Featured

Environmental Change Featured Globalization

The Economics of Preventing Global Warming

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 ton^8,9. 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.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5℃. United Nations, 2018.
Gleckman, Howard. “Bill Nordhaus, The Nobel Prize, Climate Change and Carbon Taxes.” Forbes, 10 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5℃. United Nations, 2018.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gleckman, Howard. “Bill Nordhaus, The Nobel Prize, Climate Change and Carbon Taxes.” Forbes, 10 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5℃. United Nations, 2018.
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.
Porter, Eduardo. “Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia.” The New York Times, 1 March 2016. Accessed 19 January 2019.
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.
Gleckman, Howard. “Bill Nordhaus, The Nobel Prize, Climate Change and Carbon Taxes.” Forbes, 10 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
Gleckman, Howard. “Bill Nordhaus, The Nobel Prize, Climate Change and Carbon Taxes.” Forbes, 10 October 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
Johnson, Nathanael. “California makes big money from its carbon pricing program. Who gets it?” Grist, 31 January 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
Ball, Jeffrey. “Why Carbon Pricing Isn’t Working.” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016. Accessed 13 January 2018.
Johnson, Nathanael. “California makes big money from its carbon pricing program. Who gets it?” Grist, 31 January 2018. Accessed 14 January 2019.
Porter, Eduardo. “Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia.” The New York Times, 1 March 2016. Accessed 19 January 2019.
Porter, Eduardo. “Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia.” The New York Times, 1 March 2016. Accessed 19 January 2019.
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

Featured Geopolitics Middle East Security and Conflict

Drip Diplomacy: Israeli Foreign Policy in the Climate Change Age

written by Zach Emanuel

Six. That’s the number of times Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has visited an African nation since being re-elected to his fourth term in March of 2015. That is only one fewer than the seven times Barack Obama visited an African country over the course of his entire presidency. It’s also six more than Bibi’s grand total of zero official visits throughout his first three terms as Prime Minister.¹ Add to this his two trips to China in the last five years, only one fewer than Obama’s three visits, and one begins to wonder what the Prime Minister of a country the size of New Jersey is doing in Africa and Asia as much as the former leader of the free world. A shrewd politician like Netanyahu, however, is not one to act without a purpose, and these foreign trips to nations one would hardly consider Israeli allies are not to be overlooked.

Over the last decade, Israel has continued its controversial construction of settlements in the West Bank, engaged in a costly war in Gaza in the summer of 2014 that left over 2,000 Palestinians dead, and as recently as last spring was criticized from abroad for an overly-aggressive military response to protests in Gaza following the move of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on the 70th anniversary of Israeli independence. Israeli actions against its neighbors- whether one believes them to be necessary or not- have begun to elicit increasingly serious reprimands from international bodies such as the United Nations.

For example, just prior to leaving office, Barack Obama’s Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power abstained on a U.N. Security Council vote that demanded the immediate end to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, a stark departure from the traditionally tight American-Israeli relationship.² Up until that point, Obama- like his predecessors- had wielded the U.S.’s permanent veto in the Security Council to ensure no anti-settlement resolutions passed. Additionally, since the creation of the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006, the Council has resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined.³

Recognizing the need to reverse its status as a pariah at the U.N., Netanyahu saw the necessity in developing international allies in other places like Africa and Asia–allies who would vote alongside Israel at the U.N. and who wouldn’t be quick to meddle in its relationship with its neighbors. Netanyahu has even said as much. Before a visit to Liberia in the summer of 2017, the Prime Minister announced that the purpose of his trip was to “dissolve…this giant bloc of 54 African countries that is the basis of the automatic majority against Israel in the UN and international bodies.” ⁴ Although trade, technology, and security have too been cited as the ways Israel intends to deepen ties, perhaps Netanyahu targeted China and West and East Africa specifically because Israel could gain their support at the UN and in return give these nations something they so desperately needed: water.

Over the last 25 years, 28,000 rivers in China have disappeared. Groundwater levels have fallen by up to three meters a year, and the flow of the Yellow River, one of China’s leading water sources, is a tenth of what it was in the 1940s. China’s current Five Year Plan, which calls for halving per capita water consumption, is an idealistic goal at best. Moreover, in 2017, as a result of pollution and industrial waste nearly 10% of China’s water was unfit even for agricultural or industrial use.⁵

In Africa, the story is similar. The Sahel region in West Africa has experienced a string of deadly droughts over the last decade. In 2010, nearly 10 million Africans across four countries were left either hungry or highly food insecure due to the loss of livestock and crops. In 2012, the same story unfolded. Millions more found themselves without food and increases in crop prices only amplified the problem.⁶

On the other side of the continent, the 2011 East Africa drought, which hit Kenya and Ethiopia among other countries, was said to be “the worst in 60 years.” Crops withered, food prices rose, nearly 9.5 million East Africans were affected, and several hundred thousand lost their lives.⁷

As climate change worsens, droughts and water crises are only expected to worsen. Enter Israel. Like China, the Sahel, and East Africa, Israel too has experienced both droughts and water shortages. However Israeli advancements in water technology have kept pace with both climate change and a growing population. One notable example is the significant improvement of drip irrigation, the process of dripping a small amount of water directly onto a plant’s roots rather than flooding the field. Netafim, the Israeli firm that makes drip irrigation technology, claims the technique uses 75% less water than traditional techniques and allows farmers to use less fertilizer and fewer pesticides. In turn, crops yield at higher rates causing food prices to drop, and aquifers suffer from less chemical pollution.⁸

Additionally, take Watergen, another Israeli firm that produces 2,000-pound generators capable of extracting 600 liters of clean drinking water directly from the air each day. The generators simply require electricity, and their weight allows for easy transportation to rural areas that are often hit hardest by droughts and lack the necessary infrastructure to transport water.⁹

With just these two Israeli technologies, West and East Africa and China can drastically reduce the intensity of droughts, the cost of food, and the level of pollution in their waterways. Is it really any wonder then that China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Liberia, and Guinea are interested in receiving Netanyahu or that Bibi has targeted these countries as potential like-minded voters at the U.N.?

When Netanyahu visited in Kenya in February of 2016, he and Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta signed a joint agreement and established a bilateral committee to focus specifically on addressing water and agricultural issues.¹⁰ On the Prime Minister’s trip to Liberia, he too emphasized Israel’s commitment to investing in Liberian “water treatment…water purification,” while planning a visit to Israel for ten Liberian leaders to learn efficient and effective Israeli agricultural techniques.¹¹ Moreover, the city of Shouguang will also play host to Israel’s flagship “Water City” project in China. The plan is to “advance Israeli companies and incorporate Israeli technology” into China’s massive water infrastructure in an attempt to deepen ties between the two nations. The project has headlined Bibi’s multiple trips to the country since 2014.¹²

Climate change is precipitating a worldwide water crisis and it is clear that Israel has solutions. Netanyahu simply wants to be sure Israel gets something of equal value- in this case support at the U.N- in return for offering its extended assistance and investment. A canny politician like Netanyahu surely knows never to let a crisis go to waste.

And it isn’t just parts of Africa and China that Bibi has in his crosshairs. Vietnam has been experiencing a water crisis of its own as only 39% of the rural population has access to clean drinking water.¹³ It may be no coincidence then that in 2011 former Israeli President Shimon Peres visited Vietnam and in 2015 Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely did the same. In 2014 former Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang visited Israel, and last November Vietnam received its first Watergen generators- as gifts no less- for use across the country.^{14, 15}

Over the last decade Colombia has suffered from the “worst drought” in the country’s history, causing food prices to skyrocket and leaving farmers in economic straits. In 2015, the Israeli firm RWL Water completed construction of a major water treatment facility in the country and in 2017 Netanyahu attended a State Visit.¹⁶

In 2016 Paraguay declared a state of emergency during a severe drought of its own. Netanyahu made an official visit there too just before heading to Columbia.¹⁷ Back up five years to 2011 and Mexican farmers were suffering through their “worst drought in 70 years.” Bibi visited Mexico as well.¹⁸ Finally, in February of 2017 Netanyahu became the first Israeli Prime Minister to visit Australia, a country that has been racked by droughts for much of the last two decades.

Despite Bibi’s best efforts, this “Drip Diplomacy” has yet to yield results at the U.N. For all the traveling and water technology, these countries have so far declined to vote alongside Israel when significant resolutions come up for votes. But as climate change worsens, droughts increase in frequency, and Israel begins to play a much larger role in combating the crises, Netanyahu and his successors may well demand cooperation at the U.N. in exchange for continued cooperation. If Israel becomes one of Africa and Latin America’s most important international benefactors via their assistance in modernizing these nations’ water infrastructure and agricultural technology, several years from now it shouldn’t shock us when Liberia, Ethiopia, or Colombia all of a sudden have something to say about Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

However regardless of if Drip Diplomacy succeeds, the strategy says something about how Netanyahu views Israel’s status on the world stage. Since the advent of the U.N., the U.S has been able to wield its military and economic strength to coax and cajole allies into voting the way it wants them to at the U.N. The capability to do so however is unique to superpowers like the U.S. Even Beijing and Moscow don’t possess nearly the international influence that Washington does. Bibi’s continuing gamble to reject the U.N.’s reprimands and instead attempt to use Israeli technological power to change the votes of certain countries demonstrates his unwavering belief in Israel’s future as a global leader. Israel may be the size of New Jersey, but Bibi is betting that its influence can be just as large as that of the whole United States.

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, s.v. “List of International Prime Ministerial Trips Made by Benjamin Netanyahu,” (accessed December 3), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_prime_ministerial_trips_made_by_Benjamin_Netanyahu
Eric Cortellessa, “Choosing not to veto, Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council,” The Times of Israel, Published December 23, 2016. https://www.timesofisrael.com/choosing-not-to-veto-obama-lets-anti-settlement-resolution-pass-at-un-security-council/
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, s.v. “List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel,” (accessed December 3), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
Alexander Fulbright and Raphael Ahren, “PM heads to West African summit seeking support at UN,” The Times of Israel, Published June 4, 2017. http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-heads-to-west-african-summit-seeking-support-at-un/
Charles Parton, “China’s acute water shortage imperils economic future,” Financial Times, Published February 27, 2018. https://www.ft.com/content/3ee05452-1801-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44
Xan Rice, “Severe drought causes hunger for 10 million in west Africa,” The Guardian, Published June 3, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/03/drought-hunger-west-africa
BBC News, “Horn of Africa tested by severe drought,” BBC, Published July 4, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14023160
Ruth Schuster, “The Secret of Israel’s Water Miracle and How It Can Help a Thirsty World,” Haaretz, Published July 4, 2017. https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/how-israel-can-help-a-thirsty-world-1.5392651
http://www.watergen.com/
Raphael Ahren, “Netanyahu to visit Africa, first Israel PM to do so in 50 years,” The Times of Israel, Published February 29, 2016. https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-to-visit-africa-first-israeli-pm-to-do-so-in-50-years/
Joaquin M. Sendolo, “Israel Celebrates 70th Anniversary, Underscores Relations with Liberia,” Liberian Observer, Published April 30, 2018. https://www.liberianobserver.com/news/israel-celebrates-70th-anniversary-underscores-relations-with-liberia/
Ora Coran, “Netanyahu’s China Visit is All About Business,” Haaretz, Published March 20, 2017. https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-netanyahus-china-visit-is-all-about-business-1.5450835
Sahisna Suwal, “Water in Crisis – Vietnam,” The Water Project, https://thewaterproject.org/water-crisis/water-in-crisis-vietnam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Vietnam_relations
Eytan Halon, “Hanoi to Benefit from innovative Israeli Air-to-Water Technology,” The Jerusalem Post, Published November 8, 2018. https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Hanoi-to-benefit-from-innovative-Israeli-air-to-water-technology-571377
Rose Lander, “Colombia suffering worst drought in recorded history,” Colombia Reports, Published September 22, 2015. https://colombiareports.com/colombia-suffering-worst-drought-in-recorded-history/
Vladimir Hernandez, “Paraguay declares state of emergency as drought shrinks economy,” BBC, Published February 26, 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-17171858/paraguay-declares-state-of-emergency-as-drought-shrinks-economy
Noe Torres, “Mexican farmers suffer worst drought in 70 years,” Reuters, Published November 25, 2011. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-drought/mexican-farmers-suffer-worst-drought-in-70-years-idUSTRE7AO18Q20111126

April 25, 2019 0 comment

Featured Globalization Human Rights Military Security Technology

Borders, Bodies, and Biometrics

written by Katarina Kosmala-Dahlbeck

The camera does not flash as it scans your face. Instead, a green check appears on the screen as the turnstile opens smoothly to let you through. Boarding pass proven useless, you walk through the gate and board the plane hassle-free. “So quick [you] couldn’t believe it”, quips the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s website. It cites the use of facial recognition as a way to make air travel a seamless experience for both travelers and officers. It also attributes its decision to adopt this technology in part to the growing popularity of biometric identification in unlocking cellphones and other everyday devices.

Biometrics refer to digital data on any biological characteristics unique to an individual. This can include fingerprints, face, voice, retina, or iris recognition technology, as well as information on a person’s hand geometry, gait, body movements, and even DNA. The accuracy of comprehensive biometric data is unparalleled by other technology, far surpassing traditional methods of identification such as photo IDs. Recent advances have spurred massive growth of biometrics in public, private, and commercial sectors, with global market size expected to reach USD 59.31 billion by 2025. Biometrics have become most widely used to prove identity in citizenship, personal technology, and surveillance, and have proven to be the most infallible way to counter security threats both in the physical world and online.

At the same time, the development of biometrics has raised legal and ethical questions surrounding data privacy in a globalized world. Article 12 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights lists the right to privacy as fundamental, stating that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence”. This sentiment is echoed in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and specifically in General Comment 16, which states that personal information held on “computers, data banks, and other devices, whether by public authorities or private individuals, must be regulated by law”. The European Union has espoused the most stringent regulations on privacy to date with the passing of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016, which has since taken effect in all EU member states. Citing concerns about infringing on the “rights and freedoms of citizens”, GDPR has prohibited the use of biometrics for identification purposes, except in the case of extenuating circumstances and with an individual’s explicit consent.

No such regulations exist in the United States, with only three states adopting legislation ensuring privacy over biometric data. Illinois, Texas, and Washington have passed various versions of biometric privacy laws, noting pervasive data sharing by tech giants and the critical nature of biometric information. Large-scale legislation has yet to gain support in the U.S., as biometrics have proliferated technology markets and become a familiar part of security authentication in apps, banks, workplaces, and airports.

Even with the success of biometrics in the private sector, some of its most impactful applications are in intelligence and national security. Capital investments in biometrics skyrocketed after 9/11, as security launched to the forefront of American consciousness. The Patriot Act, passed in October 2001, gave the government a green light on surveillance of suspected terrorist activity and tightened border security measures. As the War on Terror dominated American foreign policy, biometrics began to expand the reach of American intelligence both at home and abroad. Today, the U.S. government spends over $700 million a year on biometric research, and any person who crosses an American border must provide biometric information to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services upon entry. This allows officers to conduct criminal background checks, as well as monitor immigration status depending on a person’s country of origin.

As a result, growing concern exists as to the implications of this for international norm and even policy. If biometrics are so widely used on a national level, what does a world filled with biometric information look like? Due to the reach of the digital economy today, individuals have little control over where their data goes should it be compromised. Cybersecurity presents a significant threat worldwide, and surveillance states such as China systematically deploy biometric technology to suppress minority populations. Chen Quanguo, Communist Party Secretary and the architect behind Muslim internment camps in China, rose to power through his implementation of a “grid management” surveillance system that uses facial recognition to police the movement of Uighur Muslims. Security checkpoints on roads and train stations, cellphone confiscation, and the withdrawal of passports prevent Uighurs from leaving these centers or traveling abroad. China claims that the purpose of detainment is to counter terrorism and religious radicalization, but the mass imprisonment of its Muslim minority has received international condemnation for human rights violations. Even though biometric technology has the potential to strengthen national security, it can also legitimize ethnic discrimination and racial profiling in many cases.

The use of biometrics in these contexts has redefined the role of biology in questions of political legitimacy. Rather than focusing on an individual’s record, biometrics place identity at the forefront of questions of national security. When a traveler, immigrant, or refugee is asked “who are you?” before they are asked “what have you done?”, their biological self begins to determine their geopolitical status. This creates an environment ripe for biases, explicit or implicit, to creep in and drive policy. For example, the U.S. has long treated people of Middle Eastern descent with suspicion because of risks associated with terrorism. However, the entrance of biometrics into the public sphere allows this discrimination to be systematized and legitimized under the law. President Trump’s Muslim travel ban itself cut the admission of Muslim refugees to the U.S. by 91 percent, and visa approvals for immigrants from majority Muslim countries have fallen 30 percent since 2016. 155,000 fewer tourists, students, and guest workers from the Muslim world entered the U.S. in 2017 than in 2016. The combination of Islamophobic policy with advances in biometrics have made the U.S. an unwelcome and even dangerous destination for applicants from many Muslim countries. The way that biometrics combine biological identity with political status creates a system that, by definition, makes some people more secure at the expense of others.

The concept of embodying citizenship has changed the face of international migration and surveillance. Instead of having to be a member of a biological tribe to belong, one now has to be a part of a state’s biometric tribe that determines acceptance based on the geopolitical status of identity alone. And because technology invariably develops faster than the law, the world is woefully unprepared to address the legal and ethical questions raised by these developments. The European Union’s GDPR is the most extensive data regulation law in the world, but even it has limits in its scope to manage the use of biometrics internationally. Most biometric research is conducted in the United States, and until national legislation is enacted to address it, this technology will continue to drive intelligence and border security initiatives, as well as flourish in the private sector. The lack of international legal precedent concerning biometric data also poses a serious obstacle to justice. Until these questions are addressed in an international court, biometric data proliferation in the public and private sector will continue to press against the fine line of the human right to privacy.

April 8, 2019 0 comment

Source

Europe Featured

The Malignancy of Multinational Currency

written by Katie Jones

“France is one of those countries that by printing money for 14 African states prevents their economic development and contributes to the fact that the refugees leave and then die in the sea or arrive on our coasts,”

This hostile and controversial statement was leveraged by Luigi Di Maio, Italy’s populist deputy Prime Minister, in a counterproductive attempt to deflect shared responsibility for Europe’s migrant crisis. However the currency in question should be a part of the larger discussion on globalization and post-colonial institutions. If European leaders were to earnestly evaluate the CFA franc not from their perspective but from the perspective of the affected Africans, they may find some unsettling similarities to the eurozone.

The CFA franc represents two distinct multinational currencies in Western and Central Africa. The currencies are effectively the same, as both have an exchange rate pegged to the euro (1 euro = 655, 957 francs), however they are not interchangeable. The logic behind the fixed exchange rate is to prevent inflation and promote investor security in nations where poor governance may otherwise threaten market stability. However, this comes at a very steep price for the nations involved. In return, they must keep 50% of their reserves in the French Treasury, follow the strict monetary policy of the European Central Bank (ECB), and attempt to develop their economies with an inevitably overvalued currency.

Source

In the current economic landscape, African nations should seriously consider if the sacrifice of sovereignty necessitated by the franc is worth the supposed increase in prosperity. The crux of the problem is that the CFA franc is essentially a version of the euro, and relatively weak economies using a strong currency is counterproductive to economic development. The strength of the franc encourages imports and makes exports less competitive on the global market, stagnating the development of member nations. Additionally, the main priority of the ECB is to maintain stable prices, with inflation at a maximum of 2%. This policy makes sense for the top members of the European Union (EU), but a developing nation should be focused on high employment rates and exports, ideally with inflation rates of up to 8%. Moreover, the 50% reserve requirement of the franc zone countries greatly limits their investment options. The French treasury gives them a return rate of only .75%, which sometimes does not even match the level of inflation, much less provide a desperately needed return on investment.

The franc becomes even less attractive when considering the performance of other African economies. Former French colonies that abandoned the franc, such as Morocco and Algeria, are more successful economically, despite using an independent currency. Overall income per capita, adjusted for inflation, has grown 1.4% in the franc zone and 2.5% in the remainder of Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, the line of credit extended to the franc zone is pitiful. In the western franc zone (see map) the credit to GDP ratio is 25% and in the central franc zone it is only 13%! This is in comparison with the remainder of Sub-Saharan Africa around 60%.

So why keep the CFA franc? The franc is known to benefit a small percentage of upper and middle class African citizens by providing easy access to imports and the ability to invest abroad, while by and large disadvantaging the 75% of the citizenry who are working class. To exacerbate things further, France and other foreign interests greatly benefit from the franc zone as an export market, and France is granted special access to African resources as a part of the agreement. Furthermore, the franc’s status as a multinational currency provides greater benefit to outside nations wanting to facilitate trade, than the internal member states. The franc is after all very poorly integrated, with intra-regional trade accounting for only 15% of total trade, while trade with Europe accounts for 60%. The French, along with the remainder of the eurozone, clearly profit off of the CFA franc.

Many African economists and politicians acknowledge these flaws, yet the question of how to move forward still remains. The French have responded to the protestations of their former colonies by supporting the creation of a new multinational African currency independent of the euro, that will incorporate more– and larger–African states, including but not limited to Nigeria. However, this still appears self-serving. There is minimal justification for the existence of a new multinational currency in Sub-Saharan Africa, and as aforementioned, it primarily benefits outsiders. The best interest of the franc zone may be to follow the advice of former World bank director Carlos Lopes. He believes the CFA franc should be tied to a basket of other currencies, including the notoriously undervalued Chinese yuan, or to hover around a target exchange rate with the euro, both which will help to mitigate the overvaluation of the franc, while maintaining the currency as a pillar of stability.

The tragic irony is that France, along with a number of Southern European states, are the victim of the euro in much the same way that the CFA franc is. The euro is too strong for the economies of Southern Europe. Estimates peg overvaluation at 5% in France and 7% in Greece. Furthermore, the emphasis on low inflation within the eurozone is really to the benefit of the booming German bloc, at the expense of countries such as Italy and Greece that desperately need stimulus spending. In terms of real GDP, Italy was the same size in 2016 as it was in 2001. Much like the franc zone, Italy, among other countries, needs to focus on improving employment rates, infrastructure projects, and competitive exports, to ensure growth in coming years.

When comparing eurozone countries to those that chose not to adopt the currency, such as Sweden and Hungary, the results are disappointing at best. National Gross Income (NGI) per capita in the eurozone grew at a rate of 1.65% in 2015, whereas Sweden saw growth rates around 2.72%. Additionally, Hungary, an emerging European economy, witnessed even higher growth rates, with NGI per capita reaching 3.06% in 2015. The success of independent Eastern European economies makes evident the disadvantage Southern Europe suffers being a part of the euro. Furthermore, when examining the eurozone within the global context, it is evident that as a whole they have fallen behind other developed countries. The US economy was just 13% bigger than the eurozone at it’s genesis, but now it is over 27% larger.

So why keep the euro? This question is obviously more nuanced in light of the highly integrated European economy and greater cultural and political ties of the EU, than are present in the franc zone. Brexit, despite not having a monetary element, should be evidence enough that disintegration is not a feasible option for Europe at this point. However, the shortcomings of the euro must still be recognized. The euro, rather than being of overt benefit to a neocolonial power as the franc is, does disproportionately benefit Germany. The significant undervaluation of the euro in Germany (about 17%) makes its exports extremely competitive and creates greater economic prosperity. Unfortunately, this leads to a vicious cycle where Germany becomes more and more prosperous and the ECB creates tighter monetary policies to adjust for German strength (ie higher interest rates), all while neglecting the needs of the weaker economies in the eurozone. For the benefit of not only the European project, but the 147 million people who use the CFA franc, the Germans should ease their tyrannical monetary policy and cozy relationship with the ECB.

Realistically however, the prospects of Germany doing this are unfavorable, and as a result the euro’s most likely fate seems to be an eventual phase out. The currency once intended to unite Europe, has since contributed to the very economic stagnation and rise of isolationism that will eventually be its demise. But perhaps this is to be expected when inflicting stringent monetary policy on nations with diverse economic needs and dissonant fiscal policies. It may be time to reconsider multinational currencies as a whole.

March 15, 2019 0 comment

Source

Featured Global Health

Heads of the Hydra

written by Alex Langsam

In 1993, Colombian troops shot dead the infamous Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar on his rooftop. To celebrate, they fired their guns into the air while chanting “We won!”. Lee Brown, the director of the U.S. National Drug Control Policy at the time, said Escobar’s fate should “serve as an example to others who traffic in death and misery”. But despite the apparent victory, the New York Times made a sober clarification. Author Robert McFadden noted that, apart from the symbolism, Escobar’s death was “not expected to seriously affect cocaine traffic”. The drug would continue to sell through the various groups that had assembled in the power vacuum left by Escobar’s downfall.

The take-down of cartel leaders has become a recurring story, one that shows the futility of America’s current policy. Earlier this month, New York courts found Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán guilty of ten criminal counts relating to his drug enterprise. Guzmán was the leader of one of the largest drug-trafficking operation in the world, which sold cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana. He was convicted for this and numerous other crimes, including conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to distribute of heroin, cocaine and marijuana internationally. Now he is likely to spend the rest of his life in prison. Justice was served, law and order prevailed, and America caught the bad guy. U.S. Attorney Richard Donoghue valiantly told reporters after the verdict was announced, “There are those who say that the war on drugs is not worth fighting. Those people are wrong.”

Mr Donoghue’s claim and Guzmán’s conviction seem to suggest it is time for celebration. Perhaps George W. Bush could lend us his Mission Accomplished banner? While the media and the courts savor the conviction of one of the once-most-powerful drug traffickers in the world, it’s worth thinking back to 1993. Let us remember the Colombian troops standing over Escobar’s bloody corpse on the rooftop, shooting into the air and shouting “we won”. Recall what Robert McFadden, the New York Times’ journalist who wrote of Escobar’s death, said following Pablo’s death: beyond symbolism, cocaine traffic was not expected to be seriously affected. Like an echo from the past, while the U.S. justice system was busy dancing with glee, Guzmán’s defence lawyer Jeffrey Lichtman prophesied that “the cocaine doesn’t stop flowing with the take-down of El Chapo”.

The War on Drugs has been waged in the U.S. for nearly fifty years now. Originally a cheap campaign slogan for Richard Nixon in 1971, the U.S. government now spends roughly $47 billion every year fighting the War on Drugs. This ideological war in the U.S. is fueling a very real one in Central and South America. The cartel wars in Mexico have killed more than 200,000 people since 2006. And yet despite the cost of America’s War on Drugs, its tactics have not changed. The fight has assumed a cyclical nature, that goes something like the following:

Some substance, such as cocaine in the 1910s or marijuana in the 1930s, becomes popular among U.S. citizens. The government, who usually extol this kind of free-market supply and demand efficiency, prohibit the substance and its production in the United States. But the free-market keeps kicking and before long a black market emerges, with demand from the U.S. citizens satiated by supply from poorer, less easily-regulated countries. Huge amounts of money are siphoned into cartels, whose leaders subsequently gain immense power and notoriety. If born in the U.S. they might have been respected as self-made entrepreneurs. But capitalism is a nationalist game, and so the U.S. incites a manhunt against such an obvious and out-in-the-open enemy. Multinational coalitions are formed and mass resources spent in the pursuit and capture of said individuals. After years of bribery, murder and evasion of the authorities, the cartel figurehead is either executed or taken into custody. New organizations are then free to fill the vacuum left in their absence. It’s back to square one, with little disruption made to the distribution of narcotics. Despite the media hype that follows the demise of such leaders, reality is typically less optimistic: cocaine remains wildly popular in a post-Escobar world and people will continue to smoke weed despite Guzmán rotting in prison.

The War on Drugs rages on, reinforced by opportunistic politicians after a scapegoat, fanatical law enforcement unquestioningly chasing agendas, and a corrupt private prison industry that’s desperate for profit. But despite being afforded unwavering commitment, it isn’t being won. A campaign of tough love and prosecution has given tremendous power to criminals and left minimal impact on the drug trade. In Mexico, innocent people are dying, while the cartels’ economic power grows similar in scale to that of multinational corporations, positing an existential threat to the sovereignty of their home countries. An abstract war waged against a noun (see also the War on Terror) is not only ambiguous rhetoric used to drum up political support, but, as seen with the War on Drugs, can be the cause of as many casualties as conventional warfare. The War has perpetuated a violent and powerful black market that shows no signs of disappearing. In an effort to protect its own citizens from the ills of substance abuse, the U.S. has put citizens in other countries at risk – prime examples being Mexico and Columbia, with deaths numbering hundreds of thousands for both countries. The War on Drugs must come an end in order to save innocent lives. Alternatives to prohibition need to be considered.

1930s Chicago found itself in a similar predicament to what Columbia and Mexico face today. The ruthless gangster Al Capone ran a powerful crime syndicate that held the city hostage. Capone had taken over from criminal boss Johnny Torrio, who had in-turn replaced James “Big Jim” Colosimo. Just like Pablo Escobar, these criminals were easily replaceable, one after the other. Their business was also drugs, albeit a kind that is now fairly socially acceptable – alcohol. Black-market bloodshed went on for more than a decade until the U.S. Government repealed the prohibition of alcohol. This repeal didn’t completely shutdown the mafia groups, but it did cut off a valuable part of their revenue. In the same way, a well-assessed end to certain contemporary drug prohibitions could seriously threaten the cartels of today.

Marijuana, once the sworn enemy of authorities, is slowly winning its fight against prohibition. A growing awareness of the issues of prohibition have caused a shift in public opinion. As remarkable as it seems, the U.S. Government was defeated by potheads. The War on Drugs had to withdraw from its cannabis front. The futility and hypocrisy of prohibition is starting to show, as more and more evidence proves in favor legalization. The legalization of medical marijuana alone saw violent crime in U.S. border states fall by an average of 13 percent, while homicides related to the drug trade fell by an incredible 41 percent.

The legalization of marijuana, a policy previously unimaginable for much of Western society, shows the need to reassess the approach to prohibition. Rational and sane adults should be free to do as they please in regard to their own bodies, so long as it doesn’t cause harm to others. The slow-setting end of marijuana prohibition is indicative of an alternative to the War on Drugs. Substances too damaging to society should be kept away from it, but the blind and perhaps arbitrary prohibition of certain substances could be re-evaluated. Western society’s tabooing of some drugs is deliberately ignorant of the reality of these substances. Research done on octopuses showed that MDMA reduced the creatures’ antisocial behavior (ravers all around the world could tell you the same thing). There are numerous allegations of our fine and honorable policy-makers using cocaine, yet they continue to rise into successful positions. This is not an endorsement of uninhibited hedonism, but a call to at least inspect the laws, as well as cultural norms, we’ve developed around drugs. These laws tend to punish the poor, marking them with criminal records, while the rich pump money into the black-markets that allow the real criminals to prosper. Separately, addicts are of course a problem for society, but, rational individuals looking to experiment, who are not so susceptible to dependence, are not. Alcohol has its dangers, but Western society has assumed it can be handled well enough by society’s sane majority. This doesn’t apply to certain drugs for sure, but laws arbitrarily drawn up decades ago do not follow a rational methodology or a comprehensive analysis of each case. There is more that can be learnt and understood about these substances. The re-evaluation of prohibition could lead to better regulation of such substances, as well as deflating the barbaric trade that supplies drugs to the West while tearing apart poorer countries with gang violence.

Governments around the world need to listen to the advice of experts and treat drug abuse as a social and health-related issue, not a criminal or military one. The eradication of mind-altering substances is impossible – there will never be a truly drug-free society, and as long as there is demand, supply will find a way. Instead of eradication, governments should introduce policies to address the societal factors that lead to increased risky drug use, in turn mitigating the damage caused by such substances. Wielding prohibition like a blunt battle-axe solves very little and seems to have caused more damage than good. If governments don’t change their approach to narcotics, then men like Pablo Escobar and Joaquín Guzmán will continue to gain wealth and power. The fight against drug traffickers has become something like Heracles’ fight with the mythical Hydra. Each head Heracles chopped off the mythical beast was replaced by two new ones. Cartel figureheads are much the same; their defeat does little to prevent future danger. Heracles defeated the Hydra by cauterizing each decapitated stump, and governments need to take a similarly creative approach. Address the cause, not its symptoms, or else the illness will remain. The end of the cartels will come by exploring alternatives to the costly and ineffective War on Drugs that gives them economic power.

March 12, 2019 0 comment

Source

Featured Globalization Human Rights Internet Journalism Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture

Multinational Corporations and the EU’s New Data Laws

written by Eden Ballard

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

This sentiment is echoed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 17, Right to Privacy. On April 8th 1988 the UN adopted general comment number 16 to article 17 which states that:

The gathering and holding of personal information on computers, data banks and other devices, whether by public authorities or private individuals or bodies, must be regulated by law. Effective measures have to be taken by States to ensure that information concerning a person’s private life does not reach the hands of persons who are not authorized by law to receive, process and use it, and is never used for purposes incompatible with the Covenant. In order to have the most effective protection of his private life, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, Whether, and if so, What personal data is stored in automatic data ﬁles, and for What purposes. Every individual should also be able to, ascertain which public authorizes or private individuals or bodies control or may control their ﬁles. If such ﬁles contain incorrect personal data or have been collected or processed contrary to the provisions of the law, every individual should have the right to request rectification or elimination.

Nearly 31 years old, this statement has gone largely ignored as the internet exploded and user engagement far outpaced any thought to user privacy. This changed on May 25th, 2018 when the European Union took a major step in protecting the privacy rights of individual users by adopting the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The website created for the GDPR boasts that it is “the most important change in data privacy regulation in 20 years.” This regulation impacts how the the privacy of more than 500 million EU citizens will be protected from exploitation by online service providers. With the approval of the General Data Protection Regulation, the European Union has shown that it holds individual privacy to be of the utmost importance.

The GDPR applies to the conduct of all companies that provide services for EU residents, even if it is only for one EU resident. It aims to safeguard against individual users’ data being used in ways they do not knowingly consent to and mandates that consent can be withdrawn as easily as it is granted. This ability to withdrawal consent protects what they call “The Right to Be Forgotten.” One of the main ways that this is protected is by prohibiting from using “long illegible terms and conditions full of legalese.” Apple’s “Terms and Conditions” updated as of September 17, 2018 was a lengthy 7,006 words. The contract ambiguously ends: “Children under the age of majority should review this Agreement with their parent or guardian to ensure that the child and parent or legal guardian understand it.” However, the parents or legal guardians themselves are likely not reviewing nor understanding it; it’s unfair to expect that average users feel comfortable or have the spare time to try to understand the needlessly verbose contracts drawn up by lawyers working for multimillion dollar firms. Now behemoth companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon, each serving a network of users across the globe, are being asked to rise to the occasion… and they will.

The amount of revenue generated from the more than 400 million internet users in the EU is more than enough to incentivize companies to adhere to the GDPR. If they fail to change their policies or decide to pull out of the European market, the business face the loss of millions of dollars through fines or from decreased profits respectively For violations of the GDPR’s stipulations on consent, among other legal issues, fines are the greater of twenty million euro or 4% of the entity’s gross global revenue. That said, Google and Facebook were quick to make sure that they updated their user policy to adhere to the GDPR.

Google will be making data they collect viewable under “My Activity” and users will be able to delete specific activity or data from entire time frames that they would rather not have associated with their account. Data privacy information has been made more easily accessible and users are provided with clearer explanations of Google’s data practices through a series of video tutorials outlining a user’s options for managing, exporting, and deleting data.

Both Facebook and Google will have special protection features for their users who are under 18 years old. Facebook’s include requiring parent or guardian permission for the use of target ads and restricted sharing.

On April 17th, 2018 Facebook’s Newsroom published an outline of changes being made to accommodate the GDPR. In addition to allowing the data to be more easily deleted, Facebook will ask users to agree to their updated terms of service and data policy, whether they want to see ads targeted to the information they have filled out on their profile, and if they want to turn off Facebook’s face recognition features. This last option will also be available to users in Canada.

All of this comes shortly after Facebook’s now infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal in which data mined on Facebook was collected and used to strategically place ads pertaining to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Users were inadvertently handing over their data to a third party by playing games and taking quizzes that were seemingly innocuous.

This particular application of mined data, and many other similar instances, highlights that as our dependence on technology and virtual programs has increased over the years, we have slowly but steadily bought into a system without taking the time to critique it. Collectively, people have become complacent about what contracts they absentmindedly agree to mean in the context of their everyday lives. Although we understand that anything shared on the internet will never truly disappear, we fail to ponder what happens when we hand over our addresses, credit card information, age, and other personal statistics to sites like Amazon, Twitter, banking sites, and dating services.

Unfortunately, even with the publicized steps corporations are taking to meet the expectations of the GDPR, business is business and companies continue to look for ways to maximize profits and minimize accountability. In response to the GDPR, Facebook now handles their user responsibility out of their offices in California instead of their international headquarters in Dublin, Ireland. This allows them to circumvent the GDPR and that user rights are now subject to the much lighter U.S. data protection regulations. On top of that, Facebook is still able to advantage of comparable tax breaks by booking their revenue through their Irish office. Alex Hern of The Guardian summed up the issue on April 18th, 2018: “Facebook has moved more than 1.5 billion users out of reach of European privacy law, despite a promise from Mark Zuckerberg to apply the “spirit” of the legislation globally.”

The GDPR is a step in the right direction for privacy rights but the fact remains that the very companies that so many people depend on in their day to day lives continue to abuse their global dominion. As illustrated by Facebook’s move to California, regulations lack strength unless they are implemented globally. The data privacy values outlined by the Article 17 of the ICCPR should be regarded equally around the world. Until there are universal norms, corporations will exploit legal irregularities to serve themselves, not their trusting customers. Looking to the EU as an example, one can only hope that soon the international community will begin to ask, and rightly so, about individuals’ right to privacy on the world wide web.

March 11, 2019 0 comment

Featured History Human Rights

Can the Liberal World Order Stop Genocide?

written by Alex Langsam

In October, a gunman killed 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the deadliest attack on a Jewish community in the history of the United States. Such a blatant act of antisemitism should trigger alarm bells for the West, as it accompanies a growing fear that history may start to repeat itself. Jews are a canary in the coalmine for the West which, following the end of the Second World War and the crimes of the Holocaust, attempted to create a world order that would prevent such a thing happening again. But now, more than seventy years later, with nationalism on the rise and racist attacks seemingly increasing, it seems like the attempt failed. The so-called “Liberal” World Order has been apparently unsuccessful in containing the Second World War’s horrors. What can the West learn from its mistakes and what must it do about them? Genocide is preventable, but it demands work from many world actors.

After the Second World War, there was an effort, led by the US, to build a fairer and so-called “Liberal” World Order. The United Nations was established, with a charter that promoted “universal respect for… human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. Various other measures were employed to encourage a more co-operative and empathetic global community, such as the establishment of the European Union, the creation of the Sister City program and the decolonisation of both Asia and Africa. The US championed a new form of international politics, using its immense power to establish a set of norms for the world that would make it a more just place. But large-scale conflict was inevitable, and both the US and the new intergovernmental organizations it set up would not be enough to completely eliminate barbarity from the world.

Instead of extinguishing persecution and bringing about a perpetual peace, the second half of the twentieth century resulted in numerous genocides across Asia, Europe and Africa, as well as the forty-year long Cold War. The systems put in place to prevent a repeat of the Second World War were a step forward, but are not enough in and of themselves. They required constant support and improvement. Instead, they were only a moment of sobriety in an otherwise alcoholic world order.

These days, pundits have heralded the end of the Liberal World Order, due to a variety of factors including the rise of European nationalist parties, Britain’s attempted exit from the EU and the election of Donald Trump. But perhaps the Liberal World Order they mourn was in need of a re-evaluating shake. It had been taken hostage by American Exceptionalism, an ideology that places the US as superior to other countries, and the idea that its brand of capitalism should run the planet. Masked by the US’ excitement following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Liberal World Order seemed to be strengthened, but in truth it had been cracking for awhile and was in need of repair.

Three particular cracks run deep into the Liberal World Order: the sovereign states of Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In these countries, genocide was carried out, while the Liberal World Order stood by and watched. Atrocities were ignored, bloodshed denied, and international responsibility abandoned. They are proof of the international community’s reluctance to prevent genocide. And the problem continues today, with the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Yazidis in Iraq and Syria, and Darfuri citizens in Sudan facing all-too-familiar stages of ethnic cleansing.

The world must figure out what it can do to prevent future genocides. The United Nations was granted some power to do so in 2005, when it established a principle called the Responsibility to Protect. This provided a framework of diplomatic and military steps to combat genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and seemed to be a step forward in mobilising the international community to take action. However, recent interventions have left a bad taste in the international community’s mouth and the Responsibility to Protect has been accused of basically being an easy excuse for regime change. New-age “intervention” can be hard to distinguish from good old-fashioned imperialism. However, despite the criticism against it, the Responsibility to Protect could still prove useful in preventing atrocities. It is a step in the right direction for solidifying rules in the international community.

What the world must do is to continue to support and develop the many systems and institutions in place to prevent genocide, as. The Liberal World Order needs to evolve from the US’ alter ego into something new, while the norms it set up must remain. The United Nations must continue to act as a forum and monitor for the international community. The Responsibility to Protect has to be refined and evoked when needed. The citizens of democratic states have to hold their governments accountable. The checks and balances that exist to stop genocide are in a constant state of flux – strengthened when states are in solidarity with them and weakened when states ignore them.

Constant normalisation of rules for the international community and solidarity against genocide is the best way to prevent it from occurring. It may seem unrealistic or too optimistic a premise, and in a way it is, but much progress has been made already. War has decreased, homicide rates are down and education rates are up. While there have been failures of the post-WW2 world order, there has also been tremendous success. The last seventy years have been among the most peaceful on Earth. Citizens in the West have developed a tendency to abhor genocide, taught to them by the failings of previous generations. The world is becoming smaller and smaller, and it needs to continue to be pushed in the right direction. Progress takes time, so long in fact that few possess the ability to properly comprehend the direction it follows. However, through a committed and maintained opposition, the brutality of international politics can perhaps be tamed.

January 20, 2019 0 comment

Africa Environmental Change Featured Geopolitics History Security and Conflict

The Renaissance of Water Conflict

written by Katarina Kosmala-Dahlbeck

Ethiopia first announced its plan to construct the Grand Renaissance Dam in 2010, as the Arab Spring began to threaten political stability throughout the region. Upon completion, the hydropower plant on the Blue Nile River will become the largest dam in Africa, storing about 70 billion cubic meters of water and flooding 1,680 square kilometers of land. In addition to displacing 20,000 Ethiopians from their homes, the dam also poses a serious water security threat to Ethiopia’s powerful downstream neighbor, Egypt. Ethiopia’s damming of the Blue Nile will propel Egypt into absolute water scarcity, severely limiting supply to its agricultural sector and to urban residents in Cairo. Tensions regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) have consequently spanned nearly a decade as the two countries have struggled to reach a deal that will supply both of them with a desirable amount of water.

Due to colonial-era agreements, Egypt historically owns the rights to a majority of the Nile’s water. The 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty and its modification in 1959 granted Egypt control over the Nile as well as veto power over any water projects upstream. These agreements were signed under British rule to maintain colonial control over Egypt’s agricultural exports and the Suez Canal, but did not take into account the needs of any other Nile Basin countries. Ethiopia, which controls the supply of 70-80% of the Nile’s water, was not included in either of these treaties and continues to deny their validity to this day. Addis Ababa has thus viewed GERD as a rightful opportunity to become the primary energy exporter in the region and lift the country out of poverty. Egypt, however, has viewed its construction as a secretive and unilateral decision to violate these treaties, escalating a conflict that has at times even threatened at military action.

Conflict over the Nile is not a new phenomenon, but Ethiopia’s announcement of the dam’s construction came at a time of particular uncertainty following the Egyptian Revolution in 2010. This had significant implications for the balance of power in North Africa, and Ethiopia took the opportunity to move on a neighbor preoccupied with domestic instability. However, tensions flared regardless as Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi asserted in 2013 that “if our share of Nile water decreases”, the alternative will be “our blood”. Egypt’s dependence on the Nile goes far beyond water resources and national security. The river is frequently mythologized in Egyptian culture, and the country’s constitution even characterizes Egypt’s existence as a “gift of the Nile”. After securing peace with Israel in 1979, President Anwar Sadat famously wrote that the only issue that could bring Egypt to war again is water.

More pressing than geopolitics, however, is Egypt’s domestic water security threat. Even without the dam, overpopulation and increasing desertification have forced the government to increasingly import water-intensive crops, especially rice. 625,000 acres of arable land are currently vulnerable to drought, and hundreds of thousands of farmers face a lack of livelihood should these trends continue. GERD’s completion, expected within the next five years, will reduce Egypt’s water levels by an additional 25%, posing major challenges for the desert-ridden country as droughts only continue to lengthen. The government has taken few steps to address this issue, and has instead mitigated the problem through increasing food imports and threatening the dam’s construction in Ethiopia. While Egypt’s attachment to the Nile is understandable, military action will not guarantee Cairo its water supply. Instead, the country should take the changing status quo as an opportunity to renegotiate water rights in the region outside of colonial dependence. A deal that provides all Nile Basin countries with water would help prevent dissatisfaction in Ethiopia and set a precedent for sharing international water bodies as resources become more scarce.

Fortunately, Ethiopia’s new prime minister Abiy Ahmed reached out this May stating his intention to “aid development in Ethiopia without harming the Egyptian people”. Known as a reformer, Abiy has made it clear that he wants to collaborate with Ethiopia’s neighbors rather than threaten them. However, the country’s staunch defense of the dam’s construction has signaled that Ethiopia does intend to rival Egypt as the primary energy exporter in the region and is now bargaining from a position of strength. The best course of action for Egypt now would be to concede its regional power and resort to diplomacy rather than threatening war. Temporary lapses in GERD’s construction due to domestic corruption and infrastructure problems have slowed the dam’s progress, and Egypt would be well advised to take advantage of this opportunity to negotiate a deal with Ethiopia. A temporary reprieve in construction allows all parties to preemptively negotiate without the pressure of full development underway.

Meanwhile, Egypt can more effectively mitigate the dam’s threat through its domestic water policy. Relying more on wastewater recycling would utilize its already available water supply, and drawing from groundwater aquifers would decrease its reliance on surface water. The government can even invest in desalination plants to help support its urban populations along the coast. In the agriculture sector, the country can update its irrigation technology to more efficient techniques that require much smaller amounts of water. Smarter irrigation and a transition away from water-intensive crops will considerably decrease agricultural water demand without decreasing food output. All of these strategies can help Egypt better adapt to water shortage while preparing for resource scarcities already expected due to climate change.

Unfortunately, this kind of conflict is not uncommon, and water grabbing has become one of the most profound vestiges of colonialism around the world. Powerful countries facing a water deficit have offset their losses by acquiring water in developing countries, often without the institutional protections and regulations to guard against resource exploitation. The majority of water grabbing takes place in Indonesia, the Philippines, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, although nearly 60% of global water appropriation is made by the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Egypt, and Israel. As water resources become more scarce, historical power structures continue to define the allocation of resources that seem to provide too little for both the rich and the poor. To make matters worse, legal agreements concerning international water bodies do not include climate adaptation policies or incorporate climate models for the future. As a result, the Grand Renaissance Dam is a powerful example of what we can expect in the coming years as water resources become increasingly limited and valuable.

The utilization of water as a national rather than a collective right has historically harmed all states involved and resulted in the power imbalances existent in the Nile Basin. All parties would be better off bargaining if they approached water as essential to their collective security rather than as the property of singular national governments. However, this requires the dismantling of centuries of unequal water distribution rights and the power hierarchies surrounding them. Until sufficient agreements can be made regarding the just allocation of water rights going forward, we can expect to see a surge in water conflict not only in Africa but throughout the world.

January 13, 2019 0 comment

Environmental Change Europe Featured

Models for Reducing Food Waste

written by Sareen Ishanyan

Throughout the world, food waste accounts for a significant percentage of carbon emissions. From the production, packaging, and decomposition, food and food waste are important to consider amid efforts to combat climate change. In recent years, legislation in France and South Korea have sought to address the matter of food waste in different ways. French legislation passed in 2016 seeks to address the matter by eliminating food waste from grocery stores. Grocery stores serve as the focal point of this effort as they have typically been major sites of waste. Meanwhile, South Korean laws aim to recycle household food waste through a ban on discarding food waste into landfills. Such efforts, which have been found to significantly reduce food waste in the respective regions, offer good models for the rest of the world. And while major US cities such as San Francisco and New York City have attempted to implement their own programs to target food waste, there is currently no national legislation in the United States which strongly targets food waste. As the United States, which wastes a third of its food, is the largest producer of food waste in the world, considering recent food waste legislation in France and South Korea can offer insight on the ways in which the US can tackle its struggles with food waste.

In 2016, the French government introduced a law aimed at reducing food waste across the nation. In a unanimous decision, the French parliament agreed to issue fines to grocery stores that throw away edible food. According to the law, edible food must either be donated to local charities or used as animal feed. Those markets in violation of this legislation run the risk of facing financial penalties. This legislation seeks to tackle food waste at the ‘consumption stage,’ which is the stage at which wealthier nations such as France typically waste much of their food. Further, the successes of this legislation, which is the first of its kind to set punitive damages for food waste, has rendered France a leader of global food sustainability.

South Korea, meanwhile, has taken a different approach to food waste. Beginning in the late 1990s, the South Korean government began to organize efforts to recycle and decrease food waste. South Korean households are charged for the amount of food waste that they produce a month, and are banned from discarding food waste into landfills. South Koreans are required to separate food waste from other forms of garbage that will ultimately end up in landfills. Since 2012, adoption of the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system has led to the proliferation of high-technology trash bins which accept food waste. When parting with their food waste at such depositories, South Koreans are required to scan identification cards which keep track of the amount of food waste that they produce. This stock of food waste is then turned into animal feed or biogas, the latter of which provides a good source of electricity for the power plants which recycle such waste. Thus, this legislation seeks to both recycle food waste, by diverting it from decaying and emitting greenhouse gases in landfills, and also encourage South Koreans to decrease their food waste. And much like the successes of French legislation, this South Korean law has led to decreases in food waste across the nation.

Furthermore, in spite of the lack of comprehensive national legislation, many American cities have still been increasingly involved in attempts to reduce food waste. For example, San Francisco has been a forerunner in food composting. The city passed legislation for such a program in 1996. By 2000, San Francisco was able to meet the California-wide goal of diverting half of its waste from landfills Then, in 2009, San Francisco established a mandatory program which requires residents and businesses to compost food waste. Even tourists to the city are required to separate their trash between recycle, landfill, and compost bins. This food composting program has succeeded in decreasing food waste, and also has allowed for conversion of food waste into productive composting materials which provide nutrients to the soil. Similarly, beginning under the Bloomberg administration in 2013, New York City began its own attempts to divert food waste from landfills. NYC implemented a program for residential organic collection, thus providing an increasing number of city residents with a convenient way to recycle food and yard waste.

Food waste is an important issue amid the widening concern for climate change. Countries such as France and South Korea, and American cities such as San Francisco and NYC have taken meaningful strides in reducing the food waste produced by their residents. Each has tackled the matter in a slightly different way and while these efforts have proven successful, no state has yet effectively addressed food waste at all levels of the food system. Still, these varying efforts offer good models for policymakers around the globe. Given the amount of food waste produced by the United States, it is particularly important that American policymakers at the national level consider and possibly adopt such models. Such is especially the case in light of the implications that food waste has on the environment.

January 9, 2019 0 comment

#MeToo Featured Human Rights Society and Culture Women's Rights

The #MeToo Movement

written by Sanah Mehta

Legacy

I stand

on the sacrifices

of a million women before me thinking

what can I do

to make this mountain taller so the women after me

can see farther

– Rupi Kaur

According to the UN Women Website, 35% of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual violence, and less than 40% of these cases ever get reported. Encountering such a case of sexual violence with a young girl, Tarana Burke, an African-American activist who suffered from sexual abuse herself, said, “I watched her put her mask back on and go back into the world like she was all alone and I couldn’t even bring myself to whisper…me too.” Burke finally did say #MeToo and took the first step by uniting and building an extended network of women who too have suffered sexual exploitation and enabling them to voice their traumas openly through a non-profit organization called Just Be Inc., and the #MeToo movement on MySpace. The movement focuses on the mantra of ‘empowerment through empathy,’ turning “victims into survivors and survivors into thrivers” through constant dialogue and the reassurance that someone, even if they are half a world away, has had the same experience.

The United Nations Secretary-General’s Bulletin, Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, defines sexual exploitation as “any actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust, for sexual purposes, including, but not limited to, profiting monetarily, socially or politically from sexual exploitation of another.” Sexual abuse, similarly, is defined as “the actual or threatened physical intrusion of a sexual nature, whether by force or under unequal or coercive conditions.” In simpler terms, it is curtailing a woman’s freedom and subjecting her to a position of inferiority due to actions of a sexual nature. It can range from being cat-called on the streets, to being pinned down and raped –– it has many iterations. The recent outpouring of stories by victims using the #MeToo hashtag from places all over the world including, but not limited to, the United States, India, Vietnam, and Uganda, has proven the unfortunate uniformity of the issue. Irrespective of the country or culture, sexual harassment, exploitation, and abuse exist everywhere in the world.

#MeToo in Other Languages Sounds the Same

Given the extensive global outreach of this movement, reaching 85 countries with 1.7 million tweets, I would like to highlight the key instances that marked its pinnacle in the following countries.

United States

In the United States, sexual harassment is most prominent in the workplace. According to a 2016 EEOC comprehensive study, 25% to 85% of sexual harassment cases reported by women are in the workplace, spread across a variety of industries such as entertainment, politics, and media, among others. With several strong speeches by the likes of Meryl Streep and Viola Davis advocating for a harassment-free work environment, the #MeToo Movement sprung into action with a violent force, drawing attention to big names such as Harvey Weinstein, Brett Kavanaugh, and Bill O’Reilly as possible perpetrators.

Harvey Weinstein, the former Miramax mogul, and legendary Hollywood producer, faced charges of sexual harassment and rape, filed officially by 2 women, but brought to light by numerous others including actresses Angelina Jolie, Uma Thurman, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Lupita Nyong’O, among others. Weinstein’s efforts to hide his antics, through continuous threats of ending careers or forcing further assault, went in vain when he was arrested in May 2018.

Similarly, Fox News entertainer Bill O’Reilly had complaints of “verbal abuse, unwanted advances and lewd comments” levied against him by at least 6 women. His long history of sexual propositions and threats were exposed in a New York Times article, where he is said to have settled legal claims with his accusers for about $13 million over the years. Thanks to the #MeToo movement, several women have come forward to voice their experiences and despite O’Reilly’s power and President Donald Trump’s support for him, he was ousted from his job at Fox News in April of 2017.

However, perhaps the #MeToo movement’s biggest challenge was witnessed during the hearing of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. In the midst of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, a high school acquaintance- Christine Blasey Ford- accused him of sexual misconduct in the 1980s. Kavanaugh denied all charges, saying, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” With the #MeToo movement at its peak, the FBI was brought in to investigate. In spite of the allegations and ongoing controversy, Kavanaugh was confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate and was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice, while women and men alike chanted “Shame!” in the streets.

India

Being born and brought up in India, I have always been surrounded by the social stigma that exists around talking about any sort of sexual harassment. In a society that has long inferioritized women and given entitlement to men, sexual harassment or abuse is always considered to be the woman’s fault and blamed on factors as wide-ranging as the way she dresses, who she goes out with, what time she’s out until, or even the fact that she’s educated. The ‘blame the victim’ mentality is perpetuated even by the Ministers of Parliament through their comments on sexual assault cases. Ranked as the ‘Most Dangerous Country for Women’ by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, about 29% of women are physically and/or sexually assaulted in their lifetime.

The #MeToo movement in India gained momentum following the gang-rape of 23-year old Jyoti Singh Pandey in the capital New Delhi in 2012. Suffering massive injuries, Nirbaya (Hindi for ‘fearless’) as she became known died undergoing treatment in Singapore for injuries she sustained during the assault. The instance shook the nation with severe outrage. The perpetrators were given death sentences, and the Indian law for rape (Section 375/376 of IPC) was expanded beyond penovaginal intercourse to include voyeurism, stalking, and acid attacks. Moreover, The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 now makes it easier for survivors to seek medical help and justice. And with this, the #MeToo movement began in India. Today millions of Indian women are standing up and reporting assaults and instances of harassment on social media to the authorities. While sex crimes have not reduced overall, the strong silver lining is that they are now reported more than they once were.

Vietnam

About 87% of Vietnamese women are sexually harassed in public. Of these, the most vulnerable group is journalism student interns and entry-level female journalists, according to research conducted by a Swedish international media development institute, and the Hanoi-based Center for Media and Development Initiatives (MDI).

Although Vietnam has been lauded for having one of the “world’s highest female labor force participation rates, similar educational attainment for men and women, and better-than-average representation of women in its legislature,” sexual violence against women persists. The #MeToo movement began in Vietnam with a sexual assault allegation at Tuoi Tre, a major daily newspaper in Vietnam. A young intern accused her supervising editor of sexual assault, and then afterword attempted suicide. This scandal brought out thousands of female journalists on Twitter with the tags #toasoansach (clean newsroom), #ngungimlang (stop staying silent), and #MeToo. Khuat Thu Hong, founder, and director of the Institute for Social Development Studies said, “The phenomenon of sexual harassment in Vietnam is politicized in a way [that] there are a lot of efforts to silence the victims or cover up what occurred.” Consequently, Tuoi Tre denied all charges against the senior editor in a statement.
The movement has a long way to go in Vietnam, as the Vietnamese Labor Code lacks a clear definition of sexual harassment, and the country lacks clear data on the issue. However, as more women begin standing up for themselves and one another, even the most powerful culprits will be punished.

Uganda

In Uganda, as in a shocking and saddening number of countries, many women are wary of telling their stories of sexual abuse. For one, many of the perpetrators are renowned businessmen, politicians, or people whose power prevents the victims from getting the justice they deserve. In many cases, evidence is destroyed, and in some, the survivors are silenced through bribery or even murder. A second factor is undoubtedly Ugandan culture. The Baganda, the largest ethnic group in Uganda have a saying, ‘ebyomunju tebitotolwa,’ which translates to ‘No woman is supposed to tell stories from their home,’ preventing women in abusive marriages to seek respite. Moreover, Onesmus Twinamasiko, a Member of the Ugandan Parliament, even gave a televised interview encouraging men to beat their wives to “discipline” them. Just like India, the ‘blame the victim’ mentality is prevalent in Uganda as well, preventing women from reporting cases.
But with the #MeToo movement spreading across the globe, many women in Uganda are refusing to be silenced and have come out with their experiences. A University student in Kampala was harassed by her professor to trade sex for grades. Similarly, a secondary school student reported that she too had been sexually harassed but “never complained about it for fear of reprisals from teachers.” Many such instances reveal the gender inequality in Uganda, and although the #MeToo movement resonated with women, it is the apathetic justice system which fails them.

Louise Burke, a reporter for The Daily Telegraph, wrote that #MeToo “exposed an epidemic of sexual assault and harassment across every corner of the world and unbottled a collective fury which can no longer be contained.” With humble roots, this movement gained rapid momentum and created a worldwide phenomenon of helping survivors of sexual abuse deal with their experiences with fearlessness, encouragement and most importantly, empathy. However, even though this movement is up and running and yielding results through changing laws, arresting and prosecuting offenders, and spreading awareness, there is still a long way to go towards changing the mindset and innate behaviors and attitudes of not just men, but women as well, that allow sexual exploitation and gender inequality to persist. This is just the first step towards learning from the sacrifices of millions of women who have gone through such trauma and hopefully creating a stable system to make the world a more equal place for women and preventing future generations from ever having to experience similar pain in the future.

November 17, 2018 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts