Photo Credit: Flickr user Gin Fizz

The process of Bakola-Bagyeli integration into the public school system of Kribi, Cameroon entails a delicate balance between modernization, preserving tradition, and protecting human rights. In the case of the Bakola-Bagyeli, education has the potential to foster empowerment, but also to erode culture. Increased integration into the education system decreases time spent learning traditional knowledge and skills, increases sedentarization, and creates a need for money to buy necessities such as books and school uniforms. Seeking money obliges Bakola-Bagyeli families to join the market economy through working and shopping, further detracting from their culture of self-sufficiency. The alternative to education is a continuing rural subsistence of their life in the forest, isolated from—and thus left vulnerable to—the processes that impact the forest and their way of life. The lack of Bakola-Bagyeli presence in the broader community in and around Kribi has meant that their voice has been largely missing from decision-making processes, despite the efforts of organizations and individuals to speak on their behalf. I focused my research on the challenges faced by the Bakola-Bagyeli, the potential of education as a tool to address these challenges, and the utility of education as perceived by the Bakola-Bagyeli themselves, school officials, and members of Kribi civil society.

Read the rest of the essay here.

The international Muslim Brotherhood is occasionally characterized by American commentators, especially those with right-wing leanings, as a radical Islamist movement on par with al-Qaeda: transnational, ambitious, and therefore inherently threatening to U.S. interests. Following the Gaza flotilla crisis in June 2010, Thomas Joscelyn commented in the Weekly Standard: "The more one looks into the details of the flotilla the more it becomes clear that the Brotherhood used the humanitarian mission for its own purpose, namely, to assist its Palestinian branch—Hamas."1 Joscelyn paints a picture of a tight-knit, well-organized movement, a many-headed hydra that could pop up anywhere to accomplish its own nefarious ends.

Read the rest of the essay here.

Most nations today beat their foreign policy drums largely to economic rhythms, but less so the United States. Most nations define their interests largely in economic terms and deal mostly in economic power, but less so the United States. Washington still thinks of its security mainly in traditional military terms and responds to threats mainly with force. The principal challenge for Washington, then, is to recompose its foreign policy with an economic theme, while countering threats in new and creative ways. The goal is to redefine "security" to harmonize with twenty-first-century realities.

Economics is now the principal coin of the international realm, and gross domestic product now matters more than military might. Any doubts about that should be erased by one simple and overwhelming fact: China is the first global power in world history that is not a global military power. China’s military punch will be restricted to its border areas for years. Most nations worry not about Chinese arms, but about its trade and investment decisions. And though China’s GDP is just a little more than half of America’s, Beijing’s power rivals Washington’s. World leaders see China’s economy going up and America’s going down, largely because of Washington’s political incapacity to make hard decisions about its domestic economy.

Read the rest of the essay here.

In an October 1, 2008, Washington Post piece titled, "Nov. 4 Isn’t the Only Election Day; Campaigns Adjust as Early Voting Rises," Mary Pat Flaherty outlines the tactics major party presidential campaigns use to win over "electoral gold"—the "early voters" who take advantage of laws in thirty-six states allowing them to vote before Election Day. In some states, a majority of voters now cast their ballots before Election Day, and media reports like Flaherty’s suggest campaigns have adjusted to the increasingly large number of early voters. They use specially targeted ads and get-out-the-vote operations to reach voters who might vote early. Scholars, however, have yet to adjust their work to incorporate these changes in campaign practices. While there is a large body of literature exploring the changes in turnout and electoral demographics due to early voting, there is almost no research examining the role of early voting in campaign behavior. This appears particularly important for scholars examining the role of campaign expenditures on electoral outcomes. Existing work simply does not account for a world in which a large number of voters have cast their ballots before campaigns have spent 100 percent of their funds. This study begins to fill that gap by demonstrating that candidates do spend money earlier in states with early voting and offering evidence to suggest this early spending may not necessarily give candidates an electoral advantage. The first finding helps to validate the claims made by campaign experts and news media about the impact of early voting on campaigns. The second finding can guide the spending of campaigns in states where there is early voting and candidates may be tempted to spend their funds early. Together, they challenge the academic literature to account for the growing role of early voters.

Read the rest of the essay here.

Despite China’s efforts in the past decade to implement a “good neighbor” policy with surrounding states, in the past two years this foreign policy has been seemingly compromised by China’s aggressive tactics in the contested South China Sea (SCS), including its imposition of unilateral fishing bans, arrests of foreign fishermen, and increased coastal patrols. China’s supposed private declaration this past March to American officials that the South China Sea constituted a “core interest” appeared to affirm a newfound and unconventionally aggressive commitment to the question of sovereignty in the SCS. This pattern of assertiveness was further apparent in China’s vehement response to U.S. intervention in the dispute. Media reports attempting to interpret the change in posture concluded that there was still much uncertainty associated with China’s ascendancy in the international system.

Read the rest of the essay here.

We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America that we are expounding.”1 With these words, Justice Antonin Scalia registered his disapproval for an increasingly prominent practice: the Supreme Court’s citation of non-American law. He is not alone; over the past decade, the Court’s use of foreign and international materials has proven deeply controversial,2 attracting both ardent support and scathing criticism. Yet, although the Court’s glimpses abroad have proven polarizing, America has seen a similar practice flourish without controversy for centuries. Since the Founding, America’s state court systems—each with its own judicial system and constitutional law—have cited each other when interpreting their state constitutions.3 That two seemingly comparable techniques have drawn such dramatically different reactions logically suggests the question: if one practice is so widely accepted, what justifies rejecting the other? Addressing this question, in this analysis I argue that there is, in fact, justification for treating these practices differently, but that such justification is limited to concerns drawn from the practical difficulties each method presents.

Read the rest of the essay here.

March 9, 2011
8 PM, doors open at 7:15 PM
Roone Arledge Auditorium, Columbia University

CUID and ticket-holders ONLY; tickets available the week of March 7.
Check-in located at North entrance to Lerner Hall; no bags or posters.
Students will be invited to ask questions following the end of the discussion.
Book signing with Imam Feisal will proceed the event.

The Helvidius Group, the publishing body of the Columbia Journal of Politics & Society, the Middle East Institute, the Kraft Family Fund for Intercultural and Interfaith Awareness, the Office of the University Chaplain, and the Muslim Students Association are pleased to present the inauguration of the Helvidius Speakers Series and its first guest, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The event will be moderated by Dean Peter Awn, the Dean of General Studies and the head of the Middle East Institute, and it promises to be a night of robust and intellectual debate.

Imam Feisal is Chairman of Cordoba Initiative, which he founded in 2004, as a multi-faith multi-national initiative with the mission of turning point in West-Muslim world relations. One of his projects is the Cordoba House project in Lower Manhattan, which became a cause célèbre in 2010 and he became known as the ‘Ground Zero Mosque Imam.’ In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), the first Muslim organization committed to bringing American Muslims and non-Muslims together through programs in academia, policy, current affairs, and culture. As Imam of Masjid al-Farah in New York City since 1983, he preaches a message of understanding between people of all creeds. Additionally, Imam Feisal sits on the Board of Trustees of the Islamic Center of New York and serves as an advisor to the Interfaith Center of New York.

Peter J. Awn is Professor of Islamic Religion and Comparative Religion in the Department of Religion. He received his Ph.D. in Islamic Religion and Comparative Religion from Harvard University in 1978, at which point he joined the Columbia faculty. Previously he earned degrees in Philosophy, Classical Languages, and Christian Theology. Professor Awn’s book, Satan’s Tragedy and Redemption: Iblîs in Sufi Psychology, received a book award from the American Council of Learned Societies. In 1984 he was the first recipient of the Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Award for distinguished teaching and research. In 1995 Professor Awn was awarded the Great Teacher Award from the Society of Columbia Graduates. Professor Awn has received numerous grants including a Fulbright and several grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities. He was also a Principal Investigator on the Muslim Communities in New York City research project, sponsored by the Ford Foundation. In addition to his work at Columbia, Professor Awn has been Visiting Professor of Religion at Princeton University. Professor Awn has traveled widely in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Iran, and South Asia.

In addition to his service as Dean of the School of General Studies (GS), Professor Awn currently serves as Acting Dean of the School of Continuing Education (SCE). He has served as chair of the Department of Religion, chair of the Steering Committee of the Chairs of the Arts & Sciences Departments, and chair of the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences. In addition he has served as Director of Graduate Studies for the Department of Religion, and Arts & Sciences Faculty Liaison to the Office of University Development and Alumni Relations.

—–

Student Co-Sponsor Groups:

Turath
Roosevelt Institute
Columbia Political Union
SIPA – ASA
College Democrats
College Republicans
The Current
Muslim Students Association

Photo Credit: Flickr user Joffley

While American dependence on energy imports has been extensively analyzed and critiqued, the United States has done relatively little to help address its European allies’ reliance on imported energy. The European Union (EU) is the “world’s largest importer of oil and gas,” buying 82 percent of its oil and 57 percent of its natural gas from abroad. Half of EU oil imports and a third of EU gas imports come from Russia (Cohen, 2007, 2). This dependence, in conjunction with an EU energy market that remains divided along national borders and a pattern of bilateral deals between European national energy monopolies and external suppliers, endangers not only cooperation within Europe but also the reliability and independence of European diplomatic and political action with regards to U.S. interests (Noël, 2008, 8). Unable to form a common position based around a unified energy market, EU member states must increasingly choose between stable energy supplies and siding with the United States on key diplomatic issues ranging from sanctions on Iran to reciprocal investment rights.
This paper aims to address this issue by analyzing the roots and effects of the disunity of European energy markets, noting the U.S. interest in an integrated, reformed European energy market, outlining policies that mitigate dependence on imported energy, providing two case studies which illustrate the drawbacks of current policy and potential of new proposals, and finally suggesting three major platforms of reform to be pursued jointly by the U.S. and the EU. I will argue that a European Union featuring a more competitive private energy market operating in the context of robust institutional oversight would enjoy significantly greater commercial and diplomatic leverage – particularly with regards to supplier states such as Russia.

Read the rest of the essay here.

In the Age of Discovery, European powers explored, conquered, and tied together the regional systems of the world. These states–Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and England– were the first world powers and could influence events around the globe based on their power projection capabilities. In jockeying for position with other competing states, establishing colonies, and subjugating tribute states, the world powers relied on one particular form of power projection: naval power. Christopher Columbus, James Cook, Bartolomeu Dias, Francis Drake, Vasco da Gama, Henry Hudson, and Ferdinand Magellan all sailed from Europe and explored Africa, South Asia, the Americas, and Oceania. If a map does not show the obvious, these men’s stories do: Europe conquered the world because it could project naval power. Indeed, Europe’s use of land power on these newly-explored continents depended on the ability of its navies to bridge the oceans between the metropoles and the colonies.

Read the rest of the essay here.

It was an oft-unrecognized assumption of modernization theory, the dominant social science paradigm of the 1960s and 1970s, that the character and trajectory of historical change was both universal and unilinear. Drawing mainly on the work of Max Weber, scholars such as David Apter, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Middle East expert Daniel Lerner argued that economic growth, capitalism, urbanization, and the impact of Western cultural forms were essential factors for democratic development and would result in the eradication of ‘primitive’ or ‘traditional’ forms of societal organization and everyday life. In response to this historical ‘advance,’ religious piety and conviction (both on a personal and societal level) in places like the Middle East would be radically reduced if not eliminated, all as part of a teleological process of ‘disenchantment.’ Then, Weber’s “traditional forms of authority” (Weber 1997, 124-131) would slowly erode and full-blown rationalization of government and society would follow. It is thus not surprising that the events of 1978-79 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran stunned many of the scholars who, in the period following Muhammad Reza Shah’s ‘White Revolution,’ predicted a decline in the ulama’s power and the inevitable triumph of secularism and means-end rationality.

Read the rest of the essay here.