International policy, nuclear war, cultural anxiety and Iran.
Let me begin by saying that I am against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I think that the unimaginable destruction that they have caused and could cause somehow wrings the last drops of humanity out of international/intercultural conflict.
But here is what I am processing: why shouldn't Iran be allowed to continue developing nuclear power? They deny that they are intending to produce weapons, although it is an inevitable connection to the technology that they are using. It seems to come down to a question of national sovereignty. How accountable is a nation to other nations for its internal decisions? In the case of nuclear weapons, we say nations are absolutely accountable. Invasion-worthy accountable. But what about human rights? What about environmental policy? As the recent G8 has proven, it is stay-in-your-own-yard governance.
Perhaps some would point out that nuclear development has a more immediate and less preventable potential for harm, and I completely agree. But if we are moving beyond tax code, tariff laws and health care, why are some boundary issues important whereas others fall to the wayside? It just seems inconsistent.
And I can't help but wonder, how much of the fear in this Iran situation is masked ethnic and cultural tension? Think of it this way: if Sweden announced that it had intentions to convert uranium for nuclear energy, would the West be as alarmed as it is with Iran? I don't think so. Iran is an Islamic nation that has voiced tension with Western ideas. They are an unrepentant Other to our cultural norms.
Heavens, we are like the Romans building walls to keep out the "barbarians." It is an inevitable conflict of cultures, and the world is too small to pretend that Iran is not a full participant in the global community. Perhaps we should take some cues from Rome: suppressing cultures does create communication and some order, but in the end it only buys time until a more innovative and relevant nation rises to take on international dominance.
So what is my solution? I propose that we all destroy our modern weaponry, and we insist that any violent conflict is limited to using bows and arrows. But hey, I'm young and idealistic. I get to make those suggestions.
posted by Erin 12:35 PM
9 Comments:
I see this as a larger version of American rights and freedoms. For example, let us compare a smoker to Iran. Second hand smoke hurts the people around the smoker. Therefore, it could be viewed as a danger and threat to other people. Because of this some conclude that all public indoors should be made smoke free. However, most people do not suggest that smokers should not be aloud to smoke in their own homes. They are still hurting themselves by smoking, but is it the government’s business to take away their cigarettes? Most would argue no. Now, if we expand this argument globally. What a nation does to hurt itself could be argued to not be any of our business, but when it comes to a threat of us being blown up, it is our business. I believe that a good friend would suggest to a smoker that it is not healthy for them to smoke, but taking their pack of cigarettes may loose you a friend. If a person is in a public place and trying to hurt others, even if they were my friend, I would do what I needed to protect the people around me, especially my family and loved ones. Just thought I would share a correlation that happened in my head while reading your blog. I don’t you to agree with me, but you asked a question, so I answered it.
Iran should not be allowed to continue to develop nuclear power because of their tendency to deceive. Just a few short months ago, Iran denied even having the technology to manufacture nukes.
Lo and behold, the international community--the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)--caught the Iranians red handed.
That's when they said, 'oh, we're just developing nuclear power. But we'll never produce weapons.'
Ronald Reagan said it best. 'Trust but verify.'
If we're smart, and we haven't shown ourselves to be overly intelligent thus far in our dealings with Iran and their new hard line President (who just happened to be one of the radicals responsible for kidnapping 66 Americans and holding them for 444 days back in 1979) placing trust in Iran at this point in the War on Terror is something we won't do.
Thankfully John Kerry wasn't elected President last year because promised to give Iran nuclear fuel, presumably as part of his waging 'a more sensitive war on terror.'
I disagree with you on this. Check out my take on this subject from my blog, the post titled "Iranian Nukes".
Jen- I really like your comparison. I think that second-hand smoking is a valid metaphor. But (speaking of smoking) do you also apply that idea to environmental policy?
Kent- I see your point, but I don't think the UN does well with punitive policy. To deny Iran nuclear development because they have a "tendency to deceive" is too vague a reason. Every government lies. It seems to just be an excuse to withhold power from a nonwestern nation.
Again, I wish that Iran wouldn't develop nuclear weapons. But I think our reasons for stopping them are a bit undeveloped.
Clonar- nations take their nuclear rights very seriously. It is too late to create a governing body for nuclear power. Now we are stuck with reactive, clean-up policy making.
ER- You mean that you don't think I'm always right? Ha. I'll check your site.
DaButtminster- Thank you Solomon the wise. Tell me again, why are you not President?
About Iran, my feeling is similar, I question more what right do we have to ask this, rather than whether or not demanding it is a good thing. I'm all for the bow and arrows solution - except, you know, somebody could put their eye out with one of those things.
Quite frankly, the only reason that we 'need' to give Iran for blocking their development of nukes is our own preservation.
I honestly don't know enough about environmental policy to argue anything about it. I joke about global warming because the last few years in Seattle have been the coldest in some time, but as far as serious contemplation of the issue, well, I don't give it much thought at all. I suppose it is half laziness and half not seeing anyone around me affected by it.
So, Ken, under your assumptions and presumptions, shouldn't we, the US of A, the only country that's ever used nuclear weapons against another country, be forced to give up OUR weapons of mass destruction, since we've threatened the preservation of other countries? I mean, the whole Cold War was about 2 schoolyard bullies (and their respective gangs) upping the ante with each other as to who was the biggest and baddest superpower? Wasn't the MAD (Mutually-Assured-Destruction) policy of the Cold War all about threatening each other scare s***less that we wouldn't launch our nukes at them? The use of scare/death tactics has never been a healthy way of conducting international diplomacy.
No, I don't think that Iran should have nuclear weapons. I don't think that India and Pakistan should have them. I don't think that international terrorists should possess WMD's. I don't think that the US of A should have them either.
I have a degree in Political Science, spending lots of credit hours in International Politics. My cynicism battles with my idealism on so many issues. Ken, I totally see your point concerning Iran -- a radical theocracy shouldn't have such weapons. But I also think that the United States should have them either, mostly because nothing yet good has come from the development of nuclear technology in weapon form.
Yes, that's idealistic to say such things, but I'm also cynical enough to think/know about the repercussions of the US of A getting their nose into Iran over such issues. Do we really need to possibly launch ourselves into armed conflict with a country that might or might not have such weapons? Isn't that why we're in this Iraq debacle?
And, yes, Israel is at the center of lots of things. Always has been, always will be. I guess that's the one thing that I do understand about eschatology and the "end-times" -- it's all about Israel. And that can be really scary....
Hey N. It's Kent. Not 'Ken.' Pay attention.
:)
I don't have a problem with anything you said. My point about American preservation was meant to be taken in the overal context of the war on terror.
If, as Bush stated after 9/11/01, the United States is at war, then we are in that war, first and foremost, with the express purpose of defending ourselves, our nation, our citizens, our way of life.
It seems to me that the second goal of the war on terror is the eradication of terrorism.
The first goal, defending the United States, is doable. The second goal I think is impossible.
The concept of defending America is what's been lost in all the anti war stuff and disarming a radicalized Islamic country like Iran in the process is most definitely in the best interests of the Middle East and the United States, no matter how anyone slices it.
Contact me. I want to hear about your screenplay. I'm in the process of writing one and re-writing another.
Post a Comment
<< Home