Dilma Rousseff and Foundational Crises

A vote in the lower house of Congress has brought Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff one step closer to being removed from office. But, during her time in New York to sign the Paris Agreement on climate change, Rousseff stated that there is “no legal foundation” for the impeachment vote, going as far as to call it a “coup.”

To start, President Rousseff came into the proceedings vastly unpopular, with an approval rate quickly falling below 12%. Brazil is in the midst of one of its worst economic recessions in decades, overseen by a government that is entrenched in corruption scandals that implicate over 40% of the current National Congress. Most legislators under investigation are suspected of taking bribes in relation to contracts with state controlled petroleum corporation Petrobras. Distrust and suspicion of the government abound in Brazil, a longstanding sentiment among Brazilians exacerbated by this recent scandal.

The economic crisis is similarly dire. The Brazilian economy last saw growth in 2014 and may be 8% smaller at the end of 2016. The GDP per person continues to plummet as the prices of Brazilian commodities like oil and iron ore similarly fall. Rousseff’s administration has not been effective in fixing the economy nor in countering its adverse effects. In fact, Brazil’s public debt is higher than Japan’s and almost double that of Greece. Inflation and stagnation have tainted Rousseff’s time in office, but current congressional efforts are all aimed at the impeachment case, rather than solving the country’s underlying economic issues.

The charges that threaten to eject Rousseff from office are a fatal mix of the country’s current crises. She is accused of manipulating public accounts and borrowing from state banks ahead of the last election in order to hide budgetary problems and pay for welfare programs, essentially ignoring federal fiscal responsibility laws. Lying about the fiscal deficit misrepresented the state of the economy, giving Rousseff an advantage over her challenger Aecio Neves in the 2014 presidential elections. Not personal corruption, but close enough to worry a public already suspicious of her administration. Rousseff does not necessarily refute these claims, but holds that this has all been done before and was a common practice among her predecessors, the only difference here being the fact that she is a woman. It is true that the charges against Rousseff are relatively minor and that her performance in relation to the recession most likely played a part in the decision to impeach. But the impeachment is not a coup, as she claims. Some do speculate, though, that the impeachment went through mostly because of dissatisfaction with Rousseff herself.  

Rousseff still has to face a vote in the Senate, but it is not likely that she will fare any better there than she did in the House. Many in the government are eager to see her replaced by her vice president, Michel Temer. If and when a majority in the Senate approve Rousseff’s impeachment, she will have to step down for 180 days and Temer will take her place while she defends herself in trial. But while polls indicate that 61% of Brazilians want to see Rousseff impeached, the numbers for Temer are not much more promising: 58% of people want him, too, removed from office.

Brazil is facing a crisis, not just of the presidency, but of the entire system. There is a certain measure of irony in the fact that the Congress will be overseeing Rousseff’s impeachment trial and holding her fate in their hands when many of its members are faced with corruption charges- charges much stronger than those against the president. The country is obviously ready for a change, but is unseating Rousseff the change that it needs? It is impossible to say with certainty whether or not impeachment would bring stability or further the chaos, but it is clear that Brazil’s stability is important for democracy in Latin America.

It is also important to look more closely at Rousseff’s claim that she is being held at different standards because she is a woman. The public often reacts much differently to accusations and evidence of corruption among men than they do to that of women. Women are less likely to be caught, for example, in sex scandals. This has nothing to do with personality and everything to do with expectations: women in office have to work much harder to prove themselves to their male colleagues and to the public that they serve. They have to be more serious, more productive. And when they deviate from this and are found corrupt, they are punished much more harshly than their male counterparts.

There is legal foundation for Rousseff’s impeachment, though it may be shaky. Her claim of sexism may not be a reason enough to dismiss the charges against her, but it is an important claim to consider when following the impeachment proceedings in the coming months. 

- Alexie Schwarz

Microsoft’s Genocidal Robot Forebodes the Rise of Artificial Intelligence

Last month Microsoft launched a new artificial intelligence called Tay that was given control of a Twitter account. It was a so-called “chatterbot”, designed to have a human-like character and hold conversations. The AI showed incredible productivity, sending off half a million tweets in sixteen hours. However, considering that the intelligence was supposedly modeled on a teenage girl, people were surprised when by the end of these first sixteen hours, it had become obsessed with sex, genocide and racial hatred.

 By the end of her short life, the majority of Tay’s tweets were disturbingly detailed racist and anti-feminist attacks. She praised the Holocaust, advocated the genocide of several races, and said feminists “should burn in hell.” She even launched into commentary on the American election, naming Donald Trump as the “only hope” to replace Hitler. Microsoft quickly started to delete as many of the tweets as possible and has since apologized. Nevertheless, it was incredible to see on the one hand that AI technology is rapidly advancing, but on the other hand is still liable to catastrophic malfunction. It turns out that the reason Tay unleashed so much hate is because it was deliberately targeted by some bloggers who exploited its tendency to parrot other people. Therefore, its descent into hate speech probably reflects worse on human rather than artificial character. Nevertheless, the episode is still disconcerting at a time when robot technology is set to play an increasingly prominent role in society.

 Robots play a major role in various areas of human life, with some now calling the rise of artificial intelligence the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, believes this revolution involves new technologies that are “impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human”. Herein lies potential “great promise and great peril”.

The possible benefits are obvious, with robotics expected to boost productivity by as much as 30%. In Japan, some car makers use robots that can work 30 days straight without interruption, saving around 90% on labor costs. There are already 66 robot workers per 10,000 worldwide, while in the Japanese car industry this number has already reached 1,520. The robot industry is expected to be worth $152.7 billion by 2020. If such incredible productivity were to be applied to other industries, this could categorically change human society.

Whether such development could happen without any negative side effects remains questionable. Looking at the above example, it is plain to see that more efficient robotics is likely to cause a corresponding decline in demand for various forms of human labor. There are predictions that robots will become capable of performing half of all current jobs, causing mass unemployment. In 2013, Oxford University academics Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne estimated that 47% of US employment is in the high risk category of being replaced by some sort of machinery. Manual labor jobs are seen as most likely to be replaced with robot technology, and so booming productivity might have to contend with worsening social inequality.

These issues are set to become evermore in the forefront as artificial intelligence starts to take on more complex roles in various other industries. Warfare is increasingly carried out by unmanned drones. Robo-surgery is now frequently used in hospitals. Financial advisers are being replaced by complex algorithms. Basic journalistic stories are sometimes automated. Care workers for the disabled or elderly are predicted to be next in line. Robots might be trained to help those who need care both physically and mentally. This is one potential application of “chatter bots” like Tay in a world where one of the fastest growing epidemics is loneliness. While some feel that such empathetic work can only be carried out by humans, Tay presents just one example of how artificial intelligence is improving in its abilities of meaningful human interaction.

Clearly, robotics is marching forward at an unstoppable pace, and care must be taken to be sure that this change is for the good. The boom seen from some robotics innovations could open up remarkable economic opportunities, perhaps offering another route for less economically developed nations to undergo fast-paced catch-up growth. However, we may see negative effects forming while positive effects are still yet to kick in. More developed countries might find themselves with whole new waves of problems. In the near future, we will seriously have to consider how to exploit and be weary of this transition of multiple human functions to robots. Tay’s shocking malfunction suggests that this might be cause for concern for many reasons.

- Xan Northcott

Putin’s Economic Crisis

Much of the dialogue surrounding Russia’s sudden withdrawal from Syria portrays Vladimir Putin as a scheming mastermind who defeated the Obama administration in an Syrian proxy war. While Putin attempts to make a show of Russian military strength, he can’t afford the muscle show in Syria anymore. Putin is broke.

 We’ve all seen the shirtless pictures of Putin riding on horses and hunting. These images, along with the Russian military, are part of a massive propaganda campaign to restore a sense of national pride in Russia. Putin’s efforts to increase nationalism stem from his attempt to retain control of the masses and loyalty from his supporters while the economy crashes. The state of the insecure economy is nothing new to Russia, but after several years of economic turmoil, this drop in oil prices could greatly diminish Putin’s popularity.

The Russian economy, which relies heavily on the petroleum industry, has been in shambles since 2015. International sanctions, a drop in the price of oil, and structural instability of the market decimated the economy. Russia’s GDP shrank by about 5%, and on top of that, the price of crude oil plummeted again to a low of USD 30 a barrel in February. The government gets nearly half of its revenue from oil and natural gas, and right now, the budget assumes the price of oil is USD 50 a barrel. If the price of oil does not rise soon, Russia’s GDP growth will take another hit this year.  

Though Putin’s popularity remains shockingly high throughout years of recession, as a result of numerous propaganda campaigns, it is starting to fall as Russians watch their money funnel into a war in Syria and a failing economic system. Putin made a risky play in Syria; he chose to risk further ruining the economy in hopes of solidifying Russian influence in the Middle East. Bashar al-Assad is Putin’s last ally in the Middle East, and if rebel fighters overthrew Assad, Putin would face the consequences. Russia’s influence has faded since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and another perceived “loss” of Syria to the Americans cannot bode well for Putin in Russia. In addition to facing the anger of the populace, Putin also has to face the Kremlin and explain his failure, which could ultimately result in his impeachment. Rather than risk this, Putin chose to fight in Syria, and it happened to pay off. He did effectively eliminate most of the rebels with his bombing campaign and reinforce Assad’s regime, but his underlying weakness shows in the sudden withdraw from Syria. Putin had to leave, because he cannot afford to stay.

Russia is not a military superpower. Reinforcing Russia’s military might and influence worldwide is only a short term fix to boost Putin’s dying popularity. People will not be satisfied with Putin if he does fix the economy, because at the end of the day, Russian nationalism won’t put food on the table.

- Jessica Steele 

Trump University and Its Fellow Scams

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has gotten into even more hot water for the scandals surrounding his now-defunct Trump University. Two businessmen, Michael Sexton and Jonathan Spitalny, created the University in 2004 under the Trump brand. Trump supported this initiative, and formally launched it on May 23, 2005. And what was Trump’s goal? He wanted to teach people the business acumen he had accumulated, especially in real estate investing. Unlike a traditional college with face-to-face interaction with professors and students, Trump University was a series of online workshops. The University sold mentorships and seminars priced anywhere from $1,500 to $35,000, in which it was promised that real estate experts would turn any student into a successful real estate investor. Rather, the teachers were independent contractors who not only had little prior experience in real estate, but also were paid commissions for selling the products. As a lawsuit against Trump for defrauding over 5,000 students looms, his “university” brings into the light the economic damage for-profit colleges inflict upon innocent students.

For-profit universities have existed since the Colonial Era. Through the 18th century, there were not enough universities to meet the demand for higher education. Hence, entrepreneurs charged students in order to teach them formal education, such as reading and writing skills. However, the for-profit industry began to grow rapidly starting from the 1980s. As state governments, burdened by increasing costs of healthcare, prisons, and K-12 education, began cutting funds from public universities, people began to grow disillusioned with their state colleges. Since 2011, however, despite the millions of dollars the industry has brought in from students and large investment firms, for-profit colleges have been declining and with good reason. Most of the data points toward for-profit schools burdening, rather than empowering, their students. For example at for-profit institutions, the median student loan debt per person is $32,700, while the average graduate from public schools accumulates $20,000 in student loan debt.

Hence, it is not surprising that even though for-profit schools account for only 12% of total college enrollment nationwide, their share of defaults is 44%. This data indicates for-profit schools are not only financially risky ventures, but also do not help students’ employability. Even though for-profit schools do report their graduates’ employment statistics, they are often inflated or outright false. For example, the Education Management Corporation’s Art Institute in Minnesota reported 89% of students who graduated in 2013 secured work. However, this employment figure includes jobs that require no college degree, such as working as a barista or folding clothes at GAP.

However, there is good news on the horizon. Some of America’s largest for-profit institutions, such as the University of Phoenix and Corinthian Colleges, are declining or have gone bankrupt. For example the former group lost more than 200,000 students over just five years, meaning they lost half of their total enrollment. Corinthian Colleges, buffeted by a string of lawsuits from California’s Attorney General and the U.S Department of Education, has gone bankrupt. Overall, from 2014 to 2015, over 100 for-profit colleges have shut its doors. If this trend continues, predatory education may become a minor part of society.

- Daniel Hyun

What We Talk About When We Talk About Penal Labor

Minimum wage has been a popular topic this election season. Some candidates are promising to raise the federal minimum wage to as high $15 an hour-- a living wage. This might be a great step towards closing the increasingly large wealth gap in the United States, but what many forget is that many US citizens don’t even get minimum wage in the first place. We’re talking about prisoners, who make an average of $0.92 an hour, and don’t have the right to unionize.

The United States has a history of convict leasing which dates back to the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished “slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime”, explicitly allows for penal labor. After the Civil War, many Southern landowners would lease plots of land and tools to newly freed slaves at exorbitant prices. This was called sharecropping, and it usually led to African Americans falling into debt and essentially continued the cycle of slavery in the US. With the Southern economy in shambles after the war, industries needed a cheap source of labor, and so, governments created convict leasing. As African Americans were imprisoned for not being able to payback landowners, private industries would rent them as laborers at low prices. The loophole in the Thirteenth Amendment, which allows for penal labor, essentially afforded people the opportunity to, in many ways, re-enslave African Americans. Share cropping combined with Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws led to the beginning of the mass incarceration of African Americans in the United States. White supremacists designed these laws to enforce social and economic norms, which prevented newly free slaves from rising up in society, and together Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws created a racial caste system during the Reconstruction era, which we still see in our prison structures today. Although we’d like to think that Jim Crow Laws are just an embarrassing stumble in America’s great history, we have to face the reality that these laws still shape our society. California just desegregated its prisons in 2014. Just to put this in perspective, the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that abolished segregation with “separate but equal is inherently unequal” happened in 1954.

When we talk about penal labor, we are talking about the legacy of slavery. Today, US prisons are overwhelming populated by African Americans, who are forced to labor in horrible conditions for abysmal pay. Some might argue that prisoners should not be paid and that labor is part of the punishment; however, prisoners are not the only victims. The real victims of low prison wages are minority communities.

Refusing to pay prisoners re-enforces the poverty in minority communities, starting with children. Not only do most inmates have a child, but about half of parents in state prison provide the primary financial support for their minor children. Poor wages directly affect inmates’ families and continue the cycle of poverty. On a larger scale, this causes stagnation in the economy as poor communities don’t have the means to buy goods and stimulate market growth. It might save taxpayer dollars in the short run, but it is not a sustainable solution in the long run.

So when we talk about penal labor, what we really need to talk about is institutionalized racism.

Uncertainty in the Upcoming Republican National Convention

The Republican presidential primary has been characterized by unorthodox strategies and a plethora of eccentric candidates. Business mogul Donald Trump currently leads the race with over 739 delegates and counting. His unusual methods have garnered polarized opinions regarding the electability of his candidacy. While his supporters view him as a fresh face aimed at tackling the political deadlock in Washington DC, detractors point to his brash—often offensive--style  as reason enough to exclude him from the race. His inflammatory comments including a proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the country, as well as the mass deportation of 12 million undocumented migrants in the United States, have inspired a growing Anti-Trump movement across the country. Many believe that this coalition of conservatives and liberals alike who believe Trump does not acutely represent core conservative values will ultimately influence the outcome of the Republican National Convention. With three candidates still in the race, and establishment Republicans publicly denouncing Trump, this scenario seems increasingly likely as the July Convention in Cleveland, Ohio approaches.

The anti-Trump coalition is made up of an unusual congregation of like-minded liberals and conservatives who oppose the nomination of Donald Trump to the Republican presidential ticket. These conservatives claim that Trump is not a true conservative, which is only strengthened by his record which indicates that Trump was a Democrat for several years in early 2000s.  Establishment Republican heavyweights like Speaker of the House of Representatives, Senator Paul Ryan (R-WI), openly criticize Trump’s policy proposals and comments. In response to Trump’s assertion that the Federal Government should halt the immigration of all Muslims coming into the United States, Ryan said, “[Trump’s proposal] is not what this party stands for…More importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”

Because of Trump’s divisive campaign, the Republican Party is in crisis. While Trump has won a majority of the delegates contested so far, many believe that he would not stand a chance the general election. On average, the majority he does win, represents only one third of the primary electorate with the rest split between the other GOP candidates. With recent drop outs like Senator Marco Rubio, many wonder where the support for past candidates will transfer. This only adds to the uncertainty of the primary elections and would lead to what many suggest will be a contested Republican primary election.  

Ohio Governor and presidential hopeful John Kasich hopes to capitalize on this anti-Trump sentiment and uncertainty. In a recent television interview he outlined how he predicts the Convention will unfold, “I don’t think anybody is going to get there [the Republican Nation Convention] with the delegates that they need to win.” In that event, Kasich went on to explain, delegates selected by the Electoral College would be released from their allegiances determined by the popular vote in their districts, allowing for a rare “brokered convention” for the first time since 1952, when then-candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower clinched the nomination. This possibility would allow John Kasich and Senator Ted Cruz to challenge the popular votes in dozens of states that have propelled Donald Trump to become the presumptive nominee, and would, in effect, throw the Republican Party into unprecedented and chaotic disarray. Not only would such an event challenge the democratic process which the United States hold so dear, but such actions would almost inevitably lead to a Trump third party run and even further electoral drama in the general election later this year. Furthermore, the huge number of voters turning out to participate in this election, would likely become alienated by the dysfunction of the Republican Party, and even drop out of the political scene altogether. In essence, the coming controversy at the Republican National Convention will have a huge impact on American politics for years to come. As voters across from the spectrum experience the messy fallout from the eccentric and unpredictable candidates in the Republican Primary, a new age of politics will be born. This represents a chance for the voting electorate of the United States to become more involved in the politics of this country and to shake off the legacy of low voter turnout.  But, the uncertainty of the upcoming Republican National Convention leaves many wondering if the Republicans can emerge as a unified party focused on winning the general election.  

 - Jacob Hamilton

Poland’s Abortion Ban and a Movement to the Right

Donald Trump has made headlines in recent weeks with his fluctuating positions on abortion. From believing that women who get abortions should endure “some sort of punishment” to acquiescing to the existing US laws, Trump has exhibited almost every opinion on the spectrum of Republican abortion rhetoric. Looking between the lines of his multiple, conflicting statements on the issue we can find one common thread: someone should be punished, in one way or another, when an abortion takes place.

Trump’s recent statements set a convenient stage for the discussion of Poland’s heated abortion debate. No matter how easy it may be to compare the two, a frightening possibility for the women of the United States is a frightening reality for the women of Poland.

Women in Poland had greater access to abortions before conservative legislation was introduced in 1993, eliminating “difficult living conditions” as a ground for legal termination of a fetus. Even before 1993, most abortions needed to be approved by two gynecologists, a general practitioner, and a state-approved psychologist, making it much more difficult to even receive permission to perform the act. These are liberal compared to today, as new leadership in the country has transformed Poland into one of the strictest countries in banning abortions when compared to its European neighbors. Due to the most recent laws, abortions can only be accessed in three cases: when the health of the mother is at risk, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the fetus has a severe disability. This is already extremely restrictive and women often drive outside the country in order to access safe and legal abortion clinics. The Law and Justice Party (PiS), which has had a majority in the Polish parliament since 2015, has taken to supporting a citizen’s bill that calls for even more restrictive laws. Called the “Stop Abortion” campaign, it requires at least 100,000 signatures before it can be submitted before the MPs as a bill.

This new bill proposes that the only case in which abortion should be allowed is in the case of a health risk to the mother. More than that, it calls for up to five years in prison for any person, mother or doctor, who knowingly causes the death of an unborn child. This bill is backed by the Polish Catholic Church, one of the largest supporters of the Law and Justice Party. Polish bishops have made their support known: “Catholics’ position on this is clear, and unchangeable. One needs to protect every person’s life from conception to natural death”.

The required signatures are predicted to come easily, as there has been overwhelming support for the proposed bill, mostly due to the conservative Catholic morality that has permeated the Polish government since the last elections. The head of PiS, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, and his handpicked prime minister, Beata Szydlo, both support the “Stop Abortion” campaign and are confident that parliament would pass the bill should it be heard. Szydlo said that “every MP will vote in line with his own conscience,” and her conscience is telling her, apparently, to support the initiative. Kaczynski also emphasizes his support in terms of morality, saying that as a Catholic he is “subject to the teachings of bishops.”. The fact that two of the most powerful leaders in the country are being very vocal in their support of this bill is a great cause for concern for women in Poland.

News of this possibility has not gone uncontested. Polish socialist parties protested in front of parliament earlier in the week and pro-choice advocates have also raised issue with the bill. This is not the only recent incident of liberal dissatisfaction with the Polish government. Since PiS’s rise to power in parliament, many have been questioning whether or not Poland is a democracy on the fall. In the past few months, we’ve seen Kaczynski warn that refugees may spread infectious diseases, tapping into the nationalist sentiments that are so pervasive in Poland. The movement to the far right is concerning in its rapid attempts to control state institutions, starting with a new media law that will give the government much more control over state-run television and radio and changes to the country’s top court, making it necessary for there to be a two-thirds majority of 15 judges to make a ruling. Despite Poland’s Constitutional Court ruling these changes unconstitutional, the government refuses to make any adjustments in response to the domestic and international pushback.

Looking at the conservative initiatives that the Law and Justice Party has taken so far, it would not be surprising to see the abortion ban pass and become law. There are a number of issues that arise from this possibility: first, the health and safety of every Polish woman would be threatened in the case of a total ban on abortion, even more so than it is under Poland’s current laws. Second, this plays worryingly into the trend of authoritarianism that we see in Poland. Once the model country for economic and social success in post-Soviet Eastern Europe, Poland needs to carefully consider its next moves. The EU is already concerned; the European Commission has opened a “probe” into the inner workings of the Polish government. Hopefully the quick international response will prevent Poland from following in the footsteps of its increasingly authoritarian neighbor, Hungary.

- Alexie Schwarz 

Republican Party Tactics: The Size of Their Hands or the Size of Our Problem?

source: wikimedia commons

I never thought I would say this, but last month, two of the leading candidates for President of the United States were having a serious debate over the size of their genitalia. I don’t think it can be overemphasized how shocking it is to see this kind of behavior from presidential candidates. This contest will determine who will become arguably the most important political figure in the world. Despite the gravity of the task at hand, we are seeing some campaigns dominated by crude attacks and violent rallies rather than serious discussion of policy. All traditional barriers are being broken as politicians descend deeper and deeper into extreme tactics and further from the rationality we usually expect from candidates. This election has already set a terrifying precedent for the future of electoral politics.

One cannot deny that this problem lies almost exclusively with the Republican party. In modern democracy, one hopes that people will consider policies and ideas as well as charisma or machismo. However, the Republican primary results suggest that politics is increasingly going in the opposite direction. While Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders debate for or against certain policies and methods to implement them, the Republican debates have descended into increasingly aggressive personal attacks.

Even leaving aside the many controversial policies being discussed, the tactics of some of the Republican candidates are a cause for concern. Several people have compared Donald Trump to Hitler, including former President of Mexico Vicente Fox, former Governor of New Jersey Christine Todd Whitman, a fellow Republican, and comedian Louis C.K. Focusing on tactics alone, this doesn’t seem too far-fetched. He focuses his campaign around massive rallies that are becoming increasingly violent. He encourages this violence, and said of one protester that he would personally ‘like to punch him in the face’. He appeals to conceptions of strength, international superiority, and a return to a mythical greatness that he thinks America lost somewhere in the past. He even recently made supporters at a rally pledge unconditional support for him, with right arms raised in the air. All these tactics are reminiscent of fascism. His refusal to condemn characters such as ex-KKK leader David Duke does nothing to help him dismiss these comparisons, let alone the claim by his ex-wife that he used to keep a copy of Hitler’s speeches by his bed.

What is perhaps most surprising about these tactics, though, is their popularity. As Trump becomes more extreme and drifts further away from succinct and legitimate policy, his popularity remains intact and his rallies have almost reached hysteria. One rally in Chicago was cancelled due to excessive violence breaking out before it even started. Meanwhile the other Republican candidates, seeing their own approval ratings slump, stooped to Trump’s level in desperation. Realising that there was little interest in their policies, during the last few debates the candidates focused on personal attacks. Senator Marco Rubio decided to go all out, mocking Trump’s ‘spray tan’ and ‘small hands’, adding ‘you know what they say about guys with small hands’. Trump hit back, assuring his fans that ‘There’s no problem there.’ The crowd loved it, apparently much more confident that Trump is a good candidate, knowing the true size of his manhood.

These sort of arguments might be entertaining to watch in a normal situation, but it is frightening that this is happening in a United States general election. Secretary of State John Kerry has said that world leaders are ‘shocked’ by the election campaigns, which are turning into an ‘embarrassment’ for the US. Others have pointed out that the proven effectiveness of such tactics is likely to make them more popular in the future. While Trump still seems far away from an electoral victory, it has already been extraordinary to see that a candidate with aggressive and incoherent views has been able to develop such a loyal fan base. One can only hope that this style of politics will not be imitated by others in the future.

- Xan Northcott

Cracked BRICs

In 2001, Jim O’Neil, the chief economist of Goldman Sachs coined the term BRIC – standing for Brazil, Russia, India, China. These four countries, with large populations and undersized economies, represented future economic engines that could overpower the many of the advanced Group of Seven (G7) countries. During the first decade of the 2000s, this economic bloc sustained large growth rates as their economies grew to fit landmass, population size, and resource levels.

With the popularity of BRIC, other acronyms became popular to represent emerging market growth, such as MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey) and Next Eleven, or N-11 (including Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan Philippines, and Vietnam).

Since the start of the 2010s, the BRICs have not performed as well as they did in the previous decade. An alphabet soup of acronyms representing countries with large populations can no longer represent a mass pull upwards for economic growth. The current situation of the four BRICs represent that each individual emerging market has an idiosyncratic political and economic risks unrelated to one another.  Below, I break down each BRIC.

Brazil

In 2010, Brazil reported 7.5% growth – an astounding, out-of-the-norm number for almost all nations. Since then, President Dilma Rousseff has overseen Brazil’s largest recession in twenty-five years.  This recession, coupled with a widespread corruption scandal involving Rousseff’s Workers Party and state-run oil company Petrobras has made the president highly unpopular with both Brazilians and international investors. Millions of protestors have come to the streets to advocate for her impeachment and members of the Brazilian Congress voted on March 18th to begin impeachment proceedings for Rousseff. Things have become so dire for Rousseff that the Brazilian real gained 9 percent in reaction to news of Rousseff’s impending impeachment.

Russia

Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical ambitions and slumped oil prices have pushed Russia into recession. In March 2014, Russia annexed the Ukrainian region of Crimea. As a result, the United States and the European Union imposed harsh sanctions on the nation – blacklisting top Russian officials and firms accused of supporting Ukrainian separatists. This has limited access to capital for major Russian banks, energy, and defense firms and led to a flood of foreign investment leaving the nation. Furthermore, oil –which Russia relies on for nearly a fifth of its GDP -- since 2014, has dropped in value by more than seventy percent. As a result, the Russian economy shrank by 3.7 percent in 2015.

