During the 2016 US Presidential Election, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server has been one of several hot button issues. However, it may be the one that is ultimately glossed over more than any other in the face of her bombastic, demagogic competition.
Clinton has been criticized from both the left and the right. Republicans have gone so far as calling her deliberately dishonest and a criminal, while more left-leaning Democrats have used this as a chance to offer their candidate of choice, Senator Bernie Sanders, a second chance — unfortunately for him, to no avail.
A serious threat to national security
As it stands, Hillary Clinton has officially clinched the Democratic nomination, and she will face no retribution for her failures. This, however, does not make the situation any less interesting.
The FBI investigation began in March 2015, when it was uncovered that her and her staff had been using a private email server, which could have created serious security problems were the server to be hacked.
Clinton’s email server was hosted in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, NY, although this information was not disclosed to the State Department at the time. After its stay in her home, the server was then moved to New Jersey, and then to Denver, where it was finally investigated.
While it is highly irregular for Clinton to have her own server, the investigation concluded that it was not actually illegal. And while many claim that her server was undoubtedly hacked by foreign actors, the forensics showed otherwise.
Photograph by CNN
Whether the server was breached or not, it is difficult to deny that its mere existence posed a real security threat. The question then becomes: why was what Hillary Clinton did so wrong? And what does it say about the United States’ criminal justice system?
The FBI investigation’s final recommendation was not to move forward with any criminal prosecution against Clinton. However, it did shed light on her actions, stating that her private server was a legitimate security risk and calling her “extremely careless”. In a statement addressing the conclusion of the investigation, FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI identified 7 separate email threads which contained information which had been classified as “top secret”.
Using a private server for such sensitive emails is in fact illegal, and could have given foreign states or actors access to information that could put US national security into a state of turmoil.
Gross negligence, but somehow not criminal
Despite these findings, the FBI’s decision not to recommend charges against Clinton was justified by the lack of evidence that her actions had been intentional, as well as the lack of any evidence that the server had actually been compromised.
During his statements, Comey did say that Clinton had demonstrated gross negligence, and provided evidence which proved that her amended statement that she had “never knowingly sent or received classified emails” was a lie. This is damning information and, by all rights, she could have faced charges, but she did not.
Although Hillary Clinton’s political tenure is riddled with inconsistency, the criticisms against her never seem to stick. A few years ago, she claimed that her private jet had landed under a thicket of sniper fire in Bosnia, yet a video of the landing shows her smiling, waving, and shaking hands with children upon arrival. Despite having clearly engaged in dishonesty, she simply shrugged it off as a misstatement.
Photograph by John Moore
Clinton seems to be bulletproof from the public’s acrimony, and many critiques of her wrongdoings are immediately labeled as false or exaggerated, when it is clearly not the case. Perhaps this is a product of her Correct the Record campaign, which set out to create thousands of fake accounts on social media in order to push the narrative in her favor.
Her history of foreign policy decision-making is perhaps the most damning of all her missteps. Her attempts at state-building in the Middle East have played a direct role in the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS, and she has found herself in league with donors from the Persian Gulf who, while supporting terrorist organizations, were also benefactors of the Clinton Foundation.
During her husband’s tenure as president, she pushed him away from intervening in a genocide in Kosovo to push her healthcare agenda. So why is she fit to be president?
Above the law, or above Donald Trump?
Comey’s testimony illustrated one thing very clearly: Clinton is too big to jail. One could speculate about the multitude of reasons why she was not charged, but the answer is rather simple.
Some have tried to do so by claiming that she has deep-seeded ties to intelligence officials and lies snugly in the pockets of the FBI, whilst others believe she has orchestrated some other grand scheme to avoid the reprisal of the American justice system.
Ruminating on these political motivations would be a fool’s game, and would also be ignoring the larger issue. What this situation really highlights is the way in which the US justice system treats such matters. US politics is somewhat of a “members only” club. Those who are deeply entrenched in it are hard to criticize, and even harder to reprimand. Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of the systematic “armored plating” that exists all over the country.
Photograph by John Moore
Truth be told, in any other election, this may have had more severe consequences for Clinton, but Donald Trump is the best case scenario for her. Throughout the process of the election, his unbridled sexism, racism and mobilization of hate-filled Americans has made him an easy target and a person that this country simply cannot elect. Thus, it is the moral duty of free thinking Americans to keep him out of office, no?
That’s what a majority of Democratic voters would have you believe, and to a certain degree they are right. This dilemma is further explored in Bernie or Bust (TSH).
But, alongside the American justice system, this election cycle has also highlighted the shortcomings of the long-defended American two-party system. Freedom of choice has become the freedom to pick between a sociopathic businessman who represents authoritarian populism, and a self-serving career politician who represents corruption.
These are heavy accusations, but they hold true under any standard of intense scrutiny. Hillary Clinton may be the lesser of two evils in this election, but it is still important to understand who you are voting to lead our country when November comes around.
The past and future of Spain’s north-eastern separatism
January 17th 2016 | Barcelona | Martin Rogard
Photograph by AFP
In recent months, the possibility of an independent Catalan Republic has been rapidly materialising.
The election of a separatist coalition by a slim 51.7% majority on September 27th was shortly followed by the passing of a resolution on October 27th, by the regional parliament, which declared “Un Estat Català Independent”, essentially declaring Catalonia a sovereign state. Growing political salience for independence has pushed political parties to form a majority coalition in the regional parliament called Junts pel Sí, or ‘Together for Yes’, which now claims it has the electoral mandate for secession.
However, although separatists won a majority of seats, they did not receive a majority of the popular vote. Due to the way constituencies are divided, just under half of the electorate actually voted for the pro-independence coalition.
In light of these developments, Spanish president Mariano Rajoy maintains that “Catalonia is not going anywhere, nothing is going to break”.
In fact, the independence resolution was immediately followed by an extraordinary meeting of the Spanish Council of Ministers, which approved an appeal to the Constitutional Court for the nullification of Catalonia’s parliamentary ruling.
In its report, the advisory body suggested that “there is sufficient legal basis” to challenge the claim before the Constitutional Court since it “disregards the core of the Spanish Constitution by declaring disobedience to the sovereign Spanish state”. Whilst such quarrel between regional Catalan and federal institutions has not been infrequent in the past, the pressure for independence has been rapidly escalating in the midst of national elections.
Diagram by The Economist
This rising tension is difficult to ignore when walking the eclectic streets of Barcelona. A couple of days ago, a middle-aged man who was standing with a separatist flag in front of the Town hall told me that an independent Catalonia had been the dreams of his father, grandfather and great-grandfather, but that it would now be him, his children and grandchildren who would finally see it happen.
In his mind, the current “oppressive” and “corrupt” Spanish Monarchy is fighting the same losing battle as the Spanish Empire had with its former colonies. “We, Catalans, are no different than Columbians or Cubans” alliterated the interviewee
When did this zeal for separatism actually begin? And why?
Well, the Catalan separatist movement can be traced back to the creation of the Estat Català revolutionary movement in 1922. Historically, Catalonia has always been a notorious critic of unitary and monarchical power, advocating for greater regional autonomy and a Republican nation-state.
When a Second Spanish Republic was attempted in 1931, the independence movement died down with the creation of the self-administrative ‘Generalitat de Cataluña’, still under Spanish authority, but enjoying unprecedented levels of self-rule. In fact, when the Civil War erupted, following Franco’s coup in July 1936, Catalonia was actually one of the strongholds in defense of the Spanish state.
As described by George Orwell, who fought in Barcelona, the ‘Generalitat’ in 1937 was a place of “no boss-class, no menial class, no beggars, no prostitutes, no lawyers and no priests”.
Photograph by AFP
Today, Catalonia remains disconnected with some of the most traditional Spanish values in its commitment to progressive politics. Such cultural differences are mirrored in their use of the ‘Catalan’ as the official regional language, instead of Spain’s ‘Castellano’.
Having won the conflict, Franco immediately reinforced national unity, thus curtailing the region’s autonomy. Under the dictatorship, separatist movements were silenced, but Catalonia remained tacitly critical.
In 1975, after Franco’s death, the proclamation of a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic sparked a revival of the independence movement, which continues to this day.
Recently, ‘Junts Pel Si ’ has been arguing for independence so that Catalonia is no longer required to provide funding for other regions as part of the fiscal redistributive policies imposed by the Spanish government.
In keeping all tax revenues to itself, the Generalitat would enjoy a larger budget for infrastructure, education, and healthcare, estimated between 5% and 9% of GDP. As such, the past seven years of fiscal austerity have intensified the population’s eagerness to secede, demanding a different recipe for economic growth.
On the other hand, being a part of Spain allows it to export local products such as its ‘Cava’, a form of sparkling wine, anywhere in Spain and in the EU. Catalonia greatly benefits from Spain’s membership to the European Union, which offers low export costs, consistent tourism, and infrastructure funding to the region.
Photograph by David Ramos
As a result, the economic argument for independence is entirely dependent on Catalonia’s ability to negotiate favourable relations with the Spanish state and the EU on a bilateral basis if it becomes a sovereign state.
Such issues are reminiscent of similar conflicts in Scotland, which faced many of the same debates over the last few years. Indeed, while EU accession laws may grant temporary membership to a seceding territory, any new member must be unanimously vetted by all member states, including Spain, which puts separatists in an awkward bargaining position.
Corruption and democracy
Beside the long-term explanations for Catalan independence, it appears that the recent escalation in separatism has been catalysed by an ongoing democratic crisis in Spain, and Europe in a wider context.
Indeed, for the past ten years, the Spanish political landscape has been plagued with corruption scandals of illicit party funding, such as the infamous ‘Bárcenas affair’, tax evasion scandals, and abuses of executive legal immunity provisions. The Monarchy has also been engulfed by scandals as Spain’s former King Juan Carlos I engaged in elephant hunting in Botswana, as well as the ‘Urdangarín affair’, which found him accused of embezzling large sums of public money.
If the general lack of transparency, rule of law and accountability of public officials has resulted in great dissatisfaction for the general electorate, this has been exacerbated even further for Catalans.
Photograph by Paul Hanna
This democratic crisis can be statistically illustrated by a Transparency International report, which found that 74% Spaniards felt that their government’s efforts to fight corruption are ineffective. An even higher percentage of people felt that from 2007-2010, the level of corruption in the country had actually increased.
According to the independent NGO, the most corrupt institution in Spain are the political parties. The mistrust of established political parties has created an electoral vacuum in Spain, which rapidly gave rise to newer parties such as the socialist and anti-austerity Podemos, and the mostly neo-liberal Ciudadanos.
Both parties call for profound political reform, and stand to the respective political left and right of the two largest parties, PSOE and PP.
Un Estat Catala independent?
The rise of new parties, coupled with general mistrust of institutions in Spain, have produced largely fragmented results in the national elections held in December 2015, crippling the ability of any party to form a coalition government.
In fact, many in Spain now believe there will a re-run of the elections, and a large portion of the electorate seems to be calling for political change.
In Catalonia, this surely means the independence movement will continue pushing forward until serious political reform is achieved.
A symptom, not cause, of a growing and changing world
March 11th 2015 | Montana | Christopher Beddow
Photograph by Drew Angerer
Two minutes after midnight on October 12th, 1999, Adnan Nevic was born just outside Sarajevo, Bosnia. He was dubbed “Baby Six Billion”, as his birth marked not only the start of his own life but also the growth of human population beyond six billion worldwide.
Population had been growing rapidly since the industrial age, and today stands at over 7 billion. More than 26 million people have been born in 2015 alone, a result of continuously increasing birthrates. While China and India are the hosts to the world’s largest population, the United States is a distant third. Meanwhile, Nigeria’s birthrate is rising so quickly that it is expected to exceed the US, Brazil, and Indonesia in population by 2050 and reach nearly 1 billion by 2100.
In Nigeria, the reasons for such growth are many: a drop in both adult and infant mortality rates due to medical advancements, a growing economy, and a still fledgling use of contraception, among other factors. This is a typical pattern among countries in a similar situation, both past and present.
The United States, meanwhile, has grown to over 320 million in 2015. The first national census in 1790 recorded a population just shy of 4 million, with a growth rate of 3% per annum. This rate has gradually declined to around 1% today. One year, however, stands out from the others – 2000.
The dot-com boom had reached its peak after 1999, as growth in the internet sector fueled the economy before eventually bursting. Whilst this would have encouraged a higher birthrate, just as economic gains in developing countries have done, this was actually not the case. The net increase in population appears to have had its unique origin not in the country’s birth rate, but in immigration.
Immigration into the US
The year 2000 saw 28.4 million immigrants living in the United States, the largest number that had ever been recorded. In 1990, it was below 20 million. Today, it stands at over 40 million. These figures exclude undocumented immigrants, meaning population numbers are even higher in reality. Why did this rate spike so suddenly in 2000, and what drives over a million immigrants to enter the United States every year?
The dot-com boom of the 1990s undoubtedly made the United States an attractive destination for immigration. Economic opportunity appeared to be abundant, and demand for labor increased even despite the American birth rate barely being self-sustaining; that is, falling short of the required rate of 2 children per couple.
Neighboring Mexico supplies a large portion of the population of immigrants, largely due to the ease of movement across their shared border as opposed to having to travel overseas. Overall, 58 percent of immigrants to the US come from Latin America. This concept is commonly portrayed as a simple case of influx of labor into the job market, but this is not necessarily the case.
Emigration away from the US
In examining the reasons for this immigration wave and the momentum thereafter, it can be useful to ask a question about the behavior of another population: American emigrants. Over 800,000 Americans are legal residents in the EU, which is only a few thousand more than the oddly large American resident population in Mexico. Canada, the Philippines, Israel, Japan, and Brazil are among others with resident American populations in the tens of thousands and beyond.
Some of the most commonly cited reasons behind this emigration are business opportunities (oil in Dubai), cheaper economies (housing in Mexico), political atmospheres (freedoms in the Netherlands), religious reasons (Jewish diaspora to Israel), or access to government services (healthcare in Canada).
These reasons change throughout history, such as political emigrants leaving for Canada after the election of George W. Bush, which spiked minutely after the 2004 election, or the thousands who emigrated from the Confederate States of America to Brazil following the end of the Civil War in the 1860s. Even between 1999 and 2010, the economy had changed enough to cause a wave of emigration in search of better conditions.
All of this paints a picture of human migration in general – it happens for a variety of reasons, and tends to happen in waves following particularly significant events.
Economic and political change
The increase in Mexican immigrants in the United States, starting in 2000, can be attributed to people with low economic status seeking a better job market, access to better education and healthcare, a more politically and socially stable atmosphere, and an overall increase in quality of life.
Other immigrant groups may have spiked in different years, including Europeans after the fall of the Soviet Union, and Middle Eastern immigrants – both Muslim and Christian – seeking political and religious freedom in light of regional turmoil that continues today.
Photograph by Getty Images
Many countries around the world have seen similar waves of migration, including the influx of Jewish people into Israel following the 1940s, waves of European migration to such South American countries as Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay in the 1800s, and the sudden departure of white South Africans following dramatic political shifts in 1990 marking the end of Apartheid.
In the end, these sorts of population spikes can always be attributed to a catalyst. That catalyst, however, is often difficult to identify in the modern day, as global society is perhaps more dynamic than ever. Such analysis tends to be easier looking back over several decades, as patterns in history become clearer, and yet the details more obscure.
Looking into the future
The most important lesson from examining spikes in population growth such as that in the United States in 2000 is that the reasons for any change in our global society are exceedingly complex. Human movement across boundaries is as old as the species itself, and will continue to be driven by new factors. The rate of Mexican immigration to the US is falling, while the number of Americans living abroad is increasing. This is a microcosm of the world at large, where the cultures, economies, and political institutions are becoming interwoven, spurring both change and conflict.
Worldwide, death rates will fall, longevity will rise, birth rates will increase, and net population will grow and grow. As seen in the United States, a minor challenge such as immigration policy can be over-emphasized and seen as a cause for division.
However, the major challenge is how political, economic, and social conditions will be transformed, preserved, and expanded in order to meet the needs of a human community that is changing and growing faster than ever before.
Rising tensions as Obama reverses his stance on disarmement
March 6th 2015 | Pittsburgh | Will Tomer
Photograph by Jewel Samad
“It is now three minutes to midnight.”
So began the most recent press release, dated Jan. 22, 2015, from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists regarding the latest adjustment of the historic Doomsday Clock. The symbolic clock represents humanity’s proximity to total extinction. Midnight represents a global catastrophe caused by either nuclear war or climate change.
Dating back to its origin in 1947, the closest the clock has come to midnight was three minutes to midnight in 1984, when the United States deployed large numbers of missiles to Western Europe, further intensifying the arms race between the US and Soviet Union. Now, humanity has once again found itself nearing the brink thanks to the resurgence of nuclear weapons.
Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, cited recent efforts by the US and Russia to modernise their nuclear arsenals as the reason for the clock’s adjustment. She stated that “global nuclear weapons modernisations and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity”.
Obama’s stance on the issue
In the eyes of many, the blame for this push toward human annihilation is the fault of 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, President Barack Obama. When Mr. Obama was given this award six years ago, just months into his presidency, the Norwegian Nobel Committee highlighted how his “vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations”.
At the time, the committee had every reason to believe this was his true vision. After all, Mr. Obama had given a speech in Prague about six months prior in which he expressed “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”
Now, with the end of Mr. Obama’s presidency on the horizon, America finds itself in the midst of its most intense attempt to advance its nuclear weapons supply in decades. The Obama administration has initiated a program to modernise the almost 2,000 aging weapons of mass destruction that the United States can launch from an array of missiles, submarines and bombers.
For many supporters of disarmament, this incredible reversal in President Obama’s policy is not only a disappointment, but an outright betrayal. In an interview with the New York Times, Sam Nunn, a former United States senator whose writings regarding nuclear disarmament influenced Obama’s previous stance, expressed his confusion.
“A lot of it is hard to explain,” said Nunn. “The president’s vision was a significant change in direction. But the process has preserved the status quo.”
Russia as a military threat
The factor responsible for this plan of nuclear modernisation that most analysts point to is Russia’s renewed interest in nuclear weapons. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin recently bragged on state-run television that US missile defense systems “cannot stop” Russian ballistic nuclear missiles. He went on to assert that Russian technology “shows that neither the current, nor even the projected American missile defense system could stop or cast doubt on Russia’ strategic missile potential.”
This posturing has been dismissed by many as merely being hegemonic rhetoric meant to deflect views that the country is becoming weak under a failing economy. “If you’re Vladimir Putin and you’re trying to cling to and portray an image of Moscow as a superpower”, said former US ambassador Steven Pifer, “nuclear weapons is the only thing you have left to cite since the economy is suffering badly”.
Photograph by Getty Images
With the price of oil falling from over $100 a barrel at the end of 2013 to under $50 a barrel today, the Russian economy is struggling mightily. A recent series of studies conducted by the Economic Expert Group, a Russian consultancy, show that a $1 drop in the oil price per barrel leads to a massive loss of $2.3 billion in budget revenue.
Sarah Lain, a research fellow and expert on Russia at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank, believes that Russia’s behavior is bringing about Cold War-esque relations through aggressive attempts to assert dominance, not only internationally, but also domestically.
“A lot of the information and claims from the Russian government are in some ways more directed toward the domestic audience” she says, “given the economic issues, demonstrating strength when there is weakness in domestic management”.
With Cold-War era relations returning to prominence and countries’ reliance on the power of their nuclear weapons arsenals increasing once again, it would seem the world is ticking quickly towards midnight.