By Akbar Khan

December 2011, Abbottabad, Pakistan – Well over a year before Election Day, in one of the world’s most dangerous countries, I could already sense the beginnings of what was becoming the most important election in the history of the country. Political banners, slogans, and portraits lined street corners and highway billboards. Buses, filled with enthusiastic supporters, were shuttling constituents to party rallies. The political climate was heating up in anticipation of the upcoming May 11 election and even I, a foreign-born Pakistani, understood the magnitude of what was riding on the outcome

Since achieving Independence in 1947 under the leadership of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah, Pakistan has not exactly been an exemplar of democratic statehood. In its relatively short 65-year history, the country has been the victim of four military coups, three territorial wars with India, and numerous rigged elections. Today, political corruption, rural poverty, and Islamic extremism plague the country. And yet, despite all this negativity, the people of Pakistan face an opportunity for change in the upcoming election.

In the Pakistan’s party dominated political landscape, there are about 90 parties, but the 2013 election has been dominated by three in particular:  Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The latest polls show that the PML-N will win the most seats, followed by PTI and PPP. Some speculate that if PTI and PPP form a coalition, it could control a majority of the 272 electable seats and consequently, Imran Khan (PTI) would be designated as Prime Minister.  

 Pakistan People’s Party — Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Founded as a progressive party in the 1960s, the PPP won parliamentary majorities in 1973, when Zulfikar Bhutto became Prime Minister, and in 1988 and 1993, under Benazir Bhutto, the first female elected Prime Minister of Pakistan. Following her assassination in 2007, the PPP won a majority of seats in the 2008 elections but have lost support in recent months with the rise of the PML-N and PTI. The current chairman, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, is the son of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, the current President of Pakistan. Educated in England and following in the footsteps of his mother and grandfather, Bilawal Bhutto possesses enormous potential as a future leader. However, since he is only 24 years old, he is unable to run as Prime Minister in the upcoming election (in order to run for a seat, a candidate must be at least 25 years of age).

The PPP has been the most targeted party of the Pakistani Taliban’s campaign violence, which has resulted in the death of several party members and the recent kidnapping of former Prime Minister Gilani’s son Yusuf Raza Gilani by gunmen in Multan. Since April 11^th, pre-election bombings have left more than 100 people dead. As a result, the party has not been able to campaign as openly as it would like. Despite efforts by PPP members to protest to the Election Commission that the attacks have put an unfair strain on their campaigning abilities, with Election Day less than 24 hours away, there is little the party can do to make up lost ground. Because of the heightened threat of suicide bombers, the Pakistani Army has announced that 70,000 troops will be deployed across the country on Election Day.

Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz — Nawaz Sharif

The PML-N, a conservative party, is centered in the Punjab province. It won parliamentary majorities in 1990 and 1997 enabling its leader, Nawaz Sharif, to become Prime Minster in both years. Sharif has little to boast from his two terms as Prime Minister. Acquiring considerable wealth from his milling industry ownerships throughout the country, Sharif was accused by former President Ghulam Khan of corruption for his personal financial gains during his tenure as Prime Minster. Despite this allegation, the PML-N remains the leading party at this point in the election campaign.

Pakistan Tehree-e-Insaf — Imran Khan

 The PTI is a relatively young party founded in the 1990s. It is the only party out of the major three in this election that has not had a substantial political voice until recently. Its chairman, Imran Khan (the former cricket star who brought a World Cup victory to Pakistan in 1992), first achieved national political prominence through his construction of a major cancer hospital in Lahore, dedicated to his mother who died of cancer. His work on the hospital earned him a reputation as an honest leader because he consistently provided statements of the hospital’s funding records, demonstrating that he had not pocketed any of the donations he received for the project. He was also heavily involved in aid relief efforts for flood victims in 2010. His party’s campaign focus has been to bring justice to Pakistan and to eradicate corruption within the state.

The Path of Change

If there is one thing that has been consistently lacking in the Pakistani government, it has been integrity. Pakistan’s political institutions have been riddled with corruption. Parliamentarians have laundered taxes for their own personal benefit and high-ranking leaders have coerced banks to lend, only to default on the loans. Even I have witnessed police officers blatantly accepting bribes in their execution of the “law.” Unfortunately, there exists a gap in trust between the Pakistani people and their government.

However, on May 11^th, the people of Pakistan face a landmark opportunity because this election marks the first time in the country’s history that one democratically elected government will succeed another. After years of “load shedding,” infrastructure deterioration, stagnant social and economic opportunities, and overall political neglect, they finally have an opportunity to steer the country in a direction that can cater to their needs. With this opportunity, though, comes a weighty responsibility: the Pakistani people must be the catalysts for the positive change they seek within the country. This change starts by filling the gap in trust between the government and its constituents. In order to do this, the people must distinguish between leaders who have had a record of corruption from those who have not and put the latter in power. A foundation of trust will only be laid down for future democratic transitions if people have confidence in the government; this is true of any country aspiring towards democracy and Pakistan is no exception.

Both the PLM-N and PPP would preserve the status quo. Nawaz Sharif has little to speak for his leadership besides allegations of corruption and the PPP, the currently ruling party, has accomplished little in its latest attempt to govern. Of the three major candidates, only one candidate has had a track record of sincerity and honesty. From the beginning of PPP’s campaign, Imran Khan has made it a point to fight corruption in Pakistan. To some, he lacks political savvy and experience, but his greatest asset is what is most needed in the country – integrity.

Unfortunately, several days ago, Imran Khan fell off of a tall structure while making a rally appearance. The incident was completely accidental but now Imran will be bed-ridden for several weeks, which renders him unable to campaign. He has insisted, however, on making speeches from his hospital bed. Despite the circumstances, Imran is still devoted to his cause for a better Pakistan and the country should take this as a sign of his determination.

Tomorrow, despite the violence, the Pakistani will take to the ballots. For their sake, and for the sake of the country, I hope they vote for the path of change and integrity.

Facts and figures from Trading Economics, BBC, UNICEF, Guardian, and Pakistan Today

Akbar Khan is a third-year Political Science student with a minor in Global Studies. He is an intern at the Burkle Center for International Relations. 

Photo by Deborah Barrett

by Christine Smith
Editor

Two weeks ago on April 15, 2013, the city of Boston became the center of a locally-grown terrorist attack that involved two pressure-cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The attack wounded hundreds of runners and spectators and killed three observers: a Boston University graduate student, an eight-year-old boy, and a local restaurant manager. Of the victims, over a dozen have had at least one limb amputated. In just those few minutes of chaos, what was previously a largely local sporting event morphed into a reason to highlight its international significance and to put aside political and ideological tensions to rally behind the United States. 

