DIGITAL INDIA: GROWTH AND CHALLENGES OF INDIA’S TECHNOLOGICAL BOOM

IMG_4270

by Pankhuri Prasad
Staff Writer

On Oct. 3, 2018, UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy (GPS) hosted “Digital India: Opportunities and Challenges,” the latest event in a series celebrating the thirty-year anniversary of GPS. From Oct. 2018 through Aug. 2019, there will be events and activities to commemorate the accomplishments of GPS. These are designed to spark informative and meaningful conversations. A critical theme of the series is the fusion of technology and policy in the 21st Century, which was explored extensively at the “Digital India” event.

The event centered around a talk by Aruna Sundararajan, Secretary of the Indian Department of Telecommunications and Pacific Leadership Fellow. Sundararajan is a distinguished public servant with over three decades of experience in the telecom field. She talked about the current government’s ambitious project, “Digital India” which spans three fronts—services, infrastructure and public empowerment.

Sundararajan addressed the many public policy difficulties this project has brought upon India, which still faces the challenge of providing two-thirds of the population with access to the internet. Over the past two years, the telecom industry has transformed completely. With the emergence of new providers and competitive pricing, one can get two gigabytes of high-speed internet per day for as little as $3.50 a month. This means millions of Indians now suddenly have access to the internet and this has had a far-reaching impact. Many new businesses have emerged such as ride-sharing taxis, digital wallets and e-commerce portals. As a result of the project, increased social media use has led to direct, effective political interactions where you can see top government officials responding to complaints by citizens over Twitter. The process of digitization has been fast paced primarily due to “IndiaStack,” a set of standardized digital tools which allow governments, businesses and developers to utilize a unique digital infrastructure to solve one of India’s biggest problems—inefficiency. Something as basic as opening a bank account or renewing a driver’s license used to take months due to a combination of inflexible rules and archaic data collection methods. IndiaStack changed the status quo by utilizing internet access to provide software tools for paperless, cashless and digital service delivery.

According to Sundararajan, the process of digitizing India is unique because of the unprecedented aspirations attached to it. As a result, 1.3 billion people now feel they will be able to use the internet to change their lives for the better. Even a small business in a remote part of the country suddenly has the chance to make it big. However, it is important to remember that digitization, with all the great potential and ideas attached to it, has a dark side as well. Many Indians are resistant to the changes brought up by digitization. Traditional taxi drivers have engaged in violent attacks on drivers from Uber and other ride-share services. The government faces a massive challenge of curbing the spread of false information and its repercussions. Unsubstantiated information circulating over social media, such as allegations of child kidnappings, have led to incidents where mobs of people have lynched those accused to death.

The talk concluded with the speaker reiterating the need to promote innovation and manufacturing in order to sustain India’s growing digital-telecom appetite. Policy makers must account for factors such as cyber security, the spread of false information and the role of social media as they legislate on digital regulations. Access to internet and telecom services may have seemed like a luxury at first but it is now a necessity, if not a right, for people across the world. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from India’s story—a country with over 1.3 billion people and an intricate socio-economic setup. Increased government effort in actively digitizing all government services has been a major catalyst in changing India. Amid growing public concern about data privacy and mass surveillance, the talk was helpful in providing an insider’s knowledge about the evolution of India’s telecom sector.

Picture Reference: Digital India: Opportunities and Challenges. School of Global Policy and Strategy at UCSD, 2018.

PORTUGAL, U.S. AND MEXICO: LESSONS FROM DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION (PART TWO)

by Mekalyn Rose
Editor in Chief

This is the second article of a two part series discussing drug decriminalization and its implications for Portugal, the United States and Mexico. Part One can be found here: https://prospectjournal.org/2018/06/15/portugal-u-s-and-mexico-lessons-from-drug-decriminalization/

Portugal’s [decriminalization] methods are drastically different from the increasingly strengthened War on Drugs in the United States, where over half a million people die from prescribed, legal and illicit drugs combined every year. The question is, if Portugal has been so successful in combating their own drug epidemic with these methods, why has the United States been so slow––even resistant––to follow suit?

It’s a simple question with a complex answer. Understanding current U.S. motivations behind domestic drug policy warrants taking a look at why it all started.

On the surface, draconian style laws in the United States in regards to the War on Drugs seem to boast a noble mission of promoting widespread health and eliminating crime. However, the historical underbelly of drug policy reveals highly political and racial motivations for the enactment of laws. Today, the United States faces a raging opioid epidemic with an unsustainable influx of incarceration, which points to one key point: something isn’t working. In order to move forward in molding policies that do work, it’s important to recognize how we got here and what went wrong.

The Road to Radicalization: Origins of Drug Policies

The first push against drugs in the United States came in 1875. Shortly after the arrival of male Chinese workers during the mid-nineteenth century, San Francisco passed a law against smoking opium. In 1909, the Anti-Opium Act made it a federal offense. These laws did not apply to the alternative method of injecting opiates, more commonly practiced by Whites; rather, they targeted a particularly Chinese practice. This was fueled by both the perceived threat to white male workers” during a work shortage, as well as stories published as part of a fear campaign emphasizing the “Yellow Peril” led by William Randolph Hearst which “[claimed] white women were being seduced by Chinese men in the opium dens.”

Laws pertaining to cocaine use took a similar route of reasoning. In the late 1800s, cocaine was introduced to Black communities as dockworkers first used it to withstand up to seventy hour stretches of work before this method of coping was also adopted on the plantations. Many of the crimes committed by Black people in the South were subsequently blamed on cocaine addiction. In 1914, The New York Times published an article titled “Negro Cocaine ‘Fiends’ Are a New Southern Menace.” This article included the idea that heavier artillery was needed to take down a “cocaine-crazed negro,” further inciting racialized fear.

Twenty years later, new drug policies were directed towards Mexicans. Similarly to perceptions of cocaine effects, marijuana was claimed to give Mexicans “enormous strength” and that it would “take several men to handle one man,” statements left unsupported by any noteworthy evidence. Nevertheless, The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 prohibited its use or sale as a method of controlling the surge of immigrants following the Mexican Revolution, who were accustomed to using it as a medicinal plant.

Fast forward to the 1970s and marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, but for an entirely different reason. In 1994, John Ehrlichman––the former domestic policy advisor under President Nixon––admitted in an interview that the War on Drugs, which was speed-rolled during Nixon’s presidency in the ‘70s, was politically motivated against Nixon’s antiwar and Black opponents.

We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.

It would seem that the debate of whether or not to reexamine our drug laws would end there, as history has reflected “how deeply embedded drugs are in our cultural frame of reference, the background ‘unconscious’ of our society where reactions are formed prior to conscious reflection.” However, both the cultural stigma against illicit drugs and political motivations continue to release a message of drug demonization and prohibition that constitutes an ideology the United States attempts to force onto its citizens and allies.

The Costs of Suppression and Regulation

Mexican President Vicente Fox has discussed the failed War on Drugs and U.S. denial of its own mistakes within a prohibitionist past, calling for a new paradigm. Ironically enough, the effort to curb illegal drug use turned out to be the very catalyst to create a breeding ground for drug trafficking. It wasn’t until after opiates, cocaine and marijuana were criminalized within the United States that the lucrative drug trade “materialized south of the U.S.-Mexico border.” Today, the United States faces a daunting realization. Almost half a century since Richard Nixon declared a War on Drugs and nearly one trillion government dollars have been spent, efforts have adversely culminated into the antithesis of the “Land of the Free” with an estimated 450,000 people incarcerated for drug related offenses in 2016, compared to around 40,900 prisoners in 1980.

Notably, when it comes to marijuana, public opinion has begun to shift. Nine states and Washington D.C. have legalized both recreational and medical cannabis use and research on health benefits have produced many positive results. Despite this progress, the conversation of legalization, let alone decriminalization, usually doesn’t apply to other drugs and the legalization of cannabis––especially in California––has had an unintended consequence for the drug trade coming out of Mexico. Illegal substances create a market and cannabis is no longer profitable, at least not for the cartels. Now, heroin is the new market and U.S. pharmaceutical companies are partly to blame.

The current opioid epidemic can be traced back to a public health system saturated with the very substance that incited the original drug laws: opioids. The United States has a “pain” problem. In 2015, it was reported that around 92 million people, or 38% of the U.S. population, took a prescribed opioid painkiller. Despite a lack of pain reported in the last couple of decades, “sales of prescription opioids in the United States nearly quadrupled from 1999 to 2014.” While painkillers like OxyContin and Vicodin have proven highly effective in treating pain, their abuse potential is significant. Around 4-6% of people who misuse their prescriptions turn to heroin, which happens to be a “cheaper and more powerful” alternative.

Questioning Current Approaches to Drug Policy

So, what do these changes reveal about current approaches? Will there always be another drug exploited to profit off the masses? History will indicate yes, unless society forgoes the fear and taboo of illicit drugs long enough to discuss honestly the realities of human culture and address the issue of drugs as a whole. Drugs have always been incorporated into human society and it is unrealistic to push a goal of complete eradication, nor is it always straightforward to define the line between safe drugs and dangerous ones. Anything used beyond the scope of necessity increases risk, as the abuse of opioid prescriptions indicates.

There is also no proof that the decriminalization policies used in Portugal will provide the United States with the same positive results. Some counter arguments cite the massive size difference in population and the cyclical nature of drug epidemics that cannot be helped by policy. However, it is maintained that “much of the American approach to drug policy is based on speculation, fear-mongering, and outdated methodologies and ideologies, instead of the empirical evidence that allowed the Portuguese task force to focus on specifics of poverty.” Today, there is growing support for decriminalization, backed by both the United Nations and World Health Organization.

Finally, the question remains why the United States has appeared resistant to change. Among several possible reasons, propagandist belief systems have shaped our perspective and knowledge of drugs, private prisons profit off drug crime, pharmaceutical companies benefit from addiction and language such as “druggie” and “junkie” continue to promote the dehumanization of people seeking help. A culture of shame replaced by a society of well-being would alter the label of “criminal” to “ill,” provide greater avenues for seeking help, allow for valuable medical testing and free up law enforcement to focus on bigger issues and improve their relationship with communities. Like Portugal in the 1980s, the United States is reaching a point of desperation. The rate of change is dependent upon our willingness to question the foundation of our current viewpoints and how to implement laws or strategies founded on principles of health and public good instead of racial or political underpinnings. Perhaps then the focus will be less on the thickness of physical chains and more on the alleviation of psychological ones on the road to healing.

 

Image by Anne Worner

SILICON VALLEY’S CHINA PARADOX: EVENT SUMMARY

11702702564_1fc3c669ba_z

by Bailey Marsheck
Staff Writer

GPS 21st Century China Center Event
Feb 2, 2018

Washington, D.C.’s preeminent role in American diplomacy often obscures the importance of another power nexus of the Sino-American relationship: Silicon Valley. Yet the technology ecosystems in China and Silicon Valley are strongly connected and interdependent, with funding, ideas and top talent continuously circulating between the two. In his talk titled “Silicon Valley’s China Paradox” at the UCSD School of Global Policy and Strategy, former Huffington Post reporter and Paulson Institute fellow Matt Sheehan outlined the key linkages between the two dominant tech hubs. He also emphasized the relationship’s great paradox: While money and employees navigate the oceanic divide with relative ease, the major tech companies fail in their attempts to cross over between markets. Working in China as a reporter for HuffPost before returning to his native Bay Area, Sheehan’s experience in the two tech hubs lends him an insider’s perspective on the complicated dynamics at play. He shared some of his analysis and personal experiences with the GPS audience.

A popular view taken by scholars of US-China “great power relations” is that American geopolitical dominance is shrinking as China’s rapid development brings the two states closer to parity. Sheehan’s talk demonstrated how the Silicon Valley-Beijing tech relationship closely mirrors Washington-Beijing political ties in this regard. In the 1990’s when the internet was being popularized in the US, China was still an economic and technological backwater. Yet it didn’t remain one for long. While America’s PPP GDP was 5 times greater than China’s GDP in 1991, today China’s PPP GDP has overtaken America’s.

Silicon Valley companies and entrepreneurs played a large role in the origins of the Chinese tech scene. China’s first internet connection was established in 1994 through a partnership between the Institute of High Energy Physics at China’s Academy of Sciences and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Endowed with better education and superior technology, opportunistic expats arrived in China during the dot-com boom to monetize their expertise. As America’s tech obsession caught on in China, the rise of homegrown Chinese tech companies ushered in a more competitive era in the US-China tech relationship. Unable to compete with American technology from Yahoo and Google, new early-2000’s players like Alibaba and Baidu nevertheless dominated market share by copying technology and better adapting services to target Chinese consumers. While Chinese tech today has outgrown its infancy to reach near-parity with Silicon Valley in terms of talent, money and creativity, the narrative of copycat China has endured.

21222824740_929aeb96ed_z

Sheehan identified artificial intelligence and emerging internet markets as the arenas of US-China tech competition moving forward. While Silicon Valley retains the most innovative and top-class researchers, it must contend with China’s sizeable government subsidies of tech research and the sheer volume of Chinese researchers. Simultaneously, investments and employees cross between markets seeking the greatest returns. But companies like Facebook and Google remain conspicuously blocked or absent in China while China’s Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent (BAT) have failed in their attempts to attract the American consumer.

I believe the importance of the Silicon Valley-China tech relationship is greatly underestimated in the International Affairs community. This belief is informed by my childhood in the Bay Area and a few months last year spent working in Washington, D.C. Growing up, I experienced a Silicon Valley bubble where Oval Office decisions were overshadowed by the happenings in offices of tech CEOs. Washington lent little weight to the business affairs of Silicon Valley in return. While countless analysts build their careers on the back of US-China diplomatic relations, few study China’s tech connection with Silicon Valley outside of the business world or niches within the national security community. An full understanding of Sino-American relations is incomplete without an increased focus on the Silicon Valley-China tech relationship.

Images by:
Nicolas Raymond
Nagarjun Kandukuru