Final Paper

638 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
638
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Final Paper

  1. 1. Jordan Austin <br />Prof Marichal<br />Pols 207: Contemporary Issues in Public Policy<br />11 December 2009<br />Should Iran Be Allowed To Enrich Uranium?<br />In the world today there are many problems occurring. Many of these problems occur within the countries but every once in a while conflict occurs between them. The biggest issue between countries today is Iran. What politicians are asking themselves now is whether if Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium. This is a major issue facing countries because if and when uranium becomes enriched it can be used to create nuclear bombs.<br />Iran is a major threat to the Israelis’ but they are not alone with this feeling. The United States and several other states also fear that by allowing Iran to enrich their uranium they will become a great threat to all. Iran should not be allowed to enrich Uranium because they can manufacture weapons of mass destruction. The outcome of Iran enriching their uranium is highly unfavorable to many. That’s why this issue must be looked into more and taken more seriously by everyone.<br />Trying to stop Iran from enriching their uranium should be a main goal for the United States and every other nation that fears Iran might manufacture nuclear weapons. Today these nations are trying to find a peaceful way to settle this matter. Iran was given many proposals that will help it achieve what it wants but at the same time allow America and the other nations to control the process of enriching uranium. These actions are not getting the job done because Iran is still trying to enrich uranium. If these nations want Iran to stop the enrichment process faster than they have to find other means of putting an end to it.<br />When politicians have to decide upon the best possible outcome for an issue they need to do it in the most equal, fair, efficient and secure way as possible. If they fail to include one of these four things than the outcome will be one sided and fall apart. The average person would define equal to be an item or power given evenly to a group of people. In the most case this is the best way to divide something equally. But this method isn’t the only one. As Stone describes there are many methods in determining an equal amount. In her chocolate cake example she explains each one. There was the common method of distributing equal slices but unequal invitations, unequal slices for unequal ranks but equal slices for equal ranks, unequal slices but equal blocs, unequal slices but equal meals, unequal slices but equal value and recipients, unequal slices but equal starting resources, unequal slices but equal statistical chances, and finally unequal slices but equal votes. Each one is considered equal but in different ways. Also, when you consider an equal outcome you have to think about which is considered equal to the market side and to the polis side and which would be the best for the issue. For the market an equal outcome would be one that would best benefit two individuals through a trade. The polis equal outcome is one in which the outcome would benefit the community as a whole in the best way possible.<br />The next thing that politicians have to take into consideration is which form of action will be the most efficient for the issue. To better understand what efficiency is we can look at the definition that Stone gives us and that is “getting the most output for a given input.” With knowing what efficient means it allows politicians to determine the best outcome or form of action with the least amount of work or complication. There are many complications that come up when deciding upon an efficient outcome. For example you have to decide on who determines what is efficient, what action will be the most efficient, and the cost. For the market an efficient way to do things is one that allows a transaction or a trade to go smoothly and quickly with the least amount of trouble as possible. In the polis an efficient way would be one that will allow the people decide what’s best for the community. In both the market and polis they seek the least amount of input for the greatest amount of output.<br />After politicians have looked at the equity and efficiency of an issue they have to think about the liberty. As Stone describes it liberty is the freedom a person has to do as they please but at the same time it’s the security someone has that protects them from others. For example a person can say what they want and believe what they want but as soon as it starts harming or affecting another person, either mentally or physically, than it is against the law. The idea of liberty is different from the polis and the market. The polis believes that you have the right to say and do what you want but if you cause harm or mess with a person’s security than it is only ok if it is for the greater good of the community. The market view point is you’re allowed to do and say what you want; the government or law will not interfere unless you put someone else in harm or interfere with their security.<br />When politicians have looked at equity, efficiency, and liberty than they look at the security of the people the issue may affect. As stone defines, security is the essential needs for survival; food, water, and shelter. If an issue is affecting a person’s need than politicians have to act and find a way that will allow the people to gain the security that they rightfully deserve back. For security the market and polis viewpoint are they same. Both groups find it essential that everyone deserves the security of their basic needs.<br />In the political issue, Iran and if they should be allowed to enrich uranium, the question arises what will be the best course of action that will be equal, efficient, and give liberty and security in the final outcome? Should they take the market approach or polis approach? Politicians on this issue have to think about these questions when thinking about the issue. Looking at the different viewpoints, Iran wanting to enrich uranium and all other nations wanting to keep this power from them, coming up with a solution that will work is challenging but it is possible. The outcome has to be equal so that Iran will be able to have enriched uranium but at the same time the outcome has to please the other nations and make sure Iran doesn’t enrich the uranium. The action that leads up to the conclusion has to be efficient so that the amount of money, man power, and work be less than the estimated amount of the outcome. The final decision also has to protect the liberty and security of the Iranians. That means the outcome could not harm the citizens or the owners of the enriching facilities. The best course of action would be the polis because it would allow everyone to have a say and decide the best course of action. The problem with this though is that there is a majority of nations that are against Iran from being able to enrich uranium, this can cause a one sided decision. But an alternative solution can be decided upon in which Iran cannot enrich uranium but instead be given the enriched uranium to power plants and use it for domestic reasons.<br />Symbols are everywhere. They are on clothes, reading materials, television, and especially in politics. Symbols are generalized as an object that has meaning behind it. For example the “S” in a diamond means superman and the American flag represents peace, equality, justice, and freedom. This is only one form of symbols. In politics many different forms of symbols are used to pursue the people to see and agree upon one side of an issue. A few that are commonly used are stories, synecdoche, metaphors, and ambiguity. In a story, as Stone describes, a person tells a narrative that has heroes and villains, problems and solutions, and tensions and resolutions. Out of these stories the most common ones, as Stone says, are ones that decline, including the story of stymied progress and the story of progress-is-only-an-illusion. Other commonly used ones stories of control, including the conspiracy story and the blame-the-victim story. The next commonly used symbol is synecdoche. Synecdoche is similar to stories, but as Stone explains, they are only a small part of the bigger story. For example the horror story is a commonly used one. The reasons why synecdoche are so effect is that they give the listeners only one side of the story the side that the politician wants them to hear. Metaphors unlike stories and synecdoche take a different approach. As Stone says, metaphors are a likeness asserted between one kind of policy problem and another. Common metaphors in politics include organisms, natural laws, machines, tools, containers, disease, and war. When metaphors are used politicians want to compare the similarities of the problems and show which way would be the best to overcome the problem. Ambiguity is the other form of symbolic devices that are used in politics. Ambiguity, as stone explains, is the ability of statements, events, and experiences to have more than one meaning. Ambiguity is the “glue” of politics. Stone also explains how it allows people to agree on laws and policies because they can read different meaning into the words.<br />Three symbolic devices that are used in the political issue that I ‘am writing about are stories, synecdoche, and ambiguity. The main story that is used in this issue is about villains and heroes. Politicians and leaders of the nations paint a picture that Iran is using the enrich uranium for weapons of mass destruction. They explain that Iran is using the excuse of using the enrich uranium for domestic reasons to cover up their true intentions, in this story Iran is depicted as the villain while the nations that are against them enriching uranium are the heroes. The synecdoche device is used in a way that only gives the people one side of the story. The news and media give partial detail and half stories that show that Iran is only using the enriched uranium for evil. At the same time the Iranian government and media shows these nations that oppose them as infidels, or people against Allah. They tell the people of Iran that they don’t want them to have the enriched uranium because they don’t want them to have power from power plants. The Iranians and nations against Iran use this device to show that one another is evil. Finally the most obvious to point out is ambiguity. We can see this used by America and Israel. They specifically say that there main goal is to obtain a nuclear weapon to wipe out Israel and America. They use what Iran has said in the past, which is the verbal hatred they had for Israel and how Israel should be annihilated and wiped off the map. These symbolic devices paint a picture that is to an extreme. The stories, synecdoche, and ambiguities, shows possibilities that Iran posses not what they will do. These devices leave what Iran says they want to do and their belief that nuclear weapons are against Allah’s will.<br />Graphs, charts and other statistical facts are used to help give the people visualization on what the politicians are talking about. On the next page there are three graphs and charts that explain a story to the political issue I ‘am studying. The stories that these graphs and charts tell are known as causal stories. Causal stories, as defined by Stone, are the effort to define a problem by identifying the causes of bad conditions rests on a certain conception of cause. There are four different types of causes; mechanical, accidental, intentional, and inadvertent. Mechanical cause is defined as things that have no will of their own but are designed, programmed, or trained by humans to produce certain consequences. Accidental cause is a natural disaster or anything that our culture defines as fate. Intentional cause is blaming a single person or object. This is known to be the most powerful offensive position to take. Lastly, there’s the inadvertent cause, this is described as being the unintended consequences of willed human action. <br />2324100-742949<br />1123950384175<br />11239502868930<br />Each graph gave different information but they all intertwine with one another in the same issue. In the first graph we see that the different type of uranium Iran has, this is defined by the blue marks on the graph. The causal story this graph tells is intentional. This is intentional because for a fact, by statements given by Iran, they seek to have Uranium in all forms. As we can see in the different diagrams Iran has abundant amount of natural uranium and low enriched uranium but only a small amount of that is enriched. In the beginning when they only had natural uranium it didn’t satisfy the Iranians, they wanted to do more with it. In time they decided to enrich it but at the lowest level. Now they seek to go a step further and enrich it to a higher state. The last diagram shows they have already started this process and Iran won’t stop until they have enough to do as they please with it. The second graph shows that at the rate Iran is going they will have two reactors in twenty-ten and from there on out a new reactor every four years. This is another example of an intentional cause. This graph shows the viewer that it is an intentional cause because Iran is seeking to increase the number of reactors they have. To make these reactors and to be able to keep those running Iran will need a greater amount of uranium than they do now. The graph shows us as the years go by and the amount of reactors Iran obtains than the greater amount of enriched uranium they need. The more enriched uranium Iran has than the more they will have to spare and use for other reasons, for example a nuclear bomb. Finally in the last graph we can see the percent of Americans that finds Iran’s nuclear program a threat or not. This graph shows yet again another example of an intentional cause. This is an intentional cause because the people who took the test knew what it was for and what the outcome will be if they did take it. This is useful for the political issue because it shows the lack of knowledge or concern people in America have for this issue. A big problem arises from this. The information this graph shows is considered frightful because our nation is not being fed the full amount of information that they should be entitled to. A few things that they may not know is that if Iran continues with their nuclear power than enriched uranium is a must have to run the power plants. And as MSNBC, and many other news stations have covered and written about, Iran plans to build ten more enriching facilities in the near future. If this occurs than Iran will be able to enrich uranium ten times as fast as they are now and with this amount of output than building a nuclear bomb is easier than what it is now.<br />The graph and causal story that best provides information and relates to my topic is the second graph and the intentional causal story. The second graph shows the best information because it shows that in time the output of enriched uranium will greatly increase so will the amount of nuclear reactors. The more reactors Iran has than the more enriched uranium they will also have. This issue is more of an intentional causal because everything that Iran does, from the building of more enriching facilities to the defiance to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran means with full intention of every action. For the most part the majority of people see it the same way that it is explained in this paper. This is the case because people can see the true Iran and their intentions. They do their own research and separate the truth from false.<br />The political issue, Iran and if they should be allowed to enrich uranium, have many interests that are involved. A few interests that are involved are in this issue is Iran, America, Israel, France, China, Russia, Britain, Germany, United Nations, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran is obviously involved in this issue the whole topic revolves around them. Every action and outcome is determined by what they decide to do. Next is America, France, China, Russia, Britain, and Germany. These nations known as the “5+1” nations are the ones that are standing against Iran and their goal to enrich uranium. Israel, even though they are not part of the “5+1” nations they still play a great role in opposing Iran. Iran and Israel have hated each other since biblical times. Israel knows if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon than they will use it against them, Israel fears this and they declared they will do whatever is necessary to stop them. The United Nations are an organization that was designed to maintain world order and peace. Once conflict started between Iran and these nations the UN stepped in and started to interfere. Today the United Nations are against Iran being allowed to enrich uranium. The United Nations job in Iran is to make oversee the enrichment facility in Tehran and make sure they use it for domestic reasons. Finally, the IAEA is another organization that manages and controls all the enriching facilities in Iran. As of today they are also against Iran being allowed to enrich uranium. I feel that my classmates should be worried and start getting involved in this issue because the outcome can affect their lives. They should get more involved in my issue because if Iran is lying about using the enriched uranium for domestic uses and instead use it for a weapon of mass destruction than their lives can be at risk. Iran hates America, they verbally stated it many times, and if they obtain a nuclear weapon than they will use it against America without hesitation. The targets of my issue are very easily constructed. The main factor on determining the target is the one who is causing conflict and problems, which is Iran. In my issue Iran is the target. Iran is the target because they are the ones enriching uranium when they are not allowed to. Having Iran as the target does not affect the issue at all because they are the main factors of this issue. <br />Many rules and laws were created to prevent Iran from being allowed to enrich uranium. One rule that is in effect and which Iran is violating threatening to violate is the production of more enrichment facilities. The United Nations and the IAEA both said that Iran is not allowed to have any other enriching facilities besides the one in Tehran. Iran violated this law and had two other facilities hidden and threatened to make ten more in the near future. Another rule is that Iran has to allow their facilities to be monitored by outside nations. But recently Iran is threatening to break this because they find it unjust that their facilities should be monitored while other countries facilities are left unwatched. These rules will only be effective if they are backed up by action. So far they are working but that’s only because Iran hasn’t taken action yet but once they do we can only wait and see if the rules will continue to hold. These rules can be bettered upon if action is taken upon sooner. If instead of threatening Iran the “5+1” nations send in troops and take control or destroy the enriching facilities, this way everyone can be sure that Iran will not use their enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Proposals were made to Iran by America. America told Iran that if they give their stockpile of uranium to the nations around them than the nations in turn will give them the proper amount of enriched uranium to power plants and use for other domestic reasons. This proposal was shot down by Iran though. Iran did not want to lose their stockpile of uranium they prefer to enrich it themselves. <br />There are two policy tools that can be used to help improve the policy outcomes those are inducements and punishments. If inducements were used than the “5+1” nations will find a way to give rewards to Iran if they do as they were told. For example if Iran started to shut down their enriching facilities than they can be given enriched uranium to use for domestic purposes. On the other hand punishments can be another form of action that can be used. If punishments were used instead of inducements than the “5+1” nations can hurt Iran for not doing what they were told. For example if Iran did not shut down their enriching facilities than they the other nations can go in and bomb them or shut them down by force. I feel that the best course of action would be the punishment approach. I feel that this would be the best course of action because the nations would know for a fact that Iran has stopped enriching uranium and it would teach them that the nations were not messing around. <br />In my issue many facts come up. For example we know that Iran has desire to start enriching uranium on their own we also know that they are willing to take any means to necessary to achieve this. A main fact of my issue is that Iran is trying to enrich uranium in greater amounts and to do so in secret. This is a proven fact because Iran declared many times that they are going to build more enriching facilities for they can have greater output of enriched uranium and we also know that they want to do so in secret because recently a satellite has uncovered a hidden enrichment facility in the hills of Natanz. Even though America and the other nations found this fact to be true the can do very little until they can find more evidence to take action. The reason for this is that Iran has rights. For example they are allowed to use nuclear material but only for domestic purposes. Another example of a right they have is they are able to keep things hidden if they please. America and the other nations do the same thing. We know these are rights because it is declared in the nuclear peace treaty, in which one-hundred-twenty-five-nations, including Iran signed. The treaty states that they countries cannot use nuclear substance for a bomb of any sort but they can use it for domestic reasons as long as it is known to the IAEA. Everyone agrees that secrecy and the usage of nuclear materials for domestic purposes is ok. Everyone involved in this issue feels that Iran has a right to privacy just like any other nation. Also it is ok that Iran uses the materials for domestic purposes, this is declared as a basic rule for nuclear usage in the Nuclear Treaty. <br />In conclusion, I wrote this essay to give more information and to talk about my side of this issue. I feel that this issue should be important to everyone because it one way or another it will affect them. I feel that Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium. I feel this way because if Iran is allowed to enrich their stockpile or uranium than they have enough to use it for something else. Iran is a country that cannot be trusted. They declared many times that they hate America and Israel and that they want them to be wiped of the map. If Iran is able to build a nuclear bomb, than they can cause chaos and large amount of harm to Israel and America. I feel the best way to prevent this is to take action now. If the “5+1” nations along with the United Nations find a way to prevent it now than we can save many lives in the future. Domestic approaches have already been attempted with Iran, every time Iran declined. One way the nations tried to use a domestic approach is when they offered Iran many times to give them their uranium for they can enrich it and give the necessary amounts back to them that will be needed to power plants. This is one of many reasons why everyone feels that Iran wants to use their resource for evil instead of good. To prevent that from ever happening the nations have to step away from being nice and trying to do things fair. Now the nations and the United Nations have to take a more aggressive approach and enforce their will on the country. Sending in armies, bombing Iran, and forcing them to stop are only a few of many ways that can be used to stop Iran. Whatever is decided upon one thing is for sure action has to be taken upon now. <br />

×