CPR Winter 2021 (XX,4)

WINTER 2021 VOLUME XX NO. 4

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

INSIDE: A Gratuitous defense: Qualified Immunity and the Path to its Abolition [PG. 14] LIBERATION THROUGH IMPERIALISM: How the U.S. Weaponizes Women’s Rights for Military Intervention [Pg. 25] LEBANON'S ECONOMIC DEATH SPIRAL IS A LESSON IN FAILED PEACEBUILDING [Pg. 36]

1

MASTHEAD EDITORIAL BOARD STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Olivia Choi PUBLISHER Rachel Barkin MANAGING EDITORS Heather Loepere Sarah Howard Daniel Kang Serena White Leena Yumeen CHIEF-OF-STAFF Chloe Lowell pITCH MANAGER Caroline Mullooly POLICY 360 EDITOR Ashley Tan DESIGN EDITOR Blake Jones PUBLICITY EDITOR Eleanor Yeo DIRECTOR OF OUTREACH Adam Kluge

DESIGN TEAM LAYOUT EDITORS Anand Chitnis Christina Su Eli Knodell Elizabeth Cristina Olcese Gelila Negesse Helena Busansky Khahn Doan Mimi Broches Olivia Mitchell TECH EDITOR Skylar Wu

2

SENIOR EDITORS Adam Szczepankowski | Aili Hou | Aishlinn Kivlighn | Annabel Kelly | Benjamin Waltman | Brian Perlstein | Cameron Adkins | Carmen Vintro | Charles Wallace | Deepa Irakam | Denver Blevins | Ellie Gaughan | Emmanuelle Hannibal | Eriife Adelusimo | Geena Garcia | Jaime Gomez-Sotomayor Roel | James Hu | Jasmin Butler | John David Cobb| Julia Shimizu | Kaitlyn Saldanha | Katerina Kaganovich | Kiran Dzur | Nicolas Lama |Oliver Niu | Olivia Hussey |Rachel Krul | Raya Tarawneh | Renuka Balakrishnan | Robert Gao | Rohil Sabherwal |Roopa Irakam | Roshan Setlur | Ryan Safiry | Samuel Braun | Sarah Wang | Shruti Verma | Tatiana Gnuva | Tim Vanable | Virginia Lo | Zachary Becker JUNIOR EDITORS Abby Sim | Adam Rowan | Adi Mayer | Aileen Hernandez | Alykhan Pirani | Amalia Garcia | Andrew Weaver | Anna Bartoux | Arman Husein | Avanti Tulpule | Benjamin Eyal | Colby Malcolm | Collin Woldt | Gabby Echevarria | Ghislaine | Van Ert | Haley Long | Isabel Randall | Jason Trinh | Jenna Yuan | Jocelyn Fahlen | Makennan McBryde | Mark Torres | Natalie Goldberg | Noa Fay | Nomi Weinberger | Olivia Deming | Olivia Mitchell | Olympia Francis Taylor | Paul Lagrange | Paul Torres | Priya Sagar | Raj Koshal | Reece Brown | Ronald Wu | Rosie Pipada | Tomas Dias Piva Imparato | William Shammah STAFF WRITERS Aishwarya Thiyagarajan | Alan Chen |Alannis Jáquez | Alexia Perez | Alexia Vayeos | Alyssa Sales | Amaya Flores | Amelie de Leon | Ana Victoria Serna | Andrew Thomas | Anna Qiang | Ariana Eftimiu | Aryan Ranjan | Ava Young-Stoner | Avery Lambert | Betel Tadesse | Caidan Speth-McCrary | Caitlin Hamilton | Caroline Mendoza | Carsten Barnes | Catherine Li | Claire Burke | Claire Schnatterbeck | Claire Schweitzer | Daniel Kim | David Contreras | David Eckl | Elijah Horn | Elina Arbo | Evelyn Yu | Evelyne Williams | Gabriella Frants | Ghazwa Motamed Khalatbari | Giselle Williams | Hannah Walsh | Harrison Gerson | Henry Petrillo | Ian Springer | Inwoo Kim | Isaac Stiepleman | Isaiah Colmenero | Jae Grace | Jenna Yuan | Jeremy Zhang | Jesse Levine | Juan Solbes | Kayla Leong | Khanh Doan | Lara Geiger | Lara Yener | Lauren Winkleblack | Layne Donovan | Lochlan | Liyuan Zhang | Lucie Pasquier | Luiza Diniz Vilanova | Luke Seminara | Luke Xue | Mariana Reyes Ledezma | Marla Rinck | Martina Daniel | Matthew Gamero | Max Edelstein | Max Hermosillo | Maxwell Bauer | Maxwell | Lurken-Tvrdik | Maya Platek | Melissa Yu | Micah Weese | Michael Hilmer | Michelle Brucker | Nathalia Tavares | Neely McKee | Panu Hejmadi | Pranavi Khaitan | Raquel Conard | Rosie Pipada | Samuel Shih | Saniya Gaitonde | Sarah Doyle | Sebastian Preising | Sofía Prado Arenzana | Sönke Pietsch | Sophia Lander | Tala Semaan | Tamar Vidra | TK Saccoh | Tomas Taaffe | Trey Sprouse | Tyrese Thomas | Wendy Wang | Yaniv Goren | Yasmine Dahlberg | Yvin Shin | Zachary Masone | Zadig Perrot

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this magazine belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Columbia Political Review, of CIRCA, or of Columbia University. Cover photo credit: José Alejandro Carrillo Neira.

EDITOR’S NOTE

T

his is the Columbia Political Review’s final issue of 2021 and the end of my tenure as Editor-in-Chief. The closing of this year additionally commemorates CPR’s 20th anniversary. It is no small feat that we can celebrate this publication’s work in the classrooms where it began, when so much of the past few years have been spent spanning a digital divide. I am grateful that we are able to conclude the year on Columbia’s campus.

Few words can encapsulate assuming leadership of a publication remotely, in the middle of a global pandemic. Despite the unprecedented challenges of this year, I could not be prouder of all that we as a collective have achieved. Over the course of the past year, we have expanded our reach, diversified our content, and introduced new initiatives, all while navigating a remote-toin-person transition.

I am indebted to the exceptional team which made this year possible. It is difficult to imagine where CPR would be without our Publisher, Rachel Barkin, who co-steered this ship with me and took it to new places. The remaining members of our Editorial Board—Chloe Lowell, Caroline Mullooly, Ashley Tan, Serena White, Sarah Howard, Leena Yumeen, Daniel Kang, Heather Loepere, Adam Kluge, Eleanor Yeo, and Blake Jones—have been indispensable members in our shared vision. There is no doubt in my mind that CPR’s new Editor-in-Chief, Serena White, and its incoming Publisher, Chloe Lowell, will accomplish greater things yet.

Gabriella Frants advocates for the abolition of qualified immunity, and Layne Donovan delves into Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s work to pass bipartisan infrastructure legislation through a narrowly divided Congress.

This issue’s edition of Policy 360 features writing by Jeremy Zhang, Henry Petrillo, Juan Solbes, and Ariana Eftimiu, in a nuanced deconstruction of geopolitics in the Arctic. Giselle Williams provides a critique of the U.S.’s weaponization of women’s rights as a pretext for imperialist intervention in Afghanistan. Lara Geiger analyzes the controversial AUKUS submarine deal, Sofia Prado Arenzana explores the rise in populism in Spain, and Tomas Taffe pushes against the posthumous glorification of Bushera war hawks. Kaitlyn Saldanha provides analysis on failed peacebuilding efforts in Lebanon.

The articles featured in this issue reflect just a portion of the vast diversity of sociopolitical conflicts, both domestic and international, historical and present, which our writers have tackled this year.

When my predecessors founded this publication two decades ago, they could not have anticipated today's political developments. Nonetheless, 2001 was a very different political moment.

Columbia students were then grappling with a whole host of difficulties, both domestic and abroad, which would have felt no less unprecedented than our own.

Political writing captures a small slice of the Special recognition must be given to our issues and sentiments of its time. It is my hope writers, the bedrock of this publication. In this that our words, and those of the many who will issue, Avery Lambert assesses political prospects follow, may play a part in that mission. for Beto O’Rourke, Isaac Stiepleman unpacks mask mandates in Missouri schools, and Maxwell Lurken-Tvrdik looks back in time to organization efforts of the American Indian Movement.

— OLIVIA CHOI, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

CIRCA

Columbia International Relations Council and Association

The Columbia Political Review publishes both print and online content. Writers may contribute as staff writers or by submitting a freelance pitch. To find more information, visit cpreview.org.

3

CONTENT DOMESTIC POLITICS

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

5

BETO O'ROURKE: TEXAS DEMOCRATS' BEST HOPE Avery Lambert BC '25

HOW THE U.S. WEAPONIZES WOMEN’S RIGHTS FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION Giselle Williams CC '25

25

7

SENATOR SCHUMER'S BALANCING ACT Layne Donovan BC '23

28

9

REVISITING THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT Maxwell Lurken-Tvrdik CC '25

THE AUKUS SUBMARINE DEAL AND NON-PROLIFERATION Lara Geiger BC '25 THE BOY WHO CRIED POPULISM Sofia Prado Arenzana GS '25

31

14

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND THE PATH TO ITS ABOLITION Gabriella Frants BC '25

SPEAKING ILL OF THE DEAD: A MORAL NECESSITY Tomas Taaffe CC '23

33

17

MASK MANDATES IN MISSOURI SCHOOLS Isaac Stiepleman CC '25

LEBANON’S ECONOMIC DEATH SPIRAL Kaitlyn Saldanha CC '24

36

POLICY 360: GEOPOLITICS IN THE ARCTIC

4

21

CANADA’S INTERNATIONAL AMBITIONS THROUGH ITS ARCTIC POLICY Jeremy Zhang GS '23

22

Security Considerations for Russian Profit in the Arctic Henry Petrillo GS '23

23

DENMARK, WHO? GREENLAND IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS Juan Solbes CC '25

24

AS THE UNITED STATES GROWS MORE INVESTED IN THE ARCTIC, INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS ARISE Ariana Eftimiu BC '25

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS DOMESTIC POLITICS

BETO O'ROURKE COULD BE TEXAS DEMOCRATS' BEST HOPE TO REPLACE GREG ABBOTT

Many Texas Democrats still place hope in Beto. Photo by Gage Skidmore.

Avery Lambert // Barnard College ’25 November 9, 2021

B

eto O’Rourke has yet to announce any 2022 plans, but many Texas politicians expect news of a gubernatorial bid to come soon.

(Photo by Gage Skidmore.)

It’s a scene that’s been repeated time and time again. Summer in Texas, and Beto O’Rourke is on the road—this time, criss-crossing the state, visiting nearly 20 cities in just over two weeks.

These rallies are supposedly about getting people registered to vote and draw-

ing support for federal election reform, but you wouldn’t know that by glancing at the crowds. O’Rourke isn’t currently running for office, but supporters have pulled their 2018 and 2020 yard signs out of the garage. Some, carrying their cardboard proudly, have sharpied over the old slogans to write “Beto for Governor.”

Beto for Senate. Beto for President.

Could Beto for Governor be the one that sticks?

Former El Paso Congressman Beto O’Rourke has been on the road now for four-odd years, trying to make the dream of Blue Texas a reality. His race against widely-hated Senator Ted Cruz and his long-shot bid for the presidency both failed, but a third time could be the charm as Governor Greg Abbott comes up for re-election in just twelve months.

O’Rourke is the Texas Democrats’ best man for the job.

O’Rourke launched into the state-

5

DOMESTIC POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

wide spotlight with his bold bid against longtime Senator Ted Cruz back in 2018, putting himself into the race as a grassroots, authentically-Texan candidate. He made headlines for road-trip-

sults, and drops in the polls, O’Rourke left the race in November 2019, and his fresh-faced, political-ingenue image was gone with him. Somehow, stopping by Whataburger for a post-rally bite seems

“O'Rourke is making it clear once again to voters: before being a democrat, a national politician, or a bleeding-heart liberal, he's always been a texan, just like them.” ping through all 254 counties in Texas, drawing crowds even in “the reddest of red” towns. He stopped by a Whataburger drive-through after a debate. He even helped reunite two lost dogs with their owner on one of his frequent Instagram Lives. The approachable, affable image worked: O’Rourke shattered Senate fundraising records, collecting $38.1 million in the third quarter of 2018 and over $80 million total by the end of the campaign.

O’Rourke ended up losing that race, but only by 2.6 points—a huge narrowing of the almost 16-point lead Cruz held in his 2012 win. For many, it was proof that a Blue Texas was on the horizon, not just a pipe-dream held by Democrats nostalgic for the days of Ann Richards, Texas’s last Democratic governor in the early 1990s. Importantly, it also made “Beto” a national name.

If Blue Texas did start off as a pipedream, though, O’Rourke’s 2020 presidential bid was a fantasy from the getgo. His intent, surely, couldn’t have been to win; it must have been to draw more national attention, or maybe shoot for a cabinet nomination. In any case, his friendly, progressive-for-Texas image didn’t hold up in the bloodbath that was the Democratic primaries. After suffering brutal debates, poor fundraising re-

6

a more obvious political stunt when accompanied by Joe Biden.

But O’Rourke’s failure on the national stage doesn’t mean he can’t succeed on the state level—in fact, just the opposite. O’Rourke struggled to gain traction in the 2020 presidential race, and his attempts to pick up voters on the left just didn’t stick. But in Texas, coming off as moderate is one of O’Rourke’s greatest strengths—the anti-Trump Republicans and Independents who gave Biden such a strong showing in the state last November were turned off by down-ballot Democrats they saw as too liberal, meaning that a centrist alternative to Abbott may be a strong threat. Abbott is already putting out attack ads painting O’Ro-

governor. Mathew McConaughey, who sources allege has been floating a run against Abbott, is a wild card, of course, but as O’Rourke himself said, no one knows “how [McConaughey] feels about any of the issues.”

Plus, O’Rourke hasn’t spent the past two years sitting at home, live streaming his bread-baking sessions. Beto’s been doing what Beto does best: connecting with and working for the people of Texas. During last February’s power outages, he organized a phone banking drive that connected 900,000 senior citizens to necessary resources and delivered pallets of bottled water to counties under boil orders himself. His organization, Powered by the People, registered over 200,000 new Texas voters for the 2020 general election. Just this September, he published an op-ed in the El Paso Matters sharply criticizing Biden’s handling of the Haitian migrant crisis. O’Rourke is making it clear once again to voters: before being a Democrat, a national politician, or a bleeding-heart liberal, he’s always been a Texan, just like them.

Governor Abbott is polling five points above O’Rourke in early polls, but that lead is tenuous. After signing the country’s strictest new abortion laws, which have divided the right, and imposing stringent anti-mask orders that even some ultra-red counties have resisted, Abbott’s reelection campaign stands on

“This cycle is Texas’s best chance to get Abbott out of office, and it’s Beto O’Rourke’s race to lose.” urke as a pro-riot extremist, showing the power of this potential moderate image.

Furthermore, O’Rourke won’t be trying to make a name for himself in a crowded primary field this time around, like he was in 2020; 81% of Texas Democrats already think he’d make a good

shaky ground. And of course, nobody who went a week without power can forget the complete and utter failure of energy policy seen last February. This cycle is Texas’s best chance to get Abbott out of office, and it’s Beto O’Rourke’s race to lose.

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS DOMESTIC POLITICS

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer holds a press conference alongside fellow Democratic Senator, Raphael Warnock.

Photo by Senate Democrats via Wikimedia.

SENATOR SCHUMER'S BALANCING ACT: HOW THE MAJORITY LEADER LEVERAGED DIVISIONS IN HIS PARTY TO PASS HISTORIC INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION Layne Donovan // Barnard College ’23 November 15, 2021

I

n the U.S. Senate, the month of August is usually reserved for a well-needed break. Senators look forward to this time as an opportunity to return home, campaign, fundraise and meet with constituents. But in the summer of 2021, the chamber lights didn’t go off at the end of July. Instead, Senators entered into two weeks of an exhausting marathon session. The chamber was kept open under the orders of Senate Majority

Leader Chuck Schumer, who had committed to passing two distinct pieces of infrastructure legislation earlier in the summer.

Despite the seemingly never-ending obstacles this legislation faced, the Senate passed both bills by mid-August. As infrastructure legislation is a major part of President Biden’s Build Back Better Plan, the passage of these bills was celebrated as the first step toward a major win for the President and

his party.

But the events that occurred during the months-long debate on the infrastructure bills reveals a much deeper story of the divide between the two sides of the Democratic Party, and how the Democratic Majority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer leveraged these divisions to lead his party to a legislative victory with only the simplest of majorities.

In June, Senator Schumer an7

DOMESTIC POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

nounced his “two-track” infrastructure process that included both a bipartisan physical infrastructure bill and a much larger partisan spending package focused on social programs. This announcement kicked off “The Summer of Infrastructure”: three months of marathon sessions, painstaking negotiations, and party infighting.

The bipartisan bill was born out of the determination of Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema to prove that bipartisanship is alive and well in the Senate.

She, alongside moderate Republican Senator Rob Portman, led a bipartisan group of the senators to negotiate a bill that would include $550 billion for traditional, physical infrastructure. After months of negotiations, the bill was finally introduced on the Senate floor in early August. Because it had enough Republican support to meet the necessary 60 vote threshold and overcome a partisan filibuster, the bill was passed on August 10, 2021.

During these negotiations, another project was taking shape. The second part of Leader Schumer’s plan was a $3.5 trillion spending bill focused on “human infrastructure.” Progressives in the Senate were not satisfied with the bipartisan bill, stating that it did not go far enough to support social programs.

Schumer worked with progressive Democrats to create a framework for a bill that included funding for social programs like universal community college, education, and eldercare. Led

by Senator Bernie Sanders, Senate progressives went to work.

Unsurprisingly, they received no Republican support for their proposal.

This lack of support from Republicans was of little relevance, as Democrats used the reconciliation process, a senate procedural loophole that allows legislation to be passed with only a simple 8

majority of 50 votes rather than the 60 vote filibuster-proof majority required for nearly all other pieces of legislation as long as the legislation is related to the federal budget.

In his June announcement, Schumer committed to achieving the first step of the reconciliation process, the passage of the budget resolution, by the end of the summer. This would allow the budget committee to work on the contents of the bill in the fall. With exactly 50 members of the Democratic Caucus and exactly 50 votes needed for passage, Senator Schumer and his progressive colleagues had to get every single member of the caucus on board.

This meant accounting for both policy and procedural disagreements within the party.

Since Moderates like Sinema prefer to work on a bipartisan basis, they were initially opposed to the partisan reconciliation package because it was explicitly designed to circumvent the filibuster. Progressives assert that the Senate filibuster has been overused by opposition parties to kill meaningful pieces of legislation. Fueled by the conviction that rules like the filibuster preserve bipartisan compromise, moderates favor the preservation of these traditional Senate rules.

However, once moderates went to work on their bipartisan bill, they realized that they came to understand that they would need progressive support for its passage. Democrats have very slim majorities in both chambers, and although Sinema’s bill had some Republican support, that support was limited. Sinema and the moderates needed full support from their own caucus. In order to garner the support of Senate progressives, moderates agreed to support the progressive’s spending package.

For Schumer, party unity was not

the solution. Rather, he leveraged the divisions in his party to force support for both pieces of legislation. Had he left the physical and social infrastructure legislation together as one bill, he would have not received near enough moderate support and the bill would have failed. Splitting up the legislation meant Schumer would appease the moderates by allowing them to show the power of bipartisanship, and also satisfy the progressives who wanted to pass a much larger spending package for social programs. Through this delicate balance, Senator Schumer was able to get the bipartisan bill and the budget resolution passed by mid-August.

The bipartisan physical infrastructure bill became law in November after its passage in the House with a signature from President Biden. The fate of the spending bill is still unknown as moderates continue to wield power in the Senate as the deciding votes. Moderate Senator Joe Manchin has opposed specific pieces of the package including allocations for paid family leave. Senator Sinema has also voiced concern over the $3.5 trillion price tag. Progressives continue to hope that moderates will hold up their end of the deal, but for now, negotiations continue as the next vote has been punted to mid-November.

As conversations between moderates and progressives continue, the divisions in the Democratic party are clearer than ever. Even with these debates still ongoing, it should not be forgotten how Schumer was able to miraculously leverage the two sides of his deeply divided party to get both pieces of legislation over the first hurdle. Rather than striving for unachievable party unity, Schumer built a legislative house of cards: if one bill died, both bills died.

This strategy is a delicate one, but it is that fragility that gives it power.

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS DOMESTIC POLITICS

1970 march on Bureau of Indian Affairs. Photo by Denver Public Library.

REVISITING THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT:

HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILED AT ANOTHER CHANCE Maxwell Lurken-Tvrdik // Columbia College ’25 November 18, 2021

T

hroughout history, the United States government has consistently denied and ignored Native American rights, even though its policies are the root of Native impression and injustice . By failing to act in favor of or even recognize the issues surrounding indigeous

American rights, the United States government has shown indifference regarding its past crimes and injustices that have led to contemporary struggles of Native peoples living in the wake of federal negligence.

During the summer of 1968, over 200 Native Americans gathered in

Minneapolis, Minnesota and formed the American Indian Movement (AIM). Led primarily by Oglala Lakota Russell Means and Ojibwe militant Dennis Banks, AIM organized powerful protests across the country. The first major protest, led by Richard Oakes, lasted for nearly 20 months, when ac9

DOMESTIC POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

tivists occupied San Francisco’s Alcatraz Island, the site of a former federal prison. In November 1969, AIM partnered with college students who called themselves the Indians of All Tribes.

The groups protested that the U.S. upkeep the terms of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. The clause in question asserted that any land abandoned by the United States should be returned to those indigenous Americans who previously occupied it. Therefore, because the U.S. abandoned Alcatraz in 1963, protestors argued the island should be returned to Natives.

The display garnered national attention, but the U.S. government, led

by President Richard Nixon, struck swiftly in June 1971, cutting off Alcatraz’s power supply and forcibly removing the island’s inhabitants. Because the government was able to forcibly remove protestors, they no longer had to worry about meeting demands. A precedent was set: violence and force became key to the Nixon Administration’s interactions with AIM members.

In the same month, Russell Means led a group of protestors who took over Mount Rushmore to bring awareness to the United States’ failure to uphold another clause in the Fort Laramie Treaty which gave the Lakota sole rights to the Black Hills. The discovery of gold in the area in the 1870s resulted in the United States unjustly forcing the Lakota out of the Black Hills—a place sacred to the Lakota—just a few years after signing the treaty. However, neither protest was able to convince the U.S. government to seriously consider the movement.

At the time, President Nixon was preoccupied with a midterm election that heralded a unified Democratic Congress, a withdrawal of American 10

"the United States government has shown indifference regarding its past crimes and injustices that have led to contemporary struggles of Native peoples living in the wake of federal negligence." troops from Vietnam by the end of the year, and the release of the Pentagon Papers which revealed the U.S. government had lied about the scope of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam.

Throughout Nixon’s presidency, he had imitated his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson, and supported the efforts in Vietnam. While Nixon was in office, classified documents called the Pentagon Papers were released. These documents called Johnson and Nixon liars who had promoted escalation of the Vietnam War. Therefore, Nixon not only had to clean up past administrations’ scandals, but the question was raised about whether or not the Nixon Administration had downplayed involvement in Vietnam as well. President Nixon had far too much on his mind to focus on what he saw as a petty movement. As a result, AIM was overlooked. Had the Nixon administration even considered these initial protests and their demands, AIM might not have had to continue with occupations.

In 1970, Nixon released a special message to Congress in which he stated, “From the time of their first contact with European settlers, the American Indians have been oppressed and brutalized, deprived of their ancestral lands and denied the opportunity to control their own destiny. Even the Federal programs which are intended to meet

their needs have frequently proved to be ineffective and demeaning.” Nixon was willing to acknowledge suffering in his words, but not in his actions. Ultimately, Nixon’s ignorance prevented friendly tribal relations and caused the deterioration of future trust.

After both the occupation of Alcatraz and Mount Rushmore failed to create change, AIM leaders Means and Banks organized a 1972 caravan march from the West Coast to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). They convened in St. Paul, Minnesota to draft a 20 point position paper titled “The Trail of Broken Treaties.” Demands in the paper included “legal recognition of treaties, restoration of the treaty-making process, the return of 110 million acres of Native land to indigenous communities and the reform of federal-tribal relations.” Supporters from over 200 tribes began to arrive in Washington D.C. on November 1st and prepared to enter talks with government officials at the Department of the Interior, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Commerce with whom they had scheduled meetings. Every meeting was intentionally cancelled without notice.

The Trail of Broken Treaties’ leaders had also planned to meet with President Nixon, but he had quietly left D.C. before the caravans arrived. Lead-

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

ers of the caravan peacefully entered the BIA headquarters to discuss the situation and explain their frustrations. BIA security guards escalated already high tensions and attempted to forcefully remove caravan members. As tensions rose, AIM and other caravan members took over the BIA headquarters for six days. During this time, occupants gathered and read files and important documents that showed failures to uphold past treaties and reclaimed tribal artifacts.

Officials planned to violently enter and take back the BIA headquarters, but President Nixon insisted on obtaining a court order before doing so. This was not due to Nixon’s benevolence or acknowledgement of indigenous American struggles, but rather external factors. 1972 was an election year, and Nixon wanted to keep as much support as he could before the election the following week. On the fourth day of the occupation, a court order was given, but an hour before it took effect, another judge ordered a two day extension so protestors could regroup and attempt negotiations.

As negotiations ensued, Nixon’s administration was stumped until they realized many of the caravan members had no way to return home. Leonard Garment, Nixon’s acting special counsel, arranged $66,000 in cash for the caravans to return home in exchange for evacuating the BIA headquarters.

Worth nearly $425,000 in today’s market, AIM leaders realized it was their only option and accepted the compensation under the terms that protestors would not be prosecuted for any charges related to the occupation. Once again, the American government was able to ignore the primary issue of the protest. However, many involved in the

DOMESTIC POLITICS DOMESTIC POLITICS

Tipi with sign "American Indian Movement" on the grounds of the Washington Monument, during the 1978 Longest Walk. Photo by Wikimedia.

takeover considered the occupation successful despite the fact that their manifesto, The Trail of Broken Treaties, was never officially presented to government officials nor were its demands met or even considered.

Means and Banks understood that more drastic measures must be taken to initiate legitimate change. AIM had amassed public attention but remained unable to capture the United

States government’s undivided attention. Since his initial term started in 1969, nearly all of Nixon’s energy had been focused upon the Vietnam War and multiple White House scandals.

Every preceding AIM protest had been dismissed as a mere nuisance. Banks and Means were fully aware of this.

So, they devised a new strategy to fight back against the federal violence that had been used against them in the past 11

DOMESTIC POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

and planned the armed takeover of an entire town within the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Richard Wilson, president of the Oglala Lakota, lived on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Wilson was well known for being nepotistic and dispersed government finances and jobs to his family and friends. He was also cruel and demeaning towards tribal members who were solely of Native descent. Wilson instituted the Guardians of the Oglala Nation, otherwise known as GOONs. They became his private militia, and he used them to batter political opponents and anyone that spoke up against him. Lakota members had consistently voiced their frustrations with his leadership and even tried to impeach him.

The BIA turned a blind eye and allowed Wilson to continue taking finances for himself and let him stay in office. His corruption unearthed deeply ingrained issues within the BIA, giving the American Indian Movement solid grounds for a protest.

In February of 1973, AIM enacted their plan and initiated an armed takeover of Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Wounded Knee was the site of the 1890 massacre of over 200 Lakota, giving AIM the perfect place to remember past violence and look to a new future. Russell Means acted as the chief negotiator for AIM and demanded an investigation be launched into the BIA and American Indian affairs throughout South Dakota. The United States government established roadblocks on every road leading into Wounded Knee, and Wilson’s GOONs patrolled the town’s perimeter, preventing AIM members from obtaining supplies and stopping supporters from entering the town. After 10 days, the roadblocks were lifted and supporters with new 12

supplies flooded into the city and stationed themselves alongside AIM occupants. Around this time, the American Indian Movement claimed Wounded Knee to be a new independent Oglala Nation and insisted U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers hold talks with them. AIM attempted to have Wounded Knee recognized as a sovereign nation by the United Nations, and a delegation flew to New York.

Although they were not recognized as an independent state, the delegation amassed enormous amounts of international public support for those in Wounded Knee, which put additional pressure on the federal government. Wilson established his own GOON-supported roadblocks and after a month, the U.S. government cut off power and water from the town.

The Department of Justice prohibited press and media from going to the site and AIM’s public support dwindled.

That is, until the 45th Academy Awards. Marlon Brando, famous for his starring role in The Godfather, sent Sacheen Littlefeather, an Apache and supporter of AIM, to appear at the Oscars and decline the Best Actor award in his stead. Littlefeather was threatened and told if she stayed on the stage for any longer than a minute, she would be forcibly removed and arrested. Dressed in traditional Apache clothing, she bravely gave an improvised speech after the one Brando gave her was disallowed and taken. Wounded Knee’s public support soared again, giving AIM a hefty morale boost and mounting even more pressure on the United States government to act.

By that time, though, the Nixon administration was solely focused on the Watergate scandal. The U.S. government falsely promised they would

launch an investigation into the BIA and Indian Affairs in South Dakota.

Nixon gave the order, and federal marshals sieged the town, leading to the occupation of Wounded Knee ending after 71 days in May 1973. Once again, the government used violence to enforce their will, and AIM found themselves unable to create any legitimate change or actualize their demands. External factors and a deceitful government prevented action from being taken on behalf of Native rights.

Ultimately, the national AIM organization dissolved in 1978 and many local chapters disbanded in the early 1980s.

At any point in American history, the United States government has had a multitude of opportunities to right some of the countless wrongs it has committed against Native Americans.

Yet even when faced with protests and occupations of a town and federal buildings, the federal government chose not to support the first inhabitants of the land upon which it was founded. Time and time again, the American Indian Movement’s progress was halted by a government who simply did not care to negotiate or listen to its demands. As shown by the results of these protests, the federal government evaded policy reform by utilizing violence in the wake of resistance. Moreover, the Nixon Administration established a new precedent of utilizing violence when dealing with indigenous Americans.

This precedent further inflames tribal affairs and exposes the true nature of American policy when Native peoples are involved.

Regardless of the consequences of the protests, Means, Banks, and the entirety of the American Indian Movement were revolutionary in the world of indigenous American justice and

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS DOMESTIC POLITICS

Native youth protest the Dakota Access Pipeline. Photo by Joe Catron.

civil rights as new demands regarding sovereignty, legal rights, past treaties, autonomy, and the reclamation of illegally seized tribal lands were supported. AIM undoubtedly remains at the forefront of the fight for Native rights.

Sadly, the American Indian Movement and its supporters remain symbolic in nature due to a lack of effort from the Nixon administration and the federal government as a whole to respond to or even acknowledge their demands.

Unfortunately, no singular movement for the rights and liberties of Native Americans has reached the level that the American Indian Movement did. To this day, AIM remains one of the largest sustained protest organizations for indigenous American civil rights and sovereignty in American history. Over 50 years later, the fight has mainly shifted to protecting tribal and holy lands from urban development, detrimental mines, and dangerous oil pipelines such as the Keystone XL

pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock. These efforts, while critical to preserving lands, do not always go so far as to address larger ideological and cultural aims that seek to restore sovereignty to Native groups in the way that AIM did. Until the U.S. government proves it cares about past injuries towards Native Amerians, the fight will never encompass AIM’s goals for Native independence and the proper upholding of treaties that were first signed nearly 250 years ago.

Therefore, to enact sustainable change that orients Native communities as paramount to reform, the U.S. government must fully support the restoration of unused tribal lands to their original owners. The federal government must institute a system of reparations for Natives to support reservations and decrease the poverty rate, fortify reservation infrastructure, and invest in open and meaningful tribal communication to bolster United States-tribal

affairs and build trust. By doing these things, the government will uphold conditions and clauses of treaties that it has ignored in the past while also acting as advocates for change. Serious consideration of the issues plaguing Native communities is imperative to healing and righting the copious wrongs of the United States government.

It is important that the American Indian Movement led by Russell Means and Dennis Banks does not become a symbolic movement of the past, but instead one that is seriously remembered for its actions, protests, and goals. It must be understood that its goals have not yet been achieved and deserve thoughtful consideration from the federal government. In the past, the fight for indigenous American rights was ignored, but it has not succumbed to the government’s negligence. The American Indian Movement was only the first wave in a fight that is just beginning.

13

DOMESTIC POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

A GRATUITOUS DEFENSE: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND THE PATH TO ITS ABOLITION Gabriella Frants // Barnard College ’25 November 29, 2021

T

he Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a prison guard who pepper-sprayed an inmate in his locked cell “for no reason” could not be held liable because he did not violate any “clearly established law.” This decision was based on the premise that the most closely-applicable cases had only found officers who hit and tased inmates for “no reason” culpable, as opposed to ones who had used pepper spray.

The court’s reasoning is the product of the qualified immunity doctrine, a doctrine that protects public employees from litigation. Qualified immunity provides overabundant protections for public officials and must be re-written, if not abolished, through the legislative branch to protect the constitutional rights of citizens and prevent the emboldenment of officials to abuse their power.

In 1967, the Supreme Court established qualified immunity as a defense to public officials being held financially liable for violations of constitutional rights. While the Supreme Court has established and overridden several rounds of

14

standards for what should actually grant an official immunity, Pearson v. Callahan (2009) ruled that qualified immunity is extended to any officials who have not violated a “clearly established” law, even in cases that deal with constitutional violations. This doctrine has come under controversy in the past few years, particularly due to the vagueness of the doctrine’s wording and the leniency it gives to the courts.

Many courts nitpick at the circumstantial facts of cases, rather than their merit, and dismiss any cases that are not almost identical to a prior case on the basis of qualified immunity.

Although qualified immunity applies to all public officials, it has been especially scrutinized for police officers, prison guards, and other law-enforcement officials. These are professions where there are already persistent abuses of power and broad systemic protections in place; once those protections are coupled with qualified immunity, public officials are almost absolutely immune against legal consequences to their actions.

While the courts seem like

“

These are professions where there are already persistent abuses of power and broad systemic protections in place.

”

the natural path to ending the abuse that qualified immunity has allowed for, it may not be so easy.

There have been numerous cases every cycle that have had the ability to overturn qualified immunity, yet the Supreme Court has not budged. Even the more progressive justices tend to side with protecting qualified immunity. Recently, the Supreme Court unanimously wrote an unsigned, or an unofficial, decision that would not only pro-

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS DOMESTIC POLITICS

Taken August 20, 2021, at protests following the fatal police shooting of Ma’Khia Bryant. Photo by Paul Becker.

tect but expand qualified immunity in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (2021). The decision implied that it is questionable whether Circuit precedent will be able to clearly establish law in the future at all, with quotes such as “even assuming that Circuit precedent can clearly establish law” and “even assuming that controlling Circuit precedent clearly establishes law.” Such an interpretation would mean that only Supreme Court cases can establish precedent, which extremely limits the rights of citizens to litigate public officials.

Hence, the already-narrow qualified immunity doctrine would no longer include precedent from the 50,000 yearly Circuit cases but only from the 80 cases that the

Supreme Court chooses to hear.

Moreover, the Supreme Court tends to choose cases that involve sufficiently difficult legal matters, so cases where public officials clearly violated a citizen’s right may never become a “clearly established precedent” for future cases. In turn, a judicial system that employs the qualified immunity defense becomes a vicious cycle: courts fail to hold public officials accountable due to a lack of precedent, their cases are turned away and their fact patterns are never established as a precedent, new cases that appear before the court with the same circumstances are once again dismissed due to lack of precedent, and the pattern repeats.

Considering this, neither pro-

gressive’s calls for court-packing nor the currently conservative Court is a viable solution. It is clear that justices, progressive or not, are not willing to overturn qualified immunity. In the past fifteen years, the Court has heard 18 cases regarding cases of constitutional violations by government officials. In 16 of those cases, the Court found that public officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law, even if they violated the Constitution.

Regardless of whether justices have been progressive or conservative, the Court has continually emphasized that “clearly established” must be so specific that even minor differences between 15

DOMESTIC POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

Taken at the Supreme Court of the United States on January 19, 2018, during the “March for Our Lives” rally. Photo by Elvert Barnes.

the case at hand and prior cases cannot hold government officials accountable.

The remaining option is for an alternative branch of government to take action and address qualified immunity. This idea has been proposed by many political scientists and is becoming more widely accepted following the Supreme Court’s continued support of qualified immunity. Jay Schweikert, a Cato Institute fellow, reasoned that the Rivas-Villegas v.

Cortesluna decision "is further evidence that the Supreme Court is not going to reconsider the fundamentals of the doctrine...Until and unless Congress addresses qualified immunity, public officials can continue to violate people's rights 16

with impunity.” Since qualified immunity was judicially-created, the Court has the standing power to amend it. However, since qualified immunity is a product of statutory interpretation, Congress also has the authority to “amend, expand, or even abolish the doctrine.”

While the Supreme Court continues to narrow its definition of the doctrine, the public eye turns to Congress. There have been recent attempts to pass criminal justice reform bills that have included an examination of qualified immunity. One of these is the “Ending Qualified Immunity Act,” which was introduced in the House, and seeks to end the qualified immunity defense in cases where civil

rights were violated. There is also an act currently making its way through Congress, which specifically focuses on limiting qualified immunity for law enforcement officers—the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.” This act seeks to “limit qualified immunity as a defense to liability in a private civil action against a law enforcement officer.” It has recently passed the House and is waiting on the Senate’s approval, and it may be the most promising effort to reform qualified immunity to date. Although a congressional resolution may be unlikely, it is possible, and currently necessary, for action to come from the legislative branch and bring an end to qualified immunity as we know it.

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS DOMESTIC POLITICS

MASK MANDATES IN MISSOURI SCHOOLS: THE REPUBLICAN PARTY’S HYPOCRISY OVER LOCAL CONTROL Isaac Stiepleman // Columbia College ’25 November 17, 2021

S

ince their individual foundings in the United States some one and a half centuries ago, the Democratic and Republican parties have evolved considerably, adopting and shedding different voter bases, coalitions, and ideologies, oftentimes outright swapping those characteristics with each other. In our modern political society, however, those ideologies have been temporarily settled along party lines: Democrats now advocate for a larger government presence with socially and fiscally liberal policies, while Republicans claim to adhere to a conservative, small government platform. It is the latter faction’s approach that has been called into question recently as the Republican Party begins to stray from its self-proclaimed principles.

To be fair, the central ethos of conservatism is undeniably compelling: national, one-size-fits-all policies are too rigid to fulfill the particular needs of individual communities and thus, it should be left up to those very communities to decide for themselves what they want. Unfortunately, the

modern-day Republican party has completely reversed itself from this ideology by which it claims to govern.

Instead, it can now be found arguing for the exact policies it purports to loathe with members resorting to political violence in the form of bans and lawsuits if they don’t get their way. One of the more problematic examples of this has been mask mandates in public schools, a perplexingly contentious issue stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In theory, health restrictions should be the exact issue that Republicans would have success in advancing a conservative approach. Some regions have been hit much harder than others, meaning they would benefit from far more restrictive measures.

Connecticut, for instance, has recently seen significantly fewer cases than Montana and might not need strict lockdowns or excessive mask mandates.

Instead of embracing that perspective, however, Republicans have continued shifting the goalpost for who the ultimate arbiter of decisions

should be: first arguing for state control, then for local control, and then for family control. In reality, and setting aside the obvious issues with deputizing family units as medical experts, this shifting of the goalpost is enforced by the very government regulation at which an actual conservative would scoff.

Before examining just how drastically Republicans have turned themselves around, however, it is important to first put to rest any notion that masking and other measures don’t work. According to the most exhaustive peer-reviewed meta-analyses conducted by organizations like the Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Oxford University, masks — among other benefits — reduce the number of people an individual with COVID-19 infects to below one percent and reduce the transmission of exhaled droplets from infected individuals by around 50 percent to 70 percent. Overall, this decreases infection by 30 percent, even in the most pessimistic scenarios. In 17

DOMESTIC POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

"Republicans have masqueraded as if they are on the side of individual choice and small government. Their public statements and cries for 'family control' might say one thing, but when it comes to their political agendas, the proof is in the pudding." schools, the science is even clearer.

CDC studies prove conclusively that school districts without mask requirements see COVID-19 case rates twice as high compared to those with mask requirements and are 3.5 times more likely to have a COVID-19 outbreak.

Given these statistics, it is a little embarrassing that health measures backed by these studies are being

18

discussed in a political context. Such facts should not garner this kind of debate, nor should they have to suffer the humiliation of pretending that they have opposing sides. As schools begin to open their doors, close down online learning apparatuses, and force students into close contact with each other, preventative measures like masking are crucial. This is especial-

ly true for children younger than 12 who have yet to be authorized to receive the COVID vaccine and immunocompromised children who simply cannot be vaccinated.

Unfortunately, my home state of Missouri has failed to align science with its politics. Leading Republican politicians have been obsessively intent on eliminating any sort of mask mandate within their borders, placing themselves squarely on the wrong side of medical science and facts. Unable to force its restrictions on private businesses, the state has instead sought to control the behavior of the public institutions that it funds.

Seeking to make it appear as if they will not institute a broad and ill-fitting mandate, state Republicans have not banned mask mandates outright. Instead, they have worked to

Children returning to school wearing mandated face masks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Photo by Allison Shelley.

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS DOMESTIC POLITICS

Man protests mask mandates by wearing a mask with a hole cut out in it at a protest . Photo by Wikimedia Commons.

punish school districts that step out of line. Essentially, Republicans tell local schools that they can do whatever they want as long as the state government agrees with those actions, an approach wholly inconsistent with the ideals of conservatism. Case in point, as the new academic year started, Eric Schmitt, the Missouri state Attorney General, sued the Columbia Public Schools for their mask mandates, using deceptively conservative-sounding rhetoric as he argued that “parents have the right and the responsibility to make healthcare decisions for their minor children.” Schmitt later attempted to expand his lawsuit to cover all public school districts with mask mandates in Missouri, a number of at least 50.

This is not an isolated incident either. Rather, it is part of a broader trend of eroding local control over educational decision-making. In the past six years alone, Missouri has forced school districts to move their start dates back over local objections, sought to preemptively prohibit the teaching of Critical Race Theory despite only one district currently including it in their curriculum, and refused to allow school districts to partner with local transportation systems after they only funded — on average — 17 percent of the legally mandated 75 percent of each district’s transportation budget, even in the face of massive bus driver shortages due to COVID-19. These examples are only a selection from among too

many others to name.

What is particularly egregious about their actions, however, is that in each of these cases, Republicans have masqueraded as if they are on the side of individual choice and small government. Their public statements and cries for “family control” might say one thing, but when it comes to their political agendas, the proof is in the pudding. Rather than truly fighting for de jure control, the Republican party is fiercely protective of local rights as long as localities do not use them to pursue the “wrong” goals.

The result is Republicans doing wrong by local agency, wrong by scientific facts, and wrong by the alleged ideals of their own party. And that’s just not right.

19

POLICY 360

GEOPOLITICS IN THE ARCTIC An Arctic landscape. Photo by NOAA Ocean Exploration and Research.

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLICYPOLITICS 360

Global warming is perhaps the single monolithic issue facing the planet today, threatening to overturn regional and global political and economic orders. While it lays hiding on most maps, global warming is destroying perennial sea ice, increasingly leaving the Arctic sea exposed year-round at an alarming rate. With this reveal of waterways comes the emergence of new trade routes and maritime territory that state actors may seek to reap the benefits of. How economic and political matters are conducted in the Arctic—and how far states are willing to influence such matters—is a disruptive issue that today’s politicians are required to manage.

This piece focuses on the positions and ambitions of states in the Arctic region as they watch the melting of sea ice with the rest of the world. While the geopolitics of the Arctic region will undoubtedly overthrow existing international trade routes and influence great power international relations, only a handful of countries have a direct say in how the region is governed. Canada and Russia have the greatest territorial claims in the region, and both states see opportunities arising from their newly exposed waters—Canada believes it can use its new maritime territory and access to international waters to gain international prestige, whereas Russia believes it can do the same to increase state profit.

The tensions between Greenland and Denmark are on full display in the context of the melting Arctic, agitating one of Europe’s main points of access to the region. Finally, against the backdrop of these developments, the United States is also becoming a more present force in the region, as it tries to maintain its superpower status in the context of growing Russian and Chinese power.

This roundtable aims to illuminate the geopolitics of a region that are changing as a direct result of global warming, and on a broader level, how changes within a geographic landscape have immense consequences for political developments. Unlike most geopolitical conflicts unfolding around the world, the struggle over control of the Arctic region is relatively new and quickly intensifying. The crisis of melting glacial sea ice will require international support from all corners of the globe. In the meantime, the world will monitor how regional actors take advantage of their melting geopolitical order.

CANADA’S INTERNATIONAL AMBITIONS THROUGH ITS ARCTIC POLICY Jeremy Zhang // General Studies ’23

T

he Arctic is a part of Canada’s national identity, as it is home to many Canadian communities and a vital part of the country’s history and culture. 40% of the nation’s total land mass is in the Arctic, allowing it to preside over much of the Arctic region’s coastlines and abundant natural resources. As climate change melts much of the Arctic glaciers, opens international shipping routes, exposes potential natural resources, and increases the capacity for more regional

tourism and residential development, Canada hopes to establish itself as a leader in the governance of the Arctic. It envisions a “stable, rules-based region with clearly defined boundaries,” along with a powerful economy, successful communities, and a sustainable environment.

Under the Harper government in 2010, four pillars of Canada’s strategy were outlined to guide the country’s Arctic foreign policy: exercising sovereignty, advancing economic and social development, safeguarding the

environment, and clearly delineating governance throughout the region.

This strategy has largely continued under the Trudeau administration, which in 2019 released its Arctic and Northern Policy Framework (ANPF) with additional focus on indigenous voices in its policy creation.

Canada’s Arctic foreign policy centers around preserving the Arctic as a region of peace and reinforcing the international legal framework, especially through the eight-state Arctic Council—a forum engaging Arctic states in 21

POLICY 360

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

the discussion of important regional issues. Perhaps as greater international powers such as the United States, China, and Russia seek to exploit the Arctic’s natural resources, Canada will try to play a mediating role, pushing these players to incorporate into their policies consideration of environmental protection, minimally destructive practices, and indigenous populations’ rights. This could certainly be possible, given the amount of land and maritime passageways Canada controls in the Arctic, as many international polar operations would likely have to involve Canadians to some degree.

At face value, the government ap-

pears to want to assume this role, especially by giving indigenous voices a larger role in the decision making and foreign policy priorities of the country. However, this has not always been practiced, as evidenced by the United States–Canada Joint Arctic Leaders’ Statement in December 2016.

During the final days of the Obama presidency, a set of measures was announced as the outgoing administration tried to rush policy objectives before the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Indigenous leaders in the Arctic only learnt about it hours ahead of time, to their dismay. This in turn raised the question of wheth-

er the government would prioritize external interests over its promises, values, and relationship with the indigenous communities in the Arctic.

What is apparent is that Canada sees the expanding interest in the Arctic as an opportunity to branch out from the middle-power status it normally occupies in the international order, and hopes to leverage its territory and populations to be a leader in global Arctic governance.

Whether it can adhere to its commitment to indigenous populations and its values of socioeconomic development and environmental preservation remains to be seen.

SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR RUSSIAN PROFIT IN THE ARCTIC Henry Petrillo // General Studies ’23

R

ussia has long maintained an interest in controlling the North Pole, starting with expeditions in the age of exploration, through the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, and still today. Contemporary prioritization of the Arctic for Russian policy mirrors efforts by Joseph Stalin in the 1930s to “win” the race for the North Pole.

President Vladimir Putin has tapped into this legacy to bolster his vision for Russian nationalism. Portraying policy decisions designed to secure control over the North Pole as necessary for the acquisition of Russia’s true historical inheritance has therefore helped justify the country’s increased expenditure on the region.

Russian investment in consolidating control over the North Pole

22

has taken many forms. Most notable is the development of a world-class nuclear-powered fleet of ice-breaking ships. The pinnacle of Russia’s efforts to create an unrivalled ice-breaking fleet is the recently unveiled Arktika, the world’s most powerful operational ice-breaker, which entered service in 2020. Russia has also upgraded airfields, search and rescue, and radar functionality in the region. In general, expanded Russian military capacity in the Arctic region has been steady and decisive. The intended results of this military upgrade are two-fold: secure the economic benefits that the North Pole has to offer and provide a rebuttal to increasingly aggressive NATO encroachment on Russia’s perceived sphere of influence.

The spoils of the Arctic offer eco-

nomic benefits in addition to military and political ones. From a resource perspective, the Arctic region is said to hold a quarter of the world’s untapped oil and gas reserves. The potential surplus from Arctic resources could help bolster a Russian economy for years to come, which currently relies on hydrocarbons for 40 to 50% of the federal budget and for twothirds of its exports.

Russia is hoping to facilitate the transition of a large proportion of world trade to go through the Northern Sea Route (NSR). The benefit of using the NSR to transport goods from Asia to Europe is a one-third reduction in the amount of shipping time. Previously, this route had not been utilized because of ice-caps and lack of technological capabilities,

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW but melting in the Arctic Zone and Russian investment in its ice-breaking fleet has helped overcome those obstacles. If this transition were to occur—the target amount of trade being 66% of current traffic through the Suez Canal or 8% of global trade in total—Russian authority over Asian-European trade would expand immensely.

In order to optimize the poten-

tial offered by Arctic hegemony and to shift Asian exports such that they travel through the NSR over the Suez Canal, it is essential that Russia maintain positive relations with China. Russia must also maintain a strategic edge over other Arctic states, especially the Nordic states, in order to disincentivize attempts to block the European exit of the NSR, both for trade coming from Asia and any

DOMESTIC POLICYPOLITICS 360

exports Russia is hoping to generate from resources procurement in the Arctic. Russian hegemony over the North Pole should be perceived as a serious security threat by the entirety of NATO, as the front-line of any future conflict is set to vastly expand over land and sea should Russia come to dominate the region, which would create a unique and daunting challenge for the bloc’s defensibility.

DENMARK, WHO? GREENLAND IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS Juan Solbes // Columbia College ’24

G

reenland is a player with massive potential in the Arctic Circle, key to Denmark’s ambitions in an increasingly cutthroat regional stage. The autonomous territory has gone from direct Danish rule to virtual independence; today, Denmark retains only the powers of monetary policy and, more relevant to the Arctic, foreign policy. The development of the Arctic, home to a significant portion of global fuel reserves and enormous strategic opportunities for global powers, is causing rifts in the otherwise harmonious relationship between Nuuk and Copenhagen. Denmark faces a unique dilemma regarding its Arctic strategy: it must balance its posture on the world stage, a burgeoning Greenlandic independence movement, and Nuuk’s desire for foreign investment.

So far, Danish Arctic policy has been centered on sustainable growth and social development. Copenhagen emphasizes the importance of renewable energy, safe exploitation of

resources, and stronger integration to global trade while focusing on sustainability and benefits to Arctic residents.

Defensive capabilities form another essential component of Denmark’s Arctic strategy. Last February, the Frederiksen government announced a 6% increase in defense spending dedicated to Arctic defense and surveillance, a result of U.S. and NATO pressure to oppose Russian and Chinese military policy in the region.

Further complicating Denmark’s Arctic strategy are its increasingly tenuous ties with Greenland. Greenlandic politics are slowly gravitating towards independence: Siumut, the historically dominant party, faced a leadership challenge in which former Premier Kim Kielsen lost his position as leader to independence advocate Erik Jensen last year. This year’s elections resulted in Siumut losing control for the second time in Greenlandic history, with the separatist Inuit Ataqatigiit gaining a majority in Parliament. Polls show that a majority of citizens envision an

independent Greenland “sometime in the future.” However, the independence envisioned hinges on Danish Arctic policy.

Greenland is highly dependent on a $650 million annual subsidy from the Danish government. Development and exploitation of its access to the Arctic are essential for a transition to economic independence. Such is the desire for self-reliance that Greenland, highly vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, has yet to sign the Paris Agreement, unable to reject the source of revenue from natural resources without green alternatives in place. Conditions have left Greenland vulnerable to intrusion by powers like China, with funding leading to a potentially Chinese-controlled Greenlandic private sector, raising alarm across the West. The Biden administration responded in kind, recognizing how Greenland’s need for investment makes it an attractive target for strategic positioning.

Denmark and its allies are walk23

POLICY 360

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

ing a tightrope regarding Greenland.

The territory is at a crossroads between dissatisfactory dependence on Denmark and independence with little defense against encroachment by foreign powers. Denmark’s best bet would be to continue subsidizing

Nuuk while encouraging investment by the United States and NATO allies. However, Chinese spending power is hard to match, and if the price is right, Nuuk might just open up and give Beijing a foothold between North America and Europe.

Both scenarios have powerful policy implications for the geopolitics of the region, making Greenland the one to watch in the race for Arctic hegemony.

AS THE UNITED STATES GROWS MORE INVESTED IN THE ARCTIC, INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS ARISE Ariana Eftimiu // Barnard College ’25

I

nternational law mandates that all states in the Arctic region, including the United States, share their claims to the region’s maritime territory. Some states have made advances that suggested their willingness to place a greater stake and address the changing security situation in the Arctic. Although U.S. interest and involvement in the Arctic region have waned in recent decades, they have recently increased amid a competitive international environment.

The U.S.’ strategy in the North Pole is turning into one of military defense and applied offensive realist ideology, particularly seeking to monitor the aims of Russia and China. In 2019, the U.S. invested $655 million for a Coast Guard icebreaker in the Arctic region, the first ever “Polar Security Cutter.” Russia and China, albeit having more icebreakers, spend significantly less on their militaries overall—$61.7 billion and $252 billion respectively, compared to the U.S.’s $778 billion, allowing for much better defense potential in the Arctic Region. With discussion of hegemonic control at stake vis-àvis U.S.-China and U.S.-Russia relations, the U.S. would not allow itself

24

to be derailed by the ambitions of China or Russia in the Arctic region.

As a result, the U.S. is anticipated to have a significantly greater, deplorable icebreaker fleet by 2029, as well as a naval base in Alaska’s Bering Sea. The U.S. is also concentrating on extending the life of the Coast Guard’s heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Star, and growing better informed on “cost estimates” and “technology readiness” for Arctic infrastructure. It is important to note that the U.S.’ increased ambition in the North Pole results from a desire for the strategic defense of its power and interests against these growing potential hegemons, particularly as Russia no longer sees the region as a “zone of peace.”

In June 2020, the U.S. spearheaded in the direction of greater Arctic exploration and control, unveiling the “Memorandum on Safeguarding United States National Interests in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions.” The memorandum assured that it aimed to “protect [U.S.] national interests in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and to retain a strong Arctic security presence alongside… allies and partners.” Overall, it ensures a newfound “persistent United States presence in the Antarctic region.”

Augmented U.S. interest in

the Arctic could continue to strain U.S.-China and U.S.-Russia relations. As the U.S.’ relationship with the Arctic evolves into one that involves additional exploitation of resources and pronounced intercontinental hierarchy, the country’s re-entrance into the region will lead to a geopolitical power struggle. While the U.S. is presently concerned with reestablishing regional security forces, it is likely that the trajectory of U.S. presence will mean competing with Russia and China for the Arctic’s natural resources, especially liquid natural gas and hydrocarbons—the major resources required for the successful realization of independent and competitive economies.

"The U.S.’s strategy in the North Pole is turning into one of military defense and applied offensive realist ideology."

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

LIBERATION THROUGH IMPERIALISM:

HOW THE U.S. WEAPONIZES WOMEN’S RIGHTS AS A PRETEXT FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION Giselle Williams // Columbia College ’25 November 10, 2021

Women protesting against the war in Afghanistan. Photo by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona.

25

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

O

n August 15, 2021, nearly twenty years after the 9/11 attacks and the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan that would follow, Taliban fighters seized control of the presidential palace in Kabul, shocking the entire global community. Countless media outlets immediately responded by broadcasting images and videos depicting the utter chaos that ensued once the political upheaval began. Certain images were ubiquitous in the reporting of the coup and its immediate impacts: thousands of Afghans running alongside a plane as it taxis along the runway of Kabul International Airport,

early 2000s —Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular. The American women’s rights organization Feminist Majority, for instance, led a coalition of U.S. women’s groups that, along with the efforts of Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), “resulted in the allocation of $60 million for programs for Afghan women and girls and $5 million for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission in 2003 as a part of an emergency supplemental appropriations package.” Suddenly awoken by the suffering of the Afghan women, American feminists enthusiastically supported efforts such

“Women’s movements in AFghanistan show that Afghan women are not passive victims who need to be saved.” citizens protesting against the Taliban in cities across Afghanistan, and Taliban fighters seizing more and more provincial capitals every day. And just as in 2001, the terror and oppression Afghan women face under the Taliban regime have also become an essential component of the discourse surrounding whether the United States should take an interventionist stance on the Afghan coup.

Mainstream feminists were essential in supporting the U.S.’ efforts to restore the rights of women in the countries it invaded in the 26

as this, all the while choosing not to dwell on the fact that the Taliban rose to power with funding, training, and encouragement from the U.S. Women’s movements in Afghanistan show that Afghan women are not passive victims who need to be saved. In recent decades, women professionals have used their skills as leverage against repressive edicts. For example, the Taliban was forced to reinstate Suhaila Siddiqi, a female heart surgeon in 1996, so that she could operate on members of the group.

Despite this instance of Afghan wom-

en taking leadership and fighting for their rights and others like it, women’s rights became a rallying cry for war. Only a few weeks after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, in a November 2001 radio adress, Laura Bush proclaimed that “The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women.”. Less than a month later, at the signing ceremony for the Afghan Women and Children Relief Act of 2001, President George W. Bush remarked that “the central goal of the terrorists is the brutal oppression of women—and not only the women of Afghanistan.” This savior complex helped make the case for not only the war in Afghanistan but other U.S. wars that continue today.

This rhetoric of saving Afghan women from the Taliban has not been relegated to the past. Even among lawmakers who generally support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the rhetoric of saving Muslim women rendered impotent and terrorized persists today. On August 15, Speaker Nancy Pelosi commended President Joe Biden for speaking and acting on the Taliban takeover by tweeting, “We are concerned about reports regarding the Taliban’s brutal treatment of all Afghans, especially women and girls.” Here one sees the invocation of women’s rights as a barometer for “civilization”—a crucial part of the logic of empire. She implies that Afghanistan is a uniquely draconian place for women, reducing Afghan women to a monolithic group who are all repressed and in need of some form of humanitarianism. Almost invariably, such humanitarianism translates to military intervention. To the U.S. government, there will always be more brown women in

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW need of salvation.

Women in Afghanistan have immensely suffered under U.S. occupation. Initially, there were significant gains from the United States’ mission to improve the plight of Afghan women: millions of girls attended school, and the country saw women become ministers, judges, and governors. Afghan women’s conditions have been worsened by the political, social, and economic instability that the decades-long war has produced.

As Amie Ferris-Rotman writes, “The country still has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, almost 90% of Afghan women experience abuse in their lifetimes, and while a landmark 2009 Elimination of Violence Against Women law was passed, the Afghan government and its justice system largely ignored it.”

These sobering facts demonstrate that the gains were tangible but also undoubtedly tenuous and precarious.

On the surface, the United States’ rhetoric that frames fighting terrorism as fighting for women’s rights globally may appear as genuine concern about the sociopolitical impacts of the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. However, recent history teaches us that this is simply not the case. The abuse of women in foreign countries—in the case of Afghanistan, women who had already been fighting for their rights—often becomes a pretext for American military intervention. The U.S. purports to be committed to saving Afghanistan’s powerless and terrorized Muslim women by delivering them the Western idea of empowerment and feminism. But with invasion, bombing, and occupation, the U.S. demonstrates otherwise.

Having caused hundreds of thousands of casualties and destroyed

DOMESTIC POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Afghan women protest intervention in Afghanistan. Photo by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona.

communities with bombs, airstrikes, and occupation, the U.S. harms not only the well-being of Afghan women but all people in the countries it occupies. The profound impact of the violence caused by U.S. imperialism on women proves that interventionism cannot be an effective feminist response because it materially worsens the conditions of women. When the United States so readily uses the oppression of women in countries such as Afghanistan as a pretext for military intervention, allyship with

can see the importance of international solidarity and identification with women in Afghanistan and the global south today. When the United States so readily uses the oppression of women in countries such as Afghanistan as a pretext for military intervention, allyship with women directly impacted by U.S. imperialism is especially essential. Individuals and groups who wish to see material improvements in the lives of Afghan women must advocate for a new type of liberatory feminism—a feminism

"THE U.S.CANNOT PURPORT TO CARE ABOUT MAKING CONDITIONS BETTER FOR WOMEN BY ACTIVELY MAKING THEM WORSE." women directly impacted by U.S. im- separate from practices anchored in perialism is especially essential. The imperialism that opposes the message U.S. cannot purport to care about of liberation through conquest. making conditions better for women by actively making them worse. One 27

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

THE AUKUS SUBMARINE DEAL SINKS THE PROSPECT OF LONG TERM NON-PROLIFERATION Lara Geiger // Barnard ’25 November 8, 2021

I

t is rare to be aware of a negotiation that marks a turning point in history. The new AUKUS deal signals a shift in the tectonic plates of foreign policy on non-proliferation: it threatens the capabilities of the IAEA to protect nuclear weapon development. The IAEA serves as the world’s international watchdog by putting safeguards in place to prohibit the development of nuclear weaponry; in other words, it is the organization that prevents the world from a full-fledged atomic disaster.

A U.S. nuclear submarine. Photo by Jim Forst.

28

The landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) tasks the IAEA with evaluating each country’s nuclearization program, including the possibility of malpractice through nuclear militarization. The latest in the IAEA’s safekeeping of proliferation is the newly ratified treaty between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, also known as AUKUS, which marks a turning point in the management of nuclear proliferation. This agreement sets a dangerous precedent that will ulti-

mately harm future de-proliferation efforts.

The recently formed AUKUS treaty, short for the “Enhanced Trilateral Security Partnership,” provides Australia with naval nuclear weapon technology. This is the first time in history that a non-nuclear-weapon-owning country will receive technology with the precise isotope used to enrich uranium, offering new access to the technology used in atomic weapon construction. Most importantly, the treaty sets a new precedent

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW in providing the opportunity to exploit a loophole to own nuclear technology, undermining the NPT treaty.

This loophole can be exercised because the NPT does not ban non-nuclear states from building nuclear-powered naval ships, as it contains a specific exemption for the naval proposals. Therefore, countries would no longer be under the jurisdiction of IAEA inspection and could accumulate uranium for nuclear-powered technology. The larger concern is that countries will use the uranium, which would not require further modification, for nuclear weapons. In other words, world governments that don’t already own nuclear weaponry will actively be considering investing in naval technology as a cover-up for pursuing nuclear proliferation efforts relatively unchecked by the IAEA. While Australia’s history with nuclear weaponry is not one that raises international concern, the real issue is how this precedent allows other countries to abuse the law.

Notably, the president of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, confirmed that the nuclear material used to fill submarines is now fully exempt from IAEA supervision; with this dangerous precedent in place, potential proliferators can use naval programs to cover up their nuclear militarization programs. Iran, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia have all considered expanding their naval programs, which would constitute a massive treaty to global safety considering these countries’ historical moves towards nuclear proliferation.

Cold War-era reforms pertaining to nuclear proliferation produced a similar loophole, and the result was rapid nuclear militarization with similar obvious consequences. During

the first Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, SALT I did not prohibit the development of multiple independent reentry vehicle missiles (MIRVs). The initial aim of SALT I was to contain the arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Despite this intention, the treaty did not control the arms race but effectively did the opposite, leading both the Soviet Union and the United States to develop MIRVs. Similarly, the AUKUS deal is dangerously concerning because it will likely yield the same dire outcome as SALT I, leading world governments to contribute to nuclear development due to its potential for exploitation.

Another major ramification of this loophole is that the IAEA will be rendered largely ineffective. Currently, the due process of nuclear inspection requires the IAEA to submit its findings to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), prompting a vote as to whether or not the program in question warrants intervention or a possible shutdown. With this treaty, the IAEA will have no authority from the NPT to track naval reactors because countries can easily claim that nuclear material serves non-military purposes. While there are other ways to prohibit a country from obtaining a nuclear arsenal (i.e., sanctions), multiple safeguards are necessary to keep uranium enrichment contained.

Thus, it is essential that the IAEA remains a player in preventing proliferation because, without the full supervision of the IAEA, the world is at risk of an uncontrolled arms race.

Another harmful implication of the treaty is the appearance of a double standard between the United States and Australia, which would incentivize potential proliferators to

DOMESTIC POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

use the AUKUS treaty as leverage.

Iran, for example, developed a nuclear program in 2002 and asserted its “right to enrich” by comparing its program to Japan’s; ultimately, following intense international debate, the United States stated that Iran should “suspend” rather than abandon its nuclear program. In this case, Iran exploited this perceived double standard against the United States. With the United States and the United Kingdom giving Australia an exception to own naval weaponry, other countries could use the double standard argument to pursue development with their own nuclear programs. Even more importantly, Iran and the United States have been attempting to settle nuclear talks ever since the abandonment of the United States from the Iran Nuclear Framework Deal. The greater issue is that the United States was already on thin ice in trying to contain Iran’s nuclear development, and this treaty will enable Iran to use the AUKUS further to its advantage.

Some argue that with this specific treaty, the military and strategic benefits outweigh the possible exploitation of naval submarine development. It is true that strategic benefits include a gateway to curtail the aggressive actions of China in the South Pacific.

However, while this deal might be beneficial for Washington as an avenue to combat Beijing’s dominance in the South China Sea, the deal nevertheless invites exploitation. Now that there is heightened international interest in non-proliferation, countries should consider modifying the NPT agreement in order to circumvent nuclear material negligence.

29

Santiago Abascal, leader of the Spanish political party Vox, in a party rally in Galicia. Photo by Vox, 2020.

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

THE BOY WHO CRIED POPULISM Sofia Prado Arenzana // General Studies ’25 October 22, 2021

I

n an age of pointed fingers, ad hominems, and hyper-partisanships, accusations of populism are widespread across the media.

Yet, the term “populism,” used to attack those from all political leanings, is virtually never accompanied by a definition. The idea is related to the exploitation of the common man’s struggles by demagogues, who gain power through emotional appeals and unfeasible commitments.

Readers are expected to know what populism is. And this is easy, insofar as they are only asked to identify

Pablo Ingelsias, co-founder of Podemos. Photos courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

the effects that the phenomenon has had: far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s rise in Hungary bolstering nationalism and xenophobia or the results of the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, for example.

The cultured reader has become afraid of the term. They are terrorized daily with troubling tales, bombarded by reminders of its threat to democracy. Nevertheless, to what exactly does “populism” refer?

In 1967, theorists met at the London School of Economics to demystify the concept. They deter-

mined that despite there being “no doubt about [its] importance… no one is clear what it is.” Some coined the view that populism is an ideology, others a social movement—a few regarded populism as politically motivated over-spending, and others as a line of rhetoric. More than half a century later, there still exists much debate, with the Oxford Handbook of Populism assembling a staggering nine-hundred-page analysis of diverging views.

So, what does populism look like?

31

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

Take Madrid, a cosmopolitan capital beautified by the richness of its past and the vastness of its culture. In the epicenter of the affluent Barrio de Salamanca lies the Plaza de Colón, where one may find supporters of the extreme-right party, Vox. In a sea of national and party flags, the air rings with Euro-skeptic cries, pleas against women’s rights laws, and, above all, merciless criticisms of all those who disagree.

A mere fifteen-minute metro ride south, banners of blazing purple begin to emerge, the color of the extreme-left party, Unidas Podemos.

Once again, the passerby is drowned in screams in unison, this time advocating for the redistribution of private property from citizens within certain economic brackets, the increase of taxes for all corporations, and correspondingly, a rejection of all other views.

Spain’s divided politics illuminate populism’s true nature; it is not a doctrine. American political theorist Kurt Weyland considers it to be a “political strategy” in which a

Santiago Abascal, president of Vox, the will of the people is threatened by the ‘villainous left,’ which seeks to disrupt national identity and the traditional way of life to which his followers latch an emotional hold.

For Pablo Iglesias, founder and for-

“A populist’s aim is to gain and preserve power, and they gain it through veneers of heroism, rhetoric and policy.” mer Secretary-General of Unidas Podemos, the oppressive elite is to blame for his supporters’ misfortunes. There are many similarities.

Followers of both enjoy a seemingly personal connection with their leaders—trust. A shared social background or experience is used to captivate them and build an emotional attachment to the party, which acts as their protector. They are made to believe their group is ‘under attack’ by the establishment. This is crucial:

“Populism is active. RATHER THAN A CAUSE, IT IS THE TOOL EMPLOYED TO MOBILIZE A GROUP IN ITS FAVOR.” sensationalist leader gains power directly from a disorganized following. In other words, populism is a tactic used to procure power from ‘the people.’ Populist leaders can appear across the political spectrum because it is not an ideology.

Populism is active. Rather than a cause, it is the tool employed to mobilize a group in its favor. It often takes the form of ‘us vs. them’: for 32

they soon beguiled a torn nation.

Their impassioned speeches moved voters from the traditional right, the Partido Popular (PP), which had remained pragmatic. Vox claimed to be the only true defender of Spain and its citizens. Conversely, Po-

when they support an absolute, indisputable good, those who reject it can become the enemy. But still, scapegoating is not the sole trademark of populism.

An emotional rather than factual base allows populisms to be pervasive. The rise of Vox stemmed as a counter-reaction to the separatist movement in Cataluña. With promises of ‘making Spain great again’,

demos surfaced as a party that was neither “left-wing nor right-wing,” instead calling itself a movement of “reform.” Iglesias was the “ordinary man,” voicing an abhorrence towards the Spanish political system, which he insisted was corrupt and tyrannical.

A populist’s aim is to gain and preserve power, and they gain it through veneers of heroism, rhetoric, and policy. This is why populists lack coherence in their platforms; the political view to which they adhere must be liked. This often leads to obscurity, instead of positions with a well-defined ideology. Populist rhetoric is vague and opportunistic, well-sounding to potential voters. There is a lack of structure, which leads to confusion when understanding the term. Populism is not necessarily extremist, but personalistic.

Abascal and Iglesias were able to thrive by radicalizing their respective followings through emotional appeals. Indeed, Spain’s formerly two-party system has expanded to include polarizing views that have amassed millions of voters.

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

SPEAKING ILL OF THE DEAD: A MORAL NECESSITY Tomas Taaffe // Columbia College ’23 November 13, 2021

Midshipmen salute the casket of the late Senator John McCain at his funeral in 2018. US Navy photo by Nathan Burke.

T

he recent deaths of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were accompanied by several outpourings of condolences from politicians and government officials, both Republican and Democrat. Former President George W. Bush lauded

Rumsfeld, 88, as “a man of intelligence, integrity, and almost inexhaustible energy.” Powell received similar praise from President Joe Biden, who described him as “a patriot of unmatched honor and dignity” and “one of our great Americans.” Other colleagues and elected officials echoed these sentiments, lamenting the loss of two Amer-

ican political titans. These tributes may lead readers to believe that Powell and Rumsfeld were both blemish-free, and were dedicated public servants with distinguished careers. However, a closer look at the careers of both men paints a very different picture.

Former Secretary Rumsfeld, in particular, is incredibly undeserving 33

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

of posthumous praise or glorification. Notorious for being a war hawk, Rumsfeld was a key architect of Bushera foreign policy following the events of September 11, 2001. As secretary of defense under President Gerald Ford and President George W. Bush, Rumsfeld consistently advocated for increased military power, championing budgetary increases and investments in more advanced weapon systems.

Immediately after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Rumsfeld capitalized on the public’s fear and confusion to push for military involvement in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq.

Rumsfeld was unconcerned with the truth, spinning facts to push his agenda and ruthlessly maneuvering within the federal bureaucracy to defeat his political opponents.

The end of Rumsfeld’s political career was marked by accusations of encouraging the use of torture on prisoners. Rumsfeld advocated for the Bush administration’s use of enhanced “interrogation techniques” and authorized the use of methods such as sleep deprivation, waterboarding, forced nudity, and unnecessary medical procedures. Following these revelations and amidst the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War, Rumsfeld resigned in November 2006, and was given an armed forces full honor review complete with a 19-gun salute. That a man who played such an instrumental role in crafting one of America’s costliest wars would receive a send-off second only to that given to presidents and foreign heads of state is morally reprehensible and sets a terrible precedent for future officials. Rumsfeld never admitted that he made mistakes, defending his policy decisions, and shifting blame for the rest of his life.

Powell, on the other hand, pres34

ents a more complicated case. He spent most of his career without a single blemish on his record. In fact, in many ways, Powell was the ideal public servant. The child of Jamaican immigrants, Powell was a decorated Vietnam War veteran who rose through the ranks of the Army to become the first African American chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the first African American Secretary of State.

He was, in many ways, the model of the modern American military commander and broke countless barriers throughout his decades of public service. By Election Day in 1996, Powell was so popular with the American public that exit polls showed that 50 percent of respondents said they would have voted for him over newly re-elected President Bill Clinton (who had won with 379 electoral votes). If these results had occurred in reality, Clinton would have been defeated by over 10 points had Powell been the Republican nominee instead of Kansas senator Bob Dole.

During his tenure as Secretary of State, Powell was a moderate voice who advocated for diplomacy over military intervention, playing a key role in America’s rapid, relatively bloodless intervention in the Gulf War and negotiating nuclear treaties with the Soviet Union. Not afraid to break ranks with his party, Powell endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hilary Clinton in 2016, and Joe Biden in 2020. In the final major political act of his life, Powell left the Republican Party following the January 6 attacks on the Capitol Building. If the public were to listen to the statements from Powell’s contemporaries, they might think that the highlights of Powell’s career are limited to that list.

Unfortunately, Powell’s legacy

is marred by his service as Secretary of State in the Bush administration.

On February 5, 2003, Powell gave a speech to the United Nations arguing that Iraq held ties to terrorist groups, that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and that military action had to be taken in order to remedy these issues. Investigations have since proven that Iraq had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, nor was there any real connection between Iraq and terrorist groups. These claims were based on false information and forged documents. The Bush administration chose Powell, due to his credibility in the eyes of the public, to deliver the address in front of the UN. Powell at first expressed hesitation, but he then acquiesced and delivered the speech, lending his claims the credibility needed to convince the public of the moral necessity of military action. Powell knew that there were major flaws with the information he was tasked with presenting and made a choice to believe the CIA’s analysis rather than the State Department’s reporting which cast significant doubt on the veracity of the evidence. Later in life, Powell expressed regret about giving his speech, saying “It's a blot.

I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record.

It was painful. It's painful now.” However, this sentiment is not enough.

Powell’s lies laid the foundation for Rumsfeld’s development of torture techniques, for the rise of terrorist groups, for the destablization of entire countries, and for the deaths of countless men, women, and children, both American and Iraqi. By lending his considerable political and moral clout to the Bush administration’s falsehoods, Powell paved the way for

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

DOMESTIC POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

From left, Colin Powell, George W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld at a Cabinet meeting following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. National Archives.

the Iraq War to unfold. The decision to knowingly mislead the country into one of the biggest military blunders in American history ruined what should have been an immaculate career in public service.

Knowing the true legacies of Rumsfeld and Powell, one can only ask why the majority of the political elite are so quick to overlook the heinous consequences of these two men’s actions. There has been some pushback against the mainstream narrative from progressive media sites and those directly affected by the actions of the two men, but there has been little discussion of their impacts from the mainstream media. Rumsfeld and Powell, along with the rest of the Bush administration, are responsible for crafting a needless war that caused the deaths of over 4,500 Americans, not

to mention the unnecessary killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. They committed war crimes, endorsed torture, and lied to the American people. It is irresponsible to omit these details when discussing the legacies of these officials.

As Bush-era officials begin to grow older and pass away, we will see more and more whitewashing of history.

For example, the image of President George W. Bush is already being rehabilitated by many in the media, with Donald Trump taking his place

as a liberal bogeyman. Public officials have a responsibility to the people they serve to tell the truth about the decisions and actions made by the architects of America’s needless wars. If we continue to erase the mistakes of the past, the American public will be dragged into the same problems again and again. I therefore implore every person in power to tell the truth about the legacies these officials leave behind, lest even more American lives be sacrificed in vain.

"If we continue to erase the mistakes of the past, the American public will be dragged into the same problems again and again."

35

The wreckage from the 2020 Beirut explosion. Photo by the European Union.

LEBANON’S ECONOMIC DEATH SPIRAL IS A LESSON IN FAILED PEACEBUILDING Kaitlyn Saldanha // Columbia College ’24 November 16, 2021

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

O

n October 14th, 2021, gunfire broke out on the streets of Beirut when a protest organized by Hezbollah turned violent, claiming six lives and causing dozens of injuries. The protest targeted Judge Tarek Bitar, the current head of the investigation into the Port of Beirut Explosion that occurred in August of 2020. Hezbollah wants Judge Bitar removed on grounds of politicization after he called upon several Hezbollah-aligned politicians to testify.

Last year’s Port Explosion rocked the country to its core: the attack left 218 dead and 300,000 homeless, amounted 15 billion USD in property damage, and pushed then Prime Minister Hassan Diab to resign, promptly followed by his entire cabinet. Diab’s resignation marked the beginning of Lebanon’s nine month period without a fully empowered government, in which civilian upset radically intensified. Last month’s protest offers only a small glimpse into the larger disaster that the country endures today.

Lebanon is facing what The World Bank calls one of the worst financial crises of modern history. The severity of this economic emergency cannot be overstated: more than half the population is currently below the national poverty line. The unemployment rate skyrocketed from 28% in February to 40% in November last year. Essential consumer goods are completely unavailable: grocery stores and pharmacies are lined with empty shelves, and lines for fuel can last hours. The World Bank predicts a shrinkage in gross domestic product of nearly ten percent in 2021, following recessions in the two years prior.

This financial apocalypse is not without defined cause or start date:

the origin of Lebanon’s present day state of affairs traces back to the country’s war-torn history of the late twentieth century.

The conclusion of Lebanon’s brutal Civil War in 1990 left the country at rock bottom under Syrian occupation, mourning some 144,000 civilian casualties and a mass exodus of over one million refugees. The war also wiped out enormous portions of essential civilian infrastructure, amount-

DOMESTIC POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

process, therefore, reflected the misaligned foreign interests of Syria and the Lebanese people, thereby further dooming the country to failure.

After the war, the Lebanese Central Bank tied its currency to the U.S. dollar in an effort to stabilize the market. But unlike other Arab states with fixed exchange rate currencies, like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the Lebanese pound was not supported by any revenue-stable exports like oil or gas. Thus, in abrupt-

"Despite the efforts towards national reconciliation, however, the process was deeply flawed from the start: mostly because it occurred under foreign occupation." ing to damages that surpassed an estimated 25 billion USD. What followed in the wake of destruction was an era of peacebuilding where Lebanese Parliament enacted a slew of reforms endeavoring to rise from the ashes and rebuild. Despite the efforts towards national reconciliation, however, the process was deeply flawed from the start: mostly because it occurred under foreign occupation.

Syria as a foreign facilitator of post-war peacebuilding not only stunted national healing, but also fostered ignorance of the underlying root causes of the war. The economic policies which came out of this faulty peacebuilding

ly switching to a fixed currency system, the Central Bank contradicted every known principle of currency valuation and fixed 15,000 Lebanese pounds to be worth one U.S. dollar.

Unsurprisingly, this top-down approach to currency valuation — especially without any accompanying directives to support the jump in national expenditure — did not produce the intended outcome. Indeed, after a few brief years of residual stability, the fixed currency ruling sent Lebanon hurtling into a downward spiral where the value of currency depreciated more and more each year. Inflation radically spiked, reaching a shocking 37

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2021

84.9 percent last year. Since Fall 2019, the Lebanese pound has lost 90 percent of its value.

In a market where the national currency is worth close to nothing, consumer goods become accordingly unaffordable. The everyday Lebanese consumer

shortages in petrol and medicine create a reality where survival is, for many, just too expensive.

Borrowing money offers no relief, either. All of Lebanon’s major banks are currently insolvent. Credit is essentially unavailable nationwide, and

big banks are owned by elite political families holding seats in Parliament, so there is no reason to believe banks will face any consequence whatsoever for their contribution to the country’s collapse.

Important to note is that the sta-

Protestors in Southern Lebanon. Photo by Roman Deckert.

has seen their purchasing power shrink copiously and their savings disappear entirely. Financial stress forces citizens to depend heavily upon basic public services — sanitation, water supply, power, etc. — which have radically deteriorated in the absence of a centralized government authority. The unaffordability of staple goods compounded with national 38

customers face steep limits on cash withdrawals due to capital shortages. In February, the Lebanese Central Bank called upon banks to increase capital reserves by 20% in an effort to avert impending liquidity exhaustion.

Unsurprisingly, banks did not meet the goal and the liquidity crisis continues to worsen. Most of Lebanon’s

tus of Lebanon’s economy cannot be attributed exclusively to the shift in currency valuation strategy. Other factors contribute to the crisis, including the role of political instability in deterring foreign investors, corrupt governmental spending habits, pre-existing wealth disparity, a controversial 2019 tax law on WhatsApp

WINTER 2021 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW cellular phone calls, and the consequences of COVID-19 on an already fragile economy.

As for possible resolution: Lebanon’s financial recovery begins with anti-corruption. First on the list of corrupt government establishments is the Central Bank, which is at fault for the catastrophic currency reform and resulting inflation adjustments.

More specifically, the problem can be traced to the head of the Bank, Riad Salameh, an exemplar of Lebanon's corrupt political elite. After years of shady behavior, Mr. Salamah made headlines in April after signing a contract transferring 330 million USD of government funds to a Swiss bank account belonging to his brother’s brokerage firm, which he hired to oversee government bond sales. Expectedly, Mr. Salamah has been investigated numerous times on suspicion of embezzlement, money laundering, and corruption. Disrupting the spiral of compounding economic failure requires that officials like Salamah be investigated, charged as fit, and removed from office. But again, this trajectory is highly unlikely considering recent political developments.

Last month, Lebanon named a

DOMESTIC POLITICS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Protests in response to the declining economic conditions in Lebanon. Photo by Shahen Books.

that the country so desperately needs.

Simply put, Lebanon cannot be cured by any single election or political figurehead; the severity of the country’s current crisis demands an interruption of equal ferocity.

As we digest headlines of violence and unrest amongst Lebanon’s population, we must remember this: these protests are not some sudden turn towards chaos, but a culmination of thirty years of oppressive economic negligence. News publications portrayed

following the Civil War gave way to an era of governance which upheld the same underlying issues — corruption, instability, sectarianism — that produced the war in the first place.

Lebanon today faces the consequences of its postwar laxity in the form of supply shortages, liquidity crisis, soaring currency inflation, bank insolvency, mounting unemployment, plummeting GDP, and rising poverty. The aristocracy has chosen a brutal path of laissez-faire self-correction over bank accountability and governmental action, and everyday citizens "these protests are not some sudden are those who will bear the costs of that decision. Without some form of turn towards chaos, but a culmination radical disruption, the sores of corof thirty years of oppressive economic ruption and hostility will continue to negligence." fester; civilians will continue to die at the hands of the political elite profnew Prime Minister: Najib Mikati, the carnage on the streets of Beirut iting from the demise of their counbillionaire telecommunications ty- last month as an isolated response to try. Lest it be misunderstood: today’s coon and family friend of Syrian Pres- last year’s Port Explosion, but that is bloodshed and economic anguish are ident Bashar al-Assad. Given Mikati’s not the full story; civilian outrage is nothing if not predictable, for a nation profile as a member of the wealthy intensifying on all fronts because Leb- built upon a foundation of kindling is political aristocracy, he is unlikely to anon is on fire, and people are dying. doomed to burn. pursue the anti-corruption reforms Deficiencies in the rebuilding period 39

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW Visit us at cpreview.org