You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'nuclear proliferation' tag.
Post by Dylan Matthews, Campus Progress
The nation’s initial response to 9/11 was one that could have easily come from an eleven-year-old. Let’s hope we’ve moved beyond the need for war as a response to terrorism.
The Tribute in Light is an art installation of 88 searchlights placed next to the site of the World Trade Center to create two vertical columns of light in remembrance of the September 11 attacks. (Flickr/macten)
I was in my sixth grade newspaper class when I heard that a plane had hit the south tower of the World Trade Center. It wasn’t until the second plane struck the other tower that my middle school sent around notes to teachers telling them to make the announcement. One plane, I suppose they had reasoned, could have been an accident and perhaps not worth causing panic. Two was something altogether different. After a brief and, in retrospect, fairly odd warning from my teacher against assuming it was Muslim terrorists that were responsible, we flooded into the school library to watch madness unfold on the school’s 50-inch TV as Dan Rather informed us that the Pentagon had been hit as well.
Everyone one of us, old and young, has of these stories. For people my age—that is to say, those of us currently in college or late high school—the impression of that day has been particularly formative. Before that day, this country we lived in was not one that fought wars. We were barely sentient for the Gulf War, if alive at all. Our country was not one that was attacked on its own soil.
This was the first truly huge event of our lives, and its sheer scale overwhelmed all but the most immediate details. We were too overwhelmed to wonder or care whether al-Qaeda or Iraq or a Timothy McVeigh-like domestic terrorist had planned the act.
That evening, President George W. Bush addressed the American public, “Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution.” My eleven-year-old self understood his logic and took the next step. Big acts, Bush was saying, necessitate big responses.
This week, Vladimir Putin was generous enough to provide me with a wealth of blog fodder in an interview with Japanese media (linked below).
Putin addressed two issues of major concern to U.S. foreign policy (before going on to suggest that he might have to become president again): the North Korean nuclear standoff and the European Missile defense shield.
North Korean Nuclear Standoff
Recently, North Korea conducted another missile test, launching a “satellite” into space via ballistic missile (with the quotes questioning both the existence of the satellite and the intent of it should it exist). The nation, which has abandoned the six-party talks regarding its nuclear ambitions, is now planning yet another test (according to South Korea).
These tests violate UN mandates that bar North Korea from ballistic missile activity, and as such have received rebuke from the international community. In response, Pyongyang threatens more missile tests, unless the UN will apologize for their rebuke of the initial missile test. Round and round we go…
Putin has weighed in on the issue, declaring that everyone needs to calm down and return to the table so that we can work it out. Coincidentally, this rosy position is shared with the U.S. administration.
The international community is right to try to bring North Korea back to the table. Just as no one seems to consider the alternative, which would bring about a difference of opinion between the U.S., Russia, and China on necessary responses, it is also a slight blow to the legitimacy of the UN when its members continue to allow UN resolutions to be ignored.
The U.S. and the rest of the UN parties take a slightly harder-line approach, and intend to impose further sanctions on North Korea if it continues to stay away from the negotiating table while flouting international regulations.
European Missile Defense Shield
At the same time, Putin has presented the Obama administration with an “out” regarding the missile shield in Poland: make a new deal on nuclear proliferation, and we will allow the shield.
This, of course, makes sense for Russia, as it benefits from having the U.S. limit nuclear defense spending because Russia could not keep up.
But such a plan is also consistent with the ethos of the Obama administration, where a nuclear arms deal is seen as a positive step toward Russian reconciliation and long-term stability.
It seems that this change in policy could be a great opportunity for the administration, and do a lot to bring about the positive change in the temperament and attitude in foreign relations that Obama has pledged to provide in the long run.
*****
If you are interested in the entire interview, it is available here:
As reported Sunday by David Sanger in the New York Times, it has been revealed that advanced nuclear weapon blueprints were part of Pakistani Addul Khan’s notorious weapons ring of the early twenty-first century. These blueprints, as described by the Times, are far more advanced than Chinese knockoffs that had been thought of as the previous standard in the black market. It has raised serious concerns across the security community as a result, and also cast deeper shadows on Pakistan’s already questionable ability to control access to its nuclear program.
Subsequently, there are calls from Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai that he is strongly considering sending troops over the border into Pakistan to curtail cross border attacks by Taliban and tribal forces. Sunday we heard some of the strongest language from Karzai in addressing the issue, and could conceivably be drawn from an incident earlier this week.
US air strikes in Pakistan killed 11 Pakistani soldiers, and raised questions as to whether it was merely faulty intelligence or the US military targeting known Taliban collaborators inside of the country. There is little doubt insurgents have crossed the border time and again to engage coalition forces, and as such, it’s clearly in the interests of NATO security policy to halt these advancements at the line, which has been done.
Video Courtesy of the Pentagon via the BBC
The real question that everyone is thinking: what happens next? I’m not taking either side in this particular issue but merely doing my best to layout different perspectives.
When analyzing US interests, for many it’s not hard to justify support of Afghan action against Pakistan. There has been considerable incursion across the border and actions against coalition forces, and it simultaneously draws resources away from the internal security mission. Whether or not there is Pakistani support for such endeavors is irrelevant, as the attacks need to be curtailed. If the government does not take a proactive approach, the only alternatives lie outside of the country itself.
The US should be careful in how it addresses this issue, and do so with much humility. In the 1970’s and 80’s the US supported the Taliban against the Soviet Union and encouraged Pakistani villages on the border to welcome them into their homes, marry into their families, and support their actions. One might even say they are still doing exactly what the United States requested (the Pakistanis), as strange and convoluted as that might sound. Any action against the Pakistani border needs to be tempered and full consideration of civilians and infrastructure needs to exceed the normal standard for military operations.
If Pakistan wants to avoid increased hostilities, it would be in their interest to lockdown the border to Afghanistan as much as possible. Granted it’s a hugely difficult task, but even a valiant attempt would go along way to demonstrating the government does not support such militia actions. It needs to be much more aggressive then it has been in the past, and understand that no attacks into Afghanistan on coalition forces would give them serious political leverage against any action by Afghanistan and the US. It would also maintain current borders, which if increased hostilities did occur, might face uncertain consequences.
There are political and diplomatic solutions to this looming confrontation, and should be explored by both sides. A potential solution could be cooperative where US and coalition forces spearhead efforts within the mountains on the border, while Pakistani forces focus on internal security methods within the cities and town. This one is probably too much of a long shot given sovereignty issues and Pakistan’s lack of success thus far, but it could merit exploration.
No conflict serves both interests more fully than all out engagement, and with the looming question of nuclear ambiguity on the part of Pakistan, it only serves to raise the temperature of an already fragile region.
Nation-states often exhibit strangely human behavior for being theoretical non-living actors. One instance of this is their inability to back away from a fight once tensions have risen.
Arguably, the tiff between the United States and Iran could be no more than the result of personal politics between Ahmedinejad and Bush but there is enough national antipathy between these two nations that the inability of the United States to step back and put less pressure on Iran is most likely the result of a still ever present fear that Iran is a bastion of evil and hatred.
Of course, there is evidence to the contrary. Reports released two weeks ago from our very own government’s intelligence stated that Iran had not been pursing nuclear capabilities since 2003 and other reports from as recently as mid-2007 confirm that no efforts have been made to restart these programs.
Now we have the issue of Russia supplying Iran with enriched uranium fuel rods for their power plants, and the US is still looking for fights. Bush did not support the Russian action, looking to further intimidate Iran with international solidarity that included Russian and Chinese support. This shipment, however, proves to the world that Russia does not agree with the harsh stance the US has adopted. Trying to use this to his advantage as best he could, Bush commented that now Iran would not require its own enrichment operations, as they were receiving them from abroad.
I wonder though, why do we keep asking this of Iran if we know they are not enriching for weapons capabilities? I believe this administration, in spite of the quagmire that is Iraq, has done a very good job of instilling fear of Iran in the American populace. This is something I hear echoed in my coworkers’ conversations here in the Midwest especially, time and time again; they are certain that Iran is just a step away from blasting the US to nothingness. Just because there is evidence that says that while Iran might not be 100% wholesome fun for the whole family, maybe they aren’t as bad as we have been portraying, doesn’t mean that the government can just stop touting them as a ferocious enemy. That might suggest that the Bush administration is just crying wolf. Until we have an administration that can still hold their heads up high while they say “circumstances are not as bad as we predicted” we will have this sticky behavior of being unable to back down from a fight, and we run the risk of never being able to retify hatreds.
In looking at the news that talks between South Korea and the North are continuing to progress with an upcoming high level meeting between the prime ministers of both nations, I think it’s important to maintain perspective on the matter from here in the United States that takes into account our strongest allies.
Viewing the situation in Korea from afar can offer a certain point of view that is impossible to encompass the whole picture. For example, there may be elements in US politics clamoring for more action against North Korea by continuing to raise the stakes on possible action in the form of both military strikes or continued economic hardship. Are these same groups forced to deal with the direct impact and result of their decisions? Possibly as in the modern age the smallest pebble cast will send ripples across the pond, but does it mean that we must initially address the dilemma focused on isolation?
What I find is most telling is the sheer fact that many of these individuals or groups wanting to continue to isolate North Korea from the rest of the world do not necessarily have to deal with any ramifications at face value in a direct sense. Outside of the hardline South Korean parties that continue to support a forceful stance against the regime, those in the United States are not necessarily forced to deal with any serious consequences as a result of their views or actions since they are not actual neighbors.
Yes, in a world that is continued to globalize the traditional definition of "neighbor" has changed drastically. However in the case of North Korea, a nation that is at the bottom of the modern world according to how interconnected they are to the global system, this particular nation stands outside of the new definition. They are mostly limited (not completely) to traditional physical borders and traditional neighbors in the classical purview of international relations.
They are the "next door" neighbors to the South yet far away from the United States.
But not outside it’s direct and vital interests. That will never change.
This is the balancing act that must be given the most serious attention. Maintaining vital US interests in the region remains a priority but it is critical to recognize the point of view that South Korea holds in the matter and respect the difficult situation they are forced to deal with. They must deal with their antagonisitc neighbors to the North, and are trying to seek reconciliation through dialogue and foreign aid instead of sanctions and veiled threats. The United States should ultimately respect and support the South in their endeavor and it will be better off in the long run.
Maintain US interests, do not undermine our strongest ally in the South given their position, and allow for communications and dialogue to continue.
Diplomacy should be viewed as the only effective solution to the problem.
Since the the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union, the Russian relationship with the United States and in the west as a whole has fluctuated back and forth from near friend to dangerous annoyance. In the 90s Russia began to engage the west more through multilateral institutions such as the UN. In a supreme act of Cold War reconciliation, Russia and NATO formed a council to address mutual security concerns. NATO was an institution designed to prepare for a possible Soviet attack so this is a partnership with more than a little irony.
However all this time Russia has never really been allowed to join the west as an equal to the United States. In many ways, Russia had become a charity case; a backwards country faced with rebellions and high unemployment. Russia has been treated as the amateur democracy who needed a hand for its big brother the US of A to properly learn the ropes of what it means to be free and capitalistic. Additionally, unlike the losers of World War II, Russia has never quite willing to roll over and let the US be speckle it with military bases in return for economic assistance.
The rise of President Vladimir Putin has only intensified US-Russian tensions. Irregardless of his effectiveness as a leader and domestic policy maker, Putin does have an agenda to keep Russia autonomous from the US and pursue foreign policies that address Russian issues, even if they end up clashing with the west as a result.
One of the stickiest points of contention with the US right now is the apparently lax stance Moscow has towards Iran’s attempt to become a nuclear country. The US wants another member on board the UN bandwagon, chastising (in economic sanction-form) the Islamic Republic, but does not fully appreciate the risks and concerns Russia herself will have should Iran become nuclear. Like Putin, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is fiercely nationalistic and seeks to make his country an independent and respected player on the world scene. Putin understands that an antagonistic relationship with Iran is dangerous. The Economist noted on Oct. 18, 2007 "Russia is worried about Iran becoming a nuclear power: Iran is far nearer to Moscow than Washington, and a nuclear power to the south is the last thing Russia wants." A policy of alienation and aggression may work for a country one third a world away, but wisely Russia opts to approach Tehran from a different direction.
Putin’s recent visit to Iran, in spite of assassination rumors and the Kremlin’s insistence that this was a visit planned multilaterally, is an example of Russia’s tip-toe attempt to engage Iran while not antagonizing the west past breaking point. He made no promises to Iran of support, but urged Iran to continue to build a relationship with Russia by inviting him to his capital.
Russia is by no means a model world citizen, and from the western perspective, they can be a threat. Putin has crushed opposition parties and the free press, and old Soviet weapons are carelessly sold to the highest bidder. However the US can never hope to have Russians as our lackeys either. When we stop viewing the world in a black-or-white, with us or against us mentality and show Russia the respect an independent nation with a unique set of concerns, will the US-Russian relationship stop deteriorating. As Russia attempts to befriend and co-opt Iran, we must do the same with Russia.
Every day, more articles indicate that war with Iran is not far off. The thought that this might be true makes me feel physically sick.
Here is the rough draft of an editorial I wrote for Washington Square News. It’s a piece I should have written a long time ago.
An Attack On Iran Would Be A Tragedy For Its Democrats
by Una Hardester
An attack on Iran, by the United States or Israel, would be a disaster for the entire Middle East, but most of all for Iran’s pro-democracy forces. If Iran was attacked, all hope of peaceful democratic change would be destroyed for the foreseeable future, and the tremendous risks and sacrifices of thousands of students, human rights activists, journalists, lawyers, academics, and other members of Iran’s besieged but courageous civil society would be rendered worthless. This can’t be allowed to happen.
More than seventy percent of Iranians are under age thirty. These young Iranians desire greater freedom, and a society free of the kind of violence the ruling hard-line theocrats inflict on them, but they do not, in any way at all, want regime change to come through outside military action. This is not to say they themselves are not willing to take action.
University students have stood up to riot police and heavily-armed militia to protest the closure of newspapers, and the arrests of student leaders for political activities. Hundreds of students have gone to jail in recent years. No one knows exactly how many have been executed. Most have been tortured, some to death. Tehran’s Evin Prison is infamous for its cruel treatment of political prisoners. This past summer, a young man by the name of Akbar Mohammadi, a former student pro-democracy activist, died in his cell, gagged and chained to a bed in his final hours. Mohammadi never advocated military regime-change. He believed peaceful change would bring about a better Iran.
This belief is shared by Iran’s surviving pro-democracy activists, including Akbar Ganji, a journalist who has become, along with Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, one of the most internationally recognizable faces of Iran’s pro-democracy movement. Ganji spent six years in Evin prison for writing articles that linked senior regime members to the murders of prominent dissidents. After he was released in 2006, Ganji went abroad to speak about human rights and the pro-democracy movement in Iran. When he visited the United States, he was invited to the White House. Ganji declined the invitation. Worried by the United States’ increasingly hawkish rhetoric against Iran, Ganji said, “You cannot bring democracy to a country by attacking it.” President Bush should ponder those words carefully. Though great personal suffering was inflicted on him by the Iranian regime, Ganji still believes that change must come from within the Iranian population, even if that means more slowly than Israel and the West desire. We may curse its incrementalism, but this is how organic democracy emerges.
But what about the bomb? If Iran’s current government develops nuclear weapons, it will kick off an arms race in the region, and threaten the security —even existence—of Israel, the worried pro-attack voices say.
To them, I say; things are not as dire as they seem; you must keep a cool head. The apocalyptic threats from Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are just the blathering of a crude populist who, contrary to portrayal in American media, is a figure-head, not an autocrat. Even if the Iranian regime creates a handful of crude nuclear weapons in the next few years, it is unlikely in the extreme that it will use them against Israel. It is equally unlikely to hand them off to terrorists (another doomsday scenario bandied about lately), knowing that this would result in retaliation as surely as a direct attack would. More probably, Iran would use its nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip in the cynical game of international politics. This is the purpose of nuclear weapons today.
Unfortunately, this means Israel would have to live with a nuclear Iran, something its leaders have said they will never allow. But Israel would not have to live with this threat forever. The Iranian regime consists of individuals who have been in power since the revolution of 1979. They are aging and paranoid, and, above all else, concerned with staying in power as long as they possibly can. They understand that they are surrounded by a vast sea of youth that is idealistic, reformist, and pro-democracy, and sheer demographics ensure that their days are numbered.
The bulk of today’s young Iranians were born shortly after the revolution their parents took part in, and they have grown up with its consequences; the Iran-Iraq War, international isolation, and intense repression, but, despite efforts to the contrary by those in power, they have not grown up with an abiding hatred for the United States or the West. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not their president because they voted for him. He is their president because they did not vote at all. After turning out in massive numbers to elect a reformist in 1997, Iran’s young people then spent eight years being bitterly disappointed, and many boycotted the latest, highly unfair presidential election.
The United States and Israel must recognize this, and not buy into Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric. He does not speak for Iran. Iran’s young people lack access to international forums, to mass media, and to sympathetic ears in the West, and their voices are not heard. This is not just a shame, it’s dangerous. It allows elites who would like to see Iran’s nuclear sites destroyed, and its government deposed by military means, to paint the entire Iranian population as genocidal, anti-Semitic, fundamentalists bent on ushering in a new age of nuclear war —in other word’s, a people deserving of whatever they get. We must reject this notion.
Iran is a country of contradictions and appalling injustices. The gap between the policies and opinions of its rulers and the beliefs of its people is yawning. If the West wants a democratic and non-nuclear Iran, it will have to wait, and not intervene to stop Iran’s nuclear production process. Even Western governments funding opposition groups won’t help; it will simply give credence to the regime’s claim that dissidents are tools of the United States. The best thing for Iran’s people is for Western governments —in fact, all governments— to stay out the regime-change process altogether.
The Iranian regime will fall, but it will fall at the hands of the Iranian people, who genuinely desire solidarity and moral support from the outside. They do not hate us, but they are terrified that, in our state of frenzied fear, we may ruin all they have fought so hard for. For Akbar Ganji and Shirin Ebadi, for the countless students who have spoken out and been killed for doing so, and for all those who continue the fight for freedom, democracy, and human rights under one of the world’s most repressive regimes, Americans and Israelis must raise their voices in loud opposition to an attack against Iran.
This post is from AIDemocracy’s Senior Political Analyst Eugene Kogan:
Rising international tensions around Iran’s nuclear plans are greeted with a deafening silence from Capitol Hill. Except in an op-ed in The Los Angeles Times, Zbig Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, warns that a preventive U.S. attack on Iran “undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war…would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president.” Brzezinski’s is a second high-profile wake-up call to Congress in recent days. Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in The Washington Post that “There is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war.” One hopes that Members of Congress are hearing the tocsins being rung. Congress’s virtually complete abandonment of oversight in the run-up to the preventive war against Iraq was a serious blow to the system of checks and balances.
Regrettably, the media continues to confuse preemption with prevention. The former is an action taken against an imminent threat, while the latter is one taken against a yet-unformed threat to preclude it from becoming imminent at some time in the future. The invasion of Iraq clearly was preventive. So would be a strike against Iran.
Since the Bush Administration claims that “all options are on the table” to stop the Iranian nuclear program, the American people must demand that Congress tell them what it knows about the threat from Iran. Americans must know what the Administration is telling their elected representatives because if America strikes Iran, this will be done in the name of all Americans. (Just like when the U.S. invaded Iraq, it did so in the name of all Americans.) Then, it will be too late to say “not in our name”. Now is the time to ask the hard questions—by people of the Administration and of Congress, and by Congress of the Administration. This is what might be called “double accountability”: if people hold Congress accountable, it is much more likely that Congress will hold the Administration accountable. Americans must understand that asking hard questions is a critical responsibility that they, as citizens of a democracy, must exercise. A coming war is as strong a test of democracy as the war itself.
