Globalization

Economics Globalization International Trade The International Economy

COVID-19: Globalism’s Achilles Heel

As COVID-19 spreads around the world, everyday life for hundreds of millions has been drastically altered. Full-scale quarantines have been imposed on countries hit hardest by the outbreak. Italy is under lockdown as its northern region faces sharp challenges in limiting new infections. In the United States, schools have closed, travel disrupted, and mass fear illustrated in the clearing of grocery store shelves.

Perhaps the most consequential disruption – aside from the direct human toll the virus has had – is the economic volatility felt across global markets. In America, ominous signs have pointed to a looming recession. Markets have hit bear territory, meaning securities prices have fallen more than 20% from recent highs. On Monday, March 16th, the Dow Jones Industrial Average saw its steepest single day drop in 33 years. Pessimism and panic have taken hold of economic sentiment. People under quarantine and social distancing measures are less inclined to go out and purchase goods or services. Broad layoffs throughout the job market have begun while the Trump administration seeks nearly $850 billion in stimulus to keep the United States economy afloat.

One of the greatest threats the pandemic has imposed on the global economy is its sheer impact on supply chains. 75% of companies in the U.S. have had their supply chains disrupted as a result of the virus.

Decades of globalization and interconnecting economies have developed a system in which finished products are not made in any single place. Their parts and manufacturing span oceans and continents. The manufacturing of a single Apple IPhone Touch ID button requires over 12,000 miles of movement to reach the place where the iPhone is assembled. All-in-all, “the iPhone has a transportation footprint at least as great as a 240,000-mile trip to the moon, and most or all of the way back.”

It is difficult to fathom the level of complexity that goes into the production of simple products many of us take for granted on a daily basis – at least until COVID-19 hit. Today the world is facing an inflection point surrounding globalization. It has uncovered both its limits and weaknesses.

The unprecedented movement of goods and people has cultivated the perfect environment for a virus which began in a seafood and livestock market in central China to wreak havoc on the world. In a mere three months it has spread to virtually every part of the globe and tanked markets.

It has also demonstrated to governments and its leaders advocating for a turn inwards that isolation is not always a feasible option. What happens in one place inevitably affects another. Companies which operate under a just-in-time (JIT) inventory system, a strategy that opts to maximize efficiency by limiting inventory, face existential threats to their supply of goods. Apple, which produces many of its products under this scheme, is now set to miss its forecast for the second quarter and is facing a sharp constraint in its ability to produce the IPhone.

The more tangible impact that the outbreak will have on globalization is difficult to determine as of now since the spread of COVID-19 has only begun. From a political level, Philippe Legrain of Foreign Policy Magazine has argued that the “outbreak has been a gift to nativist nationalists and protectionists, and it is likely to have a long-term impact on the free movement of people and goods.”

Political leaders espousing these ideas may end up with the ammunition and legitimacy they need to put the final nail in the coffin in their fight against globalization. The world could come out of this more divided and uncooperative than it was before.

This prospective reality is frightening because it is a response to a problem requiring the exact opposite. Forces outside of the control of politicians or their rhetoric are in fact integrating the world to greater degrees as time moves forward. Advancements in technology and infrastructure have enabled more people than ever to travel around the globe. Developing nations are increasingly integrating into the world as hubs of business and travel. Businesses and governments would find it infeasible to truly de-integrate based on the reality that modern globalization has enabled companies to produce products better, faster, and cheaper via the construction of highly efficient supply chains. Reversing this course of direction would be a daunting and nearly impossible task. Globalization is not just some policy choice, it is a consequence of advancements in human ingenuity. In reality, governments ought to be coming out of this realizing the need to invest more in domestic and global preventive measures/capacities. Cooperation and information sharing should become the centerpiece to fighting and preventing future outbreaks. The construction of a more robust global health regime bolstered by true initiative and sustained investment in domestic measures are key to tackling future pandemics.

Although people may feel inclined to see globalization as a threat to humanity in the face of COVID-19, the world continues to change in ways that make turning inwards and shutting the door virtually impossible. People must come to terms with the fact that civilization faces many challenges ahead that do not respect borders. If anything, our current predicament shows us all that many times the only way forward is by uniting and cooperating in the face of shared adversity. The reality is that pandemics transcend many of our common conceptions of national interest and multilateralism. Preventing and combating them requires an immense level of global cooperation and an outgrowth from the daily trivialities that plague interactions between political entities, both domestically and globally. They are one of the starkest delineations of a “global challenge.” Transnational threats to humanity must demonstrate to us all that, in the end, we are in it together.

March 17, 2020 1 comment

Economics Globalization The International Economy United States

McDonaldization and its Discontents

written by Katherine Jones

In the summer of 2019, McDonald’s debuted a special international menu with four delicious fan favorites from abroad in participating U.S. franchises. Stop and appreciate what an oddity this is. How can a brand so quintessentially and aggressively American return home with a menu that is unapologetically foreign? However, this product promotion presents an opportunity to reframe our perception of the corporation— and rightfully so. McDonald’s characterization as absurdly American may be an oversimplification of what is actually a complex and shifting identity. Yes, McDonald’s is classically viewed as, and has historically functioned as, an agent of America and Americanization both at home and abroad, but what exactly about America McDonald’s is conveying and how this message has evolved with time is still up for debate.

When McDonald’s first opened in San Bernardino in 1948, it was the first restaurant to apply the assembly line production model to food service, and in doing so changed the American dining experience forever. McDonald’s expanded rapidly by serving reliable, delicious, standardized and commodified food and as such came to represent innovation and progress, in a significant sense mirroring the larger success and prosperity of the United States throughout the 1950s and 1960s. McDonald’s then exploited this ultra-American image they had been instrumental in creating, in their “United Tastes of Europe” Campaign; the corporation’s first big push into the international market in 1970s.

In 1990, McDonald’s made another big step, this time into the communist U.S.S.R.. The employees at the Moscow McDonald’s were trained in the traditional American style of hospitality, and eventually even told to smile less to fit in better with local customs. Nonetheless the Soviets loved McDonalds, it softened their views towards America after lifetimes of Anti-U.S. propaganda. This is not the first, or by any means the last example of this phenomenon either.

Unfailingly, in countries with limited contact or ideas about the United States, the initial impression left by McDonald’s has ultimately been very positive. The dining experience legitimately promotes lovable liberal values like democracy and accessibility in small yet significant ways. McDonald’s champions democracy by responding to the local tastes and preferences of customers around the world. For example, in India McDonald’s does not serve beef and offers many vegetarian options in order to accommodate Hindu preferences. In France, McDonald’s has acclimatized to the French cafe model by making restaurant seating areas more warm and inviting. Cultural modifications like these demonstrate to consumers that their thoughts-and purchases- will affect change, which can be a revolutionary notion for the world’s politically oppressed. McDonald’s additionally encourages accessibility in the equalitarian nature of the dining experience. No matter your individual economic status you’ll get the same big mac- it’s an inherently populist meal. McDonald’s promotes ideas of efficiency and standardization through the quick service assembly line model, and American congeniality in their aforementioned ‘service with a smile.’

McDonald’s ability to capture and perpetuate these American values, is in some sense a precursor to a larger acceptance of western values and ideals. Herein lies the essential purpose of soft power: to introduce America abroad in a lighthearted and inviting way that may ease relations and create a sphere of influence. McDonald’s, along with other leviathan corporations like Coca-Cola, are tasked as a sort of trojan horse for American cultural imperialism. They distill ideas, distinct but similar, that together culminate into brand America, a stepping stone on the way to capitalism and globalization.

This process may sound overbearing or invasive, and it may be, yet aspects of it are also mutually advantageous. Consider economist Thomas Friedman’s Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention: that no two countries with McDonald’s will ever go to war. The theory is imperfect, but it’s logic is infallible.When two countries both participate in the free market they inherently have a degree of economic integration and a shared interest in prosperity that greatly discourages conflict. And it is not just America that engages in this system. Other nations are quick to grasp at the opportunity for economic growth. According to former McDonald’s International Chief James Cantalupo there “wasn’t a country that they haven’t gotten inquires from;” illustrating the inflated extent to which McDonald’s represents America abroad.

Association with American identity has been very advantageous for the corporation’s growth, but it is a double edged sword. McDonald’s was attacked, rather than the American embassy, by anti-American interventionism protestors in Chile. McDonald’s was removed from Iran during the Islamic Revolution of 1979. All three McDonald’s locations in Crimea were shut down following Russian annexation in 2014, and the list does not end there. These rejections are clear cut. They are based on fundamental disagreements with American foreign policy. Yet there is another more nuanced faction of dissent against McDonald’s and what it represents in America as well as other western nations. These viewpoints signal a shift in the way people want their countries to behave and to be viewed.

In 1999, McDonald’s Millau was disassembled as a statement in the “fight against free trade global capitalism.” The movement was led by French politician José Bové, who along with other anti-globalists were disenchanted with what they viewed as the homogenization of food and culture. Yet the closing of other McDonald’s locations in France has met resistance amid claims that they provided jobs and, more importantly, a sense of community for immigrants. This perhaps reveals the dissonance between those with privilege that speak for workers and the actual material needs of workers. For many socially disenfranchised groups, including the homeless, elderly, and low income, McDonald’s provides a refuge in a society that is leaving them behind. McDonald’s offers seemingly insignificant services that are important to people, such as affordable coffee, clean bathrooms, access to electrical outlets and permittance of patrons to stay for extended periods of time. It is an accessibility that is taken for granted by more privileged groups. The disdain that some in such groups show to McDonald’s is at least to an extent exemplative of the marginalization of poor narratives rather than simply the fight for economic and cultural justice. This is not an exoneration of McDonald’s by any means but an attempt to bring awareness to a portion of the prejudice that clouds the conversation.

There are valid criticisms. The critiques of the corporation reflect larger issues facing the United States such as unchecked corporate power, environmental degradation, and quality of life. These criticisms have been effective at forcing the company to make positive changes such as more sustainable meat production and the introduction of healthier menu items. However, the substance and validity of these claims, or lack thereof, is ultimately irrelevant. What is important is that they have affected McDonald’s reputation and thereby representation of America. McDonald’s reputation has been continuously tarnished and there is growing disillusionment with the brand. The same could be said for the U.S., that things have grown more politically and socially contentious. That less people believe in the feasibility of the American dream. And while some of these changes are undoubtedly negative, maybe a little loss of ego can be seen positively, as “America too” rather than “America first.”

McDonald’s importation of foreign menu items into the United States represents a stark shift: from cultural imperialism to syncretism. A shift from American domination in international relations, to many nodes of power radiating from Beijing to Rio to Sydney. McDonald’s is an exemplary corporation in this regard because it has adapted to the times. It responds to customer desires and changing markets, whether that means giving an organic option or introducing food delivery. It is also willing to adapt and learn from other places. Like taking the European six to eight week menu cycle for products. Maybe this is what we as Americans should learn too. To be proud, to promote what we do best, but also to listen, learn, and not be afraid of change.

February 17, 2020 0 comment

Featured Geopolitics Globalization Print Article Religion

The Price of Pilgrimage: Is Nothing Sacred?

written by Katherine Jones

This article was published as part of our Spring 2019 print edition, the entirety of which may be found here.

One of the world’s tallest buildings, The Makkah Royal Clock Tower, looms over the Kaaba and the Masjid al-Haram Mosque, Islam’s holiest site. The Clock Tower boasts a luxury Fairmont Hotel, which offers rooms with views of the Kaaba for up to $4500 a night, along with high end shopping and restaurants. However pilgrims that cannot afford the growing number of luxury hotels sleep on the street outside, illuminated by the fluorescent lights of an opulence they may never experience. The commodification and capitalization of Mecca draws a stark contrast to the rites of the Hajj that emphasize equality and humility. Such an inherent disparity between purpose and practice has sparked a global conversation not only about the meaning of the Hajj, but Saudi Arabia’s fitness to oversee it.

The Hajj is a five day ritualistic pilgrimage to Mecca required of all Muslims who are physically and financially able at least once in their lives. Mecca is within the political jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Riyadh dictates how the pilgrimage is run and who may attend. The Kingdom claims they distribute visas to attend the Hajj in accordance with the size of each country’s Muslim population. In reality, the allotments are not always transparent and the Saudis have been known to use visas as political pawns. Nations with whom they have favorable diplomatic ties with often receive extra bonus visas unofficially, and those with whom they do not, have issues attaining any visas at all. For example Syrians, with whom the Saudis cut diplomatic ties with in 2012, cannot obtain a Hajj visa through the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – they must go through the Syrian National Coalition, a Saudi aligned opposing political party. Similarly, after the embargo placed on Qatar in 2017 the visas allotted to Qatar were halted, resulting in extreme backlash and a formal complaint to the UN. It was not until the intervention of Sheikh Abdullah Al Thani, an exiled member of the Qatari royal family, that the visas were once again granted. In both cases, the Saudi government used the visas as political leverage to undercut the authority of existing governments and give preferential treatment to their allies.

The most overt politicization of the Hajj though, has been the Saudi-Iranian cold war. Both countries use the Hajj as a battleground for promoting their competing versions of Islam, a tension which has erupted in violence on several occasions. In 1987, 402 Iranian pilgrims were killed and 600 more were injured by Saudi riot police as they protested “Death to America! Death to Israel!” during the Hajj. More recently, 464 Iranian pilgrims were killed in a tragic stampede during the Hajj. The following year, the Iranian government banned its citizens from attending the sacred rite, and since have been vocal in their dissatisfaction with Saudi management.

However the Iranians are far from the only ones to call Saudi stewardship into question. A growing number of critics have emerged due not only to the aforementioned political exploitation, but the Saudi’s growing and projected profiteering practices. The Saudi economy benefits immensely from the Hajj. The religious pilgrimage accounts for seven percent of Saudi Arabia’s GDP and 20 percent of it’s non-petrol GDP. Consequently, expanding the Hajj to accommodate more people, more businesses, and more profit has become an integral part of Mohammed Bin Salman’s economic plan for the Kingdom, Vision 2030. New hotels, shopping centers, fast trains, and airport terminals are all being constructed in anticipation of future pilgrimage, and nothing is too sacred to renovate. Even the Masjid al-Haram Mosque, which contains the Kaaba, is being expanded to accommodate as many as 1.85 million pilgrims at once in the years to come.

At first glance, these developments appear to be positive. Mecca’s growth does mean more people will have the opportunity to attend the Hajj and fulfill their religious duty. However the Saudi’s disheartening economic focus, that will entail the expansion of the tourism sector, and destruction of historic sights, negates any praise or admiration they may receive.

The Kingdom hopes to increase the revenue from pilgrimage and subsequently spread the wealth through various sectors as a part of their larger tourism expansion scheme. They have started to offer an “Umrah Plus” visa (the Umrah is a pilgrimage at a non-Hajj time of year) which provides access to not only Mecca, but other religious sites across the country. This will increase sustainable development for their population, but feels disingenuous to the purpose of pilgrimage. To exacerbate their trend of capitalizing off Mecca further, the Saudis have attempted to provide ulterior motives for pilgrimage. Mark Allaf, manager of the Mecca Hilton said the hotel was “trying to introduce the concept of combining both the performance of Umrah and Hajj, and specifically Umrah, with a business event.” Many of the devout feel these distractions sully the pilgrimage.

Mirroring this shift in the purpose of the Hajj is the shift in the physical landscape of Mecca. In the process of construction and renovation of the city, the Saudis have destroyed ancient relics as well as medieval Ottoman structures, an action which the Turkish cultural minister condemned as “cultural vandalism” and a “war on legacy”. In defense of the Saudis, it is within the theology of Wahhabi Islam to destroy these sights as to prevent idolatrous practices, however it is ultimately unjust for the Saudis to take action that will affect everyone based on their unpopular interpretation of Islam. It is also a bit too convenient that the home of Khadijah, Mohammed’s wife, was replaced with bathrooms in the expansion of the mosque and the home of Abu Bakr, Mohammed’s successor, was replaced with an extremely profitable Hilton hotel. It is apparent that the Saudis care more for development and personal economic gain than preservation and reverence of a shared cultural and religious history. Perhaps it is time for a more open conversation about the Saudi’s mandate to Mecca.

Saudi Arabia’s history of political and economic exploitation of power, not to mention their condemnable human rights record, make them unfit to manage Mecca. However that brings about the question: who is? Because the problem goes far beyond the Saudis themselves, and we in the West must take our share of responsibility. Islam’s shiny new sixth pillar, western capitalism, is the direct result of decades of U.S. interventionism and soft power throughout the Middle East. It would thereby be the height of hypocrisy for us to condemn the Saudis for following in our footsteps, for bringing profit to the American corporations filling the malls of Mecca, but that doesn’t mean Muslim countries can not. It is only natural to sympathize with the Iranian pilgrims protesting US-Saudi relations during the Hajj, because cultural imperialism is a driving force of change in Mecca. After all, the city belongs to Iranian Muslims just as much as it does to the Saudis, or the other 1.8 billion Muslims on Earth; and if they’re angry that some pilgrims are sleeping on the street, and others in the Fairmont penthouse they’re not alone. Perhaps the Saudis should give some credence to these criticisms and consider incorporating their religion into their developments, their economy and their politics, rather than the other way around.

October 14, 2019 0 comment

Featured Geopolitics Globalization Human Rights Humanitarian Aid Immigration Religion

The Rise of Buddhist Extremism in Myanmar: The World’s Largest Refugee Crisis and What To Do

written by Abdus Najmi

Known previously as Burma, Myanmar was subject to British colonial rule from around 1820 to 1948, like its surrounding neighbors of Bangladesh and India. Surprisingly, for most of Burma’s history, the Rohingya Muslim minority actually lived peacefully with their Buddhist neighbors in the Rakhine state, situated right next to Bangladesh’s Cox Bazar. Many legal documents claim Muslim minorities acted as “advisors to Buddhist royals,” even having a deliberate say and place in Burma’s politics since the 1500s. In fact, it was only towards World War II where religious violence began to erupt in the modern form that one can see today. The British began recruiting the Muslim minority as their soldiers, while the Japanese army aligned themselves with the Burmese Buddhists. Both of these governments’ armies used religious divisions as a political and military means; it was from here that we can start to see a Burmese resentment towards the Muslims as being traitors to their nation.

After Burma gained independence, the government published a list of the 135 official ethnic groups native to the country. The Rohingya are nowhere to be found on that list. There is even a law that limits the civil rights of the Rohingya. The 1982 Citizenship Law has complex procedures in which Rohingya men and women are only allowed to raise two children, and they are not allowed to marry unless given permission. This is usually done by bribing authorities or providing evidence that the couple does not follow Islam, such as giving pictures of the bride without a hijab to prove secularity. Rules governing property ownership and taxation also are extremely cumbersome and arbitrary. The Rohingya are not legally considered citizens; they are forced to carry around “white cards” which allows them legal standing as temporary residents in Myanmar.

The amount of persecution has skyrocketed within the last decade. Dildar Begum and her 10-year old daughter were repeatedly raped by Myanmar troops on August 30, 2017. She watched soldiers hack her 5-year old son “to death in front of her,” and was forced to witness the slitting of her husband’s throat. As a Rohingya Muslim, Dildar Begum’s idea of statehood and the “home” is nonexistent, as she is being kicked out of Myanmar by state soldiers, but is also unwelcomed into Bangladesh. For people like Dildar Begum, being Muslim and Burmese becomes a contradiction of sorts. She never fits in with Bengalis because of her language, but cannot be considered Burmese because of her faith. Dildar Begum’s case is not an isolated instance of violence. Mamtaj, also thirty years old, faced a similar situation where one of her sons was “thrown into a fire,” while the other was shot from behind in the head. In both of these cases, their husbands and sons were killed first so the Myanmar troops could proceed to rape the women without resistance. Myanmar’s State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi has received tremendous amounts of criticism in terms of the delayed response to the persecution of Myanmar’s Rohingya minority.

Kutupalong is the world’s largest refugee settlement, housing the Rohingya people and spanning over the Cox Bazar area of Bangladesh. Estimates predict that there are about one million refugees total; women and children make up most of the population of the camp, according to UN data. Recent weather analysis and scientific reports have rendered Kutupalong as one of the most susceptible areas to climate change, as the geographical positioning next to the Bay of Bengal makes the camp prone to intense cyclones and “vigorous monsoons,” further exacerbating inequality by destroying homes and requiring constant efforts to rebuild the camp. Due to massive overcrowding, water resources have become scarce as well; environmental scientists tested the groundwater at random locations around the camp and found that 70 percent of their samples contained E. coli. In addition to geographical positioning, Ukhia, in Cox Bazar, is home to many forests and contributes vastly to the world’s biodiversity. Due to overcrowding within the camp, people have shifted towards deforestation and land degradation to accommodate the influx of refugees. This depletion of resources has actually hampered the survival of refugees. The Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) representative Atiq Rahman has in fact argued that cutting down trees “destabilizes the terrain” as Bangladesh’s hills are “soft soil hills,” getting much of their stability from the roots of trees. The risk of hill collapse becomes imminent. As the camp continues to expand and accommodate new refugees on these faulty hills, more tragedies and environmental disasters await. Expanding the refugee camp is simply not a sustainable solution.

To this day, most of Burmese nationalists refer to the Rohingya minority as “Bengali Muslims,” and fail to use the Burmese word Rohingya as it would give credence to the fact that this minority group originally stemmed from the Arakan Kingdom in Burma. Even State Chancellor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi has denied to call them Burmese citizens, allowing the massacre to continue within her own borders. To call them Rohingya would be to humanize them as Burmese. To Buddhist nationalists in the Ma Ba Tha movement, they are anything but human.

The Ma Ba Tha movement is a nationalistic association of Buddhist monks and worshippers who preach against the rise of Islam. They fear what many of them term as the “Islamification of Asia,” a phenomenon which leader Wirathu has claimed will “destroy Burmese culture and the future of Buddhism.” In one of Wirathu’s speeches, he argued that the Muslim is one who is prone to be “inherently violent […] want[ing] to eat their own kind.”

Wirathu, known as the “Burmese bin Laden,” was on the cover of the 2013 Time Magazine under the title “The Face of Buddhist Terror.” In this piece, the magazine points out that the slogans and ideology that Wirathu is preaching is not a new phenomenon. In fact, Buddhist extremism has been prominent not only in Myanmar, but also Sri Lanka during their civil war, where many Buddhists rallied around claims of taking back Buddhism from Tamil Hindus. The same is true in Thailand. The narrative has always been as such: Buddhism is on the decline because of a foreign enemy, we must fight back to protect our way of life. These monks use the idea of sangha (or the importance of a monastic community) to justify their violent behaviors. For them, Buddha’s message is on the decline, and if there are no more monks, a “Buddhist End Times will begin.” They term this the final kalpa, where an apocalypse will occur with a massive rainfall to end all life on Earth, just to begin a new one. In order to forestall the “End Times” from happening, extremist Buddhists resort to violence to preserve Buddhist monasticism. In Meiktila, 40 Muslims were killed by a group of Buddhists. In one Rohingya village, 70 Muslims were slaughtered. It’s vicious killing campaigns like these that cause the Rohingya to flee into neighboring Bangladesh for refuge. The misguided effort to preserve Myanmar’s Buddhism has been a central tenet guiding the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims. Despite the doom-and-gloom rhetoric, it is important to highlight that positive steps are definitely being made towards the rights of the Rohingya people, and can potentially be guaranteed with external pressure from groups like ASEAN or countries such as China or India. Recently in 2017, Myanmar and Bangladesh hashed out a deal regarding the issue of repatriation, despite an eventual postponing of the deal later on. Even the international community, such as the US and EU, have attempted to impose sanctions on Myanmar for their behavior. Empirically, they have worked. Foreign direct investment from the West decreased from $3.14 billion to “$1.34 billion” due to sanctions. Tourism from Europeans is “down by […] half.” People are becoming more and more aware of the atrocities that are occurring in the Rakhine state. However, international relations scholars have posited that if any external force can help solve this crisis, it’s China. China is Myanmar’s “largest trading partner,” composing almost 33% of its trade. Due to China’s involvement in Myanmar’s economy, they may have the upper hand in securing a deal that can drastically limit the casualties in the region, if they can get Bangladesh to properly agree. The biggest place policymakers must look at when dealing with this should be China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative. Some of the infrastructure plans under this project include a multi-billion sea port project in the Rakhine state. Putting hardline pressure with China’s economic investment plans in Myanmar might be the key to getting them to cave in on reforming their human rights policies. Only time will tell.

October 9, 2019 0 comment

Environmental Change Featured Globalization

The Economics of Preventing Global Warming

written by Andrea Zachrich

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

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

On its face, Nordhaus’ economic model is simple – tax carbon emissions per ton released into the atmosphere. The idea is that when you give corporations a financial incentive to change their behavior, they will start to find more cost-effective ways to harness clean energy without the government having to regulate or cap their emissions. Today, one ton of carbon emissions costs about eight dollars to produce at its raw cost⁷. But, if that number were to be raised through taxes, consumers would begin to demand that corporations use cleaner energy because it would lower the cost of goods and services. Nordhaus believes that $30 per ton would be enough, while the UN report on Climate Change advocates for a higher price, closer to $155 per ton^8,9. The number must be high enough to incentivize companies and consumers to change their habits while simultaneously being low enough that businesses do not suffer excessively while they are making the transition to cleaner fuel sources. Nordhaus acknowledges that there is likely to be political pushback in the US against a carbon tax, especially from energy corporations and citizens who do not wish to see an increase in cost of living. But he points out that other large programs that required tax increases such as Social Security and Medicare once evoked fierce opposition, but now see widespread support. The taxes, he argues, can not only reduce carbon emission, but can also be used to help pay for essential services to citizens while also cutting down on carbon emissions¹⁰. Some places that have implemented carbon taxes such as British Columbia have actually returned the revenues back to their citizens in the form of income tax rebates¹¹. He also mentions that most other countries would encounter fewer problems with this tax than the US, stating “in other countries, people are grown-up, and they can live with taxes”¹². The US, however, given its status as an economic power and the largest greenhouse gas emitter per capita, would likely have to be assume a leadership role in implementing and pressuring countries to similarly implement a carbon tax for the model to effectively curb global warming due to the country’s large economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 26, 2019 0 comment

Featured Globalization Human Rights Military Security Technology

Borders, Bodies, and Biometrics

written by Katarina Kosmala-Dahlbeck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 8, 2019 0 comment

Source

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

Multinational Corporations and the EU’s New Data Laws

written by Eden Ballard

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 11, 2019 0 comment

Environmental Change Featured Global Health Globalization History Human Rights International Trade Society and Culture The International Economy

Bayer Acquires Monsanto: Controversy & Implications for Global Agriculture

written by Sareen Ishanyan

Following two years of negotiations and approval seeking from various governmental bodies, the acquisition of the American agricultural biotechnology company known as Monsanto by the German pharmaceutical and life sciences giant Bayer was approved in spring 2018. Less than half a year later in August, Dewayne Johnson of the Bay Area was awarded $289 million in a civil suit which charged Monsanto’s infamous Round-Up Ready herbicide–also known as glyphosate–with causing Mr. Johnson’s diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

For years, Monsanto has been decried by environmentalists and farmers alike for its pesticides, herbicides, genetically modified seeds, and seed policies. Additionally, with Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto, there are concerns for monopolization of the global seed market, as Bayer itself is a highly important player in the field of agriculture. This article seeks to understand the implications of a potential monopolization of the global agriculture system. First, however, this article will provide a background with a brief overview of the various controversies associated with Monsanto.

Criticism of Monsanto has spanned decades. During the Vietnam War, Monsanto was the largest American manufacturer of Agent Orange, an herbicide and tool of warfare used by the American military. Research in this area suggests that exposure to Agent Orange is associated with negative health effects. Vietnamese people and American veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange have been found to have higher cancer incidence rates than those who were not exposed. Meanwhile, the spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam resulted in serious environmental problems, namely deforestation and reduction in the diversity of animal species.

Additionally, the seeds produced and patented by Monsanto have been a major source of controversy. One common charge involves cross-pollination lawsuits. For example, if a farm has planted the seeds of a patented GMO and, by way of cross-pollination, these seeds reach a neighboring farm and produce plants, it is often believed that Monsanto will sue, and has sued, the latter farm simply because of wind patterns affecting the movement of pollen. However, in reality, as one NPR article notes, there have been no such suits. But in 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard a seed saving case involving Monsanto. Based on patent law, the Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, which had sued a farmer from Indiana for saving seeds. Saving seeds refers to the practice whereby after harvest, seeds are saved and planted during the next year. Monsanto requires farmers who purchase their seeds to sign contracts in which they pledge not to save the patented Monsanto seeds they purchase in a given year. Still, this issue and the surrounding debate remain controversial as many question the practice of granting companies patents of living things. Arguably, patenting seeds is especially problematic as seeds are, both literally and symbolically, one of the most important living things on the Earth. Further, in India, over ninety percent of the cotton seed is controlled by Monsanto. In fact, some have even argued that increased suicide rates among Indian cotton-farmers is associated with Monsanto’s practices and patents of seeds. The evidence regarding a causal relationship is not conclusive, and many argue that a causal relationship does not exist; still, it is striking that Monsanto owns over ninety percent of the Indian cotton seed.

Additionally, the biotechnology of Monsanto has serious implications for agriculture and the environment. Round-Up Ready, also known as the chemical glyphosate, is the most popular herbicide used in agriculture. Glyphosate is a powerful chemical that is able to eliminate the growth of unwanted plants such as weeds. Yet glyphosate is also capable of killing valuable plants too. It is for this reason that Monsanto created genetically engineered crops that are resistant to glyphosate. The first of the company’s genetically engineered crop was the soybean in 1996. However, the use of glyphosate has the potential of developing so-called superweeds, which are resistant to glyphosate. Also, the development of such superweeds may induce the increased use of herbicides and pesticides by farmers attempting to contain such weeds. It is for these reasons that some protest Monsanto on environmental grounds.

Another issue is that there are concerns about the impact of glyphosate on human health. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research concluded that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen. And, as discussed, a recent court ruling in San Francisco ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson, who claimed that Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready herbicide caused him to develop cancer. Monsanto, now considered a ‘unit’ of Bayer, faces thousands of other similar lawsuits, with many dying individuals in Northern California being given expedited trials. Still, Bayer is arguing that Mr. Johnson and the court ignored certain pieces of scientific evidence which claim that their is no link between cancer and glyphosate, and are seeking a mistrial.

However, it ought to be noted that the link between glyphosate and cancer is one that is under debate. For example, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency have concluded that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic. Monsanto has also been accused both of attempts to suppress scientific research reports which offer a negative assessment of Monsanto pesticides, and also instances of ‘ghostwriting’ scientific research findings which hold that glyphosate is safe for human health. For example, The New York Times notes of one 2015 article posted on the Forbes website that is believed to be ghostwritten by Monsanto but is credited to an academic named Henry I. Miller. Still, however, a study published in Scientific Reports found a link between glyphosate and fatty liver disease. Along with the recent court ruling, the possibly carcinogenic nature of glyphosate has been particularly salient in the last several weeks following a report that found traces of glyphosate in cereal such as Cheerios. The environmental research and advocacy group that published this report, Environmental Working Group, claim that such traces of glyphosate can says could “increase cancer risk for children.” However, as stated, findings about the nature of glyphosate remain inconclusive.

Amid the debate on the health and safety of glyphosate, there has been much talk in the European Union on the question of whether or not glyphosate should be a banned chemical. Many contend that glyphosate should be banned across all EU member states. While states such as Belgium voted against re-licensing glyphosate in the European Union in 2017, the vote ultimately ended in Monsanto’s favor with glyphosate’s license being extended for an additional five years. It will be interesting to see whether the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer, a German company, will have any effect on the use of glyphosate in the EU.

Further, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto suggests that alterations in the agricultural arena await. First, it should be noted that there has been a recent trend of consolidation in the agriculture industry. For example, before the Bayer-Monsanto merger, the companies Dow and DuPont merged, as did Syngenta and ChemChina. As Mark Connelly, an agriculture analyst notes, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto indicates that “$1 out of every $3” that farmers spend on seeds, pesticides, and herbicides will go to Bayer. In other words, a third of the world’s agriculture supply is now controlled by one company–Bayer. This consolidation has farmers across the globe concerned. For many, the increased trend of monopolization means increased prices. This is supported by data and research from the Farmers Business Network. In research that focused on the price of corn seeds and chemicals, this group found that greater market share was associated with higher market prices for products. As mentioned, Bayer now controls a third of the market share. Dow-Dupont and Syngenta-ChemChina are not far behind.

Monsanto has historically been associated with a variety of controversial products and practices. Despite all this, it is undeniable that the science and innovation of Monsanto has been remarkable. For instance, in the 1990s, the ringspot virus threatened to destroy the papaya industry in Hawaii. However, Monsanto, which had a patent on transgenic technology, allowed for this technology to be used to create the Rainbow Papaya, a genetically modified papaya that is resistant to the ringspot virus. This saved the Hawaiian papaya industry. However, there is the the fact that Monsanto manufactured Agent Orange, a biochemical weapon with possible long-term health effects, that was used in Vietnam. But Monsanto was not the only company contracted by the American government to produce this war chemical. There is also the fact that Monsanto’s patents over biological entities, such as seeds, has also received considerable attention. However, sensational claims of Monsanto suing small farmers because of wind patterns and pollen drift appear unsubstantiated. Also, the health and safety of Round-Up Ready is a current and hotly-debated topic. Thus, while Monsanto has been a topic of debate for decades, it is not clear whether Monsanto has done more harm than good, especially with regard to the agriculture industry, human health, and the environment.
Finally, while the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer means that, legally, the name Monsanto refers to a company of the past, doubtless, the issues associated with (what was) Monsanto will continue to persist. Further, this recent acquisition marks a highly significant moment for the global agricultural sector. It is especially important to see how all of this will unfold in the coming years.

September 24, 2018 0 comment

Featured Freedom of Speech Globalization Immigration Interview Journalism Populism UCLA and the World United States

An interview with Fareed Zakaria

written by Andrea Zachrich

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

Immigration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journalism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 28, 2018 0 comment

GovernmentZA/Flickr; (https://goo.gl/sxnYTh). CC BY-ND 2.0 (https://goo.gl/gVtcU8).

Africa Featured Globalization International Trade

China’s Strategic African Exploitation

written by Tala Ahmadi

The minibus violently jostled left and right as we hit a road under construction. Awoken from my nap, I looked out the window half asleep. I figured I must still be dreaming as we passed Chinese signs, Chinese workers and Chinese machinery– wasn’t I in the West African country of Ghana? While accustomed to encountering diversity in Africa’s globalized metropolises, I was surprised to find a Chinese presence at a construction project en route to a small village in rural Ghana. As I traveled to more African countries, the image of Chinese investments against the continent’s cities and landscapes was a frequent recurrence.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, China has aggressively positioned itself in Africa through a host of economic activities ranging from infrastructure projects, construction, mining, social services, restaurants, retail and more. In what President Xi Jinping has deemed a “win-win” relationship, China extracts natural resources from the continent to fuel its economic development in exchange for cheap manufactured goods, roads, schools, hospitals, railways and more. A testament to its foreign policy commitment of “Go Global,” China surpassed the United States (US) as Africa’s largest trading partner in 2009.

China’s appetite to forge international partnerships comes at a time when rising populism has forced many Western countries to look inward, with President Donald Trump notably proposing to cut foreign aid by one-third. The economic powerhouse is also ramping up its activities in Latin America in light of a diminishing US presence, doling out more development finance than the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and the Andean Development Corporation combined. China has also set its eye on the Middle East, releasing its first Arab Policy Paper which describes how the country hopes to increase trade with the region mostly in exchange for oil.

By pouring $2.25 billion into Africa annually, China has positioned itself as a viable, and often more attractive, alternative to traditional Western aid and development organizations. Chinese money is accompanied by a policy of no interference, meaning few strings are attached for the recipient country besides access to natural resources or a local market. Unlike Western money that often comes with conditionalities like enforcing good governance, human rights or environmental protection, Chinese aid is doled out efficiently and projects are often completed on schedule or earlier. Their non-interference policy also means that the Chinese are willing to indulge African despots that many Western development organizations dare not. One such dictator includes Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s dictator that is purportedly using Chinese funds to increase surveillance capacities rather than assisting the 72% of Zimbabweans who live in poverty (national poverty line).

China has been criticized by many Western countries and media outlets as a neo-colonial force that disregards local labor regulations, funds dictatorial leaders, destroys local markets and invests in construction projects that lack quality and lifetime in the name of profit. While these accusations are valid, China is providing desperately needed infrastructure to a continent that still struggles to achieve fundamental levels of development even after the $30 billion in aid Africa has received since the 1970s. Western development agencies are known for their bureaucratic and top down approach to development that often imposes, unsuccessfully for the most part, western cultural norms and institutions on a continent that frequently does not share the same values. The Chinese have been able to successfully execute projects that Africans can make use of like roads, schools and hospitals.

China’s African foreign policy strategy is deeper than the superficial goal of economic exploitation or neo-colonialism. In light of shifting global paradigms, where the US seems more and more like a decaying empire, China is seeking to build strategic partnerships across the continent that result in international signs of support like at the United Nations. In fact, one of China’s first projects in Africa was the construction of the Tazara railway in the 1970s, connecting Tanzania to Zambia. In exchange for the railway, China required support at the UN to be reinstated in the Security Council. AidData reveals that for every 10% increase in voting support at the UN, China increases aid by 86%. Another bargaining chip for access to Chinese money is often international recognition of China over Taiwan, which most recently occurred with the small, African island country of Sao Tome and Principe.

Another indication that China seeks strategic alliances rather than a form of pure exploitation is China’s establishment of the tri-annual Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in 2000. During the most recent FOCAC in 2015, where 50 African leaders attended compared to four in the first forum, President Xi promised $60 billion investment in Africa. In 2013, President Xi also revealed his One Belt, One Road initiative, an ambitious vision with a $1.6 trillion price tag, linking Asia, Africa and the Middle East’s trade routes to create a stronger Eastern trade bloc. Perhaps a flex of its geopolitical muscle and a wink to the West, China started building its first African military base in Djibouti— only about ten miles from the US’ largest African military base.

China is presenting itself as a champion of the East and an alternative option for financing the development of emerging economies. While characteristics of China’s foreign policy are accurately likened to economic exploitation, it appears China’s deeper goal in Africa is to forge lasting partnerships in exchange for political loyalty. This may also be influenced by the fact that the longevity of the Sino-African “win, win” relationship is contingent on the Chinese economy’s success. With Chinese economic growth consistently slowing and commodity prices fluctuating, a purely economic agenda may not be sustainable. China presents itself to African nations as an example of an alternative model for climbing out of poverty, an easier and more efficient financing partner and a global leader rivaling the Western hegemonic power structure. A testament to their attempt at cultivating an international image of partnership and leadership, the Chinese Ambassador to Ghana recently commented on the One Belt, One Road initiative, “The belt and road initiative comes from China, yet it belongs to the world.”

August 6, 2017 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts