October 2012

Chapel Hill Political Review

TheHill

Election Season in America

The Candidates’ Views on:

Energy Policy,Social Issues &Deficit Reduction

studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill

From the Editor

MANAGING EDITORS

Sam HobbsRadhika Kshatriya

SECTION EDITORS

Brian GodfreyAlex Jones

WRITERS

Alex BlairJon Buchleiter

Ellis DysonBrian Godfrey

Sam HobbsAlex Jones

Radhika KshatriyaKatlyn Moseley

Keith PullingAvani Uppalapati

Richard Zheng

DESIGN

Radhika Kshatriya

HEAD OF ART

Robert Bridgers

TREASURER

Christie Blazevich

FACULTY ADVISOR

Ferrel Guillory

This magazine was paid for, at least in part, by Student

Activities Fees at a cost ofapproximately $0.89 per copy

Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national, and international politics. This publication is meant to serve as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus where people can present their beliefs and test their ideas. A high premium is placed on having a publication that is not affiliated with any party or organization, but rather is openly nonpartisan on the whole. Hence, the purpose of The Hill is to provide a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events, and trends. This means that, on the one hand, the publication will feature articles that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. These articles might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape. On the other, The Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues.

thehillpr@gmail.comhttp://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehillhttp://chapelhillpoliticalreview.wordpress.com

208 Frank Porter Graham Student UnionUNC-CH Campus Box 5210Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210

Send us your comments!

We’re proud to share our work with you, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or email (no more than 250 words, please) and tell us what you think.

Without exaggeration, the 2012 presidential election provides the starkest choice in recent memory, so naturally, that is the focus of this issue of The Hill. Our goal was to present that choice to our readers in the clearest and most objective terms possible. We strongly believe that it is in these hyper-partisan election seasons that nonpartisan news sources like ours are most important.

To this end, we feature a detailed contrast of the candidates’ tax plans, including their impact on deficits and the economy. In another piece, The Hill analyzes the candidates’ different positions on energy, as well as an in-depth examination of the new drilling technique known as fracking. We also discuss the role of social is-sues (or lack thereof) in the cam-paign, and how they could end up affecting the election.

Another reason this election is so significant is the urgent business facing the winners. Of course, Congress appears hopelessly grid-locked and our analysis doesn’t predict a breakthrough anytime

soon. Critically, the so-called fis-cal cliff goes into effect in Janu-ary, and if our leaders do not take action it would probably throw our economy back into recession. The stakes are high indeed.

Increasingly, foreign policy has been a focus of the election. There has been a deluge of campaign rhetoric about getting tough on China and about our relationship with Israel. Furthermore, we in-clude a discussion on the tragic attack on our diplomats in Beng-hazi and the larger risks posed to ambassadors. Other prominent issues in foreign affairs featured in this issue are the state of Al-Qaeda and the ongoing rebellion in Syria. Finally, The Hill evalu-ates the two biggest question marks hanging over the world economy: the never-ending Euro crisis and the leadership transi-tion in China. Thanks for reading this issue of The Hill. We hope it clarifies some of the important is-sues in this election and around the world. Enjoy.

Sam Hobbs & Radhika Kshatriya

To our readers: 2

Domestic

Gridlock in Congress

Hydrofracking

Are We Heading for a Fiscal Cliff?

6

7

8

Volume XIIIssue I Contents

3Contents

Election Season in America

The Impact of Israel on US Elections

Tax Plan Comparisons

Election Rhetoric on China

9

10

13

International

Syria: A Status Update

State of Al-Qaeda

China’s Leadership Transition

15

18

19

The candidates are running neck-and-neck according to the most recent national polls. Governor Rom-ney’s bump following the first debate has reset the race back to the close election most observers expected before President Obama took a clear lead after the party conventions. However, the national vote, while important, does not decide the election; the states cast the electoral votes that push a candidate past the 270 threshold. By most estimates, Obama has 237 “safe” electoral votes (measured by states who have consistently polled strongly in favor of one candidate) and Romney has 191. For this reason, Obama has a much easier path to 270, unless Romney can bring an Obama state into his camp such as Michigan or Pennsylvania. Here is a closer look at the nine battleground states that are considered toss-ups:

Swing State AnalysisSam Hobbs

Domestic 4

The big three: Ohio, Virginia, & FloridaIf Romney loses just one of these states, he would have to sweep nearly all of the other swing-states to win the election

Ohio (18 electoral votes): Obama has a two to three point lead in the most recent polls in Ohio, the traditional kingmaker in presidential politics. The economy is better in Ohio than in the rest of the country and the auto bailout is very popular here. No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio, and Romney has never lead in the polls.

Virginia (13 votes): Obama leads by one point in this state, well within the margin of error, and forecasts actually give Romney a slight edge in the final vote. Virginia was a reliable red state before the 2008 election and Republicans are desperate to win it back.

Florida (29 votes): This perennial swing-state is anywhere from a tie to a two point advantage in Romney’s favor in the polls. Florida was hit hard by the housing bust, but its sizable elderly population disapproves of Romney’s plan for Medicare even more than they dislike Obamacare. Voter turnout among the growing Hispanic population will also have a significant impact on Florida’s election outcome.

Colorado (9 votes): Polls in Colorado range from a one point lead for Obama to a one point lead for Romney, a virtual tie.

Iowa (6 votes): Obama leads here by two to three points. Iowa’s population is an important sample because it provides a fair representation of many undecided and independent voters – white, educated and middle class.

Nevada (6 votes): Polls give Obama a three point lead in Nevada, but unemployment and foreclosures are among the highest in the country here, which might give Romney an opening.

New Hampshire (4 votes): Obama’s lead has shrunk to between one and four points in this famously independent state that Romney claims as something of a second home.

North Carolina (15 votes): The latest polls indicate Romney has a two to four point advantage in the Tar Heel state. North Carolina was Obama’s smallest margin of victory in 2008, and, despite demographic shifts in his favor, Obama alienated many voters when he announced his support for gay marriage just days after this traditionally conservative state voted overwhelmingly to ban it.

Wisconsin (10 votes): Obama maintains a two to four point advantage in Wisconsin. However, the Romney campaign has devoted con-siderable resources to winning this state, and his selection of Wisconsin-native Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate has narrowed the gap significantly. If Romney loses one of the big three, winning Wisconsin will become imperative.

The rest:

5Domestic

Despite the media’s apparent shock over the inability of our current legislature to compro-mise, congressional gridlock is by no means a recent phenom-enon. After the Civil War, divi-sions among lawmakers over the Reconstruction Acts were so ex-treme that it led to the impeach-ment of President Andrew John-son. Even in less divisive times, gridlock has been commonplace. For example, when the federal administrator of tire production attempted to increase production of rayon tire cord for the war ef-fort in 1942, he was blocked by Congressmen from the south who feared that synthetic rayon would decrease demand for their states’ cotton. Even circumstances as dire as World War II could not eliminate gridlock.

