he onsulA New Publication from the International Affairs Association

of the University of Pennsylvania

T C

The Penn Community

“Super” Computing:

How the Changing Face of Technology will Shape- and Possibly Destroy-

our World

Dear Readers,

I’m very happy to indroduce the the second issue of this volumeof the Consul. The theme of this issue is Technology. Technology is ubiqutious in the world today, and for years the world has had to make huge shifts as technology improves at faster and faster rates. This gives us, as ctizens, users, and creators, little time to reflect on the way we use technology.

However, in the past months, the world has seen the world finally begin to define the terms on which we use technology. Be it through the most massive online protest in history, or the interest the world has taken over the places our gadgets are made. It seems we have reached a unique point in the last decade. Right now , across the world, people are making an effort to determine the future of technol-ogy, and stop letting technology determine our future. The Consul is proud to be able to document and reflect on this unique time.

Happy Reading!

Kevin ShapiroEditor-in-Chiefeditor@theconsul.org

The Consul

he onsulT CEditor-In-Chief Kevin ShapiroDirector of Writing Shubhi Nigam

Consul Writing StaffMichael Luo

Akshay SubramanianJason LittmanWing Cheung

Karl SjulsenAngela Huang

Michael BaresichJason Kong

Henry ChangDan Benny

Layout EditorsJason LittmanWing Cheung

Jing RanCaroline White

Business StaffAlyssa Maharani

Savar Sareen

Human RightsiFactory: an Ethical Perspective Page 4

World AffairsAttack of the Drones Page 6Asian Arms Race Page 8Bootleg your Copy of SOPA,

Today! Page 12

SciencePushing the Boundaries of Human Conflict Page 12

Pushing the Boundaries of Internet Expression Page 15

Redrawing the Map Page 17

EconomyAssembling the Future Page 19

ArtsMass Sporting Events Page 22Cultural Sell-Out in the Middle East Page 23Music in the Middle East Page 26

Apple turned over $13 billion in profit last quarter, just short of the quarter record of $14.8 billion, thanks largely to the success of iPhone and iPad sales. And the success of iPhone and iPad sales is directly driven by the sheer productive capacity of its main Chinese supplier, Foxconn. But as of late, Apple has come under consider-able fire for not extending its promises concerning fair labor practices outside of the United States.

Reports of poor and unfair labor con-ditions began to surface several years ago. Allegedly, Foxconn employees, all 1.2 million of them, work excessively long hours, in sub-par conditions, per-forming menial tasks for too little pay. Even more shocking is the fact that about 25 employees have died, either by suicide or factory explosions, since 2007. These issues raise two questions. First, how has Apple responded? And second, on a more macro level, how should the developed world respond to such ethical situations in the develop-ing one?

In light of the problems plaguing Foxconn factories in China, Apple has instituted a series of audits, regula-tions, and support services to alleviate the core issues. Apple has gone from performing less than 50 audits in 2007 to over 200 audits last year alone. They also inspected 396 facilities throughout China, in one of the largest scale inspec-tion programs in the industry.

Apple’s first target area was suicide prevention. In efforts to reduce both the

stress and potential for suicides Fox-conn has introduced “a 24-hour phone counseling service.” Apple, working in tandem with Foxconn, has commis-sioned its own team of “suicide preven-tion experts…[to] recommend strate-gies for supporting workers’ mental health in the future.” These measures were suggested and instituted promptly despite the fact that the Foxconn suicide rate is lower than the Chinese average.

Their second target area was, and still is, improved factory ventilation requirements to prevent any more alu-minum dust explosions. Unfortunately there is no viable evidence, beyond Apple’s own statements, to demon-strate the success or failure of these more stringent requirements. However, there haven’t been any explosions since their implementation. In fact, the two explosions that have occurred at Fox-conn plants have killed a total of four people. In two relatively recent and comparable incidents at factories in In-diana and Georgia a total of 15 people died. Though this may not be the most workable comparison, it reveals how a lack of context can skew perceptions.

Apple has also “raised wages by up to 25%, in the second major salary hike in less than two years, “in response to claims that workers do not receive ad-equate compensation. Finally, Apple and Foxconn have opened their doors to third party inspections by both the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and the news media. ABC’s Nightline aired an exclusive inside look at a Foxconn fac-tory. But the report, trumpeted as an

“exposé”, struggled to substantiate past criticism and may have even bolstered both Apple and Foxconn’s public image. In the context of China as a whole, Ap-ple’s response to the incident has been relatively progressive.

While Apple failed to thoroughly ad-dress all the issues with its suppliers, it has outperformed its predecessors both ethically and practically. Nike in the early 1990’s faced criticism for un-fair labor practices in every single one of its factories abroad. They were guilty of a variety of infringements ranging from underage labor to safety concerns to excessive working hours. While Nike was generally successful in counter-ing many of the claims brought against them, it took a large human rights movement to inspire that change. After initially ignoring claims made against it, Nike confronted the issue and began implementing reforms only in the early 2000’s. In fact it was only in 2004 that Nike released a full list of all its facto-ries and sup-pliers.

Gap also faced a bar-rage of simi-lar criticism concerning child labor practices in the develop-ing world, starting in 1 9 9 5 .

by Karl Sjulsen

· 4 ·

Human Rights

iFactory: An Ethical Perspective

Apple Supplier Responsibility Progress Reports; New York Times reporting

Since then there have been another five child labor incidents that attest to the failure of Gap to competently ad-dress the issue. In 2004, Gap issued its first “Social Responsibility Report” nearly a decade after the first allega-tions were made.

Several other multinationals such as Walmart and Disney have followed the same pattern. Apple, on the other hand, not only immediately acknowl-edged the criticism levied against Foxconn but also began implement-ing audits as early as 2007. Earlier this year they released their full list of suppliers; Nike by comparison, took around a decade to release their list. Van Heerden, the CEO of the Fair La-bor Association (FLA), recently said that Foxconn factories in the Shenzhen province are “tranquil…compared to a garment factory.” Some may argue that Apple better understands the effects of reputational risk or that they have learned from the mistakes of Nike and Gap. However, that shouldn’t detract from the fact that Apple handled the Foxconn scandal more competently than its predecessors handled their re-spective scandals.

Apple’s control of the situation, at least relative to its predecessors, reveals a slow but steady evolution of business practices in developing countries, like China. First and fore-most, Apple refused to ignore reports of poor working conditions in Foxconn factories. This allowed them to sanc-tion audits and begin implementing more stringent regulations sooner. While it is too soon to gauge the suc-cess of these new regulations, the un-precedented size and speed of Apple’s response, alone, represents an evolu-tion of business practices in develop-ing countries. That isn’t to say that Ap-ple represents the pinnacle of business ethics in developing countries; in fact, both Apple and Foxconn are a long way away from the ultimate ideal.

Foxconn factories are still fraught with issues, and the FLA has even pre-dicted “significant announcements in the near future,” regarding perpetu-ating infractions. But both Apple and

Foxconn are considerably closer to that pinnacle than Nike or Gap were in the years following their respective sweatshop scandals. We must also un-derstand that the ethical ideal of many developing countries, China included, may differ from modern day western conceptions of that same ideal. It is not only overly ambitious to impose west-ern standards on developing econo-mies, but it is also insensitive to assume they need our help.

China, like other developing coun-tries, needs to cultivate its own ethical code in accordance with its own grow-ing moral consciousness. Applied to our case, it is neither in the interest of China in the long run, nor Apple, in the short run, for Apple to impose western standards on Foxconn. According to Stephan Rothlin, General Secretary of the Center for International Business Ethics (CIBE), “the Chinese do not want paternalism from the West.” Instead he argues that the Chinese should “de-velop their own codes [of ethics]. Then the managers can identify themselves with these codes.” We cannot expect a country to conform to ideals that re-quire a moral consciousness to under-stand, without giving them the time to develop that consciousness. We can, however, help them develop economi-cally through free-market forces and the tried-and-true notions of compara-tive advantage. Economic development is not only a more straightforward en-deavor but it will also precipitate the evolution of that moral consciousness. Rothlin touches on this point by noting that “[The Chinese] want to be global players, and they realize that in order to become a real global power, they have to eliminate corrupt practices.” They were only able to reach that stage of de-velopment due to the influx of western industry.

China appears to be entering a new phase in its development that will be marked by “Higher salaries, basic ben-efits, better working conditions and less physically taxing jobs,” reinforcing theories of development. As of late, Chi-nese cities have seen labor shortages due to wages that are too low or condi-tions that are too poor. Even in the face of wage increases ranging from 10 to 30%, many factories in the Shenzhen and Guangzhou province are still short on labor. The “Shandong Province, [for example,] is missing a full third of its

migrant work force.” Economists ex-plain China’s labor woes as an approach towards the “Lewis Turning Point — the stage at which the rural surplus la-bor pool effectively runs dry and wages begin to rapidly increase.” If this is in fact the case it means that China will begin to look a lot more like a modern-ized western country and less like the China of today.

A decrease in the labor force, and the accompanying increase in the cost of production, means that China will no longer be the target of outsourcing by the United States and other devel-oped countries. The marked progress of China substantiates the assumptions of economists, like Nobel prize laureate Paul Krugman, who argue that sweat-shops and substandard factories are not only necessary for development but even precipitate its fruition.

In the grand scheme of development, outsourcing to suppliers like Foxconn unequivocally facilitates development. That is to say that the “subpar” prac-tices of suppliers like Foxconn should not even be considered a “necessary evil” because it’s only an evil by West-ern standards. Multinationals operat-ing in developing countries must not be judged from the viewpoint of a de-veloped country with well-formed busi-ness practices. Multinationals should rather be judged by independent as-sessments in the context of each coun-try that it operates in. For example, Apple’s operations in China should be judged solely in the context of China and its past. And in that context, both Apple and Foxconn are far from “evil”. Compared to past cases, like Nike or Gap, Foxconn is progressive. Compared to agricultural jobs in China, Foxconn is a step-up. The process of development is just that, a process; it’s an evolution that occurs over time, not overnight. It’s unfair to hold developing countries to standards that are beyond their current capacity. It’s also presumptuous to as-sume that less developed countries are unable to develop ethics and morals of their own. And finally, it’s naïve to ex-pect them to fully conform to an imposi-tion of “our” ideals. i) Set by Exxon in 2008

ii) The Nightline exposé articulates this point by directly comparing life at a Foxconn factory to life in a rural village. They further substantiate it by showing thousands of eager, prospective employees

The ConsulCover photo courtesy of Thomas Lee

Apple’s not the onlycompany with factory

problems

Remember watching movies like Terminator and iRobot, and imagining what the world would be like in 100 years? Did you think that autonomous, self-learning robots or some Austrian bodybuilder would take over the world someday? Did you think giant lasers, artificially intelligent robots, telepor-tation devices, affordable space travel, vaporizing guns, time machines, hover-boards, and flying cars would be avail-able not too far into the future? If you answered “yes,” you were right; well, at least for a few of the items on that list.

If you ever imagined a future where flying robots could monitor your every move and kill people at will, then you imagined the world we live in today. Many people have heard about these Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s) and their use in Iraq and Afghanistan. From listening to the news, it seems like a drone kills another al-Qaeda operative every day. According to the U.S. military, more than 1,600 terrorist operatives have been assassinated by drones in the past few years!

While UAV’s have already been inte-grated into a few militaries around the world (U.S., Israel, South Korea, and oth-ers), there are a number of other robot-ic devices that are not “aerial vehicles.” I like to call these devices just “UV’s” (un-manned vehicles). These UV’s consist of both human-controlled and autono-mous vehicles capable of moving across

land, air, and/or sea. Just a few of the functions that UV’s have adopted are: intelligence in any environment, weap-ons delivery, border monitoring, bomb disabling, firefighting, and medical as-sistance for soldiers. The point of using UV’s instead of manpower is that they are supposed to operate in dangerous situations and operate more efficiently than humans. UV’s don’t get tired and can’t complain about the work they’re doing. While UV’s might seem like ex-traordinary tools now, there are still a few kinks in their development.

According to a number of U.S. mili-tary scientists, there is no doubt that UV’s are the future of the military. They have and will continue to change the way we perceive and operate wars and intelligence operations. While there are many advantages to using UV’s as tools and weapons, there are some challeng-es that the world has yet to address. As

Todd Brewster, the Director of the Cen-ter for Oral History at West Point, said, “[UAV’s] are arriving faster than we can adapt our ethical and moral conscienc-es to respond to them.” As UV’s become more and more part of militaries across the world, the way wars are conduct-ed, viewed, and won will profoundly change.

A major concern of some military

officials is the hyper-sensitizing of war for both the operators and victims of the devices. A common fear of UAVs is that they have desensitized war and death for the soldiers operating them

on the ground. But according to a few military reports, the opposite effect is exhibited.

These reports suggest that UAV op-erators are actually hyper-sensitized to their missions due to length of the missions (often several hours long) and the ability to see the aftermath of their actions, made possible by the ad-vanced video equipment on the UAV’s. The constant psychological stress of be-ing ordered to spy and annihilate other humans from thousands of miles away can get the best of some soldiers. Addi-tionally, unlike in the past, these opera-tors are able to see the horrors of war that they created with the UAV. Military reports have documented a high rate of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among UAV operators; they have attrib-uted it to the length of time and stresses of being an operator. If it is true that there is a high rate of PTSD among sol-diers who are not physically in battle, it would seem that UV’s have actually hy-

by Jason Littman

· 6 ·

Unmanned border control,helicopters, and

submarines!

World Wars: Attack of the Drones

World Affairs

per-sensitized war. As the UV program is expected to grow in the future, the health of the devices’ operators should be a major subject of concern in the military community.

Another major concern is the sensi-tization of foreign influence. Over the past ten years, American UAV’s have surveyed the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq and, according to an expert on the region, have invoked a greater sense of hatred against the U.S. than if Ameri-can foot soldiers had done the drones’ work. Many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have, understandably, been abso-lutely terrified by UAV’s; who wouldn’t be afraid of a remote controlled plane that can kill and destroy on demand? This fear has resulted in the belief that Americans are cowards for not show-ing their faces in times of war. Accord-ing to the Wall Street Journal, we can expect that future American operations will be more, if not completely, depen-dent on UAV’s. Therefore, these nega-tive sentiments towards Americans will almost definitely be replicated and should be addressed by the U.S. mili-tary and all other militaries that oper-ate UV’s.

There are also a number of legal problems associated with UV’s, includ-ing damage and death liability, as well as breaches of international rules of war. First, UV’s and their operators are not perfect. As noted in both Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been some col-lateral damage associated with UAV op-erations. If this damage is done when

a UV is operating autonomously, who is responsible? Obviously, the “United States” or whatever country owned the UV will be said in the media to be held responsible, but to whom specifically does the responsibility lie in a court of law? The operator(s) of the UV, right before the device went autonomous, or the commander who gave the order for the UV to function autonomously? Additionally, after a collateral dam-age incident like this happens, what precedent should be set of the ratio of success to collateral damage? Should UV’s be allowed to have a statistically significant margin of error if one of the main purposes of using UV’s is greater accuracy and precision? As you can tell, a situation like this can quickly become extraordinarily complex and controver-sial. Additionally, this situation is very plausible in the future if problems with UV’s are not addressed.

While not a major issue, because the U.S. doesn’t always abide by inter-national norms, the notion that UV’s aren’t “legal” weapons is still a concern. According to The Atlantic, “the Interna-tional Committee of the Red Cross bans weapons that cause more than 25% field mortality and 5% hospital mor-tality.” UV’s mortality rate is generally much higher than 25%. While most na-tions that own UV’s may not care about rules like this, it is interesting to think about the overwhelming advantages that these nations have in warfare.

Furthermore, how will the state of war change when the majority of na-tions begin operating UVs? Today, only the U.S., U.K., Israel, South Korea, and a few other nations own and oper-ate UV’s, while most other countries own and operate more conventional weapons (guns and other small arms) that are outdated by most American Military standards. When UV’s start being sold to the majority of nations, I believe that there may be a short term fluctuation in the multinational polar-ity of military power (The U.S. will still maintain its military hegemony). Over time, though, the polarity will probably be normalized to pretty much the same levels that are present today. I predict that the world still has about a decade to go until UV’s will be mastered, mass-produced, and disruptive to the polarity of global military power. Until then, the above mentioned issues will probably continue to persist and will somehow

be addressed due to the flaws with UVs and the probability of collateral damage in times of war.

A UV filled world may be far off in the future, but some of the issues that will be asked in the future have already arisen. It will be best for us to address these problems sooner than later be-cause the field of UV’s is constantly de-veloping and will not wait for policies to be made. I believe that while thinking about the issues surround UV’s, it is im-portant to consider the following state-ment by Todd Brewster, the Directory of the Center for Oral History at West Point:

The simple lesson may be that for all our science, we still need to remind ourselves that war is a human activity aimed at achieving a political mission among humans. New forms of weaponry give us a technical advantage that may be unbeatable on the battlefield, but even with such superiority the mission -- achieving a durable peace and a political result -- may remain elusive.

Simply put, UV’s are tools and weap-ons in warfare and intelligence. They are meant to carry out specific tasks or operations, but must be taken seriously. UV’s will undoubtedly continue to be important aspects of warfare in the fu-ture, but their flaws must be addressed in order for them to maintain their posi-tion as an extraordinary weapon.

The Consul

Helicopter photo taken by Frank SerritelliCover photo taken by Bob Davis

Protest photo taken bySyracuse Peace Council

 From the Arabian Sea to the Pacific Ocean, countries are beefing up their arsenal at a scale not seen since the arms buildup by the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. A military hardware-buying binge has engulfed the Asia-Pacific and South Asia as the world’s military balance seems to be exhibiting a radical shift in partner-ship with the global economic balance. The defense budgets of these countries and the expanding size of these bud-gets over the past decade offers ample testimony to this claim. South Korea’s defense budget in 2010 stood at $26.5 billion, more than double of what it was 10 years ago. Similarly, India’s defense budget in the same year, estimated at $32.3 billion, increased by 151% over the previous decade. If these numbers appear impressive, they are dwarfed by the figures from none other than China. China’s defense budget, a gargantuan $81.1 billion in 2010, increased a whop-ping 358% from the previous decade. No further signs are necessary to indi-cate that military preparedness ranks high on the agenda of these countries.  Though it is true that most of the Asian countries delayed the modern-ization of their armed forces due to re-gional financial crises towards the end of the twentieth century, the level and aggression with which these countries

are pursuing arms deals is rather aston-ishing. At this juncture it is important to understand the reason behind this conspicuous urge to develop larger and more advanced militaries. What threats do countries in the Asia Pacific perceive that warrant an arms buildup of such massive proportions? Each of these countries may have certain specific reasons but the overarching concern shared by all of them is the ever-esca-lating regional hegemony of China.

 China’s economic clout has been well complemented by its military. With over 2.2 million active troops and 6500 bat-tle tanks and plans to add much more to its armory, China’s military might is head and shoulders above that of any of its neighbors. To place these figures in perspective, Vietnam has over 450,000 active troops and 1315 battle tanks. It is thus unsurprising that China has never faced major obstacles while asserting its dominance over its neighbors with regards to territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas. The manner in which China has been able to dictate terms during these clashes, most nota-bly during its tiff with Japan over cer-

tain islands near Taiwan, is remarkable. These disputes are certain to raise their head in the foreseeable future as China continues on its path to secure access to key natural resources to satiate the vo-racious appetite of its economy.  In addition to the threat of China’s economic and military clout, the coun-tries in question are fearful of the United States’ willingness and ability to intervene in these territorial conflicts. American allies in the Asia Pacific have traditionally relied on the US for mili-tary support and have believed that they would be able to count on the US to beef up their national security. With the impending shift in the concentra-tion of the global economic and politi-cal influence from the west to the east, this seems to be a legitimate concern. The worries about the reliability of US support is further lent credence by the fact that the US and its allies in Western Europe are looking to scale down their military operations and spending in the coming years. Cuts to the US defense budget, a major bone of contention among lawmakers, seem to be more of a reality as the government seeks to find ways to trim its debt. The measures taken by each of the countries have revolved around a modernization of the military and ag-gressive arms purchases. South Korea best epitomizes this view. The country, which has been at the forefront of the arms race in the Asia Pacific, has around 687,000 active troops and 2800 battle tanks. It has aggressively pursued its strategic goals, especially since tensions

ARTICLE TITLEChina prompts coun-tries to build up arms

by Akshay Subramanian

World Affairs

Asian Arms Race

· 8 ·

Each of these countries may have certain specif-ic reasons but the over-arching concern shared by all of them is the ev-ery escalating regional hegemony of China.

Asian Arms Race

with North Korea continue to persist. An increase in attacks from its bellig-erent neighbor and China’s support for the country are South Korea’s biggest concerns. Being a key US ally, it also stands to be a major casualty from the perceived decline in the United States’ military interests in the region. Australia, whose army primarily played roles in international peace-keeping efforts in the past, is not a country that you expect to hog head-lines in the domain of arms purchases. The island nation, however, has also thrown its hat into the ring and is look-ing to aggressively expand its military. This may seem surprising since Aus-tralia has been one of the greatest ben-eficiaries of China’s rise as an econom-ic behemoth. Australia has benefitted hugely from the natural resources boom fueled by China’s insatiable ap-petite for metals and minerals. Look-ing at this situation from a different lens, however, the country perceives China’s aggressive stance in the Pacific with much suspicion. It aims to spend a mammoth $279 billion over the next 2 decades to add to its burgeoning ar-senal as it embarks on its biggest ini-tiative to expand the army in the post-World War II era.  Vietnam, which also has a checkered history with China as far as territorial claims in the South China Sea are con-cerned, does not have the resources to

match China but has offered the navies of foreign countries access to its deep-water port in Cam Ranh Bay in the hope that they may be better equipped to secure the country’s shipping routes. Its relatively limited means, notwith-standing, Vietnam is actively seeking to complement its military expansion by engaging in joint naval exercises with its key allies in the region.

 No discourse on Asian geopolitics is complete, however, without mention of China’s economic rival, India. Coun-tering China’s regional dominance has been the primary motive behind India’s arms buildup. India is particularly con-cerned with China’s friendship with its neighbors, Pakistan in particular. China has been active in completing infrastructure projects and develop-ing ports in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh among other countries in the Indian Ocean as part of its String of Pearls strategy to protect its critical trading routes. The growing threat from China combined with the ever-present threat from militants and tensions

with Pakistan boiling over provide ad-equate grounds for India undertaking a massive modernization of its army. Equipped with the world’s third largest army by number of troops, the South Asian giant spent 40% of total military expenditure between 2009 and 2010 on new equipment.  The mightily impressive numbers and the far reaching implications in-volved imply that the scale of the arms buildup among the countries simply cannot be ignored. Besides destabiliz-ing the region, the potential severity of future territorial conflicts could cripple the nerve center of global trade, particu-larly that of the transportation of crude oil. Given the massive stakes involved, any diplomatic fallout has the potential to escalate into a full blown conflict. The perceived strength of the US will be cru-cial in determining the pace at which the military development programs are carried out. Though the US claims that its interests in the Asia Pacific is not on the decline, the countries involved are getting increasingly wary of the possi-bility of the US offering a security cover during a conflict. Though it is highly likely that mutually assured destruction would deter these countries from enter-ing into a war, it seems safe to claim that potential clashes can be expected to be much more heated than in the past.

The Consul

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

China India South Korea Australia Indonesia

% Increase in Defense Budgets over the past decade

Given the massive stakes involved, any dip-lomatic fallout has the potential to escalate into a full blown conflict.

Imagine having been assigned an insanely obscure paper in a history course: Research the whereabouts of ex-President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and his relationship to sociolo-gist Edwin Chadwick; trace their family lineages. How do they relate to the cur-rent economy in America? Afterwards, explain whether topographical changes may affect the psychological health of current citizens affected by their re-search.”

Determined to acquire the complex information required to fulfill such a task, you turn on your computer and open your browser. Sitting comfortably in your chair, you type in the addresses and press enter, with the expectation of gaining access to hundreds of gigabytes of information.

But hold on…they’re black.The webpage yields nothing but a

solid black background and the acro-nym SOPA.

Can you imagine a world without Wikipedia or Google, where people ac-tually have to use books?

It is clear that these websites or-chestrated the service blackout to raise awareness against this act

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was written with the intention of ex-panding the ability of the law enforce-ment within the country to fight online trafficking in terms of intellectual prop-erty and counterfeit goods. Recently, SOPA has become an important issue because, according to Representative Bob Goodlatte, “Intellectual property is one of America’s chief job creators and competitive advantages in the global

marketplace, yet American inventors, authors, and entrepreneurs have been forced to stand by and watch as their works are stolen by foreign infringers beyond the reach of current US laws.”

Stealing and illegal sharing is not only taking away jobs in the United States but is slowing down the coun-

try’s ability to innovate and compete with foreign countries. If websites and users continue to illegally share videos, songs, and information without accred-iting those who deserve it, it harms the country as a whole—especially the art-ists and scholars who produce the work.

The government intends to use SOPA to stop the illegal cyber distribution of intellectual property by eliminating popular infringing websites and re-sources that lead them to success. Court orders will be used to prevent adver-tising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with such websites, and prevent these websites from showing up on search engines. Also, internet service providers would block these sites from users who try to access them. Finally, criminal laws would become more serious by impos-ing a potential five years in prison pun-ishment on those who authorize illegal streaming of copyrighted content.

SOPA was introduced by Represen-tative Lamar Smith. It was opposed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and others because they deemed it to have the potential to instigate countless additional innovation-killing lawsuits and litigation. Internationally, the Eu-ropean Union Parliament is against the effort to revoke IP addresses or domain names, as it would invoke freedom and integrity of the global internet.

The opposition holds a salient point.

Was SOPA Needed?by Angela Huang

Bootleg Your Copy of SOPA, Today!

“Intellectual property is one of America’s chief job creators and com-petitive advantages in the global marketplace, yet American inventors, authors, and entrepre-neurs have been forced to stand and watch as their works are stolen by foreign infringers be-yond the reach of current US laws.”

World Affairs

· 10 ·

SOPA would have a harsh impact on

online communities. By putting re-sponsibility for content onto the web-sites themselves, user-fueled sites such as YouTube would be changed signifi-cantly. Websites like Etsy, Flickr, and Vimeo could also be shut down, since authority would have the power to dis-mantle an entire domain if something posted on a single blog seemed in vio-lation of the law.

Further, everyday internet functions would be affected. Search results on Google and Bing would be “censored” and monitored in order to prevent linking to offending sites. Users will have access to much less information than they do at the moment. Some have claimed that this takes away First Amendment rights to freedom and personal expression, and that if SOPA is passed, the government would in-crease its involvement in the private life of its citizens immensely. Addition-al legislation like SOPA would have no borders to being passed.

Statistics, however, show the toll

that intellectual property infringement has increased tremendously in recent years. Music sales have decreased by more than half compared to what they were in 1999 following the emergence of Napster and other music sharing sys-tems. Producers, artists, authors, and employees in related fields have been and are currently being stripped of their earned recognition and profits for work. Furthermore, consumers are be-ing hurt by counterfeit and fraudulent products.

Finally, most obviously yet mostly overlooked, stealing in all its dimen-sions is illegal. When Limewire was still functioning, thousands would utilize it and download hundreds of songs with a couple of clicks. Those users download-ed the songs with the knowledge that it was illegal and wrong, but they contin-ued because of the convenience and the costs we would avoid. When an individ-ual does this, the only hurt inflicted is upon personal integrity, but when mul-tiplied by millions of other individuals doing the same, tremendous impacts are inflicted upon America. SOPA would have actively combatted these issues, promoting a safe virtual environment where people would not be subject to intellectual property theft.

Mainstream websites such as Wiki-pedia and Google held “anti-SOPA awareness days” in which they deemed the act as one that would wrongfully censor the internet by violating First Amendment rights and limiting user

freedom. But since when has shutting down illegal operations been deemed “censorship”?

Think for a minute—the government and writers of the act do not personally gain anything out of SOPA being passed, besides satisfaction that action has been taken against illegal operations. If anything, SOPA would censor our coun-try from becoming free, fair, and fraud-less. Citizens are motivated by econom-ic incentives to utilize piracy for personal gain, and kindly telling them to stop will do nothing.

Mainstream websites such as Wikipedia and Google held “anti-SOPA awareness days” in which they deemed the act as one that would wrong-fully censor the internet by violating First Amend-ment rights and limiting user freedom.

It is time action is taken to fix these flawed practices. This act should not be passed right away without further in-spection or contemplation. But maybe we ought to be a little more open-mind-ed and view the situation from an angle outside of a spinning chair in front of a computer with a mouse, ready to click away recognition for others and law-abiding actions. C

The Consul

Music sales have de-creased by more than half compared to what they were in 1999 following the emergence of Napster and other music sharing systems.

A map of the updates on Wikipedia during the week of the SOPA blackout on Wikipedia.

23 years ago, the Berlin Wall came crumbling down and a curtain was drawn upon the end of an era. 23 years ago, the first commercial Internet Ser-vice Providers (ISPs) were founded and the Iinternet was poised to explode. But that was then. Now, we live in an age where the victors of the Cold War no longer hold a position of hegemony over the rest of the world. We live in an age where the next great fields of tech-nology are “smart”.” Now, it is not so much a question of what the Internet is but rather “in how many ways can I access it”?” The Internet has become

one of, if not the most pervasive me-dium in the world today. It hosts 97% of all telecommunications information- that’s 97 times higher than the rate just two decades ago. This gargantuan jump in traffic represents more than just an increase in masticating toddler vid-eos however; governments have also started using the Internet as the core

medium for their telecommunications purposes. They have also gone beyond mere e-mail and data storage and have begun looking into the possibilities of weaponizing the Internet. In that re-gard there have already been landmark breakthroughs. As a result, humanity stands upon the cusp of an age where cyberwarfare will join its more conven-tional brethren in the state-sponsored arsenal’s of death and destruction.

There are a number of rea-sons why state level cyberwarfare has become such a pressing threat so fast. Most importantly, the Internet has be-come a tool that connects everyone. This goes beyond social networking and public forums - each and every one of the web- capable computers that have become society’s crux is inextri-cably interconnected. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter whether or not a web user wants to be linked to the rest of the world: viruses and malware are software designed to invade resist-ing systems. Hackers and crackers are specialists in the field of breaking into or breaking down shielded computers. When these two facts are combined on the state level, the inevitable result is a rush to develop the technologies and methodologies that allow one govern-ment to access or attack another na-tion’s vital computer systems. It has even gotten to the point where not only information but also real world physical assets can be targeted. The Internet has spread its tendrils to every corner of the globe. Now it will also serve as the avenue by which any corner of any state

might come under attack. The non-state organizations

and their Guy Fawkes masks may have capture the limelight, but a number of nation-states have already taken things a dozen steps further. From the attacks on Iranian industry to the massive 2007 Estonian propaganda onslaught, significant real world consequences have been effected by cyber-triggers. It has gotten to the point where state’s have widely accepted the Internet and computing realms as the 5th domain of conflict, after land, sea, air and space. However, while it is indeed a new area for conflict, it also possesses the unique property of being inextricably inter-linked with all other domains. With the turn of the millennium, the Internet has become the prime medium for commu-nications, processing and data storage. This in essence means that dominance of the realm of cyberwarfare would be-stow upon its conqueror the proverbial high ground. Naturally, states have thus rushed to develop and advance tech-nologies and methodologies associated with cyberwarfare.

State-level cyberwarfare influ-ences more than just the grand realm of international geopolitics; it also has direct consequences for the general public. A unique and perhaps rather disenchanting factor of Internet- based action is that it is much harder to avoid collateral damage when compared to more conventional means and methods. Furthermore, this doesn’t even encom-pass the nation-states that would gladly take advantage of this new reach to tar-

by Henry Chang

· 12 ·

ARTICLE TITLE

Cyberwarfarepushing the boundaries

of human conflict

Science

“[Internet] hosts 97% of all telecommunications in-formation- that’s 97 times higher than the rate just

two decades ago.”

get and attack the civilian citizens of a rival polity. In essence, big or small, group or individual, the rise of cyber-warfare is an undiscriminating assault that everyone should be aware of.

Cyberwarfare on the national and international level is becoming a key part of any geopolitical arse-nal. The general public response up to now has been surprisingly muted, which could have significant short term repercussions. Looking toward the future however, there are already signs that institutions, laws and trea-tises are being set up and drafted to better govern and control state-spon-sored cyberwarfare.

One of the most significant areas affected by the rapid increase in cyber capabilities is the realm of national politics and governance. A little over a year ago the Arab spring sauntered into Egypt, catalysing one of the most explosive revolutionary movements in recent memory. It is well known that the organizers of the movement relied heavily on Facebook and other social media. However, it is the Egyptian government’s conse-quential attempt to shut off the Inter-net that concerns the more impactful arena of cyberwarfare in the political realm. International outcry and politi-cal pressure forced the Egyptian gov-ernment to restore the Internet after a few days, but during that time frame the protest movement was severely hampered. In a country that could care less about international con-demnation (e.g. Syria), the ability to destroy a political opponent’s means of communication coupled with the willingness to use lethal conventional force will result in the successful op-pression of dissenting opinion.

While the use of cyberwar-fare in the political arena is extremely effective, it is an even more potent threat when applied as part of intel-ligence and military doctrine. The ef-fects in these cases are often far more physically apparent and as Iran will

testify, gravely threatening.

In June of 2010, the revolution-ary Stuxnet virus was discovered. As a piece of software, it was one of the most sophisticated pieces of malware ever deployed. As a result there has been near unanimous agreement that development of the attack was state-sponsored. The goal of the malware was to infect Siemens industrial soft-ware and equipment. Upon infection, the virus searches for a specific type of motor that spins between 807 and 1210 Hz and periodically modifies the spin frequency to affect industrial op-eration. The malware also was able to mask its alterations from monitoring software and contained a self-destruct device to help erase itself after com-pleting the task.

The Stuxnet virus seems to have been deployed by a group of Western governments specifically tar-

Science

“In a country that could care less about interna-tional condemnation (e.g. Syria), the ability to de-stroy a political opponent’s means of communication coupled with the willing-ness to use lethal conven-tional force will result in the successful oppression of dissenting opinion. “

“In June of 2010, the revolutionary Stuxnet vi-rus was discovered. As a piece of software, it was one of the most sophisti-cated pieces of malware ever deployed.”

· 13 ·

The Consul

geting Iranian nuclear infrastructure. The Iranian Natanz facility was hit the hardest, with slightly less than 1000 of its 4700 centrifuges estimated to have been affected. The change in rotational speeds placed undue stress on many of the centrifuges, causing them to expand and tear each other apart. While the at-tack was not able to significantly impact the long term goals of the Iranian nucle-ar program, it certainly set the Iranian’s back and prevented a radical increase in uranium enrichment during 2010. Per-haps even more significantly, the attack showcased the ability of nation-states to attack vital strategic infrastructure from afar while hiding behind a veil of anonymity.

The use of cyberwarfare in conjunction with more conventional military and intelligence operations has also become commonplace in re-cent years. The Russian armed forces in particular, have had startling success when coupling cyberattacks with their conventional counterparts. During the Russia-Georgia conflict of 2008, a very effective Russian psychological warfare operation was launched against official Georgian government websites. The at-tacks varied from simply taking down Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Minis-try of Defence websites to replacing the President of Georgia’s official site with a picture likening him to Hitler.

Even more revolutionary was the way the Russian government seemed to outsource the cyber element of the operation. A number of software packages and corresponding instruc-tions were distributed to popular Rus-sian hacking forums. This in essence placed both the legal responsibility and the bandwidth cost on the aver-age “hacktivist” participant rather than the Russian government. The Georgian

government also did something worth noting when they gave up on trying to revert the president’s website and in-stead simply changed server locations to one in Atlanta, Georgia. The Russians in turn stopped the attacks on the new site, likely in part due to not knowing what the American response would have been.

As can be seen, there are a wide va-riety of ways in which state level cyber activity both affects and utilizes the citi-zens of a country. It is thus extremely strange that the overall response to cyberattacks has been very muted. Cer-tainly governments and national agen-cies have started to sit up and take no-tice, but the average citizen has yet to recognize cyberwarfare as a legitimate threat. Since the modern geopolitical sphere is influenced quite strongly by public opinion, this will likely mean a short term increase in cyber operations similar to those conducted in Iran, Geor-gia and Egypt. This is also predicated on the fact that there is little international legislation governing the legality of cy-berwarfare. Combined with the relative safety of conducting attacks without even needing to step into hostile terri-tory, it is clear that the cyber option is a very attractive one when guarded and hostile states such as North Korea or Iran are part of the problem.

The increased reach that cy-berwarfare allows is also an important consequence that should be taken into account. Power plants supplying energy to emergency medical wards, network guided automated subway systems, in-dustrial construction governed by the inch perfect movement of robotic ma-chines, all of these previously unfath-omable targets might soon be within easy reach. It is important to realize that cyberwarfare poses new threats as well as different ways to achieve old goals. These new threats will by and large have a much more direct effect on the common citizen . While the burden of protection will effectively lie solely with the state, greater public awareness would increase the pressure on gov-ernments and spur the development of safeguards and other protective tech-nologies.

While the immediate picture seems to be dark and murky, there are

signs that in the long term, the world will come to grips with the 5th domain. America for one, has already taken steps to try and legislate against vari-ous forms of cyberwarfare. The current rhetoric is quite extreme, highlighted by the Pentagon report that a cyberat-tack on the United States could be con-stituted as an act of war. Over the last few years however, talks on both the bilateral (between Russia and the U.S.) and multilateral (the U.N.) levels have

seen progress being made towards the drafting of a more concrete set of international regulations governing state-sponsored cyber activity. This combined with the rapid development of national cybersecurity divisions all over the world points to a less volatile geopolitical future.

Like the space revolution of the latter half of the 20th century, the Internet has produced a vast new plane upon which national polities can fur-ther their various agendas. Similarly, it thus seems likely that a short term upturn in state-sponsored cyber activ-ity will be followed by international regulation and treatises. Like space, the Internet provides a level of access and convenience that could spiral into bloody brutal conflict at the touch of a keystroke. The Internet was one of the greatest positive creations of the 20th century. It connected journalists and doctors, allowed for the provision of breaking world news and the comple-tion of the human genome project. But there is also a darker side to theInter-net, a side that has drawn the interest of spymasters and generals everywhere. Cyberwarfare might have once been the realm of science fiction, but it is now a cold harsh reality that the modern world can’t ignore.

“Cyberwarfare might have once been the realm of science fiction, but it is now a cold harsh real-ity that the modern world can’t ignore.”

“Certainly governments and national agencies have started to sit up and take notice, but the average citi-zen has yet to recognize cy-berwarfare as a legitimate threat.”

Hacktivism: Pushing the Boundaries of Internet Expression

You return to your computer after a long day’s work, ready to check the heaven knows how many Facebook no-tifications you managed to garner after a week of Internet abstinence. You quick-ly type in your password – incorrect. Confused, you try again, no go. Bewil-dered, you check for caps lock and then give it another shot. Must have changed it without realizing, you think, as you go ahead and file a password recovery request. You head to your e-mail and sign in there, but again your try fails. As attempt after attempt is rejected, you begin to panic as you think of the pos-sibility of someone else having access to your Facebook, reading through your e-mails, and having full access to all the information you put online.

As horrific as the above scenario might sound, it’s only one of many nightmare scenarios lurking in wait for users of the Internet. With the Inter-net ingraining itself in just about every part of our lives, from connecting real-world relationships to setting up virtual stores to providing entertainment, the web has grown from its nascent form into an all-encompassing medium. The Internet’s immeasurable stores of infor-mation and distribution mechanisms have made it a battlefield for groups vy-ing for power. One needs only to look at

recent examples of targeted attacks on key websites in the South Ossetia War of 2008 and Israel’s ability to subvert Syria’s radar systems in 2007 air strikes to see the prevalence of cyberwarfare among disputing nations. However, nation states are not the only armed parties in the combat zone; computer hacker groups have emerged as a note-worthy contender in any battle over the World Wide Web. With growing threats to Internet and civilian safety, we must consider what limits, if any, should be placed on Internet expression.

At their core, computer hacker groups are a collection or community of hackers, those Internet users who detect and possibly exploit weaknesses in computers or websites. The history of these bodies dates back to the advent of the electronic computer in the 1980s. For the next thirty years, computer hacker’s abilities have matched the increased sophistication of computer systems as initial hacking groups such as the Legion of Doom and Masters of Deception of the 1980’s and ‘90s have given way to the high-profile groups of today such as Lulz Security.

While the illegal breaking into of computers seems antagonistic and unfavourable, perhaps people would be more willing to grant sympathy to the surging “hacktivism” movement. As the name may suggest, hacktivism combines the practice of hacking with political activism, using entry into com-puter systems and Internet attacks as a means of expression and method of fu-eling change. Popular forms of hacktiv-

ism include altering web pages to pro-duce political content undesired by the website’s owner or denial-of-service at-tacks (DoS attack) where hackers slow down or make unavailable Internet ser-vices through overloading a site’s serv-ers. Less disruptive hacktivism tools include creating websites or software to achieve a political purpose. This can be seen in the case of the activist site WikiLeaks, and bloggers blogging anon-ymously about sensitive political issues.

Here, we see that it becomes difficult to distinguish hacktivism from Inter-net activism as a medium for political expression. Typically, internet activism consists of using electronic communi-cation technologies to raise awareness about issues. For example this can be achieved through Facebook campaigns or chain e-mails. This can be contrasted with cyberterrorism, where the Inter-net is used as a medium for terrorist activities. One of the more prominent examples in recent history is the series of DoS attacks on Estonian government sites by a pro-Kremlin youth movement of Transnistria following the relocation

ARTICLE TITLEJason Kong

Science

Hacktivismpushing the boundaries

of internet expression

· 15 ·

“Even the term cyberter-rorism itself is incredibly nebulous, as there is no agreement among govern-ing bodies what constitutes terrorist activities or how cyberterrorism should be defined.”

of the Soviet World War II memorial “The Bronze Solider of Tallinn”. Even the term cyberterrorism itself is in-credibly nebulous, as there is no agree-ment among governing bodies what constitutes terrorist activities or how cyberterrorism should be defined.

With political speech being argu-ably the most important protection granted by the First Amendment and being recognized as a necessary uni-versal human right, drawing the line between what is acceptable protest and what is not on the Internet is cru-cial. Making the task even more chal-lenging is the Internet’s transcendence of national borders. If any resolution achieved regarding protected speech on the Internet is not uniform or con-sensual, enforcement becomes difficult as extradition and international rela-tions comes into play.

It might be more helpful to ground a discussion regarding hacktivism in terms of recent events, especially with the increased amount of media atten-tion given to hacktivist groups in the past year. Internet censorship and pro-tected speech came to the forefront of the United States’ attention when the whistle blowing site WikiLeaks began publishing diplomatic cables from the State Department in November of 2010. WikiLeaks provides a mecha-nism for news sources and whistle-blowers to share classified information that is then published and shared with large media outlets. Controversy arose as proponents of WikiLeaks praised its ability to provide transparency in government while critics denounced its actions as detrimental to national security and international diplomacy. The unintentional release of an unre-dacted version of the cables prompted further fears regarding safety for the lives of confidential informants. In the week following the U.S. cables leak, Amazon, PayPal, MasterCard and Visa Inc. all froze or suspended payments to WikiLeaks, which is primarily funded by online donations. Hacktivists re-sponded by DoSing a number of web-sites in what was termed “Operation Avenge Assange.” While similar Inter-net battles have been occurring for years, this instance brought the issue back into the nation’s limelight.

From the WikiLeaks example, it is seen that hacktivism can represent a number of interests and political views,

from transparency of government to human rights issues. One central theme of hacktivist groups that has become especially relevant is that of freedom of expression and Internet censorship. In 2003, a meme termed “Anonymous” be-gan circulating around the Internet that held the idea of Internet users form-ing a digitized global brain. Since then, Anonymous has grown in membership and reputation as a collective of hackers or an identity that hackers adopt. Their secrecy, as their name might suggest, makes it hard to pinpoint any person or

group as “Anonymous.” Instead, mem-bers of Anonymous use Guy Fawkes masks popularized in “V for Vendetta” and an image of a suited figure with a question mark for a face o establish their identity.

In 2011, another of today’s high-publicity hacker groups, LulzSec, was formed. The group’s name is derived from the Internet acronym “LOLs” (laughing out loud) and “security.” Since their formation, the group has been ac-tive in exploiting security flaws of high-ly public organizations. In June, 2011, LulzSec declared a partnership with Anonymous and began “Operation An-tiSecurity,” a series of hacking attacks. Targets included the United Kingdom’s cyberterrorism branch, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and the governments of Zimbabwe and Tunisia. Other government-targeted attacks by LulzSec include DoSing the Central In-telligence Agency’s website www.cia.gov and releasing sensitive account in-formation associated with the US Sen-ate’s www.senate.gov.

Hacktivism has again been brought to attention regarding Internet censor-ship. The primary impetus to this past month’s events in the United States were two pieces of legislation up for debate in Congress: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Rep-resentatives and its Senate counter-part, the Protect IP Act (PIPA). These

two bills sought to protect intellectual property and enforce copyright laws by increasing enforcement power of gov-erning bodies and expanding the scope of forms of expression that fall under copyright legislation. As termed by one CNN reporter, the debate regarding the proposals soon became a battle of Hol-lywood versus Silicon Valley. As organi-zations such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) tried to push the bills through, tech giants such as Google and Facebook urged their us-ers to voice their dissent. Opposition culminated on January 18th with Red-dit, the English Wikipedia, and 7,000 other sites “blacked out” in a joint effort against the proposed legislation. This Internet activism was met with success as plans to draft the bills were post-poned indefinitely.

However, many free Internet advo-cates were disappointed the next day when they found Megaupload, a popu-lar file-hosting site, was shut down and that several Megaupload executives had been arrested. In retaliation, Anony-mous launched a series of attacks on sites including the Department of Jus-tice, FBI, RIAA, and Motion Picture As-sociation of America (MPAA). The at-tacks brought back down to earth the peaceful, white knight-esque efforts of the previous day’s protests. Consequen-tially, Internet-interest groups have de-nounced these hacks as unproductive while legislators have pointed to it as a need for more regulation.

We as a nation or a collective of In-ternet users are at a crossroads regard-

ing the appropriateness of hacktivism. As we weigh the pro’s and con’s of how much freedom of expression we wish to allow on the Internet, we have to re-member that freedom is most at danger when safety is at stake. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “he who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.” After seeing both sides of the issue, we must decide to either denounce these Internet hackers as irresponsible ter-rorists or herald them as champions of freedom.

The Consul

“One central theme of hacktivist groups that has become especially relevant is that of freedom of ex-pression and Internet cen-sorship.”

“In the words of Ben-jamin Franklin, “he who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.” ”

A density-equalizing map showing the research growth experienced by each country.

In the world of scientific research, the Falkland Islands are larger than Canada, and France is larger than Rus-sia. The most impressive of all is China, which dwarfs the entire continent of Africa.

As seen in a density-equalizing map created by World Mapper, the global distribution of growth in scientific re-search is extremely disproportionate. The disproportionate distribution of scientific research development has redrawn the global boundaries of the world. Since 1990, China has emerged as one of the biggest producers of sci-entific research. By 2001, the amount of scientific research produced by Chi-na rivaled that of the United States. In terms of growth in scientific research, China has surpassed the U.S.

According to a report in The Tele-graph, China will most likely replace the United States as the leading producer in scientific research papers by 2020. The growth of scientific research in China is not surprising given the rapid develop-ment of China in the past few decades.

Since the economic reforms in the 1970s, which scholar Sheying Chen has argued to be the beginning of a decades-long process, the Chinese economy has grown tremendously and provided the country with the necessary funding to finance its science industry. Accord-ing to The World Bank, the real Gross Domestic Product growth of China is one of the highest amongst developing

countries and surpasses that of some developed countries.

The warp-speed economic growth experienced by China doubtlessly has provided China with ample resources to invest in scientific research and educa-tion. In fact, according to a report pre-pared by scholar R. Edward Grumbne, China is predicted to become the largest economy in the world by the year 2035. Economic development alone, however, is an insufficient explanation of the rap-id growth of scientific research in China. Neither does the emphasis on technical education alone sufficiently explain this phenomenon.

The extraordinary progress in sci-entific research in China is a vivid ex-ample of the strategic application of what economist Justin Yifu Lin called backwardness in Chinese technologi-cal knowledge. According to Lin, back-wardness refers to the gap between the quality of scientific research performed different countries.

Not long ago, China was years behind technologically advanced countries like the U.S., but having started technologi-cal development after everyone else gave China the opportunity to watch and learn from others.

China’s strategic use of its late start in technological development has al-lowed it to determine which research strategies are effective by analyzing the research methods of other countries.

In addition, China has utilized its backwardness to observe the discover-ies made by others to propel itself for-ward instead of undergoing a painstak-

ingly long process of trial and error in scientific research. This not only saves China an enormous amount of time but also a lot of money.

In his research, Lin highlights the nuclear bomb tests in the 1960s and the satellite launches in the 1970s as evidence of rapid development in tech-nology in China. By having the option to reverse-engineer and buy information from others as opposed to starting from scratch, China has been able to fast-for-ward technological development.

The consequences of the fast devel-opment of scientific research in China are economic and political. As China becomes the world leader in scientific research, it will also become the global center of scientific innovation. Busi-nesses in the technology industries will no doubt shift their focus to China and in the process they will bring with them high-paying jobs. This will not only im-prove the standard of living in the coun-try but also attract more foreign invest-ment in China.

The political impact of this phenom-enon will be crucial. Tensions will most likely rise between China and previous leaders in scientific research as rela-tions between China and many devel-oped countries are currently tense.

For example, reports of Chinese en-gineered cyber-attacks on U.S. institu-tions have instilled unease among the public. According to The Wall Street Journal, a cyber-attack from China breached the defenses of the U.S. Cham-ber of Commerce and jeopardized sen-sitive information in the system. Re-

What Lies Ahead for China?by Wing Cheung

ARTICLE TITLERedrawing the Map

Science

· 17 ·

ports of cyber-attacks on private firms and individuals have also been made, thus not only the security of the gov-ernment but also that of the public may be in question.

The technological advancement of China will only worsen speculations of the potential of Chinese cyber-attacks. It is expected that increased weariness and paranoia among current leaders in technological development will lead to policy changes toward China, though it is uncertain exactly how those poli-cies would change. The most probable change might be an increase in cyber security measures.

A much more immediate threat, however, lies in physical security. Tech-nological advancements in China will most likely lead to the development of better weaponry. While it is unlikely that China will embark on an arms race with the U.S. or the European Union, it is probable that the presence of ad-vanced national defense measures in China will be enough to pose as a chal-lenge to developed states and prompt countries like the U.S to respond.

There are numerous implications of China becoming the world leader in scientific research, but it is most un-likely that current leaders in scientific research as well as countries that are scientifically backwards will be able to develop like China.

One reason for this is path depen-dency. Path dependency is the impact that an initial set of decisions, such as those in economics or politics, can have on the availability of future deci-sions. Historical precedents have cre-ated path dependency in those coun-tries. As a result, they are not the same as China and therefore cannot simply achieve the same progress by making the same decisions as China.

For example, South Africa is ex-tremely backwards technologically,

but it cannot simply develop in the same way that China has because South Africa lacks the financial and material resources that China has. The histori-cal background of South Africa is also extremely different from that of China, thus South Africa has been shaped to be a state with paths different from those of China.

As a result, countries that are consid-ered technologically backwards, name-ly those in Africa, South America and Eastern Europe, cannot seek a quick so-lution. Unless those countries are able to acquire the resources and conditions that foster sustainable development in scientific research, they will remain technologically inferior.

The U.S. rose to become the top pro-ducer in scientific research—approxi-mately the same output as that of all of Western Europe—for as many reasons as China has been rising through the ranks in research output, but the most obvious reason was probably the dev-astation that the Second World War brought to potential competitors to the U.S. Following the fatigue from the glob-al conflict, the Cold War spurred scien-tific development in the U.S. by making scientific research a matter of prestige and national pride.

The most obvious reason for the growth in research in Western Europe, on the other hand, is its historical pre-cedence in science. For centuries, West-ern Europe has been the heart of the exchange of scientific discoveries. Such has fostered institutions that fueled sci-entific development. There is little that the U.S. and Europe can do to prevent China from surpassing them because the interconnectedness of the global-ized world makes it impossible to limit China’s access to research findings in the U.S. and in Europe.

The interconnectedness among countries, however, will also limit the

degree to which China can benefit from the advantage of its technological back-wardness. Once China has reached the same level of research output, it will have exhausted most of the foreign sources of innovation that it can tap into and utilize to its advantage.

According to Lin, the success from the implementation of the backward-ness strategy is sustained by the imple-mentation of policies that not only pro-mote the growth of new industries but also the preservation and transforma-tion of existing ones. According to Lin, the strong emphasis on modernization in developing countries often leads to the neglect of existing economic ac-tors and their impact on the economy. Developing countries like India, which have not reached the stage where China is at in terms of development but has the potential to do so, should reassess the trajectory upon which they have planned their development.

Both countries that are less afflu-ent than China and those that have the adequate resources for scientific de-velopment can benefit from analyzing development in China. Even though not all countries will achieve the same kind of growth that China has, they can still improve their current policies.

Policy makers cannot simply adopt the model of the China economy as it is. Instead, they must implement policies that account for the ways in which ex-isting institutions can be advantageous or disadvantageous to sustainable eco-nomic development.

Development in all areas, whether it is in domestic scientific research or international trade, can only be maxi-mized by the pursuit of feasible ob-jectives and policies that have been tailored to make the most of the special-ties of each country. C

The Consul

A landmark ruling by the World Trade Organization recently has recent-ly found China to be guilty of protec-tionism. China’s export quotas on nine raw materials, such as zinc and baux-ite, gave its domestic manufacturers an unfair advantage. China has frequently been criticized for its currency control policies as well as its failure to honor its 2001 pledge to stop export controls, but the new WTO ruling is far more signifi-cant than it may appear on the surface. China, long considered to be the domi-nant force in world manufacturing, has a lot to worry about from this ruling for two primary reasons. First, China’s main advantage—price—is highly con-tingent upon cheap materials. Factor in rising Chinese wages, and the advan-tage of moving manufacturing offshore shrinks rapidly. The second is that the minerals covered under the ruling are necessary for many high-tech prod-ucts, such as Boeing’s helicopter blades, phone parts for Nokia, and components for Toyota’s hybrid cars.

As it turns out, these high-tech prod-ucts tend to be manufactured outside of China. Boeing is a mainstay of Ameri-can manufacturing, and it has recently been moving much of its manufacturing back home after previously outsourc-ing some of it. Toyota, despite being a Japanese car company, actually manu-

factures a great deal of its products in the US. And of course, the Big Three au-tomakers in Detroit will benefit greatly as well.

Manufacturing is easily the most recognizable part of an economy. The iconic image of the blue-collar worker, a punch-card machine, and an assem-bly line dominate our mindset. Despite diminished manufacturing output, the US still has a higher manufacturing out-put than China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, or India. Despite this, manufacturing makes up less than 15% of total US GDP and around 10% of total employment. Manufacturing was also hit hardest by the recession, with total growth in real GDP hitting -5.1% and -6.4% in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Manufacturing has also bounced back strongly since then, growing at 5.6% in 2010. How-ever, growth in manufacturing employ-ment has lagged. The result is being termed a “jobless recovery.” “But how,” you may ask, “can we be growing so rapidly without bringing on more peo-ple?” The simple answer: robots.

The increased use of robotics and automation in manufacturing has been spurred by a number of factors. First, the cost of capital—meaning machinery, software, and the investments needed to get them going—is extremely cheap right now. That means that any labor saving potential that may have already existed can be easily taken advantage of. Second, such increased automation offers many advantages in terms of the end product as well as the actual pro-cess of production. With finer controls

afforded through smart manufacturing, mass-production of nanotechnology becomes possible, and with it, associ-ated benefits, including lighter, stronger materials, less pollution, and greater energy efficiency. Furthermore, tighter control over the process ensures that output can be managed more directly. A closer weaving of what consumers demand and what suppliers build will mean drops in prices of various high-technology goods, from cars to pharma-ceuticals to cell phones.

The US is the perfect place to begin to transition fully to smart manufactur-ing. An abundance of capital—financial, physical, and human—is present. Con-sumers have been putting a premium on “Made in America” products for a long time, both for patriotic as well as other reasons. Concerns about foreign labor conditions have been prevalent for a long time, giving rise to Fair Trade agricultural products as well as a great deal of scrutiny of companies whose overseas suppliers treat their workers

The Rise of Smart Manufacturing

by Michael Baresich

ARTICLE TITLE

Assembling the Future

Science

Manufacturing was also hit hardest by the recession, with total growth in real GDP hit-ting -5.1% and -6.4% in 2008 and 2009, respec-tively. Manufacturing has also bounced back strongly since then, growing at 5.6% in 2010.

· 19 ·

inhumanely. Apple recently has had a public relations nightmare over its contract with Foxconn, a major elec-tronics manufacturer in Shenzhen. A number of suicides at Foxconn’s plants have even necessitated the implemen-tation of a series of suicide prevention measures. If smart manufacturing re-ally takes off, your next iPhone could come from a factory a hundred miles away instead of a thousand, and at an even cheaper cost. Given Apple’s re-cent problems with copyright enforce-ment in China, it is feasible that they would be willing to invest a lot in mov-ing production back home.

Of course, there are still obstacles to the development of smart manu-facturing, both domestic and interna-tional. Currently, there is a mismatch between workers’ skills and those demanded by employers. While smart manufacturing requires fewer actual laborers, there is high demand for those with the technical skills to de-velop, run, and service the new tech-nologies involved. Obviously this sort of transformation of skills cannot hap-pen overnight, but there is a good pos-sibility that new emphases on science and technology training in academic institutions will give plenty of people the opportunity to fill these roles. Ad-ditionally, most government programs

focused on manufacturing have their sights set on employment rather than outright production. This may be help-ful in the short term, but in the long run, it will stunt the much-needed change over. For smart manufacturing to take hold, it must be allowed to develop into a human capital intensive indus-try. Furthermore, much of the competi-tive advantage of smart manufacturing relies on easy access to raw materials. China has a habit of not following the rules with regard to trade rulings, and it strongly appealed the recent WTO de-cision. Given China’s hold on enormous amounts of rarer materials, this could prove problematic. Furthermore, Chi-na’s extension of its sphere of influence into Africa, another area rich in raw materials but difficult to access, could make prices rise as well.

If, however, smart manufacturing does take off, the implications for the world balance of trade will be interest-ing. Currently, most Western countries, with the notable exception of Germany, France, and Scandinavian nations, have a negative balance of trade. The US has been running a trade “deficit” almost continuously since 1971, meaning that it imports more than it exports.With the United States’ potential for a com-parative advantage in smart manufac-turing, the deficit may have the possi-

bility of being balanced. If the balance starts to shift towards a surplus, it is likely that tax revenue would increase subsequently with few ill effects on the economy. This would greatly benefit the US and help it pay down its enormous national debt. As smart manufactur-ing’s benefits become apparent, it will spread, evening out competitive advan-

tages over time. The model of the world economy, rather than being a continual quest for the next cheap outsourcing location, will start to focus primarily on technical advantages. Globalization, rather than being about price arbitrage, just means that markets are larger and ideas can spread more quickly. In the end, that makes us, the consumers, the ultimate winners.

The Consul

most government pro-grams focused on man-ufacturing have their sights set on employ-ment rather than out-right production. This may be helpful in the short term, but in the long run, it will stunt the much-needed change over.

When first thinking about mass sport-ing events such as the Olympics or World Cup, what comes to mind is a goldmine with unlimited tourism and buckets of money pouring down the streets of the host country. However, the reality usually pales in comparison to this image. The losses suffered by Greece at the end of the 2004 Olympics held in Athens are said to be a contributing factor to the country’s present financial instability. In addition, the profits made by South Africa for the World Cup were only a fraction of what was initially predicted. Although there are many positives to hosting mass sport-ing events, many losses and negatives are also to be expected.

The number of bids to large-scale sporting events have increased substan-tially over the past few decades. This is due to the assumption of the huge gains after the completion of the event. Gov-ernments or host organizations always use consulting agencies to estimate profit beforehand. However, these reports con-sistently come out positive regardless of event, host country, and economic or po-litical state. This is despite the fact that many actually lose money after hosting these events. Criticism further comes from the question if this money can be used for a “greater” use with alternative projects. Ideas include development of schools and hospitals.

Domestically, the National Football League states that they bring in around $400 million for the Super Bowl alone while the Major League Baseball All Star Game makes $75 million. International events, like the World Cup and Olympics that stretch for more than a single day, surpass these figures substantially. Other positives from these events include the creation of jobs and a boost to the econ-omy. For example, after the Super Bowl XXVIII, Atlanta gained 2,736 new jobs and saw a rise in economy by $166 billion.

Internationally, other than monetary gains, developing countries are able to

come out to the world and state their presence. South Africa, when hosting the 1995 Rugby World Cup, was able to make an intentional message of acceptance. Under the world’s watch, President Nel-son Mandela put on the shirt of Francois Pienaar, the white South African captain, when presenting trophies at the end of the game. The message was clear: racial oppression was not to be tolerated in the country any longer.

In addition, the images shown by the media often inspire tourism into the country, as the city becomes a world-class travel destination. Fans, after visiting the city, also usually decide to come back. As the 2010 World Cup wrapped up, tourism was still at a high into the country.

However, overestimation for the posi-tives of hosting these events is a usual occurrence. When estimating the direct economic benefit of the US Open of Ten-nis, it was announced that the number would be close to a $420 million. This fig-ure means that one of every thirty people that visits New York City each year goes solely for the Open. Obviously these num-bers are extravagantly blown out of pro-portion. As for the 2002 Winter Olympics held in Salt Lake City, when calculating the profit, officials did not take into con-sideration millions upon millions of dol-lars that were spent on security because these were provided by the United States government. This is a huge overstatement of profit as Greece spent close to $1.5 bil-lion on security alone for the 2004 Olym-pic games.

After the initial estimate, the World Cup in South Africa was expected to bring forth 159,000 new jobs and increase the gross domestic product (GSP) by R7.2 billion. At the events conclusion it was determined that actual numbers were not even close to these estimate. Further, this prediction took into account domes-tic residents’ expenditures at the World Cup as direct benefits to the GDP. This is inaccurate because this is simply an ex-penditure relocation of spending by the residents and does not actually boost the country’s economy. Further, the jobs cre-ated for the event were only seasonal and

made a small dent in helping unemploy-ment rates.

Another reason overestimation occurs is because of the “crowding out” idea, exactly what happened during the 2002 World Cup in South Korea. When a mass-sporting event occurs in a particular city, business in that city usually drops and business travelers change the dates they will visit the country. This balances out the profits made by incoming travelers for the sporting event. So essentially, no real financial profit is made at all. Another factor to consider is that although hotels raise their prices, the employees work-ing there are still paid at the same salary. However, they have to work a great deal more during that time period.

Although countries want to devel-op their image to world through these events, this intention often goes astray. At the Commonwealth Games in 2010, India was accused to corruption and the Mum-bai terror attacks were splashed over ev-ery media source. Tourism hit a low. The Olympic games in Munich and Atlanta also caused the cities to lose face in front of the international community after ter-rorist attacks.

For developing countries, the costs are higher to host the mass events than for the developed. In comparing the 2006 World Cup in Germany and the one in South Africa four years later, Germany was able to use existing infrastructure to accommodate the event. However, South Africa needed to build all of its stadiums from scratch and from the ground up. At the end of the World Cup, Germany con-verted these stadiums to further make money by hosting more sporting events, concerts, and festivals while South Africa is uncertain on the future use of these money pit stadiums.

As we look to the future, we see Poland and Ukraine coming to the stage to host Euro 2012 for soccer and although many positives exist for hosting mass sporting events, they are not a guarantee of suc-cess. Many negatives and risks come hand in hand with them as countries accept the role as host. They should be considered thoroughly before placing a bid.

by Kateryna Brezitska

· 21 ·

Sports

Weighing the Effects of Mass Sporting Events

Class has just ended at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Several students stroll out of their lecture hall, chatting in Arabic. They walk down a block of gleaming, white, futuristic buildings and meet up with friends who go to Cornell, University College, and HEC. The students discuss their classes and the recent Champions League matches while having a picnic lunch under a grove of palm trees.

This could be happening right now at Education City in Doha, Qatar, where the oil-funded Qatar Foundation has assembled a formidable collection of branches of top Western universities. Over the past few years, the small states of the Persian Gulf, in particular Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have been using their money to buy their way onto the world stage. Unlike previous rising powers who sought military or econom-ic muscle, these petro-kingdoms have been seeking cultural influence – and they have plenty of money to back their bids.

Chief among the Gulf’s imports are prestigious Western educational insti-tutions. Starting with Virginia Com-monwealth University in 1998, an impressive array of universities has opened branches in Education City, a complex on the outskirts of Doha which seeks to “support Qatar on its journey from a carbon economy to a knowledge economy by unlocking human poten-

tial. ” Abu Dhabi has welcomed the Sor-bonne and New York University to its shores.

An area of investment with far more global recognition is the Gulf’s fervor for football (soccer). Last year, FIFA chose Qatar as the host nation for the 2022 World Cup, with more than a bit of grumbling from other bidders about the massive budget supporting the Qa-tari bid. As is often the case with large modern sporting events, Qatar stands to take a massive financial loss from the Cup in exchange for the prestige and publicity, with a large number of stadiums needing to be built only to be torn down after the tournament and do-

nated to poorer countries. At club level, the sheiks of Qatar and the Emirates have staged an invasion of European football – Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi took ownership of Manchester City F.C. in 2008, followed by Qatari takeovers of Paris Saint-Germain and Malaga in the past year. All three clubs are seen by many as attempting to buy sporting success by injecting a colossal amount of cash for player signings and wages. Other high-profile clubs including Bar-celona and Arsenal have Middle-East-ern sponsors.

Walk down any street in downtown Doha, Abu Dhabi, or Dubai, and you will see the final major area of cultural investment – art and architecture. The stratospheric needle of the Burj Khalifa, the sail-shaped hotel Burj Al Arab, and the futuristic, sculpture-like Opus in Dubai were all paid for by Emiratis but designed and built by Westerners in a decidedly Western aesthetic. Next door in Abu Dhabi, a strange UFO-shaped building is under construction, to house the controversial Louvre Abu Dhabi, perhaps a fitting symbol of the entire cultural investment project. A highly prestigious Western institution, literally out-of-this-world design, and as always, a huge pile of money. The Louvre signed a $1.3 billion contract with Abu Dhabi, giving monopoly rights to the name “Louvre” throughout the entire Middle East, a rotating artwork exhibition deal, and assistance in developing curatorial and restorative expertise in Abu Dhabi. The plan has both heralded praise as a coup for French art and culture as well as condemnation for “selling out” to the commercialization of art, as well as per-ceived support of a regime with a spotty human rights record.

This degree of focus on cultural in-vestments is unprecedented in the his-tory of the rise of nations. For most of history, rising powers devoted their resources toward military hegemony, as exemplified by Britain’s naval domi-nance starting in the 16th century and the pursuit of nuclear weapons by vari-ous nations over the past seventy years. More recently, with a lessened risk of war among developed nations, rising powers spread their influence economi-cally, like with China’s recent invest-

Middle Eastern countries look-ing to import Western culture

by Michael Luo

Cultural Sell-Out inthe Middle East

Unlike previous rising pow-ers who sought military or economic muscle, these petro-kingdoms have been seeking cultural influence - and they have plenty of money to back their bids.

The Consul

ments in Africa. The Persian Gulf states themselves have done this to a massive degree, with upwards of a trillion dol-lars in assets controlled by Middle East-ern sovereign wealth funds . However, the cultural activities of Qatar and the UAE are truly unprecedented. When Mitsubishi purchased Rockefeller Cen-ter and Radio City Music Hall in 1989, the Japanese investors were buying control of an existing piece of real es-tate on American soil . But what the Gulf states are doing now is essentially buying branding rights – trading cash for names to bring back home. Rather than simply developing their own edu-cational and artistic institutions from the ground up, various sheikhs have found it more worthwhile to pay an ex-isting institution millions of dollars to get a piece of the prestige and authority

built up by these Western brands over centuries.

The mind-boggling sums of money involved beg the simple question, why? Are Qataris really just such big football

fans that they will spend $220 billion (150% Qatar’s annual GDP) to host the World Cup? Is this simply a case of bil-lionaires spending their money how they wish? While certainly the invest-ments in football clubs are more toward the recreational end of the investment

spectrum, there are a host of practical considerations at play. The leaders of the Gulf states realized long ago that their countries could not rely on oil profits forever, thus leading to the de-velopment of their cities as finance and tourism hubs. In many ways, all of the institutional investments can be seen as semi-economic decisions. The mission statement of the Qatar Foundation spe-cifically cites the transition away from a fossil-fuel based economy as a primary reason for the creation of Education City. Better educated workers, as well as more vibrant cultural institutions will draw more commerce as Gulf cities compete with other parts of the world as well as with each other for business. In a more devious context, the building of luxuries serves as a way to pay off the populations of dictatorships and keep

Arts

· 23 ·

But what the Gulf States are doing now is essentially buy-ing branding rights - trading cash for names to bring back home.

The Consul

them content. The UAE and Qatar were the only two Arab countries not affected by the Arab Spring. When you look at the resources that the two regimes have offered their citi-zens, it is easy to see how they could

remain content under absolutist gov-ernments.

From an international perspec-tive, the most pertinent comparison to these investments is China’s recent activities. The 2008 Beijing Olympics were used as a massive welcome party to greet China’s arrival on the world stage as a major power – to exhibit China’s wealth to the world. To China, as it appears to be to Qatar and the UAE, money is of secondary concern to how much it can impress the rest of the world. All of China is structured along similar lines. The first thing any foreigner sees upon ar-rival in any Chinese city is a gorgeous new airport, complete with artificial waterfalls between the duty-free luxury boutiques. Connecting Shang-hai’s airport to its central train sta-tion is a state-of-the-art Maglev train which hits 400 kilometers per hour. Its operation loses millions of dol-lars annually, but profitability is not the primary concern. Any visitor to China is sure to be impressed by the technology. For the Gulf states, their cultural projects follow the same phi-losophy. Their advantage lies in their tremendous resource wealth, their weakness in a lack of prestigious in-stitutions and international reputa-tion. Neither the Shanghai World Fi-nancial Center nor the Burj Khalifa is anywhere near full capacity, but both buildings are also more imposing symbols of economic might than any building anywhere in the West.

So what should the West think about the endeavors of the Gulf states? In some quarters, the reaction is fuelled by the natural tendency to feel pride in one’s national jewels and to recoil when outsiders gain control over them. Oth-ers raise genuine concerns about brand image. Sorbonne Abu Dhabi lecturer Nasser bin Ghaith was arrested last year , prompting concerns over civil liberties and causing other universities to question their projects in countries with far more restrictions on expres-sion than in the West. Is the building of “islands of freedom” like the univer-sity branches simply giving students ideas that will prove dangerous to them once they leave the free environment of academia? Critics of the Louvre proj-ect are concerned that displays will be censored based on religious and moral criteria, tarnishing the image of the Louvre in Paris by association . Though the Emirati developers pledge “respect” for artistic expression, artists and deal-ers have complained about being shut out of art fairs in the past because of the content of their works.

Though some may complain about the sale of integral parts of national identity like the Louvre or a well-sup-ported football club, the dynamic be-

tween the Gulf and the West is about as mutually beneficial a relationship as could be designed between rising pow-ers and the establishment. Small coun-tries like Qatar or the UAE just don’t have the population to be able to de-velop a powerful military presence or a domestic economy past a certain limit. Thus, the natural course of expansion is to the cultural sphere, which is inher-ently less of a zero-sum game than war

or business. When one nation builds nukes, its neighbors feel less safe. When one nation gains in economic competi-tiveness, others lose. However, Qatar building a branch of University College in Doha doesn’t make the London cam-pus disappear. Western institutions get large amounts of money as well as the chance to expand their brand presence overseas. The Gulf states are paying the West to spread Western culture to the Middle East – a win on all fronts for the West, particularly if the presence of Western institutions helps to plant the seeds of democracy in the Middle

East. A population educated in insti-tutions where freedom of thought and expression is respected will demand those same rights everywhere in their countries. More pertinent to the West itself, placing Western institutions on such a high-profile pedestal will im-prove the image of the West in the eyes of the population, lessening the appeal of anti-American extremist groups. A Qatari whose parents were educated by an American university is less likely to join a terrorist group than an Afghan whose parents were killed by an Ameri-can bomb. Often, the West is criticized for forcing its culture upon other coun-tries, but here, it is being paid to do so in the Middle East.

The only Westerners who could rea-sonably complain are the fans of foot-ball clubs unfortunate enough not to have been bought by an oil magnate with a bottomless bank account. C

A population educated in institutions where freedom of thought and expression is respected will demand those same rights everywhere in their countries.

Though some may com-plain about the sale of integral parts of national identity...the dynamic between the Gulf and the West is as mutually beneficial a relationship as could be designed be-tween rising powers and the establishment.

The leaders of the Gulf states realized long ago that their countries could not rely on oil profits forever...in many ways, all of the institu-tional investments can be seen as semi-eco-nomic decisions.

“I heard them say/the revolution won’t be televised/Al Jazeera proved them wrong/Twitter has him para-lyzed/80 million strong” – Omar “Of-fendum” Chakaki, #Jan25

Of the many factors that make up the impressive impact of the Arab Spring, the strategic use of media might be what best motivates those who wish for revolution and for definitive change in their lives. More specifically, the youth of the Middle East and North African re-gions are motivated by a musical com-ponent of their campaigns for revolu-tion. From the adhans recited regularly in mosques to the impromptu songs of the troubadours in places such as Tahrir Square, music has both a motivational and a unifying effect on those who sup-port the movement of the Arab Spring. In this modern age, however, there is a need for a musical genre that not only mobilizes activists for the struggle for democracy in those countries, but also unifies the youth living in the Middle East and North Africa to their cultural counterparts living elsewhere in the world.

In particular, the musical genres of rap and hip hop encourage activists in the Middle East and North Africa

to work towards the pro-democracy movements. Although each artist has their own unique style, they share cer-tain recurring themes, such as solidar-ity in basic human rights and protests against corrupt regimes. For example, Khaled M., a rapper and the son of a Libyan dissident, is well known for one of his singles, Can’t Take Our Freedom. One line in particular stands out: “Can’t take our freedom and take our soul/you are not the one that’s in control.” Khaled M. utilized the theme of a com-mon humanity among the people to undermine the Gaddafi regime; he also wrote this song as an open letter from Libyans within and outside the country to the Gaddafi regime, asserting that such a government has no place in the modern world. Another possible factor to Khaled M.’s success in spreading the message of his song is his dual identity. The Libyans who opposed the Gaddafi regime were probably mobilized and motivated by his song because it reso-nated so strongly with them. However, it resonated just as powerfully with Lib-yans who had fled to other countries for various reasons. Even if they had never set foot in Libya, they had the chance to change history in the country that be-longed to their ancestors. In short, the fact that Khaled M. is Libyan-American is the cause for his works to be accept-ed and adopted by Libyan communities around the world.

Perhaps the encompassing and mo-bilizing natures of rap and hip hop over the Arab Spring are most apparent in a collaborative work by Omar “Offen-

dum” Chakaki (Syrian-American), The Narcicyst (Iraqi-Canadian), Sami Matar

(Palestinian-American), Ayah (Palestin-ian-Canadian), Amir Suleiman (African-American), and MC Freeway (African-

How Hip-Hop Fueled the Arab Spring

by Dan Benny

Culture

Music in the Middle East

· 25 ·

I heard them sayThe revolution won’t be televisedAl Jazeera proved them wrongTwitter has him para-lyzed80 million strong

Tahrir Square, the heart of the Arab Spring.

American). These artists from various cultural backgrounds banded together to make one song centered on the date of January 25, when the Egyptian pro-tests, the demands for the removal of Hosni Mubarak, and the celebrations of shared humanity were at their loudest. The song itself is merely called #Jan25, hash tag included. Keeping in mind that many of the younger generation living outside of the Middle East and North Africa did not necessarily speak Arabic fluently, they created a smooth flow between the English and Arabic lyrics while simultaneously preserving the song’s meaning. In addition, Omar Offendum used the ideas of unity and action to his advantage in the song lyr-ics, particularly this line: “From Tunis to Khan Younis/the new moon shines bright/as The Man’s spoon was/as masses demand rights/and dispel ru-mors of disunity/communally remov-ing the tumors…”

Behind the influential role of hip hop and rap on the Arab Spring is the power of language and communica-tion. For example, the Egyptians’ pro-tests prominently featured flags and banners with the following message, translated to English: “The people want to bring down the regime.” For years, these people had little, if any, significant political activity on their own, nor were they strong enough to create a collective moral self – at least, until the rise of hip hop and rap as social mediums for the dissenters.

Language also holds a unifying compo-nent between the protestors who speak only either English and Arabic. Even in this age of information, the differences between the two cultures in their lan-guage make it much more difficult for them to communicate ideas between each other. The musicians responsible for bilingual songs like #Jan25 kept their audience in mind during the pro-

duction phase. As a result, they have garnered many more fans from around the globe in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Essentially, their musical works are also social commentaries for their views on the Middle East as it is today. Such social commentaries are solid ex-amples for the individual musician to become readily recognized and involved in world politics and global issues.

It has been over a year since the start of the Arab Spring, but the process of rebuilding the countries of the Middle East and North Africa will continue for quite a while. Positions of power are difficult to maintain and almost impos-sible to control in the Middle East and North Africa. But the people, particular-ly the youth, should have renewed mo-tivation and a sense of unity. The music reflects the harsh realities that the peo-ple are forced to deal with in life, and so they respond by endeavoring to change their reality daily.

The Consul

From Tunis to Khan You-nisThe new moon shines brightAs The Man’s spoon wasAs masses demand rightsAnd dispel rumors of disunityCommunally removing the tumors

Tahrir Square, the heart of the Arab Spring.

The International Affairs AssociationUniversity of Pennsylvania