Thursday, March 24, 2016

Who is the Environmental Integrity Group? by Emily Laur

With the upcoming presidential elections, a large part of American media is directed toward campaign coverage. Surprisingly though, few news medias acknowledged or even mentioned the major international event that occurred in Paris in late November of 2015. The Conference of Parties 21 (COP21) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was the first major environmental negotiation since the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and Copenhagen Summit (2009). COP21 resulted in the drafting of the Paris Agreement, which is regarded as a “historic moment” by UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon since “for the first time, [the world has] a truly universal agreement on climate change.” The Agreement is a commitment by countries who share the common goal of reducing carbon emissions to achieve a global average temperature of well below 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The Agreement also put into place a monitoring mechanism to track individual countries’ progress toward their reduction goals, forcing international collaboration and introducing “public shaming” as an incentive to meet reduction goals.
Since the failures witnessed at Kyoto and then Copenhagen in tackling issues of global climate change, all eyes were on the China and the US during the Paris Conference due to historical tensions between the two countries over emission levels. Due to their size and influence in the international arena, their tensions are argued to be the largest contributing factor to the failure of the Kyoto Protocol back in 1997. On a broader scale, this has been an issue since the first environmental conference back in 1972 at the Stockholm Conference as the Global South felt as though their concerns were not taken into account by the Global North. This necessity for unity in the international arena, gives rise to an influential new player in environmental negotiations – The Environmental Integrity Group (EIG).
Formally established in 2000, the EIG was comprised of Mexico, Korea, and Switzerland and later joined by Liechtenstein and Monaco (UNFCCC Negotiating Groups). Currently, the group is recognized as the only negotiating body that includes both developed and developing states (Bach 2015). This “group of diversity,” as described by Jai-chul Choi (Korea’s ambassador for climate change) serves as the bridge to “help find common ground between blocs with different interests” (Darby) and does so through promoting the environmental integrity of the climate change regime (Yamin).
           Given the group’s geographical and economic composition, it acts as a valuable mediator in the climate negotiations representing the interests of both developed and developing nations. For this reason, the group is able to make relevant arguments on behalf of both sides with recognized credibility (Darby). Early in the Paris Negotiations, Korea, speaking on behalf of EIG, called for “the adoption of an agreement applicable to all, that included a flexible approach to differentiation and [that] had common rules and a mechanism to increase ambition over time” (IISD 2015). This statement represents the group’s views entering into the negotiations, emphasizing the need for a transparent, progressive agreement with the capacity to adapt to the changing future of the global climate change regime.
As the EIG supports the concept of “broad participation” – or “the refusing to perpetuate a hard division between rich and poor” (Darby), an issue of high importance was mobilizing the climate financing effort. A statement made by Switzerland later in the negotiations, reflected the EIG’s concern as to whether the drafted agreement was unbalanced, specifically in financing (Dechert 2015). The text was said to “reflect compromise, proposal and the hard position of other parties” (Dechert 2015) suggesting procedural obstacles to the regime that prevented a fair division of costs due to power disparity amongst negotiating groups. Similar to the common, but differentiated responsibilities framework, the EIG supported differentiation as reflecting reality, meaning that emerging economies, with increasingly substantial emissions, must shoulder some of the financial responsibility (Darby). This “flexible differentiation” allows for a proportional contribution by developing nations based on individual state capacities and taking into account their speed of development.
In line with EIG, Korea has individually expressed the importance of the activism of the international community in regards to supporting technological development and technology transfer to developing countries (Statement by Ms. Kyung Won Na for the Republic of Korea 2015). Supporting this stance, the EIG paid special attention to financial assistance and its role in facilitating these technological improvements and, more specifically, improving state capacity. Prior to the convention, the EU and Korea released joint statements affirming the “ambition to ‘make the Green Climate Fund fully operational and the main operating entity of the financial mechanism’ under the UNFCCC for the Post-2020 climate regime” (Green Climate Fund 2015). This was consistent with the EIG’s views that sustainable mobilization of finance is dependent on a well-functioning and coordinated financial mechanism (Environmental Integrity Group).
Although financial assistance was a major concern entering into the Paris Conference, no legally-binding financial obligation was added to the agreement and neither were provisions for a financial mechanism under the new regime (New York Times 2015). Despite the establishment of the “new collective goal” of at least $100 billion per annum to climate-related financing by 2020 (New York Times 2015), in the eyes of the EIG, the lack of a financial mechanism reveals a significant flaw to the agreement. The underlying fear regarding the non-binding obligations being whether the developed world will voluntarily contribute to the Green Climate Fund or to use the non-binding nature of the agreement as an excuse to shy away from financial responsibility.
Independent of the perceived financial shortcoming, the agreement set an important binding procedural framework that allowed for the future monitoring of states toward their national emissions reduction goals – a concept consistent with EIG recommendations prior to the Convention (Environmental Integrity Group). The set framework requires all countries to submit progress assessments every five years starting in 2023 that compare states’ efforts to reduce emissions to their committed targets (New York Times 2015). The provision also requires that all countries submit an updated emissions reduction plan every five years beginning in 2020 (New York Times 2015) strengthening the efforts in continuing the reduction in global emissions. Additionally, by requiring states to adopt the “highest possible ambitions” when updating their national plans, (New York Times 2015), the agreement signals a progressive move forward into the regime.

The consensus made in Paris marked a potential shift in the momentum of the current combat against climate change. The monitoring strategies outlined in the Paris Agreement show an assertive move in the right direction that perpetuates a global race to the top by applying a global pressure of an “absolute” reduction by developed nations and a “continuation of mitigation efforts” in the developing world (New York Times 2015). Overall, based on the success coming out of the Paris negotiations, the transition into the new global climate regime is met with overwhelming optimism.

Abigail Washburn Comes to Colorado College by Qiu Chang Wu

The Asian Studies Department had the pleasure of hosting a Q&A with the lovely Abigail Washburn ‘99, one of the earliest Asian Studies major graduates and an award winning banjo player and singer.  A group of over 30 Asian Studies students all packed into the living room of the Asian House, sharing conversation over an authentic Chinese dinner.
Abigail shared her experiences in college and the serendipitous adventure subsequently afterwards. In her college years, she had gone on the first semester abroad program to China that Colorado College offered. She talked about taking classes in China and looking at all the amazing architecture from the preservation of ancient structures to building of modern ones. Despite these sights, she said that she was unable to make firm connections in the country due to the language barrier. This catalyzed her return to China the following year, as she put it a “mission to go back and make connections I couldn’t make.”
On this subsequent trip, she spoke fondly of the moment she had met an old woman named Lao Huang. Lao Huang had dropped her handkerchief as she passed by and Abigail having seen the incident, picked up the handkerchief and chased after her to return it. Lao Huang, in gratitude invited her house for tea. Abigail says Lao Huang was the first person who she made a connection with in China and the “first person that made me feel like I was allowed in China.”
This trip made a lasting impact on her view of China and shaped her career goals. After she graduated from Colorado College in 1999 with an East Asian Studies major, she had taken time off traveling around the country with a bluegrass band. During that period, she had worked at a local city hall and realized that she wanted to go into law. She decided to apply for graduate schools in China to become a lawyer and work on international law. However, weeks before she was to leave for China to pursue graduate school, she performed at a music venue in Nashville, Tennessee and was offered a record deal.
Even as a musician, she continues to incorporate her love for China in her work. She has written many songs in Chinese and have done tours around the country of China. When asked how she is approached as an American musician in China, she said that “Music breaks down borders.” She described specifically one tour she had done with an old Chinese Erhu musician. This man had always had a scowl on his face as he did not acknowledge the legitimacy of these visiting Americans. After she followed and accompanied his tune, eventually weaving traditional Appalachia motifs into the pieces, the man finally smiled at her and acknowledged her presence and her work.

A student brought up the political conflicts between China and America and asked her how she reconciles the interesting relationship between the two countries. In response, she said “music and culture is louder than politics and economics” and that although one may not make a lasting change in China, “making cultural exchanges could have an impact on China.”  

China Ends One Child by Yuxi Wang

In 1970s, China's population came close to one billion, and Chinese government started to concern its affection on economic growth. In 1979, the beginning of 'Chinese economic reform', the leader Deng Xiaoping issued a birth-right policy named 'one child policy', which limits most families only to have one child, so as to control population growth; exceptions could be made for minority families, or families whose first children were disabled, etc. Strong actions were executed in the first two decades since 'one child policy' issued, and in recent years the policy had become relaxed. In January 1st, 2016, this policy was eased; two children per family are allowed.
The 'one child policy' has remained controversial worldwide and also in China. Fundamental critic on the policy argues that it violates human right on reproduction, as well as birth right. Beyond that, the policy brings several side-effects to China, which are exposed in some major social issues. First, preference to boys brought by Chinese traditions, in the condition of 'one child policy', results a skewed gender balance toward males. In addition to the imbalance of population, the stress for men to get married has become severe. Second, Chinese parents tend to pay more attention on their only child, which causes a significant psychological stress on generations born in 1980s and 1990s. Third, in recent years, the decline of working age population gradually became significant, whereas the aged population ratio in turn increased. This imbalance consequently lead to many social problems in China now, such as predicaments in economic growth, and increasing pressure on living and taking care of parents for the young generations.
The final problem becomes the main reason which lead the government to end the policy. However, future concerns for the young generations of China still exist. Many of the young decide not to have more children, since they are already burdened with the responsibility of looking after their aging parents, and cannot afford anymore to raise up another child.However, meanwhile, they also want their children to grow up with accompany. The end of ‘one child policy’ in fact hesitates them on making a decision.

Sources:


Saturday, February 27, 2016

The Unexpected Origins of the Asian American Studies Program

The Unexpected Origins of the Asian American Studies Program
Salley Lee
On February 1995, the students of a well known university submitted a proposal for an Asian-American studies program with several letters of faculty support and over 1200 student signatures. However, the administration rejected every single point in their proposal. To compromise, the students submitted another proposal with just two tenure-track professors and a director for the program, which was again rejected. Thus, in April 1995, a rally of 300 students protested the administration’s decisions. When that didn’t work, 17 students launched a hunger strike. This event shocked students at not only the university this was occurring, but also at many campuses across the nation. Students of Stanford, Princeton, the Midwest Asian American Student Union, and many other campuses began fasting in support of the hunger strike. The hunger strike ended after 23 days upon the realization that administration did not intend to establish an Asian American studies program in the near future. However, their efforts were not in vain as the program was instituted four years later in 1999. This event sparked proposals for an Asian American Studies program in other campuses across the nation. Today 37 Colleges/Universities have an Asian American Studies Major/Minor; 15 Colleges/Universities have an Asian American Studies Concentrations/Focus; and 18 Colleges/Universities have Asian American Courses.
Asian Americans are commonly labeled as the model minority. This label divides and disconnects Asian Americans from other minorities of America. “We’re only considered minorities when the topic of affirmative action rolls around, and then we’re shoved back into invisibility until the next time we can be trotted out as a political point against other ethnic groups.” Lisa Wong Macabasco, an alumni at UC-Berkley, describes how through the Asian American Studies class, she felt connected, not divided, with the other minorities represented in the United States. “I came to understand the many struggles that Asian Americans share with African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, as well as our differing experiences in this country.” This class was the first time she learned about her heritage and the history of her people in the States. “It was the first time I saw myself reflected in history books.” Even taking just one course “ brought me to a better sense of myself, my heritage, and my responsibility as a woman of color working in the media.”
Often, Asian Americans have been accused of disinterest in the affairs of American minorities due to their lack of participation in demonstrations and other activism activities. However, this article asks, rather than disinterest, could it be the lack of knowledge that divides Asian Americans from the other minorities of America?

Asia’s Views on LGBT Rights

Asia’s Views on LGBT Rights
Emily Laur and Connie Zheng
Asia is typically thought of as more conservative toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues. Although homosexuality is legal and not punishable by law in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (it remains illegal in India), support for legal rights and protections for those a part of the LGBT community is another battle entirely. While the right to change gender is legal in the countries above, including India, other LGBT rights such as same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and discrimination in general are largely either illegal, unrecognized, or unprotected according to EqualDex.com.
Despite undertones of homosexuality having been incorporated into popular culture, most recognizably in Japan though publications of same-sex relationships and through Japanese Dramas, written laws protecting LGBT rights have not been formally brought forth. A positive attitude toward same-sex marriage by an estimated 53% of the Japanese public suggests the LGBT movement in Japan has gained traction and will continue to push for amendments to legislation. South Korea with its 39% positive opinion, has begun to introduce the idea of same-sex relationships into the mainstream media by playing with the idea of cross-dressing in Korean Dramas. This type of relationship is seen in Coffee Prince (2007) in which the main male role begins to question his own sexual orientation as he develops feelings for woman he perceives to be a man. Another notable appearance was made through the music industry in 2013 with K.Will’s music video “Please Don’t” which featured an unrequited love between two male friends.
In contrast, Taiwan is recognized as one of the most progressive Asian countries in terms of LGBT rights. Announcements by the Taiwanese government back in July 2015 established Taiwan as one of the first Asian countries to put forth same-sex partnership legislation. The marriage equality bill supported legalizing same-sex marriage and allowed married gay couples the right to adopt children. Currently, same sex-marriage continues to go unrecognized from a legal standpoint, however, the right to same-sex adoption is now legal. In addition to adoption rights, Taiwan also allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military and provides more stable protections for the LGBT community under law such as making LGBT discrimination illegal in some contexts and supporting nondiscrimination in employment (for sexual orientation only).
However, not all Asian countries are as progressive as Taiwan. There are many Southeast Asian countries (India, Singapore, Brunei, Myanmar) where identifying as LGBT is illegal and punishable by law or even death. Additionally while homosexuality is not illegal in some Asian countries (Philippines and Thailand) these countries do not necessarily provide protection for the LGBT community against hate crimes or open discrimination. Though the transition in public opinion seems slow or even backward, efforts to introduce same-sex relationships as a social norm in some Southeast Asian countries suggest that support for LGBT rights may become a highly debated topic in the future.




Problematizing the Model Minority

Problematizing the Model Minority
Guest Writer: Austin Lukondi


Oftentimes, Asians and Asian Americans are depicted as successful, smart, and well-behaved individuals. This ideology is often justified by the notion that Asian Americans embody “success”: the idea that Asian people are somehow gifted with a cultural or biological superiority that allows them to succeed in American society. Thus, Asian Americans are deemed the “model (racial) minority” in the United States. Though the stereotype that AA people are successful and well-mannered may initially seem like a compliment, in reality it is a western, orientalist idea that actually contributes to the oppression of AA people. Specifically, I believe that it has a negative impact on the mental health of AA people, reinforces the idea of “the docile Asian”, and negates the real lived experiences of many AA people.
In order to reproduce the myth of the model minority, Asian people must uphold the standards of success and subservience. They must not only accomplish what everyone else does, even more so they must go above and beyond even their White counterparts to uphold the caricature of the “studious/nerdy” Asian. This type of academic pressure to succeed undoubtedly takes a toll on the mental health of Asian American people. Studies show that while Asians were more likely than White students to deal with difficulties of stress, feelings of hopelessness, depression, and suicidal thoughts, they were less likely to seek counseling than their White peers (Chu & Sue, 2011)[1]. This disparity frequently manifests into actual suicides on college campuses—at Cornell University where only 14% of students are Asian American, they account for 55% of the suicides on campus (11/20 suicides)[2]. The expectation that AA people are supposed to be silent, complacent, respectable minorities coupled with the lack of mental health resources for Asian American communities creates a toxic environment.
While the stereotype that Asian American are “intelligent, hard workers” currently exists, this label wasn’t always ascribed to us. In the late 19th century when Asian people first started to immigrate to the United States, America was thrown into a state of “yellow peril”. A fear that East Asian people, and their culture was a mortal danger to Western society. Images of Asian people depicted as dirty, animal-like madmen surfaced in major cities—the same type of ideas that prompted the Chinese Exclusion Act—the very first law created by the USA to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating. Similarly, the Page Act of 1875 targeted Asian women and prohibited them from entering the United States because they were believed to be immoral prostitutes who were sexually promiscuous. While explicit, legal exclusion is mostly in the past, fear and xenophobia surrounding Asian Americans still exist. Despite the fact that Asian immigrants have been in the United States since the 1700’s, many AA people are still deemed foreigners, and face microaggressions which lead to feeling alien in one’s own country, the exoticization and fetishization of Asian bodies, and the invisibility of Asian Americans. As more immigrants settled in America, the culture that was once seen as barbaric and dangerous simply became an oddity.  AA people became “the other”; an exotic, strange, and unknown entity rooted in a disciplined and traditional culture.
The myth of the model minority is fueled by the idea that because of a universal, pan-Asian culture, Asian Americans are respectable, docile, and obedient. This was in part because Asian Americans had less history surrounding political activism and were generally considered to be more financially successful than other non-Whites. Thus, Asian America was used as a model for the ideal racial minority. In reality, the trope of the model minority reinforces oppressive ideology rooted in the modernist ideology of “progress”. The idea starts with notion that Asian people are successful because of biological determinism and cultural superiority which is reflected in their supposed intellectual abilities. When and if Asian people do succeed, the model minority myth is then reinforced—“progress” is made because an ethnic minority is successful. This in turn, reinforces neoliberal ideologies of individualism and meritocracy—that hard work and determination are the pathways to equality. This falsely reassures American society into thinking that the American Dream is indeed possible for everyone regardless of their racial or ethnic background. Even further, it reifies prejudices of anti-blackness and anti-brownness through individualism under the false pretense that because the model minority is able to achieve “success” all minorities should be able to do the same.
However, the reality is that Asian Americans aren’t living the American Dream. The images and stereotypes of Asian Americans as successful among minority groups is in direct conflict with the true, lived experiences of many Asian people. While Asian Americans are the most rapidly growing racial group in America—they are not necessarily successful. Many Asian Americans are demonized for their lack of English fluency, with one in three Asian American people being designated at “Limited in English Language Proficiency.” This “limitation” impacts the types of opportunities, jobs, and mobility that AA people are able to achieve. In regard to health, 2.3 million Asian Americans are uninsured and often avoid health services because of this—contributing to a variety of health disparities. Additionally, Asian American is often conflated to East Asian American, something that is harmful for AA people who fall out of that identity. For example, while the stereotype may be that many (East) Asian people do well in school, the high school drop-out rates for Hmong, Laotian, and Cambodian Americans range from 35-40%. Yet because of the myth of the model minority, these groups are often ignored and left to fend for themselves.
Asian Americans are not China Dolls, Geisha Girls, or Lotus Blossoms. We are not exotic, subservient and eager to please. We don’t all go to college, and not all of us are successful. We are not the Dragon Ladies and we are not Fu Manchu. We aren’t all foreigners and we don’t all “speak Asian”. We don’t care that you tried kimchi for the first time or that you listen to K-pop. We don’t all look the same, and believe it or not, some of us are Latino and Black. We are not Asians—we are Asian Americans. Most importantly, we are not invisible, we are not complacent and we are not silent.

[1] http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=orpc
[2] http://reappropriate.co/2015/08/the-new-york-times-doubles-down-on-its-erasure-of-aapi-student-victims-of-suicide/