October 2009 http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill Volume IX, Issue I

The HillOctober 2009 http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill Volume IX, Issue I

Chapel Hill Political Review

America’s AdversariesHow Obama takes the heat

They say they want a revolutionA look at the health care debate

2 The Hill

A professor recently asked the students in one of my classes what the top issues are right now in news. The first thing that popped into my mind was global and national security. I had just seen a

news report on Iran’s possible clandestine efforts to build a nuclear warhead. My next thought was health care and the intricate po-

litical battle taking place from the halls of the Capitol building to town halls across the U.S., from the West Wing to wings of the nation’s hospitals.

After more than eight months in office, President Obama is still working to pull this nation through one of the tough-est spots in history. With members of his own party is rebelling (pg. 6) and a struggle from across the aisle (pg. 7), the president certainly has yet to bring the promised health care reform.

Our cover section looks at how the Obama administration has handled

U.S. adversaries. The Bush administra-tion was known for its stances and actions against nations that did not act according to its will, but Obama is beginning to pave his own course of ac-tion. Our cover section (p. 12) analyzes Obama’s handling of these internation-al players and the challenges facing the U.S. today on a global scale. We revisit North Korea after a summer full of diplomatic oddities (p. 14) and examine Iran’s power structure after questionable elections and political appointments (p. 15).

Be sure to check out our expanded col-umn section with a debate on Blackwa-ter (p. 18) and a look at how globaliza-tion effects indigenous nations in Peru (p. 20). Our Last Word columnist also discusses a tendency in the media that The Hill works to overcome: sensation-alism (p. 22).

Thanks for reading and being part of our discussion of political trends and issues here and abroad.

Juliann Neher is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.

From the Editor The Hill Staff

Send us your comments

We’re proud to share our work with you, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or e-mail - no more than 250 words, please. Include your name, year and major.

Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national and international politics. This publica-tion is meant to serve as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus where people can present their beliefs and test their ideas. A high premium is placed on having a publication that is not affiliated with any party or organization, but rather is openly nonpartisan on the whole. Hence, the purpose of The Hill is to provide the university community with a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events and trends. This means that, on the one hand, the publication will feature articles that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. These articles might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape. On the other, The Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues.

thehillpr@unc.edu

208 Frank Porter Graham Student UnionUNC-CH Campus Box 5210Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210

http://studentorgs.edu/thehill/

The HillChapel Hill Political Review

To our readers: EDITORJuliann Neher

ASSOCIATE EDITORS Will SchultzYash Shah

Clayton Thomas

WRITERSTatiana Brezina

Ryan CollinsAmanda Claire Grayson

Kelly KesslerKrishna KolluMike Mian

Ismaail QaiyimWilson SayreWill SchultzYash Shah

Casey SteenClayton ThomasMichael Young

COLUMNISTSCarey AverbookZach Chapman

Ivanna GonzalezDrew Hackelman

HEAD OF DESIGNSamantha Deal

DESIGNNicole Fries

HEAD OF ARTDiane Esson

ARTMegan Shank

HEAD OF CIRCULATIONMichael Parker

TREASURERKendall Law

FACULTY ADVISERFerrel Guillory

October 2009 3

Contents

Left/Right

Cover

Features

October 2009 Volume IX, Issue I

and more . . .

18

8

12

16

9

Bringing the heatObama vs. the problem children

Taking chargeFurther challenges for Swat Valley

In Every Issuev Notes from The Hillv The Last Word: A sensational story

Money talkClinton, the Court and campaign finance

Global leadership on climate changeChanges in U.S. energy policy

17 Shattered hopes and homesTrouble in Gaza

Blackwater battleProblems and possibilities of private contractors

4 The Hill

Notes from The Hill

A near partisan catastropheDick Morris and Eileen Mc-

Gann make a critical flaw in their new book “Catastrophe” (featuring the outrageously partisan subtitle “How Obama, Congress, and the Special Interests are Transforming a Slump into a Crash, Freedom into Socialism, and a Disaster into a… [Catastrophe]), assuming that their goal is to influence public opinion rather than to sell copies. I have no doubt that conservative right-wingers flocked to their local book store to buy a copy of “Catastrophe” if for no other reason than to hear their own opinions echoed in print. The problem is that Morris and McGann are unlikely to convince anyone who voted for someone other than McCain or Bush to buy, read or believe this book.

Book review

Notes fromThe Hill

I was, however, impressed by many of the arguments in “Catas-trophe.” Not the rhetoric behind them, but the points themselves. Morris and McGann outline nine steps to “Obama’s Plan for Gov-ernment Takeover of Banks,” and step eight is “PRESTO: SOCIAL-ISM!” I practically gagged. But if you get past partisan mudslinging like “nationalize banks,” “muzzle talk radio,” and “repeal the Declara-tion of Independence,” Morris and McGann’s analysis of our nation’s problems seems very intelligent. You might even call it fair and balanced; though the book is marketed to a conservative audience, the authors make some shocking criticisms of both Bushes and even of Repub-

lican poster boy Ronald Reagan.

The first chapter, entitled “Obama’s War on Prosperity,” focuses on how Obama hates rich people and wants to take away the profits of their hard work. Morris and McGann offer a very sophis-ticated critique of Keynesian econom-ics. They support their argument with a plethora of statistics that convey America’s trend towards

Take Note:-New blog!The Hill has a new blog in order to broaden

our political discourse and allow for more input

from the UNC community. Visit our new blog

at http://chapelhillpoliticalreview.blogspot.

com/ or email wjschult@email.unc.edu if you

are interested.

-New partnership!

The Hill has joined forces with UNC’s chapter

of the Roosevelt Institution in order to pro-

mote public policy discussion on campus. A

Roosevelt Institution column will appear in this

year’s issues. Soon Roosevelt Institution mem-

bers will also be blogging on our site. We hope

you will join us in our public policy discussions!

European-style government control of the economy. Their analysis of Obama’s plan to refinance mortgag-es hits hard, digging up every detail that might limit the plan’s benefits. Then Morris and McGann deliver their most convincing argument against Obama’s policies: that uni-versal health care will never truly be universal, as the lack of nurses and doctors would lead to long wait-ing lines for care and would further elevate prices.

Probably the most entertain-ing line of the entire book comes at the beginning of the chapter on Bill Clinton—ironic, considering that Morris once worked for the former president.

“Sometimes it’s tempting to read conspiracy theories into the actions of our government, particu-larly when the opposite party is in power,” the authors write.

It is almost as if Morris and McGann realize how ridiculous some of their claims sound.

Still, the conspiracy theories and partisan flamethrowing make “Catastrophe” an entertaining read. Do not rely on it to form your po-litical opinions, but enjoy its enter-taining and sometimes sophisticated perspective on American politics.

Amanda Claire Grayson is a first year majoring in political science and public policy.

October 2009 5

Notes from The Hill

Changing war strategy

Hill-O-MeterBy Will Schultz

Who’s on top of the heap right now? Who has fallen far? We track the up-and-comers and the down-and-outs.

1

3

Update

The Obama administration has been working to change course in the “War on Drugs” rhetoric, begun years ago by President Bill Clinton, that has characterized so much of American drug policy for the last three decades. Meanwhile, Latin American governments frus-trated with a zero-tolerance goal are rapidly reversing course.

Some Latin American coun-tries are now taking an approach similar to what has been done in nations like the Netherlands and Germany. These European nations have decriminalized small amounts of illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin and ecstasy and several Latin American presidents, including Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Felipe Calderon of Mexico and Cristina Fernandez of Argentina are following suit. They aren’t looking to eradicate drug use. Instead, they are focusing on

treating drug use as a public health problem, one that can be treated and stabilized at a healthy level.

The War on Drugs failed in Latin America because, even as the U.S. sent aid to these countries, the root of the problem was not ad-dressed. Due to the high level of drug production in many countries, the drug cartels are often wealthi-er—and more heavily armed—than the police. This makes it difficult for police to enforce the drug laws; even if they could, it makes more sense for them to pursue drug producers rather than waste time chasing after the people carrying small amounts. By focusing more on the treatment of drug addiction, Latin American countries hope to gradually curb drug use and production.

It remains to be seen how the changes in Latin America will affect U.S. drug policy. California is already loosening laws dealing with

the medicinal use of marijuana and other states like Hawaii and Oregon also permit marijuana use for medi-cal reasons. However, Dr. Evelyn Huber, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said in an email to The Hill that this change in Latin America will not affect America’s laws. She believes that “what concerns drug policy between the U.S. and Latin America is the fight against the shipments of drugs to the U.S., and these will not be af-fected by the changes in legislation in Latin America.”

While the U.S. policies may continue to differ from those of its neighbors to the south, Latin America awaits evidence that its new approach to drugs will be suc-cessful.

Kelly Kessler is a sophomore majoring in political science.

Michael BloombergMikey is cruising to a third term as Gotham’s mayor. But what’s left for him to achieve? After all, he’s already gotten rid of secondhand smoke and trans fat. Try topping that!

Gordon BrownAccording to the most recent polls, if the British election were held today, Brown’s Labour Party would lose by 5,000%. An exaggeration? Well, maybe. But it still looks like the House Tony Built in Great Britain is set to come crashing down.

Yukio HatoyamaNewly-minted Prime Minister Hatoyama managed to oust Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party, which had run the country since 1955. That’s something not even Godzilla could accomplish.

2

Barak ObamaThey say dealing with Congress is like herding cats. In that case, trying to get Congress to pass a health care bill is like herding cats that are blind. And deaf. And the cats have no legs. What we’re saying is, it’s a difficult job.

4

6 The Hill

Domestic

Blue Dog revoltCongressional Democrats cur-rently have the power to pass any legislation they please—if only they could reach agreement on what that legislation should be.

“How much longer do we have to talk about this,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs recently asked reporters. He was referring to the fierce debate in Congress over the health care policy reform requested by the current adminis-tration.

Not only was health care reform one of the signature domestic plat-forms that carried President Obama into office, but the current health care system has long faced criti-cisms for its purported costliness, inefficiency and exclusivity. Today, an estimated 15 to 20 percent of citizens lack health care insurance coverage. That pool gets even deeper when counting undocumented Americans.

Moreover, recent polls show ap-proximately one quarter of insured individuals are unsatisfied with the medical care they receive. At a time when his approval rating is near-ing 50 percent, the success of this measure may tip the scales of public opinion.

The real debate, it seems, is not whether we should have reform—that seems a foregone conclusion. The real argument is over what exactly needs reforming. That means the nuts and bolts of the process are being scrutinized on a practical level. Many important questions are floating around in the debate: should the government provide health care for the uninsured and, if

so, on whose dime? How could we make the cost of treatment more affordable? Should elderly care provisions have a maximum limit? Obama’s proposed America’s Af-fordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200) is an attempt to address all of these questions at once.

So while health care reform seems to have a more viable chance at realization than ever, why is Presi-dent Obama receiving such heavy static? Republican opposition has been stiff, but that is to be expected. The real opposition has come from within the president’s own party, Democratic “Blue Dogs” in both the House and Senate who have sharply criticized the president’s views.

The Blue Dogs are a group of mod-erate-to-conservative Democratic congressman. Consisting mostly of representatives from normally Republican states in the South and West, the Blue Dogs pride them-selves on fiscal conservatism. This explains why they many of them have balked at Obama’s proposed reform.

Health-care spending already ac-counts for 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, more than 2.5 trillion dollars. The Congres-sional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 3200 would pile another $220 billion onto the country’s deficit over the next ten years. The president admits that his proposed policies would cost $900 billion over that time period, but he hasn’t specified where that money would come from, suggesting the govern-ment find the needed funds by eliminating the current system’s “waste and abuse.”

Many moderate and conservative Democrats have refused to swallow Obama’s health care prescription. Typically, the Blue Dogs vote with Democratic Party on key issues af-ter a few moderate concessions are made. In this case, though, the Blue Dogs—about 100 in number—are refusing to budge.

“I’ve never seen the group so uni-fied,” said Representative Mike Ross, Arkansas Democrat and head of the Blue Dogs’ health care reform task force.

In the Senate Finance Committee, Democratic Senator Jay Rock-efeller of West Virginia announced staunch opposition to Obama’s policy unless “dramatic changes” occurred. The top Republican on the committee, Iowa’s Charles Grassley, has agreed with his Democratic colleague.

The tussle over health care is about more than dollars and cents. His-torically, the debate has been one of differing philosophies. Republican leaders tend to endorse individuals’ ability to make their own health care decisions, along with fiscally conservative government spending, less intrusive industry regulation and minimized government spend-ing. On the other side of the aisle, Democratic leaders have supported the principle of universal health-care access, in addition to strict scrutiny of the quality of service and market interference to control health care costs.

The trouble for Democrats is that when it comes to healthcare, Blue

continued on page 21

October 2009 7

Domestic

After the disastrous 2008 elections, the Republican Party began search-ing for a new vision and strategy. The GOP image suffered forcing Republicans to rebuild their image with American voters. Though an overwhelming minority in Con-gress, the Republican Party has already leveraged public opinion against the Democratic majority. This transformation of the national Republican Party is visible through its passionate response to the delib-eration over healthcare reform.

While campaigning for health care reform in the state of his former opponent, Senator John McCain, President Barack Obama encoun-tered a different kind of political obstacle. During Obama’s speech on August 17, a man in the midst of a large group of protesters was seen carrying an assault weapon in close proximity to where the President was speaking. Observers of this summer’s town hall protests, preceding this event in Phoenix, described an atmosphere of “vio-lent fervor” on both sides and have framed the public’s reaction as a sort of zealotry. Paul Krugman suggest-ed in a New York Times piece that this phenomenon is an anti-Obama sentiment, as opposed to an anti-reform movement. While Krugman placed the attitude of protesters in a racial context, the images of the town hall meetings and gun-toting protesters have led media networks to alter their headlines about the GOP from those about its “frag-mentation” to those about “reinvigo-ration.”

The storylines attempting to explain

the town hall protests have been drawn from partisan sources. Left-leaning media suggest that the protesters are “pawns” of insurance and pharmaceutical interests, while right-leaning media frames this as average Americans voicing their opinion. However, a recent study on how Americans are receiving their information about health care reform illuminates these partisan narratives. Researchers identified networks, both social and digital, through which voters are joining the healthcare deliberation process.

The authors ultimately suggest that protesters have been getting their information about the health care proposals through partisan media networks. The researchers also said that such information is reinforced by social capital networks such as community organizations. They conclude, however, that this effect has occurred both with opponents and supporters of reform.

In an interview with The Hill, an organization working to raise grass-roots opposition to Obama’s health

care reform and which wishes to remain unnamed said that “many of the protesters in our congressional district are actively attentive to the dialogue of traditionally conserva-tive radio and TV, such as Lim-baugh or FOX news.”

Congressional Republicans have leveraged this activism accordingly. Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina rocketed to media fame by shouting “You lie!” at Obama dur-ing his address to a joint session of Congress. Republicans have also ap-parently brought the public option to its final judgment. According to Congressman Spencer Bachus, a Republican from Alabama, Repub-licans “now hold the mandate for change.” The Republican legisla-tive strategy, necessitated by their minority statuses in the House and Senate, has been to fragment the Democrats in order to check their ability to fast-rack legislation. However, Professor Barbara Sinclair of the University of California at Los Angeles has suggested that this gridlock is a hallmark of disunity in the majority party, rather than a re-empowered minority. She writes that political scientists will take a pass for now on interpreting this summer’s events.

Driven by and accountable for his claim that “Yes We Can,” Presi-dent Obama faces perhaps another re-election this year. This time, his challenger may be of newer and fresher taste than him.

Yash Shah is a junior majoring in economics and political science.

Re-election 2009Obama vs. the “new” GOP

8 The Hill

Domestic

The Supreme Court will soon issue a decision on campaign finance regulations that could dramatically influence political campaigns and the way candidates run for office.

Corporations can heavily influence elections using their wealth, but Congress has limited their ability to fund elections since 1907. Today, corporations cannot contribute directly to candidates or political parties, though their employees may give limited donations to politi-cal action committees. They must also obey restrictions on funding electioneering communications like TV advertisements to support or oppose candidates. Defendants of restrictions on corporate election financing argue that the limitations prevent corporate interests from overtaking the political debate. Op-ponents believe that restrictions vio-late the First Amendment right to free speech, given that the Supreme Court equated monetary contribu-tion to free speech in 1978.

The Supreme Court has consis-tently held that these limits are constitutional. Recently, McCon-nell v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (2003) upheld the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act passed by Congress in 2002, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) upheld a Michigan state law regulating corporate financing.

The Supreme Court may reverse those precedents and its long-held position to uphold corporate financ-ing restrictions in its upcoming de-cision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United, a conservative non-profit

organization, was banned from dis-tributing its film Hillary: The Movie on cable TV because it was funded in part by corporate contributions. The film criticizes the record and character of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Court requested a rare second hearing in the case and directed lawyers not to address the FEC movie ban, which is expected to be overturned, but rather whether McConnell and Austin should also be overturned. Gene Nichol, UNC Professor of Law and Director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, in a phone interview with The Hill, said the decision to rehear the case was “reaching out and purposefully picking a fight.” Sarah Treul, UNC Professor of Political Science, said in an inter-view with The Hill, “Turning over precedent can be dangerous. The Court loses legitimacy if it keeps changing its mind.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will determine whether the Court overturns prec-edent. Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy support overturning Mc-Connell and Austin, whereas Roberts has previously described himself as a neutral arbiter and a restrained incremental-ist. Nichol said that a broad ruling might “show his true colors” and would represent “an extraordi-narily activist court seeking to further conservative political values.”

Should the Court overturn prec-

Campaign finance in court edent, Nichol said “the tide would be so large for corporations to affect the electoral process that it would just swamp the system” and that the Court “would be saying in effect that it’s all over in terms of mean-ingful campaign finance reform.” Treul said that members of Con-gress could be “more beholden to the interests and corporations that helped elect them.” She said that citizens might often be uninformed about the corporations that funded electioneering communications.

Congress could reverse a ruling with a constitutional amendment or by confirming Supreme Court justices who would overturn it.

“This ultimately is a democracy.,” Nichol said. “One way or another, we would rid ourselves of such a decision eventually. But it would be a great destruction in the interven-ing time.”

We will soon find out how far the Court will go.

Tatiana Brezina is a junior majoring in political science and international studies.

October 2009 9

Domestic

With the public eye trained on the ongoing health care debate, further comprehensive policy initiatives by Congress may seem unrealistic. However, another potentially divi-sive issue is warming on the politi-cal backburner: energy reform. The stakes are high and there are many hurdles, but will the Senate have the steam to resolve America’s impend-ing energy crisis? If so, how will it fare for the planet?

In late June the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) narrowly passed the House with a 219 to 212 vote with mixed re-views. Introduced by Representa-tives Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, the bill’s passage was praised internationally as a necessary step forward for the nation. Opposition from Republi-cans and coal-state Democrats was expected, but they were not the only sources of discord.

The surprise was the split the leg-islation caused within the environ-mental community. While many defend its merits as an important step for carbon emissions regula-tion, other voices are demanding amendment and claim that ACES is too weak. These frustrations were further fueled on Sept. 7 when Japan’s incoming Prime Minister boldly declared that the nation will cut greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below the nation’s 1990 levels if “all major countries agree to ambitious targets.” The European Union has also pledged to cut emis-sions to 20 percent below 1990 lev-els and 30 percent if other wealthy

nations do the same. How does the United States compare?

“Although the Waxman-Markey bill was quite historic in many regards, in others it was somewhat anemic,” said Donald Hornstein, Aubrey L. Brooks Distinguished Professor of Law at UNC School of Law, in a phone interview with The Hill.

“One problem is that people speak at different metrics, and the first question is from what baseline carbon reductions will be made,” he said. “While the Kyoto Protocol used 1990 carbon levels, the science was lost in translation in House discourse, turning into 2005 levels.”

In fact, ACES’ aim of 20 percent below 2005 emissions (which were much higher than 1990 emissions) equates to only 6 percent below 1990 levels. Those reductions will be 4 to 5 times weaker than those of Europe and Japan. The Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change stated that industrialized nations must reduce carbon emissions to 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. If achieved, the panel says, there is a reasonable chance to stabilize the climate. If not, the temperature will pass a threshold that begins a positive feedback loop of warming that humans will no longer be able to control.

There are other serious criticisms of the bill. It gives away most of the cap-and-trade permits—mak-ing polluting free—which prevents carbon from working out a realistic price in the market. The use of these offsets is also contentious, especially

agricultural offsets (such as paying farmers to use no-till agriculture they might use anyway and that may increase use of certain herbi-cides) and shifting regulation of such offsets from the Enironmental Protection Agency to the more agriculture-friendly U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture.

The best place to start may be the low-hanging fruit: energy efficiency. In 2007, McKinsey and Company, a consulting firm, found that the U.S. could save $1.2 trillion and reduce carbon more than ACES solely by investing in energy efficiency.

“Energy efficiency: we’re in the middle of seeing it,” Hornstein said. “Alternative energy: we’re begin-ning to see it but there’s certainly room to grow. When you put those two together—especially if we price carbon right and provide other incentives for energy entrepreneurs —I think the energy markets will adapt well.”

Though the US is stuck in health-care reform, the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen begins Dec. 7. If health care issues are not soon resolved, Obama will be tight on time to gain political momentum in the Senate before talks begin. With Japan emerging as the early forerunner, it is yet to be seen whether the U.S. can reclaim its former global leadership in envi-ronmental policy with a clear vision for 2020.

Mike Mian is a junior majoring in political studies and interdisciplinary studies.

ACES or deuces?America’s cards in the high stakes of energy and climate change

10 The Hill

Domestic

President Barack Obama has drawn many comparisons. Like Franklin D. Roosevelt, he inherited a bad economy. Like John F. Kennedy, he mastered the arts of oration. Like Abraham Lincoln, he has professed the virtues of unity.

Of the three, Obama’s first eight months share the most similari-ties with those of Roosevelt. Both Obama and Roosevelt converted the momentum of their electoral victories into victories for parts of their economic agenda. Although Roosevelt was more successful in the sheer number of reform acts passed, he dealt with worse cir-cumstances. The key is that both presidents set precedent after prec-edent in an environment of dismal economical circumstances. In doing so, both dramatically expanded the role of the federal government in the economy.

The FDR-Obama connection is an almost expected result of their circumstances and philosophies. A less obvious comparison is between Obama and Richard Nixon, which reveals some less-explored aspects of the Obama presidency.

While there are clear distinctions between the first few months of the Obama presidency and those of Nixon, there are also strong simi-larities, especially in their popular handling of foreign policy, their difficulty with message control, and their seeming apathy towards certain key social issues.

When it comes to foreign policy, Nixon and Obama inherited poorly conducted wars, Vietnam and Iraq, respectively, initiated by their prede-

cessors. Both promised to disengage from those conflicts.

Soon after becoming president, Nixon announced “Vietnamiza-tion,” a gradual course that would ideally leave the South Vietnamese with responsibility for their own de-fense and thus allow for the return of American troops. While signifi-cantly different, the Obama admin-istration’s plan for exit also occurs in phases and continues the training of the Iraqi security forces begun by George W. Bush. Most importantly, both plans require a patient public.

Both Nixon and Obama were considered more credible than their preceding presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush, who were often accused of mismanaging their wars. In addition, both were praised for their less-ideological foreign policy stances. This was reflected in the public’s percep-tion: opinion polls show that Nixon and Obama received high marks for their early handling of foreign policy.

Early in their presidencies, both administrations suffered message management problems. For in-stance, Nixon initially staked out a position against price controls; however, there were statements in support of such measures from his treasury secretary, David Kennedy. While Nixon was trying to fight inflation, the markets were unsure as to the content of his real strategy. Likewise, in February 2009, the stock markets reacted negatively to Treasury Secretary Geithner’s speech, quickly blasted for its am-biguity and lack of concrete strat-egy, especially on stemming home

foreclosures. Moreover, the Obama administration sent out conflict-ing signals regarding the public option in the health care debate, leaving their own position unclear to Congressional members and constituents.

Finally, both administrations seemed to put social issues on the backburner. Nixon, who was a sup-porter of civil rights as a congress-man and vice president, was accused of ignoring them as president. Whereas Nixon ostensibly sought a federalist approach to handling civil rights and desired to calm the racially charged atmosphere of the 1960s, many, such as Philip Pruitt, part of an administration respon-sible for Nixon’s Black Capitalism venture, resigned and denounced Nixon for his hollow rhetoric. Ironically, Nixon’s desegregation policies were ultimately effective; the percentage of black children in black-only schools went from 68 percent to 8 percent.

In today’s political sphere, many accuse Obama of meaningless rhetoric and the abdication of his promises to the LGBTQ com-munity. His administration’s deci-sion to delay tackling the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy and the Justice Department’s decision to support the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts have infuriated LGBTQ activists. As UNC-Chapel Hill Professor of Political Science Terry Sullivan noted in an email to The Hill, “the commitments the president makes during the cam-paign only narrow the field to, say, a thousand issues,” and while these

continue on page 21

Mirroring past presidents

October 2009 11

Domestic

It has been more than eight months since former President George W. Bush and Former Vice President Dick Cheney left Washington. While it is too soon for the former administration to be written about in history textbooks, it seems a bit odd that door seemed to close on the past eight years without any word from those who used to make headlines daily.

The usual path taken by ex-pres-idents has been a combination of commencement speeches, various lecture circuits and charity work such as what Bill Clinton has done after leaving office. Bush, however, much like his father, seems to have retired from carefully watched public life. Still, Bush participated in various public gatherings, such as Senator Edward Kennedy’s funeral at the end of August. Bush has also overseen the construction of his presidential library. The library will be built on the campus of Southern Methodist University, where Laura Bush attended as an undergraduate, and is slated for dedication in 2013.

Golden yearsHow retirement is treating Bush and Cheney

Though the decision to build on the site was finalized in February 2008, the construc-tion is now Bush’s major project. Though Bush has been in quiet retirement so far, Cheney’s time out of office has not resembled either his own conduct in office or the careers of other former vice presi-dents.

Cheney’s more public persona since leaving office can be seen as a natural extension of his role as what was likely the most powerful vice presidency in history. He has been passionately and vocally opposed to President Obama and much of the legislation that has come before Congress, especially health care reform. More significantly, Cheney has on multiple occasions expressed his discontent with the actions and resolves of former President Bush during his second term, specifically his halting of the harsh interroga-tion techniques that have come under such scrutiny. Disagree-ments between Bush and Cheney, of which there was no hint during their time in office, have come to light since their retirement. A good example of one such issue is the case of Cheney’s former chief of staff Scooter Libby, whom Bush

chose not to pardon, much to Cheney’s displeasure. Cheney’s

memoirs, which

are to be published some time in 2011, are said to reveal much more of the relationship between Bush and Cheney. This seems to surprise many people close to Cheney.

According to the Washington Post, Cheney had always “expressed con-tempt for departing officials who wrote insider accounts, arguing that candid internal debate was impossi-ble if the president and his advisers could not count on secrecy.”

However, as Jason Roberts, a UNC-Chapel Hill political science professor, said in an interview with The Hill, “these kinds of things are quite common when administra-tions end,” noting that “Cheney seems to disagree with some deci-sions that were made at the end of their term together.”

Though, barring a political earth-quake, Bush will not return to pub-lic office, he still holds much power through his words and as a symbol. There has been some talk of Cheney running in the 2012 presidential election, though that is still wildly speculative. The American public will have to wait to see if Bush will ever exercise this power as an icon, and if Cheney will continue to do so.

Wilson Sayre is a first year.

12 The Hill

Cover

“Change” was the word for the season. It was on that platform that the junior senator from Illinois put to-gether what was one of the most effective political campaigns in recent history; one that was able to both topple the party front-runner in the primaries and eventu-ally score an impressive win over Senator John McCain of Arizona. President Obama now faces even greater obstacles, particularly on the international front. Violent po-litical protests and unrest in Iran, an increasingly bleak outlook for the conflict in Afghanistan and a global economic crisis. The president has no lack of issues to tackle. How has President Obama chosen to deal with the myriad of problems before him and the nation? Has he brought to Washington, D.C. and the nation the change voters were told they could believe in? How effective are the methods and manner in which President Obama has reacted to sev-eral of the most salient diplomatic issues during his brief tenure?

IranOn June 12, Mah-moud Ahmadine-jad was declared the victor of the Iranian presiden-tial election. The following Mon-

Into the fireObama’s international strategies

day, over 3 million Iranians marched in the streets of Tehran to support the opposition candidate, Mir Hossein Moussavi. An initially peaceful gath-

ering erupted into violence when members of the Basij (the volunteer people’s militia) clashed with pro-

testors. Many were killed or injured, and hundreds were arrested. As im-

ages of bloody conflict and chaos began to fill American newspapers, television and computer screens, some members of Congress pushed Obama to forcefully condemn the Islamic Republic’s violent reaction to the protests, and even to declare the elections fraudulent. While Obama did speak against the Iranian gov-ernment’s actions, declaring him-

self “appalled and outraged,” the President was not as forceful as many onlookers might have pre-

ferred.

Some, such as Sen. Lindsey Gra-ham, a South Carolina Republican, claimed the President’s approach was “timid and passive.” Others

looked more favor-ably on Obama’s response. Political commentator Jacob Heilbrunn wrote “There is a fine line between support-

ing and inciting the demonstrators, and Obama has not overstepped it.” Whatever the reaction of onlookers, Obama appeared to display many of the same qualities for which he came to be known on the campaign trail. His response to the Iranian election protests was calm, deliberate and measured. However, the president has even greater problems in the re-gion.

AfghanistanIt was to be, as Barack Obama of-ten phrases it, “the war of necessity.” Yet the conflict in Afghanistan is not

“There is a fine line between support-ing and inciting the demonstrators, and Obama has not overstepped it.”

“Afghanistan is the tremendously complex, Mad Max, utterly devastated society that’s got to be repaired…And I believe there are certain forces here, maybe just the will of the people, fatigue with war—there is a tremendous desire to sort it out.”

October 2009 13

Cover

Into the firegoing well. Much of the southern and eastern portions of the country are out of the government’s control. August was the deadliest month for United States forces in the country since the 2001 invasion. Moreover, in a recent CNN poll, 57 percent of Americans questioned disapprove of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. In truth, President Obama cannot be blamed for much of this. The con-flict was going poorly long before he arrived in the Oval Office. However, if current trends continue, Afghani-stan may well prove to be a serious embarrassment for the new admin-istration.

President Obama has made good on his campaign promise to make significant changes to U.S. strat-egy in the region. The new strategy emphasizes that the main goal is to protect Afghans, not kill the Taliban among them. Moreover, Obama’s appointment of Richard Holbrooke as America’s new envoy to the region represents an understand-ing of the nuances and regional di-mensions of the situation. General Stanley McChrystal, the the U.S. commander in Afghani-stan, seems hopeful that President Obama’s approach will succeed.

“Afghanistan is the tremendously complex, Mad Max, utterly dev-astated society that’s got to be re-paired…And I believe there are cer-tain forces here, maybe just the will of the people, fatigue with war—there is a tremendous desire to sort it out,” he said in a statement in The Economist in August.

EconomyPerilous as the military front may be, global economic problems are no less threatening.

“There is a lot of U.S. debt out there. The deficit will be 10 to 12 percent of GDP soon. That’s fine, so long as investors still want to hold on to that. The challenge is ensuring that global investors continue to see placing their assets in the United States as a sound decision,” said UNC-Chapel Hill political science professor Dr. Layna Mosley in an interview with The Hill.

Obama will need to work with other industrial nations towards this end, and the fast-approaching G-20 summit in Pittsburgh will offer the president an opportunity to rein-force his strategies for securing do-mestic and global economic stability.

“There is a lot of U.S. debt out there. The deficit will be 10-12 percent of GDP soon. That’s fine, so long as investors still want to hold on to that. The challenge is ensuring that global investors continue to see placing their as-sets in the United States as a sound decision.”

Obama was elected to bring change to the U.S. Whether in his stance on Iran, his new policy in Afghanistan or his continued attempts to combat economic woes, clearly the Com-mander in Chief is trying to deliver on that promise. Time will tell if these recent developments prove to be “Change We Can Believe In,” or change we might have done better without.

Casey Steen is a sophomore majoring in political science.

14 The Hill

Cover

Although labeled the most reclu-sive state on earth, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is clam-oring mighty hard for the world’s attention. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even likened its leadership to “small children and unruly teen-agers.” Since the early 1990s, the communist nation has kept the rest of the world on edge with talk of, and more recently concrete action toward, nuclear armament. Yet after supposed progress in the Six-Party Talks during 2007 led world leaders to believe the North Korean prob-lem had been tamed, the disturbing events of Spring 2009 suggest the threat of a nuclear North is far from resolved.

Washington’s relationship with Pyongyang has never been cordial. The current confrontation, however, came to a head on October 9, 2006, when a nuclear device partially exploded in the North Hamgyong Province. Following worldwide condemnation of the act, North Korea temporarily retreated from its atomic ambitions.

In early 2009, rumors of leader Kim Jong-Il’s failing health led to uncer-tainty about who was running the country, as well as speculation about his successor. Amid the confusion, the Korean military launched the Taepodong-2 rocket, a long range projectile that officials in Seoul, South Korea estimated traveled an unprecedented distance of 2,000 miles. In conjunction with this ex-tended long-range missile capacity, the North followed with a second nuclear test in the Kilju Mountains. The United Nations responded with

a standard tightening of economic sanctions, as well aspreviously em-ployed tactics by the United States, Japan and South Korea to freeze DPRK overseas bank accounts. At the same time, China and Russia, the other two major players in the region and North Korea’s biggest allies, remain obstacles to the more stringent measures sought by the U.S. and Japan. Though tentatively cooperative, these two political heavyweights have reason to pro-ceed cautiously in their relations with North Korea. A sudden regime change or collapse could generate a massive influx of refugees, with burdensome economic and political consequences.

Regardless of Chinese or Rus-sian opinion on the matter, regime change is imminent. Despite what some Koreans may believe (or fear), Kim cannot live forever. Specula-tion is already rampant, within and outside the peninsula, regarding his heir. What little information has been released from North Korea points to Kim’s youngest son, Kim Jong-un, as his designated successor.

More important than the identity of North Korea’s next ruler, however, is what that succession implies for the nation’s resurged use of brinkman-ship as a foreign policy strategy. In an email to The Hill, Scott Snyder, a senior fellow on Korea Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations explained that, “The North Koreans have found the issuing of threats, bluster, and bluffing to be an effec-tive defensive rhetorical measure by which to deter the United States and other countries from taking

stronger action against DPRK in-terests.” Snyder describes brinkman-ship as “hitting the ‘pause’ button on events that are strategically moving against DPRK strategic interests.”

Many observers, including Snyder, view the alarming series of events as a multifaceted attempt by Kim to regain control of the military after his long public absence, elicit tough concessions from the Obama administration, and establish his country as a nuclear state while he is still in power. Former President Bill Clinton’s summer visit to suc-cessfully secure the release of two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, raised additional demands from the regime. “Clin-ton’s visit provided considerable prestige benefits for Kim Jong Il, even though he wasn’t there as a negotiator,” said Snyder. “It remains to be seen whether that visit has been truly consequential in opening a new dialogue path for the United States and North Korea.”

While North Korea’s foreign policy embodies brinkmanship, Kim’s Workers’ Party continues to rely on national pride and fear to deter internal unrest. For that reason, Snyder notes in a brief on the subject, the nation’s next leader is unlikely to turn from the nuclear course. “However,” he adds, “a suc-cessor to Kim Jong Il who is willing to bet on the benefits of reform…to assure survival and internal legiti-macy through enhanced economic performance might be in a position to abandon the pursuit of nuclear

continued on page 21

On the brinkDeciphering North Korea’s foreign policy

October 2009 15

Cover

After extensive coverage by the Western media this summer, Iran and its controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, largely dropped out of headlines by early August. But when the Iranian parliament voted to confirm Ahma-dinejad’s cabinet in early September, events in Iran regained their rel-evance. Though the composition of Ahmadinejad’s cabinet is now clear (and controversial because of some unexpected choices), just how this

cabinet relates to the post-election upheavals of the summer is not.

This summer, Iran experienced its greatest domes-tic tumult since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the pro-American shah and established the Islamic Re-public. In the June 12 Iranian presi-

dential election, incumbent presi-dent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced reformist challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Hours after polls closed, the Interior Ministry announced that Ahmadinejad was reelected by a huge margin, with 63 percent of the vote to Mousavi’s 34 percent. While public opinion polling is notoriously difficult in Iran, foreign and domestic observers challenged the results, pointing to the large dis-play of public support for Mousavi. They also noted irregularities in reported vote returns—Mousavi did not even carry his home province—as well as allegations of violence and electoral fraud.

On June 15, approximately three million people marched in sup-port of a defiant Mousavi who, in his first post-election appearance, pledged to challenge the results “to the end.” The streets of Tehran and other major cities became virtual war zones as protestors battled po-lice and members of the Basij, Iran’s militia. The current regime was able to break the opposition, and by the time of Ahmadinejad’s inaugura-tion in August, the protests had lost much of their former vigor.

Ahmadinejad nominated a cabinet on August 19 which was confirmed almost in its entirety by parliament on September 4. In a phone inter-view with The Hill, Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, founder and president of the American Iranian Council and a Senior Associate Member of St. Anthony’s College at Oxford University, said that the cabinet “does not reflect any compromise with the opposition; just the op-posite in fact.” Ahmadinejad’s most controversial choice was probably Ahmad Vahidi for Minister of De-fense; Vahidi is wanted by Interpol for his alleged involvement with the 1994 bombing of an Argentine Jew-ish center that killed 85 people.

Dr. Hamid Dabashi, the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies at Columbia University, discussed two more revealing picks in an email to The Hill: Marzieh Dastjerdi as Minister for Health and Kamran Daneshju as Minister for Higher Education. According to Dabashi, the selection of Dastjerdi, who is a woman, is a “clear attempt to steal the show from the reformist candidates”. Furthermore, the ap-pointment of Daneshju, who lacks

Leadership loyaltyany academic credentials, shows “the concern that Ahmadinejad has for further student-led uprisings soon after the univer-sities open late in September”.

This last case, in which a man whose claims of holding a doctorate are almost universally disputed, has been nominated to be in charge of higher education, illustrates Ami-rahmadi’s most important point: the “increasing militarization of the cabinet…[that’s] first and foremost loyal to his administration.” Wheth-er that cabinet is “technocratic or professional” is of secondary con-cern to Ahmadinejad. Amirahmadi, along with many other observers, also sees a consolidation of the alliance between the military and hardline religious establishment, a coalition in which the “rest of soci-ety is pushed toward opposition, in-cluding other parts of the religious establishment”. This new cabinet, more military-oriented and ultra-loyal to Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is on a collision course with Iranian reformers. However, it remains to be seen how long it will take for public frustrations to boil over, just as they did this summer.

Clayton Thomas is a junior majoring in history and political science.

16 The Hill

International

In a region of the world where progress is nebulous, a familiar conflict has once again paved the way for unease and uncertainty. The recent violence in the North-west Frontier Province of Pakistan within Swat Valley has wrought deep tension between the Pakistani army and the residents of Swat, general disenfranchisement of the local population and mistrust of the Pakistani government. Such senti-ments are anything but abnormal in a region where stability is scarce and disunity between the common citi-zen and the authority is the norm.

In April, Swat Valley, administered by a Taliban-linked group whose rule was based on a flimsy peace deal with the Pakistani govern-ment, was invaded by the Pakistani Army. The government declared this a war against Taliban elements in the region. The amount of militant fatalities is believed to be in the thousands, though the total figure for the overall casualties remains uncertain. The major operation ended with most of the Taliban and those linked to the Taliban being pushed out of Swat Valley into the surrounding mountains. This inva-sion was marked by two definitive themes. The first was public support for this particular military campaign from many Pakistani citizens and residents of Swat Valley. This sup-port is largely believed to be a result of harsh capital punishment and draconian rule during the Taliban administration of Swat Valley. Sec-ond, the invasion of Swat marked the largest exodus of people from a single area due to violence since the birth of Pakistan. According to the

Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, around two million people were displaced as a result of the Swat Valley invasion. The Pakistani government declared victory in Swat in July and began the effort to return displaced persons.

The true extent of the damage to both infrastructure and individual empowerment will not be known for a very long time. Yasmin Saikia, a UNC-Chapel Hill professor of South Asian history, said in an email to The Hill that “empower-ment happens when people are ready to take charge of their world; you can’t expect people who have no belonging, have been traumatized and destroyed to pick up their non-existent lives and move ahead.”

This conversation about the gen-eral entitlement of the civilian populace has been lacking in the discussion about Swat Valley and yet many leaders have stated that the battle for hearts and minds is of paramount importance in the War on Terror. It seems as though the strategy in Swat is based on the idea that the civilian population must be saved from the outside. This is largely counterintuitive, as Saikia maintains “it is not possible for external forces to come and clean the scene for them. They are stuck in a pretty bad place and the Pakistani government is not sincere in doing something meaningful for the Swatis, as yet.”

The events in Swat are subject to a certain degree of scrutiny and cynicism. The first source of this sentiment is the fact that foreign

journalists have largely been turned away from this volatile place by the Pakistani army. Second, civil-ian discontent at the destruction of homes has led many to denounce the actions of the military as indis-criminate and destructive. There is also the notion that the Pakistani government acted upon the prim-ing of officials in the United States and NATO countries, which has diminished some of the credibil-ity of the Swat offensive. It must also be noted that the Taliban has simply been pushed out of Swat, as the commander of the militant group which controlled Swat is still believed to be alive. Since July 13 the bodies of 230 men who were thought to have been executed fol-lowing the Swat offensive have been found. This implies that the cycle of violence will continue and it further undermines the fragile relationship between the citizens of Swat Valley and the Pakistani government.

So what does all this mean? In the poignant words of Saikia, “We live normal lives without understanding the abnormalities of our time.”

It seems as though popular opinion regarding Swat Valley is an embodi-ment of this statement. The true impact of the summer offensive will not be seen for a long time, but unless attitudes change and civilians are personally empowered to recapture their lives there will always be a “Swat Valley” waiting to be exploited.

Ismaail Qaiyim is a sophomore major-ing in history and peace, war, and defense.

Entitlement vs. securityA Swat Valley follow-up

October 2009 17

International

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is epitomized in the history between Israel and the Gaza strip. Nine months ago, the sound of Israeli artillery and Hamas Qassam rocket fire resonated throughout the region and reverberated in the collective consciousness of the Palestinians and Israelis. The 22-day Israeli military offensive, coined “Opera-tion: Cast Lead,” was launched with the intention of stopping incoming rockets from the Gaza strip and is considered a success by the Israeli army. The Gaza offensive is strategi-cally viewed as a correction of the military mistakes made in the 2006 war in Lebanon. The aftershock from the Gaza offensive produced large waves of accusations of war crimes, a deteriorating humanitar-ian situation in the Gaza strip and enormous strain on Middle East peace talks.

On July 2 Amnesty International released a 127-page report entitled “Israel/Gaza Operation ‘Cast Lead’; 22 Days of Death and Destruction.” This report maintains that what oc-curred in the Gaza strip during the 22-day military offensive amounts to a direct violation of international law. According to this report “Some 1,400 Palestinians were killed in attacks by Israeli forces during Operation “Cast Lead” between 27 December 2008 and 18 Janu-ary 2009. Some 5,000 were injured, many maimed for life. Hundreds of those killed were unarmed civilians, including some 300 children, more than 115 women and some 85 men over the age of 50.” The report goes on to allege abuses such as the use of Palestinians as human shields, indiscriminate bombings which resulted in the deaths of civilians,

indiscriminate rocket attacks from Hamas that purposefully targeted civilian populations, the purpose-ful insinuation of fear from such attacks and many further allegations of illegal actions. Overall this report deems the actions of Hamas as illegal, but is a particularly scath-ing indictment of Israeli military actions during the war. This is especially relevant since Israel has insisted it acted within the bounds of international law during its Gaza offensive.

Donatella Rovera, the director of a field research mission to Gaza and southern Israel during and after the conflict states on Amnesty Interna-tional’s Web site that “the deaths of so many children and other civilians cannot be dismissed simply as ‘col-lateral damage,’ as argued by Israel. He goes on to say “Many questions remain to be answered about these attacks and about the fact that the strikes continued unabated despite the rising civilian death toll.”

In addition to Amnesty Interna-tional, a very recent UN probe, headed by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone, conclud-ed that Israel “committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its Gaza offensive. This inquiry is important because it carries larger implications for Israel’s diplomatic relations within the UN and the Middle East Peace talks. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon remained reluctant to answer questions regarding how this issue would be applied to the Security Council.

It must also be noted that any legis-lation in the past indicting Israel in the Security Council was typically vetoed by the United States. Israel has strongly rejected the report as “political, unbalanced, and dishon-est.”

It is also worth noting that while Israeli settlements along the West Bank are the driving force behind the tension during peace talks, the talks were indeed suspended during the Gaza offensive.

Despite the political backdrop of UN and Middle East politics, the total disintegration of the humani-tarian situation within Gaza is a real concern. The implications and ac-cusations about legality will remain aloof, but the rate of humanitarian deterioration in the Gaza strip has been accelerated by this conflict. Diplomats and military generals will continue to engage in discourse about the conflict in Gaza both through accusations and rebuttals. However, the tangible result of this conflict is in the rubble that remains in Gaza and the shattered hopes of the Palestinian and Israeli residents subjugated to this ongoing violence.

Ismaail Qaiyim is a sophomore major-ing in history and peace, war, and

defense.

Dust clears over Gaza

18 The Hill

Opinion

If you did not know any better, you might think it was the plotline for the latest political thriller. This story has it all: intrigue, covert CIA operations, under-the-table assassinations and an unsuspecting public going on with their lives while behind closed doors the future of a nation hangs in the balance. On August 24, the world became privy to the reality of this seemingly sensational story when Attorney General Eric Holder announced an investigation of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. Immediately, the Republicans released the hounds.

Their case? That this investigation is nothing more than spiteful politics, a cheap shot to further tarnish the Bush administra-tion’s many “accomplishments” and a sure-fire way to discourage CIA operatives from acting decisively. While these appear to be sound lines of reasoning, the conservative Right is neglecting the long-term implica-tions of letting accusations of torture, stem-ming from all over the international com-munity, go unaddressed. What we risk in letting this slip is the further degradation of our country’s standing in the global political arena, the loss of numerous Geneva Convention-abiding allies, and any right we might have had to demand the humane treatment of American prisoners of war. Unfortunately, at this critical juncture in our nation’s history, we do not have the luxury of taking such gambles.

It is an investigation that goes beyond petty retali-ation. The probe was initiated with the goal of identify-ing and eliminating the murky language in the Bush ad-ministration’s guidelines for interrogations. A disclaimer accompanying Holder’s announcement clarified that CIA fieldsmen would not be prosecuted for following orders. Instead, the probe hopes to target the authors of these guidelines and the legal guidelines, or lack thereof, meant to address these sensitive issues.

Many will contend that there are too many grey areas to even fathom putting these techniques on trial. But it is clear that the grey areas existed only in the clever wording used to outline their implementation, not in the morality of the actions themselves. These techniques are undoubtedly inhumane and flagrantly contrary to the terms of the Geneva Convention, to which this country

proudly subscribes, and this fact cannot be disputed. Not only is their legality questionable, to say the

least, but their results leave much to be desired. Former vice president Dick Cheney contends that these ap-proved techniques broke detainees, like Sept. 11, 2001 conspirator, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, into producing viable intelligence. But according to the September 7 is-sue of Time magazine, the inspector general’s recently declassified 2004 report confirms that they “did not un-cover any evidence that these plots were imminent.” It seems as though these techniques may give detainees the

ability not only to stop torture (through pro-ducing faulty information) but also to send our forces and tax dollars on a wild goose chase to foil fabricated terror plots.

This issue is just the first in a long string of questions stemming from this investiga-tion. Questions concerning the role of private security contractors are particularly startling. The attention thus far has been focused on Xe Services, previously known as Blackwa-ter. Their presence in Iraq has been such that President Bush declared them to be “a nec-

essary part of its war operations”. The troubling side of their participation is the essentially non-existent frame-work for legal liability.

Steve May, associate professor in the UNC-Chapel Hill department of communication studies and ethics fellow at the Parr Ethics Center told The Hill that he would always be uncomfortable with the kind of rela-tionship that our government maintains with Blackwa-ter.

“There will always be an insurmountable conflict of interest” because these corporations “by law, must act in favor of their shareholders and not necessarily in the interest of the American people,” he said.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein suggests that this crack in the system has made it too easy, inviting even, to outsource work for which government agencies do not want to accept responsibility. In 2007, Blackwater employees opened fire in a public square, killing 17 civil-ians. Loopholes in the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdic-tion Act (MEJA) made them practically immune to

continued on page 21

By Ivanna Gonzalez

from theLeftIntolerable operations

October 2009 19

Opinion

Xe Services LLC, better known as Blackwater Worldwide, is an organization located in North Caro-lina that acts as a private security contractor. Basically, the United States government, specifically the State De-partment, hires people from this company to perform duties that the military either cannot perform or is not equipped to carry out.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. soil, Iraq has been a threat to U.S. national security. As a result, the CIA hired Blackwater to pursue and capture many powerful, influential members of Al-Qaeda. Their mission was to kill them. There was never really an issue be-tween Republicans and Democrats over this specific mission until innocent civilians were accidentally killed during crossfire.

Democrats make many arguments as to why private contractors like Blackwater are unnecessary. Some of these arguments include the fact that the benefits do not out-weigh the costs. Also, these private contrac-tors are provided legal immunity by the fed-eral government which Democrats argue can lead to recklessness and the abuse of power.

Democrats make the argument that the benefits of private contractors do not outweigh the costs that come with them. However, this is not the case. Places such as Iraq which serve as a threat to our national security need private contractors like Blackwater to help secure safety. Private contractors are better able to achieve these goals than someone in uniform because they wear civil-ian clothing, which allows them to better blend in with the civilian population, which also allows them to better infiltrate dangerous areas.

After an incident in which civilians were killed in Iraq by Blackwater contractors, Democrats placed com-plete blame on the Republican administration and the CIA since Blackwater was contracted under the Bush administration. Many would think that accusations such as these would hurt the Republicans and the CIA’s reputation. However, this is not the case. The Demo-crats cannot justify their accusations. Dr. Sarah Treul, a political science professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, told The Hill that the CIA would not ever hire a company with the idea they would intentionally kill civilians.

I also believe that the Blackwater conflict is rela-

tively nonpartisan and does not cross party lines as much as Democrats and Republicans make it seem. This mainly stems from the fact that though Blackwater was started under a Republican administration, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, has not taken the remain-ing contractors out of Iraq. As the head of our military, he has that power. Refraining from using his power sug-gests that there are legitimate reasons why these con-tractors are still in Iraq. It suggests they serve a purpose.

Democrats claim that because of the leeway these private contractors are given, along with their legal im-

munity, they abuse their power which leads to recklessness and ultimately civilian deaths in some cases. I agree that Blackwater abused their power, but I think it mainly stems from lack of competition for work considering there are not many private con-tracting firms like Blackwater. Blackwater is aware that they will always get the job. While competition is key in an industry such as this to assure accountability, the fact of the mat-ter is that there are not many companies like Blackwater. Blackwater’s private contrac-

tors are very important, so in order to make sure they do not abuse their power, there must be repercussions if recklessness ensues. After civilian deaths in Iraq, the CIA removed many Blackwater contractors from Iraq. The CIA clearly recognized that there were issues with Blackwater’s procedures so they took action. As a result, Democrats cannot continue to make accusations that the CIA allows these private contractors to abuse their power.

Without private contractors such as Blackwater, the U.S. would be less able to face national security is-sues. These contractors are very important in helping secure our safety. Some argue the benefits do not out-weigh the cost. They are wrong. In a world that is not secure, we need private contractors like Blackwater to pick up the slack where our military might fall short.

Zach Chapman is a sophomore majoring in political science and history.

By Zach Chapman

from theright A necessary service

20 The Hill

Opinion

As the world continues to struggle through the global economic cri-sis, citizens throughout the world are continuing to reap the benefits of globalization while others are forced to suffer at the hands of the developed world.

Peru provides a prime example of a country which has been less dev-astated by the crisis but which will also be prominent in the future both economically and politically. The past few months have revealed some of the critical issues that the developing world faces as it strug-gles to provide for its citizenry while striving to become a global force.

Perhaps most important to Peru’s story of globalization are its in-digenous communities who have a long and difficult history with the national government. Beginning with the inherent racism and dis-enfranchisement that arrived with the reign of the Bourbons, indig-enous communities have struggled to achieve equality under both the formal political system of Peru and in Peruvian society in general.

After many campesino uprisings and much infighting throughout Peru, the government finally decid-ed to undergo a process of agrarian land reform in 1968. This brought the indigenous servitude under the hacienda system to an end, a very significant event for the country of

Peruvian strugglesIndigenous peoples and globalization

By Drew Hackelman

Peru and for indigenous peoples of South America.

Then in 1978 the Peruvian gov-ernment held a special session of Congress in which the literacy re-quirements for voting in national elections were finally removed. This was a monumental event for indig-enous communities and campesinos of Peru who made up a huge per-centage of the illiterate population.

Finally, it is important to revisit the period from 1978 to 2000 during which Peru experienced an armed internal conflict, as many Peruvians know it, including members of the national government. During the conflict the national government attempted to combat an attempted armed overthrow of the govern-ment by the political party known as the Sendero Luminoso (The Shin-ing Path). There are a plethora of viewpoints and controversies sur-rounding these years but there is one extremely important detail. While approximately 70,000 people were killed or disappeared as a result of the conflict, official figures from the CVR (Congressional truth commis-sion) estimate that over 75 percent of those people were campesinos or from indigenous communities.

The entire history of Peru is filled with examples of maltreatment of the indigenous population but these three examples reveal just how re-cent, widespread and devastating

the discrimination against the indig-enous population of Peru has been.

This past summer brought even more violence to life as the people of Bagua have continued to fight oppres-sion. The twist in this story is that the Ama-zonian tribes of the area are now not only fighting for self-determination against the national government, but the struggle has become global as Hunt Oil, an American enterprise, has initiated the process of buying and exploiting the natural resourc-es of the area. This would naturally result in a great loss and severe de-struction of some of the world’s most precious resources in an area that is already being hurt by global climate change, deforestation and a plethora of other legal and illegal practices.

On June 5 violence erupted as armed police forces clashed with protestors. Twenty-four police officers and 11 citizens were killed in the hostilities, although the numbers of injured and dead vary greatly from source to source.

Following the incident an important political chain of events took place. Within the past weeks a Congressio-nal Tribunal met to review the laws

Columnist at large

October 2009 21

Opinion

pertaining to the use of force within the country by the armed forces. Af-ter reviewing several existing laws and incidences of recent months, the tribunal has concluded that the use of force, including lethal force, can continue to be employed under a number of fairly vague circumstanc-es. This will prove to be insufficient as many indigenous communities continue to view the national gov-ernment as a distant and alien entity.

Some regional leaders have even gone so far as to call for near-com-plete autonomy from the existing government. At the beginning of the month leaders from the VRAE, which includes the regions of Aya-cucho, Apurimac, Cusco, Junin and Huancavelica, said that in order for these areas to be part of the real so-lution they must have more of an ability to take matters into their own hands than they have in the past.

The government has yet to grant anything so drastic to these commu-nities which are very important to the struggle of the indigenous com-munities. One important thing that has been done occurred when Jesus Manaces Valverde was unanimously named to lead the investigation of the events that occurred in the Ba-gua region in June. The commission clarified its purpose when it an-nounced its desire to determine the causes and consequences of the so-cial, cultural, economic, political and religious factors that gave way to the terrible violence.

While indigenous communities continue to struggle for full politi-cal, social and cultural recognition in their native lands, the forces of globalization will continue to act in one of two ways: either the globaliz-ing economy will push these people to move away from their homes, re-sources, and beloved ways of life, or

the global community will come together to recognize the rights of these people in order to protect their homes and culture.

President Alan Garcia seems to be opposed to this second option as is evident by the article which he re-cently published entitled “El perro hortelano” in which he likened the indigenous communities to a dog which fights those who try to take its food and resources but which, in the process, also starves itself.

Either the government, the people or violence will prevail in these re-gions. It is important that, as global citizens, we continue to weigh the benefits of cheap energy against the huge environmental and cul-tural costs which indigenous com-munities are being forced to deal with.

Drew Hackelman is a senior major-ing in political science and compara-tive literature.

continued from page 18prosecution. Several years later, Iraqi officials finally gained the authority to deny private contractors licenses to practice in the country and have exerted this newfound authority on Xe Services. While Xe may have been weeded out of the system, doz-ens of classified contractors with the CIA remain in Iraq with the undue liberty of operating above the law of any country.

It is a reality that epitomizes American capitalism at its worse, a reality that points literally to blood on the hands of corporate employ-ees with no business fighting a war of ideology, a reality that America should never have to tolerate.

Ivanna Gonzalez is a freshman major-ing in journalism and political science.

continued from page 14weapons.” If and when that day comes, the U.S. stands to gain con-siderably from improved relations with North Korea. For now, the nation remains trapped in isolation, fear, and uncertainty.

Ryan Collins is a junior majoring in political science and economics.

continued from page 10issues are important, they may not be “presidentially important.” Clearly both Nixon and, for the time being, Obama have assessed their respective social issues as not meeting this criteria.

The early parts of the Obama and Nixon presidencies were not mirror images, but there are some paral-lels. Perhaps these common threads speak to the very nature of the presidency itself.

Krishna Kollu is a sophomore.

continued from page 6Dogs act less like Democrats and more like Republicans. Bringing them on board won’t be an easy task. If Obama wants their support, he will need to make drastic chang-es in his policies.

Without the support of the Demo-cratic Blue Dog Coalition, Presi-dent Obama’s desired reforms could be dead on arrival. But for those opposed to his plan, the President recently shared some sharp words:“I’ve got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What’s your answer? What’s your solution?. . . They don’t have one!”

Michael Young is a graduate student studying government and law.

22 The Hill

The Last Word

As globalization shrinks the globe and increases interconnectedness between people all over the world, the media have been able to expand news coverage—or at least they should have been able to do so. Why then, I wonder, is a coup in Honduras and the onset of fighting in Myan-mar overshadowed by the death of a musician? Granted, Michael Jackson transformed pop, leaving behind songs and choreo-graphed dances that will transcend time. But is his death re-ally more impor-tant than a major military coup in Latin America or the outbreak of fighting in a coun-try stricken with ethnic tension that may very well escalate to civil war?

The president of Honduras, Manu-el Zelaya, planned to hold a public consultation on June 28 to learn the level of peoples’ support in making changes to the nation’s constitution. His opponents deemed this event a referendum with the purpose of abolishing or extending term lim-its, since the changes would have allowed President Zelaya to be re-elected in November. His opponents included many soldiers in the army, the Honduran Supreme Court and th Honduran Congress, which ruled the consultation to be illegal.

June 28 went very differently for President Zelaya than he had planned. He was woken up early in the morning by approximately 300 soldiers storming into his home, and he was flown to Costa Rica imme-

diately. He claims that these soldiers threatened to shoot him if he did not leave the country. Later that day, the speaker of the Honduran Congress, Roberto Micheletti, was sworn in as the interim president.

This military coup, taking place only three days after the death of Michael

Jackson, was heavily covered by the media for about two to three days. An event as important as this and with such a large impact on lives and political systems would appear to deserve more media attention than it received. In addition, this political debacle remains unresolved. Events continued to unfold for weeks af-ter the climatic takeover, but were

barely mentioned in the news. Yet it seems the American peoples’ inter-ests lie in the catastrophic and sur-prising death of a celebrity—was it homicide? Was it suicide? Whose fault was it that this one man died?

It is always intriguing that the death

of one person can remain in the me-dia for so long when hundreds and thousands of people die every day from hunger, disease, military strife or genocide. Why is one person’s death worth more attention than thousands of others? Some people say a celeb-rity’s death is more impor-tant because it is more personal, but most people do not know that celebrity. Some say it is because hundreds, thousands, and millions are just numbers and those numbers are incomprehensible to us. I would agree with the first response, but that does not make it acceptable to ignore the deaths of so many while continuously covering the death of one.

While confusion and curiosity brewed over Michael Jackson’s death,

tension in Myan-mar grew, as well. Reports revealed that, since early August, 10,000 to 30,000 people had fled the country for refuge in the Yun-nan Province in

Southwest China. Unity between various ethnic groups opposing the central government prompted fight-ing to break out later that month. Heavy fighting continued through the end of the month, when refu-gees began returning home. Beijing asked Myanmar to end the fighting,

By Carey Averbook

It is always intriguing that the death of one person can remain in the media for so long when hundreds and thousands of people die every day from hunger, disease, military strife or genocide.

“We have an inordinate fascination with celebrities. We can’t seem to get enough about them. In fact, we are quick to ordain absolutely putrid personalities with ‘celebrity’ status.”

Media sensationalismThe people and the press need to reconsider their priorities

October 2009 23

The Last Word

Want to have the last word? Send your guest column (750-800 words, please) to thehillpr@unc.edu, or sound off on our discussion board at http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill.The Hill

The Last Word on

which further strained relations be-tween the two. State-run television news announced that fighting ended August 30.

Myanmar, or Burma, is ruled by an oppressive military junta but has not experienced civil war or ethnic clashes for about 20 years. The situ-ation in August was another impor-tant political event in the world that went largely unnoticed because Au-gust 28 was the day Michael Jack-son’s death was ruled a homicide and would have been his 51st birthday. Of course, the world and the U.S. were in mourning the next day, rem-iniscing about the life of a unique musician, more than likely unaware of the thousands of people in Myan-mar fleeing to China.

I believe America has an unhealthy fascination with the lives of celebri-ties—who is dating whom, who is in rehab, who has died. We should be aware of the death of great artists—actors, musicians, directors, people

who make an impact in the world and contribute to society. However, I don’t believe that their lives or deaths should overshadow important po-litical events that impact many more people globally.

Dr. Sri Kalyanaraman, a UNC-Cha-pel Hill journalism professor, writes, “We have an inordinate fascination with celebrities. We can’t seem to get enough about them. In fact, we are quick to ordain absolutely putrid personalities with ‘celebrity’ status,” in an email to The Hill.

With incredible people in the world such as Suu Kyi—the democratically elected leader of Myanmar who has also won the Nobel Peace Prize, but has been under house arrest inter-mittently for the last 20 years—our media should not constantly focus on celebrity figures. Young adults can easily identify well-known ac-tors, but cannot identify a picture of Omar al-Bashir. However, most of these young adults are aware of the

genocide taking place in his country, Sudan. Omar al-Bashir is the Presi-dent of Sudan and the leader of the government fueling the Janjaweed forces carrying out this genocide.

Today’s teenagers are influenced by the various forms of media. They will remember the faces and lives of Jen-nifer Aniston, Brad Pitt and George Clooney rather than those of people in this world who hold power and have impacted the lives of hundreds, thousands, millions of people. It is time to give up the absurd fascina-tion with the lives of celebrities and begin to take interest in people of great importance to the world as a whole. The world is flattening and we need to be knowledgeable of the leaders and governments of other countries and regions.

Carey Averbook is a first-year major-ing in international studies and psy-chology.

WORK FORTHE HILL!

email thehillpr@unc.edu

Interested in joining our staff as a writer, blogger, editor,

designer or artist?

Donate to The HillPAY TO THE ORDER OF

MEMO SIGNED

DOLLARS

1:125000258: 12345678: 0101

1234

$

DATE

email us at thehillpr@unc.edu