Tag: controversy

On Iran’s nuclear program: an alternative view

Posted on by fqzhang

Iranian nuclear program has drawn a significant amount of international attention – and condemnation – since it was uncovered in the early 2000s. While the issue is complex and multifaceted, I believe a few points should be examined. First, why is the Iranian government desirous of a nuclear program? And do the people really want it? Second, how should the rest of the world respond to it? Are the current negotiations with Iran the best way to approach this issue? And lastly, how should we all proceed from here?

The Israeli historian Martin van Creveld once said that “Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they woul6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e54f31467c8833-640wid be crazy.” Although his words may seem extreme, we need to understand what motivated the Iranian leadership to develop nuclear power, even in the face of mounting international oppositions. The Iranians’ own argument is that they need to secure their own energy needs in the form of nuclear power. This argument is hardly plausible: Iran is sitting on the world’s second largest reserves (after Russia) of natural gas. Iran’s South Pars gas field alone is estimated to contain 14×10^12 m3 of gas, around 5.6% of the entire world’s prove gas reserves. Moreover, the country contains the 4th largest reserves of oil in the world. Iran’s energy needs can largely be satisfied by its oil and natural gas, as can be seen in the chart below. iran energyIf energy security is not the real reason, then what is? The true reasons for such a program, I believe, includes the following:

  1. Scientific and cultural prestige: Let’s imagine that the Iranians do not in fact want to build a nuclear weapon (a highly unlikely assumption for reasons that I will explain later), the mere fact that Iran is capable of developing advanced technology is something that the Iranian government can be proud of. In Iran, like many other parts of the world, scientific advances symbolizes the greater progress made in a society. The Iranian government sought to legitimize itself by promoting science and technology (much like the Soviet Union spent tremendous efforts in space exploration to legitimize the ideology of Communism). The Iranian people want to see progress being made in a variety of different fields, whether it be a rocket launch or a prospective nuclear power generation plant. Iran is gaining prestige by possessing those technologies. In a sense, scientific prestige is also tied into cultural prestige. We need to remember that Iran is more of a historical civilization than a nation-state in the modern sense of the word. The Iranian people had inhabited the Iranian Plateau for thousands of millenniums, and for much of that period Iran (or Persia, as it is known for most of its history), is a leading force among the world’s nations, and not merely in technology. It is in early modern times that Iran had fallen behind. In a way, many Iranians want to regain that sense of pride which have belonged to them historically. As heirs to a rich cultural heritage, Iranians today no doubt want to relive a part of its ancient glories; developing nuclear powers along the lines of other advanced nations will symbolize a part of this regaining of prestige.Mideast-Iran-Nuclear-_Horo2
  2. Competition from regional powers: Let’s take a look at how the world appears from the position of Iran, and why its nuclear ambitions will likely lead to nuclear weapons. Geographically, Iran couldn’t be in a more dangerous position. As the map below shows, Iran is surrounded by potential or probable enemies. To its west, Iraq, despite its Shia majority (the majority religion in Iran), is embroiled in a complicated civil war with the radical Islamic State (IS). Further west, we see a similar situation in Syria, where Iran-backed government of Bashar al-Assad is fighting a multi-front war against IS and moderate rebel forces. Each of these governments, if they fall, would produce a serious threat to Iran itself; and these are just the militant organizations. Organized threats by nation-states posed a bigger problem still. In its southwest, across the Persian Gulf, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is ferociously anti-Iranian and possesses a powerful modern military and an alliance with the United States; other Sunni Gulf States are no more friendlier. Further to the west, Iran faces the strongest military power in the region in the state of Israel, which had spear-headed efforts to contain the Iranian enrichment program. Further to its north and east, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India are all nuclear powers. In such a dangerous neighborhood, Iran felt that by developing the bomb, it can achieve a sort of parity with the other regional and global powers, at least in part to compensate for its relatively conventional forces.
  3. Security and Geopolitical leverage: In a point related to the second one, we need to be aware of the fact that Iran really has no natural allies. Culturally, it is the product of thousands of years of Persian civilization centered in the plateau of Iran, influenced by the forces of Shia Islam for centuries (today, an absolute majority of the world’s Shia Muslims lives in Iran), and the rise of political Islam in the form of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For good or bad, few other countries possess such a unique historical experience. While this is a point of pride for many Iranians, at the same time, this also meant that Iran cannot count on any natural allies in the sense that the UK can rely on the US or Kuwait can rely on Saudi Arabia. The allies and friends it does have among governments are less than appealing: Iraq is bogged down in a struggle of a sectarian nature between Shia-dominated government and Sunni militant Islamists; likewise Syria is fighting its seemingly interminable civil war; the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon is considered an ally and a way for Iran to project power into the eastern Mediterranean, but is categorized as a terrorist group (its military wings at Shia_Crescentleast) by most governments around the world. Strategically, Russia can be considered an ally, but that nation is struggling in the face of western sanctions for its involvement in the Crimea and a falling oil price. (For a discussion of how falling oil prices are influencing foreign policies in Russia and Iran, see here). Iran is looking for new partners in China and India by offering them energy security; but this venture will be unlikely to result in any serious partnerships, especially if this partnership would result in possible international retaliations by the West. Iran is therefore left to defend itself against a myriad of threats. In this case, a nuclearized Iran can protect itself, or so the Iranian leadership believed, from military blackmailing. At the same time, Iran can project its power in what is known as the “Shia Crescent”, an area encompassing Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, shaping itself into a regional power. Iran believes that thus nuclear power adds more muscle to its voice in regional and international affairs.

Needless to say, no matter what the reasons are for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear power, the rest of the world cannot be happy about the emergence of another potential nuclear power. However, the present countries that possess nuclear powers are in fact rebuilding their own respective nuclear arsenals even while they are denouncing the Iranian’s attempts to do so. We see that the rest of the world has been upgrading their own nuclear arsenals as well. In a recent article on Business Insider, the dangers of a nuclear war is emphasized more than ever before. However, the difference is that Iran is widely seen as an irresponsible government, and weapons in the hands of such a state is a worrying fact. But how should the rest of the world respond to it? Along the lines of journalist Fareed Zakaria, I believe that there are two main ways for the world to respond: 1. Forcing a Regime Change, or 2. Forcing a Policy Change. Let’s briefly define what each option meant and discuss their relative merits later:

  1. Regime Change:

In essence this would involve the fomenting of dissent, support democratic political movements, and with outside help in trying to overthrow the government of Iran in one form or another. Most likely, the United States would be the leader in such an effort. In the meanwhile, the US and other parts of the world should not have anything to do with Iran since it is an illegitimate government in their eyes. In the views many, the only way to properly address the nuclear situation with Iran is wait (or help) the government to change and then deal with them later.

  1. Policy Change:

This would mean that we will actively engage with the present government of Iran, treating them as an equal partner in these discussions, and really accept the fact that the government of Iran, however repulsive, is here to stay for some time to come. The dialogues will be conducted in an open manner and be peaceful in trying to reach a deal with Iran. For supporters of this option, they do not believe that this is a policy of appeasement, but rather, a step-by-step method toward achieving our objective, whatever they may be.

As a sophomore in college, I may not be in the best position to recommend foreign policy to those in the highest levels of government. But, nevertheless, I believe that here in the US and the rest of the world that does not desire to see a nuclearized Iran, have to decide on an option fast and not to oscillate back and forth between these two options. How can you possibly struck a deal with a government that you have every intention to help overthrow? Personally, I believe that the best option remains to bring Iran back into the international system, which it had been an outcast member since 1979, and to engage with it in more direct dialogue. We need to bring in international partners, which must include China, India and Russia, to discuss options with the Iranians on what to do. We must make Iran as an equal partner in its negotiations and not treat it as a criminal state. We need to recognize Iranian interests and why they sought to nuclearize themselves and to stress our own positions and concerns in why we do not want to see a nuclear program: no, it is not that we desire to encircle Iran on all sides, and no it is not that we desire to see a weakened Iran that is susceptible to invasions at any given moment. There are too much distrust and misconceptions between Iran and the West at the moment, each is mistrusting the other’s intentions. Therefore, if we can build an international coalition on resolving the issue, we can legitimize our intentions and make the Iranians understand that it is in the interest of the rest of world for them to denuclearize.

Current policies in delaying Iran’s nuclear programs have many merits to them. Firstly, the alternative, that of calling Iran to immediately destroy their nuclear facilities, will only strengthen their resolves in continuing to build them. If not in open, then in secret. Therefore, delaying what Iran has been attempting to do, by years (a very possible prospect), leaves the rest of the world with more options in dealing with the government. But more importantly, it buys the rest of the world time. The structure of government itself may likely change with the passage of years. I do not necessarily mean a revolution, but rather a gradual process of liberalization that will see a new generation of Iranian leaders that do not want to confront the world and or is filled with xenophobia, but rather sought peaceful coexistence. Younger generations of Iranian do not have the fervors of religious fanaticism that may have characterized some of their parents; in fact, I believe that many young Iranians today want to embrace the international system and be a part of modern society. I believe that will the passage of time, Iran can be a more responsible stakeholder in the international system and we can work with Iran toward this issue. However, in order to do this, we must first talk openly with Iran.

The importance of continuing dialogue with Iran cannot be overstated. If left isolated, Iran will retreat into itself and develop and deepen a paranoia of the rest of the world and perhaps the unthinkable will happen: a nuclearized Iran ready to use its weapons on its neighbors and beyond. As a historical analogy, imagine what if Henry Kissinger had never traveled to China to open up dialogue with that secluded nation, China today would possibly have been another North Korea: a government that is isolated and clung to an outdated ideology with a belligerent attitude toward the rest of the world. But to the credit of the US government (both the executive and the State department), rather than seeing this happen, the US government actively engaged with Chinese leadership and brought China into the international community of nations; a community that China has a stake in. In a similar line, I believe that by keeping the dialogue option open with Iran, we can hope to make some progress. Of course, this can only happen with Iranian commitment as well, and it needs to tone down the rhetoric against its neighbors and their allies, most notably Israel and the United States; it needs to show real commitment in following through with its promises; but above all, Iran needs to see that it is to its own security and benefit that it becomes a part of the international system rather than a challenger to it. Perhaps, eventually, Iran will be able to develop its own peaceful nuclear program, much as how Japan and South Korea has developed them, without feeling the need to weaponize it. All of these will likely take an enormous amount of time, likely decades; but I believe that in the end, the path of continued negotiations and dialogues with Iran will be preferable to any other alternative.

For related topics see:

Resource dependency, oil price decline, and the reshaping of the international order

Oil companies and the ethics of overseas investment

Human exploration of space: a controversial debate (Part 2)

Posted on by fqzhang

For part 1, click here.

A second key contentious point is the role of private companies and national governments in space. The drive for space exploration was mostly led by governmental agencies since the very beginning, and currently a “virtual government space monopoly” exists.  In the US, National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created in 1958 to coordinate the government’s efforts to explore space.  The exploration itself is also closely linked to military endeavors, with intelligence gathering as one of the early reasons for the launching of satellites. Some argue that we should limit the role of governments and private interests in space and place exploration under the firm control of national governments, while others believed that we should open up space for commercial endeavors and to utilize space as much as possible.Edward-Hopper-s-Nighthawks-in-Space

Anti-Space liberalization groups based their arguments on several points: first, private companies would only be willing to undertake space exploration if and only if immediate and short term economic prospects are possible, and therefore they have no long range exploration goals that can serve public interests. According to pro-space advocates, private interests cannot utilize space efficiently because space exploration requires a large amount of initial capital investments that few companies can or are wiling to afford, and the fact that any ventures in space would require years to generate any results doesn’t favor private investments either.  Furthermore, there is an incentive for company to not do any original research at all and to instead rely on imitating others by doing what others have already began or done. This is not an issue when the government is the major source of research; however, with the privatization of Space R&D, company will sought to improve on their existing research than to build new ones, since the costs will be lower. According to the anti-privatization groups, only the government can sponsor basic research, without direct considerations for profitability.

Secondly, the exploration of space also brought up the points of who owns what in space, and how can governments regulate such claims of property or intellectual property. On land, the issues of property is quite simple, like in the American West in the 19th century, where the first ones to find the area and to use it to its full commercial potential can often obtain permission from the national government to gain ownership. However, no clear international agreements have been reached on using resources in space by each nation. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is an international agreement that guaranteed “outer space and celestial bodies are free for exploration” and under Article VI, signatory nations “bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space… whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities…”  In effect, the treaty defines that space is open to all and activities in space are the responsibilities of the government. This works in the days when commercial development of space seemed so far away, however, now with humans on the moon and potentially on the asteroids or Mars, the resources on those planets can have great implications.  For instance, asteroids are known to have rare-earth minerals which are commercially valuable even given the high cost of exploration.  The question therefore is who should own these resources or if they should be exploited.space shuttle leaving earth

Anti-privatization people believed that giving up space and celestial bodies, such as the moon and asteroids, to private interests is irresponsible. Indeed, if we fully privatize space among the large companies, they can effectively dominate space and create a private monopoly and close it off to future exploration, or having power concentrated in the hands of too few people. In addition, unlike governmental research where any research generated can be shared with the public, private company’s research and the technology spillovers from R&D would not be shared with others, to the detriment of society.

On the other hand, many pro-privatization advocates argue handing over certain aspects of space exploration to the emerging Space Industry will be beneficial to society at large. Among their arguments include the cheaper ways that private companies can get humans/robots to space and to utilize space resources. For instance, recently, the SpaceX Falcon Heavy launcher can in theory deliver about 50 metric tons of payload to low earth orbit at a price of $120 million, averaging to about $1000 per pound, much less than the tens of thousands of dollars per pound that NASA’s technology can deliver.  Currently, advocates of private interests in space argue, the government’s effective monopoly on space is encouraging waste, and if more company like Elon Musk’s SpaceX can be introduced to the competition, the costs of going to space will likely decline further as a result in refinement of space technology.

space vehiclesMoreover, private property rights in space should be established because only private companies can use the resources to its greatest effect. Many pro-privatization advocates pointed to the difference between the usage of Arctic (which are fully utilized economically) and the Antarctic, which have no development; whereas the Arctic’s property rights are well-defined, the Antarctic’s is highly ambiguous. Similarly, if the resources in outer space is well-defined, many people here on earth can reap its economic benefits through the efforts of private organizations.

Finally, the third main point of contention in the space debate is the effect of space exploration on long term human health, both mentally and physically. Many people cite the facts that prolonged exposure to space is fundamentally unhealthy for human beings and long term stays are simply unfeasible. However, pro-space advocates argue that we must adjust to living in space through technological means and that in order for us to survive as a race, we must look to the solar system as a source of survival.

Ever since the first human flight to space, scientists have been carefully observing the effects of space environments on the human body. For example, scientists noticed that astronauts can develop a greater “risk of getting a kidney stone as a result of space travel since the body quickly dumps a lot of fluid when gravity is no longer drawing blood down into the legs and the elastic vessels squeeze it upward”.  In addition, the body can lose large amounts of proteins, by up to 45 percent decrease in protein synthesis. In large part this is due to microgravity environment which results in a lack of muscular activity.  Other long-term health effect includes bone loss, cellular organization and radiation.liftoff1

Given these detrimental effects on human health, many argued that human travels to space should be limited in scope and argued that human settlement in space is impossible in the long run. Therefore, we as human beings should still focus our development on our only habitable planet as our bodies are physiologically adapted to life on Earth.

However, others believed that human beings should began to adopt to space. Some talk of an “astro-civilization” , where just like humans have moved from a nomadic to an agricultural then to an industrial society, our next logical step to expand to a space-based civilization. According to the pro-space advocates, the earth’s expanding millions required more and more resources to sustain itself.  Therefore, it is necessary for us to develop technologies to enable us survive in space and to produce habitats similar to those on earth in near-earth orbit. Some have outlined strategies for monitoring human reactions in space step by step, such as Edgar Mitchell, who was an Apollo 14 Lunar module pilot. He argued that humans should first continue space exploration by landing on Mars and later establish a scientific laboratory on the Moon.  This laboratory can be used to test how to adapt humans to the hostile environments in space. Once that is accomplished, we can then consider the establishment of more permanent bases with the eventual goal of settler colonies on Mars/Moon, or near earth space.

For part 1, click here.

Human exploration of space: a controversial debate (Part 1)

Posted on by fqzhang

I wrote about this topic of human space exploration a while back, somehow, I never bothered to post on my blog. But here it is, and divided up into two parts to make it easier to read. For the second part, click here.

The question of whether or not we should sponsor human space missions had been controversial ever since the modern exploration of space began in the 1950s. A variety of arguments have been made either in favor or against the exploration, and two opposing sides developed in this debate.  My thesis for this essay is that the human exploration of space is a controversial issue since the costs of sponsoring space exploration is extremely high and the money can be better spent elsewhere, the unclear role of government and the power of private (commercial) interests in space, and the long-term and unknown health effects that traveling to space have on human beings. Key questions like property rights in space and the extent of government funding has been debated, and while some supports the private funding of space, others are more reserved.  Moreover, the possibility of human settlement of space is hotly debated as well, with some believing in the future destiny of mankind laying in space, while others believed we should focus more on planet earth, using some of the technologies we gained from space exploration. space-exploration

Firstly, the costs of going to space is enormous, and specific criticisms includes the national funding for space exploration, the real scientific need for such funding and the alternative good that the money can be used for. Many criticize the decisions by national and private organizations to sponsor such an endeavor to space. It has been estimated that the launch of a space shuttle costs about 450 million, and there have been over 130 launches from 1982 to 2011.  Not to mention the 140 billion plus that the space station has been spending. Such costs indeed add up to astronomical numbers. Currently, the vast amount of the space exploration is funded by governments of various countries. Here in the US, the federal budget funds 17.7 billion for fiscal year 2014 to NASA . The federal governments reached this number after vigorous debate and many wanted NASA to focus on more tangible results in the near-earth orbit instead of pursuing large projects that have no direct results. In today’s world, where the fight for national budget is increasingly acrimonious, spending such a sum of money on science that have little practical values is useless according to many critics. The bottom line is simple: our national economy simply do not have the necessary resources to continue the space program on a regular basis.

Regarding the amount of money being spent in human space explorations, many critics also pointed out alternatives to human exploration for the advancement of science. Chiefly, they argued that many of things that require human presence can also be carried out by robots. Robots can reach far more different places than humans, and can conduct research in a variety of different (often hostile) environments. The Curiosity spacecraft currently exploring Mars is a great example of having robots do the exploration for humans, where it has continuously been sending back data for scientists based here on planet earth, without the need for humans to travel.  The costs of these development in space is cheaper and can achieve more scientific results. In addition, critics attack the argument that scientists can use the opportunity in space to perform experiments otherwise not available on Earth. Many simulated laboratory conditions achieve the microgravity and other conditions of space, without the need to send scientists into space to perform the experiment itself. Critics argue that it will make more sense to fund laboratory facilities than to build ones in space and requires travels to space to perform the experiment.Space-EXploration-Puzzle-900x1600

Finally the money being spent in space, many argue, can be best spent here on Earth. With food and water shortages in Africa, a global environmental crisis, a lack of healthy standards of living in many places, many argue that the billions spent in space can be used to directly improve life and living conditions on earth. As the CBS news anchor Katie Couric stated in October of 2006, “NASA’s requested budget for 2007 is nearly $17 billion. There are some who argue that money would be better spent on solid ground, for medical research, social programs or in finding solutions to poverty, hunger and homelessness… I can’t help but wonder what all that money could do for people right here on planet Earth.”  Money spent in space, some argue, is a long-term discretionary spending that can be eliminated to provide money here on earth.

In contrast, pro-space organizations argued that such costs are justifiable and can be brought down to more affordable levels as our investments in space R&D and infrastructures pays off in the future, and that our investments in space can bring tangible economic benefits to planet earth. Currently, the annual budget for NASA which amount to about 17 billion every year, is indeed a tiny fraction of the overall public spending. Indeed, “For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very nearly double NASA’s budget”.  The costs of space exploration, when put in perspective is indeed not that great, and the 16.143 billion spent on NASA in 2007 is merely 0.58 percent of the total federal budget. Pro-space exploration advocates argue that even if all the money spent on space is allocated to other spending, the differences on our society would negligible. In addition, a key role of government, many felt, is to promote the arts and sciences and NASA argues that it is fulfilling this role. NASA provided an enormous amount of scientific knowledge about space and scientific endeavors in general, and helped to educated millions of students on science.  The scientific and educational value of space exploration can never be truly quantified, for such an investment in our nation’s scientific future and the education of the youths is something that goes a long way.satellites

Moreover, many scientists argue that the investments in space can bring tangible technological and economic benefits to here on earth, many of it in the forms of spin-offs from the products initially intended for space use, or as a result of space research. Some examples include cell phone cameras based on space cameras, memory-foam mattresses, aircraft de-icing, etc.  These new technologies spurred new industries, improved the quality of life and encouraged economic growth.  “A number of studies conclude that about 90 percent of the long-term increase in output per capita in the U.S. has been attributable to technological change, increasing educational achievements…”  The spin-offs from NASA research contributed enormously to economic growth in the US and the world in general.

For part 2, click here.