Shout Out to NYU Model UN

I spent last Thursday through Sunday staffing for NYUMUNCV, a fun, fast-paced, stressful college Model UN conference. As veteran Model UN-ers know, the most difficult part of Model UN isn’t the months of prior research or speaking intelligently in front of a room of strangers on the spot. The hardest part is explaining to those people what exactly “Model UN” is.

Despite this, I am going to attempt to explain it.

NYUMUNC is a 13-way crisis with 13 committees of delegates who come from the best universities across the country to compete. NYU is special in our conference, because it is the only conference in the country that can handle the capacity of 13 committees operating all at once. The nature of the conference is that the actions of one committee directly affect the other 12. For example, if the Peru committee declares a civil war, the Colombia, Brazil, and Bolivia committees will most likely be affected by a large influx of refugees, and those committees will have to deal with their own problems as well as this new issue.

This weekend has been unexpectedly wonderful. Preparations began in September, and months and months of meetings and research seemed boring and unfruitful. But all that time paid off. The Secretariat, the Crisis Directors, the Chairs, and the staff were all remarkably well prepared. We knew the topic front to back and we were looking forward to whatever insane requests the delegates would throw at us.

All of this is a love letter to Model UN. I’ve been involved with this great institution since my sophomore year of high school, and admittedly, it catapulted my interest into my majors: economics and politics. Not only is it the best forum to meet people from all over the world interested in global politics and issues, my best memories, my best friends, and my highest achievements can all be attributed to Model UN.

Over the last few years, I have learned more about international economics, humanitarian issues, disarmament disputes, global relations, and the spirit of human competition than I could have ever learned in a classroom. I’ve discovered passions for new topics, and I’ve improved my networking and public speaking skills far better than in my mandatory Speech class in high school.

I hope that over the next few years at NYU I will continue to adore Model UN and thrive in it. I see seniors bid farewell to Model UN with tears just shy from falling, and I can already feel myself missing this immensely after I graduate. But fingers crossed, I won’t just be modeling UN anymore, I’ll be doing it for real.

Should the U.S. Fear the Rise of China? A Former Ambassador’s Take

The United States and China seem to be in a race of sorts, competing for economic influence, military power, and political control.  Although the U.S. is still in the lead, China is not far behind, hot on its heels. Should the U.S. fear that China will soon overtake it?

In a discussion he had with my international affairs class, the Honorable Winston Lord, former U.S. Ambassador to China and Assistant Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, shared why he strongly believes that the rise of China will prove to be no match for U.S hegemony.  He used what he called his “Eight Fearless Statements on China” to commend China for its astounding rate of growth, but also to assert that there exist contradictions in the nature of this growth which will ultimately allow the U.S. to maintain its long-held supremacy.

Lord’s “Eight Fearless Statements” are as follows:

Statement One: “The Chinese economy is an unstoppable juggernaut.”

The rise of China is the most astonishing economic rise in history. It has had 10% annual growth for over 35 years, its per capita income has increased from $200 to $6000, and it has lifted 500 million people out of poverty. Not to mention, the Chinese rank #2 in the world in GDP,  #1 in exports, #2 in imports and #1 in foreign reserves.  They are rapidly gaining technology for future growth, expanding in their construction of infrastructure, and encouraging more university education.

Statement Two: “The Chinese economy will hit brick walls.”

Its population of 1.4 million distorts statistics: although it ranks #2 in the world in GDP, its per capita income remains ranked #92, nestled between Bosnia and the Maldives. In addition, China has major shortfalls when it comes to acquiring natural resources and providing its citizens with clean water and energy. According to Lord, “The changes in Chinese cities will take your breath away…that’s the problem.” The pollution in Chinese urban centers is among the worst in the world and poses a huge risk to the health of its growing population. Lord asserts that this growing population, in addition to suffering from pollution related health issues, will inevitably endure a greying crisis. In two years, its labor force will begin to decline. Currently, the ratio of working to retired is five to one but in less than twenty years, this ratio will go down to two to one. However, Lord states that the root of the issue is the Chinese’s lack of ingenuity. He uses the example of the iPhone, saying that the Chinese are good at building the popular phones, but not inventing them.

Statement Three: “China’s military is growing and becoming an ominous threat.”

The Chinese defense budget is equivalent to the next twelve Asian countries combined. The country has made upgrades to its nuclear program, major advancements in space, and has built the world’s largest army. The growth of its navy has allowed it to further intimidate its neighbors in Southeast Asia and also complicate U.S. defense strategy. In addition, it is beginning to use unconventional military tactics in combating U.S. strategy including destroying U.S. satellites and engaging in cyber warfare.

Statement Four: “Chinese military power is grossly exaggerated.”

China has fourteen neighbors (the most in world) and is forced to address numerous territorial disputes between groups with cultural, religious and historical animosities toward each other. The U.S. on the other hand shares a border with only two nations, both of which are its allies, and two oceans. Additionally, the U.S. has a military budget four times that of China and a large lead in technology, weapon systems and combat experience.

Statement Five: “Their political situation is remarkably stable.”

China’s leaders have defied history; they have sustained rapid economic growth while giving their citizens little political freedom.  Although there have been small pockets of unrest, they have been for the most part contained. The middle class and graduating students, who currently bear exceptionally high rates of unemployment, have accepted the basic deal of the party:  “Make money or don’t make trouble.” The combination of rising living standards, satisfying people, nationalism, and sweeping censorship and repression suggest that the party is in firm control.

Statement Six: “However, Tiananmen Square can be right around the corner.”

Even by Chinese official count, there are five hundred major political demonstrations per day. These demonstrations are prompted partly by humanitarian aspirations for greater freedom but largely by people’s discontent with health issues caused by pollution, land grabs by local governments, the safety of food, and ethnic unrest. Since there is no rule of law, independent court system or freedom of the press, the people’s only modes of dissention consist of either taking to the streets or expressing themselves through social media—which is becoming the major agent of discord. Because of this, China has spent more money on internal surveillance than it does on its formal defense budget, showing that,  “…even though China may have swagger abroad, it has paranoia at home.”

Statement Seven:  “A rising China is supplanting American influence in Asia and throughout the World.”

China’s remarkable growth and decisive actions pose a sharp contrast to the inefficiency and indecisiveness of democracies in the West. Some countries around the world are being seduced by China’s mix of capitalism, socialism and political control. Its economic influence is growing and is becoming the prime trading partner for almost every country in Asia. In addition, the country is forming economic ties with Latin American and African nations by making investment deals that have no strings attached on human rights or the environment. Furthermore, its gigantic market is so attractive that businessmen, newspapers, and universities are extremely reluctant to attack or resist Chinese censorship to repression.

In regards to Chinese political influence, its navy is increasingly clashing with neighbors in disputes over surrounding water and islands. Its UN Security Council veto and mounting influence in international trade organizations is allowing it to protect its commercial links with nasty regimes around the world and actions proposed by the international community against them.

Statement Eight:  “A limited and challenged China is no match for the U.S.”

China’s political system and defense of malicious regimes around the world makes Chinese soft power “an oxymoron.” Its short list of strong allies, which consists mainly of Pakistan and North Korea, lessens its appeal to other countries looking to make military alliances. Territorial disputes and other questionable activities are driving other countries closer to the U.S.

It is only in the economic realm that China can quite possibly match the United States. In terms of every other index of power, China cannot compete. America’s superior military might, technological advancement, entrepreneurial spirit, better demographic tendencies, and new energy trends like shale, will mean further growth for America but a brick wall for China.

When asked how he would sum up these contradictions on the Chinese scene, Lord said this:

“When I think of China and its problems, I think of a Chinese pilot with a plane full of passengers. The pilot is like the leadership of China and he announces to his passengers, ‘We have good news and bad news: The good news is, we are way ahead of schedule. The bad news is, we are lost.’ If they don’t fix their problems they can be lost and loosing altitude in the next decade. “

So, should the United States fear the rise of China, or welcome it?

Commending the Searchers of the Washington Mudslide and MH370

I would like to take a moment to commend human willpower and compassion.

The last few weeks have been marred by several tragedies, notably the mudslide in Washington State and the missing Malaysia Airlines flight. In the midst of these horrific events, humans cannot help but cling onto the slightest sliver of hope.

Rescue efforts for both misfortunes have been valiant and kind. Australia’s prime minister promises that he will not end the search for the plane or possible survivors until answers have been found. Mudslide searchers are still trekking difficult terrain to find the thirty remaining missing people.

As a politics and economics major, the world seems to be a distrustful and hopeless place, with corruption evident in every level of the public and private sectors. However, despite my self-proclaimed cynicism, I still believe in true human benevolence, as exhibited by the persistent searchers of the mudslide and plane disappearance.

The key is employing a Rousseauian view of ourselves, rather than simply believing we are all inherently “tainted.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed we are all good at heart, but the functions of society force us to be deceitful, dishonest, and sly. When temptations such as greed, power, success, and money are eliminated from the equation, humans really are good. The people searching for survivors have been persistent, even though most of them are not even directly affected by the tragedies. Every country involved in the MH370 search has contributed effort and aid although many of them are not involved at all.

Taking away our temptations, we are all good. As idealistic as it sounds, if we all resisted our temptations, there would be few problems, if any. Save for a few war fanatics or mentally unstable people in our society, I suspect many of you would like a world with little conflict. This is a message I hope resounds well, from now, when you want to copy answers from someone else’s test until later in the future, when you may have a risky opportunity to rob hundreds of people of their life savings. Remember, you are intrinsically better than that.

A Sea of Uncertainty: The Future and The Internet

As we return from spring break and reluctantly resume our daily routines, start the week with Konstantine’s post on the future of the Internet.

—

With our tiny hands gripping the warm metal door handles of our minivan, my twin brother and I would desperately wait to hear the liberating beep and rescuing click that signaled their unlocking. When we were finally able to slide the doors open, all we saw in front of us was the clear blue ocean, begging us to dive in. Despite our jubilation and state of captivation with the sea and sand before us, we knew all too well what was to come: ”STOP!” As my mother whitened our bodies with SPF 70, us vehemently resisting her every attempt to apply “just a little bit more,” my father would slowly walk toward us — towels and toys in tote. Before we made our mad dash across the hot sand and into the cool waters of the Mediterranean, my father knelt down and stared into the eyes of my brother and I.  He would repeat a phrase, one I thought I understood until now: “The sea is selective, slow at recognition of effort and aptitude, but fast in sinking the unfit.”

My father was a Merchant Marine and graduate of Fort Schuyler Maritime Academy, where every cadet was required to learn this phrase by heart.  Whenever he would repeat it to my brother and I, I would ask him what he meant. Instead of breaking down the quote word by word, my father would cut straight to the point: Be alert and be prepared for anything.

I eventually memorized this quote, just as my father had — perhaps due to the amount of times we had gone to the beach when I younger. However, as a student studying international relations in the 21st century, this quote still resonates with me, but now on a different level. In observing the world around me, I realize that it is similar to the sea that my father spoke of: “…selective, slow at recognition of effort and aptitude, but fast in sinking the unfit.” With competition for international power and authority on the rise, it is important to understand that in order for this nation to metaphorically stay “fit,” it must remain alert and prepared to respond to any threat that may arise.

According to TIME.com, in wake of the revelations brought about by Edward Snowden with regards to the NSA’s Internet surveillance strategies, the United States has agreed to relinquish control over the Internet’s Domain Name System, which translates numerical addresses into recognizable Internet names. The move would ultimately turn over the Department of Commerce’s ability to distribute the numbers that make up Internet addresses — primarily through the use of the non-profit organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which facilitates this process— to another entity not specified yet. This comes as other nations are beginning to pressure the United States into allowing for more international oversight in monitoring worldwide communications.

Overall, the private sector seems optimistic about the transition. In a statement provided to TIME, Vint Cerf, Google’s chief Internet evangelist wrote, “The Internet was built to be borderless and this move toward a more multistakeholder model of governance creates an opportunity to preserve its security, stability and openness.” However, not everyone agrees with Cerf. Many feel that this “openness” poses a threat to national security. Former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich tweeted last Friday: “Every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the Internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.” Despite their differences, both sides recognize that the transition that the government has agreed to make is sure to have implications for Internet security.

With the U.S. becoming the target of more cyber crime and terrorism plots, it is reasonable to question whether any reduction in America’s ability to monitor the Internet will prove to hinder its overall capability to protect itself against threats. Now that the U.S is slowly losing power over the Internet, who will take over? Despite its goals to allow for more oversight, should the U.S. concede security for transparency?

According to the Wall Street Journal, “…this is a concession by the U.S. While the Commerce Department rarely intervened publicly in ICANN’s affairs, the implicit threat of its ability to do so will be gone.” Although the U.S. has long expressed its intentions to eventually open control of Internet operations to the rest of the world, given the new threats that exist today, this may be imprudent. The article in the Wall Street Journal goes on to say that the transition “…could have an unforeseen impact in the future, particularly if cyber weapons continue to play a larger role in military and counter-intelligence activities.”

In a sea of uncertainty and in an ever-changing international landscape, it is vital for this country to remain fit to compete. Although the U.S. may be eager to finally resolve its NSA fiasco, perhaps it needs my mother’s “STOP!” and my father’s reminder. Countries with power will stay afloat, while countries that are unprepared to respond to threats to this power will be quick to sink. Concessions, no matter how righteous they may seem, have consequences. Can the U.S. afford to make this concession and hand over the Internet?

Yes, I Am Talking About the Oscars Over Ukraine

It seemed largely appropriate to talk about the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but given the recent nature of the events, it was not appropriate to ponder on unfinished circumstances. Perhaps as more unfolds in the next few days, commentary on the situation will be more fitting.

Onto the Oscars. Like millions of others around the world, I watched the Academy Awards on Sunday night (as I am, admittedly, a film enthusiast). A night of glitz and glamour, it is a far cry from the world of military invasions and political upheaval. For a night, it was chance to forget about real life worries, maybe. But still, I felt a disturbing undertone to the event, which can be summed up in Ellen DeGeneres’s most risqué joke of the evening: “Possibility number one: 12 Years a Slave wins Best Picture. Possibility number two: You’re all racists.”

Running along with the theme of equal human rights from last week, racism is still prevalent, in movies as well as society in general. It usually does not come in explicit form, but rather hidden and impossibly untraceable and unverifiable. Look through the history of filmmaking, and there are few movies that simply showcase the talents of people of color. Instead, they are confined to roles in stories about “rising above the white man,” as showcased in 12 Years a Slave, The Help, Remember the Titans, and Amistad. To remedy this, there must be a larger influx of scripts that allow for a more diverse range of characters to exist, but that argument leans more to my film beliefs than my political ones. I understand in certain instances that the casting of a particular race is unavoidable, such as in a biopic. But there is a shadow that casts over the movie industry, one caused by uncertainty whether an actor is chosen, or not chosen, based on their talent or on the color of their skin. No one can ever definitively prove that a Caucasian actress was hired over an Asian, African-American, or Latina actress just because she was white.

Relating this to the realm of current events, issues such as affirmative action and hate crimes exist because no matter how much we have progressed, there is more to learn and farther domains to reach. It exemplifies that universal rights to all is still a foreign concept to many of us. In a way, affirmative action is a noble effort to promote justice and equality. But it propagates the very concept it tries to eliminate: making decisions based on race. And the most controversial downside to affirmative action may be the inadvertent possibility that a higher qualified candidate was not selected because they were not a person of color, basically reverse discrimination. This issue is the quintessential double-edged sword, and the only solution is for equal opportunity to be a universal understanding, but that solution is idealistic at best.

Considering the Civil Rights Movement and the end of Apartheid have only occurred within the last fifty years, should I be content with the amount of progress so far?

No. I am not content. Not until everyone and anyone is allowed to freely be. The argument that we should be content is a weak one. We should do better. We can do better.

George Washington, Alexander the Great,and Papou

My grandfather, or “Papou,” as we like to call him, is a humble man who still drives a red 1995 Ford Taurus. He always wears his brown low-cut boots and grey slacks, and will, at all times, have one of his 99-cent baseball caps on his head. His daily routine consists of driving to 86th street to pick up the newspaper, checking in on his brother at the Veterans Hospital, and having coffee with some of his friends. He seems like any other older man relaxing and enjoying his “golden years.” Had I not been a curious eleven-year-old, I might still believe just that; but it was then that I discovered Papou was far from ordinary.

When you are a little boy in 6th grade, you think that every immigration story involves a boat and Ellis Island.  You imagine families tightly packed on the deck of a vessel, eagerly awaiting their arrival in the land where “the streets are paved with gold.” I had assumed that this was my grandfather’s story until, one day, while snooping around my grandparents’ attic, I came across an old photograph that was nestled inside a small coffee can. After I wiped away the dust and stared at the photo of the soldier, I ran downstairs to my grandfather and asked him, “Papou, can you tell me about this picture?”

For the next few hours, my grandfather mesmerized me with his stories of Nazis and World War II, combat and The Korean War.  I assumed Papou simply left Greece, became an American citizen, and then lived happily ever after. I never imagined that scar on his left leg was a hidden remnant of his experiences as a soldier. His stories had me hooked.

A few weeks later, when my history teacher, Ms. Gilson, announced that we would be participating in the National History Day Fair competition, it was an easy decision for me to research the Korean War, the event that had damaged the leg of my very own Papou.   Not only was I excited by the war stories themselves, as any eleven-year-old would be, but I felt obligated to bring these stories of sacrifice to light.  I didn’t want his scar to be a secret any longer.

My budding historian instincts made me want to fill in Papou’s stories with more context. I rented documentaries about the war and about soldiers who were on the frontlines; I googled as much information as I could. What I learned made me realize that my grandfather was just as much a part of history as George Washington or Alexander the Great. History wasn’t textbook blabber; it was stories of real people–women, men– grandfathers.

When I asked Papou why he had never spoken about his scar before, he responded, “Nobody ever asked.”  From that moment on, my learning became personal.  When I’m taught an event in history, Papou’s scar, which is indelible on his body and in my mind, motivates me to learn more than dates and important figures.  It drives me to fully understand the human impact of history.

We Were Progressing, Weren’t We?

The 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi was not just about the athletes, or the medals, or even our obsession with whether curling was a sport or not. Russia’s massively controversial anti-gay laws were much of the focal point as well, with protests and detainments left, right, and center. The high profile event has brought the issue of equality and LGBTQ rights back to the forefront, especially now that Arizona legislature has passed a bill that could allow business owners to refuse service to gay customers on the basis of respecting religious beliefs.

But we were seemingly going in the right direction. Much of the country cheered the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 in June 2013. As more and more professional athletes, celebrities, and public figures came out of the closet, slowly but surely, Americans were becoming more accepting of the LGBTQ community. However, there is a key word in that statement: Americans. Americans as a whole have become less condemning, but in other parts of the world, the same cannot be said. Many countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia still enforce laws that criminalize homosexuality and restrict freedom of expression. Most of this information could be new to you, because coverage on gay rights in foreign countries is minimal and overlooked.

Unfortunately, that is the nature of current events and news coverage. The most recent events are put on the headlines, and old news becomes irrelevant and forgotten. Only because of the Olympics has Russia’s restriction of freedom of expression, enacted in June 2013, reached newsworthy status once again. But few of us still remember that India recriminalized homosexuality in December 2013. And even less heard in February 2014, Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni promised his party he would sign into law a bill that harshly reprimands homosexual acts, with punishments including life imprisonment. All of these human rights violations have been easily pushed aside to make room for the newest spicy gossip.

There are many arguments against LGBTQ rights, most of which I will never understand because of their vague and unsubstantiated nature. The most prevalent and noteworthy argument is the question of tradition, culture, and religion. This reasoning is thrown around as the go-to excuse; obviously, you cannot openly disrespect another’s beliefs. However, the fundamental problem with this argument is that a country cannot enforce a specific set of rules based on beliefs that others do not believe in. And this is where the assertion of separation of church and state comes to play. The 21st century is no longer an era of witch-hunts and persecution. We have evolved to learn better, and our governmental institutions are supposed to protect our freedom, not restrict or diminish it. Specifically, the belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman may be one person’s ideology, but it may not be mine or yours or anybody else’s. Therefore, it cannot be enacted as a law meant to be obeyed by all citizens.

A very controversial comparison has been made between the Civil Rights Movement and the LGBTQ movement on social media. Evidently, there are major differences between the two social movements, but no one can deny there are striking similarities. Perhaps to be more diplomatic, I will say that the times are different and because of that, we may never be able to compare the two directly. Mid-19th century, the means to send a message were sit-ins and riots. In this generation, we have social media and the Internet to propagate and gather ideas.

In any case, human rights should be universal, whether it pertains to the past, present, or future. It never matters whether we think we are “ready” or not. All humans should, idealistically, have access to the same rights, resources, and opportunities. In the words of the Founding Fathers, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Greek Oil—Not from Olives

Light at the end of the tunnel can sometimes be blinding. As it records its first account surplus in recent history, Greece is seeing the light and is actively taking steps to allow for future economic growth. However, if not taken carefully, these steps can lead the country in the wrong direction.

In an effort to attract greater foreign investment, the Greek Energy Ministry is planning to open its country’s doors to permit the exploitation of oil and natural gas reserves beneath the Ionian and Aegean seas.  According to news reports, Greece claims its reserves contain US $600 billion in potential energy resources. If tapped, the reserves would make the country the top oil-producing nation in the Balkans.

Although Greece may be looking ahead into the future, perhaps it is not looking far enough. Traditionally, the Greek economy’s subsistence has hinged on the success of its tourism industry, which contributes around 15% to its GDP annually. This 15% depends largely on the ability of Greek businesses, namely hotels and resorts, to consistently provide visitors with a sparkling vacation atmosphere. Breathtaking views from rooms overlooking pristine beaches that lead into the crystal-clear water of the Mediterranean Sea are what satisfy tourists and make them return. If they slide their balcony doors open to the sight of giant gray refineries, and ominous-looking oilrigs in the near distance, the 15% we saw earlier vanishes.

According to Reuters, Greek Energy Minister, Yannis Maniatis, stated, “Today we have opened a new page for the Greek market.” His optimism is understandable; $600 billion can indeed, “open new pages,” even for the Greek economy. However, if the Greeks wish to keep their 15%, they need to be aware that tourism and drilling go together like olive oil and vinegar — they just don’t.

A Powerful Pair: the Clintons and Gates

This past Thursday, I had the honor of watching Hillary Clinton, her daughter, Chelsea, and Melinda Gates speak at NYU about women’s progress. The event focused on the importance of research and data on the status of women and girls around the world. A joint venture between the Clinton Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations, the No Ceilings Initiative shines light on the gathering of statistics to support women. Without statistics and data, how are we to know how well our world has evolved?

I am obliged to begin by expressing my utmost respect and reverence for these three remarkable women. As a driven, no-nonsense girl with aspirations in politics and public affairs, I look up to Hillary, Melinda, and Chelsea. They are exactly what I hope and dream to be. Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and Secretary of State and rumored Presidential hopeful in 2016, has carved a praiseworthy path for herself, pushing boundaries and setting the bar higher for not only women in government, but everybody in the field. Her work in politics as well as in her non-profit organization has made a remarkable impact on the world, proving solidly that women have the power to soar above the restrictions placed by society. Furthermore, Melinda Gates, wife of millionaire Bill Gates, has come a long way from graduating with a computer science and economics degree from Duke University. Forbes has listed her in the Top 10 Most Powerful Women in 2011 through 2013, climbing higher and higher every year. As she said at the event, she held her ground in a male-dominated profession, forever believing that talent and ability were what determined one’s position in life, not their sex. Lastly, Chelsea Clinton, daughter of two of the most influential politicians in the United States. Emerging from the shadow of her famous parents, she has made a name for herself in her own right, graduating with honors from Stanford University, earning degrees from University College, Oxford and Columbia University, and participating heavily in Clinton Foundation work.

The event is also special to me, because the three lovely ladies answered a question I submitted. I asked, “As an engineering-hopeful, my sister was discouraged in pursuing a male-dominated field. How can we diminish discouragement of females in masculine professions?” They answered the question more thoroughly and thoughtfully than I could ever imagine. Chelsea Clinton began by detailing how the US has lost ground in the fight for equality in all professions, noting that in 1987, women comprised 33% of all computer science graduates, but in 2001, they only comprised about 20% and in 2011, only 16%. Continuing upon the data-rich theme, Melinda Gates quoted a statistic that girls lose interest in science and math fields around middle school age. She urged that middle school girls are not as aggressive as the boys, and so lose faith in themselves much faster. Hillary agreed and added that girls seem to acquire the “perfectionist problem.” It is during middle school that girls develop a mentality that they need to have every answer right, or they should just give up.

Out of the many lessons learned from the experience, I feel most empowered knowing that if I strive and work hard enough, it could be me one day on a stage at a university giving an inspirational panel discussion to wide-eyed, hopeful students. It seems rather self-indulgent or naïve to suggest, but every goal starts off with believing you can do it, as the Clintons and Gates mentioned in the discussion. The battle is lost before it begins when you choose to lose hope, and they emphasized that it is a choice. Women can either choose to submit, or they can choose to become equal or rise above their male counterparts.

The Final Frontier: A Public or Private Venture?

Here’s the first blog post of the semester, as well as the first post of our new blogger, Konstantine Tettonis! We’re all very excited to have him on board. 

When we say, “The Final Frontier,” we no longer look west, towards the Pacific; we look up, to the sky. Cowboys, horses, and stagecoaches have no use in the exploration of this new frontier. Instead, rockets, aircrafts and rovers will be necessary to chart the unknown and mysterious expanses of Space. Needless to say, this frontier will prove to be much more expensive to explore than the last. The question is: Who should fork over the money, the government or the private sector?

Budget appropriations for space exploration programs have been in decline since the Cold War years. In 2013, the U.S federal government allocated around 17 billion dollars towards funding NASA. Since it retired its space shuttle fleet in 2011, the bulk of NASA’s operations have been focused on studying human-induced changes to the Earth’s atmosphere. Nonetheless, NASA still conducts space-flight programs—just not by itself. To send its astronauts and cargo to space, it now uses privately owned spaceships and transportation vehicles. NASA provides contracts to private sector space transport services, most notably, SpaceX, in order to use their launching capabilities to send its research material and other cargo into space.

However, companies such as SpaceX are capable of much more. Currently, the transport service is working on a project that would send the first humans to Mars. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, SpaceX CEO, Elon Musk, stated that the company would be able to make the colonization of Mars a reality in the next 10-15 years.

The extraordinary capabilities of the private sector beg the question: why is the government still involved? Private sector companies have more money and more interest in space exploration than the government does—so why not let them fund it? In the same interview with the Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk stated, “We want to be like the shipping company that brought people from Europe to America, or like the Union Pacific Railroad…we want to facilitate the transfer of people and cargo to other planets.” So, does the private sector need the U.S to lead the way into this new frontier, or can it go it alone? Regardless, saddle up, because it is going to be an interesting next decade for space exploration.

No Hope, At Least for Now

As a Filipino, discussing Haiyan (or Yolanda in the Philippine naming system) and the destruction it brought to the Philippines brings a tear to my eye. The death toll is rising every day. Infrastructure is ruined. Looting and crime has become rampant and commonplace. Rebuilding will take years, maybe even decades. Thousands of families are forever broken. And however much the aid is appreciated, the help is still insufficient to alleviate this grave disaster.

The Philippines suffers catastrophic disasters as frequently as it is cold in New York City. Although not on the same magnitude, the Philippines constantly experiences a slew of different but still devastating natural disasters. Tsunamis, typhoons, tropical storms, floods, landslides, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, droughts, wildfires, all in seven thousand islands of almost 100 million people. Every time, they hit hard, and every time, there are hundreds of thousands of affected citizens.

Typhoons are not the singular cause of the widespread destruction. Most carnage relates back to unstable infrastructure, and especially in the Philippines, logging has catalyzed the number of fatal landslides. From an outsider’s point of view, it easy to simply say that logging must be prevented or infrastructure should be improved, but in a country with so little wealth and unfortunately, so much political corruption, there is little hope in the people for change. Many activists have tried to instigate change in the country, but with the top officials catering their own needs instead of the peoples’, creating policy that would positively affect the whole country is a dream very far off from reality.

Environmental policy has not been met with great optimism, in the Philippines as well as around the world. The world today focuses on short term gains, because losses seem too far into the future to think about. The logging, for instance, brings short term economic benefit to a handful of citizens, most of whom do not suffer the consequences of the weak soil and catastrophic rains causing landslides that displace hundreds of thousands of people. But to corporations and corrupt officials, the fatalities are not accounted for in their finance books.  They do not see it as a direct consequence, but rather collateral damage. Something that simply occurs but is not necessarily their fault.

That is the plight of today’s society. It takes a huge disaster like Haiyan to prove that those actions have grave effects. And I fear that after this disaster is a relic of the past, the benevolence and understanding in this moment will just disappear, that people will forget that the typhoon did not cause buildings to collapse or landslides to fall, but the recklessness of businesses and corrupt politicians wanting to make quick cash.

The NSA Game is Now Harder to Play

This week, we asked our bloggers to respond to the National Security Agency’s decision to bug German Chacellor Angela Merkel’s phone from 2002 to 2013. Check in every day this week to read a different side of the story, as told by our JPIA writers.

- – -

Here’s what Kathy had to say:

Edward Snowden is wreaking havoc on international relations yet again. This episode of drama features the revelation that the National Security Agency was wire tapping Angela Merkel’s calls from 2002 up until a few months ago, translating to over a decade of breached privacy. The discovery is not only portraying the United States in an even more negative light, it is adversely impacting Obama’s perception in the eyes of the public. The same public that the NSA was chastised for looking into. But the question on everybody’s mind is: did President Obama know about the surveillance of Angela Merkel? Despite reliable reports, the NSA denies claims that Obama was briefed on the wire tapping in 2010.

And so, the American public is posed with two distinct and curious situations. If the answer to the above question is yes, why did he let the surveillance continue? Germany is an ally, and as far as the public is concerned, it is definitely not a terrorist threat to the United States. Is it necessary to surveil every country in the world, friend and foe alike? Does surveillance make the U.S. government an international busybody or a defender of American national security? On the other hand, if the answer is no, why did he not know about it? The leader of the free world needs to know when that freedom is being violated. Obama was elected as the representative to the Executive Branch, the branch of government responsible for deciding how and what kinds of political action should take place. In my opinion, he should have known. It is a tall order to demand that a single man know everything that goes on in such a vast and extensive government, but it is his job. We elected him to that position to supervise the proceedings of government (or at least the electoral college voted him to do so.)

The implications of the surveillance are severe for the United States. Already, the international community is doubting us, and it is probably only the beginning of a series of more serious surveillance tactics conducted by the NSA. We have been snubbed by many diplomats and national leaders since Snowden opened Pandora’s Box containing free information, spying, and secrets. In the eyes of an American, these tactics may be justified. America is a country built on protecting and priding in itself. However, the same cannot be said for countries in other parts of the world where privacy may be held in higher regard than national security.

Obviously, the NSA has gone too far. Not for true moral’s sake, but simply because the international community is, excuse my French, pissed. But I believe that every country knows why the U.S. is doing what it is doing. If every country had the same capabilities as the U.S., they would probably do the same. But in a world of uneven resources and means, the U.S. appears like the overreaching big brother, the man with all the power doing whatever he wants just because he can. And that is what is making the world angry. Not that the U.S. is trying to defend itself, because every country has that same inclination, but because the U.S. has the money and they are using it to a resentful degree. Basically, the world is jealous.

And unfortunately, a line cannot and will not be drawn. No matter how much the U.S. promises to other countries that the spying will stop, it simply will not. Spying is secretive, and so the U.S. will just continue doing everything, you guessed it, in secret. The covert intelligence game is hard to play. Usually the game is played cunningly in the shadows, and the fact that Snowden has brought it into the limelight has only made the game all the more difficult to play.

Bond vs. Snowden

Every little kid wishes he could be James Bond. Smart, tech-savvy, wins all the ladies, jet sets around the world on dangerous, world-saving missions. Recently, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Jack Devine, visited one of my classes. According to him, a CIA spy’s real life is not far off. He also joked about the glamorization of the stacks of paperwork operatives have to complete afterward.

Devine’s visit re-sparked my interest in covert intelligence. Up until the fiasco of Edward Snowden this past summer, my knowledge of spying extended as far as Covert Affairs, the Bourne movies, and Mission Impossible. Obviously, there are many questions surrounding the practice. Is it ethical? Is it not endangering and trivializing the lives of operatives? And most recently, what is the difference between spying on another country and spying on your own citizens?

During his visit, Mr. Devine discussed the protocol and organization of the CIA, the progression of his career, and even shared some anecdotes about his time working for the Agency. The entire class was mesmerized by the exceptionally accomplished man sitting in front of us musing about the cover of his new book, called Good Hunting, named after the good luck phrase operatives would often say to each other before missions. However, the class did notice the turn of his countenance when a certain question was brought up by yours truly. With a CIA director sitting in front of me, I could not resist asking him the question that everyone had on their mind: what effect has Edward Snowden had on the covert operations and intelligence-gathering and can the damage be reversed?

After asking that question, I desperately hoped I had not touched a nerve. After all, it is one of the most contentious topics right now. But also, I had no idea how he would respond. Would he answer my question semantically, carefully avoiding a controversial response? Or would he answer genuinely, based on his actual opinion? Thankfully, he was not offended, and gladly for me, he answered candidly. Devine believed that Snowden should be tried as a criminal, because he divulged information he was not allowed to divulge and the damage he has inflicted to the international community is extensive. He concedes that Snowden acted on ideology, a strong motivator for many whistleblowers, but with such an impractical perspective, nothing positive could have come out of his actions. I was content with the answer, not because it was well-versed or because I actually agreed with his opinion, but because he did not hesitate to express his personal opinion, not the opinion of the government he once worked for.

But as I said, I do agree with Devine. As a fairly idealistic person myself, I sympathized with Snowden at first. He thought he was incredibly noble in revealing the NSA’s surveillance techniques. However the blowout that succeeded changed my opinion entirely. The damage exacted on secret intelligence for not only the United States but for every country is immeasurable. As a result, every country is paranoid about other countries’ information gathering practices and every country has a new perspective about the United States. Numerous diplomatic meetings have been cancelled because of the incident, and in the future, I can definitely understand why leaders will no longer cooperate with Americans.

The topic is controversial for a reason. There are many who applaud Snowden for what he did, and maybe they choose to ignore the effects his whistleblowing will have with foreign relations. In the end, no matter what anyone believes, Snowden has no doubt changed American foreign policy and foreign countries’ foreign policy to the U.S.

Discussion: NYC Mayoral Elections

This week, we asked our bloggers to respond to the following question about our city’s upcoming mayoral elections. Check back in this week to read their answers, given in the following posts!

As you all know the New York City mayoral elections are coming up on November 5th, between current Public Advocate Bill de Blasio (D) and Joe Lhota, former deputy mayor under Rudolph Guilian (R).

You may also know that NYC has an extremely low voter turnout, and NY State was ranked the lowest in voter turnout in the country in 2010.

This report, prepared for the NYC Campaign Board in conjunction with NYU Wagner, interestingly enough, depicts interesting findings and attempts to identify and understand the factors that make this so.

Here’s a cool graphic that represents the percentages of voters in various parts of the city in the 2009 mayoral election.

Another issue on the voting front came to light this summer when the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which stipulated that several specific states required federal approval before they changed their voting laws, was no longer relevant. Immediately upon this 5-4 decision, Texas passed a voter identification law that was previously blocked, and made redistricting plans. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg dissented from the bench and explained that “the Voting Rights Act had properly changed from ‘first-generation barriers to ballot access’ to ‘second-generation barriers’ like racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority”. She maintained that this provision was “effective in thwarting such efforts.”

It is interesting that while politicians in some parts of the country are working to effectively disband the minority vote for their advantage, others are attempting to rein it in. This takes us back to the mayoral elections, in which De Blasio’s campaign has capitalized on factors such as his biracial family, and the fact that his son attends public high school. Check out this article.

What issues does this candidate speak to that are garnering this specific vote, as well as the votes of many other demographics? Can some of the low voter turnout be attributed to the presumption of the outcome, as NYC is the bluest city in one of the bluest states? How do we get our demographic, the young voter age 18-29 to get more politically active, and what would this look like on our campus? Do you agree that with the Supreme Court ruling that this provision has lost its relevance, or do you maintain that it’s still a necessity? Do you believe in the power of the vote in our current system?

- – -

Here’s what Kathy had to say:

The political atmosphere in New York City is a complete turnaround to that of Houston, my hometown. However, the perception of elections are exactly the same anywhere in the country: if you live in a historically Republican or Democratic area, voting for the other party would not matter at all. In Texas, the feeling of being lost in a sea of opposing voters in not unfamiliar. As one of the most Republican states in the union, Democratic voters feel as if their vote does not count, and to a large extent, it does not. What are the chances that the lone ranger will prevail against the large opposition? Aside from recent events, such as the short-lived success of Democratic Senator Wendy Davis’ filibuster against the abortion bill in Texas, there has been slow progress in proving the assumption wrong.

Right now, there is very little power in voting. Even the presidential election, which operates under a guise of democracy, is decided by the electoral college, not popular vote. The majority of states have utterly predictable voting results in national elections. New York has voted Democrat in the last four elections, as well as much of New England and the West Coast. In addition, the Midwest, from Texas up to Montana and Idaho, have voted Republican in those same elections.

On the other hand, political practices such as gerrymandering has been met with contentious debate, districting areas that would allow a certain candidate or party to win. For a country that prides itself in a fair, equally-representative government, it is a wonder how an institution like gerrymandering is considered legal.

It is no doubt due to this kind of data that half of all legally-capable American citizens decide not vote. Of course, low voter turnout can be a result of many things, such as limited access to voter stations and prior personal engagements, but this explanation seems much more plausible. Furthermore, the 18-29 age demographic is almost always ranked the lowest in voter turnout.

Amidst the current government shutdown, young adults are not feeling the effects at all. College students are still going to classes, doing homework, and having fun, and we have lived the last 12 days oblivious to the national consequences of the closure of the US government. Young voters are only provoked by issues that specifically pertain to them. Discussions about Medicare, mortgages, and immigration are not exactly the problems that the average young voter faces today. It will be difficult to get the young interested in politics if the agenda does not include issues that they are concerned with.

In the 2013 New York City mayoral elections, Democratic nominee Bill de Blasio is doing a great job targeting his policies at usually disenfranchised minorities, such as Hispanics, African Americans, and women. In some respects, the amount of minority support he has garnished is astounding. For the last twenty years, New York City has thrived under a mostly Republican agenda. Crime has significantly diminished, and the perception of a dangerous and unsafe New York has long been shattered. Nonetheless, minorities during those administrations have not experienced the benefits of New York’s so-called progress. De Blasio’s attack on the controversial stop-and-frisk program of Bloomberg’s age has definitely gathered a lot of support. Knowing the program has affected mostly African American and Latino voters, de Blasio has guaranteed for himself a large voter turnout in those communities. But like all politics, de Blasio is employing a sneaky tactic. He composes an enticing policy agenda, gathers the minority vote, wins the election, and as most politicians do when they win, de Blasio will probably not implement the policies he promised.

Meet Kathy

My name is Leanna Kathleena (yes, that is my entire first name) or Kathy for short. I am 17 years old, a freshman at CAS studying Economics and either International Relations or Politics. The study of intergovernmental relations and politics has proven itself to be my natural calling. Having lived in a variety of cultural environments—from bustling Manila, to chic Los Angeles, ever-changing Singapore, rural England, and most recently, suburban Houston—I have grown up with a full perspective of the world. Little fun fact about me: I have traveled to approximately 50 cities in 17 countries, an achievement that I am proudly honored to have accomplished at such a young age. Apart from my international affairs and politics related interests, I am a huge fan of classic music, movies, and literature. Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, and Janis Joplin are among my favorite musicians; Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, and Lawrence of Arabia are some favorite movies, and Catcher in the Rye, Catch-22, 1984, and A Tale of Two Cities, my favorite literature. Additionally, an enormous part of my life has been Model United Nations. Having been a delegate for the past three years, MUN has taught me so much more about the world than I could have dreamed. I learned about economics, politics, humanitarian efforts, disarmament, world health, and war to a degree that makes me certain a career in international relations would be the perfect path to take. Especially considering the forum of debate, MUN is a manner in which informed, interested young international relations enthusiasts are able to voice their opinions, receive feedback, and respond to criticism.

Through my column on this blog I hope to share my own opinion about the world, no matter how insignificant the voice of a young college student may  be in the realm of global politics. I tend to gravitate towards more socioeconomic issues, particularly those that affect the lower class and underprivileged. In terms of a regional preference, I have been strongly influenced by my own travels, which were mostly in Europe and Southeast Asia. I look forward to reading your responses, especially your criticisms and concerns about anything I write!