Two weeks ago, the United Nations Security Council met to discuss the issue of ‘global’ nuclear non-proliferation—but there was only one country on everybody’s mind…Iran. President Barack Obama was the chair of this committee session—the first time in the UN’s history a president of the US has presided over the committee. Obama has made it very clear that he aspires to see a world free of nuclear weapons. And on Friday he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for voicing such aspiration. But, can anything President Obama does actually make a difference in the world’s nuclear situation? The United States and Russia still have thousands of armed nuclear weapons, ready to be fired at anytime. There are seven other countries with nuclear weapons, and two more suspected to have secret programs. Iran fosters one of these secret programs and continually affirms that their nuclear program is only for peaceful use—to create a more efficient means of power and electricity—but recent findings of secret plutonium enrichment facilities in Qum have the global community rethinking their motives. Further, multiple terrorist organizations are actively seeking to obtain nuclear capacity.
Put yourself in President Obama’s shoes. What can we do to make Iran adhere to the nuclear regulations outlined in the IAEA and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Sanctions have been imposed on Iran for years, but their government brushes them off like a fly. Despite the fact that these sanctions are harming Iranian citizens by limiting their imports, the governing body (whose, please note, legitimacy is being questioned…) could care less. Iran has a history of disregarding its citizen’s well being for the overall good of the country. Where is the justice in that? Rawls would be fuming over such an overt example of injustice. The average citizens in Iran do not matter to the elite, and because of their current system of government, there is nothing that can be done about it. When democratic elections fail to be totally democratic, justice, Rawls would argue, is totally nonexistent.
So the question remains: what can the UN do to assure Iran make proper decisions with regard to global nuclear regulations? Sanctions can only go so far, and we end up harming innocent civilians in our attack of the Iranian government. Barack Obama and the Security Council are coming to this realization, and plan to meet next month to discuss this topic further. I sincerely hope the outcome of this meeting yields better results than punishing the wrong people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/opinion/06iht-edgreenway.html
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/09/25/world/middleeast/1247464827910/cnbc-iran-warned-about-nuclear-site.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, fear might be the best possible way to prevent Iranians from misuse nuclear technology. One explanation for why nuclear war didn't happen during the Cold War is that both sides knows that if they push the button, they themselves will be screwed as well. So the nuclear power is a way for both the U.S. and Soviet to protect themselves from the other side's attack. Is Iran going to use the nuclear weapon? I think very unlikely.
But use of a nuclear weapon is only one aspect of its power. By having a nuclear weapon, or nuclear weapons program, a country gains much more political pull in the global community...either out of fear, or respect. Iran has been very secretive about their nuclear enrichment (see Qum enrichment facility), and by not declaring this facility to international authorities, broke many international laws. Now, they are being 'heavily encouraged' to outsource their uranium enrichment to Russia, in order for it to be regulated and controlled.
Iran will most likely not be able to make a nuclear weapon--certain powerful countries will simply not allow it. But the point remains, regardless of the outcome of these nuclear projects, every country must adhere to the principles outlined in international treaties and treat their citizens justly.
Efforts of nuclear non-proliferation of this kind are certainly not a novel idea, and the argument that fear functions as the most effective means through which the misuse of nuclear technology can be discouraged, has been considered before. Let’s date back to the negotiations of 1987 in the USSR, between British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev. While the five-days of conferencing in themselves did not result in the negotiation of any breakthrough resolves, Thatcher maintained her allegiance to the defense strategy of nuclear deterrence, by stating that “a world without nuclear weapons may be a dream…But you cannot base a sure defense on a dream. A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us." Her forthrightness, was responded to quite frankly by Gorbachev, who deemed it “beyond…understanding how one can heap praise on nuclear arms,” as he “dismissed nuclear deterrence as a ‘safety fuse attached to an explosive device capable of annihilating our civilization.” While the military defense strategy of deterrence, in which government’s deter aggressors by threatening very significant retaliation in response to any attacks, in this case specifically nuclear, may seem like an odd recipient of any endorsement, it has proven itself as a popular military policy, particularly, as mentioned above, during the Cold War.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964004-1,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
Post a Comment