On the surface, the Boston Marathon may primarily appear to be a domestic event. After all, while the rest of the country and world goes about their daily lives, the entire city of Boston and state of Massachusetts shut down for Patriots’ Day, also known as Marathon Monday. At first glance, the race may consequently appear to many as merely an excuse to party with friends and to take a day off from work or school. In actuality, the Boston Marathon means significantly more; it symbolizes a day for the residents of Boston and Massachusetts to unite as New Englanders and to revitalize their already strong sense of regional pride. The race, however, also acts as a day for the international community to come together over a shared interest: running. 

As a result of its humble origins, the Boston Marathon has always been connected to the international community. Established in 1897 by U.S. Olympic Team Manager John Graham after watching and training athletes for the Olympic Marathon, the Boston Marathon has continued to include athletes from all over the world. Over 95 countries were represented in this year’s race alone, including 10 African and 15 Asian nations. The Boston Marathon bombings were not merely an attack against the United States, but rather an attack against 95 states of varying political, religious, economic, and ideological backgrounds.

Many runners opted to run on behalf of an international charity, further reflecting their deeper commitment to making a positive impact globally. Most of the 35 charities sponsoring the race are connected to either the Greater Boston area or to the United States, but several represent global partners, including the Alzheimer’s Association, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation. As a result, over $133 million in donations have been given since the creation of the Boston Marathon Official Charity Program in 1989 to charities whose issues are just as important beyond American borders as they are within. 

Additionally, by occurring annually on Patriots’ Day, the Boston Marathon brings attention to the anniversary of the start of the Revolutionary War: a war that pitted the Thirteen Colonies, France, Spain, and the Netherlands against Great Britain in an effort to diminish Great Britain’s global power and to give the United States its independence. Consequently, the Boston Marathon acts as a reminder to both the U.S. and the world that the currently prosperous country was once a mere colony of the British Empire that lacked its own independent international voice.

Perhaps it is not surprising then, that the international community has rallied behind Boston and the United States in light of the recent Boston Marathon bombings. After all, many American allies regularly fall victim to terrorist attacks and thus understand the physical and emotional trauma New Englanders are currently experiencing. Even some countries, like Syria, whose relationships with the United States recently have been considerably strained as a result of the issuing of strong criticism of Washington and U.S. foreign policy, have reached out through social media to suffering New Englanders to express their condolences. “Boston Strong,” therefore, means more than the unification of a city; “Boston Strong” represents the world’s commitment to putting aside divisive differences to work together to help all innocent participants and spectators impacted by the Boston Marathon bombings.

Facts and figures obtained from The Boston Athletic Association, The New York Times, and CNN.

Christine Smith recently received her B.A. in Political Science and two minors in African Studies and Anthropology from Boston University. She is currently a first year M.A. in African Studies student at UCLA focusing on human rights issues in East Africa and plans to pursue a second M.S. in Print Journalism. She is also an editor with The Generation.

Photo by Baz Ratner, Reuters

by Gabrielle Cherney
Contributing Writer

“We must pray for Israel. We must pray for Israel and our fellow Jews. Israel is under attack.”

I remember hearing this as a child during every religious service I was taken to at the reform temple my family joined. I heard this, I believed it, and I grew up taking the assumptions behind the allegiance for granted.

This experience is not unique to me, nor is it unique to American Jews, Americans in general, or Jews in general. The inheritance of a stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most divisive conflicts of recent generations’ collective conscience, is almost universal.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media are constantly diagnosing, endorsing,
and proposing solutions—trying to answer the question of how to create stability in the region.

But while everyone ever-more frantically bickers about what the correct answer is, anti-Israeli powers continue to rise in the region, and the nuances and complexities embedded within the question itself are lost, making an educated position nearly impossible.

Mainstream discussion of policy proposals is laden with assumptions of false dichotomies and oversimplified history. As a result, analysis of current events, such as President Barack Obama’s recent trip to Israel, is misguided. There is a common lack of appreciation for the dynamics of inequality within Israel that exist beyond and within  Israelis versus Palestinians. Understanding these dynamics is fundamental to realizing that one of the main problems for Israel is its leadership’s insistence on embracing a Western identity despite its Eastern history, population, and geography.

Jews and Muslims have a long history of coexistence, particularly in Muslim states over the past two thousand years. Legally, socioeconomically, and politically, Jews were recognized and accommodated, despite divergence from the theocratic religious agendas of Muslim societies throughout the Middle East.

Additionally, an observable concentration of Jews has lived in the biblically defined borders of Israel for centuries. It was not until the late 1800s, with the first large wave of Zionists, when this Jewish concentration became significant vis-à-vis the non-Jewish population in the region. With this new wave of Zionists, Jews set on making Israel a legally recognized Jewish state and demanded higher wages for the same work Palestinians were already doing in the region. In response, the Jewish community excluded the Palestinians by effectively creating a split economy—one in which Jews made and spent higher wages and the other in which Palestinians experienced an economy with a considerably lower circulation of money.

This split economy set the stage for an easy transition to the systemic sociopolitical exclusion and economic blockade on Palestinians that arose when Israel became a state in 1948.

More importantly, up until 1948, the people of Palestinian were designated British Protected Persons, which meant essentially having a colonial-style extension of what can be understood as British ‘citizenship’ (insofar as the notion of citizenship functions in a colonial dynamic), as Britain owned the Palestinian territory after World War I when the Ottoman Empire was partitioned. This dynamic conveniently allowed the U.S. to create the Israeli state without infringing on a technically pre-existing “state.”

By the time Jews from all over were functionally bussed into the new Israeli state, the territory had already been zoned, categorized by level of security risk. The lowest levels of risk positively correlated with proximity to major cities—a proximity which also happens to be most conducive to socioeconomic and political access to the state.

Eastern European Jews (“Ashkenazim”) were placed in the relatively more secure and centrally located areas and Middle Eastern Jews (“Mizrahim”) were placed in the more obscure, high-risk areas.

Systemic discrimination against Mizrahim was, and continues to be, the consequence of the pro-West  incentive structure (i.e. garnering sociopolitical rewards by virtue of simply appearing pro-West) implemented at the very creation of the Israeli state. With Western oriented politicians installed in Israel, and supported by the seemingly more Western Ashkenazim in cities, the pro-West mentality dominated and was viewed as being at odds with the Eastern mentality, Jewish or otherwise.

Though different, and more extreme in the case of Palestinians, the discrimination felt by both Mizrahim and Palestinians has been so severe that coalitions have been formed to unite and promote mutual benefits for the two groups in the face of Ashkenazim exclusionary practices.

Simultaneously, the resistant cause of such coalitions rose in political prominence, which brings us back to the present situation. From the political center and left in Israel, political groups have been growing in numbers and force, endorsing the cause of middle and lower class Jews as well as Palestinians.

As I mentioned, most people in the Middle East, the West, or anywhere else, are raised under the pressure of an expected allegiance to either Israel or Palestine. However, the identity being embraced in order to inform that allegiance may not be as simple as you think—it is not as simple as Arabs vs. Jews; Middle Easterners vs. Israelis or Jews; or Jews vs. Muslims.

And perhaps most importantly, conflict between Jews and non-Jews, particularly Muslims in this case, is not inherent. Just as the relationship between these groups has shifted into one characterized as antagonistic in recent memory, it can shift back.

At the most fundamental level, Israel and its supporters must stop insisting on pushing a distinction between East and West as well as a distinction between Israel and the Middle East. Israel is in the Middle East and much of its population is Middle Eastern, religion aside.

The discrimination occurring within Israel is making it internally unstable and the projection of this discrimination is informing Israeli foreign policy. The result has been increasing isolation practices and general belligerence (i.e. violent assaults within its own territory and persistent aggression and threats toward neighboring states) on the international stage.

President Obama gave a speech on his most recent trip to Israel and the speech has received a huge amount of mainstream attention for its mention of concessions with Palestine. But less obviously and more importantly, what the President did with this speech was align himself with the position of the rising center-left portion of Israeli Jews, who have proven to be a surprisingly strong force during the most recent elections. He directly characterized the occupation of the West Bank as simply morally objectionable. This endorsement was inherently pitted against the position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and was a way for the President to make his stance known and, presumably, fuel the fire of political tension in Israel.

The current state of Middle Eastern affairs vis-à-vis Israel, Palestine, and the immediate region as a whole is not sustainable. By criticizing the framework in which Israel appears to view itself and, in turn, the way many in the West tend to view it, I am not implying that Israel should simply let its guard down. I am merely seeking to combat the fundamental oversimplification of Israel vs. Palestine, which even Israel itself tends to promote.

Gabrielle Cherney is a fellow for the U.S. Department of Education’s Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program. She is being funded for research and language development specifically in Persian. Her academic specialization is on the Near East and Central Eurasia, as well as Political Science, at Indiana University in Bloomington.

by Akbar Khan
Contributing Writer

In the words of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military tactician, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” To some, this may seem an unattainable naivety, and yet for 800 years, the Zhou dynasty adopted Sun Tzu’s advice, resulting in its reputation as the longest-lasting imperial reign in Chinese history. In contrast, conflict in the West has embodied a different meaning, one that involves direct military engagement. But to Sun Tzu, conflict was just as much about perception, domestic unity, and indirect engagement as it was about actual warfare. In fact, what Sun Tzu was proposing was that the greatest victory is not the one that comes from physical battle–but the one achieved without military confrontation.

Beginning in the mid-19th century, the “Century of Humiliation” refers to an era of British and Japanese subjugation of China. In the mid-20th century, Mao Zedong ushered in a new period of communist revolution. These two time frames represent an era of foreign domination and poor economic development in China. However, the contemporary era has witnessed the re-emergence of Chinese leadership in East Asia. Some even speculate that the Chinese economy will soon rival the American economy, after more than two decades of United States international economic dominance while others dismiss China’s recent emergence as a short-lived phenomenon. Let’s take a closer look.

As the U.S. has become pre-occupied with fiscal hardship and overseas engagements, China has been rapidly, yet steadily, honing in on American economic prowess. Over the last two decades, China’s annual GDP growth has hovered around 10%. With an abundance of cheap labor, European and American companies have developed supply chains in China to reap the benefits of low production costs, transforming the country into the global manufacturing hub. Even high-end brand names like Armani employ Chinese manufacturing. Cliché as it is, “Made in China” is increasingly stamping itself on American consumer products.

Some economists have predicted that China’s growth rate is unsustainable. They suggest that China’s capital endowments will yield diminishing returns, and, as a result, China’s impressive growth will drop considerably. However, this is not expected to significantly slow Chinese growth for at least another decade. In fact, the International Monetary Fund predicts that in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), China’s GDP will surpass America’s in 2016. PPP is measure that uses currency exchange rates to adjust for differences in prices between rich and poor countries. Even if Chinese growth slows from present rates, America’s economic advantage over China is shrinking.

Not convinced on China’s prospects? There’s more.

The Chinese government, in a rather brilliant maneuver, has created export quotas on its rare earth metals, which is surprising considering China wholly dominates the market. One may wonder why Chinese leaders have pursued this policy. By limiting its own output of rare earth materials, China is creating incentives for foreign businesses to relocate to China in order to get around the quota.

Still not convinced?

In 2006, the Pentagon confirmed that China successfully tested a ground-to-space laser to block U.S. satellite imagery. Reports on exactly which satellite was targeted are difficult to discover, perhaps because the event is not something the American media are eager to reveal. In a report by Defense News, the National Reconnaissance Office Director, Donald Kerr, admitted that China had the technological capability to affect U.S. satellites. This revelation demonstrates the increasing technological capacity of China but the incident signals a more profound implication–China has stepped on America’s toes without repercussions.

China is increasingly doing as it pleases: trading weapons for oil to Iran, violating environmental restrictions, trading with North Korea, and keeping foreign imports out of its borders. Were China a weaker nation, the U.S. would be able to put much more pressure on China to cooperate. However, as a result of the extensive U.S. trade deficit, China owns over a trillion dollars of American debt. This gives China leverage over the U.S. economy in being a creditor to the United States.

China has shown it has the potential, the ingenuity, the technology, and the swagger–a seemingly complete package. But, the one serious disadvantage for China with respect to the U.S. comes down to raw, material capability. According to the World Bank, America consistently spends above $600 billion on its defense budget while China spends over $100 billion. The U.S. GDP is approximately $14 trillion; China’s GDP is about half of the U.S. GDP.

Yet, consulting the timeless advice of our old friend Sun Tzu in his military guidebook The Art of War, we come to realize that material assets are not everything. Rather, strategic, non-violent tactics are the most effective method for combating opponents. In a world with strong international peace agencies, increasing globalization and an implicit fear of nuclear holocaust, direct military engagement between major powers is unlikely; this means that China may be able to rival America without ever having to fire a single bullet. Now that is a victory Sun Tzu would be proud of.

