Monthly Archives: January 2012

← Previous Entries

Guest Contributor: Revising the Story of 21st Century American Empire

January 31, 2012 in The World Today, United States

David Eric Wilson, age 23, studied Economics and Political Science at the University of Arizona and was a member of the AzMUN for his four years of college. He is currently independently researching US-Latin American relations and hoping to begin graduate studies in international security shortly. He enjoys reading, playing soccer, and long walks on the beach.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Shawn Thew/European Pressphoto Agency: http://nyti.ms/rcFW3a

By: David Eric Wilson

Early this year, the Pentagon announced some sweeping changes to the way the United States conducts its military policy. The impetus for the changes can be traced to the failure of the deficit-reduction super-committee last fall and the resulting automatic budget cuts that fall mainly on the Defense Department. Making the best of an unfavorable situation, policymakers have proposed the required cuts as part of a broad strategic makeover for the US military. After years of strategic missteps and growing budgetary bloat, these cuts and strategic shifts are not only inevitable, but also rather desirable. At the very least they demonstrate that those with their hands on the tiller of American foreign and defense policy haven’t failed to learn key lessons from the past ten years.

Highly evident in the reworked American strategy is a de-prioritizing of the protracted nation-building and counterinsurgency campaigns typified by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. American forces will, according to the Pentagon’s white paper, “no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.” After a decade occupying far-flung countries of dubious strategic value for what currently appear to be less than satisfactory outcomes, the de-emphasis on such campaigns comes not a moment too soon.

Instead, the United States military will prepare for a dramatically changed global playing field, with both an eye toward a rising China and mindful of reduced relative capability for power projection in many theatres. Across the globe, the military hopes to work with regional allies to confront threats instead of placing American boots on the ground. Also de-emphasized is the US military role in Europe, a controversial but wise move considering Europe is relatively safe from security threats and able to provide its own protection.

 Not all is well with this new strategic mindset. The administration and the surrounding policy establishment still harbor a dangerous fixation with the use of force, albeit in less large-scale fashion. Take the current administration’s reliance on covert operations and drone strikes: the Obama White House has dramatically stepped up our use of such tactics as a means to hunt down and disrupt al-Qaeda networks at low cost. However, while such means may satisfy the short-term ends of crippling the organization’s operational structure, they run the risk of creating more long-term troubles. Drone strikes, steadily becoming the weapon of choice in America’s counterterrorism operations, sow the very grievances that fuel anti-American terrorism and blowback effects. Not only that, but drones and other inanimate means to wage war also raise difficult questions about the role of war in American democracy.

 Even with these concerns, the emerging strategy remains laudable, if only for its ambition in attempting to steer the ship of American defense policy back on course after a long, confounding detour. One hopes that through such gradual changes, perhaps coupled with a few bold ideas (are they so much to ask for?), the policy establishment in Washington may find itself able to weather the great changes in store for it in the 21st century.

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions and not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.

Andrew Melton is on leave today because of his travels in Argentina.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Tags: , , , , , ,
4 Comments »

The “Country” of Africa

January 30, 2012 in Africa, The World Today

There is more to Africa than this stereotypical savannah.

By Chelsea Sweeney

The idea of a uniform, monolithic Africa is a widespread misconception, held by many whose knowledge of the continent comes solely from charity advertisements and apocalyptic news broadcasts.  In this imagined “country” of Africa, the population is one billion starving AIDS orphans and thirty American celebrities.  Everyone lives in small huts that are invaded by militia groups on a daily basis.  This country’s only two exports are heart-wrenching pictures and guilt.  Without the help of Western aid, absolutely nothing would function in Africa at all.  

Not everyone believes these stereotypes, but due to the mainstream media representation of Africa in Western countries, many people unfortunately do think that Africa is, and always will be, a bleak, backwards place.  The incredible variety of countries and cultures is condensed into one single image, and positive stories of economic growth and booming cities are overlooked in favor of disastrous headlines featuring death and famine.  The prevalence of what has become known as “poverty porn” is the biggest contributor to these ideas.  Only the most destitute individuals are photographed and shown to the media, and every charity that needs money features a sick child in rags.  The public thinks that these images represent the “real Africa.”  But these images could never encapsulate the diversity contained within this massive continent that could fit the United States, China, India, Japan, and all of Europe into its borders. 

Despite this, journalists still focus on getting the picture that would elicit the most pity from their audience.  This could lead to horrifying behavior, such as film crews showing complete disrespect as they dash through hospitals looking for the dying, or trampling on other children in the rush to film the one being fed by a celebrity.  Sometimes it becomes more about our beloved movie stars doing good, with a few one dimensional Africans in a supporting role. 

It is understandable that charities use these images, as it is a constant struggle to obtain funding.  But only choosing the route of pity and guilt is demeaning to those who go about their daily lives in the same manner as everyone else in the world.  Some say we need to give Africans a voice, not realizing they already have a voice that is simply being ignored.  Instead of portraying Africa as a single country needing the guidance of Western humanitarians, we need to restore the dignity of those whose lives have been twisted in the search for dramatic photographs and heartbreaking headlines.  Africans from every corner of the continent should be able to have their opinions heard on how they want to lead their lives in the future, and decide for themselves how they want to be seen by the rest of the world.

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions and not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

4 Comments »

Religion in South East Asia

January 29, 2012 in Asia, The World Today

by: Hugo Polanco

from asiaguide.com

Because of its massive size and, growing economic and strategic importance, the news coming from Asia usually impacts billions of people. Last week an event happened that only directly affected one man. This lone man, Alex Aan was attacked and subsequently cast to jail, were he now faces up to 5 years in jail. His only crime was declaring on his Facebook profile that God does not exist. In Indonesia this is not only deeply offensive to the Muslim population, who form 86% of the population, but also illegal under Indonesia’s anti-blasphemy act. This was not an isolated incident, but emblematic of the uneasy relationship religion has with the state. According to the constitution and proud government pronouncements, Indonesia is a secular country that respects the religious choices of its citizens. Despite this official posture, the anti-blasphemy law and religious categorization policy serve to actively discriminate against religious minorities. The religious categorization policy forces all Indonesian citizens to declare their religion on their identity cards. Only Buddhism, Islam, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Confucianism, and Hinduism are officially recognized. In addition minority sects of these main religions are not recognized and thus face official persecution. Lack of religion is also not an option as is seen in the case of Alexander.

In neighboring Malaysia religion has also had an awkward relationship with the state. Malaysia and Indonesia are similar countries, they both use a variant of the Malay language as official languages and are largely Muslim. However due to the presence of a much larger Indian and Chinese diaspora communities, Malaysia is only 60% Muslim. Malaysia has a similar religious classification system as Indonesia and while citizens have greater freedom in choosing their religious practices, it is difficult to officially convert to another religion. This may be seen to be a trivial issue but in Malaysia your religion also determines your ethnic classification and judicial processing. Only Muslims can be counted as being ethnically Malay and thus be benefactors of the affirmative action programs in place for them. Muslims also are subject to Sharia law and fall under the jurisdiction of the sharia court system. A Malay that wishes to convert must then face the choice between government benefits or being forced to live under a legal system they no longer believe in.

In Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the opposition alliance seeks to take Malaysia in a new direction. Anwar himself has run afoul of Malaysia’s religious laws. He has been charged with committing sodomy twice before, once in 1999 and then again in 2008. In Malaysia sodomy is still illegal and carries a hefty prison sentence, Anwar was barely acquitted of both charges which he claimed were politically motivated. Anwar wants to move Malaysia in Turkey’s direction. As a vibrant liberal democracy with a Muslim majority population and a ruling Islamist party, the Turkish model is deeply attractive to both Malaysia and Indonesia. This is easier said than done. Turkey’s balance was not reached over night, secularism was imposed by their founder Kemal Ataturk and fiercely protected by the military. It took generations of political struggle until Islamists were allowed to hold power. Achieving this balance requires leaders that will not pander to religious extremism for political gain and leaders that will build legal institutions to protect the rights of religious minorities. Achieving this balance will also reap many awards to both countries. Beyond protecting minorities these liberal institutions are also a remedy for the corruption plaguing both countries. Indonesia and Malaysia are looking forward to bright prosperous futures, and hopefully with political maturation, ugly incidents such Alex Aan’s and Anwar Ibrhim’s will be avoided.

 

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
5 Comments »

Big Money Politics: the Evolution of Super PACs

January 28, 2012 in The World Today, United States

Getty Images

By Beatrice Nielsen

Long ago (before 2010), it used to be that political action committees (PACs) were corporations’ and unions’ key to supporting federal candidates independently of a campaign. Because spending company treasury funds on political candidates or causes violates federal law, political action committees came into being.

Individual members of PACs were only permitted to donate up to $5,000 per year, but the PAC itself could donate unlimited funds to an independent cause—i.e., not directly coordinated with a federal candidate. They may spend unlimited funds in support of or against a candidate, but never directly affiliated with a candidate’s campaign. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, passed in 2002, determined that no “electioneering communications”—such as an ad for or against a certain candidate—could be funded by a private corporation 30 days prior to primaries and 60 days prior to general elections.

In 2010, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission changed the face of PACs. This Supreme Court settlement stipulates that the government can no longer place limitations on corporation and union spending for political reasons, and, most importantly, that corporations can fund PACs directly from their treasuries, bypassing the need for donors and the general limitations of fundraising.

The case was brought about after the conservative group Citizens United produced a highly critical documentary about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United was told that releasing the film would be in violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The argument on behalf of expanding the influence of PACs was simple: if the Hillary film was banned, the courts would legally be allowed to ban books, websites, and a litany of other vital expressions of speech/press produced by a corporation or union criticizing a candidate. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United; they did, however, fail to notice the extreme political implications of such a ruling.

President Obama said, not long after the 5-4 ruling, that the Citizens United case “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington – while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.” You see, the difference between a run-of-the-mill PAC (such as the National Education Association) and a super PAC is not small: it is a question of millions of dollars in soft-money donations.

President Obama accurately predicted the political repercussions of Citizens United. In the 2012 bid for the Republican presidential nomination, the political ploys have displayed characteristics of glamourized machine politics. Restore Our Future, the Mitt Romney-backing super PAC, has bombarded Romney’s main opponent, Newt Gingrich, with several critical television ads. Romney can wash his hands of the criticisms in public; the super PAC is not directly affiliated with his campaign, they just undermine his opponent. Mr. Gingrich also has a super PAC cheering him on—a multibillionaire couple from Nevada has pledged a staggering amount of money to the Gingrich-backing super PAC, Winning Our Future.

So, what does this mean for politics? I understand that politics has always been about funding—but with Citizens United and follow-up cases, campaign finance is forever changed. Those in support claim that this new breed of super PACs increases transparency in elections. My gut feeling is that this will lend no clearness to the political system, but will rather shroud it in an impenetrable darkness.

 

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Tags: , , , , ,
4 Comments »

Croatia, Fashionably Late

January 27, 2012 in Europe, The World Today

By: Zach Wojtowicz

On January 22nd, the people of Croatia decided to join the European Union by referendum. If all goes as planned, the country will enter as the 28th member this summer. The situation of Croatia prompts a discussion of the admission process, and an analysis of non-legal concerns about joining a united Europe.

The European Council, which acts as the “collective presidency” of the European Union, is comprised of the heads of state from each member nation and the leaders of other critical EU institutions. The Council’s task is to address any crises and to update the working goals of the Union. Membership criteria were set out by their 1993 meeting in the city of Copenhagen, and the standards have thus been deemed the Copenhagen criteria. Among the many standards, three dimensions stand out: stable democratic government, positive human rights track record, and comprehensive market economy.

Croatia has done well by the first two goals, especially when we consider its foundation in a long and difficult war for independence from Yugoslavia, which ended in 1995. In the words of the second president, Mr. Mesic, the nation has gone great lengths to “prove it is a mature democracy”. Croatian leaders have made strides toward burying the hatchet with neighboring country Serbia, despite remaining trials at the…

International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991

… or the ICTY, for short. It can be hoped that, in time, tensions between the two nations will continue to recede.

The third factor, a competitive economy, however, has become more pressing. The EU, indeed the world as a whole, has become economically sensitive after spending a year unwinding the full effect of Greece’s weak finances. Heightened skepticism has been applied not only to prospective EU members, but also to current members, many of them closer to the political and geographic center of the EU than Croatia (Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland come to mind). While in the past, we may have asked the question: “is Croatia ready for the EU?”, we now must ask a new question: “is the EU ready for Croatia?”.

According to the European Commission’s profile on Croatia, the country has half the per capita GDP of an average EU nation. This is a startling fact, until reads further and notices that their per capita GDP has doubled in the last ten years. This means that, while Croatia may be a relatively malnourished nation, it is growing quickly, and will benefit greatly from the capital influx that will follow EU membership. This may be good for other nations as well. Some have argued that current EU nations will only be able to surmount their budget woes if they can attach themselves to “engines of growth”. Croatia may be one such engine. Moreover, the country is fairly small, only about 1% of the overall EU economy, and so the downside risk of accepting Croatia is quite manageable.

In my eyes, the move toward EU membership is a good one for Croatia, and will provide the country increased legitimacy and stability in the years to come. While it is true that the nation just gained independence, it is not true that remaining fully sovereign is the best way of defending and strengthening their new and resounding identity.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

No Comments »

Famine in México Worsens During Winter

January 26, 2012 in México, The World Today

Chihuahua, México

By Michelle Moraila

Farmers struggle to harvest crops, dying cattle equals the loss of about 300 million pesos countryside, and below freezing temperatures hinder the lives of the Tarahumara people in northern México. These are the results of a severe drought affecting 1,174 counties across four states including Chihuahua, home of the Tarahumara. The lack of water has killed at least six people due to malnourishment in the past four months and the National Meteorological System of México has predicted that the situation will not improve until March. Mexicans from all over the country rushed to help this past week with food and supplies, but only after the deaths of several indigenous people raised awareness in the capital.

Not a single drop of rain has fallen since July 2010 in some regions. The economic effects on an already dirt-poor region have been overwhelming: of the 150 thousand tons of corn produced in Chihuahua, only 500 were produced. Between 80-200 thousand tons of beans are harvested each year, on average, yet this year a mere 20,000 tons were harvested. The drought has destroyed the main sources of income the Tarahumara rely on and people are beginning to panic. Peasants from all over the affected states have already begun journeys to cities where they can be helped and heard.

These are the problems that the country faces but not many know about because they are overshadowed by the war against organized crime and an important political campaign. While it is true that the Mexican government finally took action ten days ago and sent out food, medical assistance, and warm clothing to fight the -2 degrees Fahrenheit weather, most of the donations were provided by the citizens themselves. Let me just reiterate that the problem has been ongoing for 18 months now and little had been done about it. Where could they possibly be putting the money that is meant to help its own people? I have no doubt that running after drug cartels is an important issue but I believe sometimes there are more pressing matters, such as rescuing a historic group of people who have lived in México for the past centuries and could easily disappear in the conditions that they are living in.

I also suggest more people become aware of it internationally. I could not find more than two articles from reliable international sources that even gave a brief overview of what is happening in Chihuahua, but I cannot say the same about the numerous headlines about violence in México that graze the covers of the top newspapers of the world. It angers and saddens me to think that such grave circumstances exist right next door to us and many are not informed because no one is reporting it. México is such a culturally diverse country that deserves to maintain its richness even after its image has been tainted with blood and fear.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Tags: , ,
1 Comment »

Iran Under New Sanctions

January 25, 2012 in Middle East, The World Today

 

Credit to squidoo.com

By Connor Shirley

On Monday, the E.U. agreed to ban all oil imports from Iran. This has been considered a “last ditch effort” to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Oil is a key part of Iran’s economy; the country is the second largest OPEC oil exporter, oil exports make up approximately 18.7% of its total GDP, and oil exports make up 80% of its total exports. The C.I.A. considers oil to be key to the infrastructure of Iran, and that money from exports funds most government revenues. The idea is that by delivering this crippling blow to the economy of Iran, the country would be forced to abandon its nuclear program in order to survive as a functioning sovereign state.

At this point I don’t think the sanctions are going to be any more effective than they have been in the past. Iran has effectively been under sanctions since Reagan approved the ban of any imporst or exports of any Iranian goods in 1987. Iran’s economic growth has been crippled by the sanctions, and the people have suffered expensive basic goods and stagnant trade. Not only that, the National Foreign Trade Council has estimated that the U.S. would see 10% decrease in oil prices and save some $40 billion dollars annually. It’s clear, economically anyways, that the sanctions do more harm than “good”.  But if there are no sanctions, Iran would be able to much more easily acquire a nuclear weapon. Should they be allowed to do so?

I’ve argued before in a previous post that I think Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons because it will give them political power that they are currently being denied. In contrast to my opinion, there is a growing number of western analyists and writers who think that a Middle East with a nuclear Iran would be an extremely unstable place, and very prone to high-speed escalation. The popular argument is as follows: Iran has a history of being violent and extremist, and is a functioning radical theocracy. Giving them nuclear weapons would inevitably lead to a nuclear war with Israel, who Iran has sworn to destroy so vehemently.

I think that the assessment argued for there is actually quite accurate, except for the the ‘inevitable’ part. Yes, nuclear war between Iran and Israel is possible. However, I find that highly unlikely for several reasons. One, that Iran could not survive economically by itself and is very aware of that fact. Two, that Israel would not let it escalate that far. I know that saying Israel, a country well-known for its preemptive strikes and aggressive tactics, wouldn’t toe the nuclear line with Iran is a bit unusual, but Israel has a population that has forced its parliament to withdraw from conflict, like after the 1982 Lebanon War. I trust that the people of Israel are as wary of nuclear war as most Americans are, and that they would not allow it to escalate to such extremes.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

2 Comments »

Guantanamo Bay: More than just a Prison

January 24, 2012 in The World Today

Photo Credit: James Schoole

 

By Andrew Melton

 

The detention center run by the United States in Guantanamo Bay is shrowded in mystery. For starters, how would it be possible for the United States to operate any kind of military base in Cuba? Fidel would never allow it! Well, he didn’t. The detention center is the result of a treaty signed over a hundred years ago following the end of the Spanish-American War. No matter your political views, almost everyone can admit that the military base at Guantanamo Bay is controversial. Many, however, simply do not know the background that led to the current situation on Cuba’s eastern coast.

At the end of the nineteenth-century, the United States invaded Cuba to “liberate” the island from the Spaniards. Many question these intentions and instead believe the true motives to be a little more imperialistic. That being said, the United States went on to defeat the Spanish and win Cuba its sovereignty. Coincidentally, one of the island nation’s first “sovereign” acts was to sign the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903 allowing for the perpetual lease of Guantanamo Bay as a coaling station (Can you believe that? They still used coal to refuel their ships!) and naval base.

And, for nearly one hundred years, that is all the United States used the naval base for. The base was a vital resupply stop for ships headed to the Pacific during World War Two. Of course there were a few hiccups over the century. The communist revolution in 1959 created an uncertain future for the base, with the Cuban Missile Crisis causing a full on evacuation of the military installment. Things calmed down after that. Besides the Cuban governemnt planting an eight mile wide cactus patch, affectionatly named the “Cactus Curtain” after its older brother in Europe, not much occurred in Guantanamo that one wouldn’t find at similar naval installments around the world. September 11th changed all of that.

In 2002, the Bush administration ordered the construction of a large scale detention facility to house the terrorism suspects coming in from Afghanistan, and soon to be coming from Iraq. Whatever, it’s a military prison and there were bound to be prisoners coming in from war zones. However, the administration claimed that these prisoners were outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions. In a way, they no longer existed. The United States could deal with them however, or whenever, they wished.

Many people do not realize that the decision to open a detainment camp in Guantanamo Bay is barely a decade old. The naval base’s century old history preceding that decision is still controversial, but maybe not nearly as controversial as the past decade.

So there you have it: The history of America’s oldest foreign naval base. Barack Obama tried to close the base, but he was unsuccessful, finding that it is a bit difficult to relocate hundreds of foreign prisoners. None of that has stopped the United States from sending its monthly rent of $4000.00 to a man that does not exist, in an office that does not exist, based on a treaty signed over a hundred years ago. And you can bet Fidel doesn’t cash them.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

No Comments »

Occupy Nigeria: A Game-Changing Victory

January 23, 2012 in Africa, The World Today

By Chelsea Sweeney

The people of Nigeria were devastated to wake one morning and find the price of fuel had doubled overnight.  $3.50 for a gallon of gas may be a feasible purchase at American gas pumps, but with an average wage of $2 a day, the new price brought many lives in Nigeria to a halt.  The increased transportation costs doubled the price of everything from bus tickets to food staples, preventing millions from carrying out their daily routine.

This economic shock was purposefully created by the government’s decision to completely eliminate the large fuel subsidies many relied on for cheap gas.  While Nigeria has an incredible amount of crude oil reserves, a history of bad management and corruption at the oil industry’s refineries has left the country with no choice but to import most of their gasoline.  The subsides on this imported fuel is seen by the poor majority as the only benefit they get from the country’s oil, as most of the wealth is manipulated by corrupt businessmen and politicians.  When the subsidy was removed, the people decided they would no longer let their lives be controlled by a distant elite.  The Occupy Nigeria movement was born.  

The economy was practically brought to a standstill for days as the nation’s two largest unions called for strikes, and protesters filled the streets.  It was even a uniting force for the Christians and Muslims who have been polarized in the past year by extremist groups.  The demonstrations were peaceful, until police officers used live ammunition and tear gas at some of the larger protest centers.  But the protests weren’t in vain, for after days of negotiations, the government backed down and restored the majority of the fuel subsidies.  This is an inspiring victory for the Nigerian people, who have been constantly suffering under the rule of a corrupt and wasteful government.  If they can continue their momentum from this success, there is an incredible amount they can accomplish in reforming the Nigerian government. 

The main issues of corruption and excessive spending should be at the top of the list of demanded reforms, but after these issues are addressed, it is important to consider removing the fuel subsidies again.  It seems counter to the ideology that gave rise to the movement, but the intended goals behind removing the subsidy would be beneficial if implemented correctly.  The lower price of gas in Nigeria has given rise to a “fuel mafia” that buys the cheaper gasoline and sells it in neighboring countries, making a large profit that keeps them in power.  Also, the $7 billion a year that is spent on subsidies could instead be spent on infrastructure and economic development.  

But at the moment, the government cannot even manage the $25 billion currently set aside for the purposes of development, making it unlikely that money saved from the fuel subsidies will be efficiently managed either.  Cutting the subsidies would only fit in a framework of a less corrupt government that will actually use the money to help the people, instead of lining their own pockets.  Only then will the cut have a positive impact of stopping the “fuel mafia” and promoting economic development, and the public can accept such a dramatic economic change.  Hopefully the newly mobilized youth of Nigeria will continue their battle against a government that focuses on the rich, and soon turn it into a government that desires to work for the betterment of the entire country.  

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Tags: ,
1 Comment »

Nuclear Japan!

January 21, 2012 in Asia

by: Hugo Polanco

There is a giant radioactive monster roaming Japan. It has devastated portions of the country three times before and now looms in many Japanese citizens’ nightmares. No this monster is not the man in costume Godzilla but nuclear power. Japan has a history with nuclear power unlike any other nation on Earth, they were subjected to the only two nuclear attacks ever conducted. To say the least they have been sensitive to this form of energy ever since. Despite this sensitivity nuclear power was the only viable option to meet Japan rocketing energy needs during its post-war meteoric rise to economic giant. This was a clear decision to accept the risks of nuclear power and it’s unpleasant history for country in order to achieve prosperity. The result is that Japan relies on 50 some nuclear power plants to meet 30% of its energy needs and had planned to expand the use of nuclear power in the future. That means that except for France no other country relies as much on nuclear power.

Fast forward half a century through economic rise and subsequent stagnation and Japan finally came face to face with the consequences of their nuclear program. It came in the form a terrible earthquake and tsunami that crashed into the northern Japanese coast March of last year. This quake and tsunami left thousands dead as well as causing massive material destruction. The Fukushima Daiichi plant was in the path of the destruction and when the power grid shut down and diesel generators failed, some of the plants cores melted down spewing radioactive steam into the atmosphere.  Out of this tragedy a national debate has emerged over the future of nuclear power.

Japan now faces another decision similar to their post-war decision to embrace nuclear power. The Japanese public is understandably upset by the tragedy and has pressured the government to steer away from nuclear power. This however may not be the best option. Like half a century ago there is no viable replacement for nuclear power. Renewable sources such as wind or solar are not ready yet to meet the energy demands of Japan and fossil fuels would only replace one potentially dangerous power source with pollution and environmental degradation.

To assuage the concerned citizenry, Japan has idled most of the nuclear plants. This has caused an energy shortage that has caused Japan’s economic growth to stall for the second year in a row as well as increased Japan’s trade deficit. This tragedy however may best be explained not by blaming nuclear power itself but  the lax regulations governing the use of nuclear power in Japan. In Japan the nuclear industry and government regulators have long had an incestuous relationship, that has resulted in a string of accidents of which the Fukushima Daiichi incident is  but the latest. This current slow down and idling of powerplants thus cannot be avoid. The public is understandably concerned with the safety of these plants and distrustful of previous inspections. The idled plants are currently being subjected to a barrage of stress tests to ensure they can all withstand an earthquake like the one that damaged the Fukushima plant.

Challenging  and breaking the cozy relationship between industry and regulation seems like the path to go rather that a wholesale abandonment of nuclear energy. This whole crisis has only revealed that the only thing more toxic that the nuclear fuel powering these plants is Japan’s disfunctional political system.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Tags: , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

← Previous Entries