Change for China

With all of the discussion of energy saving this and green that, what are people around the world actually doing to combat global warming? The UN Summit for Climate Change met this past Tuesday, September 22, at the UN headquarters in New York in hopes of drafting a treaty proposal to be signed in December at the UN Climate Conference. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who chaired the summit, stressed that “now is the moment to act in common cause” to create a greener world and to aid developing countries in reducing emissions.

This summit has led President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao to actually agree on something. Although China currently has the highest carbon dioxide emissions in the world, Hu promised that Chinese greenhouse gas emissions would slow within the next ten years. China plans to use renewable resources to generate 15 percent of its energy, and further intends to plant over 300,000 square kilometers of trees. This commitment to cleaner energy comes as a surprise to most of the international community, as China has primarily focused on maintaining its economic growth rather than protecting its environment. Hu did not give any details about how China is going to decrease emissions, causing many countries to doubt China’s sincerity.

The United States is among these disbelievers. Although the United States produces the second-highest amount of carbon dioxide emissions in the world, it is asking for exact figures explaining what China is going to do. But there’s a whiff of hypocrisy here--Obama failed to give any concrete figures of his own. This new policy from China has now “added pressure on the United States and other developed countries to accept deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions”. In response, President Obama has tried to put the pressure back on China by arguing that rapidly developing nations “will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own” (guardian.co.uk).

Although some countries may not believe it, much of the world is applauding China’s actions. Al Gore and UN Chief Ki-Moon have both lauded China’s proposal. This is a large yet necessary step towards doing something about global climate change. China is finally moving in the right direction, no longer using its developing status as an excuse. In light of these high expectations, it will be interesting to see what becomes of President Hu’s plans at the convention in Copenhagen this December. Maybe the world is finally moving together in the right direction.

LUCY EMERSON

Read more...

Jonah Goldberg and Happy Warriors

Last night, Carolina hosted a speech by Jonah Goldberg, conservative pundit and author of the bestseller “Liberal Fascism.” Say what you will about Goldberg, but he gives a darn good speech. The crowd interrupted him with applause more than once—especially when he declared that “the GOP needs to stop being pro-business and start being pro-market.” Everyone in the crowd, especially the libertarians, went nuts.

One of Goldberg’s lines really stuck with me. He said that conservatives need to be “happy warriors.” I think he’s right. For the past couple years, the prevailing mood on the right has been an unpleasant mix of bitterness, grimness and self-pity. No wonder the party’s in trouble—if the people already in the party seem to hate it, why would anyone else want to sign up?

The GOP has always been the anti-government party—or, at least, the not-quite-as-big government party—so it’s no surprise that its elected officials are a little ambivalent about their jobs. They return to their home districts, rail against Washington, and then go back to their offices in DC. No wonder there’s some cognitive dissonance. That doesn’t mean, though, that they have to hate their jobs.

The most successful Republican in modern history, Ronald Reagan, projected a spirit of optimism. He was Hope and Change while Barack Obama was still in college. He was the ultimate Happy Warrior. That’s what the GOP needs, I think. They don’t necessarily need to go back to the policies of Reagan. What they should be wishing for is someone with Reagan’s smile, his charm, his sense of confidence. Only then will the Republicans have any chance of recapturing the White House.

WILL SCHULTZ

Read more...

Rights for Refugees?

A refugee crisis is brewing in the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar. The ruling military junta has destroyed thousands of homes, forcing more and more Burmese to flee the country every day. Many seek asylum across the border in Thailand; as of August 2009, there are roughly 133,000 documented refugees living in 9 camps. The Thai government has tried to ignore the problem and, when confronted with pleas to give more support to the refugees, it argues that some of its own citizens are living in worse conditions. Yet Thailand is actually one of the more accommodating countries in the region, accepting more refugees than any other Southeast Asian country. Most of the aid for the camps must therefore come from NGOs like the Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC).

The Thai government offers little to no protection for the refugees, leaving matters in the hands of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The huge influx of Burmese refugees means that the UNHCR has been given a greater role along the Thai-Burmese border. They are the only organization to focus on refugee protection, but due to a rocky relationship with the Thai government, even this goal is difficult to achieve. Thai authorities believes that the UNHCR is overstepped its boundaries; furthermore, Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, a key legal document that defines refugee rights. The Thai government has never given the UNHCR access to other groups in need, such as the Lao refugees at the Huai Nam Khao camp. In Thailand, local integration has never been possible; locals regard the refugees as illegal immigrants. Although the refugees’ basic needs are met, they do not have much freedom. It is illegal for them to leave the camps, which overflow with problems like domestic violence and substance abuse. If the refugees do leave, they are subject to arrest and deportation by Thai authorities. The UNHCR is helpless to do anything about this, as the Thai government has control over the camps and over immigration policy

The plight of the Burmese illustrates the enormous problems facing the UNHCR. Because refugee camps around the globe are in dire need of resources, and because the UN is supposed to remain neutral, the UNHCR must pick and choose which refugees will receive aid—and which will go hungry. There is also a money problem: UNHCR only receives 1% of its funding from the General Assembly, while 99% comes from other donors. The United States is one of UNHCR’s primary sources of funding, which has led to fears that the UN will favor American policy on refugees. Others fear that the refugees will become dependent on aid from the UN. Some camps have better living conditions than the refugees would receive in their home countries.

In order to provide protection for the Burmese refugees, UNHCR’s goal is to provide third-country resettlement, as repatriation to Myanmar is not possible. They also seek to reduce violence in the camps and to make it easier for non-Burmese asylum seekers to obtain refugee status. There is still much to be done regarding the refugee situation in Thailand. Other nearby countries such as China are only now realizing the gravity of the situation; they have to face the sobering fact that the end to this crisis is not near.

For Further Information on UNHCR: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

LUCY EMERSON

Read more...

Challenging Burr

As of Tuesday, September 9, 2009, it’s official: Elaine Marshall is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Richard Burr (R-NC), making her the first top-tier candidate to enter the race. Other potential top-tier Democrats, such as Attorney General Roy Cooper, U.S. Congressman Heath Shuler, U.S. Congressman Bob Etheridge, U.S. Congressman Brad Miller, U.S. Congressman Mike McIntyre, former State Treasurer Richard Moore, and Lt. Governor Walter Dalton have declined to run. (It’s worth noting that a similar situation arose in 2008, when well-known Democrats declined to face then-senator Elizabeth Dole. National Democratic leaders eventually settled on state senator Kay Hagan, who, despite an initial lack of name recognition, went on to win the November election by nine points, 53%-44%.)

So who is Elaine Marshall anyway, and why should we care that she’s running for Senate?

Elaine Marshall is North Carolina's Secretary of State and has been since 1996, when she became the first woman to hold statewide office. Her first election was her most notable, as she faced NASCAR legend Richard Petty in the general election. Marshall won in spite of Petty’s fame and has been re-elected three times since, most recently in 2008 (Marshall’s electoral history can be found at the end of this post). Before becoming Secretary of State, Marshall served four years in the North Carolina State Senate, representing Wake County’s 15th District.

This isn’t Elaine Marshall’s first try for U.S. Senate, though. She ran in the 2002 Democratic primary, but came in third to nominee (and current president of the University of North Carolina system) Erskine Bowles and state senator Dan Blue in a nine-way primary race. But 2010 isn't 2002. The political climate is vastly different. Marshall is the only prominent Democrat to enter the primary, for one; more importantly, in the 2008 election North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes went to Barack Obama—the first time NC voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Marshall doesn’t have the nomination wrapped up, though. Durham lawyer Kenneth Lewis is already in the race, and former state senator Cal Cunningham has expressed interest in joining the field. Lewis has not held political office, but he has worked behind the scenes on several political campaigns.

Despite Marshall’s edge in experience, initial polling for the Senate race doesn’t favor any candidate. North Carolina polling firm Public Policy Polling conducted their most recent poll (PDF) on August 14, which shows:

• Burr leading Cunningham, 43-28
• Burr leading Lewis, 43-27
• Burr leading Marshall, 43-31

So Marshall may not increase Democrats’ chances right away, but her experience and her relationship with activist Democrats in North Carolina may give her the fundraising advantage. This will be crucial in toppling a sitting incumbent.

Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, history is on his/her side despite the polls. No sitting senator has been re-elected to North Carolina’s Class 3 Senate seat since Sam Ervin in 1968. Richard Burr’s looking to break the trend, but as this race develops, will he find himself in an uphill battle?

For more information on Elaine Marshall, check her profile at the News & Observer and/or her Secretary of State biography.

Electoral History

2008 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 57% (2,316,903)
• Jack Sawyer 43% (1,762,928)

2004 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 57% (1,911,585)
• Jay Rao 43% (1,423,109)

2000 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 54% (1,512,076)
• Harris Durham Blake 46% (1,265,654)

1996 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 53% (1,333,994)
• Richard Petty 45% (1,126,701)

TRAVIS CRAYTON

Read more...

Scandal in Louisiana?

Since November 5, 2008, political junkies and analysts alike have been discussing the possibilities of 2012, focusing on the potential makeup of the Republican field. Various names surfaced, including now-disgraced governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina and former governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Another name, though, received significant mention earlier this year—Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Jindal gained this attention after he was selected to deliver the Republican response to Obama’s first address to Congress.

Jindal’s name vanished, however, as discussions about 2012 quieted and as President Obama’s legislative plans concerning the economy and healthcare took center stage. Yet Jindal’s name continued to surface in some political circles, especially in discussions about the future of the GOP.

In a party plagued by scandal and confusion—such as John Ensign’s affair, Mark Sanford’s affair, and Sarah Palin’s mysterious and unorthodox resignation as governor of Alaska—Jindal’s name offered a promising alternative. Jindal’s brief national appearance gave him greater name recognition, which, coupled with three years as a congressman and his current post as governor, made him seem like a viable candidate.

But there’s a new wrinkle in the story. Jindal was recently accused of using taxpayer money for political purposes. He spent $45,000 in state funds to visit parishes that he lost in the 2003 gubernatorial race—leading to charges that he is trying to shore up his electoral support.

This action has added Jindal’s name to the list of so-called fiscal conservatives whose actions say the opposite of their words. According to a report from the Associated Baptist Press, Jindal spent the cash financing helicopter trips all across the state. The expense was discovered by the Rev. Dr. Welton Gaddy, a preacher at Northminster Baptist Church in Monroe, Louisiana, and president of the Interfaith Alliance, an organization which (according to their website) “celebrates religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that protect both religion and democracy, and uniting diverse voices to challenge extremism.” Gaddy wrote an open letter to Jindal on September 1, calling on the governor to reimburse the state for the expenses.

Jindal’s actions have not yet created a major scandal, but any proverbial skeletons in proverbial closets can create problems for politicians, especially those seeking the highest office in the nation. A statement issued by Jindal’s spokeswoman, supposedly in response to Gaddy, only makes things worse:

“This political group opposes putting crosses up in honor of fallen policemen, has attacked the National Day of Prayer and advocates for same-sex marriage, so it's not surprising that they are attacking the governor for accepting invitations to speak at Louisiana churches.”

The problem with this statement is two-fold in that a) it fails to address the issue of wasting taxpayer dollars—something Jindal has continued to campaign against—and b) it goes into dangerous territory by attacking a reputable organization that promotes religious freedom—a key right outlined in our Constitution. Jindal’s counterattack isn’t even a substantial argument. Millions of Americans support gay marriage, and Rev. Gaddy countered the statement by saying that it was a mischaracterization of his organization. The Interfaith Alliance did not oppose the National Day of Prayer—only the group which organized it. Concerning the display of crosses for fallen policemen, Gaddy said the spokeswoman was referencing a lawsuit in Utah in which a panel ruled that crosses were secular symbols

Clearly, Governor Jindal has made some missteps here, like many of his Republican colleagues. Perhaps he isn’t the savior the GOP has been looking for after all. The 2012 election remains several years away, but if Jindal does intend to run, these are not the steps he should be taking if he hopes to topple an incumbent president.

TRAVIS CRAYTON

Read more...

Welcome Back!

Welcome back! Today kicks off the return of The Hill’s blog. We have an all-new blogging staff, so expect plenty of new posts in the weeks ahead.

For those of you not familiar with The Hill, we are the University of North Carolina’s first, best and only non-partisan political review. We’re dedicated to analyzing the latest trends in politics and public policy, both at home and abroad.

Crisis in the Middle East? That’s our beat. Obama trying to push a new bill through Congress? We’re on it. The Hill tells you what’s happening and why; it gives the history behind current events, and tries to predict what the future holds. All non-partisan, of course. We don’t do bias.

The Hill’s blog is a little different. Because the magazine appears only twice each semester, it’s hard for us to keep up with breaking news. That’s what this blog is for—instantaneous commentary and feedback. Check it for weekly updates from our talented team of writers and bloggers.

The past few months have seen plenty of high-profile news stories: Sotomoyar’s confirmation. Specter’s defection. Kennedy’s death. Elections and riots in Iran. Warfare on the floor of Congress. From now on, The Hill will be able to give stories like this the coverage they deserve.

Though The Hill is scrupulously non-partisan, that doesn’t mean we’re bland. Our bloggers won’t simply report the news. They’re here to give their opinion, and they will give it, freely and plentifully. They cover the entire political spectrum, from left to right and everything in between. We’re nothing if not balanced.

So enjoy! This blog is here for you, the reader. Check in to see what’s happening in the world of politics. See what our bloggers think. Leave your own comments. Discuss. Debate. And, as always, be sure to read The Hill.

Read more...