This week’s class discussion was really fun. I especially
liked the discussion about the transnational crime organizations (TOCs) and if
they are a real threat to states. I think that in most cases TOCs pose a real
threat to states. Even the trade in Marijuana can be a threat to a state
because criminal organizations use extreme violence to generate their wealth,
which often negatively affects law enforcement officers working against these
organizations. Also, TOCs are seldom involved in just one crime, but rather
have their hands in many different crimes.
The discussion about proliferation was also very interesting
and hit home for me. As Professor Shirk mentioned, I live really close to North
Korea. Since we moved here, there were several instances where my husband was
called into work, had to work really late, and one time was forced to cancel
our short trip because he had to stay close to work, because of North Korea
doing something bad. This week we are having the Noncombatant Evacuation
Operations (NEO) Exercise here on post. This is a mandatory exercise for us
family members of military personnel. We have to go through several different
steps including how to correctly put on our gas masks (this is one of the first
things military personnel have to do upon arriving here: getting the gas masks
for their family members). Several times during the NEO exercise the soldiers
in charge were talking to us about the importance of this exercise because we
are living so close to the North and you just never know what the guy up North
is going to do. While the NEO exercise is really important for us to know what
to do in case of an attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, it
also made me remember how close we are to the North and how serious this issue
is. Not that I did not feel uneasy before, but before we moved here I was not
really thinking about how serious this issue really is. However, during the
exercise I was constantly thinking, what if Kim really decides one day to
attack?
As I mentioned during class, I do not agree with proliferation
at all and I definitely do not agree with the statement that all countries
could benefit from getting nuclear weapons (Hugh Gusterson 1999, 133). Living
so close to a country that does not play by the rules and prides itself with
its latest nuclear missile tests, I have to say that there is absolutely no
benefit at all in North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons. Neither the
international community on the one side nor North Korea on the other benefit
from that because North Korea isolates itself more and more from the world (after
the last missile test even North Korea’s closest ally China started to distance
itself from North Korea). The more North Korea isolates itself, the less are
the chances for the international community to be able to negotiate with North
Korea.
Gusterson, Hugh. 1999. “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the
Western Imagination.” Cultural
Anthropology 14:1: 111-143. Accessed November 3, 2016. https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson+International+Relations/Readings/Gusterson+-+Nuclear+Weapons+and+the+Other+in+the+Western+Imgaination.pdf
Christine,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your experience. I can only imagine what it is like to have to go through those exercises regularly - and I am in full agreement with you regarding proliferation. What possible benefit could there be in a North Korea having access to nuclear weapons? It is terrifying. I am not sure I got from the reading that Gusterson felt this was a good option, but rather that he wanted to present perspectives that require us to recognize the danger to all in the existence of the weapons at all - and that therefore require us to take part in dialogue on equal footing with fellow nations if we are to come to a viable solution. He quotes Salman Rushdie in reminding us we may see ourselves as the sane player in this regard, but we may be blind to our own failings. His closing statement includes a quote from George Kennan: "I see the danger not in the number or quality of the weapons or in the intentions of those who hold them, but in the very existence of weapons of this nature, regardless whose hands they are in....I see no solution to the problem other than the complete elimination of those and all other weapons of mass destruction from national arsenals..." My concern is in how. I wish we had gone further into Blair’s piece. I have concerns with the strategy, as his first phase acknowledges the difficulty in establishing verifiability from the start. A Kim Jong Un would have no qualms in violating any agreement to gain advantage.
Hi Christine,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not a good thing and we should strive to lessen the number of them. I read reasons on why theorists believe that the proliferation of weapons could be a good thing, but I'd have to disagree with them. I see it as the more weapons, the more dangerous potential and more hostility. When Waltz was saying that if all states have nuclear weapons, they are less likely to use them... I don't see that. I see that it would be much more hard to keep track of them and there could be so many illegal trades. Just the thought of more nuclear weapons stresses me out!