Submitted by Karmen Cheung MC ‘13, CASA Political Chair
We’ve all heard about the China-Taiwan conflict. Taiwan wants independence, China wants to hold on to what they think is rightfully theirs, tempers flare and debates suddenly turn into childish screaming and yelling. I’ve heard bits and pieces about the conflict but never really took the chance to learn more. Through a panel of three professors, Peter Perdue, Ann-Ping Chin and Pierre Landry, here is what I took away from the panel:
1. So it turns out that China and Taiwan share the same fundamental principles? I guess that’s not surprising. The two alternate between civil war and a united front depending on if they had a common enemy. As the saying goes, an enemy’s enemy is a friend.
2. Taiwan and China recently entered into an economic cooperation agreement, but has it improved relations? Taiwan has been in a tight spot due to their economic downturn in the last 10 years and working with China is necessary to revive their economy. The protectionist policies of Taiwan in the previous regime have only caused hardships. The Taiwanese economy may be doing better but some fear that economic integration with China will eventually lead to political integration, something the Taiwanese people do not want.
3. What’s the motivation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC?) Through economic gains they want to lure the Taiwanese into embracing the motherland but in fact, economic ties alone will probably not be enough. Additionally, the PRC thinks that cultural exchange will only improve ties but who says the Taiwanese can’t go to China and hate it even more. Lastly, China needs to recognize that Taiwan is a democracy so they can’t ally themselves with only one party and assume they represent the entire population of Taiwan.
4. What will happen? It’s hard to say. Though an outbreak of violence does not seem likely now the situation is fragile and military conflicts often arise due to small and insignificant incidents that escalate. A regime change, a reckless Taibei government, the collapse of China economically, a preemptive strike by the PRC or even just a freak accident can cause a change of events.
5. How will a military conflict affect the U.S.? The U.S. may or may not get involved. Though its stance has generally been to support Taiwan, how many are actually willing to risk their lives for the Taiwanese?
In the end, though we learn a lot from history and can try to prevent violence from recurring, but the turn of events is always unpredictable. No one can really predict what will happen, only possibilities.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| United States Census 2010 | ||||
| ||||
You can read more about Professor Liu here.
With Clement Lai, Assistant Professor in the City and Regional Department and the Asian American Studies at Cornell University,
When: Mar. 3rd (next Wednesday); 6 to 7:00pm
Where: Af- Am House, 211 Park Street
On February 23, 2010, the Muslim Students Association and the International Students Organization cosponsored a panel on U.S. counter-terrorism politics, featuring Professor Charles Hill, Yale’s diplomat-in-residence, and Alejandro Beutel, the government liaison of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. The discussion panel focused on the U.S. heightened air travel security policies after the Christmas Day bombings.
Beutel's Views
Beutel believes that the latest policy of the TSA, which involves heightened security screenings of nationals from fourteen designated countries, is not effective. In his view, Al-Qaeda is a transnational organization and therefore is not merely composed of individuals of a specific country or region. There is no reliable terrorist profile. This security measure does not prevent terrorists from going through other countries and only displaces the problem, while telling terrorists our strategy.
Beutel’s alternative is to create multiple layers of defenses and security measures, while fixing bureaucratic problems. He states that bureaucratic inefficiencies had contributed to preventing the sharing of information that could have precluded several terrorist incidents. These inefficiencies include techniques such as data mining that inundate the system with useless information. However, he remains strongly in support of strong legal defenses for all individuals.
Professor Hill's Views
Professor Hill states that it is hard to analyze the effectiveness of the policies because they deal with complex issues. However, he is in support of the current strategy, because it is a responsible step to take, based upon other states’ abilities to control security. There are realities of patterns of conduct and authorities should take action against known behavior. He added that the current list is not a closed list, and new states may be added as new developments occur.
Without this strategy, Professor Hill believes that the only other alternative would be to subject everyone to heightened security like the Israeli system, which would shut down the economy. He argues that the current system is not broken but “has done remarkably well.” Regarding civil liberties, he states that people who choose to travel by air should have to be subject to heightened screenings. He is not in favor of “intrusion” but says “we have to deal with it.” Air travel is such a unique and dangerous situation, and he comments, “We’re all in this together.”
I was disappointed in the performance of Professor Hill. He seemed to not put too much effort into the debate by being vague and apathetic. Instead, he relied on his ethos and reputation to carry him through. On the other hand, Beutel was extremely prepared and armed with facts, studies, and detailed statistics. It was an interesting contrast to see Beutel argue earnestly and intensely, while Professor Hill spoke in lackadaisical and half-hearted way. Therefore, it was unfortunate that I was convinced by Beutel’s argument so easily because I’m sure there are concrete reasons for the new policy.
The above image is courtesy of http://gis.nwcg.gov/.
His father was a banker and his mother was of the landlord class. In 1949, the Communist Party caused a purging of the entire landlord and bourgeoisie classes. At this time, Mr. Wu was still a young student and was not entirely aware of the situation. However, he became aware of the human rights violations committed during the Hundred Flowers/Anti-Rightist Movement, in which the government cracked down on over 1.2 million intellectuals.
In 1960 Mr. Wu was arrested and was labeled as a counter-revolutionary rightist. He spent 19 years in 12 different labor camps, called laogai, including a coal mine and a brick factory. During his time in these camps, he almost died from the work, abuse, and lack of food. After the revolutionary leader Mao Zedong died, the political atmosphere lightened and Mr. Wu was released in 1979. He came to the U.S. as a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley and tried to forget his past nightmare. “Close old chapter, open new chapter” was his slogan.
In 1990 he was called upon to testify in the U.S. Senate about his experiences. After this he again became political active, establishing the Laogai Research Foundation, which seeks information about how many prisoners are in laogai and spreads awareness of rights violations in China. This led to him being blacklisted again by the PRC and arrested, only to be deported to the U.S, where he currently resides.
His Views
Mr. Wu holds strong views about spreading the knowledge of laogai and human rights violations in general. According to him, more people died in laogai than in Soviet gulags, yet not many people know of laogai. He wishes for the U.S. government to condemn Chinese violations of rights, including population control, lack of religious freedom, and prison labor and organ transplants from executed prisoners.
It was extremely inspiring and moving to hear of Mr. Wu’s struggles and triumphs and we are honored that he came to speak to us. “I am not a hero,” he states humbly. However, I believe he is a hero to those who have died and who still labor in laogai by continuing their fight for recognition and rights. To learn more about his work and his foundation, visit http://laogai.org/
This image is courtesy of http://www.isu.edu/.
DATE: Wednesday, February 24th, 2010
TIME: 5:00PM – 6:30PM
PLACE: WLH 207
***FREE PAPA JOHN’S PIZZA AND DRINKS!***
RSVP to jenny.mei@yale.edu
We’ve all talked about our cultural identities, torn between the two worlds of Asia and America. But what about our political one? How do we, as Asian-Americans, deal with political tensions between our native country in Asia and the United States? Do you feel caught between defending your home country and your Western political ideals?
Come talk about your political identity at the Politics Over Pizza Discussion Panel, featuring the following upperclassmen as discussion leaders:
-Carl Kubler – TC ‘10
-Rich Tao – SM ‘10
-Ray Wang – BR ‘10
-James Kim – DC ‘11
-Susan Liu – MC ‘10
-Faizaan Kisat – BR ‘12
The event is an open forum and everyone can participate! So come and express your opinion on this pressing issue that is becoming increasingly prominent in our lives.
Flyer from MSA Meet & Greet, the kickoff event for Islamic Awareness Month at YaleMeet and Greet
This month the Muslim Student’s Association of Yale is hosting a series of events as part of Islamic Awareness Month. Their first event was the kick-off meet and greet. So many people showed up that by the time I arrived a lot of the (TURKISH!) food was gone. But no worries because they still had a chocolate fountain.
Over 100 people attended the conference.
There was a noticeable buzz when I arrived in the Dwight Hall Chapel. Students from Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, and even Brandies had traveled to Yale for the first ever Ivy Muslim Conference. Inclement weather had forced several schools’ delegations and two key speakers from DC to cancel last minute, but the conference was still well underway. Though I couldn’t grasp the meaning of the introductory prayer read from the Qur’an, I was still astounded by the audience. Among the 50 or so seated people and the dozen or more standing around there was much more ethnic diversity than I had expected. Of course I had met Caucasian Muslims before and had a Chinese Muslim friend in high school but I went into the conference without remembering that Islam transcends race. This small insight got me thinking a lot; this would be a running theme throughout the day.
Last week was a very busy one in politics. On Wednesday, President Obama gave his first State of the Union Address. Given the tough political climate, it was clearly an important speech, and the president and his team were well prepared, shifting the focus to jobs and the economy. Health care reform wasn’t even mentioned until after the first half hour, but Obama still urged Congress not to give up on it yet. He made a lot of swings at the Republicans and took some jabs at his own party as well, challenging both parties to lead the country. He surprisingly made a direct mention of the Supreme Court and its decision on federal election spending, which usually does not happen in political speeches. (Not to be outdone, Justice Alito reacted visibly, which was not supposed to happen as well.) Obama also spent a lot of time talking about the culture of Washington and what it needs to clean up: the permanent election, playing politics with Senate confirmation of public officials, zero-sum game mentality, and the general cynicism and disillusionment these problems create.
One could sense that President Obama was frustrated with Congress, and perhaps that’s not a bad thing given that he’s often criticized for not showing enough emotion or fight. If his critics wanted more, President Obama gave a speech to the Republican party at their retreat in Maryland and offered a question-and-answer time. “President’s Question Time” as it’s been called is similar to a practice in British Parliament in which the Prime Minister takes questions from the opposition party, basically a weekly debate between the parties. Obama has generated a lot of buzz with his visit to the Republicans, as pundits generally agree that the President nailed it, proving his knowledge on a many crucial issues and presenting his position very well on everything the 100+ Republican members of Congress threw at him.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word - Two-Faced | ||||
| ||||
This past week’s special senatorial election in Massachusetts has received a lot of national attention. Conservatives have heralded Scott Brown’s win as clear signs of the nation’s discontent with President Obama while liberals worry about what the repercussions will be not only for health care reform but also for climate change and the rest of their agenda. The added drama that the Kennedy seat was won by a Republican just 14 months after Obama carried the state by 26 points has helped this incident overshadow the far more important political news of the week. In a 5- 4 decision on Citizens United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court overturned over a century’s worth of precedent in allowing corporations and unions to spend from their own treasuries on political campaigns.
The reactions to this ruling have varied from cries of treason to the celebration of “a great day for the First Amendment.” This broad range of responses comes as no surprise given the long history of government restrictions on corporate participation in campaigns starting with the Tillman Act of 1907 and as recently as McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. The rulings will allow special interest groups to use their deep pockets to run ads for or against candidates who support their agendas. Proponents of the first amendment rights of institutions see it as a big victory and have dressed it up as a great win for Americans. At the same time, the dissenting opinion of the court warned that the decision “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.” Complicating the matter even more is the group of supporters who argue that the ruling is both good and bad for our democracy because the potential for corruption is greater but it decreases the power of big media corporations, which were exclusively allowed to participate in campaigns.
Of course, the court’s primary concern should be whether the law in question, the McCain-Feingold Act, violates the Constitution, not what political ramifications such a ruling may have. Hence, the court is within its authority to rule against restrictions of free speech based on how powerful a group is. What is troubling is that the Court was far from apolitical in its proceedings in this case. It went out of its way to hear the case, expanded the grounds on which a lower court’s decision was appeal, and rushed the trial so that its decisions could effect the upcoming 2010 elections.
Not everyone believes that the ruling will have such a dramatic an effect on our politics. Some experts suggest that the impact will be minimal citing studies that political ads have diminishing effects as they occupy more airtime or even negative since large corporate support may be met with harsh backlash in the era of grassroots fundraising ushered in by the 2008 Presidential elections. Others concede the dangers of opening the floodgates to more money in politics but argue that this could be a necessary evil that will bring about reform by challenging the high reelection rate for incumbents or providing the impetus for a better public campaign finance system.
Such a wait-and-see outlook is far from reassuring. And yet little can be now to reverse the decisions. Short-term measures that place restrictions on corporations with government contracts or require shareholder approval before corporations support campaigns will probably run into resistance. Court appointments are for life and constitutional amendments take time. For now, waiting and seeing may be all we can do. Hopefully, the experts will be right.
