-thousand people including Panayiotis, the owner of one of its only two restaurants.

As his last patrons depart for the night, Panayiotis reaches into the breast pocket of his windbreaker and grabs a fresh cigarette. Before putting his lighter to it he breaks the silence: “So, let’s talk politics.”

Cautious not to spawn the political strife plaguing the country’s capital in their own village, most people of Eva shy away from “talking politics”. However, this is not the case for everyone. Notorious for being one of Eva’s more outspoken conversationalists, Panayiotis sees no reason to silence himself. This is because according to him, his village is largely immune to the effects of the country’s economic crisis and thus, the political strife born from it.

 One might ask Panayiotis, why Eva of all places? The man explains that his people are much more economically self-sufficient when compared to their city-dwelling compatriots. In particular, he points to the villagers’ ability to produce their food locally, many even on farms and gardens in their own backyards. 

If one were to observe Eva from a bird's-eye view, Panayiotis’s claim wouldn’t seem unreasonable. As if it were required by law, on almost every plot of land grows at least one olive tree and one fig tree. Tomato gardens, grape vines and lemon trees are also not an uncommon sight. In many cases, one would not be surprised to find chickens, goats, even a lamb or pig roaming the premises. Panayiotis himself admits that much of the food he serves to customers is grown on his farm, situated only a few kilometers away.

According to Tzanetos Karamichas, head of the Pan-Hellenic Confederation of Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives (PASEGES), this capacity on the part of Greeks to produce their own food represents a competitive advantage in need of more attention.  Speaking at a PASEGES conference in Thessaloniki, Karamichas reported that the country produces almost twice as much rice as it needs while reaching close to self-sufficiency on a lot of fruits and vegetables. He went on to state: “We have to stop undermining Greek agricultural production and terrorizing people about not having enough to eat if the country goes bankrupt. We can surpass self-sufficiency, create new wealth and support the country.”

Before leaving for Greece this summer a family friend advised that I pack a few jars of peanut butter into my suitcase. He warned that the country, already in the midst of an economic crisis, was also on the verge of experiencing a food shortage.  However, not much to my surprise, when I arrived I found myself in a society, not entirely untouched by economic crisis but certainly not deterred by it. How long this way of life will last is uncertain but for now, Eva is still Eva and Panayiotis is still Panayiotis, probably lighting his next cigarette as I type these words.

 -Konstantine Tettonis

Mind the Gap: Wage Discrimination

Do you have an internship? Or even a full-time job? Are you a student worker at your university? Are you saving up for the latest iPhone, or maybe you are saving for that trip to Europe that you have been planning since middle school? Some of you might even be saving for something much bigger: a wedding, student loan repayments, a first apartment, or retirement.

Money is on our minds constantly, partially due to the constant emphasis of capitalism and our fear of falling behind in an increasingly competitive world. There are dollar bill signs everywhere: when we step into Starbucks; when we refill our cars; when we buy birthday cards. Billboards are trying to show how their businesses are the healthiest option for the nation’s economy—and your wallet.

But let me ask these three words: Are you female?

If you answered yes, the world of professionalism and the workforce will change for you. And the reason is comprised of only two words: wage gap. The United States alone ranked 65th out of 142 countries in wage equality.

According to the National Women’s Law Center, the wage gap has been in a standstill for a decade. Only in 2007 and 2013 did the gap show a slight difference: American women on average earning from 77 cents to 78 cents of what men earned. In 2014, the percentage dropped to 77 cents again. This statistical standstill is discouraging to females in the workforce because these numbers show a transparency that is sexism, which seems to be often overlooked. Employers as well as employees need to be aware of the disparity that is the wage gap.

The same site states that the wage gap is even more evident as race comes into play. The site does not specify how much a Caucasian woman earns compared to a “white, non-Hispanic man makes.” But it does state that nationwide, an average a woman who works “full time, year round” makes 78 cents of what a white, non-Hispanic man makes. African American women make 64 cents per dollar a white, non-Hispanic man makes; Latina American women make even less, earning 56 cents per dollar a white, non-Hispanic man makes.

Mothers working full-time year round are paid less than fathers, making on average $40,000 compared to the fathers’ $56,999 per year. This indicates that mothers in households make 70 cents per dollar fathers make. This disparity is concerning taken the fact that the amount of working single-mothers in this country is beginning to increase dramatically. In just 2013, more than 7.3 million families were being taken care of by a single-mother. In the same year, it was found that more than 2 million of families that were being cared for by a single-mother were indicated to be “poor.” According to the same site, 2.5 million additional working single-mother families fell either at or dangerously below the Federal Poverty Line (FPL); of these, 61.9% families live with an average income of $18,800. The FPL is the “set minimum amount of gross income that a family needs for food, clothing, transportation, shelter and other necessities.” Medicaid and other public assistance programs, according to Investopedia, depends on the family’s placement on the FPL, which most of these single-mother families will definitely have a disadvantage of receiving.

Approximately 1.4 million married couples with children relied solely on the mother’s earnings throughout 2013. Families such as these live in constant economic insecurity. They need protection by the law that was supposed to protect them in the first place. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is not doing its proper job of enforcing equal pay for equal work. A single woman with no family to support still only earned 70% of what her male counterpart earned in 2013.

Photo: Pinterest

As intersections of identity add up, so does discrimination; the sexual orientation of women also plays a role in how much they make in wages. Lesbian women also earn significantly less than men. Lesbian couples’ median personal income in recent findings was $38,000 compared to $47,000 for gay couples, compared to $48,000 for men in heterosexual relationships. 49% of lesbian and bisexual women have a child to support, but only 19% of gay and bisexual men do.

The numbers dwindle with no improvement for women with disabilities. These women earn 69.5% of what men without disabilities earn and 80.8% of what men with disabilities earn. These numbers reveal the discouraging reality of defining certain identify traits of human beings as less desirable and less important, targeting not just females, but also males who are working with disabilities.

Even with more women in universities than ever before, the wage gap is not kind to women with higher levels of education. In 2013, the findings show that women who had a high school diploma earned 76 cents for every dollar men with a high school diploma made. Women who had a bachelor’s degree or higher earned even less, getting paid 73 cents per dollar a male counterpart made. A woman with an associate’s degree, which is a degree granted after two years of study, is still paid less than a man who only has a high school diploma.

These disparities show a huge gap in earnings between men and women. The National Women’s Law Center states that $10,876 were lost in median earnings for women because of this disparity. This means less money for necessities such as groceries, rent and utilities, childcare, health insurance, student loan repayments, and gas for a car. That is not all: acquiring lower lifetime earnings means women will ultimately receive less Social Security benefits. In 2013, women who were 65-years and older received $13,466 per year for their benefit, while their male counterparts received more than $4,000 of what they received. In 2010, just five years ago, women who were 50-years and older received only 56 cents per every dollar men received in income from pensions and annuities.

The impact of the wage gap accumulates over time, as one would already imagine. In a 40-year period, women working full-time, year round on average lost $435,049, which would take more than a decade longer to make up. A woman who has not finished high school would lose $332,704 on average over a 40-year period, compared to a man with the same education level. This is troubling for women who, on average, only get paid $22,248 for a full-time, year round job. These women will need more than fifteen years of working to make up this gap. But the thing is, this gap will never be “made up” within ten or fifteen years because the disparity is yet to be fixed by the law that was supposed to protect women from sex discrimination in the workforce.

Photo: White House

Even in Norway and Singapore, which according to CNN are the best in the developed world, women earn 80% of what men earn. Why is it so difficult to ask for 100%?

Don’t expect the numbers to improve anywhere else in the world. In the case of the wage gap, the classification of “First World,” “Second World,” or “Third World” does not correlate to the amount of wage disparity in different countries. For example, according to the 2014 Global Gender Gap Report, Italian women did not even earn half of what their male counterparts earned; they made a mere 48% of their male counterparts’ income. Surprising numbers come from Burundi, one of the world’s poorest countries. The women in Burundi earn 83% of their male counterparts’ salaries, which is more than what their white and Asian counterparts earn in New York City.

Photo: CNN Money

As you may have guessed, the world is not kind, either, in giving women the same opportunities as men in professionalism: Algeria, Iran, and Syria have the fewest amount of women in the labor force, with less than 20% working outside their homes. This may be due to the lack of opportunities for education. In the 142 countries that were surveyed by the World Economic Forum for the 2014 Global Gender Gap Report, only 25 countries had equal access to education for girls and women.

Sadly, it is very true that we do not see many powerful female figures in the workforce compared to male figures. If we continue to deny this simple yet disturbing truth, we cannot expect to bring about significant change. Do we need laws and the enforcement of these laws in order to stand on equal footing with men? Yes, I believe so, if that is what is takes for my female friends, my sisters, my future daughters, and every other female to earn dollar for every dollar a man earns.

One of the main problems that women face in the workforce—that also contribute to the wage gap—is sex stereotypes. As showcased in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, women constantly deal with gender roles that are beginning to become outdated. This will inevitably lead to fewer opportunities for advancement in their professional career, as well as fewer opportunities to be trained for higher paying jobs. Traditionalism and conservatism in the workforce include ideas that work against women, such as these unconscious and conscious biases: Women can’t do men’s jobs, women are not “breadwinners”, women are caretakers, so on and so forth.

There are also sexist interviewing practices by employers. This may be done consciously and unconsciously, confining women who are being interviewed in difficult positions where marriages and future pregnancies can be deemed as hazardous to the growth of their professional careers. This not only reinforces the imagined role of women being the only caretakers in households, but also defines women’s roles in the workforce more temporary than men’s. As dangerous as this idea may be, it is also being slowly dismantled as the striking number of single-mother families show that women can also be “breadwinners.” The number of influential and powerful women is also on the rise. From Janet Yellen, the chairwoman of the Federal Reserve Bank, to businesswomen such as Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, more women are beginning to fight traditional notions of working in “male-dominated” fields. 

Photo: Forbes

Is it embedded in history that the professional workforce is discriminating against women? Yes.

According to a study conducted by Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn from Stanford University, history has proven that more women graduated high school than men, but less women progressed onto college-level education. The study also reasons that before World War II, “women moved in and out of the labor market based on family considerations,” leaving their jobs permanently to support marriage and children. Jobs were also segregated by sex in the 1950s and 1960s, furthering a chasm that divided professionalism into polarizing matters based on gender.

Today, compared to half a century ago, more women go onto receive college educations, comprising over half of the student body in most universities. In addition, many women decide to continue their professional careers despite the societal notion of having to “take care” of children. In fact, many Fortune 100 women are leading businesswomen, politicians, and CEOs despite being married and having children.

Maybe this will be more straightforward: discrimination based on gender is against the law in America. Women cannot continue to earn less than men who hold the same jobs and responsibilities. Yes, there should be no blame placed on men; they also face stereotypes that work against them. It will take time to overcome any stereotypes, and it will be very difficult to erase the stereotypes made against women. But we can still hope that the Paycheck Fairness Act is the big step we need for these centuries-old stereotypes to start dissolving. No more baby steps. We need this bill.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and civil rights laws have helped lessen wage discrimination over time, but it is still not enough. We need the Paycheck Fairness Act in order to have a chance at dissolving, if not diminishing, the wage gap. And all we need is that one chance to make gender equality be a movement of inspiration and unstoppable impetus, not one at a standstill.

The Paycheck Fairness Act was introduced in January 23rd of 2013 in the Senate. Its official title was “A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.” The latest action for hearing of this bill was in April of last year, by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. There has been no action since.

Photo: Ebony

This bill is co-sponsored by senators who have been supporting this movement from the introduction of the bill in 2013. Many others have joined throughout 2013 and 2014, the latest sponsor being Senator John E. Walsh (D-MT). Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT), commonly known as Berni Sanders, who people may also know as one of the many candidates running in the 2016 presidential race, also supports the bill. In total, 56 Senators, all Democrats except Sanders, have signed their approval and support for the Paycheck Fairness Act. It has been dated since 2012 that Sanders has been supporting equal pay for women. In a statement released on his site, he says mentions how closing the wage gap has “made some progress,” but there is still “a long way to go.” His recent mention of the Paycheck Fairness Act in a press conference at the National Press Club also goes on to show that Sanders has been committed to equal pay consistently and is not afraid to mention the need for the bill to be passed.

Although I support the enactment of the bill, it still contains precarious provisions. What is worrisome about the PFA is its vague wording. I know that numerous other pieces of legislation have come and gone with vague wording, such as the American Constitution, but this is not the Constitution we are talking about. We are discussing the possibility of equal pay for equal work, which should have been enforced ever since the Equal Pay Act was enacted in 1963. There will be compromises and more negotiations if this bill will see the light of day of approval by supermajority vote. This bill is being judged and evaluated, in majority, by male figures in the legislative branch, whose decisions have a significant impact on a bill that is so essential for many female constituents.

The bill, more specifically, tries to fix the portion of Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to enforce and provide exceptions to prohibitions against sex discrimination in salaries. The question is: How do employers go on about doing that? And how can employees who face this discrimination use the law to their favor? The answer might lie in a rather precarious provision: the bona fide factors.

The bona fide factors include: levels of education, training, and experiences, which are, as stated in the bill, exceptions to prohibition of wage discrimination based on gender. Employers may use this factor to their advantage only if the employers can show the factor is not “based upon or derived from sex-based differential in compensation”; if the factor is “job-related with respect to the position in question”; or if the factor is “consistent with business necessity”.

But the bill states that the bona fide factors will not apply if an employee, not the employer, can prove that there is an “alternative employment practice…that [serves] the same business purpose” without bringing about sex discrimination, but is not being used by the employer.

Photo: Blog

The bona fide factors are important and necessary components to the bill. Today in the United States, more women are entering universities than ever before; levels of education is not the factor to worry about. What needs to be given more attention is women’s level of training and experiences because these are the factors that have the potential to work against women and prolong gender-based wage discrimination. Women are already lacking in levels of training because of numerous sex stereotypes that prevent them from gaining access to such opportunities. Women also lack levels of experience because the workforce has been male-dominated. These are the truths; let us stop turning our eyes away from them.

Other than some of the bona fide factors, the bill is quite useful and promising. From requiring the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to “train their employees and affected individuals” about wage discrimination to giving the Secretary of Labor the power to give grants to “eligible entities for negotiation skills training programs for girls and women,” the Paycheck Fairness Act gives backbone and support for the gender that has been undermined in the workforce.

There are awards, such as the Secretary of Labor’s National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace, which would be awarded to an employer “who has made a substantial effort to eliminate pay disparities between men and women.” This would definitely be an incentive for employers who are willing to give up old morale and start enforcing equal pay themselves. What if the employer is winning this award based on sophistry? Well, another provision of the bill counterbalances that problem. The Secretary of Labor is required to conduct studies so that information about wage discrimination can be spread to “employers, labor organizations, and the general public.”

The wage gap puts women behind men because society has long defined gender with roles and stereotypes that we have all blindly followed for the past several centuries. In order for us to overcome this disparity, we need more than dedication and belief. We need full-on action. It is time to pay full attention to wage discrimination, not in America alone, but also in every single country that is giving unfair wages to female workers.

Let us not, as deserving citizens of this nation, ever say that 78% is enough. We have come a long way from where we began more than a century ago. The fight for women’s rights is still going strong and we should not let the fire burn out as it is just beginning to light up. 78%, and the even lower percentages that women of color, LGBT women, and women with disabilities face, are never enough and we should all accept that as the defining truth. There should be enforcement of the laws that guarantee women dollar for dollar of what men earn and the reason should be as straightforward as the fundamentality of human rights. It is not a question of gender against gender. Women have spoken many, many times for the movement that promised equality. Men of Congress and the White House, as well as the Judicial Branch, men of homes and businesses, men of wives and daughters and sisters, it is your time to speak with us. Not for us, not against us, but with us.

The World Economic Forum has estimated that it will take another 81 years for “equal pay for equal work” to be enforced in full power. We should not ask ourselves what we could do in the next 81 years to make this statement true to its words, but we should ask ourselves what we need to do to make this statement true tomorrow. Let American be the example to lead other countries to grant equal pay for equal work. Don’t let the Paycheck Fairness Act get lost under neglect by the Congress. Let’s act as we always have, with passion and belief. Let us stop hoping for more and start expecting for more because we deserve the right to be paid equally.

- Yeho Hwang

Child Labor Still Exists, If You Forgot

For many Americans, the concept of child labor feels distant, a rarity reserved for the impoverished abroad. Seldom does one see a child work in this country, thanks to prohibitive laws and higher quality of living, although it does exist in pockets.

On an extended trip home to the Philippines, a different reality set in. Outside a church near Malacanan Palace, the Philippine equivalent of the White House, I met a seven-year-old boy washing a car with his mother while his younger siblings watched and his father offered parking to those who drove by. The mother admitted that she, her husband, and their seven children live on the streets.

The boy, who I will refer to as Michael, flashed me a glowing smile, despite the heat and his evident fatigue. In a day, he and his mother will usually only wash two cars using public utility water nearby. He receives P50 for his day’s work, only a little over $1. Thankfully Michael does attend school in the afternoon, but only on days he can earn his baon, or pocket money. His mother says on those days they cannot afford for him to eat with the other students at school.

All the while, Michael’s little sister hovers around wondering what the fuss is about. Although she spends the day watching her mother and brother wash cars, she giddily hops around like any other toddler.

The height of Philippine power sits not 5km away, and yet children slave alongside their families for a chance at living. Michael's situation seems brighter than those who live in rural areas, where "child workers are exposed to extreme weather conditions, long working hours, and harsh environments while using substandard tools and equipment. In plantations, trucks would pick children from their homes and bring them to makeshift tents that are located in nearby provinces to stay and work there from two weeks to one month without their parents." 2.1 million child laborers work in the Philippines alone, many as young as five years old.

That being said, the Philippines is a trail blazer of institutional reform of child labor. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, "The Philippines is the only country in Asia and the Pacific Region, which received an assessment of ‘significant advancement’ for making several tangible efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor." Pres. Benigno S. Aquino III has been integral in reducing exploitive child labor, specifically the “Convergence Program Against Child Labor, 2013-206,” a program that assists local governments in creating child-labor free communities.

Unfortunately, I interviewed another child, whom I will call John, to different results. John accompanies his young mother, who appears barely older than twenty, around my house's subdivision, collecting garbage in a rusty metal cart. He lives in a small shack in the back of the neighborhood, with his parents and siblings, its size no bigger than the average college dorm room. I asked him the same questions I had asked Michael, but John could barely give a response. His voice was quiet and shy and visibly startled by the experience. He had likely never spoken with a woman with an American accent before or even spoken to the residents of that neighborhood. I wanted to speak with him further but I decided against it for fear of scaring him. 

Not only does labor inhibit children from seeking an education that could improve their future, it robs them of confidence, innocence, and excitement. With the childhoods they deserve, Michael and John could shine even brighter. In the first world, it is easy to take for granted the education we receive and wealth we possess. However, our brothers and sisters in not only the Philippines, but in the rest of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe suffer heavily only to experience a fraction of the luxuries readily available to us in the States.

-Kathy Dimaya

Freedom Act Doesn’t Equal Congressional Freedom

On June 1 of this year, the Patriot Act expired. Although it was subsequently revived by the passage of the USA Freedom Act, the intentional expiration of the Patriot Act provided clear evidence that members of Congress abused the Constitution’s checks-and-balances system in the name of re-election greed.

Opponents of the Patriot Act declare that the government’s monopoly over personal technology overextends its legal authority. In particular, Section 215 provides the National Security Agency (NSA) with the majority of phone records, including the name of the callers, phone location, and duration of the call, dubbed “metadata”. This information disclosure is in part due to the ambiguous language of the act: rather than specifically listing the jurisdiction of the government, the Patriot Act simply declares governmental authority to collect anything “tangible” in relation to a government investigation.

What’s important to remember is that government agents don’t sit around collecting metadata with the intention of abusing their authority. To the average American and to the Patriot Act’s opponents, the government is a huge bureaucracy that actively seeks to inhibit personal freedoms. This image, however, inaccurately portrays the efforts of the intelligence community to protect the United States. While the government under the Patriot Act did indeed collect metadata on every American in the United States and may even have occasionally processed innocent Americans’ information, intelligence officers collected metadata with the aim of investigating potential terrorists and gaining advantages over foreign agents. In other words, the government used Section 215 of the Patriot Act’s declared regulations in order to increase American security, not to deliberately invade privacy. One instance of privacy invasion may have prevented a terrorist middleman from making a connection to his organization; thus, the Patriot Act can hardly be considered a “bad law”.

With the passage of the USA Freedom Act, some of the Patriot Act’s provisions have been revoked, including Section 215. Now, government agents must travel to communication centers to obtain targeted information. Although the USA Freedom Act was passed with honest intentions, Congress doesn’t realize the implications the act has for national security. Now, government agents must spend an exorbitant amount of time to target their information to a specific organization or individual. Most intelligence comes in the form of a needle, and officers must find this needle in the middle of a haystack. The correct haystack, however, is in a field of haystacks, and under the new Freedom Act, the officers don’t know which haystack is the right one[AS1] . Congress may be pushing for their constituents’ liberties; however, without the Patriot Act’s Section 215, intelligence agencies will spend more time and money to gain the intelligence necessary to prevent an attack. The collection of metadata must parallel the increased access to technology for Americans as well as terrorists.
Yet some Congressmen, including Rand Paul, supported the Freedom Act officially because of its abuse of civil liberties. There remain two parts to the opposition: firstly, civil liberties organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are in fact justified in stating that Section 215 overstepped legal boundaries; and secondly, the changing opinions of the public.

Legally, intelligence agencies both overstepped and retained their boundaries during the Patriot Act’s tenure. Congress and President Obama signed bills and executive orders to provide the government with legal means for tracking down terrorists, including “lone wolf” terrorists. At the same time, the orders they undertook may have violated the Fourth Amendment, disbarring the legality of their bills. ACLU calls these abuses “unchecked government power”. Ironically, government agencies are not responsible for determining which laws are in effect; rather, they function with the laws that they are given. Thus, it appears as though government administration, namely Congress, the executive office, and the Department of Justice are responsible for the intelligence mishaps. Though the government may have abused its power, those who were conducting the so-called abuse did so under the discretion of the real abusers, including opponents of the Patriot Act, who were oftentimes unaware of what intelligence officers did with their authority.

Based on the Constitution, Congress supposedly reacts to what the public wants and its shifting nature is a nod toward good politics. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Rand Paul should both be applauded for pushing their opinions regardless of their partisanship. Yet intelligence should not be attached to public opinion in order to be deemed good. For example, opponents claim that the roving wiretap, which allows intelligence officers to secretly collect data on multiple technologies using one warrant provided by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) violates the search warrant law. This argument has only arrived in the past five years, nearly a decade after the Patriot Act’s initial provisions were established, and it’s clear that the public has swayed Congress to erase the roving wiretap from law.

Congressmen, however, rarely read the laws for which they advocate. In last year’s debate regarding the Intelligence Authorization Act, many Senators did not know the language of the act. Similarly, the USA Freedom Act was passed during a time of little debate, refusing Congress the opportunity to read thoroughly through the law as national security measures went under with the expiration of the Patriot Act. Members of Congress therefore had little time to think, simply relying on biased media sources to invoke their opinions. The methods of intelligence agencies, on the other hand, remain consistently good. Those who recall the FBI stating that no terrorist plot was foiled are wrong; terrorists are not foiled minutes before the world explodes. [NA2] They are foiled when the smallest movement is made and officers intervene. Continual input of intelligence and analysis, such as bulk metadata collection, is required for American protection. Thus, public influence on Congress has pushed the government to bow down to “liberties” in exchange for easier access to terrorist intelligence.

But, starting June 2015, the Patriot Act has weakened considerably, and Section 215 and other ‘controversial’ notions of the act have vanished, at least until 2019. Long-term stability for America and its allies is out of the question – without reliable intelligence, non-military peace becomes opaque. As Congress continues to push for an even greater breakdown of the Patriot Act, the United States sheds its advantage as a world superpower.

The solution to the Patriot Act’s ambiguous nature should not have been the Freedom Act; rather, Congress should have rewritten the existing Patriot Act to specify more detailed regulations on security measures. The changes that the Freedom Act has brought now require more time and resources, and it’s Congress who needs to understand the effects of limited national security. Congress’ job is to keep up with the public and to understand the public’s growing access to technology – the Freedom Act simply shows Congress’s bias towards only one part of its job.

- Melinda Chen

Photo: classwarfareexists.com

Behind the Screens: Women of ISIS and the Threat of the Internet

A few weeks ago on May 29th, CNN published an article that reads, “The women of ISIS: Who are they?” There are five main kinds of women described in the article: The Blogger, The Schoolgirls, The Recruiter, The Child, and The Widows. To add to this troubling news, the influx of western women who have chosen to leave their homes to join the extremist group, ISIS, has only grown. There are about 550 western women, between the ages 14 and 45, who are leaving their families and homes behind to become wives of the fighters.

These numbers should come as a desperate awakening for those who are watching these women leave their homes. It raises the question of homegrown terrorism, as countries all over the world overlook potential dangers of people who are getting in contact with either ISIS members or hidden ISIS supporters through the Internet. ISIS’s power and presence is growing, and it may be due to one thing that is ubiquitously used: the Internet.

The world needs to retain its attention on the impact that extremists have on Internet users because they are beginning to build a formidable online presence and alliance. This goes with saying that extremism is not birthed from one religion, but it can also begin with an idea, a person, another religion, and more. And the Internet, inevitably, is a melting pot of loquacious as well as voracious minds. It is the perfect tool for targeting people all over the world and potentially manipulating them to commit to a cause that is diffusing more harm and hatred than peace.

Should we become more responsible consumers of Internet content and be careful of the radicalization efforts online? What does this mean for the Internet and its safety? And most importantly, what is the role of individual rights when it comes to terrorism and the spread of terrorism? The Internet stores personal and private information that has the possibility of being seen by people behind anonymous screens.

Regarding the issue of privacy, President Obama signed the USA Freedom Act of 2015 on June 2nd that lessens NSA surveillance on Americans. Congress was unable to agree on what degree to which Americans should be under surveillance, resulting in the collapse of the Patriot Act. The bill allows phone companies to have authority over the rights of sharing private records, which means that in order for the government to go through these records, it will need search warrants. In connection to the threat of the Internet and privacy of its everyday users, was this the correct move for the American government and the President to take in the midst of the ongoing threat of homegrown terrorism?

The CNN article that I mentioned in the beginning states that five American women have already left the country to join ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The possibility of the “Women of ISIS” and other members of the extremist group reaching even more Americans is a threat to the nation’s safety as well as the citizens’ individual rights. While there is the danger of ISIS’s full control of its neighboring countries, there is also the possible danger of the group’s control of what is intangible, using the Internet as a deadly weapon: the minds of those who use it. Unless we know how we can contain or even decrease the amount of online presence ISIS has, there is no guarantee that everyone is guarded from its threats.

- Yeho Hwang

Game of Thrones 2016: From the Iron Throne to the Oval Office

This past month, we have witnessed the resumption of two of America’s greatest dramas: the presidential election and Game of Thrones. Given the show’s focus on the unique and human personalities that populate its cutthroat and megalomaniacal world -- and its obvious parallels to our own -- I thought that it was about time that we compared our favorite Thrones characters to their real-life counterparts.  

For those of you who are spoiler-conscious, events up through episode 3 of season 5 of Game of Thrones are referred to.

1.     Hillary Clinton – Tyrion Lannister

Photos: Game of Thrones Wiki, Eater

“Let me give you some advice, bastard. Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.”

The Clintons, much like the Lannisters, have held a large hold on the power and wealth in American politics even without holding the highest office for over sixteen years now. However, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is channeling her inner Tyrion by taking the advice he gave bastard Jon Snow in the very first episode of Game of Thrones. Mrs. Clinton will not be allowed to forget that she is a Clinton. The side effects of having the past twenty years of her life saved in sound bites are painful – she must, therefore, “wear it like armor.” Even though she is routinely criticized for it, Mrs. Clinton should and must employ her past experience with D.C. politics and America’s power players -- she’s going to be portrayed as a Beltway insider no matter what she does, so why not take advantage of all the benefits that that has to offer?  This means that she must embrace her experience as Secretary of State wholeheartedly -- something that she already does. And given that it will be impossible to avoid Benghazi-related headlines during her campaign (especially if she actually does appear in front of Congress, which House Republican leaders have been clamoring to make happen), by acknowledging its presence and wearing it like armor, Clinton can mitigate the bumps on the campaign trail that Republicans will be sure to highlight by focusing on the accomplishments of her tenure. 

2.     Ted Cruz – Jon Snow
 

Photos: ComicVine, Nation of Change

“I swore a vow to the Night's Watch. If I don't take my own word seriously what sort of "Lord of Winterfell" would I be?”

There’s no denying that Texas Senator Ted Cruz has Snow-like loyalty to his conservatism and anti-establishment platform. However, in order for him to have a fighting chance in the Republican primary, Cruz must unite the Republican Party’s anti-establishment bloc. This population is divided into “Christian conservatives, libertarians and Tea Party voters angry with the leadership of both parties”, much like the diaspora of the Wildlings, Night’s Watchmen, and Stannis Baratheon’s troops. Jon Snow must unite them in order to defend Westeros from the White Walkers. Mr. Cruz, like the Bastard of Winterfell, has an almost unbreakable will but is faced with uniting a scattered and divided electorate -- made up of evangelicals, Tea Partiers, and moderate conservatives -- in his pursuit of victory. Also, like Snow, family issues could get in the way of Mr. Cruz’s possible nomination. Mr. Cruz stands as the most outspoken critic of gay marriage and abortion rights in the Republican primary - but with sixty-one percent of Republicans ages 18-29 favoring gay marriage, his stance will take some of the crucial young, anti-establishment votes away from him.  Will he and Jon Snow stick with their principles for the sake of their own honor, or deviate from them in order to achieve a tremendous goal?

3.     Jeb Bush – Daenerys Targaryen
 

Photos: Game of Thrones Wiki, Florida Politics

"You're both here to advise me. I value your advice, but if you ever question me in front of strangers again, you'll be advising someone else. Is that understood?"

Similar to Mrs. Clinton, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is cursed/blessed with a famous last name. He has, however, kept a fair bit of distance between his office in Tallahassee and the Bush-occupied White House  – a distance that could be compared to Westeros and Meereen. Public opinion surrounding former President George W. Bush makes his advice to his younger brother best given behind closed doors (he’s even admitted that he is his younger brother’s biggest problem). The younger Bush should take the Khaleesi’s advice and listen to the counsel of his experienced family, but maintain his independence in the eyes of the public. Regardless of how he goes about his campaign, the Houses of Targaryen (Bush) and Lannister (Clinton) should provide one interesting battle of minds, resources, and allies.

4.     Rand Paul – Mance Rayder
 

Photos: WinterIsComing.net, Huffington Post

"All I've ever wanted was the freedom to make my own mistakes." 

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul adds to the list of prodigal sons entering the race. While he shares his party alignment with his famous, libertarian father, Mr. Paul is clearly trying to distance himself. Branding himself as a more centered libertarian, Mr. Paul is attempting to tap into the "free folk" nature of the Republican base while not alienating them all together. When push comes to shove, however, it’s likely Mr. Paul would be willing to burn at the stake (a.k.a. the Cleveland Republican National Convention) for his freedom than cave in for the Republican leadership. Not to mention, Ted Cruz would be all too happy to deliver that merciful arrow.

5.     Marco Rubio – Robb Stark
 

Photos: Game of Thrones Wiki, The New Yorker

"I've won every battle. But I'm losing this war."

Rubio’s bid for the presidency, like Stark’s pursuit of the Iron Throne, is commonly referred to as a “logical next step” and is recognized by many as the right person to succeed to the presidency. However, his issue is one of positioning. Jeb Bush, the Targaryen of our Washington scenario, got a head start on Rubio in regards to public opinion and elite donor support. The Bush name has lingered in America like the Targaryen dynasty lingers in the minds of the citizens of Westeros - unfortunately, the Rubio name has taken a back seat. At the end of the day, many wonder why they would take a young, inexperienced albeit talented candidate over an experienced, well funded Bush. It’s not that Rubio would be a bad President, per se, just like Robb Stark wouldn’t be a bad King. It’s just not his time, the base would argue. This wouldn’t be a problem if Rubio were the favorite of the conservatives skeptical of Bush’s candidacy, but the field is full of candidates (and the night is dark and full of terrors) who are equally good or better fits for many conservative voters. Not everyone loves the idea of a Targaryen taking back the throne; however, dissenters fall into so many different camps there is not solid support for Robb Stark, King of the North.

6.      Chris Christie – Cersei Baratheon 
 

Photos: HBO, CNN

“The only way to keep your people loyal is to make sure they fear you more than the enemy.”

Cersei and Christie: two reckless hotheads who take action without thinking of the consequences, making them both polarizing power brokers who are starting to feel the repercussions of their rashness. Cersei is now realizing, with Tommen married to the beloved Margaery Tyrell, that she has alienated the nobles and common people in King’s Landing; Christie, similarly, has seen how his boldness has turned off voters and donors alike.  Christie serves his own ideals, making him the most moderate Republican in the primary, and he is well known. However, his likability has significantly declined since Bridgegate and his time in the public eye. Much like Cersei, the guarantee of funding and power was enough to let Christie find himself getting too comfortable in office. 

- Alaina Haworth

April in Athens: Taxes Turn to Reparations as Greece Asks Germany for €279 billion

Tis the season to pay taxes! Or should I say, to pay reparations?

Photo: Reuters/Hannibal Hanschke

Recently, the BBC announced that Greece has demanded €279 billion in reparations from Germany, which date back to the Second World War. Greek Deputy Finance Minister Dimitris Mardas published this figure on April 6th, 2015 after initially finding that Greece was owed only €162 billion in reparations. Greece’s demand for reparations obviously comes at a critical juncture for the country as it continues to grapple with its ongoing sovereign debt crisis, and the international community is suspicious of these estimates, and for good reason.

One reason for this is that Greece’s repayment of €448 million to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was due on, April 9th, 2015, several days after Mr. Mardas’ findings. In addition, Greece has been conducting negotiations with the EU, IMF, and European Central Bank to potentially amend bailout terms and assuage tensions with dissatisfied lenders. Such talks would most likely offer explanations for delayed reforms on Greek monetary policy and rekindle hopes of redefining certain legislative and fiscal deadlines surrounding the €240 billion Greece still owes the Eurozone.

Yet the issue lies not in the economic struggles Greece is currently grappling with. After all, those suffering most from infrastructural instability are the Greeks themselves. What has turned the debate a bit sour is the fact that Germany has contributed considerable amounts, if not the highest, to Greek bailout. In early 2012, Chancellor Angela Merkel sat on the frontlines to approve a loan of €130 billion to prevent Greece from declaring bankruptcy. According to The Telegraph, the German Chancellor faced little to no resistance in the Bundestag in deciding to help Greece but would have to consider “political and public opposition” in the future. Her stance was that the Greek economy was, is, and will be crucial in the Eurozone’s collaborative scheme. This is a merited statement as Greece’s infrastructural wellbeing directly influences the stability of other countries tied to the Euro. Although the stereotype of the stingy German holds some truth, many people living and working in Germany today feel that their taxes are being awarded to a failing and irresponsible government rather than their country.

Photo: Granite Memorial

Funneling money left and right, though, is only one piece of the puzzle. The moral obligations Germany carries for the havoc wreaked by the Nazi Regime are close to insurmountable. Not only did Hitler and his regime destroy property and peoples, but it also inflicted emotional pain and suffering on innumerable amounts of victims; the scars of which have never healed. From those persecuted in the Holocaust to those fighting in armed combat, the tragic deaths that occurred in World War II indubitably expose Germany’s bleakest, darkest moment in history. 

The truth is that some wounds cannot be treated with money alone. It is certain that Germany owes lives, hurt, and recovery to the citizenship of Greece. Accordingly, West Germany paid a sum equal to €115 million in 1960 to compensate for war crimes. In addition, the 1990 treaty assessed the legal framework that applied to the forced loan of $14 billion that Greece was holding the German government accountable for. Ultimately, the courts ruled that because this loan was not consensual, it legally qualifies as a looting of resources, which, as a circumstance of war, must not be repaid. Even if Germany ended up owing Greece the value of what the Nazis stole on top of the reparations determined during the Allied Commission of Paris in 1946, the bailout aid that Germany has granted over the past few years would have already covered these expenses. 

Then again, life does not consist solely of numbers. If only there were a mathematical formula for grief, healing, prejudice and politics.

- Frederike Cardello

Photo: Scale

Fish Out of Water: ISIS in Pakistan?

Pakistan and ISIS – they seem like they would go well together, don’t they? The former has India for a neighbour, a Hindu majority state with a history of tension between its Hindu and Muslim population (but also relative peace), and an ardent Hindu nationalist at the helm – a potentially dangerous combination of clashing elements and peoples. Pakistan, itself known for its history of harbouring terrorists, antagonizing its Hindu neighbour, and a powerful intelligence agency, seems like a perfect place for ISIS to set up shop.

But surprisingly, and to the relief of many, the ideology of the Islamic State has not yet caught on in Pakistan. And when one looks at the differences, it seems unlikely that it ever will. For one, Pakistan lacks the power vacuum in Iraq that precipitated the rise of ISIS, though it has its own domestic terrorism problem. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is a powerful force, based in FATA region of Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan, and is only one of a multitude of groups in the region. Pakistan has suffered some defections to terrorist groups – reports estimate a few hundred Pakistanis have done so – but this is not particularly alarming, as there are about as many Belgian fighters (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/belgian-fighters-in-iraqsyria-isis-2014-9) fighting alongside ISIS in Syria as there are Pakistanis, demonstrating that they have not suffered as many defections as many other countries have. Pakistan’s tolerance for terrorism has gone down over the years, and the military has been regularly launching anti-Taliban operations.

If Pakistan is to be a part of the Islamic State, the problem arises of a state with incongruent boundaries. ISIS is currently surrounded by enemies – Iran on the east, a Shia country with a vested interest in halting its spread and protecting the Shia populace of Iraq; Turkey, the NATO member and western ally; Israel, and Jordan, another ally of the West, and to whom ISIS hasn’t exactly endeared itself. And to ISIS, the expanse of its physical territory is vital to its power – in some ways, this explains ISIS’s decision to expand their operations to Nigeria. 

Aside from the logistical problems that ISIS would encounter in expanding to Pakistan, Pakistan is also historically and culturally quite separate from the Middle East, and more similar to India than it cares to admit. Pakistan is dominated by Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and others. Their languages are entirely different – Punjabi, Sindhi, and Urdu are widely, as opposed to Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. Perhaps the only thing they have in common is Islam, but even then ISIS’ ideology resembles the fundamentalist Wahhabism movement (propagated by Saudi Arabia), while Pakistan’s Muslims predominantly follow the Brelvi movement, which was influenced by Sufism. If, and when, ISIS ever decides to expand into Pakistan, overcoming these differences in religion, language, ethnicity, and cultural identity would be a huge hurdle. 

Lastly, comes the matter of basic human decency. As more and more of the horrific activities of ISIS come to light, support will no doubt dwindle among ordinary people. Being well removed from the battlefield, it becomes much easier to condemn their actions as compared to people in those areas, on the ground – and it does work to limit their appeal.

- Kanak Gokarn