The International Community's Monday Morning

“Beep! Beep! Beep!” As my incredibly early 5:45 AM alarm goes off, I somehow manage to arise from my I-could-sleep-through-a-Beyoncé-concert-and-still-not-wake-up sleep, and rub as much sleep out of my eyes. The usual battle with my alarm clock ensues, as I beg it to give me 10 more minutes of my precious siesta, only to realize I’m late again. I rush to the bathroom to wash my face and brush my teeth, as I race downstairs for breakfast.

This scene is typical for me, and probably many people, every Monday morning as we hustle and bustle our ways out the door. But fast forward to the end of that day, and you’ll meet a much more I-actually-kinda-have-my-act-together type of person. I didn’t have time to brush my hair this morning but can I still help you with that English project due tomorrow? Sure. I ate the second half of my breakfast today in class but will I still be super excited for the rally next week? You know it. And that’s usually because no matter what side of the bed we wake up on, most of us try not to let that influence the rest of our days.

The Monday morning struggles that we go through have little effect on us eight hours later, and to draw a parallel, even though you might have started on the wrong foot with someone, you can always rectify that and move on to build a stronger relationship, even though it may take some time. The connection with the international community? I’m talking about India and the U.S. Even though some misunderstandings and disagreements may have posed initial hurdles, both leading countries are well on their way to ending their “day” right. The single most distinct issue that pushed away and brought together these two powerful countries was India’s debatable nuclear program, so allow me to back you up on the facts with a brief history.

In the 1950s, the United States helped India develop nuclear energy under the Atoms for Peace program, by building a nuclear reactor for India, and even providing nuclear fuel for a while. All was going well until we hit 1968. In 1968, the global community drafted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or commonly known as the NPT, with the goal of preventing the rapid spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Under the preface of the treaty being biased, India, along with additional states, refused to sign the NPT. Skip ahead to 1974, India tested its first nuclear bomb, demonstrating its capacity to develop nuclear weapons with technology transferred for peaceful purposes. Four years later, the Carter administration enacts the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, which requires countries not included in the NPT (inclusive of India) to allow inspections of nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). India refuses, and Washington ends all nuclear assistance to Delhi. Unnerved, India continues to develop its nuclear capabilities, and completes a series of underground nuclear tests close to the border with Pakistan, raising fears that these tests could prompt a regional nuclear arms race.With the tests frowned upon by the world at large, the Clinton regime imposes economic sanctions on India.

However, Clinton’s 2000 visit to India marks the beginning of thawing the icy relationship between the two powers in regards to India’s nuclear tests. As India’s economy starts to develop rapidly, the visit indicates a significant shift in U.S.’ Cold War mentality of allying with Pakistan. A year later, the Bush administration lifts the sanctions that were imposed on India.

With relations notably warming between the two states, they reach a landmark nuclear deal, inking the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative in 2005. This decade-long defense framework lifts a 30-year embargo on nuclear trade with India, and, under the agreement, India agrees to place all its civil resources under IAEA safeguards. In return, the U.S. would work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India, and the two states work closely together in during the next 10 years.

Today marks the first-day-of-issue ceremony as the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) will commemorate the Hindu festival of Diwali with a stunning Forever stamp. Diwali, the festival of lights, celebrates the triumph of good over evil, and spans five days each fall. Though not a direct gesture towards India, the issuing of this stamp comes after meeting long pending demands of the Indian-American community, strengthening ties. Even on the official Diwali Stamp website, it lists reasons as to why the stamp should be issued, claiming it enhances U.S. - India relations as the festival was officially recognized in 2007, and President Obama was the first president to light the diya in 2009. These positive relations, of course, stem from the removal of tensions regarding India’s nuclear progress.

A partnership between India and the U.S. can prove to be incredibly beneficial to both parties, as they take final steps to waive the uneasiness of their Cold War front as well as the initial nuclear tests. There is an urgent need for both the United States and India to deepen their security relationship: to contain China. While Washington is visibly concerned about growing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea, India is equally anxious with Chinese territorial aggression in its land borders. From the U.S. perspective, to have India as a trusted partner and ally is advantageous to its overall grand strategy. According to The Diplomat, “India, with a population of 1.2 billion, living within a democratic set up, is politically structured to resonate with American values of democracy, individual liberty, and freedom. Henceforth, if America hopes to see a world with democratic values spreading, having India as a partner is definitely a force multiplier.”

These reasons, in combination with other shared interests such as combatting terrorism, developing their economies, investing in renewables, and civilian positive relations has set the two countries up for an impactful alliance. With the wounds from the Cold War and disputed nuclear tests well on their way to a full recovery, let’s hope that the Diwali stamp can light the way for a powerful partnership.

The Elephant vs. The Dragon: A Plank Contest

“...and that’s the minute-30 mark!” Bodies quivering, adrenaline surging, and pressure building, I’d like to welcome you to a scene from my 8th grade year. Eye to eye with my biggest competitor at the time, we glared at each other with a look that meant we weren’t giving up any time soon. We competed for everything - we were both  participating at every spelling bee, both finalizing at the speech contest, both sprinting the last lap of the mile to outrun each other; every time I wanted to get rid of her, she wanted to get rid of me. We were too similar and too competitive to let go. So, being the incredibly smart and mature 8th graders we were, we decided to settle it by means of a plank contest. The first 45 seconds were a piece of cake, but as time went on, our noodle arms began to feel the pressure, while the chants of 30 other students around us cheered either one of us on.

Though you might’ve missed our competition, you can see a live reenactment by reading the news - the two biggest competitors having a plank contest right now? China and India. Striving to be the best and outdo each other, China and India have both been feeling the animosity for years through countless conflicts. Cranking up the heat through disputes on Kashmir, Tibet, religion, visa applications, etc., I’ll touch upon the biggest two disagreements in recent history: Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) membership, and the verdict on the South China Sea.

Let’s begin with China’s blockade of India’s NSG membership bid in June. The NSG is essentially a group of currently 48 nuclear supplier countries that seek to prevent nuclear proliferation by meeting to discuss controls over exports of materials, equipment, and technology. After eight long years of lobbying for a seat at the NSG, India’s candidacy for membership was denied. A seat at the NSG is crucial for India because this exclusive group controls the global trade in nuclear technology, and the membership would have helped India assert itself as a legitimate nuclear state. Although countries with large influence like the U.S., U.K., France, and Russia backed India’s membership, opposition came from several countries, notably China, who was the most vocal opponent. The grounds for rejecting the application were based on the fact that India had yet to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. China’s opposition, however, most likely originates from the fact that granting India a seat at the NSG would mean allowing a rival to be at par with them in this prestigious club. In an effort to rally support from the global community for their NSG Application, India’s Prime Minister went to visit China’s President in a strategic move to secure their affirmative vote. This, however, did not stop President Xi from reassuring his Pakistani counterpart Xi’s government would persist with criteria-based approach for the NSG membership even before the meeting took place.

Moving on to the South China Sea conflict: the disputes involve both island and maritime claims among several sovereign states within the region, namely Brunei, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines, and Vietnam. Earlier this year, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) rejected China’s ownership claims to 80% of the of the South China Sea. This ruling was the first time that the basis of China’s “historical claims,” notably, the “nine-dash line,” was ruled to be invalid under international law. Occurring right after China’s successful blocking of India’s bid to gain entry into the NSG, India could not resist but rejoice after hearing the verdict, formulating a snarky and timely response: “India supports freedom of navigation and over-flight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS.” As was expected, an enraged China dismissed the PCA’s verdict, declaring it null and void. This response proved to be a sharp contrast with India’s mature acceptance of a similar arbitration with Bangladesh, with a verdict against India’s favor. On the eve of the verdict, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia called on China to follow India’s example by accepting the ruling of the PCA, adding fuel to the fire.

But back to my plank contest: toughing it out for as long as we could, my arch nemesis and I discovered a new respect for each other. Stopping only because the yard duty told us to and herded the cheering crowd elsewhere, both of us just looked at each other and smiled for not only pulling off a plank much longer than each of us had expected, but also because we realized how trivial our previous conflicts had been. From then on, we became really good friends, working together for group projects, spending lunches together, representing our school at our district’s board meeting, and even sitting next to each other at the “Valedictorian Row” at our graduation.

Ending tonight, the G20 Summit provides a chance for a similar and much needed reset for the Sino-Indian relationship, allowing them to set aside differences and focus on common goals like helping the poor, reducing the gap between developed and developing countries, and combating climate change, to name a few. Instead of waiting for a higher power to end the competition, it’s time for India and China to stop spending energy on new ways to antagonize the other, and redirect it to solving issues domestically as well as globally.

You Think You Know Me

You think you know me,

When you shoot daggers with your eyes,

When you spread those poisonous lies.

You think you know me,

When you laugh, snicker, and sneer,

But things look much different if you dare to come near.

You think you know me,

When you instantly categorize: weak, stupid, geek, fat, 

I used to think I was better than that.

You think you know me,

When you speculate on the spot,

Where I got these scars, and where this was bought.

You think you know me,

But you don't.

I am fighting a battle much bigger than you will ever know about,

And I'm living a story much sadder than you will ever read about.

I'm not weak,

I'm strong enough to keep it inside.

I'm not dumb, 

I'm smart enough to not let your words ruin my life.

So you should know that I'm above all your games,

And you should know that I'm not after the fame.

My life is one continuous war,

And you - you - are just one villain.

And the worst part is,

When all has been said and done,

You'll still think you know me.

But you don't. 

Because my story isn't over.

And it never will be.

Pull the Trigger on Guns

It’s a beautiful weekend morning, with the rays of sunlight dawning into your room as you wake up from a good night’s rest. You give your legs one last stretch and prop up your pillow as you gently shake off your tiredness and yawn. Reaching over the bedside table, you unplug your phone and scroll through your notifications, expecting to start your day off with a funny cat video and replying to those mass “Good Morning” Snapchats. Instead, what you see is shocking. 27 urgent texts from your friends, 43 worried missed calls from your relatives, and 82 Facebook post notifications that end with #WeStandWithPulse or #PrayForDallas or #StopTheBleeding. Your hometown, your tight-knit community, is no longer a safe space for hopscotch after school. It’s become known as a bloodbath on headlines across the world. It seems like it’s a terrible nightmare, a hoax, an illusion, a surreal situation, but for Americans, this is the reality we’ve had to deal with for too long. Gun violence is sweeping the nation, and incidents like Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, the Pulse Nightclub and the most recent Dallas Shooting have become the norm. It’s high time that we open our eyes to gun violence and impose harsher gun control laws.

Ever since I was young, I was appalled by the fact that people were allowed to have guns. In my mind, why would people even want to have something that's sole purpose was to cause harm? My 8-year-old self silently vowed that when she would become President, she would ban all guns everywhere, so no one could cause harm to one another. As I got older (and more mature), I realized that my proposal was impractical, but I still hold onto the core principles of my belief: not everyone should own a gun.

Whenever I bring up the topic of imposing stricter gun control laws, people immediately pounce on me by stating something like this: “It's in our Constitution." "Our founding fathers put it in there for a reason." "The Second Amendment lets me own guns." "You're not a real American." Whoa, cowboy, slow down. To me, being American is following your dreams and having enviable liberties. However, no liberty is absolute. Rules and laws based on absolutes never do too well in any society. Sure, we have Freedom of Speech, but that doesn't cover you in court when you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, while I am not in favor of an outright ban of guns, I am in favor of very strict gun control laws. In fact, as recent as a month ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry concealed guns, and the California law actually requires applicants to demonstrate a “good cause” to carry a weapon, such as working in a job with a security threat.

Still, many gun rights advocates reason, “Guns are needed for self-defense, so by taking them away, you’re basically leaving people helpless.” This is highly misleading; guns are rarely used for self-defense, and the numbers will surprise you. According to the Bureau of Justice, of all the violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, not even a mere 1% of people protected themselves with the threat or use of a gun. To further my point, the threat or use of guns are least employed method of protection. Simply put, guns are used more often to cause violent crimes rather than save someone from it.

Gun proponents then fire their last argument in their arsenal: “It doesn’t matter if people can’t use it for self-defense. What if a gunman was to commit a mass shooting right here, right now? By allowing normal people like me to carry arms, forget about self-defense - I could save all of us!” *sigh* Once again, completely false. This type of thinking is only practical in a perfect Utopian world, where unicorns exist and everyone is greeted with glitter bombs. According to the non-profit Mother Jones, NONE of the mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 was stopped by an armed civilian. That’s 62 mass shootings in 30 years and too many lives lost to count - and not one armed civilian stopped it. If that’s not bad enough, armed civilians are actually more likely to make dangerous situations more deadly. Jeffrey Voccola, Assistant Professor of Writing at Kutztown University, notes, "The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation."

So what now? Hopefully, I’ve convinced you that guns are harmful for everyone, and if you still want to sleep with your firearm under your pillow, to each their own. But just like many Americans, I know that the path to better Saturday mornings (where you really can start your day off with a funny cat video) will only come with stricter gun control laws. So pull the trigger on guns.

What Baby will You Have-- Gucci, Prada, or Dior?

Sure, we've all heard about the 1% products: designer handbags, designer shades, designer jewelry, and those designer shoes. But what about a designer baby? According to the Embryo Project, a designer baby is a baby genetically engineered in vitro for specially selected traits, like gender and abilities. "In vitro", in Latin, is literally "in glass", which means that for designer babies, their fertilization occurs in a test tube- once their traits have been determined. The term was coined in the early 2000's, and in 2004 got an entry in the Oxford Dictionary. I strongly believe for an infinite number of reasons, that families should not opt for a designer baby.

A legal change is needed now more than ever. The root of the problem is when parents get to choose exactly what they want in their children, no problems, nothing they don't want, just perfect little China dolls they call their family. Designer parents can choose everything - including eye color, hair color, academic ability, strength; you name it. According to actionbioscience.org, a long term problem of designing babies lies in societies in which one gender or other important characteristic is favored over the other. In countries such as China and India where boys are favored over girls, this technology could be used so that every set of parents that wants a baby boy will get one. However, that is not evolutionarily favorable. If a generation of only boys were to be made, the human race would be eradicated. Not only this, we are increasing the gap between rich and impoverished. Like those designer jeans, designer babies cost some cash. Therefore, either you're rich and perfect, or your poor with "undesirable" traits. This will significantly reduce your chances at a higher education, career, and beyond. And why? Because your parents didn't have the money to make you a Barbie Doll.

Let me back you up on the numbers: According to healthline.com, having a perfect child can cost you from $50,000 to $120,000 which is almost 3 times what the average U.S. family makes in an entire year. This goes to further prove my point on how the rich would lead a much better life than the poor. The New York University School of Medicine states that in a survey of 1,000 people who sought genetic counseling, 10% of respondents said they would want genetic testing for athletic ability, while another 10% voted for improved height, 13% backed the approach to select for superior intelligence, and another 13% wanted to choose their children's gender. Altogether, this is already almost half of the population who want to alter their kids' true potential talent into what they believe is best for them without even giving them a chance to breathe - literally.

Imagine what this would look like in 25 years, if we allowed designer babies. You have always been a hard worker, ever since you were born, all through freshman year of high school. You never gave up, turned on your homework on time, were a pleasure to have in class. Your 1st semester grade comes in...a C. You figure out that all of the scores have been scaled by percentile, so all of the designer babies set up for academic success have the Ivy's lining up, but you just lost your chance. Not to worry, basketball tryouts are after school, you can probably get a scholarship for your real talent, right? Think again. The kids who are coded to be Michael Jordan's beat you in every single layup, even though you are trying so much harder than them. You somehow make it to the workforce and decide to get a job. Unfortunately, your designer baby friends are there too. You have a 10% chance of cancer, eyeglasses, and stage fright. Your designer babies have none, so consider yourself unemployed. So you basically lost your entire life because your parents didn't have $75,000 lying around 20 years ago. See what I mean? Our gap would be unthinkable. America prides itself on equal opportunities, so there is absolutely no reason to go ahead with designer babies.

We need to make a change now before it gets worse. We try to teach kids that you have to accept yourself the way you are and you were born that way for a reason. That reason should not be because your Bill Gates parents designed you that way! The cost is sky-high so only the rich can afford, and ruins many normal people's chances at life itself. Join me now in stopping this outrage, and feel proud for who you really are, not who your parents want you to be. Don't let us determine our talent, but let our talent determine us.

The War on Bullying

You thought you were strong, you thought that you could handle the battle. Each bullet you had was courage, each spear good will. You thought you would win, leave victorious, walk out with a smile; but you never know how large a war was until you count the losses.

Bullying has become an undeniable issue the world needs to combat more than ever, yet we still believe that is a nonexistent struggle. The preliminary fires are shot; the name-calling, the teasing, the pointing and laughing. Your breastplate of bravery takes the shock, and you march on, feeling a little shaken, but still with a goal. The other side recruits more people who you thought were on yours, and as you look around, the ones you thought would stand up for you have left. The harsh words pierce through your armor, biting and nipping at you, until it extrapolates into a full scale battle-- them against you. No one is on your side now, and your armor of justice has been stripped off. Your helmet of knowledge is shot down, affecting your ability to think. You've lost your bullets and spears now, and you're standing defenseless, almost planning your death day. You feel weak and numb, and call for help, but your pleas go unheard. The people you thought you could trust-- parents, mentors, teachers, wave it off and silently cheer the other side on. Each picture, text, kick, punch, pitches in to your demise. You shrivel up under the heat of oppression, and the bullets keep firing. You didn't do anything wrong, yet what did you do to deserve this? You see the blood flowing out now, flooding the battlefield you thought was a safe place to be. You've bended and you're reaching your breaking point now, and every day you go back to fight this constant struggle. How can you fight a war you know you're going to lose? You drag on for months, trying not to let it consume you, but it does. The final blow pierces your heart and you collapse. No one seems to notice.

According to a 2014 UCLA Study on Psychology, over 75% of teens in the US alone have experienced some type of bullying at school. Since when has a safe learning environment turned into a place of hatred and fear? These teens are fighting a battle they never signed up for, they are the victims of their own war every day. Bully victims are between 4 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims, Yale University states. And to go further, a quarter of a million  kids stay home from school every day from fear of bullying. Ceasefire attempts never set foot, and the weapons are relentless. The battle gear we want our future generations to have-- justice, goodwill, knowledge, and courage, have been snatched from these victims and yet we blame them for taking it seriously. But for how long can we ignore this war?

These innocent people need our help, and they need it now, America. Denial or ignorance only worsens the issue at hand, and we can't afford it at this point. These teens had successful lives ahead of them-- future Steve Jobs and Hillary Clintons. They cut their lives short when the war wouldn't end, and when their own weapons of respect and dignity were taken from them. For far too long, the numbers have been escalating, and we are sitting here shrugging it off and telling people to get over it. Light the way for those in the dark, speak up for those who have been silenced, and fight the war for those who feel like they've lost.

Pass the Potato Chips, Please

Potato chips, candy bars, ice cream and more. The first things you think of when you hear junk food. For the purposes of our debate, however, allow me to define junk food as food that has comparably low nutritional value, and a public school as a school that is funded by a local government. The debate should focus on the presence of junk food in public schools through forms of vending machines, lunches, etc. and not on the marketing aspect of it. The debate is not about limiting or placing restrictions on these foods, but an absolute banning of it. Junk foods have been on the debating table for ages now, and it is high time that we come to our senses and keep these foods in public schools.

First of all, schools should mirror the real world, and teach a student important skills like decision-making. According to NBC News, over half of the parents who sent their children to public schools felt that it was not preparing them for reality. It is inevitable for people to make choices regarding food and health in the future outside of school, and we need to provide a similar environment for kids in schools. To be clear, I am not particularly endorsing junk food, rather, I am supporting freedom of choice. Similar to how students make elective choices with parental influence, there is every reason for it to be the same for food selections. According to Gallup.com, which has conducting  several surveys on this topic states, "Americans broadly support the proposed regulations that would not ban school junk food sales outright, but would somehow limit the number that fail to meet federal nutritional guidelines." It should be crystal clear now that having junk food in schools is a must to teach future generations the value of their decisions.

Moreover, healthy food is considerably more expensive than junk food. According to a 2014 study by Cambridge University, "Eating health costs more than three times as much as consuming unhealthy food, and the price gap in widening." And while some may believe that the majority can afford this, I will reassure you that this is not the case.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, "In 2013, the official poverty rate was 14.5%, or about 45 million Americans." And out of these 45 million Americans that went to school, all of them attended a public school in lieu of a private school, the National Center of Education observed. They also found out that over 70% of impoverished Americans attending a public school bought their lunches from the school. When we simply get rid of all junk food, we are directly making it harder for impoverished families to afford expensive and healthy meals. For a student coming from a struggling family, the cost will triple, making it not worth the precious money, and they are left with no other alternative but to not buy the food on a regular basis. To go further, The Food Effect stated that hunger will result in a significant decrease in academic performance. We cannot ignore these numbers and the direct effect they will have on many Americans.

Not only this, junk food profits help out many public schools, who are in need of all the money they can get, and banning junk food could have serious ramifications. For the Southern Berkshire Regional Schools, junk food is no longer sold. However, the School Committee is reconsidering this decision. For the district, junk food had produced an average profit margin of 70%, 50% more than the margin on healthy foods. According to Southern Berkshire Regional, the number of meals served per day has dropped almost 100 meals a day, after the ban. Their deficit has doubled and would require an increase in the lunch price, and a reduction in cafeteria staffing. For example, sodas make a lot of cash for public school. In 2005, according Pediatrics Digest, nearly half of all public elementary schools and about 80 percent of public middle and high schools operated under pouring rights contracts, which meant they had an exclusive contract with a soda company. A Rockford, Illinois describes their contract with Coca-Cola: "Under the existing 10-year contract, Coca-Cola has paid the district $4 million upfront and an additional $350,000 a year to sell its beverages in schools. The annual payments have funded field trips, gym uniforms, SMART Boards and other frills that individual school budgets may not otherwise have afforded." These sales have allowed schools to refine their programs, which would have been impossible without junk food.

In conclusion, it has become a must to keep junk food in public schools. Countless studies and polls have proven that keeping food selections varied teaches future generations important decision-making skills which they will need for the real world. Additionally, many Americans cannot afford an expensive and healthy lifestyle, and in order to get any food at all, they resort to junk food. Lastly, junk food sales can actually help schools in need of the extra cash. From the above evidence, it is obvious that the incontrovertible arguments for junk food will outweigh any from the opposition. It's very simple: A lack of junk food in schools lacks validity.