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