Fact and Figures from the World Bank, The Economist, and Bloomberg Business.

Akbar Khan is a third-year Political Science student with a minor in Global Studies. He is an intern at the Burkle Center for International Relations. 

Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain died April 8, 2013 at the age of 87.  She was a controversial leader who had a major impact on not only her own country but on the course of international events as well.

Thatcher was a neoliberal, along with Reagan and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.  These “free marketeers” privatized businesses, cut taxes, broke unions and demonstrated military might.  Because of her no-nonsense leadership style, a Soviet journalist dubbed her the “Iron Lady.”

What may be her most lasting legacy was her abiding campaign against communism.  Her time in office perfectly coincided with the fall of the Soviet sphere of authority over the world.  Her relationship with the U.S. was famous, and, as President Barack Obama stated, “She helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best.”

Even her long time adversary, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev credited her with helping to end the Cold War, noting that “relations were complicated sometimes, not always fair, but serious and responsible on both parts…We managed to achieve mutual understanding after all.”  He also told Interfax news agency, “Thatcher was a politician whose words carried great weight,” calling her death “sad news”.

Many questioned whether she was justified in sending her navy halfway around the world to reclaim the Falkland Islands from the Argentinians who had invaded.  For that bold move, she is revered as a hero to the English and Falklanders alike.

British Troops enter the Falklands -Hulton Archive – Getty Images

This is not the case in Argentina.  They remember her as a war criminal who ordered an Argentinian ship to be sunk during that conflict.  That day, 323 lives were lost.  In all, over 600 Argentineans would pass during this conflict.

The silver lining to Argentina’s humiliating loss of the Falklands was that the military junta dictatorship in power was discredited and soon fell from power.  This brought about a split from decades of state terrorism against leftists and socialists and signaled the return to democratic rule in Argentina.

United States President Ronald Reagan, Thatcher’s strongest ally, had backed a peace plan that called for Britain to step back from controlling the Falklands.  Thatcher hated this and let him know it.  She could not stand the way Washington coddled the authoritarian regime in Buenos Aires.  She was unwavering.  Even during one of her less popular times she famously said,  “the lady does not turn.”

She was Britain’s first female Prime Minister who became known for sweeping away social supports that have yet to return.  She was a brash trailblazer that shattered glass ceilings for generations of UK women to come.

Thatcher meets with workers early in political career – Central Press via Getty Images

Many of the mining labor organizers in northern England were reported to be “raising a drink” to toast her passing – remembrance of Thatcher shutting down unprofitable mines and crushing the unions during the Miners Strike of 1984-85.

Thatcher was also famously known for being the grocer’s daughter who became a conservative icon.  Few can argue that she did not have a huge impact on Britain and on the world.  In keeping with her simple ways, her funeral on April 17 will not be a full-state affair, and the service will be followed by a private cremation.

Even this procession will not be without controversy, though.  In protest, opponents have planned to turn their backs en masse as procession passes by.  Ironically, one could imagine the feisty Thatcher would have approved of this kind of unapologetic demonstration of  free speech.

Photo Credit: REUTERS, Yuriko Naka

by Luis L. Lozada
Contributing Writer

The process of globalization in recent times has been equated to mean the triumphant victory of capitalism as the sole source for economic prosperity and equality for the developing world. The common agreement is that globalization whether good or bad is indispensable as the world precipitates into greater integration. The multiple processes of globalization (economic, social, technological, and cultural) aid the economic development of a nation if managed correctly, according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. The discontent arises between the great fanfare of globalization and economic realities of stagnation, bank crises, and default. For Stiglitz, the source of the problems is the draconian policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other international organizations. The IMF pushes, what Stiglitz, calls “market fundamentalism” policies that benefit the developed world and disregard the role that economics play on society; as a result, these policies undermine developing economies.

The bank crisis in the early 1980s prompted Mexico to adopt free-market policies that valued austerity and the movement of capital to ensure economic confidence and stability. However, rapid economic liberalization without safeguards and elastic institutions led the economy towards increased exposure to risk.

Inception of the North American Free-Tree Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 amounted to deregulation, increasing capital volatility, and mobility. Currency speculators traded and bought various national currencies across the globe, forming a portfolio of investments that sought the highest level of return, regardless of the long-term effects that it might produce in a country. As a result, deregulation and speculative foreign capital flowed to Mexico due to high rates of return on government securities and industrial investments. The change in trade policy allowed for 65 percent of U.S. goods to become duty-free immediately or within the next five years. However, the massive inflow of capital caused Mexico to increase a trade deficit of 7 percent of GDP along with Mexico’s external debt of 60 percent of GDP.

The political climate during this crisis complicated the rosy image of NAFTA. The year 1994 was an election year. The assassination of Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) candidate Luis Dolando Colosio and the Zapatista uprising both morphed optimism into instability, leading towards a decline of foreign funds due to fear of insolvency. Investors wanted to believe that the peso would appreciate, and in turn, increase the value of their various investments. However, prospects of fear, political instability and overbearing belief in NAFTA left them to realize that their investments in reality were worth of little value. The election of Ernesto Zedillo of the PRI party in 1994 opened the way to loosening monetary policy and tesobonos (short-term dollar debt).

The Bank of Mexico had purchased high amounts of tesobonos; the outstanding cost of tesobonos was twice the central bank’s reserves, resulting in capital flight and external debt. The government was unable to support the peso in the foreign exchange market and allowed the peso to float in 1995. The peso went into free fall, losing half of its estimated value. As a result, the market would not recover for another four years.

Without carefully managed control and maintenance of the national currency, a country is threatened with losing its political and economic sovereignty. Widespread depreciation of the national currency led to loan losses, resulting in an extensive wave of Mexican banks failures. The IMF applied structural adjustment programs on the Mexican economy to give confidence to foreign investors and governments that Mexico will be able to repay its outstanding loans. As often is the case, the IMF policies privileged wealthy patrons and foreign governments as opposed to the needs of the people and the health of the economy. The bank bailout cost the taxpayers 20 percent of GDP. However, in a twist of fate and monumental irony, Mexico experienced a shift in its balance of trade with the U.S. from a deficit of $20 billion in 1994 to a surplus of $7 billion in 1995, the year following the peso crisis.

NAFTA was a mixed blessing. Under the treaty, U.S. banks could open branch offices and U.S. citizens could invest in banking and insurance within Mexico. In addition, growing trade with the U.S., the start of more exportation and manufacturing at the northern states of the country. However, absent on the agenda was any mention of labor; NAFTA neither specified any provisions of labor nor addressed immigration from Mexico to the U.S., a negligence that would create a massive exodus of Mexican labor to the U.S. In sum, trade liberalization resulted in unemployment for workers in low-productivity occupations.

During Mexico’s 2006 elections, Felipe Calderon from the National Action Party (PAN) claimed victory. Mexico was undergoing massive migration from rural areas to cities, giving birth to the expanding informal economy. Economic growth from free access to capital and greater freedom allowed Mexico to experience a boom in production, which benefitted the new emerging middle class.

As Mexico began to revitalize its economic production to curb the problem of unemployment, the 2008 financial crisis occurred. In 2008 to 2009, 80 percent of all Mexican exports traveled to the U.S., but customers were not buying them. Rapid privatization from the 1980s to 1990s reduced the burden of spending placed on government. The wave of neoliberalism favored large corporations, inhibiting competition as well as the necessary supervision of labor standards. Mexico weathered down the 2008 crisis and is now experiencing economic growth once more. Calderon provided financial stability, expansion of health services and access to consumer credit to the wider population. However, pervasive poverty continues. Strong institutions, smart government intervention, and an end to political corruption are three requisites for Mexico to leave the shadow of its past and promote an agenda of economic growth, which means abandoning the neoliberal dogma. Some have argued that NAFTA did very little for economic development at local chains of production because of unskilled labor population, imported assembly parts, and global suppliers. The 2008 recession caused a 6.1 percent contraction of the economy. Further criticisms against NAFTA include mixed economic growth, lower real wages, and the lack of change for poorest segments of the population. Inequality and poverty have both increased as a result since NAFTA. The real irony of this entire experience is that real wages have declined steadily while trade has increased dramatically.

Investments are desperately required to transform Mexico into a truly modern nation. Education and infrastructure are two areas that eventually need investment. One-fifth of Mexico’s workers are in the agricultural sector and 75 percent of poverty is from rural areas. Unless Mexico turns away from neoliberalism in the form of deregulation, low government intervention and favoring large businesses, inequality will continue to balloon, meaning that poverty will not decline, but increase in the following years if it is not addressed fully.

Facts and Figures from American Journal of Sociology, Manias, Panics and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises by Charles P. Kindleberger, Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective by Philip McMichael, Modern Latin America by Thomas Skidmore, Fair Trade for All: How Trade can Promote Development by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz, and Mexico: Democracy Interrupted by Jo. Tuckman. 

The disputed “territory” of Rockall Island in the North Atlantic.

by James Walker
Editor

Earlier this month, two of the largest and most significant economic powers on Earth came close to exchanging blows over a few scraps of rock in the middle of the East China Sea. Both the Japanese and the Chinese militaries locked radar guidance onto their opposite numbers, making this incident the closest that the two states have been to open hostilities since the end of World War II. Tension has been mounting since last September when Japan purchased the Senkaku Islands from a private Japanese owner (ostensibly in order to avoid an even more controversial plan by nationalist political activists within Japan). China has declared Japan’s acquisition an illegal nationalization of a disputed territory, and has ramped up patrols in the area as well as ramping up the aggressive rhetoric and sabre-rattling. 

With diplomatic and military tensions rising, various tit for tat exchanges have taken place over the past few weeks. The Chinese Ambassador refused to accept an official protest from the Japanese government concerning military incursions over the island by the Chinese air-force. When summoned to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, the Ambassador refused to attend and simply stated that the islands were Chinese territory. Various Ministers in Tokyo have expressed their outrage, calling such incidents “extremely deplorable,” while anti-Japanese riots have broken out across mainland China and Hong Kong. Several people have been injured, and the timing of the escalation of this dispute to coincide with the 75^th anniversary of the Nanjing massacre only serves to play into the jingoist rhetoric of nationalist sentiment in China. 

This recent event comes at a time when China is actively disputing the sovereignty of a variety of small islands in both the South and East China Seas. As such, Japan is not the only country in the region wary of the Chinese navy’s territorial stake claiming. The Spratly Islands – a collection of over 700 reefs, islets and rocks in the South China Sea – are currently another source of regional tension, as they are claimed by China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. The Parcel Islands (also in the South China Sea) have been a disputed territory since the 1970s, and while occupied by China, are claimed by both Taiwan and Vietnam. 

To be clear, the Chinese are not the only nation laying claim to hunks of barren rock in the vastness of the world’s oceans. In addition to its dispute with China, Japan claims sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks – 46 acres of desolate topography in the Sea of Japan that falls nominally under the supervision of South Korea. For most of modern history, one family lived there. Now no one but a lighthouse keeper stays on the island. At least in the case of Japan’s claims to the Kuril Islands sufficient space exists to house a population. 19,000 currently people live there under Russian jurisdiction, since the islands were claimed by the Soviet Union at the end of the war. 

Modern day territorial disputes, however, are not solely an East Asian affair; a quick tour around the world demonstrates the pervasive nature of the phenomenon. For example, possibly one of the most windswept, lifeless chunks of rock in the entire world lies in the North Atlantic Ocean, about half-way between the United Kingdom and Iceland. Rockall measure 83 ft. by 102 ft., and is claimed by the U.K., Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands), Iceland, and the Republic of Ireland. It is quite literally just a large rock – no land, no vegetation, not even a place to moor a boat. 

For the United Kingdom, Rockall is just one of many disputed territories across the globe. There are the Falkland Islands, which Britain went to war over in the early 1980s with Argentina. Then there is the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean – a series of idyllic looking atolls and lagoons that are claimed by Mauritius, but occupied by the United States military. Fortunately, there is no native population to worry about as the British forcibly deported them all starting in the 1970s, in order to make way for the military base. 

Not to be outdone, France also continues to lay claim to tiny spots of land thousands of miles away. Tromelin Island is 200 acres of sand-bar sitting off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. It reaches a whopping 23 ft. above sea-level at its highest point, and its only inhabitants are the meteorologists that man the weather station, and a rare species of Red Footed Boobie.  Nonetheless, Mauritius and the Seychelles both claim sovereignty over it as well. 

North America also enjoys engaging in such disputes. Canada and Denmark argue over the ownership of Hans Island – an utterly inhospitable knoll of rock that sits between Greenland and Canada in the Kennedy channel of the Nares Strait. As you might expect from the Canadians, the level of rhetoric boils down to the occasional visit to the island in order to leave a bottle of Canadian whiskey and a note saying “Welcome to Canada.” The Danes tend to respond by leaving their own notes, and a bottle of schnapps. 

The United States takes a less friendly tone in regards to its own territorial claims. For example, the U.S. has been contesting the ownership of Bajo Nuevo, a small reef in the Caribbean Sea, since 1869. Bajo Nuevo is also uninhabited and rather inhospitable, but its ownership is contested by Jamaica, Nicaragua and Columbia (there is an automatic lighthouse that is maintained by the Colombian military). 

Regardless of the relative size and power of the countries involved nationalist rhetoric and an ongoing culture of “name it and claim it” continues to influence the IR realm on a global scale. In many instances, there are significant realist reasons to claim dominion over an otherwise insignificant rock. In the South China Sea it is strategic positioning and mineral resource management, in the Nares Straight it is navigational rights and control over the last great frontier on Earth. Rockall has substantial fishing rights associated with ownership, but regardless of the underlying quantitative reasoning behind such claims, when governments appeal to their populations they do so on the basis of emotive, subjective ideals rather than strategic necessity. For example, political observers have noted that both the Chinese and Japanese governments are currently transitioning into new leadership structures. Some of the fiery jingoism on display could be attributed to a desire to shore up domestic support, as there is often a strong correlation between nationalist rhetoric and political change. One way or another, claims to minuscule territories somehow tend to involve rhetoric on a grand scale. 

The 20^th century philosopher Bertand Russell once stated that “Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.” Students of IR should be aware of the power of jingoism, and be wary of its influence on both domestic and “enemy” populations. Small, insignificant, inhospitable, barren, lifeless crags of rock in the vastness of the world’s oceans are odd things to be willing to die for. After all, as Russell also noted, “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.”

James Walker is a Fourth Year Global Studies major, and an Editor for The Generation. His studies focus on the changing nature of national sovereignty in the 21^st century, and he really, really enjoys writing about islands.

The United States Army helps inspect the Malian Army’s weapons.

by Christine Smith
Editor

Last month, at the request of Mali’s Bamako government, France sent 4,000 troops to their former colony to help African forces stop the seizure of northern cities by Islamic militants. Known as Operation Serval, the French-led forces quickly recaptured the historically, culturally, and politically significant cities of Gao, Kidal, and Timbuktu. Since this initial French military success, however, the conflict in Mali has become even more complicated.

On Friday, Feb. 22, as a result of heavy fighting around Ifoghas Mountain, where members of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are believed to be hiding, 13 Chadian soldiers were killed. In addition, three members of the pro-French Tuareg group National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) were killed Friday as a result of twin suicide car bombings near the city of Tessalit.

The increased violence throughout the country coupled with France’s desire to withdraw troops from the region has caused other countries’ involvement to greatly increase. Chad, for example, recently promised to deploy an additional 2,000 troops to Mali as part of the African-led International Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA). The U.S. has also joined in the efforts, announcing the opening of a U.S. base in neighboring Niger on Friday, Feb. 22. Roughly 100 troops are already at the base where unarmed Predator drones will be kept and used for surveillance purposes. Interestingly, this move comes just one month after the U.S. agreed to fly French troops and supplies into the country. Further adding to the complexity of this situation, Italy also entered the conflict recently when it agreed to send two cargo planes and between 15 and 24 military instructors to help the E.U. train Malian forces. Canada and Britain are deploying military transport aircraft as well. On Friday, Russia also announced the beginning of its involvement in the conflict by delivering 36 tons of aid to the country, including canned food, 45 tents, 2,000 blankets, cereals, and rice. Russia’s action comes just one day after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov met with the U.N. Special Envoy for the Sahel, Romano Prodi about the ongoing conflict in Mali.

However, despite united global concern about the country, divisions reminiscent of the Cold War are already becoming apparent. While Russia has supported French-led efforts to combat terrorism in Mali in order to prevent it from spreading to other parts of North Africa, Russia has simultaneously criticized Western nations, like France, for fighting rebels in Mali, who they once armed in Libya to oust former Libyan President Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi. The U.S., on the other hand, feels that getting involved militarily is necessary. By placing several unarmed Predator drones in Niger, the U.S., according to the leader of the Pentagon’s Africa Command, General Carter F. Ham, will fill an urgent need for more information about regional terrorist threats, including the militants in Mali and the flow of fighters and weapons out of Libya into neighboring countries.

If the violence in Mali continues, up to 700,000 people could soon be displaced inside the state as well as in surrounding countries. France is therefore urging the U.N. to establish a peacekeeping mission. With all of these efforts by the international community to resolve the conflict, one can only hope that involvement in the country will benefit Malians as much as it does global security.

Facts and figures obtained from CNN, The New York Times, BBC News, and Voice of America.

Christine Smith recently received her B.A. in Political Science and two minors in African Studies and Anthropology from Boston University. She is currently a first year M.A. in African Studies student at UCLA focusing on human rights issues in East Africa. She is also an editor with The Generation.

By Tina Kim

South Korea elected its first female president, Park Geun Hye, on Dec. 19, 2012 marking the beginning of a new kind of leadership. This election comes as a revolutionary and paradoxical development for South Korea, a region historically influenced by Confucianism. Confucian beliefs of female subordination to male figures have–at some level–predisposed gender inequality throughout Asia. However, this election indicates a change from such beliefs and is symbolic of the modern progression of South Korean and perhaps Asian society overall. On the other hand, as the daughter of a former president, Park Geun Hye traces back to the legacy her parents left behind for the South Korean people.

Park Geun Hye has been noted to largely model after her mother, Yuk Young Soo, who was one of South Korea’s most beloved first ladies. Park Geun Hye’s father, former President Park Chung Hee, is known for promoting rapid industrialization and economic growth in South Korea. However, to others, he was a villain for the coldblooded crackdowns of his opponents in order to hold power. Nevertheless, he created an environment where companies such as Samsung and Hyundai would thrive and instituted the economic foundations that would permanently bring the South Korean people out of third world poverty. Today, South Korea is the world’s fifteenth largest economy and its modern society carries new hardships that President Park Geun Hye now inherits.

Interestingly, unlike female leaders who emulate stereotypically male characteristics such as toughness, aggressiveness, and domineering authority, Park Geun Hye has deviated from such an image. Instead, she has taken on a largely maternal persona–one that emits stability, principle, and trustworthiness. With the global and domestic economy declining, Park Geun Hye’s almost motherly dedication to her country is exactly what the South Korean people need.

Modernization and decreasing economic growth have brought many difficulties to ordinary individuals and family households, such as high commodity prices, skyrocketing college tuition, gender inequality in the workplace, and an increasing wealth gap. In response, Park Geun Hye has embraced and addressed these problems as a maternal figure for the nation.

A 60 year-old and never married woman, she once said, “I have no family to take care of. I have no child to inherit my properties. You, the people, are my only family, and to make you happy is the reason I do politics.” Since her election, Park Geun Hye has promised to institute government fully subsidized childcare for children under the age of five, so that mothers have the equal opportunity to work. In addition, she has proposed programs to prevent sexual assaults as well as increase government funding for social security and university tuition for the poor.

In order to improve domestic and foreign policy, South Korea needs Park Geun Hye’s quiet leadership of gradual change. Radical action will not resolve issues stemming from decades of conflict. In a region characterized by conservatism, division, and war, South Korea needs such a leader that can advocate diplomacy over aggression and maintain a level of national stability. For the past 15 years, Park Geun Hye has been a widely popular and successful politician in part, because of her cautious, yet tactful leadership. In 2004, she was nicknamed the “Queen of Elections” for masterminding the comeback of the conservative party in South Korea’s parliamentary elections. However, more than politics, modernization, and her maternal figure, Park Geun Hye was elected because she represented and reminded the South Korean people of the best and worst of their past.

Like the rest of the older generation of South Korea, Park Geun Hye lived a life of modest means in an era when the country was plagued with poverty from Japan’s brutal 36-year colonial rule and the Korean War. The hunger, hardship, and struggle defined the life during Park Chung Hee’s 18-year presidency. These were times when young women worked in factories on empty stomachs, when students worked several jobs in order to attend college, and when families and friends shared each other’s meager belongings. It was a period of great economic development but also of great loss for both its leaders and civilians.

During her father’s presidency, Park Geun Hye’s mother was killed in a North Korean assassination attempt aimed at her father. Park Geun Hye became the first lady at the young age of 22. Five years later, her father was also assassinated. Although not realized during his regime, many have attributed the higher standard of living in South Korea to former President Park Chung Hee even years after his death. Park Geun Hye’s parents and their generation’s sacrifices for national economic growth have become legacies that the South Korean people do not want to forget. For these reasons, the election of President Park Geun Hye was both timely and appropriate for South Korea’s leadership for the next five years.

Looking back on my country’s history as a Korean American, I hear stories of this era from my grandparents and parents. As much as there was struggle and sacrifice, there is pride in the fact that South Korea rose from the ashes of destitution, division, and war. This legacy defines South Koreans today, and the leadership that led South Korea to progress is what South Koreans wish to see repeated in Park Geun Hye’s presidency. Modernization today has created an array of new problems that remain unanswered.  However, by electing the daughter of President Park Chung Hee as South Korea’s first female president, the South Korean people are looking for answers from history while adapting for a brighter future.

Tina Kim is a second year Communications major and Public Policy and Urban Planning double minor. 

by Brad Rowe

The New York Times reported on Saturday that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.   According to Obama administration officials, this is “setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.”

This is encouraging as we are approaching a U.S. Presidential election that pits two candidates against each other who have vastly differing opinions on foreign policy.  These negotiations fit in nicely with the policy suggestions put forth below.  This article is meant to offer an objective dissection of the issues that face the United States and the world with regards to the issue of a nuclear Iran.

The ideas are based upon a policy memo created in June 2012 by UCLA Master in Public Policy candidates Chloe Cornuejols, Nobuko Goto, Masaaki Kishi, Celeste Miller, Brad Rowe and Isla Yao for their Methods in Policy course.  In addition to conducting thorough research that went into the creation of the memo, these students conducted interviews with high-level policy and security experts who elaborated upon some of the concepts and findings.

* * * * *

Iran may be enriching uranium to levels that would be useful for developing a nuclear weapon.  If they acquire a weapon of this type, it presents several potential concerns.  There are a multitude of possible even probable dangers from this scenario. One is that Iran would use the weapon on the U.S. or elsewhere. Others come simply from their possession of the bomb: it could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, it could provoke a military response from Israel, or an Iranian nuclear WMD could end up in the hands of terrorists.

It would serve the negotiating parties to embrace the fact that, at this point, we cannot prove they are not enriching uranium to weapons grade levels, but we most certainly cannot prove that they are either.  Dealing with the argument that ‘you cannot prove the absence’ of something is akin to me saying that you cannot prove that I don’t have a nuclear device somewhere in my house.  Indeed you would have to tear apart every square inch of my house to prove this.

The current U.S. course of sanctions, diplomatic negotiation, military threats, and cyber attacks seems like a prudent path for the time being.  For now, the IAEA has been accommodated by Iran for unfettered access to existing nuclear power development facilities.  If reliable information emerges signaling a shift to weapons enrichment efforts, we should consider alternate options.

In light of the unlikely but hugely consequential possibility that Iran is working toward acquiring ‘doomsday’ technology, it is critical to keep the full menu of strategy options available as actionable scenarios and as tools of negotiation.

Before Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon, the options are: do nothing; diplomatic intervention (which seems currently viable); economic sanctions and incentives; cyber attacks; military threat; and finally land, air, and sea attacks.  These are not exclusive options and can be used in combination.

After Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon, the options would be: do nothing; diplomatic intervention; reduce US dependency on oil from the Middle East; regional defense system; secure Iran’s nuclear weapons system; regime destabilization; cyber attacks; military threat; and finally land, air, and sea attacks.  Again, these are not exclusive options either and can be used in combination.

 Policy Options

Let’s look at the policy options in two ways.

First, BEFORE acquisition: Should the United States dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and if so, how?  The top options in this scenario would be:

1. Cyber attacks to slow or prevent any nuclear weapon development
2. Diplomatic Intervention
3. Economic intervention: sanctions and incentives

Second, AFTER acquisition: If Iran did acquire nuclear weapons, how could the United States best minimize bad outcomes?  The top options in this scenario would be:

1. Regional Defense System
2. Reduce US dependency on Middle East oil
3. Secure Iran’s nuclear weapons system

U.S. Priorities and Concerns

 For the UNITED STATES: The major priorities and concerns relating to Iranian nuclear weapons acquiring activity are the international distrust and disbelief that Iran is developing its nuclear capabilities for peaceful uses only.  Furthermore there is concern that Israel will act unilaterally against Iran via military efforts if Iran continues to grow its nuclear capacity overall and/or if Iran specifically develops nuclear weapons.  This could have dire circumstances if Israeli leadership is less than rational.

We also need to give weight to the potential growth in and power of threats to U.S. interests posed by Iran’s support for militant groups in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan.  As Colin H. Kahl stated in September’s Foreign Affairs article ‘Iran and the Bomb’: “Iran’s government currently sponsors terrorist groups and supports militants throughout the Middle East, in part to demonstrate a capability to retaliate against the United States, Israel, and other states should they attack Iran or undermine its interests.”

This threat is leveraged by Iran’s ability to destabilize world economy and oil markets through controlling their own oil exports and threats to free passage of Middle East oil through the Straits of Hormuz.

What no one wants is further proliferation resulting in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East especially among Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

There are homegrown concerns as well. U.S. leadership, such as House Speaker John Boehner, is very mercurial and has displayed hawkish tendencies recently.

And relating directly to the November elections, there is U.S. executive unpredictability.  Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with several neo-con military advisors from the George W. Bush era.  Among them are a group born from the post 9-11 neo-con think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), now renamed the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).  One of the most prominent hawkish foreign policy advisors to Romney is John Bolton who has publicly equated diplomacy with weakness and indecisiveness.  This could spell for contentious or non-existent future negotiations with Iran.

 Iran’s Key Drivers

Key among Iran’s drivers and positions concerning its potential status as a nuclear power with weapons capability are the current regime survival and increased nationalism/support of the population for the government.  They are looking out for their national security and protection, including from external threats, such as the U.S. and other members of the international community.  They are also not without ambition and are looking at expansion of Iranian regional influence as well as of the country’s global stature – overall and as a trading partner.

The current status of Iran’s nuclear efforts and situation includes sustained vows by Iran that their nuclear activities remain for peaceful civilian purposes only.  Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s (and other clerics’) repeated condemnation of nuclear weapons as being contrary to Islamic Law (he has expressed support for the development and use of nuclear resources for peaceful use but issued a fatwa in 2010 – and later reaffirmed it – on banning production and use of weapons of mass destruction).

As an international cooperator, Iran continues as a signatory to The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  It should be noted that Iran is currently in compliance.  Most importantly: there is no evidence – either from the limited International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observations, under General Director Yukiya Amano, or other monitoring or intelligence sources – that Iran has diverted any nuclear resources from civilian to military uses.  To bolster Iran’s case here, there was an announcement on May 22, 2012 by the director general of IAEA, that he has reached an agreement with Iran granting nuclear inspectors wider access to Iranian atomic facilities.

To be noted however: Iran’s current ability to produce low enrichment uranium means that 90% of the necessary resources and effort to generate highly enriched uranium already have been brought together by Iran.  This means simple nuclear weapons could at that time be delivered to a target in a small vehicle or boat; however it would still take several years of work and testing, for any weapon to be delivered by missile.  Such undertakings – especially testing – would be hard to keep under wraps.

To understand the progress they have made, consider that having enriched to 20% means they are 90% they way to enriching to 90% weapons grade Uranium.  This is on account of front loaded program building and the similarly front loaded Separative Work Units, or SWUs, needed to separate the Uranium isotope 235 from zero to 5% energy-producing levels.

A few points to highlight for further research are:

• Recently uranium enriched above the 20% used for power was found, though the 27% enrichment number could have been attributed to equipment error.
• In a 2005 speech, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commented that he wished the State of Israel would collapse. (The translation of his “Wiped off the Map” comment has been widely disputed)  Whether or not his statement was a declaration of military intent or simply a lament, it has resulted in an agitated condition for nuclear-armed Israel.

Based on review of existing research, analysis, and information on this situation as well as our own expert interviews[1], we also acknowledge that the highest objective of the Iranian government is to remain in power.  Within the Iranian national dynamic, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wants power over Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and vises versus.

Let us not underestimate the power of the masses however.  Iran could become a fully representative democratic republic.  Per our U.S. security and international diplomacy source, people of Iran currently appear favor or to have neutral feelings about America now, but would likely be swayed the other way by overly aggressive U.S. intervention.  Extreme external pressure or military aggression will only increase Iranian nationalism and support of its citizens for the existing government there.

Regionally?  Iran has scarce close regional allies on account that it feels ethnically and religiously isolated and has a sense of cultural and historical “exceptionalism.”  While U.S. and international economic sanctions may have no direct effect on the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts, they are causing enough pain to the government and country overall to potentially allow for more openness in discussions on the part of Iran as an example, both sides (Iran and US/P5+1) have dropped some prior intractable conditions for negotiation and Iran has agreed to grant wider access to IAEA inspectors.

Any military intervention would raise Iranian incentive for expansion of nuclear capabilities into weapons of mass destruction, while at the same time ensuring Iran’s expulsion of any IAEA observers and possible Iranian withdrawal from the NPT.  Along these lines, we feel the Iranian government will act rationally.  Iran is aware of and we all should be as well that U.S. future standing with the Middle East, Russia and Iran itself are critical considerations when weighing these policy options.

There is an important note regarding horizon type strategy relevance here.  This long-term strategy is a valid exercise as Iran acquiring a nuclear device is still possible, even though they would have to violate the non-proliferation treaty and jump through several logistical and technical hurdles to get there.  We also want to consider the possibility that Iran getting the bomb could potentially be a stable scenario *(i.e. Pakistan).

Finally, there is a special worst-case situation that needs sober consideration.  While military intervention was not one of the more robust strategies when all criteria were considered, there is one situation in which experts believe it should be fully considered as a top option.  That is when it is absolutely obvious that a missile attack by Israel on Iran is imminent and the U.S. and/or UN are unable to dissuade them.  Under such circumstances, according to some security experts, the U.S. should then undertake any bombing attacks.

The reason for this is two-fold. First, Israel does not have the military capability and weaponry to launch an effective attack, which would ensure the elimination of the nuclear targets.  The U.S. has the needed firepower and expertise to do so.  Second, even if Israel acted unilaterally, both Iran and most of the international community would assume the U.S. was complicit.  Therefore, if the U.S. will be facing the ramifications of such global opinion post-Israeli strike, then it would be prudent for the U.S. to ensure a surgical and fully efficient missile strike.

This is, of course very tricky as Israel cannot know that US will intervene on their behalf. This could cause them to act recklessly. Israel would be burning the ally bridge with US in either case.  This is a difficult hand to play for sure.

It will be of great importance and interesting to see how the Iran negotiations play out.  Hopefully cooler minds will prevail and the safety of the next generations will be more secure than they were before hand.

Brad Rowe is a second year Masters In Public Policy candidate at UCLA focusing in Education, Crime and International Affairs.  Rowe is also a Rosenfield Fellow working on Educational Policy and Programs for the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.