Qualifying Round Essay for the IPPF (International Public Policy Forum) By MY TEAM! :D

Qualifying Round Essay

Korean Minjok Leadership Academy

1300Sosa, Anheung, Hoengseong,

Gangwon, Republic of Korea 225-823

82-10-3124-7179

For the International Public Policy Forum

On the topic:

“Resolved: As a last resort, unilateral military action is justified to minimize nuclear weapons proliferation”

Introduction

“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”           – Albert Einstein -

The world is facing today an unprecedented nuclear threat, with multiple rogue states striving to develop nuclear weapons technology. North Korea already possesses nuclear weapons along with rudimentary Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) technology—and Iran is not far behind (Yonhap). The international community is up against an issue that may decide nothing less than the fate of our species. In this context, the duty of the international community to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons must be made a matter of highest priority: a global mission to ensure weapons of mass destruction do not fall into the wrong hands.

However, the approach the international community should implement to minimize nuclear weapons proliferation is debatable. In this essay, we will show that multilateral military intervention is the best course of action to minimize nuclear weapons proliferation. Our argument is threefold. First, nuclear weapons proliferation should be deterred for the sake of world peace. Next, multilateral action is a far more preferable course of action than unilateral intervention. Lastly, only after exhausting every possible measure would multilateral intervention be justified—as a last resort.

1-1) Rogue States

             Nuclear weapons in the wrong hands will certainly create a volatile situation. In fact, the situation in the status quo is heightening tensions to an unprecedented level, as North Korea and Iran threaten world peace. North Korea has proven to be completely indifferent to the international community’s many demands to abandon its nuclear program. It recently restarted its Yongbyun reactor (Evans), tested its ICBM capability in 2013 despite condemnation by the international community (Elleman), and conducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013. In 2010, North Korea shelled South Korea’s YeonPyeong Island, killing 2 civilians (Kim). Prior to that, North Korea sank the Cheonan, a South Korean naval vessel, killing 46 sailors on board (The Guardian). Considering its history of ignoring international demands and violent aggression, North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons poses a major threat.

             Iran’s nuclear program has been more opaque but no less dangerous. While Iran has officially declared no intention of building a nuclear bomb, it is doing just that. Considering its history of actions and threats, Iran too cannot be trusted. Former president Ahmadinejad stated Israel “must be wiped off the map (Fathi).” Moreover, Iran’s initial refusal to let the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors examine nuclear facilities in 2012 raised credible suspicions about Iran’s nuclear program (World Nuclear News). While Iran continues to insist its nuclear program is peaceful, the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.

1-2) Terrorists

             Rogue states and terrorists maintain intimate relationships. Pakistan, for instance, has close connections with terrorist organizations such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (Hundley). Iran is widely known to have close ties with Hezbollah (Sciolino), which aims to destroy Israel. Possession of nuclear weapons by terrorists would be an extreme threat to the international community. We have already witnessed previously unimaginable actions by terrorist groups. Including the 9/11 attacks which resulted in over three thousand deaths. Similarly, a nuclear attack on just one major city in the world would result in tens of thousands of civilian casualties, as shown in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At least four terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, have demonstrated clear desire for a nuclear weapon device (Allison). These groups operate in, near or closely with states that have a history of questionable nuclear activities. Terrorists do not need to possess an actual nuclear weapon. They could easily create an improvised device from highly enriched uranium which is available in nuclear states such as Pakistan. To date, there have been 18 reported thefts or loss of deployable nuclear material (Allison). Pakistani nuclear facilities were attacked three times, including Sargodha, Kamra, and the Wah Cantonment Ordnance Complex in an effort by terrorists to secure uranium (Kramer). In 2011, the Moldovan police broke up a smuggling ring trying to sell highly enriched uranium: one smuggler was reported to have escaped with a kilogram of the material (Kramer).

             North Korea was suspected of aiding Syria in building a nuclear reactor, which could have been easily modified to initiate a nuclear weapons development program (Powell). What especially concerns the international community is that Syria is widely known to have close connections to terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda (Norton-Taylor). Although it is difficult to prove North Korea has direct terrorist ties, its efforts to spread nuclear technology to its “rogue allies” are of great concern to the international community.

A nuclear attack by terrorists could kill tens of thousands, create billions of dollars in damage, and undermine the global economy. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that an act of nuclear terrorism “would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty” and create “a second death toll throughout the developing world” (Brill; Luongo). As horrific as the prospect of nuclear terrorism is, the proliferation of nuclear weapons among rogue states only increases the chance for such a crisis.

1-3) Nuclear Arms Race

Nuclear weapons proliferation will likely cause a nuclear arms race. Countries like Iran and North Korea are located in some of the most geopolitically volatile regions of the world. Neighboring countries are extremely wary of the nuclear programs in these rogue states and could very well develop their nuclear programs for the sake of “self-defense.” We have already witnessed this type of nuclear arms race in Pakistan and India. As soon as India began developing its nuclear program, Pakistan jumped in and joined the race. As a result, Pakistan is estimated to currently possess 90~120 operational nuclear warheads, surpassing India in the total number of warheads (Hundley).

