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