Immigration and Education

                Immigration and education are two issues among many that are constantly coming up in American politics, as well as politics all over the world.  Is there a correlation between immigration and education?  In order to explore this, and analyze the impact of international relations theory on it, it’d be best to compare and contrast the education systems and immigration statistics of four different states.  The four states are the United States and, rated as countries with the best education systems in the world, New Zealand, Finland, and Singapore.

                New Zealand, Finland, and Singapore all show similar characteristics in their education systems and policies.  Much of the New Zealand system was based on the Finland system, and the Singapore system is built around adopting successful programs from around the world (“New Zealand”, “Singapore”).  One of the defining characteristics of the Finland system is the emphasis on “high quality teachers.”  Teachers in Finland have salaries similar to other high-ranking professionals in the country, such as medial doctors and lawyers, and it is usually only the brightest students who go on to become teachers.  There is also an extremely high level of respect for teachers in Finland, and special recruiting policies have been put in place to select only the best candidates for teaching.  Aside from the emphasis on high quality teachers, another defining characteristic of the Finland system is the focus on a “unified comprehensive education structure and national curriculum guidelines” (“Finland”).  The Singapore system has a similar emphasis on high teachers, recruiting only from the top third of all classes and implementing a difficult application and licensure process.  Besides focusing on high quality teachers, the Singapore system also focuses on increasing literacy and quality of education, and now has implemented the program “Teach Less, Learn More,” taking less focus off memorization of facts and instead placing it on problem-solving techniques (“Singapore”).  When New Zealand adopted a new system in the eighties, rather than focusing on what it would like to accomplish in terms of education, it instead focused on what drives students’ performance.  It was determined that poor management led to poor student performance, and so the system was overhauled so that each school was, essentially, in charge of itself.  The community would vote for a principal, the principal would choose his faculty, and the Ministry of Education would pay for the faculty and fund the school (“New Zealand”).

                Compared to these three other states, the United States seems reactionary in its education policies.  The process for licensing teachers is very easy compared to the other states’ policies, meaning that not enough teachers get high quality education or training.  Recently, the United States education policies have “emphasized mastery of basic skills and used exams largely based on multiple choice questions and administered by computers.”  Money is not equally distributed to schools evenly and, though the US spends the most money per capita on education, more money goes to schools that already have an advantage.  Each state within the United States has its own curriculum rather than a unified, nation-wide curriculum (“US Data”).

                But what does all this have to do with immigration or IR theory?

                It has been suggested that the United States’ low performance can be connected to its highly diverse population and the many different cultures located within its boundaries.  Read in a very negative light, this suggestion can be interpreted as blaming immigration or immigrants in poor inner-city schools for the United States’ poor performance on an international stage (“US Data”).  This is in no way correct.  As of 2004, approximately 4% of the United States’ population is made up of persons who were foreign-born (Huntington).  True, the United States has a diverse population, with 80% of the population Caucasian, 12% black, and 15% Hispanic (included in other races) (“US Data”), especially compared to Finland, with 93% of the population Finnish and 6% Swedish.  In Singapore, however, over 30% of the population is made up of non-citizen permanent residents, and at least 23% of the population is foreign-born (“Statistics Singapore”), meaning that it is in fact possible to create an education system that can cater to the needs of a diverse population.  The population of New Zealand is similarly diverse, with significant percentages identifying as European, Maori, and Asian (“New Zealand”), and with a significant number of people immigrating to the area (approximately 22% living in New Zealand were foreign-born in 2006) (“QuickStats”).

                By comparing the demographics of the United States and Finland, and then comparing the performance of students in each state, it is easy to point out a correlation and possible causation between immigration and student performance.  The homogeneity of Finland, some may suggest, makes education easier and more successful.  However, when the demographics and student performance of New Zealand and Singapore are thrown into the mix, it is easy to see that immigration is not the problem here; it is how the United States approaches education.

                What, then, does this have to do with IR theory?

                A lot of the differences lie in the various states’ policies on immigration.  Because a sizeable amount of immigrants coming into the United States are supposedly illegal, and from a neighboring country, they are having difficulties accessing decent education.  This view on immigration, from the United States’ point of view at the very least, can be considered Constructivist.  Constructivism is all about identity, and the identity of the United States has, for a long time, been “white, European, and Christian.”  Though this is slowly changing, it still remains strong, and clashes with the identity of the new immigrants, many of whom are Mexican and will still identify as Mexicans after coming to live in America (Huntington).  Many Americans are characterized at being unwilling to extend their country’s collective identity to include the growing population of Hispanics.  Comparatively, the societies and cultures of the other states, especially Singapore, are not as defensive of their state’s identity.  From a realist perspective, the United States may also perceive the growing numbers of immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries as a threat to the nation’s security, thereby making immigration more difficult and becoming more responsive to illegal immigration.  This includes making public education less accessible to immigrants, and of less value.  A liberalist perspective would suggest that the institution of education in New Zealand, Singapore, and Finland, is more liberal; that is, education in those states work more towards serving the people and promoting good relationships within the society.  The institution of education within the United States is, therefore, flawed, and can only be saved by improving the institution.

                When considering how to better the United States’ system of education so that the performance of its students is equal to that of New Zealand, Singapore, and Finland students, it then makes sense to follow suggestions by the liberal and constructive theories.  First, it is important to change the identity of Americans to not be so exclusive, thus promoting an open-minded approach to a changing society and an education system that reflects that.  Second, it is important to change the institution of education within America, so that all people have the opportunity to easy achieve an equal and beneficial education.  It is also important to change the institutions that handle immigrants and immigration within America.

Works Cited

 “Finland Overview.” Center on International Education Benchmarking. NCEE, Nov. 2012. Web. 29 No. 2012. <http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/finland-overview/>.

Huntington, Samuel P. "The Hispanic Challenge." Foreign Policy. The Foreign Policy Group, LLC, 1 Mar. 2004. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/03/01/the_hispanic_challenge?page=full>.

“New Zealand Overview.” Center on International Education Benchmarking. NCEE, Nov. 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/new-zealand-overview/>.

"QuickStats About Culture and Identity." Statistics New Zealand. Government of New Zealand, 2006. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. <http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/culture-and-identity/birthplace-and-people-born-overseas.aspx>.

“Singapore Overview.” Center on International Education Benchmarking. NCEE, Nov. 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/singapore-overview/>.

"Statistics Singapore - Latest Data." Department of Singapore Statistics. Government of Singapore, 30 Nov. 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. <http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/latestdata.html>.

"US Data & Analysis." Center on International Education Benchmarking. NCEE, Nov. 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/us-data-analysis/>.

The High Cost of Low Prices: The State of Working Conditions Internationally

This past Saturday, while many of us were enjoying a relaxing break after the insanity of Black Friday shopping, over 112 workers lost their lives in the Tarzeen Fashion factory fire in Dhaka, Bangladesh. On Cyber Monday, another factory fire broke out in the same city (Yardley). The Tarzeen fire is the largest in Bangladeshi history, another statistic in the country’s bleak safety record. Over 300 workers have died in factory accidents in Bangladesh in the last 6 years. The stories of these fires became even more heart wrenching as details were uncovered this week. Some survivors reported being locked in their workstations, others say that they were told to ignore the fire alarms and continue working (Wal-Mart). The New York Times included this description of the scene (Yardley):

“Workers leapt from the upper floors of the factory, trying to land on nearby rooftops and escape the smoke and flames. Others suffocated inside the factory building, as the blaze apparently rendered stairwells impassable.”

            These images are eerily identical to ones from a much less recent tragedy: The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City, 1911. William Shepherd, a witness of the event, published his accounts (Shepherd):

            I learned a new sound--a more horrible sound than description can picture. It was

            the thud of a speeding, living body on a stone sidewalk…The height was eighty

            feet. The first ten thud-deads shocked me. I looked up-saw that there were scores

            of girls at the windows. The flames from the floor below were beating in their

            faces. Somehow I knew that they, too, must come down, and something within

            me-something that I didn't know was there-steeled me.

After reading an account like this from over 100 years ago, one cannot help but ask how horrible violations of both worker and human rights such as these are still happening. It is not that a pro-labour international regime or transnational civil society does not exist. In fact, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire is considered to have been one of the major catalysts for the labor revolution in America and abroad. Even after this most recent disaster, groups and individuals have taken to the street in protest. The international struggle for workers’ rights has followed a cycle similar to that of the global prohibition regimes laid out by Nadelmann (Nadelmann). In this case, the crime would be worker abuse. Clearly in the wake of these recent events, the efforts have not been strong enough.

At the end of the 19^th century and the industrial revolution, exploitation of labor was certainly a ubiquitous practice. There were weak unions, no minimum wage or child labor laws, and all employers were able to manipulate the efficiency of their employees to maximize profit. It was events like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, along with investigative and exposing journalism by reformers like Upton Sinclair that forced working conditions to the front of policy agendas.

As a result, weak attempts at labor unions gained support domestically and internationally. Samuel Gompers’ American Federation of Labour became the model for The International Labour Organization, which was formed in 1919 as part of the League of Nations, and the first organization to advocate for better working conditions across state borders. The norms they established are still valued today, including but not limited to, “Regulation of the hours of work including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, Protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, Protection of children, Provision for old age and injury, Protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own,” and, “Recognition of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value” (Origins). Today the ILO is a branch of the United Nations.

The AFL-CIO, which once only protected workers in America, now represents workers in Colombia, Panama, Vietnam, Malaysia, Georgia, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh (International Labor Movement). Today, transnational civil society utilizes social media to expose inadequate working conditions in third world countries, and show how major brand names here in the States exploit workers overseas. This is the fourth step of Nadelmann’s model, an established, in fact many established, prohibition regimes have come into existence. Exploitive actions are illegal in many countries and there are a number of standards that factories are supposed to reach in order to continue to operate. In the case of the Bangladeshi fires, 3 people were arrested for locking the doors to stairwells, and the chief executive of the Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production organization, which is supposed to inspect factory safety standards, has come forth to say that the factory was never approved (Yardley).

These examples suggest that the problem lies not in the regimes themselves, which have succeeded in making exploitation criminal and have established a set of rules norms and practices to try to improve working conditions. In this case the problem is that the “regime leakage,” in the area of labor rights does not come from typical criminals. The actors finding their ways around international labor laws are rich and powerful corporations. The director of the Institute for the Global Labour and Human Rights, Charles Kernaghan, points out that, “nothing will change unless clothing companies protect workers as vigorously as they protect their brands,” and that, “The labels are legally protected but there are no similar laws to protect rights of the worker” (Wal-Mart).

Corporations can get away with breaking international labor laws because they have the support of the consumers. This is the layer of the issue that makes international prohibition of worker exploitation almost impossible. The Global Prohibition Regime against labor exploitation has been unable to reach the 5^th step of eliminating or greatly reducing illegal acts because as Nadelmann points out, “criminal laws and international prohibition regimes are particularly ineffective in suppressing those activities which require limited and readily available resources, and no particular expertise to commit, those which are easily concealed, those which are unlikely to be reported to the authorities, and those for which the consumer demand is substantial, resilient, and not readily substituted for by alternative activities or products” (Nadelmann). This weekend’s fires occurred in factories that produce for some of the largest brand names with the largest consumer bases in the world, including Disney. While most Americans are against exploitation of workers, but they also enjoy their irreplaceable brand names, and enjoy them even more when their products are affordable. How do you make products affordable? You hire foreign workers, you work them long hours for low wages and spend as little money as possible on the upkeep of factories. And as a result, the market finds itself in the same tragic cycle, benefits to the developed world at the expense of the developing world. While few individuals will actually openly support unsatisfactory working conditions, their purchases act as permission to large companies to continue doing what they’re doing in places like Bangladesh.

In this country, Black Friday seems almost as celebrated as Thanksgiving, and it is certainly more advertised. But, the timing of the deadly fires in Dhaka should remind us all that we are not just American consumers. We are part of a much larger global society. As American consumers eagerly devoured the low prices last Friday, the people who labored over those same goods paid a much much higher price.

Work Cited

"International Labor Movement." AFL-CIO. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Nadelmann, Ethan. “Global prohibition regimes: the evolution of norms in international society.” International Organization 44. World Peace Foundation, 1990. 21 October 2012.

"Origins and History." Origins and History. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Shepherd, William. "Eyewitness at the Triangle." Milwaukee Journal [Milwaukee] 27 Mar. 1911: n. pag. Print.

"Wal-Mart, Disney, Sears Used Bangladesh Factory in Fire." USA Today. Gannett, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Yardley, Julfikar Ali Manik And Jim. "Garment Workers Stage Protest in Bangladesh After Deadly Fire." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Nov. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

A Realist Perspective on US Intervention in Syria

             A crisis is occurring in Syria at the moment, though many do not know what kind of crisis to classify it as. Is it a humanitarian crisis, a political crisis, an ethnic crisis? The list continues. The problem with trying to analyze the civil war in Syria at the moment is that so many factors play into the mess and are jumbled together. The US has been expected by many to take a leading role in stopping Syria’s war. However, the US has been a hesitant player, unsure of whether to step in and even more so how to step in.

The conflict in Syria is a war between two opposing religious Islamic factions: the Sunnis and the Shiites. Syria is led by Bashar-al Assad, an ally of the Shiites. However, the Sunni are the majority in Syria and are demanding Assad’s fall of power. Assad has so far been successful in staying in power. He has used strong military force to destroy the opposition. He targets towns that are mainly filled with opposition members and uses planes to fire at and bomb the Sunnis. Assad has killed 20,000 people (mostly civilians) and there are currently around 340,000 Syrian refugees. The opposition groups have not been successful because they are scattered and lack the weapons to fight back. Unlike the revolution in Libya, Syria does not have one main opposition group, they have many. A big one is the Syrian National Council, which wants to overthrow Assad and create a democratic state, and asks the international community for help. Another main opposition group is the National Coordination Committee, which does not want international military help. Another important group is the Free Syrian Army. These opposition groups are unable and unwilling to unite leadership and visions.

Many international players have taken steps to support the Assad regime downfall or conversely have taken steps to ensure that Assad stays in power. The UN has attempted to pass three resolutions to end the conflict in Syria, all of which have been vetoed by China and Russia. Both of these states are major trade and military partners with Syria. They do not want to put sanctions on Syria because to do so would hurt them economically. The Arab League suspended Syria’s membership and put economic sanctions on Syria. However, they gave up efforts for peace after the UN was continuously unable to help out the League. Turkey, Saudia Arabia, and Qatar all want Assad to step out of power, and have helped the opposition. The EU has imposed various sanctions on Syria, which has resulted in a $4 billion loss to Syria. Syria mainly relies on economic aid from Russia, Iran, and Iraq. Iran is Syria’s major ally in the region, and a strong Assad regime equals a strong Iran.

The US, however, has been unwilling to take a hardline approach on Syria. So far the US has imposed various sanctions on Syria. For months Obama gave Assad time to change his regime to a more democratic one. In May Obama announced, "President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way". The problem with getting involved is that Syria is so complicated. There is no black and white solution. There are also many factions politically, ethnically, and religiously that complicate the problem. The question is, should the US intervene or not?

A realist would ultimately argue for US intervention. Realism focuses on survival. A main part of survival is minimizing or destroying threats to US’s security. Currently, Iran is one of America’s main threats because it is building its nuclear capabilities. Assad’s Syria and Iran are extremely interdependent, and overthrowing Assad would directly weaken Iran. According to Central Command chief General James Mattis, overthrowing Assad would be “the biggest strategic setback for Iran in 20 years”. Realists can argue for self-help-opportunity cost: that the US should not give resources to help the Sunnis in Syria because we could use those resources to build up our own power. However, realism also points to the idea of the zero-sum game. If we weaken Iran by overthrowing Assad, America must become stronger. In this case the balance of power is more important than the building up of absolute power. The US already has the largest military and economy in the world. Though build-up of power resources is important, the US must also use some of those resources to lessen Iran’s power. According to Daniel Byman, “Syria is Iran's oldest and closest Arab ally, has long opposed Israel, has backed Palestinian terrorist groups, and, at times, has aided anti-U.S. forces in Iraq”. Therefore, in a realist view, the Assad regime is our enemy. Assad in power directly enhances Iran’s threat against the US. The idea of the zero-sum game can also be applied to Russia and China, who are Syria’s allies and major power threats to the US.

             Although realists are advocates of sovereignty and non-intervention, overthrowing Assad would not be because the US is trying to spread democracy or stop human rights abuses. Rather, in realist terms, it would be a direct action against Iran in attempts to weaken our enemy. Many argue that if we overthrow Assad then the Sunnis will take over and kill all of the Shiites. The US is scared of being the catalyst to such a blood bath. However, realists would argue that our only responsibility is to that of our own security. In an anarchical world, we must act solely in pursuit of our own interests. Additionally, the US cannot wait for the UN to overthrow Assad. The UN is not a state, and therefore is not a legitimate authority. Realists do not see the UN as having any power over states. Therefore, it is in the hands of the US to take action in Syria.

There are many different arguments and approaches for whether or not the US should take direct action in Syria. Both side’s arguments are legitimate, which may be causing the hesitation in Washington about what steps to take. However, a realist would predict that the US will soon overthrow Assad because the US will realize the direct security benefits of destroying the regime. 

Works Cited

Badran, Tony. Obama’s Options in Damascus. Foreign Affairs. August 16, 2011. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68129/tony-badran/obamas-options-in-damascus

Byman, Daniel. Preparing for Failure in Syria. Foreign Affairs. March 20, 2012. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137339/daniel-byman/preparing-for-failure-in-syria

Cohen, Richard. In Syria, it’s Past Time for the United States to Act. Washington Post. August 13, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-syria-its-past-time-for-the-united-states-to-act/2012/08/13/fec1bcce-e57c-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_story.html

Diehl, Jackson. Why the U.S. Should Intervene in Syria. The Washington Post. March 18, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-us-should-intervene-in-syria/2012/03/15/gIQAGbpSLS_story.html

Masters, Jonathan. Syria’s Crisis and the Global Response. Council of Foreign Relations. October 29, 2012. http://www.cfr.org/syria/syrias-crisis-global-response/p28402

Murphy, Richard. Why Washington Didn’t Intervene In Syria Last Time. Foreign Affairs. March 20, 2012.  http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137341/richard-w-murphy/why-washington-didnt-intervene-in-syria-last-time?page=2

Weiss, Michael. What it Will Take to Intervene in Syria. Foreign Affairs. January 6, 2012. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137013/michael-weiss/what-it-will-take-to-intervene-in-syria

 

The Continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has essentially existed since the very creation of the Israeli state in 1948, although the roots date back even further to the struggle between the Zionist yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population. The Israelis felt isolated and encroached upon by enemies, and the Palestinians felt that they had been kicked out of their rightful homes. Conflict continued for decades, as seen in the Six Day War, both Intifadas, the Gaza War, and now most recently the violence between Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the Israeli Defense Forces. To this day, despite multiple short-lived treaties and cease-fires, tens of thousand have died in total, although the casualties on the Palestinian side are notably higher. (B’Tselem)

            The continuation of the violence between these two peoples over such a long period of time, as now represented by the most recent clashes begs the question, why? Why do two peoples continue to hate and kill each other for so many years? Is it because each individual state feels that the other is a threat to their security? Do they believe that only one can survive in security and that peaceful coexistence is useless? Or does it go even deeper, perhaps to the very identity and culture of the Israelis and the Palestinians?

            We may look at first on the surface area. What events led to the occurrence of each of these individual events? For example, it could be reasoned that the Six Day War was caused by a series of skirmishes and escalations which led to a war which was undesirable on all sides, the Gaza War in 2008 likely occurred due to the rocky end that a 6-month cease-fire between Hamas and Israel came to, and we could now debate about a variety of reasons that might have caused the most recent conflict between Gaza and Israel. However, if we remove the surface reasons and study the conflict more intently, there are two main theories which come to the forefront.

            In a realist system, states interact with one another on the pure basis of increasing their own security. When the UN Partition Plan of Mandatory Palestine essentially created the Israeli state, the Middle East was thrown into a realist nightmare. Israel, surrounded on all sides by nations who considered it a threat to their very way of life, was immersed in war from day one. Even though it prevailed, Israel was brought into being through violence, which tempered its state system. Today, the Prime Minister of Israel is Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the conservative right-wing party Likud, and arguably a war hawk. He clearly leads his country in a realist way, as judging by his political views and his frequently fiery speeches against Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. He advocates for preventative strikes against Iran should it reach a certain level of uranium enrichment, and was likely doing something similar in his attack on Gaza. I personally believe that he thought he would increase his countries security by taking out major Hamas leaders and weapons caches, in large part because of his public statement that he could no longer “accept a situation in which Israeli citizens are threatened by the terror of rockets.” (BBC) This idea is reinforced by the fact that Israel is a parliamentary democracy, and that Netanyahu ordered the attack despite the fact that 70% of Israelis support an end to violence. (Lidman) Also, this would not be the first time that Israel has performed such military action. In fact, many scholars believe that Israel regularly performs such culling actions on Hamas and other militant groups in order to prevent them from becoming a true threat to the state (i.e. the Gaza War as well as multiple attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon.) (BBC)

            However, there is also the constructivist point of view, which views identity and norms as the great driver behind international relations. From this point of view, we can see that the intense hatred that many Palestinians and Israelis hold toward each other can be a huge incentive for violence. As I mentioned earlier, the way that the state of Israel was born into violence has led many Israelis to hate their neighbors, the Palestinians in particular. However, we can see the same hatred on the Palestinian side, as characterized by both Intifadas. Such an intense hatred of two populations living side by side almost inevitably leads to violence, particularly when there is constant rocket fire from Hamas and while Israel is slowly starving out the Gaza Strip through a military siege (Israel controls virtually all roads in and out of Gaza, except for the Rafah border crossing which is controlled by Egypt.) (Harel) In fact, the current norm of hatred between the two peoples is only being more deeply ingrained into the individual cultural identities, as can be seen in the educational programs of the respective nations. For example, Palestinian schools have been known to teach anti-Semitic chants and hatred for Israel to children as young as five. (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs) This indoctrination of the children leads to an increase in tensions and in violence, as these children become adults and join their respective governments with biased and often violent views which in turn affect the governance of their respective nations.

            I believe that these two theories are intertwined, and only a combination of the two can truly explain the problem. Because of the hatred between the two nations, security threats become a real issue. The only way to truly solve the conflict and perhaps to create a peaceful solution where the Palestinian nation can live side by side with the Israeli nation is to combat the norm that exists right now, which is blind hatred for “the enemy.” Each side must make a commitment to tolerance and understanding, and putting and end to the dehumanization of the enemy. Only then, when each respective cultural identity is no longer at least in part defined by hatred and violence towards, can peace become a viable option.

Works Cited

            Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel (29 May 2011). "Opening of Rafah crossing spells end of Israel's blockade of Gaza". Haaretz. Retrieved 22 March 2012.

            Lidman, Melanie (28 December 2011). "Support growing for two-state solution". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 27 Nov. 2012.

            "Q&A: Israel-Gaza Violence." BBC News. BBC, 22 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20388298>.

            "Statistics." B'Tselem. The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. <http://www.btselem.org/statistics/first_intifada_tables>.

            "Video: Hamas uses civilians as a means to achieving military goals." 2009. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See 06:46 through 08:00 in the video.

Can Liberalism Save Iran's Nuclear Program?

Can Liberalism Save Iran’s Nuclear Program?

By Sean Whalen

            In recent years, Iran has become painted as the greatest enemy of the United States with few reasons, mainly due to a barrage of misinformation claiming that Iran is just moments away from having nuclear weapons that it could use to destroy Israel, which already has over 300 nuclear weapons to its name (Amini, 2012). The actions of Iran have been somewhat secretive, though they have not directly broken any treaties they have signed that regulate nuclear energy; most of the controversy has come over the attainment of the uranium needed to fuel the reactors within Iran, and minimal investigation into the capabilities within the country to produce a nuclear weapon (Iran’s Nuclear Program).

Amidst much debate over the United States’ course of action in response to Iran’s growing nuclear program, former secretary of Iran’s National Security Council and head of Iran’s nuclear relations, Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian, spoke at American University on October 4, 2012 to address the issue. In his speech, Ambassador Mousavian laid out 8 steps that should occur to bring US-Iran relations into a stable and peaceful condition. Those steps included: increasing mutual understanding of the other country and its actions, cooperation in confronting the problems at hand, prompting each country to take the higher moral ground instead of falling to the whims of investors and politicians, remove despoilers- countries benefiting from the conflict between the US and Iran- from the conversation, take Israel’s impact into account, remove the need for a perpetual enemy which Iran took over after the fall of the USSR, identify the real enemy as the extremist organizations that threaten everyone’s security, and finally direct the talks between the countries into the subject of the nuclear program in Iran (Mousavian, 2012).

This paper will closer analyze two of  Mousavian’s steps from a liberal perspective and attempt to show how such actions can lead to a more peaceful relation between the US and Iran. The two steps are increasing cooperation in resolving the issues and redirecting talks between the countries. In particular, these specific steps deal the most with an interaction with international institutions to ensure the eventual resolution of the negotiations.

Following the recent reelection of President Barack Obama, there has been increased talk of returning to negotiations with Iran, with the President stating that he is moving towards more comprehensive discussion on the issue with Iran. The Obama administration has attempted to approach negotiations in a new way, stating that they would ease the economic sanctions that have been placed on Iran, and when that did not prompt immediate action from Iran, the administration stated that they were searching for new ways to address the talks between the countries (Klapper, Lee). This is also a key time to return to the talks, as the election in the United States has ended, and Obama can now work without intense scrutiny by the GOP and the public, with more emphasis on resolving the issue instead of on winning the reelection (Williams). Even so soon after the election, there can be seen a marked increase in the willingness to negotiate through the situation by both sides, with concessions being discussed to resolve the issue. There is also a noticeable amount of responsiveness to the other state’s input that was not present in the preliminary negotiations before. Iran has also been open to cooperating with international institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has done investigations into the actions of Iran’s nuclear program which focus of ensuring that their actions are not being done to attain a nuclear weapon (“International Atomic…”).

These developments in the relations between the United States and Iran and the talks that are occurring over Iran’s nuclear program can be related to the assurance of peace between by the work of Robert Keohane, particularly in his article “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” In this article, Keohane explains that harmony- a state where the actions of the actors involve are mutually beneficial- can be attained where it is not currently present through cooperation, particularly with an international institution, to achieve an adequate level of policy coordination (Keohane, 1988). One of the major roles that the institution plays is in providing an increased level of transparency through monitoring each country’s actions, which allows for interactions that are less steeped in uncertainty and a paranoid approach to maintaining security.

This analysis of an institution’s ability to facilitate cooperation and thus harmony can be applied directly to the case of US-Iran negotiations. Though Iran’s nuclear actions have been misleading and secretive, the presence of such organizations as the IAEA has produced a greater assurance that the actions of Iran are not entirely malicious. As such, the talks between the two states have been moving toward increased coordination, which, while advancing slowly, has allowed for a harmonious relationship to become a real possibility. In this way, the liberal emphasis on institutional cooperation can be seen working in this case as one of the main methods by which peace can be approached.

While the recent developments in the nuclear talks have been substantial, they have not been focused on the issue that should be addressed directly. As mentioned above, the Obama administration has stated that they would ease the economic sanctions on Iran in response to nuclear concessions, but a recent report by the UN has stated that those sanctions have had nearly no effect on the nuclear program of Iran, “They are for example producing enriched uranium up to five percent and 20 percent with a quite constant pace” (“Iran Nuclear Work…”). It is clear in this case that the discussion of easing the sanctions is being used as leverage to temporarily resolve the situation without making the fundamental changes necessary to ensure a sustained, harmonious relationship between the two countries.

Such distractions from the core issue of Iran’s efforts to create an internal nuclear energy program complicate the resolution of the conflict, and create a situation where cooperation with international institutions becomes a great deal more difficult. As Keohane writes, cooperation with international institutions occurs most often in cases where the cost of compliance is little and the benefits are large; if these conditions are not met, adherence to the institutions deteriorates and may disappear entirely (Keohane, 1988). As the focus of the talks strays from what is important, both states are forced to address issues that are much more costly for their individual security, for example, the United States’ reliance on its current nuclear arsenal, which has been the case as the US pulled out of nuclear arms talks in Finland, prompting outcry from Arab states and straining relations with Iran (Dahl).

 Unless the talks between the US and Iran redirect from where they are heading now, Iran’s connection to the international institutions that currently stabilize the relations between Iran and the rest of the world could become very fragile, and possibly reach the point where Iran no longer gains enough compared to what it loses by its participation and exit, destroying the current momentum towards harmony. Thus, the liberal framework of institutions must be kept in mind during the talks, as Iran could drop its agreement with organizations such as the IAEA, resulting in destabilized international relations.

These two points that Mousavian presents have the potential to facilitate peaceful negotiations between Iran and the United States, but only if they follow the standards of liberalism. The institutions that participate in the talks are crucial for ensuring their effectiveness and a lasting peace with Iran. However, if they are pushed to the extreme, or are subject to pressures that make their presence too intrusive, they can lead to a potential collapse of negotiations and a resurgence of conflict. Therefore, the work of Keohane can be used in this situation to create a discussion that benefits all parties involved, by allowing Iran to continue its nuclear energy program and the US to feel secure with the threat of another country gaining nuclear weapons.

Works Cited

Amini, Fariba. "Making Iran into Enemy Number One." Huffington Post [New York City] 6 Sept. 2012: n. pg. Huffington Post. Web. 14 Nov. 2012.

Dahl, Frederick. "Iran, Arabs Criticize Delay of Middle East Nuclear Talks." Chicago Tribune. N.p., 26 Nov. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-nuclear-mideast-iranbre8ap0ky-20121126,0,2413415.story>.

"International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) IAEA Home." International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml>.

Iran's Nuclear Program (Nuclear Talks, 2012). New York Times, 16 Nov. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran

/nuclear_program/index.html>.

"Iran Nuclear Work Unaffected by Sanctions: IAEA Chief." The Daily Star. N.p., 20 Nov. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Nov-20/195671-iran-nuclear-work-unaffected-by-sanctions-iaea-chief.ashx>.

Keohane, Robert. "International Institutions: Two Appraches." International Studies Quarterly 32.4 (1988): 379-396. JSTOR Archives. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.

Klapper, Bradley, and Mathew Lee. "AP Sources: US Weighs Broader Nuke Deal With Iran." Huffington Post [New York City] 09 Nov. 2012: n. pag. Web.

Mousavian, Seyed Hossein. "Nuclear Relations Between Iran and the United States." American University. SIS Building, Washington D.C. 4 Oct. 2012. Speech.

Williams, Carol J. "Window of Opportunity May Open in U.S.-Iran Nuclear Standoff." Los Angeles Times 24 Nov. 2012: n. pag. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.