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

