Uncategorized

Fights for Funding, Brexit Bedlam, & a Revanchist Russia

In his commencement address to the 2016 graduating class at Howard University in Washington, D.C, then-President Obama declared that, “Democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right.” Few would dispute Obama’s observation, and yet, over the last two months, two of the world’s oldest and most stable democracies—the United States and United Kingdom—appear as if they have forgotten this is the case, and thus may be losing their ability to function effectively like the democratic states they are. The U.S. has been unable to keep its government open for more than a few weeks at a time, while Britain remains mired in a months-long controversy over how—or if—they should leave the European Union. Lawmakers in both Washington and London appear unable to find solutions with their respective oppositions in order to avert political chaos. Yet one individual who never lost sight of the necessity of compromise in democratic politics, and must be reveling in Moscow as the institutions of his adversaries crumble, is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It was precisely this goal of fomenting chaos that Russia sought when it interfered in both British and American politics in 2016 via the Brexit referendum and the American presidential election. Britain’s Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Media, and Sport found Russian meddling in the June 2016 Brexit referendum via Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms to be for “the purpose of undermining public confidence and of destabilizing democratic states.” Similarly, Moscow’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was, as former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute Clint Watts described, done with the intention to “undermine democracy, [and] to make Americans lose confidence in democratic institutions and elected officials”. Russia’s means to achieve this was the use of social media ads that highlighted differences in societal makeup such as race, religion, and ethnicity. According to Watts, Russia’s tactic, both in the U.S. and abroad, was to turn “every crack…into a chasm and [to pit] different race, ethnic groups [and] socioeconomic groups” against each other. When political disagreements turn to ideological chasms, compromise becomes impossible, and, as Obama warned, democracy begins to fail.

The fight between a Democratic House and Republican president to keep the U.S. federal government running and the disagreements between hardline Brexiteers and pro-European Union internationalists over the future of Britain are increasingly illustrative of exactly what Russia intended for its democratic adversaries, and are already showing their threatening impact on both national harmony and even national security. On December 22, 2018, the U.S. Federal Government shutdown when President Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress were unable to reach a deal to fund the government. The shutdown stemmed from a standoff over Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to fund a border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, which the newly sworn in Democratic majority in the House of Representatives refused. This resulted in the the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Roughly 380,000 federal employees were furloughed, while an additional 420,000 were expected to work without pay until the shutdown ended. Many of these workers held essential positions as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspectors, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees, Coast Guard members, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air-traffic controllers.

The effects have been chaotic. Tom O’Connor, a special agent with the FBI told The Atlantic in early-January that the financial insecurities that faced the FBI, “equate[d] to a national-security issue.” With close to 5,000 agents furloughed, investigations and undercover operations were threatened, while the labs at the FBI headquarters in Quantico, which provide forensic-analysis to support those investigations, face a mounting backlog as those who operate them were forbidden from showing up for work. Additionally, FBI agents have lost access to undercover sources due to a lack of funds. One anonymous agent said that his unit had “lost several sources who have worked for months, and years, to penetrate groups and target subjects” because the Bureau cannot currently pay them.

Members of the U.S. Coast Guard, tasked with patrolling American waters and protecting U.S. ports of entry, were forced to work without pay. FAA employees, who ensure safety in the sky, began handing out leaflets describing their inability “mandate safety fixes in aircrafts” and the delay of the “implementations of new safety procedures”. The FDA halted food inspections. A superpower like the United States can’t be expected to compete with Russia on the world stage, let alone guard against international threats like Moscow when the very institutions that do so, the FBI and military, have to slow their operations, if not halt them entirely. Putin would love a weakened FBI and American military, and Washington is handing it to him.

It has not just been U.S. safety and security services affected by the shutdown. After the government reopened, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the shutdown cost the U.S. economy $11 billion. Formerly bipartisan traditions, such as the State of the Union address and governmental support for American troops abroad, were stunted after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi requested President Trump postpone the address during the shutdown. The President retaliated by cancelling Pelosi’s trip to visit troops in Afghanistan.

Even before these current crises, a December 2016 poll found only 30 percent of American millennials find it “essential” to live in a democracy, showing the calamity the U.S. faces. With the government’s current inability to compromise in pursuit of safety within its borders, along its coasts, or in its food, the latest shutdown is unlikely to improve an already bleak faith in American democracy and its institutions.

Across the Atlantic, democracy faces similar paralysis. The deadline for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union looms on March 29th. Prime Minister May has been working to negotiate a deal for the U.K.’s departure with both EU representatives and the British Parliament. Although the EU approved May’s plan for withdrawal in early December, May chose shortly after to delay the parliamentary vote on the deal for fear that it would be rejected.

The result was a rebellion within her Conservative Party, with hardline Brexit supporters seeking to oust her via a party-wide no-confidence vote, a rare move in British politics. May was able to survive the vote and brought her Brexit deal to a parliamentary vote a month later on January 15. Nevertheless, it was thoroughly rejected by a margin of 432 to 202, the largest defeat handed to a Prime Minister in modern British history. Shortly after, with no deal in sight, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn brought a Parliament-wide no-confidence vote against May, and yet she again skirted to victory by a slim 19-vote margin.

The Brexit deadline is less than nine weeks away with no deal in sight and no apparent change in government imminent. May announced her plan last week to return to Brussels to seek further concessions for a deal, but the EU is unlikely to budge. Other options include seeking a delay for Britain’s exit date or holding a second referendum, but both ventures seem unlikely to prosper.

If a deal is not reached before the March 29th deadline, it is very likely that Britain will be forced into a “no-deal Brexit”. Rather than maintaining certain economic and trading ties with the EU, as May has been trying to do, London’s relationship with Brussels will be severely damaged and the results potentially devastating. Economically it could be catastrophic. Many economists have said that a “no-deal Brexit” would be a “doomsday” scenario with Britain having to erect World Trade Organization trade rules at its borders. An International Monetary Fund projection said close to eight percent of Britain’s gross domestic product could be lost. British companies, with a variety of products ranging from wine to bicycles, have been stockpiling goods over fear that they may not be able to import them as quickly or as cheaply in the case of a “no-deal Brexit”. Britain’s National Health Service has stockpiled refrigerators as part of its contingency planning to ensure that imported drugs from Europe don’t go bad before they can reach their patients. Britain has even rehearsed a “traffic jam” scenario with trucks at some of its ports, to see how to handle the flow of goods coming into the country in the event of a British border closure. May appears now to have no good options. Like the country itself, her party is hopelessly divided between those who want out of the EU entirely and those who want to remain. No compromise or concessions appear imminent.

The current state of the U.S. and Britain, two of the world’s most powerful countries, is not what first-world democracy should look like. FBI agents unable to conduct their operations properly, planes unable to takeoff or land safely, ports and coastlines not protected adequately, and food not subject to the necessary scrutiny. Britons facing an economic “doomsday,” companies having to stockpile goods, and the NHS having to buy thousands of fridges in the event that they cannot import drugs fast enough. Meanwhile, citizens of two of the world’s wealthiest and powerful democracies must be looking on in disbelief.

The question now for the U.S. and Britain however is not if these two great nations are on a path headed towards disarray, but rather how far down it they are. While Brexit and the shutdown may seem to be unique and hence will go away soon enough, the root of the cause is that at present the right and the left in the West remain utterly and irreconcilably divided, and unlike Trump or Brexit, this situation is not going anywhere.

This is exactly what Russia wants: Americans and Britons exasperated at their governments’ sheer ineptitude. When Putin directed his intelligence operatives to intervene before the Brexit vote in the U.K and the 2016 Presidential election in the U.S, his goal was to undermine democratic institutions by stoking fierce division amongst their respective populaces. In a democracy, when people are sharply divided, the institutions of government cease to problem-solve effectively. The ideological gap becomes too distant to bridge through compromise, and passing legislation that the people want—the fundamental underpinning of a democratic country—becomes impossible. That said, Putin did not create this ideological divide, he simply exploited it. While it is worthwhile for the U.S. and U.K. to respond forcefully to Russian aggression, the real demons at fault for the chaos now engulfing Western democracy are internal, not external. Washington and London should deter Moscow to help quell their respective problems. But in the long run, it may require that they look inside their borders, not outside, to truly solve them.

February 4, 2019 0 comment

Africa Europe Featured History Military Security and Conflict Uncategorized

La Guerre du Sahel

written by Grayson Peters

Along a desert road, a military convoy is passed by an unassuming gray car. There is a sudden explosion, then gunfire. Fifteen minutes later, four civilians are dead and eight Western soldiers are wounded. This is not the first act of terrorism in the region, nor will it be the last. The story is familiar – an Islamic terrorist attack against Western soldiers stationed in the region – but the players and setting are not. These foreign forces are not American, and the battleground is not Iraq or Afghanistan. The soldiers are French, and they are in the Sahel, a sub-Saharan strip of Africa that links the Atlantic Ocean to the west and the Red Sea to the east.

The Sahel is a vast, scarcely populated, and loosely governed region that stretches across fourteen African countries, including Mali, Chad, and Niger. In recent decades, the absence of effective governance has allowed the Sahel to become a hotbed of political violence and a safe haven for transnational terrorist organizations. Boko Haram, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and smaller, regional terrorist organizations have all used the Sahel as a base of operations and refuge from counter-terrorist operations. The Sahel states’ porous borders enable militant groups to travel unchecked across vast swaths of the continent and strike targets in North African nations such as Algeria and Tunisia.

Ethnic and economic tensions in the Sahel predate the arrival of transient Islamic terrorist organizations, but temporary alliances between militant groups and villagers increase the scale and danger of regional violence. The New York Times reported that France and Mali estimate that ISIS in the Greater Sahara has only 40 to 60 core members. By inflaming local passions and escalating grievances between villagers, small groups of transnational militants are able to create disproportionately large violence and chaos. For instance, Niger and Mali’s cattle-herding Tuareg people, who had previously only taken up arms to defend their cattle and on occasion engage in small-scale ethnic violence, became involved with international terrorism. Far from home, Tuareg recruits have been involved in terrorist incidents in Libya, raids in Nigeria, and “banditry” in northern Niger and southern Algeria. Ethnic grievances between the Tuareg and Fulani peoples in both Mali and Niger led to ethnic armed conflict which was dramatically escalated by the presence of Islamic militant groups. Because these ethnic grievances are often intertwined with economic concerns, especially cattle ownership, external pressures that threaten the livelihood of Sahelian villagers can catalyze conflict.

As global warming progresses, the increased frequency of droughts, expanding desertification of the Sahel, and dwindling resources in the area will likely worsen regional tensions and create conditions favorable for the growth of terrorist networks. In 2012, according to the State Department, droughts and failed harvests in the Sahel placed 18.7 million Africans at risk for food insecurity, further fueling instability in the region. It is no coincidence that, immediately following the outbreak of drought, cattle die-offs, and famine, relations between Mali’s Tuareg and Fulani peoples worsened. A series of escalating cattle raids led to an arms race and created an opportunity for al-Qaeda affiliates to supply villagers with automatic weapons. Within the year, the Tuareg people of northern Mali, with support from al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, formed the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (NMLA) and rebelled against the central government of Mali.

When French military assets entered Mali in 2013, the campaign, known officially as Operation Serval, aimed to support the beleaguered Malian government and block the NMLA’s war for a Tuareg ethnostate in northern Mali. Although Mali and France decisively defeated the NMLA after only a few months, the French remained in Mali in an attempt to suppress a continued insurgency. Five years later, Operation Barkhane, France’s ongoing operation to stabilize the greater Sahel is ongoing and there are fresh casualties. As recently as July 1, a car bombing in Gao injured French soldiers and killed dozens of Malian civilians. Nusrat al-Islam, an al-Qaeda linked organization and the primary terrorist network currently operating in the Sahel, claimed responsibility.

In 2013, three-quarters of the French citizenry supported Operation Serval, the original intervention against NMLA secessionists in Mali. Today, substantial French support endures for the ongoing Operation Barkhane despite the campaign’s duration and casualties.

At first, it may seem surprising that France is leading the international effort to stamp out terrorism in the Sahel. After all, in 2003, the French government’s opposition to American intervention in Iraq was widely mocked in the United States. In protest, Los Angelenos (and even some UCLA students) publicly poured out French wine in front of the French consulate, and the U.S. House of Representatives cafeteria menu infamously renamed French fries to Freedom fries. During this wave of anti-French sentiment, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman declared that “France is becoming our enemy.” In 2003, France insisted on a multilateral diplomatic approach to Iraq, in opposition to U.S. President Bush’s insistence on unilateral military action. Yet, ten years later, the French army unilaterally entered Mali, touching off a protracted five-year campaign that has expanded to include the entire Sahel region.

What changed between Freedom fries and a permanent French presence in the Sahel? In reality, France’s relationships with Iraq and the Sahel are vastly different. Countries in the western Sahel such as Mali and Niger were colonized and imperialized by France during the European Scramble for Africa in the late 19th century. These Francophone African nations still bear both the trauma and cultural legacy of French rule.

Many leftist and African scholars argue that France’s reassertion of authority and military power over historic colonial possessions is best characterized as neo-imperialist. Skeptical that France’s primary concern is protecting Malian citizens from terrorism, these critics of French intervention point to plausible ulterior motives including the protection of French corporate mining interests and nearby uranium mines (in both Niger and Nigeria) on which the French energy sector relies. In February, Congolese novelist and UCLA professor Alain Mabanckou criticized la Francophonie, the informal and institutionalized network of French speaking countries, and described it not as a partnership of equals but as an instrument of French neo-imperial domination.

However, there is also evidence that the French feel a sense of obligation to and fraternity with the Francophone Africans of the Sahel. Cultural ties, a shared language, and a sense of historical interconnectedness (despite the region’s colonial past) are all factors. Arguably, elements within France feel a sense of guilt and noblesse oblige, or responsibility of the privileged, towards the nations their ancestors exploited. Whether this concern is genuine or paternalistically self-serving is a matter of debate. What is clear, however, is that the security situation in the Sahel is as of yet unresolved and that the potent mixture of ethnic conflict, Islamic terrorism, rising global temperatures, and increasingly severe droughts represents a enduring security risk for African nations and a source of serious concern for France.

September 19, 2018 0 comment

Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and President of France Francois Hollande meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Source

Europe Featured Geopolitics Uncategorized Women's Rights

The Double-Edged Sword of Female Leadership

written by Katie Linder

The 2016 presidential election will no doubt remain a controversial subject in the coming years. Many feminists, excited at the prospect of America’s first female president, must now come to terms with the reality that the “highest and hardest” glass ceiling will remain unbroken for at least four more years. However, the United States is not alone in its continued failure to elect a woman to its highest government office. Despite the progress made around the world to expand the rights of women, a lack of gender parity remains painfully clear in the realm of leadership. Women occupy around 10% of the highest offices in national governments around the world, with 19 women currently serving as head of state/government. One of the most formidable female leaders today is Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. Merkel’s unconventional rise to power serves as an inspiration to aspiring female leaders and further dismantles society’s male-centric conception of power and leadership. However, her legacy also highlights the many double-edged swords facing women in power that make the glass ceiling so difficult to break through.

As a politician in Germany, Merkel is an outlier. She grew up in East Germany during the Cold War and was originally trained in the sciences. Her origins made her an outsider in German politics, which were dominated by men from the West. Nevertheless, she turned her perceived weaknesses into strengths. She used the patience, intellect and inconspicuousness that she cultivated in the East to propel her political career. Furthermore, her background in science allowed her to grow more comfortable working in a male dominated field, and has influenced many aspects of her political style. She is an unanimated public speaker; her speeches are devoid of the pompousness and inflated rhetoric that are characteristic of many other world leaders. She is notorious for delaying her decisions for as long as possible in order to analyze all the available data, and has developed a political style that is based on pragmatism and facts rather than any ideological convictions. In fact, it has been said her only deep seated conviction is her value for freedom, everything else “is negotiable”.

Merkel’s unique style of leadership has allowed her to cultivate a level of respect among the German people that secured her three consecutive terms as chancellor. However, despite her success, she has faced more than her fair share of obstacles in the form of both overt and subtle sexism. While she has risen above the insults and criticism admirably, her experiences reveal the contradictory attitudes surrounding female leadership, and the fine line women in power must walk. While every country and culture has a unique set of standards for their leadership, many of the challenges faced by Merkel are universal to women seeking power.

Merkel developed an ability to restrain herself and lead from behind through her experience studying alongside primarily male colleagues at Leipzig University. She once joked, “The men in the laboratory always had their hands on all the buttons at the same time. I couldn’t keep up with this, because I was thinking. And then things suddenly went ‘poof,’ and the equipment was destroyed.” Throughout her political career she has stood her ground and dealt with the particularly “macho” male leaders, such as Vladimir Putin, in a similar fashion. Merkel’s tactics can serve as a model for other aspiring female leaders, but her experiences also reveal a troubling truth. Female leaders must remain composed in order to avoid being labeled emotional or abrasive, but if they are too diffident they risk having their voices drowned out. Merkel’s lead from behind style of leadership has allowed her to work around this double-edged sword, but it is not necessarily the most efficient way to lead. Ultimately, placing rigid expectations on women hinders their ability to be effectual leaders.

Contradictions between expectations of Merkel’s femininity and masculinity also came into play during her rise to power. The now popular and affectionate nickname “Mutti” (German word for mother), was originally thrown at her as an insult. She has since gracefully reclaimed the name, arguing that it implies her responsibility to the German people. Her appearance has come under scrutiny as well, particularly at the beginning of her career. She has updated her style over time but has largely ignored the critics and maintained a plain and unassuming wardrobe. In this way she has sent the message that she prioritizes her work over her appearance and wants to keep the focus on her policy. These experiences reveal another double-edged sword: as a woman Merkel is expected to be feminine, matronly and stylish, although these traits are often seen as incompatible with strong leadership. After centuries of primarily male leaders, our notions of masculinity and leadership are intimately intertwined. In order to be taken seriously, a woman must adopt more traditionally masculine traits such as resoluteness and aggression. However, acting too masculine often makes a woman less likeable to a broad audience.

Merkel has also received criticism at the other end of the spectrum from feminists who are dismayed by her failure to adequately address women’s issues in Germany. Merkel herself has said she doesn’t consider herself a feminist. Although she has made efforts throughout her career to advance women’s rights, such as adding gender equality in the workplace to the G7 summit agenda in 2015, women’s issues have remained largely on the periphery of her policy goals. The harsh criticism Merkel has received from feminists is fueled in part by the idea that women understand the challenges posed by gender barriers, and thus have an obligation to help each other whenever possible; as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once said, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other”. Merkel’s actions reveal another troubling double-edged sword: those with the most power to advance women’s rights—women in the highest offices of government—often adopt passive stances, perhaps because acting otherwise could amount to political suicide. When a woman seeking a high leadership role champions women’s rights and runs on a feminist platform, it is seen with suspicion by many and cast as self-serving. Thus, it is very difficult for an outspoken feminist to get elected to a high office. There is no doubt that having more female leaders is a positive step towards gender equality. However, their power would be much more consequential if it were wielded to directly advance women’s issues.

While more active advocacy for women’s issues from Merkel is necessary, her contributions to the women’s movement must still be recognized and appreciated. She garnered respect in boardrooms dominated by men as she led Europe through the Eurozone Crisis and continues to tackle the Refugee Crisis; thus she has expanded respect for female voices in important international policy discussions. Ultimately, Merkel can serve as both an inspiration and a sobering lesson to other aspiring female leaders. She is an example to women everywhere of strong female leadership that has risen above sexist criticism and “macho men”. However, her legacy is riddled with the double-edged swords that have prevented many other women from achieving the same success. Hopefully, America’s aspiring first-female-presidents will learn a lesson from Merkel and shatter the highest glass ceiling once and for all.

February 9, 2017 0 comment

The Eiffel Tower lit in blue white red-Fluctuat nec Mergitur, Flickr (CC), Source

Europe Featured Geopolitics Middle East Security Security and Conflict Terrorism Uncategorized

In the Shadow of Terror—The Global Response to Terrorism in Light of the Paris Attacks

written by Arturo Siguenza

November 13, a day that will surely be ingrained in the nightmares of thousands, began as any other day in Paris, with the promise of an exciting evening of friends, food, and music. No one predicted the horror that would ensue as the sun set, namely that a group of strategically organized terrorists would infiltrate various locations throughout the city. At 9:20pm explosions erupted in the locality around the Stade de France, triggering the beginning of multiple attacks. Over the next four hours, cafes and restaurants were targeted in a slew of bombings and shootings, culminating at the Bataclan Concert Hall. Those hoping to enjoy an evening of rock music headlined by the American band, Eagles of Death Metal, instead faced a group of armed militants that entered the venue and opened fire at unsuspecting crowds. Within a few hours, the city of Paris was consumed by panic and terror as thousands fled these targeted centers in search of safe havens from the attacks.

