Iron Man 3 Hall of Armours at Hysan Place in Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, China. 

by James Walker
Editor

During the collective insanity that gripped the United States in the late 1940s and 50s, political agitators and right wing demagogues alike created the specter of a sinister, lurking boogeyman poised to overthrow civilization as we knew it. The “Red Scare” of insidious communism – literally posited as “reds under the bed” – swept throughout the political narrative of the post war landscape, as well as Cold War international relations. The poster child, and some would say architect, of this paranoia was Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) who managed through sheer strength of personality and calculated populism to bring this specter to the forefront of the national dialog. The term “McCarthyism” has since come to encapsulate the notion of ideological determination, combined with a blinkered perspective, ad hominem attacks, and a willingness to ignore reality when it does not fit into your chosen narrative. At the time, however, the hysteria whipped up was all too real, and had numerous real world effects – particularly here in Los Angeles, in regards to the film industry.

By the time that McCarthyism was in full swing in the early 50s, Hollywood had become a center of attention in an effort to root out what Walt Disney described as “subtle communist touches” in the film industry. Many people know about the famous “Hollywood Ten” blacklist of suspected communists, but by 1950, the “Red Channels” list included 151 major industry players, including Orson Wells, Arthur Miller, and even Gypsy Rose Lee (presumably because her duel roles as a “communist sympathizer” and a burlesque dancer posed a double threat to the morals of the nation). In essence, the fear being exploited by McCarthy was the notion that popular media (as represented by Hollywood) had a strong influence on the development of public opinion, and that the “commies” were poised to exploit this to their advantage – a kind of subliminal fifth column for the “Fourth International.”

Flash forward 60 years, and the situation in Hollywood is very different. The movie industry is a powerhouse of the globalized world, and often posited as a prime example of American “Cultural Imperialism.” Combined, the six major US studios captured 64% of global ticket sales in 2012, bringing in a total of $ 22 billion in income. Literally hundreds of millions of people went to the cinema and consumed their own little slice of Americana, all over the world. By that measure, McCarthy was on to something – he just had the flow of influence backwards.

The difference between Hollywood then and Hollywood now is that McCarthy suspected outside influence where there was none, while today the industry openly acknowledges that foreign entities influence the production and content of the movies produced. The number one film in both the US and China currently is Iron Man 3, starring Robert Downy Jr. as Tony Stark— metal clad super-hero and quintessential Neo-Liberal American entrepreneur. However, the version you see in Los Angeles is different from the one you see in Beijing. In an effort to appease Chinese authorities, Foreign Policy’s Suzanne Nossel points out that the Beijing version has additional modified footage (including a special Chinese scene for domestic consumers), product placements for Chinese goods, and the villain of the piece has been renamed from “the Mandarin” (offensive to Chinese sensibilities) to “Man Daren” or “Big Man” in Chinese. These changes could be viewed as attempts to selectively market to a distinct target audience (China overtook Japan as the single largest foreign market for US films in 2012), if it were not for the fact that they demonstrate what Nossel describes as the “meddling hand of the Chinese censor.” As such, you could view the censor’s heavy hand as a sort of homegrown Chinese McCarthyism.

There are more direct influences on US productions though. Originally scheduled for release last December, the upcoming Brad Pitt blockbuster World War Z has been delayed for 6 months in order to re-shoot a number of scenes. This arose because of objections from the Chinese government over significant plot elements in the storyline, including the idea that the zombie outbreak (on which the film is based) originated in China. This is not the first major film to treat the Chinese hinterland as a source of worldwide pandemic – 2011’s Contagion starring Jude Law and Kate Winslet also used rural China as the birthplace of a plague. It is not hard to see why China is unimpressed with that sort of publicity, especially after the negative worldwide attention that revolved around the Asian Bird Flu and H1N1 outbreaks of recent memory. However, the difference between Iron Man 3 and World War Z is that in the latter case there will only be one version of the finished product available for your viewing pleasure– the Chinese censor-approved version.

To be clear, this kind of influence is not the insidious creeping boogeyman of McCarthy’s paranoid delusions. Los Angeles’s homegrown industry is quite open about the effects of market forces, the need to sell and succeed in major markets such as China, and the desire to collaborate with national entities. In another Iron Man-related movie, this year’s Avengers superhero spectacular also had some interesting international relations related issues, but of a distinctly domestic nature. Specifically, the US military withdrew their technical assistance from the production due to the unspecified nature of SHIELD — the shadowy international power hierarchy that controls the actions of a quasi UN-like military force. Apparently, the implication that US troops might somehow fall under the command of a non-US military command structure —even in a comic book adaptation —was simply not acceptable. This was a pity really, as the other major movie that came out at the same time, Battleship, had full US military cooperation but still turned out to be a terrible film. Political considerations do not appear to be very good at backing a winner, alas.

As we look forward over the next few years it is clear that China as a consumer market will exert ever-greater influence over film production. Hollywood will continue to do what it does best—namely, make expensive blockbusters that reel in billions of dollars from across the globe. How much the impositions of foreign censorship will affect the freedom of expression we take for granted is unknown, but it is worth taking note of. The Chinese Communist Party structure and its efficient, dedicated, and ever-present censors have established that they have a role to play in what we consider to be a distinctly US industry. But instead of imaginary “reds under the bed,” in this case, the pressure being excerpted is quite openly done while sitting at the writer’s table.

All facts/figures taken from Foreign Policy, The Guardian, BBC, and ScreenRant.com.

James Walker has just finished his BA in Global Studies, and is currently a first year MA student in Political Geography at UCLA. He is also an avid movie-goer, Sci-Fi geek, zombie apocalypse aficionado, and an editor for the Generation.

The Generation interviews Ahmed Maher, Co-founder of the April 6 Egyptian Youth Movement, days before his arrest in Cairo.

A little over a week ago, The Generation was fortunate enough to host and interview Ahmed Maher, a modern-day revolutionary, who upon his return to Egypt a few days ago was arrested by Egyptian authorities. Ahmed Maher was one of the leading architects of the “Arab Spring” in Egypt, a founding member of the April 6^th movement, and a proponent of youth oriented political change and democratic inclusion for one of the oldest nations on earth. The organization, which had begun with a handful of dedicated activists, now encompasses upwards of 50,000 dedicated and politically active members from a broad cross section of Egyptian society. Inspired by student-led, non-violent protests in Eastern Europe, the April 6^th movement has worked tirelessly to embody the ideals of political activism, collective expression, and non-violent change that are the hallmark of modern democratic societies, as exemplified by Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King, and Otpor!.

That is why it is so disheartening to report that upon his return to Egypt, Maher was immediately arrested and detained on a number of politically motivated charges. He was subsequently released on bail, but must now face another round of legal and political obstacles. This is not the first time that he and his fellow April 6^th leadership have been attacked by the Egyptian establishment – but this time it is not the corrupt regime of Hosni Mubarak that fears the voice of Egyptian youth – rather it is the government of President Mohamed Morsi. Amongst a flurry of other high profile arrests, the detention of Maher for crimes of “incitement” only goes to demonstrate the desperate measures the current regime is willing to go to in order to quell dissent amongst the people.

What is most disturbing is the notion of Maher being portrayed as a threat to the peaceful stability of the state. Throughout our conversation with him on campus, a number of points were continually raised: the need for Egypt to transition into a true, peaceful democracy; the necessity of maintaining the non-violent philosophy of the organization; and the fact that the solution to Egypt’s pressing social, economic, and political problems must come from the people of Egypt themselves. Ahmed Maher is an Egyptian patriot in the true sense of the word. The rigorous process through which hopeful Egyptian applicants must apply to become members of April 6^th is intended to make them prove their commitment to the aims, goals, and philosophical objectives of the group. This strict dedication stands as a testament to the movement, and to its leadership’s desire to help Egypt navigate through this complex period of transformation.

Maher was in the US in an attempt to raise political awareness of the situation on the ground back home. He travelled to a number of cities, meeting with powerful groups in the Obama administration and Congress, as well as with student groups such as The Generation here at UCLA. When we asked him directly what he wanted to achieve during this visit, Maher replied that he wanted to highlight the complex challenges that democracy faced in Egypt, and help to forge connections between youth groups and activists across the globe. To be clear, he did not want US students to answer the questions facing his country – the Egyptian people are quite capable of doing that for themselves – but what he wanted was for a sense of solidarity and shared understanding, support, and compassion between the youths of the world. The more visible we are to each other, the more successfully we will be able to face the challenges of the modern era.  The April 6^th movement stands as a testament to what can be achieved by dedicated people, and those willing to stand up for what they believe in.

Ahmed Maher and his allies were able to use the power of social media to help foster the revolution two years ago. Facebook and Twitter stand out as ideal non-violent media through which activists can gather, coordinate, express their views, and work for change. Even from a distance, those with an interest in the solidarity that Maher was talking about can make their presence felt. There are already rumors floating through the net concerning President Morsi deleting tweets about this incident, in the face of public scorn. With that in mind, I would urge you to take your place on the digital barricades. News concerning this recent arrest can be followed on Twitter at #FreeMaher, and there are countless Facebook and other Twitter feeds you can follow, write on, and show your support for. Our generation is often accused of being disinterested in the world at large, or at best of being “slacktivists.” The dedicated youth of Egypt prove that idea to be false – stand with them, and show the world that our generation is up to the challenges of the 21^st century, wherever in the world they may be.

Written by James Walker on behalf of The Generation editorial team.

By Akbar Khan

December 2011, Abbottabad, Pakistan – Well over a year before Election Day, in one of the world’s most dangerous countries, I could already sense the beginnings of what was becoming the most important election in the history of the country. Political banners, slogans, and portraits lined street corners and highway billboards. Buses, filled with enthusiastic supporters, were shuttling constituents to party rallies. The political climate was heating up in anticipation of the upcoming May 11 election and even I, a foreign-born Pakistani, understood the magnitude of what was riding on the outcome

Since achieving Independence in 1947 under the leadership of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah, Pakistan has not exactly been an exemplar of democratic statehood. In its relatively short 65-year history, the country has been the victim of four military coups, three territorial wars with India, and numerous rigged elections. Today, political corruption, rural poverty, and Islamic extremism plague the country. And yet, despite all this negativity, the people of Pakistan face an opportunity for change in the upcoming election.

In the Pakistan’s party dominated political landscape, there are about 90 parties, but the 2013 election has been dominated by three in particular:  Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The latest polls show that the PML-N will win the most seats, followed by PTI and PPP. Some speculate that if PTI and PPP form a coalition, it could control a majority of the 272 electable seats and consequently, Imran Khan (PTI) would be designated as Prime Minister.  

 Pakistan People’s Party — Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Founded as a progressive party in the 1960s, the PPP won parliamentary majorities in 1973, when Zulfikar Bhutto became Prime Minister, and in 1988 and 1993, under Benazir Bhutto, the first female elected Prime Minister of Pakistan. Following her assassination in 2007, the PPP won a majority of seats in the 2008 elections but have lost support in recent months with the rise of the PML-N and PTI. The current chairman, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, is the son of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, the current President of Pakistan. Educated in England and following in the footsteps of his mother and grandfather, Bilawal Bhutto possesses enormous potential as a future leader. However, since he is only 24 years old, he is unable to run as Prime Minister in the upcoming election (in order to run for a seat, a candidate must be at least 25 years of age).

The PPP has been the most targeted party of the Pakistani Taliban’s campaign violence, which has resulted in the death of several party members and the recent kidnapping of former Prime Minister Gilani’s son Yusuf Raza Gilani by gunmen in Multan. Since April 11^th, pre-election bombings have left more than 100 people dead. As a result, the party has not been able to campaign as openly as it would like. Despite efforts by PPP members to protest to the Election Commission that the attacks have put an unfair strain on their campaigning abilities, with Election Day less than 24 hours away, there is little the party can do to make up lost ground. Because of the heightened threat of suicide bombers, the Pakistani Army has announced that 70,000 troops will be deployed across the country on Election Day.

Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz — Nawaz Sharif

The PML-N, a conservative party, is centered in the Punjab province. It won parliamentary majorities in 1990 and 1997 enabling its leader, Nawaz Sharif, to become Prime Minster in both years. Sharif has little to boast from his two terms as Prime Minister. Acquiring considerable wealth from his milling industry ownerships throughout the country, Sharif was accused by former President Ghulam Khan of corruption for his personal financial gains during his tenure as Prime Minster. Despite this allegation, the PML-N remains the leading party at this point in the election campaign.

