There are many points of contention between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, such as censorship or trade. But there is no larger or more persistent problem than the issue of separatist Taiwan. The goal of this paper is to answer the question of what the United States should do about Taiwan and give a history of relations between Taiwan, China, and the US. To move forward to a more stable regional dynamic, the United States should deepen its role as a mediator to better relations with the People’s Republic of China and resolve the issue of Taiwanese independence.

Taiwan’s core contention for independence comes from the Chinese civil war when the Kuomintang (KMT) or the nationalist party fled there after being pushed out of the mainland by the Chinese Communist Party(CCP). Taiwan has never been ruled by the CCP. The Japanese invasion was a catalyst that resulted in today’s position. At this time, the leader of the KMT was described by Henry Kissinger in his On China, as a “refugee on a small island on the coast of China with the remnants of his forces”. China was a large recipient of US aid during the Japanese occupation (Tucker)

The United States’ relationship with Taiwan has been defined by the boundaries of war. Beginning with the Korean war, the triangular dance between the US, PRC, and Taiwan began. Kim Il-sung attacked South Korea on June 25, 1950 and American ground forces were sent in to establish a defensive perimeter around Pusan (Kissinger). During the war, the island emerged as a strategic outpost, (Tucker) Truman ordered the US pacific fleet to neutralize the Strait to prevent military attacks in either direction and so, china was menaced with encirclement (Kissinger). Taiwan since then has been a significant partner in the Pacific, bonded together through their resistance to Chinese Communism.

Since the Korean war, there have been many disasters across the Taiwan Strait. In 1954-1955 there was the first military attack from China on Taiwanese soil, in this case on the island of Quemoy. This attempt and many attempts afterward have tried to push back the set demarcation of the borders between the PRC and Taiwan. Due to the increasingly intense Cold War occurring, during this time Beijing was concentrating efforts not only on conventional weapons but on its nuclear program in an attempt at a balance of power with both the USSR and the United States.

Another Taiwanese Strait Crisis occurred in 1958 in which about one thousand people were killed or wounded (Kissinger). These renewed bombardments showed Mao’s determination to drive the KMT from the island. In bombing these offshore islands, Mao not only revealed his own determination but tested the United States’. Mao attempted to challenge the current bipolar domination of the international order by Washington and Moscow (Tucker). At the time, Mao Zedong saw the current leader of the USSR, Khrushchev’s surface level peaceful coexistence with the United States as problematic. In his eyes, if the Taiwan strait crisis was pushed to the brink of war Khrushchev might have to chose between peaceful coexistence and an alliance with China. According to Kissinger, the result was that Mao had pushed Khrushchev to make threats that he had no intention of carrying out and in so doing, strained Moscow’s relationship with the US even further.

Relations between Taiwan, the United States, and the People’s Republic of China changed when the PRC took over the representation of China seat in 1971. As a result, there was a shift toward Beijing and a lack of formal diplomatic relations. In order to juggle such a shift, the Taiwan Relations Act was created in 1979. It created a space where the United States didn’t support Taiwanese participation in international organizations but still maintained an unofficial relationship. The act specified that it was now United States policy to support Taiwan and “resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion” that would prematurely determine unification. Another stipulation mandated that the United States provide Taiwan with “arms of a defensive character” and demanded the attention of the president and Congress if the social, economic, or other aspects of the Taiwanese people came under threat (Kan).

“You can tell your friends there I have not changed my mind one damn bit about Taiwan. Whatever weapons they need to defend themselves against attacks or invasion by red China, they will get from the US. (Kissinger)” This was a quote from Ronald Reagan during his administration. Despite Reagan’s hardline approach, there were many attempts at mediation called Communiques by the United States, who has been and seems will continue to be comfortable with the status quo. All throughout these communiques, the United States has maintained a “one china policy” position. Before Reagan uttered these words, Nixon’s attempts to open China and create diplomatic normalization with China resulted in a position regarding Taiwan as pledging no support for Taiwanese independence but emphasized its undermined status. In the Third Communique of 1982, which is often cited in the vast array of literature surrounding the topic of Taiwan, Reagan offered six assurances to Taipei which solidified the US’s role in arms sales to Taiwan (Kan).

There was another Taiwan Strait crisis in 1987, five years later the 1992 Consensus which was the result of secret talks between Taipei and Beijing. As a result of the strategic rationale of the Cold War slowly fading another adjustment in diplomatic relations was required. But it seems that the 1992 consensus is rejected just as often as it is accepted. Instead of One China, Two systems, it entails one China, different interpretations, which essentially favors the status quo as it stands (Fell). Over time, the Taiwanese will to retake the Chinese mainland has faded. Now, their de facto independence is becoming a bigger and bigger issue for concern.

This concern was reignited again during the Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1995-1996, when in response to increased positive relations between the US and Taiwan, the People’s Republic launched missile “test-firings” toward Taiwan (Kan). As a result, President Clinton felt compelled to deploy two aircraft carriers near Taiwan as a deterrence measure. This seems as a culmination of the past four decades of the demand for international space by Taiwan and China’s unwillingness to end its nationalistic advances on a country that separated long ago. Due to now backward Cold War legacies and the growth of China, it is hard to tell whether it is in or out of American interests to keep to the status quo.

“If conflict were precipitated by just inappropriate and wrongful politics generated by Taiwanese elected officials, I’m not entirely sure that this nation would come full force to their rescue if they created that problem.” This was spoken by Senator John Warner to Admiral William Fallon during 2006. This quote summarizes our stance since the beginning of Taiwan. Strategic ambivalence has been the status quo, despite cold war sentiments against Chinese communism. It seems as if the United States has been quite comfortable in this current position even though the Striat is the only place in the world, besides North Korea, where United States troops might be drawn in against the second largest economy in the world. The United States’ ambivalence was created so as to protect Taiwan from military aggression and create leverage over Mainland China.

Over all of the US presidencies, we have assisted Taiwan in protecting itself. Our goals during the cold war were an ideological foundation that support the status quo today. President Clinton, as per his foreign policy, pushed for a mild change in policy toward Taiwan. Bush had not supported Taiwan’s membership into the United Nations. Since 2001, US policy toward Taiwan has stressed continuity in maintaining the “One China” policy but maintains its obligation to “defend democracy in Taiwan” but also to deter the PRC from pursuing a forceful military unification action. In 2004, we see this in action during Bush’s presidency. President Chen of Taiwan’s referendum efforts to supplement the independence of his democracy were dissuaded through forceful rhetoric on Bush’s part (Kan). President Bush was victim to what a lot of US presidents were victim to if they would push back against Taiwan, criticizing for appeasing a dictatorship at the expense of Taiwan’s democracy.

Successive administrations have shifted US policy closer and closer to Beijing as its economic gravitational pull grew stronger. The PRC has been becoming bolder in its efforts to determine Taiwan’s future (Kan).

We will “pay any price to safeguard the unity of the motherland,” this was spoken in 2003 by the PRC’s Premier at the time, Wen Jiabao who warned of China’s determination regarding its “internal problems”. Since the beginning, the PRC has never renounced its right to use force to “liberate” Taiwan (Kan). In fact, since the 1990s, the People’s Republic of China has been militarizing rapidly on the areas across the Taiwan Strait, and as we’ve seen before has never been afraid to launch military exercises toward Taiwan. In March 2005, an Anti-Secession Law was put into place by the People’s Republic of China, but the Taiwanese president not six months later, Chen Shui-bian, announced that he would terminate the national unification council and its guidelines (Kan).

The basic psychology behind this Chinese civil war legacy is one of an identity split. According to Henry Kissinger, there are two competing versions of the same Chinese national identity. To the mainland, Taiwan is a renegade province who is a constant reminder of their old nickname, the “Sick man of Asia”. These remnants of the “century of humiliation” has resulted in many special administration zones due to China’s semi-colonial status prior to the Second World War, meaning that Taiwan would be given the same status as Hong Kong or Macau. And according to Yang Jiechi, China’s former ambassador to the United States, there may be a path forward worth exploring using this option. In the 1980s The PRC has proposed a peaceful unification within the bounds of a “one country, two systems” policy. Yang believes that when a country is divided, no matter for how long, its people will want to unify (Lampton, Eckholm and Thompson). This opposition of Taiwan’s formal independence is a core principle of Chinese nationalist ideology.

Despite fluctuations between cooperation and conflict, The People’s Republic of China has taken every opportunity to squeeze Taiwan’s international space. This “Orphan of Asia” has a unique and controversial international status. It meets the basic requirements of being defined an independent state; it has over 23 million permanent residents, demarcated and permanent borders, a well-functioning, multilayered government, and the capacity to conduct diplomatic missions despite only being acknowledged by only twenty UN member states (Fell).

The international status of Taiwan pushes and pulls it in many directions, Taiwan’s internal politics play a bigger role than some in the United States give it credit. By the late 1980s Taiwan had established democratic institutions (Kissinger). A recent election in 2016 resulted in the election of Taiwan’s first woman president, Tsai Ing-wen who won over 55 percent of the popular vote. Tsai is also a member of the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan which supports to some extent formal independence of Taiwan. The DPP became the majority party in both Taiwan’s unicameral legislative branch and the presidency. Tsai rejects the 1992 consensus and China has since breaking off negotiations and making renewed efforts to squeeze Taiwan’s international space (Fell). This development is nothing new to the increasingly volatile globalized world.

There are many different push and pull factors inside of Taiwan regarding their identities either as Mainlanders or ethnic Taiwanese. On the Far left, which Fell has described as the proponents of Ethnic Taiwanese Nationalism, are advocates for Taiwanese independence and want a new Taiwan constitution. These voters are the ones who supported president Chen’s advocation for holding a referendum for independence and adopting a new constitution (Kan). Those who are of the center-left persuasion: Civic Taiwanese nationalists argue for anti-unification and are anti-one country, two systems. They advocate for a United Nation application despite international resistance, oppose the PRC’s anti-secession law and want to work toward self-determination.

Those in the center support the Status quo meaning their de facto independence and a dual identity. Something called the Republic of China Chinese Nationalism can be described as Center-Right, they are Anti-Taiwan independence and support the 1992 Consensus. Those who wholly support the PRC’s position are described as Far right, since they want to follow the national unification guidelines and support the one country, two systems principle and of course support the communist party of china (Fell).

Despite these internal and external tensions between the two countries, by the early 1990s economic relations between PRC and ROC have grown to significant levels. (Kan). Taiwan had joined the Asian development Bank and APEC. At the same time, the PRC was getting its economy off the ground. As a result, Taiwan had benefited from PRC’s economic transformation and has been becoming increasingly economic interdependent on it. These was a loosening of restriction on bilateral trade and investment which lead Taiwanese companies to shift their production to the mainland. (Kissinger).

There is a lot at stake here for Taiwan, states have been defecting to the PRC in the UN, since the 1960s it has been a major economic player, and its very independence and self-government depends on the United States. This precarious position is a source of much frustration on both sides of the Strait. The United States alone provides Taiwan with the weaponry it needs to defend itself if China were to make good on its promise of militaristic unification. In 2015, Taiwan was the 17^th largest exporting nation in the world and its ability to make decisions regarding its financial market, and its democratic system would be dismantled (Fell). For Taiwan, the special administration status offer is unacceptable. For China, allowing Taiwan to become a formally independent nation is unacceptable. As it stands Taiwan will never be truly free, they are a democracy that cannot determine their own future.

Over time, the US has stressed the processes of the One China policy meaning peaceful resolution and cross-strait dialogue and resolution with the consent of the Taiwanese people with no unilateral provocations from either side. The United States needs to rethink its involvement in the region due to the ever-shifting nature of the international stage. It needs to reevaluate what its goals are, what they want the outcomes to be and make a concrete plan rather than an ambivalent one. But for the PRC and Taiwan it is not the processes for which peace will be achieved its what kind of peace they desire, whether its unification, independence, or even confederation.

There will be dire impacts if a nation were to misstep or overstep. Beijing has been clear about their willingness to use conventional military force if Taipei were to seek formal independence. In response to an increased American weapons sale to Taiwan in 2010, China used threats of “corresponding sanctions” on American companies who were involved in the deal (Branigan). According to PBS FRONTLINE, China adds 50 short range and medium range ballistic missiles in the area of the Taiwan strait every year. The PRC currently has more than 400 missiles and are improving their missile technology such as cruise missiles and multi-warhead missiles. The PRC has 60-70 submarines as of 2001 compared to Taiwan’s four. Taiwan strait is a very important sea link communication channel and cannot afford to be shut down without many countries being drawn in. The Taiwan Strait is one of the few places in the world where the US could potentially clash with another nuclear power with a substantial military since the US would have difficulty remaining disengaged (Tucker).

But direct military force is not the only option that the People’s Republic of China can take, they can also choose to blockade Taiwan and so damage the Taiwanese economy, since they are an export driven economy. To the Chinese Communist Party, the prevention of Taiwan going independent is critical to its legitimacy. By allowing Taiwan to go, there would be signals sent to other nationalists that would allow an opening for overthrowing the regime (PBS Frontline). But, in normalizing relations with china, which something that is greatly in US’s interests the United States have betrayed Taiwan and facilitated their loss of UN representation. Despite this, Taiwan’s strategic location and autocratic nature tips the scale in their direction (Tucker).

With these impacts in mind, I believe that the United States should deepen its role in the Strait. The first step the United States should take is to keep up encouragement of cross-strait dialogue. By increasing communication and information sharing, Taiwanese and Chinese will have less of a chance to misinterpret actions on either side. The United States shall assist Taiwan keep its independent international space though facilitating the diversification of the Taiwanese economic portfolio. At the same time, keep rhetoric and other civil pressures applied so as to deter Taiwan from engaging in risky behavior such as declaring formal independence or even taking the military initiative. A special envoy or coordinator should be appointed for a peace brokering process so there can be some level of closure of this issue.

China’s ideal outcome is unification under the one country two systems model. In Taiwan against unification but opinion is divided is continuing the sq or moving on to formal independence. US has reiterated that it can accept any outcome so long as war is avoided, and it has the consent of the Taiwanese side.

In conclusion, at the moment, the United States doesn’t have a clear role in terms of what action it would take in a military crisis. Our end goal should be geared toward preventing the most likely nightmarish scenarios where the US and China would engage militarily. The strange thing about this topic in particular is that the United States has been acting as a bridge builder but the only place in the whole world where we have not taken an active diplomatic role, overnight we could see United States forces deployed.

Works Cited

Branigan, Tania. “Chinese media accuses US of ‘cold war thinking’ over Taiwan arms deal.” 1 Feburary 2010. The Guardian. May 2018.

Fell, Dafydd. Government and Politics in Taiwan. Routledge Research on Taiwan, 2018.

Kan, Shirley A. China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy Key statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei. Congressional Research Service, 2011.

Kissinger, Henry. On China. Penguin Books Ltd, 2012.

Lampton, David, et al. PBS FRONTLINE. 2001. April 2018.

If globalized economic openness is causing the labor market to fluctuate then we see a trend of OECD countries in which income inequality is widening. Industrial democracies are living in a post-industrial world. Businesses that were formerly domestic industrial sectors are now outsourcing causing a restructuring of the labor market.  In this paper I will look why this economic globalization has made income inequality worse in some countries than in others since the 1980s. In Japan, the United States of America, and Germany; income inequality has stemmed from political causes such as lack of access to quality education, redistributive welfare policies, and the falling rate of unionization.

Income inequality is important to study because a more economically equal society will contribute to a stronger vibrant democracy. This requires an analysis of labor, government, and business relations to determine to what extent education, redistribution of welfare, and unionization or lack thereof are contributing to income inequality. I found that Germany, Japan, and the United States were similar in that they had the largest GDPs in the world besides China and the European Union, but they are less than average when it comes to income inequality. The Japanese Gini Coefficient as of 2015 is 0.33. The German Gini Coefficient is 0.289, and America’s Gini Coeffect is 0.394. (OECD) They all have strong technology and service sectors, are generally conservative, though they display a range of cultural differences especially between the western and eastern countries, and admittedly have very different geographies. One similarity between these countries is demographic challenges that due to low fertility rates, another is gender inequality, threatening to damage sustained long-term growth and above all are largely import heavy economies. Germany possesses a social market economy, Japan’s economic structure could be described as a state-led market economy, and America is best put as a liberal corporatist mixed economy.

In the new economically globalized world the labor-intensive products that used to be the bread and butter of the easily unionized manufacturing industry are now being made abroad or are otherwise automated. According to Barkin, this outside sourcing, meaning the importation of foreign parts and assemblies or even whole products, is creating a demand that automation is meant to fill. Employers prefer automation because its cheap and efficient labor that you don’t have to negotiate with. This increase in automation calls for more cognitive skills, and is accompanied by a simultaneous decrease of demand for the traditional manual labor.

It’s plain to see that income inequality is lower in countries were average education achievement is higher. In fact, “the Gini index decreases by one percent as secondary enrollment rates rise by 0.25 percent.” The more people that have access to high-level quality education, the more people that are going to do better in a labor market that prioritizes high skill jobs. (Checchi) By raising the average education and opening up these employment opportunities, these efforts will contribute to a greater rate of social mobility meaning a lower long-term inequality.

It stands up to reason that individuals from poor families are more likely to borrow to finance their schooling. A common structural market failure appears when people from poor families are discriminated against because of their lack of resources. Although more education is associated with higher expected income, people will only invest in education so long as they get a marginal return. As a result, the poor will not invest in education and remain unskilled and earn a low income perpetuating the unskilled status of their dynasty. The increased costs of education can be solved by redistribution achieved by fiscal policy in order to open up opportunities for tertiary education. People who come from lower incomes and receive these benefits would be able to overcome the opportunity costs of forgone income due to school attendance. (Checchi)

States with strong labor unions were likely to experience decreases in equality. This is due to the fact that labor unions more accurately represent the working poor’s interests and contribute to a more equal distribution of monetary resources. An ability to weigh in on business’s decisions is integral for the working class’s closure of the income gap. Social spending, progressive taxation, and higher wages for workers all contribute to a more equal distribution of social services. (Xu) Trade liberalization will increase income inequality in countries with high skill high technology labor. For example, the United States has been exporting technology intensive products and importing the cheap labor-intensive products. By importing these labor-intensive products that it used to make itself, the United States is losing unskilled jobs abroad. (Xu)

For the last two decades, Japan’s policies have not kept up with its post-war economic miracle when their bubbled economy popped in the 90s. Japan is unique among the countries I chose because they had just entered the industrial market in the 1980s. Japan is an example of the State-led model and is a hybrid of a social market economy and a liberal market economy. It’s considered quasi-social because there is a very strong state bureaucracy that is the foundation of the formation of Japan’s welfare state. They currently have a stellar unemployment rate of 3.1 percent and 16.1 percent of their GDP comes from trade. (OECD) In Japan, 50.5 percent of adults have a college education and often scores in the top five for major subject’s proficiency such as math and science (OECD) Workers receive generous training and strong internal promotion practices as a chief source of skill generation. This on the job human capital investment is integral to the Japanese principle of lifetime employment. There is limited wage variation across firms but within firms the declining role of seniority and merit-based raises influence the widening wage determination. (Katz)

Japan’s relatively low levels of social expenditure matches that of the United States. However, Japan categorizes welfare differently than the US. They forgo spending on social welfare and instead put that money towards investment in a very high level of expenditure towards public works. They have weak social regulation and strong economic regulations. Japan’s social insurance and healthcare system was built after the German model. Japan is the opposite of the United States in terms of its approach to the connotation of Welfare, even though they have the same levels of expenditure on social insurance as the US. In Japan, welfare is a very good word, but the Japanese tend to focus on the National Burden ratio instead, meaning the division of the sum of the tax payment and the social security contributions through national income. (Takegawa) Occupational welfare is substituted for social expenditure and in this way Japan lowers its national burden ratio. In fact, Japan even approaches welfare not from the class perspective like both Germany and the United States, but approaches it by addressing inequality though regions. These strong public works programs create employment in underdeveloped regions and thereby create a lot of protection for the low-productivity sectors. Due to the lack of competition, it is now becoming difficult for private companies to provide this welfare. There are essentially no other social protections other than healthcare and basic pensions. (Takegawa)

In the 90s, Japan’s employment protection was strongly regulated. (Takegawa) Its labor market has been subject to deregulation in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Although Japan entered the 80s with already a very decentralized enterprise union structure, in 1989 power resources declined as a result of the process of labor market deregulation as it lowered union density by increasing the number of unorganized non-regular workers, meaning they work part-time. Japanese union density hit 17.7% in 2013. The 1993 part-time work law deregulated the labor market by allowing more part time workers into the system, thereby fragmenting the union density. Rengo was established in 1989 and was created to bring more strength to the bargaining position of unions to promote policy and other institutional reforms. Rengo initially had 8 million people, but in 2012, there were 6.8 million members. The decline in union membership causes for there to be less dues. Without a sufficient amount of dues there will be less resources for the unions to pull through their collective bargaining initiatives. (Watanabe) Japanese union structures are noteworthy because of its enterprise union structure. Work practices traditionally include individualized worker involvement in workplace quality, senior-based pay systems and a commitment to life-time employment. (Katz) Due to a significant increase in part time workers in the service sector there has been a resulting replacement of regular workers. In fact, Unions were entirely removed from the policy making process in 2001. A new labor standards law radically changed the structure of collective-bargaining in Japan. The new standards law that went into effect mandates that unions need to represent a majority of workers, meaning ¾ of the workers are needed to make collective agreements. (Watanabe)

Out of all the countries I selected, the United States has the worst record on income inequality and education. According to Hoagland, “From 1979 to 2007 for the top 1% of earners had an income growth of 275% where the bottom 20% saw growth of 18%” This is a trend that is more significant in the United States than any other OECD country. It’s empirically shown that for US and Germany, labor market participation increases significantly when education levels exceed from less than compulsory to secondary and post-secondary education. However, in the United States, 9.9 percent of adults have below an upper secondary education, meaning a high school diploma, 45.7 percent of its working age population has a college degree. 44.5 percent of adults have a high school degree. (OECD) Not to mention that tertiary education currently sits at an extremely high price for a prospective student.

Unemployment and poverty risk have increasingly become concentrated among workers with low levels of education while the government has become more permissive of cuts in unemployment generosity and income assistance to the poor. Reductions in unemployment insurance benefits give an explanation of why redistribution responsiveness to unemployment has declined. (Pontusson) 1996 welfare reform has significantly retrenched the social protection for single parents. (Seeleib-Kaiser) Even after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, health care is not universal and our insurance policy regarding healthcare is fragmented and highly contentious with progress seemingly not in sight. Liberal market economies such as America depend on market provision and means tested public social policy to provide for its most vulnerable.

There has been a OECD trend that there has been increasing decentralization within collective-bargaining systems. Starting in the 1980s membership in unions have declined to a significant degree. According to Xu, “de-unionization accounts for 20 percent of the increase in wage inequality for US males in 1980s” this is indicative of the trends that have followed us these last three decades. Strong unions would ensure that its workers were taken care of because they would have power and sway with the workplace and have been seen to coordinate and make sure that the worker has a say in management. (Xu) Diverse variations in industrial relations in America that used to create competition and job fluidity are also now creating problems. There is no significant employment protections to speak of in the United States. Outsourcing has exacerbated the fragmentation of American decentralized unionization in fact, according the Bureau of Labor statistics, union membership is at an all-time low at 11.8 percent from 20.1 percent in 1983. Unions are no longer able to organize workers to the extent that they used to. The US has a voluntarist employment relation with significant difference among sectors in how they approach unionization and the structure of union representation. (Katz)

Although German income distribution has been generally stable, differences became apparent in the 1990s and have largely been driven by atypical employment. In the mid-1970s 85 percent of employment was full time, but by the mid-1990s it had fallen to 67 percent, as a result median wages have fallen, and the wealth gap has increased. Germany does very well on the education front meaning that they get more citizens through high school than either Japan or the United States. In Germany, 58.2 percent of working age adults have an upper secondary education, 28.3 percent have a college degree, and 13.5 percent of adults have not graduated upper secondary education. (OECD) However, College education is provided free from the government, which as seen its benefits since Germany is the country I picked with the lowest rates of income inequality. Occupational apprenticeship plays a key role in Germany, it is integrated in the high school curriculum and operates as a de facto training skill structure. Germany is unique because it has experienced the reunification of west and east. At the time of reunification East German GDP per captia was only 57 percent of western levels. Incorporating east Germany into the west has proved to be difficult as the economy of the east was restructured

Germany social security expenditure in 1996 was 37.68 percent of their national income. The reason that expenditure is so high is because, social welfare is a right that every German citizen has due to their constitution. They have free health care and education, while still providing most of the free services through private sectors. (Takegawa) But due to slow growth and a growing government debt, there has been some welfare retrenchment. Retrenchment leads to a decrease of actual social cohesion, key to Germany’s solidarity, because collective redistributive public benefits are cut. They have government-sponsored job training programs and maternal leave. In the early 1990s, the Kohl government cut more than 800 billion dollars’ worth of social benefits. (Lane) Negotiated benefits by unions have historically compensated losses caused by retrenchment policies. “Retrenchment describes policy changes that either cut social expenditure, restructure welfare state programs to conform more closely to the residual welfare state model.” (Trampush)

A good quote by Seeleib-Kaiser that notes Germany’s distinction from both Japan and the United States; “Germany continues to constitutionally guarantee a legal entitlement to minimum social protection for all citizens, such a guarantee does not exist in the United States” Germany’s conservative welfare states rely on social insurances to provide protection with the aim of social cohesion and stability. However, there is a significant problem of dualism where insiders get most of the benefits and the outsiders within a welfare system are not being provided with adequate redistribution. To qualify for welfare in the US, your social protection is dependent on occupation and industrial citizenship. But in Germany it’s a different story all together, welfare is an integration of social insurance schemes that attempt to minimize the breadth and depth of outsider status. While welfare benefits are decreasing in post-industrial society, unionization is too. The service sector is more difficult to unionize due to the nature of the industry.

Unemployment was short term during the 70s, as 60-70 percent of unemployed were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits at a replacement rate of 68 percent. But now, long term unemployment is a bigger issue due to the lack of labor flexibility in the market making business less likely to employ workers who are difficult to fire. (Seeleib-Kaiser) Germany’s unions are distinguished by a system of codetermination, meaning that the workers have a right to participate in management decisions. This is demonstrated through their heavy use of works councils. Sectoral collective bargaining also plays a substantial role in Germany’s labor negotiations. Renowned for the strength of its inclusive unions. Extensive coverage of its sectoral collective bargaining system, and the dual structure of broad employee rights through works councils and supervisory boards. Like Japan and the United States, membership declined in unions especially in the 1990s. There has been some work organizational restructuring but not on the level of the United States and Japan. However, with the introduction of framework agreements are becoming more prevalent in collective bargaining, the decision-making procedures are becoming increasingly decentralized. Firms are subject to limitations due to codetermination that is within the law. But even works councils are experiencing declines, it decreased from 36,300 in 1980 to 33,000 in 1994(Katz) This decentralization of managerial responsibility has made it difficult for unions to know who to negotiate with. The has been a weakening of integral structures of the balance of roles between unions and works councils. Another hurdle to unionization is the new “mini-job” which was introduced in 2003. It was initially to create work incentives for those with low income and to address the high unemployment rate especially of low-skilled people. Although marginal employment is higher for women and students in the short run, it is questionable that these mini-jobs will actually lead to full time employment. (Caliendo) The result does not spell well for income inequality and seems to have created an overall decrease in full time work and an increase in part time work.

All in all, access to education, wealth redistribution, and the prevalence of unions all play a pivotal role in the rate of income inequality. The Japanese Gini Coefficient as of 2015 is 0.33. The German Gini Coefficient is 0.289, and America’s record on inequality 0.394. Wealth redistribution is going to play a bigger and bigger role in the coming years as the rise in inequality affects children’s wealth backgrounds rise simultaneously. (Pfeffer) Distribution of educational opportunity to the coming generations will line up with extreme wealth inequality. The more affluent “insiders” will be able to afford the rising costs of education without taking out the undue burden of student loans. Affordability of education, worker’s rights, and a basic standard of living is crucial to creating and finding jobs that would combat income inequality in the changing labor landscape. This is especially relevant when looking at United States’ higher education system. Germany leads the pack when addressing access to education, especially since higher education is free in Germany. Although Education is not free in Japan it does better on income inequality than the United States, but that seems to be due to the Japanese commitment to lifetime employment through on-the-job training by firms. Japanese enterprise unionism is unique, individualized, and effective although not as effective as it used to be.  Across the board, rates of union membership have decreased as well as the structures that allow unions to be effective. Full-time employment, worker’s rights, and investing in human capital are all key to creating a thriving workforce that allows the people to provide for themselves and we’ve seen a reduction in the availability of those jobs for the unskilled worker.

Works Cited

CIA World Fact Book (2015). Germany. Japan. History Reference Center

Grabka, Markus. “Income and Wealth Inequality After the Financial Crisis: The Case of Germany.” Empirica, vol. 42, no. 2, May 2015, pp. 371-390. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10663-015-9280-8.

Hoagland, Steven R. “Income Distribution.” Research Starters: Business (Online Edition), 2015. EBSCOhost, 0-search.ebscohost.com.libus.csd.mu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=89163760&site=eds-live.

Takegawa, Shogo. “Japan’s Welfare-State Regime: Welfare Politics, Provider and Regulator.” Development and Society, vol. 34, no. 2, 2005, pp. 169–190. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/deveandsoci.34.2.169.

Xu, P. (2016). Economic openness, power resources and income inequality in the American states. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 41(2), 3-30. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1807680952?accountid=100

Watanabe, Hiroaki Richard. “The Struggle for Revitalisation by Japanese Labour Unions: Worker Organising after Labour-Market Deregulation.” Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 45, no. 3, Dec. 2015, pp. 510–530., doi:10.1080/00472336.2015.1007388.

Checchi, Daniele. The Economics of Education: Human Capital, Family Background and Inequality. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Trampusch, Christine. “Industrial Relations as a Source of Solidarity in Times of Welfare State Retrenchment.” Journal of Social Policy, vol. 36, no. 2, Apr. 2007, pp. 197-215. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1017/S0047279406000560.

Barkin, Solomon. “An Agenda for the Revision of the American Industrial Relations System.” Labor Law Journal, vol. 36, no. 11, Nov. 1985, pp. 857-860. EBSCOhost, 0-search.ebscohost.com.libus.csd.mu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=5804751&site=eds-live.

Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin. “Welfare Systems in Europe and the United States: Conservative Germany Converging toward the Liberal US Model?.” International Journal of Social Quality, vol. 3, no. 2, Winter2013, pp. 60-77. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3167/IJSQ.2013.030204.

Katz, Harry Charles, and Owen Darbishire. Converging Divergences Worldwide Changes in Employment Systems. ILR Press, 2002.

“Union Members Summary.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 26 Jan. 2017, www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm.

Lane, Charles and Theresa Waldrop. “Is Europe’s Social-Welfare State Headed for the Deathbed?.” Newsweek, vol. 122, no. 8, 23 Aug. 1993, p. 37. EBSCOhost, 0-search.ebscohost.com.libus.csd.mu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ulh&AN=9308180067&site=eds-live.

Caliendo, Marco and Katharina Wrohlich. “Evaluating the German ‘Mini-Job’ Reform Using a Natural Experiment.” Applied Economics, vol. 42, no. 19, 20 Aug. 2010, pp. 2475-2489. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00036840701858125.

Religious Violence describes the occurrences in which religion is used to justify conflict to cause suffering and harm either for or against a certain (non)religious doctrine. [1] Two incidents in which Judaism was the target or the perpetrator of religious violence were the Holocaust and the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

During the Holocaust, the Jewish people suffered and died because they believed in Judaism. During WWII, the Third Reich of Germany was a fatal shadow sweeping over Europe. Nazis started with registering all Jewish people that lived in any occupied territory that Germany had control over. The soldiers would kidnap Jewish people shove them in ghettos and then ship them to concentration and death camps. Their religion was the reason that all those people were taken. More than a million people were murdered because of their religion. [2]

The Holocaust is an act of religious violence in that the Jewish people were targeted because of their religious beliefs and were treated as a pestilence that needed to be eradicated. The word “Holocaust” comes from the Greek word, “holos” meaning whole and “kaustos” which means burned. More than 10 million people in total died in death camps and according to the Telegraph, between five and six million Jews were killed[3]. They were targeted with violence because of their religion to Hitler, the Jewish people were an inferior race and a threat to German racial purity and community. As Germany expanded its control, it began mass transportations from the constructed ghettoes in Poland to concentration camps. Mass gassings were conducted in a large-scale industrial operation where thousands died of starvation and disease[4].

On the other side of the question, the nationalism of Zionism and the illegal Jewish settlement of the west bank is the second incident I chose. In this circumstance, instead of being the victim of religious violence it wouldn’t be too far off to say that they were the aggressors. They colonized Palestine and the Zionism is defined as “the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. “[5] The Jewish people feel that they have a claim to their promised homeland and Israel is the accumulation of competing nationalism. Originally, Jerusalem was a place of peace between religion, it was a city of freedom. Jewish nationalism first started when the British promised a home for the Jewish people when Palestine was once under Ottoman rule. During WWII the Jewish population in Palestine rose since they were fleeing European persecution and the holocaust. The Israeli state starting accruing more power and the Palestinians and Zionists went to war. Palestinians lost this conflict and had to become refugees.  Jewish people settled in the west bank and west Jerusalem, and took over their land. The Palestinians started protesting and then Hamas became a large terrorist group. In response to growing tensions, Zionist Ariel Sharon marched on a very important Palestinian mosque with a thousand armed guards. The deaths were devastating. The Israelites made a wall claiming that they were protecting themselves but they put the wall through Palestinian territory. Religious war has continued over decades in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[6]

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is an act of religious violence because the Jewish population and the Palestinian population had been and are still fighting in many bloody battles in the war over obtaining a homeland for themselves based on a religious principle. The Holocaust was a horrible genocide in which killings were carried out with ugly industrial efficiency. These two incidents are the ones that stand out when investigating religious violence in regard to Judaism.

[1] 1 van Liere, Lucien. “Tell Us Our Story.” Exchange 43.2 (2014): 153-173. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Jan. 2017.

[2] Knill, Iby. “A Holocaust Survivor.” Women’s History Review 25.6 (2016): 999-1005. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Jan. 2017.

[3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1481975/The-Holocaust-death-toll.html

[4] https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/the-holocaust

[5]  “Zionism: A Definition of Zionism.” A Definition of Zionism | Jewish Virtual Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2017.

[6] Hanauer, Laurence S. “The Path To Redemption: Fundamentalist Judaism, Territory, And Jewish Settler Violence In The West Bank.” Studies In Conflict & Terrorism 18.4 (1995): 245-270. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Jan. 2017.

Sam Langheim

On June 18, 1910 former president Theodore Roosevelt returned to America in New York, New York, after a year’s long African safari. He had departed from Southampton, England earlier that week on June 10, concluding his brief tour of Europe. Telegram communication allowed for newspapers to publish the daily progress of his journey. A particularly jubilant headline from the Boston Daily Globe (now the Boston Globe) captured America’s anticipation for the return of the former president, it read, “ROOSEVELT IS COMING HOME, HOORAY!” The article detailed Roosevelt’s activities on the Kaiserin Auguste Victoria and what he planned to do once he arrived home. Upon his arrival a reception of almost 100,000 people, including several members of his family, awaited him. Once on shore, amidst the cheers, reunions, and songs, Roosevelt made it a priority to greet the members of the press. Receiving them like he would an old friend, Roosevelt shook their hands in turn and exclaimed “Boys, I am glad to see you. It does me good to see you boys. I am glad to be back.” Amidst the crowd one reporter could be heard shouting “We’re mighty glad to have you back!” Over a year after his presidency, the press still covered him as if he had never left office.

Interactions like the one on June 18, 1910 were not uncommon between Roosevelt and journalists. Not since Abraham Lincoln had a president so effectively harnessed the press’s capability to motivate action among the American citizenry. Seeking to minimize corruption, stifle rising inequality, and relieve a middle class under crushing weight from industrialization, Teddy would have to mobilize Congress to act.

With a Republican party that was dominated by a devotion for laissez-faire economics and reactionary policies, he knew early on in his presidency that he would have to make a direct appeal to the people. In order to educate the masses on his policies, he formed a relationship with reporters from a variety of newspapers and magazines. He would also seek to project himself as a moral leader, diligently advocating for political participation by the people. His incredible life and influence on the relationship between president and press are still present even in today’s digitized world.

Once Theodore Roosevelt entered the White House there were over 2,225 newspapers in America and with more papers came the need for more stories. He received the oath of office on September 14, 1901, going into the office with mixed feelings of excitement and dread. He feared his presidency would be perceived as a successor position to that of William McKinley, who had died from an assassin’s bullet. Though he swore to continue the policies of McKinley, he would only stick to the course laid out by his predecessor for the first year.

On his first day in office Roosevelt held a meeting with managers from the Associated Press, Scripps-McRae Press Association, and the New York Sun. It was here that Roosevelt made his intentions clear; he would allow reporters unprecedented access to himself and the daily workings of the White House so long as they followed a specific set of parameters set by him. He would disavow any information in stories printed without his permission and would deny those reports access indefinitely. So, began Roosevelt’s long, sometimes troubled, relationship with the press. Teddy himself was a skilled writer, contributing some important texts to navy and military history. His admiration for writers lead some to call his relationship with the press “collegial”.

In 1902, as the West Wing was undergoing renovations, Roosevelt would become the first president to give members of the press their own room in the White House. The room would have telephone lines ensuring White House reporters could get any story out into the public before other reporters even had a chance to cover it. Though the same room is no longer used today, this created a lasting legacy on the coverage future presidents would receive by establishing the first White House press corps.

In multiple legislative battles, Teddy proved every time that he was not afraid to deploy the full powers of the press. He did this in order to put lawmakers under the gun and align themselves with polices he saw as furthering the Progressive movement. One such instance came upon the release of the novel The Jungle by Upton Sinclair on May 25^th, 1906. The novel wrote on the revolting inner workings of the meat industry. The pages inside contained the grisly details of rotten meat, animal entrails, and diseased animals. Roosevelt was no fan of Sinclair and his socialist tendencies, but he was disturbed by the allegations in the novel. He appointed two investigators, Charles Neill and James Bronson Reynolds, who would later confirm the allegations in The Jungle, penning the Neill-Reynolds report.

Representative James Wadsworth (R-NewYork) chairman of the House Agricultural Committee, along with two Chicago congressmen expressed concern over any proposed legislation. Their chief concern was that any bill requiring inspection would pass the increased cost of regulation onto the consumer. Roosevelt was beside himself with disbelief. If the Neill-Reynolds report was to surface it would do irreparable damage to consumers and meat exports.  He precariously hung the possibility over their heads. Roosevelt commanded an army of reporters that could break the findings in the Neill Reynolds report at a moment’s notice, possibly destroying the reputations of those who refused to act. After a month-long showdown in the House, Roosevelts strategy had worked with the passage of the Pure Food and Drug bill on June 30, 1906; the vote totaled 240 to 17.

Roosevelt’s unique relationship with the press did not last the entirety of his term. Though it cannot be said that all reports would receive Roosevelt coldly, or turn their backs to him completely, one speech frayed the friendships he had built with some of his most trusted reporters_. A reporter for McClure’s magazine, Lincoln Steffens, had written a piece in March 1906 speculating new parties would soon arise as a result of the Progressive movement. Roosevelt was struggling to keep his own Republican party together, and baseless inferences from journalists did not help. Roosevelt was becoming disenchanted with the new wave of detail oriented, investigative reporters that now dominated the newspaper industry.

On April 14^th, 1906, three months before the showdown over meatpacking regulations in the House, Roosevelt gave a speech at the White House warning of the dangers of sensationalized reporting. A headline from the Boston Daily Globe read “SANITY NEEDED AS WELL AS HONESTY”. During the speech Roosevelt was quoted saying, “To assault the great and admitted evils of our political and industrial life with such crude and sweeping generalizations as to include decent men in the general condemnation means the searing of the public conscious”.

At the time of Roosevelt’s last meeting with the White House press corps he had left them with a final prediction that now almost feels like a warning. Teddy claimed, “There will be someone at the White House you like more than me but not one who will interest you more”. The office of the presidency has seen eighteen occupants since Theodore Roosevelt. Despite the most valiant of efforts, almost all have tried in vain to wield the same grip on public opinion that Teddy grabbed with both hands. Research conducted by the National Opinion Research Center further solidifies this point. By compiling public opinion surveys for 1935 to 1980 and matching them with president’s policy goals and media coverage, the researches wanted to find if any president has been able to sway public opinion in a significant way. The results showed little evidence that demonstrated a president’s effect on public opinion.  The only president that was shown to have significant sway of public opinion was Theodore’s cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

This analysis holds true even in C-Span’s Survey of Presidential Leadership where Franklin barely beats out Theodore for 1^st place in the category of Public Persuasion. In spite of Teddy’s deteriorated relationship with the press nearing the end of his term, the media still remembers him as an icon of progress, intelligence, and endless intrigue. Whether it was his many hunting expeditions, his time as a cowboy in the Dakotas, or his unflagging push for progressive policies to reign in out of control business tycoons, Theodore Roosevelt knew how to dominate the headlines.

Journalists still remember Theodore today as they would have remembered him in 1901. He was one of them; a writer himself, and an admirer of writers. An article from the Washington Post published in January 2018 titled “Trump isn’t Big on Reading. Teddy Roosevelt Consumed Whole Books before Breakfast” details the constant flow of literature he would devour. The article claims Teddy would read through newspapers and magazines in an almost “predatory” way, tearing out the pages once he was finished with them. Not even his closest friends in the journalism community were above his scrutiny. The impact of Theodore Roosevelt’s complete transformation of the working relationship between the president and the media is more present now than ever before. The last three presidential campaigns show that media skills are a prerequisite to winning the White House, for that you can thank Theodore Roosevelt.

 Bibliography

“All Presidents | C-SPAN Survey on Presidents 2017.” C-SPAN.org

“SANITY NEEDED AS WELL AS HONESTY.” The Boston Globe Archives. April 15, 1906

“ROOSEVELT IS COMING HOME, HOORAY!” The Boston Globe Archives. June 11, 1910.

Goodwin, Doris Kearns. The Bully Pulpit. Simon & Schuster, 2013.

Lansford, Tom. Theodore Roosevelt: A Political Life. Nova History Publications, 2004.

Rosenwald, Michael S. “Trump Isn’t Big on Reading. Teddy Roosevelt Consumed Whole Books before Breakfast.” The Washington Post. January 09, 2018.

Saveth, Edward N. “Theodore Roosevelt: Image and Ideology.” New York Historical Society 72, no. 1 (1991): 45-68

Wolraich, Michael. Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Mueller, James E. “Success and Failure in Using the Bully Pulpit: Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Taft and the Importance of Press Relations.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 46, no. 4 (December 2016): 943-946

Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. “PRESIDENTS AS OPINION LEADERS: SOME NEW EVIDENCE.” Policy Studies Journal 12, no. 4 (June 1984): 649-662

“The threat or use of coercive action for the purpose of protecting or assisting people at risk.” This is how Daniela Abratt defined humanitarian intervention in the Denver Law Review.

After bombing Syria on April 6 in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack, Trump’s tweets declared that it was a “Mission Accomplished.” According to the New York Times, There was a total of 105 US missiles launched toward Bashar al-Assad’s Al-Shayrat airbase, along with French and British coordinated attacks. This airbase was the key element of a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 80 civilians. The Barzeh research and development center near Damascus and Homs was also targeted, but may have been emptied prior to the attack. Syria has a long history that has been disrupted by war and unrest, now the government and other forces are fighting viciously to hold what is left. A well thought out humanitarian intervention can mean the difference between a brutal dictatorship and peace.

Syria is bordered by Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean Sea. As written in Our World, Syria is the birthplace of civilization and home to a little over 17 million people. It gained its independence from France in 1946. 74 percent of the population is Sunni Muslim and the largest religious minority are the ruling elite, Alawites.

The Arab Spring in 2011 resulted in an eruption of anti-government protests in many Middle Eastern countries. When Syria followed suit, scholars from Khan University in Pakistan, Hafeez Ullah Khan, and Waseem Khan write that the Assad regime responded aggressively, often breaking up rallies with live fire. Since then, the war has brought devastation to Syria. The Syrian government, opposition rebels, and Islamic militants have proven that the lust for power and the struggle for ideals can result in the most horrible acts of violence. Foreign powers have turned the Middle East into their personal sandbox, sculpting the region to whatever shape is to their liking. The Syrian civil war exemplifies that dictators cannot rule easily. Dictators will face opposition until the essence of freedom in the human spirit is satisfied. But, while the regional forces rain down their fire (conventional and chemical), ancient towns and modern cities have been reduced to rubble and hundreds of thousands have been massacred and even more displaced.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, since 2011, more than 400,000 people have died, including tens of thousands of children, since the beginning of the fighting. More than 13.1 million Syrians inside the country are in critical need of assistance and those who were lucky enough to leave, 5.6 million refugees, are now without a home. Health facilities have been specifically targeted, schools are now used as military base camps, and fuel shortages have made life even harder on the Syrian people. More needed infrastructure is destroyed every year the war continues.

Syria’s chemical weapons program was first discovered in August 2013 when Assad’s regime fired around 15 rockets filled with deadly chemical agent onto its streets, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. A second time, April 4, 2017, despite agreement on behalf of Syria to sign an international law convention that required a promise to destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles, Assad launched another attack. In 2017 at least 92 people were killed, including 30 children. Today, the town of Khan Sheikhoun is now the victim of two chemical weapons attacks within two years. Russia has blamed the airstrike on a rebel-held storage housing, but the opposition groups maintained that they lacked the capacity and ability to produce chemical weapons.

Russia is a key player in the Syrian civil war because of their role in propping up Bashar al-Assad after the violent crackdown of civilian protests during 2011. Through their partnership with Assad, they have been strengthening their power base in the Middle East. As a bordering nation, Turkey was at first reluctant to support the Assad regime but has since supported Russia in their efforts to fight the Kurdish forces.

While Iranian reasons are more sectarian in nature than the other two foreign powers. The Iranian government wants to maintain the status quo of a Shia government in Syria. Iran has been protecting Assad by providing both military and financial support. Iran has been investing heavily in the regime. Hezbollah is also a largely Shia Islamist militant group based in Lebanon.

Fateh al-Sham according to Khan University, is more dangerous than ISIS although they are allied with the rebels in the fight against the regime. They are secretly funded by Qatar and are the major guerilla army in Syria. Their goals are to overthrow the regime and establish an Islamic emirate in Syria. Although like the Islamic state in that they fight against Assad, their goals are separate from each other. According to BBC, Fateh al-Sham instead preferred to continue to affiliate itself with al-Qaeda. However, their name change from al-Nursa Front symbolizes their cutting of ties from that specific jihadist group.

The United States’ primary focus in the region is to eliminate ISIS. With help from the Kurdish, People’s Protection Unit (YPG) they have been making progress closing in on ISIS. The Islamic State being the very real specter of our interference in the region after the Iraqi war. ISIS has no allies, because they see everyone who doesn’t accept their caliphate as leader so anyone who doesn’t join is an enemy. The United States supports opposition groups that are deemed “moderate.” One such opposition group that is not supported by the United States is the previously mentioned Fateh al-Sham

There are many different groups and different causes tearing Syria in every direction. According to Khan University and as of 2017, the Regime has control of 35 percent of the country including strategically placed cities, such as the capital, and the coast which includes most of the population. The Islamic State also holds the same percentage of land however most of their land is uninhabited. The YPG along with the Syrian Democratic Front controls around 18 percent of territory. Lastly, other Rebels including Fateh al-Sham control around 12% of the country.

China and Russia have vetoed and blocked every resolution to take action. While this limited strike satisfies our need to “do something”, the long-term goals of the strike are unclear. According to the New York Times, these allied airstrikes will set back the production of sarin gas but will not stop Assad from further research and development of chemical weapons. According to General Mckenzie, “They still have ability to conduct attacks; I would not rule that out,” Debates surrounding the Mddle East, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Anthony H. Cordesman, have surrounded not what the path forward is to end the war, it is when we can exit.

Due to the ever-present threat of extremism and terrorism, it is easy to respond disproportionately to the events at hand, since the strategies of a terrorist is to goad, terrorize, and destroy. When one terror group is eliminated by force, another pops up in its place. Due to this strategy I believe the best counter that the US should continue to build community resilience by staying in the region and do what we can deliver immediate humanitarian assistance. The Kurds have proven to assets in our fight against the Islamic State and may be at risk if we were to abandon the region after investing our “blood and gold.” While we have been hesitant to intervene, there is a larger range of options.

The United States should accept more refugees, on the condition that they go through security and background checks that would certify that they are not malicious actors. The US should attempt to prevent direct military confrontation with Russia, while undermining their influence in Syria through directly addressing the underlying causes of the fighting. Only the right combination or pressure and persuasion with the sole end goal being a ceasefire and resumption of political negotiations.

Focusing on the long-term stability of Syria as well as improving the United States’ position in the region leads us to believe that using aid as leverage by adding conditions would lend itself to that. While maintaining our presence in the area is critical to establish deterrence against another chemical attack, a purely reactionary approach to the war will only let the war drag on. We are already involved and leaving will do nothing to improve the everyday life of the Syrian people. As Anthony H. Cordesman illustrated in his article, we “must not try to remake the world in our image, but we must act to help nations and peoples remake their world in theirs.”

Khan, Hafeez Ullah, and Waseem Khan. “Syria: History, The Civil War and Peace Prospects.” Journal of Political Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, pp. 557–573.

Abratt, Daniela. “U.S. Intervention in Syria: A Legal Responsibility to Protect?” Denver Law Review, vol. 95, 2017, pp. 21–71.

Cordesman, Anthony H. “Syria: When and How Does This War End?” Syria: When and How Does This War End?, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 10 Apr. 2018, www.csis.org/analysis/syria-when-and-how-does-war-end.

Dalton, Melissa G. “Trump’s Missile Strikes Show He Needs a Broader Strategy in Syria.” Fortune, 7 Apr. 2017, fortune.com/2017/04/07/trump-syria-airstrikes-strategy-missile-strikes-us-attack/.

Gibbons-Neff, Thomas. “Missile Strikes Are Unlikely to Stop Syria’s Chemical Attacks, Pentagon Says.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Apr. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/world/middleeast/syria-strikes.html.

Aliprandini, Michael. “Syria.” Our World, 2013. EBSCOhost, 0-search.ebscohost.com.libus.csd.mu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=88391195&site=eds-live.

“Syria War: Who Are Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham?” BBC News, BBC, 1 Aug. 2016, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36924000.

Clare McCullough

What is now the Republic of Turkey was once a great empire and is unique in that it is transcontinental. During the time of Sultan-caliphs the only source of law was the revelation of God. (Time 1960) Society was broken up into three categories, the lower class, Reaya which was the mass of the population, and the two ruling elite categories, the Askeri, which was the military, and the Ulema, which was made up of religious scholars responsible for moral order. According to Zurcher, “by 1800 the governmental system could still be characterized as a ‘patrimonial’ extension of sultan’s own household.” The main task of the Sultan was to defend the Islamic community against the outside world. The Ottoman empire was mostly concerned with security and maintenance of law and order and controlled coinage and other public works. Equality before the law was something that wasn’t a part of Ottoman culture, which was a mostly agrarian economy (Zurcher). Democratization in Turkey has always been a goal out of reach for a country stuck in the cyclical methods of modern coups and revolutions.

At the start of the 1800’s, Sultan Selim III launched a series of reforms named Nizam-i Cedid (New Order), which was aimed to increase the strength of the central state organization to combat external and internal enemies. In 1807 the Ottoman Empire’s government was changed by a coup d’etat led by a coalition of conservative ulema and janissary officers (servants of the sultan). After the coup, which weakened the Ottoman Empire’s military, they started to lose territories as it was incorporated into the European economic system.

During 1839-1871 a period called Tanzimati Hayriye (beneficial reforms) radically altered the structure of the Ottoman Empire. A supreme court for judicial regulations was created and helped carry power from the palace to the Porte (bureaucracy). During the Crimean war, the Caliphs expanded and modernized the army. The Tanzimati period brought tax reform, bureaucratic specialization, limited secularization and an effort to bring equal treatment of people before the law. However, with these reforms, a movement called the young ottomans pressured for democratization, leading to unrest during and after a famine where taxes were increased on the Reaya. Following the reforms, The Ottoman empire went to war with Russia and lost territory in the Treaty of Berlin (1878).

The push for democratization was too little too late, even after the establishment of an Ottoman parliament in 1876 due to rising nationalism among the Armenians, Kurds, and the Young Turk movement. (Zurcher) This was described as the first constitutional period which spanned from 1878-1909 (Cook 2010).

The Second Constitutional Period was during 1908-1918, the result of a Unionist movement, The Committee of Union and Progress, or the CUP, experiencing a counter revolution shortly after taking power. The CUP’s political crackdown led to a large-scale insurrection in Albania. Soon after the Balkan war, the Ottoman’s losses from internal and external forces led to the Empire losing nearly all of its European territories, a total four million inhabitants. In 1913, there was further consolidation of unionist power, what Zurcher referred to as the ‘triumverate’ of General Enver, Cemal, and Talat. World War One brought many of the divisions to light, especially in the case of the Armenian deportation phenomenon that resulted in an enormous number of deaths.

There were three points that are often disputed around the deportation of the Christian minority. First in question was the military necessity of the operation in relation to WWI. Secondly disputed was the number of deaths, estimated to be from 200,000 to 800,000, leaving a wide margin of error. Another issue to address is the question of whether the intent was to commit genocide. (Zurcher). Democratization might not have benefited non-turks, but under the CUP, women had a greater amount of liberties and the Unionists approached economics from a classically liberal lens, taking steps to modernize and bring the Ottoman Empire closer to the West.

From 1921-1922 an independence war occurred that led to the National pact and subsequent one-party state, declaring Turkey a republic. It was just the beginning of major conflicts between military secularism and Islam. (Cook 2010) The newly established parliament abolished the caliphate and all members of the Ottoman era were replaced, along its old constitution from 1876. In 1921 the Law on Fundamental Organization gave power to the nationalists, served as a rudimentary institutional base, and identified the Grand National Assembly as the sole representative of the people (Cook 2010). During this time of flux the nationalists were split between the Progressive Republic Party and the eventual victor, the Republican People’s Party. This party was led by a man called Mustafa Kemal Pasha who was to change the face of the Republic of Turkey after its founding in 1923. (Cook 2010)

The Kemalist One-party state stretched from 1925-1945. Starting with the promulgation of the Law on the Maintenance of Order, Turkey became an authoritarian one-party regime and dictatorship under the guise of a republic lead by its Great National Assembly. Secularism and nationalism had been the distinctive characteristics of the Young Turk ideology since 1913. Populist themes of national solidarity put the nation’s needs before those of any one group or class. Kemal Ataturk established a new alphabet and made the use of last names commonplace; he radically secularized the state, education, and law along with all aspects of social life. There was a notable absence of check and balances in the 1924 constitution (Cook 2010). When Ataturk died from cirrhosis of the liver in 1938, his college Ismet Inonu became the national leader. During this time, the government of Turkey closely resembled the Italian fascist regime.

A transition to stronger democratization occurred in 1945-1950. After WII, general elections were held and it was the Democratic Party versus the RPP. The Rule of the DP and its president Bayar lasted for a decade. With the end of Inonu’s administration, Celal Bayer was now the president of the republic, with prime minister Menderes.  During this time, there was a relaxation of secularist policies that made Islam more prominent (Zurcher). Military regimes presided over the multi-party democracy period of 1950-1986 (Carkoglu 1994)

The second Turkish republic began in 1960 after the first military takeover of the newly democratic system headed by the DP. Power was now in the hands of the National Unity Committee. A national security council was established, providing a much more liberal constitution, allowing for a multiparty electoral system to be institutionalized. (Cook 2010) With this wave of democratization, the Islamic Justice Party won the election in 1965.

In 1971, there was another interruption of democracy by the Turkish military (Carkoglu 1994). There were a series of coalition governments between 1973-1980 which were weak and experienced heavy deadlock, especially with political violence becoming a bigger and bigger issue. The end of the second republic was due to “increasing law and order problems, Kurdish separatism, and a political system in deadlock and an economy in tatters” (Zurcher). There was a crackdown on democratization using the newly reformed Penal code which complemented the constitutional and legal restrictions on political parties (Cook).

Yet another military coup began the third republic in 1980, orchestrated by General Kenan Evren, nullifying the 1961 constitution. The generals saw themselves as saving democracy as they made short work of suppressing terrorism. The new constitution concentrated power in the hands of the Executive and increased power of the National Security Council. They limited the freedoms of the press, trade unions and the general rights and liberties of the individual while at the same time making voting compulsory. During this time there were three parties allowed by the military, the Party of Nationalist Democracy which was supported by the generals, the Populist party which was supported by the traditional Kemalists, and the Motherland Party, a group that promised economic reforms. The Motherland party won the election. In 1993, the MP’s leader Turgut Ozal died, and two years later, the Islamist Welfare Party takes control. In response to the conflicts between Islamist and secular philosophy, 1997 saw another attempt at a coup’detet which was an effort at Kemalist restoration.

In 2002, the Islamist based Adalet vs Kalkinma (Justice and Development Party AKP) has an absolute majority in Turkey’s parliament. It’s been nothing but turbulence for the Turkish people, in 2016, another coup attempt by the military was stalled by its people (Al Jezeera). President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blames his former colleague for the coup attempt, Fethullah Gulen, who is the leader of the Hizmet movement. The clash between secularism and Islam has a long and violent history in Turkey along with a seemingly cyclical history in regards to the military’s intervention in government.

Works Cited

Cook, Steven A. “Turkish Paradox: Islamist Political Power and the Kemalist Political Order.”Ruling But Not Governing The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria, and Turkey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2010. 93-148. Print.

Carkoglu, Ali. “Conflict and Development in Turkey: The Problem of the Coup Trap.” Ed. Eduard A. Ziegenhagen. Political Conflict, Political Development, and Public Policy. Westport: Praeger, 1994. 69-100. Print.

Zurcher, Erik Jan. Turkey: A Modern History. 3rd ed. London: I. B. Tauris, 2004. Print.

Stewart, Desmond. Life World Library. New York: Time, 1960. Print.

Jazeera, Al. “Turkey’s Failed Coup Attempt: All You Need to Know.” Turkey News | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, 30 Dec. 2016. Web. 03 May 2017.

Clare McCullough

Southwest China is home to many of China’s major rivers and headwaters of three other major rivers, among them the most important being the Lancang, Salween, and the Yangtze. Despite Yunnan’s name meaning south of the clouds and having the most complex water system in all of China. The province of Yunnan is experiencing a drought.[1] Floodwaters are contributed by unrestrained deforestation of the local habitats and the enormous amounts of pollutants that are emptied in all of the rivers of China. The drought is due to the disruption of natural water flows by hundreds of hydroelectric projects.

Water has always been a wild card in China’s history. When the rains fall, they fall unevenly, and when the floods hit it is a source of massive destruction.[2] In fact during imperial times, the emperor’s legitimacy was based on the occurrences of natural disasters as a sign of his Mandate of Heaven. Peasants could theoretically depose an emperor when there would be a persistent issue regarding natural disasters. Flooding has been a perpetual issue, especially in Yunnan. Although these floods bring the fertile soil necessary to develop agriculture they sweep every surrounding city away with their economically damaging waters.

The five major rivers that originate in Southwest China have more than 600 tributaries and branches. There are 221 billion cubic meters of water in Yunnan alone. Of all Chinese plant species, 60% live in Yunnan and the Salween river valley is home to the highest biodiversity concentration in the world. This river valley is home to more than 80 rare and endangered animals.[3] Despite this biodiversity, there are big problems that will not go away. The winter-spring drought has been persisting since 2009.[4] In the dry season, some areas have no drinkable water at all. The lack of drinkable water and water that can be used for agricultural purposes has had a very negative effect on the local habitat. This drought has affected three million acres of farmland and caused a substantial reduction in annual grain output. [5]

From 1950 to 1980, it is no secret that China saw a lot of change and development for better or for worse. However, Yunnan’s forests suffered the largest period of destruction in the entire history of China. While, normally the wetlands and forests would soak up the water like a sponge for the year and would make the distribution of water more even throughout the landscape, but this doesn’t seem to apply as well today due to deforestation and the clearing of land for agriculture and mining. In 1950 there were 1.4 billion cubic meters of forest coverage, and now these forests saw a reduction to only 980 million in 1981.[6] The forest coverage is getting smaller every day while the trees have been replaced by, however efficient it may be a method for fertilizing the land, destructive slash and burn agriculture. By burning the trees and planting crops instead there is less organic material to hold the soil in place. But by telling the farmers of Yunnan to stop producing would mean a substantial loss of 10 million tons of grain every year. But the fact remains that only 9% of Yunnan’s original forest cover still exists.[7] Since the 1970s, the wetland areas have decreased by more than 17 percent.[8] The impact of this fact is dramatic. The major floods have gotten more frequent as well as the mudslides that accompany them as well as destabilizing the habitat and larger biosphere. Since the 1950s the effects of flooding have taken the lives of over 5,000 people as well as displacing hundreds of thousands.[9]

Although deforestation and destruction of the wetlands plays a huge role in the exacerbation of floods, it doesn’t answer the drought question. The answer to this is that the water of Yunnan’s complex river system is being redirected into dams and utilized for these hydropower projects. China’s energy demands have grown exponentially, in the 1990s America would use as much energy in two weeks as China would use in an entire year. Since 2001, China’s energy consumption has expanded 1.5 times the rate of economic growth. The dried-up oil fields and the clouds of coal-produced air pollution that have created 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world has lead China to scramble for alternatives. It is true, there are a lot of benefits to hydropower. Hydropower projects would bring greater opportunities to the rural people by providing them with more energy, critical infrastructure such as paved road and ultimately give the local governments a larger tax base to invest back into the communities of Yunnan. The Nu Salween river project alone would increase the total energy supply by 20%, the equivalent of 50 million tons of coal. [10] Hydroelectric power is clean and renewable as well as easily controlled from Beijing with the added bonus of being politically independent from foreign oil and the forces and pressures of coal. Not to mention, hydropower is one energy that has a lot of potential. In 2004, Yunnan was only been utilizing 7% of its hydropower potential.

Of the 45,000 large scale dams in the world, (15m or higher), half are in China. Yunnan provides 10% of all China’s hydropower.[11] Despite the benefits of Hydropower, it is massively disruptive to the natural river’s flow and the unnatural  regulation of the flood plains have resulted in disastrous consequences. The three gorges dam is a perfect example. In 1980s there was an investigation into the viability of such a large dam. This is a project that has long been pursued by the Chinese Communist Party. However, the ultimate title of their research was, “The Three Gorges Project should not go ahead in the Short Term” There were 6 reasons for their deferment. Frist, the total coast would not be the initially projected 20 billion Yuan, but 60 billion, so there would be an overspending issue, second, flood control wouldn’t be solved in the lower and middle reaches and would actually be increased in the upper reaches, fourth and most importantly, the silt and sediment buildup problems couldn’t be resolved. The fifth issue would be that it would harm the ease of navigation of the river, six, due to the sediment buildup the high cost and long construction period would produce slow output and poor results, and lastly more than a dozen cities would have to be resettled. But despite all of these impacts, in 1992 the National People’s Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of the project.[12]

The annual flow of the Yangtze is 451 billion cubic meters but the flood control capacity of the three gorges is only 22 billion cubic meters. While the water level can be adjusted to adapt to this fact, the silt and sediment buildup largely reduces its capacity to control the overflow of this massive river, leading even small floods to create large disasters. Such a disaster occurred in 1996 when a big overflow and the subsequent rising waters flooded into a nearby city and killed 170 people, leaving more than a million homeless and doing more than 30 billion yuan in damage.[13]

According to a 2004 study, a total of 16 million people have been resettled due to hydropower projects in the last 50 years. Despite promises of being compensated, 10 million of these displaced persons still live in poverty. Every year 40,000 new people need to be resettled as a direct result of this disruption in the water’s flow. This issue leads not only to economic suffering but also creates new social problems. The people who stay behind are no better off. The large reservoirs are inaccessible for drinking water and they have to rely on infrequent rains which may not come at all. The electricity towers that are hung up mark their journey eastward in reality instead of contributing to the local communities.[14]

Due to deforestation the sediment problem is only compounding the strength of the floodwaters. Without tree roots holding the earth together it gets washed into the river. But the soil isn’t the only thing getting washed into the river. The water of the lower Yangtze river is undrinkable. The garbage of the 400 million people that live on the banks gets poured or thrown into the waterway. In fact, the Yangtze gets about 6.3 billion tons of pollutants and waste from the cities, but this isn’t even including the 20 billion tons of waste that comes from its tributaries. A major tributary of the Yangtze called the Min which exists in Sichuan and flows into Yunnan has over 50 sources of pollution that release 130 million tons of waste. Zinc and lead mining have sent heavy metal concentration in the water above permitted levels.[15] But the population is growing, and water now needs to be imported.

By tightening regulation and adequately enforcing these policies and creating an appropriate waste disposal facility we can improve the quality of the water. Flood control is the major purported benefits of these dams. However, the garbage and sediment issues are big obstacles to their ability to solve this problem. By destroying the wetlands, they produced food, energy, and clothing but they also became victims of the water.

[1] Ma Jun. China’s Water Crisis, East Bridge, 2004.

[2] Fangyi, Yang, and Zhou Jiading. “Why Has Water-Rich Yunnan Become a Drought Hotspot?” Chinadialouge, 2013, www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5940-Why-has-water-rich-Yunnan-become-a-drought-hotspot-.

[3] Ma Jun.

[4] Fangyi, Yang, and Zhou Jiading.

[5] Badkar, Mamta. “660,000 People In China Have Been Living With Almost No Water For Four Years.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 1 Mar. 2013, www.businessinsider.com/drought-in-chinas-yunnan-province-2013-3.

[6] Ma Jun.

[7] Fangyi, Yang, and Zhou Jiading.

[8] Cao, C. X., et al. “Wetland Changes and Droughts in Southwestern China.” Geomatics, Natural Hazards & Risk, vol. 3, no. 1, Feb. 2012, pp. 79-95. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/19475705.2011.588253.

[9] Ma Jun.

[10] Mertha, Andrew. China’s Water Warriors, Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 2008.

[11] Mertha, Andrew.

[12] Ma, Jun.

[13] Ma, Jun.

[14] Mertha, Andrew.

[15] Ma, Jun.