A similar situation is taking shape in East Asia. Japan, a country with fully developed nuclear energy technology, is strongly considering the creation of a nuclear arsenal for national security purposes. The Japanese government feels the country is disproportionately weak compared to the unconventional military arsenal of North Korea (Herman). Tokyo governor Ishihara recently stated Japan should expand its nuclear horizon to the military level (Fowler; Sakamaki). If Japan develops nuclear weapons, it is very likely South Korea will do the same. Currently, over two-thirds of South Korean citizens support greater self-defense through nuclear weapons, because they feel the North Korean threat is augmenting by the day (Kwon). That number is sure to grow if Japan officially declares its own nuclear intentions. In regions where the danger of war remains high, the start of a nuclear arms race could very well mean the beginning of the end for human civilization.

2-1) Arbitrariness of Unilateral Action

The unilateral approach of the just war theory focuses on situations where a nation believes attack is imminent. In such a case, military action would be justified for national security: the safety of its citizens and the state.

Just war theory is better supported when more nations agree to it. Greater support implies the existence of a clear threat to world peace. The invasion of Iraq was justified by the U.S. as an attack against a rogue nation which had acquired weapons of mass destruction and supported terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. However, no such weapons or links to terrorist groups were ever found in Iraq. The invasion itself was not approved by the UN and was a violation of the UN Charter (Blix). Indeed, a unilateral approach is dangerous and unjust because a nation can misuse its power for its own benefit—exactly what the U.S. was criticized for. Without any preventative measure or global agreement, unilateral action often proves irresponsible and devastating, which is why it is inherently unjustified. In 2007, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich sought to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney under House Resolution 333. Kucinich said Cheney “purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens of the United States” about the potential threat of Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons during the Saddam Hussein era and has “openly threatened aggression” against Iran (Curry). The arbitrary exercise of unilateral power is itself a threat to world peace—one that must be supplanted by the actions of a supranational organization that has reached consensus on the international community’s behalf. 

2-2) Effectiveness of Multilateral Action
      Possessing reasonable chance of success is another criterion for just war theory, for which multilateral action proves favorable on two levels. 

First, since an international organization like the United Nations consists of many countries, its combined military capability is far more powerful than that of any single nation. The UN Charter mandates all nations provide military support if needed (UN Charter Chapter VII). The UN, furthermore, is an international organization that acts on the behalf of the international community. Whatever action UN decides to carry out, the decision is an ‘international’ decision rather than a domestic one. Therefore, when the UN organizes a military strike, it sends a very powerful message to the country being attacked. Any country that may be attacked by an ‘international force’ will feel more pressure to engage in a diplomatic solution and act in accordance with international norms and expectations.

Second, in the event military action is necessary, the UN will not retreat from military operations as easily as a single nation might. The US is steadily removing troops from Afghanistan even though the nation remains highly unstable. In February 2013, President Obama cut the number of troops in Afghanistan by half (Tapper). He did this because the majority of US citizens supported withdrawal. However, this decision is being intensely debated because the Taliban remain a powerful force. Military officers credibly fear Taliban forces will reestablish control in rural regions absent a US military presence (The Economist). The UN, in its fight against nuclear proliferation, would not be vulnerable to public opinion. The UN Peacekeeping goal is “not only to maintain peace and security, but also to facilitate the political process, protect civilians, assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants; support the organization of elections, protect and promote human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law (UN).”Until it becomes clear that the nuclear problem and other surrounding complications have been rooted out, the UN or multilateral effort it approves will continue its military campaign.

2-3) Backlashes of Unilateral Action

Retaliation is a possible consequence that must be considered in any military action. Considering the strength of superpower military forces, a multilateral effort will bring swift end to any military conflict which arises. But direct or indirect retaliation by the nation attacked and/or its supporting organizations will be a plausible reaction to unilateral action. Hezbollah is a widely known terrorist group in Lebanon supported by Iran in its resistance to Israel. This has been evidenced by Iranian officials, an attitude which has not altered despite Rouhani’s position as president (Hashem). This is another reason why unilateral action cannot be justified. Because unilateral action does not have the backing of the international community, the attacked nation feels it is being unfairly dealt with. With such hatred towards the perpetrator, the nation will likely justify the funding and support for terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah. Iran currently maintains strong anti-Semitic values promoted by the government (Weinthal). This will only be strengthened by unilateral action and will thus bring further harms to international peace.  But multilateral action with broad international support will make clear to Iranians that they are the ones endangering peace, putting an end to justifications previously used to support terrorist groups.

