Author

James Walker

Featured Geopolitics Internet Security Security and Conflict Technology

Disparate Geopolitics: Hackers of the world Unite?

In the realm of academia we are often confronted with complex phenomena that we then attempt to corral into nicely defined cubicles. Systems of classification are employed ten a penny in order to establish, well, some form of order on a recalcitrant world. Economics, Sociology, Political Science, and all the other branches of the social sciences, look to establish some form of orthodoxy in order to forge a vision of solid ground – a kind of Archimedean point from which to move the world. This is the role of theory, in that it serves to underpin the validity of whatever new classification is currently in vogue.

How then to classify a phenomena that is, by definition, ethereal? I am speaking of the transient, cross-boundary nature of “Hacking” and the fact that as an activity it trespasses across physical barriers, political borders, sociological identities, and legal frameworks. A good hacker is, almost by default, someone who defies classification in the normal sense. However, everyone has to start from somewhere, and in this case we will employ the notion of geopolitics as the defining theoretical framework.

The history of geopolitics is complicated, encompassing notions of territoriality and geographic location that would at first glance seem incompatible with a review of hacking. However, geopol does have a few advantages – geography is a heterodox discipline, meaning it is willing to shamelessly steal from anywhere provided the theory makes sense. Also, modern geopolitics is distinctly critical in nature. As such, geopolitical students often pitch their sights at intangible objectives – such as this one. For the most part, critical geopolitics is seen in four distinct yet interoperable veins: Formal – where academics theorize about the nature of the world, Practical – where policy wonks and politicians try to enact visions onto the world, Popular – where narratives about the world are played out via media, film, video games, and other such mass engagements, and Banal – where the everyday nature of geopolitical narratives are embedded into the environment (think flags above the Post Office, or national symbology on bank notes). Wikipedia has a nice intro, for those with an interest…

In order to look at the issue of hacking, and in particular the identity of hackers, I am going to suggest a term for another sub-field of geopol – namely Disperate Geopolitics. I chose the name as hacking is by its very nature a disconnected practice in the geographic sense, albeit facilitated ironically enough through the process of global connectivity. In essence, both the activity itself, and the participants involved are quite distinct. As such, hackers are an odd bunch. It is very hard to create a template of what the average hacker is like, as there does not appear to be an average hacker. Of course, within the community, as oddly dispersed and discordant as it is, there is a lexicon and classification that differentiates newbs and “script-kiddies” from genuine hard-core techies and innovators.

Even the term “hacker” is contested (and my apologies to those who are passionate about this. I am simply using the term in the popular geopolitical sense). However, from an outside perspective it is very hard to define what makes someone an ideal hacker – and that is why they are so interesting. For example, when you read the term hacker, what do you think of? For many people, their first thoughts will probably turn to either criminal gangs who steal identities online, or alternatively some kid in their mom’s basement with a Guy Fawkes mask, a six pack of Mountain Dew, and a malicious grin. Both of these stereotypes hold some validity, but they obscure so much more in a geopolitical sense. In both instances the reach of the individual is not geographically bounded. Nor is it necessarily focused in the same way that a more earthbound process might be. A criminal gang may be constituted by individuals who have never met in real life, yet can still operate as a cohesive entity. Similarly, the “cyber hactivist” using a denial of service attack may have no direct contact or even personalized animosity towards the target group at all.

And then there are the distinctly nationalistic/ideologically driven cyber “warriors” who do have a clear, personal agenda. Groups such as the CyberCaliphate have taken to hacking government websites in support of the Islamic State. Others, such as TeaM MADLEETS fight low level propaganda campaigns in support of their chosen socio-political positions. The Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has been active in support of the Assad regime throughout the ongoing crisis in Syria, striking out at a variety of online targets seemingly at random. They even hacked the UCLA web page in 2011, although as the linked report states, they were “awfully polite about it.” The SEA is currently engaged in a form of retaliatory war with Anonymous – perhaps the most widely recognized hacktivist collective, who have taken it upon themselves to “swat at Syrian government websites in response to internet blackouts.”

Anonymous are in some ways the archetypal hacker collective, and the embodiment of the notion of Disparate Geopolitics. Anon has no base, no formal membership criteria, no allegiance, no geographic center, no real defining characteristics at all, aside from a general theme of net neutrality and unrestricted access to information. Before the adoption of the Fawkes mask (courtesy of V for Vendetta) even their logo was deliberately obtuse – a figure of a suit with no head imposed upon a globe, as if to mock the vision of world order associated with modern institutionalism and global governance – a kind of anti-UN, or perhaps just a more honest vision of how the world works – after all, where there should be a person, for Anonymous there is just a question mark. The logo raises two dialectic questions, namely who are we, and who actually controls the world? Who, in essence, is scripting the geopolitical narrative?

At the other end of the scale are what might be considered the more “uniform” visions of hacking, orchestrated by the state, and focused through an old school geopolitical framework. It will come as no surprise that all the major world players have dedicated cyber-warriors of their own, from China’s “PLA Unit 61398” to the U. S. National Security Agency’s “Tailored Access Operations” program. However, while these types of hacking might appear to be simple technological extensions of interstate relations and/or trust issues, they are also indicative of a feature that runs through hacking in general – a distinctly disparate feature that posits a shift in who gets to sit at the geopolitical table.Everyone, regardless of size, military, economic, or political power, wants in on this new geopolitical frontier, from states such as North Korea, Israel, and Iran, to free form hactivist collectives scattered across the globe.

There is so much more to explore within hacking from a disparate geopolitical perspective. We have not even touched upon the notions of “Black Hat” vs “White Hat” operatives, the revolving door between legal and illegal operations, or the recruitment of brilliant young minds into either government service or the criminal underworld (and sometimes both – you are as likely to find new talent in a Federal penitentiary as you are at MIT). At the end of the day, what I hope you take away from this brief exploration is the notion that hacking, and by extension the net, affords alternative avenues for exploring the nature of geopolitics. Our world has changed, and we need to theorize in new ways to understand it. On the internet, new rules apply, and new paradigms emerge. To quote from a couple of mainstream popular geopolitical texts, while new geopolitical players are all aware that “Big Brother is watching you”, the powers that be must also recognize that in the cyber realm “our name is legion, for we are many.”

April 1, 2015 0 comment

Europe Featured Geopolitics Immigration Security Society and Culture Terrorism

The Tragic Murder of a Licensed Fool: Extremism, Freedom of Expression, and the Fight For “European Values.”

written by James Walker

At midday on the 7th of January 2015, three masked gunmen forced their way into the offices of a French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and ruthlessly executed ten members of staff, including the editor, Stephane Charbonnier, and his police bodyguard. The men then fled the scene into the Paris streets, killing another policeman on their way out. The motivation for this horrific massacre is very clear – the offices and personnel had been under threat of terrorist attack since 2007, when the magazine participated in the controversial publishing of cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammed. The situation became even more intense in 2011, when the magazine issued a special edition titled “Charia Hebdo” (a reference to Sharia law), and listed the prophet as the editor-in-chief. A day after publication, the offices were petrol-bombed.

Monsieur Charbonnier (or Charb as he was known in the cartoon world) was an outspoken critic of many aspects of modern day French life, and used his position to ridicule the great and the good alike. The tagline for his magazine was “Journal Irresponsable” and it took pains to offend politicians, social commentators, and religious sensibilities across a broad spectrum of French society. In doing so, Charb looked to fulfill a venerable role within European society – that of the court jester, or fool. Dating back to ancient times, the fool has often been afforded a license to both mock and speak irreverently to power. George Orwell, another outspoken critic of European society, identified the role of the fool in Shakespeare’s King Leer as an example of how the position was necessary to provide a “trickle of sanity running through the play.”

Here in the United States, the role of the fool is filled by political comedians such as John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They are so effective, in fact, that the Pew Research Center published a report in 2007 identifying viewers of Stewart and Colbert as the most politically informed demographic in the country. The mixture of political satire and sheer lunacy is a potent elixir, and one that a health society suffers from in its absence. Eric Idle, legendary comedian, and founding member of Monty Python, explored this notion when he stated:

“At least one way of measuring the freedom of any society is the amount of comedy that is permitted, and clearly a healthy society permits more satirical comment than a repressive, so that if comedy is to function in some way as a safety release then it must obviously deal with these taboo areas. This is part of the responsibility we accord our licensed jesters, that nothing be excused the searching light of comedy. If anything can survive the probe of humour it is clearly of value, and conversely all groups who claim immunity from laughter are claiming special privileges which should not be granted.”

Of course, the presence of humor is not, in and of itself, a justification for giving deliberate offense. The fool’s role is not to simply make you gasp in revulsion, but is intended to provoke reflection, in the same way that the apocryphal story of the servant riding behind Caesar whispering “remember thou art mortal” is intended to remind the powerful of their humanity. The question for many European societies is how to merge the strong free speech traditions of European modernity, with the resurgent influence of strongly held religious convictions.

In the coming weeks many commentators are going to focus on the so called “culture wars” of European integration. Given the highly charged political situation across the continent, that is not surprising. A mere two days before the Paris attack, tens of thousands of Germans took to the streets to demonstrate against what they see as the “Islamification of the West.” In Greece, an openly racist political party, the Golden Dawn, has begun exploiting nationalist resentment and the scapegoating of foreign immigrants, and France itself has been engaged in a never ending debate over the role of religion in an explicitly secular republic. Having outlawed the wearing of the Islamic burqa in public places (along with overt displays of Christian crosses in public schools, and other such religious symbology), the French state has explicitly attempted to assert a vision of “Frenchness” that sits outside of cultural or traditional religious boundaries.

The more alarmist observers will fall back upon such well worn tropes as Samuel Huntingdon’s “Clash of Civilizations,” regardless of the fact that no-one with any serious academic reputation has given it any credence for the past decade. Those with a more cogent perspective will attempt to fight this redundant narrative as best they can. As has all too often been the case, the Islamic authorities that represent the vast majority of European Muslims will try in vain to make their own revulsion at this heinous act known. Muslim scholars and commentators will do their best to explain that the actions of a few insane zealots do not represent the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people who see themselves as both Muslim AND French. Perhaps this time they will be heard, although previous experience does not hold out much optimism on this point.

Hopefully, what will not disappear into the morass of hyperbole and hysteria over the coming months is the strength and conviction of the staff at Charlie Hebdo. Every day for the past few years, each individual walked into their office knowing that a small group of homicidally inclined fanatics had vowed to kill them. Initial reports from the crime scene state that the men proclaimed they had “avenged the Prophet” as they fled from the carnage. Quite why an all powerful creator and His messenger should need the assistance of three rifle wielding lunatics is never explained, but perhaps you have to have a certain kind of faith to understand such things. What is understandable is the position of Charb, and his fellow fools. – they were all true believers in their own right, with an unshakable belief in the function of satire and humor as an essential element of the public discourse.

When asked how he continued to face the ever present threat of attack, Charb replied that he was “not afraid of reprisals, [as] I have no children, no wife, no car, no debt. It might sound a bit pompous, but I’d prefer to die on my feet rather than living on my knees.”

In the words of one of Shakespeare’s most enduring fools:

“I see their knavery: this is to make an ass of me;to fright me, if they could. But I will not stir from this place, do what they can: I will walk up and down here, and I will sing, that they shall hear I am not afraid.”

Bottom – A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene 1.

January 8, 2015 0 comment

Africa Asia Europe Featured Geopolitics Global Health Security Security and Conflict

The Walking Brain Dead

written by James Walker

In every modern version of the “Zombie Apocalypse” narrative, small bands of plucky survivors fend off endless hordes of infected, shambling, braindead individuals. The zombies have no appreciation of community, shared responsibility, or collective security. Instead they are driven by base instincts and a complete disregard for anything other than their own immediate self-interest. The irony in this narrative is that while the world currently faces a very real pandemic crisis, it is the victims who are being forced into the role of desperate survivors, while the non-infected are acting like the brain dead hordes.

For the past few months the world has been struggling to get a grip on the worst Ebola outbreak in history. Upwards of 5000 people have lost their lives to this horrifying disease, with almost 15,000 incidents of infection across West Africa. To say that this is a tragedy of epic proportions is an understatement. Aside from the personal toll upon the families of those affected, the communities they live in, and the countries battling to gain control of the situation, the effect upon the entire West African region has been substantial, with the World Bank predicting a possible $32 Billion in economic impacts alone. In other words, the Ebola crisis is not a laughing matter.

