thegrasshoppers-blog

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

MIDTERM ELECTION: AN ANALYSIS

Part 1: An Overview, by Nguyen Anh Duc, alumni of Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by Student News Daily

America has been one of the great Republics in the world. For it to be well-functioned, each of its three branches of government (the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary) must perform well under the principle of “check and balances”. Every election year, the American people voice their opinions by casting their ballots, either for a presidential candidate, a Congress candidate, a gubernatorial candidate or for all of them.

The President and the Vice President of the United States serve on the Executive branch, and their seats are up for election every four years. Meanwhile, in the Legislative branch, all 435 seats of the House of Representatives (the lower chamber) and approximately one-third (one class) of the Senate (the upper chamber) are up for election every two years. That means in one full presidential term, one mid-term election must happen, and it occurs in the second year of that term. This year, 33 class-one seats of the Senate will be contested, along with two special elections for two class-two seats due to vacancies. Meanwhile, in the governor race, 39 state governorships will be up for grab.

Since World War I, the mid-term election has not only been about members of Congress and their ability but also indirectly about the President and his ability to take charge of one of the most powerful positions on Earth. Sometimes, the ability of a President decides the whole mid-term election, and along with that, either a Democrat or a Republican wave would be sweeping the House, the Senate, or both chambers. It is usual for the party of the President to lose seats in this mid-term election (first in the House, then in the Senate during his second term, due to the fact that only one-third of the Senate is contested every election cycle).

The first memorable control switch occurred exactly 100 years ago, in 1918, after the ratification of the seventeenth amendment. President Woodrow Wilson had led America into World War I, the deadliest war in the history of the world up to that moment. After the victory of the Allies, President Wilson brought up the idea of creating the League of Nations, an organization that maintained world peace and push forward the United States' involvement as the leader of that organization. But he had mistimed his proposal. The American people were tired after the war, and they were not in the mood for a big change. It is also interesting to remember that President Wilson has campaigned in 1916 that he would "keep [the United States] out of the war," and for that promise, he won the 1916 election in both the Electoral College and the popular vote by a very close margin. Those reasons led to a Republican wave into the Legislative branch (with twenty-four seats gained in the House and seven seats gained in the Senate, giving the Republicans a slim two-vote majority in the Senate), and furthermore, a twelve-year period of Republican presidents.

Another Republican wave happened in 1946, in the midst of the first term of Harry Truman, the man replacing Franklin Roosevelt, whom untimely died in April 1944. His decision to drop two atomic bombs in Japan to end the war made people cast doubt on his ability to be President. The Republicans, therefore, gained back control of both houses of Congress in 1946. But Truman proved his title, "The Comeback Kid," before Bill Clinton did in 1996. Although he faced tough challenges in the primaries and in the election of 1948, he became the ultimate winner of the presidential race and earned the right to serve his full term. Democrats took back seventy-five seats in the House and nine seats in the Senate, enough for them to regain control of the Congress.

In 1958, almost six years into his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower proved to be an effective leader, not only of the Army but also of the United States. He won two back-to-back elections in 1952 and 1956, both with a landslide in the Electoral College, ending twenty consecutive years of Democratic control of the Executive branch. Yet, the economic recession was hitting hard on the American people, unemployment was soaring, and the Soviet Union was ahead of the United States in the space race with the launching of Sputnik. This hurt the popularity of Eisenhower, and allowed Democrats to increase their control of Congress to a commanding level: a twelve-seat gain in the Senate (only a few moments where more than ten seats changed hands in the mid-term election), and a seventy-five-seat swing in the House.

The year 1980 is a special year when for the first time in almost thirty years, Republican gained control of the Senate and created a working majority in the House. This was mainly due to a very popular (and charismatic) Ronald Reagan, whose conservative agenda called for a big tax cut, less spending, less regulation, and limited government for the American people, had reduced unemployment, inflation, interest rates, as well as increased jobs, savings, and spendings. He was able to make America believe they "are better off [in 1984] than they were four years ago." However, in 1986, there was a huge deficit in the budget, and the national debt was almost tripled since 1980. Having no choice, Reagan was forced to increase the tax burden of the American people. Along with the scandalous Iran – Contra affair, which revealed that American was selling a weapon to its arch-enemy, and the fact that many Senate seats, which were held by Republican because of the coattail of the 1980 election, was contested, a blue wave in the United States Senate was inevitable. The Senate of the 100th Congress was memorable for rejecting the nomination of Judge Robert Bork—a conservative who was nominated by President Reagan to the Supreme Court—by a vote almost on the party line.

The 1994 mid-term election was another remarkable one. After defeating incumbent George H. W. Bush in 1992 to become President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton ended a twelve-year streak of Republican controlling the White House, which allowed him to enact his new, liberal agenda with a Democratic majority in both Houses. However, after having spent too much time enacting one major piece of his agenda—universal healthcare reform—without getting any result, Bill Clinton became one of the most unpopular presidents in the 20th history. Newt Gingrich, along with his "Gang of Seven", promised a "Contract with America", a series of conservative legislation. With "Contract", Republicans made history when they took back control of both Houses of Congress, ending sixty years of Democratic dominance in the Legislative branch.

The most recent "change hands" in the House occurred in 2010, at the beginning of the Obama administration. President Obama had been successful in doing what Bill Clinton was not able to do in 1994—passing the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare", his trademark piece of legislation, by a very slim vote in the House, along with the 700-billion-dollar stimulation package to rescue the economy from the disastrous 2008 recession. But it might be the fact that the American people had misunderstood the essence of "Obamacare" that cost the Democratic Party the majority in the House and led to a very close 52-48 majority in the Senate. Although Democrats were able to pick up seats in both Houses in the 2012 election, with Republicans' all-out effort to block the agenda and create a gridlock in the Congress at the beginning of President Obama's second term, Democrats lost enough seats in both the House and the Senate in 2014 to revert them to be the minors in both chambers.

It can be said that the mid-term election is the "referendum" of what the President has accomplished at the beginning of his term. Although in many cases, the incumbent party lost seats, the opposite, which is rare, had been observed. The President might be able to accomplish something extraordinary that could actually maintain his party in the majority.

In 1932, after defeating Herbert Hoover with his "do-nothing" agenda, Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised to save an endangered American economy. However, his "New Deal" program had not been proven great success yet. For this reason, FDR once worried that his programs might take away votes from the Democratic Party in 1934. Nevertheless, "New Deal" had regain confidence in the American people about their president, and they decided to keep Democratic in the supermajority in the House until 1938, and in the Senate until 1942, during which FDR and the Democratic Party were able to continue rescuing the economy and get America ready for the Second World War. FDR became the first (and only) President to be elected to an unprecedented four terms, due to the popularity of his economic plans and his decisive actions in WWII.

In 2001, the world suffered the first large-scale terrorist act: the 9/11 event, from which the United States was vulnerated the most. America, however, under a strong command of then-Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, was able to rise after the terrorist act by al-Queda. His speech before Congress only nine days after the disastrous event ensured the American people that he would try anything to do justice to the terrorists. He announced war with Iraq, initially getting strong support from both sides of the aisle in the Congress and the American people. His image in 2001 was different from his "wimpy" image after the bitter 2000 presidential election. Therefore, in 2002, the Republicans had done what the Democrats did almost seventy years ago: gaining seats in the House and retaining control of the Senate after a brief moment of Democratic control in 2001. However, the escalation of the Iraq War was strongly opposed by Congress and by the American people in 2006—people were getting tired when they saw American troops entering the war without getting anything accomplished. That is why Republicans were not able to maintain control of both chambers in 2006, which led to a big Democratic wave and a Democratic presidency in 2008.

Right now, with an unprecedented presidency in the United States and a very polarized America, anything can still happen in this mid-term election. Will Democrats be able to flip back enough "swing" seats to gain control in the House? Will Republicans be able to defend "toss-up" seats to protect their slim majority in the Senate? The answer lies on each cast vote.

The fate of the new 116th Congress will be decided on November 6, 2018.

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

Free Trade: A Debate

By Group 4, Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted 

Image by TES

Free trade has been a hot topic of debate ever since the advent of large-scale trading. Trading, domestically speaking, is essential to the stability of a nation's economy, as it benefits both the supplier and the recipient. However. certain fears have given way for policies requiring the restrict of free trade between nations in order to guarantee maximum benefit for a particular country. Conflicting goals and ideologies between parties or nations may also be grounds for waiving trade. Because trade is directly linked to the health of a nation's economy, and with the globalization process making trade more and more common and easy to conduct, free trade must be discussed in detail to help guide countries' trade policies.

Free trade allows for the formation and strengthening of the interdependency and mutual relationship between countries in the form of produce compensation. Essentially, a country exports its specialized products, while importing the products that are scarce or on high demand in said country. To put that into perspective, if country A has abundant oil but obsolete technology, country B has advanced technology but deficit oil, the two countries can establish a healthy, stable, mutual and essential relationship that benefits both sides, because the two compensate for each other. They both export their specialized products and import their required products. This ensures that both countries' economies are stable, and helps build diplomatic relations between the two countries. Free trade ensures that such a relationship is viable, stable, balanced, and at optimal output.

An added benefit of free trade is the deterrence of warfare between countries. Because free trade eases with the creation of the aforementioned mutual "compensative" relationship between countries, countries are less likely to wage war against their trade partners, because it would be detrimental to their own economy. Furthermore, since these relationships can be connected, countries risk compromising their economy as well, because the targeted countries may share mutual partners with the attacking countries, which can damage all belligerents' economies, not to mention the collapse of said partnerships due to political issues that arise from the aggression. The establishment of mutual relationships also decreases the likelihood of countries waging war as a means of gaining more resources, as warfare would likely cost them more than what they gain from attacking, and their needed resources are most likely already provided by foreign countries.

Free trade can be an indirect way of enhancing national security. Because of free trade, countries are more likely to use military expenditure defensively rather than aggressively. However, military expenditure also has a negative relationship with economy, because if more money is diverted from economy and to military affairs. Free trade can have one of two effects. It can reduce the need for military expenditure, due to the absence of warfare, or it can strengthen national security, as more funding is diverted from aggressive to defensive purposes, caused by the lack of motive or necessity for waging war.

Free trade encourages and breeds healthy competition between local and foreign suppliers, which leads to higher quality products and cheaper prices for consumers. The introduction of foreign sources ensures that there is no exclusive or singular source of products. Monopoly of any single aspect of an economy can lead to uncontrolled price surging and overall harm to consumers and the economy, and free trade prevents that. The decision for a country to support free trade also attracts foreign investors and improves international relations.

Finally, free trade breeds cultural diversity and reduces xenophobia. Trading is one of the first activities nations engage in since the advent of civilization, and there is a reason for that. By trading, countries explore each others' cultures and help the people understand the world better. The introduction of foreign cultures can seen intriguing to many people, which attracts tourism, international scholars, and encourages locals to be more accepting of foreigners.

Regarding the potential of free trade in specific and globalization in general, it is undeniable that globalization is up against its biggest political challenge. With the rise of populism and increasing tendency towards isolationist economy, the opposition to regional and international trade deals is gradually gaining in popularity. The event of Brexit and 2016 US presidential election turnouts have once more raised the question of whether a stable model of cooperation between nations is possible. According to a research conducted by OECD in 2016, the number of discriminatory trade-related measures has increased significantly within the time span of 2008 and 2016, with approximately 1200 measures in 2016.  The current controversial debate regarding the fate of tree trade is hotter than ever. With the rapid technological production advances, the gap between nations is getting wider with countries benefiting immensely from trade deals and others struggling to keep up. One cannot escape from the fear of expanding influence from developed countries and thus find it necessary to close borders and remain unconnected. Although the concept of expanding economy has existed ever since the European traders' time, it is the speed of globalization that is concerning skeptics. Clearly, there is still a lot to be done so that free trade can be free from political influence and truly bring prosperity to its partners. In conclusion, with the lessons learnt from CETA, TTIP and TPP, the ideal of a synchronized economy seems to face many challenges. While the benefits of free trade are undeniable, the fundamental lesson to be learnt from developers remains: one should never forget the diversity of economic backgrounds, so that a proper action plan can be successfully implemented.

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

NUCLEAR ENERGY: WHAT IS IT?

By Group 3, Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by EC

Introduction

Nuclear energy is the energy in the nucleus of an atom. Atoms are the smallest particles that can be broken in chemical reactions, the normal source of energy for human consumption. At the core of each atom, there are two types of particles (neutrons and protons) that are held together. Nuclear energy is the energy that binds neutrons and protons.

Nuclear energy can be used to produce electricity. This energy can be obtained in two ways: nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. In nuclear fusion, energy is released when atoms are combined or fused together to form a larger atom. This is the main process in the Sun and other stars. In nuclear fission, atoms are split into smaller atoms, releasing energy. In reality, nuclear power plants can only use nuclear fission to produce electricity.

When one of these two physical reactions (nuclear fission or nuclear fusion) succeeds,  atoms experiment a slight loss of mass. This mass loss generates a big amount of heat energy, explained by Albert Einstein with his famous equation E = mc2.

The benefits

While the debate on nuclear power remains unsettled, there are undeniable advantages of civil nuclear power:

I.  Zero carbon emissions

Global warming is known to be a challenging problem for every country worldwide regardless of geographic position and economic development due to the enormous and diverse impacts it has. It is causing a permanent, irreversible change on the Earth’s climate and biosphere, claiming the lives of thousands each year, threatening the livelihoods of millions of others, and disrupting economic production. According to the Nuclear Power Association, the combustion of fossil fuels releases 23 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year into the atmosphere – 730 tonnes per second. Half of it is absorbed in the seas and vegetation, but the other half remains in the atmosphere. Tragically, this is significantly and directly affecting the lives of millions by causing severe pollution and a variety of illnesses.

The civil harnessing of nuclear power can help ease this problem. Reports in 1998 estimated that greenhouse gas emissions have been nearly halved due to the increased usage of nuclear power. It does not release any greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide or methane.

II.  Supply

According to the latest estimates put forth by the United Nations in its 2015 report, the global population is expected to reach 8.5 billion people in 2030, 9.7 billion people in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. However, proven crude oil and natural gas reserves are expected to run out much earlier even if global consumption stays flat. The world’s proven crude oil reserves total 1492.6 billion barrels, which assuming consumption remains at the 2016 level, would run out in 43 years. The corresponding figures for natural gas are 204.7 trillion cubic metres and 59 years. Nuclear ‘fuels’, however, is expected to sustain consumption at the current level for at least 100 years. Civil usage of nuclear energy would thus also reduce the strain on our energy supply.

III.  Reliability

While other sources of energy, such as wind energy and solar energy, are dependent on weather conditions to produce electricity, nuclear energy can be produced from nuclear power plants regardless of any meteorological conditions. This means energy production from these plants is more reliable than other alternative energy sources, as they are not subject to interruptions and fluctuations caused by weather, transportation, or curtailments.

IV.  Cost

The electricity that nuclear power produces is generally inexpensive. Uranium used in civil nuclear power plants is usually low-grade. Therefore, while the cost of setting up a nuclear power plant is high, maintenance is much less pricey. Nuclear reactors are expected to last for about 40-60 years, depending on many factors such as capacity utilisation. In comparison with most other energy sources currently in use, nuclear energy is significantly less costly.

The Risks

In the past, nuclear accidents, the most famous of which were in Chernobyl and Fukushima, have caused devastation to surrounding areas, especially organisms. In order to prevent the probabilities of these accidents, the extraction and processing of nuclear materials, and disposal of nuclear waste must be dealt with extreme caution.

I/ Mining of nuclear materials (Uranium)

“The mining process is similar to coal mining, with both open pit and underground mines. It produces similar environmental impacts, with the added hazard that uranium mine tailings are radioactive. Groundwater can be polluted not only from the heavy metals present in mine waste but also from the traces of radioactive uranium still left in the waste. Half of the people employed by the uranium mining industry work on cleaning up the mines after use.”  [1]

II/ Processing of nuclear fuels (Source: Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D. - Professor at the University of Pittsburgh)

1st risk- Cancer threat:  Although uranium and plutonium are themselves only moderately capable of emitting radiation (moderately radioactive), their decay products, such as radium and radon gases, are much more radioactive. These materials could strike people mainly through small releases during routine plant operation, accidents in nuclear power plants, accidents during transportation of radioactive materials, and escape of radioactive wastes from confinement systems. This radiation consists of subatomic particles travelling at or near the velocity of light---186,000 miles per second. They can penetrate deep into the human body where they can damage the genetic information contained within cells and thereby initiate cancer. As a result, radiation resulting from the use of nuclear energy increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), and on average reduce our life expectancy by less than one hour. In comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, such as burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days, which is significantly larger. Thus, in terms of cancer risks, the harnessing of nuclear energy is apparently less detrimental than that of fossil fuels.

II.a/ Genetic diseases:

If the aforementioned subatomic particles strike reproductive cells, they could cause genetic mutations and therefore diseases in the progeny. However, there has been much misunderstanding of genetic diseases due to radiation. One of which is the severity of these diseases. The risks are somewhat less common than the cancer risks; for example, among the Japanese A-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been about 400 extra cancer deaths among the 100,000 people in the follow-up group, but there have been no extra genetic diseases among their progeny. Mutations caused by radiation resulting from exposure to radioactivity during the handling of nuclear fuels are completely random. The vast majority of these mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful, and all genetic diseases that can be caused by these exposures can also arise naturally.

II.b/ reactor accidents

The most common strategy of a nuclear power plant to prevent accidents and mitigate their potential effects is "defense in depth”- in other words, there are many layers of equipment and procedures to maintain the effectiveness of the physical separation between radiation sources and workers, the public and the environment, particularly to protect against a wide variety of incidents including equipment failures, natural disasters and human errors. This strategy is usually structured in five layers, each level coming into play when the previous level fails: prevention of abnormal operation and system failures, detection and control of system failures or abnormal operations, activation of safety systems and other safety features, management of the accident to limit accident progression and prevent external releases of radioactive materials, and mitigation of consequences of these external releases. The chance that all of these defence systems would fail in one incident is existent but quickly diminishing with each additional layer.

During the coverage of nuclear incidents, media outlets tend to imply that the disaster was only narrowly avoided, whereas due to the ‘defence in depth’ approach, this is usually not the case. Even in the Three Mile Island accident where at least two equipment failures were severely compounded by human errors, two lines of defense were still not breached - essentially all of the radioactive materials remained sealed in the thick steel reactor vessel, and that vessel was sealed inside the heavily reinforced concrete and steel lined "containment" building which was never even challenged. It was clearly not a close call on the disaster to the surrounding population. In the past, the Soviet Chernobyl reactor, built on a much less safe design concept, did not have such a containment structure to prevent the spread of radioactive isotopes, and also had less strict procedures, allowing human errors to escalate into a complete meltdown of two reactors.

III/ Radioactive waste from nuclear plants By the end of 2011, over 67,000 metric tonnes of highly radioactive waste had been produced by American nuclear reactors, increasing by about 2,000 metric tonnes every year. Before the mid-1970s in the US, the plan for spent uranium was to reprocess it into new fuel. Since a by-product of reprocessing is plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, President Carter ordered the end of reprocessing, citing security risks (of nuclear weapon terrorism*). Reprocessing also had a difficult time competing economically with new uranium fuel. Like fossil fuels, nuclear fuels are non-renewable energy resources. In the event of an mismanagement, large amounts of radioactive material could be released into the environment. In addition, nuclear waste remains radioactive and is hazardous to health for thousands of years. It must be stored safely.

Nuclear waste is given 3 different categories.

1.Low level (e.g. Contaminated equipment, materials and protective clothing): They are put in drums and surrounded by concrete, and put into clay-lined landfill sites.

2.Intermediate level (e.g. Components from nuclear reactors, radioactive sources used in medicine or research): They are mixed with concrete, then put in a stainless steel drum in a purpose-built store.

3.High level (e.g. Used nuclear fuel and chemicals from reprocessing fuels): They are stored underwater in large pools for 20 years, then placed in storage casks in purpose-built underground stores where air can circulate to remove the heat produced. High-level waste decays into intermediate level waste over many thousands of years.

Conclusion

All things considered, nuclear energy is a controversial topic that our world still works on every single moment to figure out the final answer. According to above information, nuclear energy does not release emission, supplies a surge of power. Furthermore, since it is stable, reliable and cheap, nuclear power is definitely an appropriate solution for lack of energy resources nowadays. However, it is undeniable that there are risks following this efficient kind of energy such as environmental hazards, genetic diseases, reactor accidents and radioactive waste. Hence, nuclear power is still an unknown to our world needed more researches and information from scientists.

*For further information on reprocessing and why it ceased to operate, check out this cool article

Sources

+Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D. - Professor at the University of Pittsburgh: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

+BBC UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_edexcel/radioactive_materials/radioactiveproblemsrev3.shtml

+ Defence in Depth in Nuclear Safety, a Report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, IAEA, June 1996: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1013e_web.pdf + UN Population estimates: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-2015-revision.html

+ Crude oil proven reserves figures: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm

+ Crude oil consumption (2016): https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.cfm (figure provided is per day, multiplied by 365 for annual consumption)

+ Natural gas proven reserves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves

+ Natural gas consumption: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

An Insight into Syrian Proxy War

By Group 2, Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by Eyes Open Network

A proxy war is a conflict agitated by two or more opposing forces who deploy third-parties to do the actual fighting for them. The opposing forces usually hold contradictory ideologies or concerns; however, they could not commence a direct battle to the detriment of all engaged parties. Hence, a proxy war is instigated for them to minimize the damage and reap some laurels at the same time. Third-parties, on the other hand, are the entities directly involved in the combat. They are advocated and assisted by the opposing forces during the armed war normally due to the deficiency of forces. These third-parties receive a tremendous amount of outside aid such as money, armory or manpower. Such backing tends to result in the intensification of conflict and losses of the direct belligerents. The Syrian war, in particular, is not a war fully driven by either the Syrian government or the opposition fronts. In actual fact, both sides of the fray are being manipulated by outsiders. Specifically, Russia has supplied Assad with significant sources of arms and ammunition during the war; whereas the USA stands by the Free Syrian Army by providing it with considerable military aid. In this very proxy war, Russia and the US play the role as the controlling “opposing forces”, while the Assad regime and the FSA are the controlled “third parties”.

The Syrian War is basically a Civil War. It is a conflict between the Syrian long-serving government and Syrian rebel forces, for example the Free Syrian Army. When Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, his second son, Bashar, inherited the Presidency. The people hoped that a young President, who studied in the West and who had married an intelligent and charming Syrian-British woman, could change the situation which his father had created. Many people were almost euphorically optimistic – they saw Bashar as an open-minded, well-travelled reformer. Indeed, Bashar al-Assad began to restore proper international trade and he started to reform the country. Unlike many regime leaders in the middle east, the Assad family is not religiously extreme. So the people have not been protesting against hard-line Islamists, as happened in other countries which participated in the Arab Spring uprisings. But people are still angry at their government. What they're angry about is the failure of long-promised economic and political reforms, which were carried out in a much like the old corrupt ways. The conflict in Syria began as a protest against the corruption that blighted every aspect of people’s lives and the lack of freedom; the people demanded radical reforms in how Syria was governed. The lack of response to these demands was followed by severe and sustained military action against those who protested, and this violence drove some in the opposition to seek help from foreign governments in the region. Rodger Shanahan says the catalyst was the jailing on March 6, 2011, of some children who painted anti-regime graffiti. Some were killed in detention, and this led to public protests which spread around the country - fuelled by the failure of the government to punish the perpetrators. Another theory says the war started with demonstrations which mirrored those in neighbouring countries, and which soon led to a security crackdown. In April 2011, the Syrian Army fired on demonstrators and the protests became a full-scale armed rebellion.

Syrian Civil War broke out on 15 March 2011. It has lasted for 5 years 8 months and 5 days. In March 2011, the first shots in Syrian's war were fired by Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad against peaceful Arab Spring demonstrators. In July the protesters started shooting back, and some Syrian troops even defected, Assad's army to join them. They call themselves Free Syrian Army and the uprising became a civil war. Extremists from Syria and around the region started traveling to Syria to join the rebels. Assad actually encouraged this by releasing jihadist prisoners to tinge the rebellion with extremism. In January 2012, al-Qaeda formed a new branch in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra. All round then, Syrian Kurdish groups, who had long sought autonomy, took up arms an de factor secede from Assad's rules in the north. That summer was when Syria became a proxy war. Iran, Assad's most important ally, intervened on his behalf. By the end of 2012, Iran was sending daily cargo flights and had hundreds of officers on the ground. At the same time, the Arab States on the Persian Gulf began sending money, weapons to the rebels, mainly to counter Iran's influence, and mainly through Turkey. Iran stepped up its influence, in turn, in mid-2012 when Hezbollah – which was a Lebanese Shia group backed by Iran- invaded to fight alongside Assad. The Gulf stated respond by sending even more money and weapons to the rebels – Saudi Arabia really leading the effort at this point – this time through Jordan who also opposed Assad. By 2013, the Middle East was divided between generally Sunni powers on one side supporting the rebels and Shiahs on the other side supporting Assad. That April, the Obama's administration, horrified by Assad's atrocities signed a secret order authorizing CIA to train and equip Syrian rebels. But the program stalled out at first. At the same time, the US quietly urged the Arab Gulf states to stop funding extremists, but their requests went ignored. In August, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians in the town of Ghouta. On September 10, 2013 Obama stated: "It is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike." Three days later, Russian proposed that Syria surrender control over its chemical weapons to the International Community for its eventual dismantling, to avoid a US military strike. The US ended up backing down, but the whole thing established Syria as a great-power dispute – with American against Assad and Russian backing him. Just weeks later, the first American training and arms financially reached Syrian rebels. The US became a participant in the Syrian war. In February 2014, something happens that transformed the war: an al-Qaeda affiliated, based mostly in Iraq, broke away from the group over internal disagreement over Syria. The new group called itself the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria, and it became al-Qaeda's enemy. ISIS did not fight Assad. Instead, it fought the other rebels group and it fought the Kurds, carving out a mini-state in Syria it called its Caliphate. 2014 summer, it marched across Iraq seizing territory, and galvanizing the world against it. Then in September, almost exactly one year after it had almost bombed Assad in Syria. Obama: "We're moving ahead with our campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists, and we're prepared to take action against ISIL in Syria as well." That summer, in July, the Pentagon launched its own program to train Syrian rebels but unlike CIA program, this one would only train rebels fighting ISIS, not Assad. The program fizzled out, showing that America now opposed ISIS more than Assad, but also that there was really no like-minded force on the ground in Syria. In August, Turkey started bombing Kurdish groups in Iraq and in Turkey, even as the Kurds fighting ISIS in Syria. Turkey also doesn't bomb ISIS in Syria. In 2015 Assad had been losing ground all this time to ISIS and the rebels. In September of 2015, Russia intervened on his behalf. Russia said it was there to bomb ISIS, but in fact just bombed the anti-Assad rebels, including some backed by the US. In December 201, Russia unveiling intelligence on Turkish-ISIS links received additional intelligence confirming that oil from deposits controlled by Islamic State is moved through Turkey on an industrial scale. In February 2016, the US-Russia-brokered truce deal on “cessation of hostilities” in Syria came into effect at midnight Damascus time. The ceasefire did not apply to engagements with IS, Al-Nusra Front or “other terrorist organizations” designated by the UN.The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution urging all parties involved in the Syrian civil war to adhere to the terms of the deal.Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry stressed the need for cooperation in order to end hostilities in Syria. Meanwhile, the UN moves Syrian peace talks to March 9 to allow the ceasefire to take hold.

In March 2016, Russia partially withdrew troops from Syria. Acknowledging that five months of military campaigns had mostly succeeded in their primary objective of eliminating the immediate wider threat from IS, Putin ordered the partial withdrawal of Russian armed forces from Syria. Russian military planes, which were involved in a five-month campaign in Syria, departed the Khmeimim Airbase in Latakia province. By early July 2016, the truce was said to have mostly unraveled, violence again escalated, and the fighting between all the major parties to the conflict continued. At the end of July 2016, the fighting between the government and Islamist rebels in and around Aleppo intensified.

Needless to say, the Syrian Proxy war has done extensive and irreversible damage not only to Syria but to our world as a whole. The consequences of the war up until now can be  categorised into the following points. The first of them is the humanitarian crisis in Syria itself. Since the onset of the war in 2011, citizens and permanent residents of the country have been seeking asylum in several countries, those with the largest numbers of registered refugees are: Turkey (2,748,367), Lebanon (1,048,275), Jordan (657,422), Germany (600,000). In a recent report in March 2016, the United Nations (UN) has estimated the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) to be from 6,130,000 to 6,320,000 and the number of registered refugees outside of Syria to be at 4,812,993. And yet even more bitter is the sheer number of refugees who died on their way to the promise land. However this number is still nothing comparing to the death toll of the war. The UN envoy has  estimated that 450,000 people of all sides have been killed since 2012, with one in nine being a child. A second consequence of the Proxy war is the uprising of the so-called Islamic State, which has capitalised on the chaos and taken control of large swathes of Syria and Iraq, where it proclaimed the creation of a "caliphate" in June 2014. Its many foreign fighters are involved in a "war within a war" in Syria, battling rebels and rival jihadists from the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, as well as government and Kurdish forces. The ISIS has a devastating impact all around the world, being the author of numerous bombings and massacres throughout Europe.These fighters — and the pre-existing terrorist networks now affiliated with IS — leave few countries or nationalities immune from the IS threat. The last effect of the war is the escalating tension in the diplomatic relationship between the US and Russia.If the fiercest measure the US has taken is to break off somewhat fitful talks on Syria, and the strongest response Russia has chosen to offer is the suspension of a single arms agreement that Moscow anyway accuses Washington of breaking, that says a lot in itself. It could reflect how little the two countries currently have to talk about, in which case a break makes little difference. Or, more likely, it shows their concern to spare other areas of cooperation, such as wider arms control or the space station. Indeed, the US said talks about avoiding bilateral clashes in Syria would continue, while the conditions Moscow has set for resuming the plutonium deal suggest it is open to bargaining even as it stamps its foot. Not because the US and Russia could not agree, but because an old-style superpower deal is no longer enough. This is definitely affecting Syria directly, the most obvious evidence is the failure of the ceasefire, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent lives. The consequences mentioned above is just the tip of the iceberg and much worse is awaiting Syria unless immediate measures be taken now.

America is suspected to get involved in the Syrian war because after an unsuccessful attempt at taking over Iran, the US thought that sending NATO troops to Syria would inevitably draw Iran into the fight (because Iran and Syria are under a mutual defense agreement) and help the US achieve its initial objective. But why America would want to attack Iran? It has been suggested that America wanted to control the world’s oil supplies and protect the petrodollar and Iran was regarded as a threat. However, fearing the international opposition, the US has been running a proxy war by funding the Syrian rebels.

The US has managed to prevent the people and the army from questioning the motive and morality of the fight by adopting 3 psychological techniques: create the impression that the US is actually acting on the context of self defense or in defense of a helpless nation; dehumanize the enemy (in this case the Syrian government); and finally presents itself as fighting for a higher cause.

Rebel groups that are actively in the strife might also not be as what they seem. Many thought that the Free Syrian Army were local activists fighting for freedom and human rights; however, they were not necessarily so. The Free Syrian Army consisted of Jihadists from multiple foreign countries who wanted to overthrow the Assad regime and in place, bring into effect Sharia laws. Countless revolutionary forces have emerged from the battlefield ever since the commencement of war, whose purposes might strike as overlapping but never homogeneus to the fullest.

Consequently, the solutions accordingly follow. World population must establish a wider and stronger net of communication to raise the awareness of the people being sent to war overseas, to acknowledge them that they are conducting an act that let the powers that be exploit them. By doing this, global citizens can partly reduce the manpower of aggressors because actually the majority of soldiers are fighting without knowing that they are being conned. Should they discover the truth, they would not so willingly support the fight. If both the Syrian government’s soldiers and the rebel groups’ advocates no longer support the cause of the fight, then draw out of the fight, there may even be no fight or war.

However, Russia also has its own reason for supporting the Syrian government. It is not genuinely concerned about al-Assad regime or the Syrian crisis. The military support of Syrian government is only symbolic interest. The original reason behind Russia’s interests in Syria is that Russia wants to distract US military from former Soviet States (Russian sphere of influence) by involving the US in conflicts throughout the Middle East; therefore Russia can regain its influence on the former Soviet States. After managing to divert the US forces from former Soviet states, Russia aimed to get those states to rejoin Russia. However, because the states were not convinced by Russia’s capabilities, Russia’s only solution was to create an illusion of Russia reemerging as a world superpower through fighting America in the Syrian war.

In conclusion, if two countries both have a motive to prolong the war in their interest as conspiracy theories above demonstrated, then there should be a third, disinterested party to join in the proxy war and put an end to it, in this case, maybe the United Nations. In the past year, it has been suggested that “the UN taking control of Syria could provide solution to the conflict”. World leading politicians should approve of the call for UN intervention without hesitancy because the UN maybe the only force to put an end to the conflict, to the local people’s sufferings. They should give priority to the safety of the citizens rather than risking innocent people’s lives in exchange for world dominance and power.

After reading the two conspiracy theories, it can be seen that the mass media is swaying the public in their chosen direction. The news may not be reliable, yet some people believe it and formulate wrong opinions on global issues. In the case of Syria, the citizens of US and Russia, after reading all biased news published by their government, are easily persuaded to support the proxy war. A solution might be for the UN-the third party to create a reliable, unbiased source of news and make the news accessible to global citizens of the war to ensure the people know the immorality of the government’s actions and protest to end the proxy war.

Looking at the situation in Syria right now, we can clearly see that the Syrian War is nothing but a proxy war, with the conflict is divided between four sides fighting on the ground, backing by foreign forces. But the Syrian War is much more complicated than any proxy war we have ever seen, because these foreign backers are not entirely clear about who they are fighting for and who they are fighting against. The crisis in Syria is bound to take a lot of time to solve; but in order to come up with a peace treaty, every single sides in the war need to engage in the progress towards peace and stablibility in Syria and Middle East. The following actions can be taken to tackle the problem:

Defeat ISIS

ISIS is a major contributions towards the instability of Syria, and it is not recognized by any country, therefore it is our mission to exterminate it.

