Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
T
his
time
of
year,
millions
of
students
are moving to colleges
and universities across the
United States. They prepare
for their classes, settle into
their housing, reunite with old
friends and prepare to make
new connections. Though this
time can be daunting for new
students, it remains mostly
shaped by optimism toward the
expansive new opportunities
awaiting these young adults.
Yet as these Americans enter
what
will
hopefully
be
a
positive chapter in their lives,
students half a world away
are combatting a different,
harrowing reality.
In Hong Kong, mass protests
have roared on since late March
against an amendment to a law
that many Hong Kong citizens
believe created a dangerous
precedent for tyranny. The
amendment in question would
have
allowed
for
accused
criminal offenders in Hong
Kong to be extradited to China
for trial, where they will likely
be convicted.
Opponents
say
the
bill
would
essentially
grant
China the ability to detain
whomever
they
view
as
threatening dissidents to the
Chinese
Communist
Party
(CCP) and bring them to China
to face a bleak fate. They
fear that mainland China is
making
advances
to
break
their agreement that allows
Hong Kong to live under its
own political and economic
policies.
Within
days
of
the
amendment’s passage, thousands
rallied in Hong Kong to demand
its repeal, with the numbers
of protesters growing past one
million demonstrators. Among
the large crowds are high school
and college students, many of
whom have taken leadership
roles in the demonstrations.
Though supported by their
fellow activists, these students
have been especially susceptible
to threats against their lives
and the lives of their families.
Messages posted online and in
city streets by individuals and
organized groups have told
students that they must stop
protesting if they do not wish
to see their loved ones harmed.
Some threats have included
the public posting of young
protesters’ addresses and full
names of students and their
family members, warning them
to stop their activity against
the Hong Kong government and
promising violence otherwise.
The heavy involvement by
college-age Hong Kong citizens
in these pro-democracy protests
is not without precedent. In 2014
the Umbrella Revolution in favor
of democracy for Hong Kong took
place. One of its youngest and most
influential members, Nathan Law,
was an undergraduate student
at the time. Now he is one of the
faces of the movement to oppose
the extradition bill and China’s
interference in Hong Kong’s
political
affairs.
Though
the
Umbrella
Revolution
saw minimal victories, the
involvement of Law and other
voices has helped create a
culture of student activism in
Hong Kong. He believes that
most young adults in Hong
Kong share his vision for greater
transparency, the elimination of
corruption and the growth of
democracy.
While the 2014 protests
saw some concessions by the
governments in Beijing and
Hong Kong, and the current
protests are still ongoing, the
history of student activism
against the CCP’s policies is
quite dark. The most impactful
chapter took place in June 1989
at Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
June 3 and 4 marked the height
of protests by students and
young adults throughout China
in favor of increased individual
liberties and against rampant
corruption within the CCP
government. In response to
the mass protests, the most
visible of which was held
in Tiananmen Square, CCP
officials decided to crush the
demonstrations by force. After
crowds of citizens originally
prevented the military from
reaching Tiananmen Square,
tanks rolled in and forced
protesters
to
flee,
while
Chinese
forces
fired
upon
those who continued to resist
and those running for their
lives. An official death toll has
not been released, but some
lists estimate the toll at 10,000
dead. The United States is still
pushing China to release the
lists of those who were killed
and went missing in those
tragic events.
The
Tiananmen
Square
massacre,
which
the
CCP
defends to this day, caused a
widespread fear of protesting
against
the
authoritarian
government in Beijing. With
the
proliferation
of
the
Chinese regime’s surveillance
technology, fears of being
recognized, threatened, killed,
detained or labeled a dissident
by the government are a real
concern to the protesters.
These young people, who are
simply trying to preserve the
autonomy that China agreed
to grant them in 1997, are
scared for their loved ones and
themselves. Yet they continue
their efforts in the face of a
Hong Kong legislature that is
greatly manipulated by Beijing
and its sympathizers within
the city leadership.
The
polar
juxtaposition
of the current realities for
students in the United States
and in Hong Kong is shocking
and
should
make
young
Americans across the country
feel incredibly fortunate. They
can carry on full time with
their education and mostly
live free, uninterrupted lives.
Though they may approve or
disapprove of their national
or state governments, their
activism is allowed to continue
and
their
speech
remains
free. The U.S. Constitution,
complete with an expansive
Bill of Rights and a checks-and-
balances system, assures their
leaders never attain totalitarian
power like the CCP. They live
under a democratic system that
gives them direct influence
in choosing the leadership in
their political system. It is no
coincidence that in search of
inspiration in their fight for
freedom, demonstrators have
been seen waving the United
States flag and singing “The
Star-Spangled Banner.”
These are privileges that
are easy to simply take as
facts of life for an American
college student. However, the
students of Hong Kong are not
so lucky. Thirty years after one
of the most brutal repressions
of protest in history, aimed
at
students
by
the
same
authoritarian
forces,
these
courageous young men and
women are risking the freedom
they still have to demand the
freedom they deserve.
This fact should cause us to
cherish the freedoms we hold
as students in the U.S., and
bring our attention to what is
happening across the globe.
The demonstrators in Hong
Kong deserve our admiration,
respect, support and — if
possible — assistance. At the
very least, we should not take
for granted the liberty which
we have, and which they seek
so desperately.
NOAH ENTE | COLUMN
The Hong Kong protests should give us perspective
T
he 2020 presidential
election is just over a
year away, and things
are starting to heat up. Twitter
is full of soundbites from the
Democratic debates, polling
numbers are all over the place
and President Donald Trump is
brainstorming new nicknames
for each Democratic candidate.
While many Democrats will
focus on who can beat Trump,
more of them should really
be focusing on who can beat
Mitch McConnell and other
Senate Republicans who are
up for re-election. In American
society there is an enchantment
with
presidential
elections,
which
is
understandable.
Electing the face of our nation
is no small task and deserves
a great amount of attention,
but the Senate elections may
prove to be just as important,
if not more so. With recent
news of the University of
Michigan placing a bid to host
a presidential debate, it may
become even harder for the
students of our school to focus
on what is going on in Senate
races across the country.
To truly understand why
the
Senate
elections
hold
such
significant
meaning,
one must first understand the
essential powers of the Senate.
The Senate has the power to
confirm or reject presidential
appointees, approve treaties,
conduct
investigations,
conduct impeachment trials
and plays a major role in
approving or blocking bills.
This gives the Senate power to
steer America in the direction
it chooses, and the person who
currently steers that ship is
Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell
has been a senator since 1984
and has won re-election five
times, despite his low approval
ratings. For those at home
counting, that means he’s been
in office for 35 years, making
him a real relic of the Senate.
If I could use one word that
perfectly describes McConnell,
it would be “obstructionist.”
Over the past four years he
has done everything in his
power
to
block
anything
that he doesn’t like, even if
it was accomplished through
bipartisan compromise. The
most obvious example of his
obstructionist nature can be
seen in 2016 when President
Barack
Obama’s
nomination
of Merrick Garland for the
Supreme Court was blocked by
McConnell, who refused to even
hold confirmation hearings.
“One of my proudest moments
was when I looked Barack
Obama in the eye and I said,
‘Mr. President, you will not fill
the Supreme Court vacancy,’”
McConnell said. While this is
a big deal, this isn’t even the
thing that enrages me most
about McConnell’s leadership.
What
should
upset
every
American,
let
alone
every
student on campus, is the rate
at which he blocks bills that are
desperately needed and would
greatly benefit the American
people.
The
entire
U.S.
intelligence community agreed
that the Kremlin meddled in
our election. In response to
this, the House Democrats
decided to act. In just the past
few months, McConnell has
blocked two election security
bills. Both bills passed in the
House, but when they came
to McConnell’s desk, he killed
the bills. The bills would have
given $600 million to update
voting equipment, and included
certain
paper
requirements
for
voting
machines.
This
was a real attempt to combat
a foreign nation hacking our
elections. Yet, McConnell saw
the bill as hyperpartisan, and
refused to hold a vote on it.
On top of that, he has blocked
numerous bills on gun control
that many Americans want.
After every mass shooting, we
all ask, “Will something be
done this time?” Unfortunately,
while McConnell is leading the
Senate, the answer seems to be
no.
Why does he do all this?
Is it because he is a career
politician who has been bought
by different lobby groups? Yes.
Earlier in the year, he received
a large campaign donation
from
the
voting
machine
lobby,
then
proceeded
to
block the election security
bills
that
would’ve
put
a
larger financial burden on
voting
machine
companies.
Additionally, throughout his
career,
the
National
Rifle
Association has donated more
than $1 million to McConnell’s
campaigns. It’s clear why he
doesn’t want to tackle the
gun control issue. But that
doesn’t paint the full picture.
It’s also because he has had
the safety of knowing that no
matter what, he will go back to
Kentucky and win re-election.
McConnell has always been
more obsessed with retaining
power rather than cooperating
with senators across the aisle.
In an interview with NPR,
McConnell
would
respond
to criticism by continually
citing that he has never lost an
election for his seat.
The most important race of 2020 is in Kentucky,
and it’s not the derby
Noah Ente can be reached at
noahente@umich.edu.
ALLISON PUJOL | COLUMN
The Cuban embargo revisited
T
he
United
States’
opposition to the spread of
communism abroad bears
a long and complicated political
history. Even today, long after Cold
War tensions thawed, U.S. policy
toward communist regimes such
as China, Cuba and North Korea
indicates that some hostilities
have not entirely melted away. In
particular, U.S. policy towards
Cuba is still mired by residual
antagonism towards revolutionary
leader Fidel Castro’s communist
regime that arose in the late 1950s.
More than 50 years later, the
notorious Cuban embargo that
began in 1958 has remained in
place with few adjustments since
its original implementation.
The Cuban embargo, which
makes
economic
engagement
between Cuba and the U.S. nearly
impossible, has taken up more
than its fair share of controversy.
Originally, the intention of the
policy was to display the United
States’ opposition to the Cuban
revolution and Castro’s subsequent
communist regime, which had
become
violently
oppressive
towards its own citizens (Human
Rights Watch provides a decent
background on the repression
thousands of Cubans faced during
the country’s revolution.). The
United States’ decision to maintain
the embargo after more than 50
years has been criticized at length
both at home and abroad. The
United Nations has repeatedly
condemned the embargo, asserting
that it causes needless harm to
ordinary Cuban citizens who
are powerless over their political
situation and suggesting that it
may even violate international law.
After all these years, then,
the question remains: Has the
embargo worked? The best answer
is both yes and no, depending on
which definition of success we’re
working with.
If the only goal of the embargo
is
to
demonstrate
the
U.S.’s
dissatisfaction with Cuba’s human
rights abuses and corrupt political
system, then the Cuban embargo
has likely achieved what its policy
designers
intended.
Barring
nearly all exports and investment
between Cuba and the U.S., the
embargo sends a massive political
signal. There is no uncertainty
about the United States’ disgust
toward the Castro dictatorship and
its willingness to oppress its own
citizens.
If the goal of the embargo is to
achieve material change within
the country of Cuba, however, the
results are harder to identify. Other
countries that sought to challenge
or oppose the U.S. — notably
Russia and Venezuela — also filled
the gap left by the U.S.’ cessation
of
diplomatic
negotiations.
Venezuelan oil flowed in like a
lifeline to the struggling Cuban
economy
and
provided
an
essential life raft for the Castro
regime. Cuba’s heads of state
recognized fairly quickly that the
United States was not essential to
the island’s economic future. And
thus, like the embargo, Cuba’s
one-party system has remained
intact with little to no visible
change.
But
outside
of
domestic
politics within the United States,
it is difficult to say whether the
country remains the same as the
one the U.S. accused of being a
dictatorship in the 1960s. Raul
Castro, who took control after
his brother Fidel ceded power
following
several
secretive
hospitalizations, initiated broad
economic reforms that allowed
Cuba to thrive despite the U.S.’s
embargo. Liberalization efforts
encouraged a fledgling private
sector
(which
now
employs
12
percent
of
the
country’s
workforce)
to
grow
robustly
alongside trade with new allies
like Nicaragua in the 1970s and
1980s. Recently, Cuba’s health
care industry has flourished with
results that parallel or exceed
the U.S. in infant mortality, life
expectancy and average health
care
expenditures
per
year
despite a notable lack of resources
compared to wealthier democratic
countries.
New
changes
to
the Cuban Constitution allow
for
some
private
ownership
of property. All in all, Cuba is
proving itself to be shifting away
from
state-owned
enterprises
and towards privatization — a
small but definitive shift away
from
communism.
Because
Cuba’s political growth since
the 1960s has been complex,
the lack of real variation in the
U.S. embargo seems concerning.
The president’s recent political
strategy towards Cuba is even less
reassuring.
It seems that the embargo
is likely to stay given President
Donald Trump’s hardline policies,
which include tightening Obama-
era travel exceptions to the
embargo and discouraging U.S.
foreign investment into Cuban
firms or products. However, the
president’s
strategy
towards
Cuba has doubled down on the
embargo’s original intentions
and has shown a firm resistance
to
a
genuine
diplomatic
relationship. In 2017, the Trump
administration
also
pulled
nearly two-thirds of the U.S.
embassy staff from Havana,
and as a result the embassy’s
functions came to a sluggish
halt. Policymakers, as the half-
empty embassy would suggest,
are choosing not to focus on U.S.-
Cuba relations.
And they have their reasons
to think that way. It is easy
to dismiss Cuba as a small
and insignificant country in
the context of international
politics — countries like Russia,
China and Iran often dominate
newspaper
headlines.
But
Cuba plays a startlingly large
role in international relations,
and the country has often
become tightly enmeshed in
larger disputes between rival
powers. This year alone, Russia
loaned millions of euros to the
Cuban military as a message
of goodwill. And Oriente — the
region containing Cuba’s eastern
provinces — is facing economic
stress and potential collapse as a
result of U.S. sanctions towards
Venezuela
as
the
country
experiences mass civil unrest.
Whether or not the Cuban
embargo’s results in 2019 are in
line with its intended goals from
1958, U.S. policymakers should
revisit economic policy towards
Cuba. Given the changing of
the guard since Fidel Castro’s
death and much of the country’s
recent economic liberalization,
current U.S. policy towards the
country is largely outdated and
reflective of Cold War hostility
that passed its expiration date
long ago. While many claim that
the embargo has succeeded in
demonstrating U.S. democratic
resolve
and
leadership,
the
failure to reconsider U.S.-Cuba
relations will only further isolate
Cuba and push the country
towards an increasingly hostile
and dangerous relationship with
the U.S.
Allison Pujol can be reached at
ampmich@umich.edu.
Jonathan Vaysman can be reached at
jvaysman@umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and
op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds
should be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and
University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Students half
a world away
are combatting
a different,
harrowing
reality
JONATHAN VAYSMAN | COLUMN
Read more at MichiganDaily.com