Opinion
Wednesday, October 19, 2022 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
N.A.T.O. must liberate itself from U.S. domination
S
ince its establishment
during the Cold War,
N.A.T.O. has served as
a transatlantic allegiance for
peace; serving post-World War
II to unite European countries
and the U.S. as well as deter
Soviet expansion. Following
the
collapse
of
the
Soviet
Union, N.A.T.O. has focused
on promoting its values — of
democracy and mutual defense
— while providing a resolution of
disputes in international affairs.
However, to the Middle East,
Africa, South America, India and
several other regions, N.A.T.O.’s
mission represents a completely
different dogma than the one it
prides itself on. From the invasion
of Afghanistan to the bombing
of Yugoslavia, N.A.T.O. was not
an alliance for peace as much
as it was an effort to establish a
unipolar global union erected
on imperialist pillars. And while
these decisions are agreed on
unanimously
by
all
member
nations, the U.S. plays a much
more integral role in N.A.T.O.’s
political strategy than the bulk
of the European countries in
N.A.T.O.
Just last year, N.A.T.O. spent
over $1 trillion on defense, with
the American funds making
up around 70% of that figure.
Such high spending gives the
United States a natural leading
role in the alliance and some
influence
over
the
actions
of fellow N.A.T.O. members.
For
instance,
President
Donald Trump ordered the
withdrawal of roughly 12,000
troops from Germany in 2020,
due to Germany’s failure to
meet the terms of the 2014
Wales Pledge, a declaration
that N.A.T.O. members spend
a minimum 2% of their GDP
on defense. Trump employed
this tactic to pressure allies
into providing more monetary
support to the alliance or face
a decline in America’s military
commitments
to
Europe,
something
that
European
countries strongly fear.
The power that the U.S.
maintains
over
N.A.T.O.
is
especially problematic because
the U.S. is not bound by many
basic
international
human
rights treaties. For instance,
the U.S. did not ratify the
Conventions on the Rights of a
Child, which focuses on basic
human rights for children, due
to Republican pushback in the
Senate. Moreover, though the
U.S. played a pivotal role in
writing the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court,
which focuses on prosecuting
individuals that commit serious
war crimes, it refuses to sign it.
This means that U.S. personnel
cannot be prosecuted on the
international level for instances
of
genocide,
mass
rape,
enforced sterilization or crimes
against
humanity,
depriving
said personnel of any moral
authority to lead global efforts
to resolve humanitarian crimes.
So, why did the U.S. refuse to
sign such a cornerstone treaty?
Christopher
Fariss,
assistant
professor of political science
at the University of Michigan
who focuses on an empirical
investigation of human rights,
pointed out that membership
in N.A.T.O. does not entail
ratification of these treaties since
they are proposed by the United
Nations. The refusal to sign these
treaties
essentially
exempts
U.S. military and government
personnel from the international
court’s jurisdiction. Remember:
other European nations have had
no trouble signing these human
rights treaties.
It does not just stop there.
The
American
Service-
Members’ Protection Act or
so
called
“Hague
Invasion
Act,” for instance, has since
2002 provided that the U.S.
government may use “all means
necessary and appropriate to
bring about the release of any
U.S. or allied personnel being
detained or imprisoned by, on
behalf of, or at the request of the
International Criminal Court.”
This is not the behavior of a
country that is fully investing
in the rules based order.
To draw on a current-day
example, we can assess the ongoing
Russian
invasion
of
Ukraine.
According to the University of
Chicago’s John Mearshimer, one
of the most prominent modern
international relations scholars
of the realist school, has been a
notable proponent of the view
that The U.S. played an integral
role in the provocation of Russia,
ultimately
perpetuating
the
Ukrainian struggle we see today.
For instance, prior to the Russian
invasion of Ukraine, the U.S.
placed significant pressure on
countries from the European
Union to place sanctions on Russia.
As a result, European countries
such as Germany, which has long
relied on Russian gas, must endure
the economic struggle borne by the
EU’s decision to place sanctions on
Russia and the U.S.’ failure to send
adequate aid. Though not the same
organization, the EU and N.A.T.O.
share many members. French
President
Emmanuel
Macron
stated in a recent conference,
“in a spirit of great friendship,
we will say to our American and
Norwegian friends … ‘you supply
us with energy and gas, but one
thing that can’t go on for too long is
us paying four times more than the
price you sell to your industry.’”
Energy is only one example
of the intricate webs that bind
Europe to the U.S.. Not only
does the U.S. maintain this
power dynamic quite subtly,
but it has also prepared for any
challenge to this dominance
from the European Union by
encouraging Brexit, an agenda
for the United Kingdom to leave
the EU. The U.K. was a major
player in the economic structure
of the EU. Its departure from
the EU compromises the overall
geo-political
stability
of
the
EU itself. As the far-right gains
more momentum in Europe, we
are seeing more Euroscepticism
and risk that the EU might be
further weakened — and weaker
European unity could translate to
increased American domination.
For too long the U.S. has
exploited
its
influence
over
N.A.T.O. to push its imperial
agenda overseas. The U.S. cannot
continue to leverage its militaristic
influence when it comes to these
European
countries.
Again,
considering the Russian invasion of
Ukraine, a diplomatic relationship
between
western
European
countries and Russian President
Vladimir Putin is impossible to
implement when we consider the
American desire to undermine
Russian power. As shocking as this
may sound, Trump had exactly the
right thing to say about this earlier
this month: “We must demand
the immediate negotiation of a
peaceful end to the war in Ukraine
or we will end up in World War
Three.”
Decisions that have direct
humanitarian impacts should not
be guided by a country that has
consistently failed to sign and
ratify international cornerstone
treaties for peace. Before adopting
the global police role, the U.S.
should first meet the minimal
ethical standard that it holds
its allies to. Without greater,
independent European pressure,
that may never be the case.
AMMAR AHMAD
Opinion Columnist
Biden’s right, Trump is a semi-fascist.
Here’s why we shouldn’t prosecute him
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.
PAIGE HODDER
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD AND
SHUBHUM GIROTI
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
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
VANESSA KIEFER
AND KATE WEILAND
Managing Editors
G
rowing up, I used to
think
that
college
was always a place
of growth, where you could
learn anything you wanted
with like-minded people and
broaden your horizons. Now,
as one of many students at the
University of Michigan, I can say
confidently that although these
things do ring true, they are not
without their caveats. The wealth
of knowledge and opportunities
available in higher education is
more than one person could ever
take advantage of, but as time has
gone on, the rose-tinted lenses
have come off and I’ve come to
realize that reality doesn’t always
live up to our expectations.
American college students today
are burdened with a collective total
of $1.75 trillion in debt, a figure
only made worse when comparing
the 169% increase in college costs
since 1980 to the 19% increase in
wages for workers aged 22 to 27.
Despite
these
disproportional
results, however, the demand for a
college degree has only continued
to rise. Whereas 16% of the Silent
Generation earned college degrees,
51% of individuals from Generation
Z surveyed stated that they would
be likely to pursue a college degree.
On the surface level, a highly-
educated populace seems to serve
as an overall positive: With higher
education, more individuals are
equipped to fulfill the demands
of
an
ever-advancing
world.
Ideally, everyone seeking a college
education is doing so because of
their passions for a subject, making
them ideal candidates to fulfill
a role that requires their area of
expertise. The issue here is that
in our current economic climate,
despite the aggressive uptick of
college enrollment over the last
few decades, the pool of these ideal
candidates has become diluted by
individuals that have come for the
degrees, but not for the education.
Sure, this increase in enrollment
could be reasonably attributed to
more people seeking knowledge and
opportunities best found in higher
education, but the reality is likely far
less favorable. The job market has
made a degree necessary to reach a
higher standard of living, even when
a degree does next to nothing to
improve the employee’s productivity.
The issue is one of a surplus of
overqualification, and has grown
into a cycle. To start, we can take a
peek at past trends. While wages have
remained largely stagnant for college
graduates, the cost of living was
once relatively far lower. Ultimately,
there was once a time when a college
degree led to a higher income-to-
cost ratio than today. This is how our
cycle begins, with the majority of
Americans believing that college is
the best option we have to succeed.
This leads to higher enrollment, but
also to the previously mentioned
caveat: many of these prospective
students choose to attend college for
the degrees, not for the education. It
doesn’t help that an overwhelming
proportion of our success in a class
is determined by test scores. Aside
from basic anti-cheating measures,
which resourceful students will
find ways around, what’s to
stop someone from engaging in
academic misconduct for the sake
of a passing grade? What exactly is
there to incentivize a student to go
above and beyond in their learning
when they can settle on being
prepared enough to avoid failing?
I’ll bite: absolutely nothing, because
many students aren’t attending
college to do anything more than
pass. It is this mentality that, when
held by so many people that feel as
if they have no other options, begins
to take away from the learning
aspect that defines what higher
education is supposed to be.
However, this isn’t where our
cycle ends. What happens when
these workers enter the workforce?
This is where degree inflation
amplifies into an even greater
concern. With so much new, “highly
educated” manpower, what’s to set
apart someone without a degree to
take on a role when there’s someone
with a degree available to fill the
position? This in turn has led to a
disproportionate increase in the
number of job listings requiring
college degrees, even when they
were not required previously. One
such instance exists for supervisory
positions. Only 16% of people in jobs
described as “supervisory positions”
have college degrees, but 67% of
all new listings for similar roles
require that applying candidates
have one. Suddenly, all of these
jobs are requiring college degrees,
even when they are unnecessary,
thereby pushing the narrative that
a college degree really is the best
way to live comfortably. In turn, the
cycle begins anew, albeit now with
college looking less and less like
the best option we have to succeed
and more like the only option given
wage stagnation and inflation over
time.
Today, higher education faces
a grim reality: Colleges are filled
with students that attend not to
learn, but to bolster their resume.
To that end, these students are
not attending because they truly
want to, but because they have to
thanks to the absurd increase in
hiring qualifications for jobs that
never needed a degree in the first
place. The worst part of this is not
what has been done, but what’s to
come. Breaking the cycle without
some sort of intervention remains
impractical. Employers have no
incentive to decrease their standards
as long as the pool of qualified
applicants continues to grow. It
seems even more unlikely that the
workforce would attempt to protest
in any significant way, as it would
only incentivize employers to choose
another candidate from the ever-
growing pool of qualified individuals
for a job. Truthfully, the future looks
bleak, and until something changes,
it looks as if the degree inflation
cycle will only continue.
College no longer serves to teach:
The degree inflation problem
MOHAMMED HASAN
Opinion Columnist
K
icking and screaming,
former
President
Donald Trump slowly
faded out of view for the
better part of the summer.
Outside his core supporters,
most Americans readily put
memories of his tumultuous
four
years
behind
them.
Potential
2024
Republican
Party
contenders
began
peaking
up
their
heads.
One might have reasonably
believed that the era of Trump
was finally coming to an end.
Then the FBI searched Mar-
a-Lago, and all heads whipped
back to the former president.
The Department of Justice
blundered by letting Trump
break the news and control
the
story.
They
remained
silent for too long and at
the country’s expense. Still,
no one has spoken publicly
regarding the nuclear secrets
recovered
from
Trump’s
residence.
The
blowback
from
the search has been both
predictable
and
disturbing.
Talk of civil war among the far-
right has become widespread
on social media. Trump’s allies
in Congress have threatened
political violence should the
former president be charged. In
Cincinnati, a Trump supporter
went so far as to try attacking
an FBI office. This threat
has been dire for some time.
Trump’s role in inciting the
insurrection following his loss
in the 2020 election is clear. As
U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.,
put it, “Trump summoned the
mob, assembled the mob and
lit the flame of [the] attack.”
The former president bears
primary
responsibility
for
the carnage at the Capitol.
More recently, eyeing another
presidential run, Trump put
himself in lockstep with the
most authoritarian corners of
his electorate by suggesting
the Jan. 6 rioters deserved
full pardons and government
apologies.
Enter President Joe Biden
to make things worse. During
a speech in Maryland last
August,
Biden
compared
Trumpism
to
“semi-
fascism.” A few days later at
Independence Hall, shrouded
in sinister red lighting and
flanked
by
two
shadowy
Marines,
Biden
declared
MAGA Republicans a clear and
present danger to American
democracy.
He
sputtered
through a 20-minute tirade
effectively castigating Trump
and his voters as enemies of
the state.
Trump escalated by literally
calling Biden “an enemy of the
state.”
Biden is right, Trump is a
semi-fascist, but he failed to
make an important distinction
in his speech. Trump and his
supporters are not one and the
same, and must not be regarded
as such.
Trump threatens the very
foundation of our Republic.
He must never wield the
power of office again.Trump’s
supporters,
on
the
other
hand, do not deserve such
condemnation.
Like
most
Americans,
they
disagree
with the direction the country
is moving. They want to see
change. Left behind and angry,
they placed their faith into the
wrong hands and had their
loyalty exploited for political
gain. Trump has convinced his
base of terrible lies. Paranoid,
distrustful and well-armed,
MAGA
Republicans
have
pledged themselves to the
wrong leader. But they are
still Americans. Biden must
take care not to forget it.
No
amount
of
wishful
thinking
will
make
them
disappear
or
make
them
suddenly switch sides. If Biden
continues to paint them as
enemies, that is what they will
be. People do not take kindly
to insults. Further antagonism
and
belligerence
towards
Trump’s base will only drive
them further into the grip
of
the
former
president.
The current administration
must proceed with caution.
Rather than berate his fellow
citizens from the steps of a
sacred American landmark,
misguided
though
they
may be, Biden should court
them away from extremism
with words of welcome and
warmth.
To follow Abraham Lincoln’s
example would be wise. At
his first inaugural address,
the 16th president addressed
a fractured nation: “We are
not enemies, but friends. We
must not be enemies. Though
passion may have strained
it must not break our bonds
of affection.” With the Civil
War looming and the future of
the Union uncertain, Lincoln
did not villainize the South,
no matter how deserving of
villainization they were. He
opened his arms in the interest
of preserving the Republic.
Biden and the Department
of Justice must internalize
this lesson. Trump deserves
to
be
prosecuted,
but
to
prosecute him would be folly.
He tainted the office with
criminal behavior the likes
of which the presidency has
never seen and must never
see again. He is absolutely
a would-be dictator. But he
is an old would-be dictator.
Trump’s years as a political
force are limited. His support
dwindles
smaller.
Most
Americans have no illusions
about his credibility. The FBI
has recovered the classified
documents from Mar-a-Lago;
Trump can no longer use them
for devious ends. No further
steps need to be taken. He
does not have the widespread
popularity required to win
back the presidency. Nothing
productive would come from
charges.
A
criminal
case
would
become
a
rallying
cry.
Opportunists would use it to
inspire violence and divide
the country further. We must
ease
tensions
before
the
chance disappears for good.
The right step, albeit the
uncomfortable one, is to turn
attention away from Trump.
Let him disappear on his
own. He is already a cultural
hero to the far right; to lock
him away would elevate him
to martyrdom, as well as
further isolate his already
extremist supporters. Let him
protest and shout. Let the
old man make every attempt
to remain relevant as the
country moves on. But his
best efforts will be to no avail.
His personality cult will wail
for a time, but without the
pretext of criminal charges
to launch their revolution,
average
Trump
supporters
will slowly return to rank-
and-file
Republicanism
or
retake their place as inactive
independents. His opponents
will decry the terrible failure
of justice that allowed such a
man to walk free, but they too
will move on. No one will be
satisfied, but Trump’s threat
to
democracy
will
wither
away, and the Republic will
endure.
Design by Samantha Sweig
JACK BRADY
Opinion Columnist