Student: Jonathan M. Koch
19 November, 2009
“2008 Beijing Olympics: China’s Political Display of Power”
It was around the year 740 BC that a young aristocratic Athenian called Kimon won three consecutive chariot races with the same team of mares on each occasion. Kimon faced one problem upon his victorious return: He had been exiled by the tyrannical Athenian ruler Peisistratos. Kimon successfully negotiated that upon his return to Athens, he would hand over his second Olympic tethrippon to Peisistratos (Spivey, p. 178). This is just one example of how politics have taken place in Olympic history. In 2008, President George Walker Bush was urged to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing, China in effort to show the United States’ position regarding China’s neglect of issues concerning human rights (Stolberg, 2008). Bush responded to urges from members such as then Senator Hillary Clinton and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi by insisting the Olympics are not a political event and that his attendance would only show support for America’s athletes (Eggen, 2008).
In my essay, I will attempt to explain two points of view using realism and idealism: The first point being from a realist perspective how Bush’s view on political involvement with Olympic competition as an unacceptable means of pursuing advances of human rights within China’s government. I will attempt to show how Bush ignores realist factors such as human nature and national interest for survival. The second point I will attempt to make, being idealism, will focus on how China’s behavior toward the Olympics and unwillingness to cooperate with world leaders by taking stance against violations of human rights could jeopardize their pursuit of global recognition as a world power by threatening the peace and principles of democracy in the free world.
There was no doubt that the opening ceremonies for last summer’s 2008 Olympics were nothing short of amazing. A spectacular array of fireworks dazzled the city’s promising skies, cleared of industrial pollution that only years earlier had gloomed over the lands; talented musicians filled listener’s ears with brilliantly orchestrated music; dancers executed wonderfully choreographed routines – all as President Bush looked on from his secured place in the stands. In my opinion, this was one of the most awesome displays of both artistic and technical mastery I had ever witnessed. But then along came the photos of Chinese soldiers hailing the Chinese flag displayed above the Olympic rings. Bush urged political leaders in the US that the games were not to be viewed as a political proving ground yet the choreography of the ceremonies suggest that Chinese officials felt otherwise.
China had lost its bid for Olympic host in the year 2000 thought mostly because of their violent reaction to a student demonstration at Tiananmen Square in 1989 where it was estimated that thousands of Chinese civilian and soldiers were killed. China again placed bid in 2001 for the 2008 Olympics on grounds that it had been and would be continuing efforts to advance policy in human rights (China, p. 4). On March 31st, 2008, a mass protest arose in Tibet when protestors tried to stop the Olympic torch from being passed to Athens. In Hans J. Morgenthau’s book “Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace”, Morgenthau explains how it is necessary to identify and predict behaviors that exist in human nature and make it policy to create laws that take these natures into consideration (Morgenthau, p. 166) . Violence is one such behavior that must be taken into consideration. It has been determined that not all violence is political in nature. The less abrupt the violence, more likely the violence is to be politically charged (Kelly, p. 87) such as the student displays at Tiananmen Square and the protests in Tibet on March 14th, 2008 where an estimated 135 to 140 Tibetans were killed (AFP, 2008) Appeasing to China’s actions of violence as demonstrated on March 14th, 2008 showed weakness and tolerance of China’s status on human rights, giving Chinese officials the idea that the United States supports the actions taken by China.
The prior statement shows how, as a realist, Bush did not act accordingly based on his stance of the Olympic Games as a sporting event that carries no political quandary; however, realist would state that moralistic values must be taken in consideration when becoming involved in an international negotiation. It would not be realistic to expect that China’s communistic government can be radically changed in just a course of a decade. This can be seen historically in the late 1980’s through the 1990’s in the former Soviet Union after communism had failed.
The new freedom in Russia after having all sense of self-worth suppressed from individuals in the fate of communism had left citizens wanting their old ruler back. “Yes, they killed and imprisoned, but how great were our victories and parades!” says Nina L. Khrushcheva in a 2006 essay written for the Washington Post (Khrushcheva, 2006). Rulers such as Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin had used fear to control its own government and to influence the governments of others. The respect of fear was all the citizens of the former Soviet Union had. When the west had won, Russia’s pride was taken along with any structure the people had ever known. If democracy is to take a larger place to aid in China’s struggle for human rights, the United States must learn moral standards that exist in China and make policy with those standards in mind. Even in a situation such as this, a realist still would not support the President’s decision to accept China’s invitation to attend the ceremonies on the grounds that a ruler must be able to accept their responsibility as a leader. The ruler must then make a decision whether to allow the people to realign their own government; to take position in the country and rule; or, to destroy all spirit and existing forms of government.
