Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 15, 1999)
Tile l irf e Battalion O PINION Page 7 • Tuesday, June 15, 1999 Double Standard 5 fypocritical diplomacy trades consistent treatment of communist countries for cash pt/on BECKER ers st: n June 3, U.S. President Bill Clinton re quested a renewal of China’s most-favored nation (MFN) trade status. This status, Clinton said in an As sociated Press article, “does not convey any special privilege. It is nplv ordinary, natural fair treatment of- •ed to virtually every nation on earth.” ^KKcept, of course, for Cuba. Cuba, a Olmmunist nation, has been embargoed se i r nearly 30 years because they are sup- V nsedly a threat to our national security. 0 ftaF Helms-Burton Act of 1996 has actu- y tightened measures against this is- Bllt ad nation. In light of this, the United - ,ates should not extend the MFN to Chi- 16/11, () which poses a much greater threat to itilnal security. |KHiis obvious inconsistency in policy ^^^■ot be allowed to continue. U.S. embargo of Cuba is reminis- nt of the Cold War, when trade sanc- >ns were seen as a necessary step in the ——<ntainment of communism. jgussia had plans to build a nuclear ise on Cuba, which is just 80 miles .7 Jin the U.S. coast. Had the U.S. not in- ;7." rvened, this awful threat would have •clme a reality. Bi t Cuba’s military threat today is 77 )opt as menacing as a wounded duck. j n cr (fhina, on the other hand, has one of e largest standing armies in the world n tdps building up its military even more mstra::: ;gam:. gam! ith each passing day. With the stolen U.S. nuclear weapons chnology, China is a very real threat to mericans and the world. The United Jeff Smith/The Battalion States refuses to condemn the Chinese espionage or their militarization. Instead it offers them the MFN status, effectively showing China that they can get away with bullying Americans. America must show that it will not be bullied. Cuba was embargoed in part due to the security risk of trading with a com munist nation. In China, the United States was willing to take that risk for the sake of monetary gain. This risk has turned into a breach of national security. As published in the Cox Report, several U.S. companies willingly sold sensitive information that compromised many U.S. military secrets. These companies’ pres ence in China is due to the MFN, and even though they acted illegally, their mere contacts with the Chinese have proven to be more than just risks. The United States wants to make a statement against communism with its embargo of Cuba. However, it cannot on one hand say how bad communism is by embargoing Cuba and on the other hand have favored trade relations with China, which is also communist. All the United States is doing is preying on a weaker na tion by making Cuba a scapegoat for communism. The United States wants to be idealis tic in its reproach of communism, but it will not take a stand enough to refuse the monetary gain of trading with China. America claims to be a champion of human rights, but neither its relations with China nor its relations with Cuba support that. The United States spends billions of dollars to protect the human rights of people in Kosovo, but shakes hands with people in China who are guilty of some of the worst humans rights violations this century. The Tian- namen Square massacre, to name one. U.S. officials cannot claim to tell Chi na that they should not be doing those things one day, and the next, sit down with them in a business partnership. Furthermore, the U.S. embargo of Cuba is responsible in part for the wretched living conditions of Cubans. America has helped to intensify years of Cuban recession by denying them the “natural fair treatment offered to virtually every nation on earth.” The situations surrounding these two nations are very similar. One must ask why the United States has such blatant inconsistency in its for eign economic policy. The answer is the United States has sacrificed its integrity for the sake of money. The United States can easily afford to take out its qualms with communism on Cuba, with little economic loss. However, when it comes to China, the economic opportunity is just too great to worry about a little idealistic kink like trading with a communist nation. The United States has become the champion of the Chinese cause while taking out its fears of communism on Cuba, the weaker nation. Jeff Becker is a sophomore computer engineering major. ^Dangers of overpopulation ^exaggerated by theorists r MARC GRETHER homas Malthus was a man ahead of his c m h time. He began a >one:: evolution, a worldwide ie fe raze. His 1798 book An ssay on the Principle of ‘we !i jpulation made com- isigaining about overpopu- jmyCtion fashionable. Nowa- idfotf ays, groups such as Zero ppulation Growth and trade nited Nations Population Fund and individu- provo : s like Al Gore, Ted Turner and Paul Ehrlich ngrei uxy on his work. polif What exactly did he say to make such a uccef-ink over? Malthus claimed food production endal juld not keep pace with population growth ■s si7; humans. Thank goodness Malthus was wrong, n sap Not only has population growth not over- det* ken food production, but the reverse has ac- ilarly ally happened. tions Humans have mastered the art of larlT'nnhture and now have a jldp : ghcr rate of food produced ; ry if > r person than ever in atiott stbry. Thj s has led to surtaxing results here in igbi e United States. To- rati n f!y j n the United ■d d' ates only 2.3 per- d c nt of the popula- m have to work ate owing food. The 10 lited States ex- ^ 1 >rts more than 40 etric tons of wheat ane each year. This , ,'untry lived up to rtfljalthus’ prediction of jRbpulation growth, but it ts foils more than made up for 3 ult, Hat jin food production. a girl Yet in spite of humans’ proven was Milty to adapt their surroundings to suit emselves, some still claim overpopulation is ,d hiardblem. As a case in point, Paul Ehrlich ft bePntinues to be an influential figure in the de ad cofta on overpopulation. Following Malthus’ lead, in his 1968 book e in'ie Population Bomb Ehrlich wrote about the art k'ocalyptic problems sure to face humankind that‘cause G f overpopulation. Excerpts from the prologue include the fol- ath wing prophetic statement: “The battle to , if aedjall of humanity is over. In the 1970’s the 3rld will undergo famines [and] nothing can -'event a substantial increase in the world $fath rate. ” /tii He also predicted the population will be re- u ' iced through “die-backs” until it reaches a * ‘^/.stainable 1.5 billion people in 2100. Accord- to Ehrlich, “a minimum of ten million ' JJ ‘”‘ / ople, most of them children, will starve to #’£'ath during each year of the 1970s.” . Thankfully, as Malthus did, Ehrlich missed mark. The phenomenal growth of food Dduction has actually helped to slow deaths due to famine and malnutrition. Furthermore, according to research by Indi an economist and Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen, famines are the product of bad politics, not bad family planning. Sen argues in his 1981 book Poverty and Famines that famines are a result human disasters, not nat ural disasters, and are caused mainly by bad food distribution. This poor food distribution is almost always a result of intentional poli cies by governments to keep food out of the hands of certain people. For example, both Sudan’s current famine and Ethiopia’s in the mid-1980s were caused by governmental actions designed to kill off undesirable elements of the population. Famines are not caused by large popula tions, they are caused by bad governments. Furthermore, human population growth has not caused people to become poorer. Over the last 100 years, the world witnessed a pop ulation growth of over 4 billion people. But more astounding than this drastic growth figure is the rate at which people have become richer. According to the Or ganization for Eco nomic Cooperation and Development, the average gross domestic product in 32 countries rang ing from Bangladesh and China to the United States more than quadrupled, in 1980 dollars, from $841 to $3,678 between 1900 and 1987. In the same period, the population grew from 1.6 billion to 5 billion, lit tle more than tripling. This means on average the people in these countries have gotten richer faster than their populations have grown. Of course, this does not mean poverty and hunger no longer exist. Many countries are extremely poor, and some, such as Sudan, are currently experiencing famine. But these problems are not caused simply by a large population. Even among the opulence here in America, there are poor and hungry. Rather, these problems are extremely complex, typi cally caused by some mixture of bad govern mental policy and worse luck. Humans have not overtaxed the world’s available resources nor are they likely to have reached their potential in food production effi ciency. In other words, there is no overpopu lation. So do not believe the hype. Be wary of those who claim this pressing problem re quires immediate action. Their agendas may be as misguided as their predictions. Marc Grether is a mathematics graduate student. No nukes allowed! World leaders must work to abolish nuclear arms ost Ameri cans would probably be sur prised to know Jiang Zemin, presi dent of the Peo ple’s Republic of China, is actually Caleb against the posses- MCIDANIEL sion and develop- ment of nuclear weapons. Recent political and media cover age of the Cox Report’s provocative findings have virtually demonized the Chinese state, creating widespread suspicions about China’s nuclear in tentions. In the midst of this deafen ing clamor, however, an article by Zemin in favor of nuclear disarma ment appeared in the most recent is sue of Civilization magazine. According to Zemin, “nuclear non proliferation and nuclear disarmament remain important tasks for the inter national community — and call for unremitting joint efforts by all.” The United States, blinded by its wounded pride, might be tempted to dismiss Zemin’s pro posal as disingenuous. But to disagree with the moral ly imperative need to abolish nu clear weapons would be disas trous. American nuclear policy has long been laced with incon sistency and must be completely revised. Such a course of action will require courage, but to con tinue to condone the existence of nu clear weaponry would require inex cusable cowardice. In fairness, the United States has made grossly pretentious attempts to call for nuclear nonproliferation in the past. Recently, American airstrikes took place in Iraq while Clinton ad ministration officials publically de nounced Saddam Hussein’s develop ment of “weapons of mass destruction.” Most recently, of course, revela tions of leaks at nuclear labs in the United States have prompted a new round of hand-wringing about the dangers of nuclear war. But as long as the United States continues to possess and perfect its nuclear arsenal, its browbeating con demnation of other nuclear states is grotesquely hypocritical. As Zemin rightly realizes, “To re duce the armaments of others while keeping one’s own intact, to reduce the obsolete while developing the state of the art, to sacrifice the securi ty of others for one’s own, and to re quire other countries to scrupulously abide by treaties while giving oneself freedom of action by placing domestic laws above international law — all these acts apply double standards.” As long such nuclear development continues on American soil, the Unit ed States is foolish to feign surprise when other countries seek out nuclear secrets themselves. America cannot lead the charge against weapons of mass destruction on a moral high horse when its own nuclear weapons are the very things that motivate proliferation elsewhere. This intuitive truth is echoed in the Canberra Commission on the Elimina tion of Nuclear Weapons, a program dispatched by the Australian govern ment. According to the Commission, “The possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them.” The United States, then, cannot hope to obtain nuclear weapons while keeping other nations from acquiring them. Understanding this, some Ameri cans may turn to positive defenses of the build-up of nuclear technology. Many mistakenly believe the deterrent force of nukes can provide security and stability. This belief is a hopeless and misguided fantasy. The nuclear calculus of build-up and intimidation that undergirds such a belief is simply absurd. Enough nu clear firepower currently exists to completely destroy human civilization several times over — as if one history ending apocalypse would not do the job. In a military engagement where nuclear weapons are involved, no one wins. He who is incinerated with the most warheads is still incinerated. Because of this sober fact, the Unit ed States and other nuclear powers may rationalize that their nuclear stockpiles are meant only as deter rents, not as actual combat weapons. There are two reasons why this side step is also untenable. First, as the Canberra Commission wisely notes, “the proposition that nu clear weapons can be retained in per petuity and never used — accidentally or by decision — defies credibility.” The nuclear balance is so precarious that only one mishap could automati cally trigger an atomic exchange. Taking such a risk would be silly. To consistently refuse to risk ground warfare while nonchalantly risking ac cidental nuclear decimation is foolish. Health officials vehemently warn against the risks of sexual promiscu ity, but military officials barely blink at the risks of nuclear permissiveness. Apparently, modern society seems content to know that there is no such thing as safe sex before marriage, but when it comes to nuclear weapons more dangerous than any sexually transmitted disease, the world lacks the wisdom to make abstinence its military policy. Secondly, defending nuclear weapons in the name of deterrence is empirically unfounded. Ever since the nuclear card was first thrown in Hi roshima, it has down a poor job of preventing military conflicts. The United States’ nuclear predominance failed to act as a deterrent in Korea, Vietnam or the Persian Gulf. Even now, the terrible concentration of nu clear power on the Asian subconti nent has not dissuaded India and Pak istan from butting heads. Nuclear weapons simply do not deter. Nuclear states have very seldom made serious threats to use them, and their mere existence has not been historically preemptive. Nuclear weapons are sim ply indefensible strategically and ethically. They are massively destruc tive and hardly deterrent. They must be abolished. Such an abolition must be incre mental, but this does not mean it must take place slowly. As the Canberra Commission urges, “immediate and determined ef forts need to be made to rid the world of nuclear weapons and the threat they pose to it.” Initially, the United States must join with other nuclear states in sub stantial reductions of their nuclear ca pabilities. The last step to complete elimination of nuclear weapons will be the slowest. Before nuclear states completely dismantle their nukes, an extensive plan to verify disarmament will be needed to ensure that no coun try illegally keeps its arsenal. But even if such a verification plan cannot be made foolproof, no alterna tive to abolition can outweigh the in ternational instability caused by the continued possession of nuclear weapons. The proper reaction to the Cox Report is not to tighten security at nuclear labs. It is to shut them down. Caleb McDaniel is a junior history major. “He who is incinerated with the most warheads is stiil incinerated/'