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/'