If only the international response to this catastrophe was equally as serious. The rather lack-luster response has been so bad that even the normally reserved UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has gone on the offensive. Applauding the efforts of the US, Britain, and France in their moves to (finally) get some skin in the game, Moon called out other major players, stating “It’s time that those other countries who really have capacity … provide financial and other logistical support.” In other words, states such as China and Russia, along with India and Brazil as up and coming “BRIC” nations, need to step up to the plate and demonstrate why they should be considered pillars of the international community. Similarly, you know things are getting pretty bad when the head of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, calls for immediate action on the basis that “It is not a matter of choosing whether to do it or not. It’s just a question of when we pay the price for it.” Just in case our national leaders were not paying attention, pretty much everyone with a global agenda has determined Ebola in Africa to be a major threat to regional stability. As international leaders, they might want to get with the program given that this is a textbook example of why international society is needed in the first place.

On the domestic plane, individual countries have responded in a multitude of ways, from Nigeria’s considered approach involving comprehensive public health education programs and exemplary infection control, to North Korea’s outright panic and the imposition of total lockdown in order to avoid an impending Zombocalypse. The idea of Ebola as a kind of pre-curser to a global zombie pandemic is, of course, completely fantastical, but Kim Jong-un’s regime is not the only paranoid group making the same tenuous connection between this disease and the apocalypse. The Chinese state news agency was forced to issue a statement in order to counter rumors running wild on Chinese social media that Ebola victims were returning from the dead in order to feast on the living. Given that these same rumors suggest eating raw onions in order to ward off infection, you can only imagine the eye rolling going on at the Chinese Center for Disease Control.

Having said that, the American Center for Disease Control (CDC) has its own hands full countering the hyperbole and rhetoric that substitutes for analysis here at home. Under a barrage of attacks from the media and the more insane fringes of the US political spectrum, the director of the CDC, Dr. Thomas Frieden, has taken to pointing out that while Ebola has killed one person on US soil so far, influenza kills upwards of 30,000 a year. Given that less than half of the population bother to get inoculated against an actual epidemic in our midst, you can sympathize with the CDC’s exasperation over the hysteria currently masquerading as the Ebola debate.

A good example of the kind of knee-jerk, anti-scientific response the CDC is facing from our civil authorities is the issue of travel bans. Both international and domestic health experts have stated categorically that travel bans make responding to this outbreak significantly harder. Closing off air links to West Africa means that the most useful bottlenecks for the infection (airports) are rendered useless, as people are forced to cross land borders – a situation that is almost impossible to monitor. Even worse is the imposition of travel bans against international health workers. By far the most pressing need is for more personnel to travel to and from affected regions, in order to fight the disease at its source. By making it almost impossible for volunteers to return home, countries are virtually guaranteeing that the crisis cannot be contained. With what can only be described as a mounting sense of frustration, Ban Ki-moon’s people consistently try to get the world to listen to reason, emphasizing that “the best way for any country to protect itself from Ebola is to stop the outbreak at its source in West Africa.”

The anti-science crowd here in the US goes one step further, professing that the constant efforts of the UN and the CDC only go to prove the dire threat to the country. Against all the evidence to the contrary, a popular theme among a particular section of the political spectrum has latched on to Ebola as yet another political weapon to wield in the never ending war of attrition that is modern US politics. For example, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) has gone on the record as stating that “Every outbreak novel or zombie movie you see starts with somebody from the government sitting in front of a panel like this saying there’s nothing to worry about.” In other words, we should all start panicking as the Obama administration is clearly just trying to keep the sheeple quite.

So, the level of our public debate is that politicians are referencing George Romero movies as if they are documentaries. To paraphrase the zombie maestro, “when there’s no more room in hell, congressional representative will walk the earth.” The ironic thing is that if the Ebola virus really were a harbinger of the zombocalypse, we actually have a response ready to put into place. Intended as a “training exercise” in contingency planning, the US Strategic Command report CONPLAN 8888 lays out a series of scenarios for dealing with a pandemic zombie infection. At least you can’t accuse the US government of not thinking outside the box when it comes to preparing for imaginary threats – real world disasters on the other hand, not so much.

At the end of the day Ebola is a trans-national issue, and one that requires a direct, well-supported international effort to combat. From this perspective alone can it be seen as similar to a zombie outbreak. Prof. Daniel Drezner of Tufts University wrote an excellent exploration of this exact issue – Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Perhaps Ban Ki-moon should start leaving copies around the UN Security Council chambers. If rational, scientific, economic, and humanitarian appeals won’t work then maybe a little hyperbole is what will do the trick. You have to hope that at least some of the world’s leaders are not all brain dead, right?

November 19, 2014 1 comment

Africa Asia Europe Featured Mexico and Latin America Middle East Security Society and Culture South America UCLA and the World

State of the (Student) Union – 2014

written by James Walker

by James Walker – Editor in Chief

Summer has begun, and life at UCLA has taken on the gentle ambiance of a half empty campus, basking in the glorious SoCal sunshine. Nervous freshmen and transferees can be spotted exploring the buildings in anticipation (or perhaps dread?) of the Fall, half the faculty have vanished to do research, and the other half wish they had, too. During this lull, it behooves us as students to reflect upon the past academic year, in order to take stock of where things stand for those of us fortunate enough to be in college, both here in California, and across the globe.

As the (retiring) Editor in Chief for the Generation, I like to think that there is a kind of fraternal connection between all of us who strive to increase our understanding of the world. As students with an interest in foreign affairs, it is important that we look not only at the academic objects of our interest, but also the people who will be our contemporaries in the years to come – the students who make up the global cohort of tomorrow’s leaders, researchers, (and with any luck) friends with whom we hope to make the world a better place. Therefore, as we cast a wary eye across the past year, it is a little sad to see just how many challenges have been faced by our contemporaries, and how many more they are likely to face in the future.

Perhaps there is no better example of this than Egypt. As regular readers of the Gen will know, we were fortunate enough to host Ahmed Maher on campus last year. Subsequent to his visit with us, he was arrested and sentenced to three years hard labor, and his youth and student based organization, the April 6^th movement, was declared a terrorist organization and banned outright. Other student groups have also been targeted by the security forces, with tactics that included the use of tear gas and baton charges at Cairo University, resulting in multiple injuries, and even death.

Much the same (depressingly familiar) tactics were also on display in Sudan, where student protesters are regularly attacked by government forces with tear gas and riot police. One incident earlier this year resulted in multiple arrests, injuries, and the death of a third year economics student at the University of Khartoum, Ali Abaker Mussa Idris. Not to be outdone, the Ethiopian government has apparently instigated a shoot to kill policy, with up to 47 students killed during protests at secondary and university campuses around the country.

Not all students are subject to deliberate violence by their governments, however – some are simply exposed to horrific violence through neglect and indifference. This was the case at the Rift Valley Institute of Science and Technology in Kenya, where hundreds of students battled with the police for several hours after the brutal rape of a first year female student. The students were protesting the lack of security available to them – the police responded by attempting to disperse the crowd with tear gas and live rounds.

Lest anyone think I am focusing too much on Africa, a quick look over the state of play in Europe will demonstrate that there are no regional boundaries to the challenges that students face. For example, it is worth remembering that students were one of the most vocal groups to take to the streets in the Ukraine earlier this year. They participated in many of the protests against the Yushchenko regime, and were targeted by the security forces in the lead up to the current geopolitical crisis that is enveloping the state.

Likewise, in Turkey the role of students as the advanced guard of social protest has singled them out as primary targets by the state. A recent funeral for a student killed in the Gezi Park protests quickly degenerated into a battlefield when the security forces used tear gas and water cannons on the gathered mourners, resulting in two additional deaths. The number of students arrested by the Erdogan government over the past year is simply astounding, turning what was a small, localized protest against the destruction of a city park into a fully fledged social movement for regime change.

In a somewhat less violent, yet still politically charged crisis, students across Spain brought major cities to a standstill over the issue of tuition rises and spending cuts – both of which are problems that should resonate with UC students. Unlike here at UCLA, however, the protests in Spain involved hundreds of riot police in full gear, burning trash cans, and running street battles with stone throwing and mass arrests. This link contains some jarring pictures of a modern day student protest in a developed state, and is well worth a look.

Turning to the Americas, the formula looks pretty much the same: student protesters met with tear gas, water cannons, live rounds, mass arrests, and death. A case in point, the students of Chile have been out on the streets for years now in ever increasing numbers. In one incident this year over 20,000 students attended a mass rally in Santiago, to protest for education reform. The tear gas and water cannon quickly followed.

Taking a more proactive route, in Venezuela pro-government militias have apparently taken to simply executing student leaders who dare to stand up to the regime. Daniel Tinoco, a prominent student leader, was gunned down in the street while manning a barricade in the city of San Cristobel. He is probably the most prominent of more than 20 people murdered over the past few months due to their participation in such activities.

So what are we UC students supposed to make of all this? We have troubles of our own, of course, as the graduate and undergraduate protests of last quarter can attest. However, they do seem somewhat tame in comparison. This is not to suggest that the issues faced by students right here are not challenging – simply that the environment in which we find ourselves is less dangerous than for our contemporaries.

Having said that, it is with a heavy heart that we must turn to the epidemic of campus shootings that continue to plague the United States. It is beginning to feel as if you cannot turn on the news without hearing about another mass killing at a US campus. I would list the incidents from the past year, but it is simply too long, and too damned depressing. As UC students we are directly affected, due to the horrific events at our sister campus last month, in which six people lost their lives, and we collectively lost our naivety.

The heartbreak of the UCSB shooting is only compounded by the fact that, as opposed to the deaths of students cataloged above, in many ways the events here are self-inflicted. It is not an oppressive government we need fear, but the kid sitting next to us in class. This is a challenge every bit as desperate as any of the ones covered, but it is also one that we can play a part in helping to solve.

If I can offer one piece of advice from looking at the world of student activism, it is that change only comes about through action. All across the globe students are standing up for what they believe in. They put everything on the line to try and improve their situation, their lives, their countries, and we must try and do the same. Take the summer to reflect, and then take a stand and help to make things better – work on gun control, or mental health access, or campus safety training, or whatever else it is you feel is the most significant way to make a difference – just do something. After all, your job is to help mold the future, and there is no time like the present to get started.

July 11, 2014 0 comment

Asia Environmental Change Featured Security and Conflict UCLA and the World

長江後浪推前浪 – Jon Huntsman challenges UCLA students to play their part.

written by James Walker

By James Walker – Editor in Chief

Last week the Burkle Center for International Relations hosted the annual Bernard Brodie Distinguished Lecture on the Conditions of Peace. This year’s speaker was Jon Huntsman, two-term Republican governor of Utah, and former U.S. Ambassador to China. The former GOP presidential candidate was on campus ostensibly to talk about “U.S.-China Relations, Challenges and Opportunities,” and while the audience was treated to an engaging discussion on the bilateral relations between those two states, it was clear that Huntsman had a lot to say about both the domestic and the international arenas.

The former Utah governor began by urging UCLA students to move beyond “reading blogs and posting on social media” and actively engage in the political process. Couching his appeal in terms reminiscent of the republican virtue model of civic engagement, Huntsman challenged the younger members of the audience to answer the age-old question, “If not you, then who?” This call for a greater number of young Americans to actively participate in the democratic process was both heartfelt and insistent, and was reaffirmed by the former Democratic Governor of California, Gray Davis, who introduced Huntsman as his longtime friend and colleague.

In particular, Huntsman talked about the ways in which the American political system had seized into gridlock, not because the issues involved were too difficult to solve, but because of “human failure” at the highest levels of government and opposition. Drawing upon his close involvement with the No Labels organization, a bipartisan political reform movement, the former governor insisted that there were innovative ways to fix the issues afflicting the political process such as campaign finance reform, but that nothing could be achieved without the involvement of more people as direct participants in the process.

The importance placed on domestic politics was also clearly present in the interview granted to The Generation editorial team before Huntsman’s speech. When asked about transnational issues, including the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia” policy, heightening tensions in the South and East China Seas, and the crisis in the Ukraine, time and again Huntsman came back to the issue of how domestic political considerations often serve to dictate elements of foreign policy.A good example of this was the recently released IPCC report on the impact and future vulnerabilities attributable to global warming. A well-known climate change advocate, Huntsman has been described as the “GOP’s lonely climate hawk.” Some commentators suggest that this was a major reason for his eventual withdrawal from the 2011 GOP presidential primary race. That may be true, but Huntsman suggested that it was better to “go down not winning an election, than losing your integrity.”

When asked to comment specifically on the challenges posed for the US and China (the two largest producers of CO2 gases), the former governor was quick to point to the different domestic considerations faced by the two states. Huntsman argued that the the U.S. held a critical leadership role in affecting global attitudes towards climate change policies, while admitting there was limited hope of movement from our end. He ascribed much of the reluctance from U.S. legislators to the ongoing unemployment crisis. The political cost of enacting new laws and standards in the face of unemployment numbers that stretch to double figures in some places, was simply too hard a sell. Huntsman noted that when the unemployment rate was down at the 3% or 4% mark, he was surrounded by members of Congress and the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, who were willing to work on climate proposals.

By contrast, while issues with constant election cycles are not a factor for the Chinese government, growing dissent within large urban population centers over air-quality and respiratory health are. Looking at the ever increasing impact of social media and the internet on Chinese political commentary – a “genie that cannot be put back into the bottle,” even by the Chinese censors – Huntsman pointed to the impact that China’s youth are having on environmental policy. Even though the state faces competing interests from the industrial and manufacturing sectors, the Chinese Communist Party has understood that air-quality issues are a key concern for modern Chinese urbanites, and that they pose a significant threat to the stability of the system. As such, China has taken a more proactive stance on climate change, even as the U.S. lags behind.

What remains to be accomplished is for both the U.S. and China to begin to liaise, perhaps initially on a scientific level, in order to work on the problem in a cohesive manner, Huntsman claimed. However, while the politics of unemployment prevent greater U.S. leadership over the environment, in China the issue is being advanced by the people. This notion of civic engagement, while very different in context from the perspective of young people in China and the United States, is nonetheless an important take away idea from the former governor’s speech.

When asked what political actors must do to appeal to young voters such as the UCLA student body, Huntsman suggested that research showed our generation was drawn to “conservative economic policy, progressive social policy and pragmatic global policy” – what he termed the “Millennial Sweet-Spot.” The No Labels campaign would appear to be Huntsman’s attempt to reach out and engage us in the political process. For our part, if we want to see the world change for the better, then it is incumbent upon us to become part of the solution, rather than just complain about the problem. As Huntsman made clear in his impassioned speech, if not us, then who?

長江後浪推前浪: This Chinese proverb reads “The Changjiang River waves behind drive the waves ahead,” which roughly translates to “The energy of the new generation inspires the old.”

April 29, 2014 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 5 comments

Africa Featured Middle East Security and Conflict Society and Culture UCLA and the World

Egyptian Peace Activist on Hunger Strike Awaits Appeal Against Three Year Sentence

written by James Walker

by James Walker

Editor, The Generation

CAIRO – Ahmed Maher, architect of Egypt’s 2008 April 6 Youth movement and Nobel nominated political activist has been on hunger strike for the past two weeks. Maher, who visited the UCLA campus twice in the last year, continues his policy of non-violent resistance from within Torah Prison in the lead up to his appeal hearing on January 8.

Maher was arrested and charged with violating a controversial new law in Egypt that criminalizes gatherings of more than ten people. After voluntarily surrendering to authorities on November 29, he and two fellow activists, Ahmed Douma and Mohammed Adel, were convicted on December 22 and sentenced to three years hard labor. The three were convicted on charges of rioting, thuggery and the use of violence against security officers.

Maher has been kept in solitary confinement since his transfer to Torah, according to reports smuggled out of the prison. He has been denied access to writing materials, but managed to send out a number of messages written on toilet paper. Sources close to Maher confirm that he has been on hunger strike since December 25.

History of Activism

Maher first came to prominence during the 2011 uprisings against Hosni Mubarak. As one of the principal founders of the April 6^h Egyptian youth movement, Maher became a vocal opponent of the Mubarak regime, and a lynchpin in the electronic resistance efforts of Egypt’s “Arab Spring.” Since that time, he has continued to be an outspoken advocate for democratic reform, first against the perceived autocratic presidency of Mohammed Morsi and later against the military-installed Provisional Government of Acting President Adly Mansour.

Maher was nominated for a Nobel prize in 2011, alongside April 6 co-founder Israa Abdel Fattah, in recognition of their sustained efforts to promote non-violent change in Egypt. The organization has over 70,000 active participants and includes a strict code of conduct for members. During his recent visit to the UCLA campus, Maher described the extensive process applicants must go through to demonstrate a commitment to the non-violent ethos of the group before they are considered active members. Maher’s conviction on charges of violence have been seen by some as an attempt to denigrate the organization’s reputation and undermine its legitimacy.

Since the Egyptian coup d’état in July of 2013, the group has come under increasing pressure from Egyptian authorities. Maher has suggested that the military junta demonstrates the return of the remnants of the Mubarak regime to power in Egypt, negating the gains of the 2011 revolution. In a message from the prison dated Dec 10^th, Maher states that “All the corrupt figures of the Mubarak era are back and the abuses of human rights have increased…it is now crystal clear that this is a war against the January 25^th revolution.” In addition to the new regulations outlawing public gatherings, the current government has also instigated a severe crackdown on dissident groups, designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and declared a state of emergency in response to mass protests throughout the country.

International responses to Maher’s conviction have been critical. Both the United Nations and the European Union have expressed concern over the suppression of political dissent and the targeting of democratic activists by the regime. In the United States, the State Department expressed deep concern over the worsening climate for freedom of assembly in Egypt and the notion that the conviction of opposition leaders and human rights advocates sends a “chilling message to civil society at large.”

In response to the heavy handed tactics of the police in suppressing political demonstrations and dissent, the Obama administration announced a temporary freeze in aid to Egypt in October, although Secretary of State John Kerry was quick to clarify that this was not intended as a punishment against the military regime. Calls for a stronger response from the administration against the suppression of democratic ideals in Egypt have gone unheeded.

International human rights activists and civil society actors have rallied around the convictions as proof of the anti-democratic and authoritarian nature of the interim government. A strong presence on Facebook and Twitter has gathered momentum in the build-up to the next court appearance in an effort to show solidarity with the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. A web-page (http://www.jan25solidarity.com) has also been launched to coordinate advocacy efforts and to focus international attention on the case.

Maher, Douma and Adel will have their appeal hearing on Wednesday, January 8.

January 6, 2014 2 comments

Featured Middle East Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Terrorism Uncategorized

Adventures in Bizzaro World: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb…

written by James Walker

by James Walker
Editor

Last week, the President of the United States of America made a televised appeal to the nation, asking them to get on board with his plan to use limited military strikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. President Obama laid out two main points for consideration:

1) The use of chemical weapons is a clear crime against humanity and in contravention of an accepted international norm. To let such actions go unpunished would be a green light to the dictators and terrorists of the world, and as such posed a threat to regional, global, and US security.

2) It is unacceptable for the world to stand idly by as helpless civilians are slaughtered by the thousand, akin to the stain on the consciousness of the international community over Bosnia…or Rwanda…or Darfur…

Having reached the second decade of the 21^st century, what is most shocking is the notion that the focus of this debate continues to revolve around the lynchpin of chemical weapons as an unacceptable form of mass murder—in contrast to the apparently acceptable nature of conventional weapons. The President’s call to arms is, in essence, based upon the form of murder, rather than the act of murder itself.

By the time of the President’s speech on September 10^th, the civil war in Syria had been ongoing for over 900 days—or almost two and a half years. In that time, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates a civilian death toll of over 40,000 people, including 5,800 children. This means that on average, 44 civilians (including 6 children) die every single day in the Syrian conflict. In other words, almost 1,000 people who were not combatants or directly involved in the war have been killed by conventional arms since the Sarin attack on August 21^st. To make that point clearer in a local context, by the time UCLA holds its annual Activities Fair for incoming students on September 23^rd, the death toll from good-old-fashioned flying lead ordinance will surpass the number of civilians killed in the gas attack, estimated at 1,429 people.

It is at this point that the “Bizzaro World” factor kicks into high gear. According to the latest rash of polls by CNN, the Pew Research Center, and the Washington Post, the American public opposes armed intervention in the Syrian crisis by a majority of about 63% of the population. This is an astounding figure, given the fact that since the invasion of Grenada in 1983, public opposition to bombing other countries has never risen above 45% (in the case of Bosnia). Even the extensive military intervention against Libya’s Gaddafi in 2011 only reached a high water mark of 37%! As a nation, we have never been shy about raining death from above before.

A number of commentators have suggested that the prospect of US casualties is simply too much for a post-Iraq/Afghanistan war-weary nation to accept. Given the fact that during the Libyan engagement (which consisted of considerably more involvement than the President is asking for over Syria) the US did not sustain a single military casualty, this notion is a little hard to defend. Others claim that it is a lack of tangible evidence, or possibly a lack of trust in the evidence provided, that is swelling public opposition. If that is the case, then we chose a fine time to start demanding absolute proof from our government. Where was this sense of caution in 2003? An informed electorate is, of course, a laudable thing and should be encouraged. However, most IR specialists would be happy if the majority of Americans could find the Middle East on a map. Add the fact that a recent Gallup poll found 65% of Americans were in favor of using unmanned drones to kill “terrorists” in Yemen and other countries, and you really have to wonder where the opposition to bombing Assad is coming from. Perhaps if Obama simply labeled Assad a terrorist, his PR issues would be solved.

Questions are also being posed as to the intent of the Obama plan – whether the intention is for a punitive strike, or for regime change. At a recent cultural event in Los Angeles, Middle East specialist and UC Riverside professor Reza Aslan suggested that, humanitarian ideals aside, it is not within US interests to remove Assad from power – if it were, then taking out the seven airfields that constitute the regime’s lifeline of military supplies would effectively turn the tide of the war in the rebel’s favor – and that is why we won’t do it. In fact, Obama has explicitly stated that any airstrikes would NOT target such infrastructure, even though it would be a relatively simply task to accomplish from our floating missile platforms in the Mediterranean.

If we take that position for granted and work on the basis that it is not our intention to change the course of the war, then what is the purpose of the proposed “limited military strikes”? There are any number of potential answers here, from the geo-political to the neo-realist, but is it also possible that Obama’s avowed aim to enforce an international norm is in fact the truth? Has the shame of inaction from previous debacles actually begun to sink through, at least in regards to the most heinous of atrocities? If history is any guide, then the odds are not high, but in Bizzaro World anything is apparently possible.

The Bizzaro factor ratchets up even further when you consider the fact that the reason Obama had to make a case to the nation was that the response from the International Community has been minimal, to say the least. The Syrian crisis has done more to highlight the ineffective nature of the UN Security Council (UNSC) than a thousand missives from the Teapublicans, the John Birch Society, or the “New World Order” conspiracy nuts of the world combined. It is a political truism that “politics makes strange bedfellows,” but in this instance you would expect that the “American exceptionalism” wing of the country would be in lock-step with a hawkish President, intent on flexing US military might in order to promote truth, justice, and the American way. Instead we find ourselves in a situation where President Bush’s former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, takes the same position as the Russian delegation to the UNSC! Has the world gone mad?

If ever there was a textbook case in the international arena to invoke the notion of the “Right to Protect” (R2P), then it is hard to see how it could be any more clear-cut than the Syrian crisis. Does the state have a “responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing”? Check! Does the international community have a “responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility”? Check! Has the state “manifestly failed to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities, have peaceful measures failed, and does the international community have the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures”? Check, check, and check!

For any ardent internationalist, it is painful to acknowledge that the system as it currently stands is so deeply flawed. Russian intransigence, combined with a lack of prior political will on our part, has allowed the situation in Syria to devolve into a neo-Hobbesian nightmare. The need for consensus in military intervention is a central tenant of the post-WWII collective security ideal, but it is one that has lead to the current deadlock at the UN, and threatens to sideline the effectiveness of this vital institution. R2P was supposed to be a way of answering this issue – instead it has simply become an example of it.

If the Obama administration’s plan to initiate limited, punitive strikes against the chemical weapons capacity of the Syrian state goes ahead, we might actually find ourselves in a world where US military actions serve to reinforce “universal” collective norms, but are undertaken in opposition to the collective will, and without the legal imperator of UN legitimacy. In that case, the move to implement the essence of R2P in the face of stagnation and deadlock would become, in and of itself, a criminal act in international law!

Welcome to Bizzaro World….

James Walker is a first year MA student in Political Geography, and an Editor for The Generation. He is also an ardent internationalist, and astonished by his own position on the situation in Syria – hence the Bizzaro World analogy.

September 16, 2013 0 comment

Security Security and Conflict

The Specter of “Foreign Influence” – Boogeyman of 21st Century Authoritarians Everywhere

written by James Walker

by James Walker
Editor

During the seismic shifts in the Arab world over the past few years the question has often arisen as to what an Islamic democracy would look like in Libya or Egypt or Tunisia. Gallons of ink have been spilled in earnest discussions in the West over whether the forces at play in the Arab Spring would bring about “true” democracies — meaning ones that we in the West are comfortable with — or “Islamofascist” pseudo-democracies. Reductionist thinking suggests that those are the only two possible outcomes — either proto-Western satellite states or Islamic theocracies in the throws of religious fervor, along the Iranian model. However, just occasionally you could hear a commentator suggest a third possible alternative — the so-called “Turkish” model of mildly Islamic democracy.

For over a decade an openly Islamic party has dominated Turkish politics, albeit one that promotes a vision of “conservative democracy” and the Turkish state as the guiding principle of government. The Justice and Development Party (JDP) is led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, an energetic and (some would say) increasingly autocratic figure who has managed to maintain a popular base in Turkish society, even though the country has a strong secular tradition dating back to the founding of the state at the end of the First World War … until now, that is.

Over the past two weeks, what started out as a simple protest against the development of a small park in Istanbul has grown into a full-fledged national emergency. Thousands of protesters have gathered in Taskim Square, Istanbul to protest not only the heavy handed response from the government to legitimate protests, but also the aggressive suppression of freedom of speech and political opinion. Erdoğan has wasted no time in sending in the riot police; saturating the area in tear gas, arresting hundreds of protestors, doctors, lawyers, and reporters; and strictly curtailing the domestic reporting of the incident. The situation changes so rapidly, that by the time you read this it will have already shifted again into the next phase.

From the safety and comfort of California, it is difficult to see what we as students can add to the analysis of this event — evolving as it does by the hour. However, in an effort to show solidarity with the youth of Turkey who stand together in the face of clear oppression, let us look at the language of Erdoğan and place it in the historical and political perspective it deserves.

On June 7, Erdoğan gave a speech at a mass rally, suggesting that the protestors were violent criminals who should “have their hands broken” and that they were part of a grand conspiracy to undermine the Turkish state by “outside forces.” Who exactly these forces were is hard to pin down, but the inference was that both Marxist/Leninist terrorist groups, and the Western media were responsible for the civil unrest in Taskim Square. He has singled out the BBC as a force bent on meddling in the domestic affairs of the state on the basis that they have devoted extensive coverage to the protests, unlike their Turkish counterparts. The other major foreign influence identified was social media, and in particular Twitter, presumably because it offers the people of Turkey an avenue of self-expression that is not subject to government oversight or control.

As must be clear by now, these claims are becoming something of a trope in the world of desperate authoritarianism. A quick review of the past few years will demonstrate the highly selective company among whom Erdoğan places himself with the use of such populist rhetoric:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran — during the “Green Movement” uprising of June 2009:

“Bullying powers, including the United States, must correct their behavior, language and thoughts with regard to the Iranian nation…Today, those making accusations against the Iranian nation or other nations have been unmasked.. …Inside the country, their agents were activated. Vandalism started. Sabotaging and setting fires on the streets started. Some shops were looted. They wanted to create chaos. Public security was violated. The violators are not the public or the supporters of the candidates. They are the ill-wishers, mercenaries and agents of the Western intelligence services and the Zionists.”

Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan — during the contested, fraudulent elections of April 2010:

“No doubt, there was huge fraud. There was vast fraud. The fraud is not by the Afghans. This fraud has been done by the foreigners…including officials of the U.N., the European Union and the embassies here in Kabul… this election was occurring during a time where there were threats from the terrorists…It was not only the threat from the terrorists. But seriously, it took place under the threat of foreign interference.”

Muammah al-Gaddafi, “Leader” of Libya — during the “Arab Spring” uprising of February 2011:

“Those who have come on to the streets are under the influence of drugs supplied by al-Qaeda… It’s al-Qaeda. It’s not my people. They came from outside… There is an intention to colonise Libya. And this makes the Libyan people want to fight the new colonisation by the West.”

Bashar Al-Assad, President of Syria — during the ongoing civil war, June 2012:

“What we are facing is a conspiracy of sedition, division and destruction of our homeland … This crisis is not an internal crisis. It is an external war carried out by internal elements… The masks have fallen and the international role in the Syrian events is now obvious.”

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia — speaking to the FSB about expanding the definition of treason and the registration of NGOs, February 2013:

“Any direct or indirect interference in our internal affairs, any form of pressure on Russia, our allies and partners is unacceptable… no one has the right to sow hatred, stir up society and thus threaten the lives, well-being and peace of millions of our citizens … Neither does anyone have a monopoly on speaking in the name of Russian society, especially structures financed from abroad and serving foreign interests.”

Quite why leaders in the 21st century still feel able to draw such a fine distinction between the domestic realm and the shadowy powers of “the rest of the world” is something of a mystery. Attempting to hold back the tide of public opinion, especially in the globalized age of social media, internet access to uncontrollable news sources, and widespread diasporas, is as futile now as King Cnut’s attempting to hold back the tide. At least in Cnut’s case, he was making a point about “how empty and worthless is the power of kings,” something the current crop of rulers might want to take into consideration.

During the debacle that was the Gaddafi regime’s response to the will of the people, a wise, respected, senior Islamic politician went on-the-record and stated that, “One cannot establish future, liberty, stability, peace and justice on blood.” That man was Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Let us hope that he is able to take his own advice, not only for the sake of Turkey but also for the sake of the “Turkish Model.”

James Walker is a first year MA student in Political Geography at UCLA, and an Editor for The Generation. He is also a lifelong political activist, and a firm supporter of the Occupy Gezi movement — #occupygezi, https://www.facebook.com/OccupyGezi

All quotes taken from the BBC, MSN, The Guardian, The Moscow Times, and Al Jazeera.

June 24, 2013 1 comment

Asia Featured Security and Conflict Society and Culture Technology Uncategorized

60 Years On – The New “Red Scare” in Hollywood

written by James Walker

by James Walker
Editor

During the collective insanity that gripped the United States in the late 1940s and 50s, political agitators and right wing demagogues alike created the specter of a sinister, lurking boogeyman poised to overthrow civilization as we knew it. The “Red Scare” of insidious communism – literally posited as “reds under the bed” – swept throughout the political narrative of the post war landscape, as well as Cold War international relations. The poster child, and some would say architect, of this paranoia was Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) who managed through sheer strength of personality and calculated populism to bring this specter to the forefront of the national dialog. The term “McCarthyism” has since come to encapsulate the notion of ideological determination, combined with a blinkered perspective, ad hominem attacks, and a willingness to ignore reality when it does not fit into your chosen narrative. At the time, however, the hysteria whipped up was all too real, and had numerous real world effects – particularly here in Los Angeles, in regards to the film industry.

By the time that McCarthyism was in full swing in the early 50s, Hollywood had become a center of attention in an effort to root out what Walt Disney described as “subtle communist touches” in the film industry. Many people know about the famous “Hollywood Ten” blacklist of suspected communists, but by 1950, the “Red Channels” list included 151 major industry players, including Orson Wells, Arthur Miller, and even Gypsy Rose Lee (presumably because her duel roles as a “communist sympathizer” and a burlesque dancer posed a double threat to the morals of the nation). In essence, the fear being exploited by McCarthy was the notion that popular media (as represented by Hollywood) had a strong influence on the development of public opinion, and that the “commies” were poised to exploit this to their advantage – a kind of subliminal fifth column for the “Fourth International.”

Flash forward 60 years, and the situation in Hollywood is very different. The movie industry is a powerhouse of the globalized world, and often posited as a prime example of American “Cultural Imperialism.” Combined, the six major US studios captured 64% of global ticket sales in 2012, bringing in a total of $ 22 billion in income. Literally hundreds of millions of people went to the cinema and consumed their own little slice of Americana, all over the world. By that measure, McCarthy was on to something – he just had the flow of influence backwards.

The difference between Hollywood then and Hollywood now is that McCarthy suspected outside influence where there was none, while today the industry openly acknowledges that foreign entities influence the production and content of the movies produced. The number one film in both the US and China currently is Iron Man 3, starring Robert Downy Jr. as Tony Stark— metal clad super-hero and quintessential Neo-Liberal American entrepreneur. However, the version you see in Los Angeles is different from the one you see in Beijing. In an effort to appease Chinese authorities, Foreign Policy’s Suzanne Nossel points out that the Beijing version has additional modified footage (including a special Chinese scene for domestic consumers), product placements for Chinese goods, and the villain of the piece has been renamed from “the Mandarin” (offensive to Chinese sensibilities) to “Man Daren” or “Big Man” in Chinese. These changes could be viewed as attempts to selectively market to a distinct target audience (China overtook Japan as the single largest foreign market for US films in 2012), if it were not for the fact that they demonstrate what Nossel describes as the “meddling hand of the Chinese censor.” As such, you could view the censor’s heavy hand as a sort of homegrown Chinese McCarthyism.

There are more direct influences on US productions though. Originally scheduled for release last December, the upcoming Brad Pitt blockbuster World War Z has been delayed for 6 months in order to re-shoot a number of scenes. This arose because of objections from the Chinese government over significant plot elements in the storyline, including the idea that the zombie outbreak (on which the film is based) originated in China. This is not the first major film to treat the Chinese hinterland as a source of worldwide pandemic – 2011’s Contagion starring Jude Law and Kate Winslet also used rural China as the birthplace of a plague. It is not hard to see why China is unimpressed with that sort of publicity, especially after the negative worldwide attention that revolved around the Asian Bird Flu and H1N1 outbreaks of recent memory. However, the difference between Iron Man 3 and World War Z is that in the latter case there will only be one version of the finished product available for your viewing pleasure– the Chinese censor-approved version.

To be clear, this kind of influence is not the insidious creeping boogeyman of McCarthy’s paranoid delusions. Los Angeles’s homegrown industry is quite open about the effects of market forces, the need to sell and succeed in major markets such as China, and the desire to collaborate with national entities. In another Iron Man-related movie, this year’s Avengers superhero spectacular also had some interesting international relations related issues, but of a distinctly domestic nature. Specifically, the US military withdrew their technical assistance from the production due to the unspecified nature of SHIELD — the shadowy international power hierarchy that controls the actions of a quasi UN-like military force. Apparently, the implication that US troops might somehow fall under the command of a non-US military command structure —even in a comic book adaptation —was simply not acceptable. This was a pity really, as the other major movie that came out at the same time, Battleship, had full US military cooperation but still turned out to be a terrible film. Political considerations do not appear to be very good at backing a winner, alas.

As we look forward over the next few years it is clear that China as a consumer market will exert ever-greater influence over film production. Hollywood will continue to do what it does best—namely, make expensive blockbusters that reel in billions of dollars from across the globe. How much the impositions of foreign censorship will affect the freedom of expression we take for granted is unknown, but it is worth taking note of. The Chinese Communist Party structure and its efficient, dedicated, and ever-present censors have established that they have a role to play in what we consider to be a distinctly US industry. But instead of imaginary “reds under the bed,” in this case, the pressure being excerpted is quite openly done while sitting at the writer’s table.

All facts/figures taken from Foreign Policy, The Guardian, BBC, and ScreenRant.com.

James Walker has just finished his BA in Global Studies, and is currently a first year MA student in Political Geography at UCLA. He is also an avid movie-goer, Sci-Fi geek, zombie apocalypse aficionado, and an editor for the Generation.

May 18, 2013 4 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts