Image by: Anika Steppe

 

Deciding the nuclear haves and have-nots

By Shaza Elsheshtawy

Nuclear weapons are the single most powerful, devastating, and authoritative artillery a country can possess. In a word, they’re potent—both physically and politically. Only nine countries worldwide are in possession of nuclear weapons, which constructs a great imbalance of power between the haves and have-nots of this technology. For the have-nots, acquiring nukes is far from simple, especially in a world where a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and movement toward zero nukes are favored by major nuclear weapon states.

The nine countries currently in possession of nuclear arsenals are: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and—as it is widely believed—Israel. Out of these nine, only five have signed the NPT, which mushroomed into force in 1970, and was renewed in 1995.

Forty years after 1970, the U.S., the U.K., France, China, and Russia—the five NPT nuclear weapon state signatories—are facing the potential emergence of a new nuclear weapon state: Iran. Sanctions have been enforced against Iran for enriching uranium, and, in accordance with the treaty and this general movement toward zero worldwide, this is understandable. Iran is also one of the NPT signatories.

There are 187 non-proliferation signatories. Signed in light of Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Soviet Union, the realities and possibilities of miscalculated, accidental and unauthorized use of nuclear weapons spawned fears for international security and safety. The notion was that a world with many nuclear weapon powers increases the likelihood that such conflict will happen. The NPT was born in order to prohibit the spread of nuclear arsenals, as well as to dismantle existing weapons.

There have been some wins for the non-proliferation movement. Paul Brannan, senior analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), points to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which entered into force in 1995 and was recently renegotiated on March 24, 2010. START commits the U.S. and Russia to reducing their deployed nuclear missiles over a seven-year period and is an example of NPT signatories taking measures to reduce their nuclear “stockpiles.”

Brannan highlighted how these agreements between states underline successes for non-proliferation, because they represent great collaboration and diplomacy.

“They are successful insofar as they represent a negotiated agreement that results in cuts of the number of nuclear weapons.” He explained. “Its also successful because it serves as a major example for other states and it gives the United States a much stronger negotiating position when it comes to convincing other states to [advocate non-proliferation] with potential nuclear weapon aspirations to abandon them.”

Despite these strides toward non-proliferation, the NPT fundamentally brings to light whether their movement toward stopping the spread of non-peaceful nuclear technology impedes on state sovereignty and states’ rights to develop and own what they want—which in this case are those potent nuclear missiles.

On the 40th anniversary of the NPT on March 5, 2010, President Barack Obama made a statement highlighting the U.S.’s role in non-proliferation and the basic strategy of the NPT.

“Today, the threat of global nuclear war has passed, but the danger of nuclear proliferation endures,” he said, “making the basic bargain of the NPT more important than ever: nations with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, nations without nuclear weapons will forsake them, and all nations have an ‘inalienable right’ to peaceful nuclear energy.” 

President Obama calls peaceful nuclear energy an “inalienable right” for states; but possession of nuclear weaponry isn’t?

Peaceful nuclear energy is heat energy obtained from a chemical reaction called nuclear fission. The heat produced from the reaction is used to boil water to produce steam, which in turn whirls turbines attached to electrical generators that create useable and environmentally friendly power. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, use nuclear fission reactions to generate a force strong enough to wipe out entire cities and populations, for example, by intense heat and radiation. Uranium enrichment is a critical component in both these processes. 

Iran’s enrichment of uranium for peaceful energy is technically allowed under the NPT. Except the U.S. doesn’t buy it; they believe Iran is enriching uranium to create nuclear weapons. And why is this a problem?  

It violates the NPT.

Ithaca College associate professor and politics department chair Chip Gagnon pointed to a discrepancy with non-proliferation. “Around 1995 when this treaty was being renewed, there was a big debate that countries like India, which were not in it, said ‘look. there’s no way that we should sign this because the other nuclear powers have done nothing to get rid of their nuclear weapons.’” 

Gagnon says this points to a “double-standard.” If countries in possession of nuclear missiles argue that they’re necessary for their security, then why shouldn’t it be just as important for countries that do not have them? Plus, if signatories of the NPT do not dismantle their weapons then that, in a sense, decreases the validity of the treaty and makes non-nuclear powers more adamant to own nuclear weapons, driven by mistrust and insecurity. 

Non-proliferation does have its upsides. In an article published in the Winter 2009/10 issue of the Foreign Policy Journal, Jonathon Granoff, president of the Global Security Institute, asserted that “simply put, there is no greater threat to our security than that posed by the weapons themselves.” Their value to the nine states that have them eerily stands for possible deployment. The world is fundamentally vulnerable to diplomatic qualms, clever hackers that could gain access to weapons control systems, human error, and terrorists posing as state actors that could all launch these nine states’ missiles and—worst-case scenario—plunge the world into a bitter nuclear winter. This goes back to the rationale behind the birth of the NPT: miscalculated, accidental, and unauthorized use.

No useable nuclear weapons, no impending doom for humanity—and the argument is as simple as that.

There are also worries that nuclear proliferation could lead to unpredictable states, such as Iran, getting a hold of these weapons and placing them in the hands of non-state actors such as terrorists. As it is stated in the New York Times article “Debate Grows on Nuclear Containment of Iran” by David E. Sanger, “strategists worry more that Iran might slip a crude weapon or nuclear material to terrorists, betting it couldn’t be traced back to Tehran.”

While these points for ridding the world of all their nuclear arsenal in pursuit of a mushroom-cloudless future may appear rational, it is also somewhat idealistic, unrealistic, and anti-sovereign.

Unrealistic, Gagnon asserts, is the argument that Iran could give nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. “It’s so unlikely that any state would give nuclear weapons to terrorists,” he said, because if used by terrorists the weapons could instead be traced back to the country that gave it to them (even if it was done secretly), and it would be that country, and not the nuclear-clad terrorists, that would be at the receiving end of a heated nuclear retaliation. Realistically, no country would risk that. Gagnon further mentioned, “once you give nuclear weapons to terrorists, it’s out of your control and states don’t like that kind of uncertainty.” 

That, interestingly, might even explain such a resolute pursuit to stop the spread of nuclear weaponry: uncertainty about a states intention for such potent artillery.

Furthermore, if Iran were to legally withdraw from the NPT, they would be, according to Gagnon, “within their rights to… develop nuclear weapons.” With this in mind, trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons even after they withdraw from the NPT legally, it seems, would go against Iran’s sovereign rights.

So where does that leave the non-proliferation movement and treaties like the NPT and START? Brannan stressed the importance of keeping non-proliferation efforts on track, because the perseverance and dedication to it by countries such as the U.S. and Russia can be undercut by another country developing a successful nuclear weapons program, causing a potential domino effect of proliferation.

“For example, if Iran were to succeed in making nuclear weapons, that could spur other states in the Middle East to start their own nuclear weapons programs—despite the example set by the U.S. and Russia.”

This points to the larger picture: keeping the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in check would require a worldwide effort toward zero, not just from NPT signatories and advocates. As Brannan underlined, the efforts of few countries can easily by undermined by the counter-efforts of others. Otherwise, the have-nots of nuclear arsenals will see non-proliferation as a threat not only to their national security, but also their sovereignty; if it’s so important for you to have nukes, then it’s important for us, too, and you shouldn’t be able to tell us whether we can own them or not.

______________________________________________________

Shaza Elsheshtawy is a freshman journalism major that dreams of riding a missile just like in Dr. Strangelove. E-mail her at selshes1@ithaca.edu.

Cyber stalking: When the Inernet becomes a weapon

By Shaza Elsheshtawy

Talking is a physical threat. No doubt about it. There is a general consensus that if you are being physically stalked, you are being violated. So much so that New York state law establishes four degrees of stalking as a criminal offense. In fact, January is national stalking awareness month across the United States and has been since 2004.

But in an age of popular online social networking, for a modern teenager, physical stalking isn’t the only form creeping around on their mind. A new form of stalking has emerged with the online boom: cyber stalking which, according to the National Center for Victims of Crime Web site, can be defined as “threatening behavior or unwanted advances directed at another using the Internet and other forms of online and computer communications.”

A 2009 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that about one in four stalking victims reported some form of cyber stalking, including receiving many unwanted e-mails (83 percent) or instant messages (35 percent). Because the statistic is so small, comparatively, it is possible that cyber stalking is perceived to be less threatening and less physically dangerous. But a large group of people seem to be at risk of cyber stalking: Victims of cyber stalking usually range in age from 10 to 62 (32 being the average), while the average age of a cyber stalker is 24. In many ways, cyber stalking could prove to be more of a lurking reality than traditional physical forms of stalking, particularly considering how technology opens up a quick and easy outlet for stalkers to monitor and harass their victims. It could also be a more prevalent and legitimate fear than most realize.

It is for Maia Lazar. Now a graduate of the University of California-San Diego and an intern at the National Journalism Center in Washington, D.C., Lazar was cyber stalked by her former high school English teacher in 2004. “Cyber stalking is a legitimate form of stalking,” she said.

Lazar wrote an article in November about this experience in the The Heartland Institute’s School Reform News, a national publication working toward school reform. Mr. Stone (the name given to Lazar’s teacher in her article) began to intensely follow her personal online blog, to the point of making inappropriate references to it during his classes.

After Lazar reproached Mr. Stone when he made one of these comments, he started to leave many unwanted messages on her and her mother’s blogs and even cornered Lazar and her friend in an online chat room. He threatened to sue Lazar for “libel” and “slander” due to someone else’s comment on her blog calling him a pervert. High school officials at her school suspended Mr. Stone for a day, but, rife with anger, he quit and kept in contact with his favorite students by e-mail to talk about Lazar.

“To be honest, I was initially worried that I could have been in physical danger,” said Lazar. “Walking the dog in the neighborhood became unnecessarily stressful because I would panic if I saw an unmarked van. Or if some guy looked sketchy or creepy, the adrenaline would pump faster than usual. I had these irrational ideas that he would come and kidnap me in my own neighborhood.”

Jayne Hitchcock, president of the Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA), a volunteer organization founded in 1997 to fight online harassment, has also received unwanted attention from a cyber stalker. As stated on her personal Web site, from 1996-97 she was cyber stalked by two individuals who posed as literary agents from a phony literary agency called Woodside. The cyber stalkers used her name to forge mass e-mails with the intent to harass her. “The worst forgery contained Jayne Hitchcock’s actual phone number and address and claimed she was interested in sado-masochistic sexual fantasies,” according to Hitchcock’s Web site.

Naturally, this experience caused Hitchcock great distress and opened her eyes up to the legitimacy and reality of cyber stalking. She mentioned on her site, “Someone has to let the public know that cyber stalking and online harassment does exist.”

So what happens when stalking isn’t a physical threat? Are there penal codes and polices in place so that harassers like the ones who cyber stalked Maia Lazar and Jayne Hitchcock can’t get away with it? It would be comforting to know that this modern cyber variety isn’t hidden underneath traditional forms of stalking and, more importantly, that stalking codes and policies in the U.S. have kept up with the times.

Sergeant Thomas Dunn from Ithaca College’s Office of Public Safety does not believe laws have. “Cyber stalking isn’t specifically outlined in New York state penal law,” he said. “Since cyber stalking is a new phenomenon, the laws just haven’t kept up with that. So, typically the statute of stalking doesn’t necessarily apply to cyberspace, so we have to fall back to some other statutes like harassment or aggravated harassment using electronical means of a device with the intent to harass.”

It is stated on the National Conference of State Legislatures Web site that law enforcement agencies estimate that electronic communications are a factor in about 20 to 40 percent of all stalking cases. It also states that 46 states now have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within stalking or harassment laws.

Federal law has also addressed cyber stalking to some degree. The Violence Against Women Act, passed in 2004, was amended in 2006 to make cyber stalking a part of the federal interstate stalking statute, which makes stalking legally a criminal offense. The act creates criminal penalties for sending anonymous e-mails and VoiP (voice over the internet) calls with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person. The penalties for being found guilty of this include up to two years in prison and heavy fines.

Then again, this amendment isn’t that recent. There are also four states that do not include specific references to cyber stalking in their stalking laws. Even a search through online databases such as the Statistical Abstract of the United States yielded no information or legislation from the past six months on cyber stalking.

According to Lazar, the matter of cyber stalking is more serious and carries more of a consequential weight than lawmakers realize. “Cyber stalking should have legal consequences,” she said. “It is often thought of as catty 15-year-old girls trying to outdo each other in a game of public hostility online via Facebook or MySpace. But I really think there are more overgrown teenagers out there, playing the very same game but in the bodies of middle-aged men, and perhaps women.” Cyberstalking should be portrayed as less of a game and more as a potentially harmful act that should be made illegal.

Not only has cyber stalking not been kept up with by law, but Dunn pointed out it is also more difficult to determine the real identity of a cyber stalker. “It’s hard sometimes to identify the perpetrator,” he said, “because of the ease and availability of creating e-mail addresses or screen names.”

Essentially, these cyber stalkers are, quite simply, hidden behind their computer screens, fake e-mail addresses and screen names, making it hard for law enforcement officials to keep up with them, too.

What is most curious is what motivates these people to cyber stalk in the first place. Lazar asserts that “he [her cyber stalker], as a small little known former ‘radio show personality online’ and former high school English teacher, craved acknowledgment and fame which he claimed he once had. And he was willing to do anything to get his 15 minutes, even if it was negative attention or eternal online infamy.”

Cyber stalking may seem a far-fetched, perhaps even distant or irrelevant, issue to most of us. Even Lazar said she got over her initial fear of physical danger: “Overall I did not have sufficient reason to be worried that my former teacher would physically stalk or harass me. I think the most worrisome was his threats of litigation.”

But here’s something to think about: Dunn said he’s “sure [cyber stalking] is becoming more prevalent in a social medium like Facebook or Ithaca College’s own web-based social networking.” Considering the amount of personal information Facebook users divulge their our accounts and the many friend requests some accept without even knowing who this new “friend” is personally, this is not surprising. Perhaps it would be worth taking a look at what security and privacy settings we have on such online social networking mediums.

So, fellow Facebook users—yes, you sitting there right now scrolling through your live news feed, uploading millions of photos of yourself, updating your status with an ungodly amount of personal detail and unabashedly accepting friend requests as you skim this article—do you think cyber stalking is a legitimate fear?
____________________________________
Shaza Elsheshtawy is a freshman journalism major who advises that you slap on a Facebook condom and set your profile to private. E-mail her for more tips at selshes1@ithaca.edu.