When American President Woodrow Wilson initiated the League of Nations in 1919, his aim was to create an organization that would unite national governments in the pursuit of a global agenda: peace. Criticism of the move, however, flowed thick and fast, with perhaps the most lasting objection being that America should not serve as the “world’s policeman.”

There is little doubt that the United States could fill such a role, especially after the end of the Cold War and the political decline of the only major contender for international hegemony. The topic of “policing” has been raised more recently in critiques of America’s foreign wars.  Now, a spike in longstanding tensions between the U.S. and China over human rights issues, caused by the sentencing of a Chinese dissident, has again pushed the question to the forefront of the political scene; except, it has been re-worded. Critics no longer ask if America should serve as the world’s policeman, but if it can.

Tan Zuoren, a Chinese magazine editor and environmentalist, was officially sentenced to five years in prison for subversion of state power on February 9. The Chinese government claims that several emails written by Mr. Tan criticizing the 1989 bloodshed at Tiananmen Square are designed to undermine state power, and is using these emails as grounds for the charge.

The sentencing has sent Chinese and American human rights activists into an uproar. According to the New York Times, Amnesty International alleges the real impetus behind Mr. Tan’s sentencing is his plan to release a criticism of state-directed school construction in Sichuan Province, where thousands of children died in a 2008 earthquake as schools collapsed (“Editor Reviewing China Quake Deaths Is Sentenced”). In both scenarios, the Chinese government has obstructed Tan’s freedom of speech, which is protected under China’s constitution according to 2004 revisions.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have been hesitant to address human rights in China. Obama, against protests from the Chinese government, met with the Dalai Lama on February 18 – but the President took pains to make the meeting appear casual, refusing to see the Dalai Lama in the Oval Office (the meeting took place in the Map Room). By receiving a political leader from a region victimized by China in such a manner, Obama has allowed China to dictate his treatment of foreign dignitaries.

Clinton publicly supported Google’s plan to stop censoring search results on its China engine as a step towards freer expression in the nation, triggering a rebuke from the Chinese government. The Secretary of State has kept silent, however, as a confrontation unfolds between Google and China over attempted hacking by people affiliated with the Chinese military. Google’s threats to pull its program from Chinese webspace unless free speech rights are honored have received no backing from American leadership.

Despite the limited action that has been taken, the overall message sent by America remains conciliatory as China’s global economic and political power continues to grow. It would be an exaggeration to say this strategy has caused a confrontation among Democrats, but human rights activists are unhappy with what appears to be the prioritization of economic and trade concerns over the welfare of the Chinese people, a strategy typically attributed to the Republican Party. At the same time, the political leadership in Washington is constrained by the enormous foreign trade deficit and a desire for Chinese cooperation regarding matters of international policy, such as limiting Iran’s nuclear program.

These economic and political circumstances , which make America somewhat dependent on China’s good will, make the question of America’s “policing” habits a moot point. The country’s political leadership has neither the motivation nor the mettle to challenge China’s human rights violations. Gone are the days when a months-long hostage crisis overseas can be ended by a single warning from the White House. The U.S. is grappling with so many other issues that the social politics of the Chinese government currently have no place on its list of concerns.

In fact, the resurgence of human rights as a point of global attention does not derive from any change in equilibrium on the issue — China still offends, America still halfheartedly slaps them on the wrist with the national media — but rather from an increased focus on China itself. Human rights have merely been dragged into the media limelight by habit and happenstance.

This does not mean that the U.S. should never be concerned with China’s human rights policy. America has, on several occasions, infringed on the sovereignty of foreign powers when great injustice has occurred (the plight of those in occupied France during WWII comes to mind). Whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are another manifestation of that principle is hotly debated, but will be passed over here.

Should the situation in China progress to a point where the populace is treated with blatant injustice and brutality, then America may have grounds to interfere – the nation’s legacy of so-called “policing” in such matters suggests that it would interfere. But events have not escalated to that point, and America has its own concerns, and so for now China’s human rights matters will continue to decorate the headlines of international newspapers instead of the headings of U.S. policy memos.

Visitors who spend more than five minutes walking around Duke University are sure to encounter evidence of the campus’s commitment to the environment. Buildings have motion-sensor triggers for their lighting systems to preserve energy. Where there’s a trash bin, there are usually several recycle bins nearby. The buses that run between campuses have stickers on their sides declaring their commitment to use low-grade, high-efficiency fuel. And then, of course, there’s the Smart Home.

Spend ten minutes walking around Duke University, however, and a few other things come to light, like empty computer labs, or showers in dorm bathrooms that run water without patrons because the handle has gotten stuck, or massage chairs in the basement of dorms.

The university is exceptionally conscientious, it seems, in terms of its spending on everything besides… well, spending.

Take, for instance, the vents outside of the Bryan Center. These vents periodically emit a light mist, presumably with the intention of giving students a means to cool down on a hot day. While this is a nice idea, it leads one to wonder why these vents are a better investment than, say, installing air conditioning in dorms. Surely students spend more time in their own homes than they do on the plaza outside of the Bryan Center.

One might also references the massage chairs in the basement of Bell Tower. They are available for use by all students, but the dorm in which they are housed is a fair distance from the main quad on East, making it inconvenient for most students to access them, and in any case a mere two chairs cannot possibly cater to the entire freshman class (that is, assuming we make the rather questionable assumption that massage chairs are needed to cater to students in the first place). The upshot of these considerations is to suggest that the chairs have far less utility than their installers expected.

A basic massage chair model costs anywhere between $2,000 and $4,000. That money could have been invested elsewhere, perhaps in new temperature control handles in some dorm shower stalls. Sometimes these handles become stuck, and because Resident Life and Housing Services (RLHS) is not available 24 hours a day to perform maintenance, if this happens at night or on the weekend water might be left running continuously over the span of several hours. This incurs a sizable cost for the University, not to mention its environmentally-unfriendly effects.

Duke also does an exceptional job of providing its students with advanced technology and information access; for example, there are numerous computer labs scattered around the campuses. Not all of these labs, however, are situated in accessible places. Lilly Library might boast highly visible media rooms and a regiment of desktop computers in its foyer, but fewer students know of the computer lab in the basement of the West Duke building, or the one situated in Brown.

Is it really beneficial to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a lab with twenty computers that, on average, is utilized at half of its capacity or less? Or, more importantly, is it really necessary to have two such labs?

The more time spent on campus, the longer the list grows: expensive projectors in classrooms that only host one or two classes a semester, sprinklers that don’t shut off after it rains, Solo cups for Tailgate because the student body cannot manage to clean up after itself. Why is Duke spending money in these areas instead of, say, installing air conditioning in residence halls? Or offering more scholarship funds? Or investing in a dining plan that offers three meals a day?

News reports discussing financial difficulties at Duke have been appearing in various publications since at least as early as May of this year. The University has proposed several budget-cutting measures, many of which include reducing its number of employees.

Given the preceding observations, however, is it any wonder that Duke is in trouble? Global financial issues certainly have not improved the situation, but Duke’s fiscal behavior is also responsible for issues currently facing the university. A little more fiscal responsibility would go a long way.

We can live without the massage chairs.

Over the course of the past few years a trend has been forming with regards to expressed international opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This trend manifested itself visibly during the last major bout of fighting in the Gaza Strip, from December of 2008 through January of this year, and has curiously undergone little to no rigorous scrutiny.

Headlines from January first to January 30 in major newspapers worldwide read “Israel denies killing fleeing Gazans,” “Sue Israel for Genocide,” and “Rights groups review Gaza conflict for war crimes;

International initiatives focusing predominantly on Israel, but Hamas actions also coming under scrutiny.”

The last headline sums up the trend well: blame Israel for the severity of conflict in the Middle East.

This anti-Israeli sentiment is partly a response to previous views. Critics of Israel argue that Palestinians should not bear all of the blame for the fighting. But efforts to lay equal blame have been made from the beginning; there have been calls for a bilateral peace agreement since Israel’s founding in 1948.

Desires to distance current talk on the issue from previous perceptions, however, cause sentiment to swing well past the mark of fair judgment, towards ascribing Israel liability. If Palestine is not wholly responsible for the conflict, then Israel is not wholly responsible either.

If there are any doubts concerning this trend, one need only look to an incident related in late September of 2009 concerning the language used to describe Gaza. The Australian broadcasting station SBS directed its writers to stop using the term “Palestinian land” when referring to Gaza and other disputed territories, because it indicated a bias in their reports towards the Palestinian side of the conflict.

This decision has received harsh criticism. Some Australian scholars have described the land in question, namely Gaza, as being indisputably Palestinian (which is, of course, not the case, given the degree of dispute that constantly surrounds the issue).

Whether or not the land actually is Palestinian is another issue entirely. What the above story should convey is that there is a very definite double-standard regarding how the media reports the issue. Referring to the Gaza strip as “Israeli land” would spark international outrage at the lack of consideration given to the Palestinian view, but there is international criticism when one fails to refer to the land as Palestinian, with no impetus to acknowledge Israel’s claim (valid or no) in the region.

With regards to the fighting in Gaza, we should not oversimplify the issue by stating that “Israel” and “Palestine” are the only two possible actors on which to lay blame.

Israel invaded Gaza in response to incessant firing of mortars and rockets across its border from the Gaza strip, which is inhabited by Israelis and Palestinians alike. Critics of Israel’s actions rightfully point out that not every Palestinian in Gaza is firing such rockets, and then argue that Israeli reprisals are unjustified because they harm innocent civilians in the strip.

I ask these critics whether they believe Israel wants to engage in combat in Gaza. Does the Israeli government benefit from such a conflict? Not only are counterattacks directed at a region populated with Israelis, but awareness of the prevalent attitude in journalism informs Israel’s government that such an action will result in international criticism. Does Israel benefit from either of these conditions?

Surely it does not. We are then led to ask: what would prompt Israel to take such an action if it would have such negative consequences?

The answer is simple: Israel did not have a choice. The government was forced to take action in response to the incessant firing from Gaza. No agreement could be reached that was mutually acceptable to both Israel and Palestine, and when it became clear that diplomacy would have no effect, Israel took the necessary step to ensure the safety of its citizens.

Countries have a right to defend themselves. It is a gross exaggeration to call Israel’s actions genocide; the country was faced with aggression, and it responded with force. The international community did not label Kosovo’s actions against Serbia genocide when the former struggled for independence, on the grounds that a right to use force exists when diplomacy has been exhausted as an option and there is a clear need to take action.

The situations are far from synonymous, but the general principle holds. Condemnation of Israeli actions violates the international media’s claim of impartiality and is ascribed without regard for Israel’s situation.

Nobody will argue that the persistent fighting in Gaza is anything short of terrible. There is a severe discontinuity, however, in how we view the conflict, and how we decide who is to blame for it.