             There also exists a clear difference in the goals of unilateral and multilateral action. Unilateral action takes into consideration primarily the interests and benefits of one nation, while the latter is focused on global peace, as mentioned previously. This means a unilateral actor will think less about regional consequences, leading to potential side effects that may harm other stakeholders. If the U.S. attacks North Korea because of its development of nuclear weapons, it has little to fear because North Korea does not currently have the capability to directly retaliate against the U.S. But North Korea would certainly believe South Korea condoned such unilateral action and therefore strike at South Korea. North Korea’s willingness to do just that has been proven on many occasions, including attacks on YeonPyeong Island and the Cheonan ship.

The above scenario will likely occur if the U.S. carries out a unilateral attack against North Korea without the support of countries in the region. It could furthermore lead to diplomatic problems between the U.S. and its regional allies and between North Korea and other East Asian nations.

3-1) Introduction—“Regarding the condition of Last Resort”

    “There was never a good war, or a bad peace.” As the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin suggests, violent, aggressive action must always be the last resort. In other words, if all peaceful arbitrations have failed, direct assault is legitimate. The purpose of the ad bellum just war principles is to restrict military action, unless absolutely necessary (BBC—‘Just War Theory Introduction’). In the status quo, the only final option is multilateral military action.

The term last resort inherently has two meanings. The first is self-evidently that all other options have been exhausted. Second the situation must be so alarmingly urgent such that action can no longer be postponed (IPPF Topic Primer).

3-2) Depleted Resorts

The most favorable action of resort is peaceful compromise. This comprises myriad of forms, including negotiations, peace-talks, and agreement to IAEA inspections. However, it is clear that peaceful resorts have failed. Iran has either limited the inspection areas of the IAEA or banned inspections entirely. North Korea declared at the UN Disarmament forum in Geneva that bowing to any UN resolutions will never happen (Nebehay).

The second resort is “unilateral action.” But aside from the previous laid out explanations, there are other reasons why this method is now obsolete. First is the shift in the global power paradigm. The U.S. is no longer perceived as all-mighty. The rise of China and revival of Russia have made U.S.-led unilateral action inherently difficult and dangerous. These nations have direct or indirect national interests in states like Iran or North Korea, and their surrounding regions. Second is the socio-economic change within the U.S. Not only is its national wealth being quickly depleted, but public opinion is against war.

3-3) The Red Line for Multilateral action

Thereafter, we must draw a red line for any multilateral military intervention. In most cases, that line is clear: attaining an operational nuclear warhead or 90% enriched uranium (Ronen). This line was set by U.S. President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at the United Nations two years ago. Iran has enriched uranium to 20% for legitimate civilian purposes, and is getting closer to that established line (Nebehay). It has accumulated 190 kilos of concentrated uranium of the 250 kilos needed to manufacture a warhead (World Nuclear Association). The case for North Korea is different. Because North Korea is mainly targeting the U.S. with existing nuclear weapons, the red line it must cross in order for multilateral intervention to be justified includes the miniaturization of nuclear warheads and ICBM capabilities.

Conclusion

While a major nuclear incident is by no means a certainty, the menace of nuclear terrorism looks to become increasingly heightened over the next few decades. Non-proliferation regimes will then come under greater pressure to also arm themselves. Access to peaceful nuclear energy programs will end up being curtailed or more stringent inspections will be introduced for countries operating civilian nuclear power plants.

With the potential ramifications of nuclear proliferation thoroughly explained in the first argument, countries that recklessly violate the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty without room for compromise ought to be punished fair and square. Critics, who agree to the necessity of military action, argue for alternatives like unilateral action. But unilateralism is no longer an option. Multilateral military action as a last resort to minimizing proliferation does not mean diplomatic efforts should be halted in any way. But when it is completely justified and satisfying the conditions of a last resort measure, multilateral military action is the only viable and legitimate final recourse available.

<Works Cited>

"Afghanistan: Ready or Not." The Economist. N.p., 9 June 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.

<http://www.economist.com/node/21556611>.

Allison, Graham. "Nuclear Terrorism Fact Sheet." Belfer Center for Science and

International Affairs. Harvard Kennedy School, Apr. 2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/20057/nuclear_terrorism_fact_sheet.html>.

BBC. "Just War - Introduction." BBC Ethics Guide. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/introduction.shtml>.

Blix, Hans. "Hans Blix: Iraq War Was a Terrible Mistake and Violation of U.N. Charter."

CNN. N.p., 19 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix/index.html>.

Brill, Kenneth C., and Kenneth N. Luongo. "Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger." The New

York Times. N.p., 15 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0>.

Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. International Relations Theory and the Case

against Unilateralism. Thesis. Dartmouth University, 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Sept. 2005. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~govt/docs/BrooksWohlforth-Perspectives.pdf>.

"Bunker-busting Behemoth: Pentagon Upgrades Bomb with Iranian Nukes in Mind." Fox

News. N.p., 3 May 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/03/pentagon-upgrades-bunker-buster-bomb-in-attempt-to-penetrate-key-iran-nuke-site/>.

CNN. "North Korea Threatens 'a Sea of Fire' upon South Korea." CNN. Turner Broadcasting

System, Inc., 25 Nov. 2011. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/24/world/asia/north-korea-sea-of-fire/index.html>.