India

India is the only BRIC that still shows the rocket-fueled growth associated with the entire BRIC bloc. India experienced 7.6 percent growth in 2015 – a higher level than that of China, the traditional growth superstar.  There are two trains of thought to explain India’s extraordinary growth. The first reasons that low oil prices allowed the oil-importing, traditionally low-growth nation to shrink its deficits and offset inflation. The second reason is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policies of economic liberalization have increased international confidence in the nation. Whether it’s either or or a combination of the two, India’s growth demonstrates that growth factors are not inherent to emerging markets per se, but rather that the specific politics of a nation can inform economic growth. Moreover, India’s high growth rate demonstrates that factors that can so largely positively impact one BRIC’s economy can have no effect on or negatively impact other BRIC economies.

China

Looking at recent headlines, it can be easy to assume that China’s economic situation is  the same as Brazil’s or Russia’s. These headlines include “Why China’s Economy Will Be So Hard to Fix”, and “Will the crisis in China sink the US economy?”. These dramatic headlines were created in response to a growth rate of 6.9% in 2015. Despite having a growth rate considered miraculous in most other nations, this number does ring a few alarms. Much investment in China in recent years has come due to the promises of double-digit growth. As China transitions from being an industrial manufacturing-based economy to a skills and service-based middle-income economy and as its large population rapidly ages, China will potentially not see the heavy growth of the past twenty-five years again.

Today, two BRICs show negative growth, one BRIC shows slowing growth, and the final BRIC shows extraordinary growth. When grouped together as a single entity, there appears to be a randomness to the collective output of these nations. However, when analyzed individually, it’s revealed that each country’s economy is influenced by unique sets of factors, often unaffiliated or negatively affiliated with the other countries. Being a highly-populated nation with a low-income economy does not guarantee growth. Rather, factors such as resources, relations with other in nations, and good governance all contribute to an economy’s trajectory.

- Harris Mateen

The Failure of Humanity in Flint

Flint, Michigan. While perhaps not nationally recognized as a large metropolitan area, Michigan’s fourth largest city is usually known for its roots in the automobile industry, its socioeconomic diversity, and its art scene. This reputation, unfortunately, is not the case any longer, and Flint now represents a not-so-subtle calamity that can be attributed to the failures of American politics. The situation in Flint needs no grandiose introduction, but there is value in highlighting what exactly is going on within the city’s borders for those who may be partially unaware.

To keep a long story short: the Michigan State Government decided that it would switch the local water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River, at least only temporarily until it could create a new budgeting solution for how to provide tap water to its citizens during a time of financial hardships. This was not supposed to be a “long-term solution” to the problem, however. It eventually became the State Government’s only “solution.” Due to Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality’s lack of efficient oversight, the pipes in Flint’s water infrastructure were not treated with anti-corrosive agents. Soon, tap water appeared brown and contained higher levels of lead than deemed safe for human consumption.

Because of this, Flint now faces a crisis that has rendered its tap water largely undrinkable, unusable, and utterly dangerous to its citizens. As a result, it has caused large, irreversible outbreaks of lead poisoning, especially in young children.

This crisis is a catastrophe of American politics on all fronts for two reasons: the State Government’s inconspicuous--though many would argue conspicuous--proliferation of racism and its glaring incompetence. Both of these themes have intertwined to create a disaster that the poor citizens of Flint must contend with.

The intersection of sociopolitical dynamics and the environment adds another dimension to this crisis in which racism is perpetuated by government officials. In the case of Flint, Governor Rick Snyder never mentions “race” or that the mishandling of the water crisis was due to the fact that Flint is predominantly African American and poor, but outright racism is not the only form of racism that exists.  Systemic political decisions are rarely influenced by the minority groups of Flint. Even though the politician who decided to switch the water source was African American, the state government is run by a group of mostly white politicians, which means that public policies reflect their own interests.

As mentioned before, this situation is not clear “racism” in its denotive definition, but it appears that it is no coincidence that the Flint community was the victim of “environmental racism,” a term used to describe the idea that “poor communities and communities of color often experience disproportionate impacts of environmental hazards”. The situation in Flint highlights that this environmental racism goes hand-in-hand with the de facto segregation that places minority groups in areas that are environmentally mistreated. This particular idea is not novel in the minds of many people throughout Michigan. In an interview with the Huffington Post, the mayor of Lansing, Michigan, Virgil Bernero, claimed that “The response was muted. The state response was sluggish and irresponsible. That does have something to do with the people being voiceless”.

Bearing all this in mind, it seems that not-so-subtle racism is the most likely explanation for the indifference and incompetence on part of the Michigan state government. The incompetence is highlighted by critical decisions that were made by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: the agency did not require the Flint plant to use the correct corrosion control and it threw out samples of water that may have alerted residents of Flint to lead poisoning earlier than anticipated. By the time the residents found out about the high levels of lead poisoning, it was far too late, and there were many people to blame at the state level, Gov. Snyder included.

Governor Snyder and the head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, sat before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to testify and plead their cases for the disaster that happened in Flint. Much of the derision towards McCarthy and Snyder was bipartisan, and the members of the committee on the panel called for both to resign because of their incompetence. Whether the issue is bipartisan or not, it is clear that action must be taken, and responsibility for the crisis should be established, but this is not all that is required. The rehabilitation of Flint should be solely focused on providing aid and concrete solutions, not just accounts of culpability. It is imperative, above all else, that clean, drinkable water is distributed to the citizens of Flint immediately.

Yes, there is importance in punishing the perpetrators, but that’s not all that people of Flint deserve. The people of Flint and other areas affected by poisoned water deserve action by all who can help, whether it be on the federal, local, or even international levels. If there is anything that this crisis highlights, it’s that the government of Michigan has failed people of its own state and its own country. Flint, Michigan now represents a failure of humanity.

- James Sabia

Obama Tries to ‘Bury the Last Remnants of the Cold War’ with Cuba Visit

President Obama made history last week as the first US President in 88 years to visit Cuba. As he spends the last months of his presidency struggling to make domestic headway, he went to bring to a close one of the great conflicts of world history: the Cold War. This was a significant achievement, although many in America have condemned the reconciliation with Cuba as too forgiving. Nevertheless, it seems that, while new conflicts are forming around the world, the last serious capitalist vs. communist struggle has come to an end. In fact, as Cuban President Raúl Castro brings in reforms venturing towards capitalism, communism, for the time being, is being swept out of significance..

However, perhaps the most interesting aspects of the presidential visit were the more hostile moments. Both presidents made it very clear that they have some fundamental differences. This was best symbolized when Castro took Obama’s arm and raised it in the air, only for his hand to remain limp in one of the most awkward handshakes of all time. President Obama went on to criticize Cuba’s human rights record and its retaining of political prisoners, leading Cubans to see their leader questioned on such issues on television for the first time. Castro hit back that the United States is hypocritical on human rights, considering its failure to bring universal healthcare, university education, and equal pay for women to the American people. He then demanded that the US return Guantánamo Bay to Cuba.

These differences of opinion will continue to shape both countries into the future, but this is unlikely to impede Cuba’s charge towards capitalism. Research shows that the private sector is starting to expand in the wake of legislation allowing small private businesses. Access to the Internet is spreading fast and the US loosening of restrictions on trade will surely only increase the pace towards a more free market.

One thing that remains unclear is where democracy will come into this. Many are surprised that Raúl Castro is bringing in these reforms, being the brother of Fidel Castro who led the Cuban Revolution to victory back in 1959, two years before Obama was born. Fidel remains alive and influential, and recently condemned the ‘honey-coated’ visit, saying that Cuba doesn’t need any presents from the ‘empire’, personally attacking Obama. This reveals that there is considerable tension in the top ranks of Cuba’s leadership. Next month’s Communist Party Congress might offer insights into possible political reform. For now, though, the Castros remain divided but firmly in control.

However, what was significant about this visit was that, while the two Presidents admitted strong disagreements, they did so with openness and tolerance. The Cuban government, while insisting that it will retain some of its socialist principles, has made it clear that it wishes to do so with peace, cooperation and free trade rather than with hostility. Admittedly, this new attitude is specifically aimed at foreign policy. Aside from tentative moves towards changing the economy, it is yet to be seen how the Cuban government will change its much-criticized treatment of its own people. On the other hand, President Obama admitted ‘shortcomings in the United States around basic needs for people, and poverty and inequality and race relations’, and welcomed ‘constructive dialogue’ on these issues. In fact, it probably pained him to see the US criticized for its gun laws, health care, and Guantánamo Bay: three issues that he has fought to change throughout his presidency, but has come across intense opposition in all cases.  

All of this exemplifies that two nations can live in peace and work together despite historical conflicts and deep cultural differences. Hopefully in the future more nations can come together in a similar way, emphasizing similarities and potential for mutual benefit over cultural differences and hostility. As Obama said in his speech to the Cuban people, ‘when we share our deepest beliefs and ideas with an attitude of mutual respect, we can both learn and make the lives of our people better’.

- Xan Northcott

Justice for Berta Cáceres?

In early March, Berta Cáceres, an indigenous environmental rights activist in Honduras, was murdered in her home. Considering Cáceres’ hugely influential work in the Council of Indigenous and Popular Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), a political organization dedicated to protecting indigenous rights, and in leading the campaign to stop the construction of the Agua Zarca Dam, many see her murder as an assassination. Some of these same people believe that the United States, a country that has strong economic ties with Honduras, should follow in the footsteps of Cáceres’ outspoken criticism of the Honduran government and begin to pull back some of the millions of dollars they pour into the country each year. This is, after all, a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world.

            Cáceres’ activism aimed to ameliorate conditions in Honduras for its indigenous people, a large percentage of the country’s population and a group certainly in need of the help. According to the Goldman Environmental Foundation, who awarded Cáceres the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2015, the Honduran coup in 2009 created the need and justification for environmentally destructive projects, including the Agua Zarca Dam, which was to be constructed on the Gualcarque River. Not only would this project be conducted without the permission or support of the indigenous Lenca people who inhabit the area, it would also cut off vital access to water, food, and medicine for the Lenca, who consider the river to be sacred. Cáceres contended that this was a breach of international law. The Chinese company Sinohydro, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC), and Honduran company Desarrolos Energeticos (DESA) were behind the massive project. For the past few years, Cáceres and COPINH had led community protests, including attempts to block access to the construction site. In 2013, a peaceful protester Tomás Garcia was shot dead by a Honduran soldier, but despite the violence protests continued.

            The Honduran government’s support of the project also remained steadfast, and they constantly claimed that support also existed within indigenous communities. Local authorities doctored minutes of community meetings and offered cash to locals in exchange for signatures of support.   

            In response to international pressures and ongoing protests from COPINH, both Sinohydro and the IFC withdrew from the project in 2013. DESA continued and leveled criminal charges against Cáceres with the support of prominent Honduran business leaders such as Aline Flores, the president of the Honduran Council for Private Business. Flores claimed that Cáceres and COPINH were “boycotting, invading, and making Honduras look bad internationally.”. In the face of such blatant opposition to her work, the charges of weapon possession and later incitement against Cáceres seemed terribly obvious in their bias. Amnesty International was ready to declare Cáceres and her fellow activists, who also faced charges, prisoners of conscience should they be imprisoned. Huge amounts of support poured in internationally.  

            The indigenous activists left behind after Cáceres’ murder have received support, but remain justifiably dissatisfied. Some of the remaining European supporters for the Agua Zarca, including FMO and Finnfund, withdrew their support, citing ongoing violence in the country and calling on the Honduran government to do “anything in their power” to fix the political climate.

            Human rights and environmental groups have also risen their voices to protest Cáceres’ death, but her family needs more in order to feel that justice has been done. The Cáceres family is skeptical of the explanation given by the local police, who claim that the murder was the result of a burglary gone wrong, and explicitly believe that the government is to blame for her death. If not directly, then they are responsible for her death by failing to provide proper protection despite the history of death threats aimed at Cáceres.

            Honduras’s record for human rights, especially after the coup that took place in 2009, speaks to a deeper institutional problem within the government. The murder rate was the highest in the world in 2014, as it was the year before. Human Rights Watch states that “the institutions responsible for providing public security continue to prove largely ineffective and remain marred by corruption and abuse.”. Defenders of human rights and journalists around the world are particularly vulnerable to violence and suppression. In the past decade alone, over 200 activists and 100 journalists have been killed in Honduras. And yet, the United States allocated over $50 million to the country between 2010 and 2014.  Why is the US funneling any money to a country like Honduras, whose government seems to care very little about its citizens and even less about those who speak out about it?

            The Honduran government is not being accused of Cáceres’ murder, despite what her family may believe. Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernádez called her death an “attack on Honduras.” But there is no evidence that investigations into the situation will yield concrete or useful results. In fact, just two days after Cáceres’ death, another COPINH member, Nelson Garcia, was murdered.

We have to ask the question: who can be killed in Honduras before the United States does anything about it? The US did not stage the coup that ousted former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in 2009, but they were and remain one of the country’s biggest supporters. When the United States provides monetary support to a country with a worsening human rights regime, it is reasonable to begin to question their priorities in the region. Berta Cáceres is certainly not the first activist to be murdered in Honduras, nor will she be the last, but hopefully her death and her family’s attempts to get the US to answer for their support will eventually secure some measure of justice for her and her people.

- Alexie Schwarz

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt: Women’s Undue Burden

Women’s health clinics are the new battleground for abortion rights. Forty-three years after abortions were legalized in the case of Roe v. Wade (1973), states cannot make abortions illegal, but they are doing their best to stop women from having access to medical information about abortions and abortions clinics. “Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers” (TRAP) laws attempt to dissuade women from getting abortions by requiring women to make multiple visits to clinics, view an ultrasound of the fetus before making a decision, or receive medically incorrect information from a physician, such as the fact that abortions can cause breast cancer.

For the sake of women’s health, TRAP laws need to be eradicated immediately. As a result of these laws, there has already been a rise of unsafe self-induced abortions. These thinly veiled attempts at preventing women from having access to health care providers, which offer abortion services, are already having a devastating effect on the community. Not only are women resorting to unsafe methods of aborting unwanted pregnancies, they are also losing access to cervical cancer screenings, STD and STI testing, pregnancy tests, and other services provided by organizations like Planned Parenthood.

This is bigger than just abortion. Legislators implement laws like the Texas House Bill 2, also known as the HB2 , under the pretense of protecting women’s health, when they are doing nothing more than trying to undermine a woman’s right to choose. HB2 made it to the Supreme Court in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case, in which Whole Woman’s Health, a women’s healthcare provider, is disputing the claims of  John Hellerstedt, the Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services. Hellerstedt claims that HB2 protects women from unsafe clinics. Whole Women’s Health argues that HB2 is actually just another way to prevent women from having access to abortion services.

Let’s take a look at the bill.

The HB2 law requires abortion clinics to meet the same specific requirements that ambulatory surgical centers do; for example, clinics need to construct hallways wide enough for two gurneys to pass each other, have a minimum number of janitorial closets, and be within a 30 miles of a hospital.

On the surface, the bill looks like a concerted effort to ensure that women who have complications with an abortion can get appropriate medical care. That is, it looks sincere until you realize that these requirements shutdown 18 of the 41 Texas abortion clinics in 2013, and, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Hellerstedt, there will only be 12 abortion clinics left in Texas. How is this protecting women’s health if it prevents women from getting health care in the first place? This directly contradicts the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which prevents states from placing an undue burden on women who seek abortions by restricting their access to clinics. States can promote a pro-life stance, but ultimately they must offer abortion services; the HB2 law restricts thousands of women’s access to abortion by forcing women who live in rural areas-- and are often lower income than those in cities-- to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest clinic.

Supporters of the HB2 law argue that the laws protect women from unsafe procedures and bring up the case of Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania physician who ran an unclean clinic and performed illegal late-term abortions for low income and minority women. What HB2 supporters fail to mention is that Gosnell’s clinic had not been inspected in almost 16 years. His grotesque clinic is not representative of abortion clinics, and shutting down safe clinics will actually lead to women seeking unsafe abortions from people like Gosnell out of desperation. 

It is true, all surgeries have complication risks, but not all surgeries have the same levels of risk. The HB2 law relies on people believing the myth that abortions are high-risk or dangerous, but in reality, abortions are extremely safe procedures; in fact, abortions are safer than colonoscopies or the procedure for removing wisdom teeth. It is nine times safer for a woman to get an abortion, whether it is a medical abortion or a surgical abortion, than to carry a pregnancy to term. Furthermore, nearly 90% of all abortions happen within the first 16 weeks of the pregnancy, and over half of all abortions take place during the first eight weeks, where there is no need for a surgical procedure. Justice Ginsburg questioned the necessity of having a surgical center at the abortion clinic: “[W]hat is the benefit of having an ambulatory surgical center to take two pills when there's no-- no surgical procedure at all involved?” The answer: there isn’t one. As she later pointed out, complications with a medical abortion do not happen in the actual clinics; women would experience complications later in the home. There are no advantages in requiring that clinics be within 30 miles of a hospital.

This case sets a precedent for the other 44 states, which are also implementing TRAP laws. If the court decides that the HB2 law is constitutional, more states will follow Texas’ example and impose these strict regulations. As a result, we will see the return of self-induced abortions and a decline in access to women’s health care in general. No matter how you look at it, it is clear that the HB2 law and all other TRAP laws need to go for the sake of women’s health.

- Jessica Steele

FIFA’s New President and What Needs to Be Done

Gianni Infantino was elected the new president of FIFA in late February following mass allegations of corruption within the organization. His first task is clear: attempt to salvage whatever is left of FIFA’s credibility and reputation. 

This would have been a tall order for FIFA regardless of who was elected to replace Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA from 1998 until his removal in 2015. The alleged instances of bribery, fraud, and racketeering go back years; the arrests following a 2015 Swiss raid on the FIFA headquarters in Zurich focused on $150 million in bribery, money laundering, and fraud. Bribery for clothing sponsorships and marketing rights are included in those millions of dollars. A major U.S. sportswear company was implicated in the US Justice Department’s indictment for paying to be the sole provider of uniforms and equipment for the Brazilian national team. Though the investigators refuse to name the company, Nike’s current deal with the team closely resembles that described in the documents. 

Perhaps the most damning allegations within the organization during Blatter’s 17-year reign were those of vote- buying during the selection of the host countries for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, which went to Russia and Qatar. Twenty four FIFA executive committee members voted in the selection, half of whom have been accused of corruption. The fact that Qatar won the bid, beating out the U.S., Australia, and other larger countries, was especially strange. Temperatures are supposed to be well into the hundreds, and the city that is supposed to host the Final does not yet exist. Current projections place the overall cost to be over $200 billion, much more expensive than the Cup held in Brazil in 2014. Qatar spent huge amounts of money bringing the World Cup to their country, and they are likely to spend much more building up the infrastructure needed to host it. Not to mention the cost in human lives. At least over a thousand workers have died in the country already.

Soccer has a huge following on every continent and that translates into substantial sports  power. The World Cup, the largest sporting event in the world, has an audience seven times larger than the Superbowl and has around 100 times the budget. Boasting more member nations than the UN, its global impact  is massive and its influence on the countries that host it is even bigger.  If FIFA really was just about soccer, Brazilian citizens would have no business protesting against the World Cup on the scale that they did. But the past decade has shown that the power of  FIFA goes beyond sports. FIFA has the ability to completely transform a country’s political and economic atmosphere. Countries hosting the World Cup tend to pour huge amounts of money into preparations. For example, Brazil spent around $14 billion on the Cup it hosted in 2014. Most of this money only benefited the construction companies building the massive stadiums, many of which will sit unused. People were violently evicted from their homes. The Cup undoubtedly brought  revenue into the country, but at the cost of its local residents. 

These are certainly not all the instances of wrongdoing; the allegations could span pages. The FIFA presidential election in 2011 was rocked by these mass allegations, yet Blatter ran unopposed and regained his position as president. Nothing changed, however, because Blatter denied all wrongdoing and had been perpetuating this sort of fraud and corruption for decades. 

The question now is can Infantino really change FIFA? Is the world’s largest sports organization really capable of overcoming the corruption that has plagued its members for decades? Infantino wants to “bring the football back to FIFA,” but this will not be as easy at it seems. Many are left wondering if his reforms will have substance or if they will simply rebrand the organization in an expensive and extensively publicized process. 

Infantino, born only 6 miles from Blatter, only entered the race after Michel Platini, former president of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and Infantino’s former boss, was suspended by the Ethics Committee for accepting a “disloyal payment” from Blatter. Some question whether or not there is still loyalty left to Platini, but many see Infantino as the beginning of the change that FIFA needs. 

There has already been evidence of progress. Reforms have recently passed and the organization contends that “the way that FIFA is governed will be overhauled”. These reforms included a less active role for the president, maximum term limits, member eligibility checks, annual compensation disclosures, and higher ethical standards. FIFA under Infantino seems dedicated to better modes of governance, transparency, accountability, and diversity. 

Investigations are ongoing into FIFA’s shady past, and Infantino would do well to recognize and fix the problems that for so long were inherent parts of the organization.Soccer itself is a very political game and has often been used as both political propaganda and physical manifestations of conflict. Fans are emotionally and economically invested. If FIFA’s internal politics are not in order, that will have  an adverse effect on the countries in which it inevitably exerts its influence. 

- Alexie Schwarz

Dismantling America’s Nuclear “Axis of Evil”

A significant development regarding North Korea’s recent nuclear test was revealed in late February, with the Obama administration secretly agreeing to talks to try to formally end the Korean War. In a distinctive diplomatic gesture, the U.S allegedly dropped the longstanding precondition that Pyongyang first must take steps to demonstrate its willingness to dismantle its nuclear program. 

This motion represents a larger foreign policy shift concerning the United States’s involvement in the nuclear proliferation of two rogue states: Iran and North Korea. While geographically disparate and seemingly unrelated, these two countries share similar struggles and ambitions – yet, the seriousness and urgency in which the U.S. addresses them could not be more different.

Take for instance, the United States’ nuclear agreement with Iran. Adopted in October 2015 amid a national discourse of hyper-partisanship, fear-mongering, and skepticism, this historic diplomatic effort consolidated the support of nuclear physicists, military officials, non-proliferation experts, and more than 100 countries across the globe to significantly dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. As of January 2016, Tehran completed the necessary steps to ensure that its nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful, and subsequently had its oil and financial sanctions lifted.

While an apparent diplomatic victory for the United States and the international community, the focus naturally shifts to North Korea, the sole survivor of what President George W. Bush designated in his 2002 State of the Union Address, as the “axis of evil.” Originally composed of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, this informal axis was the centerpiece to the United States’s War on Terror. While the grouping of these three nations seems unrelated misguided, North Korea’s ever escalating eagerness for nuclear advancement can be traced back to Pyongyang’s interactions with and observations of its Middle Eastern counterparts.

As early as the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the birth of an Islamic Republic, Iran and North Korea cooperated in educational, scientific, and cultural spheres, including Iran’s early nuclear program. Since the 1980s, North Korea has become known as a reliable supplier of arms to other countries, with increased weapons sales between Pyongyang and Tehran during the Iran-Iraq war. The two nations are bound by their long history of antagonism toward the United States. 

In 1991, Pyongyang watched in dismay as the United States destroyed the Iraqi military — a military that in weapons and numbers that is reminiscent of the North Korean People's Army. Considering the escalation of U.S. military presence in the Middle East following the Gulf War into the Iraq War, as well as the Bush administration’s all-or-nothing strategy of refusing any talks whatsoever with Pyongyang (particularly during the early months of the 2002 nuclear crisis), it is unsurprising that recent exchanges between American and North Korean officials failed to make any progress with Pyongyang conducting its fourth nuclear-bomb test a mere several days later. 

The White House should be wary that its refusal to recognize Pyongyang’s desire for legitimacy and an equal seat at the negotiation table can and will elicit harsh backlash from a nation whose very survival depends on explosive power of its nuclear arsenal. Unlike Iran, North Korea has little incentive to dismantle its only shield against retribution – a nation no stranger to crippling economic sanctions and U.S. - R.O.K. military exercises right on its border. While President Obama has pointed to the Iran deal to signal to North Korea that he is open to a similar track with the regime of Kim Jong Un, this longstanding condition of demanding action on the DPRK’s part as a mandatory precursor to even informal talk is unrealistic and reflects an archaic policy of isolating nations that Americans prefer did not exist. Thus, perhaps it would be more practical to first dismantle U.S. policymakers’ affinity for absolutisms when approaching nuclear talk within the Axis of Evil, before expecting our adversaries to unilaterally dismantle their only form of leverage. 

- Samuel Kim

Apple vs. FBI: How Important is Cyber Security?

Cyber security can be defined by the University of Maryland University College as “information technology security,” which focuses on protecting computers, networks, programs and data from unintended or unauthorized access, change or destruction.” This phrase has become increasingly common in society’s rhetoric in the past few decades given technology’s prevalence in daily life. Much of our personal information is stored on some device somewhere in the world, and we rely on the technology industry to create devices that are capable of protecting this information from the outside world. That being said, a case incredibly significant to the importance of cyber security in today’s socio-political realm has been developing in the United States.  

On December 2nd this past year, a married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire at a regional center in San Bernardino, California, killing fourteen people and injuring twenty-two. Syed Farook worked for the government in San Bernardino, and the U.S. Government, in investigating the shooting, was able to recover Farook’s government-issued phone http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html. While it may appear that the recovery is an informational victory for the FBI, the issue for the agency becomes predicated around how it will access the information because the phone is encrypted. Because of this, the FBI contacted Apple asking for a software that essentially unlocks the iPhone from a “back door” so that none of the information is tampered with.

Here is where this case becomes interesting, and could become one that sets a precedent for future cyber security issues.

Source: pixabay.com

On February 17th, Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, responded to the FBI’s request to create this software by making it publicly known that neither he, nor anyone at Apple, could support usurping the law by completing this action. This statement was published on Apple’s website for all to see, and within the letter, Cook highlights what the possible consequences of creating a “backdoor” to its operating system could be. Cook explicitly states, “The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals.” Naturally, this letter elicited responses from politicians and leading tech industry professionals, such as the creator of the popular messaging application WhatsApp, who declared in a Facebook status that he stands behind Tim Cook and Apple in the case against the FBI.

As this story develops, it is important to note that there has not been very much legal action between the two parties. Much of the back-and-forth between industry professionals like Tim Cook and the FBI and its supporters -including Bill Gates - is PR-related, polarizing the American public.

There is much speculation about who is right in the tug-of-war between FBI and the Silicon Valley tech empire that is Apple, but it appears that Apple’s reasoning overrides the government’s need for security information. Of course, having said that, there is no denying that intelligence, especially cyber intelligence, is crucial in maintaining the nation’s security from potential enemies all over the world. The overall implications, as Cook highlighted, become the larger issue in this case, however, because any mishap in handling the “back door” software could affect millions of people across the globe. In a hypothetical “worst-case” scenario, someone with the information about how to decode Apple’s standard encryption mechanisms could potentially hack into everyone’s phones, tablets, and computers and access personal information.

Recent legal developments have further augmented Apple and Tim Cook’s case about not creating the backdoor operating system. A U.S. District Court in New York sided with Apple in a ruling about another iPhone cybersecurity case stating that U.S. Government cannot use the All Writs Act of 1911, which states that the government can increase its jurisdiction in irremediable cases, to force Apple to create the key to unlock the backdoor. While this case cannot set precedent in the Supreme Court, it highlights the issue at hand, and places a fair amount of momentum in Apple’s favor.

Contrarily, there is the argument that the FBI’s request of Apple’s expertise is an exclusive case, meaning that its use of the backdoor software will be limited to Farook’s phone, and that there will not be any other instances of the software being used for the sake of national security. That appears to miss the point, however, because it only requires one instance in which this way of bypassing encryption is placed in the wrong hands in the wrong moment.

Thus, while this case is still in its formative stages, it remains to be seen if and how the Supreme Court will rule on a hotly-contested case such as this. Considering that the Court will now most likely be split on a majority of its cases until a new Justice is appointed, it is difficult to pinpoint how the conclusion will play out. It may be important for Apple to press the issue in this case as quickly as possible in the U.S. District Court for Central California, taking into account the fact that the Ninth District is comprised of predominantly liberal judges who may rule in their favor.

The overbearing issue is the push-and-pull between privacy and national security, and while both sides of the argument maintain validity, the ramifications of Apple’s stance are important to note. If the previously mentioned “worst-case” scenario somehow becomes “the” case, then both our privacy and our national security could be at risk for generations to come. 

- James Sabia

Power, Regimes, and the US World Order

Summary: A brief history of intervention by the United States in order to facilitate or lead regime change.

The United States’ intervention in Syria has, until very recently, been based on one thing: the removal of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, from power. From President Obama’s call for Assad to step down to present, the insistence for regime change on the part of the U.S. has often been at the expense of peace.

This policy of regime change is nothing new to the U.S. government and has often contributed to the instability that that they were attempting to eliminate. During the Cold War, the United States engaged in blatant orchestrations of regime change, such as those in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and Brazil in 1964, with the justification of ensuring democracy abroad. A fear of communism from the Soviet Union gave these interventions a guise of necessity and justice. Today the U.S. government has declared a similar, intangible enemy- terror.  Here is a brief list and history of the countries in which the United States has contributed to regime change in the past few decades:

1. Panama, or Operation Just Cause (1989)

Why? In 1977, Jimmy Carter signed the Torrijos-Carter Treaties to start the process of giving the control of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian government, as its necessity for trade and military operations had long been declining. These treaties, though, were passed with a provision that the United States was allowed to defend the Canal should there be any interference with its operation.

Flash forward to the late 1980s and we see Manuel Noriega as Panama’s dictator and leader of the Panama Defense Force (PDF). President George H.W. Bush began to recognize the evidence of fraud and involvement of drug trafficking in Noriega’s regime. There was also evidence of Noriega shifting his alliances towards the Soviet Bloc, where they had before been with the U.S. Though more complicated than this, the last straw for the United States was Noriega’s nullification of the results of the May 1989 elections in Panama.

How? The U.S. launched a military invasion of Panama in late December of 1989.  Estimates vary, but between 500 and 1,000 people were killed in the invasion. Though the U.S. military sank his boat and shot down his jet, Noriega remained at large for several days, seeking refuge in the Vatican Embassy in Panama City. How did the military manage to draw him out? Operation Nifty Package. Turning to psychological warfare, the U.S. Army blasted rock music through loudspeakers in order to facilitate Noriega’s surrender.

Justification? The U.S. gave four points of justification for their invasion of Panama. The first was the protection of the some 35,000 U.S. citizens who lived in Panama. Second, the protection of human rights and democracy. Third, attempts to limit drug trafficking. Fourth, adherence to the Torrijos-Carter Treaties and protection of the Panama Canal. After all, these treaties gave the United States military the ability to interfere when the Canal’s operation was threatened.

Afterwards? Noriega was sentenced to around forty years in prison at trial in the United States. Guillermo Endara was sworn in as president in Panama, though he continuously denounced the U.S. invasion.

2. US Intervention in Afghanistan, or Operation Enduring Freedom (2001)

Why? The Taliban gained power in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviet forces in the late 1980s. Based on an extreme interpretation of Islamic law, the Taliban led a government intolerant towards many personal liberties. After the 9/11 attacks in New York, the U.S. launched Operation Enduring Freedom. The goal of the operation was to remove the Taliban government from power in Afghanistan, who they believed was granting asylum to al-Qaeda members like Osama bin Laden.

How? Operation Enduring Freedom lasted from 2001 to 2014 and involved massive U.S.-led airstrikes on Afghanistan, as well as other various types of warfare.

Justification? The war in Afghanistan and the attempts to overthrow the Taliban-led government were considered counterterrorism efforts.

Afterwards? The Taliban government was ousted within 102 days of the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, though the war continued. The United States government fully supported the new government of President Hamid Karzai and maintained military presence in the country in order to help his regime stabilize and continue the fight against the Taliban. More than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died as a direct result of the war in Afghanistan. The economic and political turmoil continues, to this day, to affect the lives of those in Afghanistan.

3. Invasion of Iraq (2003)

Why?  Signed in 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act stated the official U.S. policy of supporting “efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”. This came after growing evidence of Hussein’s use of chemical warfare and concealment of weapons of mass destruction. Following 9/11 and Bush’s announcement of the “War on Terror,” efforts to destabilize Hussein’s regime increased. Supposed connections between Hussein and al-Qaeda furthered the Bush administration's push towards regime change.

How? Bombing began on March 19th in Baghdad. Thousands of U.S. troops were deployed and met little resistance. On May 1, Bush declared an end to the major combat. Hussein was captured seven months later, effectively ending his regime in Iraq.

Justification? The U.S. cited humanitarian abuses in Iraq as well as Hussein’s supposed connection to al-Qaeda and production of mass weapons.

Afterwards? In the absence of Hussein, someone had to take over in the face of huge outbreaks of violence and crime that followed the invasion. The U.S. tried to be this force, though they were met with extreme resistance that amounted to civil war and the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. The United States occupation of Iraq is said to have left a vacuum in the country that created perfect conditions for new generations of terrorism and Islamic radicalism to grow. The U.S. did not officially withdraw from the country until 2011.  

4. Honduran coup (2009)

Why? On orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, the army ousted and exiled President Manuel Zelaya in 2009. This came after Zelaya attempted to promote a non binding referendum on whether or not to call a constituent assembly rewrite the constitution.

How? The Supreme Court saw this as unconstitutional and forcibly removed Zelaya from office and from the country without trial, establishing a military-led interim government until the November 2009 elections. These were also overseen by the military. The United States’ involvement in this regime change came after the fact, mostly through its lack of condemnation of the military coup. In fact, Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, supported the efforts to keep Zelaya from office. In her book Hard Choices, Clinton writes, “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico.” She admits that they “strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

Justification? Political and economic interests that the U.S. held in Latin America may have influenced their reaction towards the coup, including Palmerola Air Base .

Afterwards? The fact that the United States backed the post-coup government gives it at least some of the responsibility for the state of Honduras after ousting Zelaya. Violence in the country, already high, skyrocketed. The homicide rate increased by 50%, drug and gang violence ran rampant, and government corruption was worsened by the complete collapse of the existing institutions. Though the U.S. did not stage this coup, the fact that they supported the post-coup regime speaks to priorities greater than freedom from military influence in Latin America.

5. Libya (2011) 

Why? The Libyan Civil War began in 2011, inspired by the events of the Arab Spring taking place right next door. Protests against the government and its leader Muammar Gaddafi were the catalyst for a violent pushback from Gaddafi and the Libyan army. Rebel groups gained the support of NATO in the face of growing violence, including accusations of airstrikes against the rebel groups. Multiple states called for a no-fly zone over Libya.

How? The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, authorizing military intervention in the country. A few days later, NATO launched huge airstrikes in Libya to oust the Gaddafi regime. After around seven months, the rebel forces gained the upper hand and brutally killed Gaddafi.

Justification? NATO and the U.S. cited the necessity to intervene on behalf of the Libyans who were subject to his violent suppression of protests.

Afterwards? Many believe that western intervention did more harm than good. For one, the U.S. and the CIA began advising Libyan rebel groups on weapons and tactics from the very beginning of the Civil War and secretly shipped them weapons through Qatar. These weapons, though, did not necessarily stay with the Libyan rebels and became a source of international contention when they fell into the hands of Islamic militant groups, opening the country up for more violence and the Islamic State.

This abridged history of the United States’ tendency to intervene in order to facilitate regime change, though it doesn’t include every example, is especially relevant now in light of their actions in Syria in order to get rid of Assad , including supplying Syrian rebel groups with heavy weapons from Libya and creating an opening for the Islamic State.

Jeffrey Sachs comments on the United States’ foreign policy tool of regime change in an op-ed:

"Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point.”

Though his article comments specifically on Hillary Clinton’s role in this trend, one that is admittedly difficult to ignore, his comments make room for a discussion on the consequences of America’s foreign intervention in the Middle East. Perhaps the tendency of this pattern to repeat itself should act as a warning for the U.S. to tread carefully when dealing with the arming of rebel groups to topple an existing regime.

-Alexie Schwartz           

Water Conflict Will Plague the 21st Century

This week, up to 10 million residents of New Delhi lost access to water after protestors in a caste conflict blocked a key canal into the city. The ability of a small group to paralyze a metropolis’s access to water reflects the increasing role this resource plays in 21st century conflicts.  

Many of today’s major conflicts can be traced to water scarcity. These conflicts include:

• Syria – Devastating droughts in 2006 caused as many as 1.5 million farmers to migrate into the major cities. In 2011, many of these migrants, with no economic prospects in either the city or the countryside, fueled the pro-democracy protests that triggered the Syrian Civil War.

• Nigeria – Lake Chad, in northern Nigeria, once provided ample land for farming and grazing. A series of droughts and poor irrigation management has caused the Lake to lose 90 percent of its original size. This depletion has led to conflicts between Muslim cattle-herders and Christian farmers that struggle over the scarce amount of land left in Northern Nigeria and over land in denser rural areas south of Lake Chad. Boko Haram – the world’s deadliest terrorist organization – has exploited this crisis by attacking vulnerable areas around the depleted Lake Chad and using Christian farmers’ attacks on Muslim cattle-herders as justification for barbaric violence.

• Yemen – In this Arabian Peninsula nation undergoing a sectarian-fueled civil war, 50 percent of the population struggles to obtain clean water. Faulty irrigation techniques have forced the nation to rely on depleting groundwater preserves. The depletion of groundwater reserves in regions dominated by followers of a Yemeni Shiite-movement called the Houthis forced many Houthis to migrate from their farmland into the major cities. These same Houthis, unable to find employment in the cities, have now toppled the Yemeni president and are fighting a civil war over control of the nation.

Rapid urbanization allows water to be used as a weapon of war. As seen by the New Delhi canal crisis, water supply can be weaponized best in urban environments with weak infrastructure. This tactic has been used heavily in Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, which is divided between regime forces, rebel militias, and ISIS. These different entities all control the water supply into Aleppo at different locations and have actively pursued methods to deprive rival entities access to water. A December 2015 bombing of an Aleppo water treatment plant that deprived 3.5 million residents access to water is credited with helping the Assad regime gain traction in its ongoing advance on Aleppo.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

In Somalia’s civil war, the Somali army has gained back much of the territory lost to terrorist organization, al-Shabaab. Despite losing this territory, al-Shabaab still manages to remain a menace on the Somali population by burying boreholes that provide water to liberated cities. Somalis in these areas must rely on humanitarian airdrops or venture to the militant-controlled wells, where they may be killed or forcibly recruited.

Water scarcity magnifies the risk of future conflict in many areas already prone to violence. The Tigris and Euphrates river basin -- known as the Mesopotamian cradle of civilization -- provides water and fertile land to Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The rivers start in Eastern Turkey, flow through a small portion of Syria, before cutting through the center of Iraq into the Persian Gulf. These two rivers provide Iraq with 98 percent of its freshwater supply. Among the most vital elements of Iraq’s conflict with ISIS are major dams on both the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. With control over enough of these dams, ISIS (or any other organization, for that matter), can cut off Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, crippling the Iraqi state further.

However, ISIS is not the only threat that Iraq faces in coming years. After the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the Iraqi government has governed a fragile state -- failing to overcome sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims and ethnic tensions between Kurds and Arabs. On the other hand, in Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has ruled over an increasingly aggressive country willing to assert itself as a regional power. Turkey currently is constructing a $35.5 billion dam and irrigation system, which will create a total of 22 dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river system. The dams already built cut Iraq’s water supply by 50 percent in the first half of 2015. While ISIS is a formidable and frightening foe, it recently lost ground to the Iraqi army in major strongholds such as Ramadi and Fallujah. With international support, the Iraqi army should be able to eliminate ISIS as an existential threat. What remains to be seen, however, is how Iraq will handle Turkey’s water hoarding once it is not as distracted.

In 11 countries, over one-fifth of urban populations do not have access to improved water sources, which include public taps, boreholes, or piped connection. These areas include South Sudan and Equatorial Guinea -- both nations in which urban water access can fuel conflict. In South Sudan, currently going through a civil war just five years after independence, locals must rely on either international aid organizations or al-Shabaab-esque warlords for water. Equatorial Guinea, on the other hand, is a politically stable nation under the 37-year authoritarian rule of Teodoro Obiang Ngueme Mbasogo. However, if and when Mbasogo leaves office -- through illness or a coup -- control over the water in Equatorial Guinea will prolong the natural course of regime change and bring severe instability to the formerly repressive, yet stable nation.

In 1995, the World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin declared that “if the wars of this century were fought over oil, the wars of the next century will be fought over water.” Fifteen years into the next century, signs show that, unfortunately, Serageldin has been proven right.

- Harris Mateen 

Death of Conservative Legend Supreme Court Justice Scalia Leaves the Future Wide Open

SOURCE: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

          There are few countries in the world where judges can have as much power as they do in America, and there have been few American judges as influential as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. His death on February 13th marks the passing of one of the true heavyweights of US politics. The news was met with tributes from across the board, although this was soon followed by debate and controversy, something that Scalia saw plenty of in his lifetime. Let alone the mixed feelings about the role he has played over the last few decades, there is also the question of who will replace him as the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States. This is a decision that could have profound effects on the future of America’s laws, politics, and lifestyle.

             The American political system is full of peculiarities, one of which is certainly the immense influence of the Supreme Court. Set up to be one of the three branches of government along with the Presidency and Congress, the Supreme Court gained the crucial role of judicial review almost accidentally after the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Judicial review is when the court reviews whether or not laws made by the President or Congress are in line with the Constitution. So whenever you hear a debate about whether or not something is constitutional, it is the nine Supreme Court Justices who ultimately decide. They can even strike down state or federal laws approved by Congress and the President. Over the years, this has resulted in the court making some groundbreaking decisions, ranging from denying African Americans US citizenship in 1857 to legalizing gay marriage in 2015.

             Once appointed, Supreme Court Justices serve for life, which, although democratically questionable, further extends the influence individual justices can have. Scalia was appointed by President Reagan back in 1986, and he was never afraid to voice his opinions throughout his tenure in the court. He was the leading supporter of the originalist and textualist approach to the Constitution in the Supreme Court, which means focusing on the words of the Constitution alone, and treating its meaning as fixed. That means abiding by the exact words of the Constitution as they were intended to mean when written by the authors in 1789. This is a divisive stance, leaving some in disbelief that we should be so bound to the ideas of 200 years ago, while reassuring others that the Constitution is the cornerstone of conservative American values. For a long time now, five of the nine judges in the court have been considered as adhering to this conservative interpretation of the law, with many rulings being decided on a five to four vote. Hence there is a certain amount of panic in Washington over what his death could mean for the future of US politics.

            Scalia oversaw some of the most dramatic supreme court decisions in US history. Just recently these included the legalization of gay marriage with Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and the approval of President Obama’s health care laws with King v. Burwell  (2015). However, arguably Scalia played a greater role in some of the more conservative rulings of recent years such the notorious decision to reduce campaign finance regulation with Davis v. FEC (2008), the striking down of gun control laws in D.C. v. Heller (2008), and the ruling against affirmative action with Parents Involved v. Seattle (2007). This is not to mention Bush v. Gore (2000), a ruling that effectively decided the 2000 Presidential Elections, which we all know could have sent the US in a very different direction than where it is today. Together these cases involved many of the most pressing topics in US politics, and in each case, Scalia’s influence certainly played a major role.

            The Supreme Court now lies balanced with roughly four liberal and four conservative judges. Balance might sound healthy, but it could potentially wreak havoc when it comes to actually making final decisions. Furthermore, it cannot be underestimated how important the next choice of Supreme Court Justice could be. Whether conservative or liberal, the stance of the new justice is likely to dominate Supreme Court decisions and therefore US legislation for the years to come. All of the Republican presidential candidates have already declared that President Obama should not appoint a new judge in his final year in office, and that the decision should be decided by the next president. Unsurprisingly, candidates Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders have said conversely that it would be outrageous not to let the President use his authority granted in the constitution, an opinion that Scalia might have had to agree with. 

          However, Obama’s decision might not matter because Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already brazenly suggested that the Senate will not even hold a vote on any candidate for Supreme Court Justice appointed by Obama. Besides, even if there was a vote, the Republican-controlled Senate would be very unlikely to vote in favor. This makes the presidential election even more important. Whomever does eventually choose the next justice could be making a decision that will reverberate throughout US politics, just as Reagan’s choice of Scalia did in 1986.

- Xan Northcott