Toughen Up on Iran

Negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are underway in Oman to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program. I believe that the U.S. should only accept a deal with Iran if it ensures that they will have no capability of obtaining any sort of nuclear weapon. There should also be some Congressional oversight on the deal in order to ensure that the agreement we have reached is analyzed and reviewed properly. I believe it is essential to take a tough stance on Iran, especially after recent flops in foreign policy promises made by the Obama administration i.e.” red line” in Syria and the so-called “reset” in relations with Russia. If the U.S. does not show any kind of strength in these negotiations, Iran can very well take advantage of America’s appeasement.

            The reason the U.S. must ensure success in these negotiations with Iran is because of the destined power shift that would take place if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran would suddenly become an even more dangerous force than they already are. Personally, I would not want them to become a nuclear threat because of their past history. A history that includes the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini repeatedly claiming that “Israel must be destroyed.” It is a history that includes a recent UN report that states that 687 people were executed in Iran in 2013 and 411 this year for almost meaningless crimes such as adultery and alcohol use.[1] It is also a history which includes funding terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. A shift in power to a country such as this would have frightful implications.

            I also believe the final deal with Iran should be reviewed before Congress. The nuclear deal would be such a significant agreement, that it should have a “second pair of eyes” look at it before being approved. The legislative process is essential in determining foreign policy because it provides full consideration and analysis to each part of the agreement. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said that “[Congress] should at least have an opportunity to weigh in on the final agreement…after its negotiated.”[2] I believe an opinion put forth by Congress on the deal will either reassure or warn the Obama administration on the implications of accepting the deal.

            There has also been an important, recent development regarding the negotiations with Iran when the Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama wrote a letter to Ayatollah Khomeini regarding mutual interest in defeating ISIL. However, I think this letter is a huge mistake. In regards to the fight with ISIL, the letter has displeased America’s Sunni Arab League partners, according to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) as well as undermining the unifying efforts put forth by the coalition to defeat ISIL.[3] More importantly though, I believe it is a display of weakness by the President to Iran. In a crucial time when all of the focus with Iran should be centered around the nuclear deal, the President is trying to appeal to the Ayatollah by diverting his attention to a common goal: defeating ISIL. I do not want to be mistaken as someone who does not believe in reaching out and making peace. However, there is a time and place for that, and this is not the time nor the place. I believe the President’s intention of the letter was to show Iran that the U.S. can be seen as a supportive ally in the West. During times of intense negotiations that are meant to crack down on Iran, the U.S. should not be reaching out yet another hand.

            The negotiations with Iran right now can have significant effects for years to come. My only hope is that the U.S. does not take too soft of a stance and reaches an agreement that is mutually beneficial. An agreement which would not allow Iran to ever obtain a nuclear weapon.

---

[1] http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Mark-Kirk-Marco-Rubio-Human-rights-Iran/2014/11/07/id/606039/

[2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/16/key-senator-wants-the-right-to-block-a-deal-with-iran.html

[3] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/07/lawmakers-slam-obama-letter-to-iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei/

U.N. Security Council

               The U.N.'s Security Council makes many important decisions that affect much of the world's security. In the current set-up, there are five permanent members in the Security Council: Russia, U.S., U.K., France, and China. I believe that current system for the U.N. is flawed because the state involved needs to be changed, the veto system needs to be changed, and it needs to be more effective at preventing wars.  

                Since the U.N. Security Council is comprised of 15 nations, with 5 of them being permanent members with veto powers, these five powers have influence on all decisions taken by the Security Council. In order to avoid all decisions being affected by one member, there should be a different system in place to promote more fairness. The veto system should be changed to a system where the majority of Security Council members need to agree without veto power in order to achieve their goals. If that isn't feasible, it should be at least amended so that three of the five permanent members agree to a decision. If this new system isn't implemented, one country has the potential of influencing important decisions. The U.N. was unable to take serious action against Syria because Russia did not want to take action. In order to prevent that, there should be a veto-less system or at least a system where the permanent members 

            The permanent members of the U.N. Security Council were decided after World War II. The four main ones were the winners of the war while China was added on later. The current permanent members need to be reformed to reflect the modern world. Although France and U.K. might be seen as strong powers, they could either be replaced with other states or other states should be added to the permanent members list. Possible countries in the permanent members list could be India, Japan, Germany, or Brazil. There should be more countries from different parts of the world in order to reflect the diverse powers. Four of the five permanent members are in Europe, which is not an accurate reflection of the world. France and U.K. have also lost much of their power and influence in the world and there are other countries that are becoming as strong as them.

            In order for the U.N. Security Council to be effective, it should have military support from all the countries involved. These countries should be able to negotiate with each other and cooperate. In order to effectively   prevent wars, the members need to have a policy of intervening in all major conflicts that need help. This includes places like Bosnia and Herzegovina and Syria. There should be an agreed upon definition of aggression that all permanent members believe and then practice upon. The U.N. should intervene in certain places when it doesn’t normally. China and U.S. should be able to agree with each other when intervening in certain areas. This mutual agreement with each other can prevent war form occurring and increase effectiveness.

            The U.N. Security Council has a very important job in the world and must be effective in controlling wars and in order to do this, the Security Council needs to work together, the members need to change, and the veto system needs to be amended. This will help the U.N. succeed in its ultimate goals. 

Should All Countries be Able to Possess Nukes

        There are currently only five countries that are able to possess nuclear weapons. Although it is believed as many as four other states currently hold nuclear weapons. The United States and other powerful countries have tried to deter countries like Pakistan, Libya, Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.  The criteria for development and procession of nuclear weapons are not clearly outlined. The United States has been inconsistent in their acceptance of other countries to develop nuclear weapons. A key example of this is Israel. Israel took their own initiative in developing a nuclear weapon facilities. They were not recognized on the Treaty of Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) but regardless developed to what is believed to be over 80 nuclear weapons. Iran attempted to develop nuclear weapons without the permission of other nations as well. The United States made a huge effort to deter their development of nuclear weapons and facilities. To me this is hypocritical. The justification that is often offered is Iran has a irrational government, which is an incredibly subjective argument and raises the question "what is a rational country?". In my opinion, nuclear weapons should not be allowed to be developed and possessed by any country.
        My first argument for why nuclear weapons should be disbanded has to do with failure to identify proper criteria for nuclear weapon programs. There are currently five countries allowed to hold nukes by the NPT, The United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and China. What is the common factor that all these countries have that makes them eligible to hold these nuclear weapons? To me it is unclear. Some would argue that these countries have the most power, are the most cooperative and act the most rationally. Russia has a history of oppressing their people and so does China. China is still a communist state. China still does not elect their own leaders to make decisions that best represent public opinion. How are they any more rational than a countries like Germany, Poland or India. The decision by the NPT to only allow these five states to have nuclear weapons is what is irrational. There is very little logical justification that explains why only these five countries may possess nuclear weapons while others cannot.
        My next argument deals more directly with why nuclear weapons should be banned for all countries.  A common argument for nuclear weapons being allow by some countries and not others is that if an "irrational","unjust" state wishes to seek global domination and oppress large groups of individuals (similar to Nazi-Germany's efforts) than nuclear weapons could quickly solve the problem. My question is to what extent are we willing to use nuclear weapons? Although it might be a quick solution to this problem are we willing to kill thousands of innocent people to stop only a small number of  political leaders and supporters. To me using a nuclear weapons should never be done because it is unethical and unjust. Although, it is hard to have a war without the sacrifice of innocent lives we should take every effort to protect those innocent people. Why should mass causalities be expensed for actions caused by a small number of individuals? A counter argument used is that we save more of our soldiers and people by deploying nuclear weapons rather than combating in battle. This might be true but aren't all innocent people equal? Are the lives of citizens in our country any more valuable than lives of innocent people of other countries? I think all innocent people are equal and we should take equal measures in the preservation of other nations innocent lives as we do our own.
        The way our world powers are distributed in the current era we are capable of fending off any nation that becomes oppressive and seeks global domination. Because of organizations like the UN, states are better able to cooperate and as a result have more similar values. We have already established the idea of "Democratic Peace". The most powerful countries with the exception of China are all democracies. This makes it highly unlikely that a democratic nations will become unruly and seek to gain control globally. Because all the most powerful countries are allies and have similar values it would make it relatively easy without nuclear weapons to fend off foreign enemies who wish to seek global dominance. How we regulate a ban of nuclear weapons is a good question. The same question can be asked however, for our current regulations. Ultimately it is nearly impossible to control other countries from developing weapons of mass destruction. I believe by no state being allowed to process these weapons it makes other countries less likely to want to develop their own because it takes away the hypocrisy of the situation. If there was a global ban of nuclear weapons it would make it difficult for nations to develop nuclear weapons. The materials necessary for development would be more sparse since they rely on production of other nations for development.

China, and why we need to stop worrying

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/06/06/five-reasons-china-wont-be-a-big-threat-to-americas-global-power/

In this blog post I will be discussing why China is not as large of a threat to United State’s global power as we think it is. In this article published in Forbes magazine in June of 2014, it creates a clear argument as to why China will not be a large of a threat to us, as we think it will become. One of the most important points this article makes is the scale of financial interdependence.

China holds around $1.2 trillion of US debt. While this is a shocking number at first, it really is not entirely negative. China holding this debt can be a good thing for the United States. It harbors healthy trade relations, and ensures that the two countries will be intertwined with one another for years to come. If we thought China posed such a large threat, they would not hold any of our debt. China would not want anything terrible to happen to the United States financially, because that would mean they would have to bail us out. This does not mean they have more power over us in any sense, just that they have interest in the United States’ success.

Another reason why China does not pose a threat to the United States’ power is the scale of our global influence. The United States has played the part of a global watchdog for most of its existence. Our involvement in international politics, and the direct influence on politics in other states shows how much influence we have in the world. While China is a growing world power, they cannot compare to the red, white, and blue influence the United States has.

My final reason of why China does not pose a very large threat to the United States is the size of their military. They are working on a mission to send someone to the Moon today. We accomplished that feat in 1969, over forty years ago. They might have more people in their military, but we out power them. If the United States, our one of our allies were attacked tomorrow, we could have one of our warships there in less than 48 hours. China does not have that capability to respond that quickly and efficiently to an attack. Another aspect is nuclear weapons. While any country that posses nuclear weapons poses some form of threat to the international community, China just does not have the same amount as the United States. Our number is in the thousands, theirs is in the hundreds. 

While China is certainly a growing international powerhouse, it is not as large of a threat to the United States' power as we make it out to be. 

D.P.T. (Definitely Pointless Theory)

Every president since Woodrow Wilson has utilized the Democratic Peace Theory as a justification to intervene with international conflict (Jackson DPT: An Appropriate Guide to Foreign Policy). If every country were to share the three core assumptions of a republican government, the world would find itself in a state without conflict or war. Regardless of the Democratic Peace Theory’s potential to provide hope for a peaceful future, the application of it still has weaknesses from beginning to end.

The political cartoon above describes the struggle for peace in the Middle East. While the truck that represents the Middle East Peace Process drives through the quicksand, it sinks as would any object struggling in quicksand. A keyword to define here is the word mire. Mire is an embarrassing state of stress in which one has to get themselves out of. As the Middle East Peace Process settles in the quicksand, it’s journey to peace is suddenly plummeted above the quicksand; there must have been an unforeseen solution leading to peace. Ironically, “the new start” seems moot because the truck remains on an inadequate, unstable piece of land representing a state of inconclusiveness. Regardless of any effort put forth to get to the peaceful

state, all the Arab turmoil eradicates the whole entire journey.

Considering all the elements in the cartoon, the peace process seems to be impossible. The maintenance for peace can be just as trying as the process of getting there. Just forming an opinion on the Democratic Peace Theory based off this cartoon leads many to think (especially me) that the approach has inaccessible goals. Transforming cultural norms and values to suit a republican government seems impossible especially in the Middle East. The Arab Turmoil seems to continuously disrupt the peace process because of it’s perpetuation of terror and inequality.

Every president still continues to apply the Democratic Peace Theory. However, the attempt to democratize areas like Afghanistan and Iraq on the notion that through “the expansion of freedom in all the world” would lead to peace seems impossible. Democracy is not designed for every country. It’s definitely not a one size fits all. Perhaps that’s why it’s taking this long for the Middle East to find peace as a democracy. The United States was founded on the three fundamental assumptions of a republican government. It persists as a democracy because these core values are what have been instilled since its birth.

The Democratic Peace Theory has great intentions, and I completely understand why every president has turned to it in times of foreign affairs. A world without war sounds miraculous. In order for the DPT to work, miracles would have to happen. Democracy is an organic concept according to Jackson. Getting a country towards a more democratic state is another journey all on its own. According to the political cartoon, it proves just that. Even if you somehow get a sudden solution to be away from all the mire, maintaining peace as a democratic state takes even more effort; any effort is prone to destruction. There are even more stages to democracy besides the initial transformation. The DPT obviously has it’s weaknesses from beginning to end. Should we continue to utilize it in our foreign affairs? Is it still worth to be applied as a justification?

Intervention in Iraq and Syria a Necessity

In this week’s blog, I will be discussing a recent article written in the Wall Street Journal by syndicated columnist, Bret Stephens. The link to the article is provided at the bottom. On August 25^th of this year, Mr. Stephens published an article about how many politicians are now realizing the necessity of the use of hard power in regards to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

            In the article, Mr. Stephens discusses the reason for the rise of ISIL. He does so by quoting a knowledgeable expert on the conflict in Iraq, George Packer. Mr. Packer says about President “Obama withdrew ‘after eight years of war in a way that left the U.S. with almost no influence—but he could have tried to force matters with the Iraqis and left behind far more bitterness.’” I tend to agree with the quote that Mr. Stephens provided. The question of whether I believe in the 2003 Iraq War is not relevant in this case (but as a disclaimer, I believe the Iraq War was horribly managed and led). I do believe though that if the United States left a better impression on Iraq, ISIL would not be in the position of power that they are in now. The Americans left Iraq with an unstable government and a disgruntled population. If the United States still kept a presence in Iraq, ISIL may have been too frightened to commit the atrocities that the world has known them for. Yes, ISIL is still a threat today even with the airstrikes from the allied coalition against ISIL. And I also do take into account that ISIL’s mission is one that they are incredibly passionate about and would not give it up just because of an American presence. However, I do think that it would have been far less severe with a continued American presence in Iraq.

            Later in the article, Mr. Stephens raises several questions. One of these, I think puts the debate about American intervention in a nutshell. He asks, “are we going to fight terrorists over there—or are we going to wait for them to come here?” I believe we should launch a preventive operation in order to ensure there are no attacks on Western soil. The biggest concern for the American government right now should be to make sure there are no attacks on the homeland. Obviously, every politician wants to defeat ISIL. Like almost all issues within our government, the goal is mutually shared, but the strategy to reach that goal is divided. Some politicians are calling for ground troops and a more aggressive attack on ISIL, while others are calling for limited intervention. I believe America needs to defeat ISIL before the situation escalates even more. This will require ground troops and a comprehensive plan to take ISIL out of power. Yes, there will most likely be another extremist terrorist organization that is formed following the destruction of ISIL. But the American government should make sure they take the correct precautions to handle the next conflict. They should learn from the premature withdrawal from Iraq, and make sure they handle the situation with ISIL more efficiently.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-the-neo-neocons-1409008955

India: Super Power or Not?

In the modern age, many would agree that China has developed into a world power but some also say that India is a super power or at least future super power. However, I believe that India still has a long way to go before reaching a super power status. India faces many difficult challenges in their process of becoming a super power and hasn't been able to rise above these challenges lately.

India may not be a super power now or the near future because of some fundamental issues it has that China does not. India’s large population can be a hindrance on its progress because India will have to deal with issues of poverty. The fact that India also has a growing population, unlike China, makes it more difficult to handle issues and stretches out resources. India, being a democracy, also does not have as a firm a control on their population as China does. India’s poverty rate is very high and their manufacturing and industry is not as high as China’s and doesn’t reflect that of a super power. India also has high levels of corruption that prevent it from reaching its full potential as a state.

Although India has quickly grown its industries, India will still need to harness some of their natural resources in order to grow the economy further. India’s economy is growing but it will probably not reach the levels predicted by some people and will most likely level off in the future. GDP growth in India reflects the large population and their high percentage growth is most likely because of the low starting GDP per capital.

According to realist paradigm, a regional hegemon must be the only state in its region with significant influence and should have the capability of influencing and dominating other countries in the region. However, India still faces a threat from Pakistan, another nuclear-weapon possessing state. In order to be a super power, a state should be a regional hegemon and only when India becomes a regional hegemon can it become a super power.

India’s issues with Pakistan can also be a hindrance to India’s progress. While China has not been in any major conflicts, India continues to be involved in the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan.  War can hinder the Indian economy and continuous conflict with the neighbor can distract from growth. Because of the wars with Pakistan, India’s foreign policy hasn’t always been able to branch out into new parts of the world. India has yet exercised its influence in other parts of the world like China has. While China has been trying to gain influence in regions like Africa and Latin America, India’s influence has mostly been limited.

However, I believe that India has the potential to become a super power with its vast rich resources and huge population. The potential for a large economy and large military is very evident from seeing these resources and populations. For the most part, India’s democratic system, despite the corruption, will help it to reach levels of a super power. There will come a time when India can be considered a super power but in my opinion, that will come far down the road.