Photos by: Lauren Schulsohn and Jacob Wisnik

Just a little over 150 miles from the heart of downtown Los Angeles lies the Salton Sea, once a bustling vacation destination for Hollywood stars and affluent beach goers in the 1950s, is now a toxic, primarily abandoned, eerily beautiful, reminiscent place of what once was. Finance Chair Jacob Wisnik, Governor Cameron Mellilo and myself, President Lauren Schulsohn made the four hour trek — thank you Southern California traffic — to explore this unique destination.

South of Palm Springs, and, in the midst of the Southern California desert, is the Salton Sea. The current body of water that comprises the Salton Sea is not a naturally formed lake. Rather, following the flooding of a canal being constructed on the Colorado River, in 1905, the excess water created the Salton Sea. It is not necessarily rare to see a large body of water in this area as Lake Cahuilla existed for approximately 2,000 years and then disappeared after 1580. However, what is of concern, is that as the Salton Sea was accidently man-made, there is no fresh-water flowing into the lake.

As the lake has no fresh water flowing into its body, it has consistently struggled to sustain its size. In an effort to preserve the size of the lake and to efficiently discard agricultural waste, as the Salton Sea sits in Imperial County, home to approximately 500,000 farmable acres, farmers began funneling their agricultural run-off into the lake. And for years, this strategy worked, and allowed for the construction of resorts, yacht-clubs, restaurants, and a bustling beach town with the occasional visit from the Beach Boys and Frank Sinatra. The lake even served as a WWII Naval Auxiliary Air Station that tested dummy atomic bombs to better understand aerodynamics. However, as the 1970s came along, without a fresh-water source, the lake struggled with rising salinity, toxic pesticides, and flooding that came from excessive dumping of agricultural runoff, leaving resorts destroyed and optimism low – people got up and left. Today, the Salton Sea is virtually a ghost town.

In the last 25 years, the Salton Sea has lost a third of its water, and due to decreased rainfall and rapid climate change, it is projected that California’s largest body of water will lose 75% of its current volume by 2030. The remaining fresh water sources that did flow into the lake were cut-off in 2003 and re-routed to San Diego county. In the face of drought, California believed that the fresh-water would have more use in San Diego county as over 3 more million people inhabit the area. 

The degradation of the Salton Sea has had significant implications on the environment and human-life. In the summer of 1999, the Los Angeles Times reported that on average 7.6 million fish die every day. Today, there are barely any fish in the lake left that can stand the high-levels of salinity. The ones that can, such as the Mozambique tilapia, western mosquitofish, and the native desert pupfish, reside on the few toxic waterways that flow into the lake. These waterways are also already extremely polluted by the time they reach the Salton Sea. While there used to be swaths of dead fish piled high each year as a result of the toxicity, today, these piles do not even occur as there are nearly no fish left. Instead, one can see the reminiscence of the piled high dead fish as crushed fish bones primarily make up the sand on Salton Sea beaches and dead fish residing on the bottom of the lake create a distinct smell that is unmissable. 

After exploring the ruins of Bombay Beach, our team drove out to Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge to examine the bird populations. Over 400 different bird species reside in this area allowing the population of birds to be over 100,000, with even more in winter months. While that estimate does seem like a lot, it is only half or even a third of what used to live on the Salton Sea just a decade ago. White pelicans, a popular icon of the Sea, have become a nearly impossible site. Without abundant fish populations, birds find other places to spend their time; however, non-fish eating birds will most likely always continue to find their way to the Salton Sea.

The human and economic toll on this area has been vast. The air surrounding the sea has become increasingly toxic with a high concentration of aerosolized particulates. As a result, the air is causing respiratory illness and higher levels of childhood asthma. Due to the toxicity of the lake and the consistent shrinkage, it is difficult to set up businesses as people cannot rely on the lake for entrepreneurship. No one uses the lake for fishing and there is not a single company that you can rent a boat to ride on the lake. It is projected that the Salton Sea will cost Greater Palm Springs billions in lost tourist revenue in the next five years. 

Imperial County, populated by 180,000 people, is 80.9% Latino, 13.7% White and 10.5% African-American, has higher levels of poverty, with 23% of the population living below the poverty line, which is 8% higher than the California average. 

Being less than 40 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border on the lake’s most southern tip, our team had to go through two border checkpoints on our drive around the sea. Routinely, drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine, are found at these checkpoints, often with quantities over $100,000.

One source of sustainable economic growth has been the geothermal energy facilities that first began operation in 1982. As the Salton Sea lies on the San Andreas fault line, these facilities work to harvest the energy from hot fluid. Following the gathering of energy from this hot fluid, they infuse the now cooled fluid back into the ground. There are 11 facilities around the Salton Sea conducting this work.
In recent years, it has been discovered that enormous deposits of lithium reside underneath the Salton Sea and its surrounding areas. Experts believe that there is enough lithium in this area to provide batteries for over 50 million electric vehicles over a three year period. Instead of these facilities putting the cooled fluid back into the ground immediately, they would first extract the fluid for lithium before inserting it back into the ground. In a political landscape that is putting greater emphasis on electric machinery and automation, once the technology for this type of lithium mining is fully developed, operations will most likely begin.

While there are some prospects for economic revitalization via lithium mining, after speaking with locals, the sentiment was all the same; even if they cannot swim in the lake, they don’t want to see it gone. Doing nothing to mitigate decreasing water levels also is not even a safe solution as the air is becoming increasingly toxic and endangered species are suffering great losses. 

Over the years, many research studies and calls for action have taken place, and despite this work, real change has not come. Some recommendations have called for providing an influx of fresh water to the Salton Sea; however, this project would cost billions of dollars and only impact a small population of California. In November, the federal government pledged $250 million to restore the Salton Sea as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and in December, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began a contract to find short and long term solutions to help preserve the Salton Sea. 

Although the solution to restoring the Salton Sea is unclear, just like any place facing environmental degradation, life continues to live on in the area, and in many ways, flourish. The Salton Sea area has an influx of people moving in, beautiful structures of art are constantly being created, and on our adventure, we saw other tourists marveling at the majestic bird population. In our journalistic pursuit to assess severe environmental effects, we also found ourselves enjoying Cabernet Sauvignon with the locals at America’s only lawless city known as Slab City, drinking date milkshakes in Westmorland, and cleaning off our muddy shoes after a genuinely fun day at the Salton Sea. 

Despite our fun, the Salton Sea is not just a ghost town trying to find its identity in a society that has left it behind. We must use the Salton Sea as a lesson of inaction that can be applied across the world. Yes, life lives on, but every time there is an environmental threat or disaster, we cannot wait to see what happens. We must act. And our stop of inaction and start of action should begin right in our own backyard, with the restoration of the Salton Sea. 

The post A Lesson of Inaction in Our Own Backyard: The Salton Sea appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Re·frac·tion (/rəˈfrakSH(ə)n/) Noun. Physics: Change in direction of propagation of any wave as a result of its traveling at different speeds at different points along the wave front.

Josefa Barliza gazes off into the distant deserts of La Guajira, Colombia during a midday stroll. With an arid and scorching desert for hundreds of kilometers, La Guajira is one of the driest regions of Colombia with less than 400mm of rain per year. However, life always finds a way.

I wake up with the sunrise. The warm sunbeams start filling up the gaps in the palm roof of the artisan center of an Indigenous village at the doorstep of the Caribbean. As I roll over inside a hand-woven, red and green chinchorro (hammock) I can feel the temperature start to rise. With every degree increase, the intensity of the light touching my eyes becomes more unbearable. So I wake up. I put my feet down on the sand, and walk. Just a couple of meters off the wooden gates of Arema, I find myself being struck by the high-speed salty winds coming from the East. As my hair covers my face and the strength of the sun pierces through my skin, I make my way forward.

Not even 100 steps from my hammock I find myself on the beach, surrounded by nothing but desert, shrubs, cacti and sand. The only water that I am certain to see for kilometers is in front of me; and the only light I will have for the rest of the day is above me.

Light and Water

The region is home to the Indigenous Wayuu people. Dressed in colorful attires they live their lives trying to tame the desert and reaping every benefit they can from the inhospitable environment. Josefa Barliza is one of the most outspoken members of the community. Her goal is to use technology and social media to put Arema and Wayuu culture on the map.

Refraction is the phenomenon physicists attribute to the shifting direction of waves when they change mediums. It applies to light, water, and metaphorically, to people. As new challenges arise or progress is made, environments and circumstances change, which leads people to go in different directions, and sometimes, change their lives entirely. Arema embodies this. A paradigm shift. A radical change in the way they will live for generations to come.

The small coastal indigenous Wayuu community of Arema, located in La Guajira, Colombia, is about to get a new set of solar panels and batteries installed. This will change the way the community interacts amongst themselves, with nature and others in the region.

However, this is not the first time Arema faces change. The directions of the village and its inhabitants as individuals shift with the landscapes and nature, coexisting, embracing and adapting to change; just like the waves around them.

Light and water are critical for the survival and progress of Arema and surrounding communities. However, the lack of accessibility to these resources creates uncertainties that locals have to deal with on a daily basis. Not knowing when water shipments will come, when it will rain, when you will be able to take a trip to the nearest town to charge your phone, if you will even be able to finish your work before it gets pitch dark to pay for things.

The roads that lead to Arema are covered in sand, mud and dirt. With no paved roads, most communities are connected by these makeshift streets that allow for access, but severely limit the travel time and size of transportation that can reach these areas.

Houses in Arema are built out of tree branches, and other wood. Roofs are traditionally made of palm, but some have adapted the use of tin roofing, with only the wealthiest being able to afford concrete and bricks. Having a sturdy and durable roof is key to remain safe from the sun and the blazing temperatures that reach average highs of 35 °C.

Water jugs are one of the most precious possessions for the Wayuu. In this inhospitable desert, the only access to drinking water comes from water trucks or rain water, and to store this water, they need several and sometimes massive water jugs around their houses.

Jagüeys are large manmade pools of water that are used by the Wayuu people to store rainwater. Not only do they provide fresh water for their communities, but they also serve as social hangout spots where the community (specially young people) gets together to socialize.

Jagüeys are protected because they are the only places where we have water. If our jagüeys dry up and we find ourselves without water, that is where the drought and therefore our suffering begins.

Josefa Barliza

Despite the heat and sand, a lot of vegetation can be found in La Guajira. Between trees and smaller plants, vegetation feels the empty desert with some color. Important for shade, resources and braking monotony, the flora found close to Arema coexists with the environment alongside its inhabitants.

Taken from the “Cerro Pilón de Azúcar,” one can see the extreme conditions that locals have to endure. Yet, these extreme conditions yield strong character, and the Wayuu people are not the exception. between barren land and untamable oceans, the indigenous communities of La Guajira seek to find stability within these changing times, preserving the past and embracing the future.

Light, for us, is something sacred. The sun’s light accompanies us in this desert, while at night it is with us through the moon; and it illuminates the paths that we have to take while keeping us safe from evil.

Josefa Barliza

La Guajira is the ultimate embodiment of juxtaposition. Where big desert dunes meet the clear turquoise Caribbean Sea. Where there’s so much water, yet none to drink. Where there is so much light but no way to keep it. Every day lived is a fight won, and the way that locals brave the extreme and unfavorable conditions to not only survive, but thrive, is a sight to behold.

Salt

Although ocean water and sunlight are not easily accessible to use, they both come together to provide for the community through their mutual collaboration.

Maria Luisa Barliza Ipuana is the leader of Arema. As the head of the village her days mostly consist of passing down what she has learned through decades of experience. When she is not sewing or taking care of her grandchildren, her mornings start at 6 a.m. She heads into the salt flats.

Salt is created by the evaporation of salt water that gets trapped inland when the sea level rises. These large plains contain tons of salt to be harvested by Maria Barliza and other Wayuu people for both self consumption and commerce.

Salt is one of the main sources of income for the community, alongside textile manufacturing and fishing. Although the least profitable of the three, Maria Barliza believes that the practice is key to the communities cultural heritage and economy.

Maria Barliza takes younger girls from the village, such as her grandkids, to the middle of the salt flats to teach them the process, one she hopes will remain alive through generations to come.

To harvest salt, it is first scrapped off the ground with bare hands. The salt is then thrown into the ever growing piles for it to dry.

Once the salt is dry, it is packed into bags of 50 kilograms, which after hours and hours of hard labour under the sun will pay just $4,000 Colombian Pesos (COP) or the equivalent of $1.

Textiles

The major source of income for Arema is the production of textiles and handcrafts, usually made by Wayuu women. From giant hammocks called chinchorros that can take up to four months to complete and go for COP $2,000,000 (≈$500), to small handbags called mochilas that are a hit with tourists, handcrafts and textiles are the lifeblood of the community.

Without electricity, their production hours are massively cut to the times of day where the sun is shining, submitting the artisans to extreme heat and strict time frames. With no ability to work through the night or aid their craft with sewing machines, their productivity is subjected to nature’s will, and so is their income.

Most women in the community gather in Arema’s artisan center to start sewing and crafting at 6 a.m. Mati Barliza takes about one week to finish a mochila, but depending on the type of threads used, they can take even longer.

Mochilas can be widely seen all around touristic spots in Colombia, but for Indigenous women, most of the sales go to other members of the community and surrounding towns. Most of the sales are also made in Uribia or Cabo de la Vela, the biggest cities close to Arema.

Wayuu women learn to sew from a young age, and although someone like Josefa Barliza doesn’t necessarily focus on this art, the techniques and skills are still something that are kept sharp and alive.

Chinchorros are the other major handcraft that is made by Wayuu people. Made in a loom, high quality chinchorros can use as much as 6 kg of string to manufacture.

Chinchorros are made with designs drawn from nature, the lines, spirals and colors come from the cacti, oceans and animals that surround the communities. Symbols can range in meaning, going from dreams to light.

The last major product are “mantas” or the traditional dress of Wayuu women. These dresses are made in different materials, as different occasions require different materials. Red is a sacred color for the Wayuu, and therefore it is reserved for the most luxurious and/or ceremonial attires.

Being from an Indigenous community should not be shameful, in the contrary, it is a sign of strength. We are people that are born with this incredible ability to fight and survive.

Josefa Barliza

Intricate geometric designs, bright colors and a looser fits are trademarks of more traditional mantas used for religious and cultural ceremonies. Designs and colors which beautifully stand out against the monochrome desert sand.

Textiles and handcrafts not only amount for a good portion of the livelihood of the community, but they also represent the historical and cultural heritage of the Wayuu people; a heritage that is imperative to pass onto younger generations.

The Future Generations

The Wayuu people place a lot of importance and meaning on passing knowledge down through generations, preserving their culture. From legends about how Wereke, the spider, taught their ancestors how to sew, to beautiful rituals that exhume their dead so they can find peace amongst the mountains. This is why children are taught traditional customs from an early age, including these stories, dances, handcrafts and the Wayuunaiki language.

However, these traditional teachings are coming at odds with the introduction of 21st century technology and the imminent interconnectedness that has started to reach the village. From social media and technological influence to younger people leaving the village to study around the country, reaching a balance between tradition and progress is more important than ever.

Arema, alongside other adjacent communities, have found a way to merge both currents of thought together and create a constructive equilibrium where one helps the other. Embracing modern technology to make traditions more vibrant and shareable.

As the head of the community, Maria Barliza is in charge of teaching the kids, specially young girls, the traditions of Wayuu culture. However, she also leads the way in facilitating the inclusion of newer technologies, such as solar panels and electricity in the village. She has set in motion the exponential growth that the village will have, not only economically, but socioculturally.

Abraham is one of the several children that constitute the future of Arema. In contrast to his siblings and cousins however, he will spend the majority of his life in an environment where electricity and all of its benefits are easily accessible. This will fundamentally change the way he experiences and approaches the world, spearheading a new generation of Wayuu for the 21st century.

The Wayuu are one of the biggest Indigenous communities in Colombia, and we are known for being warriors and fighters. It has been able to maintain their customs and traditions. Even as years pass, and our Wayuu nation is joined by outsiders, we prevail.

Josefa Barliza

Kids however, still have to be kids. Regardless of technology or tradition, playing is still a fundamental part of a life, and Wayuu games are certainly a part of Arema. Children play traditional “Carrera de cardón,” where kids race with makeshift cars made out of cactus and push them around with a stick.

Another popular game, specially amongst boys is wrestling. Girls usually make Wayunkerras, which are dolls made out of clay.

Education beyond cultural traditions is also a key pillar in Wayuu life. Students and teachers from around the Satsapa community find their home away from home further into the desert. Satsapa is a school project that recently got access to electricity through solar panels. This has allowed the school to thrive and grow, using its four batteries to power fridges, freezers, outlets, and even an IT room.

Satsapa went from having around 60 students to more than doubling to 140 in a couple of months after gaining electricity. The classes became more engaging, food was able to be stored and preserved for better nutrition, more information and knowledge could be accessed. The possibilities grew exponentially.

Fishing

Water is a sacred element for Wayuu culture, as it is defined in several different terms. There’s water that comes from rain, which allows us the opportunity to enjoy it inside our Jagüeys… But we are also beach Wayuu, and the sea gives us a lot of benefits such as fishing in the form of food or money.

Josefa Barliza

Fishing is the other major source of income and livelihood for the Wayuu. Not only does it provide money but is also a direct source of food for their diet as farming within the desert is not a viable option. Despite the dangers that navigating the Caribbean brings, children as young as 11 are already spending days at sea, training and learning so they will be able to provide for the community.

Fishing in La Guajira takes several forms. With a varied sea life, anything from fish to lobsters can be caught in the water. This creates the need for several different fishing methods tailored for the desired catch. Wide nets are cast for schools of fish, while wooden traps are left overnight for lobsters and crabs.

Pablo Barliza and his father Agustin Barliza are one of the father and son duos that fish for Arema. Usually in a group of two or three, they usually leave before sunset and spend the night on the boat sleeping on its floor with only a blanket to keep them dry and warm.

Navigation is done via mountains and landmarks that can be seen with the naked eye in the horizon as there is no access to GPS or any sophisticated navigation techniques. Pablo is usually one of the people that does the fishing while his dad, the captain, would be calling the shots.

A night out fishing can go two main ways. Either they catch just enough to feed themselves for a day, or they have a “miracle catch,” where they have enough to sell in Uribia or Cabo de la Vela for a profit.

Fish caught range in selling price depending on the species and size of the fish, they can go for a couple thousand Colombian pesos to around tens of thousands ($1-$10). Some popular fish species are Groupers, Pargos, Barracudas, Red Snappers and Blue Runners.

This specific catch only provided a couple of fish that would be used to feed the village for a day. Pablo starts these preparations by cutting and gutting all the fish as soon as he got off the boat. At the moment, the community will have to eat all the fish today, as there is no refrigeration, and therefore, the village can’t stockpile food or fish to sell and are at the mercy of the ocean. That is soon to change with the addition of two freezers to Arema’s community center. Here fishermen will be able to store fish, as well as make ice cubes to sell.

Although not a source of drinkable water, the ocean has been key to the survival of the Wayuu people. They have been able to brave the uncertainty, and adapt to its changing yield of success and defeat, following its waves, wherever they may lead. Today, more than ever, they will be able to tame the ocean a little bit more, with access to electricity.

Reflections

The changes that Arema is about to experience, as great as they are, are not the norm. Arema is one of the selected communities that have been able to receive the aid from organizations like GivePower Foundation to be able to build these energy and water solutions. Although there will still be a lot of communities throughout La Guajira that will not have access to these services, there are ways in which they can also refract alongside communities like Arema towards a brighter future through mutual cooperation.

As more and more projects are propped up around La Guajira, the domino effect that is created by the mutual cooperation within the wider Wayuu community will reflect on every aspect of life. Creating small nodes all around the department will create a naturally occurring shared economy giving adjacent communities an opportunity to also store their food, get and keep drinking water, expand their knowledge through the internet and have access to technology that will aid in professional and leisure activities. The possibilities are endless.

Communities having access to water and electricity opens them up for sustainable tourism. Windsurfing, boating and all around beach leisure could become sources of income for the communities. Fundamentally turning the driest department in Colombia into a bustling oasis.

The future of the region looks extremely promising. With La Guajira’s prime tourism spot, Cabo de la Vela, being home to a lot of world renowned kite surfers and competitions, the communal effort to put La Guajira on the world stage is only taking off.

None of these feats or milestones, such as putting La Guajira on the map or sharing Wayuu culture with the world, would be possible if not for sustainable and clean access to drinking water. Throughout La Guajira there are some water treatment and desalinization plants such as the one by GivePower Foundation. Costing around $90,000, this water plant can produce 6,000 liters per day and provides water for the adjacent communities for COP $40 ($0.001) per liter.

The six solar panels installed in Arema will be able to generate 2,700 Watts and store this energy in three batteries that can last through the night. This will power: two freezers, a fridge, a television, a sewing machine, and seven outlets. And after the power is on, all their lives will change forever, and they will enter into a reality, where the day doesn’t end at sunset, and ideas can go beyond the horizon.

This entire photo essay was shot on 35mm film, no charging needed. A medium which without a flash, will not be able to take pictures at night. Just like any activity in Arema, photography ended as the sun went down. Now, be it art, entertainment or human connection, will be able to prevail; till the crack of dawn.

For me, regardless of the obstacles and the fact that we aren’t born with everything we would need, that is what helps us become good people. It teaches us how to fight, to cherish what we have; be it light, water, our land or our families.

Josefa Barliza

The post Refraction appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As companies like Uber, Google and Apple join traditional automakers in the race to produce self-driving cars, a future dominated by autonomous vehicles (AVs) is becoming a reality. From efficiency improvement to waste reduction, the benefits of AVs are limitless, and there is immense potential for AV’s in the future ecosystems of a sharing economy and smart cities.

However, despite the excitement surrounding the development of driverless cars, apprehensions remain about what they will mean for passengers on the road. One of the most commonly raised concerns is that system malfunctions could cause passenger and pedestrian deaths. In fact, last year, Uber made headlines when one of its driverless cars killed a woman in Arizona, causing the company to put its AV testing on pause. Although this is an isolated technical issue that will be fixed in time, it does beg the more pressing question  – how can AVs make decisions in unavoidable situations involving real lives? This question leads to what is known as the moral dilemma.

What is a moral dilemma?

At its most basic level, a moral dilemma involves “conflicts between moral requirements.” In relation to autonomous vehicles, these dilemmas arise during situations in which any course of action would cause damage or loss of life to at least one party. Take, for example, a vehicle whose brakes are not working. It is then faced with a choice of either turning left and hitting a motorcyclist, turning right and hitting a van with a family, or continuing straight and hitting a truck and killing the passenger.

This unfortunate decision brings up a conflict of morals that people may face as more AVs take to the streets. The circumstances have raised the question of insurance policy and who is liable for accidents. Currently, there is a relatively clear definition of when the driver is at fault. However, given the increasing autonomy of AVs, the question of liability is shifting towards the manufacturer and becoming more ambiguous. In a traditional car accident, the driver reacts out of pure reflex and is not held completely responsible for his or her actions. However, because AVs have an element of artificial intelligence, the person in charge of writing the car’s program code can pre-decide how the car will react in such situations. As a result, we are faced with the question of how to determine the best course of action. For example, when choosing which life to save, how should we factor in their demographics, function in society, and other important variables?

Tackling an Unsolvable Problem

In an effort to determine a universal moral code that could be applied to  such decisions, MIT conducted an online survey, known as the Moral Machine, in which they gathered a variety of perspectives by presenting participants with hypothetical decisions and asking them to choose how they would respond in each situation. After surveying over 2.3 million people worldwide, researchers found that only two principles were universal: to save multiple people over an individual and to save humans over animals. The lack of consensus of other preferences, including age and fault, indicates the flaw of using morals alone to solve the AV dilemma.

Additionally, there are other issues that arise regarding incentives and behavior.. For example, if cars are programmed to hit a motorcyclist who is wearing a helmet rather than one who isn’t to minimize damage, would that not punish and de-incentivize motorcyclists from wearing helmets? Furthermore, according to a study published in Science, while many say they want AVs to save pedestrians at the expense of the passenger, most admit they wouldn’t buy a car that does just that. As such, automakers are placed in a difficult position of deciding how exactly to program cars to win consumers, satisfy the public, and avoid legal issues.

Forging an Imperfect Path Forward

The solution to this may be to base norms generally on the ideology of utilitarianism, which is defined as doing the most good for the most number of people, leaving less room for debate and decreasing the liability and responsibility of manufacturers. However, there will need to be a degree of flexibility, which could be implemented by introducing an element of randomness in the code for unforseeable situations, and allowing case-by-base review where liability is unclear. As such, the legal framework will guide private companies as they manufacture AVs, allowing them to constantly improve their code.

As AVs become more widespread, it is important that legal rules are codified in soft law and adopted universally. So far, the few rare cases have been resolved on a case-by-case basis usually ending in settlements before actually reaching court. However, Germany has taken the lead in establishing formal guidelines, and the country’s Ethics Committee on Automated Driving has created an initial framework governing the program of self-driving vehicles. Some key ideas include the protection of human life as the top priority, a lack of distinction based on  personal features (age, gender, etc) in unavoidable accident situations, transparency on whether the human or computer is responsible for the driving task, documentation of the driver, and allowing drivers to have data sovereignty over usage of vehicle data. This is a promising first step, and countries should follow Germany’s lead and come together to establish common rules.

Ultimately AVs will decrease the number of accident-related injuries and deaths, and we must find a way to overcome the “moral dilemma” to prevent the fear of rare, hypothetical situations from blocking us from adopting this technology. Codifying and relying on standards and norms rather than morals or values can unify people and help us keep car manufacturers accountable and in agreement as we work together to adopt this new technology.

The post The Moral Dilemma of Driverless Cars appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In January, two days before its slated release, the Ministry of Culture pulled the “The Death of Stalin,” a new film from Scottish director Armando Iannucci, from Russian theaters. The black comedy satirizing Stalin and his inner circle – including Georgy Zhukov, the Soviet marshal extolled for his role in defeating Hitler – in the infamous dictator’s final days would have struck an awkward chord, scheduled to hit theaters mere days before the 75th anniversary celebration of the Battle of Stalingrad. The film was banned on grounds of “extremism,” implying that it is “extreme” to cast celebrated national figures – Zhukov, but increasingly Stalin – as anything less than objects of reverence.

This is not the work of a slick and sophisticated propaganda machine, but the clumsy and heavy-handed gambit of a regime hell-bent on stamping out opposition. Perhaps even a regime in fear.

Putin may have won a landslide victory by most measures – incidentally marking the longest stay in power of a Russian leader since Stalin – but his government’s ever-heightening intolerance toward opposition speech hints at desperation lurking beneath the surface. This rising repression may be effective while the general population remains content, but it evokes the image of a ceiling of tolerance that might one day be hit–but with what consequences?

A return to a Stalinesque reign of terror today is unlikely, though not impossible. Obviously, the ideological platform on which totalitarianism was justified in the Soviet era no longer stands–today Russia positions itself against the debauchery of liberalism as a pillar of Orthodox morality and traditional values. Accordingly, Putin props up his power using an image of himself as guardian of ancient, sacred Mother Russia mixed with the strongman warlord who can stick it to the arrogant West. 

Cast in this light, Putin likely does indeed enjoy overwhelming support in Russia – but any support based on suppression of even the idea of opposition is bound to wane sooner or later in an age when, as repeated hacks and leaks remind us, nothing hidden from the public can remain so for long. Of course, Putin’s precise support figures in Russia could be debated ad infinitum, given the opacity of the data and the inherent difficulty of quantifying individuals’ tangled web of inner lives. In fact, obtaining a percentage of support for Putin is both a futile and an absurd project. Focusing on fluctuating figures drawn from flawed studies misses the wider picture–the meaning and the means of Putin’s support.

What is clear, however, is that any support built on overt and graceless suppression of facts, alternate narratives and viable political alternatives might not take as much to topple as Putin’s apparent monopoly of power in Russia might suggest. Let’s not forget that a driving force of opposition to the Communist regime among the Russian youth – and perhaps the most immediately striking difference reported by those who escaped from behind the Iron Curtain into the capitalist countries – was the suffocating grasp that the Party maintained on the production and circulation of culture, art and ideas, contrasted with the cliched but palpable sense of freedom in the West. But what was necessary for the survival of the Soviet regime – strangling all alternate narratives – is no longer possible in a digital age. As the Russians themselves demonstrated in 2016, in today’s world, secrecy and censorship can only be conditional and temporary.

Let’s also not forget that Putin, like Stalin, is a mere mortal. By highlighting the great dictator’s very humanity in depicting the moment of death in its naked, absurd universality, “The Death of Stalin” poses an existential threat, not merely a political one, to Putin’s regime. Turning into art the notion that every ruler, no matter how totally sublimated into national myth, remains a man who will one day meet an end that is equal parts tragic, comic and banal is enough to make the ground quake under Putin’s project–namely, maintaining his grasp on power by mythologizing himself to the point where he is synonymous with the Russian nation in all its glory.

If this view of Putin is widespread enough to serve as a useful generalization in the country, it is completely beside the point to speak of a public opinion that supports Putin (for there is no public opinion where there is no public–no citizens, only subjects). Supporting Putin is not an active choice but a passive acceptance of an existential truth–but one that was at one point constructed, and one that must be maintained scrupulously–and unscrupulously. As the banning of the “Death of Stalin” suggests, it is one that might be slowly eroding in the deep caverns of national consciousness. To close with another cliché, desperate times call for desperate measures. 

Correction March 31: An earlier version misspelled Georgy Zhukov’s first name as Gregory.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post Desperate Times: The Death of Stalin and Putin’s Election appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The first thing one notices when walking around the Israeli-controlled Area C of the West Bank is the litter. Children walk down the street to the neighborhood playground, making sure to avoid empty bottles and deserted chairs. Some of the adults spend time picking up what they can, but in the face of the mountain of trash, the effort can seem futile. They appear at once uneasy and used to the situation.

Only a couple of hundred feet away, however, the trash stops. Here, the streets are clean, the pavement smooth. Those living in the area, whether in the dirty or clean parts, convey acceptance, resignation, or both. But to the outsider, it is staggering. While one community appears cared for, protected, and safe, the other looks as abandoned as the accumulated trash in their streets. How can two different worlds exist in such proximity to one another?

Unfortunately, this stark contrast is all too common  in the areas affected by  the enduring occupation conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. To be clear, the difference in cleanliness  between the Palestinian community and the nearby Israeli settlements is not a reflection of their respective residents’ willingness to clean. The actual reason is both more mundane and more sinister: both communities pay taxes to the Israeli government (a result of the Oslo Accords, which designated a certain area in the West Bank, Area C, as occupied territory under Israeli control), and yet the Israeli government offers virtually no government services — including public cleaning services — in the Palestinian neighborhoods. As B’Tselem, an Israeli non-profit dedicated to human rights, reports, in Area C, the Israeli government essentially ignores “the needs of the Palestinian population.”

Making matters worse, the Palestinian Authority offers virtually no help either. Here in Area C, which covers 60 percent of the West Bank, the Palestinian people are left to fend for themselves, isolated and abandoned. The two seemingly rival governments allow the trash – and with it a feeling of helplessness – to pile up, unconcerned with the people living amongst it.

This is not the only instance in which the Israeli government neglects the rights of Palestinians living under its  control. For example, in places like Hebron, the largest city in the West Bank and home to around 700 Israeli settlers and 215,000 Palestinians, most of the main streets and resident buildings are forbidden to Palestinians (the Israeli Defence Force {IDF} calls this process “sterilizing” the streets), who additionally cannot conduct business, find work, or travel without obtaining a time-consuming permit from the IDF. Further, the IDF frequently grants settlers immunity when they beat up, or even kill, Palestinian citizens, sometimes teens and children, either because they agree with the attack or for fear of upsetting the politically powerful settlers. Indeed, in many settlements, the IDF seems to have increasingly become a private-settler militia. They indefinitely detain Palestinians, including ones who have never been accused of crimes, for days, or even weeks, unconstitutionally blocking them from seeing their lawyers. Israeli prisons have consistently been accused of torture.

This is all illegal and morally disturbing, as is, frankly, the entire Israeli occupation. Also disturbing, however, is that neither could be sustained without both the direct and indirect, explicit or implicit complicity of the Palestinian National Authority (the PA), the Fatah-controlled Palestinian organization that governs Areas A and B of the West Bank as per the Oslo Accords, and Hamas, the militant group that has governed the Gaza Strip since the 2006 parliamentary elections. To fully grasp how both both Fatah, the Palestinian nationalist party, and rival Islamist party Hamas owe their stay in power to Israeli complicity and aid, one must delve into the complex web of factors that binds these seemingly opposing groups to one common interest: maintaining the status-quo.

During the initial Palestinian uprising known as the first Intifada (1987-1991), the Israeli government realized that having to use their own security force to quell the unrest came at too high a political and fiscal price. One way out was to establish a Palestinian governing entity that would be responsible for security — its own (except against Israel), but also (partly) Israel’s. This recognition, in part, led to the Oslo Accords, a set of agreements between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed in Washington DC in 1993. In addition to other negotiated outcomes, the Accords created the Palestinian Authority (PA), an interim body born out of the PLO and charged with (relative) self-governance in the designated parts A and B of the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. This meant tasking the PA with the creation and maintenance of the necessary civil infrastructures  in the Palestinian territories: health, education, and most notoriously, security.

While international law dictates that the “occupying power” must pay for the security, health, education, and sanitation of the occupied, the Israeli government had managed to outsource a large portion of the occupation to the PA, and thus, through taxes, to the occupied Palestinians themselves. With Israel content unburdening themselves of a financial obligation and the PA eager to consolidate the political power the Oslo Accords had granted them, Palestine had become burdened with all the strains of sovereignty without any of its benefits.

Over two decades later, little of the Oslo agreement remains other than that. Worse yet, independent reports indicate that the PA has been rife with corruption, and maintain a security personnel that is almost as ruthless as the Israeli security force, often arbitrarily arresting Palestinian activists and at times even torturing them.

As a party with both a reliance on Israeli aid and a growing unpopularity (in September of 2017, a poll showed that two-thirds of Palestinians wanted the resignation of President Abbas, and that half of the public viewed the PA as a burden on the Palestinian people), the PA often takes measures to stifle any potential political competition, and especially those who speak out against the group’s relationship with Israel. Recently, this led to the arrest of popular human rights activist and Israeli-critic Issa Amro, the founder of Youth Against Settlement, a non-violent Palestinian resistance group located in Hebron. Amro, whose growing profile has led to a relationship with Senator Bernie Sanders, has spent the last decade cycling in and out of Israeli and Palestinian prisons, despite never having engaged in violent behavior or rhetoric. The devil’s bargain for the PA is clear: to maintain power, they have consented to the replacement of a sovereign state with an undemocratic quasi-police state funded and maintained by its occupiers.

The PA’s consolidation of power seems likely to continue, as the Israeli government is as reliant on the PA as the PA is on Israel; hence the murky web of interdependence outlined above. This may come as a shock to pro-Israeli Westerners who believe Netanyahu when he calls the PA a terrorist organization and dramatically threatens its funding. In fact, as the New York Times recently reported, one of Trump’s recent Twitter tirades threatening to cut Palestinian aid had the Israeli government legitimately nervous. Tzipi Livini, a former Israeli foreign and justice minister in the right-wing Zionist Union party, tweeted, “someone has to explain to Trump what the real Israeli interest is.” It is against Israel’s security and economic interests to cut ties with the PA, which, as documented, helps keep the Palestinian population controlled and complacent.

The Israeli government, and Netanyahu, are aware of this, no matter their rhetoric. As Senator Lindsey Graham said, “I cannot tell you the number of times the Israelis have engaged me to try and stop an emotional reaction by the Congress to terminate aid to Palestine.” Consider that on the same day that Fatah announced its unity government with Hamas (which led Netanyahu to declare that Fatah should no longer be recognized), the Israeli government finally sent the 500 million shekels of tax revenue that it owed the PA. This goes to show that, despite occasionally flexing its rhetorical muscles against the PA for domestic and international effect, the Israeli government is willing and eager to help the party maintain power.  Without the PA, it would not only have to foot the whole bill of the occupation and directly handle all security, but face the prospect of a more radical, non-compliant Palestinian movement.

No discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complete without mentioning the US. The US government gives Israel a staggering $3.8 billion of aid each year, specifically to bolster its military. This assistance — provided despite Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights — perpetuates the occupation. Somewhat ironically,  the US also provides the PA with approximately $400 million a year. Perhaps this would be welcome aid if Palestine were a sovereign state that could use the money for social services, and the PA a completely independent political organization ; in reality, these funds largely help bankroll and subsidise the occupation, as they primarily go to the security sector. Furthermore, because of the interdependence of the two economies and Israel’s taxation system’, research shows that at least 78% percent of international aid to Palestinians ends up in Israel’s economy. The opposite is, of course, not true.

Equally important is the less direct but far more deadly interdependent relationship between Israel and Hamas. The Israeli military can use any Hamas attack, and sometimes even simply Hamas rhetoric, to justify security crackdowns and/or military intervention in Palestinian territories. Conversely, Hamas’ popularity feeds on the constant Israeli threat and a feeling of national hopelessness. During peace talks, when at the very least the perception amongst Palestinians is that the occupation might end, Hamas popularity and membership inescapably declines. As Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert at the Woodrow Wilson Center, wrote, these are “two parties who can’t seem to live with one another — or apparently without one another either.” Here again, maintaining the tense and bloody status quo allows both parties to maintain and slowly increase their respective power.

So what does this all amount to? In theory, the confluence of aims of these three actors — Israel, the PA and Hamas — might provide hope for mutual understanding and thus move along the  peace process. In reality, it only further entrenches the status quo. The Israeli government will continue to rhetorically call for withholding PA funding and accuse it of complicity in violence, while privately benefiting from its existence. The PA will challenge Israeli policy at the UN, plea for an independent and sovereign state, put up inspiring posters that says “We are All Gaza”, all while maintaining its role as providing security for Israel and managing the occupation. Hamas will conduct terrorist operations, Israel will condemn them, but both will benefit from the existence of the other to justify their own policies.

The interdependence among all three helps perpetuate a deadly standstill. Alienated and forgotten in this tangled spider-web of a political trinity are the Israeli citizens clamoring for real peace, and, most of all, the Palestinian people, living under occupation and ill served by their leaders.  Barring a drastic and unprecedented change in heart and policy by the Israeli (and U.S.) government, a change in Palestinian governance — ideally with a non-compliant and non-violent replacement who refuses to help fund and maintain Israel’s occupation — may be the only route left for eventual Palestinian independence.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post Unholy Trinity: Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Abandonment of the Palestinian People appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

–Attributed to Pliny the Elder

Well, it’s finally time to say goodbye to the organization that midwifed me as a writer and a thinker. This December 2017, I’ll (hopefully) graduate from USC and, with so many others who’ve been shaped by it, leave Glimpse From the Globe behind. It’s been a good run, and I’m sad to be leaving.

Sometimes I joke that I’m the “Henry Kissinger” of Glimpse- my time in the spotlight has passed and I offer unsolicited advice to the current leadership in a desperate bid to remain relevant; I also write about the Nixon Administration. (Just kidding, Dr. Kissinger!) But in all honesty, I’ve been around too long. I’ve been in Glimpse for four and a half years, and worked under five editors-in-chief and five presidents of the organization. I was mentored by one of its founders, Samir Kumar. I was the first Senior Correspondent, and have been in the organization longer (and I would assume produced more content) than any other single member of Glimpse. It’s past time to move on.

But I owe it to the organization that shaped me to give something, however meager, back to it, and help future generations of Glimpse writers along a path that I once set off upon, and still follow to this day. So I present some rambling reflections on writing, for future Glimpse correspondents’ perusal at their pleasure. We learn best through personal experience, and second-best through reflection upon the experiences of others. In the effort to help you to learn more quickly what it took me years to discover, I offer my less-than-sage advice.

A BRIEF AUTOBIOGRAPHY

I was one of those high schoolers and college freshmen who just couldn’t shut up on Facebook. Eventually Samir Kumar and Reid Lidow, upperclassmen at the time, told me something to the tune of “stop posting 2,000-word statuses and start writing 2,000-word articles for us!” and invited me to write for a publication they were then working on reviving and expanding. I accepted the opportunity, and set up a personal blog around the same time to publish things I couldn’t publish elsewhere. Thus, with Glimpse From the Globe and ABiasedPerspective, did my amateur writing career begin.

It’s the tendency of every ambitious young writer who thinks they know everything to speak in grand platitudes about the nature of reality, and the singular historical importance of whatever meager event happens to catch their eye. That was me to a “t” from 2013 to 2015, and honestly probably still a bit nowadays. I quickly discovered, through voracious reading, concepts like “Hamiltonianism” and “grand strategy” and regurgitated, in slightly fancier form, whatever conceptual theorizing I could soak up from writers like Michael Lind and Robert D. Kaplan. This led to a bunch of interesting but basically unoriginal pieces under my name.

Over the years, I gradually grew slightly more interesting and original, but only through practice of writing, professional mentorship from experienced writers, and wide reading. One of my Glimpse articles was my ticket to an editorial internship at The American Interest magazine in Washington D.C., and there, under the tutelage and editing of Adam Garfinkle and the TAI staff, I published my first professional, behind-the-paywall piece in a trade publication. Such events tend to boost young writers’ egos, and soon I was submitting essays to various editors every few months, and even founding various policy blogs (all of which eventually failed.) All this time, I continued to write for Glimpse, which provided a great intellectual community and a nice outlet for foreign policy publishing.

My writing was always basically some mix of commentary, analysis, and opinion- the construction and application of worldviews- rather than “objective” news reporting and analysis. This was especially true of my later essays, particularly on the Trump Administration’s foreign policy team, and gradually I went from somewhat-readable to slightly-original. (I still have a long way to go on that front.) Glimpse, furthermore, gave me the opportunity to meet and network with lots of interesting people- I’ve interviewed legendary journalist Robert D. Kaplan, Ambassador Cofer Black, Kissinger aide Winston Lord, and CIA analyst Paul Pillar through opportunities afforded by Glimpse (it really does help with networking.) And through it all, I’ve gleaned an appreciation for what political and analytical writers do, in ways I never would’ve been able to understand when I first got in.

So there’s a little bit about me in my time with Glimpse. Now for some of the lessons I’ve learned.

SOME ADVICE TO YOUNG WRITERS

The biggest, most important thing I’ve realized through writing for Glimpse is that writing is not merely a skill, or even a trade- writing is more like a craft, something that can be learned and cultivated, but which requires quite a bit of self-shaping alongside for true excellence. It’s possibly to be technically good at writing and not be a good writer, and it’s possible to have writing talent without being a good writer. Being a good writer involves constant work, constant practice, constant self-examination, and a true passion and self-identification with the act and the work behind the act. Yes, it is great as a tool; but it is greater as a craft. I’m still learning it.

So rather than being a mere, instrumental means to various ends, truly excellent writing involves some form of ethics, certain kinds of character-shaping, and a lot of neurotic, constant habits. The three most important habits for every writer are as follows:

READ EVERYTHING. By reading lots of things- daily newsletters and blogs, op-eds and essays, reports and books- you get a sense of the ideas of the day, in all their nuance and significance or insignificance. You form your own instinctive opinions on them over time, while learning the conventions that define contemporary good writing. And if you read particularly good writing, you get exposed to techniques you can emulate to further improve your own writing.

WRITE CONSTANTLY. By writing constantly- blogs help, as does being a staff writer on a student or other youth publication- you get used to shaping your voice and expressing ideas; Adam Garfinkle calls it the search for your “internal standard of excellence.” You polish off your rougher edges, build up good strategies and habits, and generally get into what I call a “battle rhythm” that suits your own writing strategies and goals.

TALK TO EVERYBODY. Talking to people- peers and fellow students and coworkers, established writers and intellectual mentors, who both agree with you and disagree with you- exposes you to different ideas, and it also forces you to engage with them, giving you opportunities to become a better communicator on the spot. This helps form the habits of mind that help you when you write, because good writing is always-in moderate degrees, of course- somewhat conversational in rhetoric.

Read Everything, Write Constantly, Talk to Everybody. This trifecta, in my opinion, is the most important set of habits to get into if you want to be a good writer. You should be doing these subconsciously, and you’ll start improving in your writing subconsciously and slowly as well. It helps to turn these habits into routines- write a think-piece daily for your blog, subscribe to daily briefings and newsletters, make a point of having three or four conversation meetings a week. Change your lifestyle to some degree, and become not just better at writing- become a better writer.

There are other strategies to actively rather than passively improve, of course. You should look into those too (and Adam Garfinkle’s excellent little book, Political Writing: A Guide to the Essentials is probably the best book-length guide out there for those.) But I’ve always thought that at a fundamental level, it’s the passive habits that really help you advance.

Figure out which writers you admire, both ideologically and stylistically. Read, religiously, all their books and web archives. Track them down and meet them in person, if you can, and beg them to share their wisdom or give you an opportunity to be their research assistant or something else. Mentors are crucial in the writing game. If you can’t have them as a living, breathing, talking guide, let them speak to you through their writings- sometimes these guides are the most useful.

Ethics is important in writing, because like any tool or art or craft, writing can be weaponized. More often than being weaponized, it can be abused, and done poorly and destructively. You should always take care to hew to certain standards- intellectual humility, honesty regarding your principles, respect for one’s audience and even for those one writes against, respect for facts and truths, general standards of decency- so that you never have to be ashamed of it, and can cultivate a reputation as both a good writer and a “good” writer. It’s hard to explain just why, but as other professions- law, medicine, warfare, business, etc.- have honor codes of their own, so there is an honor code and an ethics to the profession of writing as well.

It’s very important, too, to be epistemologically humble and realize that at any point, you are not the complete thinker- you are on an intellectual journey, and you will change, deepen your understanding, perhaps adjust or alter your principles, come to new ways of seeing things, perhaps understand them in ways that are impossible to put into words. As you grow as a thinker, your writing will change- hopefully for the better! When you look back on the works you write this year, five years from now, being a changed person, you’ll be able to discern where you’ve grown and where you’ve remained the same. This isn’t a deterrent against writing “until you know everything.” Rather, it’s a caution against youthful overconfidence in writing- overconfidence many of us come to regret.

Don’t expect too much from your writing in the “real world,” either. Particularly in politics, some young people run into the conceit that if they write the perfect op-ed or report, they’ll change the conversation and be able to steer governments and publics toward particular policy goals. (I was certainly gung-ho like this.) The fact of the matter is, political and social reality is a lot more complex than that; writings are usually reflections of thinking informed by experiences and other writings, rather than drivers of direction themselves. The written word can sometimes be influential in steering movements, but more often the most a piece can do is explain things and help shape readers’ individual worldviews. So don’t be disappointed when changing the world takes longer than the time between first draft and publication.

Finally- and this is related to the trifecta earlier- you should read at least ten times as much as you’ll ever write, and outline, draft, or otherwise plan at least five times as much as you will ever actually publish. This constant practice helps you weed out the less high-quality things, while still being in constant think-mode. A hard truth to swallow is that not everything you write is worth publishing. So with that in mind, keep on your journey, but only share with the world the best and most important highlights of it.

This, in not-particularly-organized format, is my advice for you, the things I wish I had been told before I ever published a word. Take it as you will; you’ll learn other lessons, too, as you get further through the writing life.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON GLIMPSE

Perhaps my most important bit of advice to you, though, is this- if you would like to work to build and cultivate yourself into an excellent writer, and if you hope to develop your mind and become a better intellectual, if you would like to enter the world of the political and foreign policy commentariat- stick with Glimpse! It’s a great opportunity, and there are few other college-level publications like it anywhere.

But it’s more than just a teeth-cutting blog for young, green writers.

On the Tommy Trojan statue in the heart of USC’s campus, there is an inscription in Latin and English: “From these seats of meditative joy, shall rise again the destined reign of Troy.” That, in a nutshell, encapsulates what Glimpse has always meant, in my opinion. It is a training ground for leaders and thinkers to learn to think and write, develop their thoughts and style, and in due course move into the professional world. It’s never been a mere writer’s club; here, our correspondents learn and practice the dark arts of research and writing, so that they can become better and more effective thinkers, leaders, and doers in the complicated world approaching us. It has always been a transitional proving ground from one reality to another.

I am honored to have been among the first recruits, and seen its development thus far. But I am confident that its development will only continue, and that future generations of Glimpse leadership and correspondents will carry on with this fantastic organization.  There’s a long way to go; so let’s keep moving.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

I don’t intend for this to be the last I have work with Glimpse and its members. If there are ever any ways I can be of use to any of you incoming generations of writers as a professional contact, a pair of eyes for a draft, or an advisor for anything, always feel free to reach out. Here is my personal website; do not hesitate to contact me.

Remember, you’re part of a great tradition. So go forth and write great things!

The post Advice to Young Writers and Reflections on Four Years in Glimpse appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

After Bernie Sanders’ shocking challenge to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and Donald Trump’s overwhelming victory in the Republican primary, many were quick to point out similarities between the two candidates. Both were outsiders, anti-establishment, and, in their own ways, populists. But some pundits saw policy-similarities as well, especially in the realm of foreign policy.

Both candidates were quick to disparage conventional US foreign policy, disliked globalization and the myriad institutions that come with it, and (generally) railed against military intervention. Sanders and Trump were both, or so the punditry argued, isolationist, at least by American standards.

Sanders supporters, especially those on the hard left, and Trump supporters, especially those on the far right, avidly promoted their favored candidates’ isolationist rhetoric, leading some to suggest that this was a prime example of the “Horseshoe theory” according to which the political far left and far right, far from finding themselves on opposite sides of a linear political continuum, instead closely resemble each other. It is generally used to explain why far left and far right audiences seem more likely to support some form of authoritarianism and totalitarianism governance than any other constituency. The theory has recently regained traction as an attempt to explain why these two contrary political orientations have seemingly reached consensus when it comes to globalism, and its supposed defects.

However, those currently espousing this theory ignore a central point. Essentially, that while the far right and far left end up at a vaguely similar point, they reached their ideological conclusion for very different reasons.

I) Hatred of the Elites

There are indeed some similarities between far left and far right wing isolationism. At the forefront of these is a distrust of the “elite.” Both Sanders’ and Trump supporters distrust the corporate and commercial elite abroad and at home, and fear the globalization of their financial interests and decision-making. Consider the Daily Beast headline: “It’s Not Just Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders — The Whole World is Turning On Its Elites.”

At a rally in Boston, Bernie Sanders roused the audience to its feet when he said: “We need a Democratic Party that is not a party of the liberal elite but of the working class of this country.” On Truthdig, a leftist website, journalist Chris Hedges blamed “liberal elites” for Trumps election, and wrote that “the elites, who live in enclaves of privilege in cities such as New York, Washington and San Francisco, scold an enraged population. They tell those they dismiss as inferiors to calm down, be patient and trust in the goodness of the old ruling class and the American system.”

Similarly, on the other side of the political spectrum, at a rally that took place around the same time as Sanders’ above mentioned speech, Donald Trump had NRA president Wayne Lapierre introduce him. Lapierre earned one of the loudest applauses of the night when he said that America’s greatest domestic threat is the “three most dangerous voices in America: academic elites, political elites, and media elites.” Steve Bannon, of the far right Breitbart, wrote that “elites have taken all the upside for themselves and pushed the downside to the working- and middle-class Americans.”

Yet the left and right have diverging ideas and notions of what being “elite” means, and are thus attacking vastly different ideas. For the left, being “elite” almost uniformly translates into being rich or politically powerful; rhetorically, it is interchangeable with the “1%”, another favorite leftist criticism. It’s why leftists scoff at the notion that Trump is against the elite; to them, he embodies the elite: a real-estate billionaire tycoon, who’s never known what it’s like to ever need anything, and who literally lived in a gold home on Fifth Avenue. To the left being of the elite means being of the economic elite.

So how can someone on the far right claim, in earnest, that Trump, is with them in their fight against the “liberal” or “globalist” elite? That’s because for them, being a member of the elite has very little to do with having money, and a lot more to do with personality and intellect. They are revolting against what they consider a cultural form of eliteness: college educated liberals, who supposedly bask in their intellectual superiority, and condescend to everyone else. In the words of far right darling Sarah Palin, the elite are simply those that “think they’re — I guess — better than anyone else.” The chair of the Iowa Republican party, a staunch Trump supporter, described elitist arrogance as what comes from “reading books, sitting at a desk and learning from reading, versus people out there building the roads.” The contempt members of the right have for academica cannot be overstated, and is growing: less than two years ago, 37% of Republicans said universities had a negative effect on the US overall; by June of 2016, that number had skyrocketed to 58%. In this sense, an economically disadvantaged person who has graduated from college, and who now might “talk down” to others about the reality of climate change, or the horrors of colonization, is more of an elitist than Trump, who eats his steak with ketchup, and generally refrains from using big words.  

II) Fear of Globalization

In large part because of this disdain for the elite, both the far left and far right rail against “globalists” and have thus found common ground fighting globalization.  Yet here too what they each view as globalization’s shortcomings and detriments varies widely from one to the another.

For the left, globalization’s issues stem from the free rein of capital, which contributes to economic inequality, specifically within the US. In Sanders’ words: “The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite.” The general fear is that powerful (read: “elite”) capitalists will, through globalization, garner more power than ever in adjusting the world’s economy to their own benefit, and that this will specifically hurt lower-skilled manufacturing workers in the US, who lose their jobs to workers in developing countries who themselves often work for far less than our own minimum wage.  

The far right clearly rebels against globalization as well: Trump’s most effective campaign slogan was “America First,” after all. However the far right often seem far less concerned about the economic globalization (though they do talk about this), and far more troubled by cultural globalization. The fear is that cultural globalization, especially through lax immigration laws and people’s freedom of movement, will erode cultural and traditional norms in the US. To be precise, the emphasis is often less about actual culture and tradition, and more about the changing demographics and ethnic composition of the US; the fear that whites will become a minority because of increased immigration is a recurring idea on the alt-right. So while Trump and his base agree with the left on TPP and the establishment of tariffs and quotas to decrease the offshoring of US production and jobs, they also hope to expel millions of immigrants from the US, and ban millions more from ever coming (i.e. the much-maligned and legally dubious “Muslim Ban”).

III) Military Intervention and Human Rights

In large part because of this disdain for elitism and globalization, both sides also seem to find themselves aligned politically and rhetorically on the topic of US military intervention. After Donald Trump’s military airstrikes against the Syrian regime this April, the political demographics criticizing him most were the far left and, more shockingly, the far right (his “base”). While members of the leftist ANSWER coalition took to the streets of New York the next day, chanting “US imperialist, number one terrorist,” and “Hands off Syria,” members of the far right were busy making their Facebook profile pictures a head shot of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator, in a show of support for him and his regime. Again, this would seem to fit almost seamlessly into the horseshoe theory: those supposedly most opposite from each other on the political spectrum found themselves decrying Trump’s strikes — and US military intervention in general – in unison.

However, their shared consensus on the matter came and comes about for vastly different ideological reasons. For example, take the topic of human rights, generally the US’ political establishment main reason — or at least their main professed reason — for intervening militarily in a foreign country. When the US government evokes human rights as their reason for intervening, you can be sure to hear vocal criticism from both the far left and right; and yet their reasoning could not be more different.

The far left’s opposition to intervention on the grounds of human rights abuses is in large part because they collectively do not believe the US government genuinely cares about human rights. They believe the government picks-and-chooses when they care and when they don’t, and despise this apparent hypocrisy. As Todd E. Pierce, of the leftist website ConsortiumNews, writes, “Long before President Trump, the US government had made a mockery of “human rights,” condemning abuses by adversary states but silent when crimes were committed by US agents or US allies.” Stated otherwise, when the US gives billions of dollars to authoritarian and brutal regimes like Egypt, or backs a backward, monarchical despot in Saudi Arabia, and then insists that intervention in Syria or sanctions against Iran are needed because of human rights abuses, the left is skeptical, if not completely dismissive, of the government’s’ real intentions. They generally assume nefarious, ideological  and mercantilist intent, and thus stand in opposition to the intervention.

Though some on the far right share this conviction, most oppose intervention on the grounds of human rights for a different reason. As has been widely documented in Pew Polls and similar studies, many on the far right sympathize with authoritarian and quasi-fascist regimes, believing that leaders sometimes need to resort to extreme measures to keep their populace under control. Many don’t really care, if they care at all, about human rights abuses, so long as the population is kept in check. This seems to be especially true as it pertains to predominantly Muslim countries. It is no secret that many in the far right traffic in Islamophobia; in turn, many profess that authoritarian leaders are needed in these Islamic countries in order to prevent further terrorist attacks and thwart the rise of Islamism. For example, after the Syrian air-strikes, the far right figure-head Milo Yiannopoulos tweeted: “I’m as troubled by violence towards innocent children as the next sociopath, but those kids are only growing up to be oppressors of women and murderers of homosexuals anyway.” Similarly, Right Stuff founder Mike Enoch tweeted: “So Trump’s first forceful action as President was supposedly to defend the same people that mow down white children with trucks.”

The left also stresses the illegality of military interventions far more than the right. As leftist icon Noam Chomsky has stressed, for example, the Iraq War was illegal, and though almost every other aspect of the war troubled him, this illegality was at the forefront. The leftist website Informed Consent recently published an article titled: “The Real Problem with the Iraq War: It was Illegal.” When the left does speak out against the laws of multinational organizations, such as the UN or the ICC, they don’t begrudge the organizations for having too many laws; rather, they stress that the laws seem to only be enforced in developing or otherwise weaker countries, and never against Western behemoths.

This is not a complaint you will see coming from the far right. In the dozens of articles I have observed on Breitbart and the Reddit Alt Right page disparaging or criticizing the Iraq war, not once did I see it mentioned as “illegal”. It was a “mistake”, a “disaster”, “idiotic”; but never illegal. In fact, one is far more likely to find criticisms of international laws that prevent the US from comporting itself independent of any outside (global and foreign) restrictions. The far right does indeed begrudge those same multinational organizations for having too many laws, and want to ensure that the laws never encroach on US sovereignty in making their own decisions. According to Jack Goldsmith, from the blog Lawfare:

“Two months into the Trump administration, we are witnessing the beginnings of the greatest presidential onslaught on international law (…) in American history. The onslaught appears to be driven by a combination of economic nationalism, anti-cosmopolitanism, anti-elitism, (and) a belief that international law does not reflect American values but threatens American institutions.”

He mentions all the domestic agencies focused on the implementation of international laws that the Trump budget has already proposed to eliminate, including the African Development Foundation, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and the International Food for Education program.

In short, while the horseshoe theory may seem to fit regarding the far left and the far right and their respective views on globalization and intervention, it is dishonest to claim this represents legitimate similarities between the two ideologies, or their ideologues. The motives and reasoning in rejecting globalization and intervention for both political extremes differ radically from one another. The far right seems to reject globalism generally for what it might do to them: a fear that immigrants will mean a shifting, less white-centric, demographic, a fear that a loss of authoritarian strongmen in the Middle East will mean more immigration and more Islamic terrorism, a fear that the rise of intellectual liberal elites will leave them ostracized in their own country. On the other hand, the far left seem to spurn globalization and intervention generally because of what they believe it does to others: a suspicion that our interventions don’t actually improve human-rights abuses abroad, that economic elites will manipulate the economy against the American workforce, and that international laws are meant only for developing countries.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post Can The Horseshoe Theory Explain the Push Against Globalization appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On July 6, 2017, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres announced Cyprus’ 11^th failed peace talk to reunify the north and south in 43 years. A divided nation since 1974, Cyprus is located in the eastern Mediterranean at a strategic commercial and cultural intersection between Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. As a familiar stalemate to the Cypriot population, the reunification conflict is its own sociopolitical battle between two proud Cypriot peoples as well as a proxy for broader Greek-Turkish tensions.

Last April, I had the opportunity to travel to Cyprus while studying abroad in Europe. During my visit, it was evident that Cyprus is home to conflicting national and regional prides. Greek and Turkish influences have a stronghold on the island and on their respective conflicts. Traces of historical empires like the Assyrian and Egyptian remain, and intricate mosaics and ionic columns still decorate the coastlines where Alexander the Great once walked.

I learned that the Republic of Cyprus, carved out by Greek Cypriots in the south, claims membership to the European Union and resembles Greece in language, currency, and culture. The population in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus uses the Turkish lira and largely practices Islam. The TRNC remains unrecognized by any country besides Turkey, and both the Greek and Turkish sides maintain close military ties with their respective mainland sponsors. Because of these differences, I truly felt as if I were visiting two separate countries, as I explored coastlines, cities and ruins.

As a tourist, I frequently crossed Cyprus’ UN buffer zone dubbed “the green line” that bifurcates the country and capital city of Nicosia. In some ways, the wall was eerily mundane. UN Peacekeepers ordered Doritos from a convenience store on the Turkish Cypriot border before crossing into the buffer zone for duty. Tourists, indifferent to the conflict, joked that beer was cheaper on the Turkish side and that the Greek side had better food. Cobblestone streets, marketplaces, and restaurants bustling with people on either side of the line almost seemed to ignore it. At one restaurant, I was close enough to reach out and touch the wall.

In other ways, though, the buffer zone did feel like the symbol of ongoing conflict and social division. In the less lively parts of Nicosia, the wall was riddled with graffiti, sandbags and rusted barrels. Streets that dead-ended at the wall echoed with crime. My Greek Cypriot host, Athena, scoffed that she would never set foot near it or speak with any Turkish Cypriot who resided beyond it. Once, when I crossed the border, handing over my passport to Greek Cypriot authorities, then to the Turkish Cypriot ones, I noticed how militarized both stations were, with cameras installed everywhere and officers carrying massive guns, scrutinizing me.

Cyprus has a complex identity, having been a trading center since before 3000 B.C.E and occupied by various kingdoms, with particular strongholds from the Greeks and Ottomans. Cyprus’s contemporary identity was shaped in 1914, when Britain annexed the island strategically against its adversary, Turkey. Greek Cypriots anticipated that Britain would unite them with Greece, to the resentment of the island’s Turkish counterparts. The Greek side’s campaign for enosis (Greek for “unification”) and Turkish Cypriot resistance led to alternating waves of petitions and reactionary riots between the two groups for decades. In 1974, Turkish forces arrived at the northern port of Kyrenia to overthrow the coup and succeeded in establishing a bridgehead around Kyrenia, which linked to the Turkish sector of Nicosia.

Turkey’s invasion solidified the island’s political and cultural separation. At that time, 140,000 Greek Cypriots fled to the south and 40,000 Turkish Cypriots in the south abandoned their livelihoods and moved north. Aggression and failed peace talks continued throughout the 1980s and 90s, and by 2002, the European Union offered Cyprus membership on the condition that the country would reunify. When that failed, only Greek Cyprus was admitted in May 2004.

Cypriots themselves often joke that any difficult and prolonged situation in the world “has become like the Cyprus problem!”[1] Clearly, attempts at a Cyprus resolution have resisted traditional methods of diplomacy, as disagreements during negotiations prompt both sides to retreat back to their positions. This is due, at least in part, to Cyprus’s two-pronged challenge: local identity crisis and global role ambiguity. Locally, Cyprus is geographically concentrated with deep-rooted cultural and national prides, spanning a history of thousands of years. Similar to cases like Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka, Cyprus harbors divided definitions of identity, where each side finds the opposing side a direct threat to the identity they believe to be true. Unrecognized Turkish Cypriots have faced an inferiority complex to the rest of the world while enjoying state and international institutional benefits. The Greek Cypriots are still embittered by Turkey’s divisive invasion as well as failed efforts to have a more unifying framework with Greece.

Undeniably, though, Cyprus’ two identities are irreversibly enmeshed in the governments, economies, and cultures of Greece and Turkey. From Turkey’s political unrest to Greece’s economic recovery, Cyprus has competing interests at play from major world powers and their allies, and this contributes greatly to continued peace talk failures.

Ultimately, Cyprus must reach a plan in which both sides can compromise as a nation and remove historical tensions from Greece and Turkey. Overcoming the challenge to peace requires recognition of mutual interests shared by the two communities. Turkish Cypriots must acknowledge that Cyprus has long abandoned its intention for enosis with Greece, and this was further confirmed by the collapse of Greece’s banking system and subsequent bailout in 2013. At the same time, though, the Greek Cypriot side must accept a solution that allows for Turkish Cypriot recognition in the world.

Perhaps the most symbolic concession for mutual understanding would be the removal of the buffer zone between the two populations. During my trip, one of the only times I was able to envision this possibility was during my visit to the Home For Cooperation (H4C), a nonprofit organization inside the zone that provides Greek and Turkish Cypriots opportunities to intermingle. The H4C offers language courses in Turkish and Greek and hosts dances and other cultural functions.

While inside the group’s building, I could still hear the Islamic call to prayer crackling on the intercom on one side and Greek Orthodox church bells on the other. Both sites were probably less than a mile away. While I was speaking with the director, I could hear both worship sounds trickling through the buffer zone into my ears, competing, bickering, and mourning.

My hope is that Cyprus can soon overcome its failed conventional peace talk framework and find a way for its populations to coexist peacefully. Through historical respect, cultural awareness, and careful political planning, it is not too difficult to imagine a future with Turkish and Greek Cypriots dancing together without garrisons and guns and the Orthodox church bells and Islamic calls to prayer sounding in proud unison.

[1] Michael, Michális S. “The Cyprus Peace Talks: A Critical Appraisal.” Journal of Peace Research Vol. 44 Issue 5, pages 587-604. 1 September 2007. Print.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post The Cyprus Peace Process: Will A Solution Ever Be In Sight? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

At the top of a hill in Cuba’s Vedado district sits the island nation’s oldest university. A statue of the Alma Mater towers over a steep flight of stairs, and through the pillars behind her is the sprawling courtyard hub where university students from seven different faculties loiter between classes—they chat, meet in student organizations and finish assignments on their laptops. The University of Havana’s prestige is also tied to Cuba’s national identity; the campus is a relic of the Revolution. It is where Fidel Castro himself studied law, and the student protests that played a prominent role are commemorated with a tank that celebrates the toppling of the Batista regime.

But a stroll around campus in 2017 reveals that it is also a mirror to the clunkiness of old communist economic planning, though founded on persistently relevant values, in a milieu of active, entrepreneurial and tech-savvy youth.

Cuban millennials have a unique vantage point in the development narrative of their country. Recent changes—namely a new foreign investment law and increased private business quotas—in tandem with access to the dollar, have led to the emergence of a middle class. Young people are witnessing a transition not only in their own economy, but in a global economy where Cuba’s participation is increasing. Moving forward, millennials will be crucial in guiding the evolution of the Revolution’s values domestically, and in determining Cuba’s economic niche internationally.

The Changing Landscape

On a macro scale, tangible traces of the transition include the special economic development ZED Mariel. Not to be confused with a free trade zone (FTZ), the special area built around the port is better conceived as a value-added zone, which hosts foreign multinationals with the objective of adding exports to the economy. Here companies like Unilever, British American Tobacco, and (coming soon) Nestle are required to satisfy objectives like replacing imports, meeting export quotas, and creating jobs for Cubans. These companies not only gain access to an untapped market, but since 2014 also receive the new tax and ownership incentives implemented by Law 118 for foreign investment.

Another area of notable growth is Cuban biotech. Cuba’s advances in healthcare and by extension, medical technology, provide the foundation for value-added ventures. For example, the US Roswell Park Cancer Institute recently entered a joint venture with a Cuban commercial firm to begin exporting Cuban-designed cancer vaccines to the US market.

But according to the Cuba Standard editor, Johannes Werner, the “bread and butter” and the “real cash” in the Cuban economy is in the growing number of small enterprises. Faced with these developments, university students and private business people alike have strong opinions on topics covering economic changes, including US-Cuba relations, the future of Cuban tourism and entrepreneurship, the principle of competition, and the rise of populism in other countries.

On Entrepreneurship

Marian, a third-year economics student at the University of Havana, recognizes the shift in “productive relations” taking place in the Cuban economy. She perceives a legal and regulatory framework that is expanding to include transactions that were seen unfavorably for a long time.

“Economic relationships are happening whether you want them to or not. If there’s a demand, there’s going to be a response to that demand. And, if there’s a law supporting these relationships, it’s a way to better control them, especially if they’re por debajo del talon or por la izquierda. Those are expressions we use for transactions that aren’t…legal.”

Here she refers to private transactions that, technically, occur outside the law. Or at least, they used to. For decades, entrepreneurship was unheard of, as the economy functioned only in terms of state enterprises, and “working for the state.” Now, entrepreneurship is visible in the private restaurant—paladares—and hospitality ventures that help Cubans enter the particularly lucrative tourism industry.

Federico*, a young computer engineer who works at the University of Havana, describes the nature of old communist planning. Before, every single enterprise corresponded to an industrial classification that fell under the jurisdiction of a ministry. Each year, ministries were allocated funds to operate their enterprises and employ workers. The only thing private, according to Federico, were homes. However, this model has been in flux for the last two decades.

“Some years ago, at the beginning of the 90s, privatization opened up a bit. Slowly, they started to allow private businesses, like small cafeterias for example. Then, four or five years ago, we started the reforms, or economic adjustments. One thing they did was increase the quotas and the industries open for privatization.”

Within these expanded quotas, Cubans apply for licenses to own and operate a private enterprise, described by Federico as, “some more serious restaurants, with better pay. It’s helped the economy quite a bit. The biggest change is the addition of new jobs that don’t rely on the state, and the state isn’t obligated to offer those jobs.”

Marian believes economic adjustments, like the expanded quotas, form part of a more realistic government approach to economic relationships.

“If you legalize these transactions, you add more freedom to what’s already happening. It gives you a mechanism to quantify these exchanges and understand what’s really happening—not get false economic indicators. It also incentivizes production, people, the emergence of technology, and the economy can grow more quickly. We know this is happening; Cuba’s GDP grew 0.9% this year, and for a country like us it’s something important.”

Despite these positive changes, entrepreneurship, as promoted by the government, is evidently still nascent. Frederico notes:

“Maybe one day the stake in the economy held by private businesses will increase. But right now, it’s been low for a while. I heard on TV that it hasn’t even reached 20 percent.”

On Tourism

Many of the private business licenses issued are tied to tourism. As a trustworthy source of revenue, tourism holds a certain sanctity in the Cuban economy; yet Cubans also have a distinct conception of what a tourist’s objective should be. Luis is a jovial entrepreneur who operates a private business offering tour services.

“This,” while pointing to a spindly tree with iridescent red bark, “is what we call the tourist tree. Any idea why? Because if you leave a Canadian on a beach in Varadero for a weekend, he’ll end up looking exactly like that!”

Cuba has been a spring break spot for many college-aged Canadians for the last decade. Yet this type of activity—tanning, relaxing in resorts and partying—is lightly mocked as superficial beach tourism, or turismo de sol y playa by most Cubans, despite the engine of growth it represents for the economy.

“Currently tourism is one of the country’s main sources of revenue, especially from foreign exchange,” Marian said. The biggest tourist markets are Canada, France and Germany. “In the last few years you could consider it the motor running the economy. It wasn’t always like this, but these days it is,” she said.

Olivia, another student at the University of Havana, selected tourism as her field of study.

“The most important thing in Cuba is the type of tourism we promote. We’re trying to promote other types of tourism, like cultural, patrimonial, and nature trips, to help people travel for more meaningful reasons. It also industrializes regions…we’re trying to create infrastructure to be able to receive larger quantities of people, and so they enjoy their time here.”

At the same time, there are challenges awaiting Cuba’s tourism as it continues to grow and reach new markets—most recently, the U.S. Luis worries Cuba’s infrastructure is unprepared to accommodate the expanding inflow of people. Werner cites the “mushrooming” of privately owned rooms for rent, which represents an expanded hospitality capacity, but does little to offset Luis’s concerns regarding cramped, dilapidated sidewalks and the dearth of consumer goods stores and globally recognized brands to meet tourists’ demands.

From a domestic perspective, as tourism experiences an exciting and tangible boom, its impact on the economy, and on the day-to-day activities of Cubans themselves, becomes less obvious. Sumptuous hotels with daily rates in the hundreds, are noticeably detached from local Cuban realities.

“People are starting to ask, now, ‘Where is the money?’” Rolando said. “Because [Cuba gets] many tourists every year and people don’t see the money. Maybe [it’s for] new hotels for tourists, but for the Cuban people, you can see the buildings, you can see antiquity, we are living in the 50s still. That’s the reality of Cuba,” he said.

On Donald Trump

Despite his historic visit, and the important steps he took in re-establishing US-Cuba relations, the legacy of former president Barack Obama’s efforts is now ambiguous as Donald Trump’s election casts a shadow of uncertainty over it.

For Cuban millennials, many of whom saw hope in doors opening that were previously “not only shut, but sealed,” the results of the election put these positive steps in limbo.

“At the time, many Cubans said to ourselves, ‘Oh how nice, Obama’s government is going down a new path, and we shouldn’t lose hold of our objectives, but this could really be a good thing,’” Federico said. “Now, with the regime change, I don’t think anyone knows what will happen next. A lot of people are very scared,” he said.

Other students, like Marian, perceive an international threat posed by the trend of overly nationalist individuals like Trump as heads of state.

“Things like xenophobia and neo-fascism have resurfaced in many parts of the world, not just in the US. But instead of everyone standing up to them, since both have already had their day in history, people are choosing to support these causes. In France it’s almost like Trump’s same speech is going around in French. When you hear that kind of stuff, it’s hard to get excited for what’s coming in the near future.”

Where to Next?
U of Havana’s bookstore still displays books on Latin American economic development from the 1980s. An exchange student studying economics is taking classes with titles like “Leninism” and “Tendencies of Capitalism.” Cuba appears caught in the two-pronged objective of upholding the values of the Revolution, but at the same time welcoming an update.

Word choice is crucial however. “Change,” can elicit cringes—especially from the mouths of Americans.

“Yes,” said one anonymous U Havana student. “We know we need change. But the changes we need to make, we need to choose them ourselves. Sometimes [the U.S.]is right, but not always. Sometimes [the U.S.]can apply the right ideas to other places, but not all places are the same. Not all structures are the same, not all cultures, not all histories are the same. What works in the U.S. has no business being tried in Japan, or Peru, or Cuba. Not every system has to be the same,” he said.

An updated, more open statist economic model is not incompatible with the values of the Revolution, and Cubans are hopeful for a private sector that will continue to grow under those same values. Chief among them: producing the best possible social outcome.

“It seems that everywhere else, pharmaceuticals are driven by private companies. Such an important industry is turning into a business of giant profits, which means the prices aren’t accessible to everyone,” Marian said. “Here in Cuba, we don’t see such a massive privatization of health.”

Despite this persistent wariness of private business, young Cubans admit there is value even in such a venerated tenet of capitalist thought like competition—but in a version amenable to the Revolution’s goals. Competition will likely never be a main feature of the economic model. But Federico recognizes its potential as a tool that maximizes social efficiency.

“Some things need competition. When everything belongs to the government and falls to one statal-socialist enterprise, [for example]in Cuba there’s one transportation enterprise, or one transportation ministry. And that ministry does its best, but if there’s no reason to compete, it becomes stagnant,” he said. “The problem with competition, the way it happens in capitalism, is that the competition isn’t geared toward providing the best service, but rather, to maximize profits.”

When it comes to perfecting an economic model that primarily builds on social optimization and egalitarianism, but also seeks opportunities for growth, it can be hard to identify a viable analog; especially if letting go of the past is not part of the objective.

“Our economy is pretty complex. It seems to me like there’s no precedent to guide us. Even though there are countries with capitalist systems, with socialist systems, none are similar to ours. Other countries who call themselves socialist don’t have the same system as we do. So these reforms are more like explorations into what can and can’t work. That’s why they’re happening so slowly,” Olivia said.

Where does this place the vision for the new Cuban economy?

“All economic systems have flaws, and well, this is the one we’ve got. Have the reforms helped Cuba so far? Yes. Is this the solution? I’m not sure what the solution is. Will there be a radical change, no, and I hope not. We don’t need radical change,” Federico said. “To build something completely different would be to lose a host of good things we have. We need to polish things that aren’t working so well. What’s working pretty well, we need to keep improving.”

*Individual did not wish to be identified by name.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post In Conversation with Cuban Youth appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Earlier in 2016, Glimpse Senior Correspondents Kshitij Kumar and Luke Phillips sat down with former Bush Administration CIA official Cofer Black. Black, a graduate of USC, served in the Central Intelligence Agency’s Directorate of Operations for 28 years, primarily in postings across Africa. He directed CIA’s Counterterrorist Center during Director George Tenet’s “quiet war” on Osama Bin Laden from 1999-2001. Black was director of the Counterterrorist Center during the 9/11 attacks.

Shortly after the formal declaration of the Global War on Terror, Black became the Department of State’s Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism, a post he held until 2004. After leaving government service, Black became Vice Chairman of the security contractor Blackwater USA. In 2008 and 2012, Black advised Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney on national security and foreign policy.

Here are some of Mr. Black’s musings on various issues. The full transcript of the interview can be found here.

On Defense Spending

CB: I think before anything happens, we need to focus on rationalizing how we procure weapons systems. When you start spending billions of dollars on defense, I want a fine piece of equipment coming out the other end.

Now, if you’ll allow me that part, refining and reforming the acquisitions process, that’ll free up money for more important things. And what are the most important things? I think the most important thing is to defend ourselves against mass annihilation. That was what the Cold War was about. This is no joke.

What’s going to hurt you the most is what you need to defend against the most. So that would come down to refurbishing our nuclear arsenal and maintaining assured second strike against any combination of nuclear opponents. You cannot abrogate having a credible force when you have potential opponents, peer states, who are becoming more and more sophisticated in nuclear weaponry. You’ve got North Korea, you’ve got the Russians of course, the most formidable of all, and you’ve got others coming this way, as the negotiations with the Iranians demonstrated.

We use the triad-land-based, sea-based, and manned bombers. It complicates the enemy’s problem—you have assured destruction. The problem is, they can kill us—but they know if they go that route, we have the sufficiency of force to ride out a first strike, and we have enough force capability to annihilate them. Usually, that’s a pretty good deterrent, you know?

Then would be maintenance of the special operations capability we have now, which is well-sized. JSOC and CIA—They’re the envy of the world right now. So I would be happy to maintain what we have now.

And then lastly but just as important, we need to maintain our conventional forces—they should never go any smaller than they are today. But I do think if you economize at the front end, you can carry these costs well.

I think it’s imminently manageable. I think it can be done. I think there’s enough money to do all this! And we just got to get with it. Ruthlessly.

On America’s Big Challenges

CB: It’s almost like air defense—if you have a lot of threats coming at you, you’ve got to prioritize, and you engage the most immediate one. You have to have rank ordering, how you’re going to spend your time and resources.

I think we should prioritize putting our economy in order, to give people jobs, and make this country productive in terms of creating goods and services, so that we can service the needs in this country, so that we can export stuff overseas and make money. Number one. Over anything having to do with defense.

Number two, I’d probably lean towards China. It is incumbent on the United States and her allies that we do everything possible to prevent a trade war with China, and worse, military conflict. Nothing good comes from either of those. But the jury is out—does China just want to secure itself and its near abroad, or do you look at these islands they’re creating and their significant effort to seize resources in Africa and everywhere else to feed this economic machine and all of this- which way are they going to go? The world cannot afford to have a China gone nuts. It’s not good for China, and it’s sure not good for anybody else.

Next to that would be Russia, simply because of its nuclear capability. Russians are very tough and formidable, Which should really give you pause when you deal with them. They’re a gas station with nuclear weapons. Every time something happens they start talking about nuclear weapons. Not only are they a gas station with nuclear weapons, they’re extremely thin–skinned and sensitive. And, they’re on an excellent adventure! They go into Ukraine, they’re looking at the Baltics, they send those guys into Syria in a very unhelpful way and they put anti-submarine warfare ships off the coast of Syria- I mean, to me it looks like they’ve become sort of unhinged. I think that’s dangerous. So that would put them as number three.

I would put for number four, The Unexpected. The world running out of water, mass starvation, a pandemic—these things come up with shocking regularity. Go to the Third World. Walk through Bangladesh, where they have 180 million people in a space the size of New Jersey or Connecticut—you don’t think bad stuff’s going to happen with that? We’re due for something big.

Next I would put would be the regional problems; and the regional problems would be what we’ve got going here in the Middle East, the Sunni-Shia conflict, the nation-states where the leaders have weak control over the country and their people.

And then you’ve got the wild cards below that, wild cards like Korea and whatnot.

I’m talking about what can hurt you the most. As to terrorism, I think the way we’re positioned now against terrorism is pretty good. We’ve got a Central intelligence Agency and an intelligence community that is awesome at counterterrorism.

I think counterterrorism is important. Terrorists can hurt you. But so far as I can tell so far, we’re not talking about annihilation of our entire society [by terrorists.]You could lose a lot of people, there could be a catastrophe. But I think as of right now we’ve grown so much and positioned ourselves to have a real, credible defense. Will some get through? Absolutely. But we’ve got a credible defense.

This probably isn’t very politically correct, but it’s what I believe.

On Public Service

CB: I don’t care how good the President is. I don’t care how accomplished they are. I don’t care how high their IQ is. I don’t care how smart they are. I don’t care what a great leader they are. In the foreign affairs and national security area, if he or she doesn’t have the best advisors possible, they’re doomed. It’s too hard! No one’s that smart! But everything will be ok, as long as their advisors are top-notch.

Top-notch to me is not necessarily the people with the highest rank. Or they’ve written the best think-piece while they were a professor at Harvard. That’s OK, but that’s not really what I’m looking for.

What I would look for is men or women of good character, integrity, common sense. They execute reasonableness. They speak frank, blunt truth to power. Many times [the boss]won’t like it. And you might actually know it. And in the meeting or in the situation room, others would go see that as a political faux pas. “You’ve displeased the President.” It is your responsibility as a professional subordinate to tell the boss—whatever level you’re at—in special English, clearly, and frankly, so there’s no doubt in his or her mind what you said and what you mean. So they can take it in and make a good decision. There should be a total absence of politics and political maneuvering among your perceived competitors from other components, whether it’s in one agency or one division, or the inter–agency process. Success of the administration, in foreign affairs and national security, will ride damn near exclusively on who you pick to listen to.

So you need people like that. Of course, if you want to have a chance, you need me too.

If you accept anything I’ve told you, and you actually execute it, it won’t be easy—it’ll actually be hard—you could suck up to the boss and tell him what he wants to hear and he’ll like you and pat your head. And in that case, then you’ll have totally betrayed the reason that you’re there, and you’ve betrayed your boss, you didn’t tell him the truth, you’ve betrayed the American people. You should be fired.

Above all, tell the unvarnished truth.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post Cofer Black and the War on Terror appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.