The city of Paris lost 130 lives throughout the course of the night and 351 people were left injured. An attack meant to indiscriminately stir fear not only in France, but globally, has successfully shaken spirits worldwide. Empathy for France was instantaneous as social media reacted in support. Facebook instituted a safety check system, a tool previously reserved for natural disasters, allowing users in Paris to notify their loved ones of their status. Feeds flooded with profile pictures donning a blue, white and red filter in solidarity. Across all social media platforms, people showed their support using the hashtag #prayforparis, and governments worldwide showed their solidarity, projecting the French flag over their monuments and gathering to discuss collective action. Just two days after the attacks, world leaders met at the G20 World Summit in Turkey, vowing to increase military response against IS. Since the World Summit, an international coalition including the USA, France, the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and recently Britain, has formed using air strikes to bomb IS targets in Syria aiming to weaken the organization’s strongholds. With the ever-increasing support for France and the reactionary discussions among government heads, the Paris attacks marked a pivotal point in the war against IS and its affiliates. Claiming responsibility for the horrific attacks, IS has demonstrated its ability to not only effectively inflict its militant terror tactics within its territorial strongholds but also to extend this destructive reach internationally.

But what does this social response and acceleration in government action tell us? The terrorist attacks in Paris and the response that followed showed a collective empathy that cut across national boundaries, but also conversely emphasized the stark contrast in the attention garnered by terrorist attacks in other regions. With everyone from celebrities to prominent government officials making statements and sending their condolences and prayers to Parisians, one begins to wonder why other countries do not receive the same treatment. For instance, earlier last year a suicide bomber killed 12 people during a funeral in eastern Afghanistan. In April, al-Shabab militants attacked and killed 147 at Garissa University in Kenya, most of whom were students. Just a day before the attacks in Paris, a suicide bombing orchestrated by ISIS hit the city of Beirut killing 43 people. These are but a few of the acts of terrorism this past year and the majority of these brutal incidents share one common factor: none garnered the outpouring of global attention and empathy that the Paris attacks had.

My intention is not to shame the solidarity shown for Paris, but to highlight the stark contrast between how these events are treated. This contrast makes it impossible to continue ignoring the chronic perception that terrorism occurring in countries situated in regions more prone to violence, such as in the Middle East and Africa, can be waved aside as normal or habitual occurrences. At the G20 Summit in November, President Obama referred to the events in Paris as not just an attack on France but as “an attack on the civilized world.” This raises the question as to how and what we can identify as “the civilized world?” This loaded statement calls forth the idea that world governments, popular media, and ordinary individuals dismiss some regions as backwards and their confrontations with violence as the unfortunate but dismissible status quo—until bombs go off in their own backyards. What is most distressing is that attacks subsequently launched against terrorist organizations often result in the upheaval and loss of many innocent civilian lives; consider the civilian death toll in the War on Terrorism following 9/11 and the warzone that Syria has become. Civilians in countries that seem to be too “uncivilized” to foster global attention or completely lost in micro-aggression, are often neglected and their already chaotic surroundings decimated.

So what does this mean for the future in the aftermath of the Paris attacks? It is clear that IS and its affiliates will not stop anytime soon in their ongoing terror rampage. They have already claimed sequence of more attacks, since the Paris events. In Nigeria two bomb attacks carried out by Boko Haram killed 31 and injured 72. This past week a suicide bomber—and suspected member of IS—killed 10 in Istanbul’s Sultanahmet Square and the organization also orchestrated a series of attacks in Jakarta leaving 2 dead and 20 injured. A new IS propaganda video, titled “Paris Has Collapsed,” was released on November 20th glorifying the Paris attacks and vowing continuation of threats to not only France, but also the U.S. The hacker-activist group known as Anonymous also released a list of future IS targets it claims to have uncovered suggesting plans for strikes in the U.S., Indonesia, Italy, and Lebanon. Additionally we also see the domino effect IS attacks have on its ongoing rivalry with Al Qaeda for Islamic supremacy. Shortly after the Paris attacks, Al Qaeda launched an attack that killed 19 in a Mali hotel on November 20th. A dangerous future of competition between the two organizations is becoming progressively more apparent.

The West, or the “civilized world” as described by President Obama, is entering a state of emergency as the war against terrorism escalates indefinitely. The next steps will undoubtedly bring massive change to the international sphere. In this, we must remember that government and social response can empower terrorism as much as it can end it; justice is our duty but retaliation is not. We cannot permit ourselves to repeat the mistakes following 9/11 with an emergency response that does not consider further consequences in war-torn countries. For every innocent life lost in distant battlefields and each person at home that allows their fear to turn them away from the idea of human rights, plays into the hands of terrorist organizations moving us towards an increasingly militant global climate fueled by terror.

My prayers go out to all those affected by the recent terrorist attacks and those who continue to experience the aftermath of past episodes. Your stories will not go forgotten.

January 15, 2016 1 comment

Crisis Relied Europe Featured Geopolitics Globalization Immigration Internet Middle East Religion Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Territorial disputes Terrorism Uncategorized

An Interview with Mubin Shaikh: Former Jihadist Turned Counter-Terrorism Operative

written by Madison Weil

In light of recent radical Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide, individuals everywhere are feeling uneasy and unsafe. The topic of national security has moved to the forefront of political agendas and has become an integral part of international discussions. In the United States, 49% of citizens are worried that they, or someone in their family, will become a victim of terrorism. This percentage is the highest it has been since the year following 9/11. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, “Over three-quarters of Americans doubt the nation’s ability to stop ‘lone wolf’ terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own.” Additionally, 59% of Republicans, 38% of Independents, and 15% of Democrats support a ban on all Muslims wishing to enter the United States. For a nation that prides itself on freedom and equal opportunity for all, these are surprising numbers, which reveal the success of radical extremists in their ability to create widespread fear and anti-Muslim sentiment.

In an effort to learn more about the goals and recruitment strategies of ISIS, a colleague and I recently interviewed Mubin Shaikh—an ex-extremist turned counter-terrorism operative, and author of the book Undercover Jihadi. Born in Canada, Shaikh was raised Muslim and became influenced by the radical ideas of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He began actively recruiting other young Muslims for the cause of jihad. After the events of 9/11, however, he questioned Islamic extremism and travelled to Syria, where he underwent deradicalization—a process he defines in his interview as “a full cognitive shift away from extremist thinking.” Upon his return home, he began working undercover with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the “Toronto 18” case, in an effort to prevent extremist attacks. Today, he works to stop radicalization using social media to directly engage Islamic State sympathizers, while also speaking out against Islamophobia, which he believes only fuels and encourages radicalization.

What many people do not understand is that the fulfillment of ISIS’ agenda is actually dependent upon worldwide discrimination against Muslims—all Muslims, even moderate, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. According to Shaikh, “It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious how easily people are falling into that trap. ISIS has actually written a document in which they wrote and said ‘we will commit these attacks so as to create retaliation on Muslims to make them feel so isolated and marginalized that they will be pushed into our waiting arms.’”

Shaikh is referring to both a manifesto called “The Black Flags from Rome,” as well as the February edition of ISIS’ online magazine, Dabiq, in which the Islamic State warned, “Muslims in the West will soon find themselves between one of two choices.” This statement was published in the weeks following the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris—an abhorrent act that only heightened the pre-existing tension between French Muslims and their fellow citizens. The group boasted that the attack had “further [brought] division to the world,” and “eliminated the grayzone,” representing the coexistence between Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors. The text further explains that Muslims living in the West will soon feel so isolated and marginalized, they will be forced to “either apostatize … or [migrate] to the Islamic State, and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens.” The term “crusader” is the title given by ISIS to every Western soldier, civilian, and politician, regardless of party or nation.

