The Politik Press, Vol. XIII, Issue 6

MARCH 11th, 2013Volume XIII, Issue VI the POLITIK PRESS

1


2

the

POLITIK PRESS

A publication of

JHU POLITIKjhupolitik.org

MANAGING EDITOR Alex Clearfield

ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Colette Andrei

Ari Schaffer

LAYOUT EDITOR Victoria Scordato

HEAD WRITER Rachel Cohen

STAFF WRITERS Megan Augustine, Akshai Bhatnagar, Michael Bodner, Henry Chen, Virgil Doyle, Chris Dunnett, Cary Glynn, Archie Henry, Peter Lee, Daniel Roettger, Geordan Williams, Chris Winer

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Jeremy Orloff, Matt Varvaro

VOLUME XIII, ISSUE VIMARCH 11th, 2013

The views expressed within this publication reflect the personal opinions of each article’s author and are not necessarily endorsed by JHU Politik or the Johns Hopkins University.

FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David

EVENTS CHAIR/PUBLICITY Randy Bell

Cover Image: “Landscape” by Jean-Baptiste-Armand Guillaumin, 1882. It is in the Rosenwald Collection of the National Gallery of Art.

WEBMASTER Sihao Lu


3

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

WEEK IN REVIEW .................................................................. Page 4 Daniel Ramos ’13

SYRIA: HOME TO THE WORLD’S NEXT GENOCIDE ................. Page 7 Adam Roberts ’14

THE NARROWNESS OF A HOPKINS EDUCATION: OUR UNIVERSITY’S GREATEST FAILING .............................................. Page 8 Akshai Bhatnagar ’15

WHY I’M FOR AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN .......................... Page 9Colette Andrei ’14

EVENTS CHAIR/PUBLICITY Randy Bell

THE POLICY DESK:A LOOK AT GRAND STRATEGY, AN INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR STEVEN DAVID ............................... Page 5 Ari Schaffer ’14


4

WEEK IN REVIEWBy Daniel Ramos ’13, Contributing Writer

Finally Something the Romney and Obama Staffs Can Agree On The Obama Administration has stayed true to his campaign pledge of promoting LGBT equality by issuing a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the repeal of California’s Prop 8 ban on gay marriage. This does not come as a surprise, since the Justice Department has been signaling for weeks that they would indeed file an amicus brief. What is surprising is that high-ranking members of the Romney campaign staff have also filed briefs supporting Prop 8’s repeal. This news has drawn an uproar from conservative groups across the country that have always harbored doubts about the conservatism of Romney’s social policy. Many see this as confirmation that the Romney campaign was disingenuous in their pursuit of an electoral victory. The Romney staffers are one of many Republican groups that have filed amicus briefs in support of marriage equality, but whether this is just a small group buck-ing the party’s position or a trend in the transformation of the Republican Party, remains to be seen. Theatrics on the Senate Floor

This past Wednesday and into Thursday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) held one of the longest filibus-ter in recent memory. For 12 hours and 52 minutes, Senator Paul refused to cede the floor and al-low for an up or down vote of the current CIA Director, John Brennan. For the vast majority of his nearly 13 -hour filibuster, Senator Paul railed against the Obama Administration’s refusal to answer whether the targeting of American citizens by drones on American soil was legal. Satisfied with Attorney General Holder’s letter next morning, Brennan was confirmed 63-34. Paul, a Tea Party favorite, seems to have taken up the mantle as the face of the libertarian movement from his father, retired Congressman Ron Paul. While many civil rights groups and fellow GOP senators supported the filibuster, his actions have have drawn sharp rebukes from foreign policy hawks Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ). Both senators defended President Obama’s use of drones, and criticized their fellow Republicans for turning away from the party’s traditional platform of support-ing a strong defense. McCain went further and called Paul’s filibuster an attempt to scare Americans about a non-existent threat. Quoting a Wall Street Journal editorial, McCain called the filibuster a “political stunt that fire[ed] up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms.” Is the Cure for HIV on the Horizon? Researchers in Mississippi are claiming that a girl in their care has been functionally cured of HIV. The girl, now two years old, was put under an unusually aggressive treatment regimen, and now has only trace amounts of the virus left in her system, which should allow her to grow up asymptomatic. If the research is verified it could have a huge impact on the estimated 1,000 children born with HIV every day, the majority of whom are born in Africa. Most researchers remain optimistic about the validity of the study, but still harbor reservations that this case is an extreme outlier, or that the patient was misdiagnosed with HIV initially. PP


5

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Policy Desk is a new addition to the Politik Press. This column will give writers the oppor-tunity to tackle the larger political and strategic questions which are at times overlooked in our publication’s regular opinion pieces. A 24-hour news cycle implies that decision making takes place in similar time frame. Although in a crisis situation this may be the case, strategic goals are often laid out years or decades in advance. Looking at every-thing from economic and military strategy to intervention and the Look East policy, the Policy Desk will tackle the larger questions of grand strategy for the United States, its allies, and its adversaries. The Policy Desk will show how such strategies shape international and domestic affairs. Ultimately, we hope this column will be both descriptive and prescriptive in nature.

By Ari Schaffer ’14, Assistant Editor

Going back to the Peloponnesian War and con-tinuing through the modern era, grand strate-gy has been an important part in the planning of powerful states. Establishing a comprehen-

sive, overarching plan for relations with the rest of the world, an effective grand strategy has been an integral part of both offensive and defensive planning. However, while grand strategy should remain a significant area of study and important part of any country’s international relations, Professor David stressed the importance of hu-mility when developing any comprehensive state strat-egy. After all, many of the risks states face loom just over the horizon. Even some of the most respected names in foreign relations can fail to see to something coming, be it a danger or a policy success. Grand strategy can be an effective guide for foreign policy, and has been in the past, but any grand strategy must be undertaken with the knowledge that some of the most important devel-opments, and even the success or failure of the strategy itself, may be beyond anyone’s ability to predict.

The first thing to understand is what exactly it consti-tutes. A grand strategy, Professor David explained, is best understood through a few crucial questions. Firstly, when a “Great Power [asks] ‘What are its objectives … what does it seek to accomplish.’” A grand strategy is, first and foremost, the decision of a state as to what its broader goals are beyond the everyday functioning of the government. What, as a state, are its objectives? Next, “What wars, conflicts, is it likely to have to fight to meet those objectives?” In laying out a grand strategy, a state will have to figure out what obstacles it will have to over-

come to reach those objectives. Whether it be winning a war or establishing a dominant position in the world, a state will have to recognize the conflicts in which it will need to engage and emerge victorious in order to effect the changes it wants. Finally, “What are the weapons and assets at its disposal to meet the objectives it has set for itself?” Both when deciding and having decided its grand strategy, a state must take into account the tools it has to enforce these aims. A good strategy must be within the realms of its ability to bring into fruition, and therefore must be planned according to the strength and capabili-ties a country possesses. In short, a grand strategy is an overarching strategy that will shape and guide all the ac-tions of a state.

A grand strategy is a much broader field than other sub-divisions of international relations and political science. It is a “comprehensive vision of [the state] and its place in the world and how it hopes to achieve that.” It is more than just the role of institutions, the study of nuclear weapons, or even good economic policy. Rather, it is a single, focused vision that subsumes all of these different areas of study beneath it. One of the keys to developing a grand strategy is that whatever strategy is chosen “is not simply additive.” A grand strategy is not a piece in a larger puzzle. Rather, it is the completed puzzle and the picture it makes.

One of the more notable examples of grand strategy in recent history is the Cold War policy of Containment. This was the United States’ policy, and by extent the entire Western World’s, toward the Soviet Union dur-

POLICY DESK

A Look at Grand Strategy, An Interview with Professor Steven David


6

This was the United States’ policy, and by extent the en-tire Western World’s, toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was the broad strategy that defined the military, political, and economic strategy of the U.S. Mil-itarily, the United States, with as much assistance from its allies as it could raise, attempted to check the advance of communist forces wherever they arose, e.g. Korea and Vietnam. It furthered committed to defend its allies in Western Europe militarily through the formation of NATO and the concurrent mutual defense agreement. Politically, the United States vowed to assist the devel-opment of freedom from communism wherever it may be, even if that meant propping up pro-Western dicta-tors, as elaborated by the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. On the economic side was the Marshall Plan, which disbursed large amounts of money to the war-worn countries of Europe. Seen as one of the more successful parts of the fight to stop the spread of communism, countries from the U.K. to Turkey received large aid grants to speed up their economic recovery, thereby preventing a fall to communist influence. Subsuming military, political and economic strategy, the policy of Containment proved to be an extremely effective and successful grand strategy, even if it did have its failures and shortcomings along the way.

The primacy of the United States strategy during the Cold War emphasizes another important point about grand strategy. Grand strategy is, first and foremost, the province of great powers. Those who are familiar with the titles “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” by John Mearsheimer, and “The Rise and Fall of Great Powers” by Paul Kennedy, know the unique role that great pow-ers play on the international stage. Professor David ex-plained that grand strategy is “more than survival and maintaining one’s way of life as it has been in the past. It’s about exerting influence throughout the world, and that’s beyond the capability of small powers.” Only those states with the ability and power, soft or hard, to influ-ence and shape the world can truly have a grand strat-egy. Those occupied with internal stability, such as many states in Africa or the Arab states of the Middle East, or basic regional security concerns, such as Israel, Georgia, and Pakistan, cannot form a grand strategy in the true sense of the term. Only states with enough territorial in-tegrity to venture outward can have a truly complete vi-sion of their place in the world and how to shape it.

Despite requiring great power status, grand strategy is

principally about security and protection of the home-land. “A leader’s first responsibility is to preserve the security of the country that he or she leads… one can only think of going beyond concerns for security … only after you have the foundation that your society and state is secure.” A state must ensure that its in-ternal security is assured, a constant concern, before it can venture outward in accordance with a broader strategy. Humanitarian concerns can be addressed and pursued only after the safety and security of the home country is certain.

The unusual thing about the current War on Terror is that very few saw it coming. Even Henry Kissinger, a giant of American foreign policy, neglected to men-tion terrorism in a book on grand strategy just before September 11th. On a similar note, the fall of the Soviet Union came as a surprise to most, as it was commonly believed that the Soviet Union was strong almost until the day it collapsed. The Sino-Soviet split was a wel-come surprise for the U.S., who had, until then, believed that relations between the two communist powers were stable. Ultimately, the two states competed to see who could reach rapprochement with the U.S. first, a situ-ation almost inconceivable ten years before. Ultimate-ly, after both September 11th and the fall of the Soviet Union, a change in strategy was necessary.

“Humility” is the word Professor David used, under-scoring the true unpredictability of world events. Sep-tember 11th, the Arab Spring: both unforeseen by even the best policy experts. Even when great powers form a grand strategy they must understand that much is out of their hands. By no means, though, does this mean grand strategy is not worth studying. Rather, even great powers must understand that not everything is in their control.

Grand strategy, then, presents a large opportunity for those willing to study it. Creating a comprehensive strategy that takes into account the challenges a coun-try will face and the tools it has to overcome them is by no means an easy task. Further, the difficulty of predict-ing the future impresses upon strategists the need for a little humility in forming grand strategies. However, a vision of a great power’s place and role in the world is an important part of guiding the decisions it makes and the steps it takes, even if whatever surprises loom over the horizon are often unforeseeable. PP

POLICY DESK CONTINUED


7

A civil war that has been raging for years. The oppressed majority rising up against minor-ity rulers. American denial of ongoing geno-cide so that it would not have to intervene.

Does that seem familiar? It certainly should. That civil war was the Rwandan Civil War. That was the oppressed Hutu majority fighting to prevent the Tutsi minority from regaining power. It was Bill Clinton who refused to intervene in 1994, because of the debacle that had hap-pened in Mogadishu the previous year.

Why does Rwanda matter? It should be pretty obvious. The first three sentences of this article also describe the situation in Syria. Sunni Muslim Syrians have been re-volting for years against their Shia Muslim Alawite rul-ers. Not only that, but there is widespread evidence that genocidal attitudes exist among many Sunni rebels. Even worse, President Obama has totally ignored the warning signs of genocide simply because he does not want to get involved in another Middle Eastern conflict.

Some might say that the Alawites should have seen a genocide coming since they decided to create an all-Ala-wite dictatorship that ruled over a predominantly Sunni country. Yes, for years they did oppress Sunni Syrians. However, they only did so because prior to seizing pow-er, the Alawites themselves were heavily persecuted for being “heretics.” The international community cannot stand by and watch Alawites get butchered, even if they were not particularly good people themselves. That was the attitude a lot of people took in 1994 with the Tutsis. I personally cannot take that stance. You cannot allow children to be mercilessly killed because of what their parents or grandparents did. We simply cannot live in a world where people think that others deserve to be killed, or had it coming. Just ask Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, about the “they had it coming” logic, since that was his reasoning for why the Holocaust occurred. According to him, the Jews simply had too much power and wealth, so people were bound to take action against them. It was as if Jews brought it upon themselves. Even if you subscribe to Hoess’ morals, you have to un-derstand that it is not just the perceived oppressor that

SYRIA: HOME TO THE WORLD’S NEXT GENOCIDE

is targeted in a genocide, but other minorities as well. Si-mon Adams, the head of the UN anti-Genocide initiative Responsibility to Protect (R2P), expressed grave con-cerns in his New York Times opinion piece last Novem-ber about this now common phrase among Syrian rebels: “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to their graves!” Yes, not just Alawites to their graves, but Christians to Beirut. It seems that in the rebels’ new version of Syria, it will be all Sunni. This also spells disaster for the Druze, another prominent religious minority in the country that split off from Islam a millennium ago.

What does this mean about foreign intervention in Syr-ia? To begin with, Russia must stop backing Assad’s bru-tal dictatorship. Without Russian support, Assad may feel compelled to negotiate a settlement with the rebels. Most likely, these negotiations would be with more mod-erate elements of the rebels, which would legitimize them and delegitimize the radical Sunni Islamist rebels.

But negotiations alone are not enough to end the con-flict. What is needed is a final settlement for what a post-war Syria will look like. While I do not believe it should be totally partitioned, certain minority regions of Syria should be granted autonomy. These autonomous zones should be demilitarized in order to prevent a dominant-ly Sunni army from supporting genocides, and to prevent pro-Assad forces from rebuilding to retake the country. These regions should have significant legislative pow-er, preventing the Sunni Arab majority from legislating against Alawites, Christians, Druze, and even Kurds and Assyrians in the north. If we look at Egypt, the Christian Copts are being persecuted not through ethnic cleansing or genocide, but simply through legislation. Laws can of-ten do nearly as much damage as guns.

If we let the rebels violently overthrow Assad, a geno-cide may very well occur. The only way the Syrian Civil War can end well is if a negotiated peace that guarantees the rights of all Syrians, including Sunni, Alawite, Chris-tian, Druze, Arab, or non-Arab, is established. Perhaps then the transition from minority rule will be less like Rwanda, and more like South Africa. It has been nearly twenty years since the Rwandan genocide, and it is time we learn from it. PP

By Adam Roberts ’14, Contributing Writer


8

THE NARROWNESS OF A HOPKINS EDUCATION: OUR UNIVERSITY’S GREATEST FAILING

“What do you mean?” my friend asked me, his eyes blinking inquisitively in the harsh light of Subway. We were on a 3AM study break and I had asked him a simple question: “Have you ever taken a

class on Eastern philosophy?”

It wasn’t my friends fault the question had phased him. As a Hopkins Philosophy major, he wasn’t required to take a single class on non-Western philosophy. More-over, during the two years that have passed since the two of us matriculated, the Philosophy Department has not offered a single non-Western philosophy course. The school had ignored the legitimacy of non-Western phi-losophy to such an extent that not only had my friend never taken a class on it, he had never even realized it existed.

This close-mindedness is not limited to the Philosophy Department, nor is it restricted to our university. Rather, it has permeated our entire national higher education system. A simple ISIS search reflects the astonishing lack of diversity in our curricula. It is nearly impossible to find a single class on non-Western philosophy, or for that matter, East Asian literature, African art, or Islamic history. While my Introductory Chemistry teacher men-tioned the contributions of medieval Arab empires to modern science, my International Studies classes seem to never acknowledge any cultural or intellectual con-tribution by non-Europeans aside from an occasional, cursory quote from Sun Tzu. Although prevalent in the humanities as well, this neglect has been most egregious in the social sciences, which by their nature require an inclusive outlook.

Any social science, almost by its very definition, seeks to answer certain universal questions. Political theory asks how much authority should be ceded to the state, interna-tional relations questions ho w and why states go to war, etc. At elite universities across America, these questions are studied through a rigorously specified system. First, students must read what the ancient Greeks thought of these questions, examining Socrates, Thucydides, etc., for the first few weeks of any introductory course. Next, students jump to the Enlightenment, reading Locke or Hume for the middle of the semester. Towards the end

of the semester, their attention will cross the Atlantic to the New World, often reading some post-World War II American attempts to answer the age-old questions that plagued the Greeks. Unfortunately, this narrative arc of many Hopkins courses leaves students (and perhaps even a few professors) with the impression that only Westerners—whether Ancient Greek, Enlightenment Europeans, or modern Americans—have ever tried to answer these questions. However, this perception is sim-ply not historically accurate.

It is desperately naïve to believe that no one outside of the West has ever asked the same essential questions that drive the social sciences. Surely, someone in China (be-sides Confucius) must have tried to define a set of ethics. It is simply incorrect to believe that no one in India ever tried to analyze international relations: the chief strate-gist of ancient India’s largest empire compiled a treatise which not only outlines a theory of political power, but also discusses fiscal and monetary policy. If we have an entire Classics department dedicated to studying ancient works in Greek and Latin, surely we can spare the effort to sponsor one class on any of these non-Western texts.

This university, despite whatever genuine affection we may feel for it, has not lived up to its lofty motto. If the truth really shall make us free, we must make an effort to examine all perspectives, from all people. While we cannot ignore the contributions of the West in shaping our culture today, we can no longer afford to discount the contributions of the rest of the world. We must do this not because our world is increasingly “globalized,” nor because not doing so will deprive students the cul-tural sensitivity necessary to navigate the careers of to-morrow—these small aims should not be the purpose of a university. Rather, we must make a change because the idea of receiving a true education demands it. If we come to a university to study History, Philosophy, or Political Science, we cannot simply check non-Western views at the door—especially if that door costs $60,000 a year to enter. That such endemic academic avoidance afflicts our university should be a primary concern to every stu-dent, faculty member, and administrator. This university has a long and proud history, and it would be a shame to see it fall short of its noble ambitions. PP

By Akshai Bhatnagar ’15, Staff Writer


9

In last week’s issue, Akshai Bhatnagar argued why he is against an assault weapons ban. Given the current political climate, he said, now is not the time to pursue a ban, and any such effort is futile.

However, I disagree, and to me this reasoning seems en-tirely inappropriate in the wake of such terrible tragedy. On February 21, Vice President Joe Biden stood in the same spot where I received my high school diploma, be-cause of an assault weapon. At a gun symposium in the auditorium of Western Connecticut State University, a room I remember full of proud families and the bright faces of my classmates, Biden addressed an audience of parents whose children were robbed of the opportunity to ever graduate. “I can’t imagine how we’ll be judged as a society if we don’t act,” Biden said. This statement resonates most profoundly; how can we not learn from this heartbreak and finally enact meaningful change? An assault weapons ban would be only the first step. Connecticut is a sleepy state, but within the past three years a state of emergency has been declared five times, and recently it has been forced to endure more than its fair share of tragedy. Of all these instances, Sandy Hook is the only one we have the power to avoid repeating. On December 14, when I first heard that there had been a shooting 20 minutes away in Newtown, where I’d played in volleyball tournaments and took my SATs, I assumed it was for a movie, because that’s the only kind of shoot-ing that could happen in Fairfield County. I am for an assault weapons ban. In fact, I am for a complete ban: I do not believe private citizens should be allowed to own guns. Before people cite the Second Amendment in protest, we must realize “A well-regulat-ed standing militia,” is no longer “necessary to the se-curity of a free state,” as it was during the time of our forefathers. Today, gun ownership represents the ero-sion of collective security. It is an armament that endan-gers rather than protects, undermining the effectiveness of law enforcement and generating a self-perpetuating legacy of terrible violence. And the rights that are truly in jeopardy now are those unalienable ones that guaran-tee us all life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I know that a complete ban anytime soon is unrealis-tic. Guns are a part of American culture, and arguments will always be made for gun ownership as self-defense and as a constitutional right. But what are Connecti-cut parents supposed to tell their children when they cannot resort to the familiar refrain of “Don’t worry, it won’t happen here”? Little comfort comes from con-gressional squabbles and the distant hope that some-thing may happen sometime in the future, if constitu-encies can ever put their differences aside and come together as people. Many advocate a stronger police presence in schools, even suggesting arming teachers and other school staff. But is that the kind of message we want to send? My mother is a teacher at Sandy Hook. Since the trag-edy, she said, increased police presence in the school has made many students feel unsafe and insecure, as if the threat of something happening lurks at every moment. She said this is not the message we should be sending children. Rather, they should be able to feel safe in their school environment. Furthermore, a study in Time re-vealed that even highly trained specialists can be largely ineffective in high-pressure situations such as school shootings. This study cites the NYPD as an example, who typically hit their targets only 18% of the time in gunfights, and often fire on civilians. An adage that has received undue significance in this debate is the familiar “Guns don’t kill, people do.” True, but I doubt the horrifying number of children who have killed themselves since Sandy Hook—ac-cording to the NYT Gun Report—would have done so if they had not had access to a gun. Gun violence in America is endemic, and it is not a political issue, but a human one. We shouldn’t let this important piece of legislation fall by the wayside just because the politi-cal landscape seems unforgiving. If we cannot come together and act now, then when can we? I speak to the faith I hope I can still have in our government when I say that an assault weapons ban is only the first step in sweeping change. Change that will represent a better future for all Americans and finally ensure that every-one can be safe. PP

WHY I’M FOR AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN By Colette Andrei ’14, Assitant Editor


10

WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS

The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We believe that progress comes from conversation and that every voice deserves to be heard. Our staff is made up of students with majors that range from political science to biomolecular engineering. We seek out the best political writers on campus and regularly interview professors and graduate students. In many ways, the Homewood campus is a microcosm of the American political landscape. We find our-selves at a crossroads defined by students from across the country, professors with disparate political theo-ries, and a city constantly confronting racial violence, political corruption and systemic economic problems. While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. In 2011, with the Arab Spring fully underway, we interviewed five Hopkins professors whose expertise ranged from Archeology to US-Israeli relations, in order to provide some clarity on an immensely complex and constantly shifting situation. In 2012 we focused on the political issues of Baltimore, conducting interviews with professors and local politicians in order to shed light on the complexities of our school’s relationship to our city. Our latest Special Issue was on the politics of research.

If interested e-mail us at

[email protected] find us online at

jhupolitik.org

Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division


11

Date post:	30-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jhu-politik
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

The Politik Press, Vol. XIII, Issue 6

Documents