On the other side of theory, the idealist side, the violence and rebellion that exist in China would suggest a problem within the government. Chinese political officials look at the rebelling public as a threat to the nation’s status, and attempt to control public violence by placing strict censorship on press and crackdowns on assembly. Political idealist would not see the public as the threat to government, but as a means of control over governmental policy. As mentioned earlier, when politically charged, violence is not abrupt. In idealism theory, violent demonstrations would suggest a problem with structure.
The display of Chinese soldiers in a ceremonial world gathering would suggest to be seen as a display of power. The Olympic Games were an opportunity for China to reach the world and gain the recognition as a world power. As stated in Yong Deng’s book “China’s Struggle for Status”, in order to gain recognition, you must have power (Deng, p. 21). As displayed in part by the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games, realist China is focused on power, and by bidding on the hosting nation in the first place, is very concerned with recognition. Idealist would see China’s display of power and lack of systematic cooperation as a threat that could lead to catastrophe. Idealists theorize democracies will not fight other democracies, but if China is to remain incompliant with idealistic goals, then action must be taken. Idealist could see China’s actions and lack of compassion for human life as just cause for war.
If war is to be the case, certain criteria must be met before most idealists would accept war as a feasible option for controlling further threats to democracy. 1) The declaration of war would carry moral weight. The war would be declared to defend human rights of citizens and the rights of others that are directly affected by China’s communistic government. Violations of human rights do not only affect the people of the governments which impose them. Violations set moral standards that bring fear, hatred, and resentment of envied nations. This fear, hatred, and resentment is the same that has fueled the spread trans-national terrorist organizations that pose threats to the security of nation states globally. 2) The declaration of war would not be made in sole interest for power of a single person as many nations and individual lives have been affected by China’s complete disregard for human rights. For a leader not to act on these disregards would be immoral. If China continues to behave in such an oppressive manner with no intent on following through on negotiated terms, intervention of war must be considered by nation leaders. 3) The intent must be to right wrongdoing by China. China having to result to violence in order to protect its government may not be considered by some just war theorists as cause for declaration of war, but the genocidal treatment of its own people that cause the uprising of the people can and should be. Sudan has been suffering what the United States has recognized as genocide at the of Chinese oil purchasers. International institutes would see China’s stance on human rights as a blight attempt to stop any further war. States should then reform policy and make a firm stance against China’s ill treatment of humanity. 4) Attempts to advance human rights have been made numerously by the United States, that of which China’s government officials have continually ignored. Ignoring diplomacy in favor of selfish gains will disturb peace that must be restored. 5) If faced with war, the waging sides must possess the ability to win. Without the ability to win, the cause is lost. The United States possesses the technology and military force to match China’s own forces. 6) The proportion is that the rights of Chinese citizens and citizens of states affected by China’s stance on human rights would be equal to the proportionality of rights sought by western nations. The United States and allies would refrain from using any unconventional tactics that would cause indiscriminate harm to non-combatants when fighting for human rights as this would contradict the declaration of the war.
War would not be the preferred method by idealist, but it would have served its purpose if it were the means of advancing democracy by “planting seeds of democracy” as an effective foreign policy tool (Meernik, p. 123). These seeds would then grow to a greater involvement of the United States and other democratic nation states within the borders of China. The presence of other governments would intervene with any recognition of a self-standing world power that China seeks much like the United States did with Japan and Italy after World War II. If China is to stand on its own and compete globally, they must accept democracy in all cause. If China simply chooses to ignore policy on human rights, the free world will have to align for the good of democracy in order for theory of idealism to work.
China had spent billions of dollars over the course of seven years since it was awarded the responsibility as hosting nation for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. The position of host had been awarded to china with the consideration that China would be given a chance to change. China responded by attempting to distance itself from the war in Darfur, Sudan which the United States has referred to as genocide. China then, instead of implementing controls on trade with Sudan, had only attempted to cover up any involvement they had ever taken in the mass demonstrations of violence and murder (Reeves, 2008). China had also promised a greener environment by replacing coal-powered plants in Beijing with clean energy. Instead of replacing the means of energy, China had only relocated the plant facilities far outside the city limits where toxin levels would not be measured. China also did not want to be viewed as a heinous transgressor of human rights. Instead of probing the problems existing and seeking solutions, China only quieted the problem by imprisoning anyone who spoke out against the Olympic planning committee and the Chinese government (China, 2008).
The cover-ups China had attempted should have made it very clear to the United States that China did not view the Olympics as sport. China had viewed their Position as the hosting nation as a means to gain political and economical status with western nation states. If President Bush wishes to view himself as a realist, he would have seen that China is acting in a very selfish manner by lying to the United States and by suppressing its own people. By attending the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games, President Bush was allowing China to assume that the United States, the leader of the free world, would be accepting of lying, murdering, oppressing as long as you can cover your tracks. Even if President Bush had identified himself as an idealist, he would have not attended the opening ceremonies on the grounds China was imposing threats on democracy.
China has a long way to go if they would like to be accepted into trade by the free world. Hosting the Olympic Games should have been seen as a test to see the commitment China will be willing to assert to the free trade market. In the idealist sense, China failed miserably. In order to gain respect and compete globally, China must be accepting of equal gender rights. China must implement regulations on forced labor. Since 1999, there have been over 180 forced labor camps that have operated illegally in China in 2005. Laborers in these camps consist of elderly, children, and women. The prisoners of these labor camps are subjected to torture and brainwashing techniques that routinely result in the death of the tortured (Xu, 2005). There should be no forced abortion, no unequal gender rights. Any woman forced to abort pregnancy has been raped of her rights as a human and as a woman.
From these arguments we can conclude that, from a realist perspective, President Bush should have not been so passive in his stance against China. While events within Olympic competition may be competed as sport, hosting a global event should never been seen as anything but political when the only entity controlling sovereign nations is anarchy. If Bush wanted to assert the power he holds to let China know he was not impressed with the lack of advancement achieved by China, not attending the opening ceremonies would have been the best way to deliver. We may also conclude that China has much to overcome if they would like to receive the recognition as a world power that they intended to seek while hosting the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. The free world is a liberal one with roots in idealism. Idealist should never taking liking to any nation that poses threat to the peace and democracy that is sought in a free world. The fact that China lied and tried to cover violations of human rights that were promised to be addressed and fixed was a slap in the face to western nation states that ultimately only hurt the integrity of China’s leaders.
Works Cited
AFP. (2008, April 4). China urged to drop Tibet from Olympic torch route. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from AFP: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jt-Bnn9Znx27RmyvpYHjCuHNK8Yg
China, C.-E. C. (2008). The Impact of the 2008 Olympic Games on Human Rights and the Rule of Law In
China. 110th Congress (p. 4). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Deng, Y. (2008). China's Struggle for Status: The Realignment of International Relations. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eggen, D. (2008, April 2008). Bush Holds Firm on Plan to Attend Olympic Opening. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041102484.html
Kelly, G. A. (1977). Human Nature in Politics: Politics, Violence, and Human Nature. (R. Pennock, & J. W. Chapman, Eds.) New York, New York: New York University.
Khrushcheva, N. L. (2006, February 12). Why Russia Still Loves Stalin. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021100845.html
Meernik, J. D. (2004). The Political Use of Military Force in US Foreign Policy. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1985). politics among nations: The Struggle for power and Peace. New York, New York: McGraw Hill.
Reeves, E. (2008, March 22). China's genocide Games. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from The Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/22/chinas_genocide_games/
Spivey, N. (2004). The Ancient Olympics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., New York.
Stolberg, S. G. (2008, July 4). Bush to attend opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/world/americas/04iht-prexy.1.14235707.html
Xu, G. (2005, June 27). Forced Labor in China. Retrieved November 17, 2005, from Congressional-Executive Commission on China: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/roundtables/062305/Xu.php
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Germany, Israel, Iran
"Germany, Israel, Iran”
On September 28, 2009, Iran reported that Iranian Revolutionary Guards had successfully test-deployed medium-ranged, liquid-fueled Shahab-3 missiles, along with solid-fueled Sejil-2 missiles. The report came just days after the United States, France, and Britain had used disclosed information of what was once a secret nuclear processing plant that was under construction in Iran. The three nations had disclosed this information to impose a stronger sense of urgency that a threat exists with Iran’s attempts to enrich uranium. Iranian officials had claimed that the launchings were peaceful in nature, but also claimed that the missiles were capable of reaching any nation that poses a threat to Iran (Cowell & Fathi, 2009). The news was very confrontational in all Europe and Russia, but for the purpose of my report I will be focusing on how the behavior of Iran affects Germany; more to the point, how Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany should handle the threat posed by advances of nuclear technology in Iran.
Iran’s capital, Tehran is located approximately 2,179 miles linear from Germany’s capital, Berlin. The maximum range of the Shahab-3 and for the Sejil-2 missiles are approximately 990 miles (Vick, 2007), and 1200 respectively (Sanger & Fathi, 2009). The ranges on these missiles are not even enough to strike targets within 500 miles of Germany’s most southeastern borders from Iran’s most northern border, but Iran would not have to destroy targets within Germany to cause major damage to German Interests. Obviously Chancellor Merkel is going to be concerned with the thought of rockets threatening any targets within the European Union, but one state, Israel, should have her much more concerned. The worry is that Iran is becoming closer to creating a nuclear warhead that will match the 1000 pound capacity of these rockets so that it may be fired at Israel whose state neither denies nor confirms having nuclear weapons (Cohen, pp. 11-12).
Israel is a state that was born out of the holocaust as masses of Jewish Europeans began immigrating to Palestine against British authority after World War II. Instead of continuing to imprison captured Jews, the British decided to turn the problem over to the United Nations. It was decided by the United Nations that the Jews would have their own state within Palestine. Until then, Palestine had been largely controlled by Arabs until German property in Palestine was confiscated by British authority after Germany was defeated in 1918. By 1922, German influence in Palestine had been restored as Germany began to see economic value in trade that was occurring. By 1925, the Zion movement had brought many Jewish European settlers to Palestine where Germans credited the Arab population as being unwilling to develop postwar Palestine, and instead credited the development to Jewish capitol and labor (Nicosia, pp. 7-10).
According to the CIA’s World Factbook, Iran currently has a population of 66,429,284. Of the total population, roughly 59,122,062 are Shia Muslim, 5,978,636 are Sunni Muslim and 1,328,586 belonging to other religious affiliations including Judaism (Central Intellegence Agency, 2009). While not having directly threatened the destruction of Israel, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made many public statements claiming that the holocaust was a myth and anti-Zionist claims that the regime that reigns over Jerusalem be “wiped off the map” (Bronner, 2006). The anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic remarks made by Ahmnadinejad in conjunction with test firing the medium-range missiles would suggest to Germany that Iran was demonstrating their technology in attempt to show the power and capability of their state, and to intimidate opposing nation states with the ability to strike Israel if provoked.
Chancellor Merkel is left in a tough situation. Germany has the fifth largest economy in the world and is ranked first in exports with 72 percent of its exports remaining in Europe. Germany also ranks second only behind the United States in imports largely due to Germany’s consumption of energy which is supplied largely by Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Russia. These states are known to be volatile and problematic within the international community (Covarrubias & White, pp. 49-54). The problems concerning the United States coming to an agreement with Russia on how antiballistic missile defense systems was crucial not only to German security, but to Israeli security and German political policy.
It has been Germany’s foreign policy that the use of “constructive engagement” can be used to build a standing relationship with Iran. Germany’s current ethos is set largely in part by humiliation of the holocaust. The implication of soft power instruments as opposed to hard power is meant to assure that politics are used when attempting resolve global and domestic issues as opposed to the hard power of force, which is to be used as a final measure (Covarrubias & White, p. 58). This is one reason why Chancellor Merkel had asked that the 20 warheads being stored within Germany’s borders be removed. As part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Germany agreed to not partake in the manufacturing of new nuclear warheads. Instead, it has shared use of 160 warheads with the United States (Dempsy, 2009). It is also policy for Germany to view Iran as a rational actor; however, this policy may not be the wisest seeing as President Ahmadinejad has not shown himself to be exactly rational.
In the theory of Realpolitik we have used analogy of the billiard ball effect. This analogy describes how the balls of a billiards table can be thought of as nation states acting and reacting to pressure applied by a larger billiards ball. Each ball is proportional in size to its corresponding relative actor. With this method, we can conclude that each rational actor must accept the imposition of larger state actors. If this is the case then there should be little to deal with when matters come to Iran. Even though Iran is a sovereign nation, it is still less powerful than Germany when it comes to military and purchasing power. So, why has Iran not accepted that it can either accept Germany, along with other larger actors, as superior states or be destroyed?
We can conclude from Ahmnadinejad’s missile testing and unwillingness to negotiate with world actors on nuclear policy that, by Realpolitik (unfortunately called systemic realism by nation-states) that he is not acting rational. Germany, however, would not be a realist actor. This is not to say Merkel is not realistic in her goals, but that she would be more toward Germany’s ideals on politics without force. Idealists believe that democracies will never fight other democracies but will fight those who impose upon democracy.
If Iran does choose to continue with nuclear production, Germany will have to face the possibility of war. While Germany is working to diminish nuclear warheads, Iranian leaders are working to develop them and show themselves as a world power capable of creating advanced technological weapons. Since Israel neither confirms nor denies the possession of nuclear warheads, Iran may be inclined to use nuclear force against Israel.
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has been the deterring factor of nuclear war since the cold war. Even though the United States has negotiated a new missile shield agreement that is strategically placed to defend against Iranian attack, MAD has remained the world’s number one defense against nuclear attack. It would seem that Iran would be incapable of pulling off a first strike attempt against Israel in that they would unlikely to thwart off a second strike. Even if Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, its allies still are capable of responding with a second strike.
Even though this theory of nuclear destruction being mutually assured is what has been protecting the world from nuclear war, it is extremely scary to think that the only thing that rational states assume that is keeping a state from first strike is that the opposing state is rational enough to care if their nation is destroyed or not. Chancellor Merkel has pushed for negotiations with Iran concerning the halt of any nuclear development and even the removal of warheads shared by the United States from Germany. Not only will Germany’s export trade suffer if any European state is damaged from a nuclear strike, but the human rights Germany has upheld in their nation since the end of World War II will be imposed upon, as nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately.
As we saw the rioting that occurred in the streets of Tehran over Ahmadinejad declaring himself the victor over his opponent, Mir Hussein Moussavi, Iranian citizens do not wish for the tactics and leadership of Ahmandinejad; therefore, it would be unfair to use indiscriminate force against the state. Chancellor Merkel also sees that Ahmandinejad wishes to return Israeli land back to Islam. Any attempt to deny a state to exist is a pure violation of human rights (Fathi & Worth, 2009). This is why Chancellor Merkel will choose to side with the missile defense shield set in place to defend against missile attack from Iran and will continue policy against nuclear development in Iran.
Works Cited
Bronner, E. (2006, June 11). Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Central Intellegence Agency. (2009, November 11). Middle East: Iran. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Central Intellegence Agency - World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
Cohen, A. (1998). Israel and the Bomb. New York, New York: Columbia University Press.
Covarrubias, J., & White, C. (2007). Germany and the Middle East. In J. Cavarrubias, T. Lansford, J.
Cavarrubias, & T. Lansford (Eds.), Strategic Interests in the Middle East: Opposition or Support for US Foreign Policy (pp. 49-54). Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Cowell, A., & Fathi, N. (2009, September 29). Iran Test-Fires Missiles That Put Israel in Range. The New York Times , pp. A-12.
Dempsy, J. (2009, October 28). Ridding Germany of U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/world/europe/29iht-letter.html
Fathi, N., & Worth, R. F. (2009, June 15). Defiance Grows as Iran's Leader Sets Vote Review. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/16iran.html?sq=iran%20protest%20riot%20presidential%20election&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=all
Nicosia, F. R. (2000). The Third Reich and The Palestine Question. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Sanger, D. E., & Fathi, N. (2009, May 20). Iran Test-Fires Missile With 1,200-Mile Range. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/world/middleeast/21iran.html?scp=1&sq=Iran%20Test-Fires%20Missile%20With%201,200-Mile%20Range&st=cse
Vick, C. P. (2007, February 15). Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Retrieved November 17, 2009, from GlobalSecurity.org: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm
On September 28, 2009, Iran reported that Iranian Revolutionary Guards had successfully test-deployed medium-ranged, liquid-fueled Shahab-3 missiles, along with solid-fueled Sejil-2 missiles. The report came just days after the United States, France, and Britain had used disclosed information of what was once a secret nuclear processing plant that was under construction in Iran. The three nations had disclosed this information to impose a stronger sense of urgency that a threat exists with Iran’s attempts to enrich uranium. Iranian officials had claimed that the launchings were peaceful in nature, but also claimed that the missiles were capable of reaching any nation that poses a threat to Iran (Cowell & Fathi, 2009). The news was very confrontational in all Europe and Russia, but for the purpose of my report I will be focusing on how the behavior of Iran affects Germany; more to the point, how Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany should handle the threat posed by advances of nuclear technology in Iran.
Iran’s capital, Tehran is located approximately 2,179 miles linear from Germany’s capital, Berlin. The maximum range of the Shahab-3 and for the Sejil-2 missiles are approximately 990 miles (Vick, 2007), and 1200 respectively (Sanger & Fathi, 2009). The ranges on these missiles are not even enough to strike targets within 500 miles of Germany’s most southeastern borders from Iran’s most northern border, but Iran would not have to destroy targets within Germany to cause major damage to German Interests. Obviously Chancellor Merkel is going to be concerned with the thought of rockets threatening any targets within the European Union, but one state, Israel, should have her much more concerned. The worry is that Iran is becoming closer to creating a nuclear warhead that will match the 1000 pound capacity of these rockets so that it may be fired at Israel whose state neither denies nor confirms having nuclear weapons (Cohen, pp. 11-12).
Israel is a state that was born out of the holocaust as masses of Jewish Europeans began immigrating to Palestine against British authority after World War II. Instead of continuing to imprison captured Jews, the British decided to turn the problem over to the United Nations. It was decided by the United Nations that the Jews would have their own state within Palestine. Until then, Palestine had been largely controlled by Arabs until German property in Palestine was confiscated by British authority after Germany was defeated in 1918. By 1922, German influence in Palestine had been restored as Germany began to see economic value in trade that was occurring. By 1925, the Zion movement had brought many Jewish European settlers to Palestine where Germans credited the Arab population as being unwilling to develop postwar Palestine, and instead credited the development to Jewish capitol and labor (Nicosia, pp. 7-10).
According to the CIA’s World Factbook, Iran currently has a population of 66,429,284. Of the total population, roughly 59,122,062 are Shia Muslim, 5,978,636 are Sunni Muslim and 1,328,586 belonging to other religious affiliations including Judaism (Central Intellegence Agency, 2009). While not having directly threatened the destruction of Israel, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made many public statements claiming that the holocaust was a myth and anti-Zionist claims that the regime that reigns over Jerusalem be “wiped off the map” (Bronner, 2006). The anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic remarks made by Ahmnadinejad in conjunction with test firing the medium-range missiles would suggest to Germany that Iran was demonstrating their technology in attempt to show the power and capability of their state, and to intimidate opposing nation states with the ability to strike Israel if provoked.
Chancellor Merkel is left in a tough situation. Germany has the fifth largest economy in the world and is ranked first in exports with 72 percent of its exports remaining in Europe. Germany also ranks second only behind the United States in imports largely due to Germany’s consumption of energy which is supplied largely by Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Russia. These states are known to be volatile and problematic within the international community (Covarrubias & White, pp. 49-54). The problems concerning the United States coming to an agreement with Russia on how antiballistic missile defense systems was crucial not only to German security, but to Israeli security and German political policy.
It has been Germany’s foreign policy that the use of “constructive engagement” can be used to build a standing relationship with Iran. Germany’s current ethos is set largely in part by humiliation of the holocaust. The implication of soft power instruments as opposed to hard power is meant to assure that politics are used when attempting resolve global and domestic issues as opposed to the hard power of force, which is to be used as a final measure (Covarrubias & White, p. 58). This is one reason why Chancellor Merkel had asked that the 20 warheads being stored within Germany’s borders be removed. As part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Germany agreed to not partake in the manufacturing of new nuclear warheads. Instead, it has shared use of 160 warheads with the United States (Dempsy, 2009). It is also policy for Germany to view Iran as a rational actor; however, this policy may not be the wisest seeing as President Ahmadinejad has not shown himself to be exactly rational.
In the theory of Realpolitik we have used analogy of the billiard ball effect. This analogy describes how the balls of a billiards table can be thought of as nation states acting and reacting to pressure applied by a larger billiards ball. Each ball is proportional in size to its corresponding relative actor. With this method, we can conclude that each rational actor must accept the imposition of larger state actors. If this is the case then there should be little to deal with when matters come to Iran. Even though Iran is a sovereign nation, it is still less powerful than Germany when it comes to military and purchasing power. So, why has Iran not accepted that it can either accept Germany, along with other larger actors, as superior states or be destroyed?
We can conclude from Ahmnadinejad’s missile testing and unwillingness to negotiate with world actors on nuclear policy that, by Realpolitik (unfortunately called systemic realism by nation-states) that he is not acting rational. Germany, however, would not be a realist actor. This is not to say Merkel is not realistic in her goals, but that she would be more toward Germany’s ideals on politics without force. Idealists believe that democracies will never fight other democracies but will fight those who impose upon democracy.
If Iran does choose to continue with nuclear production, Germany will have to face the possibility of war. While Germany is working to diminish nuclear warheads, Iranian leaders are working to develop them and show themselves as a world power capable of creating advanced technological weapons. Since Israel neither confirms nor denies the possession of nuclear warheads, Iran may be inclined to use nuclear force against Israel.
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has been the deterring factor of nuclear war since the cold war. Even though the United States has negotiated a new missile shield agreement that is strategically placed to defend against Iranian attack, MAD has remained the world’s number one defense against nuclear attack. It would seem that Iran would be incapable of pulling off a first strike attempt against Israel in that they would unlikely to thwart off a second strike. Even if Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, its allies still are capable of responding with a second strike.
Even though this theory of nuclear destruction being mutually assured is what has been protecting the world from nuclear war, it is extremely scary to think that the only thing that rational states assume that is keeping a state from first strike is that the opposing state is rational enough to care if their nation is destroyed or not. Chancellor Merkel has pushed for negotiations with Iran concerning the halt of any nuclear development and even the removal of warheads shared by the United States from Germany. Not only will Germany’s export trade suffer if any European state is damaged from a nuclear strike, but the human rights Germany has upheld in their nation since the end of World War II will be imposed upon, as nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately.
As we saw the rioting that occurred in the streets of Tehran over Ahmadinejad declaring himself the victor over his opponent, Mir Hussein Moussavi, Iranian citizens do not wish for the tactics and leadership of Ahmandinejad; therefore, it would be unfair to use indiscriminate force against the state. Chancellor Merkel also sees that Ahmandinejad wishes to return Israeli land back to Islam. Any attempt to deny a state to exist is a pure violation of human rights (Fathi & Worth, 2009). This is why Chancellor Merkel will choose to side with the missile defense shield set in place to defend against missile attack from Iran and will continue policy against nuclear development in Iran.
Works Cited
Bronner, E. (2006, June 11). Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Central Intellegence Agency. (2009, November 11). Middle East: Iran. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Central Intellegence Agency - World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
Cohen, A. (1998). Israel and the Bomb. New York, New York: Columbia University Press.
Covarrubias, J., & White, C. (2007). Germany and the Middle East. In J. Cavarrubias, T. Lansford, J.
Cavarrubias, & T. Lansford (Eds.), Strategic Interests in the Middle East: Opposition or Support for US Foreign Policy (pp. 49-54). Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Cowell, A., & Fathi, N. (2009, September 29). Iran Test-Fires Missiles That Put Israel in Range. The New York Times , pp. A-12.
Dempsy, J. (2009, October 28). Ridding Germany of U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/world/europe/29iht-letter.html
Fathi, N., & Worth, R. F. (2009, June 15). Defiance Grows as Iran's Leader Sets Vote Review. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/16iran.html?sq=iran%20protest%20riot%20presidential%20election&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=all
Nicosia, F. R. (2000). The Third Reich and The Palestine Question. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Sanger, D. E., & Fathi, N. (2009, May 20). Iran Test-Fires Missile With 1,200-Mile Range. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/world/middleeast/21iran.html?scp=1&sq=Iran%20Test-Fires%20Missile%20With%201,200-Mile%20Range&st=cse
Vick, C. P. (2007, February 15). Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Retrieved November 17, 2009, from GlobalSecurity.org: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm
Monday, August 3, 2009
Dear America's Toughest Sheriff
Flag Burning as Iconoclasm
“One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” were the words we would repeat from our muscle memory. We had no idea what we were pledging allegiance to, less what the words pledge and allegiance even meant. Yet we pledged ourselves day in and out before this flag. The flag detail ceremony is highly prized by many Americans. They stand tall and proud as it is being raised and lowered. To these Americans, the flag represents their country, their god, and above all, their freedom. But what freedom is exactly held sacred beneath this flying flag?
There are several laws governing the display of a flag. If broken, they are punishable and can even amount to jail time. In the case of William B. Mummford, the removal of the flag was death(1). The cost of dropping the flag is that it must be burned. Many protestors have used flag burning in demonstration. I feel this is stating that America is falling and we will burn if we do not take action. However, the Citizens of Flag Alliance does not agree my feelings. The alliance states that the flag represents our unity and that our system of democracy, constitutional rights and freedoms are all unified by our flag. “It is our ‘trademark’.” Corporate America. I’m reminded by a scene from Chuck Palahniuk’s book Fight Club where the members of Project: Mayhem are set on a quest to kill two birds with one stone by destroying a piece of corporate art and a franchise coffee shop.
Even though burning the flag is seen to be unjustly by many, the case has been brought up all often in the past few decades. In 1989, Texas man named Gregory Johnson was tried and convicted for burning the U.S. flag in protest of the reelection of President Reagan(3). Even though there is no federal Supreme Court decision of flag burning as being unlawful, there are certain fire and peace codes the courts may arrest you for. The court’s decision was later appealed as there was no evidence that Johnson had actually endangered any one’s wellbeing(4).
I believe that as a symbol of freedom, we should be free to display the American flag in any way we choose. If that means flying it over a lighted path, draping from our door, modeling it into clothing, or laying it ablaze on the sidewalk while urinating on it to put it out, then so be it. Anti-flag burning members argue that our forefathers died for that flag, but I believe they could not die for something as vain as a flag. It was what the flag represented; our freedom to speak and be heard. To express ourselves in the manner that best displays our feelings and emotions; that and not having to pay taxes.
“One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” were the words we would repeat from our muscle memory. We had no idea what we were pledging allegiance to, less what the words pledge and allegiance even meant. Yet we pledged ourselves day in and out before this flag. The flag detail ceremony is highly prized by many Americans. They stand tall and proud as it is being raised and lowered. To these Americans, the flag represents their country, their god, and above all, their freedom. But what freedom is exactly held sacred beneath this flying flag?
There are several laws governing the display of a flag. If broken, they are punishable and can even amount to jail time. In the case of William B. Mummford, the removal of the flag was death(1). The cost of dropping the flag is that it must be burned. Many protestors have used flag burning in demonstration. I feel this is stating that America is falling and we will burn if we do not take action. However, the Citizens of Flag Alliance does not agree my feelings. The alliance states that the flag represents our unity and that our system of democracy, constitutional rights and freedoms are all unified by our flag. “It is our ‘trademark’.” Corporate America. I’m reminded by a scene from Chuck Palahniuk’s book Fight Club where the members of Project: Mayhem are set on a quest to kill two birds with one stone by destroying a piece of corporate art and a franchise coffee shop.
Even though burning the flag is seen to be unjustly by many, the case has been brought up all often in the past few decades. In 1989, Texas man named Gregory Johnson was tried and convicted for burning the U.S. flag in protest of the reelection of President Reagan(3). Even though there is no federal Supreme Court decision of flag burning as being unlawful, there are certain fire and peace codes the courts may arrest you for. The court’s decision was later appealed as there was no evidence that Johnson had actually endangered any one’s wellbeing(4).
I believe that as a symbol of freedom, we should be free to display the American flag in any way we choose. If that means flying it over a lighted path, draping from our door, modeling it into clothing, or laying it ablaze on the sidewalk while urinating on it to put it out, then so be it. Anti-flag burning members argue that our forefathers died for that flag, but I believe they could not die for something as vain as a flag. It was what the flag represented; our freedom to speak and be heard. To express ourselves in the manner that best displays our feelings and emotions; that and not having to pay taxes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