It seems that Congress’ default state is disagreement. Why would anyone expect a legislature even-ly split between two parties who hold conflicting opinions on most issues to run like an efficient fac-tory constantly churning out bills without incident? Occasionally, one party emerges victorious on any given piece of legislation through negotiating acumen, co-alition building, or, increasingly more common, sheer stubborn-ness. However, compromise has always been necessary for gov-ernment to function. The ques-tion then becomes: has gridlock become more prevalent recently as a tactic to be used in political combat?

The short answer is yes. Accord-ing to the Washington Times, 2011 was the most gridlocked year in Congress since 1947 with only 80 bills passed. Of course,

Gridlock in CongressAlex Blair

each party blames the oth-er. Republicans, who have a majority in the House of Representatives, insist that they are doing their part by passing a number of bills that eventually become mired in the Senate. Demo-crats, on the other hand, claim that Republicans are knowingly moving bills into the Democratic controlled Senate that are unlikely to pass because of their partisan nature.

However, the Democrats’ main criticism of Republicans comes from their abundant use of fili-bustering, in particular with re-gards to non-partisan matters like routine court appointments. The 112th Congress has seen the third highest number of cloture mo-tions in history and it is only Oc-tober. Republicans maintain that this strategy is necessary to coun-ter Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s suppression of Republican introduced amendments.

Considering the pervasiveness of gridlock in congressional politics lately, it is important to note the dangers of such an environment. The American populace became all too familiar with one such dan-ger in the summer of 2011. The debt ceiling desperately needed to be raised before August 2nd to prevent the government from de-faulting on its debts. Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling without addressing what they saw as the cause of the ballooning fed-eral deficit: excessive spending. Democrats preferred to raise the debt ceiling without any condi-tions.

Multiple attempts at a biparti-san “grand bargain” failed. It was

not until July 31 that an agree-ment was reached. This episode prompted Moody’s, the debt rat-ing agency, to downgrade the US credit rating, citing the govern-ment’s startling dysfunction. Ac-cording to Former Treasury Sec-retary Lawrence Summers, had brinksmanship prevailed and the debt ceiling remained in place, U.S. borrowing costs would have skyrocketed, resulting in a melt-down comparable to the 2008 fi-nancial crisis.

More recently, Congress failed to reach consensus on the Cyberse-curity Act of 2012 and Farm Bill of 2012 before the month long Senate recess. Should this level of gridlock continue into January when the approaching fiscal cliff comes into effect, there could be major repercussions. Failing to stop the combination of tax in-creases and spending cuts would almost certainly throw the fragile economy into recession.

The risks of congressional grid-lock are very real, yet it must be an effective political tool or it would not be used to such an ex-tent. We can only hope as a nation that our representatives will be conscious of the severity of their actions and never let gridlock be taken past the point of tenacious strategy into disaster.

Alex Blair is a senior majoring in Business.

Domestic 6

November is rapidly approach-ing and the American public must start to seriously consider which presidential candidate they be-lieve is right to lead America over the next four years. Unemploy-ment, a staggering economy, and skyrocketing oil prices are all ma-jor concerns addressed in each candidate’s campaign and plat-form. An issue that has not been in the spotlight, but is highly rel-evant to all three of these major issues, is fracking.

Fracking, short for hydraulic frac-turing, is the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at a high pressure in order to frac-ture shale rocks and to release the natural gas inside. This technique can produce up to 300,000 bar-rels of oil a day, leading some to argue that it is the key to creat-ing a reservoir of domestic energy and to reducing the United States’ dependency on foreign oil.

Regions in the US, such as Ohio, that have fallen on hard times during the economic downturn have seen a turnaround because of the jobs created by the drill-ing. Moreover, plans that call for a hydraulic fracturing tax will generate revenue and cut down on Ohioans income tax. Unfortu-nately, the matter is not quite so simple. Although, fracking could help decrease the country’s de-pendence on foreign oil as well as the woes of a weak economy, the potential environmental re-percussions has generated debate over whether or not the costs out-weighs the benefits.

Each fracking job requires any-where from one to eight million gallons of water and about 40,000

To Drill or Not to DrillKatlyn Moseley

gallons of various chemicals. This becomes a major concern when methane gas and toxins leak dur-ing the process of drilling and contaminate groundwater. Con-centrations of methane are as much as seventeen times higher in drinking wells near fracking sites than in normal wells. To date, there have been over 1,000 documented cases of water con-tamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sen-sory, respiratory, and neurologi-cal damage due to ingesting con-taminants. Additionally, when waste fluid is left in open air pits, it evaporates and releases harm-ful volcanic organic compounds into the atmosphere, contaminat-ing the air we breathe.

Because of the pollution and con-tamination attributed to fracking, there are many advocates who support banning it altogether. They believe that any potential benefit is not worth the environ-mental cost. Dr. Trevor M Pen-ning, Director for the Center of Excellence in Environmental Tox-icology at the Perelman School of Medicine is on the skeptical side of the spectrum. The cost of frack-ing on the environment, as well as the impact fracking has on the community in which the actual drilling occurs means that there is still much research to be done in order to determine whether fracking is worth it.

There are individuals who sup-port the continuation of fracking. Negative environmental conse-quences can be prevented when the industry is committed to en-suring the process is done safely and responsibly. Sloppy enforce-ment of the regulations already in place, rather than the frack-

ing process itself, is what leads to contamination. With strong industry standards and strict fed-eral and state oversight for oil and natural gas operations, the nega-tive consequences can be con-trolled. There are still others who advocate for continuing to use the technique under loose regu-lations. These individuals believe creating domestic sources for oil and creating jobs in order to lift the economy is more of a press-ing issue than the environmental concerns.

Before the election, it is impor-tant for the voters to understand each candidate’s position on the issue of fracking. President Barack Obama and his admin-istration are keenly aware of the environmental risks surround-ing the drilling process; however, they are also concerned about jobs and the downtrodden econ-omy. Therefore, he supports the continuation of fracking as long as the appropriate regulations are strictly enforced.

Presidential candidate Mitt Rom-ney and the Republican party are highly critical of this policy. They believe that such restrictive poli-cies will hinder the ability to meet the country’s energy and econom-ic needs. If Romney is elected, his policies toward hydraulic fractur-ing will likely favor looser regu-lations. The potential impact of fracking on the US economy and energy dependence warrants se-rious consideration amongst the voters this year regarding wheth-er or not the risk is worth the re-ward.

Katlyn Mosely is a Junior major-ing in History and Political Sci-ence

7Domestic

With all the attention paid to the upcoming presidential elections, many other loom-ing political concerns are being overlooked. One such concern is the so-called “fiscal cliff” that is scheduled to trigger in January of 2013. Reaching back to the debt ceiling crisis of the previous year, the fiscal cliff has developed into a serious dilemma that must be re-solved if the United States wishes to avoid slipping into a double-dip recession.

Over a year ago, Congress was in turmoil over the debt ceiling cri-sis and a possible default on debt. This would have been the first time in history that the United States had failed to pay off its loans, and, considering that the dollar is the de facto standard for international trade, chaos and disruption in the world econo-my seemed certain. Thankfully, politicians were able to cobble together the Budget Control Act of 2011 and avoid this crisis, and the United States merely suffered a downgraded credit rating. But the raised debt ceiling also came attached to a ticking time bomb: tired of the partisan bickering and gridlock that led to the crisis in the first place, Congressional leaders on both sides of the po-litical spectrum implemented an “enforcement mechanism” that would trigger severe reductions in both defense and domestic spending if agreements over bud-get cuts could not be reached. These budget cuts were delegated to a bi-partisan “super-commit-tee” of twelve Congressmen that ultimately failed to achieve any-thing. Thus, across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to happen at the beginning of 2013 coincide

Are we heading for a fiscal cliff?Richard Zheng

with the expiration of Bush-era and President Obama’s recession induced tax cuts (such as the pay-roll tax cut).

In fact, according to an August re-port from the Congressional Bud-get Office, if no changes are made and the fiscal cliff is allowed to occur, the U.S. would be sent into another recession. The CBO pre-dicts that GDP will decline by 0.5 percent while unemployment will rise from the current level of 8.1% to 9.1%. Compare those numbers to an “alternative fiscal scenario” in which most tax cuts will be ex-tended and the automatic spend-ing restraints will be prevented: in this case, the CBO predicts that the GDP will actually increase by 1.7% and the unemployment rate will stay at an even 8.0%. Unfor-tunately, not only are the macro-economic effects significant, but the expiration of tax cuts will also result in an increase in taxes for 80% of the general population. With investor and consumer con-fidence still weak from the Great Recession of 2008, a continuation on the current path will severely hinder any progress towards a healthy economy.However, some economists argue that marching off the fiscal cliff is not the worst

scenario that could occur. Chad Stone, a chief economist from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, recently stated that al-lowing the drastic measures to go through may be the push policy-makers need to finally work to-gether and draft a fiscally stable budget. He worries that Congress will be driven by fear to bandage on a short term solution that will not address the long term prob-lem of deficit reduction. Stone’s analysis of the fiscal cliff con-cludes that there will not be an immediate recession and instead the economy will have a gentler slope down, thereby giving Con-gress more time to take action. But will this really end the politi-cal deadlock? A macroeconom-ics professor at UNC is doubtful, and warns that the immediate backlash following the fiscal cliff would be catastrophic. There would still be no guarantee of a resolved budget, and the political deadlock may even worsen.

Fortunately, these automatic spending cuts do not appeal to liberals or conservatives; the for-mer cannot suffer cuts to social welfare spending while the latter refuse to accept cuts to the de-fense budget. As such, both sides have incentives to compromise and avoid a full-blown budget overhaul in which they have no control over which programs are cut. But the upcoming presiden-tial election prevents either side from proposing any serious solu-tions for fear of political reprisals. Ultimately, if Congress puts aside its petty squabbles, they have the power to avert another economic crisis.

Richard Zheng is a sophomore majoring in Business.

8Domestic

With election season now in full swing, violence break-ing out in the Middle East, and Iran racing toward accumulating weapon-grade nuclear materials, Israeli leaders have dealt Presi-dent Obama an unenviable politi-cal hand. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has recent-ly made headlines by demand-ing that the US draw a line in the sand concerning Iran’s nuclear proliferation. Last week Netan-yahu urged President Obama and other world leaders to make clear at what point Iran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons would warrant a military attack. The na-ture and extent of Netanyahu’s remarks, a Catch-22 of sorts, will make the President look weak no matter the path that Obama chooses: if Obama takes a more hawkish stance toward Iran, it will appear that he’s succumbing to Israel’s pressure, but if the US continues to allow Iran to pur-sue nuclear materials, it will look like Obama is unwilling to stand up and stop Iran’s march toward nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu’s impassioned re-quests for international action come in the midst of a heated election season here in the states. And while Netanyahu claims that he is not supporting one candi-date over the other, it does seem clear that he is visibly frustrated with Obama’s handling of the Iran situation. Romney’s friend-ship with the Israeli Prime Minis-ter also suggests that Netanyahu

Keith Pullingwouldn’t be casting his vote for Obama come November. The tim-ing of the remarks, increased in intensity, is of particular impor-tance, as Netanyahu may be using the upcoming election as a way of convincing Obama to acquiesce to Israeli demands for a “red-line” concerning Iran.

Obama may very well take Netan-yahu’s advice and decide to issue a verbal ultimatum of sorts, de-ciding to come up with a firm lim-it on Iran’s nuclear development, which, if passed, would warrant military action. There is, howev-er, a more likely outcome: Obama decides to keep all of his options open and refuses to set a clear limit on Iran, instead continuing to pursue economic sanctions and diplomatic avenues.

But no matter what the White House chooses to do, by making his demands public Netanyahu has put Obama between a rock and a hard place. If Obama choos-es to go along with Netanyahu’s Iran recommendations, he risks looking weak on foreign policy.

Regardless of what his initial plan was, because of the nature of Ne-tanyahu’s suggestions, it will look like Obama caved and finally gave into Israel. No President wants to look like he or she is bending to another nation’s leader, and if Obama gives in, that is exactly what it will look like. This is es-pecially true in the wake of what The Daily Mail calls Netanyahu’s “humiliating public lecture” given

“at the White House last year.” At this point, if Obama decides to set bounds on Iran’s nuclear pro-gram, it will inevitably be seen as finally succumbing to Israel’s not-so-private suggestions.

And even if President Obama de-cides to stay the current course, he risks being labeled as weak on national security, something the Republicans are already accus-ing him of. The recent outbreak of violence in the Middle East only exacerbates this problem. At a campaign stop in Florida last week Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan declared that, “If we project weakness, they come.” This criticism will only increase as instability in the region contin-ues and the election inches closer. Further resistance to a hard-line stance on Iran will surely contrib-ute to these sorts of critiques.

Thus, it appears, regardless of the route that he takes, Obama is open to the charge of weakness on national security and Iran. On the one hand, if he decides to is-sue an ultimatum to Iran, it will look like Netanyahu is dictating US policy. On the other hand, however, if Obama refuses to take such a stance, he could be painted as being “soft.” At a time when the United States could use all the help it can get in the Middle East, Israel, our greatest ally, is the source of one of Obama’s biggest headaches. Ironically, by aggres-sively seeking US intervention, Israel may actually end up alien-ating its closest friend.

Keith Pulling is a Junior major-ing in History and Philosophy.

But no matter what the White House choos-es to do, by making his demands public Ne-tanyahu has put Obama between a rock and

a hard place.

Cover 9Israel’s Impact on US Elections

Taxes are a central issue in this election. President Obama and Governor Romney spend as much time talking about taxes as any other issue, and no other issue better illustrates the differences between the candidates and their parties. Their respective tax plans will impact virtually every Ameri-can, and they will have direct con-sequences for both the economy and the debt – the two issues rou-tinely placed at the top of the list of voter concerns.

There is almost unanimous con-sent that our tax system is in need of serious reform. The tax code is so complex and inefficient that it actually holds back our economy, potentially costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. As a result, both candidates have vowed to overhaul the tax code. There is a rough bipartisan consensus on how to do so, embodied in the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction committee, a mantle both candi-dates have tried to claim though neither truly adopts its plan.

President Obama comes closer to the Bowles-Simpson plan for the sole reason that he raises ad-ditional revenue. In its most ba-sic form, his vision is to help the economy with targeted invest-ments in infrastructure, energy and education, paid for with high-er taxes on the wealthy.

Obama believes that some taxes will have to go up to deal with the yawning deficit, and he ar-gues that the wealthy are the only Americans who can afford an in-crease. For this reason, he would extend the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of taxpayers, and allow

The Candidates’ Tax Plans: A ComparisonSam Hobbs

the cuts to expire for individuals making more than 200,000 dol-lars and families making more than 250,000 dollars per year. This proposal would return the top two income tax rates from 33 to 35 percent and 36 to 39.6 percent; in other words, a return to the Clinton-era level. Obama would also implement the Buffet Rule, named for billionaire inves-tor Warren Buffet who revealed that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, which would re-quire all Americans making more than one million dollars a year to pay a minimum income tax of 30 percent.

President Obama also targets the wealthy through taxes on invest-ment income. He would raise the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent, and he would tax dividends and carried interest as ordinary income instead of as capital gains, subjecting them to higher rates. In addition, his plan lowers the exemption for the estate tax from the first five mil-lion dollars in inheritance to the first 3.5 million dollars, and he increases the estate tax rate from 35 percent to 45 percent. Collec-tively, these policies represent a substantial tax increase on the top two percent of American earners.

However, Obama’s plan does in-clude some measures intended to help American businesses. He would lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 per-cent, and decrease it further for manufacturers who would pay a rate of 25 percent. His plan would institute a minimum tax for prof-its made overseas and end tax breaks for companies who out-source jobs to other countries. Fi-

nally, Obama would make perma-nent tax breaks for clean energy and research and development, and he would end tax subsidies for oil and gas companies.

Republicans characterize Obama’s plan as a typical tax and spend liberal agenda, arguing that raising taxes will undermine an already weak recovery. In their view, the president’s proposals would stifle investment and job creation, placing an unnecessary burden on job creators. Indeed, some conservatives suggest that his singling out of the wealthy amounts to class warfare. They claim his ideas would suppress the private economy instead of unleashing it.

Obama’s supporters respond that some tax increases are necessary if we are serious about reducing a 16 trillion dollar debt, coun-tering that spending cuts alone would devastate the economy. They stress that taxes will not go up for 98 percent of Americans, and insist that the wealthy can afford the increase. The income gap is wider today than at any point since the 1950s, and yet the wealthiest Americans face their lowest tax burden in decades, with many paying a lower effec-tive rate than those in the middle class. From the Democrats’ per-spective, it is not about bringing the rich down; it is about sparing those Americans who are strug-gling the most.

Romney’s plan is to spur invest-ment and job creation by easing the tax burden. He would cut all income tax rates by 20 percent - lowering the top income tax rate from 35 to 28 percent and the

Cover 10

lowest rate from ten to eight per-cent. For those making less than 200,000 dollars, Romney would eliminate the capital gains and dividends taxes. Furthermore, he promises to eliminate the alterna-tive minimum tax (AMT) and the estate tax for all Americans.

For corporations, Romney would lower their tax rate from 35 to 25 percent. He has also proposed a territorial tax system that would exempt business profits made overseas and maintain tax breaks for outsourcing. In reverse of Obama’s position, he would end tax breaks for clean energy and preserve subsidies for oil and gas. The former governor has called for ending the Obama adminis-tration’s tax relief program, in-cluding the American Opportuni-ty Tax Credit for higher education and the expansion of the earned income and childcare credit taxes.

Romney made three promises about his tax plan: it would be revenue neutral, it would not raise taxes on the middle class,

and it would not decrease the share of taxes paid by the wealthi-est Americans. However, ac-cording to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan organiza-tion that did an in-depth study of Romney’s plan, it will be “virtu-ally impossible for him to keep all three promises.”

The Romney plan would cut tax-es by almost five trillion dollars, and while he has promised to off-set the cuts by closing loopholes and deductions, he has refused to identify which ones he would close until he is in office, saying those are details he would work out with Congress. In an interview with The Hill, Williams explained that two of the only loopholes big enough to close the gap are de-ductions for mortgage rates and charitable giving, overwhelming-ly popular programs that benefit the middle class. Williams insists there are two options: “either Romney’s plan will add hundreds of billions if not trillions to the deficit, or he would raise taxes on

the middle class by an average of two thousand dollars.”

Democrats complain that Rom-ney’s tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy, citing evi-dence that shows tax cuts for the wealthy are the least likely to ben-efit the economy. However, most economists agree that while the cuts do favor the wealthy, they will also spur investment and provide a moderate boost to the economy, though not as large as Romney has suggested.

In the end, Obama’s plan hits the wealthy hard, but it also takes serious aim at the debt. Rom-ney’s plan does more to help the economy, but it also leaves major questions unresolved that could change its effects. On the other hand, at least Obama’s plan adds up. In a fiercely contested elec-tion, both candidates can agree on one thing – the choice is very real, and it is very stark.

Sam Hobbs is a senior majoring in History

Side by Side- make all Bush tax cuts permanent

- cut all income rates by 20%

- eliminate capital gains and divi-dends tax for incomes less $200,000

- eliminate the alternative minimum tax and estate tax

- lower corporate rate from 35% to 25%

- end tax breaks for clean energy

- make Bush tax cuts permanent for incomes less $250,000

- return top two income brackets to 35% and 39.6%

- Buffet Rule: millionaires pay mini-mum income tax of 30%

- raise capital gains tax to 20%

- increase estate tax rate to 45% for inheritance over 5 million

- lower corporate tax rate from 35% to 28% (manufacturers 25%)

Obama Romney

11Cover

Cover 12

In late August of 2008, John McCain’s presidential campaign felt it had finally gotten some trac-tion. After trailing then-Senator Obama for months, McCain was quickly gaining on the Democrat and even overtook him in some polls. Commentators attributed this turn-around to two factors: the introduction of an exciting running mate and high gas prices, the latter of which strengthened the campaign that had pushed for increased fossil fuel production.

At the same point in the 2012 election season, the Republican ticket found itself in similar con-ditions. Petroleum prices have risen to nearly $4 per gallon, and the selection of Representative Paul Ryan has made Mitt Rom-ney’s previously unimaginative candidacy much more provoca-tive. Nonetheless, Mr. Romney never overtook President Obama in the RealClearPolitics electoral polling average, and high prices at the pump have not resulted in a sustained reduction in the presi-dent’s favorability rating.

Despite the approval rating of President Obama’s energy poli-cies falling in Gallup polling from 79% in 2009 to 42% in August 2012, Mr. Romney has gained nothing in head-to-head match-ups. Why?

The simplest answer is that vot-ers are preoccupied. The weak economy is the first consideration in most voters’ minds. A long se-ries of unexpected events has fur-ther obscured the energy debate. Each campaign has scrambled to make inroads on these issues, leaving less time to devote to lower-profile disagreements. In

The Choice on Energy PolicyAlex Jonees

addition, the media environment is even more fast-paced and more focused on frivolous matters than was the case in 2008, so there is less demand for candidates to de-bate all the aspects of their plat-forms. Consequently, Mr. Obama has been able to get away with his poorly perceived record on en-ergy policy with limited pushback from the Romney campaign.

At one point, Mr. Romney did at-tempt to make hay of Mr. Obama’s perceived weaknesses on ener-gy policy. During his campaign for the Republican nomination, Mr. Romney attacked President Obama for delaying the approval of a pipeline to transport Cana-dian shale oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. The Keystone XL pipeline would have created sev-eral thousand American jobs, and the delay in its construction has caused a heated dispute between America and Canada. One foreign policy writer accused the Obama Administration of “losing Cana-da” by not approving the pipeline. On the other hand, construct-ing the pipeline would actually raise gas prices in the Midwest by sending the bottleneck of oil supply out of the region, onto the global market. In addition, like all energy policies, the Keystone Pipeline will have an effect on the environment—in this case, a possibly dire one. The climatolo-gist James Hansen warned that approving Keystone XL would be “game over” for the global climate system. With so many complexities, it is not too surpris-ing that the Keystone controversy dropped off the political map.

Besides approving the Keystone Pipeline, there are arguably few high-profile differences between

the two candidates’ proposals for U.S. energy policy. Mr. Obama has even embraced the long-running Republican slogan that calls for an “All-of-the-above” policy focused on maximizing the production of all energy sources. Mr. Obama no longer contests expanding fossil fuel production, although this may be because re-cent changes in the sector have given him no choice but to sup-port increased output. Mr. Rom-ney has been more vocal in his support for expanded oil and gas production, but his statements have been refreshingly reticent for a politician. He has claimed that greater domestic energy ex-ploration can bring about “North American energy independence,” not an outright end to oil impor-tation.

There is one difference between the candidates’ plans, however, that is of genuinely historic signif-icance. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, Mr. Obama promised that fight-ing climate change will be a top priority if he wins a second term. By cutting funding for solar en-ergy and disallowing EPA regula-tion of greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Romney’s proposals would push the United States’ economy in the direction of greater carbon-intensiveness. Given the pro-found impact scientists believe climate change will have on the world, it is a pity that the most powerful nation on earth is barely debating the way it uses the com-modity that contributes so much to the disruption of the climate system.

Alex Jones is a Sophomore ma-joring in Public Policy.

Tough talk on China has been a hallmark of candidates’ rheto-ric since Bill Clinton running in 1992. Yet not a single president has stood by declarations from the stump. The economic and political ramifications of such ac-tion makes it especially difficult to envision any incoming presi-dent whose popularity is tied ball and chain to the economy taking a hardline stance. The Obama administration has essentially contented itself with China’s slow progress to floating the Yuan. Is the recent harsh rhetoric directed at China of any significance? If elected would Mitt Romney deliv-er on his promise to declare China a currency manipulator?

Romney established a hard line stance against China early on. Vowing in 2011, that, he would la-bel China a “currency manipula-tor” and issue an executive order to the Department of Commerce to impose duties on Chinese im-ports. Romney realizes cutting trade is impractical but added China must “play by the rules.” He has criticized the President for his failure to do this during his term despite a pledge to do so during his 2008 campaign. Rom-ney’s criticisms of China are not limited to currency manipulation, but also to Chinese disregard for the intellectual property of Amer-ican firms. Romney believes that Obama’s efforts to deal kindly with Beijing and expect reciproc-ity through cooperation are naïve. China’s refusal to float its curren-cy indicates this goodwill won’t achieve the same monumental breakthroughs as Nixon and Kiss-inger’s approach in the midst of the Cold War.

Election Rhetoric Towards ChinaJon Buchleiter

President Obama initially as-sumed a more conciliatory stance, stating in January 2011 he “welcomed China’s rise.” In an interview with senators in March 2012 he remarked, “China is going to be one of our biggest markets, and Asia is going to be one of our biggest markets. And for us to close ourselves off from that market would be a mistake.” While conceding China is keep-ing its currency valued below the natural exchange rate, he re-mained noncommittal on declar-ing them a currency manipulator. The President ostensibly claimed willingness to enact tariffs to compensate for the undervalued Yuan; however, he voted against a similar amendment in 2005 as a Senator. As president, he has expressed a desire to maintain cooperation and work with China step by step, yet a disparate gap is forming between his initial state-ments and his “pivot” of U.S. fo-cus in the region. He has stepped up military focus in the region, a move China perceives as an at-tempt to contain their rise. Ac-tions speak louder than words, and expanded military operations hold more weight than vague ex-pressions of friendship. China may respond with shows of force similar to actions directed at Jap-anese nationalization of the Di-aoyu/Senkaku islands.

Rhetoric from the campaign fails to translate itself into policy more often than not. However, this rhetoric may further fuel Beijing’s mistrust of our intentions and may prove damaging. Fears of China’s rise as a military and eco-nomic power are not unfounded,

but current policies to address it appear unlikely to improve rela-tions. A hawkish approach deep-ens US-Chinese tensions, but sweeping Chinese transgressions under the rug encourages them to continue committing them. U.S. acquiescence affords China too much wiggle room. According to Thomas Oatley, professor of po-litical science at UNC, given the laxity towards China over the past decade we now “lack the leverage to induce Chinese cooperation.” It may be unpopular but they may not be able to simply scold a power set to eclipse the U.S. in GDP by 2017. Perhaps the key to improving relations is expressing willingness to meet in the middle by creating a framework explic-itly linking concessions in U.S. military operations to meaningful steps by China to meet economic demands.

Jon Buchleiter is a first year ma-joring in Political Science and Peace, War and Defense.

Rhetoric from the campaign fails to trans-late itself into policy more often than not.

13Cover

Cover14

Despite the slow recovery of the American financial sector, social issues are taking up a sig-nificant amount of media space in this election. Recently, Obama has been polling ahead of Rom-ney (for example a new Bloom-berg poll gives Obama a 6 point lead). According to the polls, Mitt Romney, who has been touting his business acumen as the cor-nerstone of his campaign, is fal-tering in convincing the American public that he can resurrect the economy better than Obama can.

And Romney realizes just how important the economy is; back in June, his senior strategist Eric Fehrnstrom said “This is not a so-cial issue election… this is going to be about the president’s handling of the economy.” Fehrnstrom went on to say that the primary reason Mitt Romney entered the race was “because he didn’t be-lieve that this economy was head-ed in the right direction.”

And the selection of Paul Ryan for Vice Presidential candidate also highlights the importance of the economy in Romney’s (and the voters’) minds—Ryan’s name is linked to his controver-sial budget plan, which privatizes Social Security and cuts funding to many government programs including Medicaid. Choosing Paul Ryan raises the stakes and makes the choice between Rom-ney and Obama just that—an ac-tual choice. It shows the impor-tance the Romney camp places on government efficiency and Rom-

Social Issues in the Presidential RaceRadhika Kshatriya

ney’s business experience. Pick-ing Ryan as vice president makes it clear to voters just which Mitt Romney they are voting for on Election Day.

But social issues have come up again and again in this elec-tion cycle. First, there was the President’s declaration of sup-port for same sex marriage. This could alienate some voters in swing states like North Carolina, Virginia or Ohio; but the move might still energize members of the Democratic base. It could

also bode ill for the president by disheartening Black and Latino voters, who vote in overwhelm-ing numbers for Obama, but also tend to hold more socially conser-vative positions than white Dem-ocratic voters.

Romney’s religion has also been mentioned as a cause of strife with evangelical conservatives; but perhaps it might give him more grief with independents than with his base—the fact that much of the base despises the incumbent works in Romney’s favor.

The current administration’s stance on many women’s issues, particularly relating to health care, has also cropped up again and again. It seems pretty clear that the White House won the public relations war on the in-dependent women’s vote in the debate over the “contraception mandate,” and that the Romney campaign has had to work double time to win some of it back. The

mandate was criticized by Re-publicans for its requirement that even religiously-affiliated insti-tutions include contraception in their health care plans, which was later changed by the administra-tion so that insurance companies and not the institutions would pay for the coverage. Throughout the campaign, especially during the primaries, Romney embraced many of the same views as Rick Santorum on women’s issues, like terminating all Planned Parent-hood funding or overturning the contraception mandate.

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life, the fre-quency of attendance at religious services was the second best pre-dictor of how Americans voted, after race. Religious belief won out over education, age, gender, or wealth—a surprising fact. Re-gardless, the voters who tend to feel strongly about social issues are also either strong liberals or strong conservatives, while the foremost issues on independents’ minds are the economy. Perhaps social issues will not make voters change parties, but they could af-fect voter turnout, especially in key battleground states. And if this is an election that will be de-cided by independent voters, the economy is still the most impor-tant issue.

Radhika Kshatriya is a senior majoring in Philosophy.

According to the polls Mitt Romney is falter-ing in convincing the American public that he can resurrect the economy better than

Obama can.

15International

In July the Red Cross officially declared the Syrian conflict a civil war. Unfortunately, this decla-ration does not seem to mark a peak in the violence gripping Syria eighteen months after the rebellion erupted there during the Arab Spring in 2011. The ca-sualties continue to mount at an ever-increasing rate with vio-lence directed towards civilians by both the rebels and the forces of President Bashir Assad. These offenses complicate any sort of intervention because it is increas-ingly difficult to identify either side as “good.” The religious divi-sions are deeply seated and evi-dent 11 year old refugee daughter of a rebel fighter who explained, “We are going to kill them with our knives, just like they killed us,” indicating any coalition of rebel groups in power would simply turn and become oppres-sive against minority comprised of Alawite Muslims and other groups. These underlying reli-gious divisions means “peace will elude Syria for generations” ac-cording to Michael Rubin, Resi-dent Scholar at the American En-terprise Institute in an interview with The Hill who went on to add “what we see as random violence on television is often directed sec-tarian cleansing.”

The conflict is a tale of two terrors with rebels making great gains on the ground often entailing mass destruction of homes and villages in their assaults. Assad’s air force has matched these ground at-tacks with mounting air attacks and expanding its use of explo-sives. Assad’s increased use of air tactics immediately drew atten-tion from the international com-munity and has continued to roll

Syria: A Status UpdateJon Buchleiter

on despite condemning rhetoric from outside forces. Rubin is con-vinced “Assad believes the Ameri-can bark is worse than its bite.” Assad does not fear the potential of a Libyan-style intervention ul-timately directed to facilitate a regime change. Rather, the most influential outside intervention comes in the supply of arms flow-ing from Iran through Iraq and into Syria. Given the difficulties in diplomacy between Iran and the international community and the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq Rubin believes there is no feasible way to stop this flow of arms and support from Iran’s Revolution-ary Guards to Assad’s forces. Ru-bin warns we may “face the rever-berations” from our withdrawal from Iraq “for years to come.” Without the a new way to deter Assad or stop this flow of weap-ons it may be difficult to contain the expanding violence.

Syrian rebel forces, notably the Free Syrian Army (FSA), remain convinced they can defeat the government forces. In September they moved their headquarters into Syria after managing opera-tions from within Turkey for most of the rebellion. It is unlikely reb-el forces will lay down their weap-ons and submit once again to the rule of President Assad’s minority Alawite regime. Lt. Col. Maan al-Mansour expresses the opposi-tion’s grim determination when discussing an assault on a large airfield, “We are going to destroy the place that causes all this de-struction.”

With both sides determined to keep fighting Syria will likely be trapped in conflict for a long time to come. Now, the issue of central concern for most outside pow-ers may be to contain the conflict within Syria while allowing the opportunity for refugees to leave the country. Fighting between the rebel forces have spilled over the border into both Turkey and Lebanon. While no direct attacks have struck Turkey the threat of a misfired missile cannot be dis-counted. Lebanon is “a different story” says Rubin, Syria has never recognized Lebanese indepen-dence and direct interference in Lebanon by Assad s a possibility. Given no clear way to resolve the conflict in Syria avoiding expan-sion into a larger regional war may be the best to be hoped for.

Jon Buchleiter is a first year ma-joring in Political Science and Peace, War and Defense.

Now, the issue of central concern for most outside powers may be to contain the conflict within Syria while allowing the opportunity

for refugees to leave the country.

Among the various concerns that arise in the wake of U.S. Am-bassador to Libya, Chris Stevens’, death, the security of U.S. officials abroad is of high concern. Condi-tions in the Middle East became unstable after a film that dispar-ages the Prophet Mohammad and Islam, titled “Innocence of Mus-lims,” gained attention via You-Tube and angered many Muslims in the region.

Following the discovery of the film, a mob attacked the com-pound of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, and killed four Ameri-can officials, including Ambassa-dor Stevens. Stevens was sent to Libya in 2011 as the U.S. envoy to the rebels and was later appoint-ed an ambassador in May 2012. Stevens’ met with locals often and immersed himself in the Libyan culture. Some say that in doing so, he risked security for personal contact.

Former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said to NPR that “we [ambassadors] do business in dangerous areas. We can manage risk, but we can’t prevent it if we

US Ambassadors’ Security AbroadAvani Uppalapati

do our jobs.” Ambassadors must interact with local people in order to effectively carry out U.S. poli-cies, but it is important for them to balance that necessity with their security.

Dr. Tim McKeown, a UNC po-litical science professor, said that in times when safety concerns are more salient, ambassadors are generally more careful about their travel outside of protected areas. In those circumstances, other embassy personnel are even more important in interacting with the host country and outside contacts.

At the time of the attack, Ambas-sador Stevens was within the walls of the consulate, where he should supposedly have had adequate security. Security for U.S. embas-sies consists of U.S. Marine Corps Security Guards and officers from the State Department’s Diplo-matic Security Service. However, Crocker states that there are often not enough Marines to protect all the consulates in a country; therefore, the local government bears security responsibility for ambassadors as well.

Dr. McKeown says this is because “consulates contain fewer people and far less sensitive material.” But, in situations where the situ-ation is more dangerous, the US would often request more protec-tion. Dr. McKeown said that get-ting additional protection from local forces is much easier on paper, which is why many gov-ernments resort to that security instead of sending in their own forces, such as the Marines.

Within days of the attack on the Libyan consulate, protests also

erupted in other countries in the Middle East, including Egypt and Yemen. In Egypt, police used tear gas to dispel the protestors out-side the U.S. embassy in Cairo. Egypt’s president, Mohammad Morsi ,condemned the film but said “it is our duty to protect our guests and visitors from abroad.”

Security measures are different in every country, though. It depends on the level of risk associated with the area and the ability of the lo-cal government. The U.S. embas-sy in Baghdad, for example, has high security and is like a small city behind walls. However, this makes it seem even more foreign and unapproachable, which may breed more hostility toward the U.S.

In light of recent events, the U.S. has increased security measures at embassies throughout the Mid-dle East and has sent 50 marines to Libya. In situations like these, Ambassador Crocker said, it is important to have an understand-ing of the local atmosphere.

Ambassadors are an important link in US foreign policy, and it is evident that their work can be extremely dangerous. The bal-ance between security and safety is clearly not easy to obtain, and the ways of achieving that balance are different in every situation.

Avani Uppalapati is a Junior majoring in Public Policy and English.

International 16

In October 2011, when convul-sions in European politics were sending shockwave after shock-wave through the stock market, a conflict-hungry press began speculating that an escalation of the Eurozone crisis could end President Obama’s chances of being re-elected. At the time, the narrative made sense. Years of political science research have found a correlation between eco-nomic conditions and electoral outcomes, and an incumbent pre-siding over a plunging economy would have faced a much harder climb toward re-election. Sub-sequent events in the American campaign have exposed fallbacks of models that tie election results too closely to the performance of the economy, but the concept ba-sically persists. Thus, The Wash-ington Monthly’s Ed Kilgore may have been right to suggest that Angela Merkel, not Barack Obama, held the most power over whether Obama would be re-elected.

If one accepts the premise that a severe economic crisis in Europe would have crippled President Obama’s campaign, then Kilgo-re was wrong only in a seman-tic sense. The name of the per-son who allegedly held so much power was not Merkel, but Mario Draghi. Draghi is the president of the European Central Bank. His recent promise to buy Greek debt, thus preventing that nation from defaulting on Euro-denominated bonds, has, according to most ex-perts, kept the “Euro-crisis” from boiling over for now. Arguably, however, Mr. Draghi’s decision did not eliminate the importance of the European economy in de-termining the outcome of Amer-

The Euro Crisis’ Impact on the USAlex Jones

ica’s 2012 presidential election. In fact, Europe looms larger over this election than any other in re-cent memory.

Campaigns run first-and-fore-most on talking points, and a key Republican talking point of this cycle relates to the Euro crisis it-self. Many Republicans appear to think that comparing America to the embattled Greeks is an effec-tive strategy to persuade voters that America needs to severely reduce outlays on social insur-ance. On intellectual grounds, this is a dubious argument. Most economic experts, including long-time Republican adviser Martin Feldstein, disagree with the Re-publicans’ view of the crisis in Greece. The commentator Fareed Zakaria flatly rebuked the Repub-lican analysis by explaining that Greece’s problem is not really ex-cessive debt but, rather, an inabil-ity to export goods at prices that are competitive within the Euro-zone. Regardless, Republicans persist in making their case. For their part, Democratic strategists seem to think their party could not effectively refute the point in the eyes of swing voters, who do not even follow the news in their own country very closely.

The importance of Europe goes beyond one talking point and even beyond our time period, however. Again, it is the Repub-licans who have driven Europe to the fore. They invoke Europe in broad, philosophical arguments over both domestic and foreign policy. They frequently insist that, in the words of Presidential can-didate Mitt Romney, President Obama is bent on transforming America into a “European-style entitlement state,” in which so-

cial welfare programs take prece-dence over entrepreneurial initia-tive. On foreign policy, Romney and other Republicans claim that Obama has “abandoned” our democratic allies Europe. This argument is somewhat incoher-ent, as it simultaneously asserts that Europe’s values are repug-nant to America’s and also fully congruent with them. However, Romney’s position on alliances has resonated among some Eu-ropeans, including the esteemed Polish statesman Lech Walechsa. Other Europeans, most famously the English, do not believe Rom-ney would make such a great statesman. Democrats have pre-ferred to position their counter-arguments on this side of the At-lantic, refuting the notions that Obama has undermined the free market and weakened America’s standing in the world. Explicit references to Europe seldom ap-pear in their arguments.

In a way, it is appropriate that this year’s debate over America’s future has been based in part upon a debate over Europe’s legacy. Ever since President Thomas Jefferson imposed an embargo on French and British goods and saw his presidential legacy besmirched in the process, the European economy has been deeply intertwined with public life in the United States of Amer-ica. However this election turns out, the back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans over Europe suggests that the trans-Atlantic relationship will remain vital well into what many have already proclaimed the “Pacific Century.”

Alex Jones is a Sophomore ma-joring in Public Policy.

17International

As Americans commemorated the 9/11 attacks for the 11th time this year, one thing became very clear –11 years after the attacks, the memories stand much stron-ger than al-Qaeda itself. As more and more years pass since the 9/11 attacks, the potential threat of al-Qaeda has weakened. While the weakness of al-Qaeda is a re-lief to some, governments must recognize that al-Qaeda has not completely vanished.

When al-Qaeda first began mak-ing waves in the political spec-trum, it was regarded as more of an unpredictable bother than a worldwide threat. Unfortunately, many nations (most notably, the United States) faced the conse-quences of discrediting this land-mine terrorist organization. Now, as al-Qaeda’s stature amongst na-tions is on the downturn, a new threat faces world leaders – com-placency.

Al-Qaeda was once regarded as a dire threat to the United States and nations around the world be-cause it represented the idea of a total Muslim revolution. As a result, governments on a global scale began finding and killing al-Qaeda members, choking their incomes, and guarding against their attacks, leaving behind a ter-rorist organization hanging on by a thread. The fear associated with al-Qaeda,11 years since the 9/11 attacks, has been greatly reduced. As larger nations begin again to discredit the group, al-Qaeda is seeking to reestablish itself in countries outside of Afghanistan. Bands of al-Qaeda militants have established themselves in coun-tries like Yemen, Somalia, and, most notably, Libya, where a re-

Al-Qaeda: Weakened, but Still a Threat Ellis Dyson

cent attack killing four Americans is being linked to al-Qaeda terror-ist groups. Al-Qaeda still main-tains strong roots in Pakistan, and the turmoil in Syria provides the perfect backdrop for al-Qaeda mobility. These are all warning signs that an al-Qaeda uprising may be on the horizon, but they do not completely reverse the tre-mendously weakened state that al-Qaeda is currently in.

At a time, al-Qaeda posed a daunting threat to nations all over the globe, but their reputation as a power harnessing terrorist or-ganization has been offset. This is mainly a product of two ma-jor events that caught al-Qaeda in a powerless position. The first event was the Arab Spring. As governments in Egypt and Tuni-sia are influenced and even run by Muslim fundamentalists, al-Qae-da becomes a nearly negligible extremist movement. The heart of al-Qaeda strife in the Middle East was the presence of government forms that excluded Muslims. Al-Qaeda’s argument is now watered down by the Arab countries that are opening their doors to Islamic politicians. It is much easier to ar-gue against Egypt’s military dicta-torships than it is to argue about Egypt’s government with Muslim centerpieces.

The second event that swayed the power of al-Qaeda was 9/11. While these attacks may have demonstrated the capabilities of the terrorist organization, they also caused a suffocating re-sponse from the American gov-

ernment. As funds and mem-bership dropped dramatically, al-Qaeda had to attack wherever they could. This often led to local attacks on public places. These local attacks caused al-Qaeda to lose local support from nations all over the Middle East. Killing local civilians instead of foreign-ers weakened al-Qaeda’s platform and discredited the institution as a whole.

Al-Qaeda’s weakness does not, however, mean the end to vio-lence. And though these smaller factions seem to pose a very small threat compared to the group that attacked the World Trade Center, the grim reality is that al-Qaeda is still a terrorist organization that can run up death counts and damage costs despite their lack of income.

Ellis Dyson is a Sophomore ma-joring in Journalism and Politi-cal Science.

As al-Qaeda’s stature amongst nations is on the downturn, a new threat faces world lead-

ers – complacency.

International 18

With seemingly every mo-ment of the American media’s focus devoted to this November’s election, little has been said about the fascinating transition of pow-er about to take place in China. If all goes according to plan, this fall, the superpower’s current President, Hu Jintao, will hand power over to his successor, cur-rent Vice President Xi Jinping.

China’s elections are won by the controlling Communist Party, which Mr. Hu has headed for over the last decade in his two five-year terms in office. But over the last several years, Mr. Xi has been appointed to important positions and politically groomed to make the transition of power as smooth as possible. In addition to Vice President, he currently serves as Central Secretariat of the Com-munist Party of China, Vice-Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and member of the Politburo Standing Committee. The son of a revolutionary leader, Mr. Xi rose to power through his elite family connections and as a provincial leader in China’s eco-nomically powerful eastern re-gions.

Interestingly for a government that normally exercises painstak-ing organizational controls, Mr. Xi’s scheduled ascension to power has been far from systematic. Al-though China’s internal govern-ment procedures remain secre-tive, it seems that this process has had problems. In early August, senior Communist Party officials convened to set the date for the 18th Party Congress. Normally, this is a fairly formal, standard procedure—and all expectations were that a date in September

The Other Big Election:Brian Godfrey

would be set whereupon the Party Congress would facilitate the transition of power. How-ever, no date was declared for the Party Congress to convene—pos-sibly pushing the event back into November. Reports from the meeting pointed towards serious disagreements and rifts between the Party’s political factions, pre-sumably over future government policy and leadership.

To make matters even stranger, in early September, Mr. Xi dropped out of public view. Rumors about his disappearance range from is-sues surrounding Party divisions to potential heart problems for the politician. On September 15th, a normal-looking Mr. Xi re-appeared with an official explana-tion of having sustained a swim-ming-related back injury.

This all occurs during a particu-larly aggressive land-claim dis-pute with Japan, which stems from a small group of islands in the East China Sea known as Di-aoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan. Although both countries claim territorial rights over the islands, Japan extended military control when it purchased the land from a private owner in Sep-tember. This prompted waves of anti-Japanese protests at the country’s embassy in China. Jap-anese businesses were targeted as well, forcing major companies like Toyota to shut down across the People’s Republic.

It is possible that the island dis-pute is related to the transition to power. Organized demon-strations are tightly controlled in China—meaning that the anti-Japanese protests have been sanc-tioned by the government. The

protestors often sport Chinese flags or pictures of Mao Zedong. It is possible that China’s aggres-sive response has been stoked by Mr. Hu. Some political insiders have suggested that Mr. Hu is not ready to relinquish power, and will use this conflict as a source of legitimacy for retaining control. “A reasonable speculation is that Hu Jintao may have reason to es-calate the conflict,” said Xi Chen, assistant professor of compara-tive and Chinese politics at UNC. “The general expectation is that he will transfer all titles to Xi Jin-ping, but there is a possibility that Hu Jintao will retain control of the military for two more years.” Such an action would follow in the precedent set by Mr. Hu’s pre-decessor, President Jiang Zemin, who remained as Chairman of the Central Military Commission for two years after leaving the presi-dency in 2002.

Still, much remains unknown. China’s government is still at-tempting to maneuver through last spring’s politically sensitive scandal, which lead to the remov-al of a prominent Politburo mem-ber, Bo Xilai. Questions remain about which direction Xi Jinping will take the country over the next decade. And while one can expect the American media to be focused on Democrats and Republicans up to November—perhaps the Chinese election will turn out to be just as interesting and signifi-cant.

Brian Godfrey is a sophomore majoring in Political Science and Global Studies.

19International

China’s Leadership Transition

studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill