Trump's Reversal on Russia

After insisting for weeks that Russian intelligence operatives – under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin – were not responsible for the cyber attacks against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and other organizations for the purpose of influencing the election, President-elect Trump altered his message.

In his first post-election news conference, he stated “I think it was Russia” and that Putin “shouldn’t have done it” and “won’t be doing it” in the future.

Trump’s change of tune came on the heels of a security briefing in which top U.S. intelligence officials informed him of allegations that the Kremlin had indeed engaged in an extensive conspiracy with members of his team and employees of his company in order to help get him elected.

Though Mr. Trump animatedly denies any such connection with Russia, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other intelligence agencies have been trying for months to substantiate these incendiary claims.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, claims that Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russian intelligence emanated from a dossier that British intelligence agent Christopher Steele compiled for Mr. Trump’s political opponents – both Republican and Democratic – last year.

Senior intelligence officials deemed the allegations contained in Steele’s dossier significant enough to summarize in an addendum to the classified briefing that the president-elect received on January 6. Their decision to share this unverified information stemmed from an abundance of caution, by which the incoming president should be made aware of accusations against him that could become public.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated: “The IC [intelligence community] has not made any judgment that the information in the Steele document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.” President Obama received the same information.

In addition to claiming that the Kremlin colluded with Trump’s presidential campaign, Steele’s dossier also alleges that Russian officials have evidence of Mr. Trump’s behavior that could be used to blackmail him, including sex tapes and bribes taken during business deals.

Since becoming president-elect, Trump appears to have skipped several intelligence briefings and national security meetings. Is it possible that he has only recently taken an interest in security briefings because his personal reputation is at risk? Could Trump’s reversal on Russia be an attempt to sweep evidence of his poor behavior and collusion under the Oval Office rug? What could the Russians possibly have on Trump that would make him change his tune and ultimately leave room for speculation that the Russians influenced the election – leading many Americans to question the legitimacy of his victory?

On the same day as his first post-election news conference, Russian officials denied that they had compromising material on Mr. Trump, calling the claim an “absolute fabrication” and an attempt to damage U.S.-Russian relations. Moscow also denied that it used cyber attacks to try to influence the election.

Recent intelligence reports suggest that Trump’s multiple GOP primary opponents, not the Russians, were the ones responsible for collecting dirt on him. But these rivals have denied they commissioned the Steele dossier. Tim Miller, a spokesman for Jeb Bush’s campaign who later worked for an anti-Trump group, is among those who denied any involvement. “It defies logic,” he said. “If we had it, why didn’t we use it?”

Though Trump switched his position on Russia’s involvement in the DNC leaks, he remains skeptical that Russia has been the only instigator of cyber attacks against the U.S. “I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people,” he noted. “And … everything else that was hacked recently… that was something that was extraordinary. That was probably China.”

Trump makes a good point here. The United States has many adversaries abroad who have both the motive and capability to initiate cyber attacks. I would certainly hope that the president-elect’s change of tune on Russia reflects his commitment to double-down on efforts to secure American documents from foreign threats.

The Peaceful Transition: An American Tradition

As he gave his farewell address in Chicago on January 10, President Barack Obama suggested the importance of public acceptance of President-elect Donald Trump.

“In ten days,” he said, “the world will witness a hallmark of our democracy.” At which point the audience, now upset, began to boo.

Obama’s reaction to this showed great character and demonstrated one of the most important American principles. He spoke firmly, saying: “No, no, no, no, no -- the peaceful transfer of power from one freely elected president to the next. I committed to President-elect Trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition, just like President Bush did for me.” Though it is a concept often overlooked by the media, a peaceful transition of power is of utmost importance to the American presidency.

The first such peaceful transition between political parties occurred following the election of 1800. Even though this election was turbulent and hard-fought, President John Adams willingly relinquished his title to a bitter enemy, Thomas Jefferson. One can assume that some who opposed Jefferson were unhappy about this, but the new president noted the possibility of an even worse kind of alienation in his inaugural address, stating: “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Making a point similar to the first part of Jefferson’s message, President-elect Trump recently said: “I pledge to every citizen in our land that I will be a president for all Americans.”

In addition, both he and Obama have commented favorably on their meetings regarding a peaceful White House transition. The most important part of such a transition, however, is not the people exchanging keys to the Oval Office but rather the American public.

Among the few elections that I have witnessed, this one appears to have drawn the most anger and the most protests from the losing side. Citizens are organizing and participating in marches to protest Trump’s inauguration, House members and other elected officials are refusing to attend the ceremony, and there are even rumors that some groups will try to disrupt the events by smoking marijuana or harassing inauguration viewers in an attempt to lower attendance.

If the inauguration is seriously interrupted by protest in its various forms, a “hallmark,” as President Obama has called it, of our nation will be disrupted as well. A peaceful transition represents more than just a passing of the torch from one president to another. It shows the American people that they should accept the election’s outcome whether they agree with it or not.

January 20th will mark a substantial change in America. There will be a new president for the first time in eight years, and in this case one who is strongly opposed to much of what the outgoing president has done and advocated. On this date, as on every Inauguration Day, it is important to remember Jefferson’s words. We may not be Federalists and Republicans anymore, but we are Democrats and Republicans who want to better the Union that we live in. Let January 20th be a day of peace, free from partisan divisions. Let Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump carry on a long-lasting tradition, and let them show the American people that the United States can still be united.           

Reactions to Fidel Castro

The death of the infamous Cuban leader Fidel Castro sparked a wide range of reactions.

In the United States, it was marked by widespread celebration. Many Americans understood Castro in the context of the brutal violence and oppression he inflicted upon the Cuban people. During his rule, he ordered the deaths of thousands of Cuban citizens via extra-judicial orders and was responsible for a number of human rights abuses. Many of the Cubans who had fled to the U.S. during his regime viewed his death as closure for both their suffering and the suffering of their friends and family.

In addition, Cubans now living in America viewed Castro as a wicked man who lied to them about the possibility of making their lives better under communism. Following the Cuban Revolution, Castro had used his passion, charisma, and promises of prosperity to rally the Cuban people after overthrowing the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. As it turns out, a number of Castro’s policies did more to harm the Cuban people than to help them. As former Florida Governor Jeb Bush argued, Cuba in the absence of Castro can now be “truly free and democratic.”

However, several international figures, such as French President Francois Hollande, mourned Castro’s death, praising him as a “towering figure in the 20th Century.” Vladimir Putin of Russia, Jacob Zuma of South Africa, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, and former U.S.S.R. leader Mikhail Gorbachev have also publicly displayed their appreciation for Castro. In particular, his supporters praise him as a champion of socialism and anti-imperialism whose revolutionary regime secured Cuba's independence from American domination.

The question that remains: do the people of Cuba still admire and support Castro as much as they did during his revolution 57 years ago? It might appear so. Reports from Cuba have produced only messages of mourning and sadness over the death of their beloved “Commandante.” But, the Cuban state controls the media, so it is likely that dissenting opinions would be quashed.

Moving forward, the United States can allow its strained relations with Cuba to die alongside Castro. After giving the Cuban people time to mourn their “Commandante,” U.S. leaders should attempt to foster friendlier relations and help the country move in a more positive direction. As a result of Castro’s anti-globalization policies, Cuba is still stuck in the 1960s. With the help of America and the rest of the world, it can finally enter the 21st century.

Reflecting on Communism After Castro

In the wake of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s death, it’s time for the world to be reminded of a very important truth. Communism doesn’t work. While the philosophy seems popular among

young millennials, most of them were not even alive during the most recent periods of

communist oppression to see its horrors and failures. Not only is it economically unfeasible, but

in nearly every modern communist state, its governing structure has led to the immense

suffering of the people. In smaller communistic societies where violence was not employed, the communities have rarely lasted more than a generation or two before they dissolved on account of tension with members’ human desires to work for themselves and own property. History shows that communism always fails.

Cuba happens to be a prime example. Castro’s guerrilla army overthrew the government of Cuba by force in the late 1950s, installing a communist regime. Once his regime was in place, he resorted to violence to keep power. His enemies often met their ends with non-judicial

sentences, firing squads, and assassinations. Thousands of individuals died. An estimated 78,000 more died attempting to escape the Castro regime. In total, more than 1.5 million fled Cuba, seeking asylum in the United States and other countries.

Beyond Cuba, plenty more examples of communist oppression occur in recent history.

The Soviet Union similarly mistreated its people, leading to the deaths of millions of citizens.

After emerging from behind the Iron Curtain, many of the formerly Soviet-dominated nations are still struggling to find their ground, economically and culturally, more than two and a half decades later.

Just looking at the attitudes of the citizens of those countries toward communism, one can see – as I did during my recent semester in Poland – exactly how they felt that system failed them. The Polish people in particular have vehemently anti-communist attitudes. Their country has found itself the object of Russian aggression for centuries, and they received horrid treatment under the Soviets, including being subjected to famine and frequent shortages, and to violence when they tried to gain any semblance of control.

Communism fails on a smaller scale as well. It can only be successful when all members of society are active, willing participants. Interest tends to wane.

Upstate New York, for example, has had its fair share of communistic societies. The “Burned-Over District,” site of arguably the greatest religious revival during the Second Great Awakening, had a high number of religious communal societies. The Oneida Community, not far to the west of Hamilton College, is a major example. Now known for their silverware empire, the Oneida Community began as a religious communal society in 1848. It remained successful for years as new members continued to join. However, the next generation of Oneidans, most of whom were brought to the commune by their parents, became disenchanted with the community’s ideals. They disbanded it in 1881.

The Oneida Community is not alone in this problem. Often, children who grow up subjected to communist ideals, much like anyone forced to live under a flawed system of

governance, become disaffected. This disaffection is also prevalent in large-scale communist societies – including Cuba, for the many who fled and among many who couldn’t leave. Almost anyone old enough to remember living under the Castro regime has terrible memories of it, and thus abhors the principle of communism.

Now, after Fidel Castro’s death, we should stop to reflect on his legacy of violence

and hate. Although he is gone, his brother Raul still reigns, continuing his legacy. Although some changes have been made in Cuba’s economy at times, the Cuban people are still suffering. We can only hope its condition will improve soon, and that the death of Castro can help to bring positive change.

The Italian Referendum: Strike Three Against Globalization?

Following the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union and the election of Donald Trump, a “no” vote in Italy’s upcoming constitutional referendum could further agitate the international order.

Over the past few months, the American elections have left little space for substantial media coverage of the December 4 referendum. If approved by Italian voters, the measure would increase the power of the lower house of parliament, the Chamber of Deputies. Additionally, it would relegate the Senate to an advisory role, similar to that of the House of Lords in the UK, and reduce the number of senators from 315 to 100. Therefore, the party that controls the Chamber of Deputies would gain more power. Currently, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s center-left Partito Democratico (PD) controls a majority of seats.

Renzi claims that the constitutional changes would enable him to implement a number of economic reforms to revive the ailing Italian economy. He has pledged to resign if the referendum fails to pass. The prime minister is a staunch supporter of European Union policies, and a “no” vote would be an outright rejection of not only his leadership, but the EU and the Euro as well.

Proponents of the referendum argue that the constitutional reforms are necessary to kickstart economic growth. According to Lorenzo Codogno, the former chief economist of the Italian Treasury, these reforms “would allow the government to regain certain key responsibilities, which would make the public administration more effective.”

A rejection of the proposal would increase the political standing of the populist Five Star Movement (M5S). The leader of M5S, comedian Beppe Grillo, has called for Italy to withdraw from the Euro and return to its own former currency, the Lira. An “Ital-Leave” from the Eurozone would threaten the stability of the Euro and the overall European monetary system.

In February of this year, around 60 percent of voters expressed a favorable opinion of the constitutional changes. Polls now appear to indicate a “no” vote, with slightly more than half of voters opposed. Nonetheless, the past year has clearly shown that polls are often wrong.

But markets, too, are currently predicting a rejection of the proposal. Italy’s Target2 balance, or its real-time gross settlement system, shows a tremendous capital flight from the country over the past few months. A “no” vote next week would almost certainly devalue the Euro and increase capital flow into American markets (strengthening the U.S. dollar even further).

Given the current economic conditions in Italy, rejection of the referendum and the political establishment would come as no surprise. According to the International Monetary Fund, real income per capita in Italy is 12 percent less than in 2007, just before the global financial crisis. Unemployment continues to hover around 11 percent, while youth unemployment is 40 percent (50 percent in southern regions). According to Eurostat, government debt is 133 percent of GDP.

Furthermore, Italy has grown much more slowly than other EU members since the end of the recession. The appalling economic conditions have created the ideal conditions for populist movements. Like their counterparts in the United States and Britain, working-class Italians feel alienated from the political establishment. The idea of a group of German bureaucrats sitting around in Brussels, crafting the nation’s economic policy, does not appeal to unemployed blue-collar Italians. They believe that the parliamentary reforms will give them more say in Italy’s economy than they currently have under the EU, which is dominated by representatives from other European countries. Despite such concerns, only time will tell if a rejection of the referendum produces an overall positive outcome for the Italian people.

Bad News for India?

Millions of Americans stayed up late to watch the election returns on November 8. Halfway around the world, Indians were also awake, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced sweeping changes in the country’s monetary policy. At around midnight, he declared that 500 and 1000 rupee notes, worth about $7.50 and $15, will no longer be accepted as legal tender.

The changes effectively cancel roughly 22 billion notes spread across India, stuffed in coin purses, stored under mattresses, and used in under-the-table deals. These notes are 86 percent of all circulating cash. Modi stated that this recall is meant to curb the use of “black money” and to reduce widespread government corruption. People have until the end of the year (less than 40 days) to exchange their current notes, at banks and ATMs, for new ones.

In addition to new 500 and 1000 rupee currency, the Reserve Bank of India is introducing new 2000 rupee notes, worth about 30 U.S. dollars.

The uncertainty of India’s cash-based economy has economists worried about the security of its future foreign investments and unforeseen repercussions on citizens.

This disruptive move is not unprecedented. It follows a similar decision of the European Central Bank, which recently phased out 500 euro “mega notes” due to concerns about illegal immigration, corruption, and the fallout from the terrorist attacks in Paris. Countries in crisis have also used such a monetary policy before: Germany after World War II, the Soviet Union on the brink of collapse, and Zimbabwe drowning in hyperinflation have all issued currency callbacks. But the policy does not signal India’s economic strength to foreign investors.

Kaushik Basu, a former chief economist at the World Bank, categorizes this currency move as “bad economics.” The ban on most of the existing currency immediately triggered a run on banks and ATMs, forcing individuals to wait in line for hours to exchange the equivalent of, at most, about $30. The banks simply did not have enough bills.

While people still have until the end of the year to exchange their currency, the current notes are essentially worthless. Merchants and shop owners are reluctant to accept the larger banned bills, as they no longer have smaller notes for change, thanks to the bank runs. The government’s move seems to do little to fight corruption, but it is already negatively affecting the nation’s law- abiding citizens.

The Reserve Bank of India’s contention that the policy will reduce the use of “black money” and fight corruption may be true in the near future. Looking further ahead, however, criminals will simply store their “black money” in the new currency as soon as it is available. Moreover, the addition of the larger 2000 rupee notes makes storing illegal currency even easier.

The mandate to exchange old bills for new ones also creates a new black market. Take, for example, this plausible scenario: an individual approaches a farmer or shopkeeper (or some equally hard-working, honest person) and offers to change the latter’s 500 and 1000 rupee notes for new ones. But there is a catch: the farmer will get only 800 rupees for the 1000 rupee note. As economist Prabhat Patnaik describes it: the government’s move shows “a lack of understanding of capitalism … Consequently, instead of curbing black business it will actually give rise to the proliferation of black business.”

There are no obvious significant repercussions on the global economy as a whole. It is not difficult to imagine spooked foreign investors holding their money if the Reserve Bank of India indicates there might be more surprise currency actions, but this seems improbable given the unlikelihood of positive results from the current one. Moreover, the new monetary regulations will directly affect only people’s cash reserves, not money stored in investments.

Unfortunately, however, the currency change is negatively affecting tourism. International visitors typically withdraw cash just before their arrival or upon arrival. Now, ATMs and banks across the country have little or no cash to give out. Additionally, some tourists who are currently travelling have either run out of cash or are relying on debit cards that are scarcely accepted by locals. For a country that relies heavily on tourism, stranded foreigners are not a great advertisement.

In addition to its likely minuses for the population and the economy, this currency reform does not seem productive or effective for the Indian government. Many economists agree that the costs will greatly outpace the limited benefits. Even if there do turn out to be few negative results, the exchange is a lot of hassle for no gain in the battle against corruption.