Pakistan Tehree-e-Insaf — Imran Khan

 The PTI is a relatively young party founded in the 1990s. It is the only party out of the major three in this election that has not had a substantial political voice until recently. Its chairman, Imran Khan (the former cricket star who brought a World Cup victory to Pakistan in 1992), first achieved national political prominence through his construction of a major cancer hospital in Lahore, dedicated to his mother who died of cancer. His work on the hospital earned him a reputation as an honest leader because he consistently provided statements of the hospital’s funding records, demonstrating that he had not pocketed any of the donations he received for the project. He was also heavily involved in aid relief efforts for flood victims in 2010. His party’s campaign focus has been to bring justice to Pakistan and to eradicate corruption within the state.

The Path of Change

If there is one thing that has been consistently lacking in the Pakistani government, it has been integrity. Pakistan’s political institutions have been riddled with corruption. Parliamentarians have laundered taxes for their own personal benefit and high-ranking leaders have coerced banks to lend, only to default on the loans. Even I have witnessed police officers blatantly accepting bribes in their execution of the “law.” Unfortunately, there exists a gap in trust between the Pakistani people and their government.

However, on May 11^th, the people of Pakistan face a landmark opportunity because this election marks the first time in the country’s history that one democratically elected government will succeed another. After years of “load shedding,” infrastructure deterioration, stagnant social and economic opportunities, and overall political neglect, they finally have an opportunity to steer the country in a direction that can cater to their needs. With this opportunity, though, comes a weighty responsibility: the Pakistani people must be the catalysts for the positive change they seek within the country. This change starts by filling the gap in trust between the government and its constituents. In order to do this, the people must distinguish between leaders who have had a record of corruption from those who have not and put the latter in power. A foundation of trust will only be laid down for future democratic transitions if people have confidence in the government; this is true of any country aspiring towards democracy and Pakistan is no exception.

Both the PLM-N and PPP would preserve the status quo. Nawaz Sharif has little to speak for his leadership besides allegations of corruption and the PPP, the currently ruling party, has accomplished little in its latest attempt to govern. Of the three major candidates, only one candidate has had a track record of sincerity and honesty. From the beginning of PPP’s campaign, Imran Khan has made it a point to fight corruption in Pakistan. To some, he lacks political savvy and experience, but his greatest asset is what is most needed in the country – integrity.

Unfortunately, several days ago, Imran Khan fell off of a tall structure while making a rally appearance. The incident was completely accidental but now Imran will be bed-ridden for several weeks, which renders him unable to campaign. He has insisted, however, on making speeches from his hospital bed. Despite the circumstances, Imran is still devoted to his cause for a better Pakistan and the country should take this as a sign of his determination.

Tomorrow, despite the violence, the Pakistani will take to the ballots. For their sake, and for the sake of the country, I hope they vote for the path of change and integrity.

Facts and figures from Trading Economics, BBC, UNICEF, Guardian, and Pakistan Today

Akbar Khan is a third-year Political Science student with a minor in Global Studies. He is an intern at the Burkle Center for International Relations. 

by Ferran Masip-Valls

Suppose you purchased a home on a loan in 2005 with an estimated value of $500,000. Fast forward to May 2013 and the home has been devalued to a measly $100,000. Yet, your monthly mortgage payments reflect the initial value of the home and you are no longer able to afford them due to unemployment.  Eventually, you must approach the bank and hand over the keys of your apartment, accepting that you are now just another unemployed and homeless Spaniard, amongst hundreds of thousands. Sounds all too familiar for those in similar predicaments living throughout the Western world. According to the current Spanish banking system, after giving back the goods you mortgaged for the loan, you still must pay the remaining sum. For all the previous homeowners, this means the remainder of the “original” value back to the bank—plus interest. This is the all too common scene in Spain: unemployed, homeless, and owing hundreds of thousands to a bank that also owns your apartment.

A key factor in understanding the current housing crisis in Spain is to understand its history. This bubble, that began in 1985, became known as the “Spanish Miracle”: a process that placed a post-dictatorship country with a third world economy into the top ten economies in Europe over a few short years. However, with the bubble-burst in 2008, it became painfully clear that most of the “Spanish Miracle” was just smoke.

When the collapse of an economy is directly related to a basic need, there are always direct consequences for the general population. At the end of 2012, the Land Registry Information Service announced that an eviction happened every 15 minutes throughout Spain, which is outright alarming for a country with less than 50 million inhabitants. According to the National Institute of Statistics of Spain, the Spanish now boast 3.4 million empty houses, 13.7% of the total housing available.

Even after the damaging effects of the mortgage crisis, the Spanish banks continued to provide loans. One must understand that they too had their own assessment and taxation companies that allowed the banks to establish the prices for homes. In short, the banks were encouraging individuals to buy and invest beyond their means. Money has stopped flowing, unemployment has reached astronomic levels (27% in the overall population with 57% of youth unemployed) and the general Spanish population is struggling to pay the unrealistic mortgages. Common sense (and European law) states that when one cannot pay one’s mortgage, one must give the apartment or home that one bought to the bank that issued the loan. The debt is then paid. Nevertheless, in Spain, the banks thought differently.

This irregularity is attributed to the set-up of Spain’s political, legal, and economical forces having the same faces. CEOs and other figures inside the corporate and banking system were politicians beforehand, and vice versa. The same happens within the legal system. This leads to a lot of “friendships”: which in practical terms mean an astonishingly high level of corruption and impunity to certain individuals and private companies. All the while, one out of five Spaniards live below the poverty line.

April 13 occupation in Sabadell, Spain.

In response, a gathering of common people who want to take action against those unfair evictions and current circumstances came about: “Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca” – “Platform of those Affected by the Mortgage” (PAH). It is neither politicized nor centralized and it does not have legal status or clear leadership. Separate groups in various cities have been able to gather more than 1.5 million signatures to change the mortgage laws to make evicted people debt-free after eviction. This is a group of dedicated people who advocate for rationally using the estimated 3.44 million empty homes and apartments, now owned by banks, as social rents. Further, the PAH engage in “escarche”: going to a prominent politician’s house who is related with the origin of this problem and putting protest stickers on his door while holding a small demonstration.

The absurdity of it all becomes strikingly clear when observing the People’s Party, who have held the majority in government since the crisis began, and their reactions to such “escarche” movements. This April, Maria Dolores de Cospedal, Secretary of the People’s Party, made accusations such as “escarche is pure Nazism,” “the People’s Party voters would rather go hungry before stopping to pay their mortgages.” Other People’s Party members have gone to the extent of relating the PAH to terrorist groups.

In the streets of Spain, evictions occur every day; however, so do social movements. For example, on April 13, the PAH occupied a brand new, but vacant, 40-apartment building in the city of Sabadell owned by Caixa Penedes (a Spanish bank). The PAH opened its doors to homeless families after employing a selection process to grant homes to those most in need. Shortly after opening its doors, the police arrived and the peaceful occupation came to a screeching halt through an irregular procedure. Initially, one of the PAH’s lawyers was there to provide representation and act as a mediator to smooth the process should the police arrive, and did so when it happened. Everything seemed to proceed as planned. The surprise arrived the following day when two of the PAH’s members learned that they were facing criminal charges. The police also charged the lawyer, a third party, with disobedience and resistance to the authority. The lawyer is now facing trial, with the police seeking to place her behind bars for six months to one year. In defense of the lawyer, stand the PAH members as well as other “formal” organizations such as the Lawyers Guild and the City Council of Sabadell. Housing is currently a pressing issue in Spain—with the unaffordable mortgages and high unemployment, one must question when this social crisis will transform into a mass revolt. On the other hand… Hey! It’s cheaper to buy a house now! So invest, invest, and invest! I’ll lend you the money, because, well, I’m telling you, it has to work, it’s perfect, and it can’t fail!

Then, one wonders, why people in Spain are not happy.

Ferran Masip-Valls is currently living and working in his native Spain. He is a part of the unemployed under 30 crowd, even after having worked on four continents and completed five university degrees. He most recently completed a MA from Teachers College – Columbia University.

Photos by Elia Gran.

Photo by Deborah Barrett

by Christine Smith
Editor

Two weeks ago on April 15, 2013, the city of Boston became the center of a locally-grown terrorist attack that involved two pressure-cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The attack wounded hundreds of runners and spectators and killed three observers: a Boston University graduate student, an eight-year-old boy, and a local restaurant manager. Of the victims, over a dozen have had at least one limb amputated. In just those few minutes of chaos, what was previously a largely local sporting event morphed into a reason to highlight its international significance and to put aside political and ideological tensions to rally behind the United States. 

On the surface, the Boston Marathon may primarily appear to be a domestic event. After all, while the rest of the country and world goes about their daily lives, the entire city of Boston and state of Massachusetts shut down for Patriots’ Day, also known as Marathon Monday. At first glance, the race may consequently appear to many as merely an excuse to party with friends and to take a day off from work or school. In actuality, the Boston Marathon means significantly more; it symbolizes a day for the residents of Boston and Massachusetts to unite as New Englanders and to revitalize their already strong sense of regional pride. The race, however, also acts as a day for the international community to come together over a shared interest: running. 

As a result of its humble origins, the Boston Marathon has always been connected to the international community. Established in 1897 by U.S. Olympic Team Manager John Graham after watching and training athletes for the Olympic Marathon, the Boston Marathon has continued to include athletes from all over the world. Over 95 countries were represented in this year’s race alone, including 10 African and 15 Asian nations. The Boston Marathon bombings were not merely an attack against the United States, but rather an attack against 95 states of varying political, religious, economic, and ideological backgrounds.

Many runners opted to run on behalf of an international charity, further reflecting their deeper commitment to making a positive impact globally. Most of the 35 charities sponsoring the race are connected to either the Greater Boston area or to the United States, but several represent global partners, including the Alzheimer’s Association, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation. As a result, over $133 million in donations have been given since the creation of the Boston Marathon Official Charity Program in 1989 to charities whose issues are just as important beyond American borders as they are within. 

Additionally, by occurring annually on Patriots’ Day, the Boston Marathon brings attention to the anniversary of the start of the Revolutionary War: a war that pitted the Thirteen Colonies, France, Spain, and the Netherlands against Great Britain in an effort to diminish Great Britain’s global power and to give the United States its independence. Consequently, the Boston Marathon acts as a reminder to both the U.S. and the world that the currently prosperous country was once a mere colony of the British Empire that lacked its own independent international voice.

Perhaps it is not surprising then, that the international community has rallied behind Boston and the United States in light of the recent Boston Marathon bombings. After all, many American allies regularly fall victim to terrorist attacks and thus understand the physical and emotional trauma New Englanders are currently experiencing. Even some countries, like Syria, whose relationships with the United States recently have been considerably strained as a result of the issuing of strong criticism of Washington and U.S. foreign policy, have reached out through social media to suffering New Englanders to express their condolences. “Boston Strong,” therefore, means more than the unification of a city; “Boston Strong” represents the world’s commitment to putting aside divisive differences to work together to help all innocent participants and spectators impacted by the Boston Marathon bombings.

Facts and figures obtained from The Boston Athletic Association, The New York Times, and CNN.

Christine Smith recently received her B.A. in Political Science and two minors in African Studies and Anthropology from Boston University. She is currently a first year M.A. in African Studies student at UCLA focusing on human rights issues in East Africa and plans to pursue a second M.S. in Print Journalism. She is also an editor with The Generation.

Photo by Baz Ratner, Reuters

by Gabrielle Cherney
Contributing Writer

“We must pray for Israel. We must pray for Israel and our fellow Jews. Israel is under attack.”

I remember hearing this as a child during every religious service I was taken to at the reform temple my family joined. I heard this, I believed it, and I grew up taking the assumptions behind the allegiance for granted.

This experience is not unique to me, nor is it unique to American Jews, Americans in general, or Jews in general. The inheritance of a stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most divisive conflicts of recent generations’ collective conscience, is almost universal.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media are constantly diagnosing, endorsing,
and proposing solutions—trying to answer the question of how to create stability in the region.

But while everyone ever-more frantically bickers about what the correct answer is, anti-Israeli powers continue to rise in the region, and the nuances and complexities embedded within the question itself are lost, making an educated position nearly impossible.

Mainstream discussion of policy proposals is laden with assumptions of false dichotomies and oversimplified history. As a result, analysis of current events, such as President Barack Obama’s recent trip to Israel, is misguided. There is a common lack of appreciation for the dynamics of inequality within Israel that exist beyond and within  Israelis versus Palestinians. Understanding these dynamics is fundamental to realizing that one of the main problems for Israel is its leadership’s insistence on embracing a Western identity despite its Eastern history, population, and geography.

Jews and Muslims have a long history of coexistence, particularly in Muslim states over the past two thousand years. Legally, socioeconomically, and politically, Jews were recognized and accommodated, despite divergence from the theocratic religious agendas of Muslim societies throughout the Middle East.

Additionally, an observable concentration of Jews has lived in the biblically defined borders of Israel for centuries. It was not until the late 1800s, with the first large wave of Zionists, when this Jewish concentration became significant vis-à-vis the non-Jewish population in the region. With this new wave of Zionists, Jews set on making Israel a legally recognized Jewish state and demanded higher wages for the same work Palestinians were already doing in the region. In response, the Jewish community excluded the Palestinians by effectively creating a split economy—one in which Jews made and spent higher wages and the other in which Palestinians experienced an economy with a considerably lower circulation of money.

This split economy set the stage for an easy transition to the systemic sociopolitical exclusion and economic blockade on Palestinians that arose when Israel became a state in 1948.

More importantly, up until 1948, the people of Palestinian were designated British Protected Persons, which meant essentially having a colonial-style extension of what can be understood as British ‘citizenship’ (insofar as the notion of citizenship functions in a colonial dynamic), as Britain owned the Palestinian territory after World War I when the Ottoman Empire was partitioned. This dynamic conveniently allowed the U.S. to create the Israeli state without infringing on a technically pre-existing “state.”

By the time Jews from all over were functionally bussed into the new Israeli state, the territory had already been zoned, categorized by level of security risk. The lowest levels of risk positively correlated with proximity to major cities—a proximity which also happens to be most conducive to socioeconomic and political access to the state.

Eastern European Jews (“Ashkenazim”) were placed in the relatively more secure and centrally located areas and Middle Eastern Jews (“Mizrahim”) were placed in the more obscure, high-risk areas.

Systemic discrimination against Mizrahim was, and continues to be, the consequence of the pro-West  incentive structure (i.e. garnering sociopolitical rewards by virtue of simply appearing pro-West) implemented at the very creation of the Israeli state. With Western oriented politicians installed in Israel, and supported by the seemingly more Western Ashkenazim in cities, the pro-West mentality dominated and was viewed as being at odds with the Eastern mentality, Jewish or otherwise.

Though different, and more extreme in the case of Palestinians, the discrimination felt by both Mizrahim and Palestinians has been so severe that coalitions have been formed to unite and promote mutual benefits for the two groups in the face of Ashkenazim exclusionary practices.

Simultaneously, the resistant cause of such coalitions rose in political prominence, which brings us back to the present situation. From the political center and left in Israel, political groups have been growing in numbers and force, endorsing the cause of middle and lower class Jews as well as Palestinians.

As I mentioned, most people in the Middle East, the West, or anywhere else, are raised under the pressure of an expected allegiance to either Israel or Palestine. However, the identity being embraced in order to inform that allegiance may not be as simple as you think—it is not as simple as Arabs vs. Jews; Middle Easterners vs. Israelis or Jews; or Jews vs. Muslims.

And perhaps most importantly, conflict between Jews and non-Jews, particularly Muslims in this case, is not inherent. Just as the relationship between these groups has shifted into one characterized as antagonistic in recent memory, it can shift back.

At the most fundamental level, Israel and its supporters must stop insisting on pushing a distinction between East and West as well as a distinction between Israel and the Middle East. Israel is in the Middle East and much of its population is Middle Eastern, religion aside.

The discrimination occurring within Israel is making it internally unstable and the projection of this discrimination is informing Israeli foreign policy. The result has been increasing isolation practices and general belligerence (i.e. violent assaults within its own territory and persistent aggression and threats toward neighboring states) on the international stage.

President Obama gave a speech on his most recent trip to Israel and the speech has received a huge amount of mainstream attention for its mention of concessions with Palestine. But less obviously and more importantly, what the President did with this speech was align himself with the position of the rising center-left portion of Israeli Jews, who have proven to be a surprisingly strong force during the most recent elections. He directly characterized the occupation of the West Bank as simply morally objectionable. This endorsement was inherently pitted against the position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and was a way for the President to make his stance known and, presumably, fuel the fire of political tension in Israel.

The current state of Middle Eastern affairs vis-à-vis Israel, Palestine, and the immediate region as a whole is not sustainable. By criticizing the framework in which Israel appears to view itself and, in turn, the way many in the West tend to view it, I am not implying that Israel should simply let its guard down. I am merely seeking to combat the fundamental oversimplification of Israel vs. Palestine, which even Israel itself tends to promote.

Gabrielle Cherney is a fellow for the U.S. Department of Education’s Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program. She is being funded for research and language development specifically in Persian. Her academic specialization is on the Near East and Central Eurasia, as well as Political Science, at Indiana University in Bloomington.

by Akbar Khan
Contributing Writer

In the words of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military tactician, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” To some, this may seem an unattainable naivety, and yet for 800 years, the Zhou dynasty adopted Sun Tzu’s advice, resulting in its reputation as the longest-lasting imperial reign in Chinese history. In contrast, conflict in the West has embodied a different meaning, one that involves direct military engagement. But to Sun Tzu, conflict was just as much about perception, domestic unity, and indirect engagement as it was about actual warfare. In fact, what Sun Tzu was proposing was that the greatest victory is not the one that comes from physical battle–but the one achieved without military confrontation.

Beginning in the mid-19th century, the “Century of Humiliation” refers to an era of British and Japanese subjugation of China. In the mid-20th century, Mao Zedong ushered in a new period of communist revolution. These two time frames represent an era of foreign domination and poor economic development in China. However, the contemporary era has witnessed the re-emergence of Chinese leadership in East Asia. Some even speculate that the Chinese economy will soon rival the American economy, after more than two decades of United States international economic dominance while others dismiss China’s recent emergence as a short-lived phenomenon. Let’s take a closer look.

As the U.S. has become pre-occupied with fiscal hardship and overseas engagements, China has been rapidly, yet steadily, honing in on American economic prowess. Over the last two decades, China’s annual GDP growth has hovered around 10%. With an abundance of cheap labor, European and American companies have developed supply chains in China to reap the benefits of low production costs, transforming the country into the global manufacturing hub. Even high-end brand names like Armani employ Chinese manufacturing. Cliché as it is, “Made in China” is increasingly stamping itself on American consumer products.

Some economists have predicted that China’s growth rate is unsustainable. They suggest that China’s capital endowments will yield diminishing returns, and, as a result, China’s impressive growth will drop considerably. However, this is not expected to significantly slow Chinese growth for at least another decade. In fact, the International Monetary Fund predicts that in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), China’s GDP will surpass America’s in 2016. PPP is measure that uses currency exchange rates to adjust for differences in prices between rich and poor countries. Even if Chinese growth slows from present rates, America’s economic advantage over China is shrinking.

Not convinced on China’s prospects? There’s more.

The Chinese government, in a rather brilliant maneuver, has created export quotas on its rare earth metals, which is surprising considering China wholly dominates the market. One may wonder why Chinese leaders have pursued this policy. By limiting its own output of rare earth materials, China is creating incentives for foreign businesses to relocate to China in order to get around the quota.

Still not convinced?

In 2006, the Pentagon confirmed that China successfully tested a ground-to-space laser to block U.S. satellite imagery. Reports on exactly which satellite was targeted are difficult to discover, perhaps because the event is not something the American media are eager to reveal. In a report by Defense News, the National Reconnaissance Office Director, Donald Kerr, admitted that China had the technological capability to affect U.S. satellites. This revelation demonstrates the increasing technological capacity of China but the incident signals a more profound implication–China has stepped on America’s toes without repercussions.

China is increasingly doing as it pleases: trading weapons for oil to Iran, violating environmental restrictions, trading with North Korea, and keeping foreign imports out of its borders. Were China a weaker nation, the U.S. would be able to put much more pressure on China to cooperate. However, as a result of the extensive U.S. trade deficit, China owns over a trillion dollars of American debt. This gives China leverage over the U.S. economy in being a creditor to the United States.

China has shown it has the potential, the ingenuity, the technology, and the swagger–a seemingly complete package. But, the one serious disadvantage for China with respect to the U.S. comes down to raw, material capability. According to the World Bank, America consistently spends above $600 billion on its defense budget while China spends over $100 billion. The U.S. GDP is approximately $14 trillion; China’s GDP is about half of the U.S. GDP.

Yet, consulting the timeless advice of our old friend Sun Tzu in his military guidebook The Art of War, we come to realize that material assets are not everything. Rather, strategic, non-violent tactics are the most effective method for combating opponents. In a world with strong international peace agencies, increasing globalization and an implicit fear of nuclear holocaust, direct military engagement between major powers is unlikely; this means that China may be able to rival America without ever having to fire a single bullet. Now that is a victory Sun Tzu would be proud of.

Fact and Figures from the World Bank, The Economist, and Bloomberg Business.

Akbar Khan is a third-year Political Science student with a minor in Global Studies. He is an intern at the Burkle Center for International Relations. 

by Rujuta Gandhi
Editor

First, China constructed multibillion-dollar cities, or ghost cities, dubbed as such because of the empty high-rises, parking lots, and playgrounds. Then, it “gifted” the $200 billion African Union headquarters. Now, China Daily, a global Chinese newspaper, blesses the continent with its Africa edition. Why is China burdening itself with a responsibility to develop Africa, and why expand its media presence? Perhaps the communist nation hopes to find amity by extending a hand of friendship—a gesture riddled with soft power ambitions.

Slowly developing Chinese media in Africa is a geostrategic move against western media, which already hold the upper hand by bashing Chinese involvement throughout the continent. Since 2008, these sources have increasingly been exposing China’s harmful role—its contribution to the genocide in Darfur is only one example. Non-media sources, such as the book China and Africa: A Century of Engagement, also contribute to this condemnation. Therefore, by establishing a media presence, China hopes to combat what it perceives as “misrepresentations” of its purpose in Africa. Such misconceptions could harm future economic ties and political support in Sino-African relations. Consequently, China is using the media as a tool of soft power.

This power play will help protect China’s future in both the long and short term. In the long term, it is likely that they aim to secure their economic presence and ability to extract natural resources or to resettle their burgeoning population, among other motives. However, in the short term, the government is taking swift action to survive on the new battlefield of state-financed satellite television news, a notion voiced publicly by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Already, foreign news services, such as France24 and Russia Today, have moved their metaphorical pawns, bishops, and knights to gain ground and mitigate negative images of their respective countries. China is merely following suit.

Xinhua News Agency, China’s state-owned press, established its presence in Africa beginning in the 1970s and now operates more than 20 bureaus continent-wide. In 2011, it began broadcasting a subsidiary television station, CNC World. A year later, the state-run but market-funded Chinese Central Television (CCTV) rooted its headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. Most recently (and another year later), China Daily launched its Africa edition. However, both broadcasting companies incorporate heavy biases in favor of China; they highlight social and cultural topics and positive narratives while avoiding controversial ones, including political issues. In the April 12–18, 2013 weekly edition, the article “Strong China-Africa Cooperation Pays,” endeavored to convince Africans that, with China’s aid, Africa can be an “Asian tiger,” while “Good Hair Days” discussed the relationship between women’s hairstyles and social change in China. Furthermore, in an attempt to gain an upper hand on the U.S., the cover story “Advent of a Banking Superpower” was followed with this sub-heading: “Country has massive lead over the United States in terms of availability of savings, says expert.”

The appearance of Chinese media parallels government motives and initiatives. Soon after the decolonization of Africa, the Chinese government began to establish diplomatic relations with African states. With these ties came Xinhua, the Xinhua News Agency’s online newspaper. These actions can arguably be perceived as part of the rewards package for African nations that supported Chinese Security Council membership. From post-colonization until 2000, media coverage contained little substantive analysis.

Since then, the need to increase their soft power drives the Chinese government’s new $7–9 billion policy. During the Chinese-dubbed Year of Africa in 2006, Chinese journalism and media relations were among many of the topics discussed during high-level exchanges and forums. The roadmap effectively institutionalizes soft power by assisting in the development of media infrastructure, revealing a long-term soft power mission to strengthen diplomatic and economic ties.

However, the survival and effectiveness of Chinese media are still questionable. In terms of journalism itself, the government is reportedly exporting its domestic censorship laws, which will likely result in declined legitimacy. On the other hand, China is making strides on the front of public diplomacy and institution-building assistance. Since 2006, Xinhua has trained a growing number of African journalists. Additionally, CNC World and CCTV’s bureaus both employ African journalists (though the executives and editors are Chinese). Meanwhile, the Chinese government provides media equipment as to support institutional development throughout Africa.

If Chinese media advances, Sino-African relations will strengthen. And if western media cannot wage its own soft power to fight back, a continuing shift in global power will be progressively more inevitable as the U.S. may lose ground on the resources and benefits that Africa can offer.

Facts and figures from BBC, China Daily Africa Weekly, and South African Institute for International Affairs.

By Tina Kim
Editor

Often hailed as the economic spotlight of the world, China has enjoyed its robust growth in manufacturing, waves of foreign investments, and increasing economic power. In recent months the media have been covering stories indicating a looming housing bubble threatening to stagnate the growth of China’s economy. Reports have highlighted China’s high housing prices, millions of vacant apartments, and tax measures from the government to contain the housing bubble. One of the most striking examples has been “ghost cities,” entire developments of luxury apartments and high-end shopping malls completely empty of residents. Meanwhile, housing prices have supposedly skyrocketed while real estate development has stalled—allowing construction, steel and cement production, and furniture and interior manufacturing to come to a halt. Will China’s rapid urbanization and growth finally come to an end?

UCLA Professor of Urban Planning Paavo Monkkonen says a housing bubble is not the right way to frame China’s current housing market. Although high housing prices may be the case for large cities such as Shanghai or Beijing, there are lower prices in areas where there is not as much economic activity. Similar to the U.S. and elsewhere, the high prices are relative to the location: the closer to the hub of the city, the more expensive, and the farther away, the cheaper. Rather than high housing prices, limited investment opportunities and income inequality are greater explanations for unaffordable housing.

China is generally a “savings” oriented nation and has one of the highest savings rates in the world. According to Forbes, this fact may reflect the cultural preference for sons; “about half of the increase in the savings rate of the last 25 years can be attributed to the rise in the sex ratio imbalance.” One hundred and twenty-two boys are born for every 100 girls today, which means one of five Chinese men will not marry. As a result, men have tried to become more “competitive” bachelors by increasing their savings and owning an apartment.

However, there is constant insecurity from the cost of health care, education, and age-old pensions that may change in the future despite these savings. The natural reaction would be to invest one’s earnings. But for an individual in China’s middle and working class, there are very limited options. The government sets interest rates for banks, which yield very little return. As a result, individuals have turned to buying second or third apartments in order to secure their future. However, as more people began investing in real estate, prices have risen. In response, the Chinese government issued a 20% capital gains tax on sales of second homes in Shanghai (and later throughout the country) to discourage real estate investment and dampen fears of a housing bubble.

Interestingly, many couples have gone as far as divorcing to circumvent the tax. While remaining divorced on paper, couples would live as a married couple to buy a second home. But this does not fully explain why individuals would invest in developments of ghost cities, where there are no tenants or returns on investment, or pay for infrastructure like a new subway or terminal, where there are no people.

Monkkonen, who has taught at the University of Hong Kong, explains that ten years ago, this same phenomenon occurred. Local Chinese governments in the past built massive terminals, roads, high-speed railways and other infrastructure at the edges of cities. For a few years, these areas would remain empty, but ten years later, people would eventually occupy to a point where the government needed to build more.

People from rural areas moving to cities have primarily fueled this expansion. At the end of 2011, 691 million people were living in urban areas and about 657 million were still left in the rural areas. With a large supply of rural migrants, the expanding infrastructure and ghost cities are literally developments years ahead of their time, waiting for these people to fill the streets and sustain economic growth. However, at some point, China will run out of rural migrants moving to cities.

“So far everything has been about growth,” Monkkonen explains. “But eventually the expansion is going to stop and the whole way that cities get money is going to disappear or get very limited. They have to learn new ways to get money or else there’s going to be a huge disaster.”

The new property taxes, therefore, may be a transition for local governments to obtain new sources of revenue other than through expanding cities. Moreover, a new wave of tax reforms may also indicate a greater and ubiquitous problem in China’s economy: income inequality.

The gap between rural farmers and the rural elite has contributed greatly to this income gap. According to the New York Times, half of China’s 1.3 billion people live on incomes “less than a third of those in cities,” but “many outside analysts say [income inequality] has actually gotten worse, making China among the world’s most unequal societies.” New tax reforms and taxes are thus attempting to bring greater access to social programs to the poor and elderly. China’s new rural pension has added over 240 million people since 2009 and in 2011 over 55% of adults had pensions. However, China’s funding for pensions and the overall welfare system has been drastically underfunded. In some rural areas, pensions are as low as 55 yuan (about $8.75) per month.

“Welfare spending has been inadequate, amounting to about half the level of comparable middle-income countries,” as stated in the Wall Street Journal. In addition, there are more than 200 million migrant workers in cities who are systematically blocked from obtaining social services and jobs (despite cities’ high dependence on rural migration). This system, called Hukou, continues to divide income levels between the rural and urban people. Moreover, as rural migration continues and urban populations expand, the issue of affordable housing has become an increasing problem.

In Beijing, 2 million people of its 20 million population live in apartment-style bomb shelters underground. These are informal markets, with landlords and advertisement in websites for people attempting to find affordable housing in the city. The 2 million individuals are drivers, waiters, students (estimated at 30%), and people of lower income. A new policy in Beijing has ordered the eventual eviction of these residents, sometimes referred to as the “rat population,” according to Professor of Urban Planning at MIT Annette Kim’s research in Beijing.

China has taken measures to address income inequality; however, social programs have been significantly underfunded and the rural migrants in cities have been marginalized from social programs and services. Moreover, a more fundamental method to address inequality would be to invest and improve the livelihood of the younger generation. Due to China’s one-child policy, there is a greater burden for only children to someday financially support and look after their elderly parents. According to Brookings, “In 2010, there were 116 million people aged 20 to 24 and by 2020, the number will fall by 20% to 94 million;” however, the number of the elderly, which is already greater than the youth population, is projected to increase to 240 million by 2020.

Greater access to affordable housing, more investment opportunities, and social programs for lower income and the elderly must occur to secure China’s future middle and working classes and maintain China’s growth. Sensational policies such as building glamorous infrastructure, tackling corruption scandals, and containing the “housing bubble” may be helpful to a degree. However, for China—and any other country for that matter—its future economic power lies within the productivity of the younger generation, not in its buildings. China’s youth is the country’s greatest asset and will be the country’s greatest impediment if its government fails to recognize them its most sustainable investment.

Facts and figures from Forbes, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Economist, Bloomberg, CBS News, a personal interview with UCLA Professor of Urban Planning Paavo Monkkonen, and a guest lecture by MIT Professor of Urban Planning Annette Kim.

The alarmingly shrinking expansion of Arctic sea ice, which receded to an unprecedented annual minimum last autumn of 2012, presents nations like Canada with a wildly uncertain future.

Not only does this seasonal low, along with harbingers like shifting precipitation patterns and rising sea levels, attest to the now globally-observed increase in yearly average temperature, it reasonably reinforces the likelihood of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) estimates forecasting summer Arctic sea ice to vanish entirely by the end of the century, once an outlandish prospect. Likely in part due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, the Northwest Passage that eluded countless adventurers searching for a maritime shortcut from Europe to Asia might suddenly emerge as a modern reality and point of contention. While an economically viable Northwest Passage offers Canada opportunities for enhanced trade and resource access, conflicting regional effects of climate change and ambiguous international responses to highly-contested polar boundaries will ultimately outweigh such a route’s benefits for the country’s interests.

With an already burgeoning population of skilled workers, Canada’s economic potential appears only magnified by more accessible fishing grounds; millions more ecotourists hoping to witness polar bears and other vestiges of the melting Arctic; and untapped oil and natural gas deposits (approximately 13% and 30% of global undiscovered reserves respectively, according to the US Geological Survey)—all of which are associated with Arctic sea ice retreat.

However, while considerable absence of thick multiyear ice may allow costly tankers, barges, and cargo vessels extended traveling ranges, sharp remnant chunks of sea ice and land-borne icebergs will ensure slow, seasonally variable, and treacherous summer transport through the briefly ice-free Northwest Passage.

Though a thinner atmosphere and accelerating albedo feedback cycles (where iceless ocean absorbs more ice-zapping heat) accentuate the rate of warming over northern polar regions, unimproved net agricultural yields and deteriorating ice-dependent winter roads could complicate shipping gains. In other words, warmer temperatures may boost production of crops northward of currently arable land, but drier conditions may ultimately decrease harvests in southern prairies. In the same way, increased ice-free sea transit during a short window of time at the end of summer probably will not offset the economic hindrances of losing months-long service of ice roads and rail routes that depend on cold temperatures for stability to deliver regional resources and valuable commodities like diamonds, petroleum, and grain by land.Especially considering how increased international market exposure will not only incline maritime arteries like the Panama and Suez Canals to lower their tolls, but also spell an uncertain fate for competing “destinational” shipping interests locally supplying and servicing booming outposts like Churchill, Iqaluit, and Tuktoyaktuk, the thought of Canada reaping lucrative profits in all economic sectors from a functional Northwest Passage in the coming decades certainly lies on thin ice.

Recent statistical investigations of Canadians involved in Arctic affairs highlights general support, despite varying methods, for polar development, yet vying foreign claims for unsettled sea territory, fossil fuel and marine resources, and multinational sovereignty over Arctic waterways overshadow Canada’s own strategic Northwest Passage development plans.

Since the evaporation of Cold War era tensions, a recent surge in Arctic militarization and charged nationalist rhetoric over extending northern maritime boundaries up to 200 nautical miles from shore in accordance with the United Nation’s EEZ (exclusive economic zone) recognition prompts heated international stalemate and demonstrates how effects of climate change blur traditional notions of sovereignty over land and resources. While locals draw resources from frozen waterways the same way as on land and Canadian officials assert authority over inter-island marine passages, multinational (particularly American) critics identify an increasingly navigable Arctic shipping route in a global light, as linking two nationless bodies of water, further complicating proper recognition.

Already, Russia’s move to stake its flag over the North Pole in 2007 and Canada’s calls to construct another costly Arctic military base in Resolute Bay and strengthen its fleet of patrol ships and icebreakers (securitizing steps not unlike those of other Arctic nations) reinforce the inescapable, often superseding role that politics will play in shaping the uncertain fate of the Northwest Passage amidst climate change. Even as warmer temperatures thaw a region primed for increased economic activity, international boundary delineation over shifting environmental factors and competing national interests ultimately possess the power to encourage or discourage greater economic interconnectivity of Canada’s Arctic ports with North America and beyond.

References

1. Maria-José Viñas, “Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent In Satellite Era,” NASA, September 19, 2012, accessed October 13, 2012, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html.

2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf).

3. L. C. Smith, The World in 2050: Four Forces Shaping Civilization’s Northern Future (Plume, New York, 2011).

4. L. C. Smith, Agents of change in the new north. Eurasian Geography & Economics 52, 30-55 (January/February 2011). http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/297/396.pdf

5. J. Parsons, J. Dinwoodie, M. Roe, Northern opportunities: a strategic review of Canada’s Arctic icebreaking services. Marine Policy 35, 549-556 (July 2011). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X11000182

6. H. Gerhardt, P. E. Steinberg, J. Tasch, S. J. Fabiano, R. Shields, Contested sovereignty in a changing Arctic. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100, 992-1002 (September 2010). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00045608.2010.500560

7. S. Chaturvedi, in Global and Regional Problems: Towards an Interdisciplinary Study, P. Aalto, V. Harle, S. Moisio, Eds. (Ashgate, Burlington, VT, 2012), chap. 8.