8 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/09/05 12:00pm)
played piano on Wednesday nights at Eickhoff Dining Hall was recently injured in a car accident that may leave him paralyzed from the mid-back down.
"One of the first things he said was, 'Thank God the injury wasn't higher," Emily Possenti, senior fine arts major, said. "He still has the use of his hands and arms, so he can still play the piano."
The accident occurred as David Schlossberg was returning to the College on Jan. 21 from a temple in New Brunswick at approximately 11 p.m. via Rt. 1 South. He was stopped at a traffic light near the Regal Cinemas with three cars in front of him, when an intoxicated 29-year-old woman driving a Nissan rammed into the back of his Saturn. The woman was not wearing a seat belt and was driving at a speed of at least 60 miles per hour.
New Brunswick Police and emergency medical personnel responded and transported Schlossberg to the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital. Schlossberg was wearing his seat belt and the air bags in his car were released. However, he suffered eight broken ribs, a punctured lung, a lacerated spleen and damage to a thoracic vertebrate.
The woman who hit him suffered a broken eye socket, while the occupants of the three cars in front of Schlossberg were not identified as suffering any major injuries. The woman has been charged with reckless driving, driving while intoxicated and failing to wear a seat belt. Further legal action is pending.
Schlossberg spent a week at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, where he underwent surgery to remove the shattered pieces of bone from his vertebrate and to stabilize the bone with staples.
Despite the damage to the vertebrate, his spinal cord was not severed, but he has no feeling from the vertebrate down. Doctors give him a less than 58 percent chance of walking again.
On Feb. 1, Schlossberg was transported to the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation in West Orange, the same institute where Christopher Reeve was treated.
Schlossberg will remain at Kessler for several months in a regimented therapy program involving exercises to help him learn to lift his body with his arms and perform other daily activities.
"He's in a ridiculous amount of pain. The therapy is very hard and painful," Lisa Genovese, senior fine arts and art history major and friend of Schlossberg, said.
Each day, doctors test his ability to move his lower limbs.
Last Thursday, Schlossberg was capable of some movement in his left leg, yet doctors do not want to get his hopes up.
Schlossberg played the Peace Piano at the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts this fall to raise money for needy children.
He cancelled his enrollment from the College for the semester and is unsure if he will be able to participate in this year's graduation ceremonies.
"He has a huge support system, not just his family but his friends too," Possenti said. "He's pretty optimistic - scared but optimistic."
(12/01/04 12:00pm)
This October, Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Treasury for regulations that make it difficult for her to publish her memoirs in the United States. Ebadi is from Iran, a country subject to U.S. embargoes.
The regulations in question do not allow work to be published that has not already been published in countries subject to embargoes. Publishers can neither publish these works nor engage in any editing or marketing of the material.
However, publishers may request a special license from the Department of Treasury to publish the work despite the strict regulations.
One of the problems with this legislation is that it exports denials of publication from countries with severe freedom of speech limitations to our own country.
Ebadi would have a difficult time publishing her memoirs in Iran due to government censorship and regulations. Yet, U.S. policy will not allow her to publish here until it is published there.
Therefore, it will never be published here until changes are made in the Department of Treasury policies.
Even if it was previously published in Iran, American editors, translators and publishers would not be allowed to contribute to the work's success.
Lawyers representing the publishers' groups and Ebadi claim that the regulations are unconstitutional because they defy the 1989 Berman Amendment, the 1994 Free Trade in Ideas Act and First Amendment right to free speech.
According to the 1994 legislation, there should be an exemption to the embargos for work that contains "information and informational materials."
The regulations deny foreign authors from embargoed countries from freely expressing themselves in a country that prides itself on its freedom of expression.
Embargoes are governmental attempts to economically damage the enemies of the United States, yet their effectiveness is debatable in many cases.
Even as a symbol of American dissatisfaction with foreign governments, embargoes should not deny the American public an open discourse with citizens of these foreign countries.
By suppressing the publication of literature from Cuba, Iran and the Sudan, the government subtly enforces the stereotypes that have circulated regarding the people from these countries. This is a disservice to the American people.
Rather than allowing authors from these countries to speak to us directly, we are only made aware of the state of their people from American interpretations through the media and government representatives.
Rather than letting them speak for themselves, we speak for them.
Surely, some essential notions of identity must be lost or, if you're of a more cynical persuasion, manipulated in translation.
It is the policy of government, either consciously or otherwise, to control the identities of foreigners by speaking for them and constructing their identities in accordance with national interests. This is especially true in the case of the Middle East.
Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor of comparative literature, worked in the field of Orientalism, which he defined to be the process by which Western nations posit themselves in direct opposition to the values and cultures of the East.
The West places itself in a position of power and domination based on faulty and biased knowledge.
By disallowing the free publication of literature and art from all parts of the world, the Department of Treasury plays into this philosophy of identity creation.
Ebadi is a Muslim woman who defies the stereotypes of Middle Eastern women. She is a lawyer and she was the first female judge in Iran.
However, following the Islamic Revolution, women were no longer allowed to serve on the bench.
She has openly criticized the Iranian government and is a leader in the reform movement, for which she has been jailed multiple times.
In a moving op-ed for The New York Times, Ebadi wrote, "For many years now, I have wanted to write my memoir - a book that would help correct Western stereotypes of Islam, especially the image of Muslim women as docile, forlorn creatures. Sixty-three percent of Iran's university students and 43 percent of its salaried workers are women. I have wanted to tell the story of how women in Islamic countries, even one run by a theocratic regime as in Iran, can be active politically and professionally."
Ebadi has a story to tell from the perspective of a Muslim woman who has actually lived in an Islamic country. George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld cannot speak for her accurately, nor can representatives of the liberal or conservative media.
Personally, I want to hear her story in her own words. Sadly, my country will not allow me to do so. For now, I suppose that American interpretations of an Iranian woman's voice will have to suffice.
(11/10/04 12:00pm)
On election night 2004, the image of a divided country was broadcast to the American public. The blue coasts and the massive red interior of the electoral map signaled a nation engaged in an ideological civil war.
How can America reunite with shared goals and cooperative political discourse? The very nature of self-aggrandizing party politics has much to do with this growing divide and organizations at the College are helping to perpetuate it.
Ideological arrogance is at its maximum at the meetings of political parties, Democratic, Republican or otherwise.
During my freshman and sophomore years at the College, I attended several meetings of one of the student political organizations. I was rather displeased because they failed to offer me any real perspective on the issues.
At this first meeting, I was assigned the task of going to a dorm and promoting the political agenda of that party's candidate. There was no discussion of the candidate's views on serious issues prior to this request, nor was I asked if I personally supported the candidate.
It was simply assumed that because I had shown up, I was going to promote their agenda. Members highlighted their clever use of mockery to embarrass the opposing party's candidate at public functions.
For example, members of the organization stood on stilts to look down on the opposing candidate who was known for his short stature.
One member actually said she knew nothing of politics before joining, but was won over by the allure of state party functions. She was reeled into the social aspects of the party because of the glitz and glamour of election night rallies, the open bars and the many "important" officials she happened to meet through the organization.
There is the chance that some level of rational debate does occur at the meetings of political groups like this, but they remain forums for self-congratulation and groupthink. Members meet once a week to mock the candidates of the other side who are the personification of an ideology they do not take the time to understand.
Rather than focusing on the issues and the needs of their community, time is taken to devise the most effective smear campaign to attack the candidate.
Yet, I can understand the allure of partisan political involvement to some extent. There is a high level of intensity and emotional investment. Pre-election fervor shared with peers excites us.
Choosing a political party in America has become like choosing a side in the World Series. Even those who don't follow baseball can choose a side and invest emotional energy in their team's success.
We go out to the bar to see the deciding game. Emotions run high when our team has won and we celebrate in a frenzy of cheers and high fives. Or, if our team loses, we are left in a state of misery and disappointment.
However, there is a significant distinction between the World Series and an election. The winner of the World Series does not have power over how our government is run.
When choosing a candidate to support, it should not be a social bonding event. It should be an exercise in personal intellectual introspection which may then be applied to communal discussion.
Rather than coming up with creative ways to make fun of the other party's candidate at political rallies, it would be far more effective for political groups at the College to objectively analyze the platforms of other parties in detail.
This would allow them to actually become informed about opposing sides to issues and possibly find common ground between parties.
It would also allow these groups to attract and retain independents and moderates. They would then eventually evolve into organizations based on intelligent understanding of the issues and a common belief system.
I challenge all partisan and independent political organizations on campus to abstain from mockery of the other and to discuss the opinions and policies of all sides.
Our politics necessarily leads to a misinformed public and a divided nation. Parties provide an easy-to-digest set of policies and principles for the masses to consume.
Political candidates create images of the other party which may be entirely false and then use propaganda to convince people of the truth of the image. Statistics are manipulated on both sides so that they can always be used in favor of either party.
This makes the seemingly objective numerical facts entirely illegitimate. If numbers do not tell the truth, then ambiguities surrounding the candidates become the most significant factor in determining elections.
Often, political parties serve the interests of those in their ranks rather than serving the interests of a nation. Their platforms are arbitrary sets of values that are difficult to align within any strict philosophy of government. Generalities may be made but there are always exceptions and instances of hypocrisy.
For example, how could Democrats have supported a candidate who is anti-capital punishment but promotes the execution of terrorists?
Life can be determined by governments or it cannot; exceptions should not be made for political gain.
How could Republicans have supported a president for his moral values when he misled Americans in his motivations for war?
Either honesty is an important moral value or it is not.
Yet, people continue to be swayed by these ambiguous definitions of party platforms. Why are most people compelled to choose between the two?
By its very nature, the two party system serves to dismantle the sense of shared values and cooperation that is inherent in a democracy.
In order to promote one's own party, it is necessary to demonize the other party and create points of departure.
Even if there does exist a level of shared belief, some nuance must be created to show how one's own party is superior. There is no room for discourse between the two.
To accept any political party's ideology wholesale is easy. It means being part of a team and sharing in that team's glories as well as defeats. It is far harder to challenge yourself to understand and evaluate differing views.
Yet this is the only path to ward growth and progression, both for the nation as well as for the individual.
Open discussion and collaboration between parties and independents is also the only way for this country to become united.
This unity can begin at the College if political organizations take the initiative to become forum for actual discussion and cooperation rather than for social ego-boosting.
(11/04/04 12:00pm)
The executive branch has delivered a legal opinion that denies the protections of the Geneva Conventions to non-Iraqi citizens captured by American forces in Iraq. This denial of basic human rights protections also applies to suspected members of terrorist groups being held in Guantanamo Bay.
The Geneva Conventions protect combatants in a conflict as well as civilians from such crimes as sentencing and executions without the judicial guarantees of civilized peoples. They also protect against torture, bodily mutilation and humiliating treatment.
The administration's denial of the Geneva Conventions allows the military to deport non-Iraqi suspects from Iraq to secret locations where they are questioned using methods tantamount to torture. Among these methods is a form of torture in which the suspect is made to think he is drowning.
It is clear that the military engaged in a government-sanctioned breach of international law and then, after the fact, established a legal doctrine dissolving that law. Yet, the more troubling question is whether or not the U.S. government should use torture to extract information from suspected terrorists. The administration's rationale is clear: by whatever means necessary, we must uncover all terrorist plots before they take effect.
If torture is an effective method to extract information that can save American lives, then it must be used. It is clear and simple, easily understood by the average American, and few would be so bold as to deny the doctrine of "by whatever means necessary." However, the clear and simple answer is not always the best answer. What are the other significant effects of torture left unstated or unanalyzed by the Bush administration?
Torture undermines the American justice system. Established American law would not allow for the torture of American citizens in order to extract information.
If torture can be used on terrorists, then it should be used on terrorists both foreign and domestic. Surely, if Timothy McVeigh, executed for the Oklahoma City bombings, had been subjected to torture prior to his conviction, not to mention prior to the application of formal charges, there would have been an enormous breach of law. Lawyers and judges who respect American law and the rights of the defendant would have been up in arms at such a horrendous human rights violation within a nation that prides itself on its system of justice.
Yet, when these same violations are applied to non-citizens, there is a passive acceptance. Even in the law of war, there ought to be a standard for human decency.
Torture has the potential to lead to entirely false information. In a world determined by the color scale of terror alerts, it is absolutely imperative that correct information be collected by the military and U.S. intelligence.
It is highly likely that anyone, whether or not that person actually is a terrorist, would lie under the pressures of torture when any information given relieves the psychological trauma or physical pain. This false information extracted by torture, when used to heighten national terror alerts, only serves to further terrorist agendas by creating unneeded fear and paranoia among the American public.
Torture produces a cult of depravity and perversity. The psychological implications of torture for both the tortured and the torturer are significant. If American men and women are employed as torturers, there is an inevitable level of desensitizing that must take place. How can someone of moral character dehumanize another person in such a grotesque way and suffer no traumatic consequences?
These Americans will undoubtedly suffer psychological damage when they are trained to gain satisfaction from the suffering of others under the guise of patriotism. It forces men and women in our armed forces, the sons and daughters of good Americans, to torture members of the human race. This breeds situations like Abu Ghraib.
Torture against one racial or ethnic group produces feelings of racial or national supremacy within the torturer. Torture breeds hatred for the tortured, not only hatred for the individual subject to the torture, but also hatred for all for which the individual stands. In the case of those now subject to torture, it can be assumed that 99 percent - if not more - of these suspected terrorists are Arab and claim to practice Islam.
If military and governmental officials extract information from these people through torture on a daily basis, then it is inevitable that they will be subject to unconscious hegemonic repercussions. In their role as torturers, these officials act inhumanely towards an exclusive ethnic and religious group. This may breed hatred for all Arabs and Muslims and infuse the torturers with feelings of ethnic and religious supremacy.
Torture is anti-Christian. I hate to mention the Christian religion in any political argument, but it does seem hypocritical for an administration that so strongly associates itself with Christianity to be so blatantly unchristian. If conservatives claim to be the arm of morality and religion, then supporting an exception to the Geneva Conventions is the most hypocritical action they could take.
The Geneva Conventions allow for the very lowest common denominator of humane treatment. If any conservative claims that his or her policy guide is Jesus Christ, then surely that person does not endorse the torture or bodily mutilation of one's enemies. If that person does endorse torture, then he or she is only a nominal Christian.
If scholars of philosophy, international bodies and the justice system consider torture inhumane, then what does this say about America? By utilizing inhumane methods, we either believe we are above all other forms of humanity or we are simply a cruel and inhumane nation.
But of course, cruelty and inhumanity are sometimes necessary in desperate situations such as war.
Torture may be necessary in the fight against terror. There is always the possibility of gaining useful information to protect American lives.
However, there are also other less positive effects for Americans, our soldiers and our government. A responsible citizen should recognize torture as un-American and unpatriotic according to our moral national character. It reduces us to the level of terrorists engaging in medieval acts of depravity.
It denies the absolute nature of morality and ethics, applying inhumane treatment to particular cases determined by arbitrary methods. It denies the basic tenets of justice, torturing suspects who are neither charged with crimes nor convicted of crimes.
However, there is still the essential and possibly overriding benefit of torture: to extract information and save American lives. I only stress the fact that there do exist some less savory implications of torture that any American who endorses the practice must accept.
(10/20/04 12:00pm)
Last Wednesday I was sitting in one of the booths of the Brower Student Center dining area when I noticed an interesting statement scrawled on the table. It said "(name of student) eats DICK."
I'm not sure if this particular defacement of property was written recently or if it had been there for years and I just never noticed. Either way, statements like this are often written on tables or bathroom stall doors throughout campus.
Most of the time, I simply pass them off as idiotic and immature acts of vandalism. However, it occurred to me that this type of language and vandalism is not simply the result of an infantile and destructive mind, but it is the result of a mind infused with an ideology of hate toward queer activity.
It may be true that the student who "eats DICK" is gay and expresses his sexuality through oral sex with other males.
However, it is often the case that when this type of language is used in defacement, it is directed from one heterosexual male toward another heterosexual male. Why then would a heterosexual male "eat DICK?"
More likely than not, the statement was written in jest, not intended to be taken seriously by the supposed "eater."
It seems this message is a type of bonding by straight men who seek to represent homosexual behavior as humorous.
Hence, it is applied to someone who would never engage in that activity, even someone who fears and loathes that activity.
Whether or not the author of the statement was conscious of it, he made a blatant political statement. Allow me to translate: "(name of student) eats DICK" means "We are heterosexual men who fear and are disgusted by homosexual activity. We hate that activity and all the social implications of that activity. As such, we will use homosexual acts as methods of ridiculing, albeit in jest, those within our heterosexual group."
These straight men can ridicule each other in this way with no severe emotional consequences because the accused "dick- eater" recognizes the ridiculous nature of the charge. Both the author of the statement and the subject of the statement are in collusion to promote their political message of hate.
A deeper examination of the words "eat DICK" further degrades homosexual activity as bestial or violent (to "eat DICK" as opposed to "perform fellatio" or "have oral sex"). Even the common colloquialisms of "give head" or "suck cock" are passed over for the more abrasive "eat DICK." This usage of the word "eat" is similar to the use of the word when applied to heterosexual male activity, as when a male "eats out" a female.
Yet, even in the context of heterosexual male actions performed on females, there still exists the latent political motivations within the terms. When a man says that he "eats out" a female, he is the subject and the woman is objectified. The woman becomes an object of consumption and the man places himself in the position of power.
Even in this norm-promoting heterosexual context, the political aims are evident and rely on violent imagery.
As "eat" is to ingest, "eat dick" may refer to the ingestion of semen. However, in this case, it is more likely that the author intended to convey a more violent image of a man eating another man's penis. This projects the conception of homosexual men as cannibalistic, self-destructive and ultimately uncivilized.
It promotes the idea that this type of activity does not belong in civilized society; rather, it belongs in the wild where modern humanity and socially imposed law do not apply.
The use of these terms to identify homosexual activity is an act of male homosocial bonding. In doing so, straight men find an outlet for their hatred which can be disguised as socially acceptable forms of joking. Surely, in our society based on civil rights and tolerance, outward discrimination against gay men would be unacceptable.
Yet, this defacement of property which targets homosexual activity is a politically motivated act disguised as innocent jest. Not only does it promote hate within this particular group of male bigots, but it also attempts to publicize that hatred in the disguised form of defacement of public property.
I find it somewhat ironic that an act of male homosocial bonding is used to degrade and deny respect for homosexual activity. Yet homosocial bonding practices between young men from early youth to adulthood often serve to psychologically ingrain in them a distaste or utter hatred for other sexualities.
I don't profess to be an expert on queerness or on the culture of gay men, but I can point out hatred when I see it.
Also, I realize that this type of discrimination is not limited to straight men against queer men. Gay men themselves may discriminate against one another. The statement on that table may have been written by a gay person or directed toward a gay person, or it could have been written by a female.
I only put forth my own hypothesis and contend that in all likelihood, the writing of the statement was a straight male's act of hatred targeting gay men. No matter who wrote it, it was either consciously or unconsciously an act of hate and should be treated as such.
To all those would-be vandalizers/promoters of political agendas, I advise you to think before you deface. There are many students at the College who are capable of reading in between the lines.
(10/13/04 12:00pm)
Experts agree that there are several scenarios by which mankind may cease to exist. The first is nuclear warfare, which the international community has attempted to address through the Nonproliferation Treaty and subsequent treaties regarding the testing of nuclear weapons.
The second is a worldwide medical epidemic. Currently the AIDS crisis is being addressed by philanthropic organizations and monetary donations from nations around the globe.
Of course this is not enough to curb the spread of the disease, but most nations do consider it to be a problem worth spending money on.
The third way by which mankind may be obliterated is through an environmental disaster. And yes, the world has attempted to come to terms with this threat through global initiatives, including the Kyoto Protocol to limit emissions. But in a maneuver that lacks foresight and ignores the responsibility of our government for future generations, the United States has failed to address the issue of global warming.
The refusal of the U.S. government to address global warming and all the implications of such a refusal are most evident in this year's presidential election. Although both sides have their environmental rhetoric handy in pamphlet form to feed to the masses and to appease the weakened environmental lobby, neither candidate has made a sincere effort to present his environmental policy to the citizens.
The extent of environmental discussion and debate has focused on American independence on foreign oil. Although this is a worthwhile topic and one that must be addressed for the good of the nation, it has economics as its prime motivator. The economic implications of foreign dependence on oil override the environmental impact that our oil consumption has on our air. The result of this focus is an American public that associates oil with the Arab world, dollars per barrel, and its impact on the stock market's performance.
The ideology of capitalist environmental policy has led to the degradation of our air quality and a rise in global temperatures that may one day lead to the destruction of the human race. Does this sound like an extreme view and liberal propaganda for environmental policies that will only hurt the American taxpayer as well as American businesses?
It may sound that way to the uneducated and irresponsible masses, but it is nothing short of the absolute truth. The quality of the natural environment of the earth is a serious matter and deserves serious discussion in the American political forum.
The American psyche must change from one that associates every environmental problem with its economic implications. Economics are important and affect us in the most direct way, but the environmental disasters that could result from the neglect of our leaders may end up killing our children and grandchildren. Even now, the temperature of the earth is rising at an alarming rate.
Some world environmental experts agree that within our children's lifetime, the average temperature of the globe will increase somewhere between 2.7 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit. Since the ice age, the average temperature has only risen between five and nine degrees.
Rising temperatures have enormous effects on both weather patterns and on the heat waves that are killing more elderly citizens in the United States than ever. Lower winter temperatures allowed West Nile Virus mosquito larvae to survive the winter months and subsequently infect and kill a number of people.
If candidates claim to have the good of the American people in mind, then they ought to make the environment one of their top priorities. A smart environmental policy would include higher standards for the fuel economy of automobiles and strong action against American businesses to reduce their emissions and end the grandfathering of outdated emissions standards. It would not only call for specific reductions in the levels sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury, which the Bush Clear Skies Act aims at, but it would also attack carbon dioxide emissions, the most significant contributing factor to global warming. A strong environmental policy would not back down to the automobile manufacturers or to businesses.
However, the four-year term of the American presidency is not the most effective in providing environmental reform. This may be one of the most serious flaws to our own system of government. Given the nature of environmental disasters, four years is not enough time to clearly see the effects of an incumbent's environmental policies. Global warming is a trend whose effects remain hidden until disaster strikes.
Throughout this campaign season, we have heard both President Bush and Sen. Kerry speak about their willingness to protect the American people against terrorist attacks.
Having strong environmental policies is also necessary to protect the American people. Yet it is not protection from an outside source, but rather protection from our own wastefulness of resources and our own ignorance of the impact of global warming.
The rhetoric surrounding the war on terror is based on the premise that we must constantly be on the watch and kill the terrorists before they have the chance to attack us. Although the concept of preemptive strike may not be the best policy in international affairs, in the context of environmental affairs, it is undoubtedly the best strategy. Before an environmental disaster strikes, we must take action and preemptively tackle the root causes.
A strong leader for America must take environmental issues seriously and make a sincere effort to educate his constituents on the seriousness of the current situation. Although virtually absent from campaign agendas and media coverage, global warming is an increasing problem that the American government continues to ignore.
Other nations are making more sincere attempts to curb their own emissions, many through the Kyoto Protocol. Certainly Kyoto has its own flaws and America does not necessarily have to be a party to an international agreement to reduce its emissions and ensure the safety of Americans.
During this election year I urge voters to explore the environmental policies of Kerry, Bush and candidates for other offices and to consider how their respective policies address carbon dioxide emissions, the most significant contributor to global warming.
(10/06/04 12:00pm)
Both Sen. John Kerry and President George W. Bush stated in their debate on international affairs that nuclear proliferation is the single greatest threat to American security.
If nuclear weapons ever become accessible to terrorists or to rogue states that support terrorist activities, then the world may very well return to a situation similar to that in the Cold War.
However, unlike during the Cold War, the weapons would be in the hands of terrorists who have political extremism and a certain degree of insanity as their motivating factors. Iran, a country that has the potential to use nuclear energy for less than constructive purposes, has recently been criticized for its enrichment of uranium and building of centrifuges that may be used for weapons purposes.
This summer the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called on Iran to end its nuclear program altogether. Iran claims that its enrichment of uranium and its building of centrifuges is purely for energy purposes. Iran's claims that its nuclear ambitions are limited to a nuclear power program are entirely in accordance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation (NNP) Treaty.
This treaty was signed in 1968 and allowed those countries with nuclear weapons, the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain, to keep their weapons but did not allow other countries to develop them.
Iran's president, Mohammad Khatami, has stated that Iran will comply with the IAEA and all protocols of the NNP Treaty if the international community recognizes his country's right to develop nuclear technology for energy purposes.
Khatami is entirely correct in his assertion. As a concession to non-nuclear nations, the NNP Treaty called on nuclear countries to aid the non-nuclear nations in their attempts to develop nuclear energy.
Yet, oftentimes the NNP appears to have been used by nuclear nations in order to target suspected rogue states.
Although Iran is currently complying with the NNP, the international community, dominated by the U.S. outcry, has come down hard upon Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign minister has openly stated his nation's resentment of U.S. policy in the Middle East and has targeted the United States as the most adamant supporter of regime change in his country.
This statement by Kharrazi is not without merit. Iran has charged that the United States is supporting rebel groups to overthrow the government. Although Bush has not made a clear case for regime change, there is talk among conservatives to take some form of action.
The most likely of actions would be financially and logistically supporting exiles and dissidents in Iran.
However, the administration has steered away from this path due to a lack of credible rebel groups. Nonetheless, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has introduced legislation that specifically calls for regime change.
John R. Bolton, the undersecretary of state for nonproliferation, has made public statements in support of regime change. He has cited the cases of South Africa and Ukraine who both abandoned their nuclear programs after regime changes.
This is, of course, a ludicrous contention on the part of Bolton. He fails to recognize the radical differences between Iran and these two nations. Iran is a Muslim nation with a culture infused with Islamic ideology. They are allied with other Islamic nations in the region and have a particular distaste for any American intervention.
Developing nations on the IAEA have not entirely supported action against Iran. For these countries, it is a matter of the haves versus the have-nots. Other developing nations could benefit greatly from nuclear power.
It would perhaps even be possible for these nations to become energy independent if this technology was available to them.
The foreign ministers of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden have all stated that the NNP Treaty cannot be entirely complied with because the Unied States and other nuclear states have not complied themselves by aiding other nations in nuclear development.
Rather, the nuclear nations have utilized the treaty as a means of retaining their own arsenals while targeting those nations which they consider to be a threat. If the treaty were implemented as it was originally intended the United States would not be promoting action against Iran, but would be aiding Iran in its nuclear power efforts.
In fact, the United States was the initial supporter of Iran's nuclear program in the late 1960s.
While it may be true that Iran is a security threat to the United States, Iran's only concrete violation has been in failing to inform the IAEA of its nuclear power plans as well as its initial enrichment of uranium.
Other than this, Iran has neither violated international law nor breached the Nonproliferation Treaty. The problem that the international community has with Iran is not centered on its actual violation, but on its entirely legal claims to nuclear electric power.
The United States and its allies have targeted Iran because of a tradition of mistrust. The Pentagon has issued reports that Iran may be supporting insurrections in Iraq against U.S. forces.
Surely, Iran has taken advantage of the legal loopholes of the treaty. Creating the enriched fuel for nuclear reactors has been a means by which non-nuclear nations can covertly create a nuclear weapons program, a tactic used by India for its own program. Therefore, it is obvious that there are some inherent problems with both the NNP and the IAEA itself.
The treaty's actual usage has shifted from its original intent, for nuclear nations to both keep their arms and to aid non-nuclear nations in creating nuclear energy. As such, it should be rewritten to account for the changes in the international climate since 1968.
Since the fuel for reactors may easily be converted into fuel for warheads, even the move to nuclear power is a significant step toward weapons capability. With this knowledge, the Nonproliferation Treaty should not endorse future nuclear power programs.
But if this endorsement is removed, then what incentive do non-nuclear nations have for signing the treaty?
Although the original nuclear powers who signed the treaty were allowed to keep their weapons, there was also a tacit agreement to decrease their arsenals.
There has been some progress on this front. Since the treaty was first signed, thousands of warheads have been deactivated. In 2002, Bush and Russian President Putin signed an arms reduction agreement which called for most warheads to be deactivated by 2012.
However, tens of thousands of warheads are currently active and any future deactivation would simply mean that stockpiles would still exist and could easily be reactivated at any time.
Any honest attempt to end the threat of nuclear warfare would have to include a timeline for complete deactivation and disposal of all nuclear weaponry for all signatories of the treaty.
Also, Israel's inclusion on the 35-member IAEA is a blatant act of hypocrisy. Israel is neither a party to the NNP Treaty nor subject to inspections.
Why should a nation that has completely undermined global disarmament criticize the exact same actions of its neighbors?
Israel is known to have developed a nuclear program as well as a nuclear arsenal. For the sake of credibility, the IAEA should not allow Israel to remain a member unless the nation's leaders accept the guidelines of the NNP and provide a detailed plan for disarming.
The gist of my argument is incredibly simple and may seem to be too idealistic for a cynical world.
Ideally, the signatories of the original Nonproliferation Treaty would reconvene and create a detailed timeline for complete disarmament and safe disposal of nuclear material.
The treaty would not include the provision for the development of nuclear power programs. It would require regular and thorough inspections by the IAEA, whose members would be required to be signatories of the NNP.
A provision would also be included that would not allow countries to provide nuclear material or other equipment for the production of centrifuges to non-signatories.
Nowhere is the threat of nuclear warfare so potent as in the Middle East. If Iran eventually produces an arsenal to compete with Israel's, then a serious threat to world peace would exist.
