Iran's Nuclear Energy

This past Wednesday on May 23^rd the six world powers got together in Bagdad. The other five world powers: the United States, France, the UK, Germany, Russia, and China offered Iran new proposals on their nuclear power program.  Currently “Iran's highest-level uranium enrichment — at 20 percent — which many world leaders fear could be quickly turned into warhead-grade material.” 20 percent is a weapons grade level, which as stated above could turn to be used as a warhead. Iran’s unnecessary large about of nuclear energy’s logic is backed up by saying that Iran’s “efforts are focused only on peaceful uses for nuclear energy” The six world powers all made suggestions to Iran on what to do about this increasingly dangerous amount of nuclear energy. The world powers, “hope to set out a step by step process that [especially] the U.S. hopes will eventually lead to an end to Iran’s enrichment program and Iran hopes will ease punitive sanctions that are choking its economy. But hardliners on both sides are casting doubt on the prospects for a diplomatic solution to the standoff.” Due to the pressure from the other countries with their suggestion on the nuclear energy program Iran agreed to give the IAEA access to its key nuclear-related facilities. The IAEA basically works to regulate the nuclear energy and power all over the World. The IAEA inspects nuclear facilities to make sure that the use of nuclear science is safe, secure and for actual peaceful use. EU, U.S. and the United Nations have all imposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. The No conclusion has come yet to what suggestion Iran has accepted is going to go by, but is among the topics to debate for the six World leaders. Since many countries have and are continuously using nuclear energy it is important for countries to help take part in others decisions to keep their own countries safe.

Do you think that the 5 [Russia, China, Germany, France, UK] world powers have the right or should be allowed to try and control/interfere with Iran’s nuclear energy?  Even though, each country is for the most part allowed to regulate its own nuclear energy use and for what. Why or why not? 

Afghanistan Funding Effort

At the Chicago Summit on May 20^th and 21^st hosted by President Barack Obama, the central focus was the United States and NATO trying to build an Afghan army that would allow us to pull international troops out. However, the United States is trying to avoid getting stuck with the check for $4.1 billion a year and over 60 countries and organizations were invited to the summit in hopes of getting them involved with the funding issue. Originally, the Afghan army consisted of 350,000 soldiers, but the number got reduced to 230,000 due to the economic reality in Afghanistan’s security needs after 2014. If the number of soldiers wasn’t reduced, the United States would have had to pay close to $7 billion a year. Keeping forces armed and fighting in a country still heavily reliant on outside aid will cost an estimated $4 billion a year and to supplement American assistance, the Obama administration is asking its allies to provide about $1.3 billion of that annually. “The economic problems in Europe and the United States, combined with the continued concerns about corruption inside of Afghanistan, makes it an uphill battle to get countries to make long-term commitments on funding for Afghanistan,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. In New York, the UN special envoy to Afghanistan, Jan Kubis, said a clear commitment was needed from countries at the Nato summit that “If the countries will fail to support Afghanistan, (then) in five, 10 years from now … we might have a very nasty situation coming back,” he told Reuters. “We don’t want to have once again a restart of everything because it will be a lost investment … including lives lost in vain.” Countries that have already agreed to help pay include Germany (contributing $190 million annually beginning in 2015), Britain (contributing $110 million beginning in 2015), Australia (contributing $100 million annually for three years), and Afghanistan (contributing $500 million toward its own army). The goal is $2.3 billion from the U.S. and nations outside the fighting coalition, and $1.3 billion from coalition nations other than the U.S.

Question: What arguments could America propose to the European countries so that they may aid in providing funding for the Afghanistan effort?  

On September 11th, 2001, our nation was attacked by what we believe was Osama Bin Ladin and his alqueida organization. Because of so, the United States declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan and has been enrolled in this war for more than a decade. Today, nearly everyone feels as though we as a nation need to get out of the middle east, including current president Barack Obama. Statistics have shown this to be true as 2 years ago 46 percent wanted to prolong the war, a year ago it was 37 and now its 27 percent. President Barack Obama says however that instead of just getting out of the war immediately, he has a plan to only get out of their in 2014. he says he wants to end the war responsibly and reasonably and no have it end up like the Vietnam war where our nation lost in battle due to poor management of the war by LBJ and President Nixon. Obama said that he "will not keep Americans in harms way a single day longer than is absolutely required" and that "we must finish the job". Because of this issue, his election has also taken a toll on his reelection. People disagree with the fact that he has a plan to only be out of the Middle East by 2014 and this has caused a lot of doubters saying if he is the right president.

Question: Do you think Obama's plan is the right way to go? Why or why not?  

Christian's Current Event

On January 2011 South Sudan seceded from Sudan following a self-determination referendum, which is a principle in international law that nations have the right to choose has control of them. One of the reasons South Sudan had chose to secede was due to the feeling of being oppressed by their Arab and Muslim neighbors of the north. Due to the recent problems that the two Sudan’s are facing the United Nation has decided to make a resolution; a resolution in which they will use non-military sanctions against both Sudan, and South Sudan if the violence does not halt, and if they do not return to negotiations. A sanction is a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience. One example of a Sanction that the U.N had passed was Resolution 1267 of (1999). This sanction demanded the denial of permission to take off, or land any aircraft on Taliban owned land. The sanction also froze funds and other financial resources that were directly or indirectly controlled by the Taliban. Sanctions are important because they act as a non-violent form of discipline.

Link to Article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57426509/u.n-tries-to-prevent-a-sudans-war-with-sanctions/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

Question: Do you think the sanctions will make Sudan and South Sudan come to peace? If so then why, and if not how do you think the U.N. should try to make peace?

Derek Scafidi Current Event

Hilary Clinton has been in India the past few days this week speaking about how India has been doing well reducing its dependence on Iranian Oil. Hilary Clinton met West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in Kolkata and spoke about the United States relationship with India. She said that India shares the same feelings towards Iran. She also spoke about the feelings towards women, both in India and in the United States. She talked about the well achieved “quotas” for women and how well it has worked, and compared it to our nation, how excited she was to run for president, but had to drop out due to “the system being hard to navigate, for both men and women, but particularly for women.

Historical Significance between US and India:

-We both share the same feelings towards Iran

-India imports most of its oil from Iran

-trade with india

      India to Us

           increased by 21.12% to $6.94 billion.

1.     Diamonds & precious stones (25%)

2.     Textiles (29.01%)

3.     Iron & Steel (5.81%)

4.     Machinery (4.6%)

5.     Organic chemicals (4.3%)

6.     Electrical Machinery (4.28%)

     US to India

 Merchandise exports from U.S. to India increased by 20.09.26% to U.S. $2.95 billion.

Engineering goods & machinery (including electrical) (31.2%)

1.     Aviation & aircraft ( 16.8%)

2.     Precious stones & metals (8.01%)

3.     Optical instruments & equipment (7.33%) 

4.     Organic chemicals (4.98%)

"Well, India has reduced its dependence on Iranian oil. I know their refineries have stopped asking for orders to purchase Iranian oil. So they certainly have taken steps," Clinton told the CNN in an interview. And we have worked with them and offered suggestions about alternative sources of supply at an affordable cost," -Hilary Clinton 

Question: Why do you think the United States wants India to reduce its dependence on Iraq for oil? Also, Why do you think that  the look of women professionally is different in India then it is here?

Source:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/highlights-hillary-clinton-on-foreign-policy-politics-and-india-207134

http://ww2.shaadi.com/olmt/register/pop-under/?a=1&&utm_source=Partner&utm_medium=Times_Popbehind&utm_content=signup&utm_campaign=G38CIT&

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/hillary-clinton-lauds-india-for-reducing-dependence-on-iranian-oil/articleshow/13055795.cms

Topic: War on terror
Title of Article: On surprise Afghanistan visit, Obama says goal of defeating Al Qaeda 'within our reach'
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/01/obama-arrives-in-afghanistan/ (Fox News)


Nearly a year after Bin Laden's death,  President Obama travelled to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to conclude the terrorist war, and to initiate a new partnership settlement with the Afghan government. He took a brief moment to coincide with his troops in order to address that the decade long-war in Afghanistan was finally coming to a halt. Obama promises that a new agreement will be offered to sovereign Afghanistan from American influences, but still offer support in the rebuilding the country. Obama addressed that the new agreement was a “historic moment for our two nations.” Still many fear that his heralding in another Middle Eastern war serves as another political advantage to his next political election.

The term “War on Terror” has been misguidedly used by previous politicians to enforce severe military conduct. After the Beirut barracks bombings of 1983,  the Reagan administration had used the similar term “war on terrorism” to pass new legislations that would marshal military forces against terrorist organizations. The greatest act of terrorism in America occurred in September 11th, 2011 when the terrorist group Al Qaeda launched a massive bombing in the World Trade Centers. After the attack President George W. Bush commenced a new campaign that enforced the strict abolishment of terrorist groups all over the world. Though the campaign was directed toward Al Qaeda, President Bush expanded his opinions to a global fight on terrorism. His new campaign altered our foreign policies to persuade a global fight on terrorism, and enhanced America’s Homeland Security for more strict regulations. The end result was a formulation of a multinational organization called NATO that prominently focused in the destruction of terrorist groups.

The main focus of Obama’s arrival in Afghanistan his to formulate a new partnership agreement to better extend their relationship. He declares that the extensive war in the Middle East will be limited of American influence after 2014. Obama promises that the Afghan forces will be let independent, but with sprouted support from the American military. Obama states toward the reconstruction of Afghanistan that "As you stand up, you will not stand alone." Obama also announced that he has no purpose he administering a military foothold in Afghan soil, but instead wants to continue a presence of military forces in order to counteract any new uprising of Taliban influences. Essentially the agreement covered the security, economics, and governance of Afghanistan after 2014 while trying to construct a new sovereign nation.

Though a great political achievement accomplished by President Obama, many fear that the reason he settled for the agreement is to fund his political campaign in the upcoming election. His resolvement of two major Middle Eastern war brings great political attention to his campaign as well as an advantage over his competitors. Many believe that this was his sole purpose to settling a new international agreement, and that the dilemma in Afghanistan will still continue. In a previous military dispute, President Obama apprises his raid over Bin Laden, and questioned whether his adversary Mitt Romney would complete the same task. The situation is of Afghanistan is still skeptical to a large public, and the controversy continues on whether the government relations of the two nations will be stable.

Probing Questions: Is Obama’s settlement agreement only serve as an advantage for political propaganda to his upcoming campaign? Will the new partnership be stable? What will happen to the rest of the Al Qaeda group?

Era of Imperialism - Choosing a Foreign Policy Option

Your job is to come to class on Monday with a printed analytical argument (in a SPA paragraph) that explains which American foreign policy option was most appropriate at the turn of the 20^th century.  Take your evidence from either of the "Homefront Debate" speeches attached here (Under the 'Foreign Policy' folder).  This video will also be helpful in understanding the mindset of the time: PBS's Crucible of Empire.