The Bowdoin Globalist – Issue 4 – November 2013

NOVEMBER 2013

Faltering Egyptian Democracy – Village Elections in China – Unconditional Cash Transfers as Aid – American Exceptionalism and the NSA – China’s Broken Petitioning System – The Problem of Light Pollution – Homophobia in Russia – Marriage Equality in China – Golden Dawn – The Rohingya in Burma – Angela Merkel’s Leadership – GMO Labeling – Preventative Care in Cuba Volume III, Issue 1, November 2013

The Case of Barrett Brown and the War on Journalism

1

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

278,000 480 320 6 1

STUDENTS REACHED BY OUR PUBLICATIONS

ARTICLES PUBLISHED ANNUALLY STAFF MEMBERS WORLDWIDE

CONTINENTS REPRESENTED

NETWORK LINKING FUTURE WORLD LEADERS

REACH THE ENTIRE NETWORK

BY WRITING FOR THE PERSPECTIVIST

www.perspectivist.com

The Bowdoin Globalist is part of Global21 – a student-run network of international affairs magazines Yale University, University of Toronto, Institut de Sciences Politiques, Hebrew University, University of Cape Town, Peking University, University of Sydney, University of South Australia, the London School of Economics and Political Science, IBMEC University, University of Oxford, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, ITESM, University of Zurich, Singapore Management University 2

www.global21online.org

CONTENTS

Volume III, Issue 1, November 2013

NOVEMBER 2013

5 6 8 10 15

Militarized Nationalism and the New Egyptian State

by Kate Herman

16

Demanding Justice: China’s Broken Petitioning System

by Viola Rothschild

18 20 23

Blinded by the Light: The Problem of Light Pollution

by Haleigh Collins

24 25 27 28 30

Authoritarian Resilience Through Democracy

by Jin Niu The Efficacy of Cash Transfers

by John Branch The Case of Barrett Brown and the War on Journalism

by Christopher Wedeman An Unexceptional Spy

by Serena Taj

The Authoritarian Utility of Homophobia

by Nick Tonckens Family First: Marriage Equality In China

by Hongbei Li A Not So Golden Dawn

by Chase Savage The World’s Most Forgotten People

by Aaron Ng Boring And Proud

by Drew Van Kuiken The Legal Battle Over GMOs

by Madeline Cole Lessons from Cuban Healthcare

by Adam Hunt 3

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

Letter from the Editors Dear Readers,

Editors In Chief Dylan Hammer Mark Pizzi Christiana Whitcomb Associate Editors Evan Gershkovich Kate Herman Jin Niu Nick Tonckens Photography Editor Hannah Rafkin Layout Mark Pizzi Staff Writers John Branch Daniel Castro Madeline Cole Haleigh Collins Dylan Devenyi Adam Hunt Minnie Kim Hongbei Li Aaron Ng Viola Rothschild Chase Savage Serena Taj Drew Van Kuiken Christopher Wedeman Amanda Zalk 4

The Bowdoin Globalist is entering a new era. We’ve greatly expanded our staff and are doubling our magazine output this year.

At any critical juncture its worth asking why we’re here and where we’re going. Since the Globalist was established two years ago, the magazine has provided a forum for interested students to share their thoughts on what’s going on in the world. With students and faculty members over-scheduled, sleep deprived and constantly stimulated, we offer a consistent source of reflection from our own community on the world’s issues. The Globalist aims to capture and refine the fleeting ideas whirling around campus for all to consider.

Within these pages are stories of surging right-wing extremism in Greece, unconventional healthcare practice in Cuba, and bleeding metropolis lights. Our writers cover topics in culture, politics, technology and sustainability, spanning the globe from China to Brazil, from Egypt to Russia. Our cover story “Barrett Brown and the War on Journalism” reveals the unfolding battle for journalistic freedom in the internet age.

We hope the Bowdoin Globalist will be a resource that many can benefit from, whether it be students, faculty or members of the broader community. As we continue to expand as an organization, we would love to hear your thoughts about what we cover and how we cover it. Follow us on twitter @bowdoinglobal to see what interesting stories are unfolding around the world more rapidly than we can cover in print, in addition to information about what we’re up to. Please don’t hesitate to contact us with questions, concerns, or ideas for the magazine.

Sincerely, Christiana, Dylan and Mark Editors in Chief

Special Thanks to the Office of the President of Bowdoin College and photographer Nikki Loehr for the use of her photographs of Barrett Brown.

NOVEMBER 2013

Militarized Nationalism and the New Egyptian State by Kate Herman

On September 23, 2013, the previously unheard of Cairo Court of Urgent Affairs passed a ruling that authorized the regime to seize the funds of the Muslim Brotherhood and effectively criminalize the group’s activities. Although it is still unclear whether the current military-backed regime can muster enough authority to enforce this ruling on its turbulent populace, the action itself throws the legitimacy of post-Morsi Egypt into question. This is only the latest development in a state-led campaign against the Brotherhood that has seen the death of hundreds of the their supporters and the imprisonment of thousands more.

As the media anxiously updates the death toll of each demonstration, the forest is lost in view of the trees. The continuous stream of numbers and accumulation of demonstration dates disguises the methodical use of state power to control discourse and guide perception. The current regime has created a theater in which it can play the part of a strong, centralized state battling the unstable elements of religious fervor and mobs when, in reality, these unstable fringes were not so long ago the democratically-elected government of Egypt.

To complete its drama, the regime has encouraged a new wave of Egyptian nationalism through the exhibition of a strong leadership and an even stronger military to enforce it. Playing upon the tried and true pattern of Nasserian nationalism, the current regime has been able to aggregate popular support by using the strength of the military as a natural locus for Egyptians to rally around. However, in order to assure this nationalism becomes once again the predominant political ideology in Egypt, the regime has had to undermine deep-seated Islamist sentiment. It has accomplished this task primarily through a series of carefully orchestrated acts, vilifying the Muslim Brotherhood both by policing their actions and by casting them as an external enemy. In doing so, the regime has solidified its position, feeding off the failure of

Morsi’s election and the ensuing chaos of the coup in order to garner support for a nation no longer defined by its spectrum of political ideologies, but by its overarching concern for the security of the state as a whole.

Although this operation is centered on denigrating the Brotherhood in the eyes of the Egyptian public, the authority of the new military-backed regime is at stake as well: criminalization of a rival political group demonstrates a clear play for legitimacy. The new regime is eager to solidify its presence in Egyptian political life, and thus seeks to ground its military structure and authoritarian decision-making process as both vital and advantageous given the chaos still present in Cairo’s streets. By criminalizing the activities of the Brotherhood, the regime has succeeded in providing a legal veneer to the police action taken against the party’s supporters. With formalized structures for brutality, the state may continue to imprison protesters by the thousands and use its military arm to quell dissent–all within the guise of maintaining peace and civil order for its people.

This, however, is an idealized form of state suppression. What is much more likely to occur is the further marginalization of a legitimate political ideology, the continued estrangement of the Egyptian people from their multi-party system, and, in all likelihood, the provocation of the Brotherhood to a more violent form of dissent. The term “insurgency” has already been used in gauging the extent of violence present today, and it is clear that such escalations are quickly becoming the new reality in Egypt. It should also be clear that this militarized nationalism can never be the necessary panacea to unite a nation as politically diverse as Egypt, and certainly not within a nation now so predisposed to civil dissent.

Popular consensus may very well condemn the Muslim Brotherhood for the past year (and certainly the abuse of power by the Morsi regime merits such condemnation). However, when that denunciation then takes the form of criminalization as a political contrivance of the regime to garner popular support, it knocks at the very basis of good governance. By criminalizing the Muslim Brotherhood, the regime is not protecting its population, but forcibly estranging it from its right to political association, which is fundamental to the Egyptian multiparty system itself.

Although it may be idealistic to assume a coup may maintain good governance, the current regime’s further entrenchment into military solutions for political problems bears as much threat to the preservation of democracy as did Morsi’s own heavy-handed treatment of Egyptian civil rights. Regardless of whether the regime begins to enforce the criminalization of the Brotherhood, it has already succeeded in turning the group into an enemy of the state, and in doing so, turned an already enfeebled democracy on its head.

5

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

Authoritarian Resilience Through Democracy

by Jin Niu

6

In an era when United States foreign policy is dominated by the effort to create functioning democracies around the world, it is important to understand how or if democratic procedures alone can bring about a fairer society. The United States has promoted democracies abroad countless times. Arguments favoring the Democracy Peace Theory– that democratic states are less likely to act aggressively–have been made repeatedly to justify foreign intervention. The question of how democratic states behave is particularly relevant in the case of China, where some hope that democratization would bring a more Western-friendly state.

For this reason, many Western analysts prioritized Chinese democratization and were optimistic about the first Chinese village elections in 1987. Village elections were thought of as China’s grassroot path to democracy. One scholar described them as “a Trojan horse of democracy.” Others estimated that China would democratize within the next twenty years.

Though much excitement about the elections has since died down–the last article in major Western press outlets covering the topic was in March of 2012 in USA Today–it is necessary to look at the entire enterprise and question why it is that after twenty-six years, China is still authoritarian.

Enacted in 1987 and amended in 1998, the Organic Law on Village Committees promised “self-governance” in Chinese villages through democratic elections. In theory, villagers can now form their own village committees and elect

NOVEMBER 2013

a chairperson who “shares power” with the tradition- There are exceptional cases in which the Party al village boss, the Communist Party secretary. On secretary and the elected chair indeed share power, but the surface, the law seemed to implement a system of these appear to be outliers rather than the norm. Even checks-and-balances and government through consent. in these more collaborative villages, the chair rarely Yet its actual wording is vague, noting that the Party is challenges the Party decision. Unsurprisingly, most still the “leadership core” and that the chairperlocal surveys indicate that 70 “Impeccable son should only exercise leadership “over specifpercent of Chinese villagers ic issues.” These small details are compounded are well aware of the Party’s procedures

by China’s demographics–nearly 48 percent of predominance of power over China’s population occupies rural villages. With without the elected chairman. nearly 600 million villagers casting ballots, the

A more recent sufficient number of voters constitutes twice the populaand alarming development is tion of the United States. attempts by the Party to merge exercise of

Judging by electoral procedures alone, the village chairmanship with village elections have surpassed even Western power do little the position of the Party secstandards for thorough democracy. Balloting has for individual retary. In practice, this means been carried out across 600,000 villages in all that the Party will either enprovinces, including in Tibet in 2002. Turnout rights.” courage the local secretaries rates have been high, with numerous locations to run for chairmanship, or, if reportedly over 90 percent (compared to less than 60 the incumbent chair maintains a good record, recruit percent–the American average). Studies and surveys that individual into the Party and appoint him secrefound remarkable improvements in the overall process, tary. As of 1999, in Guangdong 56 percent of village with anonymous balloting, public vote counts, and mul- chairpersons were also secretaries. In Xinhui city, this tiple candidates being the norm in almost all villages. percentage was 80 percent, and in Nanhai, 60 percent.

Yet these positive procedural developments Some regions, such as Liaocheng city in Shandong, alone cannot constitute democracy. Impeccable proce- have even prescribed laws to require secretaries to run dures without sufficient exercise of power do little for for the chairperson’s post. individual rights. In the case of Chinese villages, elect- Merging the two positions has obvious ed chairpersons do not comadministrative benefits and avoids the usual secpete with Party cadres equally “Chinese retary-chair conflict, yet this move also strengthand experience considerable ens Party rule in several fundamental ways. By villagers see constraints in their day-tohaving the party-appointed secretary run for elecday activities. Non-elected their vote tions, the CCP in practice legitimizes the secrevillage party secretaries hold tary’s power through a “democratic” means. This the dominant voice in politi- more as a is particularly troubling given that most rural votcal decisions in 80 percent of ‘complementary’ ers perceive village elections to be a legitimizall Chinese villages and are ing mechanism. Furthermore, dual office holding considered Yibashou–“prima- instrument to removes whatever check-and-balance previousry power holders.” A number place trusted ly existed. An analogy would be one individual of field studies and surveys serving as the United States President, the Sufound that the elected village officials in preme Court, and the Congress all at once. This committees rarely have exmay speed up legislation, remove congressional charge.” ercisable power, particularly inefficiency, and perhaps be result-driven, but it in important realms of decision making like finances also completely undermines the foundation of demoor distribution of economic resources. In some cases, cratic rule. elected committee members are denied access to ac- Shortcomings in the Chinese village elections count books and the official seal that symbolizes politi- do not mean that village elections are necessarily cal power. “bad.” As evidence on procedure shows, the elections 7

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

are not carried out like those in other authoritarian regimes, where elections are more for show rather than substance. On the contrary, most Chinese villagers expressed satisfaction with these elections and experienced “empowerment.” Indeed, looking beyond the democratic aspects, elections did improve the overall administration and better enforced central policies like family planning and grain procurement. The question still remains why there is great popular support for village elections when in practice the results have made little difference.

Fundamentally, as evidence heavily suggests, Chinese voters conceive of elections differently than their Western counterparts. Critically, they do not view the ballot as a weapon to punish ineffective leaders. Extensive surveying of rural areas suggests that most do not have an inclination to translate their voting power into concrete pressure on their cadres. Chinese villagers see their vote more as a “complementary instrument to place trusted officials in charge.” While this status quo may change, normative changes are slow and subject to grassroots pressure as much as Party pressure. Furthermore, if office-merging becomes the predominant political practice, then it may be difficult for the villagers to use the ballot to challenge the Party, as any non-Party elected chair could simply be converted to a Party member.

While village elections sparked hope for the future of a democratic China, idealists ought to take a step back and assess what has actually occurred. Ultimately, judging the effects of village elections requires one to ask a key question: self-administration on whose behalf? While a system in which self-administration bolsters state control may improve the quality of governance, it does little to promote democracy.

The reality of village elections is that they were not implemented to foster democracy, but to strengthen the Communist Party’s claim on domestic governance. The result of village elections, far from being the “Trojan horse of democracy,” may actually be to deter movement towards democracy by legitimizing one-party rule through a “democratic” means. As recently as October, China dismissed an Economic professor from a prestigious Beijing university for his allegedly pro-democracy activities. In the case of village elections, one must question whether these elections are a vehicle for democracy or if they are in fact contributing to the authoritarian status quo.

8

The Efficacy of Cash Transfers by John Branch

This summer, This American Life compared GiveDirectly, a young organization that provides unconditional cash transfers to villagers in Kenya through mobile phones, to Heifer International, a more traditional charity that provides similar villages with farm animals and training. Paul Niehaus, one of GiveDirectly’s founders, made an interesting proposal:

We would like to see organizations make the case that they think they can do more good for the poor with a dollar than the poor could do for themselves.

That would be fantastic. And I think some may be able to make a convincing case. But if you go to the websites today, I don’t think you’re going to see that argument being made. Nobody even bothers.

Several new studies this year have provided evidence suggesting that straightforward cash transfers– giving sums of money to help people in impoverished countries meet their basic needs–can be an effective form of aid, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

The most studied kind of cash transfers are “conditional,” meaning that the money will only be given to the recipient if he or she uses it for the purpose the giver specifies. But greater questions surround transfers that are “unconditional,” giving recipients freedom to do with the money as they see fit. These unconditional transfers, while still relatively new and unstudied, have the potential to drastically change the way that developed countries approach humanitarian aid.

In the late 1990s, Mexico began a program called PROGRESA, tasked with providing conditional cash transfers to those in poverty for things like health care, education, and food. At this point, many were skeptical about the ability of the poor to prioritize effec-

NOVEMBER 2013

tively; many members of the Mexican cabinet worried that men would “beat up their wives, take the money and get drunk,” says the New York Times’ Tina Rosenberg.

But the families receiving the money used it mostly as it was intended. They spent more on food, illness in children decreased, and school enrollment increased. The program’s success has since opened the door for similar programs in many other developing countries, and most agree that conditional cash transfers can work in the right contexts.

With unconditional cash transfers, the story is more complicated–the existing research is limited both by region and by the scope of the projects themselves.

Broadly, unconditional cash transfer programs can fall into two categories. “Labeled” transfers come with encouragement for spending on a specific good, like a child’s education or a vocational training program.

These programs differ from conditional transfer programs because there is no enforcement mechanism–the money will keep coming whether or not the recipient spends it on the suggested purpose.

This year, several of these programs have performed positively in studies. Two studies were conducted in Uganda and were evaluated by teams led by Chris Blattman, a political scientist at Columbia.

One program, called the Youth Opportunities Program, gave money to groups of unemployed youth.

Those groups submitted proposals for using the money, and then were given lump sums and left to spend it as they saw fit, regardless of whether it matched the suggested purpose. At the end of the program, participants saw their incomes increase by 41 percent, and 65 percent more of the recipients were practicing skilled trades than their counterparts in a control group. The other program, Women’s Income Generating Support, was similarly operated, and its participants’ income increased 98 percent.

A third study, by Esther Duflo of MIT and Pascaline Dupas of Stanford, looked at a program for increasing school attendance in Morocco. This study compared labeled cash transfers directly against explicitly conditional ones, and found that both were equally effective. Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA), the NGO that implemented the study, wrote that “adding conditionality…did not increase the program’s impact on student attendance or school enrollment.”

GiveDirectly works with an even newer and

less proven model–unlabeled, unconditional transfers– with the assumption that the recipient knows best what to put the money toward. While this form of giving is largely untested, we could know more about how families respond to unconditional transfers soon–researchers from MIT and IPA are currently performing a study to test GiveDirectly’s effectiveness in Kenya.

Though there is mounting evidence that unconditional cash transfers can work, they are still controversial. For one thing, researchers hypothesized in the aforementioned studies that the programs would increase social cohesiveness and lessen conflict, but did not find any evidence of this. Participants became richer and more skilled, but some argue that efforts to help the poor should be held to a higher standard. Sure, people have more money, but other things matter. Are they getting along better? Are they happier?

If not, is calling these programs successful a tautology? “One common test of anti-poverty interventions is whether they make people richer,” writes Rosenberg, “So giving money will always succeed–by definition.”

In a column called “The Benefits of Cash Without Conditions,” Rosenberg also makes the case that part of the controversy comes from deeper philosophical divides. “Those on the left tend to believe that the differences come from giant structural problems,” she writes. “Bad or no education, health, transport, housing, few jobs.” Meanwhile, she argues that those on the right believe “that the poor are poor because of the culture of poverty: people make bad choices, lack of discipline, look for short-term gratification.”

This, of course, harkens back to the Mexican cabinet members’ fear that men would misuse the money. That didn’t occur in that particular case, but in the case of transfers that are completely unconditional, it is easy to understand how others might have similar concerns.

Regardless, it is clear that many in the non-profit world have been trending towards a more hands-off approach to giving aid. For now, cash transfers are still, in some sense, an exception: conventional wisdom holds that structural barriers (lack of transportation, lack of nearby medical services, etc.) are too great to overcome with cash alone. But what if people in developed countries began to consider Niehaus’s proposal?

Unconditional cash could become the rule rather than the exception.

9

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

The Case of Barrett Brown and the War on Journalism

By Christopher Wedeman Photo courtesy of Nikki Loehr 10

NOVEMBER 2013

This will be remembered as a formative year in the war for control over the flow of information on the Internet. Disclosures by Edward Snowden triggered international consciousness of wide-ranging and pervasive surveillance of people all over the world by United States “security� agencies.

But while much reporting has been dedicated to the National Security Agency (NSA) monitoring online communications and the hunt for Edward Snowden, the quiet persecution of journalists researching the murky world of private intelligence and defense contractors points to a deeper and more sinister problem.

ProjectPM

Barrett Brown is a 32-year-old investigative journalist who is facing (if served consecutively) 105 years in prison after his arrest last year on multiple charges of credit card fraud and charges involving threatening an FBI agent and concealing evidence.

Brown wrote for Vanity Fair, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. His association with Anonymous, an amorphous collective of Internet hacktivists, caused Brown to be considered an unofficial spokesperson for the group despite renouncing links with them in 2011.

That same year, Aaron Barr, the CEO of the technology security company HBGary Federal claimed to have infiltrated and identified members of Anonymous. In response, the Internet Feds (later renamed LulzSec), a hacktivist collective associated with Anonymous, leaked 70,000 HBGary Federal company emails. Barrett Brown became obsessed with the documents leaked by LulzSec.

In order to sift through the thousands of emails, Barrett Brown created ProjectPM, an online 11

crowdsourcing effort with other investigative jourTHE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST nalists. Brown described ProjectPM as “… dedicated to investigating private government contractors working in the secretive fields of cybersecurity, intelligence and surveillance.”

What They Learned

ProjectPM learned of a mass surveillance and data-mining program targeting the Arab world, a proposal to the US Air Force to develop software that would create an “army” of fake social media profiles to foster the appearance of grassroots support for certain policies, and the employment of American public relations firms to discredit and sabotage dissidents in US corporate-friendly countries such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain.

Most interestingly, however, ProjectPM found a story beginning when Julian Assange, the Australian editor-in-chief of the non-profit publishing organization WikiLeaks, stated that WikiLeaks had five gigabytes of information that would reveal an “ecosystem of corruption” about “a big US bank.”

(That data would later be destroyed without being published by former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheil-Berg.)

Concerned about the possible leak, Bank of America approached the US Department of Justice, who recommended that they hire the law and lobbying firm Hunton and Williams, which does work for Wells Fargo and General Dynamics and also lobbies for Koch Industries, Americans for Affordable Climate Policy, and other large US corporations.

Hunton and Williams organized a number of private intelligence, technology development, and security contractors- HBGary Federal, Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies, and Endgame Systemsto form “Team Themis.” The main objective of Team Themis would be to discredit critics of the lobbying group US Chamber of Commerce and to wage a deception campaign against WikiLeaks and journalist Glenn Greenwald, who was considered dangerous because of his sympathetic writing on WikiLeaks at the time.

The plan was to create fake documents, leak them to Greenwald and WikiLeaks and when they were released, they would be exposed as frauds. Greenwald would later go on to orchestrate the publication of Edward Snowden’s revelations, but at the time it was thought that “if pushed,” Greenwald would “choose professional preservation over cause.”

On Christmas Eve 2011, LulzSec hacked the website of another private security company called 12

Strategic Forecasting Inc., or Stratfor, and posted five million internal company emails online. Barrett Brown and ProjectPM began to work through the emails in the Stratfor leak, which were even more outrageous than those from the HBGary hack.

“I’m in favor of using whatever trumped up charge is available to get [Assange] and his servers off the streets. And I’d feed that shit head soldier [Chelsea Manning] to the first pack of wild dogs I could find,” wrote the Vice President of Stratfor’s Public Policy Intelligence group in an internal email.

The emails included discussion of opportunities for renditions and assassinations (including personal vengeance against a bomber of the 1988 flight Pan Am 103 that exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland).

Brown also started looking into Endgame Systems, one of the most secretive companies in Team Themis.

One of the products offered by Endgame offered clients access to “zero-day exploits”—security vulnerabilities unknown to software companies—for computer systems all over the world.

Burying the Evidence

At this point, the FBI, which operates as a subsidiary of the Department of Justice, acquired a warrant for Brown’s computer, and by extension any information related to HBGary, Endgame Systems, and Anonymous, and “email, email contacts, ‘chat’, instant messaging logs, photographs, and correspondence.”

When the FBI went for Brown and found him at his mother’s house, they returned with a warrant to search her house and subsequently charged her with obstructing the execution of a warrant.

In September 2012, when the FBI began to harass his mother, Brown uploaded a YouTube video explaining that he had been addicted to heroin and taking Suboxone, but had gone off his medication and was in withdrawal. He named the FBI officer who was harassing his mother, saying,

“I know what’s legal, I know what’s been done to me… And if it’s legal when it’s done to me, it’s going to be legal when it’s done to fucking FBI Agent Robert Smith—who is a criminal.

“That’s why Robert Smith’s life is over. And when I say his life is over, I’m not saying I’m going to kill him, but I am going to ruin his life and look into his fucking kids…. How do you like them apples?”

Brown had been open about his drug problems in his past but with his garbled online threat, he dug the dirt that would bury his revelations. Peter Ludlow, a professor of Philosophy at Northwestern

University, wrote in an article for The Nation, “No longer would this be a story about the secretive information-military-industrial complex; now it was the sordid tale of a crazy drug addict threatening an FBI agent and his (grown) children.”

A district court judge issued a gag order, preventing Brown from speaking to the press. Now one year since his arrest, he faces 17 charges adding up to 105 years in federal prison. Jeffery Hammond, the man who actually carried out the Stratfor hack, is facing a maximum sentence of ten years. In an article for The Guardian, Greenwald wrote, “It is virtually impossible to conclude that the obscenely excessive prosecution he [Brown] now faces is unrelated to that journalism and his related activism.”

Forces in Afghanistan, exposed whatNOVEMBER Hastings 2013 considered to be a reckless man leading a reckless war.

His article is regarded to have destroyed the career of the former General.

Hastings died at 4:25 a.m. in Los Angeles when his Mercedes crashed into a palm tree. Witnesses said that it seemed like his car was travelling at full speed and “was creating sparks and flames before it fishtailed and crashed...” His body was burned beyond recognition and was identified two days later by matching fingerprints with those the FBI had on file.

The FBI denied that Hastings was being investigated, and although there is no evidence to suggest any relationship between Hastings’ work and his death, Hastings had made it clear that he believed ProjectPM Chilled the FBI was investigating him. He had just written

Most of the charges against Brown involve to colleagues that he was “onto a big story,” that he credit card fraud, stemming from the fact that when needed to “go off the radar,” and that the FBI might Brown copied and pasted the link containing a cache interview them. of leaked emails from one public chat room to the ProjectPM chat room, some of the Stratfor emails in- The State of the Press cluded unencrypted credit card information.

The cases of Barrett Brown and Michael Hast Charging Brown with credit card fraud for ings point to a very concerning trend in the fixation sharing a public link makes it hazardous for anyone of federal prosecutors to not only severely punish online to link to something or share links with people Internet activism that challenges the power of the if they happen to contain sensitive information, even government and related bodies to control the flow of if the link is publicly accessible. information over the Internet, but also to target the

In March, the Department of Justice served journalists and stifle the press that reports on it. the domain hosting service CloudFlare with a sub- This past October the Committee to Protect poena for all records on the ProjectPM website, and Journalists, a US organization that usually advocates in particular asked for the IP addresses of everyone for press freedoms in other parts of the world, rewho had accessed and contributed to ProjectPM. As leased its first report focusing on press freedoms a result of the FBI’s aggressive targeting of Brown in the United States. The report, written by former and ProjectPM, most journalists won’t touch the Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Stratfor files.

Jr., concluded that, “The [Obama] Administration’s

Peter Ludlow, who has written numerous war on leaks and other efforts to control information nonacademic papers on hacktivism, remarked that are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon adthe message is clear: if you look through these files, ministration, when I was one of the editors involved “they’re either going to throw you in jail, like they in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate.” did Barrett Brown, or neutralize you in some other Government officials are increasingly afraid to way. They might try and destroy your reputation or I talk to the press, the report found, because “those don’t know, it depends what you think happened to suspected of discussing with reporters anything that Michael Hastings.” the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and Michael Hastings scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records.” Un One of the members of ProjectPM, Michael der development in every government department is Hastings, died on 18 June 2013. Hastings was a a new program called “Insider Threat Program” that 33-year-old journalist, author, and reporter for Buzz- requires all federal employees to help prevent unauFeed who was a vocal critic of the Iraq War and the thorized disclosures by monitoring the behavior of surveillance state. His article for Rolling Stone about their colleagues.

General Stanley McChrystal, then Commander of US In 2013, when the Justice Department sub13

poenaed telephone records of twenty Associate Press THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST journalists in order to find their sources, Hastings described the act in terms of the Obama Administration’s “war on journalism.”

“There is no doubt this has such a massive chilling effect on anyone who is doing serious investigative work… Because what happens is, if your name comes up on one of these lists in these investigations… even if you weren’t the leaker you get a reputation as someone who speaks to the press. This is a huge blow to press freedoms here,” Hastings described in an interview with the political commentary program, The Young Turks.

Under President Obama, a record eight government employees or contractors have been charged under the Espionage Act for leaking classified information to the press. Still more criminal investigations into leaks are under way. A Fox News reporter was accused of being “an aider, abettor and/or conspirator” of a leaker from the State Department, an accusation threatening possible prosecution for doing his job as a journalist. In another leak case, a reporter from the New York Times was ordered to testify against a former CIA official or go to jail.

In an interview with the Globalist, Peter Ludlow analyzed the motive behind targeting journalists, “It’s not merely to shut people up. It’s to scare other people so that they’re less likely to report on these things. So it’s to scare people like you and me.”

During his campaigns for presidency, Obama pledged to make his the most transparent government ever. Rather, as David E. Singer, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times, said, “This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered.” Regarding the Obama administration, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote earlier this year, “It’s turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press.”

Beyond the Presidency

While the Snowden revelations made clear that the US government secretly monitors citizens around the world, the case of Barrett Brown shows that the secrecy of the gargantuan surveillance and intelligence industry goes way beyond Obama, a few negligent employees, or minor reform laws. After noting how it is frequently overlooked that Edward Snowden was an employee of the private intelligence company Booz Allen Hamilton, Peter Ludlow exclaimed, “That’s massive! There is more going on in 14

the private intelligence end of it than there is in the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA combined. That government intelligence work is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Edward Snowden also joined Barrett Brown in exposing the incestuous relationship between the government and private security and intelligence firms. Fred Burton, Vice President of Intelligence at Stratfor and former deputy chief of a US State Department counterterrorism division, is exemplar of the revolving door culture between private intelligence companies and government intelligence departments.

But the intense secrecy of these companies paired with the prosecution of journalists who investigate them makes it hard to know just how systemic the depravity is.

The State of Power

In an open question forum on reddit, the social news and entertainment website, Glenn Greenwald explained what he believed was behind government spying. “A major reason why those in power always try to use surveillance is because surveillance = power. The more you know about someone, the more you can control and manipulate them in all sorts of ways.

That is one reason a surveillance state is so menacing to basic political liberties.”

According to a Snowden document published by the Washington Post, the classified “black budget” for government agencies alone was more than $50 billion in 2013. By savaging the privacy and freedom of Internet users around the world, perpetuators of the surveillance state have latched themselves into an industry that is at the same time destructive and self-justifying. The uncontrolled growth of the US surveillance state is a global menace and hugely embarrasses US internationally. These are surveillance practices and abuses that would be jeered at

by Americans as oppressive and totalitarian in any other country.

But with the bloating of the intelligence industry and what Leonard Downie Jr. described as the “digital world with blurred boundaries between public and private, shared and secret information”, there will be more Mannings and Snowdens and hacktivist collectives. A functioning democracy necessitates an informed public, and it is the responsibility of journalists to get the truth to their readers, regardless of the source. The stifling of press freedom and the targeting of journalists such as Barrett Brown, Michael Hastings, and WikiLeaks is a stark reminder of the risk faced by reporters who report on leaks and the need to protect investigative journalistic freedom.

NOVEMBER 2013

An Unexceptional Spy

by Serena Taj

In September, Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff stood before the UN general assembly to deliver a scathing condemnation of U.S. intelligence policy. In response to new leaks that showed that the NSA was not only collecting information on U.S. citizens, but also eavesdropping on the private communications of Brazilians, Rousseff branded the U.S. an international criminal. “A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation,” she said.

“The right to safety of citizens in one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country.”

Rousseff’s comments bring attention to the actions of the NSA outside of the domestic sphere, calling into question Washington’s strong orientation towards American exceptionalism. When information about the NSA’s extensive data collection program first emerged in June, U.S. policymakers responded that international spying was commonplace and necessary to the preservation of a country’s power. The Snowden leaks have so far revealed NSA involvement in Germany, Egypt, Sweden, and most recently, Mexico and France–all American allies–and China. Petrobas, Brazil’s state oil corporation, is among the groups that the NSA gathered private information on.

Not only is it becoming more difficult for the U.S. to justify the collection of trade secrets in the name of domestic security, but it also draws distinct parallels to other cases–it was only a few months ago that the U.S. accused China of corporate espionage and indicted a Chinese firm on these charges. Unsurprisingly, Washington’s attitude when the role of the spy and its

target was reversed was a far cry from “well, everyone does it.”

This hypocrisy is the product of a U.S. attitude that we have more authority to violate the rights of other countries than they do ours. When details of the NSA’s domestic surveillance program first appeared in popular media, the public was divided on the necessity and constitutionality of such measures, with some arguing that Americans had elected their government officials to represent them in making these choices in the name of national security. Nonetheless, this dialogue was very much present in the American consciousness, culminating in a failed but still close legislative measure to defund the NSA’s domestic phone data collection program.

A similar debate on the NSA’s international activity has been conspicuously absent. Americans seem all too willing to accept Washington’s logic that such activities, when not directed at them personally, are justified in the name of security.

Another leak in September disclosed that the U.S. shares unfiltered data from the Prism program with Israel. This is a privacy concern not only for U.S. citizens but also for citizens of other states that are vulnerable to the NSA, and throws into question the validity of the U.S.’s inflated authority not only to collect information but also to share it (the U.S. is part of an intelligence sharing network consisting of five Western countries that Israel does not belong to). Citizens of foreign countries who are susceptible to privacy violations perpetrated by the NSA have no voice in the matter, and certainly didn’t elect the U.S. policymakers to represent them in making these choices for their “protection.”

The Israel leak received remarkably little attention from the mainstream media. The New York Times managing editor responded to criticisms of this lack of coverage by saying that “it wasn’t a significant or surprising story… this one was modest and didn’t feel worth taking someone off greater enterprise.”

The idea that such a story could fail to be anything less than a scandal and a revelation should only increase the suspicion with which we view U.S. authority over the rest of the world. If the press is unwilling or unable to share information of this magnitude with the public, the force that can counteract abuses of power by the United States by calling attention to them, the NSA’s behavior can be increasingly taken for granted and become frighteningly normal.

15

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

Demanding Justice: China’s Broken Petitioning System

by Viola Rothschild

On July 20, 2013, wheelchair-bound Ji Zhongxing, 34, rolled into Terminal 3 of Beijing’s Capital Airport and detonated a homemade bomb. In the amateur online videos that went viral immediately following the incident, Mr. Ji is gesturing frantically, then there is a loud bang and the arrivals entry hall fills with thick black smoke. No one was hurt, except Mr. Ji himself, who lost a hand. Before setting off the bomb, Mr. Ji was distributing pamphlets in an attempt to publicize the incident that left him partially paralyzed.

When airport security stopped his efforts, Mr. Ji set off the bomb in a last-ditch plea for attention.

The incident that left Mr. Ji confined to a wheelchair took place in 2005. At that time, Mr. Ji was working in the southern city Dongguan as a motorcycle taxi driver.

Ji claims that after Dongguan police discovered him operating an unregistered taxi, they brutally assaulted him, leaving him paralyzed and unable to work. For the past eight years, Ji has been seeking compensation and justice through China’s only channel for civil justice–the infamous petitioning system. According to the Dongguan government, Ji had already sued twice, but had lost due to lack of evidence. Despite the local public security bureau’s “humanitarian” payment of 100,000 RMB (USD $16,280) in 2009, he continued to petition. Most recently, Ji filed a complaint through the website of the National Bureau of Letters and Calls, the primary office responsible for processing petitions in Beijing.

Ji’s desperate actions were a response to China’s flawed, ineffective, and discriminatory petitioning system.

Rather than being denounced as a terrorist, Ji was cast as a 16

victim and received an unprecedented outpouring of support and sympathy from China’s active netizens.

“What a kindhearted man! Who else in this country can stand up and say ‘I’m more righteous than he is’!” Zhao Xiao, professor at University of Science and Technology in Beijing, posted on Weibo, China’s Twitter-esque micro-blogging site. In just two days, the post had been forwarded more than 50,000 times.

These posts quickly swerved into political commentary, with Luo Changping, an influential blogger, characterizing Ji’s situation as a “desperate endless loop.” Luo goes on to post that: “In the name of maintaining stability, the power of the police is extended indefinitely. The law is not independent. There’s no solution.”

In her article “Mobilizing the Law in China,” Mary Gallagher of the University of Michigan discusses the development of the “people’s legal consciousness” in relation to the sharp rise in petitioning, protests and demonstrations.

Gallagher argues that citizens’ expectations about the law and legal processes are shaped by a government-run media campaign that broadcasts good news and happy endings over more realistic outcomes. This surge in popular protest, she writes, forms a “bottom-up pressure to build the rule of law and to improve it” and “…is one more indication that legal consciousness in China is developing, moving not high to low but from naïve to critical, from a vague sense of rights to a detailed list of grievances.”

It is just this rise in awareness, from naïve to critical, that is pushing people like Ji to take extreme actions. And he

NOVEMBER 2013

is not alone–in the last few months, frustrated and desperate petitioners have made international headlines with alarming frequency. In June, Chen Shuizong, set fire to a bus in the Southeastern city of Xiamen, killing himself and 47 others.

Without a stable job, Chen and his family relied heavily on government benefits for low-income households. After Chen was deemed ineligible to continue receiving assistance, he tirelessly petitioned to renew his access to these benefits. At wits end, he resorted to an act of stunning and conspicuous violence. Similar to Ji, this incident also provoked a social media outburst, with some netizens condemning his actions, but many others exhibiting sympathy and naming Chen a martyr.

In yet another macabre event that occurred in August, 21 petitioners from Northeast China’s Heilongjiang province attempted a group suicide at Beijing’s West Railway Station. These petitioners, all wearing white t-shirts with the characters for “Harbin Railway Bureau” printed on them in black, drank significant amounts of pesticides in protest of a broken promise. Allegedly, the Harbin Railway Bureau guaranteed this group of employees jobs for their children if they enlisted in the Army first. The Bureau later failed to acknowledge this agreement, even after repeated petitioning. The group of railway workers that attempted suicide were transported to the hospital, and then transferred to a Beijing detention center upon their release.

While these high-profile cases may sound transformative to American readers who hear about them in newspapers, my experience walking the streets of Beijing reflected little of the tumult depicted. The Communist Party is certainly witnessing a period of rapid social change that is producing many social issues–the widening gap between the rich and poor, environmental degradation and unchecked air and water pollution, rampant corruption in government, a slowing economy–but the central government’s responsive authoritarian tactics seem to be keeping a handle on its 1.35 billion constituents.

One night in December 2012, I shared a simple meal with a petitioner in a park in Beijing’s Haidian district. I had picked up dinner–fried noodles, a couple steamed pork buns, and tofu in peanut sauce and sesame oil–from street vendors outside the West Gate of the Central Minorities University and was taking a circuitous route back to my dorm. It was a clear night, the weather unseasonably warm, so I stopped at a park and sat on a bench to enjoy my meal. Soon after I sat down, I was approached by a young man in a tattered Mao jacket, asking me for money. Instead, I gave him the pork buns, explaining that I didn’t have any more money on me.

Surprised that I could speak Mandarin, he asked where I was

from, and we began talking.

My new friend, Mr. Zhang, was a 27-year-old from Dunhuang in Western China’s Gansu Province. Zhang had come to Beijing four years ago to find work and send money back to his family. All had gone according to plan–he was working long hours at a factory, lived in a small apartment with three other workers, and was able to send money back to Dunhuang once a month. Then, last year, Zhang had an accident at work that crippled his right hand. His employers gave him a paltry compensation payment that barely covered medical expenses, and then deemed him unfit to continue working at the factory. Zhang has since been drifting in and out of homelessness, occasionally able to find temporary employment doing menial jobs such as trash collection and handing out advertisements for restaurants.

Zhang had filed a petition, but was not holding out much hope for a resolution. He chalked his situation up to yuanfen, a Chinese concept of fate, and said that he had to do the best with what he had now. He went on to say that most people don’t even bother petitioning because the process is simply more trouble than it’s worth. Zhang seemed resigned, but not bitter as he thanked me for the pork buns and wandered off into the Beijing night.

In concept, the Bureau of Letters and Visits, colloquially known as Xinfang, which fields these petitions is a compassionate institution–it provides citizens with a ladder up the village, township, county, prefectural, provincial, and finally central governments. The idea is thousands of years old, originating when people with grievances would throw themselves in front of sedan chairs to get the attention of the authorities. Today however, the process has devolved into an opaque and corrupt practice. Many local governments famously operate “black jails,” which are extralegal detention centers formed by police for the purpose of intercepting and detaining petitioners without trial. In order to prevent people from their township or county from reaching the higher levels of government, so-called “interceptors” or “black guards” will abduct petitioners, often times beating them before sending them home.

While Zhang’s quiet forbearance may represent the norm, extreme responses to failed petition efforts are becoming more frequent, and China’s age-old petitioning system is facing more criticism than ever. With the proliferation of online forums and social media networks, these grassroots debates have become widely politicized and opened up for popular discussion. As these calls for transparency, equality, and reform grow louder, the Chinese government and CCP will be forced to respond–or risk facing serious social dissent in the not so distant future.

17

“Ji’s desperate actions were a response to China’s flawed, ineffective, and discriminatory petitioning system.”

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

Blinded by the Light

by Haleigh Collins

On a semi-clear night, an observer with fairly good vision should be able to see over 7,000 stars. But that spectacular sight requires darkness, an increasingly rare condition in our modern society.

A cloud of light hovers above most of the United States, nearly all of Europe, and all of Japan. Light pollution is said to be the worst in Hong Kong, where unlike other major cities like London, Frankfurt, Sydney, and Shanghai, there are no laws to control external lighting. In Tsim Sha Tsui, an urban area in southern Kowloon, Hong Kong, the night sky is trapped in a state of perpetual dawn, appearing 1,200 times brighter than normal.

Electricity forms the backbone of our modern society. City lights are in part a celebration of our power and achievements, and in pragmatic terms, streetlights are vital to our collective safety. We must pause, however, to think about what all that light really means and how it is damaging our world in significant ways.

Wildlife is the first to suffer the effects of rampant light pollution. The cycle of night and day is critical in telling animals when to carry out vital life func18

tions like when to eat, sleep, and reproduce. Unnatural light patterns can cause significant behavioral changes, and as a result of increasing light pollution, many species of birds, like the Bewick swan in England, have altered their migration departures, arriving at their destinations in weather that is no longer suitable for mating.

Others become confused by the brilliance of cities and crash into buildings. The European lesser horseshoe bat simply began to vanish after streetlights were installed.

Sea turtle hatchlings rely on the light of the moon to guide them from where they’ve hatched on the beach down to the water. Light pollution causes them to crawl in the wrong direction, and they can become stranded and die. In Florida alone, hatchling losses number in the hundreds of thousands every year.

Like other species in the animal kingdom, we as humans are not immune to the effects of light pollution.

Excessive light at night impedes the production of one hormone, melatonin. Melatonin is critical in immune functions, metabolism, and our endocrine system.

When its levels are disrupted, our circadian rhythms are thrown out of balance, which can cause sleep depri-

NOVEMBER 2013

vation as well as a whole slew grouped together as the “Dark Sky Ordinance” and of problems that are linked to have pledged to dial back light waste. Ingram Organisleep like hypertension, poor zations such as the International Dark-Sky Association metabolism, obesity, type II di- are pushing for each Northwest state to establish one abetes, heart disease, and heart International Dark Sky Park. So far, Goldendale Obattacks. Melatonin also natural- servatory State Park in South Central Washington is the ly impedes cancer cell growth, first to meet the requirements. and its depletion is connected Fifty years ago, when light pollution was to increased cancer risk. thought to only affect astronomers, Flagstaff Arizona Light pollubegan to regulate lights and has since tion is also linked to “In... an urban been named the first International air pollution. Light area in southern Dark Sky City. Since 2009, the Unitbreaks down and deed Nation’s Year of Astronomy, light pletes levels of NO3, Kowloon, Hong pollution has received international a nitrate radical that Kong, the night attention and is now a widely acneutralizes other niknowledged environmental issue. A sky is trapped trogen oxides that growing international concern with contribute to smog. in a state of light pollution has led to the growth The nighttime is imof many NGO’s, such as the Light perpetual dawn, portant for levels of Pollution Awareness Group in MalNO3 to rebuild in or- appearing 1,200 ta, political action, and individual der to prevent smog improvement of private lighting. times brighter buildup. Higher light

The EU has launched a number levels mean up to than normal.” of programs, such as GreenLight, 7 percent less NO3, to adopt efficient lighting systems. which can increase smog com- France passed new light pollution laws this summer, ponents by up to 5 percent. and now offices and shops are required to turn their

Luckily, light pollution caused by bad lighting lights off overnight. Some European cities, like Madrid design is one of the easiest and most cost effective en- and Florence, have passed legislation and made a convironmental issues to prevent. All the light shining up- scious effort to keep the brightness below 100 times the wards into the sky is solely energy wasted, and a waste standard dark night. of energy is also a waste of money. This helps motivate Last year in Hong Kong, where the night skies cities to use lower-watt bulbs, motion-sensor lighting, are 1,000 times brighter than globally accepted levels, and directionally optimized light fixtures, or fixtures major buildings along the Victoria Harbor turned off that shield the light from shining upwards unnecessari- their lights to mark earth hour. In Tsim Sha Tsui, the ly. number of individual complaints to the government

States such as Maine, Connecticut, New Mex- about light pollution has risen from 9, in 2003, to 361, ico, Arizona, and Texas have passed laws mandating in 2011. that outdoor lights be properly shielded and have a lim- Just as we have the ability to outshine nature, ited luminosity. Some of these laws pertain to privately putting on a spectacle of unnecessary lights that drown owned lights, whereas others apply to state highways. out the stars, we are also capable of using efficient, conStatewide measures to regulate light pollution have scientious lighting. Beyond the significant and real enbeen brought to Washington and Idaho governments as vironmental effects of light pollution, the psychological well, though they have not received enough support to impact of losing our vision of the universe is especially pass yet. distressing. It is worth considering what it means that

The movement is especially prevalent in North- we’ve chosen to block out the universe, the infinitely western cities, where municipalities and counties, such powerful force that has remained mostly untouched by as Ketchum, Hailey, and the Sun Valley in Idaho, have humanity.

19

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

The Authoritarian Utility of Homophobia

by Nick Tonckens

20

NOVEMBER 2013

We in the West do not expect much from Russia. taboo status.

In our diplomatic dealings since the Cold War, we have The new law makes this intent clear by mandatgotten used to Russia’s grudging compliance, at best, ing warning labels on news articles pertaining to LGBT and gleeful defiance, at worst. Most of us do not pay issues, which must read, “this material is not suitable much attention to its domestic affairs, besides shaking for readers younger than 18.” By treating mere discusour heads every time Vladimir Putin fudges an election sion of “nontraditional sexual relations” like smut, the victory or takes another absurd photo. For that reason, Russian government has made it perfectly clear that it our collective shock and indignation about his new an- fully intends to drive LGBT activism and advocacy untigay law stands out; witness the movement to boycott derground. the 2014 Winter Olympics in the Russian resort town of Authorities have cited the new law in recent efSochi. forts to crack down on pro-LGBT demonstrations. Such

The new law starkly contrasts with develop- behavior is just the latest manifestation of a broader ments in the United States, where attitudes towards trend. In the past decade, municipal authorities across sexual minorities have liberalized tremendously and Russia have prevented or shut down dozens of major restrictions on marriage equality are rapidly crumbling. pride parades (Moscow recently placed a 100 year ban Perhaps because of that contrast, Russia’s homophobic on them), and, in cases where they have allowed them turn appears particularly arbitrary and sudden. But this to go forward, permitted hostile bystanders to physicallaw did not come out of the blue. Rather, it is the direct ly assault the demonstrators. These and other forms of consequence of a broader trend in Russian society that public demonstration frequently result in LGBT activPutin’s regime has vigorously exploited for political ists being rounded up by police on trumped up charges. gain.

But why is homophobia so strong “By treating mere

This new national law rode in Russia to begin with? Furthera wave of homophobia in Russia’s discussion of more, why has Vladimir Putin’s regional legislatures. Since 2006, regime suddenly embraced it as na‘nontraditional sexual twelve regional governments tional policy? across Russia have instituted laws relations’ like smut, the Addressing the first question, banning “gay propaganda,” under homophobia was par for the course threat of fines of up to $1,500 for Russian government in both Czarist and Communist individuals and $15,000 for orga- has made it perfectly Russia. The Christian morality that nizations. Although none of these justified it in the former lived on as laws criminalizes homosexuality clear that it fully unquestioned convention in the latper se, they all penalize its de- intends to drive LGBT ter. But the militant homophobia of fenders. Ostensibly, the new fedrecent years represents a significant activism and advocacy eral law forbids the distribution departure. Its roots lie in the ashes of “propaganda on nontraditional underground.” of the USSR. The great collapse of sexual relations” to minors. Such 1991 robbed Russians of the ideol“propaganda” includes any materials that aim to create ogy that governed their entire world. Capitalism and “nontraditional sexual attitudes,” or enhance the appeal democracy acquitted themselves terribly during Rusof “nontraditional sexual relations.” sia’s chaotic 90’s, when oligarchs plundered the na Obviously, such vague wording opens the law tion’s wealth and the people were disenfranchised by up to broad interpretation. Its sweeping definition of corruption. Stranded in an ideological no-man’s land, propaganda encompasses all activism on behalf of sex- many Russians turned to the past. ual minorities, whether for equal rights or mere social Whereas Lenin once hoped to unite the world acceptance. Just as troubling is the focus on “minors.” under the banner of Communism and throw off the Would-be censors have long thrived off of such rheto- shackles of history, now his countrymen embrace anric; they can easily argue that protecting children means cient ethnic pride and religion. In the past two decades, purging the public sphere of offending material. Thus nationalist politicians have sought to portray themselves they drive their target underground, reinforcing its as defenders of Slavs, the dominant ethnic group, and 21

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

the Russian Orthodox Church, the main Christian sect.

Russia’s slowed growth refocused public atThey, and their legions of supporters, conceive of Rus- tention on underlying structural problems, a common sia as a Slavic and Orthodox nation, despite the fact that side-effect of economic issues. Government corruption, Russia is one of the most diverse nations on earth (as deteriorating social services, and abysmal infrastrucone might expect of a nation stretching from Finland ture all contributed to the boiling over of discontent that to China). In their eyes, it is increasingly under attack culminated in a fleeting but serious protest movement from a flood of ethnic minorities from Russia’s Mus- in 2012. Although the protesters failed to overturn the lim regions and ex-Soviet nations, Western interference suspicious election results that returned Putin to the in Russia’s sphere of influence and its internal politics, Presidency, they did shake him out of his complacenand treasonous, pro-Western dissenters at home. It is cy. His new strategy is to rally the conservative majorthis mood that spawned Russia’s new homophobia and ity around his leadership, while crushing the weak and the politicians who have whipped it into frenzy. divided political opposition movements. Accordingly,

To understand this toxic dynamic, one need he has rebranded himself as the resolute defender of a only look to the role of the Russian Orthodox Church. nation under siege by traitors, foreign spies, and moral Since emerging from seven decades of Communist re- corruption. pression, the Church has lurched to the heart of pub- In the name of national security and public morlic life. It aggressively denounces als, his government has launched a homosexuality, public blasphemy, “The feminist punk sweeping crackdown on free exinappropriate dress and other new- band Pussy Riot knew pression. Street protesters face steep fangled behaviors. new fines if they incite any “disor While a significant majority exactly what it was der,” especially if they march withof Russian citizens call themselves doing when it chose to out a permit. Media outlets can be adherents, this has little to do with fined up to $153,000 just for quoting protest Putin’s regime piety. A recent opinion poll found libelous remarks. Treason has been only 16% said their Orthodox faith by interrupting Mass redefined from a series of specific was primarily about communion offenses, to any action that threatens in Moscow’s flagship with God. Rather, respondents over“constitutional order, sovereignty, whelmingly supported it for the in- church.” and territorial and state integrity.” tegral role it plays in their heritage Non-governmental organizations and identity. that receive any foreign funding must now register as

This explains the marriage of religion and na- “foreign agents”; this includes the international election tionalism. The feminist punk band Pussy Riot knew monitoring agencies that play a vital role in disputing exactly what it was doing when it chose to protest Pu- Russia’s ubiquitous electoral irregularities. Meanwhile, tin’s regime by interrupting Mass in Moscow’s flagship the government is flirting with the idea of rerouting church. The state condemned them to two years hard all Russian Internet traffic to a “whitelist” of governlabor for their audacity. LGBT Russians face the same ment-approved websites. unholy alliance. By defining themselves in opposition Viewed against this backdrop of oppression, to the moral dictates of the Church, they fly in the face the stifling of the LGBT-rights movement is hardly surof Russia’s desperate new nationalism. prising. Protests and pride parades publicly challenge

So why has Putin decided to embrace this na- the State’s crusade against dissent and free expression, tionalism, and the homophobia that comes with it? the Church’s conservative morality, and the predomSimply put, the President can no longer stake his legit- inant nationalist ideology that embraces both. With imacy on economic prosperity, and needs a new way Putin calling homosexuality the best “indication of a to marshal public support. During his first two terms moral crisis in human society,” and the Patriarch of the as president and one term stint as Prime Minister, the Church calling it a “very dangerous apocalyptic sympeconomy rode high on the back of a booming oil and tom,” Russia seems destined to defy, for the foreseeable gas industry. Yet amidst the global financial turmoil of future, both Western liberalism and the very tide of histhe past several years, growth has stagnated. tory.

22

NOVEMBER 2013

Family First: Marriage Equality In China by Hongbei Li

The Chinese government’s attitude towards gay marriage can be easily summarized in three phrases: no support, no objection, and no encouragement. In 1997, China officially removed sodomy from criminal law. In 2001, although homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disorder by law, society continued to view it as an abnormal relationship. Unfortunately, 2001 also marked the last year that the Chinese government made any liberalizing reform on the issue. Despite greater accessibility to information about homosexuality and larger acceptance from the younger generation, gay marriage in China is still far from legally recognized and is unlikely to be in the near future.

Unlike in the United States and Russia, opposition to gay marriage in China stems from the country’s institutional structures that interact with traditional social values. The implementation of the One Child Policy, the lack of welfare, and the general immobility of non-government organizations (NGOs) all contribute to the lack of progress in legalizing gay marriage.

“There are three gravest acts of disloyalty to one’s family, and out of these three, having no off-spring is the cruelest offense.” This traditional Chinese saying explains well why homosexuality causes so much social anxiety in China, especially among the older generation.

Adoption is illegal between gay couples in China, which creates further obstacles to gay couples trying to start a family. As a historically patriarchal culture, the Chinese feel strongly about the integrity of the family. Passing down the bloodline through offspring plays a critical role in this structure. The older generation perceives traditional marriages to be the only path to achieve the desired family structure, which leads to family pressure for homosexual children to enter into heterosexual marriages.

The word “Tongqi” has emerged to describe women who unknowingly marry gay men. Women in this situation lack the legal, economic and social power to get out of these marriages. Additionally, these women are tied to the marriage in order to maintain the image of a “complete” family. A Tongqi named Yao Li started a site called tongqijiayuan.com. When she found out about her husband’s actual sexual orientation, she created the website hoping to help those in similar situations.

Social welfare and lack of universal healthcare exacerbate the pressure to enter heterosexual marriages. With ever-increasing real estate and living costs, it has become practically impossible for retired middle and lower class parents to live comfortably on their own without their childrens’ support. The proverb “Yang Er Fang Lao”––having a son is similar to having insurance at old age––very precisely describes the parent-child relationship in China. Although exaggerated, the saying is especially true in rural areas of China, where there is an enormous shortage of doctors and nurses. Under such pretext, having no children is actually a luxury that only the rich can afford, as they are the only ones who can pay for healthcare when all else fails.

After twenty years of implementing the OneChild Policy, China faces an imminent demographic crisis in which the younger generation cannot replace the retired population. In July 2013, the Chinese government passed a law that requires “children to visit their parents often” as a way to strengthen the weakening family ties and to alleviate the pressure of welfare shortage. Because of this, the Chinese government is even less likely to take a stance on gay marriage as it deviates from the traditional family units that they will need to rely on heavily in the coming decades.

Non-profit organizations have played a major role in the changing public opinion on gay rights in the West. NGO’s face strict restrictions in China, however.

The registration procedure is extremely complicated, and only when an NGO gets a government department to supervise its operation is it eligible to submit an application of registration to the civil affairs office, which means it will face close scrutiny from the government. The complex procedure leaves many grassroots NGOs unregistered, which means they cannot raise funds, enjoy tax preferential policies, and they face potential legal risks.

Many Chinese NGOs are also short of various kinds of resources, from funds to volunteers, from public support to professional assistance from outside the organization.

These barriers make it difficult for NGO’s to play the same role in shaping public opinion that they do in the West.

Ultimately, Chinese culture emphasizes minding one’s own business. This means that social discrimination against gay men and women exists largely within families and not on a public scale. When it comes to legislation, however, the economic, political, and social realities remain significant obstructions to liberalization of gay marriage policy.

23

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

A Not So Golden Dawn

by Chase Savage

On September 17, Pavlos Fyssas, a leftwing, anti-Fascist Greek rapper, was murdered in the streets of Athens. Stabbed to death twice in the heart and chest, Mr. Fyssas’ murder occurred in an open area as he was mobbed by a group of 30. Further investigation by the Greek police found that the man responsible for the pre-meditated murder was a 45-year-old male member of the Golden Dawn Party, a neo-Fascist and far right political party in Greece.

Fyssas’ murder is not Golden Dawn’s first act of violence. Numerous reports have revealed its responsibility for hate crimes against immigrants, identified LGBTIQA, and any Greeks who do not follow their ideology. Through coercive and violent tactics to gain support, Golden Dawn is a polarizing and dangerous force in Greek politics. While holding only 18 of the 300 seats in Greece’s Parliament, the movement has gained significant popular support. Capitalizing on the crippling effects of the Greek financial crisis, Golden Dawn has wisely used community outreach programs, such as organizing “Greek only” free food handouts during the height of the financial crisis, to gain popular approval. In a time where the government struggles to hold legitimacy due to rising unemployment and continued austerity measures, Golden Dawn acts as a perfect conduit for Greeks to reclaim their “Greek-self.”

Golden Dawn is not a movement one would expect to thrive in Greek politics today. It runs count24

er to the more featured leftist movements, calling on Greece to return to its previous “socialist” policies. The significance of both the struggling Greek economy and the effects of the austerity measures placed on Greece by the European Union cannot be downplayed. Golden Dawn has seized the economic downturn in economic affairs as its entry point, stepping into the power vacuum created by negative reactions to austerity measures.

They have successfully entered schools, marketplaces, and other public spaces, convincing the emerging youth that they must reclaim Greece for Greeks and resist the European Union’s demands for austerity. They have capitalized on fear– fear that Greece is losing its independence to the EU, fear of adopting new and more restrictive austerity measures, and the fear of losing all economic aid.

Golden Dawn nationalist rhetoric has increasingly found listening ears as the financial crisis has worsened. They have become a symbol for the Greek people to turn to as their government seems to fail to act in their best interests. Even the Greek police have been found to be colluding with Golden Dawn, including senior members like the heads of special forces and internal security. There are ongoing investigations into why members of Golden Dawn were not arrested for the killing of Mr. Fyssas, and how much complicity the police and Golden Dawn actually have remains to be seen. Golden Dawn is no fringe movement. They carry

NOVEMBER 2013

serious authority in Greek politics and have the ability to sway opinion.

Since Fyass’ murder, the Greek government seems to have lost tolerance for Golden Dawn. Parliament has finally cut state funding to the party and is still toying with the idea of banning them outright. In addition, the leader of the movement, Nikos Michaloliakos, along with four other senior members and 19 cadres of Golden Dawn, were arrested for their implicit involvement in not only Fyssas’ murder, but also for attacks in early September which left nine people hospitalized.

Members who serve in Greek Parliament were also arrested and their political immunity was lifted. For the first time, Golden Dawn has to deal with overt opposition to its polarizing agenda.

What makes the political climate so dangerous is the large uncertainly in the future. Certainly these leaders will be found guilty and serve prison sentences. But Golden Dawn itself will not disappear. It will still have strong influence at the regional level. It will still capitalize on Greece’s economic struggles. In fact, many of the ultra-nationalist policies of Golden Dawn, such as a resistance to multi-culturalism and immigration, were views already held by a majority of the Greek population as reported by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in April 2003. If anything, the arrests of these leaders may galvanize supporters of the party.

Pushing the Golden Dawn underground by eradicating its party status might only fan the flames of extremism. There are also few political alternatives for Greeks, with leftist groups generally perceived as being associated with anarchist movements. Additionally, the legitimacy of such a ruling would be uncertain because the current government is viewed as corrupt for its willingness to follow orders from the EU.

History has seen this picture before. It has seen a nationalist group rise during a period of economic crisis. It has seen a country rally against perceived tyranny by international governments. It has seen a country turn violent and oppressive against those that do not fit its nationalist image, even if they are natural-born citizens.

Greece is not Nazi Germany, but the same forces that crystalized into Fascism are increasingly shaping it.

Greek Parliament must find a way to stem this ultra-nationalist tide. To allow Golden Dawn to control popular psyche will bring about the fall of the very democratic principles that Greece brought to the world.

The World’s Most Forgotten People by Aaron Ng

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar (also known as Burma) is a moderately sized nation in Southeast Asia bordering China, India, Thailand, and Laos.

Formerly a colony administered under the British Raj, Burma was, after a brief stint of independence under democratic leadership, taken over in a military coup in 1962. Under this military junta, Burma became one of the poorest and most corrupt nations in the world, despite its wealth in arable land and natural resources.

The dissolution of the junta in 2011 and the ensuing political reforms have opened up the country after almost half a century of isolation and oppression. Consequently, foreign investment has flowed in and many have rejoiced in both the economic upswing and their newfound freedom of expression. Burma, still facing abject poverty, appears to be on the road to reclaiming its title as ‘The Breadbasket of Asia’ that it held in ages past. But this encouraging vision of Burma’s future is far from the reality experienced by one oppressed minority group.

Among the many ethnic groups in Burma are the Rohingya, a Muslim minority making up 800,000 of Burma’s 60 million people. Experts trace the history of the group to Muslim settlements that have existed in 25

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

the Rhakine state of Burma since at least the fifteenth century. Despite this long history, much of which was spent in relatively peaceful coexistence with the population at large, in recent times a festering resentment toward the Rohingya has become manifest in Burma’s primarily Buddhist majority. As Burma’s political and economic situation has improved, the plight of the Rohingya has actually worsened due to a state-backed policy of intolerance.

The Rohingya have for decades suffered systematic discrimination in a country that views them as undesirable aliens. Even under today’s nominally democratic government, the Rohingya continue to be marginalized; they are not included on the list of over 130 ethnic groups recognized by the Republic of Myanmar and, as such, are denied citizenship. The official stance for the past few decades has been that the label and identity of ‘Rohingya’ was a myth created in the 1950s to legitimize illegal Bengali immigrants; government documents continue to refer to the group as Bengali.

For this and related reasons, the Rohingya are known by some as the world’s most persecuted people, virtually isolated in a country that continues to deny them basic rights.

Political reforms in recent years have loosened government control of the people. The military, for the most part, has halted its policies of violently oppressing free speech. Unfortunately, this new freedom has also allowed long-held prejudices against the Rohingya to be openly expressed. The 969, a hypernationalist movement led by a Buddhist monk named Ashin Wirathu has become a nationwide phenomenon, encouraging boycotts against Muslim establishments and other anti-Muslim measures. It has done so by tapping into long-held fears that Burma would fall under Muslim sway along the lines of Indonesia and other neighboring nations. Frequently described as “neo-Nazi” in its rhetoric, 969 propaganda has painted the Rohingya as “parasites” eroding Burma’s Buddhist identity. The government has at times openly encouraged this viewpoint, presumably to unite the nation against a powerless minority. However, with diplomatic ties with Western nations strengthening, it has in recent years been more reserved in its scapegoating attempts. Even so, the government has continued to treat the Rohingya with indifference bordering on contempt in the face of persecution.

Buddhism has long established itself as a peace26

ful religion, but the hate-filled sermons of Wirathu and other similarly inclined Buddhist monks have corrupted its message and inspired brutal violence. In June 2012, ethnic and religious tensions came to a head with the outbreak of riots in the Rhakine state that soon spread all over Burma. Buddhist lynch mobs, many led by monks, roamed the streets with machetes and bamboo staves, torching Rohingya-owned businesses and residences.

The rioters are further empowered by the fact that government forces have thus far been impotent, maybe even unwilling to suppress the violence. The government’s desire to do so is certainly dubious: several high-ranking officials have publically supported the 969’s message. Speculation aside, sporadic resurgences in anti-Muslim violence have continued to this day, over a year since their onset. Altogether, over 200 Rohingya have been killed, and more than 150,000 have been displaced. Without citizenship, they have little hope for justice or even protection.

Stateless and alone, the Rohingya have few friends even outside of Burma. Nearby countries are unwilling to accept refugees. Over 100 Rohingya fleeing by boat to Australia were deported back to Burma in September. Desperate to escape, many have been forced to pay human smugglers to transport them into Malaysia and Thailand.

With the rest of the world largely indifferent to their plight, it is clear that the only hope for the Rohingya lies in internal reform. Several of Burma’s opposition politicians have called for the amendment of the constitution. “The ethnic problem will not be solved by this present constitution, which does not meet the aspirations of the ethnic nationalities,” stated Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Laureate and member of Parliament. But her voice, as influential as it is, is hardly enough to truly bring about the change the Rohingya need.

At present, the government indirectly encourages further abuse of the minority by refusing to recognize the Rohingya as citizens. To pacify the rioters, the military-dominated legislature must first agree to amend the constitution they drafted to grant the Rohingya citizenship and protection under the law – unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future. A total resolution of the ethnic conflict, however, is perhaps unattainable; passing a law pales in difficulty to eliminating decades of prejudice.

NOVEMBER 2013

Boring and Proud

by Drew Van Kuiken

Visiting Berlin speaks volumes about Germany’s experience with the 20th century. The hauntingly beautiful Holocaust Memorial, a sea of different sized concrete blocks arranged in a grid pattern, occupies an entire block in central Berlin. No more than 2 blocks away, the Brandenburg Gate, center of the original Berlin wall, towers over the entire city, a keen reminder of the harsh division imposed by the Cold War. Remaining pieces of the wall are scattered throughout the city, tokens from a much darker time.

These modern tourist attractions show a city in flux, deeply embarrassed by its difficult past but coming to terms with a new self-definition. The city brims with a youthful excitement and vibrant art scene, while solemnly bearing the responsibility of some of the great atrocities of the 20th century.

So it makes perfect sense that Chancellor Angela Merkel embodies none of these traits. Merkel, who was recently reelected to her third term in the Chancellorship with her party gaining an unprecedented 41.5% of the vote, instead displays an incredible lack of excitement in almost everything she does. In fact, upon learning of her massive victory, Ms. Merkel told supporters that she would “treat this result with great care.”

She also called the vote a “super result.”

Are you cheering yet?

Merkel’s phlegmatic words are a small part of her monochromatic persona. The Chancellor leads a quiet life at home, with a quantum chemist husband who prides himself on staying out of the limelight. Her record is scandal free, with the exception of one time that she wore the same dress to the annual Bayreuth festival that she had worn several years before. Anthony Weiner she is not.

Even the substantive side of Ms. Merkel fails to excite. Addressing Humboldt University in 2009 about her vision for Europe’s future, Ms. Merkel told them that she was “going to have disappoint [them]” because she believes that “long-term goals can make the immediate steps more difficult.” True to form, she has proved herself a largely reactive leader, adept at dealing with the Euro-crisis but remarkably devoid of any long term planning. She often sets the guidelines to solve any problem, but remains open to any solutions. She believes in Margaret Thatcher’s famous dictum of “this lady’s not for the turning,” but she remains pragmatic in every sense of the word. In fact, after speaking out against intervention by the European Central Bank, Ms. Merkel later supported measures designed to help keep weaker European economies afloat.

In her piecemeal and sometimes contradictory approach, Ms. Merkel cannot be viewed as anything 27

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

other than successful. She has been and will continue to be the leader of Europe. In an increasingly frustrating Europe (re: Greece and any other assortment of failing economies), Merkel keeps her cool and calmly guides the way. And the Germans love her for it.

The reason for her success may not be as clear though. Her unorthodox style and unoffensive vision cement her status as an incredibly boring person, but confuse her successful reputation. Society tends to view the dynamic movers and shakers as the true leaders of a generation, but Ms. Merkel couldn’t be more different.

Her success, instead, comes from her direct repudiation of traditional leadership.

Merkel’s moderate conservative party provides exactly what Germans want and Europe needs: a facilitator. Merkel leads from behind and lets the technocrats act in front. For example, instead of thumping the drum of war when Greece fell to pieces, Merkel calmly sent European Union bureaucrats to institute commonplace reform. She creates few enemies and produces the sensible results. In every way, she embodies the opposite of 20th century Germany and its more notable leaders.

But she doesn’t dwell on Germany’s past or jump out of her seat when discussing Germany’s future either, as many current Germans might. Yet that may be exactly what they want. Scarred by their past with charismatic and visionary leaders, Germans trust Ms. Merkel. Two thirds of them say they’re happy with her handling of the Euro crisis and people feel comfortable in her message of “no experiments.” She ensures safety of the state, exactly what they have been looking for.

And on top of that, Ms. Merkel has produced results. Apart from the Golden Dawn party in Greece, populist parties struggle to gain momentum even in desperate countries. The wealth of data would suggest that right-wing extremism appears strongest in areas of economic depression, but Ms. Merkel’s policies have almost completely avoided that. She has imposed tough austerity measures, but never looked to expand German influence. While Europe clearly needs work to emerge from the recession still, Ms. Merkel promises a responsible way to do so.

So although Ms. Merkel may look uninspiring from afar, her decisive reelection confirms she’s just the woman for the job of fixing a very broken Europe.

While history may never pass down epics of Angela Merkel’s leadership, her record proves that success doesn’t always require great dynamism.

28

The Legal Battle Over GMOs by Madeline Cole

Walking into a grocery store, a consumer can learn just about any nutritional fact her heart desires– from percent daily iron levels to relative content of monocalcium phosphate–with the flip of a package.

And yet, it is nearly impossible to discern exactly which foods contain genetically modified components. The Institute for Responsible Technology defines genetic modification as “a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal.”

The resulting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are becoming increasingly prevalent–in fact, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, 70-80 percent of conventional processed foods in the United States contain genetically modified components. To the dismay of a growing number of consumers, they are becoming increasingly infused (and hidden) in everyday food products. Aside from a tiny portion of brands whose labels boast “GMO-Free!” American consumers have no definite way of avoiding these products, if they desire to do so.

And many American consumers do. In fact, a significant majority of Americans repeatedly poll in favor of GMO-labeling regulations. In Washington, the GMO labeling debate is heating up with a new proposition on the general elections ballot, taking place November 5. The initiative, dubbed I-522, calls for any food that is genetically modified or contains genetically modified products to be clearly labeled as such.

Although this may seem to be a minor demand, I-522 and other bills like it face serious opposition from the largest GMO producers–biotech giants like Monsanto and DuPont. These companies engineer products that can withstand high levels of pesticides. Conveniently enough, they also happen to produce and sell these pesticides. In fact, the complete absence of labeling laws and regulations in the U.S. today is a direct result of these companies’ counter-attacks.

Last year, a California bill known as Proposition 37, which essentially proposed the same regulations as Washington’s I-522, was voted down in a narrow margin that didn’t reflect the disparity in financial backing between the bill’s proponents and opponents.

NOVEMBER 2013

According to Nathanael Johnson of grist.org, an environmental news website, supporters of this bill were financially outmatched by opponents who outspent them five to one with $42 million in the six weeks before the vote. Ultimately, GMO supporters only managed to shoot down the bill by 3 percent.

Monsanto claims that labeling initiatives are superfluous due to a lack of condemning results and inconclusive findings regarding the safety of GMO products. Its website insists that “mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.”

Biotech companies also cite the cost of labeling as a reason for their opposition to these initiatives. In combatting Proposition 37 in California, the spokeswoman for the Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, Kathy Fairbanks, asserts that mandatory GMO labeling would “force California families to pay hundreds of dollars more in higher food prices, would cost millions in government bureaucracy, and would not provide any health and safety benefits.” Yet manufacturers are constantly obligated to update and alter their packaging, which the president and founder of Nature’s Path refers to as a “regular cost of doing business, a small one at that, …already built into our cost structure.” If cost were the real issue, Monsanto and other biogiants could simply put the millions they spend on

anti-label campaigns toward the allegedly prohibitive costs of labeling.

Meanwhile, the scientific community does not support biotech companies’ claims that their products are not at all harmful or unsafe. At the very least, the debate remains open, and according to Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman of California’s Right to Know organization, “Many scientists are saying that in the face of scientific uncertainty, labeling is an important tool to help track potential health risks.” Indeed, without proper labeling of GMOs, there is no way to measure what effects these products are having on human health, as they are being consumed in unprecedented varieties and quantities.

Given the controversy surrounding newly produced biotech foods, the vote in Washington this October will demonstrate once again whether the American public, which has polled time and again in favor of labeling GMO products, will be able to actualize that demand in law. Will Monsanto and other biotech giants have the same sway in Washington with huge donations to anti-labeling campaigns, or will voters be able to withstand the influence of these donations in an unprecedented way? There is no denying that Washington’s vote on I-522 will make an impactful statement regarding America’s opinion on genetically modified foods. This vote will show whether or not America is ready to step up to the plate to keep modified mystery foods off of it.

29

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

Lessons from Cuban Healthcare by Adam Hunt

It may be strange to think that Cuba takes better care of its citizens than the United States, but in a certain sense this is true. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate and the same life expectancy rate. Its various cancer survival rates are on par with ours and even surpass American rates for breast cancer survival. What’s more, Cuba does it on budget, spending 23 times less on healthcare for the average citizen. What makes their system so much more efficient is its focus, dissimilar to that of the US in many ways, on preventive care and inclusivity.

Healthcare in Cuba is universal, and because it is run by the government as opposed to private companies, costs are significantly less for the average citizen.

Doctors aren’t paid as much and insurance companies don’t turn exorbitant profits. Most significantly though, in terms of saving money and lives, illness is caught and prevented early. Keeping individual costs low encourages Cubans to see a healthcare provider about small concerns or a budding problem, whereas in the US, one might avoid seeing a doctor to save money and go in only with an emergency. The benefits of frequent visits to the doctor are an increased chance of preventing catastrophic illness, saving money for both the system and the individual and potentially saving a life.

Cuba’s emphasis on prevention and inclusivity is not just policy rhetoric–it’s a cultural orientation that is deeply embedded in its institutional practices. While in medical school, Cubans focus mainly on primary and preventive care. After graduation, every student moves 30

to a rural area and assumes the role of town doctor, applying these two principles of medicine. They complete two years of rural care, after which they have a bit more flexibility in their practice. 35 percent move into a specialty, but the remaining 65 percent stay in communal-preventive care after realizing how critical it is. Contrastingly, in the US, medical students specialize before graduation and only 8 precent go into family care, the field that encompasses primary and preventive care.

In Cuba, after the rural care program, every doctor is responsible for a group of people who live within a certain boundary, usually a few square blocks, and develops close relationships with them. Appointments are regular, and doctors will often go to a person’s house to check in if somebody misses one. People often bring gifts of crafts or food in exchange for services. At the core of these practices is the idea that doctors are caregivers, not bureaucrats.

Cuba has done a lot with a little, but its overall lack of recourses prevent it from solving many of the problems that still plague its healthcare system. The country does not have the resources to be on the cutting edge of medicine, and as a result its intensive care statistics lag behind. Unlike Cuba, the United States has a lot more resources–they’re just distributed poorly. If we were to allocate our national recourses more effectively, we could not only increase efficiency in the ways Cuba has but also progress in countless ways.

NOVEMBER 2013

Follow us on twitter: @bowdoinglobal Email us with comments, concerns, and questions at: thebowdoinglobalist@gmail.com

Photography Credits Page 5: Photo Courtesy of Charles Roffey, Page 6: Photo Courtesy of Andy Stoll, Page 8: Photo Courtesy of flikr user IamNotUnique, Page 10: Photo Courtesy of Nikki Loehr, Page 16: Photo Courtesy of flikr user Squiggle, Page 18: Photo Courtesy of Mike Lewinski, Page 20: Photo Courtesy of Madhu babu pandi, Page 24: Photo Courtesy of flickr user The Godless Socialist, Page 25: Photo Courtesy of Jameson Wu, Page 27: Photo Courtesy of World Economic Forum, Page 29: Photo Courtesy of CT Senate Democrats, Page 30: Photo Courtesty of Bruno SanchezAndrade Nu単o, Page 31: Photo Courtesty of Jason Tabarias

31

THE BOWDOIN GLOBALIST

32