In the weeks following the most recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, ISIS has seen their goal come to fruition—innocent Muslims everywhere have been experiencing acts of violence, hatred, and discrimination at the hands of angry, fearful Western citizens. Many in the West believe that Islam is a religion that promotes violence, without understanding that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. Shaikh explained that ISIS manipulates the Quran, “cherry-picks” verses, and uses phrases out of context in order to piece together an outline for their violent mission.

In a more recent interview with VICE, Shaikh reemphasizes that widespread Islamophobia provides a major advantage to ISIS recruiters: “The sad reality is, you have people on the right who might as well directly take the marching orders from ISIS because they’re doing the work for them.” ISIS targets individuals who feel isolated and rejected. Youths are an easy target given their desire to formulate their own identity and find a community to which they belong. Shaikh comments, “Your brains are still developing until your mid-twenties. That’s a time when you’re susceptible to influences from adults, community members, and religious members.” ISIS preys on the vulnerability of ostracized youths, reaching out to them via social media platforms such as Facebook, Skype, Twitter, Instagram, etc. “They’ll take screenshots and continue to engage you until they feel like they can successfully recruit you,” says Shaikh. He also solemnly discusses the impossibility of quitting ISIS once an individual has been recruited: “Their lives are destroyed. And it will be very, very difficult for them to leave that place. Some of them have been executed because they were creating ‘too many problems’ because they wanted to go home.”

While widespread fear and anger might seem inevitable in light of current events, Shaikh encourages individuals to educate themselves on the goals and strategies of extremists, and to resist the temptation to perpetuate the anti-Muslim sentiment which only further fuels radicalization and polarization.

December 28, 2015 1 comment

Africa Asia Featured Global Health Uncategorized Women's Rights

Trust Women, Improve Water Supply

written by Chrissy Cheung

The world water crisis stands out as one of the most prominent international issues of the world today, affecting developed and developing countries alike. In developed countries, one of the larger impacts of lacking water is on agriculture, leading to a combination of increasing prices and decreasing employment. In developing nations, however, there is a significant lack of clean drinking water that not only leads to disease, but also to the death of a child every 21 seconds, which is over 4,000 children every day. According to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation, around 1.8 billion people worldwide drink water that is contaminated, and based on a UN study, “even more drink water delivered through a system without adequate protection against sanitary hazards.” However, the world water crisis is not limited to health matters. Throughout Africa and parts of Southern Asia, lack of clean drinking water causes the continued disjuncture between male and female well-being.

To begin with, water—even when unsanitary—is not readily available to every community. In urban and suburban areas, like suburban Uganda, people depend on broken water pipes to access free, clean water. Their other option is, if geographically possible, to collect unsanitary water from a nearby stream because they cannot afford to pay for clean water (Water.org). In most rural throughout Africa, women and children must walk, on average, 6 kilometers every day to fetch water. They then carry around 20 liters back to their village, which wears on their necks and backs. In Malawi, women spend nine times as many hours as men do fetching water; girls spend three times as many (UN Women Watch). This time-consuming process often prevents those women and girls from working a paying job or attending school, whereas men and boys have more time to accomplish both tasks. As a result, the women in African rural communities end up, between gathering water and performing household tasks, working unpaid for twice the amount of time that the men work for a salary.

Furthermore, the need to fetch water for their family confines women in Central Africa to daily, unpaid labor and prevents them from receiving an education, making it so that there is little that women can do to escape their circumstances and lead a better life. It becomes extremely difficult for women to advance in the work force or in government, creating a cyclic effect that reinforces women’s role in society and furthering the divide between male and female well-being.

The most apparent solution to this situation is the implementation of water services like building a well for the community. Wells of Life, The Water Project, Water Wells for Africa, and The African Well Fund are a few of the international organizations that work to provide these services. Having access to a well in a rural community not only gives the people access to clean drinking water, but also significantly shortens the distance that women need to walk in order to fetch it. This would give them more time in their day to get an education and advance in the work force.

At the same time, the world water situation contributes to the political inequality, if not the near subjugation, of women in Central Africa and Southern Asia. According to the United Nations publication “Women and Water: 2000 and beyond,” women are the most involved in making decisions for their families regarding water sanitation. However, the organizations responsible for the planning and management of water and sanitation systems (whether they be governmental or privately owned) rarely allow women to be involved. This continues despite the fact that a United Nations-sponsored survey proved that water projects planned and managed by women are more likely to succeed than those conducted solely by men. This is exemplified in another UN study, which conducted research about the impact of water services on communities in east Nepal. In the study, women whose communities received improved water services experienced increased collection time when the services were placed near the roadsides. Women chose to walk to the wells, collect the water, return home, and repeat this process several times a day during menstruation, due to the shame of being seen cleaning their soiled clothes by males. This type of situation did not occur in areas where women were involved in planning: water services were instead placed in more private locations so women felt comfortable cleaning their laundry and gathering water at the same time. Thus, women should be involved when planning the implementation of water services for their communities.

Ultimately, the world water crisis significantly impacts the women throughout Africa and Southern Asia politically by causing a continued disjuncture between men and women’s well-being. The first step to alleviating the symptoms of the water crisis, allowing women to overcome the political issues that result from a lack of drinking water, is continuing to develop water services for countries in need. There are many organizations dedicated to building wells that give people access to clean groundwater below the surface, and supporting these organizations can hopefully have a real difference in the water crisis in the future. Until women and girls in impacted nations no longer spend most of their day fetching water, the cycle of women’s inferiority in the work force will continue.

November 27, 2015 1 comment

Europe Featured Geopolitics Globalization Humanitarian Aid Immigration Middle East Religion Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Terrorism Uncategorized

Nationality vs. Humanity: The Stranger’s Case

written by Madison Weil

“It is nationalism which endangers nations, and not the other way round.” –Ernest André Gellner (British-Czech philosopher and social anthropologist)

French President Francois Hollande recently issued a statement that his country is prepared to open its borders and welcome 24,000 migrants seeking asylum over the next two years. This statement, issued on September 7, 2015, is part of a new plan designed by the European Union to accept and appropriately distribute the massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other surrounding nations. When asked to comment on French polls that indicated 55% of the national population was opposed to accepting more refugees, Hollande responded that asylum is a constitutional right and a moral duty, and that “France’s image and standing in the world were at stake.”

In light of the recent terrorists attacks on Paris, and amid reports that one of the attackers held a Syrian passport, Hollande has emphasized the necessity of making proper background checks prior to accepting these refugees. Hollande has declared war on ISIS, but made it clear that France will maintain its “humanitarian duty” and promise to welcome refugees over the next two years.

While many refugees initially identified Germany as the most ideal place to relocate with supposed security and job opportunities abound, other European countries are now offering comparable conditions and welcoming the migrants. In fact, because Germany has been accommodating such a massive influx of individuals in recent months, France has offered to help by offering an expedited asylum application to migrant families arriving in Munich: temporary housing in France along with a two-week approval process as opposed to the usual six-month process.

These recent political and cultural strides made by France are particularly notable given the nation’s sticky history with immigration and ethnic tension. Having just spent a month living and learning in France, I can attest that it is challenging to go more than a day without hearing an allegation that the presence of ethnic minorities, foreigners, and immigrants creates a grave problem for the nation. A commonly held belief among French traditionalists is that these groups directly threaten and compromise the very essence of true “Frenchness.” Many harbor a sense of nationalism that transcends the concept of national pride and actually results in extreme and egregious discrimination—for example, some believe that to be truly “French” is to be white, Catholic, and multi-generationally French. This statement parades as protectionism when in reality it is rooted in racism. This has created an ongoing and very heated dialogue surrounding immigration policy in the last century.

This French perception of nationalism (hopefully) seems foreign to us in the United States. Our nationality law is based on the principles of jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”), meaning that individuals gain immediate citizenship upon being born in the U.S. This has subsequently created the notion that America is a mixing pot of racial identities—our sense of national pride comes from being united as American, not from being one united race. In contrast, most states in Europe, Asia, and Oceania grant citizenship based on principles of jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”) or a restricted version of jus solis—as is the case in France. Under this philosophy, individuals become citizens depending on their parents’ citizenship and not by birthplace. This has fostered and accentuated the cultural division in France between natives and immigrants which has resulted in the emergence of a perceived social hierarchy. Because of this heated history and conflicting cultural dynamic, President Hollande’s decision to welcome refugees in spite of opposition (and in spite of recent events) deserves recognition.

France’s situation forcibly evokes a particularly challenging set of questions: at what point should international leaders place a greater emphasis on obligations to humanity than on obligations to their own national interests? How do leaders of the Western community in particular negotiate or reconcile national interests with moral duty? Is there such a thing as a moral duty to the international community? According to the UNHCR: “Since, by definition, refugees are not protected by their own governments, the international community steps in to ensure they are safe and protected.” In fact, in the past few decades 142 nations have signed on to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol. By signing this international treaty and its 1967 amendment, the UNHCR states nations are essentially agreeing that “refugees deserve, as a minimum, the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country and, in many cases, the same treatment as nationals.”

While we have historically seen that most national actions, even humanitarian ones, are often out of self-interest, it is my sincere hope that international authorities will continue to improve and open their borders to those in need. Afterall, those of us born in Western nations with relatively safe conditions could have just as easily been born into a nation experiencing a crisis. Wouldn’t we then hope and pray for assistance and asylum in the E.U.? In the U.S.?

This debate reminded me of an excerpt from Shakespeare’s play “Sir Thomas More.” Sir Thomas More is a lawyer, sent to address an angry crowd of individuals rioting to get rid of “those immigrants” or “strangers.” Shakespeare delivers a powerful message that transcends time and place when More challenges the natives to consider what they would do if they had to flee their home country:

“Whether would you go?

What country, by the nature of your error,

Should give you harbor? go you to France or Flanders,

To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,

Nay, any where that not adheres to England,–

Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased

To find a nation of such barbarous temper,

That, breaking out in hideous violence,

Would not afford you an abode on earth,

Whet their detested knives against your throats,

Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God

Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements

Were not all appropriate to your comforts,

But chartered unto them, what would you think

To be thus used? this is the strangers case;

And this your mountanish inhumanity.”

(Sir Thomas More, Act II, Scene IV)

This is the stranger’s case—the immigrant’s case. For many, it’s near impossible to fully comprehend the plight and experiences of today’s refugees, but so important to try. While it’s challenging to reconcile national interests with humanitarian needs, our nationality shouldn’t supersede our humanity.

November 20, 2015 0 comment

Source: http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/APTOPIX_NEPAL_EARTHQUAKE_34504069.JPG

Crisis Relied Featured Global Health Humanitarian Aid Internet Technology Uncategorized

Expediting Aid in Rural Nepal

written by Lillianne Thomas

On April 25th, 2015, an earthquake the size of Everest struck just outside Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal. As the number of days grew since the catastrophe occurred, so did the count of victims killed or injured. The 7.8 magnitude earthquake devastated almost a quarter of Nepal and the surrounding areas in China and India, and triggered an avalanche on Mount Everest that would have made international headlines in itself.

As with any natural disaster of this caliber, international aid poured in. The handful of U.N. agencies dealing with these types of crises responded immediately, as did governmental organizations and NGOs from several countries. Yet somehow, victims in the rural parts of Nepal ⎯ an already small country relative to surrounding giants China and India ⎯ suffered from a lack of aid. Is it because the various responding agencies knew where these people are, but had trouble accessing them due to the difficulty of destroyed roads, collapsed infrastructure, and ruptured ground? Were they able to access these rural areas only to find that they came with too few provisions to meet the needs of the droves of victims? Or, is it simply because these agencies were experiencing trouble locating these people?

I contend that the responding agencies were challenged by a combination of all three possibilities. Although scientists had predicted this earthquake would occur for the past ten years and despite the Nepali Government’s earthquake preparation efforts, the poor state of the country’s infrastructure challenged response teams in reaching rural areas outlying Kathmandu. The capital served as an air base for helicopters transporting aid throughout the affected area. However, unlike the Haiti Earthquake in 2010 where a U.S. Naval ship carrying an immense supply of aid arrived directly offshore, Nepal is landlocked and requires land and air-based shipments of aid⎯both of which take much more time to match the supply of sea-based shipments.

As anyone might expect when a natural disaster strikes, the situation presents complications concerning gas and electricity, and few homes in the rural areas outside Kathmandu have access to clean water. What’s more, lack of clean water in rural areas could force victims to rely on polluted water⎯a situation that almost guarantees a cholera epidemic. In this case, trucks and helicopters were the only alternative lifeline the victims had. In order to speed up the distribution of aid in the rural areas, two things needed to change. First, responding teams needed to better plan their deployments with more accurate and timely information. Second, they needed to consider alternative means of transportation that can augment existing means.

In the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, the best way to visualize the physical impact is oftentimes not the most commonly consulted. High resolution, timely satellite imagery is our greatest asset for identifying exactly what was damaged, destroyed, where victims are located, and where responding teams can effectively deploy personnel and set up relief sites. Some of the biggest satellite earth observation commercial companies in the world (DigitalGlobe from the U.S., CNES from France, and Airbus Defense and Space from several European countries) harness the capabilities of their spaceborne satellites to capture imagery of affected areas immediately following a crisis. Subsequently, they share this imagery with that captured before the crisis (for purposes of comparison) to crowdsourced web-based mapping platforms, such as OpenStreetMap. The motivation behind this publicization of high-quality satellite data is to enlist as many people as possible in the effort to build a detailed picture of what was damaged and where the victims are. These efforts resulted in digitally demarcated satellite images that indicate damage as detailed as remote mountain roads. Below is a picture of the user interface for Tomnod, a service from DigitalGlobe that has engaged a global community of volunteer mappers to digitize damaged structures near Kathmandu.

Image Source: www.military-technologies.net

In turn, crowdsourced mapping agencies distribute the imagery they receive from the commercial satellite providers to their networks of volunteer cartographers who may download and digitize the data on their wireless communication devices while on the ground in the affected area. Their input is immediately fed into the digital imagery which can be re-shared with countless humanitarian agencies, thus activating a rapid information sharing environment in the aftermath of the crisis. Although this had been done for Nepal, the service was not nearly as well-known as it should have been. These tools are revolutionary and need greater marketing on behalf of the humanitarian agencies that respond to crises such as the Nepal earthquake. If agencies are to use these tools, then they logically benefit from greater public awareness and participation in the associated services.

Although the Google Person Finder and Facebook Safety Check services received much publicity for their use in locating victims of the earthquake in Nepal, it is important to remember that these services require the victims to have access to smartphones in a devastated environment in which even clean water and food are out of reach. Although obviously well-intentioned, these services face a disjuncture in their actual utility in a situation such as post-earthquake Nepal, especially when it comes to the rural areas. Instead of relying on the victims in the affected region to respond to SMS text messages (as in the case of Facebook Safety Check) or reference images of lost loved ones on Google.com (Google Person Finder), efforts should be directed at encouraging responding agencies and the broader global community to use their access to technology to help assess the damage and identify where the victims are located.

Finally, responding agencies should consider alternative means of transporting aid to and from the remote areas. One method for bypassing the limited manpower needed to operate helicopters and drive trucks is adding unmanned aerial systems as a third means to transport aid to and from the remote areas, such as the outlying territories around Kathmandu. These UASs, more popularly referred to as “carrier drones” , would need to be flown in formation with helicopters whose pilots should follow flight paths informed by the crowdsourced satellite imagery. The pilot operating a helicopter would control the drones flown in formation. This is necessary to overcome the complications associated with air traffic control that come with autonomously flying unmanned aerial systems. Therefore, the drones would serve a complementary role to the helicopters, and when taken together, they could create a synthetic aircraft carrier. The drones and helicopters could be loaded with food, medicine, and clean water that would either be airdropped or unloaded upon landing. Effectively, the fleet of drones with the helicopters would rapidly speed up the transport of aid to remote areas.

Where will these drones come from? The Indian military launched Operation Maitri immediately following the earthquake, supplying soldiers, helicopters, and trucks to distribute aid throughout Kathmandu and the outlying areas. Yet with the shortage of helicopters, the Indian military realized that its existing means of transporting aid were not adequate to handle the demand. In addition to helicopters and ground vehicles, the Indian military operates a fleet of long-endurance medium size Searcher II and Heron drones that could have potentially assisted with humanitarian aid in Nepal. The Indian military should have used this resource if soldiers and other military infrastructure were being used.

Theoretically, the Nepal Earthquake could serve as a testing ground for a revolution in the way aid is delivered following natural disasters or humanitarian crises. New technologies should always be considered for improving response to these situations, especially when they encourage participation from the global community (e.g. Tomnod) and when they can be used to augment existing methods (e.g. carrier drones). There is no doubt that future events such as the Nepal earthquake would benefit from greater awareness of crowdsourced web-based services such as Tomnod and OpenStreetMap, and from the application of unmanned aerial systems for maximizing rapid delivery of aid. These proposed solutions may be more complicated to operationalize than they appear at face value, but at minimum, they can serve as a fundamental concept for improving the ways in which agencies respond to natural disasters and/or humanitarian crises.

October 24, 2015 5 comments

Uncategorized

Facing A Long Battle: Immigration Reform in the United States

written by Emily Milstein

Human migration has, throughout history, been a force that has impacted the development of countless societies and cultures. From the waves of earlier generations who migrated out of East Africa and went on populate the rest the planet, to the more recent Europeans who journeyed to places like the United States and Canada, migration has inarguably been a force that has shaped the development of world history and human civilizations. Today, immigration remains a salient, and controversial issue, and in the United States, one that needs to be addressed in the form of comprehensive immigration reform.

To highlight just how important the issue of immigration is, on November 20th 2014, President Obama announced that he would use his powers of executive action to allow up to five million undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States. The president’s plan will grant temporary protection from deportation to select people who qualify for the program. While many Americans, including immigrants’ rights groups, lauded Obama’s action, many others Americans vehemently oppose policies that will make it easier for immigrants to live and work in the United States. According to the New York Times, critical reactions to Obama’s plan included accusations of treason and domestic terrorism against the president, and some members of Congress predicted outright violence and rebellion. Immigration has long been a divisive political issue in the United States, and the prodigious backlash against the president after his announcement only serves to illustrate the severity of the division.

Despite the views of those Americans opposed to what they call “amnesty” for people they regard as “dirty” criminals, immigration reform is necessary for the United States. While it’s true that immigrants can threaten the jobs of Americans lacking a high school diploma who compete with them for low-skilled jobs, many economists agree that the immigrants living in the United States contribute to our economy in vital ways. This is especially true in California, which is home to one of the largest immigrant populations in the United States. California relies on immigrants to do essential jobs. For instance, many agricultural workers in places like California’s Central Valley or the Salinas Valley are undocumented immigrants and approximately half of those workers immigrated to the United States without proper documentation. Furthermore, Los Angeles is home to about one million undocumented immigrants. Those immigrants contribute to an estimated seven percent of the economy of the greater Los Angeles region. These figures clearly indicate that immigrants play a vital role in our economy and are woven into the fabric of our nation. Despite the crucial contributions they make, in 2013, 368,644 immigrants were deported, most of them to Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Obama’s announcement is apropos, as immigration has been an especially salient issue of late. This is due in part to the influx of thousands of children from Central America in 2013/14. Since 1990, the United States has received steadily increasing numbers of immigrants from Central America. In 2014, United States border agents arrested approximately 68,631 unaccompanied children attempting to immigrate to the United States, a number that represents a 76% increase compared to 2013. Many of those children came from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, which have been the source of increasing numbers of migrants for at least the past four years. Approximately fifty-eight percent of the children came to the United States fleeing extreme violence and even death at the hands of vicious gangs. Their arrival prompted protests and angry reactions from many Americans who wanted the children to be deported immediately, despite the evident risk deportation would pose to many of them.

Given their awareness of the significant safety and economic hazards that deportations pose to undocumented immigrants, such as risks posed by extreme poverty and that of violence at the hands of powerful Central American gangs, we should question why so many Americans oppose immigration reform of any kind, including Obama’s executive action. Critics of Obama’s immigration reforms raise legitimate points, such as worries about an abuse of presidential authority, fears that immigrants will unfairly take American jobs, and worries that sinister criminal elements will enter the country. Many Americans are either ambivalent or seem to have forgotten that most American citizens (or their descendants) came to the United States as immigrants at one time. What the backlash against Obama’s announcement shows is that when Americans perceive their own interests to be jeopardized, they can be lacking in empathy, unable to care about the fact that deporting immigrants breaks up families, separating parents from their children. This also holds true in the case of the Central American children, where deportation could lead to violence and/or death.

According to Amnesty International, “While states have the right to regulate entry and stay of non-nationals in their territory, they can only do so within the limits of their human rights obligations.” All nations therefore have an obligation to not place immigrants at an increased risk of human rights abuses, which includes placing them at risk through deportation. Too often however, these obligations are ignored by those who call for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants. This includes the Central American children, who would rather face the risks of migrating to the United States alone than remain in their homes. Given the international human rights norms and law the United States has sworn to uphold, its has a duty to reform its immigration policies to mitigate the risks deportation poses to immigrants.