Even now, the threat of an Israeli preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear plants exist. The United States has exacerbated a possible conflict by reportedly supplying Israel with thousands of high-tech bombs, including 500 bunker buster bombs, useful for breaking through walls up to two meters thick.
On Nov. 25, the IAEA may refer the situation to the United Nations Security Council.
If this is the case, it is my hope that the Security Council acts with the benefits of disarmament in mind. Although idealistic, global disarmament is the only real means to ending an impending global crisis.
(09/22/04 12:00pm)
No word resonates quite as strongly in the context of international human rights violations as "genocide."
Considering the impetus behind any act of genocide - the desire to exterminate a people simply for their identification as a people - genocide is the most heinous of all crimes.
Abhorrence to genocide unites Democrats and Republicans alike.
It unites the religious right and the radical left.
It is beyond politics and it strikes at the heart of any human being's most basic desire to live.
So what does the world do when the systematic mass killing of a people is discovered?
That's a question which has been plaguing the international community in regard to the genocide in Sudan. In the Darfur region of western Sudan, 50,000 black Muslim Sudanese have been killed and 1.2 million have been displaced.
The situation originated when small conflicts broke out between black Sudanese farmers and Arab nomads over use of resources.
It then escalated when the black farmers organized into full-fledged rebellion.
As a result, the Sudanese government in Khartoum has enlisted the aid of Janjaweed militias to kill the insurgents.
Yet, the fighting is not confined to military zones. It has infiltrated peaceful villages and has led to the blatant slaughtering of civilians.
Of those black Sudanese who have been displaced, there are victims of gang rape who can no longer produce milk for the babies of their rapists, and there are child soldiers who fight to avenge the murder of their own parents.
Clearly, this is not a governmental attempt to maintain order.
The Janjaweed militias responsible for the mass extermination of the black Sudanese are doing so primarily based on racial reasons. Both the victims and the perpetrators of the genocide are Muslim, so religion is not the issue.
If action is not taken, the staggering figure of 50,000 dead may soon rival the 800,000 killed during the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.
The Bush administration has come to the understanding that this situation amounts to outright genocide. So what will this world united against genocide do to stop the continual slaughter?
The first answer that comes to mind is economic sanctions, particularly sanctions on Sudanese oil. Since 1999, Sudan has been exporting oil and has been reaping the economic benefits.
However, the governments of Pakistan and China, both recipients of Sudanese oil, would most likely oppose any resolution that includes sanctions. China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has veto power and could end any attempts by the international community to impose sanctions.
Both of these countries also question the ability of sanctions to actually accomplish any good. This questioning of the effectiveness of sanctions is in itself a very good policy stance.
Surely sanctions are the quick and easy answer to any international misconduct.
From the American perspective, a country's success or failure is based largely upon dollars.
But in analyzing the current situation, world leaders have to look beyond their own narrow perspectives.
In reality, sanctions are not always effective. Sudan is a poor country whose economy has only recently been revitalized by oil exports.
In any attempt to use sanctions against a foreign nation, it is imperative to analyze the effects that those sanctions would have on both that foreign nation's policy and on its civilians.
The sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf War were a blatant failure and only led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children; Saddam didn't care about the welfare of his people. It would be advisable that the international community first examine the effects of sanctions on the civilian population of Sudan to avoid any further deaths.
Additionally, the recalcitrance of the government in Khartoum must also be considered.
It is likely that sanctions would only aggravate the government and create more obstacles to successful negotiation.
For President Bush, the situation in Iraq has marred his image and his credibility in the Middle Eastern world. If he hopes to gain some diplomatic ground in the Muslim world, playing a key role in ending the genocide could help to clear his name.
Among the intelligent options available to world leaders are negotiations and diplomacy.
It would be intelligent for the European Union and the United States to send delegates to talks in Nigeria where leaders of the African Union, rebel groups and the Sudanese government are meeting.
It would be intelligent to send more U.N. peacekeepers and augment the African Union's measly 300 monitors; this provision is already included in the U.S. resolution. It would be intelligent to give Chad a major role in negotiations, as it is the suspected supplier of the rebel's arms and supplies.
It would be intelligent to address the initial reasons for the rebellion of black Sudanese, the sharing of resources and more representation in government.
To most Americans and to most citizens of the Western world, an end to the genocide in Sudan is not a top priority. As a result, the governments of the Western world are not making it a top priority.
But isn't genocide one of the most, if not the most, horrific crime known to man?
Attention should be paid to the situation and intelligent action should be taken.