O
n Aug. 26, the United
State’s Departments of
State and Commerce
announced
a
plethora
of
sanctions that are set to be
enacted against leaders of
construction
companies
—
owned by the Communist
Party
of
China
(CPC)
—
which officials deemed as
participating in malign state
projects in the South China
Sea. The relevant measures
include export restrictions,
withholding
visas
and
decreased
access
to
U.S.-
created technology without
permits.
These
policies
serve as an important step
toward curtailing Beijing’s
long-running
problematic
behavior.
In 2013, Chinese President
Xi
Jinping
announced
the commencement of the
“Belt and Road Initiative,”
a
comprehensive
foreign
policy and economic strategy
dedicated
to
augmenting
Beijing’s soft and hard power
around the globe. Since then,
the CPC has taken on various
projects to achieve this goal,
with one notable example
being the construction of
artificial islands in the South
China Sea. Chinese officials
say they have rightful control
over
nearly
all
of
these
international
waterways,
yet such ambitious claims
conflict with the policies
of other states in the region
who dispute the legitimacy
of China maintaining full
control of the sea and who may
pass through it. The South
China Sea serves as one of
the most important maritime
trade routes in the world —
trillions of dollars worth of
shipping pass through these
waters each year. Having
control over the sea does not
merely grant symbolic power;
it carries immense global
economic consequences.
These islands often serve as
fortified military installations,
further adding to the impact
of Beijing’s marine aggression.
With missile systems, landing
strips for fighter jets and other
advanced
equipment,
these
naval forts represent China’s
ambitions to be a hegemony
in Asia and beyond. They
have emboldened Beijing to
become aggressive to military
craft that simply enters these
international waters, including
U.S.
reconnaissance
flights
far from China’s coastline.
These actions are not only
threats to international law
and established norms, but
also toward the U.S. and the
Southeast Asian nations whose
coastlines
brush
against
China’s “nine-dash line” that
outlines the waters it claims on
regional maps.
U.S. military leaders have
spoken strongly against these
developments and the clear
threat to American interests
that they represent. In May
2018,
Admiral
Philip
S.
Davidson, head of U.S. Indo-
Pacific
Command,
testified
before
Congress
and
said
“short of war with the United
States,” China could achieve
full control of the South China
Sea “in all scenarios.” If China
achieves such a stranglehold
on these strategically vital
waterways,
it
could
spell
disaster for the military and
economic interests of the U.S.
and its allies, in Southeast Asia
and elsewhere.
Without
taking
military
action,
the
sanctions
announced
this
week
are
important
and
potentially
impactful
steps
toward
deterring
Chinese
naval
aggression. Closely targeted
against the leadership of about
25 state-owned construction
firms, these restrictions can
help to handicap any further
development of existing or
planned
military
islands
by
preventing
them
from
attaining
American-made
supplies and technology for
hostile
Chinese
purposes.
The China Communications
Construction
Company
and
other CPC-funded companies
could likely find other sources
for materials and funding. Yet,
the export and visa restrictions
by the State and Commerce
departments
will
certainly
make
Beijing’s
work
more
difficult. These provisions will
also assure that the U.S. and
American companies do not
inadvertently fund or support
efforts to shift control of one
of the world’s most important
shipping passages toward a
foreign adversary.
In 2015, Xi promised former
President Barack Obama, and
the world, that his country
would
not
militarize
the
Spratly Islands, where the
Chinese military had already
begun “relevant construction”
in areas where, in Xi’s words,
China
had
maintained
legitimate sovereignty “since
ancient times.” Five years
later, China added the Spratlys
to their network of menacing
naval installations throughout
the South China Sea. Years
of passivity in response to
Beijing’s
military
actions
have led Xi and his CPC to
become further emboldened
to expand their illegitimate
grip
on
the
international
waterways and achieve the
goals of their Belt and Road
Initiative by sea. With strong
sanctions on the way, the U.S.
has indicated that while not
showing aggression toward
China, we are ready to play
hardball to justifiably protect
our interests and global free
trade from Beijing’s unlawful
attacks.
10 — Wednesday, September 9, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
T
he University of Michigan
has
already
reopened
with no plans of reversing
course. The University has created
a thorough reopening plan that
is supposed to provide a safe and
secure learning experience for all
students. However, the plan —
despite having good intentions
and some good ideas — exists
more to provide students with
the feeling of safety rather than
actual safety: a concept known as
security theater.
To
explain
what
security
theater is, how it works and
what its purpose is, one only has
to look at the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA).
Current procedures of the TSA
have frequently been cited as
examples of security theater, such
as the usage of full-body scanners
which, according to The Atlantic,
have been shown to be ineffective
and easily manipulated. The TSA’s
purpose, according to the article,
is not to provide actual security
but rather an illusion of security
and was put in place after the
9/11 terrorist attacks to give
passengers the feeling that air
travel was safe.
Bruce Schneier’s 2003 book,
“Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly
about Security in an Uncertain
World,” discusses why security
theater exists and which parties
benefit from it. According to
Schneier, there are players who all
have different defining interests
and different relationships with
one another such as elected
officials, corporations and the
public. Depending on the player,
at times they might have other
concerns that trump security.
He writes, “Security is partially
a state of mind ... one of the goals
of a security countermeasure is to
provide people with a feeling of
security in addition to the reality.
But
some
countermeasures
provide the feeling of security
instead of the reality.”
In the example of the TSA, major
airlines and elected officials’ chief
concern was getting passengers
back in the air and they needed to
provide an appearance of security
through a strict screening process
— despite that process being
ineffective. In a 2009 opinion
piece written for CNN, Schneier
noted that the best terrorist
prevention
is
not
combating
specific plots but instead carrying
out
covert
investigations,
speaking to cultural experts and
attacking the core ideologies that
lead to international terrorism in
the first place by building bridges
with communities in the Middle
East. However, these tactics do
not provide the feeling of security,
which is why the U.S.’s terrorist
prevention strategy has morphed
into the TSA.
Similar to the aftermath of 9/11,
security theater has reemerged
in the pandemic with certain
countermeasures being of little
use in the fight against COVID-19.
The pandemic, and the subsequent
lockdown associated with it, led
to the entire economy coming
to a near standstill. Therefore, a
chief concern of many businesses,
and even the government, was
attempting to reopen as fast as
possible to combat the economic
downturn. However, as states
began to reopen, cases began
skyrocketing and the concern
quickly went from attempting to
reopen to convincing the general
public that it was safe to resume
normal life.
Anthony Fauci, director of
the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases, has said
that temperature checks are not
reliable in terms of detecting
possible cases because things
like
hot
weather
can
cause
readings to be inaccurately high.
Furthermore, many businesses
such as Planet Fitness, AMC
Theatres and Applebee’s have
touted
extreme
and
strict
sanitation routines despite the
fact that the virus mainly spreads
through person-to-person aerosol
transmission not fomites (surfaces
and objects).
Similarly,
the
University,
though currently pursuing actions
that are effective, still misses the
mark in terms of actual security.
The University, to their credit,
has made changes that will make
this semester safer for students —
for example, making 78 percent
of credit hours remote, allowing
many classes to be taught in a
hybrid
format
and
requiring
all bus riders to wear masks.
However, the reopening plan as a
whole is still flawed.
On Aug. 12, a virtual town hall
was held where the stated plan
was to make the situation as safe as
fully remote with contact tracing,
a reserve of 600 quarantine rooms
and outbreaks of disease being
“anticipated.” Frequent universal
testing was criticized by the
administration
as
impractical
during this meeting; however,
the risks posed by proceeding
without it were never addressed.
University
President
Mark
Schlissel later revealed in an email
that Michigan Medicine could
only process 10,000 tests a week
and planned to increase capacity
as the year continued. Even
with that lowered expectation,
according
to
the
COVID-19
dashboard, only 1,500 tests were
conducted during the week of
Aug. 23. Without universal testing,
an asymptomatic student could
spread the disease and start an
outbreak.
The biggest issue is that the
University has not communicated
its reasoning behind all of the
measures implemented. When
discussing testing, the University
deemed
frequent
universal
testing as impractical yet never
explained how it was still safe to
open without that in place. This
is concerning since a Yale and
Harvard University study found
that students would need to be
tested every two days to prevent
an outbreak and that “symptom-
based screening alone was not
sufficient to contain an outbreak.”
Furthermore,
the
administration
has
given
no
quantitative risk assessment nor
accounted for or explained how
much risk is posed to the Ann
Arbor community at large. One
example of this behavior is that
the administration has repeatedly
touted that the plan was made
with public health experts, yet
have not explained how much risk
will be posed to students, faculty
and the Ann Arbor community.
Moreover, there has been no
adequate explanation on why the
administration is deciding to focus
on symptomatic students and not
striving for universal testing when
COVID-19 is known to spread
asymptomatically; how residential
advisers are expected to enforce
the strict new guest policy when
they can’t possibly know who
might be an outsider; how exactly
they plan on controlling parties
and how effective that plan will be
among countless other questions.
Despite having aspects that
are known to be effective, the
plan as a whole ends up just
being a theatrical display created
to convince students it is safe
to come back to campus. If the
University truly believes in the
idea of a “public health informed”
in-person fall semester, then they
should strive to be as open and
transparent as possible about
what went into their plans and
prove to the students, faculty and
the community that their plan
has the least risk with the most
benefit for all parties involved
rather than expecting us to trust
them and find out for ourselves.
This is especially relevant in light
of recent faculty protests and
outbreaks at other schools, and
especially if they hope to have an
in-person semester in the winter
term.
The main issue with security
theater,
especially
during
a
pandemic, is that it often takes
away from measures that actually
help. Applying that logic to the
University, the proposals put in
place and the school going hybrid,
rather than fully remote, has
convinced a significant number of
students it is safe to attend when
they may otherwise not have
returned. That takes away from
what has been proven to actually
keep students, faculty and the
community safe: a fully remote
semester — which is a proven
public health informed option.
A reopening more concerned with
theatrics than safety
AFFAN SYED | OP-ED
Noah Ente can be reached at
noahente@umich.edu.
U.S. sanctions on Chinese firms make a vital,
strong statement
NOAH ENTE | COLUMN
Design courtesy of Ahmad Kady
I
n Joe Biden and Kamala
Harris, I see myself. I see my
family. I see my community. I
see my country. This may seem like
a strange sentiment for a 20-year-
old, white, Jewish college student
from New York to hold about a late-
septuagenarian Roman Catholic
grandfather from Wilmington, Del.,
and a 55-year-old Black, progressive
attorney
and
stepmom-of-two
from Oakland, Calif. So, why do I
see myself and my experiences in
the Democratic ticket? Because
these two leaders don’t let their
backgrounds define their policies.
Young voters of all races, colors and
creeds, all ethnicities, income levels
and hometowns have a home in their
campaign.
“Joe Biden isn’t good, but at least
he’s better than Donald Trump,” is
an argument all over social media
in recent months, and it encourages
people to vote for Biden simply to
end the current administration.
That
argument
is
absurd.
It
generates no enthusiasm for a
candidate who both warrants it and
desperately needs it to combat the
cult of personality he seeks to defeat.
Further, it ignores many of Biden’s
key accomplishments, particularly
those that pertain to recent national
conversations.
He
championed
the Violence Against Women Act,
shepherding it through the Senate
and to President Bill Clinton’s desk.
In the #MeToo Era, a movement
led by young Americans, who better
to lead our country than a man
who’s been on the frontlines of the
fight against domestic abuse for 30
years? When he was vice president,
the administration instituted a
pandemic
response
apparatus
widely considered to be a strength
by his campaign. In the middle of a
pandemic, he’ll have the experience
— and the belief in science and data —
to save lives. In a time when children
have lost parents and grandparents
to a preventable, unnecessarily-
political coronavirus crisis, who
better to lift us out than Biden?
Biden has experienced firsthand
this kind of senseless loss, when his
first wife and daughter were killed.
He empathizes with the losses our
country has felt this year and is
uniquely qualified to console our
nation and to heal the wounds this
pandemic has caused us. His wife, Dr.
Jill Biden, is a gifted and universally
respected educator, a voice we no
doubt need as the debate around
how to safely educate young people
during a pandemic becomes more
politically charged by the minute.
As millions of students around the
country struggle to pay their tuition
as incomes have been decimated
by the pandemic, President Donald
Trump has pushed for capital gains
and payroll tax cuts.
As we struggle to afford the
education that will provide for our
futures, Republicans have sought
to cut benefits for those in need,
including a radical restructuring
of
the
Supplemental
Nutrition
Assistance Program and a strong
scaling-back of the new virus relief
plan. Cutting these benefits will
impact thousands of students at
our University of Michigan, in an
effort to further enrich the already-
wealthy, who have thrived off of
this crisis while so many others have
suffered.
Biden’s work on issues that affect
young voters has been overlooked,
and it stretches beyond what is plainly
obvious. His support for paid family
leave, Social Security reform and his
belief in climate science, will, if he’s
elected, have both immediate and
lifelong impacts on our generation.
The simplest reason why Joe Biden
is the candidate young voters should
support is that he cares about us,
while Trump cares only for himself
and his cronies. This is evident in
their personalities, their policies and
even their running mates. If Biden
“isn’t good,” you’ll be hard-pressed to
find someone who is.
The running mates in 2020
present
microcosms
of
the
campaigns themselves, more so than
any election in recent memory. For
Gen Z, the choice has never been
so stark, the right answer never
so blatantly obvious. Biden chose
in his running mate a breaker of
glass ceilings. Sen. Kamala Harris,
D-Calif., is a juggernaut for positive
change in this country with her
policies, such as Medicare for All,
education and racial justice, but
this election is about ushering in
generational change, and that’s
Harris’s ethos.
Harris is a daughter of immigrants
who grew up in Oakland, Calif. and
attended a recently-desegregated,
majority-white school via a busing
program. Her mother, as Harris
said in her convention speech, came
to America with a dream of helping
others — by helping cure cancer
as a cancer researcher. Harris was
raised in an environment where
she had to constantly go above
and beyond simply to receive the
same opportunities as her whiter,
wealthier and more well-connected
peers. She’s not going to fight for
tax breaks to the top one percent.
She’s going to fight for student loan
relief, health care for all people
and the racial justice for which our
generation has taken to the streets
the last few months.
In response to the U.S. outbreak
of
COVID-19
in
February,
a
Northwestern University journalism
professor, Steven Thrasher, who
studied Indiana’s outbreak of HIV/
AIDS in 2015 and also researched
LGBTQ+ health issues, was quoted
in an Associated Press article as
saying, “Pence’s response as Indiana
governor raises real questions about
whether he’s the best person to helm
the response to the virus.” Thrasher
reflected on the time Vice President
Mike Pence allowed an HIV/AIDS
epidemic to ravage his home state
while governor of Indiana. He
refused to proactively implement
a needle exchange program that
would have spared thousands from
HIV infection. Pence claims he
staunchly believes in the right to life
for all people, unless those people do
intravenous drugs.
Pence doesn’t merely believe
that LGBTQ+ people should be
deprived of equal rights under the
law (though that is something he
does, categorically, believe). He has
also espoused the idea that there is
something wrong with them and
even stated that “Resources should
be directed toward those institutions
which provide assistance to those
seeking to change their sexual
behavior” on his archived 2000
congressional campaign website,
a statement widely interpreted
to be reflective of his support for
conversion therapy. Additionally,
Pence
has
claimed
that
the
administration is deserving of
praise for its handling of COVID-
19, to which more than 180,000
Americans and counting have lost
their lives.
Biden succeeded before, he will again
JACK ROSHCO | COLUMN
Jack Roshco can be reached at
jroshco@umich.edu.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
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.
Affan Syed is a junior in the College
of Engineering and can be reached at
affsyed@umich.edu.