Curry, Colleen. "5 Possible Repercussions of a U.S. Military Strike on Syria." ABC News.

N.p., 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/US/repercussions-us-military-strike-syria/story?id=20093229>.

Curry, Tom. "Kucinich Launches Oust-Cheney Effort." NBC News. N.p., 24 Apr. 2007. Web.

19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18297390/ns/politics-tom_curry/t/kucinich-launches-oust-cheney-effort/#.UmHs8ufFFsl>.

Elleman, Michael. "Prelude to an ICBM? Putting North Korea’s Unha-3 Launch Into

Context." Arms Control Association. N.p., Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_03/Prelude-to-an-ICBM%3FPutting-North-Koreas-Unha-3-Launch-Into-Context>.

Evans, Brynn M. "United States Unilateralism: A Global Threat for the 21st Century." Thesis.

Stanford University, 2003. 5 June 2003. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/A%20Global%20Threat%20for%20the%2021st%20Century.htm>.

Evans, Sophie Jane. "Russian Diplomat Warns That North Korea Faces 'man-made Disaster'

after Satellite Images Show It Has Restarted Ageing Nuclear Reactor." Mail Online. Daily Mail, 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418498/North-Korean-Yongbyon-nuclear-reactor-restarted--capable-producing-weapons-grade-plutonium.html>.

Fathi, Nazila. "Wipe Israel 'off the Map' Iranian Says." The New York Times. N.p., 27 Oct.

2005. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html?_r=2&>.

Felinstein, Lee, and Anne-Marie Slaughter. "A Duty to Prevent." Thesis. Princeton University,

2004. Jan.-Feb. 2004. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/DutytoPreventFA.txt>.

Fowler, Brian, and Sachiko Sakamaki. "Japan Should Have Nuclear Weapons: Ishihara."

Bloomberg. N.p., 19 July 2011. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-19/japan-should-have-nuclear-weapons-ishihara.html>.

Gale, Alastaire. "North Korea Reiterates Commitment to Building Nuclear Weapons." The

Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 27 May 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323855804578506560436080192>.

The Guardian. "North Korean Torpedo Sank Cheonan, South Korea Military Source Claims."

The Guardian. N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/22/north-korea-cheonan-sinking-torpedo>.

Hammond, Jeremy R. "Netanyahu’s ‘Red Line’ and U.S. Media Propaganda on Iran’s

Nuclear Program." Jeremy R. Hammond. N.p., 16 July 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2013/07/16/netanyahus-red-line-and-u-s-media-propaganda-on-irans-nuclear-program/>.

Hashem, Ali. "Iran's Ties to Hezbollah Unchanged." AL Monitor. N.p., 10 Aug. 2013. Web.

22 Oct. 2013. <http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/08/iran-hezbollah-policy-will-not-change-under-rouhani.html>.

Herman, Steve. "Rising Voices in S. Korea, Japan Advocate Nuclear Weapons." Voice of

America. N.p., 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.voanews.com/content/rising-voices-in-south-korea-japan-advocate-nuclear-weapons/1604309.html>.

Hundley, Tom. "Pakistan and India: Race to the End." Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

N.p., 5 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/pakistan-nuclear-weapons-battlefield-india-arms-race-energy-cold-war>.

The Iran Project. Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran. Austin Long:

Iran Project, n.d. Wilson Center. 13 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/IranReport_091112_FINAL.pdf>.

Kim, Hyung-jin, and Kwang-tae Kim. "Korea Attack: Yeonpyeong Island Shelled By North

Korea." Huffington Post. N.p., 25 May 2011. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/korea-attack-yeonpyeong-island_n_787294.html#s189509>.

Kimball, Daryl. "Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance." Arms Control Association.

N.p., Apr. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat>.

Kramer, Andrew E. "Arrests in Moldova Over Possible Uranium Smuggling." The New York

Times. N.p., 29 June 2011. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/world/europe/30moldova.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1382148415-U36w95156Eohlv7NhSiR9Q>.

Kramer, Andrew E. "Report: Pakistan Nuclear Facilities Attacked at Least Three Times by

Terrorists." Fox News. N.p., 11 Aug. 2009. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/08/11/report-pakistan-nuclear-facilities-attacked-at-least-three-times-by-terrorists/>.

Kwon, K.J. "Under Threat, South Koreans Mull Nuclear Weapons." CNN. N.p., 19 Mar. 2013.

Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/world/asia/south-korea-nuclear/index.html>.

Mulvey, Stephen. "Could Terrorists Get Hold of a Nuclear Bomb?" BBC News. N.p., 12 Apr.

2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8615484.stm>.

Nebehay, Stephanie. "North Korea Tells UN It Will Never Bow to Nuclear Resolutions."

Independent. N.p., 12 Feb. 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/north-korea-tells-un-it-will-never-bow-to-nuclear-resolutions-29065664.html>.

"N. Korea May Learn to Miniaturize Nuclear Warhead for ICBMs in Few Tests: Researcher."

Yonhap News. N.p., 25 Sept. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2013/09/25/59/0401000000AEN20130925004300315F.html>.

Norton-Taylor, Richard. "Al-Qaida in Syria Is Most Serious Terrorist Threat to UK, Says

Report." The Guardian. N.p., 10 July 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/10/al-qaida-syria-terrorist-threat>.

"Nuclear Terrorism 101: Frequently Asked Questions." Belfer Center. Harvard Kennedy

School, n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://nuclearsummit.org/nuclear_terrorism_101.html>.

Powell, Bill. "North Korea's Syrian Connection." Time. N.p., 25 Apr. 2008. Web. 19 Oct.

2013. <http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1735013,00.html>.

Roehrig, Terence. ""North Korea's Nuclear Weapons: Future Strategy and Doctrine"" Belfer

Center. Harvard University, May 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/23074/north_koreas_nuclear_weapons.html>.

Ronen, Gil. "Netanyahu: Red Line Is When Iran Reaches 90% of Enriched Uranium." Israel

National News. N.p., 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160353#.UmZ2L_m-2So>.

Sciolino, Elaine. "Iran Backs Hezbollah in Lebanon." World Security Network. N.p., 19 July

2006. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/Iran/Sciolino-Elaine/Iran-backs-Hezbollah-in-Lebanon>.

Tapper, Jake. "Obama Announces 34,000 Troops to Come Home." CNN. N.p., 13 Feb. 2013.

Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/12/politics/obama-sotu-afghanistan-troops/index.html>.

UN. "Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and

Acts of Aggression." Charter of the United Nations. N.p., 24 Apr. 2007. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml>.

UN. "History of the United Nations." United Nations. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.

<http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/index.shtml>.

UN. "United Nations Peacekeeping Helps Countries Torn by Conflict Create Conditions for

Lasting Peace." United Nations Peacekeeping. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/peacekeeping.shtml>.

US Department of Energy. National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century. Rep.

US Department of Defense, July 2007. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.defense.gov/news/nuclearweaponspolicy.pdf>.

Weinthal, Benjamin. "US Team Slams Iran's ‘heightened Anti-Semitism'" The Jerusalem Post.

N.p., 5 May 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.jpost.com/International/US-team-slams-Irans-heightened-anti-Semitism-312061>.

WNA. "Supply of Uranium." World Nuclear Association. N.p., Aug. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.

<http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/#.UmZ2E_m-2Sp>.

WNN. "Iran Still Not Cooperating with IAEA." World Nuclear News. N.p., 27 Feb. 2012.

Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Iran_still_not_cooperating_with_IAEA-2702127.html>.

Read More

Short Story Summary_"Patrick Hughes"

As said in class: this week's "mini homework assignment." Below this post, write a brief summary of a possible short story for our character:

Patrick Hughes is 10 years old. He is "positive and active" and has "attractive eyes" that somehow cause other men to become interested in him. Despite these attractive eyes, he can be described as "ugly and minute" in his appearance. His life is not easy. He comes from a broken home of divorced parents, and recently he is suffering stress at the prospect of "losing his best friend."

Now... go ahead and pitch an idea for a Day In The Life of Patrick Hughes. It can be a simple story that somehow reaches out to readers in a simple way. No need for dragons or burning planes or alien abductions.

Patrick Hughes, a 10-year-old boy, rubs his sleepy eyes as a cold breeze hits him on the cheeks. He then sits straight on the bench he was sleeping on, an icy bench at Coney Island subway station. Getting his brown, leather shoes on, he momentarily thinks of his home back in the peaceful countryside of Connecticut. Those shoes, being the only possession of Patrick worth more than ten bucks, were his mother’s farewell present as she slammed the door shut before Patrick and his jobless, incapable father, who had been exhibiting mental disorder for some time. Yes, Patrick had a hard time getting along with boys of his age at school—which he eventually never did—but that could not have forced his mother to divorce against her spouse. His weird appearance, with the awkward mixture of charming eyes and his somewhat unfriendly face, also could not have driven her away. It surely must have been his father. With all those evanescent thoughts sweeping past him, Patrick resolves to himself that today would be another fine day—though not great it may be—and skips towards the stairways of the underground Metro. Just as the antique but gloomy streets of Brooklyn appear before his eyes, crowds of people, most with black or dark gray coats on, hurriedly walks past him as if they all were headed somewhere. Even from a few feet away, our Patrick Hughes is simply no longer to be found, as the black and gray blurred his presence from all the others. But as the fact that he managed to live along the wooden bench of subway station and a bunch of homeless indicates, Patrick Hughes is a smart boy, smart enough to know how to utilize the best of what he has. Not after much walking, he slips into a convenience store near the station. With a bottle of coke and Hershey’s Chocolate bars in hand, Patrick then flickers his eyes and smiles before the cashier, who seem no older than Patrick’s older brother—if he ever had one. The cashier, subsequently and immediately, shoots back a lovely smile at him and kindly opens the exit for Patrick without even asking him to pay for the coke and chocolate. Patrick gently closes the door behind him and heads towards the station as if nothing really happened. Indeed he is quite anxious that people may come to acknowledge his special talent, for he was estranged from his closest buddies both at school and the subway station as they came to fear him after witnessing his magic. As walking downwards along the dark staircase of New York City Metro station, he recalls a girl who had spent some time with him on the wooden bench, but soon abandoned him—or rather, ‘ran away’—after discovering her friend’s somewhat spooky ability. “Old things are old things,” he mutters, as he peels off the wrapper of his Hershey’s and drank a sit of Coke. The chocolate had not melted even a bit in spite that he grabbed it tight all along, and the drink was still cold and fresh. ‘No wonder it’s fall.’ A cold breeze, coming all the way from the dreary streets of Brooklyn to the murky hallways of the station, hit him on his red cheeks again. 

Read More

"Character Description" _ 1st Narrative Short Story Plot

"Character Description"

His name is Eric, being 33 years old. He is a police officer-quite polished in terms of manners. He is a kind, positive, and benevolent person. Despite such positive aspects, he has very bad memories and cannot really remember stuff when it gets into details. Oh, he's obese, by the way.

   Another target, another kill. I, a lieutenant officer in the West Chicago Police Department, am renowned for my strong sense of justice among my comrades. Though kind-looking and benevolent I appear to be, I in fact am a man of vengeance, when it comes to dealing with criminals. When a first-degree crime occurs within the districts of East Chicago, I go hunting for the suspect—not to put him before the state jurisdiction, but to find him and inflict immediate punishment upon the felon.

  

   It has not been so long since I began to secretively undertake such actions. Ever since I first entered the Police Department, I had, until recently, believed that the criminals I had arrested were fairly tried by the law and were passed down to serve the sentences they rightfully deserve. But that was not exactly the case, I discovered. It of course was not about the imprudence or hastiness of my search and arrest. Cases which the court rejected the indictment, having deemed it as imprudent or improper were rare, so rare that I can probably count them all with his fingers.

   After witnessing those I had thrown into jail and put before indictment on some plain streets of Chicago, I tried to figure out what is wrong. It later turned out that not all criminals were set free from the jurisdiction. Only those with ties to the judicial branch, holding tight relations to members of the government, and being affluent enough to forward some largesse before the court judges were obviously far beyond the realms of justice.

   I could no longer stand this, not after receiving an arrogant, haughty greeting last week near my neighborhood, from a criminal I had indicted for a first-degree battery who actually happened to be the cousin of the state chief justice. I just could not sit and watch those ‘evils’ of society freely regain the fruitful right to freedom. So I decided not to leave the fate of those felons to the hands of the corrupted Chicago judicial council, but to the very hands of my own.

   But a problem—a problem which I am quite unaware of—has dragged my rush towards my way of ‘justice’ into nowhere. My inborn forgetfulness—notorious to practically everyone who had worked with him as team—made my vengeance extremely difficult and even dangerous, in a way. I often was confused between objectives, whom to merely quail and whom to secretly kill. It was not rare for me to mistake one’s name or his felony with those of another. And I, seldom, even marked the victim as my target, instead of the perpetrator.

   But still, I must say that definitely, I have once again revoked the sense of justice among Chicago, which has been disregarded for such a long period of time. I admit that the methods may not have been prudent. My threateningly spooky thoughts and audacious plans, however, were never to be discovered, not if it wasn’t my very daughter. Having been familiar with the masked, bulky man who ran over her dear friend just after she sneakily slipped an adorable teddy bear into her bag at a store, she is indeed experiencing inner conflict within her conscience and the sturdy tie to her very father—me—by blood. 

Read More

A New Suggestion: A New Pivot

   Historians say that Silla unified the Korean peninsula when it made both Goguryeo and Baekjae surrender in front of its army. Isn't it that Silla merely conquered its neighbors? Regarding what historians say, do you think Silla, Goguryeo, and Baekjae were originally a family? Which is correct—unify or conquer?

  

  “Dreams Come True” along with a gigantic white star was the slogan for the Korean Football team during the 2002 World Cup. However, after the ardor of the World Cup cooled down a little, remarks about this surprising phenomenon—how people suddenly gathered at the Seoul City Hall square for days—subsequently indulged, some along with critical remarks about Minjok. For example, that the government promoted ethnic nationalism to hide social problems (The U.S. Jeep incident which killed two Korean high school girls) or people’s extreme obsession with it alienated those who were not a part of that bond, thus impeding real social harmony. At the incipient stage, such ideas were only accepted among the ‘NewLight’ community (an extremely progressive group) but are now embraced by the general Korean society also. Nevertheless, that a bond of some kind must not completely perish for the sake of contemporary Korea in the era of globalization should be acknowledged.

   Attempts to clarify the history of the concept during the past few decades were successful, and revealed the somewhat inconvenient truth of how the term Minjok was introduced. It was coined during the Japanese rule of the Korean peninsula by several intellects, including Shin-Chae-Ho—who was interested in the history of the Han-Minjok as seen from his academic works.  Shin introduced this term as he felt a strong necessity to integrate the Chosun people against the Japanese colonial regime. By expanding his academic field to the origins of the Han-Minjok—as exposed from ‘Chosun SangGoSa’(History of Chosun)— he managed to codify the Dan-Gun myth, which basically asserts how holy Han-Minjok is. Along with Shin, Yi-Kwong Su also contributed to the construction of the concept. He stated that Han-Minjok is an extremely pure ethnic group in terms of bloodline, culture, and personality. Due to Shin, Yi, and other outstanding figures like Kim-Gu, numerous patriotic individuals (or groups) sacrificed their convenience or lives to protect the sacred minjok which they were a part of. Indeed, Shin’s attempt—differentiating the Han-Minjok from other ethnic groups by incorporating the Tangun myth and other materials—was successful. It must be acknowledged at this point that Shin’s concept of Minjok included a large sense of exclusiveness against other groups.

                                                     Blood as an ultimate discriminator


   In fact, some tools are very attractive. Look at the book below. It is easy to guess what that book is about, isn't? I read that when I was 13 years old. I was literally facinated in the whole Minjok thing.

    
   Oh, those funny Chinese characters mean 'Tae Baek San-Maek', a mountain which is believed to represent the soul of the Han-Minjok.

   To help your understanding about how this book makes you hyper, let me quote a few sentences from it.

"It was midnight. Kim then turned his head, looking at the mountains. They were plain black. Suddenly, he could see the peaks of them burning. There were people on the peaks, waving their torches! He was not seeing an illusion. The people were Kim's fallen friends and families during the war. There was even Park, his beloved wife. They were not dead! They were alive, right in the heart of Kim. He could feel them burning his heart. Kim was alive."


   The book is recognized as one of the best books in modern Korean literature. Interestingly, although it is all about Minjok-Minjok-Minjok, it was banned during President Park-Jung-Hee's regime. The novel does suggest that we should embrace North Korea (which tried to assasinate Park at 1968), but it really makes the hearts of readers 'boil'. Why? Aren't North Koreans also supposed to be a part of Minjok, according to Shin-Chae-Ho?

   Unarguably, leaders distorted the concept whenever they wanted to. Silla's King did, Shin-Chae-Ho did, and Park did. It was meant to be like this from the beginning. Indeed, the concept of Minjok is an illusion.

   This type of ethnic nationalism existed in other regions of the world also, although it slightly differs from place to place. France and Germany were fond of using it, and they call it 'Romantic nationalism'.

'La Marseillaise'.

Sacred love of the Fatherland,
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs	Lead, support our avenging arms
Liberté, Liberté chérie,	Liberty, cherished Liberty,
Combats avec tes défenseurs ! (bis)	Fight with thy defenders! (repeat)
Sous nos drapeaux que la victoire	Under our flags, shall victory
Accoure à tes mâles accents,	Hurry to thy manly accents,
Que tes ennemis expirants	That thy expiring enemies,
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire !	See thy triumph and our glory!

   Then, have you ever thought that 'Cinderella' actually advocates the German ethnic group? In fact, it does. 'A Good Bargain' is another piece written by Brothers Grimm which was meant to affect the way children think about people outside their community. Doesn't this immediately strike you? Yes, it is me reading 'Tae-Baek San-Maek'!



   Obviously, the history of ethnic nationalism is quite long. So is it in Korea. It was Shin-Chae-Ho who introduced the term Minjok, but that "all Koreans are originally one" is also mentioned in Sam-Guk-Sa-Gi, which discusses the history of Silla, Goguryeo, and Baekjae. (History around the 9th century)

 

 

    Of course, it is scientifically proven that the concept of pure blood does not exist. According to 'Korea Genetics Society', the DNA of the Han-Minjok is drawn from various places. The northern ethnic DNA composes about 60~70% of it, and the southern ethnic DNA forms the rest. The same logic would apply to the Germans, sorry for Brothers Grimm.

  

   Due to repetitive modifications by modern Korea’s leaders, the idea of Minjok has become an awkward mixture of political propagandas and exclusiveness. By emphasizing the sacredness of the Han-Minjok, political leaders managed to inject totalitarian idea of ‘one for all’ into Koreans. Incorporating this into, say, commercial movies, was carried out by the government to spread this idea to the public. Chomsky’s ‘Necessary Illusions’ and Niccolo Machiavelli’s ‘II Principe’ can be referred for theoretical reasons why the administration did so. Feeling a sense of responsibility for his or her Minjok, people sacrificed their personal interests for national interests—which brought Korea immense economic development. Representatively, President Park-Chung-Hee, being famous for his contribution to Korea’s economy, was in favor of using this illusion. The goals of his administration were clear: economic development and national security. He used the concept of Minjok to emphasize that an individual has to sacrifice him or herself for the sake of Minjok, for their brothers and sisters. People who did not cooperate were punished for treason of nation, and President Park’s propaganda justified these unjust actions. Hence, the modern concept of Minjok inherited the totalitarian ideas and exclusiveness from that of the Japanese colonial era.

                                                                  War & Battlefield.
These are entirely different concepts. A war is somewhat cool and awesome. A battlefield is horrible and wretched. Who declares war? The leaders of a nation do. Who fights in the battlefields of the war? Poor, innocent soliders do. Then, who made the concept of Minjok? Who were sacrificed under the name of it? Does the end justify the means? That truly is a big, difficult question which I will have to figure out the answer from now on.

   Then what should be its stance in contemporary Korea? Above all, this demands a neutral view on Minjok. Indeed, the concept was coined by Shin for a political purpose, and should be discarded. Shin and many Minjok-fighters from other countries crammed political propagandas in the concept of Minjok, which stipulated it as a sacrosanct idea full of problematic exclusiveness. Of course, there were previous attempts which indirectly spoke of it. Starting from the Silla dynasty, who called its victory over Goguryeo and Baekjae a brilliant reunification in accordance with Dangun's wishes in order to gain control of the people of the fallen nations, the concept of Minjok was distorted from the very beginning. Nowadays, over-emphasizing Minjok has led to controversy, especially considering the U.N.CERD (International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) suggestion. "Highlighting ethnic homogeneity of Korea may hinder foreigners from joining the community."

   But some people just go too far. Several critics urge that any kind of bond in Korea  should be completely terminated, and Koreans should go for cosmopolitanism. However, effacing community spirit will not lead to globalization and multiculturalism. A catalyst that can fuse individuals is necessary, especially in this era of globalization. As a counterexample, France regrets indiscriminately embracing other ethnic groups, who are left out of society and effacing French cultures—according to the media and president Nicolas Sarkozy. Reserving the heritage of ancestors is a prerequisite of globalization, and if this is not satisfied, individuals will no longer feel obliged nor a sense of belonging. As a result, they may feel more alienated from the social contract—then what would happen if foreign people poured in? A pivot that is not offensive to others but protects the ethnic identity at the same time is what Korea needs. That would prevent the vague idea of 'global community’ invade substantive communities and hinder social order.

   What should be reconsidered is the specific type of community created in the idea of Minjok. What should be retained is an alternative pivot that recognizes the Korean community and embraces others at the same time. That clarification would be expedient in figuring out the role of the concept of Minjok in contemporary Korea. The nation is currently in the middle of globalization. As Professor Shin-Gi-Wook suggests in his essay ‘The Contradiction of Korean Globalization’, many Koreans do not think their identity would perish even if Korea becomes more globalized. That they wish Korean identity and global culture to coexist is definitely desirable. Surely, globalization without national identity would do no good—if so, it would be nothing more than a strawberry smoothie full of frozen strawberry pieces. A new pivot in accordance with urgent demands as a firm axis may accelerate concord between different ethnic groups. Remember, it is much easier to make a smoothie when all you have to do is grind a few strawberries into a smoothie that already exists.

   Actually, Minjok has provided several benefits, too. Do you know how fast Koreans donated their golden rings during the IMF crisis? That was possible due to the strong bond among Koreans. A community spirit itself is desirable. What we have to do is control that bond so that it does not step over the line.

   The concept of Minjok shall be discarded or thoroughly revised, considering its problematic origin and controversial usage. Korea needs a new pivot that is not exclusive to other ethnic groups. Considering this, Koreans should be open to other ethnic groups, meaning that anachronistic ideas like pure blood should not be an obstacle for foreigners to get along. Nonetheless, its heritage and spirit must not be damaged, and this is what the new pivot is supposed to guarantee to Koreans. To avoid the unfortunate cases of France and the natives of the Pacific islands, the ideal is that new axis embracing different ethnic groups in Korea but allowing Koreans to be the center of it, since it is their land after all. The resulting harmony would be a model to other nations suffering from ethnic problems. The Korea dynasty (918-1392) can be the model of Korea here. The Korea dynasty was open to different ethnic groups and cultures, for example, Buddhism, and even the Islam, while relatively autonomous at the same time. What enabled them was not the concept of Minjok. Korea dynasty's advanced culture, as proved in the Tripitaka Koreana (a complete collection of Buddhist Sutras) enabled Koreans to have a sense of belonging. It served as a pivot in the midst of foreign cultures while not hindering integration.

  What Korea needs is not an abstract idea of ‘global citizens’ gathering in the Korean peninsula. Order must exist. However, the concept of Minjok will not contribute to the order, as it was not meant to be from its origins. It needs a lot of revision. Nonetheless, mercilessly criticizing and even terminating any kind of bond among Koreans is not an advisable option. Korea does need a pivot that embraces others and unites Koreans at the same time. Harmony has been the all-time dream of Koreans, despite the sporadic controversy over its identity.

 

Read More