World Outlook

Dartmouth Journal of International Affairs

Ambassador Gips Meets with the Great Issues Scholars to Discuss African Diplomacy and Development

By Michael Everett ’19

During the fall term, Donald (Don) Gips, the former U.S. Ambassador to South Africa, and his wife, Elizabeth Gips, came to campus to speak with the Great Issues Scholars over lunch. Ambassador Gips is an experienced government figure, having worked as Chief of the International Bureau at the FCC and the Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton administration. Before his selection for ambassadorship, Gips headed the Obama administration’s Office of Presidential Personnel. In addition to his government experience, ambassador Gips has also been a major player in the private sector. He is currently a Senior Counselor with the Albright Stonebridge Group, a strategic advisory and commercial diplomacy firm. Ambassador Gips focuses on issues of African diplomacy and development. During the lunchtime discussion, the ambassador focused on three topics in particular: Africa’s place in the world, the obstacles to African development, and western perceptions of African conflict.

The ambassador began the discussion by illuminating how much Africa has changed and how much it will continue to do so in the coming years. While the standard Mercator projection map may present Greenland as being larger than the entire continent of Africa, in actuality it could fit the entire landmass of the U.S., China, India and most of Europe within its borders. This huge amount of land is being filled up quickly as population growth skyrockets across the continent. Economically, Africa is also beginning to gain prominence through Foreign Direct Investments. Africa is fast becoming a major player on the international community, but exactly what position it will take is unclear.

Most would think of South Africa as the most advanced African country (now even considered a member of BRICS). However, Nigeria just recently surpassed South Africa as Africa’s largest economy. So who should be considered the major country to represent Africa on the international stage, Nigeria or South Africa? This may seem insignificant, but for issues like the possibility of a permanent member slot in the UN Security Council for an African country, deciding who will represent the continent becomes immensely important.

The ambassador also acknowledged the many obstacles of economic integration across the African continent. While African states are dramatically increasing their trade with the international community, their trade levels with each other are stagnant. A lack of infrastructure makes transporting goods and services very difficult across borders. Even worse, border crossings are often immensely strict and corrupt. African countries will have to join together and concentrate their efforts on solving these issues of economic integration if the entire continent is to become prosperous.

Finally, Ambassador Gips touched on the issue of western perceptions of African conflict. A Rwandan student and Great Issues Scholar asked the ambassador whether the world is always going to look at Rwanda and immediately associate it with genocide. The ambassador responded by agreeing with the student that western perceptions of African conflict are often stigmatizing and degrading. Africa is seen as a land of chaos where tribal war controls the continent. That is not to say that the world should ever forget the Rwandan Genocide and its obligation to prevent it from happening again. Rather it is an acknowledgement that countries like Rwanda are greater than the sum of their conflicts. These countries have beautiful cultures, diverse people, and a national spirit separate and greater than the horrors of their past. The west has to recognize these unique cultural and regional traits of African countries that do not derive from conflict if it is ever to truly understand Africa.

Indigenous Peoples, Economic Recovery, and the Reform of U.S. Federal Indian Law

By Steffi Colao

Last Thursday, Robert Odawi Porter, former president of the Seneca Nation, discussed his initiatives for reform of Native American conditions, brought to Dartmouth through the Rockefeller Center. Attorney, scholar, professor, and politician, Porter has devoted his career to ameliorating the political and economic situation of the Seneca Nation, while urging changes for other indigenous nations. He is currently an attorney at Dentons, representing tribal interests in D.C., and he has published Sovereignty, Colonialism, and the Indigenous Nations; a Reader to offer a multifaceted analysis of issues plaguing Native governments today. Although he has been on the forefront of conflicts with the U.S. federal government, Porter seems to have no enemies, approaching the complex troubles of indigenous peoples with healthy optimism and charisma. In his talk, Porter discussed foundational American history before delving into what he sees as the most pressing issues and his recommendations for change.

Porter opened his talk by asserting “Everything about the past is relevant.” In discussing the situation of Native Americans, this statement is especially true, as all current problems are resultant of U.S. Indian policies from the 18th and 19th centuries. Rather than lament the spread of disease, buffalo massacres, and ignored treaties, Porter approaches the past with an “it is what it is” attitude, choosing instead to ask how we can compensate for it now. Aside from the land seizure, which resulted in a checkerboard of small native land rights amidst private U.S. property, one of the most damaging American actions was the creation of one-size-fits-all tribal governments. Imposing “cookie cutter” democracy, these models rejected unique indigenous governing traditions, instead consolidating power into the hands of a few, creating unicameral rule greatly unlike traditional power distributions. Worse, these governments—essentially no more than a counsel with one chairman—were not even autonomous. Every law had to be approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. The BIA has effective rule over these tribal governments, a stipulation that can be removed only after up to 7 years of legal battles. There have been some successes as a result of U.S. policy; for example, the Alaskan Native Companies which, after taking economic hits in the 70s, now profit greatly and are a main source of revenue. Nonetheless, Porter made clear that to reform indigenous conditions, the focus must be on changing the damaging laws of the past.

Porter drew a distinction between internal issues and external barriers as areas for change, citing government distrust and a weak labor pool as the most pressing internal issues and geographic isolation and hostility as the external barriers. Due to U.S.-manufactured governments, many Native Americans have no faith in their government. In terms of the labor pool, most tribal nations lack the education and training necessary for certain skilled labor, as most of the driven members go to the U.S. for college and continue to work there. The geographic isolation contributes to desperate business tactics such as online lending, and surrounding hostile American towns further impedes economic cooperation. Tribal nations live in quite astounding poverty, “surrounded by the wealthiest nation in the world.” Startling statistics cite Native Americans as being 2.5 times more likely to kill themselves. One in three live below the poverty line, experiencing five times the rate of national unemployment. Any perceived perks of living on tribal lands, such as not having to pay taxes, are hardly compensation for such conditions.

Therefore, Porter proposed four areas of reform. First, he believes trust lands, which need BIA approval for any leases or developments, should be converted into restricted fee lands, in

which the land truly does belong to the natives. Even the EPA, a U.S. federal organization, has jurisdiction over trust lands, mocking any semblance of autonomy. Porter himself contested this precedent, fighting EPA intervention over a water treatment facility and eventually succeeding in maintaining Seneca sovereignty. Such a story is by no means representative; in fact, such wins are nearly unheard of, which is why land reform is by far one of the most pressing issues. He also recommends intertribal economic cooperation, of which there is little now, and for regulatory reform, he also suggests the reduction of developmental regulations to at least the level of those in the U.S. Wednesday, the Native American Energy Act passed, expediting tribal development of natural resources like oil and gas—these are the reforms Porter urges. Tribal resources are often so stringently regulated they become difficult to utilize, preventing economic self-sufficiency. Finally, in terms of tax reform, Porter proposed tax incentives for investment on tribal lands. Tribal lands are, for natives, tax-free, yet if an American citizen were to buy a cigarette in the Seneca Nation, the Seneca would have to collect U.S. tax. There is no tax advantage, a startling double standard considering a CT citizen can buy tax-free liquor in NH, and the NH storekeeper doesn’t have to collect CT tax. The IRS used to even consider government education and health care programs “taxable benefits” to citizens, as if it were a disguised per-capita distribution of casino profits. Fortunately, this code was changed, but tax reform would still be instrumental in ameliorating tribal economies.

While the amount of work left to do is staggering, Porter did not ignore great strides made in economic recovery, particularly in terms of gaming, but this is not enough to rely on for revenue. Succinctly, Porter asserted the U.S. government should either raise appropriations or allow indigenous nations complete autonomy, money or freedom. The lack of government action is quite appalling despite the near emergency state of many tribal nations; as Porter stated, “We need a plan, and there is no plan.” Once certain tasks are established, it’s simply a matter of government action, but for now, there is no cohesive federal blueprint. Porter sees the future of U.S.-Indian relations as a two-row wampum belt, the two running parallel, coexisting without interfering or intruding. All that’s needed now is a plan to convert the metaphor into reality.

Professor David Shambaugh Talks About China’s Next Steps

Professor David Shambaugh of George Washington University and the Brookings Institute came to speak at Dartmouth on April 23. He addressed the different challenges China faces now that its growth has come to a crossroads. With its stagnation of growth in many aspects of its power, China now must find new ways to develop. Professor Shambaugh provided several issues that China has to focus on in order to fully transform into a developed nation.

Shambaugh first discussed the economic reforms that China must enact in order to move forward. Currently, the country is facing economic stagnation. Though its economic growth used to be 8%-10%, Chinese leaders now admit that even 7% growth will be difficult to achieve this year. To overcome this problem, the Chinese government needs to address many of the issues that that have contributed to this economic stagnation. One such issue is transitioning China’s source of income from exports and foreign investment to innovation and consumption. Other necessary changes include financial sector liberalization, regulatory streamlining, further international opening, budget transparency, and revision of the tax structure. Much of these reforms can be aided by Shambaugh’s second point: China’s need to better foster innovation. In order to become a fully developed country, Professor Shambaugh stated that China must come out of the Middle Income Trap. In order words, China must learn how to produce high quality and innovative products that set the global standard. To do this, it must get rid of policies that don’t promote innovation, such as censorship and “no go zones”.

Shambaugh continued to detail China’s need to tackle “inequality, instability, and demographics.” The country has an increasingly large wealth gap that isn’t suitable for its growth. To make matters worse, China’s wealthy are spending the majority of their money aboard. Additionally, there has recently been increased instability within China, such as the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong. With its One Child Policy, the country is also becoming the “aging China” with a shrinking younger population being left to care for a growing older generation. This phenomenon is not ideal for supplying the workforce needed to grow the economy.

China also must combat corruption, Shambaugh explained. The Chinese government has long been known for its corruption, which not only causes losses in Chinese wealth, but also jeopardizes the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. The government realizes this, and has started an anti-corruption campaign. Unfortunately, Professor Shambaugh noted, corruption in China is systematic and present throughout all levels of its government. As a result, it will be extremely difficult to resolve the problem. Furthermore, China’s environmental

situation is one of the worst in the world, especially in larger cities such as Beijing. To further develop, Shambaugh asserted that China must find a way to improve its environment, therefore raising the standard of living for its people.

The Chinese have tried to design propaganda for foreigners, and through this propaganda they have attempted to convince the world that China is a peaceful rising power. Unfortunately, the country’s international image is still fairly negative. Shambaugh explained that China clearly still has a long way to go in terms of strengthening its soft power. He also emphasized how China has been trying to project its military power, and is now doing so as far as the Indian Ocean. Shambaugh was confident that while China will continue to try to project its power, the U.S. will keep China in check.

Professor Shambaugh concluded that China now has three options in handling its many challenges. China can accelerate and enact comprehensive reform, stagnate and continue to have problems, or simply decline in power. Though China has been showing signs of the third possibility, there is still time for it to consider its options wisely and determine the country’s future place in the international system.

By Grace Li

#OurSharedArctic: Amb. Mark Brzezinski ’79 Stresses Need for Modern Diplomacy and International Cooperation in Dealing with Climate Change and Arctic Management

By: Hung Nguyen
On February 16, 2015, Mark Brzezinski, former U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Sweden, addressed an audience at Dartmouth College as part of a Montgomery Fellowship lecture series on Arctic development and management.

A member of the Dartmouth Class of 1979, Brzezinski also holds a J.D. from the University of Virginia and a D.Phil from Oxford University. Under the Clinton administration, Brzezinski utilized his expert training on international cooperation, serving as the Director of the National Security Council and dealing particularly with Russian and Eurasian issues. He was appointed Ambassador to Sweden in 2011. During his term, Brzezinski has focused on improving public understanding of global Arctic development.
Showing a map of the North Pole with the eight countries on the Arctic Council (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Russia and the U.S.), Brzezinski noted that no single country enjoys dominance in the region. International cooperation, thus, is necessary in order to advance common interests.

From 1988 to 2013, ice cover of the Artic has reduced by half. At this rate, Brzezinski noted, we might be looking at an ice-free Arctic by as early as 2040. Global temperatures could be driven up by 1–4ºC, and if temperatures rise to the point where Greenland ice is melted, sea levels could even rise as high as 23 feet. Half of the United States’ coastline would be under water, putting 16.4 million Americans at risk of displacement.

Brzezinski suggested that we look at the problem of Arctic management and development in two dimensions. It is first a strategic problem: Brzezinski noted the emerging issue of dealing with geopolitics in the region. He argued that we need to keep the Arctic free of conflict and militarization, as well as to settle boundary disputes in a constructive manner. Another important strategic dimension involves building up the capacity to conduct search and rescue (SAR) operations in the Arctic. However, Brzezinski also looked at the Arctic as a human problem that involves survival and livelihoods. Climate change will endanger vital ecosystems, fish stocks, and so on; these effects might even be irreversible. Brzezinski said we should “think of our grandchildren” to really see the future implications. International cooperation, thus, is key to both of these dimensions.

Brzezinski then turned to the role of the Arctic Council and the future of American involvement, as the United States prepares to assume chairmanship of the Council in 2015. During Sweden’s chairmanship (2011–2013), Brzezinski noted, a trifold balance was pursued with great success. These involved: (1) sustainable economic growth, (2) the protection of indigenous populations, and (3) the protection of the environment. He argued that the U.S. chairmanship—whose central theme is “shared opportunities, challenges and responsibilities”—should learn from Sweden. First, it should emphasize the safety, security and stewardship of the Arctic Ocean. This means being ready for increasing numbers of tourists to the region, as well as for emergencies such as oil spills that might occur anytime. Second, the U.S. must enhance economic and living conditions. Telecom infrastructure, Brzezinski stressed, is in need of improvement, as is the problem of physical and mental health (i.e. high suicide rates) in the Arctic. Third and finally, the U.S. needs to address impacts of climate change, including those not readily visible. All three of these objectives are central and crucial to a successful U.S. term, said Brzezinski.

Concluding his lecture, Brzezinski noted that we have difficult choices going forward, and the choices made during the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council will matter tremendously. He believed that optimism is not unwarranted, though. Brzezinski quoted President John F. Kennedy: “Where nature makes natural allies of us all, we can demonstrate that beneficial relations are possible even with those with whom we most deeply disagree, and this must someday be the basis of world peace and world law.” In his words, nature can—and should—be a great unifier that facilitates international cooperation and prompts us all into action.

The Algerian War and the Remaking of France

By Meredith Alaback

On January 29th, Dartmouth hosted Johns Hopkins Associate Professor, Todd Shepard. An author of the book “The Algerian War and the Remaking of France,” Mr. Shepard is a Francophile historian, specializing in post-WWII French Colonialism. His lecture was divided into two, interwoven discussion points. He commenced with the very specific and crucial time in French imperialistic efforts: the Algerian Independence War, and finished with how the combination of the threat of war and French prospects manifested an idea of a “nation-state”.

From 1830 until 1962, the French claimed almost the entirety of northwestern Africa as theirs for the taking. “La Maghreb” consisted of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, with Algeria ultimately becoming the most important territory. Politically, Algeria was viewed as an extension of France outside of its natural borders. In efforts to legitimize their rule, packs of French citizens sailed across the Mediterranean. Men, women, and children, supported by the French government, flocked to Algeria and settled down in hopes of establishing French culture. Although politically incorrect in modern terms, in the 20th century these French-African citizens were referred to as “pied-noirs”. Shepard notes that, as to be expected, the difference between the natives and the Frenchmen were great. After the recent establishment of “un perspectif laique” (secular perspective) under the first Revolution, the French government essentially banned the inquiry of religion in political situations. For the historically native Muslim population, this idea of separation of religion and state was foreign and unwanted.

Common ethnic disparities were another point of contingency. French men and women were endowed with certain rights from the French government overseas, while the locals were not given such benefits. Up until 1952 (the start of the Algerian Independence War), Shepard explains, the most legitimate right that the French gave to the natives was the title of “French Citizen”. Nevertheless, there were varying degrees of “citizenship” that undeniably continued the discrimination. After years of repression and unequal rights, the Algerians finally rebelled. The rebellion was anticipated, Shepard suggests, and the French did not go down without a fight.

As mentioned earlier, Mr. Shepard focused on the 1940s-1960s; better referred to as the end of the Fourth Republic and the beginning of the Fifth Republic. After the Second World War, the French emphasized the benefits of federalism and their pursuit of a super-national connection. The idea was to create a “Grand Ensemble” or super-nation, erasing the identity of being a “colonial power.” A super-nation would have continued in its dominance of non-domestic territories, only it would have been more humanistic. Ultimately, it was a justification to retain the colonizing life-style that the French had been enjoying for over a hundred years. Allegedly through Federalism, Algerians would be given more sovereignty despite the evident linguistic, religious, and ethnic divide. They would only be given this increase in power on the promise of a continued French executive power.
Thus, Algeria became an experiment. Mr. Shepard discussed that many of the social reforms and promotions that are incorporated into the modern French government were first inserted in Algeria for “testing.” This testing did not last very long, however, as de Gaulle entered the political scene. The messiness of the Fourth Republic was soon replaced with the much needed “cleanup” from the Fifth Republic. As much as he tried to resist, after four years into the French Presidency and eight years of an Algerian Revolution, de Gaulle eventually came to the reluctant conclusion of Algerian Independence.
Shepard finished his detail-oriented presentation with a final, interesting addition to the story: Algerian archives were most detailed during French occupation. Although there is an abundance of information in these archives, there will unfortunately always be a lacking in local Muslim records during this crucial Northwest African period. Overall, Shepard’s presentation elucidated France’s history regarding its rule of Algeria, and how its loss of the colony majorly shaped French politics.

A Cautious Optimism: Jake Sullivan Expounds on Potential for International Agreements and Bipartisan Compromise in Conversation with Daniel Benjamin

By Bryan Thomson

On January 28th, Daniel Benjamin, director of the Dickey Center for International Understanding, introduced Mr. Sullivan as one of the few people in Washington who everyone knows by a single name – “Jake.” The youngest-ever Director of Policy Planning for the Secretary of State (Hillary’s Ear), Mr. Sullivan assisted Secretary Clinton, and later Vice-President Biden, on a host of critical national security issues for over five years. Even after stepping down from his influential roles in the Obama Administration to teach at Yale Law School, Mr. Sullivan has continued to utilize his policy-crafting and diplomatic expertise in the ongoing Iranian nuclear talks.

The current political and economic context of American foreign policy is simultaneously uplifting and dispiriting – the dollar is strong, oil is cheap and relations with countries like Iran and Cuba are more promising than anytime in recent memory. Yet, ongoing, ‘frozen’ civil wars in Syria and Ukraine, rising tensions with Russia and whispers of the looming possibility of a Cold-War style confrontation with China leave many skeptical about America’s security and ability to support democratic peace and international economic cooperation. After spending years working on these issues in over 100 different countries and 150 different cities, Mr. Sullivan has interpreted these conflicting indicators as a confirmation that America must be firm in her resolve to support like-minded democracies and liberal market economies. Mr. Sullivan explains, that with a strong and consistent foreign policy that prioritizes American security and alliances with like-minded states, the U.S. is poised to excel in the coming years as a moral and economic leader.

Mr. Sullivan’s policy decisions are formed by a convincing pragmatism built on a realist understanding of the modern international system. Mr. Sullivan claims that, in the recent successful multilateral sanctions of Iran, “countries are coming at this from their own self-interest.” Because “the United States has made this a high priority,” Mr. Sullivan asserts, “I think countries have responded to that.” Touting the recent breakthroughs in the nuclear talks with the country, Sullivan notes how even the Russians and Chinese have come on board to put pressure on Iran for a solution. The bottom line for Mr. Sullivan in the Iranian case and others is that when the U.S. seeks to improve security worldwide, “all our partners can understand the technological and strategic interests” behind decisions, and policy goals can be realized through cooperation.

In building a new nuclear policy with Iran, the U.S. has strived for “a massive increase of transparency measures” that incentivizes cooperation and permanent progress. Because of ongoing conversations with Iran in Oman over the past two years, Mr. Sullivan and others have ensured with high confidence that the Iranian nuclear program is not “moving forward in any meaningful way.” Now, daily inspector access is granted, and joint European and American pressure through sanctions has been successful in creating the very real possibility for a deal with Iranian leadership. Mr. Sullivan stated, “There is a deal that can give the international community confidence… the world presently lacks confidence… but Iran has been complying.” In addition to the European-American cooperation on Iran, Mr. Sullivan contends that increasing European defense budgets and strengthening the continent’s economic prospects needs to be a major strategic goal of the United States.

Mr. Sullivan also sees hope in the political gridlock of Washington – an issue many have lamented for years. Though bipartisan agreement has been scant in the past decade, a “fair degree of commonality between Congress and the Executive Branch” can and will be found if an agreement with Iran regarding their nuclear program is reached, claims Mr. Sullivan. In defense of this claim, he cited the recent bill to arm Syrian rebels that passed after ISIS increased their territorial holdings in late 2014. Mr. Sullivan argues that, “In moments of crisis, especially in a national security crisis- there still is the wherewithal, not just for parties to come together, but to do so quickly.” While he is “not saying it will be easy,” Mr. Sullivan has “seen enough of the areas where bipartisanship is still possible to believe this can be carried out.”

If Mr. Sullivan is to be believed, a new type of American exceptionalism that acknowledges other countries’ sovereignty and mutual interests has begun to guide policy across the globe. In India, President Obama’s recent visit affirmed that historical Indian “nervousness has been slowly receding.” No longer does the nation feel a disconnect between a strategic partnership with America and her own autonomy. This sentiment applies elsewhere across the globe; America should not think in Cold War terms like ‘spheres of influence’ in the Baltics and Ukraine, but rather encourage deliberated self-determination and participation in the international system. Mr. Sullivan stressed the need to allow Ukraine to choose her own leaders and own path out of civil war – ideally not one that spurns Russia, but embraces the nation’s longstanding ties to both the east and west. At the same time, we must not turn our back on Putin, but rather “offer him an opportunity to choose a different path” in line with both our interests and those of the Russian people.

Though talk of compromise and global integration through increased cooperation may seem idealistic and impractical in the face of seemingly intractable conflicts, Mr. Sullivan cautioned that this path forward is not preordained nor decided by the United States alone. Progress is “driven by state decision-making,” and progress in Iraq must come from Baghdad, movement in Donetsk from Moscow, and peace in the East China Sea from Beijing and Tokyo. However, Mr. Sullivan cautions, “keeping the pressure on Putin is important: it has got to be a high priority… we can’t, at the end of the day, dictate [his choices] for him.” A positive, long-term improvement in American diplomacy worldwide will come from a combination of American willingness to support democratic and economically free states, and leaders like Putin realizing that aggression and hostility “is not a path that will produce anything but problems down the road.” Without both pieces of the solution, this cautious optimism may be sadly misplaced.

The conversation between Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Sullivan ultimately centered on the idea that, as a nation, we must move beyond a “historical amnesia” – the false notion that the United States has ever been a colossus capable of determining the fate of far-flung regions of the world liable to conflict, such as the Middle East, Ukraine, Iran and the South and East China Sea. Our path forward is not one of frequent unilateral action as the world’s policeman – a route that has already proven costly and ineffective –rather, it is one characterized by a capacity to cajole, promote growth and freedom, and to build institutions based on commonalities. The future of our diplomatic relations rests on American moral earnestness and willingness to act in mutual benefit with other nations – from Europe to India and China to even Iran and Russia.

International Environmental Security: Climate Change, Water Wars, and Other Scary Stuff

By Sumita Strander

Christopher King, the current dean of academics at the United States Army Command and General Staff College, gave a talk at Dartmouth on Thursday entitled “International Environmental Security: Climate Change, Water Wars, and Other Scary Stuff.” In this talk, King discussed the relationship between environmental problems and security.  He used this relationship to claim that paying attention to environmental issues is in the best interest of every nation, which thus makes it a priority for their militaries. King described his own efforts to introduce this priority to the United States’ military. He connected environmental concerns (such as disease and lack of water) to the principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that are found in the United States Constitution. His ultimate claim was that “providing life-sustaining conditions was a basic human pursuit.”

One problem that exists, King said, is that environmental concerns have a heavier impact on developing nations. In other words, “how do we get developed nationals to find it in their ‘National Interest’ to act?” A question like this one, he argued, deems this a public policy issue.  This heavier impact, he argued, is mostly due to the stress of increasing populations. That is, all areas of the world will continue to experience problems related to the changing environment, but these problems will be harder for places with the added pressure of an increasing population. KIng cited the country of Afghanistan and the Nile River Basin as two examples.

Afghanistan, he claimed, is the third-fastest growing country in the world and is the seventh-worst failed state. Additionally, it is included in the list of the ten countries with the worst environmental conditions. King used this to make the point that failure of state correlates with the presence of environmental issues.

Similarly, the Nile River Basin has a population of about 265 million that is expected to grow significantly in the near future, to roughly 697 million in the year 2050. The demand for water in response to this increasing population will then far exceed the supply of water at that time.

Throughout his talk, King included scientific information correlated to environmental issues, particularly emphasizing climate change. He concluded by restating the significance of environmental issues to increasing peace and security. He recommended that the nation focus more on analytical research in order to make plans addressing environmental security. Finally, King emphasized the importance of collaboration, as the Department of Defense is just one aspect of the government, and real action relies on the coordinated efforts of several invested groups and individuals.

Ukrainian Energy and the Arctic

By Tyler Stoff

The geopolitical situation in Ukraine may not seem especially connected to current concerns in the Arctic region, but the energy crisis emanating from Europe causes the two to be linked. This is what energy researcher Adam Pearson, a Transatlantic and Konrad von Molkte Fellow at the Ecologic Institute, explained during his presentation at the Dickey Center entitled “The Energy Crisis in Ukraine: What it means for the U.S., Europe and the Arctic.”

Pearson divided his talk into three sections. First, he supplied an overview of the geopolitical crisis and recent Russian intervention in Ukraine. Explaining its roots in the Russian stranglehold on natural gas in Europe, he noted how Russia cut off Hungary’s supply of natural gas in 2009 for thirteen days prior to the current dispute between Ukraine and Russia, which is over the amount of money owed for the consumption of natural gas. Feeling opposing pressure from the European Union and Russia, Ukraine first signed a free trade pact with the EU before changing course and moving closer to Russia. This precipitated the riots that brought down Ukraine’s highly centralized, corrupt government.

Though Pearson noted that Ukraine’s east is supportive of closer ties with Russia due to its ethnic and cultural heritage, he stated that “Ukraine was annexed by Russia” in reference to the Crimea’s move from Ukrainian to Russian control. Though Western observers frequently state that Russia’s increased aggression in response to fears of NATO’s possible expansion into Ukraine are overblown, Pearson responded that every European Union member state has joined NATO, and Ukraine’s free trade pack with the EU was a possible precursor to EU membership. In actuality, several EU member states have not joined NATO, but it is true that all former Eastern Bloc states that have become EU members have also joined NATO.

Following the political background of Ukraine, Pearson detailed its energy situation and that of the rest of Europe. One quarter of Europe’s natural gas comes from Russia, and much of it passes through Ukraine. Europe’s reliance on natural gas is increasing, and “this is going to get worse over time,” Pearson said. Russia could easily cut gas lines to Ukraine and, by extension, all of Europe. While alternative energy sources such as renewables hold promise for electricity, natural gas is the primary source of heating in Europe. “The EU does not have a slam dunk for the heating sector,” notes Pearson, and Europe cannot easily lessen its reliance on Russian gas. Alternatives such as fracking for natural gas in Western Europe are also not possible due to legal and geologic factors. Pearson did state that the Russian economy is completely dependent on oil and gas exports, but Europe’s inability to wean itself off of those exports and thus impose far-reaching sanctions means Russian behavior is unlikely to be altered.

For his final section, Pearson moved to the Arctic, explaining that China and India are now trying to increase their involvement in the Arctic Council, a body that addresses Arctic issues. Russia sees the Arctic Ocean as the United States sees the Gulf of Mexico. Russia is torn on the efforts of China and India to become involved in Arctic affairs because of both its interests in

preserving the Arctic for energy exploration exclusively by regional nations such as itself, and its interests in maintaining good relationships with China, a major trade partner. Russia has been a cooperative member of the Arctic Council, and the United States has largely prevented the Ukrainian situation from interfering with its diplomatic successes with Russia there.

In his concluding remarks, Pearson emphasized that Ukraine needs capable governance and monetary support to remain intact. Arctic cooperation between the West and Russia may have been slightly strained by events in Ukraine, but it will return soon. Sanctions may only accelerate Russian economic partnerships with Asian nations. Though Pearson did not make direct links between the Arctic and Ukraine beyond its possible effects on diplomacy with Russia, the possibility of lessened Russian claims in the Arctic in response to better ties with China cannot be ignored.

Robert A. F. Thurman on Buddha

By Lydia Cash

On Thursday, October 23, 2014, Robert A. F. Thurman, a recognized worldwide authority on religion and spirituality, Asian history, philosophy, Tibetan Buddhism, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, gave a lecture entitled “Buddha: Scientist, Realist, Educator, Social Reformer.” As stated on his website, Robert Thurman advocates for the relevance of Eastern ideas to our daily lives. He has become a leading voice for the value of reason, peace and compassion. He was also named one of Time magazine’s 25 most influential Americans and has been profiled by The New York Times and People Magazine.

In his lecture, Dr. Thurman spoke on Buddha’s movement as a 2500-year-old community, culture, and educational institution, which has been appropriated as a “world religion.” By showing Buddha’s movement as a series of scientific discoveries and realist principles, Dr. Thurman explained Buddhism’s departure from “religious trappings,” instead emphasizing its core principles as adaptable on a scientific basis to all levels of modern education and research systems, combining science and technology. For example, Buddha’s realistic worldview embraces relational causation, or the idea that everything in the universe has a cause. Buddha’s cardinal mantra was that the one who realizes and enters reality knows that there are causes to everything, and realizes how to interfere with these causes and therefore overcome them. According to Dr. Thurman, this worldview depends on the fact that wisdom and knowledge free the mind.

One of Dr. Thurman’s most interesting points was that the Buddha discovered relativistic physics, evolutionary biology, and sophisticated depth psychology 2500 years before modern scholars. In terms of relativistic physics, Buddha discovered a deep reality beyond conceptual capture, and viewed the mind as a subtle energy more powerful than subtle matter. According to Dr. Thurman, this idea was a precursor to modern quantum physics. In terms of evolutionary biology, Buddha used karma (causation) to determine causal processes that determine the variety of life forms, including the presence of the mind in nature and hypothetical descriptions of mental and physical causal processes. Buddha also discovered sophisticated depth psychology, analyzing the subconscious and defining the enlightened person as one who has become fully conscious of the subconscious, reshaping its drives and instincts.

In conclusion, Dr. Thurman introduced Buddha’s idea of the relational identity: humans do not exist in absolute, self-identities, but rather in interconnected webs in relation to other identities. According to Dr. Thurman, when people believe that they are absolute and their identities are rigid, religion, gender, color, ethnicity, and other factors become fixed and create barriers. This makes it impossible to identify with other individuals. In contrast, Buddhists see their identities as relational and transformable, and instead cultivate love, compassion, joy, and equilibrium. Dr. Thurman also referenced the idea of reincarnation as liberating, versus the “terminal lifestyle” of believing one will die at some definite point in time. In the “terminal lifestyle” individuals believe that their days will come to an end, and they will not have to suffer the problems of the future. This perpetuates a certain irresponsibility, where individuals don’t care enough or put enough effort into making the world more livable for future reincarnations. In Dr. Thurman’s eyes, this “terminal lifestyle” is a debilitating disease. Instead, humans should pursue happiness and recognize themselves as interrelational beings, which creates the responsibility to improve on one’s self and on one’s surrounding environment.

John Broderick on Public Service

By Kai Yan

On Wednesday October 15 , John Broderick, former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, former dean of University of New Hampshire School of Law, and current executive director of its Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership, and Public Policy gave a speech at Dartmouth College aptly titled “Public Service is Not for Sissies”. Broderick chronicled the politics that have affected his life from the time he was a young boy to his time serving on the Supreme Court, and explained both the potential inspiration as well as the political hardship of public policy at large.

In his reflection, Broderick began by explaining how even from a young age he was inspired by the impacts of politics. In particular, Broderick’s admiration toward the progressive policies and actions of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Lyndon B. Johnson shaped his view on the vast potential of public service. From there, Broderick committed himself to a life of public service, and in 1975 he began serving as a judge in the New Hampshire appellate courts.

While initially holding the optimistic belief that “judging seemed isolated in politics”, Broderick’s view of political and judicial independence came crashing down in February of 2000 when the entire New Hampshire Supreme Court came under public indictment and incurred impeachment hearings over the selection of a replacement court in a divorce trial. Broderick was forced to take a five-month leave from the courts before then having to testify before the house Judiciary Committee, where he was able to convince the panel not to indict him. However, despite successfully convincing the Committee and being exonerated by judicial conduct, Broderick only escaped the indictment charge by a narrow vote count in the House. Later, Broderick discovered that the pretext for many of these votes was not the selection of the divorce panel but rather backlash from deep-seated political resentment over his ruling on the previous controversial cases.

Broderick describes public service as “full of peaks and valleys”. While the peaks may be high through the passage of important reform or civil rights packages, the valleys can be dreary when even the closest of allies won’t speak up for one another and allegations are flung wildly. Broderick experienced this dark political reality first hand through the defamation of his name and reputation by the media , while even the closest members of the New Hampshire Bar failed to step up in his defense. However, no matter how low the valleys may be, Broderick concluded, we should not grow bitter or hold grudges, nor should we give up hope on politics. Instead, we should work to raise interest in important public service matters because in the end, “making a difference is much more important than making a profit”. By following this logic, we can truly see the bright side of progressive politics come into fruition.

« Older posts

© 2018 World Outlook

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