The Iranian Nuclear Crisis

     Tonight was one of the best speaker sessions that I have attended since I have taken part in World Affairs Council events. It was titled, "The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Roundtable Discussion" and was based on Iran's nuclear program and its involvement in international politics. It gave me a better, broader perspective on the issues regarding the arguably most volatile state in the Middle East.

     The panel of experts began by building the background of the issue. Evidently, President Obama was on an Israeli radio station recently, saying that at the rate of which it is currently developing its nuclear capability, Iran is a year away from having a nuclear weapon. Next, the moderator brought up the P5+1 and its discussions with Iran. The P5+1, I learned, is the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany and the principal organization in discussing international politics with the Iranian government. This led to the topic of Iran's economy, which has seen a great deal of sporadic changes and instability over the past few years. Also, over the last seven years, Iran's government has collected sixty percent of the nation's oil revenue, which is absolutely colossal compared to other oil-producing countries. 

     Subsequently, the moderator asked the panel the ultimate question about this issue, "How can the issue of the Iranian nuclear crisis be solved practically while guaranteeing the safety of other nations?"                 Inevitably, the state of Israel was mentioned and a discussion about its position toward Iran's nuclear program ensued. Apparently, many members of Israel's government oppose using military force in an effort to discontinue the nuclear program. Citing the counterproductive 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq to halt their nuclear development, many believe that military action against a nation's nuclear program can act as a catalyst, speeding up the process of research and development.

     Most countries are obviously reluctant to allow the Iranian nuclear program to continue. At a conference, Vice President Biden declared, “Let me make clear what that commitment is: It is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, period. Period. End of discussion. Period. Prevent — not contain — prevent.” The experts tackled a serious barrier that prevents us from being able to reasonably communicate with Iran: the fact that the United States, as well as the P5+1 for that matter, does not treat Iran as a sovereign state. A member of the Reagan administration pointed out that the United States needs to stop its policy of talking with Iran's leadership only when Iran complies with U.S. regulations and requests. This prevents many conversations that could potentially lead to agreements between Iran, its neighbors, the United States, and Europe. He also acknowledged that there is a high possibility that Iran does not want to develop a nuclear weapon to use offensively, but rather to use as a shield and a deterrent of attacks from Israel and Saudi Arabia.
     Additionally, the panel dismissed the commonly accepted idea that North Korea and Iran are working very closely to collaboratively develop nuclear weapon technology, despite the fact that Iranian scientists have likely observed North Korean missile tests. 
     

Half-Breed

My first encounters with others can often be described as humorous, yet puzzling.  After the smiles and my usual, “Hi, how are you?” my new acquaintance’s speculation process immediately begins.  It starts with my brown hair, my large, round eyes, and finally the curiously long surname on my notebook.  Then, after careful deliberation and an awkward silence, the observer finally asks the standard, “Wait, so what are you?” 

Annoyed, but prepared, my only response is, “Hmm… what do you think?”

With answers varying from French, to Filipino, to Mexican-Japanese mix, my seemingly unknown ethnicity has become a trademark I have gained throughout a majority of the duration of my high school career.  My facial features and hyphenated British and Taiwanese surname define me as a typical Eurasian.  However, the pervasive culture of my school says otherwise - especially when my race characterizes me as an outcast of the Asian “model minority.”

I usually ignore random bits of criticism thrown at me, whether it is about my “white people” style of dress or my lack of knowledge in the Asian cultural sphere.  However, this question that chronically seems to ask “Which planet do you hail from?” puzzles me.  I have dealt with small instances involving my race in the past, but I still have yet to understand why people in my neighborhood find “half-breeds” to be the newest anomalies.

Confused.  Lost.  Awkward - All three describe how I felt during my first two years of high school.  I first attempted to assimilate into my school’s culture by becoming depressed over ninety percent scores on tests and by laughing at racist jokes against Caucasians.  Yet, once the jokes impacted my own races on a larger scale, I finally began to wonder why one’s ethnicity plays such a large role in the characterization of another.

When we were kindergartners, nobody cared about who is Middle Eastern, Mexican, or Asian.  Yet, the innocence that we once had throughout elementary school slowly deteriorated as we all developed with an expanded pool of knowledge - one that includes racism.  Thus, with things such as terrorist organizations, Mexican immigration, and “Asian invasion” simmering into the minds of the world today, many sadly choose to characterize people by their race, instead of their overall personalities. 

With this realization, I felt guilty not just because I judged many by their race, but also because I lost my former beliefs in order to fit in with my school’s bizarre culture.  Yet, this guilt soon turned into a desire to change as I decided to stop competing against my classmates through quantitative means, learn how to actually enjoy my classes with genuine curiosity, and put more effort into understanding the various aspects and disparities between my own two cultures. 

With this new perspective, I learned “half-breeds” could learn Mandarin just as easily “full Chinese” students, conducted more research on my European roots, and eventually traveled to Taiwan alone and found the components of my lost culture that I was looking for.  Through the criticism I experienced due to my strange ethnicity, I was finally able to appreciate my mixed backgrounds through a new lens, and was also able to prove to my classmates that people not of Asian heritage could be successful in the academic world, as well.

Thus, whether I am from Indonesia or Mars, I now know how to assume both my Taiwanese and European backgrounds, and how to accept my true identity as a young Eurasian.  While many people I meet are still surprised by my Caucasian background and question my academic ability today, the main difference is that I now know to ask, “Wait, what difference does it make?"

I often think of "half-breed" as a way to describe animals rather than people of mixed ethnicities. 

Competition

     In the United States, our culture fosters the expectation that growth, economic and otherwise, is constant. In the past twenty or thirty years, however, we have seen less innovation than during any other period of time in the last century. What is the common denominator? What is different now?
     Last Friday, I was listening to Fareed Zakaria give a speech about the infinitely repeating cycle of rise, peak, decline, crisis in civilizations and how it relates to actual threats to our society and economy. What struck me was how he identified that one of the greatest issues that our nation currently faces is the lack of international competition. He stated that competition is the principal force that drives the growth of a nation. Without it, we have little incentive to change and innovate. This is when I realized that the Cold War may have been the best thing that happened to the United States in the past sixty years.
     Like most people, when I thought about the Cold War, the first things that came to mind were the widespread paranoia of nuclear proliferation and the wonderfully cheesy black-and-white anti-communist propaganda videos.
     What I found is more important is the innovation that was spurred by our competition with the Soviet Union. The end of the Second World War was the starting block for a race between nations that was to last over forty years. The two nations were in fierce competition. The fear of potential confrontation fueled rapid positive changes in nearly all aspects of American society and government.
     The Marshall Plan of 1948 was a massive change in US diplomacy. The funding of the reconstruction of crumbled European countries was intended to prevent Europeans from falling into poverty and turning to communism. This brilliant foreign aid packaged accomplished the stabilization of democracies throughout Western Europe and the growth of the global economy by providing a solid foundation for various markets.
     The Soviets' successful launch of Sputnik was a shock to the American people. It gave the United States a major incentive to fund improvements in math, science, and physical education. The satellite also motivated the federal government to create the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which was to subsequently launch successful missions to the Moon.
     Communist uprisings around the world pushed the government to rethink its military strategies, focusing more on small-scale operations and less on more traditional large battles.
     Without competition, our nation will maintain a slow rate of innovation and creativity. It is safe to say that, without the Cold War, the United States would be much worse off.

Fighting the Future via the Past. Pt 3

Second Generation

      In the 18th century, a mass of men standing in lines exchanging musket fire was an acceptable way to fight wars because the weapons of the time were inaccurate and slow to reload.

      In the 19th century, a mass of men standing in lines exchanging rifle fire was a costly way to fight wars because the weapons of the time were accurate and deadly.

      At the start of the 20th century, ostensibly with the invention of the machine gun, men in the open were men already dead. No amount of courage or elan, the French word for the will to win, was sufficient to overcome explosive artillery shells raining down metal shards or guns that could fire five hundred rounds a minute.

      The massed manpower of the previous generation of warfare no longer mattered in the face of such devastating destruction. But the commanders and theoreticians of the mid 1800s and early 1900s were still the products of the previous age of warfare. Instead of massed manpower, the focus shifted to that of massed firepower. Strategy became based around the idea that by inflicting more material losses to the enemy then one received, the enemy would be forced to surrender. 

      While the previous generation introduced order to the battlefield, the changing technologies created a more disordered battlefield. This method of war developed in response to the chaos as commanders tried to create order with controlled command systems and artillery when order with men became suicidal. Generals could no longer order their men to stand in lines, but they could still have cannons fire on schedule and attacks take place on time. 

      With this idea came the idea of a material war. A minor and oft-undiscussed factor is the change in banking practices that allowed nations to finance war past the limits of hard bullion. Now wars were measured in the amount of men and materiel that a nation could put on a field and so was victory. This does not mean that wars were fought with the sole idea that one could bleed the enemy dry, but in the stalemate of World War 1, it was one of the proposed solutions.

      But in order to persecute this kind of war, the nation and the military had to be one, and if not, at least closely related. A war costs untold amounts of men, materiel, and most importantly, money, all of which needed to be drawn from the country and its populace. One such effect was widespread propaganda that prepared the population for the sacrificed needed to sustain a war of any length.

      The gradual melding of the battlefront with the home will be taken to new lengths with the responses to the developments of the second generation of war, but it has already started with the first taste of the industrialized battlefield. No longer can the family sit home and receive letters while Johnny goes to war, now mother must work in the munitions factory, father must build trucks, and sister Jenny must make uniforms.