Home AuthorsAll posts by Andrea Zachrich
Author

Andrea Zachrich
Environmental ChangeFeaturedGlobalization

The Economics of Preventing Global Warming

written by Andrea Zachrich

In the same week in October of 2018 that a UN climate report was released outlining the devastating future effects of climate change, Bill Nordhaus, an economics professor at Yale, was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work designing an effective carbon tax model that could be used to slow, and even prevent, further global warming. The UN climate report warned of dire consequences stemming from climate change that could arrive much sooner than scientists previously anticipated if the world does not reverse the current trend of rising temperatures1. Nordhaus’ work however, provides some hope among the consistently doomsday-like coverage of climate change. His carbon tax model offers a financial incentive to both individuals and corporations to limit emissions and in turn halt the current global temperature increase2. While Nordhaus himself is not particularly optimistic about the successful implementation of his research in the United States due to the current state of its politics, governments such as that of British Columbia in Canada and California in the United States, have shown that Nordhaus’ carbon tax can be used successfully, and both states have the potential to serve as models for the eventual effective use of a carbon tax on a national scale.

The earth’s average temperature has already increased by 1° celsius since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800s. The UN Report, commissioned by leaders as part of the 2015 Paris Climate Accord and released in October 2017, details what would happen if global temperatures increased on average by another half of a degree. Previous studies had focused on the effects of a 2° celsius increase as scientists believed this change would bring about the most dire effects of climate change. The new report, however, demonstrates that many of these consequences will occur with only the 1.5° rise in temperatures, a full half degree lower than previously thought3. Droughts will increase in severity, ocean levels will rise, the frequency of heat waves will increase, biodiversity will decrease, and crop yields will go drastically down4. All of this is expected to happen as early as 2040 if we continue to release greenhouse gases at the same rate we do now, which is easily within the lifetime of much of the population on earth5. If there is any hope to stop this temperature increase, drastic changes must be made. These include increasing the use of renewable energy to 67% of all energy use up from its current rate of 20%, as well as decreasing coal use to between 1% and 7% of all energy use from 40% currently6. While this may seem like an unrealistic goal, there are some strategies to reduce carbon emissions that have been proven to work. Specifically, the 2018 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, Bill Nordhaus, has done research and created plans to show that carbon taxes along with an international body to keep countries accountable might just help reverse this problem.

On its face, Nordhaus’ economic model is simple – tax carbon emissions per ton released into the atmosphere. The idea is that when you give corporations a financial incentive to change their behavior, they will start to find more cost-effective ways to harness clean energy without the government having to regulate or cap their emissions. Today, one ton of carbon emissions costs about eight dollars to produce at its raw cost7. But, if that number were to be raised through taxes, consumers would begin to demand that corporations use cleaner energy because it would lower the cost of goods and services. Nordhaus believes that $30 per ton would be enough, while the UN report on Climate Change advocates for a higher price, closer to $155 per ton8,9. The number must be high enough to incentivize companies and consumers to change their habits while simultaneously being low enough that businesses do not suffer excessively while they are making the transition to cleaner fuel sources. Nordhaus acknowledges that there is likely to be political pushback in the US against a carbon tax, especially from energy corporations and citizens who do not wish to see an increase in cost of living. But he points out that other large programs that required tax increases such as Social Security and Medicare once evoked fierce opposition, but now see widespread support. The taxes, he argues, can not only reduce carbon emission, but can also be used to help pay for essential services to citizens while also cutting down on carbon emissions10. Some places that have implemented carbon taxes such as British Columbia have actually returned the revenues back to their citizens in the form of income tax rebates11. He also mentions that most other countries would encounter fewer problems with this tax than the US, stating “in other countries, people are grown-up, and they can live with taxes”12. The US, however, given its status as an economic power and the largest greenhouse gas emitter per capita, would likely have to be assume a leadership role in implementing and pressuring countries to similarly implement a carbon tax for the model to effectively curb global warming due to the country’s large economy.

In order for a carbon tax to effectively halt carbon emissions and ease global temperatures increases all countries would have to implement one. To enforce worldwide implementation of the tax, Nordhaus proposes an international regulatory body or alliance should be created, something that he calls the “Climate Club”13. Those countries that are not in the “club” or that fail to meet the taxation and regulation standards would be subject to tariffs on goods from all the countries in the climate club. He argues that current climate agreements, which are essentially voluntary and lack an enforcement mechanism, do not provide the necessary incentives for nations to reduce their carbon emissions14. Similar to the carbon tax, Nordhaus’ “climate club” also uses capitalist market forces to motivate countries to tax and regulate their carbon emissions.

The carbon tax itself is not an untested idea. So far, Australia, Portugal, British Columbia, and California, among others, have all implemented a version of the policy with varying degrees of success. Successes and failures of carbon pricing in these isolated incidences can demonstrate how a similar policy could be implemented nation-wide or even globally.

California, for example, uses what is called a cap and trade system, which sets a “cap” on the total amount of carbon emissions per ton that can be produced in a year in certain sectors of the economy or for the geographic region as a whole15. Businesses then purchase allowances or credits equal to the number of tons of carbon they intend to emit and can buy and trade for these credits up to the limit if they pollute more or less. Although California’s current price per ton is around $15, lower than both Nordhaus and the UN recommend, the plan has been lowering carbon production in the sectors it covers, which is mainly concerned with the creation of power16. The state is hoping to both raise the price of carbon and expand the tax to cover carbon emissions from cars – the largest emission source in the state. Currently, revenue generated from the cap and trade program is being spent on increasing the use of electric cars, clearing brush out of forests at risk of catching fire, grants for “Climate Smart Agriculture”, and replacing high-pollution motors with cleaner ones17. While the tax has been fairly popular in California, there are concerns about similar ones being implemented nationwide because California tends to lean more liberal than the rest of the US.

In addition to California, British Columbia has also implemented a successful carbon tax program, in terms of both reduction of carbon emissions and popular support from citizens and businesses. British Columbia has a “flat tax” system that does not put a cap on yearly carbon emissions but instead taxes polluters after the fact. The tax, which charges around 20 US dollars per ton of carbon pollution, has reduced carbon emissions between 10-15 percent since its inception in 200818. Starting this year, the tax will go up 10 Canadian dollars (about 7.5 US dollars) a year every year indefinitely in an attempt to combat falling gas prices19. While there was initial skepticism and dislike of the tax, in 2016, only 32% of British Columbians opposed it. The province managed to gain this support by ensuring that carbon tax dollars were given back to the people in the form of cuts to corporate and personal income tax rates20. Business owners in the region have expressed support for the tax as a less invasive way for the government to regulate carbon emissions. British Columbia’s economy has also grown faster than its neighbors while this policy has been in place, quashing fears that the tax would harm the economy. Moreover, British Columbia’s carbon tax may be the broadest in the world. Unlike the EU and California, the policy taxes all carbon emissions, not just those from specific sectors of the economy. It is likely that this type of tax – a flat rate on all emissions – rather than a cap and trade system that requires an accurate prediction of future emissions or a flat rate that only focuses on emissions from specific sectors, would be the most successful in lowering carbon emissions and creating a market force for companies to innovate and transition towards clean energy.

It is unlikely that the Trump Administration, being led by a president who pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 and has repeatedly denied or downplayed the threat of climate change, will enact any meaningful climate change legislation. The United States however, as one of the leading polluters in the world, needs to lead the way in advocating for the implementation of Nordhaus’ carbon tax and “climate club”. If the US, along with its European allies, managed to establish a “climate club”, their tariffs would have tremendous influence on non-complying countries due to the sheer size of the American and European economies.

Additionally, in terms of policy creation, this issue is both bipartisan and would benefit both sides of the political aisle. Even Republicans could be persuaded to support the tax if it is framed as a way to deregulate businesses by imposing a tax rather than government being more involved in dictating to the private sector how much they can pollute. Moreover, the most effective tax would likely be a blanket tax on all carbon emissions for people and businesses alike rather than a cap and trade program. As stated in the UN Climate Report, the amount per ton of carbon may need to be quite high to effectively curb carbon emissions, but it does not necessarily have to start that high if it would help the policy generate public support. Lastly, the taxes collected need to be given back to the people directly, whether that be through health care vouchers, a lower income tax, or even education rebates, so that the policy has popular support from the American people. If the US can lead the way on climate policy, it is likely that the rest of world would follow, and that we might have a chance to reverse the effects of global warming.

The UN report released in October details catastrophic results affecting the entire world if we fail to eliminate or drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This is a global issue, and the problem must be addressed on a global stage. Bill Nordhaus’ carbon tax and a “Climate Club” model would be an effective mechanism to do so. The United States, with its historic global influence and large economy, is the most logical leader for this international push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While it is unlikely that the current administration will be willing to enact legislation to save the planet, there is hope that as the effects of climate change become more apparent, Americans, and citizens from around the world, will push for climate policies like these and our leaders will follow.

 

  1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5℃. United Nations, 2018.
  2. Gleckman, Howard. “Bill Nordhaus, The Nobel Prize, Climate Change and Carbon Taxes.” Forbes, 10 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5℃. United Nations, 2018.
  4. Plumer, Brad & Popovich, Nadja. “Why Half a Degree of Global Warming Is a Big Deal.” The New York Times, 7 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  5. Davenport, Coral. “Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040”. The New York Times, 7 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  6. Davenport, Coral. “Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.” The New York Times, 7 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  7. Plumer, Brad. “New U.N. Climate Report Says Put a High Price on Carbon.” The New York Times, 8 October 2018, Accessed 14 January 2019.
  8. Gleckman, Howard. “Bill Nordhaus, The Nobel Prize, Climate Change and Carbon Taxes.” Forbes, 10 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5℃. United Nations, 2018.
  10. Davenport, Coral. “After Nobel in Economics, William Nordhaus Talks About Who’s Getting His Pollution-Tax Ideas Right.” The New York Times, 13 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  11. Porter, Eduardo. “Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia.” The New York Times, 1 March 2016. Accessed 19 January 2019.
  12. Davenport, Coral. “After Nobel in Economics, William Nordhaus Talks About Who’s Getting His Pollution-Tax Ideas Right.” The New York Times, 13 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  13. Gleckman, Howard. “Bill Nordhaus, The Nobel Prize, Climate Change and Carbon Taxes.” Forbes, 10 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  14. Gleckman, Howard. “Bill Nordhaus, The Nobel Prize, Climate Change and Carbon Taxes.” Forbes, 10 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  15. Johnson, Nathanael. “California makes big money from its carbon pricing program. Who gets it?” Grist, 31 January 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  16. Ball, Jeffrey. “Why Carbon Pricing Isn’t Working.” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016. Accessed 13 January 2018.
  17. Johnson, Nathanael. “California makes big money from its carbon pricing program. Who gets it?” Grist, 31 January 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
  18. Porter, Eduardo. “Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia.” The New York Times, 1 March 2016. Accessed 19 January 2019.
  19. Porter, Eduardo. “Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia.” The New York Times, 1 March 2016. Accessed 19 January 2019.
  20. Porter, Eduardo. “Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia.” The New York Times, 1 March 2016. Accessed 19 January 2019.

 

April 26, 2019 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
EuropeFeaturedGlobal HealthImmigrationPopulism

Measles: Europe’s Underreported Epidemic

written by Andrea Zachrich

Worldwide, measles cases have been declining for decades, but in Europe there has been a dangerous reversal of that trend throughout the last several years. In 2016, there were 5,273 cases of measles recorded in Europe, an all-time low. Yet, in 2017, the number of cases jumped to 23,927. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in the first 6 months of 2018, there were over 41,000 recorded cases and 37 fatalities, and that number continues to grow.

Measles is a highly contagious infectious disease spread through airborne particles exhaled by an infected individual. About 1 percent of all cases are fatal and the disease can cause permanent harm. In some cases, the disease can result in permanent hearing loss or affect brain functioning and development. Although Europe’s recent measles outbreak is a seemingly insignificant issue that’s consequences are often ignored, its roots can be traced in part to other, more notable European phenomenons such as populism, disruption of healthcare due to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and poor funding, and massive waves of immigration.

Over the last several years, Europe has witnessed a resurgence of right-wing populism and ethno-nationalism in many countries, embodied by the politics of Viktor Orban of Hungary, Beppe Grillo of Italy, and Marine Le Pen of France, among others. Many of these populist politicians show a deep distrust of the scientific community and their research, including those regarding vaccines. As such, many have claimed that vaccines are harmful in spite of vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. Some, such as Grillo, founder of Italy’s Five Star Movement, have explicitly linked vaccines and autism. In July, Italy passed a law reversing their parliament’s earlier requirement that parents have documentation of 10 vaccines before sending their children to school. The popular myth that there is a link between vaccines and autism can be traced back to a now-debunked 1998 study by British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield. The study was shown to have used falsified data and Wakefield has since lost his medical license. Moreover, numerous studies since have found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Despite this, many still cite Wakefield’s paper to support their opposition to vaccines. Marine Le Pen, the French right-wing politician and 2017 presidential candidate, voiced her opposition to a bill in parliament requiring school-aged children to be vaccinated, citing a lack of long-term evidence of the effects of vaccines, despite the fact that such evidence exists. Additionally, in France, the trust citizens have in vaccines is alarmingly low; 41 percent of people surveyed in France disagree that vaccines are safe. Other European countries hit hard by the recent measles outbreak, such as Ukraine and Greece, also show low levels of trust, and having high ranking members of globally powerful governments discussing the links between vaccines and diseases certainly won’t help. This political rhetoric and the distrust of a once widely-respected scientific community by populist politicians is already having- and therefore likely will continue to have- dire effects on global health.

In addition, another cause of the spike in measles cases in Europe can be traced to Ukraine and the disruption of its healthcare system due to violence. Ukraine was home to over half the measles cases from 2018. Experts have blamed Russia’s invasion of the Crimea, a small peninsula on the Black Sea, for the disruption of health care services that have prevented many Ukrainians from receiving vaccinations. In addition to the invasion, the Ukrainian healthcare system requires individuals to pay higher out of pocket fees for services than those in other European countries. Ukraine’s share of healthcare spending out of pocket is the second-highest in Eastern Europe at around 50 percent. Cost to the patient is thus a strong motivator for Ukrainians not to get vaccinated. While there are plans to reform this system, Ukrainians continue to pay more than their Eastern European counterparts in the meantime. With a healthcare system that disincentivizes vaccinations for many through high out of pocket fees and a war that has prohibited it for others, it’s no wonder the European measles outbreak has hit Ukraine particularly hard.

The final piece of Europe’s measles puzzle can be traced to the continent’s ongoing migrant crisis. Between 2013 and 2016 the number of applications for asylum in Europe jumped from 354,000 to 1.1 million per year, with a peak of 1.23 million in 2015. Since these migrants- most of whom are of Middle Eastern and North African descent- are escaping violence in their home countries, many of them haven’t received the measles vaccine like their European neighbors have. This has led to huge outbreaks of the disease in popular refugee destinations such as Greece, which had 173,000 migrants living in reception centers or camps in 2016. At the time, Greece was not routinely offering vaccines to adult migrants (although they were giving them to children). Greece also waits to offer vaccines until migrants are living at the holding or the community level, thus missing the opportunity to vaccinate people as they arrive. Italy– another migrant haven due to its location on the Mediterranean- has exhibited similar problems with vaccinating migrants entering the country. This influx of unvaccinated adult migrants combined with the existing population’s low vaccination rate has too been partially responsible for the measles flare-up in Europe.

The often ignored measles outbreak can therefore best be understood as a symptom of the larger, more reported trends in Europe such as right-wing populism, Russia’s invasion of the Crimea, and the high level of Muslim immigrants entering the continent. With these cultural and political shifts unlikely to change anytime soon, it is of the utmost importance that European countries, the EU, or even the WHO pursue tactics to address the disease and become more aggressive in their vaccination efforts. Possible solutions include education campaigns for new parents or for young school children, a push for stronger vaccination laws, and vaccination requirements for all immigrants – not just the children. Vaccines have extraordinarily high success rates and have saved countless lives, but they require upwards of 95 percent of the population to be vaccinated in order to prevent an outbreak of the disease. In September of 2017, measles was declared dead in England, meaning that it had low enough case numbers for three years to determine that it was not spreading through the population. This decision was reversed earlier this year. It should be a public health goal to declare measles dead in all of Europe. With vaccines being the only tool we have at our disposal, it is of the utmost importance that governments, the EU, and GNO’s alike make widespread vaccination a priority.

October 4, 2018 0 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Donald TrumpEnvironmental ChangeEuropeFeaturedGeopoliticsInternational TradeInterviewMilitaryNorth KoreaNuclear DeterrenceSecurity and ConflictThe International EconomyUnited States

Adam Schiff: Bernard Brodie Lecture and Interview

written by Andrea Zachrich

Congressman Adam Schiff came to UCLA to give the Bernard Brodie Lecture on the Conditions of Peace on May 31st of this year. Before the lecture, members of The Generation were fortunate enough to sit down with Congressman Schiff and ask him questions about the House Intelligence Committee- of which he is currently the Ranking Member- his responsibility to his constituents and the American people, democratic institutions and the rule of law, and the reputation of the United States internationally. He echoed and elaborated on many of these topics during his lecture and audience questions, which we were also able to attend following the interview. While there has been a summer that has past since the time of interview, many of his comments remain relevant as we’ve watched President Trump’s antics unfold over the past few months.

Congressman Schiff has a great sense of humor. He began the lecture by telling an anecdote about when President Trump called him “sleazy”. Schiff said that he felt the need to explain to his son what had happened in case the other children at school talked about it. He told his son that “the President called your dad sleazy”, and his son, wholly unconcerned, replied, “Can I call you sleazy?”  Congressman Schiff used humor frequently throughout his lecture to highlight the absurdity of some of the administration’s recent actions, such as President Trump calling Vladimir Putin to congratulate him on his win. He even went so far as to mimic how that phone conversation might have gone, which had the entire audience laughing.

In the interview with us, however, Congressman Schiff’s tone was markedly more serious. We began by asking him about the partisanship on his committee in the House of Representatives, which is the House Select Intelligence Committee. The committee has been charged with conducting an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible connections between President Trump and members of his team and Russia. Despite the traditionally bipartisan nature of the Intelligence Committee, Schiff noted that one particular instance- what he called the “midnight run“– which divided the committee along partisan lines. The “run” occurred in March of 2017 when Republican Chairman Devin Nunes went to an undisclosed location to reportedly receive classified materials unmasking a conspiracy that claimed that the Obama administration had done surveillance on members of President Trump’s transition team. Nunes then went to the White House to present this evidence. However in a matter of days it as revealed that the supposedly undisclosed location was the White House. Schiff states, “But we learned within a matter of days that in fact the secret location he had gone too had been the White House and the materials he had received were from the White House that he was presenting to the White House.That kind of blew up the investigation because it became clear that the mission for the chairman was to protect the President at all costs rather than doing an objective investigation. The incident troubled Schiff for illustrating Nunes’ blatant disregard for the committee’s constitutional duty and for demonstrating the vastly different goals of its members.

We then asked Schiff what would change on his committee if Democrats win a majority in the House in the upcoming midterm elections and he becomes chairman. His first priority, he said, would be a return to “comity” on the committee, and blames the current chairman Nunes’ divisive actions for the current level of partisanship. When asked a similar question during the lecture, Schiff responded that he would like his committee to “get back in the oversight business”. Based on some recent special election results, Schiff may get his wish for his committee from the midterm elections. In a recent special election in Ohio, the vote came down to closer than 1 percent in a district that has had Republican representation in Congress for 35 years, the past incumbent consistently cruised to victory by 10 percentage points, and where Trump beat Hillary Clinton by a whooping 11 percent. These election results, while not representative of the entire nation, have led many to predict that Democrats may shortly regain the majority in Congress, making Congressman Schiff the leader of the House Intelligence Committee.

On a different note, one idea that Schiff kept highlighting throughout both the interview and his lecture was the breakdown of democratic institutions and the rule of law, and how this is affecting the U.S.’s reputation and negotiating power abroad. Schiff even went so far as to say “I think that the health of our democracy is very much at risk”. He mentioned numerous examples that ranged from President Trump’s tendency to ban reporters from news outlets he doesn’t like such as the New York Times and BBC from press briefings, to discussing the possibility of him pardoning himself for any possible crimes he may be charged with in the future. Additionally, the president’s constant Twitter tirades about the “fake news” press and special counsel Robert Mueller’s Investigation have led many of his supporters to distrust both the press and the Justice Department. The United States was downgraded from a full to a flawed democracy by the “Economist Intelligence Unit” the year Trump came into office, and has remained in the flawed category for its 2018 ranking, currently ranked 21 out of 167 countries for its democracy score. It seems as though Schiff may well be justified in worrying about the state of our democracy.

On a similar note, Schiff also noted his concerns with the way the rest of the world currently views the US, stating “our America first and everyone else be damned has really left us isolated and the rest of the world deeply concerned”. As evidence, he cited examples of this poor perception of America from our allies such as a Politico article titled “Leader of the Free World meets Donald Trump” referring to Angela Merkel, and Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. Since this interview, President Trump has continued to take actions that worry world leaders and isolate the U.S. on the world stage, such as placing tariffs on Chinese and European goods against the advice of most of the world’s economists and Trump’s troubling actions during and after June’s G7 meeting such as arriving late for the first meeting of the conference and acting outraged at Prime Minister Trudeau’s easily predictable retaliatory actions to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs. Congressman Schiff stated in the interview that “It’s hard to imagine a time when the United States has been held in lower regard around the world than right now”, but after Trump’s antics this summer, we may be even lower in the opinion of the world than we were in May when the interview was conducted.

This interview was conducted shortly before the first North Korea negotiations had occured. Congressman Schiff was glad to hear that the negotiations were back on after being canceled for a spell, but was concerned with this administration’s approach to North Korea, calling it “erratic and at times dangerous”. He warned that North Korea’s nuclear program was not going to be an easy problem to solve stating, “If it were not a hard problem, it would have been solved by any number of presidents in the past”. This statement has proven to be true since the interview. While President Trump and Kim Jong-Un did sit down for negotiations in June, the joint statement that came out of this was widely criticized as vague. President Trump conceded an important bargaining chip by agreeing to give up military exercises in South Korea while gaining no time table for denuclearization from the North Korean leader. Additionally, on August 24th President Trump called off talks between North Korean leaders and his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, citing concerns that not enough progress has been made in regards to the country’s denuclearization. Congressman Schiff’s warning has proven true; it seems that the problem of North Korean denuclearization has shown itself to be trickier than President Trump first believed it to be.

In a time where dishonorable behavior has come to be expected from the current administration, the political backbone displayed by Congressman Adam Schiff was refreshing. He asked his audience “What’s the point of being there [in Congress] if you’re not going to do what the country needs you to do when they need you to do it?” At one point during the lecture, he received an spontaneous round of applause from the audience after declaring he believes politicians should “do the right thing and still find a way to get reelected”.

It was a pleasure speaking with the Congressman and listening to his lecture, and it will be interesting to witness any potential changes within his Committee following the November midterm elections.

schiff 8

September 10, 2018 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Photo credits: Stanford University Hoover Institution
FeaturedGeopoliticsMiddle EastNorth KoreaRussiaSecuritySecurity and ConflictUCLA and the WorldUnited States

Condoleeza Rice and Amy Zegart: A Lecture on Political Risk and US Foreign Policy

written by Andrea Zachrich

Earlier this month, Condoleezza Rice and Amy Zegart visited UCLA to speak about their newly published book, “Political Risk: How Businesses and Organizations Can Anticipate Global Insecurities” and about other foreign policy issues. While a number of topics were covered, Rice and Zegart’s comments regarding North Korea’s nuclear program, Russia and its president Vladimir Putin, and nuclear and cyber risk trends were the most striking.

Personally, I found the discussion about the book fascinating because it takes a unique approach in that it focuses on how political risk can affect businesses. Both Rice and Zegart are extremely qualified to discuss this topic. Condoleezza Rice served as the 20th National Security Advisor and the 66th Secretary of State under George W. Bush. She is also a professor of political science and business at Stanford University. In the private sector, Rice headed the committee for public policy for Chevron and has also been on the board of directors for companies such as the Carnegie Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, and Chevron, among others. Similarly, Zegart has a background in international security. She currently serves as co-director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford. Zegart is considered a leading expert on the US Intelligence Community and national security. She has a PhD in political science from Stanford and has published three books on this topic. She also has private sector experience, and worked for the consulting firm McKinsey & Company where she advised Fortune 100 companies.

Political risk, as defined by the speakers in an article for the Harvard-Review is “essentially the probability that a political action will significantly affect their business—whether positively or negatively”. During the discussion, the speakers emphasized that while political risk has always been a factor for multi-national businesses, it is a more pressing issue today due to several recent trends around the world. One example the speakers discussed was social media. Social media makes collective action such as protests and boycotts by ordinary citizens much easier and more effective. Using social media can decrease the costs of coordination and spreads messages around the globe quickly. Small groups of people can have much larger effect in their communities and the world than ever before. This collective action may increase political risk by disrupting normal business functions such as shipping of materials and goods or governmental oversight functions. These effects were seen in the Arab Spring which began in 2010. This series of revolutions resulted in government overthrows in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, and civil war in Syria. Many of the protests were organized on sites like Facebook, and protesters used social media as a platform to share their stories and generate awareness for their cause on a global scale. Social media use in this time was so prolific among users who had access to it that the Arab Spring has been dubbed both the “Facebook Revolution” and “Twitter Revolution”.

When asked about the drivers of the changes in political risk, Rice and Zegart gave a number of possible explanations. One is the changing geopolitical landscape. The speakers asserted that we all have taken for granted the liberal world order established after World War II. Over the last 70 years, there has been a general and almost worldwide belief in the benefits of free trade, capitalism, and open economies that more and more countries bought into. The post-war period saw the establishment of international regulatory committees such as the International Monetary Fund in 1945 whose stated goal is to “build a framework for economic cooperation” among countries. The idea was that countries who trade with one another and have diplomatic relations are less likely to go to war. According to the speakers, this liberal worldview is being challenged globally by what Rice and Zegart jokingly called the “four horsemen of the apocalypse”: Populism, nationalism, isolationism, and protectionism. These ideological shifts are exemplified by the recent unilateral tariffs placed on steel and aluminum by President Trump, an unprecedented move in today’s globalized economy. These tariffs raise the possibility of a trade war with China and possibly the EU, threatening businesses with supply chains running through these countries. In a world that is so undeniably and irreversibly connected, these four ideologies, and the policies they bring with them, do indeed seem apocalyptic.

Another reason for the changing “political risk landscape” identified by the speakers is that we are witnessing the emergence of great power rivalry between the United States and Russia in a way the world has not seen since the Cold War. The speakers asserted that as great powers behave badly, they substantially increase political risk. One example of this is Russia’s spread of fake news and propaganda in support of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump on Facebook and other social media outlets during the 2016 presidential election. While it is unclear if this propaganda affected the election results, Russian interference with the US on this scale has not been seen since the height of the Cold War. Russian meddling in US elections is a huge political risk for social media and technology companies, and one that is incredibly difficult to anticipate or prevent.

Another particularly insightful aspect of the conversation on political risk came from Rice and Zegart’s analysis of the different kinds of hazards associated with doing business in countries with authoritarian versus democratic governments. The speakers avoided giving a moral judgement on whether or not companies should conduct business in places with authoritarian regimes, and instead focused on the practicalities of it, stating that there are both advantages and disadvantages to doing business in each system of governments. In authoritarian states, companies can often do business efficiently, but they tend to lack both transparency and rule of law, which can be bad for business due to a lack of security and the threat of asset seizures. There is also no peaceful transfer of power, which can become an issue for companies if violence disrupts business. In contrast, doing business in a country with a democratic government typically ensures transparency and retention of property, but business may be less efficient due to burdensome regulations and large bureaucracies. While Rice and Zegart avoided making a determination as to which type of government was better for business, and instead emphasized that it is vital for businesses to understand the risks that are associated with both.

In addition to discussing their book, the speakers also discussed current foreign policy issues. Both Rice and Zegart had suggestions as to how the U.S should move forward regarding the upcoming nuclear negotiations with North Korea. Surprisingly, they don’t think that the US should try to negotiate with Kim Jong Un because such attempts have not been successful in the past. During Rice’s tenure as secretary of state, she tried to negotiate a nuclear deal with North Korea, which was unsuccessful. The speakers did however acknowledge that the current situation is unique because no previous president has had to negotiate with a nuclearized North Korea, and that negotiating with Kim Jong Un, while not recommended, may be necessary. They believe that there is a possibility that a deal could be struck, but that it will require nuanced and detailed discussions that need to be handled well with minimal negotiations. Rice, however, did not place much confidence in President Trump stating, “our President is someone whose first job in government is President”. Regardless, the speakers advocated for the US to take this opportunity, but for the administration not to forget that they are still dealing with Kim Jong Un. Rice also stated that she does not believe the US should pull their troops out of the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea because she believes that withdrawing military support would encourage Japan to remilitarize, causing even more tension in the region and possibly leading to an arms race between North Korea, China, and Japan.

The speakers also discussed recent happenings in Russia. Rice scrutinized Russian president Vladimir Putin as a leader, saying that, based on her past conversations with him, he believes that Russia has only been successfully ruled by “great men”, such as the czars of the past. He believes himself to be one of them in his quest to reestablish Russian influence worldwide. Rice stated, however, that Russia may attempt to offset their declining power by reasserting their military dominance. An example of this can be seen in Putin’s invasion of the Ukrainian region of Crimea and sending troops to support the Assad regime in Syria. In 2014, Putin invaded the Crimea, claiming that Crimeans wanted to separate from Ukraine while acting in defense against the spread of NATO. Despite the International Criminal Court calling this action a crime, Putin continues to keep troops in the region, perhaps as a way to display his military might in a world where Russia retains little diplomatic power. Similarly, Russia continues to send troops and military support to President Assad’s regime in Syria despite allegations of chemical weapon use and war crimes. Supporting Syria’s militarily allows Russia to maintain influence in the Middle East. Both actions demonstrate Russian attempts to display military power and influence at a time when Moscow has little diplomatic leverage.

Finally, Rice and Zegart discussed the four countries most likely to produce political risk in the form of nuclear development and cyber security issues. Rice called China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran the “Big Four” due to these countries’ threats to both company security and a country’s national security. Most of these state are sophisticated adversaries in cyber security. As discussed earlier, Russia, for example, has already displayed some of their cyber warfare capabilities during the 2016 election with a massive disinformation campaign. North Korea hacked Sony Picture Entertainment in 2014 to attempt to block the release of a movie that satirized Kim Jong Un. Their cyber attacks have only gotten more sophisticated since; in 2015 the country stole millions of dollars from the New York Federal reserve. In addition, when compared with countries such as North Korea and Iran, the US is asymmetrically vulnerable due to the number of internet users and the country’s digital connectivity. In North Korea, for example, only 10 percent of their population uses the internet compared to 89 percent in the US. In regards to nuclear threats, Rice and Zegart were concerned about all the countries mentioned above, but noted Iran in particular due to speculation at the time of the lecture that Trump would pull the U.S out of the Iran nuclear deal (He has since done so). With Trump withdrawing from this deal, there is a possibility that Iran could restart their nuclear program immediately, leading to a potential nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The speakers asserted that businesses that operate in or run supply chains through these four countries must be wary of potential tariffs and sanctions due to actions such as cyber hacking or nuclear escalation.

It was captivating to be able to listen to individuals with as much as experience as Rice and Zegart discuss business risks and foreign policy. Many thanks to both of them for visiting UCLA and giving this lecture.

May 24, 2018 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
FeaturedFreedom of SpeechGlobalizationImmigrationInterviewJournalismPopulismUCLA and the WorldUnited States

An interview with Fareed Zakaria

written by Andrea Zachrich

Dr. Fareed Zakaria is the host of CNN’s show GPS, a columnist for the Washington Post, a contributing editor for The Atlantic, and a New York Times bestselling author of three books. Born in India, he immigrated to the United States to attend university and went on to receive his Bachelor’s of Arts from Yale and a PhD degree in Philosophy of Government from Harvard. Dr. Zakaria was invited to UCLA to give the annual Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture in Journalism and International Relations. He was kind enough to sit down with members of The Generation before he gave the lecture and answer our questions about immigration, democracy, and journalism with patience, insight, and humor.

Immigration:

The Generation’s first question for Dr. Zakaria concerned the relationship between immigration and populism that he has explained in one of his past articles for the Washington Post, and why this issue is so potent at this particular moment. Zakaria noted a visible rise of “right wing populism” in countries that are both lagging behind economically and those that are succeeding. Yet regardless of their economic prospects, “the one common trait you see is immigration.” What’s to blame for the backlash? Zakaria says its the forces of globalized capitalism.

“Globalized capitalism is a very dynamic but destructive force. We always think about the upside, the new products, the new companies, but we forget about the downside, the destruction of companies and communities. Now that’s what gives [globalized capitalism] its power, its dynamism, its productivity. But there’s a real downside…. And in that, when you go through a particularly accelerated phase of it, which I think we’ve been going through ever since the end of the Cold War, I think it’s easy to accept the globalization of goods, of services, of capital, these are all abstractions. But the globalization of people, that’s very hard.”

In addition, Zakaria observes, paradoxically, that places without many immigrants have the strongest reaction to immigration.

“Where is it that you find this rhetoric about [Donald Trump’s proposed border] wall has played the best? Its in rural Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. These are not places that have vast numbers of immigrants. The places that have immigrants- New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, the Bay Area – they’re fine, because it’s much easier to fear the unknown, the image, the stories, the scare tactics.”

The combination of the globalization of people and the fear of the unknown person are the causes of this current rise in populism worldwide. Furthermore, Zakaria finds political leadership to be at fault for the populism rearing its head today as opposed to in the past.

“At the end of the day, political leadership matters. You have had one party, and within one party, one person, who systematically drummed up this fear. And of course he had something to play with, there was a great deal to play with in terms of the underlying anxiety. But that’s what leadership does for better or for worse. It takes that raw material and then it can fashion it as it wishes. And it’s always easier to scare people. It’s always much easier to scare people than to give them hope.”

Dr. Zakaria is, of course, referring to President Donald Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric. Throughout his candidacy and presidency, Trump has spewed rhetoric almost daily about building a wall on the Mexican-American border and implementing a ban on Muslim travel to the U.S. According to Zakaria these campaign promises exacerbated fears of immigration and helped lead to the rise populism in the United States.

We also asked Dr. Zakaria about struggles of assimilation in Europe and the United States for new immigrants. He discussed the differences between the two regions, and how he believes it to be much easier for immigrants to assimilate into American society, calling it an “assimilation machine”, and noting that “as an immigrant I can tell you the great challenge for American immigrants, for me with my kids, is to make them retain some small element of the old culture. That is the biggest challenge.” This is in contrast to Europe, where there is “a certain degree of multicultural relativism that said everyone can just live their own lives and practice their own practices even if they were very illiberal practices” and that Europeans have “tended to neglect the issue [of immigration]”. He goes on to make the point that in the U.S every immigrant is trying to assimilate, that every immigrant in the U.S wants themselves and their children to speak English as there are huge economic incentives for doing so. As opposed to the xenophobic rhetoric of President Trump, who often portrays immigrants as the “other,” and as foreigners seeking to come into the country bringing elements of the old culture here, Zakaria paints a different picture of immigrants. He describes immigrants not as people who wish to come to the U.S and retain an “other-ness” but as people who wish to become American and assimilate into the country’s culture.

Democracy:

In the face of numerous events at UCLA that have been canceled or disrupted by student protestors, The Daily Bruin reporter Megan Daley asked Dr. Zakaria about the excessive “political correctness” that is often at fault for such disruptions on university campuses across the country. These students subscribe to a type of individual identity politics that Zakaria finds detrimental to free speech. Last year, for example, Bruin Republicans had planned on hosting conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, but canceled the event amid fears of protests similar to those that occured at UC Berkeley and UC Davis that turned violent and forced the event’s cancellation.

In relation to these events on our campus and others, Zakaria spoke about how excessive political correctness can be detrimental to the university’s goal of creating an environment for discussion and academic discourse. While acknowledging that he understood the impulses of historically marginalized groups who “feel that they want to be full participants, that they want to have their voices heard, [that] they don’t want to be demeaned or marginalized again, or excluded again,” Zakaria argued that the instinct to shut out and not listen to speech they find offensive is harmful and might actually make that speech more attractive to people who see this type of inflammatory speech as “ideas that nobody wants to hear”. He argues that the problem with completely shutting down these ideas “is that the nature of an intellectual arena has to be one that allows open, unfettered conversation, discussion, and debate. And the best answer to bad ideas are good ideas, not to shut down those ideas, to not hear them”. He then broadened his explanation of what he believed to be a systematic problem with the way politics are framed on college campuses.

“People want politics to be primarily about their experience, their identity rather than a shared experience and a common identity. Because if it becomes all about your identity, first of all it becomes impossible to have a common, joint conversation that includes everybody. Secondly, if it’s all about your identity, almost by definition, nobody else can understand it as well as you, so your answers are always going to be right. And again that can’t be the basis on which you can construct a policy. So I think there’s almost a bigger problem which is that politics has become very narrowly personal and very narrowly about these kind of identity issues”.

More recently on February 26th, US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin came to UCLA to give the Arnold C. Harberger Lecture. I attended the lecture that afternoon after the Generation interviewed him. During the lecture, protestors were extremely disrespectful and hissed at Mnuchin as he was speaking. He attempted to laugh off this hissing, and even addressed a protestor directly about why he was hissing, to which the protester replied “I think you’re full of shit!”. These protests made Mnuchin very hostile, flustered, and essentially prevented him from discussing what he came here to discuss, which was United States economic policy and international sanctions. This is an excellent example of Dr. Zakaria’s discussion of identity politics and how this type of politics can prevent academic discourse. These students were only reflecting on their own personal identity as people who feel as though they have been harmed by the Trump administration, and failed to allow for a productive academic discussion. You may not agree with Mnuchin’s policy or business decisions, but shutting down his ideas and not allowing them to be heard only further polarizes people and does not fight “bad ideas” with “good ideas” as Dr. Zakaria advocates academic discussion should do.

Given that that the U.S was recently downgraded from a “full-democracy” to a “flawed-democracy” by The Economist’s Intelligence Unit, Zakaria also discussed the concept of an illiberal democracy as described in his book “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.” A liberal democracy is one that we find in places such as the United States, where there is protection of individual liberties from the majority and the government and popular participation in democratic processes. An illiberal democracy is one that keeps its democratic processes but loses its individual liberties and checks and balances. Dr. Zakaria finds this lose of liberal democracy in the United States problematic on “two levels”, for Americans and non-Americans alike. Using disenfranchisement of African American voters as an example to illustrate how this is a problem for citizens, Zakaria stated:

“We are the only democracy that I know of, I haven’t done an extensive study, but certainly the only advanced democracy I can think of where there are systematic efforts to disenfranchise people, to ensure that certain parts of the public don’t vote. You can see this happening today as the supreme court relaxed it’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. A whole series of states put in place laws that had only one purpose, which was to make it harder for certain groups of people, primarily African Americans to vote. That’s a pretty big flaw to be living with in a democracy”.

The Supreme Court Case Zakaria is referring to, Shelby County v. Holder (2013), struck down sections 4b and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which required states to get preclearance from the federal government before changing their voting practices and declared which states must obtain this preclearance based on analysis of past discrimination. Since the decision, states such as Texas and North Carolina among others have enacted Voter ID laws and gerrymandered districts to disadvantage minority voters.

Zakaria then discussed how the downgrade of American democracy is damaging on an international level:

“When you look at violations of democratic rights, of civil rights, of human rights around the world, over the last 25 years certainly, the United States has been a pretty consistent and strong voice opposing. It didn’t always do as much as it could have but this is one thing I think Americans can take a great deal of pride in that the United States was always a voice cataloging these issues and highlighting them”.

This is in stark contrast to what Zakaria sees happening now.

“Today we have a completely different atmosphere. Almost every authoritarian ruler in the world today that has in some way attacked, imprisoned, bankrupted or punished members of the media in his own country has cited Donald Trump’s use of the word ‘fake news’… So here we have our situation where the United States is becoming a role model for an illiberal democracy rather than for democracy, human rights, liberty, and the free expression of ideas. I cannot think of a time in recent memory when you have had dictators around the world using the United States as an example to justify its practices.”

Leaders in Syria, Cambodia, Libya, and China have all used Trump’s term of “fake news” to deny or downplay atrocities in their country or silence political opposition. Rhetoric from leaders of the United States has global influence, and this can either be used to promote democracy or to weaken it. As Dr. Zakaria points out, it currently appears to be doing the latter.

DSC_0124

Journalism:

The students from Daniel Pearl Memorial High School asked Dr. Zakaria about the atmosphere when covering stories at the White House during the presidency of Donald Trump. While he does acknowledge that “it’s a great time to be a journalist because the public is fascinated by the news”, he finds covering the White House difficult for two reasons. “One of which is a lot of the interest frankly is in the circus of what is going on in Washington”. He goes on to compare now with what it was like shortly following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center or the collapse of the Soviet Union. Back then, people were concerned about policy and why these events were happened, but “what now we are witnessing is the fascination with the circus of the Trump administration and Trump personally”,

The second reason Zakaria finds it frustrating to cover the White House is because of the hostility towards the press coming from the White House.

“You are living, working in a circumstance where the President of the United States and the administration are systematically and actively hostile to the press, hacking it, threatening legal punishments, non legal punishments, demeaning it, and that’s a very weird atmosphere to live in.”

As discussed earlier, the term “fake news” has spread to leaders around the globe thanks to Trump’s. In January, President Trump handed out “Fake News Awards” to organizations who had given him unfavorable coverage. Dr. Zakaria says these attacks on the press can be especially dispiriting because the United States is meant to be one of the freest countries in the world and the oldest constitutional democracy. He also postulates on what this attitude may mean for the future of democracy in America:

“You think to yourself it’s fine, the institutions are strong but you know, they are only strong until they collapse, until they get weak. I’ve seen that happen in other countries. America is not somehow you know endowed by the creator with some kind of magic force field that will prevent that so that’s the worrying part about this”.

To conclude the interview, I asked Dr. Zakaria what advice he had for novice international affairs journalists such as ourselves. He emphasized that the challenge of writing about foreign places and people in the United States is making Americans care about it. Zakaria elaborates:

“I think we have a huge problem in this country in that we are a vast continent surrounded by two benign neighbors and two vast oceans and so it’s easy to think that the world doesn’t affect the United States and that you can imagine an America First or America Alone agenda, but the reality is that we are deeply interconnected with the world, as we should be.”

Yet Zakaria thinks this problem can be overcome by making the issues more salient to readers. As journalists, he believes we need to show this connection and explain why these problems are important to an American audience. While broader issues such as ethnic rivalry or sectarianism often catch people’s attention, sometimes just “telling a great human story” allows people the opportunity to relate. He concluded, “just recognizing those people out there who look different, and sound different, and worship different gods, you know, there’s often an element of common humanity that we forget.”

Dr. Zakaria was incredibly articulate and a pleasure to speak with. I was both impressed and grateful that he took the time answer all of our questions thoughtfully and thoroughly despite the fact he usually works with higher profile individuals, including presidents and prime ministers. His comments and ideas on immigration, democracy, and journalism come from years of experience as a journalist, and this experience showed. Many thanks to him for taking the time to sit down and talk with us.

DSC_0132

 

March 28, 2018 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
#MeTooEuropeFeaturedUnited StatesWomen's Rights

#MeToo Movement: A Comparison of French and American Gender Equality and Secularism

written by Andrea Zachrich

When film producer Harvey Weinstein was accused by dozens of women last November of sexual assault and predatory behavior, an outpouring of comparable claims and allegations arose against other high-profile men, subsequently launching the #MeToo movement. American social activist Tarana Burke, who is credited with the original hashtag, states that the goal of the movement is to let victims of sexual assault and harassment know that their experiences are not uncommon and thus they should not be shamed into remaining silent about them. After My Name is Earl actress Alyssa Milano tweeted the hashtag, the movement gained popularity and female movie stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Uma Thurman, and Viola Davis all expressed sympathy or shared stories of sexual exploitation. Even Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri joined in and tweeted about the movement. Women and men of all backgrounds in America have expressed support.

Conversely, the #MeToo movement has recently experienced backlash from across the Atlantic in France, where a public letter signed by over 100 prominent French women, including actress Catherine Deneuve, have criticized the movement’s “puritanism” and its claim to “promote the liberation and protection of women” when actually “enslave[ing] them to…eternal victim[hood] and reduc[ing] them to defenseless preys.” While criticism from other women, who appear as though they should be natural allies, may shock at first glance, the disagreement over proper sexual norms between French women and their American counterparts comes as no surprise when accounting for the cultural differences regarding sex and gender between the two nations. Given France’s more progressive history of gender equality as well as a proud tradition of secularism amongst its citizens, the more accepting attitude of sexual advances and unwanted intimacy expressed by Deneuve and others is, upon closer inspection, not so unexpected after all. One of the letter’s chief criticisms of #MeToo was that although the movement claims to empower women by shielding them from unwanted sexual advances, by “demand[ing]” protection, its supporters are instead suggesting that women lack the individual agency and ability to speak up for–and defend–themselves without help. This distinction between American supporters and French doubters regarding the rights and abilities of women can be traced to the countries’ differing histories on the subject.

By multiple metrics and measurements, France has achieved higher levels of gender equality than the United States. For instance, the French parliament is currently 38.6% female, with women holding 233 out of a total of 577 seats. In contrast, 21% of U.S Senators and only 19.1% of U.S Representatives are female, with women holding 106 out of 535 total seats. Additionally, while France appointed a female Prime Minister in 1991, the U.S has yet to elect a woman to its highest office, and only in the most recent 2016 election was Hillary Clinton named the first female major party presidential nominee in American history. This seemingly trivial discrepancy among representation in government should not be dismissed out of hand. Women in France may very well feel as if they have more political power because their representation in Parliament is significantly higher and because they have seen women occupy the highest offices of government.

In addition to political representation, women in France also retain a number of cultural and workplace advantages that their American counterparts lack. First, France permits up to four months of paid maternity leave, while the U.S. only allows for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Furthermore, French women are allowed unrestricted access to abortion throughout the first trimester of pregnancy. In contrast, in the U.S., states are allowed to make their own decisions on abortion access so long as the regulations do not cause “undue interference.” This wording has been interpreted broadly and many states have implemented mandatory waiting periods, state-mandated counseling, and numerous other roadblocks to delay and impede access to abortion. Women’s rights have also been one of the central focuses of French President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign and presidency.  The French government even pressures the media to refrain from posting sexist or demeaning images of women. Finally, the Global Gender Gap Index which measures gender inequality across economic, political, educational, and health-based criteria ranked France 12th in the world in 2018 while the U.S ranked 49th–between Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

These significant differences in gender equality between France and the U.S. demonstrate two fundamentally unique female experiences which can help explain the backlash to the #MeToo movement expressed by Deneuve and others. In a country where women are nearly equally represented in their government, that has laws and regulations seeking to level the playing-field in the workplace, and that maintains high female educational and economic achievement, women may feel as though there is less of a disparity of power when men make unwanted sexual advances. French women would thus perceive an advance as flirtation between equals and therefore feel as though they have the agency to either continue or put a stop to such actions. In comparison, American women may feel uncomfortable with similar types of advances due to a greater power imbalance between men and women in society. Such imbalance would likely lead to women feeling as though they lack the ability to speak up about how they feel, especially if sexual advances are unwelcome. The French letter’s critique of American women seeking to be “protected” and maintain “eternal” victim status may stem from these cultural divide. Understandably, French women–coming from a culture that consistently affirms their belief of themselves as equals to men–will have a different perspective from their American counterparts, who have grown up under a political, economic, and educational imbalance that undoubtedly seeps into their sexual and romantic lives.

In addition to a demonstrable difference in gender equality between France and the United States, the variation of the role and importance of religion also helps shape distinct sexual attitudes amongst citizens of these respective nations. For instance, a Pew Research study from 2015 found that 53% of Americans say that religion is “very important” in their lives. In contrast, only 14% of French adults said the same. Moreover, the U.S is an outlier among wealthy, Western countries when it comes to the importance of religion. 21% of the populations of both Germany and the United Kingdom say that religion is “very important” in their lives, and other developed nations such as Australia and Canada also came in well below the U.S. at 18% and 27% respectively. This disparity unquestionably creates divergent societal understandings of sex.

One manifestation of this discrepancy in religious attitudes can be found in the differences between French and American sexual education programs in schools. In an analysis of sex-ed programs in the U.S., France, and several other Western nations, author Kelly Bell noted that as a result of its religious citizenry, the U.S. views sex in more “puritanical” and “moral” terms as opposed to the “open, matter-of-fact attitudes” found in the other countries studied. This perspective naturally has led to lobbying by churches and religious groups across the U.S. on behalf of abstinence-only programs, fearing that a more comprehensive education in schools will lead to promiscuity (although this fear has been proven to be false). The result is that the American school system is failing to give teens an understanding that sex and sexuality are a “normal and positive part of human development,” an understanding that sex-ed programs in Western Europe reaffirm. Again, the connection between these differences and the views expressed in the letter is clear. When there is a tendency to see sexual advances and activity as taboo due to poor sexual education, the reaction to such experiences when unwanted will unquestionably be harsher than if they were viewed as a normal and natural experience.

Another cultural difference between the two countries can be found in interpretations of flirting. Alex Giami–co-author of a study on sexuality in France and the U.S–found that French women on the whole do not view “‘flirtation and seduction and romance as a direct sexual approach, and that flirtation does not necessarily lead to sexual intercourse.” In other words, “the language of seduction is not an explicit language of sex.” This understanding differs dramatically from American attitudes which tend to view flirtation and seduction almost exclusively as sexual advances. When flirting is recognized as separate from sex, the notion that men should be “disciplined” for such actions and placed in the “same category as sex offenders” would seem troubling and puritanical.

If the disagreement between French and American women over the #MeToo movement surprised some, it shouldn’t have. As a result of a more progressive history of gender equality, the female experience in Nice is fundamentally different from that of New York. Furthermore, the variation of the importance of religion between these countries creates two profoundly different understandings of sexual activity and flirtation. Yet cultural disagreement is not unique to France and America. Instead, the French letter and the American reaction to it represent a failure of cultural relativism: The idea that one’s actions and opinions should be judged by their own culture standards rather than someone else’s. Such instances are not unique. Supporters of the movement in both countries are failing to recognize that there are clear cultural differences that led to this disagreement. They are thus making judgements and assumptions based on their own morals and standards. This misunderstanding serves as an important reminder that, given the array of cultural variation found in every corner of the globe, social movements are not always exportable, however beneficial they may be to their country of origin.

March 6, 2018 1 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
EuropeFeaturedMiddle EastMilitarySecessionism

The Irony of the Economic and Political Viability of Iraqi Kurdistan and Catalonia’s Independence

written by Andrea Zachrich

Iraqi Kurdistan and Catalonia have many similarities. Both held independence referendums within a week of each other earlier last year.  Additionally, they are both fairly autonomous regions in confederation with larger national governments – Iraq and Spain, respectively – and consist of an ethnic minority geographically grouped in their historic homeland. Yet, however comparable these regions appear, there is one major differentiating factor: The Kurds need their own country; the Catalans do not. In the absence of independence, the Kurds will remain politically disenfranchised, continue to have their culture banned, and will remain in harm’s way as a result of oppressive and often violent rule from their adopted countries. In contrast, absent autonomy, the Catalans will still enjoy great political freedom, retain the ability to openly celebrate their culture, and be significantly aided by Spain’s membership in the EU. It is an ironic misfortune that the Kurds, a people with an extensive history of suffering at the hands of their host nations and a future similarly bleak, find independence impossible, while the wealthy Catalans seek a plausible independence from a non-oppressive state willing to compromise on their demands. An independent Kurdistan will only be possible if the region works on diversifying the economy, democratizing the government, and gaining the support of the international economy.

In order to gain political and social freedom comparable to what the Catalans currently enjoy, the Kurds need their own nation. The Kurds are currently the largest ethnic group in the world without a formal homeland and are spread across four countries: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. They have their own language and culture, and do not identify as Arab or Persian, alienating them from the ethnic majority in each of the states they live in. While Kurds in Iraq have much more autonomy and freedom than Kurds in other countries, such as being allowed a fairly autonomous government, no Kurds have ever enjoyed equal rights in their adopted countries. For example, Syrian Kurds are denied citizenship, and Turkish Kurds are banned from speaking their language, using traditional names, and have been relabeled “Mountain Turks” by the government in an effort to erase their historically separate identity. Additionally, Iraqi Kurds have had numerous atrocities committed against them, most infamously when Saddam Hussein killed over 50,000 Kurds in the late 1980’s using chemical weapons and targeted shootings in an attempted genocide. With the current war against ISIS, Erdogan’s fear of a Turkish Kurd revolt, and the tenuous power Syria’s President Assad holds, this treatment of the Kurds is unlikely to improve if they do not have a nation of their own.

Starting in January, Turkey began a military offensive into Syria called the Olive Branch Campaign. The goal of this campaign is to drive the YPG out of Afrin, a group Turkey considers a terrorist organization but the US and many other UN member states do not. So far, this campaign has reportedly killed around 25 civilians and displaced thousands more. There are also allegations of war crimes, including Turkish soldiers firing their weapons indiscriminately at Kurdish civilians, and one particularly horrifying instance where Turkish-backed fighters mutilated the breasts of a female Kurdish fighter, posed for selfies with her corpse, and filmed the entire incident. Turkish officials justify this offensive as a way to secure their border against Kurdish “terrorists”. The US and other Western powers such as France have urged the de-escalation of the offensive, and the US even stated that they would not withdraw troops from one of the cities, Manbij, that Turkey wishes to attack, potentially bringing the two NATO allies into direct conflict. But, no Western power has seriously attempted to force Turkey to cease this offensive. As gruesome and objectionable as these actions by Turkey are, there may be a silver lining for the Kurds. Under international law, secession  is mainly used as a last resort when  people have been oppressed by the government they live under. There is already an argument to be made that the Kurds have been oppressed by each of the nations they live in, but this offensive by Turkey and highly publicized war crimes only strengthens the Kurdish justification for an independent state under international law.

In contrast to the Kurds’ situation in the Middle East, the Catalans not only enjoy great political and cultural freedom but are also guaranteed safety in their homeland. While it is true that Catalonian independence activists were executed under the regime of Francisco Franco in the 1940’s, it never amounted to the systematic atrocities committed against the Kurds’ under Hussein’s regime. Since Franco’s death, the region has been largely autonomous and has its own parliament and police force. Catalonia also has significant power in the national government of Spain as its representatives total nearly one-seventh of the total number of representatives in the Congress of Deputies, Spain’s National Legislature. Catalonia also gains significant advantages from Spain’s status as a member of the European Union due to their use of the Euro and access to the single market. Additionally, Catalonia owes 52 billion euros to the Spanish Government due to a program created in 2012 that loaned cash to regions who were not able to borrow money after the financial crisis. In comparison to the Kurds, Catalans are not persecuted for speaking their language or celebrating their culture; regional TV and news stations are in Catalan. While the region does hold valid complaints about the taxation policies of the national government – Catalonia currently pays 10 billion euros more in taxes annually to the national government than they receive back – Madrid has said that they are open to negotiations regarding this issue. Such accommodation is impossible to imagine from Iraq, Turkey, or Syria. Declaring independence is an unnecessary and polarizing step for a people who are already largely autonomous, reap many benefits from being a part of Spain, and whose national government is willing to negotiate on their main grievance. While it is true that the Spanish government did take control of Catalonia shortly following the independence referendum, Spain did allow new elections for the Catalonian parliament within 3 months. The Catalans can win the concessions they want without full independence.

The unfortunate irony of these two situations is that an independent Catalonia is economically viable while an independent Kurdistan would not be. Kurdistan’s main resource are its oil fields, which Iraq violently seized shortly following the referendum, and Kurdistan lacks the military power to gain back these oil fields. Turkey, Kurdistan’s main importer of oil, has threatened to stop buying their oil or even invade the region over fears of an uprising in Turkey. More so, the United States refuses to intervene on the Kurds’ behalf because they rely on their allies, Turkey and Iraq, in the war against ISIS. Syrian Kurds under attack in Turkey’s Operation Olive Branch have also seen little international support. Western powers have condemned the invasion but have undertaken no concrete actions to resolve the attack or stop Turkey. This leaves the Kurds with limited negotiating power in Baghdad. Since gaining semi-autonomy in 2006, the Iraqi Kurds have built two international airports and improved the region’s infrastructure, but the government is essentially an oligarchy run by the family and political party of recently resigned President Massoud Barzani. Barzani’s focus on building party loyalty has left other parts of the economy, such as agriculture and manufacturing, largely neglected. Left with little industry, the seizure of their main source of income, a weak military, and a lack of international support, an independent Kurdish state is not currently economically or politically viable.

In contrast, Catalonia has the economic strength necessary to support an independent state. Catalonia is one of Spain’s richest and most industrialized regions as a result of a booming tourism and manufacturing sector that garners massive amounts of revenue and creates thousands of jobs in the region. While it is true that Catalonia’s admittance into the EU could be vetoed by Spain, thus losing their access to the single market, an independent Catalonia would theoretically have an extra 10 billion dollars per year that they would no longer pay in taxes to Madrid, which  could be used to pay for access to the single market. Catalonia may even be able to continue to use the euro without the EU’s consent in the same way that Kosovo or Montenegro do, although it would lack access to the central bank. Catalonia could exploit its existing industries, large tourism revenues, and the financial surplus created from not having to pay taxes to Madrid in order to finance a newly independent nation.

In order to experience social and political freedom similar to the Catalans, the Kurds need their own nation. It is a terrible irony that an independent Iraqi Kurdistan is not currently economically or politically sustainable but an independent Catalonia would be. The US-backed Kurdish fighters have proved themselves strong allies in a fight against ISIS, and the US and other Western powers should support their campaign for independence. In addition, in order for Kurdistan to achieve the economic power to win their independence from Iraq, the region must gain the military power to win back their oil fields. While it is currently unlikely that the US would be willing to aid the Kurdistan military because they fear a resurgence of ISIS in this region and do not wish to anger Iraq, other countries with less of a stake in the region may be willing to step in. Even if the US does not provide military support, the country still may still be able to pressure the Iraqi government into some sort of deal regarding the oil fields. The region must also strive for a more democratic government by purging their current oligarchic regime and they must improve and strengthen their infrastructure. Those in connection with Barzani should step down and new elections should be held and new officials appointed. The government could possibly request loans from other countries with the purpose of improving agriculture, manufacturing, and taking advantage of their central location to trade. Lastly, Kurdistan must attain the support of the international community and powerful countries, such as the United States, who would recognize their independence, provide economic assistance, and assist and support them in negotiations. The Kurds need their own state in order to prevent the kind of persecution that has plagued their people throughout much of modern history. This state is a possibility in the future, but the Kurds have a long road ahead. They need both internal reforms and external support before this independent state could become a reality.

February 8, 2018 0 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest