TheConsul [ A Weekly Commentary on Current Events and World Affairs ] Volume I. | Issue 3
for the week of Monday, December 6
Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar Speaks at Penn
“Both in his speech and in answers to questions posed by students, Aznar talked about power shifting away from the West and towards Asia, Africa and Latin America.” (page 2)
The Rambler: A Vindication of Liberalism, Part II
“People are not losing their religion in a secular state. The last count revealed some ninety-five percent of Americans as religious, and Mr. Parsley’s ability to raise $3 million from his flock will attest to their enduring zeal...” (page 3)
The Fine Line Between Responsible Investigative Journalism and Violation of Privacy
“The goal of whistleblowing is to bring important issues that are being covered up to the public attention.[. . .]Mr. Assange betrays the very liberal ideals he claims to promote by violating the privacy of all the people he has victimized...” (page 5)
UAE’s estrangement with Iran another kick in the teeth for the Iranian Economy
“...sanctions have crippled the Iranian economy. The Iranian Central Bank has not issued an annual economic report for the past three years. Rising inflation, which now stands at around 10%, has posed major problems for Iranian traders and consumers...” (page 6)
Now what’s a government to do about this WikiLeaks problem?
“To me this sounds like the justice, military, and intelligence departments are trying to get some sort of evidence that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange committed a crime. And this crime doesn’t have to be Espionage Act-related...” (page 7)
1
Managing Editor Shubhi Nigam Layout Editor Leonardo Sumulong Columnists Jason Littman Michael Luo Sindhuri Nandakumar Justin Pergolini Akshay Subramanian In collaboration with the IAA Publications Team Questions & comments? Please address correspondence to: secretary@penniaa.com
Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar Speaks at Penn
Eventually, amidst controversy and turmoil aboutvarious issues such as nationalism, terrorism in the wake of the War on Terror, Aznar called a general election in 2004, voluntarily abstaining from seeking a third term in office. Today, Aznar is president of the Spanish think tank Fundacion para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociales (Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies) and a scholar at Georgetown University in DC.
by Sindhuri Nandakumar
O
n Friday, December 3rd, as part of a broader visit to Philadelphia and Penn, Former Prime Minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar spoke to students at Stiteler Hall. The event was organized by Sigma Iota Rho, the Honor Society for International Relations. An article in the Daily Pennsylvanian today talks about another talk of Aznar’s at Huntsman Hall, also on Friday.
Both in his speech and in answers to questions posed by students, Aznar talked about power shifting away from the West and towards Asia, Africa and Latin America. He spoke about how these power shifts were not uniform: it’s obvious that the rise of China and India has put the Asia at the lead amongst emerging continents, but Aznar stressed on the importance of not discrediting other countries and regions of the world, especially Latin America. Talking about the European Union, he frankly admitted that Europe today has neither the military nor technological prowess to advance and overtake the US and emerging nations in terms of strength and global power, but one tool it did have was its economy. Yet, when asked by a student about the future he saw for Europe in the wake of the many financial crises in European states such as Ireland and Greece, Aznar said that what he saw was the disintegration of the European Union, with nationalism and the state rising above regional unity. Revealing some of the ambition that is characteristic of politicians, Aznar said “I want to be at the center of the table that makes decisions” and ideally, Europe would be at the center of that decision-making table, but is increasingly being pushed to the periphery.
After Aznar was formally inducted into Sigma Iota Rho as a lifetime honorary member, he spoke briefly about the current global political climate, talking about shifting power dynamics and the economic situation. Following this, there was a Q&A session where students asked for insight into Aznar’s opinions on various issues ranging from separatist movements in Spain, the disintegration of the European Union and the growth of Latin America.
My personal reaction to the event was slight disappointment that the former Prime Minister didn’t speak more about the significant economic crises plaguing European states today, especially because of increasing speculation that Spain might be facing a similar fate in the near future. Perhaps this was because of the brevity of the event, and reading about his other talks on the same day, it seems like perhaps he talked about this issue more extensively.
Jose Maria Aznar served as Prime Minister of Spain from 1996 to 2004. During his term, Spain experienced significant economic growth and falling unemployment, with a greater amount of integration with the European Union. Aznar and his government led the movement to introduce the Euro in 1999. By 2001, Spain was one of the fastest growing economies in the European Union.
2
tions on others, liberals have enough moral sense to protect people. Further, when laws are put to paper they ought to apply to everyone. No man is exempt. Truly the law of courts does not always square with the moral law, but where it does not there exists the possibility of revision and correction. Liberal societies, therefore, do not lack a moral essence. One need only open a book of laws to see where the people have come to an agreement on right and wrong.
The Rambler: A Vindication of Liberalism, Part II by Justin Pergolini In last week’s column I briefly summarized the contents of Mr. Holmes’s Anatomy of Antiliberalism. I then gave several antiliberal arguments against the supposed sins of liberalism: relativism, secularism, individualism, and empiricism. When summed, they paint a dreary and disheartening vista. Mr. Holmes, however, intended his book as a defense of liberalism, and therefore it will not do to allow it to be pummeled without offering a hand in defense. Let us scan these accusations and see if we cannot find some slipshod reasoning therein. Most of the counterarguments that follow belong to Holmes, but I have interpolated my own reasoning as I see fit.
The charge of secularism fails for similar reasons. Antiliberals challenge the secular society on grounds of its supposed moral impotence compared to a religious one. As I consider myself a god-fearing man, I feel a certain duty to clarify this proposition. The practical voice in favor of religious zeal says it will install charity, discipline, and fervor in the citizen. More often it produces in him bigotry, snobbishness, and selfishness. Why? For reason of the simple law observable among every tribe of humanity: man likes to think in terms of himself, except when it comes to criticism. Hence the business of faith often resembles your average familial dinner party: one spends an awful lot of time listening to someone trumpet his own accomplishments while gossiping about the poor, distantly related derelict in the corner. Any man, whether Buddhist or Christian or Jew, is eminently concerned first with his own salvation, and then the moral imperfections of others. In the latter case he is all too happy to deign an attempt at rescuing their soul. I would like to think a deep awareness of the Divine will bring forth a universal love and sociable nature from everyone, but the religious too often feels a special privilege in his faith, that it somehow removes him from the wide and pitiable swath of mankind. Thus we often have exclusion instead of compassion, sneers instead of helping hands. Such is why we have yet to find a Christian the equal of Christ.
We will begin with the charge of relativism. Are the antiliberals right? Does living in a pluralist society really encourage moral apathy about “right” and “wrong”? Liberalism certainly allows for the paradoxical coexistence of contrary views: pro-choice and pro-life, gay rights and marriage protection, Black Power and Neo-Nazism. With these perspectives on the Good bouncing like billiard balls about the public sphere, it is easy to see how nihilism and skepticism can take root. But the charge of relativism loses its vigor when we consider the one institution that liberals invest with an unquestionable moral authority: the law. In liberal society the people unanimously believe that laws, the result of public debate and deliberative legislation, are a good thing. Not only do laws result from an egalitarian process which is both practically and morally sound, but they enforce, albeit imperfectly, conditions that should be the case. The people pass laws against thievery, killing, rape, and the like because they believe them to be morally despicable. They have agreed, collectively as a society, that these acts represent the worst part of humanity, and that they should be prohibited as such. The matter is not left to public deliberation; when it comes to the strong taking advantage of the weak or the entertaining of violent ambi-
But I ramble, and now I must return to the argument. People are not losing their religion in a secular state. The last count revealed some ninety-five percent of Americans as religious, and Mr. Parsley’s ability to raise $3 million from his flock will attest to their enduring zeal. If anything, the absence of a nationally sanctioned church has awakened a profoundly communal sense of religious belief
3
among us. After all, people who cannot expect religion from the government will instead look to their community: their local pastor and church. The communal church avoids the bureaucracy of a national one; it is not an unfeeling, obscure monolith but a composition of people we know and love and grow with. When we cannot rely on the government for religious education, we come to rely all the more on each other. That was certainly the case for me, a starry-eyed Catholic boy in the heart of suburban Pennsylvania, listening intently to my village elders. St. Denis was where we came to break bread, literally, as a town. If not for that church, I would never have met most of my neighbors, whom I still seek out as repositories of wisdom and grace. This is not merely an American phenomenon. Though it develops its own idiosyncrasies in every place it springs, we can observe the same in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and the ilk. Small-town religion has probably done more good for humanity than all the national churches that ever were, but such a close-knit society is possible only when religion is separate from state. Otherwise we will have an ecclesiastical sphere which resembles McDonald’s: impersonal, standardized, and utterly dismal.
piety, for example. But in spite of that, the family and the community remain; they do not whither because rights are safeguarded. Finally, there is the notion of a tyranny of science, a willingness to resort only to empirical evidence in ascertaining truth. I do not think I am the right author to address this accusation, because, to some extent, I agree with it. I personally have no love for the current trend of statistical sophistry. The reader has doubtless noticed their absence from my articles. Once upon a time rhetoric and logic were enough, but now we must cite studies and trends and data to prove our point. We measure prosperity and human fulfillment in terms of GDPs and Goldberg test scores. Truth has become a matter of the quantifiable, of “clear and observable results.” Socrates had no need for such trifles, and so neither do I. But while I find something wrong with scientific idolatry, I do not detest empiricism for its own sake. Science has done a lot more good than evil, and we should give the intellectual inheritance of Galileo and Newton its due. More than that, truth still exists outside the laboratory in liberal societies. Do they not have philosophers? Do they not have men of letters and mathematicians? Do they not have college students who blog their own lofty thoughts and opinions, no matter how hackneyed or insignificant? None of the above defer to the test tube in matters of existential significance, but we still read and respect their opinions in a liberal society.
Let us turn now to the problem of atomization, or, if you prefer, rampant individualism. A liberal world is not a selfish one. The idea of popular sovereignty, for instance, rests on two axioms: 1) the government’s job is to provide for the general welfare and common good, and 2) the onus of altering or abolishing the government falls on the people, provided it does not accomplish 1). The community must protect itself from arbitrary government. Further, everyone in a liberal society believes that the government ought to provide public goods and services, not for a few, but for everyone. Rights, too, are for all. Everyone should have the right to vote. Everyone should have the protection of the law. Everyone should be saved from reckless lawbreakers through the prison system. These are not trivial features of liberal theory that people choose to ignore: any survey of liberal societies will yield more ayes than nays as to whether they believe these rights exist or not. It is true that rights occasionally must be preserved against institutions; we should not allow a girl to suffer genital mutilation in the name of filial
Science has given us more than just a respect for numerical results. It has encouraged what I call “positive skepticism.” It allows us to come to a criterion of truth, but accept that our theories, which may seem unassailable one day, may come to be proven wrong in time. The scientific mindset is not supposed to be rigid: it is a loose philosophy that allows for growth and development, for the possibility of change, in human knowledge. It believes firmly in progress. It is confident enough to believe, but wise enough to doubt. The arguments in Mr. Holmes’s book are vastly more complex than what I have reproduced here; my powers of invention speak for themselves. But I hope I elucidated in some small part the matters of the book. With that done, I think it would be
4
best to illustrate how these issues still matter. The conflicts within the Anatomy are not within the realm of the ivory tower. They play a role within our contemporary discourse as well.
Without Borders[i] and Amnesty International[ii] have. There’s a right way and a wrong way to carry out investigative journalism. One of the worst violations of protocol that WikiLeaks committed was releasing confidential material without redacting the names of sensitive individuals. This is one of the primary complaints of the US government regarding the release of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and the diplomatic cables. Most people in the public who read the stories about WikiLeaks in the news would say that there is hardly any damaging information in the leaks, so what is the government trying to hide? But those stories were already filtered through responsible, “grown-up” institutions like the New York Times or The Guardian. If you download the original data (which is freely available on the WikiLeaks website), the material is unaltered. You can be sure that the Taliban isn’t reading the redacted versions released by the Times. It’s reading the original material with all the names of our Afghan informants. There’s a reason why the phrase “who asked not to be named for security reasons” shows up so often in articles about the wars in the Middle East. Revealing the names of sensitive individuals without their permission is not only bad journalism, it violates the very human rights that WikiLeaks purports to support.
But that is a tale for another time. Till next week reader…
The Fine Line between Responsible Investigative Journalism and Violation of Privacy by Michael Luo
O
n Tuesday, my fellow columnist Sindhuri posted an article about the recent release of a massive collection of U.S. State Department diplomatic cables by the website WikiLeaks and its flamboyant founder, Julian Assange. Sindhuri’s article provides a comprehensive overview of the facts so I will not go into those here. I do, however, want to go further and condemn the release of this current batch of documents as an irresponsible, dangerous, and wholly unidealistic action. Rather than a promotion of the idealistic goal of governmental transparency, Assange’s actions constitute an attack on the basic rules that underpin the entire diplomatic structure of our world. A serious blow has been dealt to not just the American diplomatic body, but the entire international order. WikiLeaks has moved from being a resource to help courageous whistleblowers release information to a front for the unrestricted release of unfiltered and often illegally obtained information.
I detest the racist, extreme right-wing British National Party, but I respect its members’ right to privacy regarding their membership[iii]. I’m certainly not the biggest fan of Sarah Palin, but I respect her right to not have her e-mail account hacked and its contents posted on the internet. The goal of whistleblowing is to bring important issues that are being covered up to the public attention. It is not to promulgate private information without permission. It is certainly not to release illegally obtained information without regard to its contents. Mr. Assange betrays the very liberal ideals he claims to promote by violating the privacy of all the people he has victimized. Furthermore, his release of a huge cache of diplomatic archives has profound national security implications by violating the trust that underpins the entire international community. International diplomacy is a game – a very dangerous game with very high stakes. Mr. Assange evidently doesn’t understand the rules that international diplomacy plays by.
Assange’s stated goal is to promote the completely free flow of information. Regarding more specific issues, he wants to end the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, expose human rights abuses by various countries, protect net neutrality, reveal members of far-right political parties, and so on – your laundry list of liberal causes. I don’t particularly disagree with Assange on most of his political positions. My problem with WikiLeaks is the same problem that organizations like Reporters
5
Freedom of information is a nice ideal to pursue, but governments and their employees have rights too, derived from the same expectation of privacy that we have as individuals.
foreign banks from having any dealings with Iran or suspected Iranian corporations. Though Iran may not publicly admit it, the sanctions have crippled the Iranian economy. The Iranian Central Bank has not issued an annual economic report for the past three years. Rising inflation, which now stands at around 10%, has posed major problems for Iranian traders and consumers. The Iranian Rial witnessed significant fluctuation in late September as Iranian banks and exchange houses stopped selling foreign currencies amid increasing scrutiny by international banks. This follows the decision of four major European oil companies (Shell, Total, Eni and StatOil) to cease all investments in Iran and reports that the Stuxnet worm had infected computer systems at its proposed nuclear power plant in Bushehr.
The unrestricted distribution of confidential information that Mr. Assange pursues is just as much of a threat to our society as is the scourge of identity theft targeting individuals, and Assange should be treated just as anyone else who deals in illegally obtained information – as a criminal.
UAE’s estrangement with Iran another kick in the teeth for the Iranian Economy by Akshay Subramanian
As an indication that the sanctions may be achieving their end, the UAE, one of Iran’s largest trade partners, has started reconsidering its relations with Iran. Since the sanctions were imposed, the UAE has been jolted into action and has taken tangible measures to distance itself from Iran. Under pressure from the US to squeeze economic ties with Iran, the UAE announced in early October this year that it had complied with sanctions prescribed by the UN Resolution. Banks in the UAE have disconnected ties with the 17 Iranian banks blacklisted by the US. This follows steps taken earlier in June to shut down 40 organizations that had alleged relations with Iran’s nuclear program and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The anti-money laundering unit of the UAE’s central bank has also frozen certain Iranian accounts in the country. The central bank has stepped up vigilance and is scrutinizing cash transactions made between the UAE and Iran by individuals and organizations alike for irregularities. Memoranda of Understanding have also been signed among the anti-money laundering unit of the UAE central bank and other organizations to facilitate the ease of sharing financial information.
Iran’s nuclear program dominates most discussions on nuclear proliferation, potential weapons of mass destruction, and international security threats. Yet despite its importance in ongoing negotiations, economic aspects of the conflict, is a topic that has not been discussed with the same frequency. Sanctions on Iran, often criticized as toothless due to the united opposition of China and Russia, have begun to flash teeth sharp enough to take a sizable bite of the Iranian economy. Iran’s trade partners are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain healthy relations with the Islamic Republic without drawing the ire of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The wave of sanctions passed by the UN Security Council earlier this June has extended the arms embargo on Iran to include battle tanks, artillery systems, conventional missiles and warships. The sanctions, which directly target the dealings of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iranian financial institutions and shipping units call for increased inspection of Iranian and any other vessels suspected of being related to Iran’s nuclear program and restricting Iranian companies’ access to financial services and insurance. Besides, numerous Iranian financial institutions such as Bank Saderat Iran, Bank Mellat and Bank Sepah have been blacklisted by the United Nations and the US. The sanctions have effectively discouraged
These measures prove to be particularly crucial because the UAE and Iran have been historically, strong trade partners. Bilateral trade between the two countries stood at close to $8.45 billion in 2009 and re-export trade volume amounted
6
to close to $7.1 billion in the same period. Furthermore, Iran occupies the spot of the second largest re-export market after India for the emirate of Dubai. [10] These figures are set to decline this year as the UAE reevaluates its economic and trade relations with Iran. According to the Iranian Business Council- Dubai, an association of Iranian businessmen based in Dubai, trade between the UAE and Iran is expected to decline to $6 billion in 2010.
Needless to say, there are strong implications of deranging economic ties with Iran. The UAE needs to carefully weigh its options and consider between the benefits of strengthening ties with the US and the resultant demerits of losing a significant trade partner. With the UAE joining the bandwagon of countries distancing themselves from Iran, this also leads to the question whether other countries in the Middle East will follow suit, under pressure from the US or on their accord. There have been reports that the US has been urging Qatar to follow the UAE’s footsteps. Though the extent to which UAE’s actions will impact both economies is unknown, it is certain that both countries will have a void to fill in their trade volumes.
The level of activity at the Dubai Creek provides a clear sign that trade with Iran is headed south. Dhows, Arab sailing vessels, which used to hop with considerable frequency across the Persian Gulf from the UAE to Iran, are now sinking under the weight of the clampdown by UAE authorities. Boats bound to Iran now lay inactive along the Dubai Creek. The impact of this action has certainly been felt by small sailors.
Now what’s a government to do about this WikiLeaks problem? by Jason Littman
Moreover, Iranian shipping companies and exporters based in the UAE are unable to obtain insurance owing to the increased vigilance on Iranian and Iran-bound vessels. Ships lacking proper coverage for damages are bound to be denied entry at most ports. Lack of access to insurance combined with increased costs and risks of trade have proved to be ruinous for traders and shipping companies alike. Iranian traders can no longer use letters of credit issued by Iranian banks to trade with the UAE. With UAE banks cutting off ties with Iran, most transactions are being done by cash.
Both Michael and Sindhuri have brilliantly talked about the WikiLeaks situation. I completely agree that the website threatens global peace and security, and I condemn many of WikiLeaks publications. But I’d like to shed some light on my predictions for what’s going to happen in the near future. I’m sure that when a lot of people read about WikiLeaks they instantly remembered the “Pentagon Papers” from high school history. The Pentagon Paper’s case (New York Times v. United States) was a Supreme Court case about the New York Times publishing classified military documents. The case holds the same argument as what you think a WikiLeaks v. United States case will; the Espionage Act of 1917. You may remember the Supreme Court’s “clear and present danger” test for this act, which states that actions that provide a “clear and present danger” is not protected under the First Amendment. But that test has now transformed into any “imminent lawless action” is not protected by the First Amendment. Independent of these legal precedents, I predict a carefully planned take down of WikiLeaks in the near future.
However, the UAE needs to take into account the resultant economic impact of its estrangement from Iran. The UAE faces a tradeoff between strengthening ties with the US and restoring its trade relations with Iran. The proportion of the UAE’s economy that is linked to Iran is rather significant. The UAE and Dubai in particular, has established itself as a major entrepôt hub. Reexports account for around 23% of the UAE’s total trade volume. [11] There are around 8000 Iranian owned businesses based in Dubai alone (a figure that has dropped by nearly 400 since the past year) and the Iranian community has a large presence in the UAE. [12]
7
Now here are my predictions for the upcoming months (keep in mind these are based off my limited knowledge of government history + movies):
sible. Holder and others know that it’s going to be difficult to lock Assange and Manning away, so they’ll probably find some obscure rational to do so. This prediction is somewhat historically based. If you know some Supreme Court case history, I’m sure you’ll remember when “interstate commerce” used to be the obscure excuse for so many cases, especially those relating to segregation. While some of those cases may have stretched the “interstate commerce clause” a little bit, I’m glad that they did because I feel that those cases upheld the moral side of law. I believe that’s what’s going to happen with WikiLeaks. The premise behind publishing classified documents, to me, is immoral, like stealing from the government, and breaks the Espionage Act. From a case-winning prospective, however, immoral doesn’t always equal illegal, so it might be beneficial to think outside the box and stretch a non-controversial law to win the case. However the situation ends up, I hope the United States, or any country for that matter, shuts down WikiLeaks. Or at least prevents it from publishing any more documents that can harm international security.
The federal government wants to get rid of WikiLeaks as soon as possible; as Attorney General Eric Holder stated there’s “an active, ongoing criminal investigation” going on. To me this sounds like the justice, military, and intelligence departments are trying to get some sort of evidence that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange committed a crime. And this crime doesn’t have to be Espionage Act-related. Actually, it’s probably preferable that the crime is non-Espionage Actrelated because there are a number of problems with using the Espionage Act as the legal basis of a prosecution. First, it doesn’t have a good track record in the courts; a lot of cases haven’t passed the “clear and present danger” or “imminent lawless action” tests. Since its enactment, the Act has been criticized for its constitutionality, which is why the court doesn’t like siding with it. Consequently, if the court were to side with the Act in this one argument, all succeeding cases will uphold the Act, and all prior cases using the Act may be reevaluated. Second, if the Act is used as an argument there is no doubt that riots will break out, rallying that the federal government is becoming too powerful and breaking the First Amendment. That would just be PR suicide for the government. Overall, using the Espionage Act would be a pretty bad move on Attorney General Holder’s part. But I’m sure he is already taking that, and the fact that Assange is outside the U.S., into consideration.
@
In addition to getting rid of Assange, I believe the government will try to punish Private First Class Bradely Manning, the supposed source of leaked documents. I’m sure the military will find some solid evidence to put Manning on trial. Or at the very least they’ll ship/”re-station” him off to Alaska or some other boring and unimportant military base like that (no offense meant to Alaskans). Be aware that the Alaska idea was derived from the comical HBO movie Pentagon Wars (recommended for movie night). By and large, I’m sure the United States government just wants to get rid of the entire WikiLeaks organization and PFC Manning, as quick as pos-
8