Beyond the moral implications of the debate over immigration and deportation, there are significant practical reasons for the United States to initiate immigration reforms. Various groups stretching across the American political spectrum have provided broad-based support for sensible immigration reform. Such groups include technology companies who want to hire skilled skilled foreigners, various religious leaders, and a bipartisan group of senators who passed an immigration reform bill in 2013 that would deal with issues like border enforcement, pathways to legal residency, and plans on how to deal with future flows of immigrants. Notably, if the proposed policies are implemented, immigration reform can be done in a way that addresses the fears of both average citizens and politicians opposed to the much needed systemic overhaul.

Between the human rights issues and the practical considerations at stake, immigration reform in the United States is absolutely necessary. While President Obama’s executive action will make important headway in improving the United States’ policies towards immigration, more needs to be done to assist the millions of undocumented immigrants who remain at risk of deportation and are ineligible to participate in Obama’s program. Groups that support immigration reform must do more to counter the narrative laid forth by the virulent, anti-immigrant forces who continue to oppose any type of immigration reform. In addition to legal action, Americans must actively combat the hostility, prejudice, and anger directed at many immigrants. Given the slow progress toward these goals over the last several years however, we have a long battle ahead of us.

February 7, 2015 2 comments

Featured Technology The International Economy Uncategorized

Big Data and Privacy in the Global Age: An Open Letter about a Closed Industry!

written by James Walker

Picture Credit: “Casablanca” (1942) Warner Bros. Pictures. Used under the “Fair Use” doctrine.

By James Walker – Editor

There has been a flurry of activity over the past few months concerning the issue of Internet data gathering, and the over-reach of government spying. From the revelations concerning the domestic NSA-PRISM program, to the seemingly endless chain of embarrassing international debacles stemming from Edward Snowden, the clandestine world of shadowy government data hoarding has received some intense scrutiny. Forget being the head of state for an allied nation, in this brave new world of government scrutiny, even the kid in the next dorm room is under surveillance, via their World of Warcraft account!

Understandably, there have been a number of anguished cries raised by these revelations. Civil society groups, government watchdogs, and “New World Order” conspiracy nuts alike have all raised the alarm. Even the national media in the US has shaken off some of the lethargy that afflicts it, and has fitfully resumed its role as the fourth estate, seeking to hold those in power accountable for their actions – or at least, hoping to make them vaguely uncomfortable when they appear on “Meet the Press.”

However, one of the most brazen calls for the government to restrain its hoarder-like sensibilities came from a coalition of tech industry giants – Google, Apple, Facebook, AOL, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo, and LinkedIn. On Dec. 9 2013, these civic minded corporate citizens – who stride like colossi across the globe and represent the very essence of the modern, Mutli-National Corporate (MNC) ideal – sent an open letter to the governments of the world, laying out a series of “demands” to ensure the protection of public privacy, and curtail the nefarious specter of government control over “big data.” Apparently the Obama administration was paying attention, as on January 27th it came to an agreement with some of the industry leaders over public acknowledgement of government data requests.

This is all to the good you would think, however, the sheer irony of this particular group of companies looking to cry foul on unprecedented, unmitigated, and unapologetic data collection and analysis is quite breathtaking. A review of the ways in which each of these individual organizations captures and manipulates personal data would be far too long to read, and far too repetitive to be entertaining. Instead, let us focus on the 5 “demands” made, and their application in the private sector today, using Google as a group representative. After all, Google CEO Larry Page went on the record to state that transparency and privacy are vital elements of the modern world that are “[U]ndermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It’s time for reform.”

Global Governance Surveillance Reform: 5 Principal Demands

1) Limiting Governments’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information: It is understandable that Google wants to “codify sensible limitations on [Government] ability to compel service providers to disclose user data,” given that it consistently found itself the subject of a Human Rights backlash for assisting the Chinese government with data collection and censorship, in an effort to have open access to the Chinese market. Being pilloried for your cooperation with authoritarian regimes in order to make a buck will have that effect on you.

2) Oversight  and Accountability: An area in which Google has a lot to teach the world about responsible data management. In calling for a system whereby “Intelligence agencies seeking to collect or compel the production of information should do so under a clear legal framework in which executive powers are subject to strong checks and balances,” Google is doubtless calling upon its years of experience with litigation over the illegal collection and storage of user data. From Germany to the United States, Google has fought an ongoing battle with the “legal frameworks” of host states, presumably because they do not feel that they should be subject to any checks on their own executive’s power. Unfortunately for them, the US Federal Appeals Court recently did not agree, and the three-year case against the company in the US continues to rumble on…

3) Transparency About Government Demands: In a stirring expression of open social values, the notion is that “Transparency is essential to a debate over government’s’ surveillance powers and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers.” Google stands as a fine example of transparency in action in a globalized world, given that the company makes its enormous revenues ($50 Billion in 2012) from selling collected personal data to any company that wants to buy it, no matter how dubious the purposes may turn out to be. That is probably why Google was instrumental in killing off the California “Right to Know Act” in May of 2013. The bill would have forced tech companies to disclose exactly what information they were gathering on users – transparency in action, if you will – but that did not sit well with the industry as a whole, and so it was sunk beneath a bombardment of Silicon Valley lobbying.

4) Respecting the Free Flow of Information: “The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust 21st century global economy.” It certainly is when your profit margin is dictated by such flows – but as previously mentioned, restricting flows can also be profitable when you comply with the authoritarian dictates of a repressive regime. “Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally.” Given the revelation that the NSA has been tapping the Google data center in the UK (via the British intelligence services) this is an understandable issue… however, could this also have anything to do with the complete deterritorialization of MNCs from local authority oversight, control, or taxation? Only a cynic would suggest that Google stands to gain considerably from being able to provide its internet services in the European Union without having to comply with stringent EU privacy regulations.

5) Avoiding Conflicts Among Governments: “In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions.” It is always to be applauded when there is a movement to avoid the jurisdictional positioning, unnecessary delays and frustrations inherent in jockeying for an advantageous position based solely on perceived benefits in divergent legal frameworks. Google knows all about this, given that it has fought tooth and nail to avoid answering cases across the globe. For example, in the United Kingdom where Google makes huge revenues from UK traffic, channels its business income through Ireland in order to avoid paying UK taxes, and at the same time insists that the only jurisdiction it will answer to is in California. Why is Google so keen to avoid these kinds of legal shenanigans in the case of government overreach, when it is par for the course in MNCs?

The fact that there are real concerns for industry over the use and abuse of big data is significant. There is no doubt that the exponential rise of computing power and data analytics is fundamentally changing our relationship towards both government and industry, and that internet and tech giants are in a key position to effect how this evolution takes place. It is to be applauded that the industry is taking a proactive approach to the issue of individual privacy, and that they recognize the value inherent in consumer confidence. After all, their business relies upon it.

However, at the end of the day it comes across as disingenuous for the tech giants to claim that it is government and big data that are a dangerous mix. This notion is consistent with a trend in 21st century thinking, whereby government is seen as a necessary evil while neo-liberal free market enterprises are considered part of the solution, not the problem. The modern era provides both startling opportunities and dark possibilities for the use and abuse of personal data – but the idea of MNCs as guardians of individual privacy is simply laughable. To misquote Ronald Regan, the least reassuring sentence in the English language is “I’m from the Corporate Sector, and I’m here to help.”

James Walker is a first year MA student in Political Geography at UCLA, and an Editor for The Generation.

January 31, 2014 3 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts