The Washington Post - 01.08.2019

THURSDAY, AUGUST 1 , 2019. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ M2 A21

BY NADIA MURAD

F

ive years ago, Islamic State fighters invaded my ancestral homeland of Sinjar, Iraq, and waged a systematic ethnic- cleansing campaign against the Yazidi community. Their campaign included mass executions, forced religious con- versions and widespread sexual violence. These attacks resulted in the massacre of Yazidi men, women and children; the enslavement of nearly 7,000 Yazidis; and displacement of more than 400,000 Yazidis to camps in northern Iraq. But that was not the end of our suffering. As Sheri P. Rosenberg ob- served in a 2012 article, genocide is a process, not an event. The continued suffering, fear and uncertainty in the Yazidi community show that the genocide process is ongoing. About 350,000 Yazidis remain trapped in camps in northern Iraq. Yazidis in these camps live in weather-worn tents without adequate access to food, water, electricity, education or opportunities to work. They also lack basic health care, including psychological support to aid in trauma recovery. An estimated 3,000 abducted Yazidi women and children are still missing, with fears that some might have been sold to al-Qaeda affiliates — women and girls to be sex slaves, boys to be trained as fighters. Others may have been forcibly relocated to cities in other countries or have become collateral damage in military offensives in the region. Though thousands of Yazidis have sought asylum in Europe and elsewhere, foreign governments are approving fewer and fewer asylum claims, making it more difficult for Yazidis to seek safety. But the Yazidi people are not without hope. We want justice, we want to rebuild, and we want to go home — but we cannot do so without support. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Yazidi genocide on Aug. 3, I call on the international community to undertake concrete actions to support the repatri- ation of Yazidis. In my recent speech at the State Department’s Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, I outlined the neces- sary steps for the successful return and rehabilitation of the Yazidi community. These include resolving Sinjar’s local governance issues, investing in long- term sustainable development initia- tives, recruiting Yazidis into Iraq’s offi- cial security forces and prosecuting the Islamic State for war crimes. These steps are not only crucial to helping the Yazid- is recover from the genocide but can also promote the rebuilding of trust among the different communities in Iraq, ulti- mately supporting the process of peace and reconciliation in the region.

While we estimate that 80,000 Yazid- is have returned to Sinjar, local con- flicts complicate survival. The Islamic State’s collapse created a power vacu- um, opening the door for competing groups that occupy some portion of Sinjar but do not have complete con- trol. The situation is further complicat- ed because of disagreements between Baghdad and Irbil over governance and security in Sinjar. The Yazidi people cannot return to their homeland when security risks remain high. They must be given a voice, both in governance and over security decisions. As factions vie for strategic domi- nance, our community also suffers from a lack of infrastructure. Invest- ment in sustainable development ini- tiatives in the Yazidi homeland is vital. Funds are needed for rebuilding homes and public facilities, such as hospitals and schools. According to the United Nations Development Program’s Fund- ing Facility for Stabilization 2018 Q3 Report, more than 90 percent of recovery projects in the region are underfunded, and the funding has de- creased by 41 percent since 2017. The UNDP identifies this gap as the most significant challenge to stabilizing the area, and international support is crucial for meeting these needs. Finally, the Yazidi people deserve justice for the atrocities committed against them. This year, Sweden called for support from European allies to establish an international Iraq-based war crimes tribunal, modeled after the International Criminal Tribunals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, to prosecute Islamic State fighters. The Syrian Accountability Project’s Report on the Yazidi Genocide recommends an international effort to preserve the physical evidence of Islamic State crimes, including archival documentation of Yazidi survivors and their stories and protection of forensic evidence such as mass graves. Moreover, the international community can help the Iraqi government locate the still missing Yazidis or record their fate. Until the full scope of Islamic State crimes are unearthed and justice is delivered, our people will continue to suffer. The international community fought to defeat the Islamic State — but the job is not done. Abandoning the Yazidis to a war-torn land and uncer- tain future allows the seeds of further violence to take root. If the international community refuses to exchange platitudes for swift action, the Islamic State’s genocidal campaign against Yazidis will prevail.

The writer is a Yazidi activist and president of Nadia’s Initiative, an organization advocating for survivors of genocide and sexual violence. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018.

The genocide against

the Yazidi continues

W

atching Democratic presidential aspirants is like watching, a century ago, the 1919 World Series, when dis- cerning spectators thought: Some of the White Sox are trying to lose. Michael Boskin, chairman of President George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advis- ers and currently at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, pays the Democrats the inju- rious compliment of taking seriously their aspirations, which are character- ized by a disqualifying flippancy. For example: Medicare-for-all is popular (when de- priving 217 million people of their private insurance goes unmentioned) because, Boskin notes, under Medicare today, “most of its costs are paid by taxpayers, not the beneficiaries themselves. But if it covers everybody, there will be no one outside the system to subsidize the recip- ients.” This will mean “much larger, politically determined taxes and cross subsidies,” and rationing of health care as in Canada and Europe, “where long waits are the rule.” Sen. Bernie Sanders’s plan promises no co-pays, no deductibles and no premiums, so pricing medical care at zero will produce a surge in demand for services from a Medicare system that already “faces unfunded liabilities more than twice the national debt” ($22 trillion). And the Part A Hospital Insurance Fund “won’t be able to pay all its bills in a few years.” And: “Current Medicare, with its low reim- bursement rates, would be unsustain- able without the large role played by the higher-paying private (primarily em- ployer-based) plans in keeping doctors and hospitals in business.” Democratic promises include a $1,000-per-month universal basic income, $1,000 “baby bonds” for every newborn, plus up to $2,000 per year until non-wealthy babies are 18, free universal preschool and community college (perhaps four-year colleges, too), expanded child-care subsidies, rent subsidies (which will increase demand for, thereby increasing the cost of, rental units), complete forgiveness of $1.6 trillion of student debt, and on and on. Boskin notes that the Social Security 2100 Act, which has 210 Democratic co-sponsors, would pay for the largest benefits expansion since 1972 by raising the payroll tax almost 20 percent to 14.8 percent, and uncapping the maxi- mum earnings subject to the tax. Then add the promised 70 percent top income tax rate, a 3 percent wealth tax, a finan- cial transactions tax, a one-third increase in the corporate rate and increased taxa- tion of capital gains. Boskin says the 70 percent rate, “an average 7 percent top state personal tax rate” and the 14.8 percent payroll tax by themselves would mean “a 91.8 percent marginal tax rate.” And even this would not come close to paying for the Democrats’ promised spending explosion. Being scientifically as well as numeri- cally illiterate, some Democratic candidates have embraced the Green New Deal’s promise to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from American agricul- ture, which is essential to feeding the world’s 7.5 billion people. Boskin says this: Fossil fuels are essential to tillage, transportation, grain drying, manufac- turing fertilizer, pesticides, farm equip- ment and farm electricity. Fertilizers increase U.S. wheat and corn yields 70 percent and more than 100 percent, respectively. President George W. Bush’s greatly increased ethanol mandates for vehicle fuels caused a decline in food crop acreage, which caused a 20 to 40 percent increase in corn prices, which increased hunger in corn-importing countries (e.g., Mexico, Egypt and in sub-Saharan Africa). Various candidates have embraced the Green New Deal’s “aspirational” objec- tive of making America’s approximately 100 million buildings fully energy- efficient in 10 years. Boskin: “That would require retrofitting well over 4,000 buildings an hour for 12 years (almost 2,000 per hour for 15 years for Joe Biden’s ‘retrofit 50 percent’ plan).” However, “just installing solar in a typical home takes two to three months on average.” The “party of science,” as Democrats advertise themselves, is not the party of arithmetic. Many Democrats, however, think budgetary arithmetic has been rendered irrelevant by “modern mon- etary theory,” which says: A government that controls its money supply need never run short of it, and spending can substantially surpass government revenue as long as interest rates remain low. So, government, especially if it can strongly influence interest rates, is largely liberated from the essence of the human condition: scarcity. Hence, every- thing is affordable. Republicans ridicule this while practicing it. The recent bipar- tisan budget deal increases spending $320 billion over two years, which USA Today notes is, on an annualized basis, much bigger than President Barack Obama’s 10-year stimulus package of about $800 billion. Perhaps 2019 is 1919 with both parties being the White Sox, some of whom tried to lose that year’s World Series, and did. Unfortunately, in 2020, both parties cannot succeed at failing. [email protected]

GEORGE F. WILL

The

Democrats

and the 1919

World Series

J

oe Biden was good enough. And that, in itself, was a victory. His fellow Democrats began at- tacking him in the very first minute of Wednesday night’s debate, and they didn’t stop. They attacked him on health care. They attacked him on immigration. They attacked him on crime. They attacked him on inequality, race, climate change, trade, equality, abortion and Iraq. And Biden was... perfectly adequate. He wasn’t the most eloquent or stylish debater on the stage. He struggled to find words at times, he seemed over- rehearsed, he seemed not to grasp how texting works (“Go to Joe 30330”), he cut himself off when his allotted time expired and, at times, he seemed stunned by the ferocity of the barrage — which, in fair- ness, was stunning. But in contrast to his lifeless performance at the first debate, Biden was ener- getic and prepared. He returned fire with fire and, for the most part, he held his own. He worked in his trademark folksiness — “this idea is a bunch of malarkey,” “every- thing landed on the president’s desk but locusts” — and parried the constant chal- lenges with a calm “the fact is” or “the fact of the matter is.” He defended the Obama administration’s record, even when un- popular in the room, and he gave nearly as good as he got. His performance was, in short, unex-

ceptional but sufficient. There was little to alter the dynamics of the race, in which Biden has a commanding lead. If any- thing, Biden could benefit from some sympathy from voters, who may well per- ceive his rivals as unfairly ganging up to take cheap shots at the front-runner — and at President Barack Obama. Kamala Harris, Bill de Blasio, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand seemed particularly opportunistic in their attacks, and sometimes nasty. For Biden, it was likely yet another instance of failing upward. He ran two unsuccessful presidential campaigns; he was rewarded with the vice presidency. He began the 2020 campaign as the consensus front-runner. Then he went through endless trouble — over his too- affectionate behavior toward women, a non-apology to Anita Hill, a Hyde Amend- ment flip-flop, a plagiarized climate plan, his praise of segregationists, a lackluster debate performance, his past opposition to busing, as well as staff turmoil and turnover. The result? Biden remains the clear front-runner. Perhaps even more so. A Quinnipiac University poll this week found him getting 34 percent support among Democrats, 19 points ahead of his nearest rival. His lead is even greater than it was before he announced his candidacy in April.

Biden’s triumph over mediocrity has a ready explanation. Correctly or not, voters believe this nonthreatening old white guy of moderate leanings is the one to beat President Trump. In the Quinnipiac poll, fully 51 percent of Democrats said that Biden has the best chance of doing so. On Wednesday, Biden trotted onstage and joked to Harris: “Go easy on me, kid.” But that wasn’t in the cards. De Blasio, the mayor of New York, used part of his opening statement to attack Biden and his “wealthy donors.” Soon after, Harris was telling him “you don’t know what you’re saying” on health care. Later came Julián Castro scolding him on immigration: “One of us learned from the problems of the past, one of us hasn’t.” Booker taunted the front-runner: “You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don’t even know the flavor.” For more than two hours, Biden parried the unrelenting attacks. To Harris: “You can’t beat Donald Trump with double talk.” To de Blasio: “To compare [Obama] to Donald Trump, I think, is absolutely bi- zarre.” To Castro: “I have guts enough to say his plan doesn’t make sense.” To Jay Inslee: “We have to walk and chew gum at the same time.” His rejoinders were of varying quality, but Biden accomplished important

things: While others attacked him, he repeatedly returned the focus to Trump, he stuck to his moderate positions, and he tied himself closely to Obama. “Everybody is talking about how terrible I am on these issues,” he said. “Barack Obama knew exactly who I was... He chose me, and he said it was the best decision he made.” The attacks continued. Gillibrand brought up an old article in which, she said, Biden had disparaged working women. Biden reminded the New York senator of the many times she has praised his record on women and said: “I don’t know what’s happened except that you’re now running for president.” After one of several attacks by an inces- santly nasty de Blasio — the former vice president smiled and said: “I love your affection for me. You spend a lot of time with me.” De Blasio, who declared “victory” because Biden had changed the position he held on the North American Free Trade Agreement 25 years ago, replied: “We believe in redemption in this party.” “Well,” Biden said dryly, “I hope you’re part of it.” Not a bad line — on not a bad night for Biden. In fact, it was brilliantly and glori- ously acceptable. This columnist’s wife, Anna Greenberg, works for John Hickenlooper, a Democrat- ic presidential candidate. Twitter: @Milbank

DANA MILBANK

Joe Biden was adequate. That’s a victory.

BY ALLEN L. AULT

I

f the Trump administration moves forward with its plan to carry out five executions in barely a one-month span, it will leave behind a fresh trail of victims, largely hidden from public view. These are the correctional staff harmed by the execution process. I know from firsthand experiences, su- pervising executions as a state director of corrections, that the damage executions inflict on correctional staff is deep and far-ranging. Carrying out an execution can take a severe toll on the well-being of those involved. A 2016 documentary, “There Will Be No Stay,” effectively portrays the trauma experienced by correctional staff tasked with carrying out executions in Texas, South Carolina and Georgia. Execution team members experienced acute post-traumat- ic stress disorder. One described how his symptoms included seeing “faces of the people he executed in reoccurring night- mares.” Others suffered from similar night- mares, insomnia and addiction. Some were so severely traumatized that they are still not functional enough for employment or to maintain marital relationships. Psychologists have described the impact of executions on correctional staff as similar to that suffered by battlefield veterans. But in my military experience, there was one major difference: The enemy was an anonymous, armed combatant who was threatening my life. In an execution, the condemned prisoner is a known human being who is totally defenseless when brought into the death chamber. Staff members know that he has been secured safely for many years before his execution and poses no threat to them personally. It is not just the members of the execution team who experience feelings of guilt, shame and mental torment. The trauma extends through the many correctional staff who interact every day with death row prisoners, often forming meaningful

bonds over the course of many years and, in many cases, witnessing their changed mind-set and profound remorse. In my experience, the damage spills over into the larger prison community, causing de- pression, anxiety, and other mental and physical impacts even among correctional workers who do not work directly with those on death row. All these devastating effects are made much worse when executions are carried out in rapid succession, as the Trump administration plans to do. This com- pressed schedule, with executions just a few days apart, causes an extended dis- ruption to normal prison operations and precludes any attempt to return to nor- malcy following an execution. It also pre- vents any meaningful review by execution team members and other officials to ad- dress problems or concerns in the execution process. That increases the risk that something could go horribly wrong in the next execution. And if a “routine” execution is traumatizing for all involved, a botched one is devastating. There’s no good reason for the Trump administration to move forward with executions. There hasn’t been a federal execution since 2003, and the prisoners under federal death sentence have been safely managed by the Bureau of Prisons in high-security federal prisons. But if executions are going to happen at all, they should not be carried out on this rushed schedule, piling one on top of another. That will only heighten the chance of mistakes and compound the stressful impacts on the extraordinary men and women who work in the Bureau of Prisons.

The writer, the former dean of the College of Justice & Safety at Eastern Kentucky University, served as a chief for the Justice Department’s National Institute of Corrections from 1996 to 2003; as commissioner of state departments of corrections in Georgia, Mississippi and Colorado; and as chairman of the Florida Department of Corrections.

The death penalty’s hidden

victims: Correctional staff

SAFIN HAMED/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES A Yazidi woman visits the Temple of Lalish, near the Kurdish city of Dohuk; more than 400,000 Yazidis have been displaced to camps in northern Iraq.

ALYSSA ROSENBERG

Excerpted from washingtonpost.com/people/alyssa-rosenberg

I’m grateful for every single woman running for president As she was walking onto the debate stage in Detroit on Tuesday night, author and Democratic presidential candidate Mari- anne Williamson appeared to stumble a little in her high heels. It was a tiny moment. And yet, that slight wobble, along with Sen. Kristen Gillibrand’s hot pink dress and invocation of her mother and her grandmother on Wednesday were reminders of the pleasures of watching a primary campaign full of women. Each time a female candidate has stepped onto a presidential or vice- presidential debate stage, she has done so alone. Unlike the men they ran against, with the exception of Barack Obama, they were saddled with the impossible task of representing their people — the fractious masses of American women — all by themselves. Women in politics are hardly the only people to face this sort of pressure, though there is no arena in which the stakes are higher. But no matter the arena, bearing that weight alone tends to shrink our public ideas of what women can be. When the ABC drama “Scandal” de- buted in 2012, making Kerry Washington, who played D.C. fixer Olivia Pope, the first black woman to star in a leading role in a network television show in 38 years, the character’s status as a role model was the subject of fierce, sometimes painful, debate. Later, the recently wrapped Netflix drama “Orange Is the New Black” offered viewers a prison population of white-girl drug smugglers, erotic fan-fiction writ-

ers, evangelical grifters and profoundly decent GED tutors. There are limits in the very real world of politics that don’t apply on television, of course. But if nothing else, the 2020 presidential campaign is showing us how liberating it can be when a whole bunch of women run for office at once. If Williamson were the only woman in the Democratic primary, it would be a disaster. I don’t want a president who treats illness as a manifestation of psy- chic pain or says that mandatory vaccina- tion is “draconian.” And as a woman, I don’t want my gender represented solely by someone who thinks that way. Fortu- nately, Williamson isn’t the only woman in the race. On the Democratic debate stage, womanhood can look like Gilli- brand, who spoke movingly about how she would have been willing to pay any price to save her son Theo when he had a serious allergy attack — and how she shouldn’t have to. Womanhood can be Sen. Kamala D. Harris’s prosecutorial feints and gray pearls, or Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wire-rimmed glasses and joy in the fight. The Democratic debates can be a place where Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a notoriously tough boss, can have her voice waver with emotion, or where Rep. Tulsi Gabbard can be the least expressive person on stage. I wouldn’t vote for every woman running for president in the Democratic primary. But I’m grateful for the presence of every single one of them. Equality isn’t a single perfect human woman winning the presidency: It’s a bunch of flawed women being considered genuinely plau- sible contenders.

The Washington Post - 01.08.2019

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources