October 17, 2011
Volume VII, Issue IV
JHU POLITIK
RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED VIOLENCE IN EGYPT
ISSUE IV NATIONAL RELIGION & THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE by Rob D’annibale, ‘15 - Page 3
OCCUPY WALL STREET MOVEMENT PROTESTS THE ECONOMIC DIVIDE by Collette Andrei, ‘14 - Page 4 NPR: PREPARING FOR AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE by Rachel Cohen ‘14 - Page 5
OPINION DECADES OF PUTINISM by Akshai Bhatnagar, ‘15 - Page 6
Security forces and Coptic Christians clash in Cairo during the latest wave of sectarian violence. (SOURCE: http://latimes.com)
by JULIA ALLEN, ‘15 Contributing Writer
O
ctober 9 marked the worst outbreak of violence since the 18-day uprising that ousted Egypt’s former president, Hosni Mubarak. What was supposed to be a peaceful protest by Coptic Christians, the nation’s largest minority representing 10% of the population, turned into a violent clash between the protestors and Egyptian security forces that left 25 people dead and more than 200 injured. Angered by the recent burning of a church in the Aswan province by ultra-conservative Muslims, an estimated 10,000 Coptic Christians marched to a state-run television station in Cairo. The protest began
1
as a peaceful sit-in to demand more protection from the violent acts that radical Muslims have been directing toward their community. The situation escalated as the protestors were chased from the television station and attacked, although it is unclear who the attackers were. The clashes resulted in the deployment of a thousand security forces who were later joined by young Muslim men answering the call of state-run television broadcasters for all “honest Egyptians” to fight against the Christian protesters. State media sources have portrayed the conflict as a battle between Muslims and Christians, exac-
THE CASE AGAINST RICK PERRY’S IMMIGRATION STANCE by Sindu Ravi, ‘13 - Page 7 PREVENTING A WORLD NUCLEAR ENERGY CRISIS by Anna Kochut, ‘13 - Page 8
JOHNS HOPKINS’ OnlyWeeklyPublished Political Magazine
erbating the sectarian tensions that have existed within Egypt since the introduction of Islam to the country in 641 AD. The Copts were once subject to taxation as well as other restrictions that were placed on those who were not considered fully independent under Islamic Law. Although this special tax was abolished (continued on Page 2) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 17, 2011
Volume VII, Issue IV
THE POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Hannah Holliday
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Will Denton
LAYOUT EDITOR
ASSISTANT EDITORS
Ana Giraldo-Wingler
Randy Bell Jeremy Orloff Matt Varvaro
STAFF WRITERS
Colette Andrei Megan Augustine Rachel Cohen Cary Glynn Ben Goldberg Eric Feinberg Anna Kochut Daniel ROettger Ari Schaffer Hilary Matfess Michael Bodner Robert D’Annibale Chloe Reichel Sindhusha Ravi
PRODUCTION MANAGER
Neil O’Donnell MANAGING EDITOR
Alex Clearfield FACULTY ADVISOR
Steven R. David JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are those of the author alone.
INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 1) in the early 19th century, the Coptic community continued to experience persecution. After overthrowing the Egyptian monarchy in 1952, President Nasser led the nation into a period of modernization while advocating a strong sense of pan-Arab nationalism and instituting socialist reforms. Because they possessed much of the country’s wealth even though they only represented around 20-30% of the population at that time, the Copts were severely affected by the economic reforms. The pan-Arab nationalism championed by Nasser left the non-Arab Copts with a feeling of alienation. Building permits for churches were halted, Christian religious courts were closed, and church lands were confiscated by the state. As a result, many Copts left the country. Attacks on the Coptic community, like the 2011 New Year’s Day bombing of a church in Alexandria which left 21 people dead, had Copts protesting former President Mubarak’s apparent complacency with the violence aimed at the nation’s largest minority. Resentment toward Mubarak shifted to support as the national uprising called for his resignation and the possibility of an Islamic government, perhaps led by the Muslim Brotherhood, began to emerge. Before Mubarak was overthrown, Reverend Paul Girguis of St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Fairfax country claimed that,
“the current situation for the Copts stinks, but Mubarak is the best of the worst for us.” Other Coptic leaders in the United States also expressed their concern for the possibility that radical Islamic groups, long suppressed by Mubarak’s regime, would gain more power through the impending revolution and use it to target the Coptic minority. Since the ousting of Mubarak, violent acts against Coptic Christians have continued to go unpunished. The response of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) to the peaceful protests on October 9 highlights the continuing tensions between the government and the Coptic minority. In the days following the clashes, state run media coverage blamed the violence on the protestors and argued that the Christians were trying to bring down the Egyptian nation. Bahy Eldeen Hassan, the head of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, claims that, “The TV was used as the tool for instigating sectarianism and hatred to religion.” Dina Rassmi, a presenter on state TV, also denounced the coverage provided by the news agency, stating that, “the Egyptian television is calling for a civil war between Christians and Muslims. The Egyptian television proved that it is a slave to whomever is the master.” The response to the October 9 protests has turned the Copts’ grief over the loss of life into anger, and they (Continued on page 3)
2
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 17, 2011
Volume VII, Issue IV
INTERNATIONAL/NATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 2) are not alone. Egyptians outside of the Christian community are growing tired of the SCAF’s strong-armed rule and are waiting apprehensively for power to change hands in the upcoming elections. In the interim, the government may be benefiting from the escalation of sectarian violence because it is a justification for extending emergency law and maintaining a tight grip on power. Indeed, tensions between Egyptian Copts and Muslims are unlikely to disappear anytime soon. s
Religion and the Race to the White House by ROB D’ANNIBALE, ‘15 Staff Writer
W
ith the days ticking down until voters cast their first ballots, the Republican presidential candidates have been campaigning their way across the states. The candidates have begun taking shots at one another, with targets ranging from Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan to Rick Perry’s record on illegal immigration. Most of the criticism has been targeted at the party’s frontrunners: Governor Rick Perry of Texas, businessman Herman Cain, and former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. As Perry’s poll numbers continue to slide, Cain and Romney have recently been at the center of it all. While economic analysts and fellow candidates have been scrutinizing Cain’s tax plan and Romney’s health care record in Massachusetts, some individuals have focused their attention on Romney’s Mormon faith. Romney, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has faced some public backlash for his religious beliefs, most recently from Robert Jeffress, an influential pastor based in Dallas. Jeffress, speaking at the recent Values Voters Summit in support of Governor Perry, stated that Romney is “not a Christian” and called Mormonism a cult. Although Governor Perry has said he does not support Jeffress’s comments, it is not the first time that Romney’s political opponents have used his religion as the basis of negative propaganda. In 2008, when the governor was running for the Republican Party’s nomination for president, he gave a speech entitled “Faith in America,” in which he essentially pledged that he would not allow religious authorities to influence his political decisions. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was
3
founded as a Christian movement by Joseph Smith and currently has over 14.1 million followers worldwide. While Mormonism has many similiarities to various religions, its critics take issue with a few of the religion’s tenets, such as the 19th century prophecy of Joseph Smith, as well as Mormonism’s rejection of the concept of original sin and doctrinal acceptance of polygamy, although the practice has long since been banned by the Church. If Romney were to win the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, he would be the first Mormon to be nominated by a major American political party, and it is primarily for this reason that scrutiny of the religion has increased in recent weeks. Although Governor Perry has not condoned Jeffress’s statements, some have criticized Perry’s reluctance to issue a forceful condemnation. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), on the other hand, came out and defended Romney’s faith. The senator wrote an op-ed arguing that voters should cast their vote for a candidate based on his “qualifications and policies,” rather than on his faith. He went on to state that all Americans should follow the Founding Fathers’ ideals and practice of religious tolerance. Lieberman had a similar experience to Romney when presidential hopeful Al Gore chose him as his running mate in 2000, making Lieberman the first Jewish-American to be nominated on a presidential ticket. While all of Romney’s primary opponents have distanced themselves from Jeffress’s comments, the attacks on the governor signal that the race for the nomination
If elected, Mitt Romney would be the first Mormon president. (SOURCE: http://csmonitor.com)
(Continued on page 4)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 17, 2011
(Continued from page 3)
NATIONAL REPORT
is heating up. Furthermore, with the Iowa caucuses less than three months away and polls showing that the majority of Republican primary voters are comfortable with Romney’s religion, it will be interesting to see how much longer the “poisonous language” will last. s
Occupy Wall Street Movement Protests the Economic Divide by COLETTE ANDREI, ‘14 Staff Writer
A
Volume VII, Issue IV
s the Occupy Wall Street movement in lower Manhattan concludes its fourth week of protest, its ranks have swelled and its resolve remains strong. While its message of dissent may not be clear, the protesters have succeeded in articulating the sense of growing frustration that the country’s economic and political situation has not been working for the majority of Americans and that they will not tolerate it any longer. The movement began on September 17, 2011, when hundreds of people descended on lower Manhattan’s financial district. It was primarily started to raise awareness about the role financial institutions played in the continuing economic downturn affecting world markets, as well as to voice concerns about the environment, the war in Afghanistan, and a host of other domestic and international issues. This spirited, leaderless movement has since gained support and spread to dozens of cities across the country, with movements such as Occupy Chicago and Occupy Los Angeles. The movement is modeled after the social-media-driven demonstrations of Arab Spring. Some observers speculate that the movement will become a liberal counterweight to the conservative populism of the Tea Party. Some supporters say that it will go international in the next few months. The participants of the Occupy Wall Street movement—who range from young to old, liberals to conservatives, anarchists, libertarians, students, the jobless— refer to themselves as the 99% of Americans who lack the influence over the country’s political and economic affairs enjoyed by the one percent of America’s wealthy elite. The protesters say that income inequality skews political power because policy almost always reflects the interests of upper-income Americans. “We’re here for different reasons,” said one of the movement’s unof-
ficial spokespersons. “But at the end of the day, it all boils down to one thing, and that’s accountability. We want accountability for the connection between Wall Street and the politicians.” Politicians, however, have differing views of the protest. Democrats, such as Representative John Lewis (DGA), have said that they understand the movement as a call for the same bailout for the American people that the government gave to Wall Street. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has expressed her support of the movement’s message to the establishment that change is needed. Many Republicans view the protest as class warfare, with some, such as GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain, deeming the protests anti-American and anti-capitalist. Many, both inside and outside of government, view the movement as an unfocused, noisy rabble and criticize the protesters for their vague agenda and lack of clear prescriptions. So why is the Occupy Wall Street movement relevant in its hope to instigate change in a nation still reeling from the economic downturn of 2008? The protesters say that the financial sector, in collusion with regulators and elected officials, inflated and gained from a profit bubble that burst, costing millions of Americans their jobs, incomes, savings, and home equity. As difficult times have endured, many Americans have lost their belief in redress and recovery as the government bailed out Wall Street but left ordinary Americans to suffer. However, the roots of the protest may have been planted much earlier. The Reagan-era economic policies of the 1980s, which reduced taxes, deregulated the financial sector, and reduced government oversight of business, have been targeted by some who believe that these policies led to rising inequality. While Reagan’s supporters argue that these policies led to unprecedented economic growth, opponents contend that this growth was distributed unequally. Before the recession, for example, the share of income held by the top one percent of incomeearners was 23.5%, the highest percentage since the eve of the Great Depression in 1928. Critics of “Reaganomics” also cite the lack of financial oversight, which they believe contributed to the events that led to the economic downturn in 2008. These critics lament the fact that, in the aftermath of the economic crisis, the top one percent was able to recover and post sizable income gains with government intervention, while working-age household income has only declined. (Continued on page 5)
4
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 17, 2011
Volume VII, Issue IV
INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 4) As the Occupy Wall Street protest continues, there are no clear politically-attainable solutions for the country’s economic woes. Some question whether it is the movement’s responsibility to provide solutions to a problem that thus far lawmakers have been unable to resolve. The left suggests higher taxes, more regulation, and a stronger social welfare net, while the right suggests further reducing taxes and shrinking the government even more to deprive the elites of their most powerful political tool: big government. The result of this debate has essentially been political gridlock in Washington, another apparent target of the protesters. So what could be the end result of the Occupy Wall Street movement? Ultimately, the movement sees itself as a call for fairness and a vocal populist warning against a return to the ways of Wall Street that plunged the nation into economic crisis in the first place. The question going forward will be whether the protesters can translate this message into effective political action and success at the ballot box. s
NPR: Preparing for an Uncertain Future by RACHEL COHEN, ‘14 Staff Writer
NPR, formally known as National Public Radio, is a national news syndicator that reaches over 27 million people across the United States every week by working with a network of over 900 public radio stations. It was created in 1970 after the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that was signed into law by President
Above, former Sesame Workshop CEO Gary Knell and Grover from Sesame Street. His new job as chief executive of NPR will involve fewer children’s characters. (SOURCE: http://nytimes.com)
5
Lyndon B. Johnson. Its creation was designed to provide the highest standards of broadcast journalism, with extensive coverage of current events, issues, and ideas, as well as provide access to the intellectual and cultural resources of cities, universities, and rural districts that might be otherwise inaccessible. This week it selected its new CEO and President, Gary Knell, in a move that suggests NPR is preparing for upcoming financial challenges in the future. Gary Knell is coming to NPR from a longtime position as president of Sesame Workshop, the American non-profit organization that’s behind the production of Sesame Street and several other educational children’s programs that have run on public broadcasting. Knell’s experience and skill for making the case for public broadcasting was one of the defining components of his resume. At a time when Republicans in Congress have made it clear they want NPR to lose its federal dollars, NPR responded by selecting a CEO with experience in defending itself. “We have an important story to tell members of Congress and the American people about how valuable our programming is. That’s the primary mission for the board. That’s the primary mission for Gary Knell, to tell that story,” said Dave Edwards, chairman of NPR’s board. Knell formally served as counsel to the Senate Judiciary and Governmental Affairs committees. During his days at Sesame Workshop, which he joined in 1989 and has led since 2000, he testified before Congress and made formal appeals for the importance of Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) funds. Knell, with essentially no newsroom experience, stands in contrast to NPR’s former CEO and President, Vivian Schiller—a woman who had come from journalistic experience at The New York Times. Schiller, who resigned last March, is credited with building a much stronger organization, both financially and journalistically. Her resignation stems from a political controversy over a comment she made, stating that NPR would be “better off” without public funding. This comment fueled the fire that had had already been building in Washington to cut NPR’s funds. “If NPR and PBS believe they offer a product that Americans want, they can prove that by competing in the free market,” stated Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina. NPR was designed with a complex funding and legal structure that renders political attempts to “defund” it (Continued on page 6)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 17, 2011
Volume VII, Issue IV
OPINION (Continued from page 5) extremely difficult to do in a meaningful way. According to Edwards, cutting federal dollars would hurt the local radio stations much more than it would hurt NPR itself. “Months ago, when the discussion for eliminating federal funding for NPR came about, the board asked management to look into what it would mean. For example, what would the impact be on NPR? As it turns out, relatively little. Most of the money that goes to public broadcasting goes to the stations,” noted Edwards. NPR receives about two percent of its $100 million federal funds directly from congressionally appropriated funds from the CPB. The rest of the money comes from public radio stations that buy NPR programming, and they receive about 10 percent of their budgets from the CPB. Despite the evidence that it would be unlikely NPR would be hurt financially, legislation shows NPR will probably remain a political target for a while into the future, explaining the selection of Gary Knell as the new President and CEO. Regardless of what the outcome of Congress decides, NPR is still preparing for the possibility of one day losing federal money. “For years and years, people have always discussed whether there is a way that NPR could eventually be independent of government funds. Everybody would love to not go through the political battles year after year,” said Daniel Zwerdling, a longtime NPR reporter. Only time will tell if Gary Knell can make the case for NPR, but either way, fans and listeners may feel some relief that its future lies in experienced public broadcasting hands. s
Decades of Putinism by AKSHAI V. BHATNAGAR, ‘15 Contributing Writer
L
ate last month, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced he is again running for president. Mr. Putin left office in 2008 after serving two four-year terms, the most consecutive terms the Russian Constitution allows a president. The announcement was greeted with dismay by many in the West (and some in Russia) as a sign of the weak state of Russia’s democracy; that Mr. Putin will win next year’s election is an unequivocal certainty—the
6
nearest challenger to Mr. Putin’s United Russia party won only 12% of the vote in the last parliamentary election. Now that the presidential term has been extended from four years to six, many worry Mr. Putin will be able to occupy the Kremlin until 2024. Mr. Putin’s handpicked successor, incumbent President Dmitry Medvedev, will become the Prime Minister under the new Putin presidency. When Mr. Putin first came to power in 2000, Russia was reeling from the disastrous tenure of Boris Yeltsin. Under Mr. Yeltsin’s presidency, the first of post-Soviet Russia, the country saw its GDP halved and poverty increase tenfold. The Western democratic model of Mr. Yeltsin’s career continues to be linked to the utter failings of his “shock therapy” economic policies, which were heavily influenced by Western institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the U.S. Treasury Department. By the end of Mr. Putin’s second term as president in 2008, Mr. Yeltsin’s Russia was barely recognizable. Under President Putin, nominal GDP increased six-fold and poverty was cut in half. Throughout the last decade, his approval rating has never fallen below 65% and, in 2007, when asked “Is the fact that almost all power in this country is concentrated in the hands of Vladimir Putin good for the country or bad?” 66% of Russians chose “good.” Yet, for all the economic success of the Putin years, there were critics. Freedom of the press was severely curtailed under Putin. Several notable critics were assassinated, with observers divided on whether the Kremlin simply stood aside or actively sponsored the killings. In 2005, Freedom House downgraded Russia from a “partly free” to a “not free” state. State-sponsored youth camps have been set up, with teenage members occasionally used to harass Putin’s enemies. History is also being rewritten; a majority of Russian teenagers now believe that Josef Stalin, the greatest mass-murderer in history, did more good than harm. When President Medvedev took office in 2008, there was hope that the new president would mark the beginning of the end of Mr. Putin’s autocratic state. Some saw the new president as a stooge, a seat-warmer until Mr. Putin could run again in 2012. Despite some successes in dealing with the West, including a new START treaty and a close personal relationship with President Obama, Mr. Medvedev has not taken any significant steps to furthering democracy in (Continued on page 7)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 17, 2011
Volume VII, Issue IV
OPINION (Continued from page 6) Russia. If anything, he has taken Russia further down its traditional path of autocracy. His justice department refused to recognize a political party led by a former prime minister, and he has extended presidential terms from four years to six. Although technically Mr. Medvedev’s subordinate, Prime Minister Putin is still seen by many Kremlin-observers as the one in charge. In fact, Mr. Putin’s efforts to foster his own image have now outstripped even his far-reaching control—a group of Russians now believe he is the reincarnation of St. Paul the Apostle, a charge he fervently denies. When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, many hoped that finally, for the first time in its history, Russia would be a democracy. Yet after the failings of the 1990‘s, too many Russians have been willing to sacrifice their democracy for Mr. Putin’s autocracy. Today, Russia again faces serious problems. Income inequality is increasing and the population size is declining. Alcohol and tobacco use is dramatically limiting life expectancy; only half of sixteen year-old males are expected to live past their sixtieth birthday. Perhaps the biggest threat to Russia’s future is the cause of its current success—together, oil and gas make up about 50% of government income. As oil prices have fallen, government revenues have shrunken and deficits soared. By putting all its economic eggs in one basket, the Russian government has placed itself in an incredibly undesirable situation. Russia and the Kremlin will most likely find the next twelve years much more difficult to manage than the last twelve. The fear of uncertain times ahead has long been the most effective weapon in an autocrat’s arsenal. With both past and future uncertainties weighing heavily on their minds, the Russian people can rely on one thing: Vladimir Putin is not going anywhere. s
The Case Against Rick Perry’s Immigration Stance by SINDU RAVI, ‘13 Staff Writer
The campaign for the 2012 presidential election is filled with a wide array of Republic candidates running against the incumbent, Barack Obama. However, none of these candidates holds the negative attention of American au-
7
diences as passionately as Texas Governor Rick Perry. His attention, as every political candidate hopes, will turn into more votes. However, his stance on immigration seems to distinguish him as a less serious candidate for the presidency. In 2006, Perry was noted to be in favor of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants without citizenship, essentially creating a guest worker program that allows them to perform their “undercover” jobs. Consequentially, in a speech in Mexico in 2007, Perry professed support for the “free flow of individuals between these two countries who want to work and want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico.” He further opposed the construction of a fence along the border. Perry’s list of pro-immigration initiatives includes obtaining legal status for illegal immigrants and legislation that he signed in 2001 granting in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, known as the Dream Act. The Texas Dream Act allows illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state universities if they’ve lived in Texas for three years. According to Perry, “it doesn’t make any difference what the sound of your last name is, if you’re trying to get an education.” Defending this at a GOP presidential debate in Tampa, Florida, Perry recognized that helping immigrants in terms of higher education may not be the “American way” and the “Republican way in 2011.” Despite knowing that the majority of the GOP disapproves of his stance regarding this issue, he steadfastly holds his opinions. As an 11-year governor of a state bordering Mexico, Rick Perry expresses many views shared by liberal Democrats. Interestingly enough, despite his tremendous rhetoric on state rights, Rick Perry proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor, a toll highway that would run through Mexico but be run by both sets of Mexican and Texan officials. While Perry opposes border controls, 86% of Republicans and 68% of American voters support the initiative. Many critics have called Perry a false conservative despite the initial impression to the contrary, especially on immigration. His only truly conservative positions related to the issue of immigration are the termination of sanctuary cities (safe havens for illegals) and the signing of a voter ID law. Rick Perry implemented and supports certain aspects of Arizona’s law on immigration, but unlike the other GOP candidates, believes that it is too strong, especially for his home state of Texas. Despite all the controversy surrounding his views, Rick Perry’s record on immigration won’t cost him the presidency, no matter how shifty it appears. It is essen(Continued on page 8)
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 17, 2011
Volume VII, Issue IV
OPINION (Continued from page 7) tially the incoherence of his views that will cost him the office. By calling for an end to sanctuary cities while at the same time advocating the Dream Act, Perry proves to be a bipolar candidate. In a sense, not allowing a safe haven for illegal immigrants cannot possibly allow them to be in Texas long enough to be eligible for the Dream Act. Additionally, many of Perry’s claims tend to benefit Mexican illegal immigrants versus the actual voter base of interest, namely, legal American citizens. Granting legal status, paying for college education, and allowing employment of illegal immigrants all benefit illegal immigrants, rather than American citizens. The promotion of businesses that outsource traditionally American jobs to immigrants who don’t pay taxes does not benefit legal American citizens. Moreover, even if these immigrants are granted legal status, it is unfair to the numerous foreign immigrants waiting for legal status while holding down legal jobs. Furthermore, allowing an open borders policy increases the American population and focuses the attention away from traditional American needs. Instead, emphasis is placed on the emerging Mexican segment of the population. In short, Rick Perry would not be an ideal candidate for the presidency in 2012 primarily because of his immigration views, which do not serve to increase the producitivity or income of traditional American citizens. Supporters of Perry’s position argue that using cheaper labor for companies (that is, a labor force of illegal immigrants) would stimulate an increase in GDP and an overall increase in exports. Nevertheless, whether they are in fact beneficial or harmful in the long run, Rick Perry’s views on immigration are not shared by a majority of the GOP and isolate Perry as a unique candidate in a negative light. s
Preventing A World Nuclear Energy Crisis by ANNA KOCHUT, ‘13 Staff Writer
T
he March 2011 tsunami and following nuclear reactor disaster caused Japan and the world to reconsider the costs and benefits of nuclear energy. The location of the nuclear reactor in Japan, an island located in the notoriously volatile area known as the Pacific Ring of Fire, caused many observers to question the decision
8
of the country to use nuclear power. While the percentage of nuclear reactors located on geologically unstable areas is very small, the Japanese nuclear crisis spurred a much needed global reconsideration of nuclear energy. Japan is currently engaging in an effort to phase out its nuclear energy program, which observers agree is the most prudent choice the country could make. However, as another facet of its nuclear phase-out plan, Japan is engaging in the sale of reactors to countries abroad. While international observers agree that this is a creatively lucrative way to make use of the nuclear technology it has already developed, this action also raises questions about how successful the country’s sales will
Smoke rises from Japan in the aftermath of the tsumani and the resulting nuclear crisis. (SOURCE: http://brighthub.com)
actually be. With radiation spreading across the island after leaks in the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the international community might not have the highest level of confidence in Japanese nuclear products. However, what critics have not considered is that Japan’s nuclear energy system has made significant progress towards the goal of improved reactor safety. The Japanese engineers were aware of the fact that their island was geologically unstable, and therefore they made sure to include above-average safety features. While observers agree that Japan’s sale of nuclear reactors may have mixed reviews, the island country will surely provide other nations with new ways to improve the safety of their new or existing nuclear facilities. The Japanese nuclear crisis has spurred other na(Continued on page 9) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
October 17, 2011
Volume VII, Issue IV
OPINION (Continued from page 7) tions into scaling back their nuclear energy programs as well. For example, soon after the Japanese crisis, German Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered a phase-out of nuclear energy in favor of renewable energy, as well as ordering the closure of eight of the country’s oldest reactors. In a similar manner, China scaled back on its nuclear energy program. According to the New York Times, Japan’s mainland neighbor suspended the approval process of its new reactors until safety inspections could be completed. While these nuclear scale-backs are understandable in light of the recent nuclear disaster, observers agree that instead of eradicating nuclear energy from the global grid, more effort and research money should go into improving the safety of these valuable energy sources. While many countries are cooling down in their enthusiasm for nuclear power, many across the globe are still vigorously pursuing the possibilities of nuclear power. These countries, in contrast to those scaling back their nuclear energy programs, are still developing. International observers agree that these developing nations are seeking to improve their economic status by using the high-technology of nuclear energy. These countries represent a market for Japanese nuclear reactors, and while they are enthusiastic about nuclear power, their neighbors, and oftentimes their citizens, have legitimate concerns about the safety of the reactors. Japanese nuclear experts could be of help to these nations. While the Japanese nuclear crisis sparked a variety of responses around the world, the general trend appears to be a restructuring of nuclear power. Observers agree that instead of eradicating nuclear power from the global grid, there should be a restructuring and reconsideration of what we know about the safety of nuclear power plants and that instead of recoiling in fear from nuclear energy, countries should still attempt to make use of the energy source of nuclear power. Instead of retracting from possible risks and crises, nuclear engineers of the world should learn from the crisis as from any mistake. It will be important in the years to come, regardless of the relative geological stability or instability of the region, that each and every safety precaution be met. s
g 9
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG