the politik press, volume xiii, issue 9

APRIL 22nd, 2013Volume XIII, Issue IX the POLITIK PRESS

1


2

the

POLITIK PRESS

A publication of

JHU POLITIKjhupolitik.org

VOLUME XIII, ISSUE IXAPRIL 22nd, 2013

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

Paul Gauguin, The Universe is Created (L’Univers est cree), c. 1894. The National Gallery of Art.

MANAGING EDITOR Alex Clearfield

ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Colette Andrei

Ari Schaffer

LAYOUT EDITOR Victoria Scordato

HEAD WRITER Rachel Cohen

STAFF WRITERS Megan Augustine, Akshai Bhat-nagar, Michael Bodner, Henry Chen, Virgil Doyle, Chris Dunnett, Cary Glynn, Rosellen Grant, Archie Henry, Peter Lee, Adam Roberts, Daniel Roettger, Christine Server, Geordan Williams, Chris Winer

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Jeremy Orloff, Matt Varvaro

FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David

EVENTS CHAIR/PUBLICITY Randy BellWEBMASTER Sihao Lu


3

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

WEEK IN REVIEW .................................................................. Page 4 Ye Eun Kim ’15

THE PROBLEM WITH NAKBA DAY .......................................... Page 8 Adam Roberts ’14

TO BETTER HELP THE WORLD: REFORMING U.S. FOOD AID .................................................... Page 10 Christine Server ’16

“THE BEST OF THE BEST”?HOPKINS FAILS ITS STUDENTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST .................... Page 9Shereen Shafi ’15

THE POLICY DESKNUCLEAR WEAPONS STRATEGY: A NEW LOOK AT THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM ................. Page 6 Ari Schaffer ’14

THE ROUTE TO NORTH KOREA IS THROUGH CHINA ........ Page 11 Michael Bodner ’15

WHO OWNS YOUR GENES? ................................................... Page 13 Peter Lee ’14

THE READING LIST ............................................................... Page 5 Randy Bell ’13

THE ECONOMIC RATIONALE FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM ... Page 12 Chris Dunnett ’13

EVENTS CHAIR/PUBLICITY Randy Bell


4

WEEK IN REVIEWBy Ye Eun Kim ’15, Contributing Writer

Blast Hits Banglaore

On Wednesday, an explosion occurred in Malleshwaram, Bangalore, killing more than 16 people, including 8 policemen. Raghavendra Auradkar, Bangalore’s police commissioner, identified the mo-torcycle parked on the main street to be the source of the blast. The blast occurred at a sensitive time in Bangalore, India’s technology hub. It is expecting the election of a new government in three weeks and the candidates’ nominations were scheduled to close that day. The Karnataka state, where the city is located, is currently ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party but early signs indicate that the oppo-sition Congress Party could unseat the BJP. Considering the timing, the blast is probably a terrorist attack, said police official, M. A. Saleem. Having become a home to multiple terrorist organizations, Bangalore has recently been a significant target for terrorism. The recent attack and the elections are creating a general atmosphere of panic in the Malleshwaram region.

Aftermath of the Boston Marathon Crisis

The denotation of two bombs at the Boston Marathon last Monday killed three people and injured over 180 more. It is believed that two brothers, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, are responsible for the incident. They have been identified as Muslims of Chechen ethnicity, and their motive for the terror attack is still not known. The older brother, Tamerlan, was killed in a Watertown, Massachusetts gunfight with the Police. An MIT campus police officer was also shot by the two brothers as part of a string of crimes committed by the two brothers since Monday. The entire city of Boston was shut down through Friday due to the threat of the fleeing suspects. On the day of the incident President Obama said “Any responsible people or groups will feel the full weight of justice.” The surviving brother, Dzhokar, was finally captured on Friday night.

Obama Administration Redoubles Climate Change Efforts

President Obama pressed Congress to pass a significant energy proposal this past week. The Energy Security Trust would invest two billion dollars over ten years in clean energy research. He first un-veiled his plan during his State of the Union address in February and gave further details of the plan in his speech at Argonne National Labs in Illinois that same week. The funding for alternative fuel research will come from increased royalties from oil and gas drilling and leasing on federal land. The Obama administration also pointed out that it does not seek to expand drilling areas but rather ex-pects increased revenues from streamlined leasing, increased production and upward price trends. In order for the Energy Security Trust to get passed, bipartisan support will be needed. PP


5

“A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip”By Gabrielle GiffordsPublished in the New York Times on April 17th, 2013

January 8th, 2011, the day that Congresswoman Gabri-elle Giffords was critically injured by a gunshot wound to the head and six others were killed by a crazed gun-man near Tucson, Arizona, still permeates the minds of all listening in abhorrence and concern to the news at that time. After a lengthy recovery, she resigned from her Congressional post in January of last year, and more than two years after that fateful day which nearly took her life she decided to speak out on an issue still dominating headlines. Giffords voiced her strong opin-ion against gun violence and what she sees as a Con-gress that does little about it.

In this op-ed for the New York Times, Giffords cites the recent gun violence tragedies like Sandy Hook and urgently calls for a shift in current legislation on the is-sue. She details her own views on the issue of gun con-trol and how she believes that the death of the Man-chin-Toomey plan last week was a move by cowards who were serving their own self-interest. Giffords also blames the influence of money wielded by special in-terest groups like the National Rifle Association.

Overall, it was intriguing to hear Giffords speak out on the issue that affected her personally. It was remi-niscent of James Brady—Ronald Reagan’s press sec-retary—who was shot in an assassination attempt on Reagan, and then spoke out on the issue of gun con-trol. Brady was the inspiration for the Brady Act, a bill which mandated background checks on U.S. firearms. Giffords was candid about her position and had no re-luctance about calling out the senators who she blames for the death of the Manchin-Toomey bill. Replying to these senators by stating, “Shame on them,” Giffords is making waves that she feels will build up the momen-tum in favor of stricter gun laws and voting out those in Congress who are more concerned with aiding the gun lobby than protecting the safety of the American people.

“Universal Preschool is a Sure Path to the Middle Class”By Arne DuncanPublished in the Washington Post on April 18th, 2013

President Obama recently unveiled a plan that would take money from a new cigarette tax and use it to fund a $75 billion plan to make full-day preschool available to all four year olds in families with incomes at or be-low twice the federal poverty line. Stating that he wants to give all kids a chance at a good education, Obama is making a clear effort to educate children early in order to ensure the future success of the nation. However, some members of Congress and others are skeptical of the efficacy of this cause and whether it is worth the cost. This article presents evidence in favor of the President’s position that educating four-year-olds is a worthwhile endeavor.

While it is hardly undeniable that an educated popula-tion can do more for the welfare of society, there are still doubts in the minds of some as to how important preschool education is to reaching that end. Former federal education official Russ Whitehurst says that the Obama administration is, “targeting disadvantaged kids starting at birth,” and Obama himself cites pre-kindergarten as a larger plan to provide ladders to the middle class. The plan would not require states to pro-vide this service, but it would be under a cost-share ar-rangement which incentivizes state to support the 1.85 million four-year-olds in families targeted by the plan. It would expand child-care services, the Early Head Start program, and it would allow for more home visits by social workers and nurses.

Secretary Duncan cites numerous research publica-tions in this article which found that preschool educa-tion does indeed raise scores in subjects like math and reading. Duncan dismisses detractors and cites mul-tiple studies to back up his position. He does well to examine the issue and tells of a visit he made to Blad-ensburg, Maryland to hear first-hand how teachers have seen the positive effects of preschool education. This education, he notes, doesn’t just raise scores, but increases graduation rates, reduces arrest rates, and improves the behavior of young students long-term. PP

READING LIST

By Randy Bell ’13, Events Chair


6

It has always been the main goal of the United States to create a safe world for its people. With new threats emerging all over the world, each one must be thor-oughly understood before any action is taken to remedy it. One of the most recent emerging threats is the rise of a nuclear Iran. Many argue that the Iranian nuclear program must be stopped at all costs. A nuclear Iran will bring another dangerous nuclear state to the inter-national stage, present a danger to the Western world and cause instability in an already chaotic Middle East. While there is credibility to this line of thinking, a deep analysis of the situation shows that a nuclear Iran may actually help the US reach its security goals rather than inhibit them. Those who argue that a nuclear Iran must be stopped at all costs make a few main points. Their first argument is that the Ayatollah Khameini, the true power in Iran, is not a rational actor. Driven by religious zeal, the Aya-tollah will have no problem bringing nuclear destruc-tion on his country as long as Israel is destroyed in the process. Further, they argue that reliance on nuclear deterrence is risky because many countries armed with nuclear weapons have been attacked and gone to war with each other. The main examples include the United States after September 11th and the Kargil War between in India and Pakistan in 1999. Additionally, the Iranian government may give nuclear secrets or warheads to other rogue agents like Hezbollah. Lastly, they argue that a nuclear Iran will bully its neighbors into follow-ing its will creating an anti-American bloc in an already hostile Middle East. For these reasons, many people in the U.S. and Israel demand a preemptive nuclear strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The security of the free world, they argue, depends on stopping the Iranian nu-clear program.

While a preemptive strike may seem like the most ap-pealing option, really looking at the crisis at hand pres-ents a clearer picture. The first concern to deal with is that of the Iranian irrational actor. On the one hand, it is hard to believe that any real leader of a country will be truly irrational. Although the prevalence of suicide

terrorism within radical Islam does present the possibil-ity that the Ayatollah would be willing to sacrifice him-self or his country for his religion, there is a reason why it was not Osama bin Laden himself who executed the September 11th attacks.

Additionally, as far as leaders who are willing to sacrifice themselves and their country, none parallel Mao Zedong in China. Mao incited several movements that involved the murder of over a million people and started the Great Leap Forward which resulted in the deaths of thirty mil-lion more. Mao even welcomed the destruction of half of the world population from nuclear war because he be-lieved it would bring socialism. Despite all of this, Mao never launched a nuclear bomb. If Mao Zedong was ra-tional enough not to launch a nuclear weapon, the Aya-tollah will be as well.

The argument that mutually assured destruction has not deterred war or attacks against nuclear powers ob-scures the reality on the ground. India and Pakistan did go to war in 1999 even though both had nuclear arms. However, it was only a limited conflict that lasted just a few months. In all likelihood, the specter of nuclear war averted all out conflict between the two countries. Fur-ther, the United States was attacked on September 11th; there is no denying that. But it was attacked by a terrorist group without a territory the U.S. could retaliate against. In regards to non-state actors, it is unlikely that nuclear deterrence will work. However, Iran does have a terri-tory and will be deterred from using nuclear weapons.

Another important thing to realize is that mutually as-sured destruction has prevented total war since the be-ginning of the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction prevented the strongest countries in history, the U.S. and the USSR, from engaging in full scale war. Even at the height of nuclear tension during the Cuban Missile Cri-sis, the prospect of nuclear annihilation caused the USSR to balk and withdraw its planned missile program. Not since advent of nuclear warfare in 1945 have any nuclear weapons even been used. In fact, the only time nuclear weapons have ever been used was when only one coun-

POLICY DESK

Nuclear Weapons Strategy: A New Look at the Iranian Nuclear Program

By Ari Schaffer ’14, Head Writer


7

try, the United States, possessed them. Further, nuclear deterrence held during the chaotic collapse of the So-viet Union and the social upheaval in the late eighties, nuclear armed South Africa. Concerns about Iran using its nuclear weapons are so minimal as to be strategically irrelevant.

Concerns about further proliferation are also over exag-gerated. Countries who see nuclear weapons as a means to gain power on the international stage will not give the power to unpredictable third parties. While Iranian connections with the terrorist organization Hezbollah are well known, the Ayatollah will not relinquish the au-thority he gains through a nuclear arsenal by lending out such an important international bargaining chip. Even in Pakistan, where the civil leadership is weak at best, the Pakistani army has repeatedly assured the U.S. and other allies that in case of any governmental collapse, they will immediately secure their nuclear arsenal. Giv-en the power that a nuclear arsenal brings, no political or military authority will give up control or allow it to get into the wrong hands.

Finally, if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon it may actually cause a favorable shift in the Middle Eastern geopoliti-cal map. One of the things the Wikileaks scandal showed is that the countries of the Middle East, despite appear-ing to be united under the Arab/Muslim common iden-tity, are very hostile toward Iran and its potential nu-clear program. Additionally, 20% of the world’s oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz which Iran has repeatedly threatened to close, a concern for all states.

If Iran gains a nuclear weapon and tries to use the new-found power to control the Middle East, it will instead push the other Middle Eastern states under the U.S. se-curity umbrella. The U.S. is the only nation with the nu-clear capability to actively deter Iran. U.S. naval power around the world is so strong that threats to completely close the Strait of Hormuz are almost laughable. Given U.S. military dominance, the United States can keep the straits opened and has a strategic interest in doing so. Therefore, the countries of the Middle East, who neither have the means or the time to make their own nuclear weapons programs, will have no choice but to turn to the United States for help.

This will cause the Middle East to be very amenable to U.S. interests. Rather than forming the hostile bloc that many fear, the Middle Eastern countries will rely on U.S. protection to keep them safe from the Iranian threat.

This will give the U.S. greater, not less, leverage in the Middle East and create a strategic foothold that it did not possess before. Instead of relying on Israel and buy-ing off unpopular Arab governments with oil and weap-ons, the U.S. will have truly stable allies in the Middle East. This will also give Turkey an incentive to return from its recent radical shift in policy and realign with the Western world. If the rest of the Middle East turns to the U.S. security blanket, it would only make strategic sense for Turkey, who has always been dancing on the line be-tween the Middle East and the West, to do the same. If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, the geopolitical map in the Middle East will alter in favor of the United States, not against it.

At first glance, it may seem that the Iranian nuclear pro-gram should be stopped at all costs. However, many of the concerns about the Iranian nuclear threat are not as grave as they seem. While the Ayatollah’s rationality has been questioned, Mao Zedong, who is by far a more con-troversial figure, never used nuclear weapons.

Additionally, because Iran is a country with a population and territory, the deterrence factor will come into play. Similarly, desiring to control the power that nuclear weapons bring, the Iranian government will not relin-quish that power to a terrorist organization regardless of its past history. Finally, if Iran does develop a nuclear arsenal, the states of the Middle East will be pushed into the open arms of the U.S. security umbrella, creating a friendlier Middle East. Considering all of this, a nuclear Iran may not be as catastrophic as people think. PP


8

Nakba Day is perhaps the most important holi-day for the Palestinian people. Held one day after Israeli Independence Day, it commemo-rates the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” that befell

the Palestinian people when Israel became a state. This concept that the creation of Israel is a catastrophe is problematic for the prospects of peace in the region.

It is quite hard for two neighboring countries to get along when one country considers this holiday to be one of cel-ebration, while the other country considers it to be a day of mourning. How can the Palestinian people ever learn to accept the existence of Israel when their most impor-tant holiday decries its existence? It inherently weakens the long-term viability of the two-state solution, and it weakens the legitimacy of the Israeli people’s right to their land. The Palestinian people have a right to commemorate their crushing defeat in the First Arab-Israeli War, which took place in 1948. Many Palestinians were killed, hun-dreds of thousands fled or were expelled, and their lands were annexed by Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. If I were a Palestinian, this would be something that I would wish to remember. Jews, both in Israel and outside it, also have holidays re-membering the “catastrophes” that have befallen them. The holiday of Tisha B’Av commemorates the tragedies that have befallen the Jews on the 9th of Av (in the Jew-ish calendar), most notably the destruction of both the First and Second Temples. There is also Yom HaShoah, which honors the victims of the Holocaust only a few days after the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising occurred in the Jewish calendar. Thus, there is nothing wrong with the concept of Na-kba Day. Its real problem lies in that it takes place only one day before Israeli Independence Day. All that does is instantly associate the creation of Israel with the “de-struction” of Palestine. Imagine if Jews remembered the destruction of the Second Temple on April 21st, the tra-ditional date of the founding of Rome? Or what if Jews remembered the Holocaust on October 3, the Day of Ger-man Unity? Commemorating on these dates would link

THE PROBLEM WITH NAKBA DAY

the very existence of Rome and Germany to the policies their governments have carried out. Nakba Day does this exactly; it links the current policies of the Israeli govern-ment with the existence of Israel. Sadly, this breeds hatred and makes Nakba Day bloody. During the 2011 Nakba Day commemorations, there were a number of violent incidents. Rioters in Egypt at-tempted to seize the Israeli embassy in Cairo, while Pal-estinian activists tried to overwhelm the Israeli borders from all sides. Luckily these events have not be replicat-ed the past two years, but they still show the amount of rage towards Israel that Nakba Day elicits in the Arab world. Why not hold Nakba Day on a different day? July 20th would be perfect, since it was when the First Arab-Israe-li War ended. When that conflict came to a halt, Israel, Egypt, and Jordan all divided up what was supposed to become Palestine. Understanding and remembering the history of this day would limit the strictly anti-Israel fo-cus that Nakba Day currently has. It would also reinforce the individuality of the Palestinian people, emphasiz-ing that they have an identity unique from that of other Arabs. Most importantly, by not coinciding with Israeli Independence Day, it would reduce the association be-tween the current plight of the Palestinians and the very existence of Israel. Most current issues originate from Israel’s takeover of the West Bank and Gaza during the 1967 Six-Day War, not from the Israel’s creation in 1948.

I do not mean to overstate the influence that Nakba Day has on Palestinian-Israeli tensions. There are certainly much more important issues that cause the two coun-tries and peoples to feud with each other. However, Na-kba Day is much more detrimental to the prospects of peace than it is helpful. The first step towards creating a lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people is to ensure that they accept each other’s right to live in the region. As long as Nakba Day continues to question the very existence of Israel, there will not be peace between the two peoples. Luckily, some issues can be fixed by simple things like changing the date of a holiday. PP

By Adam Roberts ’14, Staff Writer


9

“THE BEST OF THE BEST”? HOPKINS FAILS ITS STUDENTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST

Two weeks ago, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum addressed a crowd of students at the Foreign Affairs Symposium. His invi-tation was unwelcome to those aware of his

views on LGBTQ issues, women’s rights, and—broadly speaking—science. However, one of the most disturbing aspects of his speech was his half-hour lecture on “Is-lam” and the Middle East, which was, by all informed accounts, profoundly inane. In a discursive climate al-ready prone to gross distortions, stereotypes and omis-sions about Islam and the Muslim world, that this man was brought to speak authoritatively on “foreign affairs” should be taken seriously—especially given how Hop-kins fails to provide students an adequate academic en-vironment to seek alternative, reliable information. Despite numerous complaints over the years about the lack of a Middle East Studies curriculum, this school still lacks any specialized Middle East Studies professor, let alone a coherent program. We offer an ample variety of courses on the U.S. and Europe, and programs in Latin American, Jewish, East Asian, and Africana Studies, yet for the region stretching between North Africa, the Mid-dle East and South Asia, there is nothing organized. Eight years ago, student Francesca Hansen wrote an op-ed for the News-Letter lambasting the administration for disregarding this part of the world. She notes that, back then, Hopkins had one professor of Middle Eastern politics, Waleed Hazbun. However, he eventually left to teach in Lebanon. This exemplifies a reoccurring prob-lem: we hire only one scholar to cover an entire region, but when they leave, an academic void results for entire areas of the globe. Now, courses that focus on the Middle East arise spo-radically, most often taught by our excellent graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. I was also drawn to our anthropology department for its inclusion of schol-ars and courses on Islam and Muslim societies. Howev-er, the availability of courses falling under “Middle East Studies” has been variable and unreliable, and although I highly value and encourage studying anthropology, it cannot substitute for a background in history and poli-tics. While we can foster a degree of awareness outside

the classroom, any student knows that independent literature reviews or following the “right people” on Twitter cannot replace the educational experience that comes from a college course. Hopkins students are definitely interested in the Middle East. Whenever a course even tangentially related to the region is offered, it quickly acquires a wait- list during registration. Additionally, this winter my peers and I re-ceived overwhelming support when we petitioned to al-low graduate student Andrew Bush to teach a course on “Muslim Societies and Modern States.” There are dozens of students studying Arabic right now, yet they likely will not be able to take courses where they can learn about countries that actually speak the language. Last semester, the Arab Students’ Organization hosted an event on the Arab Spring, notable not only because they struggled to find Hopkins scholars specialized enough in this region to speak on the subject, but because they nonetheless drew a full crowd. Further, there are now four student groups organizing around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but no Middle East department to contextualize their activism. Quite a few students have transferred schools because Hopkins cannot deliver on this. When I voiced my concerns to political science pro-fessor Steven David last year, he noted that many Hop-kins students study abroad in Middle Eastern countries, often seeking that elusive Middle East specialization. But not everyone is fortunate enough to study abroad, and is it really a solution to Hopkins’ inadequacy to defer our students’ education to other institutions? Hopkins has a renowned International Studies program: its structure, flexibility, and the theoretical and analytical tools it provides are exceptional. But if students want to learn about the Middle East, a region where their country has had a troublesome foreign policy for decades; where we are seeing an unprecedented era of change, revolution, conflict, and crisis; where the U.S. has been at war for as long as we can remember; and where the threat of future war often looms, the Political Science and History depart-ments at Hopkins cannot provide that, and the administra-tion in general is totally reluctant to change that. Yet, given the broader context, that is an inexcusable shame. PP

By Shereen Shafi ’15, Contributing Writer


10

The Obama administration’s budget for the 2014 fiscal year has been in the news for its pro-posed cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but another major change in spending is on

the dock—that in international food aid. America’s inter-national food aid policy has remained largely unchanged since first instituted by President Dwight Eisenhower 60 years ago, and relies on buying food from American farmers and shipping it abroad to areas in need. What the administration is looking to do now instead is buy food locally, in the country of need, or distribute cash or vouchers to people directly so they can make their pur-chases at local markets. Also on the cutting block is the practice of food aid monetization, which entails gifting American grains to charities. The charities then sell the food on the local market in poor countries, and the profit is used to finance their anti-poverty and development programs. Under the current system, the U.S. spends about $1.4 bil-lion a year on food aid, and the process of buying from American farmers and shipping abroad takes months. The proposed change is expected to save millions in shipping costs and distribute aid more quickly. The proposal, however, has been met with resistance. Organizations like the USA Rice Federation and senators representing farm states are defending the longstanding policy, arguing that it bolsters the economy and spreads the message of American goodwill to places of instability and extremism. The American Maritime Congress trade group has protested the change as being devastating to American shipping, which under current law is respon-sible for 75 percent of food aid distributed abroad. Hun-dreds of jobs would be lost, they say, if aid was no longer sourced domestically. Others worry that such a change would be a slippery slope to no funding for international food aid at all; once the system loses its domestic base, it will also lose its domestic support. These qualms are justified. Of course the farm industry and the shipping industry do not want to lose their major contracts. It’s good for their business and their bottom lines. But if the United States wants to demonstrate its benevolence and goodwill, and its ability and capacity to aid the needy, this reform must be passed.

America is the only major donor nation that still ships domestic food to areas of crisis instead of buying locally. The economic waste is huge. Fuel is expensive, and as transportation costs have risen the past few years, there is less money to spend on food aid itself. Also maybe not as significant, but still important, is the environmental impact that comes with shipping and transporting these goods. Eliminating this step would reduce our fuel con-sumption and environmental footprint, make the pro-cess of distributing aid more efficient, and allow us to deliver more food to those who need it.

The United States isn’t the only one who would benefit. Supporting local farmers and markets sets a solid foun-dation for sustainable, long-term growth in places strug-gling to get a foothold in prosperity. Ending the practice of supplying grains to charities to sell for profit would also be an important step toward improving how we do food aid. The Government Ac-countability Office published a report in 2011 saying that almost $300 million was wasted in a system fraught with inefficiencies. CARE, a major international relief organi-zation, recently ended its practice of accepting govern-ment grains to sell and fund its programs. This amount-ed to a loss of $45 million a year from its budget. But they took the hit because they wanted to be able to provide better aid to more people in more places. That is the sort of attitude that our government and busi-nesses must adopt. Clinging to the old system because it’s the way things have always been done is a poor ex-cuse for a country of the United States’ stature. Profit is secondary when human lives are at stake. We as a coun-try always pride ourselves on our capacity for change and innovation. Let’s take the lead by reforming the sys-tem at home so we can continue to help those who need it most. PP

TO BETTER HELP THE WORLD: REFORMING U.S. FOOD AIDBy Christine Server ’16, Staff Writer


11

Believe it or not, there was once a time when Kim Jong-Un was seen as a possible force for positive change and reform in North Korea. At this time, however, such a notion seems to be put on hold. In the midst of bel-

ligerent threats and warnings by North Korea, U.S. Sec-retary of State John Kerry made a trip to Japan to show support for the United States’ East Asian allies, while at the same time searching for a solution to the cur-rent diplomatic crisis. On Sunday, Kerry spoke in Ja-pan, saying that the United States “is prepared to reach out” to North Korea, but it is necessary to wait until the “appropriate moment, appropriate circumstance”. He also added that the United States was still prepared to “do what was necessary” in order to defend Japan and South Korea.

While these comments were unsurprisingly vague, they proved to be both comforting and somewhat perplex-ing. Secretary Kerry essentially said that the United States had in no way given up on a diplomatic solution to the brewing troubles in the Korean Peninsula. On the flip side, what is Mr. Kerry planning to try that his suc-cessors have not yet attempted? Harsh sanctions have shown mixed results when leveled against North Ko-rea. They have caused the country to postpone nuclear testing in the past, yet they have also caused and ex-acerbated recent bellicose actions by the nation. Those who favor strict economic sanctions may say that North Korea’s recent aggression is just a last-ditch attempt to remove itself of its economic shackles. If the world stands united against North Korea’s threats, the coun-try may eventually meekly stand down and do as the international community wishes. There are others who say that sanctions do not work against North Korea. Sanctions only serve to further isolate the country from the global community, while making them even more desperate and unpredictable.

Whichever way one leans regarding sanctions, one thing is clear: their results are unpredictable, at best. Using the carrot instead of the stick has its pitfalls as well. Economic aid to North Korea has resulted in un-pleasantness in the past. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was quoted as warning that if the United States gives North Korea oil, money, or food, the North Koreans will

“come around and...take our money and run”. Even Sec-retary Kerry agreed that such a point had merit. “John is absolutely correct, there has been the pattern,” he said. He then added that he has raised that issue in Bei-jing, where he is discussing with the Chinese govern-ment how to handle North Korea. In discussing how to pacify North Korea with the Chinese, Mr. Kerry is taking a positive step towards a long-term solution to the conflict. North Korea has one strong ally in the world, and that is China. China is the primary donor to North Korea of food, fuel, and other essentials. Until recently the Chinese have staunchly stood behind their neighbor in the U.N., refusing to go along with many ideas and plans of Western countries, South Korea, and Japan. Yet following North Korea’s nuclear tests and aggressive actions, China actually agreed with other nations and backed sanctions against the country. If there was ever a time when the Chinese government could be convinced to put massive pres-sure on North Korea, that time is now.

Pressuring China to do anything is a tricky business. Obviously, the massive country has enormous clout in both the economic and military fields. Like any pow-erful country, China is sensitive to any perceived in-sults to its strength. That being the case, the United States has tried to convince China that an openly hos-tile North Korea poses a threat to destabilize all of East Asia. Hopefully, an appeal to the Chinese leaders’ de-sire to stay dominant in the region may persuade them to rein in their ally. Ultimately, no concrete policy deci-sions were made with the Chinese, but Kerry assured the public that he and Chinese officials had discussed a variety of options. Hopefully, the United States and the Chinese will be able to work out a peaceful way to diffuse tensions between North Korea and the world. Perhaps such cooperation will even usher in a new age of Chinese-American cooperation. PP

THE ROUTE TO NORTH KOREA IS THROUGH CHINA By Michael Bodner ’15, Staff Writer


12

The immigration debate very often focuses on visceral arguments and personal stories. The prospect of immigration reform is, indeed, an emotional topic, and anecdotes play an impor-

tant role in galvanizing public support behind or against reform proposals. Proponents of reform relate narratives about the success stories of undocumented immigrants, or the frustrations of a complicated green card process for legal immigration. Opponents bitterly relate stories of unemployment or wage cuts for American workers in the face of an inflow of foreign workers. As Republicans and Democrats begin to find common ground in the Sen-ate over potential immigration legislation, the immigra-tion debate is becoming particularly cogent. However, behind all of the anecdotes lies the emotionless, yet even more persuasive, economic rationale for immi-gration liberalization. Professional economists on both sides are surprisingly supportive of immigration reform. Immigration, like free trade, is widely supported across the political spectrum of economics. Few political pundits or voters recognize the unanimity of the economic profes-sions behind immigration liberalization—for this the im-migration debate loses a vital input in the reform process. Economists recognize the important fact that increased competition enhances economic outcomes. Immigration liberalization increases competition for jobs, providing American employers with greater choice in matching em-ployees to available occupations. Businesses are staffed with more appropriate labor, increasing economic re-turns. Enhanced labor competition also allows workers to perform tasks most suitable to their experience and skill-set. When a company is able to hire unskilled workers be-cause of immigration liberalization, more skilled workers are able to concentrate on those tasks that require their particular skills. By improving efficiency, the American economy is made better off as a whole, as wages rise for skilled workers and newly arrived immigrants alike. Many American businesses are also increasingly demand-ing particular technical skills that are often hard to come by. America’s complicated immigration laws make it chal-lenging for businesses to bring in specialized labor from abroad to perform these tasks. Immigration law requires that domestic firms thoroughly search for Americans to fill these jobs. It is thus an unnecessarily complicated and cost-

ly legal process for American businesses to bring in techni-cally-skilled workers from abroad. This is sheer economic populism. Highly-educated foreigners are waiting years to work in the United States. Economic populism prevents highly-educated workers from settling in our country and greatly benefiting our economy by driving innovation. To be sure, not everyone will necessarily benefit from immi-gration liberalization. An influx of unskilled workers from abroad might dampen wages for undereducated American workers. It is for this reason that labor unions have often proved a regressive force when it comes to making neces-sary reforms to immigration law. However, despite all the outrage over income inequality in this country, immigra-tion or an otherwise rigged economic system plays little or no role in this process. Instead, our economy increasingly demands technical skills—workers educated in engineer-ing, healthcare, and other highly skilled professions. Com-petition from immigrants only plays a negligible role in an economic process that has resulted in divergent wages. Economic populism and the fear of hurting the most vul-nerable Americans shouldn’t prevent the necessary and just reforms to our immigration laws. Instead of restricting foreigners’ rights to work in this country, the U.S. govern-ment should instead focus on making common sense in-vestments in education so that all Americans have access to the skills necessary to compete in an increasingly global economy. The world economy is becoming irrevocably glo-balized and our country will only benefit if we tap into the potential of foreigners that are lining up to take advantage of the wide-ranging benefits that the American system has to offer. Special interest groups shouldn’t keep the interests of the entire country hostage for the benefits of a minority. As a nation of immigrants, America can and must make the necessary reforms to our immigration laws. Resolving the question of undocumented immigrants is only one side of the coin in the immigration question. Any comprehensive reform package should also resolve the problem of legal immigration. Legal immigration to this country is far too complex and costly, which explains why illegal immigra-tion has become so attractive for so many. Economic pro-fessionals are nearly unanimous in their support of reform. It’s about time that the two-party system shrugs off special interest lobbying and embraces the humanitarian and prag-matic prospect of comprehensive immigration reform. PP

THE ECONOMIC RATIONALE FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM By Chris Dunnett ’13, Staff Writer


13

Who owns human genes—people or cor-porations? On the surface, that might sound like a silly question to ask. Only half-century ago, the answer would have

easily been “people”. It seems obvious that genes, pack-ages of DNA inherited via heredity, would be owned by individuals, not firms. Yet, rapid advances in technology and developments in legal precedent have drastically complicated this issue.

Currently, the Supreme Court is tackling this very ques-tion in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Ge-netics. The AMP, along with several medical institutions, is arguing that Myriad Genetics’ patents on genes are invalid under current patent law. This case could poten-tially have a massive impact on the limitations of intel-lectual property, and raises an interesting philosophical question as well: who should be able to own the funda-mental building blocks of life?

Surprisingly, the molecular diagnostics company Myri-ad Genetics has a strong case under current legal prec-edent. The origins of patents for biological inventions extend well back into the early 20th century. However, in 1980, the first case regarding the patenting of geneti-cally modified organisms reached the Supreme Court. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court ruled that GMOs were patentable, stating that the broad language of patent law allows for the patenting of GMOs under the classification of “composition of matter.”

In the 1990s, Myriad Genetics was able to isolate two genes known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. The two genes have a strong association with breast cancer, and the testing of the genes is a significant tool for breast cancer diagnoses. Sensing an opportunity, Myriad filed patents for the two isolated genes and, since then, has held a monopoly over diagnostic testing involving BRCA1 and BRCA2. In effect, no other medical institution can test patients for BRCA without falling under the threat of legal action. Myriad’s justification is that an isolated gene is significantly dif-ferent from a gene found naturally in the human body. Already, patents are issued for chemical compounds un-der the classification of “isolated sequences.” Genes, be-ing sequences of DNA, should be patentable under the same category. Furthermore, the process of isolating the

genes arguably needs to be protected under a patent, lest another organization mimic Myriad’s process.

Yet, under a more comprehensive examination of the situation, Myriad Genetics’ arguments fall apart on le-gal, political, and ethical grounds. As AMP notes, Title 35 of the United States Code states that a substantially unaltered, naturally-occurring item does not qualify as a patentable item. For example, a company could not “modify” a cow by removing its organs and file a pat-ent, claiming that it is sufficiently different from a cow found in nature. Nor could it argue that the process of cow organ-removal should be protected under a patent. District Court Judge Robert Sweet sided with AMP on this issue, stating that simply isolating a gene does not change the “fundamental quality” of that gene.

Furthermore, the patenting of genes is an impediment to medical research and scientific progress in general. Medi-cal research thrives on competition and collaboration. Be-cause Myriad holds complete control over BRCA testing, it heavily discourages other organizations from improv-ing or supplementing BRCA research. This lack of compe-tition not only stunts the advancement of medical knowl-edge, it also provides no oversight for Myriad’s standards of testing. Myriad has no competitor regarding BRCA genes so it has little incentive to reduce costs or maintain the highest level of quality in its testing procedures.

In the end, Myriad’s patents also fail to meet a certain ethical standard. According to Yale Law School scholar Adam Cohen, the Supreme Court has stated that the pat-ent system must benefit, and not harm, the public. By claiming to own a part of the human body, and using that ownership to prevent medical research and deny pa-tients options, Myriad Genetics has greatly fallen short of that societal standard.

Indeed, the potential payoff for Myriad, should the pat-ent be upheld, is enormous. However, the threat to the medical research community and patient care is equally as large. The Supreme Court needs to draw a clear line between legitimate medical discoveries and cheap at-tempts at medical monopolies. Only people, not com-panies, should be able to own the fundamental building blocks of life. PP

WHO OWNS YOUR GENES?By Peter Lee ’14, Staff Writer


14

WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS

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

If interested e-mail us at

[email protected] find us online at

jhupolitik.org

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


15

the politik press, volume xiii, issue 9

Documents

politik press4week

politik press3inside

politik press1april

issue ixapril

issue week

chris dunnett

chris winereditors

adam roberts