     2.   Divide Syria:

 Many experts have pointed out that the roots of the conflict in Syria dates back to 1920, when the French and the British gather a whole lot of ethnic groups into one teritory, causing disputes inside of that territory. We came up with a plan of dividing Syria into three areas:

The Alawite State of Syria: This will contain two governate, Latakia and Tartus;

The Kurdish State of Syria, contains Al Hasakah governate and two districts from Aleppo governate, Afrin and Ayn al-Arab;

The Sunni State of Syria, contains the rest of Syria.

     3.   A democratic, peaceful power transition:

 This is neccessary for the future of Syria. This should be decided by an election, an election which will be decided by the will of the Syrian people and under international surveillance.

     4.   With the Assad regime:

 Through the Geneve Negotiations in 2014, it is clear that Bashar al-Assad is not ready to give up power. Therefore, we need to keep Assad in power for a period of time while waiting for an upcoming election.

    5.   The need of UN’s forces in Syria during the transition process and the withdrawal of foreign forces:

The UN’s forces existence in Syria is essential, not just to keep order during the transition process, but also to get the Hezbollah and other ground fighting forces out of Syria. After a new goverment is fully set up, foreign forces including the Russians and Americans need to withdraw from Syria and should not intervene with the new government by any circumstances.

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

On the decriminalization of sex workers

By Nguyen Thao Van, 10 Anh 2, Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty

The issues of sex workers' rights are the issues of gender equality, poverty, immigration and public health. Sex work is work, too. It's not an ideal job, but what is of the utmost importance is neither how we feel about our job nor how others feel, it's the safety that all workers deserve to have. If you think sex workers' rights matter, don't keep silent but make your voice heard in the global effort to fight for decriminalization of sex workers. It was clear from the beginning that this is not an easy path, but an individual's voice can give rise to a power change if we do it together. Sex workers deserve to have the right to be protected constitutionally as other professions do, and the decriminalization of prostitution is an initial yet crucial step to be taken in this ongoing process.

Sex workers are one of the most marginalized groups in the world who frequently suffer from constant abuses and violation of basic rights. It is of no surprise that they are facing discrimination, exploitation, violence, rape, trafficking, and exclusion from health services. Risks of those kinds of abuses are heightened, but their voices are not heard because of stigma from other people and the core reason - because of the laws against sex work.

But why prohibition of sex work is so popular? First, it's human trafficking. As a matter of fact, a huge of number of people are kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery. Second, it is widely held that selling sex is degrading and feminists strongly support criminalizing prostitution since they regard it as an affront to gender equality. Third, prostitution is a threat to public health because it spreads diseases, specifically sexually transmitted diseases because many sex workers are coerced to having sex. Governments prevent these by prohibiting sex work. But has prohibition of prostitution prevented all these harms or actually criminalization of sex work been hindering the fight for human rights of sex workers?

The first legal approach applied to sex work is full criminalization. Half of the world, including Russia, Africa, China and most of the US prohibits the act of receiving money or goods in return for or in exchange for sex, being connected with the sex industry, or profiting from the sex industry. It means that everyone involved would be criminalized including sellers, buyers and third parties. Lawmakers in these countries and many other people think that the fear of being arrested and being a criminal would diminish and prevent the act of sex industry. But sex sellers – even though they acknowledge of this criminalization before doing the work, still do it because they need money to support themselves and their children, and their financial problems are getting aggravated. Their lives get nowhere and they have to take the risk in face of the laws. Once sex workers engage in the industry, criminalization forces them to keep selling sex because if they get out of it to find a legal job, no one would hire people with criminal record of sex selling, and they still can't earn a living and return to the sex industry. Another consequence of being criminalized is that sex workers are coerced into having sex with police in order not to be convicted. There have been cases in Cambodia where police tortured sex sellers by beatings, raping and even electric shock. In New York or Papua New Guinea, if sex sellers are caught carrying condoms, police would consider it as evidence and arrest them, thus sex sellers choose not to carry and use condoms. If you use condoms, you risk being arrested and may be forced to have sex with police. If you don't, you have risky sex. Apparently, it increases HIV risk, and with the crime imposed on them, sex workers are denied access to health services. In the end, criminalization of sex work runs counter to all its intended effects.

The second legal model of sex work is partial criminalization used in France or the UK in which prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal while related activities including soliciting, owing or managing brothels, kerb crawling and pimping are crimes. As a result of the laws, sex workers must sell sex behind closed doors and must work alone. Apparently it's dangerous as they are more likely to be exposed to violent offenders, and it's also dangerous if they break the law by working together to be safer. Provided that they are arrested by police, they have to pay a fine. But it's the need of money pushing them into the industry in the first place. To pay the fine, they have to keep selling sex. So it's a cycle of selling sex to pay the fines for selling sex. Ultimately, partial criminalization causes more harm than what it prevents.

The third type of laws is called Nordic or Swedish criminalization. It decriminalizes the selling of sex while the purchasing of sex remains a crime. Lawmakers may think that sex buyers are the one who cause harm, so people buying sex should be criminalized. First, it makes no logical sense to make it illegal to purchase something but legal to sell it. Second, it does not work. Though proponents of this policy pretend that Sweden is an example of success, criminalizing clients in Sweden has not reduced demand. This model of criminalization also leads to abusive third parties and pushes the act of sex work further underground. Sex workers must prioritize protecting their clients from police. To verify clients, they have to ask for information. However, clients know they are at the risk of being reported, they would not provide personal information to keep sex workers safe. As a result, sex workers have to accept clients who are untraceable and turn out to be violent without details ensuring their safety. Also, the premise that all sex buyers are inherently violent and that all sex sellers are coerced is misguided. It stops the voice of clients who try to stop violence in the industry. Rather than put an end to pimping, Nordic criminalization just exacerbates the situation.

The fourth measure taken is legalization which is when sex work is made formally legal but still not recognized as a legitimate form of work and therefore heavily regulated. Sex workers must comply with permissible working areas, mandatory health checks, and registration or face criminal sanction. It is used by countries like Netherlands, Germany and the state of Nevada in the US. Regulation may sound appropriate as it seems sex workers are ensured safety while sex industry is under control by the state. However, this approach shows little respect to human rights of sex workers. A particularly bad example of how legalization can go wrong is Tunisia. Tunisian sex workers working in licensed brothels who wish to leave their jobs must obtain authorization from the police and demonstrate they can earn a living through “honest” means. Those who operate outside these regulations are still criminalized, without protection of the law. Moreover, getting a license takes time and costs money; whereas sex workers are the one desperately in need of money. Only rich brothels can comply with the regulation, but the most vulnerable people are still forced to work illegally and exposed to criminalization.

In the long run, instead of preventing sex work, all these 4 legal approaches make it more dangerous for people selling sex. Criminalization of sex work can hamper the fight against trafficking because victims fear that if they report, they will be arrested for selling sex. Clearly the solution is to give sex workers workplace protections, the right to report abuses and trafficking without fear of getting arrested. When sex work is illegal, sex workers are not able to negotiate for their rights, or gain access to the criminal justice system and health services. And though sex workers do face discrimination and mistreatment, taking away sex work does not make their life better because the reason they sell sex in the first place is that they can't find legal jobs, they are poor and homeless and hungry. It is understandable that sex work is thought to be undignified and it evokes controversial feeling. But prohibition makes almost no difference to the number of people doing sex work or the attitude of folks towards prostitution, but it can make huge difference to the safety of sex workers who rights are also human rights.

The only legal option is full decriminalization and that's also what sex workers want. In the last decade, many international organizations including Amnesty International, UNFPA, UNAIDS and WHO have requested governments to adopt the policy of decriminalizing sex work and the first country was New Zealand. In fact, New Zealand has seen no increase in the sex trafficking and the number of people doing sex work. But more crucially, the nation's HIV rate is among one of the lowest in the world, and 96% of street workers in New Zealand report that they feel the laws protect their rights. They are able to protect themselves because they don't fear being arrested, they have the right to refuse a client or negotiate safe sex, they get access to health services and their voices are heard when they report abuses to police.

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

Voluntary euthanasia: Should one be allowed to die?

- By Dang Quynh Giang, 10 Trung, Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by iStock

“The dilemma of self-driving car” by Patrick Lin presented viewers with a case of ethical dilemma. Ethical dilemma is a situation which involves a choice between two moral imperatives, but choosing once will necessary result in disobeying the other. This writing will present readers with another case of ethical dilemma – euthanasia.

By definition, euthanasia means ending a person’s life to end his or her pain and suffering. Euthanasia can be categorized into three types: non-voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia and voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is a case in which the consent of the patient is not available (for example: the patient is in a coma) and involuntary euthanasia is euthanizing against the will of the patient. Both non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia lack the consent of the patient, and therefore both are illegal worldwide. The last type of euthanasia, however, is a topic of much controversy. Voluntary euthanasia is a case of euthanasia with the consent of patient, either passive (withholding necessary mediation or treatment to keep patient alive) or active (doctors provide patients with means to euthanize), and there has been much argument over whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized.

Public opinion towards voluntary euthanasia has been quite divided.

On the one hand, the argument of those supporting it includes the right to die of human and the scarcity of medicine. When a person has terminal illness and is suffering from unbearable pain, they should be given the choice of euthanasia. 54% of media practitioners support euthanasia and 86% of public support euthanasia for those terminally ill or living on life support. This brings us to the second reason, which is the scarcity of medicine. It is a matter of fact that treatments for terminal illness can be costly, and not every family can afford this. Moreover, this medicine can be given to others, for whom the medicine might cure the disease.

On the other hand, those against euthanasia argue that palliative care can be a solution to serious illnesses, therefore euthanasia is not necessary. Many religions are also against euthanasia, considering it a crime of throwing life away. In addition, euthanasia can be abused and misused. This happens when euthanasia happens without the patient consent (maybe without prior discussion with the patient). In Flanders (Belgium), 31% of euthanasia cases was carried out without patients’ explicit consent.

Voluntary euthanasia has been legalized in Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and a few other countries. The argument on the moral of voluntary is not to end soon, and it will be a long time before voluntary euthanasia is legalized globally.

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

Ethical dilemma of self-driving cars

- By Nguyen Thao Van, 10A2, Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by Yukai Du

In the movie "I, Robot" (2004), in 2035, humanoid robots serve humanity, and humans are protected from the robots by the Three Law of Robotics, the most important of which is that a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Will Smith's character, unlike other people, hates and distrusts robots because one of them rescued him in a car accident, but left a young girl to die as her survival was statistically less likely than his. Is that unethical of a robot? This spectacle of artificially intelligent robots becoming widely used and their ethical dilemma is going to happen quite soon to human as self-driving cars are intensively developed, having been used and the question of their ethical dilemma is worryingly raised by many scientists.

As a matter of fact, traffic accidents in the U.S. cost up to $1 trillion annually and caused nearly 40,000 deaths in 2015, according to the researchers, with about 90 percent of the incidents attributed to human error. Apparently, widespread adoption of this technology helps reduce a significant amount of traffic, pollution and accidents. But what would happen if driverless cars face the situation in which they can't avoid accidents and have to choose to injure either their occupants or other road users. For example, there is a concrete barrier right ahead of a driverless car, and the car must swerve to the beside lane so that its passenger would not be injured, but there are pedestrians passing in this other lane, so if the car swerve there, these people would be hit. In such cases, who should the car save to make it right? How should they be programmed?

Research by the magazine 'Science' has found that most people approve of autonomous vehicles taking the utilitarian approach of minimizing the total number of deaths in car crashes even if that means harming people in the cars. However, studies also show that respondents would rather not buy these kinds of cars and are not in favor of self-sacrificing algorithms. If lawmakers regulate the use of autonomous cars and put pedestrians' lives above passengers' lives, people would much less likely to buy those cars. Choosing between a car that sacrifices the driver on occasion to save other people and a car that preserve the passenger's safety at all costs, people also face a dilemma. What happens if the cars choose people with more survival rates or more utility for society like in the movie 'I, Robot' or choose people such as intellectuals, children, elderly people, pregnant women over criminals, homeless people and animals? Is it better that the cars make random decisions than having been programmed in advance who to save?

To judge how pubic think about this, the researchers set up a platform called "Moral Machine" asking participants' opinions in a series of collision scenarios. This platform surveys how much saving more lives, protecting passengers, upholding the laws, preferences of gender, age, fitness and social value matter to people. The result of the survey shows the public's inconsistency and lack of decisiveness when it comes to morality and self-preservation. In general, people want what's in the common good, but also want their lives to be protected and prioritized.

However, the way driverless cars are control is often not taken into account. Autonomous vehicles make decisions based on speed, weather, road conditions, distance and other data gathered by a variety of sensors, including cameras and radars. The challenge is in gathering and processing the necessary data quickly enough to avoid dangerous circumstances in the first place. This will not always be possible because it can come down to deciding who lives and who dies.

In the future, the technology may be improved. However, in the meantime, it's hard to reach a consensus on the issue. Self-driving cars can revolutionize transportation system, eliminating millions of deaths of traffic accidents, but they also poses challenges about ethical issues. Therefore, it's not time for us to program and use autonomous cars yet.

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

Artificial Intelligence

- By Tao Nhat Minh, 10 Trung, Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by Robot’s News

Developing Artificial Intelligence (A.I) technology has been a focus of debate in recent years. There are multiple other reasons why A.I should not be an integral part of our society, including tampering, excessive dependence and ethical concerns.

A.I integration makes appliances susceptible to tampering or hacking by individuals with malicious intent. According to News Scientist, in 2015, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles had to recall 1.4 million of their vehicle after scientists announced that they were able to hack and take control of a smart car. When the car was being hacked, control of the brakes, steering and engine was seized by the hacker, while manual driver input was rendered unresponsive. Furthermore, it would be hard to develop resistance or prevention to hacking because traces of tampering in the previous study were able to be remotely erased. And this is only touching on computerised appliances. If an A.I - integrated appliance was tampered with during manufacture, a massive number of appliances can be vulnerable to hacking without being noticed. Terrorists and criminals alike can use this vulnerability to cause anarchy and cripple or otherwise harm society.

A.I integration also leads to excessive human dependence. Although A.I can be the pinnacle of human convenience, having an A.I complete every one of your everyday tasks such as receiving news updates, driving, doing various household tasks... will cripple your ability to do those tasks once the A.Is malfunction, because you are too accustomed to receiving A.I support. The over-dependence on A.I also limits your decision making abilities, since you are used to having A.I making decisions for you. Unlike the way we currently overly rely on smartphones, relying on A.I doesn't simply quicken tasks, it completes tasks for you. This can lead to losing vital skills that would otherwise be considered elementary in present day, such as decision-making, driving, writing, reading, and so on.

A.I consciousness and sentience is not completely science fiction and is most definitely plausible, but philosophers and scientists have argued on whether A.I should be treated as a normal human being, or should they stay as mere robots created to fulfill certain tasks. Unlike clones, A.I does not have a physical or biological form, but in my opinion, A.I should still be considered alive and therefore should be treated like a human. However, because it is artificial, we will most likely treat them as inferior, for the reason that "we created it". Because A.I can be sentient, they can become angry over time because of their treatment and go rogue from their preset parameters and cause inconvenience to or even threaten humanity. This can be made even worse if multiple A.I are linked together in a network, causing widespread damage.

All in all, while A.I can be considered a revolutionary invention of the modern world, it should not become an integral part of our society.

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

Genetically Modified Organisms: An overview

By Group 1,  Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by Carrington College

  Genetically modified organism (GMO), one of the new branches of modern biology, are plants, animals, microorganisms, etc. whose genetic materials are constructed or altered abnormally. The development is created through “transgenic biotechnology” – a process of transferring individual genes between organisms. This method can be applied to cases of almost every species that do not exist in nature or via traditional breeding. Since its first appearance in the mid 1990s, GMOs have grown significantly in scales, and are now controlled by a large number of companies and manufactures, primarily Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF, etc. Despite its ostensible growth, heated debates have been set regarding the safety of using GMOs.

ADVANTAGES

It has been proved in diverse documents that GMO brings quite a large number of advantages not only to both the growers and consumers but also the environment for the numerous enhanced traits of GM foods.

1.   To growers:

❖  Strong Crops

One of the most significant features of GM crops is their inbuilt resilience to diseases, viruses, insects and herbicides and therefore require lesser pesticides. A report from the University of California in San Diego states that toxic bacteria (safe for human use) can be added to crops to make them repel insects. This reduces the amount of pesticide chemicals used on the plants, so their exposure to dangerous pesticides are also lessned.

Moreover, crops can be engineered to withstand extreme weather conditions, which results in high quality and sufficient yields even under a poor or severe weather condition.

Many researchers point to the benefits of sturdier crops with higher yields. "GM crops can improve yields for farmers, reduce draws on natural resources and fossil fuels and provide nutritional benefits," according to a statement on the website for Monsanto, the world's largest manufacturer of GMOs.

❖  Large Production

It has been easier to raise crops that are classified as genetically modified because all of their examples have the stronger ability to resist pests. This attribute helps farmers with producing greater amounts of crops or foods.

According to a German meta-study published in PloS One: “ On average, GM technology adoption has increased crop yields by 22% and increased farmer profits by 68%”

2.   To consumers:

❖  Nutritious Food

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, some GM foods have been engineered to become more nutritious in terms of vitamin or mineral content. Considering that there are places in the world relying on rice or corn as their daily staple, plant genes may be added to these crops to increase their nutritional value. This would help malnourished populations receive more nutrients from their diet.

“The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM [genetically modified] crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques,” according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science

❖  Decrease in Food Prices

Due to higher yield and lower costs, food prices would reduce. This is bound to assist families who cannot afford to buy their needed supply for everyday consumption, so starvation will be prevented.

3. To the environment:       Since GMOs are generally resistant to pests and diseases, there is no longer the need to use pesticides.       When cultivating GMOs, farmers can grow more crops on less land, so the problem of deforestation can somehow be improved.       The procedure of cultivating GM plants is simpler and it requires less time and tools, so the amount of waste can be eliminated.

 DISADVANTAGES

      Ever since the onset of GMOs, there has been furious opposition from the public. The reason(s)? Well, we can easily observe that this “modern” movement has quite unwanted effects.

1. Superbugs

      Records show that GMOs have caused various growing negative impacts to the environment, one of which is the emergence of superbugs. This was proven by many case studies, one of which is the Bt corn controversy. Bt corn is corn with the genes of the Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria, which is poisonous to rootworm, inserted to it. However, rootworms resistant to Bt corn have been detected by scientists in the last few years. Entomologists at Iowa State University and the University of Illinois published a study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, asserting numerous incidents in different states across the US of resistant rootworm. At first, the rootworms were found to be resistant to only one of three varieties of Bt. However, scientists have now found resistance to a second variety as well. In addition, developing resistance to one variety increases the chance of developing resistance to a second. Therefore, the effort and idea of creating new genetically engineered seeds with “stacked traits” seem to be of little avail. Though the Bt corn controversy has now been soothed to certain extents, this case still warns us of the potential deficiency that some GMOs might possess, thus driving consumers and farmers away from this newly adopted technology.  

 2. Deaths of bees and butterflies

       GMOs are also responsible for the increasing deaths of bees and butterflies. Neonicotinoid pesticides- chemicals transferred into seeds before planting- are proven to highly toxic to bees and butterflies, due to its systemic, water soluble and pervasive nature. Especially, after seeds with these pesticides are planted, they can remain and accumulate the soil for many years, affecting seeds and plants grown later on in the same soil. Bee colonies started to die off at an increasing rate in the US shortly after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave allowance to these insecticides on the market, and still has not taken any actions despite clear warning signs of these problems.

 3. Allergies

       GMOs have given rise to allergies. Proteins are the main cause of allergic reactions in humans. Foreign proteins gene-spliced into foods could lead to an increase allergies and also their severity. The cases worsens when in some countries, labeling of GMOs is not mandatory, leading to oblivious consumers who suffer from food allergies. Furthermore, GMOs can bring about diseases. One study shows that there exists a strong correlation between GMOs and 22 diseases. Monsanto has modified foods genetically, so that they are resistant to glyphosate- a herbicide sold by Monsanto, resulting in an increase use of glyphosate. The study states the following: "Glyphosate disrupts the ability of animals, including humans, to detoxify xenobiotics. This means that exposures to the numerous chemicals in food and the environment, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals and carcinogens, could be causing levels of damage that would not occur if the body were able to detoxify them”. They also point out that "According to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine's position paper on genetically modified (GM) foods: 'Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune disregulation, accelerated aging, disregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.'" Many graphs also drafted in the study showed that there was a booming increase in the rates of disease in the mid-1990s, which coincides with the commercial introduction of GMO products, but it hardly seems like a coincidence.

 4. Loss of gene/ harmful gene flow:

Apart from the issues related to agriculture and biodiversity in general, GMO is also involved in the problem of loss of gene, or in other words, detrimental effect regarding gene flow. According to Bao-Rong Lu – an authority on Evolutionary biology, gene flow refers to “a natural process that contributes to species evolution” (Lu, 2008, p. 73). Gene flow is considered a crucial process in nature that allows plants to maintain their beneficial traits. However, when a complex technology like GM genes is incorporated with such a natural, biological process, the results can be quite depressing. An example of this case is the production of maize in Mexico, which “has played an important part in the history of the native peoples where growing maize has cultural significance” (McAfee, 2008, p. 149). In one of McAfee’s journal, she stated that “plant geneticists worry that transgene constructs transferred to local maize varieties or teosinte might confer survival advantages to the resulting hybrids, enabling them to out-compete other maize strains and thus accelerate the loss of useful traits” (McAfee, 2008, p. 151). Furthermore, the detrimental influence of this harmful combination can be expanded in no time through different parts of a farming area. Due to the fact that pollen or seeds of a plant can easily be scattered and infiltrate other fields, those of a GM can very easily pass their traits onto non-GMO, organic, and native crops and other plants, effectively destroying their very integrity permanently. This can put the livelihood of farmers into danger. To sum up, the involvement of GMO in gene flow, as illustrated by the evidence of maize strain and its spreading in agriculture, indeed pose a threat of genetic loss to us all.

 References: http://occupytheory.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-gmos/

http://connectusfund.org/27-big-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-genetically-modified-foods

http://greengarageblog.org/13-main-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-gmos

http://sites.middlebury.edu/politicalecologyofgmos/project/jessie/

http://www.naturalnews.com/035511_insecticide_bees_collapse.html

Sources of evidence <part 4>: (in the original article)

●    Lu, B.-R. (n.d.). Transgene Escape from GM Crops and Potential Biosafety Consequences: An Environmental Perspective. Retrieved from http://www.icgeb.org/~bsafesrv/pdffiles/Bao-Rong.pdf

●    McAfee, K. (2008). Beyond techno-science: Transgenic maize in the fight over Mexico’s future. Geoforum, 39, 148-160.

  RESOLUTIONS

  With the cons almost outweighing the pros, yet the benefits are still considerable, some resolutions to the problems of GMOs are called for:

 ➢  Regulated growing: Many of the issues caused by GMOs are partly due to production and conducts of agriculture without the supervision of governments. The authorities, hence, need to put forward laws that enforce food safety check and examinations as well as forbiding the production of those failing to meet safety standards.

 ➢  Labeling: The general public have the right to choose whether or not to purchase and consume GMOs, especially those who are allergic to some components of GMOs. Labeling, by just simply putting a sticker or making the “Nutritional Values” chart more specific, would be a good way of informing the consumers.

 ➢  Scientists - farmers collaboration: Science in general and micro-biology in particular are a far cry from agriculture and farming. However, great results could be yielded if we combine the knowledge and skills of both professions to utilize in research and production. Scientists are a reliable source of information and acknowledgement whereas farmers are the ones responsible for bringing theories and studies into practice. Having the professional from both fields working together is a boon to the development of genetic engineering.  

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

Outspoken: Rude is the new smart?

By Bui Linh Ngoc, 10A1 , Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by PSDGraphics

“I don’t give a s*** about anybody observing my behaviour”  (1) or, “An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud” (2)

If the author does not include the source of these quotes, will they be thought to come from politicians? The media portraits them as “crazy”, “unconventional”, “unsuitable” and even “stupid”. Never before have we seen a more “weird” and “absurdly open” political atmosphere than this 21st century. If people from, let say, 1992, saw Bill Clinton blurting out words like Donald Trump does these days, would Bill be chosen to become the 42nd president of the United States? At this point, one may ask why on earth there can be such difference (within such a short period of time). Aren’t we always used to the fact that politics is regarded as, well, “diplomatic” and “serious”? Is this new generation of “outspoken” politicians a new kind of development in the history of diplomacy, or is it just a temporary “trend” represented by a minority of people who are lucky enough to attract such attention?

Outspokenness, in a personal point of view, could be judged (whether it is “effective” and “good” or not) based on two main criteria. The first should be centered on “reason” and the second, “emotion”. The overall judgment of a politician, after all, comes from the public (10) as a whole. The example of “reason” judgment could be seen with Rodrigo Duterte, whose “outspokenness” is regarded as positive by most. On the other hand, the example of “emotion” could be seen with Donald Trump, whose “outspokenness” is regarded as negative by most. While each type represents a different way to assess outspokenness of a politician, they are similar in the aspect that they both use actions as the main basis.

Elected as president on May 9th, 2016 (3) , Rodrigo Duterte is making the headlines worldwide by his anti-drug campaign, which has reportedly killed 2000 people (as of August 2016)(4) . The reactions towards this campaign vary, with international disapproval and local endorsement. International organizations, especially human rights groups, and the US express their deepest concern towards the violation of rights in this “brutal” campaign. Domestically, however, 91% of Filipinos “trusted” Duterte(5) .

What is most noticeable about this, nonetheless, is Duterte’s reactions and speeches towards the UN and the US. Although the traditional method of facing international criticism is centered on making formal speeches in reply, or refusing to say anything at all, Duterte chose to use “unimaginably obnoxious” comments. He did not hesitate to bash numerous political entities, including the president of the US, and even threaten to leave the UN, shut the door with the US and create allies with China.

While there have been many controversies and comments largely focused on the offensiveness of the replies, thereby implying that Duterte lacks the knowledge and skills needed to be president, it is worth noticing the actual change that the president has brought. First of all, one should reflect the ability and effectiveness of a president according to his own people, not from any foreign sources of news. The Filipinos, in general, believe that the 100 days in power of Duterte have greatly improved the overall environment. From the chaotic state that drugs are sold everywhere, drug dealers and beneficiaries now have to seriously reconsider their misdeeds. Some have even voluntarily given themselves up to the authorities and abolished drugs out of their lives(6) .

While the bilateral relations may be thought to be affected, one should not omit the fact that Duterte’s moves in the international affairs are not coincident or emotional. The sharp and “undiplomatic” speeches, surprisingly, elevate the stance of the Philippines in the region. They made the US be more aware of their ally after taking Philippine for granted for a while. They also emphasized the priority of a president, who is willing to put his people and his country’s interest on top of other “external influences”, thereby rocketing Duterte’s approval rates. Moreover, the “obnoxious” languages show a major difference in the political environment in general. People are so used to politicians who only promise rather than taking actions that Duterte can be regarded as a person breathing new life into the already chaotic situation. Therefore, in the example of Duterte, the Filipinos see the “reason” behind the blunt, offensive remarks. They are using actual evidence, change and reason to judge their president. Some, in fact, appreciate and approve of the remarks made by the Philippine president because it shows a sense of independence from the US influence.

Another example worth mentioning is the case of Donald Trump, a man running for president of the United States of America. Trump is notorious for his offensive comments on anything and anyone, namely religion, women, and politicians. However, the Trump supporters are “huge” and this man alone has taken the whole media by storm in his presidential campaign. So why, you may ask, do people even have the mere thought of this man becoming president, let alone supporting him?

The reason may be the same with Duterte. Mainly, the Trump supporters like his way of getting straight to the (most controversial) point. Trump dares to talk about topics that politicians avoid, topics that politicians find controversial or may hurt their ratings. Of course, there may be some “strange” policies (like the “build a wall” policy), but it is worth noticing his vision of taxes and revitalizing the economy and military (7) . Trump hit the nail on the head by (quite rudely) stating the consequence of an Obama regime, where the US has lost its stance in Middle East and Crimea, as well as the downfall of US military forces.

However, the “outspokenness” in the case of Trump can be counter-effective as most of the criticisms are centered on Trump’s utterance and personality, merely taking his policies into account.  As Durtete at least matches his word with his action, the public would not mind his remarks much. However, as Trump has not done anything to actually realize his vision (and may very well never have the chance to do so), the public in this case will be easily swayed by emotion, rather than reasons, thus undermining Trump’s potential (good) policies.

Surprisingly, these “outspoken” politicians are not new. John Adams, for example, resembles the kind of temperament found in Trump. Being in power since April 3rd, 1797 to April 3rd, 1801, John Adams signed the “Alien and Sedition” Act, which limited immigration and criminalized false judgments against the federal government (8) . Although John Adams received criticisms within his own party, his overall legacy was one of “reason, moral leadership, the rule of law, compassion, and a cautious but active foreign policy that aimed both at securing the national interest and achieving an honorable peace”(9) .

In conclusion, “outspokenness” in politics may cause controversies most of the time. However, whether this characteristic is beneficial or not depends on the consideration of the actual work of a politician. It is worth noticing that politics is never an open game. Politicians may say one thing, but do the other. Whatever you see on newspaper, it’s the tip of the ice berg.

SOURCES AND NOTES (10): While some may argue that the public is easily swayed by the media and entails various, the author tends to target the public to mostly critiques and political analysts. 

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

Science or madness: An insight into GMOs

By Ha Linh Dam, 10 Nga, Hanoi - Amsterdam High School for the Gifted

Image by Catfish Institute

In recent years, the term GMO has been used in all and every field of our society, causing relentless arguments from states’ rights and consumer rights to food politics and food science, and countless campaigns to answer the question:”Should we cross this abyss between madness and science?”

GMO, which stands for Genetically Modified Organisms, are organisms has its genes altered using genetic engineering. GMO was approved and first allowed to hit the market in circa 1980. According to a recent report, GMO is utilized on 90% of all soybean cotton and corn acreage in the U.S and other popular food crops such as sugar beets, alfalfa, canola, papaya and summer squash. More recently, apples that do not brown and bruise-free potatoes were also approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).This means that  GMO foods have been consumed in huge amounts for a long time (whether unrealized or realized).Therefore, it’s crucial that we as wise consumers pay and get enough attention to it.

Many of GMO products have been claimed to offer many benefits to our citizens. Firstly, their resistance to insects and other pests, weather and other cultivation conditions, results in a better quality and quantity. GMO food has been proved non-toxic by The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, and American Association for the Advancement of ScienceSecond, according to an Oklahoma State University, the increase in GM animals and crops means less time, tools and chemicals such as pesticides are required. Last but not least, based on report from FDA, some GM food offer more nutrition in terms of vitamin or mineral content.

On the other hand, GMO also has drawbacks, much to the predictions and allegations of many people. Firstly, according to a research by Brown University and other sources,  it can cause significant medicinal problems. As GMO products are added or mixed with proteins that aren’t in the original organisms, they can trigger new allergic reactions in our body and also new diseases.  Therefore, GMO products are not always safe for users. Secondly, this technique will severely aggravate biodiversity. If a certain organism that’s harmful to crops is killed, other organisms that depend on it will also be extinct. A range of original genes will be deleted. That we’re so ambiguous about this new technique’s consequence in the future and it hasn’t also been perfected is the main concern for GMO.

From my perspective, we should continue to research and improve GMO cautiously. GMO food would help us create a sustainable agricultural infrastructure to solve the problems about food shortage. As genetically modified organisms have been changed to endure and adopt fast to any weather condition and land, we can plant a tree or any kind of animals whenever we need.  We will not struggle dividing the land into where to live and where to plant. Also, GMO is more nutritious than the original, therefore, we can suppress the food that has caused us obesity, heart disease and diabetes- inflating 3 trillion in annual healthcare spending.  Imagine with such massive production of food provided to our population, thousands of children in Africa who are being tortured by the hunger will be saved, millions of people who are suffering from carnage and agony from the civil war in Syria, bloodshed battles in Mosul, etc. would first have their daily food supplement. Moreover, GMO can serve as a long-term solution. It won’t be affected by climate change which has either washed away or changed the form of a lot of land. Via the use of GMO, we can finally take control of the unfavorable conditions. Recently, in August 2016, a company which deploys male genetically modified mosquitoes to tackle the dreadful aftermath of the Zika virus. This idea successfully receives a green light from FDA.  When these male mosquitoes mate with female mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti, which causes people to have Zika, their offspring cannot live long enough to reproduce. Since these male mosquitoes do not bite, they are unable to spread disease.

To buttress the use of GMO, I recommend we should make a regulatory requirement labelling all GMO food all over the world. Though over 40 countries have adopted this regulation, many other countries, especially underdeveloped ones are either still under discussion or take loose control over the problem. If  GMO food is seperated from organic one, customers can make informed decision. We should give people a chance to know what they’re buying rather than blinding them.

As our principal attention is to protect and develop human, I strongly believe that with appropriate control, the advantages GMO brings about surpass its drawbacks. GMO equips us with the assistance needed to fight against the odds that may harm human. There’s no other technique which can offer us a better solution to tackle the present struggles.

[thegrasshoppers-blog]

Welcome

As the world is enveloped into a global village, the imperative demand be all of us are endowed with somewhat a pinch of knowledge about its affairs. Let it be our friends or our foes, a fair and judicious appraisal paves our path towards not only accreditation, but also a manoeuvred futurity.

Minds are set, spirits are stirred, tasks are embraced, with the guidance of Providence and its many cohorts, The Grasshoppers officially commence its ardently arduous, and fruitfully mind-boggling journey to surround itself with valuable information and creditable opinions.

Do come and support us.