TUFTS

ROUNDTABLE
The Journal of Political Discourse

December 2008 1
Institute of Political Citizenship

Tufts Roundtable
Tisch College congratulates Tufts Roundtable for its
continued success in raising the civic dialogue at Tufts.
!

For information on civic engagement at Tufts, visit Tisch College at

activecitizen.tufts.edu.
 Contact I nformation
TUFTS Tufts Roundtable
Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service
ROUNDTABLE
The Journal of Political Discourse
Lincoln Filene Hall
Tufts University
Medford, Massachusetts 02155

www.tuftsroundtable.org
roundtable@tuftsroundtable.org

FE ATUR ES
H E AD TO H E AD
9 Overstepping the Boundary David Stern
11 Renewed Regulation Brian O’Reilly and Shabazz Stuart

I NTE R NATIO NAL: IN - DE P TH

15 Foreign Policy of a Global President Shayan Purkayastha

LOC AL AN D C AM PUS ISSUES

4 Let Them Come to Massachusetts John Peter G. Kaytrosh

NATIO NAL
5 Thoughts From the Mob Brandon Rattiner
6 Popularity is Not Security Chas Morrison
7 The New Face of Foreign Policy Ashish Malhotra
8 Daisy’s Demise: The New Campaign Will Cohn
13 War Games: Protecting Our Cities Ian Hainline
14 The Growing Divide: Real America? Leslie Ogden

INTE R NATIO NAL AFFAIR S

17 The Forgotten Poverty Faris Islam
18 Beyond the Bullets: Politics in Iraq Colin Smith
19 Courting the IMF Asad Badruddin
19 Responsibility to Protect Connor Gramazio
20 A Monroe Doctrine for Today Evan Chiacchiaro

December 2008 1
 - Brian Kato

2 Tufts Roundtable
 from the editor tufts roundtable

So, he pulled it off. Actually, they pulled it off. And not just the Editor-in-Chief Samuel Wallis
66,862,039 Americans that voted for Barack Obama. The congressional
Democrats were the real winners on Election Day. Managing Editors Austin Field
Republicans waking up on November 5th had reason to be disap- Laura Pacifici
pointed. They lost the presidency to a political newcomer. Republican
strongholds like Virginia and North Carolina flipped to “that one.” But it Editing Staff Asad Badruddin
wasn’t that bad. Republicans could rest assured that they were still relevant
Evan Chiacchiaro
in that old boys’ club, the United States Senate. They lost five seats, but
thanks to Senate procedure, each and every Republican still could stop 59
Nick Perricone
other Senators from pushing through legislation; they had the filibuster.
Since then Republicans have seen even that last lifeline falter. Ted Graphics/Layout
Charlotte Harrison
Stevens, the Alaskan Senator of 40 years, lost his reelection bid after final Editor
ballots were tallied almost two weeks after Election Day. Republican Gor-
don Smith of Oregon saw his seat switch sides with Jeff Merkley’s victory. Senior Design Leanne Brotsky
Incumbent Norm Coleman’s lead over Saturday Night Live producer Al Staff John Peter Kaytrosh
Franken for the Minnesota Senate seat has fallen to just 136 votes with Daniel Rosenblum
ballots still being counted as of this printing. Democratic victories in Min-
nesota and in the runoff election on December 2nd for the Georgia Senate
Design Staff Rebecca Goldberg
seat held by Republican Saxby Chambliss could bring the Democrats to
60 seats. That just happens to be the number required to invoke cloture Connor Gramazio
and force that sole filibustering Republican to sit down. Lydia Hochheimer
Still, it is unlikely that the Democrats will reach the elusive sixty. And Brian Kato
Republicans should be thanking their nominee for giving them hope even
in the face of 58 “yea” votes. John McCain prevented them from exercising
Business manager Shabazz Stuart
the “nuclear option” in 2005 to change the filibuster rule; now it is their
only lifevest in a sea of blue.
With control of the Oval Office and congressional margins not seen Assistant Business David Stern
in decades, the Democrats have the power to steamroll their opponents Manager
and push major reforms. They will be tempted to do spitefully everything
they couldn’t during the Newt-Bush era. Congressional Democrats will
be wise not to live up to their reputation as the party of big government. Advertising Daniel Rosenblum
New government programs will not solve America’s problems. Massive Manager
regulation will not bring the Dow back. Big government is not good gov-
ernment. Barack Obama, by slowly bringing in a moderate team, includ- Webmanagers
Connor Gramazio
ing economic adviser Austin Goolsbee and his pragmatic primary oppo- Richard Mondello
nent Hillary Clinton, has already shown he is not the radical liberal “real
America” feared. Contributors Will Cohn
Still, with one-party government and the potential for a new era of Faris Islam
government along the lines of the $700 billion bailout, we chose to exam-
Ian Hainline
ine in this issue of the Roundtable the role government already plays in our
lives. Our writers chose to focus on food regulation to discuss how much Ashish Malhotra
government is too much government. Brian O’Reilly
Leslie Ogden
Shayan Purkayastha
Brandon Rattiner
Colin Smith

Founders
Shabazz Stuart
Samuel Wallis Samuel Wallis
Chas Morrison

IOPC Student Board Members

Megan Dalton, Dean Ladin, Jarrod Niebloom, Matthew
Shapanka, and Shabazz Stuart

December 2008 3
 Let Them Come to Massachusetts
John Peter G. Kaytrosh

In 2005, Massachusetts State Senator Brian Lees (R-Hampden) encouraging others to work for the same solid foundations in their own
withdrew his support for a constitutional amendment that would ban state or to migrate to Massachusetts. It would also show respect for
the right to same-sex marriage that had been guaranteed in the land- federalism rather than goading other states into calling for a federal ban
mark Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision Goodridge v. De- on same-sex marriage. Indeed, federal law does not require states to
partment of Public Health, an amendment that he himself had initially recognize marriages from any other state if they would be illegal there.
sponsored. He justified this change of heart by saying, “Gay marriage Nevertheless, the point has been made to many reluctant Bay Staters
has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the Common- like Sen. Lees; same-sex marriage is hurting nobody.
wealth, with the exception of those who can now marry.” Indeed, this is A large part of the reason that the scare tactics of the “Yes on 8”
– or at least, should campaign succeeded
be – the crux of the in California was
argument for legal- because the people
ized same-sex mar- of California did not
riage. Unfortunately, truly get the oppor-
it was not an argu- tunity to see what
ment accepted by the we saw in Massachu-
people of California setts – equality – ex-
this Election Day, ist in their own state
who passed Proposi- for more than a few
tion 8, which limits months. For this rea-
“marriage” to the son, the “Yes on 8”
union of one man sponsors, in the face
and one woman, by a of a decidedly ane-
slim margin. How- mic opposition, were
ever, if the people of able to mislead vot-
California had been ers into thinking that
informed of what the the continuation of
people of Massachu- same-sex marriage
setts have known for would lead to the
some time, the result wholesale destruc-
would certainly have tion of family, reli-
been different. Charlotte Harrison gion, and education
As Senator Lees in the Golden State.
noted, same-sex mar- In Massachusetts,
riage has not, in a substantive manner, changed life in Massachusetts, the situation was such that legislators were able to stall any prospect
except for those who choose to exercise their affirmed right. Since that of these minority rights from being decided on by a majority of voters
warm night on May 17, 2004, when couples lined up in Cambridge doing their duty of evaluating the situation and waiting until enough
to enter into expedited unions, more than eight thousand same-sex time had passed to make a rational decision. This rational decision was
couples have become legally wed in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has not to send this measure to the voters.
not, it should be noted, become a Las Vegas of same-sex marriage; in In another era, consummate Yankee John F. Kennedy said, in the
2004, then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) invoked a rarely cited 1913 heat of a pitched battle over an even darker form of oppression than
law which prohibited any out-of-state persons from marrying in Mas- that which we face today, “Let them come to Berlin.” Not only was he
sachusetts if that marriage would not be legal in their home state. Not trying to point out the failures of the East German regime, but also the
until July 2008 was this law repealed. pride of the citizens of the West Berlin enclave of freedom. And so, I do
It is reasonable to argue that perhaps this should not have been not doubt that were Kennedy alive today, he, like his brother Ted today,
done; requiring out-of-state couples to live in Massachusetts in order would be standing with us. He too would realize after living with it for
to marry would be an excellent means of carrying out the Common- almost five years that same-sex marriage has injured nobody, and he
wealth’s “City on a Hill” mission. The societal benefits of any such would be saying, as I do, “Let them come to Massachusetts.” Whereas
union recognized by Massachusetts, such as stable foster or adoptive California and many other states have failed, Massachusetts, and now
families or good role models for gay and lesbian teens, would be evi- Connecticut, have proven resilient and now carry the mantle of equal-
dent to all as something done by and for citizens of Massachusetts, ity for this entire nation. •

4 Tufts Roundtable
 Thoughts From The Mob
Brandon Rattiner
As we marched together to Davis Square, there was undeni-
able electricity that ran through us. Between the hugs and tears,
the chants of “OBAMA” and the singing of our national anthem,
a group of Tufts students celebrated the victory of a relatively un-
known political superstar with the type of vigor typically reserved for
the accomplishments of friends and family. But what was so excit-
ing and different about Barack Obama? Hope. Change. Whatever.
What do those words actually mean, and what motivated a hundred
or so students to unite around this well-spoken candidate?
As I stood in the center of that mob and gazed into the eyes of
my peers, I began to understand the significance of our solidarity.
Obama’s victory was personal, and frankly, it went way beyond Ba-
rack. These people were celebrating America. Like rekindling a rela-
tionship with a friend that drove you away through years of neglect
and heartbreak, we were reengaging with a country we thought we
had lost forever.
Throughout my education I have labored through the classics
of American literature and history, often with annoyance and indif-
ference. In a globalized world, the values preached in books seem so
outdated. Yeah, the American dream exists, but it didn’t really seem
uniquely American anymore. Yeah, America used to be a place that
immigrants idealized and foreigners respected, but contemporary
America has been dismissed as reckless and uncultured. For my en-
tire life it seemed that American exceptionalism – that fundamental
belief that America has a unique obligation to serve as a role model
for the rest of the world – was totally antiquated. Our generation is
too young to remember a time when Americans were proud of our
government. Vietnam, Watergate, sex scandals, and Bush’s all-time-
low approval ratings had reduced government to a late-night com-
edy punch line, and this was my only point of reference. America
wasn’t exceptional; it was barely functional. I have always loved my
country, but I have never loved my government, and my separation
of the two never allowed me to really internalize the hyperbolic val-
ues and significance authors and historians assigned to America.
Enter Obama. A biracial Hawaiian with a scary name. An un-
apologetic intellectual who refused to dumb down his rhetoric. A
citizen of the world who values diplomacy and unity. Not only did
he captivate America, he enchanted the whole world. Nearly every
country wanted him to win. His election meant something to ev-
eryone, it was personal, and I could see it in the eyes of every Jumbo
who shamelessly celebrated his victory. For one of the first times in
all of our lives, we felt it. We felt that uniquely American feeling
that we had never known. For one night, the whole world looked
up to us, because only in America could Barack Obama wrestle
away the presidency from the political establishment. Our democ-
racy won out and emphatically claimed that we were ready to lead
the world again. As Obama eloquently stated, “the true power of
America is not in our military and economic might, it is our intan-
gible commitment to freedom and democracy. Only America can
be the ‘City on the Hill.’” His election reaffirmed this.
We returned from Davis Square that night changed. I finally
understood that the literary connotation of America is just as ap-
plicable today as it ever was, and as I looked around, it seemed
my peers were equally enlightened. Obama was not the only vic-
tor; surely everyone had won something that night. In the face of
skeptical nations and pundits, our entire country stood triumphant
as America once again proved that it is exceptional. I couldn’t be
prouder. •
December 2008 5
 N ational P olitics

Popularity is Not Security

Chas Morrison

The international response to the election of Barack Obama matter the strength of our ideals or the charisma of our leaders,
has been nothing less than extraordinary. From Berlin to Beirut, lose the battle for the population and in so doing lose our struggle
St. Petersburg to Shanghai, the world has seemingly risen as one to against Islamist radicalism.
embrace the President-elect. Americans should rightly feel proud How then do we avoid losing the battle for the population?
to be the object of international admiration. However, the United First, we must resist the temptation to come home. Despite set-
States must not conflate temporary popularity with increased se- backs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one catastrophic decision the
curity. A secure nation is not necessarily a nation that enjoys wide- Obama administration could make would be to withdraw signifi-
spread popularity—just ask the Czechs or the Hungarians. The cant forces from the Middle East and retreat to the position of an
true measure of American national security is not whether other off-shore balancer. If the population of the Middle East senses that
countries like us; rather, security comes from the analysis of states the United States lacks the resolve to finish its fight and follow
and individuals that supporting the United States is in their direct through on its commitments, it will be pushed into the insurgent
interests. camp by default. Rather than exercising power less frequently, we
The most immediate threat to the Pax Americana is the global need to exercise power more intelligently. This means harnessing
Islamist insurgency raging in not only the Middle East, but in South all facets of national power towards the protection of strategically
Asia, in the former Soviet Republics, and in the streets and coffees vital populations. While this will be done by the direct application
houses of the European capitals. The great challenge for American of force when necessary, we must also provide substantial mili-
foreign policy will be to extrapolate classical counterinsurgency tary aid to partner nations to ensure their populations will not be
principles into a global framework to combat an insurgency that pushed into insurgent arms due to a lack of physical security.
transcends national boundaries. Just as classical counterinsurgency Winning the population means linking the physical security of
doctrine holds that the population itself is the strategic center of indigenous persons with the interests of the United States. Popu-
gravity, the people of the Islamic world are the key to defeating the larity is not security, and true security comes through the recog-
global insurgency. The goal of any successful counterinsurgency is nition of a fundamental convergence of interests. If the Obama
to win over the neutral and reconcilable portions of the indigenous administration attempts to win hearts and minds without first se-
population to the cause of the status quo power. While this evokes curing populations from physical harm, it will jeopardize the gains
the old adage of heart and minds, the reality is that hearts and of recent years, drive away the very allies which it seeks to support,
minds are impossible to win if the population is convinced that the and bring American resolve into contempt. •
United States and its part-
ners are unable to provide
for its immediate physical
security.
The first and most ba-
sic of all human instincts is
survival. Civilian popula-
tions will ultimately sup-
port whichever side is most
able to protect their lives
and their families. While
any successful counterin-
surgency must ultimately
involve essential services,
infrastructure develop-
ment, and economic inte-
gration, physical security is
the one indispensible pre-
condition to victory. If the
people of the Middle East
do not believe the United
States can protect them
from those who would
do them harm we will, no

6 Tufts Roundtable
 N ational P olitics

The New Face of Foreign Policy

Ashish Malhotra

From Paris, to Jakarta, to Sydney, to Kogelo, Kenya – the ancestral preparation and preconditions— the criticism received, depicting him as
village of Barack Obama – citizens of the world took to the streets in joy- naïve and irresponsible, leads one to wonder what, and how important,
ous celebration in the aftermath of Obama’s historic election to the presi- ‘preconditions’ really are. If a precondition for discussions with Iran is
dency of the United States. In Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki declared halting their nuclear enrichment program then there will never be talks
November 5th a national holiday, while Obama’s face was carved into the between the two countries, because Iran sees such a precondition as un-
sand of an Indian beach. The positive response to America’s decision was dermining its sovereignty. While I acknowledge the widespread view that
not limited to the citizens of the world, but also included its leaders, with engaging in dialogue without this precondition somehow legitimizes the
congratulatory messages pouring in from presidents and prime ministers Iranian program, I respectfully disagree. Diplomacy is necessary in today’s
alike. Despite the enormity of the racial breakthrough that Obama’s vic- nuclear world, and the neoconservative notion of preconditions serves to
tory represented, this was not the cause of the global excitement. Rather, prevent such negotiations. The U.S. can negotiate while maintaining a
it was the universal be- clear stance, but dialogue
lief that President-elect is crucial to making any
Obama, a man who has progress. Five former
family in Kenya and who Secretaries of State, in-
spent part of his child- cluding Republicans
hood in Indonesia, cares Henry Kissinger and Co-
about the world, and will lin Powell, have agreed
undertake much more of a with the ‘inexperienced’
multilateral foreign policy Obama. In his final year
and leadership approach in office, even Bush,
than that of his predeces- perhaps enlightened by
sor, George W. Bush. Obama’s campaign, sent
Whether it is the an envoy to Iran this July
non-ratification of the to engage in diplomatic
Kyoto Protocol, the de- discussions.
cision to invade and oc- Similarly, the world
cupy Iraq without United is hopeful that Obama
Nations approval, or the will renew America’s
treatment of detainees in commitment to the
Guantanamo Bay, Bush United Nations. While
has tarnished the global public opinion about
image of the United the international body
States. From the onset of speaks of irrelevance and
his presidential campaign, Obama has pledged to reverse Bush’s foreign inefficiency, the U.N. can only be what its member states (especially the
policy catastrophes and to renew America’s leadership in the world to what U.S.) allow it to be. Therefore the U.N. will only become more effective in
it was under Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and more recently, ensuring world peace and achieving the Millennium Development Goals
John Kennedy: presidents admired worldwide. Obama understands that if and when Obama recommits the U.S. to the institution. Similarly, with
ending the war in Iraq, pursuing an Arab-Israeli peace agreement, deepen- only the U.K., Australia and Poland contributing significantly to the ‘co-
ing knowledge of other cultures, working multilaterally with other nations alition of the willing’ in Iraq, it is clear that Obama must, as he has said
and international agencies, and tackling climate change are all part of the he will, repair relations with old allies who have been put off by the past
leadership role that the U.S. needs to assume in order to make the U.S. eight years.
and the world a safer place. It is for this reason that he has inspired such Respect for the U.S. has also dwindled because of its hypocritical
optimism around the world. rhetoric. While much has been made about the brutal oppression of
Obama’s foreign policy will be about multilateralism and diplomacy, human rights by leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ah-
unlike Bush’s policies of unilateralism and military force. In Iraq, Obama madinejad, the U.S. has been guilty of brutally torturing detainees in the
will not only withdraw troops, but set up regional and international dip- prison camps of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Obama will put an
lomatic initiatives to oversee lasting peace. Obama was much maligned end to such operations as well as actively fight poverty, disease, and climate
for his response to a presidential debate question about meeting leaders of change, all measures that will allow the world to believe that the U.S. does
rogue states without preconditions. While Obama’s stance is much more in fact believe in the ideals that it has always proclaimed: freedom and
nuanced than has been reported— highlighting a difference between human rights for all. •

December 2008 7
 N AT I O N A L P olitics

Daisy’s Demise: The New Campaign

Will Cohn

It’s 1964. Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic nominee, “as imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He
is running against Republican hopeful Barry Goldwater. One strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my
night, during a station break on your brand new color TV, you children.”
witness what appears to be a cute advertisement involving a In a campaign that emphasized change, this controversy
little girl. proved to be a perfect example of the kind of politics that Ameri-
She is in a field picking away at a flower, endearingly mis- cans are used to, the kind of politics where important issues take
counting the petals that she pulls off. All of a sudden a count- a back seat to negative attacks. Obama’s campaign for change
down from ten begins, and when it ends an atomic bomb ex- and a “new” kind of politics enabled him to directly address
plodes. An ominous the Wright controversy
voiceover says, “These in a way that most poli-
are the stakes! To make ticians would believe
a world in which all of was politically risky.
God’s children can live, Instead of immediately
or to go into the dark. denouncing Mr. Wright,
We must either love Obama chose to de-
each other, or we must fend his former pastor,
die. Vote for President while at the same time
Johnson on November making it clear that he
3.” Lyndon Johnson didn’t agree with his
won the 1964 election comments.
in a landslide victory. Attacks continued
When viewed today throughout the cam-
many would find this ad paign. However, as a
borderline comical as a result of his clear mes-
result of the transparen- sage, he was able to
cy of its purpose. At the consistently move past
time Lyndon Johnson’s them. When confronted
campaign was harshly on his comments about
criticized, and the ad putting “lipstick on a
was pulled off the air. pig”, he suggested that it
So if people are against was an example of “silly
this type of campaigning, why do politicians continue to use season” in politics, a phrase he used several times throughout
negative attacks as a strategy? The simple answer is that it works. his campaign. Obama’s message for change also enabled him to
Time after time even the lowest of attacks has led to victory for move past his association with Bill Ayers, former member of the
those who engage in them, even the 1964 “Daisy” ad, which so terrorist group the Weather Underground.
clearly played to people’s fears. At one point McCain’s campaign appeared more focused
2008 proved to be yet another election year where negative on informing Americans about Mr. Ayers than about informing
attacks played an important role. However this time it was dif- Americans about the candidate’s plans for the future. McCain,
ferent, because our nation’s President-elect is different. Barack who said in his 2000 presidential bid that he would “not take
Obama ran a campaign with a message of “change” and in ad- the low road to the highest office,” was engaging in the type
dition, the idea of a “new” kind of politics. Not only did this of tactics that Bush and Karl Rove used to derail his hopes in
message connect with the American people, it was also an inge- 2000.
nious way to deflect almost anything that came his way. And he Obama won the 2008 election in an electoral landslide that
endured quite a bit. wasn’t the result of robocalls, truth-bending, or mudslinging.
The Reverend Wright issue was a potentially devastating Although it would be blind optimism to think that negative
blow. In an incredible moment of honesty (for a politician), campaigning will end because of Barack Obama, it’s worth
Obama gave a speech that will most likely go down as one of the thinking about how open Americans were to changing the game
most significant speeches in U.S. history. On March 18, 2008, of politics. Maybe, just maybe, many elections from now, nega-
Obama spoke in Philadelphia, where he condemned Reverend tive campaigning will play a lesser role, and we will all be able to
Wright’s comments on America. However he also said that, say that we were around when it all began. •

8 Tufts Roundtable
 Overstepping the Boundary
David Stern

There are times when it is appropri-

ate for government to intervene in the
lives of its citizens, but it should never
micromanage their lives. Nothing is
more pernicious than the idea that one
needs to be protected from oneself. Even
if a trans fat ban does make Americans
healthier, its implementation cannot be
considered just.
“So there are laws that are defensible
but unenforceable, and there are laws
impossible to infringe. But in the New
York of Mayor Bloomberg, there are laws
that are not possible to obey, and that
nobody can respect, and that are en-
forced by arbitrary power. The essence of
tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious
law. Tyranny can be petty. And ‘petty’ is
not just Bloomberg’s middle name. It is
his name.”
These not so kind words about New
York’s Mayor come from Christopher
Hitchens in his 2004 Vanity Fair essay get to the roots of America’s obesity epi- This begs the question, though, of
“I Fought the Law in Bloomberg’s New demic. Patterns of unhealthy eating be- why food with trans fat is the most af-
York.” The fickle laws that inspired havior start at home, and driving people fordable choice available to low-income
Hitchens’ vitriol range from the banning out of White Castle so they can eat the families. As the main providers of food
of smoking in restaurants and taxis to the freezer aisle sliders in the privacy of their saturated with trans fats – fast food
“unauthorized use of a milk crate.” Since homes without someone wagging a fin- restaurants build their menus on food
these words were penned, New York City ger at them is not going to make them in some way made out of corn or corn
passed the most restrictive food con- healthier. Americans would be better off syrup. Subsidized heavily by the federal
sumption law in the nation, effectively if they had more choice, not less, and if government, corn is ubiquitous in fast
making it illegal for restaurants to use they were held responsible for the con- food items which are not-so-coinciden-
trans-isomer fatty acids (trans fats) in the sequences of their actions. The trans fat tally prepared in inexpensive oil consti-
preparation of food. ban is just one example of the govern- tuted of trans fatty acids. Rather than
The ban follows in the wake of Amer- ment undermining both the freedom of making fast food more expensive and out
ica’s rising obesity epidemic, curbing the individuals to can consume responsibly of the reach of people who eat it out of
availability of unhealthy foods and re- and the culpability of those who cannot. necessity, more resources should be spent
quiring that restaurants and vendors al- The Ban and Prejudice on creating inexpensive alternatives so
ter their operations. Unlike the sin taxes Although much trans fat consump- that trans fats are not tied to last resort
levied on tobacco and alcohol in order to tion may be due to negligent eating meals.
discourage their consumption, trans fat habits, there exists a demographic that In an attempt to prevent the misfor-
bans outright prohibit what people can consumes it out of necessity. Barbara Eh- tune of having less-than-wealthy people
eat. renreich notes in Nickel and Dimed, that eat less-than-healthy things, the Los An-
As the number one cause of death for those wage earners who live each day geles City Council unanimously passed
of Americans, heart disease is a problem at a time, the value menu at a fast food a zoning restriction that effectively bans
that needs to be taken seriously. Trump- restaurant is often the cheapest source of the construction of new fast-food restau-
ing personal responsibility by limiting protein they can afford. Considering this rants in South Central L.A. Under the
choice, however, reeks of nanny-state demographic, the trans fat ban makes auspice of creating more choice, the city
authoritarianism. Forcing restaurants to sense - it makes food that people have no council restricted food choice not for the
modify the way they make food fails to choice but to eat healthier. whole city, but only in a low-income,

December 2008 9
 F eature

heavily Hispanic area. This kind of dis-
crimination is the gross expansion of pow-
er one can expect when the government
is given the power over what its citizens
can eat. Good intentions do not change
the fact that this kind of social targeting is
misguided and paternalistic.
Regulation and Enforcement
Though the food zoning implemented
by the L.A. city council, and favored by
Joel Rivera, the Majority Leader of the New
York City Council, is a broader restriction
than the trans fat ban; it is a natural ex-
pansion of power derived from the abil-
ity to control non-lethal food consump-
tion. Power of this kind is unprecedented.
Whereas cities have the power to inspect
restaurants for cleanliness, and prevent use
of ingredients such as unpasteurized milk
products that pose an immediate health
risk, they have never been able to ban in-
gredients that pose long-term health risks.
Trans fats may be a major contributor to
obesity, but everything poses a health risk
if not consumed in moderation: caffeine,
sugar, and sodium. Taking away trans fats
is not going to change unhealthy eating
behavior. Fast food is still unhealthy with-
out trans fats.
One also must not ignore the
cost of enforcement. Regulations are not
as simple as putting the law on the books.
The amount of resources it would take to
enforce a trans fat ban in restaurants is
something that most local governments
cannot afford, especially during this eco-
nomic downturn. At the forefront of the
trans fat ban are New York City, Philadel-
phia, and California. All three are facing
budget crises: California is facing an $11.2
billion budget shortfall, Mayor Bloomberg
ordered city agencies to cut $1.5 billion
in spending, and Philadelphia was one
of three cities on Friday to ask Treasury
Secretary Henry Paulson for access to the
bailout’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Re-
lief Program. All of these governments are
facing tough economic times, and the last
thing any of them needs is a frivolous ex-
penditure on their balance sheets.
Freedom and Social Welfare
The fact that people often make poor
decisions is not a reason to protect them
from the outside world. Many things in
life are harmful, and individuals have to
learn how to moderate their own behavior
in an environment of risk.
The welfare of businesses must also be
considered when accounting for the conse-
quences of the bans implementation. The
main reason for trans fat’s prevalence in
food preparation is its economy as cook-
ing oil. The shelf lives of hydrogenated
oils are longer than those of their coun-
terparts. Businesses should not be able
to cut corners at the expense of consumer
welfare, but the supply of similarly priced,
healthier oil is considered to be unachiev-
able.
An Iowa State University professor,
Walter Fehrer, genetically engineered a
soybean that, as an oil, would have a com-
parable shelf life to the partially hydro-
genated trans fat oils. According to the
January 26, 2007 All Things Considered
broadcast, “To Cut Trans Fats, You Need
a Better Soybean”, the transition to grow-
ing a healthier soybean would require 12.5
million acres of more land. Not only will
this drive up already rising food prices, but
it is also increasingly unlikely that farmers
would find soy profitable to plant. Etha-
nol subsidies have drastically increased the
demand for corn, making it more profit-
able to plant. On a national level, the ef-
ficacy of a trans fat ban is dubious.
What the government should be doing
to fight American obesity is creating more
choices for its citizens. If availability of
alternatives is the issue in urban areas, city
governments should open public space for
farmers markets. If patterns of bad eat-
ing behavior are the problem, then schools
districts should establish healthy lunches,
rather than contract out cafeterias to food
service companies that dole out fried food.
If unhealthy foods are eaten because they
are the cheapest source of nutrients, then
the government should stop subsidizing
corn, whose unhealthy presence is ubiqui-
tous in everything Americans eat. Banning
trans fats is an ineffective way of making
Americans healthier and an affront to the
freedom one has over one’s body. Let them
eat trans fats. •

A Nanny State?
The American Tradition of Intervention
The Pure Food and Drug Act governed The National Minimum Drinking Age Act
the sale of then-common “patent provides that every state would either
medicines” and processed food products, normalize its drinking age to twenty-one,
requiring that product labling be or lose ten percent of its federal highway
accurate in both listed ingredients and funding. All fifty states have complied,
effectiveness. although some are considering a reversal.

1906 1919 1983 198

Pursuant to the Eighteenth Amendment, New York Sta
the Volstead Act was approved despite seatbelt law
Woodrow Wilson’s veto. Going into effect Hampshire h
in January 1920, Prohibition lasted until states, one c
the beginning of the Depression after wearing a se
being deemed virtually unenforcable. must have b
offense first.

10 Tufts Roundtable
 F eature

Renewed Regulation
Brian O’Reilly Shabazz Stuart

As we can clearly see now, regulation
does not kill the economy.
The government has a vested interest in
enforcing consumer regulations to promote
general welfare. By enforcing a trans fat ban,
the government is doing its duty to protect
the American people from corporations
looking to make quick profit and reduce
their overhead. On Wall Street, the willing-
ness to cut corners and take risks has been
detrimental, causing damage well outside of
the financial world. Health is different. The
government must prevent corporations from
taking risks with America’s health.
“On a per-calorie basis, trans fats appear
to increase the risk of CHD (Coronary Heart
Disease) more than any other macronutrient,
conferring a substantially increased risk at
low levels of consumption (1 to 3 percent of
total energy intake).”
That statement, summarizing a study
published in the New England Journal of
Medicine, represents the consensus of the
broader medical community on trans fats:
Trans fats are bad for you. In fact, they are
very bad for you; as the Journal notes, they
have a more deleterious effect on the heart
than any other calorie source. The consump-
tion of trans fats, according to the study, is
directly responsible for between 30,000 and
100,000 cardiac-related deaths each year.
This scary number will only climb in the
future; while the New England Journal of
Medicine study notes a “substantially increased
risk” of CHD when one consumes trans fats
as one to three percent of one’s calorie intake,
Americans currently suck down these poisons
for 2.5 to 3.5 percent of their energy.
In addition to greatly increasing the risk
of CHD, trans fats also exacerbate other
medical conditions. Trans fats do their worst
to increase heart disease by lowering HDL
(good cholesterol) and raising LDL (bad
cholesterol). The American Diabetes Asso-
ciation considers LDL/HDL levels to be one
of the six most important “preventable risk
factors” in the development of diabetes, and
specifically links fatty diets to multiple risk
factors. The New England Journal of Medicine
study devotes an entire section to diabetes
and judges, “After adjustment for other risk
factors, trans fat intake was positively associ-
ated with the incidence of diabetes” in a least
one trial.
Furthermore, a Wake Forest University
researcher makes the case that trans fats even
cause more weight gain per calorie consumed
than other energy sources. Kylie Kavanagh
fed two groups of monkeys diets that had
the same precisely calibrated amount of calo-
ries — the only difference was in the calorie
sources. Her findings are worth reprinting:
“After six years on the diet, the trans fat-
fed monkeys had gained 7.2 percent of their
body weight, compared to just 1.8 percent
in the unsaturated group. CT scans also re-
vealed that the trans fat monkeys carried 30
percent more abdominal fat, which is risk
factor for diabetes and heart disease.”
In the words of Dariush Mozaffarian at
the Harvard School of Public Health, “The
days of thinking about fats just as calories are
over.” Trans fats provide a unique danger to
those who consume them, even if they eat an
otherwise healthy diet.
Trans fats are not naturally a risk to hu-
mans, however. In fact only a half of a per-
cent of the average American’s calorie intake
is actually made up of trans fats, well below
dangerous levels. Over 80 percent of the
trans fats America consumes are industrially
produced, however, and push the country to-
ward further unhealthiness.
Heart disease, obesity, and other diet re-
lated health problems have reached epidemic
proportions in the United States. Accord-
ing to the Department of Health of New

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection In 2007, New York City restaurants had
Act defines when website operators, small to trim the fat, a result of a mandatory
and large, must include a privacy policy ban on trans fat in city restaurants.
and obtain proof of a user’s age. It remains Philadelphia, Albany, Seattle, and
in effect, despite many similar laws having California have passed similar bans, with
been declared unconstitutional. several other areas poised to follow suit.

84 1998 2005 2007

ate passed the nation’s first Beginning in 2005 with New York
w. Every state except New City, multiple cities and states have
has followed suit. In some implemented smoking bans in bars,
can be pulled over just for not restaurants, workplaces, and casinos, with
eatbelt. In others, offenders many being more stringent than others.
been pulled over for another So far, no federal ban is in the works.

December 2008 11
 F eature
York City, the nation’s largest municipality,
1 million New Yorkers are obese. Like the na-
tional average, which has nearly doubled since
1990, New York’s proportion of overweight
adults has grown substantially over the years, to
about 20 percent. Diabetes affects more than
700,000 New Yorkers and, as of 2004, was the
fourth leading cause of death in New York.
Even more alarming statistics reveal that this
epidemic is not color blind: African-Americans
and other minority groups are at much greater
risk. According to the American Diabetes As-
sociation, 11.4 percent of the African-American
population has diabetes and African-
Americans are 1.6 times more likely
to have diabetes than their white
counter-parts. For Hispanics the
news is grimmer still: they are more
than twice as likely to die from diabe-
tes as their white counterparts.
One would think that because
these epidemics seem to be rapidly
spiraling out of control, all Americans
would be doing everything possible to
remedy the situation. Unfortunately,
one would be wrong. While health
officials scramble to find a cure, and
doctors strain to find treatments,
corporate America has been focused
on making easy money. As dietary
problems became more apparent in
the 90’s, fast food restaurants largely
refused to re-evaluate their menus
and ingredients.
Now one might assume, with
some reason, that if corporations have
been willing to subject their patrons
to these nearly toxic ingredients for
decades, trans fats must play some vital role in
their ability to provide “fast food”. And, indeed,
some defenders of the industry might note that
trans fats increase a product’s shelf life, reduce
its refrigeration requirements, and make baking
easier without butter or lard.
However, the New England Journal of
Medicine concludes the following about these
excuses:
“On the basis of evidence from in vitro
experimental studies, dietary trials, and prospec-
tive observational studies, the consumption of
trans fatty acids from partially hydrogenated oils
provides no apparent nutritional benefit and has
considerable potential for harm... experience[s]
in other countries indicate that such fats can
largely be replaced by cis unsaturated fats with-
out increasing the cost or reducing the quality or
12 Tufts Roundtable
availability of foods”
Basically, people are dying because corpora-
tions are being lazy.
And the corporate geniuses reaping the
benefits have made a brilliant move by exploit-
ing minorities most of all: the people suffering
the brunt of these dietary ills are, due to social
and economic reasons, those with the least pow-
er to learn about and stop them.
Corporate America’s reluctance to shed
trans fats has even prompted several lawsuits. In a
2007 lawsuit, The Center for Science in the Pub-
lic Interest officially slapped Burger King with a
lawsuit, alleging that the company is “knowingly
increasing its customers’ risk of heart disease and
early death.” In 2003 a similar lawsuit prompted
McDonald’s to “promise” to look into other so-
lutions and an eventual phase out.
While the litigation flies, corporations sit
on their hands, and the epidemic grows, so re-
sponsible municipalities have been left with little
choice but to act decisively. New York City, Phil-
adelphia, and Albany have all officially banned
trans-fats as ingredients while Chicago has a
partial ban. King country of Washington State
passed a trans-fat ban that goes into effect in
2009, while Maryland, California and Vermont
are also considering bans of their own.
Some complain that such bans go too far,
and are out of the realm of government. “The
government shouldn’t take a role in economics
and sales policy”, they say. “If people know that
trans-fats are such a danger, they should be able
to avoid these places themselves!” “Won’t the
market send a message to restaurants?” they ask.
My personal favorite is “what if I want trans-fats
in my food?”
First, no person educated on the subject
(and without suicidal tendencies) could actually
want trans fats in his or her food. Remember
the Journal’s conclusion - this ingredient does
nothing uniquely good, and severally things
uniquely bad. In fact, the answer to the last three
of those questions provide the answer to the
first. Quite simply, people don’t know that
trans fats are a danger. The medical literature
might be unanimous, but it’s also inacces-
sible: the people most affected simply do not
read the New England Journal of Medicine.
And those who do know the risks don’t eat
enough McDonald’s to force the companies
to change their ways.
In this case, it is the job of government
to take the lead in issues of safety. Only 24
years ago some criticized the government of
New York State for passing the nation’s first
seat belt legislation; now 49 states have seat
belt laws, and hundreds of thousands of lives
have been saved. In 1966, Congress passed
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, allowing the government to regu-
late standards for motor vehicle design. The
same critics complained that the govern-
ment was interfering in places it shouldn’t.
Again, the result was a precipitous drop in
motor-vehicle related deaths. One hundred
years ago, the Meat Inspection Act regulated
the meat packing industry on a federal level,
in a similar situation.
The government of the United States has
intervened and will continue to intervene when
greedy (and lazy) corporations take advantage of
a susceptible public. Banning trans fats is just as
simple, legal, and clear-cut as banning beef from
sick animals or the unsanitary preparation of
food.
The Preamble to the Constitution notes
that the people form a more perfect union, in
part, to promote the general welfare. While
some believe that the trans-fat bans of the 2000’s
is an example of government overstepping its
authority, this is just its latest of many attempts
to to keep the American people safe and thriv-
ing. In America, we can prod corporations to
do right, while marinating the world’s biggest
economy with the best consumer regulations in
the world. •

War Games: Protecting Our Cities
Ian Hainline
The face of war is one in constant flux—the weapons used, the tactics
employed, and even the causes behind war have all morphed over time.
Throughout the history of war, generals have always sought to avoid fight-
ing in cities; such combat invariably leads to high casualties, as well as
stripping away the momentum of a campaign. Collateral damage from
fighting in cities can almost never be avoided, making winning the “hearts
and minds” of the general population a more and more difficult proposi-
tion. Sun Tzu himself warned that “the worst policy is to attack cities,”
and that cities should be attacked “only when there is no alternative.” One
needs only to look to the infamous Battle of Stalingrad for a chilling ex-
ample of how costly fighting in cities can be.
Recent history, however, has demonstrated that one may no longer be
able to ignore the warnings of Sun Tzu and the example of the Battle of
Stalingrad. As the nature of war has shifted away from conflicts between
conventional forces, and the importance of cities has increased, so too has
their prominence as targets. Cities are engines of economic growth and
development- 31 percent of all bank deposits in the U.S. are in New York
City alone, while the spark behind China’s rise as an economic power was a
shift in policy that allowed foreign investment in cities such as Shanghai.
Those same factors, however, that enable cities to serve as engines of
economic growth makes them prime targets for anyone seeking to attack
the United States. The best way to hurt a man, the old saying goes, is to hit
him in his wallet, and attacking an American city is surely now just such
a blow. Indeed, as the economic importance of a city increases so too does
N ational politics
the degree of damage that an attack on that city would inflict, making that
city, in effect, a more and more attractive target.
In spite of their economic strength, however, cities are increasingly
vulnerable. The tools and tactics employed by non-state actors (especially
terrorists) can easily bring a city to its knees. Car bombs, the most com-
mon and infamous of these tools, are ideal weapons of urban terrorism;
they are low in cost and easy to produce, traits made all the more effec-
tive in an urban environment because of the close proximity of people
and potential targets in a city. The car bomb is an indiscriminate machine
of death— ideal for butchering en masse, sowing panic, and demoral-
izing the population. If a society can be psychologically broken by the
use of car bombs, then cities can, in essence, be held hostage by terror-
ist groups— not only putting American lives at risk, but crippling the
American economy in the process. The ease with which this can be done
is ominous; after all, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing cost Ramzi
Yousef just over $3,600.
In defending cities, there is no replacement for excellent national in-
telligence and sharp police work, which, when coupled with high stand-
ing in the international community and strong diplomatic relations, form
the strongest line of defense for cities. Emergency services too must be
well funded and workers carefully trained, able to respond to tragedy in
as effective a manner as possible. Our cities are realizations of our dreams,
housing the institutions that make our hopes possible, and defending
them must be our highest aim. •
December 2008 13
 N AT I O N A L P olitics

The Growing Divide: Real America?

Leslie Ogden

North versus South. Blue versus red. Liberal versus conservative. “creationism museum” in Kentucky, which claims that over half-million
Democrat versus Republican. The Coasts versus the Midwest. people have visited it since its opening in May 2007. Websites offer curri-
Even though Barack Obama won in an electoral landslide, 46 percent cula so that home-schooling can teach creationism. Ardent cases have been
of eligible voters did not want him to be President. It appears that there made from Kansas to Pennsylvania to Texas that creationism should be
certainly is a divide in our country. Nearly every other person disagrees over taught in schools and that disclaimers ought to be put in textbooks saying
fundamental policies and ideologies. that evolution is only a theory and people should be wary of it.
One has to wonder about the validity of Sarah Palin’s claim that there Dr. Kent Hovind, the founder of the Creation Science Evangelism
is a “real” America. Could there be such a thing as two culturally separate Ministry, has even defended the idea that evolution is a religion. “People
entities under one constitution? According to Sarah Palin and parts of the believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true… evolutionism is
Republican Party, yes. a religious world view… The exclusive teaching of this dangerous mind-
Claiming that there is a “real” America was one of McCain and Palin’s altering philosophy in taxpayer-supported schools, parks, museums and
attempts to reach their target demographic. It is the people from the Wasil- other institutions is also a clear violation of the First Amendment,” he
las and Scrantons of our country—the one stoplight towns where the good writes on his website. So rather than look at it for what it is, we fight over
old Joes and Sallys come out on Sundays to sit on their front porches, wav- creationism and evolution.
ing an American flag and drinking Country Time lemonade. One cannot This divide continues to grow and manifest itself in other aspects of
forget that the majority of people who embraced these ideas were, accord- our lives. The passing of Proposition Eight in California, which overrode
ing to the polling website fivethirtyeight.com, mostly white, lacking higher the California Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage, and
education, and of a lower socioeconomic status. similar setbacks in Florida and Arizona, not to mention the amendment in
While people have the right to their own opinions and beliefs, I feel Arkansas now prohibiting gay men and women from adopting children,
strongly that it is time that our country as a whole makes a shift in how are all a travesty.
we think, see the world, and protect human rights. In particular, I find And the divide is almost right down the middle. 52.2 percent of Cali-
it hard to believe, as do most scientists, that people still do not believe in fornian voters approved Proposition 8. 63 percent of Floridians voted for
evolution. Unbelievably, advocates of creationism opened a $27 million the amendment that would “protect marriage.”
America should be outraged.
To deny men and women basic
rights because of a gender preference
is comparable to denying men and
women civil rights because of skin
color. How can forced teenage mar-
riages because of an unwanted baby
be socially acceptable, but marriage
based on love and mutual respect be
illegal?
This divide in fundamental be-
liefs has split the country. Could Pa-
lin be right? Are there two Americas?
I certainly hope not. Not because I
am opposed to small towns, but be-
cause our country cannot afford to
be divided.
The economy, global warming,
infringements on human rights, and
wars threaten to throw the world into
chaos. We can only defeat these chal-
lenges through the spirit of coopera-
tion. Now we have an opportunity
to take this divided country and rally
for a common cause – the well being
of individuals, our nation, and the
Copyright Rona Proudfoot world. I hope we can do it. •

14 Tufts Roundtable
 Foreign Policy of a Global President
Shayan Purkayastha

In a recent online poll conducted by The Economist, readers
from around the world overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama
for President; this came after the rapturous welcome he received
while touring Europe over the summer. While all this means that he
might just be an exception to the long list of unpopular American
presidents in recent times, it also means that he is not only bur-
dened by the great expectations of the American people but also by
the rest of the world who expects positive changes from the Oval
Office after January 20th. With the world watching, Obama has to
focus on key foreign policy issues.
The international expectations have perhaps never been higher
considering the clarity with which the Obama campaign dealt with
foreign policy
questions. But
the world that
Obama faces as
President is very
different from
that which he
had been discuss-
ing on the cam-
paign trail for the
last year or more;
it will not be long
before he realizes
that campaign-
ing and govern-
ing could hardly
be more different
from each other.
The world
that Obama in-
herits is very dif-
ferent from what
his predecessor,
George W. Bush, inherited and it is in many ways so because of
President Bush. From two wars to a tired and stretched military,
and from a failing war against terrorism to an unprecedented anti-
American sentiment, there are tough times ahead for the President-
elect on the international front. But there is a silver lining under
the dark clouds for him. And this silver lining is, ironically, that the
Bush administration, beginning last year, has already adopted some
policy changes that Obama will continue.
But with so much to do and with such high expectations,
Obama will need to prioritize, and nowhere will he need to do so
more than in foreign policy matters. Here is where the President-
elect will have to come up with the answer to the elusive ques-
tion: what is the biggest foreign policy challenge facing the United
States? This question has come up again and again but unfortu-
nately no one in the campaign gave a clear response, even though
international events will be among the biggest problems Obama
faces, second only to the economic crisis. When it comes to issues,
there is a sense that the indifference that the presidential campaign
showed is somewhat an intentional retreat from the harsh reality.
There currently is potential for a rapid emergence of crises involving
the United States in two regions: the Persian Gulf and Pakistan.
There has been a radical shift in United States’s approach to Iran
in the last few months. This is evident in a National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE) report entitled “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Ca-
pabilities” published in December 2007, which suggested that Teh-
ran’s “nuclear weapons program” came to a halt under international
pressure in 2003 and that “a resumption of this effort was unlikely
before 2010-15.”
This is the po-
lar opposite of
how the Bush
Administration
portrayed Iran,
as a nation with
the intent of go-
ing nuclear in
the near future
and a country
that threatened
humanity itself.
This was restated
over and over
again by the Pres-
ident himself at
various forums.
The immediate
effect of the NIE
report was both
to calm the para-
noia about possi-
ble armed confrontation and to undermine Washington’s campaign
to win support in the U.N. Security Council for further sanctions
against Iran.
Back in February 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agen-
cy publicly admitted that Iran was in possession of advanced cen-
trifuge technology and suggested that the Iranian’s nuclear program
had moved faster than even what the worst skeptics had expected.
Since then the U.S. has been aggressive in its stance against Iran.
U.S. strategy was obvious; it would have been suicidal on America’s
part to fuel the chances of an armed conflict while under intense
international and domestic pressure over the war in Iraq. The ad-
ministration realized that the warlike rhetoric was not aiding the
leadership in its domestic predicaments and it was a better idea to
convince the rest of the world that more sanctions should be put
on Iran. •

December 2008 15
 I nternational affairs
At the same time, there is a different angle to it. Russia is back in the
picture and its aggression during the Georgian annexation has taken the
world, especially the U.S., by surprise. Russia will certainly be one of the
primary challenges on the foreign policy front for the next president. How-
ever, I would like to focus this article on Iran and Pakistan, though Russia’s
role in world affairs is inevitable. Iran is critical to Russian Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin’s campaign for a resurgent Russia. After all, Iran’s rich oil
reserves are a lifeline for the energy
needs of Europe. An Iran-U.S.
confrontation in all probabilities
will result in a rift within NATO
due to conflicts of interest, and
this in turn will help Russia further
consolidate its position.
But situations seem to be
gradually leaning in the U.S.’s
favor since the NIE report was
published last December. And the
turning point was Russia’s annexa-
tion of Georgia. This changed the
Iranian calculations. Tehran has
much to worry about with Rus-
sia’s expansionist attitude that has
stirred ethnic conflict and Russia’s
policy of settling territorial disputes with force. Iran has been resisting Rus-
sian claims to a greater share of the Caspian Sea and, furthermore, fears
ethnic troubles spilling over its border with the Caucasus.
Apart from the change in the global political scene, there are events
within Iran that puts the country in a vulnerable position. The support
that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used to receive from the Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has subsided due to internal issues that the
country faces, primarily inflation, which the Iranian President has failed to
tackle. All these events make it a perfect time for the U.S. to open up the
communication door with Iran. Obama has to make the effort to initiate a
meaningful dialogue and discussion with the country.
Further east, another Islamic Republic stands as possibly the single
greatest challenge facing the next American president. It’s been seven
months since democracy returned to Pakistan when Yousuf Raza Gilani
took the oath of office as its first democratically elected prime minister
in nearly a decade. Unfortunately, it has been a short honeymoon. The
momentary euphoria that followed Pakistan’s return to democracy, sym-
bolized by the elections on February 18, 2008, has already ended because
of mounting economic, political, and security crises. With such turmoil,
one finds that U.S. interests in Pakistan are more threatened now than at
any time since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. America cannot afford to see
Pakistan fail, nor can it ignore the pro-Taliban extremists operating in Paki-
stan’s tribal areas. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal (and past nuclear proliferation),
Al-Qaeda and the war in Afghanistan keep U.S. national security interests
firmly anchored in Pakistan. Afghanistan cannot succeed without success
in Pakistan, and vice versa. Further, America needs Afghanistan to succeed
in order to regain legitimacy in the region; Americans learned to their great
sorrow on September 11, 2001 that what happens in Southwest Asia can
profoundly affect their own lives.
America needs to convince itself that a stable Pakistan is in its interest.
Let me go one step further by suggesting that a stable Pakistan is the answer
to most, if not all, other foreign policy challenges facing the next American
16 Tufts Roundtable
president, especially Iran. The deep link between Iran and Pakistan is a
certain nuclear scientist by the name of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of
Pakistan’s nuclear program, who supplied materials and designs that would
give birth to Iran’s nuclear program. Taking advantage of Pakistan’s fragile
democracy, Khan continued his association with countries like Iran, North
Korea, and Libya in helping them to develop their nuclear program while
remaining Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist and enjoying support from ev-
ery dictator and every government
in Pakistan over the past several
decades. Neither Khan nor any
of his alleged Pakistani collabora-
tors have yet to face any charges
in Pakistan, where he remains an
extremely popular figure.
Khan is still seen as an outspo-
ken nationalist for his belief that
the West is inherently hostile to
Islam. In Pakistan’s strongly anti-
U.S. climate, tough action against
him poses political risks for the
incumbent government. An ad-
ditional complicating factor is that
few observers believe that Khan
acted alone, and this suspicion
could gravely damage the Army, which oversaw and controlled the nuclear
weapons development program under the control of then commander-in-
chief Pervez Musharraf .
There is a sense that the present Pakistani government might in some
ways be more favorable towards taking action against elements like Khan
who, taking advantage of the political situation, have acted or aided actions
that harm global security and are still doing so as evident by the situation
in Pakistan’s tribal areas. And the U.S. needs a way to work with them
in doing so. In the process the U.S. needs to gain the confidence of the
people of Pakistan, especially those residing in the tribal areas. Here Barack
Obama has gotten off to a bad start. His comments about not hesitating
to invade Pakistan to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda have not gone over
well with the people. The President-elect needs to understand that frequent
intrusions into Pakistani territory and unwarranted attacks enforce the im-
age of the U.S. as an enemy. This is where the Taliban takes advantage
and gets the support of the local people. It is quite obvious that if given an
option they will choose to fight with their own people (Talibani insurgents
in Pakistan) rather than an imperialist foreign power that threatens their
sovereignty, which is exactly what U.S. actions against Pakistan resemble.
This will be made worse if Obama goes ahead with his aggressive policy.
The President-elect needs to take the help of the Pakistani government in
gaining the trust of the local authorities in these areas to make people be-
lieve that America has their interests in mind and that the intensions of the
Taliban and Al Qaeda are far from being nationalist.
These are tough times for the whole world and even tougher for the
occupant of the White House. But at the same time, there’s no one more
suitable to be in the White House than Barack Obama. The key for him
will be communication and good old diplomacy. Additionally, he will need
to make his implacable adversaries understand that he can use force if di-
plomacy doesn’t work. The President-elect must understand that America
will successfully address the world’s complex challenges when it takes di-
plomacy seriously. •
 I nternational affairs

The Forgotten Poverty

Faris Islam

As the developed
economies of the world
struggle with an unprec-
edented credit crisis, the
highest unemployment
figures in fourteen years
and stock markets almost
in free fall, it’s proving all
too easy to forget about
those stricken with pov-
erty in the developing
world and the terrible tri-
als they face dealing with
the twin evils of energy
and food inflation. South
Asia is a neglected victim
of this terrible cancer, as
one-fifth of the world’s
humanity and, according
to the World Bank, half
the world’s poor struggle
in the subcontinent to
feed their families.
Within the broader
South Asian problem of
growing poverty lies the
story of Pakistan, a na- In an interview Khursheeda Khatoon, a semi-literate domestic
tion struggling with rising militancy, political instability, and a grow- servant in Karachi, told me that she could no longer send her chil-
ing disconnect between the upper and lower classes – economically, dren to school for lack of money. She is not the only one. Shehnaz,
intellectually, and socially. Despite the plethora of bad news broadcast a schoolteacher, is in trouble too, with her family only eating fish or
across American airwaves, until last year the Pakistani economy was chicken once a week now due to rising prices. Shehnaz also mentions
growing at above five percent. With this growth people were pulled her painful commute to work, to which she now walks instead of
out of poverty and the middle class grew, partially due to the influx taking the bus to try and save what little she can. Though the last few
of aid and foreign investment into the country following the U.S.-led years had been good for them, they have little hope for the future if
invasion of Afghanistan and the start of the “War on Terror.” prices continue to rise and their plight continues to be ignored.
Serious flaws have come to light, however, regarding Pakistan’s A grocery store owner shares this pessimism, saying his small
economic boom. The benefits of economic growth, as always, dispro- business is suffering – people can afford to buy less and his profits
portionately favored those at the top and gave them the purchasing are shrinking. He predicts a dire future for entrepreneurs, with their
power that enabled them to buy more imported goods and luxury small businesses being drowned out and people lacking the purchas-
items. While this influx of imported goods heavily skewed the na- ing power to buy anything beyond the bare necessities. For many,
tion’s trade balance to an almost two to one ratio, the bullish run on however, even the bare necessities are slowly moving out of reach –
the oil markets and the subsequent printing of money by the govern- from food riots in Afghanistan to people eating animal feed in Bengal
ment to finance the growing energy import bill sent the country into to children being taken out of school in Pakistan, in South Asia and
an inflationary spiral. The effects of inflation in Pakistan, particularly most of the developing world people are plunging back into increas-
for the millions of the nation’s poor, have been devastating. With ing poverty and desperation. •
lower classes in the developing world already spending sixty to eighty
percent of their incomes on food, according to a BBC News exclu- Faris Islam is the co-Chair of the South Asian Political Action
sive, rises such as the 130% increase in wheat prices over the last year Committee (SAPAC), a student group that focuses on socioeconomic
have wreaked havoc on the poor across the world, including in South and political issues affecting South Asia. For more information on
Asia. SAPAC, contact faris.islam@tufts.edu.

December 2008 17
 I nternational affairs

Beyond the Bullets: Politics in Iraq

Colin Smith

In 2003 the Iraq War began. For the next five years Americans, powerless positions, like that of the vice presidency. The result has been
along with people around the world, watched Saddam Hussein fall, Sunni anger and violence. One of the coalitions’ three main member
inspectors find no WMD’s, violence rule the streets of Baghdad, hun- parties, the Grand Council for the People of Iraq, was led for years
dreds of thousands lay dead, a troop surge come and go, a sitting Amer- by Adnan al-Dulaimi, who has been investigated multiple times and
ican president’s approval rating sink to historic lows, and his successor whose son was arrested after being caught planting a bomb in a Shiite
run a campaign originally based on opposition to the war. After all of family’s house. This is a small sample of the violence Sunni groups have
this, it seems appropriate to look at this new nation, this new Iraq, and displayed during the sectarian struggles.
ask, what have we created? A quarter of the seats in the Iraqi Parliament are held by yet an-
The largest party in Iraq today is the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Coun- other group, the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan (DPAK).
cil (SIIC) led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. We can look to this party to This party unites the two main Kurdish groups along with a series of
see the beginning of the splintering of Iraq. The SIIC has a huge power smaller parties. This coalition is again purely ethnic, looking to advance
base in Shiite-dominated Basra and is quickly transforming the area only the causes of the Kurdish people. As part of the joint government
into a place of rigid Islamic standards. Where once there was a relaxed the DPAK has possession of the presidency, currently held by Jalal Ta-
atmosphere, now women must walk the streets in traditional garb. Fur- labani. Talabani recently launched a lawsuit against the Kurdish news-
thermore, according to the BBC, the SIIC has been accused by Sunnis paper Hawlati after it published an essay accusing the Kurdish parties
for having a secret political and military alliance with Iran. Its position of corruption and undemocratic tendencies.
as the largest party, as well as its leadership of the United Iraqi Alliance This year’s Brookings Institution’s list of weakest states placed Iraq
(a coalition of 22 different parties), has provided the party with many fourth. That position is no surprise considering the mess that confronts
government positions, including control over the Ministry of the Inte- Iraqi politics. With the vast majority of seats held by groups with loy-
rior, which oversees the nation’s police force. Here, the SIIC has abused alty not to the state as a whole, but to individual populations and par-
its power. It has been implicated for using the police force for sectarian ties, there is little consensus building or compromise. The situation
violence and may have been responsible for thousands of Sunni civilian becomes even more complex with the threat of politically motivated
deaths. As if this was not enough, the SIIC has its own military branch, militias and corrupt police forces using bloodshed to solve differences.
the Badr Organization, which contains several thousand fighters. While the surge may have slowed the tide, it is hard to see a bright
Another crucial Shiite Leader is Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr controls political future for this child of American foreign policy, the Republic
the Mahdi army, a collection of loyal militants, and has considerable of Iraq. •
political influence. His fol-
lowers have been blamed by
the United States for mul-
tiple assassinations, kidnap-
pings, and bombings. His
militia has directly fought
the United States military
on multiple occasions and
for a while seized complete
control of the city of Ama-
rah. Although he, like Ab-
dul Aziz al-Hakim, does not
hold a government position,
Sadr is one of the most pow-
erful men in Iraq.
The Sunnis, on the
other hand, have united un-
der the Iraqi Accord Front,
which won 44 of the 275
seats in the parliament. This
coalition has been politically
marginalized by the larger
and more dominant Shiite
groups, and currently holds

18 Tufts Roundtable

Courting
the IMF
Asad Badruddin
Criticized by free-market proponents and socialists, by dictators
and parliaments, by the right and the left, it could very well be one of
the most thankless jobs in the world, as well as one of the most contro-
versial economic bodies of the last century. The International Monetary
Fund came into existence at the end of the Second World War and
since then has undergone many reforms to evolve into the body it is at
present. Its agenda, as its website claims, is to “survey, lend and assist.”
To supplement these activities it also gathers information to provide
research data and statistics.
The IMF has been widely blamed for the Asian crisis of 1997.
Most commonly, it is accused of making the problem much worse.
Its infamous policy of “One Size Fits All” and its emphasis on public
spending cuts and fiscal discipline (which in layman’s terms is increasing
taxes and/or reducing spending by the government) have given head-
aches to many world leaders trying to negotiate terms that would be
beneficial for their respective countries. Its contracts with governments
reduce their ability to make independent decisions and have sparked
violent protests in many developing countries.
Further, the IMF has been widely criticized for failing to anticipate
the current financial crisis on Wall Street. Critics also smugly point out
that the IMF’s advice to the U.S. government would have been exactly
the opposite of the bailout Congress eventually passed. A Third World
country at the IMF’s mercy with large debts and current account defi-
cits would never have gotten a go-ahead with a similar plan. The silence
of the IMF about the bailout, at a time when anyone remotely familiar
with economics has been commenting on it, has been surprising. In-
deed the IMF is perceived to be a puppet of the United States helping
to further its capitalist conquest of world markets.
But hold on. There’s another side of the story. The IMF does not
force anyone to take its money. Countries usually approach the IMF, so
do they really have a right to complain? There is a reason these countries
are in a hole right now, and maybe more discipline is what’s needed.
Consider the analogy of a beggar who has a drug problem. Giving him
money will not solve his problems. He would probably spend it on
drugs instead of food. And the worst part is that the next day he will
be back asking for more money. The IMF needs to make sure such a
situation doesn’t arise. Indeed they place an emphasis on not ordering
caviar when all you can afford is the salmon. Moreover governments are
fond of blaming their shortcomings on the IMF in order to get more
political mileage.
The IMF needs more imagination and more compromise. It
needs a thorough and honest evaluation of its performance, especially
its many failures. It needs to adopt a softer approach to many of its
policies and it needs to consider the input of economists from develop-
ing countries who haven’t been brought up with the western Friedman
mantra. This would go a long way in giving the IMF credibility and
flexibility, and would also address the concerns many countries have
about its programs. •
I nternational affairs
Responsibility
to Protect
Connor Gramazio
Typically the word genocide conjures up pictures of emaciated victims
of Nazi concentration camps and vivid videos of the ovens where so many
lost their lives. With the end of the war, the cry of “never again” echoed
around the world, accompanying hope that humanity would never permit
such horrors to exist again. More recently, the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty released “The Responsibility to Protect”
in 2001, a report declaring that nations have an ethical obligation to inter-
vene and stop genocide around the world. But this has not been the case.
Since the Holocaust, genocides have continued to prevail around the world.
From Cambodia to Rwanda to Bosnia, the rally cry “never again” has proven
to be an empty call.
The ongoing situation in the Sudan provides an opportunity to finally
reverse one of the most horrific things humankind can do to itself. Although
the Civil War in Sudan has been intermittent since the 1980s, the especially
volatile conflict in the Darfur region has attracted incredible international
appeals to end what many consider an ongoing genocide.
So far the international response to the matter has consisted mostly of
humanitarian aid with African Union and United Nations troops mixed
in sparingly. We have effectively been throwing rice in the face of genocide
in hopes that somehow the tiny grains will stop the cogs of systematic and
aimed murder. This is not a practical solution.
Time and time again, the nation’s capital, Khartoum, has promoted
non-aggression pacts, promises of peace, and investigations. Ultimately, how-
ever, these have all failed. In fact, if Khartoum has promised one thing it is
that it constantly lies in all of its negotiations on the conflict.
Current international approaches to the genocide have been tantamount
to natural disaster relief: a belief that food, shelter, and distribution manage-
ment will be enough to put a band-aid over the wound and that things will
correct themselves. However, there is a large difference between Darfur and
natural disasters. While a storm moves on, the Janjaweed, the murderers of
countless thousands, do not.
Peace is preferable to violence, but one cannot just talk loudly. The world
community must now reach for the stick and show that the Darfur genocide
will be stopped. However, using “the stick” is not synonymous to war, just
an indication that soft diplomacy will no longer work. Although we have
tried to deter the Janjaweed and the Khartoum government, it is obvious that
our threats are not credible. With the addition of military protection of the
refugee camps located on the Sudan/Chad border, there is the possibility of
creating stable environments in which the 2.5 million displaced Darfuris can
finally mourn the 400,000 dead, the innumerable raped women can seek
assistance, and perhaps even a de-escalation of Janjaweed aggressiveness can
occur. However, most importantly, a credible and long lasting ceasefire would
provide the possibility of resettlement.
The Janjaweed strategy is to carpet bomb entire villages, move in on
foot, kill all the men, rape the women, burn the huts that still stand, and
then drive the few survivors away from their homes and into the desert. The
United States of America and the world, must fulfill its Responsibility to
Protect the people of Darfur. •
December 2008 19
 I nternational affairs
A Monroe Doctrine for Today
Evan Chiacchiaro
On December 2, 1823, James Monroe released to the pub-
lic his seventh annual State of the Union address. Embedded in
this document was the declaration of what became known as the
Monroe Doctrine. Monroe stated that the United States would not
tolerate further European interference in Latin American nations,
creating a clear separation between the Old World of Europe and
the New World of the Americas. While the doctrine was ostensibly
aimed at securing freedom from European control for the newly es-
tablished Latin American countries, the underlying message could
not have been clearer:
the Americas are our
backyard, and we are
committed to keep-
ing it that way. And
while criticisms of the
true goals of the Mon-
roe Doctrine have
been abundant, Latin
America was firmly
cemented as an im-
portant strategic arena
for the United States.
Sadly, the same
cannot be said for the
current foreign policy
vision of the United
States. With two wars
raging in the Middle
East, a nuclear flash-
point in North Korea,
and the rise of a re-
surgent Russia, America is no longer focusing on the importance
of a secure and friendly Central and South America. Nowhere is
this more evident than in the lack of public awareness and action
over the current situation in Venezuela, whose status is rising both
regionally and globally. As Americans remain concerned almost
exclusively with our current conflicts, we ignore a dynamic change
in our own hemisphere that may have much broader foreign policy
implications.
In the past few years, President Hugo Chavez has led his coun-
try on an aggressive, expansionist path, attempting to increase Ven-
ezuela’s influence in South America. In a clear attempt to portray
Venezuela as South America’s alternative to an ‘imperialist’ United
States, Chavez has pushed his brand of socialism and nationaliza-
tion of industries as the answer for Latin America. Some close allies
such as Bolivia, where in 2006 like-minded president Evo Morales
was elected, have followed suit, taking steps towards creating similar
socialist societies. However, even in nations such as Brazil where
the free-market still reigns, Chavez has been able to increase Ven-
ezuela’s influence. In 2004 Venezuela and Brazil signed an agree-
20 Tufts Roundtable
ment aimed at increasing political, economic, and social integra-
tion in South America, and the two countries have extensive arms
deals. These efforts for a unified Latin America take place in the
background of fiery rhetoric from Chavez—including declaring at
a U.N. General Assembly meeting that the podium still smelled like
sulfur after President Bush spoke— that he backs up with inflam-
matory actions, such as the near simultaneous expulsions of Ameri-
can diplomats from Venezuela and Bolivia in 2008. There is no
question that Chavez’s goal is a Latin American bloc firmly aligned
against the United
States.
It is tempting
to dismiss Chavez as
nothing more than a
dictator of an unim-
portant country that
is blustering to gain
some kind of inter-
national standing.
While Venezuela is
a significant oil ex-
porter, it has appeared
hesitant to use oil as
a weapon and doesn’t
have enough influence
in OPEC to launch a
full boycott. And
while a Latin America
opposed to the Unit-
ed States is unfortu-
nate, it is hardly an
existential threat. Why, then, should America worry about Hugo
Chavez?
The answer is the emerging Venezuelan alliances with Iran and
Russia, two nations that not only possess the ability to inflict more
damage upon the United States but whose interests are diametri-
cally opposed to ours. In 2006 Chavez traveled to Iran in solidarity
against attempts by the U.S. to dismantle the Iranian nuclear pro-
gram, and Chavez and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
have pledged to work together to fight “U.S. imperialism.” Chavez
has also been cultivating relations with Russia, with the two nations
going as far as to conduct joint military maneuvers in September
of this year. Steps must be taken now to ensure that Latin America
does not fall under the complete influence of these nations, which
would present a great security threat to our nation. By taking a
hard-line against Venezuela, and using soft power and economic
incentives to bring other Latin American nations under the Ameri-
can umbrella, we can ensure that Latin America remains secure and
friendly. Monroe’s strategy still rings true today: America’s security
begins in the Western Hemisphere. •
I nternational affairs
 Tufts
Roundtable

Tufts Roundtable
The Journal of Political Discourse
www.tuftsroundtable.org
Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service
Lincoln Filene Hall Tufts University Medford, MA 02155

Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service

Sponsered by the Institute of Political Citizenship