——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

NO TO KEYNESIAN PRINCIPLES
By Jonathan Labib

The results of the French Presidential election are in; the center-right incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy was defeated by socialist challenger Francois Hollande. I don’t blame the French electorate for throwing Sarkozy out of office; he failed to deliver on his campaign promise of revitalizing the French economy. I do however think that electing a socialist candidate who plans on restoring economic growth by raising taxes to crushingly high levels and expanding the already massive French state isn’t the answer either.

One of Hollande’s major economic platforms that he ran on is raising the marginal income tax rate on French millionaires to a staggering 75%. The wealthy, such as French millionaires, are able to move around the world to escape such onerously high tax rates. A country with such a high tax rate is uncompetitive compared to other countries with lower tax rates. Many French high income earners will probably leave the country if such a punitive tax is levied to protect their assets. If a French businessman is presented the choice of paying a 35% marginal tax rate in America as opposed to a 75% tax rate in France, the choice seems clear, at least in my opinion. A 75% tax rate will kill investment by causing massive amounts of capital to flee the country. Raising taxes can sometimes lead to an increase in revenue for the state, but not when they are raised to absurd levels.

Speaking of the state, the French state already controls 56% of French GDP. For comparisons sake many American’s feel that the American government controls too much of the American economy at around 25% of GDP. Hollande plans to jump-start the French economy by promoting growth over austerity. Unfortunately Hollande’s idea of growth is inflating the already bloated French state via increases in government spending. France’s government spending is already above levels that are thought to have deleterious effects on a countries economy, a major increase in spending will most likely further crowd-out the struggling private sector. France’s debt is also an issue, as it is already at 90% of GDP. A massive increase in tax rates and government spending will inevitably increase the French debt problem, much to the chagrin of the European bond and stock markets.

The answer to France’s economic woes isn’t massive Keynesian stimulus and confiscatory tax rates, but instead to enact meaningful structural reforms that will make France more competitive in the global marketplace. Such reforms would include raising the retirement age, loosening labor laws, lowering government spending to reduce bureaucracy, getting rid of unnecessary regulation, and keeping taxes at competitive levels. Hopefully the fiscal pact that France signed upon joining the EU will preclude it from doing anything reckless economically. France has the choice to become more like Greece or more like Germany, for the sake of the French people they should opt for the latter.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————-

WHY HOLLANDE IS GOOD FOR EUROPE
By Zach Goldaber

François Hollande’s election as President of France shows that the French people have a strong desire for a new blood and new answers in the search to save the French and European economies. Frankly, his solutions just might work.

Hollande is something of a French Barack Obama in that he campaigned on the issue of change and unity. Despite the inroads that he made in making France more of a player on the international scene, outgoing President Sarkozy left France a socially fractured and more divided nation internally. In particular, Sarkozy drew a great deal of flak for courting the far-right nationalist party Front National, further bringing to the forefront contentious questions about immigration, racism, and the economic disparities that plague the nation.

His ousting indicates that the French people want unity, not separation.  In the New York Times marketing professional Sebastian Mondat summed up how many of the French people feel about the president-elect: “I found that Hollande had the power to bring people together,” he said. “The right was compelled to take up its traditional topics, creating tension among people.”While not an especially charismatic figure, Mr. Hollande has rightly recognized that desire for an end to the tension and seized upon it.

Many take issue with Hollande’s opposition to austerity measures as a means of fixing the European economy. Hollande supporters have rightly pointed out that austerity measures have thus far solved nothing, and that there have been eighteen months of economic chaos in the Eurozone. The citizens of Greece spoke out against austerity measures in droves last Sunday by rejecting the two leading political parties there, and now the French have done the same. Hollande offers a gleam of hope in a bleak landscape where nothing seems to be working.

There are potential problems, of course. With Germany standing tall as the gorilla in the EU, Hollande must come to some kind of middle ground with Angela Merkel and the German government. He almost assuredly shall, but in the process Merkel will likely have to compromise on her strong pro-austerity stance to some degree. Germany, for all its might, cannot act effectively without the support of nations like France and Britain. Hollande’s installment thus represents a positive measure on that end. He is certainly a step up over Sarkozy, who looked like Merkel’s French hand puppet at times.

His taxation policies – Hollande favors raising the tax rate to 75% on those making over a million euros and wants to raise the corporate tax rate as well – have been cited as policies that might drive business out of France and greatly damage its economy. While Hollande is a socialist, he is not an idiot. He undoubtedly realizes the importance of keeping jobs and money in France, and has some awareness of the concept of fiscal responsibility. His economic plan, in fact, calls for balancing the French budget by 2017 and creating economic incentives that will put 60,000 more teachers in the French school system. When tested, Hollande may show an astonishing capability for sensibility and moderation.

This is undoubtedly what the French people expect. Hollande got his start working for François Mitterrand, the first Socialist French president. No one gave Mitterrand a chance in the polls, and as Hollande put it himself, “they used to call him badly dressed, old, archaic, he knows nothing about the economy!” Mitterrand shocked Europe, however, and went on to successfully govern France through the shaky economic era of the early ‘80s and remained in office for 15 years. Today he is broadly adored by the French public as a man who had a remarkable capacity to adapt to the times and climate and govern well. It does not seem like a stretch to believe that history might well repeat itself during the presidency of Mr. Hollande.

The race is on.

Nicholas Sarkozy, incumbent president and candidate of the Union for a Popular Movement, is running for a second term against Socialist Francois Hollande in the French presidential election.

Representing the far right, Sarkozy’s platform can be summarized by his vow to protect “the French way of life.” He seeks to reduce legal immigration by 50 percent, reform the welfare system to tackle unemployment, and introduce national referendums to encourage involvement in policy planning. In an effort to refute allegations that he favors the wealthy, he also aims to apply a minimum 15 percent tax on major French corporations, establish a levy for those who have fled France to avoid taxes, and establish stricter regulations on banks.

Unfortunately, one thing is marring his campaign: popular opinion. It is a well-known fact that the French dislike Sarkozy. With a disapproval rating of 64 percent, Sarkozy is considered the most unpopular president in French history, according to Journal du Dimanche. He is disliked for his far-right politics—the French traditionally glorify the far left, à la revolution and romance—and flashy, undiplomatic behavior.

Is this disapproval merited, however?

“There is an irrational hatred of Nicolas Sarkozy among much of the public…. I say ‘irrational’ because that is what it is. Polls show that if you ask people about this or that policy of Sarkozy’s—but don’t mention his name—they will tend to support it,” says Jean-Sebastien Ferjou of Atlantico.

One may relate the way in which image overshadows politics to the 2008 American presidential election. Just as Sarkozy’s infamy takes precedence in the French public’s mind, Obama’s status as America’s first black president was a defining characteristic of his campaign. Obama was likewise touted for his youth and charisma as much as, if not more than, his platform. It thus appears to be a recurring theme that personal traits play a considerable role in politics.

In contrast to Sarkozy, Hollande has been continually backed by the French public. Opinion polls from Tuesday, April 24 showed him to be ahead of Sarkozy with 54 percent of the vote.

Representing the Socialist Party, Hollande aims to alleviate France’s debt by 2017 by getting ridding of tax cuts and exemptions for the wealthy, increasing the retirement age to 60 for those who have worked 42 years, and recreating 60,000 public education jobs. Perhaps most controversially, he plans to raise the income tax for those who earn over one million euros by 75 percent.

Hollande defends his move as “a patriotic act.” Critics argue that it is only a move to draw more leftist supporters, however, while opponents have responded in outrage. Such an increase would override the tax shield Sarkozy implemented in 2007, which capped tax at 50 percent of all income.

“It’s a populist measure,” says Emiliano Grossman, a political-science professor at Sciences Po of Paris, “because it concerns very few people and it’s not going to bring a significant amount of money into the public coffers.”

Neither candidate gained a majority in the first round of voting. Hollande led with 28.6 percent of the vote, while Sarkozy followed with 27.2. National Front leader Marine Le Pen trailed behind with 18 percent. While this result marked an improvement for Sarkozy, this is the first election in which the incumbent president did not win the first round. As such, it seems unlikely that Sarkozy will be re-elected.

The two candidates are currently under fire for pandering after Le Pen’s far right supporters, which number over 6 million. Analysts estimate that Sarkozy may need as many as 80 percent of her votes to win. While her supporters could determine the next president, Le Pen herself does not support either candidate and has announced that she will cast a blank ballot. The outcome will not be revealed until May 6, when Sarkozy and Hollande face off in the second and final round of elections.

The upcoming French election should have politicians stirring. With unemployment and an economic crisis on hand, you would think political debate is focused on these large issues. Instead, the most prevalent matter of discourse seems to be the issue of Halal meat in France.

In order for meat to be considered Halal, the animal must be slaughtered in a specific manner and a prayer must be said. In this sense, the ritual of slaughtering an animal is similar to Kosher rituals. However, French politicians are now trying to pass a law that bans the slaughtering of meat in this manner, and thus have stirred up a debate about the “true French identity” and multiculturalism.

This issue was called into question when far-right politician, Jean-Marie Le Pen, made the claim that many French diners were unknowingly consuming Halal meat. While  it’s understandable why people want to know what they are eating, it’s not clear why this issue has become the crux of the French election.

From an animal rights perspective , a ban on no-stun slaughter may make sense. However, from the perspective  of human rights, it is wrong and unjust to prevent people from following the mandates of their religion, so long as it does not harm others. I do not see why eating Halal or Kosher meat would harm anyone who does not desire to eat the meat, but this is a problem that can easily be solved. Despite the fact that current president Sarkozy visited multiple slaughterhouses and confirmed that the majority of the meat in France is not Halal, this issue remains at the forefront of the election.

Why is this even a problem? If the majority of the French populous does not want to eat Halal meat, would it not be easier to enforce stricter labeling laws? Preventing not just one, but two, large religious groups from abiding by their religious mandates seems extreme, and much too harsh a reaction to an unsubstantiated remark.

What I cannot grasp is why this is such a seemingly important issue in the election. With larger problems to worry about, who has the time or effort to care about an issue that only concerns certain members of the French population? This seems like a problem that can easily be solved; there is no reason for it to be a matter of such concern. Banning Halal meat in school cafeterias serves no greater purpose other than to further an agenda that is staunchly against multiculturalism.

This ban would hurt the French economy, which is already fragile enough as it is. By preventing the ritual slaughter of animals in line with Islamic and Judaic mandates, the French government is effectively banning a multi-billion dollar industry.

Ultimately, the debate about Halal meat is a proxy debate about multiculturalism, and it should not have a place in the upcoming election. Politicians should focus on actual issues-an increasing unemployment rate and a crumbling economy, not the personal dietary habits of their citizens.

The world turned on the World Bank late last month. For the first time in the institution’s existence, a competitive contest for its traditionally American-held presidency seemed not only likely but also welcome. Still, the American candidate Jim Yong Kim’s victory over Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okjonjo-Iweala was anything but a surprise: despite the positive press and the half-hearted, not-quite endorsements of many First World leaders, it was always unlikely that the European voting bloc would split from Kim to join developing nations in supporting Iweala.

Despite the race’s disappointing outcome, developing nations and World Bank critics should be heartened by the accomplishments touted by the development banks of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – the five fastest growing developing economies) after their March 29 summit. The five countries signed a number of pacts dealing with a host of currently relevant geopolitical and economic issues (post-crisis financial investment, green energy, rising tensions in the Middle East etc.). Additionally and most significantly, the BRICS announced plans to form a new global development bank – essentially an alternative to the World Bank that would be both more representative of and useful to developing nations.

Given the BRICS’ rapidly growing place in the global economy and their demographic importance (the five countries control, as favorably mentioned by World Bank President Robert Zoellick recently, nearly half of the world’s population and a quarter of its landmass, as well as a quarter of the global economy) the idea of their having a shared development bank makes sense. Additionally, giving developing nations a new option for procuring loans, perhaps without the burden of policies like the World Bank’s infamous structural adjustment programs can hardly be a bad thing. Instead of demanding that developing nations receiving loans go through often arduous economic transformations in order to achieve fiscal solvency, the bank could provide a forum through which developing nations could express their views on relevant economic issues as valuable members of the global economy.

This possibility is in reach as many developing leaders already feel that the BRICS bloc is receptive to their ideas. Jacob Zuma said as much following the March 29 summit, claiming that among the BRICS, “we have a place where we feel Africa is treated with respect.” Indeed, the very act of admitting South Africa to the BRIC clique in 2010 seemed like a signal to both Africa and the rest of the developing world that the original four members of the bloc were willing to let regions previously part of the global economic periphery into the forefront of international politics.

But while there exist reasonable “Whys” for the creation of a BRICS bank, all the other relevant questions have yet to be answered by proponents: Who would lead the bank? What would its administrative structure look like? Where would it be located? And how much better, exactly, would the favored system of administering loans be than the World Bank’s current practices? Additionally, the entire plan could fall apart once the many inherent differences between the BRICS nations come into play.

After all, the BRICS bloc is far from being a politically or even economically cohesive unit; the five nations vary greatly in terms of their willingness to engage regularly with the West and their general political philosophies. Russia and China’s openness to being thorns in the side of the United States on Iran and intervention in the Middle East, among other issues, will make things awkward for the other three nations. who have closer ties to the U.S, if the bloc attempts to coalesce around a more unified foreign policy moving forward. Additionally, regional disputes between Russia, India, and and differences in the paces of development between the fast growing China and India and the other three steadier paced nations might potentially make for an unstable internal dynamic.

Despite the uncertainties that would surround a new development bank, I still believe that the BRICS nations should push ahead with what would likely be a worthwhile endeavor. There is no uncertainty whatsoever about the need for Western hegemony over global economic institutions like the World Bank to end; it’s hard for people who know about how the global economy has changed over the past few decades  to disagree with the assessment of Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala: “The balance of power in the world has shifted and emerging market countries are contributing more and more to global growth – more than 50 percent – and they need to be given a voice in running things.”

Given the differences the BRICS nations have among themselves, a BRICS bank would probably not initially fulfill all that developing nations could hope for in a global financial institution. But the long-term cooperation that would be necessary to bring the bank to fruition and maintain its solvency might foster the collaboration needed resolve those very differences in the long run. In any case, even an imperfect BRICS bank would at the very least provide developing nations with an alternative to the status quo: a hegemonic international banking system that lacks an institution willing to aid development on developing nations’ own terms.

Lately, I have heard many misconceptions about Muslim women who wear the hijab that seem to be because of a simple lack of knowledge. To me, it seems pretty amazing that this religious mandate is still carried out today, despite the fact that many religious practices, such as this one, are considered outdated. Although I personally do not wear the headscarf, many of my friends and family members do, and they were kind enough to help educate me about this particular religious mandate.

The term “hijab” actually refers to the way a Muslim woman should carry herself, encompassing more than just the covering of the head. The concept of the hijab is one of modesty, which women are directed to preserve. In the same vein, they are instructed to be modest in the rest of their clothing, as well as their character. All this is to ensure the power of the woman, making the hijab a mandate that demands that a woman be taken seriously. Because a woman appears modest, she should be heard for her thoughts and ideas, not her appearance.

Then there’s the question of whether or not women are forced to wear the headscarf. In Islam, religious tenets are not supposed to be enforced; rather, Muslims are instructed to reserve their judgments on the actions of others and make choices only for themselves. In almost all cases, women wear the hijab because it is their personal choice to do so. Although every woman’s choice is highly personal, the basis of this decision is generally the same: to prevent themselves from being objectified. By wearing the headscarf and embracing the concept of the hijab, the woman is making a declaration of her faith.

Many Western countries have started imposing bans on religious dress, with France as a notable example. Although the argument for separating religion from state is definitely valid, the ban imposes on many personal freedoms. This religious ban does not specifically target women of the Islamic faith; it also applies to the wearing of large crosses. However, the headscarf is easily noticeable and thus, has become a subject of intense scrutiny. This ban prevents women from expressing their religious beliefs, and furthermore, it prevents them from dressing in a manner that they believe is modest and empowering. In this sense, the ban on religious garments takes away women’s freedom to express their religion in a very powerful way.

There is nothing wrong with separating religion and state, but there is something wrong with trying to take away symbols of empowerment and modesty. This especially rings true in a country with a Muslim majority, such as Turkey, where many women do wear the headscarf. By attempting to keep displays of religion away from the public sector, the government is effectively cutting down the size of the workforce, giving women less independence and fewer opportunities.

By creating bans on religious garments, governments prevent women from entering institutions that can help better their lives. This level of discrimination seems unfair and heavily outdated in an age in which tolerance and understanding are promoted. In essence, the hijab is a sign of empowerment, not oppression. The hijab represents modesty and power; women who choose to wear the headscarf are making a conscious decision that they want to be heard for their voices and nothing else. It is not a symbol of oppression or extremism, but rather one of progressiveness and inspiration.

Ninety miles across the Caribbean from the Florida Keys lies an island.  Most United States citizens cannot trade (with this island). On this island, there are no television commercials, newspaper ads or billboards plastered with pictures of food or cars. It is as if this little republic completely rejects the very principles that American consumer culture is based o. After fifty years of trade-less relations with its behemoth neighbor to the North, it is as if the country has become frozen in time.

Of course, I’m talking about Cuba, which increasing numbers of Americans have been visiting, despite a decades-old embargo that prevents most types of travel to the island. What was once a country largely dominated by American commercial interests has, in the course of a half-century, gone from being an idealistic revolutionary state to soviet puppet, finally transitioning into a bankrupt nation that tries (and largely fails) to keep its people in check through paranoia and propaganda.

Interestingly, each phase of Cuba’s history is almost perfectly enshrined in the architecture, cars and decor of Havana and other Cuban cities. Ornately detailed post-colonial buildings stand adjacent to streets crowded with wonderfully streamlined American automobiles from the 50s, all in the shadow of monolithic Soviet-style concrete office buildings. Of course, years of disrepair and neglect have given the cityscapes a distinct post-apocalyptic hue; paint has long since peeled from most buildings, many of the cars are rusted (though just as many have been kept in pristine condition) and just about every other wall is plastered with a sun-bleached, decades-old revolutionary slogan.

Indeed, one of Cuba’s most shocking facets is the complete and utter lack of advertising. Most Americans will interpret that as meaning that there are no billboards, no television commercials and no newspaper ads. This perception is only partially true. There are many billboards—it’s  just that all of them are covered in propaganda del Socialismo. Driving across the country, you’ll see dozens of free standing billboards every mile, alternatively attempting to motivate the people (“It is ideas that drive history!”) or reinforcing the irreversibility of the Revolution—an event that is, in the Cuban imagination,  ongoing and currently in its 54^th year. These read more like: “Socialism or death!” In fact, even in casual conversation, La Revolución has become shorthand for the Castro regime; the people are supposed to be mesmerized by the constant action of the revolutionary government, despite its actual operation.

Television programs and the single approved newspaper are slightly subtler in their approach, but equally predictable in formula. On TV, what is loosely called the news is, in reality, extraordinarily rehearsed in format; every night of news is composed roughly of thirty minutes of criticizing the United States (with inordinate attention given to the “ongoing” police brutality against the Occupy movement) and thirty minutes of praising the remarkable productivity of a given Cuban industrial sector. This is the only news program broadcast on the only news channel in the country (there are only four channels in total).

The nightly news is preceded by a very interesting program titled Mesa Redonda (“Round Table” in English), which, at first glance, is formatted exactly like an American political commentary program. A moderator and commentators are arranged around a table much in the same way as would be expected from a show from CNN. Once the show actually starts, however, it becomes very clear how the program differs from those in the United States; instead of heated debate, discussion and disagreement, Mesa Redonda is composed entirely of consecutive fifteen-minute monologues wherein every commentator agrees with everyone else. As with most Cuban cultural institutions, it is almost as if an American explained to a Cuban who had never before seen American news how to format a talk show and, like a game of telephone, the concept had become warped and reconstructed in accordance to the demands of La Revolución.

The newspaper is similarly organized; of the six or so pages in El Granma—the only newspaper in the country—roughly half are devoted to analyzing the failures of the United States while the other half are feel-good pieces about Cuban production. In every news outlet, actions of the United States are invariably interpreted in the worst possible light. Notably, the NATO interventions in Libya (which were largely performed by British and French forces) produced the following headline in El Granma: “U.S. Invasion of Libya Continues to Produce Civilian Casualties”. On the up-side, the Cuban people avoid indoctrination by capitalist advertisements—the paper and the news are completely void of any commercials.

One story that transcends every advertising and propaganda medium is the story of Los Cinco Héroes (“The Five Heroes”). As much as can be surmised by any inquisitive visitor, the Héroes were, simply, Communist Cuban informants who had infiltrated anti-Communist Cuban-American terrorist organizations and were imprisoned (for crimes that they had likely actually committed) after Fidel Castro had provided information gathered from the informants to the FBI to assist with capturing actual anti-Communist terrorists. The story is really very complex; each actor in the story plugs into a web of terrorist activity (some of which is, within Cuban propaganda regime, sponsored by the CIA) that dates back decades to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Whatever happened in truth actually becomes much more interesting as a myth of La Revolución. Billboards everywhere inform the public that the Héroes must return, the television updates the people every night about the fate of their informant-heroes and the newspaper responds with bitter cynicism at every step the U.S. judicial system takes in their prosecution, imprisonment and parole. Most interesting of this whole ordeal is the length of time the story has been perpetrated on the Cuban people; the Five Heroes were arrested during the Clinton Administration.

At this point, the legend of the Five Heroes has come to embody everything about the Cuban cultural regime—it, like the Revolución itself, has tried to remain relevant by transcending time, creating a system of paranoia and establishing a David & Goliath story. In the end, the regime in Cuba has survived in recent years by setting itself as the underdog, persecuted by the Goliath of the North. Ultimately, the U.S. embargo has only helped sustain this cultural mythology.

Deep-rooted religious differences between the Sunni and the Shia Bahrainis erupted into violence and uproar during the Arab Spring of 2011. Because the Sunni minority (about 30%) rules over the Shia majority (about 70%), there are great disparities in the treatment of Bahraini citizens based on religious sect.

When Bahrain unexpectedly exploded into armed revolt and unsuppressed anger, every resident in Bahrain was thrust into the middle of this chaos. I was living in Bahrain at the time, and I directly felt the far-reaching impacts of this violent uprising. After two months of riots, street fighting, and tension, it seemed as though this attempt at overthrowing the prime minister was over. But this was not the case, as the riots picked up steam during the summer and extended through the fall and winter. As it stands, this small nation is still being rocked by daily riots and uprisings across the island.

These are some of the things I learned from living through an attempted revolution:

1. Anger does not subside with time

Every 20 years or so, sectarian feuds in Bahrain lead to unrest and uprisings across this miniscule Middle Eastern island, which gained much more media attention this time around as they took place during the Arab Spring. While larger nations like Tunisia and Egypt were staging successful revolutions and overthrowing their infamous regimes, Bahrain somehow got caught up in the zeitgeist. Disgruntled and neglected citizens made their voices heard by staging riots and uprisings across the island, inciting the national police force to take arms against them. The rioters vowed not to back down until their demands were met, and they have yet to surrender the fight to be heard. The protesters refuse to surrender, which sets these riots apart from those in the past. It is true that they were suppressed, to some degree, by the foreign troops, but they are relentless. They have continued their fight to be heard for over a year now, and they show no signs of surrendering soon.

2. Things don’t always go as planned

In February of 2011, the rioters in Bahrain had set up camp (literally) in the nation’s most iconic landmark- the Pearl Roundabout in Manama, the capital city. The government had originally agreed to let them stay there so long as the rioters agreed to meet with committees the government set up to negotiate their demands and concerns. A month later, however, riot police stormed the Pearl Roundabout and cleared the area of any dissenters. In the scuffle, four civilians were killed and an internal report showed that unnecessary violence was used against the protestors. As a result, the king and the crown prince declared that martial law was in effect, a harsh measure that nobody could have predicted a month before this.

3. Panic is contagious

As soon as martial law was enacted most expatriates, who make up the majority of the population, flew into a wild frenzy. Lines stretched across grocery stores as the panic shopping began while the road to the airport was jam-packed with evacuators. Those who decided to evacuate did so immediately, not willing to wait for conditions to improve. Those of us who stuck it out packed suitcases just in case and stayed glued to the news. The American naval base suggested a “voluntary” evacuation for all American citizens on the island, but political ties made it difficult for foreign nations to force mandatory evacuations of a nation that was now on multiple travel warning lists.

4. Asking for help doesn’t always help

Many Gulf nations sent their police forces over to Bahrain to help maintain order. While they did help keep the peace during martial law, they also created some deep-seeded resentment. Foreign intervention made the entire situation seem much more dramatic than it actually was. But because foreign troops aren’t exactly a sign of peacetime, people who left had trouble coming back, as many companies refused to let their employees return to Bahrain. Ultimately, the foreign intervention complicated matters and fostered fear.

5. The news isn’t reliable

Every time I spoke to anyone who had left Bahrain, they seemed to think that conditions in Bahrain were so much worse than the actually were. As it turns out, they were reading news reports that were exaggerating the dangers of staying in Bahrain last spring. I sat, frightened, in my house, constantly following the news online.

Finally, my parents decided it’d be a good idea to take me on a drive (scenic routes are obviously preferred during martial law) to show me that things weren’t as bad as they seemed to be. And surprisingly, they were right, leading to my main point: the mental siege that occurs during an uprising can be almost as bad as a physical entrapment, especially when fueled on by the media.

The terror that gripped the nation during the middle of March last year has had effects that last as long as the riots have. The fear that Bahrain could erupt into a state of unrest at any moment is still very real, and it will continue to linger in the air so long as tear gas continues to be fired at the protesters.

No matter how many tires are burned in the streets, or how many rubber bullets are fired, an attempted revolution will never be over until the dissenters achieve their goals. Because the Bahraini monarchy is supported by multiple foreign nations, it seems unlikely that the dissenters will manage to overthrow this traditional power structure. These riots have lasted longer than any previous uprisings have; therefore, there is no certainty in the coming months: will the dissenters give up and wait another 20 years, or will they continue to fight to the death?

By Michelle Lee

Paris has long retained its reputation as the capital of love, lights, and languishing artists. Beneath its homogenous image, however, lies a history of evolving neighborhoods, shifting populations, and rampant socio-economic change. What people see now is the result of decades of gentrification—the process in which working-class and immigrant communities are overrun, and thereby transformed, by the bourgeoisie.

The process began in the 1960s when a new class of young, wealthy, and educated people emerged in Paris: the bourgeois bohemians, otherwise known as the bobos. Armed with wealth and an innovative spirit, they migrated from the west of Paris, where the bourgeoisie was historically situated, to the east, where scores of factory workers, homeless, and immigrants lived.

There, the bobos took advantage of the cheap housing and restructured the neighborhoods from the inside out. Run-down buildings were transformed into posh apartments and office buildings. New restaurants and businesses appeared. Wealthy foreigners and families moved in. It was thus that the fabric and population of East Paris began to change drastically.

Today, bobos are characterized by their elite, private education; jobs in art, media, or technology; hip, renovated apartments; fixation with high culture and pop culture; and affinity to travel. They are romantic and ambitious, driven in turn by the arts and their careers. If one were to grossly oversimplify them, they would be labeled as one part yuppie and one part hipster.

The term bobo elicits a cold reception from most Parisians. More and more the city has become a culturally seamless fabric rather than a mishmash of distinct neighborhoods as bobos gentrify East Paris. While tourists delight in this postcard-perfect ideal, Parisians worry about what redefining the city means. Areas such as the Marais and Saint-Germain-des-Prés have lost much of their former charm, evolving from intellectual hubs to trendy shopping centers. Paris, the critics say, is becoming a characterless landscape of swanky restaurants, brand name stores, and yoga studios.

From an economic standpoint, however, gentrification is a blessing. Blighted neighborhoods have been revived through the influx of new inhabitants, businesses, and capital. Belleville, for example, has evolved into a colorful neighborhood of art studios, open markets, and a Chinatown. Property values and tax revenues have increased. As such, impoverished areas, such as Butte-aux-Cailles, have drastically improved, turning from working class neighborhoods into “quartiers tranquilles.”

So what has happened to the original inhabitants? While gentrification appears to integrate the upper and middle classes with the working class, it does not promote actual interaction. The bobos live and work among themselves; shop at bio stores and upscale boutiques; and send their children to private schools. Outside, they may cross paths with the working class, but they enter wholly different buildings. The idea that gentrification promotes inter-class solidarity is therefore an illusion. What was originally macro-segregation between neighborhoods has simply become micro-segregation between one or two street blocks. Moreover, as the bobos renovate buildings and drive rent prices up, the working class is often pushed out to the suburbs, where there are less opportunities and less housing.

Ultimately, while the effects of gentrification are questionable, one cannot deny that Paris has a unique entrepreneurial spirit. Since the nineteenth century when Baron Georges Eugene Haussmann remapped Paris by installing its iconic tree-lined boulevards, the city has pushed ahead in urban planning and development. On the one hand, these changes have signified a switch to a forward, modernist way of thinking; on the other, it has displaced thousands of working-class people and marred the authentic character of many of its neighborhoods.

And yet, no matter what happens, Paris will remain a mecca for lovers and dreamers everywhere.

The religiosity of Indian politics makes me uncomfortable. Governmental meddling in issues of law makes me even more uncomfortable. The Indian government meddling in another country’s legal process and using dubious methods of diplomatic strong-arming makes me most uncomfortable of all. Combining these three things results in a bonanza of extreme discomfort for yours truly.

How, you may very well ask, does a government manage to mess up this badly? It must be impossible for an administration to systematically do discomfiting things with such startling regularity, right?

‘Right,’ I can see all of you nodding, probably thinking that if you nod hard enough, the inevitable rant might be postponed. I wish it were so.

Really, I do. But the real answer to the question is wrong, so very wrong.

Our story begins in June 2011 in the Russian city of Tomsk. The state prosecutor’s office initiated a proceeding against ‘The Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ for being ‘extremist literature.’ Russian law includes a list of certain such texts, whose reproduction and distribution, for fear of the social discord they might produce, are banned. On this list are other books which, the author would presume, make for not-so-pleasant reading. Such luminaries as Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ reside on the list.

The prosecutor’s case was centered on the assessment of three ‘experts’ from Tomsk State University. Observers speculated that the influence of the local Russian Orthodox Church had also played a hand in initiating the case. The judge — smart cookie that she was —found the assessment inadequate. The court subsequently ordered another assessment be conducted from another state university and postponed the final verdict till December 28th, 2011.

I’m only skimming the surface of the details, not because they do not deserve attention, but because the focus of this article is the Indian parliament’s, in my opinion, rather obscene reaction to the whole business.

On December 19th, 2011, the leader of a right wing party brought the issue up in parliament. Bhartruhari Mahtab, the parliamentarian in question, demanded to know “what the Indian government was doing to protect the religious rights of Hindus in Russia.”

Note the language here: not the religious rights of Indians, but the religious rights of Hindus. Angry members of parliament, across party lines, screamed such statements as ‘we will not tolerate an insult to Lord Krishna!’

Tad overdone, the whole thing, if you ask me. A particularly bright chap in the Rajya Sabha even let loose another beautiful example of characteristically mistimed Indian political rhetoric about the December 19th session of the House, ‘A golden day in our history when all differences were deleted to express solidarity for Gita, the book of India.’

Hold on a sec, right there, my man. The book of India. It may be a lot of things, but the book of India, it is not.

The next day, Sushma Swaraj, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, asked that the Gita be declared India’s national book. Nothing interesting to the outside observer, but, this statement comes  from a prominent member of a Hindu right wing party. On December 21st, however, the situation escalated. The BJP sent a delegation to the Russian embassy to talk to the Russian consul, demanding that the Russian government ‘take suitable measures’ to dismiss the court case immediately as baseless. Jolly, the unfortunately named leader of said delegation, expressed high handed surprise that, given ‘how important Indo-Russian relations [were], that the Russian government had allowed the court case to go on so long.’

The government of India had a more muted, though no less forgivable, reaction. They sent over the ambassador to Moscow to the Kremlin to have a word with the powers that be, and more diplomatic wrangling was tried there. I understand that the parliament was putting enormous pressure on the ruling UPA coalition in the house, but show some hubris!

As far as I’m concerned, you cannot, cannot, absolutely cannot interfere with due process in another country. End of story. I don’t see anybody telling Indians what to censor and what not to censor. Coming from the country that banned ‘The Satanic Verses’ and ‘Lajja’ and alienated M.F Hussain, that is mighty arrogant, and I feel ashamed.

Hunger is no longer the sole nutritional problem facing the developing world. 1996 marked a pivotal year for the World Food Programme (WFP): it was the last year when more than seven million tons of food aid was donated by the Programme for non-emergency related aid. 2006 was the last year more than one million tons of related aid was donated and delivered. The numbers keep falling—year after year less food aid is donated and distributed by the WFP to people who need it, even as the economic crisis swells the ranks of the hungry.

Yet since 1980 a historically rich-world phenomenon—obesity—has reared its ugly head in nations previously considered too poor for obesity to be a problem. It isn’t only in consumption that developing countries are now mirroring the developed. Heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases that more typical middle-aged Westerners develop are spreading throughout the developing world as fortunes rise. Developing countries are experiencing developed-world problems.

The World Health Organization (WHO) regards health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” Health is under attack, but the international community is doing too little to bulwark health because weak international interests are continually trumped by national ones.

Many countries around the world have limited access to cheap, affordable, healthy, and nutritious food. The European Commission in a September, 2011 report on trade raises fears over heightened protectionism among G-20 members, and agricultural products are no exception. In 2011 Ukraine raised export duties on grains, between 9 and 14 percent increases; Algeria banned exporting cereals like wheat and barley and flour; Kazakhstan banned the export of buckwheat; the Russian Federation tightened grain exports in the wake of a devastating drought. In developing regions like Central Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa, where regional agricultural net producers buttress net importers, insular exportation policies greatly harm those reliant on cheap imports. There are no export restrictions on the Twinkie and many other less-than-essential foodstuffs. Instead of fostering healthy trade and doing away with trade restrictions, policies like these make it more difficult to purchase healthy and cheap food. As a consequence, the WFP and other global assistance funds donate less and less cheap and healthy food, and poorer consumers buy less cheap food.

During economic hardships the international community seems to forget “the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food,” declared in Article 11 of the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, choosing instead to hold back giving. The European Charter on Counteracting Obesity, signed in 2006 by all 53 members of the European region of the World Health Organization, serves as a good start for developing regional goals to combat obesity, which can lead to a reduction in other non-infectious diseases related to an unhealthy weight. Supranational efforts spearheaded by the European Union like the European Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health are good steps, but do not take action in reducing European obesity levels; instead of passing meaningful reform to promote habits, legislators call for more talk and less action.

While these are important initiatives, and more pan-national dialogue will lead to greater awareness, fitness does not garner the same calls for reform that a unified monetary policy does. There is an astonishing absence of law pertaining to preserving health. In the developing world, where citizens cannot afford to buy healthy food, the percent of a population that is overweight is significantly higher. While certain outliers exist among developing countries—only 4 percent of India’s population is overweight—Middle Eastern countries tend to be both more overweight and obese than their European counterparts. The Pacific Islands, where weight used to be a sign of affluence, have been hit the hardest: Nauru has the dubious distinction of being the fattest nation in the world, with more than 79 percent of its population obese. When obesity, which costs the US alone $123 billion in direct and indirect costs, is compared with other economic activities, it would seem imperative that something must be done. Obesity and diabetes cost the Pacific Island of Tonga $1.95 million per annum. While this may seem a small sum, this figure represents nearly sixty percent of the health budget and six percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

$7.3 trillion will be lost in output by 2025 from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and lung disease according to the World Economic Forum. And yet there remains no effective mechanism on an international level to combat non-communicable diseases (NCDs). On a national level there has been some success albeit limited—with Scandinavian countries leading the way. Sweden has introduced voluntary labels informing consumers about the nutritional content of food items, helping consumers make healthier choices. Finland has studied the eating habits when free vegetables or a free salad was added in a meal.

School lunches—the Finnish study was conducted in a university cafeteria—play an integral role for children. What children eat at an early age lays the foundations for successive eating habits. A school in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois has staked out new ground by banning home-packed lunches; only school-prepared lunches are allowed, unless students are medically-required to eat certain foods. This policy helps students from backsliding at an early age into unhealthy eating habits. Julian Ruiz, a second-grader at Little Village Academy, confesses: “sometimes I would bring the healthy stuff, but sometimes I would bring Lunchables.” While Julian may not be totally ignorant of what is healthy, the schools should nonetheless be praised for taking the initiative to reinforce healthy behavior.

The Chinese government has unique abilities to make healthy changes for their citizens. Chinese culture places a great deal of power into the hands of the community. The central government, realizing the scope of diversity in China, has decided to engage the community in tackling eating habits. Through the National Plan of Action for Nutrition for China, the government—utilizing such diverse bureaus as health, agriculture, and State Planning—will attempt to “alleviate hunger and food shortages; […] prevent, control, and eliminate micronutrient deficiencies; and to improve the general nutritional state of the people and prevention nutrition-related chronic disease [15,000 deaths per year, or 70 percent of mortality in China] through proper guidance to consumption behavior, improvement of dietary patterns, and promotion of healthy lifestyles.”

By setting price controls to make unhealthy foods more expensive or even ban them outright, and administering gargantuan publicity campaigns that can reach any corner in China, the Chinese government has immense power to reduce obesity—power unrivaled anywhere else. However, because of China’s scope, little has been accomplished. It must be noted that Beijing had historically been hesitant, even hostile, towards creating broad-reaching social programs like those of the developed world (e.g., some form of retirement insurance or socialized medicine). This reluctance could lead to a uninformed and unhealthy aged population, and only recently have steps been taken to provide social benefits.

Here in the United States, the courts have recently backed initiatives to make consumers better informed about their decisions. In New York State Restaurant Association v. New York City Board of Health (2009), the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a statue issued by the New York City Board of Health mandating the prominent display of caloric information for food purchased in restaurants, sparking a national trend. Outside of the United States and Western Europe, there is very little evidence to support much legal action to curtail hidden caloric information or fast food-related media aimed at children.

One huge factor in preventing and treating NCDs around the world is readily-available generic medicine, bringing the power to save hundreds of millions from pharmaceutical companies to the developing world. During most of the Twentieth Century, developing countries lacked access to sophisticated drugs manufactured in the developed world because of high costs and little cash. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) medication is notoriously expensive, limiting its market to the wealthy infirm. African governments, valuing human life over copyright laws, threatened to manufacture essential drugs cheaply and illegally to prevent a public health crisis.

The public relations storm that ensued, along with other outcries against other expensive treatments led to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), a World Trade Organization (WTO) international agreement that set down for the first time the minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property. TRIPS spells out how “members [of TRIPS] may exclude from patentability inventions [… that] which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality.” This groundbreaking agreement paved way for the Doha Declaration in 2001, which further emphasized the flexibility of TRIPS member states in getting around patent rights to essential medicines. While acute diseases, spurring on national emergencies, are listed for public health crises, given current trends in the prevalence of NCDs, the Doha Declaration may experience revisions unforeseen ten years ago, and what exactly constitutes a public health crisis will come under fire. Countries may manufacture without consent drugs to treat obesity-related conditions as well as fighting AIDS.

This drive for individual expression, whether it is showing wealth by eating unhealthy foods in a country where a great many people do not have the ability to make ends meet, or to ignore copyright law for the good of many at the expense of a few shareholders, lies at the very heart the conflict to uphold of the universal idea of health laid down by the World Health Organization. The Supreme Court of the United States has further emphasized the “freedom of information,” but freedom now means producers can advertise to the general public potentially harmful products: cigarettes. In Lorillard v. Reilly, the Supreme Court mandated removing tobacco advertising limitations designed to protect Massachusetts children. The Court explained this decision by citing smoking as a lawful activity and that tobacco companies had an interest in providing accurate information about their product. The law sends a mixed message about the freedom to live in an environment where harmful interests daily interact with people to produce health issues. The Supreme Court strikes down most efforts to create a paternalistic intervention to prevent unhealthy lifestyle choices that would undermine personal freedom and responsibility, highlighting the tension between protecting public health and protecting personal responsibility. The developed world is not setting the best example for others to follow. If tobacco can be advertised when small children are watching, McDonald’s can target with equal impunity small children.

The global economic downturn had made it more difficult for those living in poverty to gain access to adequately-healthy food. The endemic threat posed by NCDs has been addressed by global strategies and charters, United Nations summits, and other international movements, gently guiding nations towards reducing obesity levels. The problem is that generating international law to combat non-communicable diseases must not oppose national law and initiatives and vice versa, reducing economic clannishness and protectionism, and thereby lowering global food prices and allowing more people access to food.

Governments around the world must take steps to make healthy food available to all those who need it, especially giving food aid to developing nations; and pharmaceutical companies must, even in hard times, make readily available essential medicine to poverty-stricken countries who can benefit from this the most. Lipitor, Avandia, Plavix, Viracept, Norvir, Sustiva, and many other drugs that treat high cholesterol, prevent blood clots, and control HIV respectively, and many other expensive, time-tested drugs will within five years become first-time generic or R_x-to-OTC. While there is no pill to cure obesity, its effects can be controlled. The pressure to litigate and reapply patents will be strong, but governments, especially the United States, must take a firm stance and allow these medications to slip into the public domain. Even if readily available, cheap medication is not seen as the best solution to solving the spread of chronic, non-communicable diseases.

Even though it has been more than sixty years since the WHO set down its standards of health, they ring as true today as they did following the hemoclysms of the first half of the twentieth century. Supranational organizations that exert considerable economic influence, such as the European Union, have the power to change the social status quo, encouraging and even mandating healthier lifestyle “paths.” Basic foodstuffs are abundant worldwide but are astonishingly poorly distributed. The temptation to purchase cheaper, less-healthy foods where possible is ever present, but surely the economic loss presented by NCDs outweighs the pain of pain of passing on the fries and a shake. National political units must take note of what it means to be healthy and encourage healthy habits to defray costs in the long run. Cracking down globally on tobacco was a good first step for many countries. Will there ever come a time when Twinkies cannot be consumed within two hundred feet of a school anywhere?